Bijoy Nandan S - UEI Day 2 - Kochi Jan18

Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Tourism
Dr. S. Bijoy Nandan
Professor
Department of Marine Biology, Microbiology & Biochemistry
School of Marine Sciences
Cochin University of Science & Technology (CUSAT)
Improving freshwater monitoring frameworks and data for research and management
USER ENGAGEMENT INITIATIVE
23rd – 25th January 2018
Riviera Suites, Kochi, Kerala, India

Freshwater Ecosystems
cover less than 1%
among most threatened ecosystems
multiple threats
biodiversity loss
one in three freshwater species is already
threatened (IUCN 2016)
Living Planet Report 2016 (WWF)

How do we define ‘biodiversity’?
 Biodiversity = biotic diversity = biological diversity
 Biodiversity may be defined as the number, variety and variability of living
organisms at all levels within a region. Three levels of diversity are
highlighted:
 Genetic diversity
 Species or organismal diversity
 Ecosystem or ecological diversity – including functional variety and
the variety of interactions.
 Some definitions specify landscape diversity as well.
 Biodiversity = Speciation – Extinction

 Biodiversity is usually measured in terms of species.
 Species diversity ≠ species richness.
 Species diversity ≠ taxonomic diversity.
 Thus if all the conditions of the species are the same,
2 species belonging to the same genus have a lower
taxonomic diversity than 2 species belonging to different
families while having the same amount of species diversity.
Species or organismal diversity (2)

 An ecosystem or ecological system is defined as a functioning unit
of interacting organisms (plant, animal and microbe = biocoenosis)
and their interactions with their physical and chemical environment
(biotope) often linked to an area.
 Ecosystem diversity is defined as the variety of ecosystems within a
bigger landscape and their variability over time.
 Ecological diversity is variously regarded as the variety of
ecosystems in an area and their interactions or intra-ecosystem
variety.
Ecosystem or ecological diversity

Checklist of considerations during preparation of a monitoring programme :
SETTING OBJECTIVES FOR MONITORING PROGRAMME
• What features of conservation interest are to be monitored?
• What is the objective for each feature?
• What attributes define condition in these features and what are likely to
be their acceptable limits?
• How often should monitoring be carried out?
• What are the operational and/or management objectives for the site?
• Are there external factors that may have significant impacts on the site?
• What monitoring has been undertaken, and are baseline surveys
required?
• Should the site be subdivided into monitoring units?

SELECTION OF METHODS FOR MONITORING EACH ATTRIBUTE
• Is the method likely to damage the environment?
• Are samples required?
• Will the method provide the appropriate type of measurement?
• Can the method measure the attribute across an appropriate range
of conditions?
• Is the method prone to substantial measurement error?

DESIGNING A SAMPLING STRATEGY
• Has the method been thoroughly tested and are preliminary
field trials necessary?
• Is the method sufficiently precise?
• Should sample locations be permanent or not?
• When should the data be collected?
• How will consistency be assured?
REVIEWING THE MONITORING PROGRAMME
• Are there sufficient long-term resources available?
• Are personnel sufficiently trained and experienced?
• Is specialist equipment required and available?

DATA RECORDING AND STORAGE
• How will data be recorded in the field?
• How will the data be stored?
• Who will hold and manage the data?
DATA ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND REVIEW
• Who will carry out the analysis and when?
• How will the data be analysed?
• What statistical tests are appropriate to analyse the data?
• Is transformation of the data necessary before statistical analysis?

DESIGNING A SAMPLING STRATEGY
• Has the method been thoroughly tested and are preliminary field
trials necessary?
• Is the method sufficiently precise?
• Should sample locations be permanent or not?
• When should the data be collected?
• How will consistency be assured?
REVIEWING THE MONITORING PROGRAMME
• Are there sufficient long-term resources available?
• Are personnel sufficiently trained and experienced?
• Is specialist equipment required and available?

Biodiversity ---------
• Fish (lakes and rivers)
• Benthic invertebrates (lakes and rivers)
• Zooplankton (lakes)
• Benthic algae (lakes and rivers)
• Phytoplankton (lakes)
• Macrophytes (lakes)
• Riparian vegetation (rivers)
• Aquatic birds (lakes)
• Microbes
• Others

Biodiversity: 3 aspects x 3 levels

 14 m spp, of which 2/3 in tropics
 0.8% per year deforestation
 2-5 species lost per hour or 14,000-
40,000 spp per year.
 On average 220 populations per species
(3 billion populations on earth) i.e. 16 m
populations per year or 1800 per hour are
being lost from tropical forests alone.
BIODIVERSITY LOSS

Biodiversity
Genes, species, ecosystems
Structure, function, composition
Supporting: soil formation, nutrient cycling, plant production
Provisioning:
Food, water, fuel,
Fibre, bio-
chemicals, genes
Regulating:
Climate, disease,
pests, floods,
Water quality
Cultural:
Spiritual,
recreation,
aesthetic
Ecosystem Services
Security, material for a good life, health, good social relations
Freedom and choice
Wellbeing
Is a necessary condition for
Are an irreplaceable component of
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

At any level, diversity has at least two components…
• How many different types of things are present
– Elephant, rhino and lion is less diverse than
– Elephant, rhino, lion, leopard and buffalo
• How evenly they are represented
– 1000 elephants and 1 lion is less diverse than
– 500 elephants and 500 lions

‘Policy’ ways of measuring biodiversity
• ‘Extinction based’ (IUCN)
– Threatened species (Red Data Books)
• ‘Area based’ (Millennium goals)
– Area under protection
– Area of a key habitat (eg Forest cover)
• ‘Richness based’
– Indicator groups or species eg CI Rapid Biodiversity
Assessment
• Complementarity –based
– Various conservation optimisation tools, eg CPLAN
• Various spatial representations
– Hotspots, last wild places

‘Academic’ ways of measuring biodiversity
Species level
• Richness: Total number of species in an area (α
diversity)
• Species turnover along a gradient (β diversity)
Ecosystem level
• Number of different habitats or ecosystems (γ diversity)
Genetic level
• Genetic homology
• Cladistic distance

Royal Society Report 2003
• ‘… no sound basis exists for assessing performance
against these targets.’
• ‘The fate of organisms not yet recognised by science
cannot be measured’
• Lack of baselines
• Biodiversity measures must be related to the objectives
of measurement

Measurement of biodiversity
• Biodiversity is a broad concept, so a variety of objective measures have
been created in order to empirically measure biodiversity. Each measure
of biodiversity relates to a particular use of the data.
• Species richness - the least sophisticated of the indices available.
• Simpson index
• Shannon index
• Alpha diversity refers to diversity within a particular area, community or
ecosystem, and is measured by counting the number of taxa within the
ecosystem (usually species)
• Beta diversity is species diversity between ecosystems; this involves
comparing the number of taxa that are unique to each of the ecosystems.
• Gamma diversity is a measure of the overall diversity for different
ecosystems within a region.

Methodology for Assessing Biodiversity
• The biodiversity has remained as one of the central themes of ecology
since many years. However after the Rio’s Earth Summit, it has
become the main theme for not only ecologists, but the whole
biological community, environmentalists, planners and administrators.
• As many countries including India are party to the Convention on
Biological Diversity, each nation has the solemn and sincere
responsibility to record the species of plants and animals occurring in
their respective countries assess the biodiversity properly and evolve
suitable management strategies for conserving the biodiversity which
is often described as the Living Heritage of Man. The methodology
used for biodiversity assessment is elaborated here.

Why to Study Biodiversity?
• Measures of diversity are frequently seen as indicators of the wellbeing of
ecological systems.
• Despite changing fashions & preoccupations, diversity has remained
central theme of ecology. The well documented patterns of spatial &
temporal variation in diversity which intrigued early investigators of natural
world continue to stimulate minds of ecologists today.
• Considerable debate surrounds the measurement of diversity. It is mainly
due to the fact that ecologists have devised a huge range of indices and
models for measuring diversity. So for the various environments, habitats
& situations species abundance models & diversity indices should be
used & suitability evaluated.

Biodiversity Indices:
• One good way to get a feel for diversity measures is to
test their performance with one’s own data.
• A rather more scientific method of selecting a diversity
index is on the basis of whether it fulfils certain functions
criteria‐ability to discriminate between sites, dependence
on sample size, what component of diversity is being
measured, and whether the index is widely used and
understood.
• The various diversity measures are given below.

Species Richness Indices
Simpson’s Index
Margalef Index
Berger‐Parker Index
Rarefaction Index
Species Diversity Indices
Shannon‐Wiener Index
Brillouin Index
Log series Index
Log Normal Diversity
Jackknife Index
Q Statistic
Species Evenness Indices

Newly Introduced Indices
Taxonomic Distinctness Index
Phylogenetic Diversity Index
Abundance/Biomass Comparison (ABC) Plots
Dominance Plot
Geometric Class Plots
Species Area Plot

• AZTI- Marine Biotic Index (AMBI):AMBI v5.0)
(Borja et al. 2000, 2007) http://www.azti.es
• Multivariate AMBI (M-AMBI): Muxika et al.
(2007)
• Benthic Opportunistic Polychaetes
Amphipods Index (BOPA): Dauvin and
Ruellet (2007)
• BENTIX: Zenetos et al. (2004)
• Macrobenthic feeding guild:(Fauchald and
Jumars, 1979; Gaston, 1987; Sprung, 1994;
Oug et al., 1998; Mancinelli et al., 1998;
Wieking and Kroncke, 2003, 2005)
Marine bioticIndices (Benthic)

Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011- 2020 and Aichi Targets:
• The Strategic Plan is comprised of a shared vision,
a mission, strategic goals and 20 ambitious yet
achievable targets, collectively known as the
Aichi Targets
• The Strategic Plan serves as a flexible framework
for the establishment of national and regional
targets and it promotes the coherent and
effective implementation of the three objectives
of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Aichi Targets

• Strategic Goal A: Address the underlying causes of
biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across
government and society
• Strategic Goal B: Reduce the direct pressures on
biodiversity and promote sustainable use
• Strategic Goal C: Improve the status of biodiversity by
safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity
• Strategic Goal D: Enhance the benefits to all from
biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Aichi Targets

• India is one among the 17 mega biodiversity nations & 9th position in
terms of freshwater mega biodiversity
• The freshwater ecosystems of India include all types of inland wetlands:
lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, groundwater, springs, cave waters,
floodplains, as well as bogs, marshes and swamps, including 26 Ramsar
Sites
• India with 2.4% of global landmass has 4% of the world’s freshwater
resources
• As many as 9457 animal species, representing 9.7 % of total number of
Indian fauna (i.e., 97,708 species) recognized from freshwater
ecosystems, of which invertebrate groups comprise 7861 spp. (83.1%) &
vertebrate, 1597 spp. (16.9%)

India has remarkable
coastal biodiversity
3985 species in mangrove ecosystem: 199 coral
species (all 3 types: atoll, fringing & barrier) 14
seagrass species, 844 seaweed species
Coastal Ecosystem Extent (km2)
Mangroves 4445
Tidal/ Mud flats 23,621
Sandy beaches/ bars/ spits 4,210
Coral reefs 2,375
Salt marshes 1,698
Lagoons 1,564
Estuaries 1,540
Other vegetation 1,391
Aquaculture ponds 769
Salt pans 655
Creeks 192
Rocky coasts 177
Back water 171
Total 43,763

KERALA
Kerala – blessed with beautiful backwaters
and estuaries which are rich in faunal
elements, spread over 38,863 km2
Area (in Sq.km): 38863 ha.,
Population : 318.39 lakhs
Coastline : 590 Km
Water resources
Backwaters: 53 nos. 46129 ha.
Rivers:44 nos. 85000 ha. &
length of 4827 km
Reservoirs:53 nos. 42890 ha.
Ponds and Tanks:47216 nos.
27625 ha.
Brackish water area : 65213 ha.
Prawn filtration fields : 234 nos.
12873 ha.
Mangrove areas : 1924 ha.

Ramsar sites and Vembanad
 Identified Ramsar sites in India – 25 no
 Area- 15.26 million hectares (4.6% of the country)
 Kerala – 3 Nos. (2002)
 Vembanad lake (lat. 90 30’ and 100 12’;
long.76010’ and 76029’) - largest backwater
system on the southwest coast of India.
 Area - 36,329 ha
Vembanad Wetland System
 Border of Alappuzha, Kottayam &
Ernakulam Districts
 Supports a highly productive agriculture
system, Kuttanad – the ‘rice bowl of Kerala’
spread over 1100km2 - reclaimed portion of
lake

 Vembanad backwater – massive & vibrant coastal wetland ecosystem with a unique priceless heritage serving
to a variety of economic activities of Kerala
 Supports Kuttanad-the ‘Rice bowl of Kerala’, 2m below MSL
 Unrestricted human interference for heterogeneous purposes (Thaneermukkom barrage, Thottapilly spill way)
had irrevocable adverse consequences on the environmental entity of the backwater
 Scientific information on ecosystem based analysis of the environment coupled with biodiversity and fishery
production potential on a comprehensive basis is lacking from the wetland after commissioning of the barrage in
1976
 In view of this, present study reveals the intricate ecological aspects of the wetlands in relation to its production
dynamics that would go a long way in its sustainable management.

Muvattupu
zha
Meena
chil Pamba
Achank
ovil
Manimala
yar
Avera
ge
Tot
al 5029.11 1512.97 4070.96 1252.61 1816.15 3202.29
 Average monthly river
discharge - 3202.29 Mm3)
Average monthly rain fall
in Alappuzha 185.24 mm3
Rich in biodiversity
Pathiramanal island &
Kumarakam Bird sanctuary
 Due to the construction of
Thanneermukkom barrage (1975) -
two distinct saline and freshwater
zones were created , altering the
entire original ecological
characteristics of the ecosystem.
Thaneermukkom Barrage
Globally threatened
birds
Spot-billed pelican
Oriental darter
Black headed Ibis
Ferruginous Pochard
 Home for 91 local species of birds
and 50 migratory birds from
different parts of the world.
Physiography

Objectives:
• To study the critical water and
sediment quality of the ecosystem
• Evaluate the primary productivity
patterns & assess the distribution and
abundance of phytoplankton, aquatic
macrophytes, zooplankton and benthic
fauna
• Study the fish & shell fish resources
and fishery including catch and effort,
stock assessment, species
composition, craft and gear, Catch Per
Unit Effort (CPUE)
• A total conservation and management
based model on the above ecosystem
based concept would be evolved for
the sustainable management and
effective use of the Vembanad – Kol
Wetland.
Sampling Stations
St.1 Punnamada
St.2 Pallathuruthy
St.3 Marthadam
St.4 Aryad
St.5 Pathiramanal
St.6Thaneermukkom South
St.7Thaneermukkom North
St.8 Varanadu
St.9 Perumbalam
St.10 Aroor
 Ten study stations were
fixed by GPS, based on
ecological importance
 24 months sampling from
March 2011 to February
2013 were conducted
 Observations were made
seasonally viz.,
Premonsoon (Feb –
May), Monsoon (June-
Sep) and Postmonsoon
(Oct-Jan)

 Total area originally was
36,329 ha. & present area
is reported to be 13,224 ha.
 From 1834 to 1984 23,105
ha. Reclaimed shrunk by
37% over a period of 100
years
 Reduction in depth 6.7 –
4.4m over the years
Reduction in depth range in different sectors
of Vembanad Wetland Ecosystem
Sectors Depth in range
(m)
50 yrs
ago
20yrs
ago
South of
Thaneermukkom
8-9 3-3.5
Between
Thaneermukkom
bund & Vaikom
8-9 3-4
Between Vaikom &
South Paravoor
7-9 4-5
Between South
Paravooor to Aroor
5-6 3-4
Between Aroor &
South of Willington
Island
7-8 7-8
Bolgatti to Cherai 3-4.5 2-2.5
Cherai to
Munambam
3-6 2-5.4
Vembanad then and now?
Vembanad shrunk by 37% over a period of
100 yrs (Gopalan et al., 1983)
37

St. 4 ARYAD
St.5 PATHIRAMANAL
St. 6 SOUTH OF TMB
St. 3
MARTHANDAM
On western side of the backwater, joining portion
of Meenachil river, Agricultural runoff from
Padashekarams on the eastern side, water way
for house boats and transport boats. Av. Depth-
4.7m
The widest point and the main basin of the
Vembanad backwater system. Fishing activity, live
clam harvesting,sand mining and lime shell
deposits were the major activities in the station.
Av depth-2.7m.
Situated in Muhamma.Tourist spot, home for 91
local species of birds and 50 migratory birds,
clam fishery mining, Av. Depth-4.4m
Narrowest part of lake, influenced by intense
fishing activity, sand mining and inland water
transport. Unscientific operation of TMB severely
affects ecological characteristics of Kuttanad.
Av.depth-6.1m

St. 8 VARANADU
St. 9 PERUMBALAM
St.7 NORTH OF TMB
St. 10 AROOR
North of TMB, a transition zone between north and
south of the backwater. Influenced by tides and
currents from mouth of the estuary. Intense fishing
activity, sand mining and inland water transport. Av.
depth-3.3m.
Influenced by discharge from United distilleries of
(Mc Dowells) on the western side of the water
body. Local fishing using cast nets and traps,
dredging for clamshell beds by TCL. Av. depth-
1.7m.
On the eastern side, anthropogenic activities
like land filling, construction activities, Local
clam fishery mining, fishing by cast nets, stake
nets. Av. depth-3.1m
Near to bar mouth, influenced by tidal action,
currents, saline water from nearby Arabian Sea,
discharges from sea food industries and sewage
wastes from the Kochi metro city, fishing activities
like stake nets and cast nets by traditional
fishermen Av. depth-7.74m

Salinity
0
10
20
30
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
ppt
Station
Seasonal Variation of
Salinity (SW) 2010 - 2013 PRE
1
MN
1
PM
1
PRE
2
MN
2
 Average annual salinity ranged
from 0.9ppt in St. 2 (Pallathuruthy)
to 14.18ppt in St. 10 (Aroor).
 An oligohaline condition prevailed
in the southern stations where as
meso and polyhaline condition
prevailed in northern stations.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
ppt
Extreme reduction from 23 ppt
Josanto (1971) ,during pre barrage
period to 2.63ppt in 2011-2013
period
salinity fluctuation immediately
south of TMB (2011-2013)
p g
S9
S10
S2
S3
S1
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
Samples
100
90
80
70
60
50
Similarity
Transform: Squareroot
Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity
Bray – Curtis similarity index of salinity –
St. 1 to 4 with limnetic condition
(<0.5ppt) and St. 5 to St. 8 with
oligohaline (0.5-5ppt) condition formed
separate group. St. 9 and St. 10 with
mesohaline (5-18ppt) condition formed
another group
Barrage closed months
South of
Barrage
2.16ppt
North
of
Barrag
e15.4p
pt

Most appalling ecological outcome of Physical intervention –
Thaneermukkom Barrage
Disruption of physical and
biological continuity of the
lake with coastal waters
• Resulting in rapid
decline fish yield and
biodiversity
Major environmental factor
that influenced fishery -
Salinity
Josanto (1971) - 23ppt
KWBS(1989) - 6 ppt
Unnithan et al (2001) - 3.87 ppt
Padmakumar et al,(2001) - 4.31ppt
Present study - 1.62ppt
Average – South of TMB

Spatial variation of heavy metals in water samples of Vembanad Lake during February, 2017
Spatial variation of heavy metals in water samples of Vembanad Lake during April, 2017
Metallic contamination 2017-18
Water : Cu, 0.75 to 8.56µg/l, Cd max 1.44, Zn 9.26-101.8 µg/l, Pb 7.13-52.5 , Ni 0-9.56, Fe
heavy loadings
Sediment: Cu, 8.1to 177.6 mg/kg, Zn 27.4-210 mg/kg, Pb 7.13-52.5 , Ni 2.31-194 mg/kg

• In a previous study conducted by KSPCB in collaboration with CUSAT
reported the presence of Organochlorine pesticide Heptachlor in the
samples collected from the Punnamada station.
• In this study, it is noted that some of the compounds like Benzyl benzoate,
benzenepropanoic acid, derivatives of phenol, paracetamol etc are
present in most of the samples analyzed.
• It shows the anthropogenic enrichment of drugs in water bodies mainly the
pharmaceuticals.
• The presence of pharmaceuticals in our waterways and drinking water is a
complex and potentially serious problem that has gained national attention
with the public, lawmakers, and regulators (Mae Wu et al, 2009).
PESTICIDE contamination

Season N/P Si/P
PRM 6.16 20.55
MN 4.89 16.19
PM 6.85 12.74
South of
TMB
5.83 16.85
North of
TMB
4.71 12.13
The Redfield ratio (N:P)
 The mean N: P ratio was below the normal
Redfield ratio (16). Maximum of 6.85
observed during PM
 A nitrogen limiting condition (N: P < 16) -
in Vembanad, similar to the tropical lakes,
rivers and estuaries.
 Maximum Si: P was observed during PRM
(20.55)
Parameter PRM MN PM
NH3 - N
5.54 4.04 7.82
NO2 - N
0.32 0.22 0.16
NO3 - N
1.04 1.99 1.33
PO4 - P
1.19 1.27 1.9
SiO4 -Si
21.9 20.17 18.84
The seasonal average values of nutrients
in the waters of Vembanad
 Ammonia contributed maximum during the
PM (7.82 µmol/l) as compared to the PRM (av.
5.54 µmol/l) and MN (av. 4.04µmol/l)
 Maximum value of Nitrite-nitrogen was
observed during PRM (av. 0.32µmol/l) and
minimum during PM (av. 0.16µmol/l). The
lowest nitrate –nitrogen was observed during
PRM (av. 1.04µmol/l)
 The lowest DIP was observed during the PRM
(av. 1.19 µmol/l) as compared to MN (av.
1.9µmol /l) and PM (av. 1.9µmol/l).
 A slight increase in the silicate was noticeable
during the PRM (av. 21.9µmol/l) as compared to
the MN (20.17µmol/l)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
mg/m3
Station
Seasonal Variation of Chlorophyll
a during 2011 - 2013
PRE 1
MN 1
PM 1
PRE 2
MN 2
PM 2
-5
0
5
10
15
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
mg/m3
Station
Chlorophyll b during 2011 -
2013
PRE
1
MN
1
PM
1
PRE
2
MN
2
Chlorophyll a
The av. annual Chlorophyll a ranged from
6.13 in St 6 to 15.95mg/m3 in St.4
• During 2011-2012 period maximum Chlorophyll a
was observed during premonsoon (av.11.18mg/m3)
followed by monsoon (6.15mg/m3)
• During 2012-2013 period maximum production was
observed during monsoon (14.52mg/m3) followed
by premonsoon (11.08mg/m3)
Maximum value of Chlorophyll b was observed during
premonsoon (4.37mg/m3 in 2011-2012 and
3.03mg/m3 in 2012-2013). Minimum was observed
during monsoon 1.93mg/m3 in 2011-2012 period and
0.5mg/m3 in 2012-2013 period.

0
10
20
30
40
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
g/m3
Stations
Seasonal Variation of Algal Biomass
2011 - 2013
PRE 1
MN 1
PM 1
PRE 2
MN 2
PM 2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
mgC
Stations
phytoplankton Carbon
PRE 1
MN 1
PM 1
PRE 2
MN 2
PM 2
 Seasonal variation of Algal biomass was distinct
annually. During 2011-2012 period maximum
value observed in premonsoon (av.9.14g/m3), in
2012-2013 monsoon season showed maximum
(Av.9.9g/m3)
 In both year phytoplankton carbon was
maximum during premonsoon (av.
726.39mgC)
Seasonal variation of algal biomass and
phytoplankton carbon was distinct in St. 4 (Aryad).
A high value was observed during monsoon

Total Organic Carbon
Total Inorganic Carbon
Total Carbon
Total Nitrogen
Carbon dynamics of Vembanad wetland system
South of
Barrage
North of
Barrage
TOC (mg/l) 3.97 3.14
IC
(mg/l) 4.59 10.65
TC
(mg/l) 8.61 13.59
TN
(µg/l) 623.4 529.14
• There was no distinct variation between
surface and bottom water carbon values
• TOC ranged from 2.47mg/l in St. 5 to
7.03mg/l in St 1. The sewages and oil
leakage(waste oil) from house boats
influence the higher value of TOC in St. 1
• TC value ranged between 4.93mg/l in St.
6 to 23.86mg/l in st 10. Higher TC value
in St. 10 may be from the shell fish
processing industry near the sampling
station
• Lowest IC value observed in St. 6
(4.93mg/l) and highest in St. 10
(23.86mg/l)
• Except TOC, the IC & TC value was always
high in northern part of barrage. Higher
TOC in southern part contributed by
transport boats, house boats and organic
chemicals and pesticides from the paddy
fields
• The TN value ranged between
276.9µg/l in st 5 to 1210µg/l in
st10
• Compared to northern part
(529.14µg/l) southern part showed
maximum value (623.38µg/l)
• The fertilizers and pesticides
residues from the Kuttanad paddy
field increase the nitrogenous
materials in the southern part

Qasim
et
al.,1969
1994-1996
(south of
TMB)
2011-2013
(south of
TMB)
Temp(0C) 28.5 29.9 30
Depth (m) - 2.18 4.2
Transparency (m) - 1.44 1.7
Turbidity (NTU) - 4.1 2.09
Conductivity (mS) - 2.81 2.55
pH 7-8.3 6.8 6.97
CO2 (mg/l) - 6.1 4.66
DO(mg/l) 1.5-6 6.5 7.08
BOD (mg/l) - - 2.78
Alkalinity (mg/L) - 21.9 31.62
Salinity (ppt) 5-32 1.2 0.01-12.8
SiO4-Si(µmol/l) 2-50 51.48 20.95
PO4-P (µmol/l) 0.3-2 0.2 1.27
NO3-N (µmol/l) 1-30 2.74 1.35
GPP (gC/m3/day) - 0.99 2.9
NPP (gC/m3/day) - 0.51 1.53
The average depth increases during the study period
from 2.18m in 90s to 4.2m at present.
Unauthorized/illegal sand mining in the southern
sector made more deep
Comparing the previous year the DO value increases
slightly from 6.5 to 7.08mg/l
Alkalinity also increases in the southern part from
21.9 to 31.62mg/l
The average salinity observed as 1.2ppt during 90’s,
at present it ranged between0.01-12.8ppt with an
average of 1.62ppt.
Average silicate value decreased from 51.48µmol/l
to 20.95µmol/l
Concentration of phosphate also peaked from 0.2 to
1.27µmol/l
Higher productivity was observed during the
present study. Average GPP increased from 0.99 to
2.9gC/m3/day and NPP from 0.51 to 1.53gC/m3/day

Comparison of Physico chemical parameters on south and north of TMB during 2011-2013
Parameter TMB South
(2011-2012)
TMB
North
TMB South
2012-2013
TMB North
pH 7.00 7.15 6.95 7.04
Depth (m) 3.97 4.1 3.72 4.14
Transparency (m) 1.01 0.98 0.99 0.99
Temperature (0C) 28.65 29.68 29.08 28.77
Salinity (ppt) 0.79 5.65 2.45 6.11
Alkalinity (mg/l) 36.08 53.08 49.30 56.66
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/l)
7.49 7.72 7.57 7.66
BOD (mg/l) 3.15 2.98 2.95 2.93
GPP(gC/m3/day) 3.16 3.47 3.25 3.23
NPP (gC/m3/day) 1.36 1.63 1.49 1.29
Phyto Biomass(ml/m3) 12.94 8.35 11.38 9.23
Zoo Biomass (ml/m3) 12.9 8.25 6.93 5.78
Chlorophyll a (mg/m3) 7.20 6.08 6.93 5.78
Silicate-silicon (µmol/L) 18.95 19.72 22.96 18.96
PO4-P(µmol/L) 0.96 1.42 1.57 2.09
NH3-N (µmol/L) 7.32 6.75 4.42 5.44
NO3-N(µmol/L) 1.34 1.62 1.35 1.65
NO2-N(µmol/L) 0.16 0.35 0.16 0.31
• Salinity showed wide
variation in south (av.
0.79ppt) and north of
TMB (av. 6.11)
• Alkalinity values
showed variation
between south and
north of barrage. In
2011-2012, in south-
36.08mg/l & in north-
53.08mg/l
• BOD values was
comparatively higher in
south
• High concentration of
NH3 was also
observed in south
• Zooplankton biomass
as higher in south of
TMB

Correlation
Temp Salinity 0.48
Temp Total nitrogen -0.43
Temp NH4-N -0.43
pH Temp 0.33
pH Alkalinity 0.3
pH NH4-N 0.34
pH NO3-N -0.4
Conductivity Temp 0.37
Conductivity pH 0.39
Conductivity TDS 0.64
Conductivity PO4-P 0.42
CO2 Temp -0.3
CO2 Turbidity -0.4
BOD Temp 0.3
Chlorophyll a algal biomass 0.72
Chlorophyll a
Phytoplankton
carbon 0.78
• Spatial and seasonal interaction of PO4-Pwas
significant at 1% level (F = 2.44, p < 0.01)
• salinity showed an over all significance at 1%
level (F = 8.9, p< 0.01). Seasonal (F = 36.07) and
station wise (F = 18.06) variation of salinity were
also significant at 1% level.
Pearson correlation between major physico-chemical
parameters
• ANOVA of pH was significant at 1% level
(F=2.24, p<0.01)
• Seasonal variation of transparency was
significant during 2011-2012 period (F=4.14)
• The ANOVA of conductivity showed an overall
significance at 1% level in first year (F= 6.39)
and second year (F = 6.8, p < 0.01).
• Based on Photosynthesis/ Respiration ratio
the Vembanad wetland system is classified as autotrophic
where the P/R ratio is 1.87 (heterotrophic (P/R=<1)
• Annual average biomass of phyto and zooplankton was
maximum during premonsoon followed by monsoon and
post monsoon. The high abundance of phytoplankton in
all seasons noted that the primary producers not
controlled by the grazing of zooplankton
Hydrodynamics of
Station 10 is highly
varied by change
salinity, pH and
alkalinity. The tidal
intrusion from the
Arabian sea play an
important role

15%
6%
79%
0%
0% 0%
Phytoplankton variation in
Postmonsoon
CYANOPHYCE
AE
CHLOROPHYC
EAE
BACILLARIOP
HYCEAE
40%
28%
32%
0%
0%
Phytoplankton variation in
Premonsoon
CYANOPHY
CEAE
CHLOROPH
YCEAE
BACILLARIO
PHYCEAE
42%
29%
27%
1%
1% Phytoplankton variation
in Monsoon
CYANOPHYCEA
E
CHLOROPHYCE
AE
BACILLARIOPH
YCEAE
• Bacillariophycea-predominant in all
seasons, peaks in postmonsoon(79%).
• An average of 19 species of
Bacillariophyceae was observed
Major Bacillariophyceae include- Biddulphia
sp., Camphylodiscus sp.,Chaetoceros
sp.,Coccinodiscus sp.,Cosmarium sp.,
Fragillaria sp., Gyrosigma sp., Leptocylindrus
sp., Nitzschia sp. Pinnularia sp., Pleurosigma
sp. , Rhizosolenia sp.,Skeletonema sp.
Surirella sp., Tabularia sp., Thalassionema
sp.,Triceratium sp.
0
50
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
ml/m3
Station
Phytoplankton Biomass
during 2011 - 2013
PRE
1
MN
1
PM
1
Gopinathan (1972) – reported 62 species of
Bacillariophyceae, 24 species of Dinophyceae, 3
species of Myxophyceae and 2 species of
Cilioflagellates from Vembanad backwater
Unnithan et. al., 2001 observed phytoplankton biomass
was maximum in premonsoon – 4.7ml/m3, followed by
the post-monsoon (4. 4 ml/m3) and monsoon (3 .4
ml/ml).
During the present
study phytoplankton
biomass was maximum
in premonsoon,
followed postmonsoon
and monsoon in
accordance to previous
studies

Variation in major groups of phytoplankton in Vembanad lake before and
after Commissioning of the TMB
Chaetoceros sp.
Coscinodiscus sp.
Skletnonema sp.
Nitzschia sp.
Peridinium sp.
Pleurosigma sp.
Ceratium sp.
Gymnodinium sp.
Before TMB,
Postmonsoon
(Nair et al.,1975)
After TMB,
Postmonsoon
(Unnithan et al., 2001)
After TMB,
Postmonsoon,2011-
2013
Spirogyra sp.
Microspora sp.
Botryococcus sp.
Anabena sp.
Lyngbya sp.
Desmidium sp.
Micrasterias sp.
Stuarastrum sp.
Spirogyra sp.
Microspora sp.
Microcystis sp.
Pediastrum sp.
Leptocylindricus sp.
Zygnema sp.
Ulotrix sp.
Oscillatoria sp.
Compared to previous studies, the dominance of Microcystis sp., Pediastrum sp.,
Leptocylindricus sp., Zygnema sp., Ulothrix sp., Oscillatoria sps. were increased considerably

Zooplankton S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
Rotifers + + + + + + + - - -
Tintinids - - + + + + + + + +
Cladocerans + + + + + - - - - -
Polycheates - - + + + - + + + +
Nematodes - + + - + + + - - +
Mysids + + + - + - + + + +
Zoea + + + + + - - + + +
Amphipods - - + + + + - + - -
Lucifer + + + + - -. - + - +
Insect larve + + + + - + + - - -
Calanoids + + + + + + + + + +
Cyclopoids + + + - - - + + + +
Fish eggs - + + + - + - + + +
Fish larve + - + + + + + + + +
Zooplankton distribution in Vembanad
backwater during 2011-2013
0
100000
200000
300000
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
Number/m3
Stations
Seasonal density of zooplankton
in Vembanad Backwater
PR
M
MN
36%
10%
4%7%8%
1%
1%
14%
12%
2%
1% 2% 2%
Percentage composition of
Zooplankton of Vembanad
wetland
Calanoid
Cyclopoid
Cladocerans
Rotifers
Tintinids
• Rotifers, Cladocerans and cyclopoids
are the major groups of zooplankton
(southern sector)
• Zooplankton density – peaks in
premosoon in most stations
Calanoid copepods contributes to a major
share in zooplankton composition
• Calanoids -36%, followed by cladocerans-12%,
rotifers 10%
• Cladocerans & rotifers were abundant in
southern side of TMB
 Zooplankton include 14 groups in which
copepods, rotifers, cladocerans , tintinids were
more abundant

.
Prebarrage phase Postbarrage phase
Copepods, decapod larve,
Crab zoea, Lucifers,
Jelly fish, Hydromeduse,
Aphipods, Cladocerans,
Isopods, Cirripid nauplius,
Okiopluera, Cheatognaths,
Mysids, Cumaceans,
Copepodites.
Copepods, rotifers,
Tintinids,Cladocerans,
Polycheates,Amphipods,
Zoea, Lucifers, Insect larve,
fish larve, fish eggs,
copepod naupli
Dominant groups,
Pillai, 1975
Copepods -major share
Dominant groups, observed
during present study
Volumetrically abundant but limited
in species composition

Acartia southwelli
Acartia spinicauda
Acartiella gravelyi
Acartiella keralensis
Acartia plumosa
Betiolina similis
Heliodiaptomus cintus
Pseudodiaptomus annandeli
Pseudodiaptomus binghami
Pseudodiaptomus serricaudatus
Ladiocerca pectinata
Paracalanus indicus
Paracalanus crassirostris
Brachionus plicatus
Brachionus ureolaris
Brachionus calyciflorus
Brachinus falcatus
Brachionus angularis
Brachionus forificula
Brachionus quadridentatus
Brachionus bidentata
Brachionus haevensis
Keratella tropica
Keratella tropica assymetrica
Scaphaloberis sp.
Ceriodaphnia sp.
Diaphanosoma sp.
Bosmina sp.
Eubosmina sp.
List of major zooplankton species
identified during the present study

Keratella tropica
Tintinids
Fish egg Polycheate larve
Brachionus falcatus
Bachionus havanaensis
Brachionus quadridentatus
Bosminia
Acartia southwelli
Bestiolina similis
Major zooplanktons observed during 2011-2013
Zoea

36%
7%
2%
8%
16%
3%
1%
10%
4%
8%
5%
Percentage abundance of
calanoid
copepods in north of TMB
Acartia southwelli
Acartia spinicauda
Acartia plumosa
Betiolina similis
Pseudodiaptomus
serricaudatus
13%
10%
62%
5%
2%
8%
Percentage abundance of
calanoid
copepods in south of TMB
Acartiella gravelyi
Acartiella
keralensis
Heliodiaptomus
cintus
Pseudodiaptomus
binghami
• Reduction in copepod species
diversity after TMB- salinity major
factor
• Heliodiaptomus cinctus – species is
a freshwater form dominant (62%)
in southern region
Acartia southwelli
Acartia spinicauda
Acartiella gravelyi
Acartia plumosa
Betiolina similis
Heliodiaptomus cintus
Pseudodiaptomus annandeli
Pseudodiaptomus
serricaudatus
Ladiocerca pectinata
Paracalanus indicus
Paracalanus crassirostris
Species identified
during 2011-2013
Major calanoid copepods
observed by
Pillai et al., 1973
Acartia spinicauda,
A. centura, A. erythaea,
A. plumosa, A. bilobata,
Acartiella gravelyi, A. keralensis,
Centropages trispinosus, C.
alcockii, A. furcatus, C. orisnii,
Pseudodiaptomus mertoni, P.
sericaudatus, P. annandeli, P.
jonsei, P. binghami, Diaptomus
mirabilipes, D. cinctus,
Labidocerca pectinata, L. pavo,
Paracalanus crassirostris,
Bestiolina similis, Temora
turbinata, T. discaudata
Dominant forms of calanods in south-
Heliodiaptomus cinctus (62%),
A.gravelyi, A. keralensis etc.
North -A. southwelli(36%),
Paracalanus indicus, A. spinicuada
etc.

59
1.9% 0.1% 0.5%
0.2%
2.5%
59.8%
0.8%
0.1%
0.2%
7.1%
0.2%
2.4%
0.4% 0.1% 8.2%
15.6%
Sponge Nemerteans
Turbellarians Nematodes
Oligochaetes Polychaetes
0.10% 0.09% 0.08% 3.56%
24.71%
0.82%
19.58%
1.78%
0.15%
0.05%
12.83%
36.08%
0.17%
Sponge
Turbellaria
ns
Nematode
s
Oligochaet
es
Polychaete
s
Insects
Amphipod
s
Tanaids
Percentage composition of macrofaunal groups in Vembanad estuary
Polychaetes contributed by 59.8% , followed
by bivalves (15.6%), isopods (8.2% ),
amphipods (7.1%) and oligochaetes (2.5%)
2011-2012 2012-2013
Bivalves contributed 36.06 %, followed by
polychaetes (24.69%), amphipods (19.56%) and
isopods (12.82%)

60
The time scale changes for the last 2-3 decades also proved that the macrofaunal community have
modified and the abundance of opportunistic oligochaetes and polychaetes were more .
BIOENV analysis revealed that not a single factor, a combination of bottom water pH, salinity, sediment
potassium content, organic carbon, available nitrogen and sand fraction determined the abundance and
distribution of macrofauna in Vembanad estuarine system.
It has been confirmed that salinity, bottom water pH, silt and clay showed positive correlation with the
spatial distribution of macrofauna during first year and during second year organic carbon, available nitrogen,
silt fraction and bottom water pH showed strong positive correlation as observed in the results of CCA
analysis.
Southern zone –
oligochaetes, and
insects were more
abundant
Northern zone –
Decapods, mysids,
gastropods were
present only here

61
•Polychaete species - Namalycastis indica (34.22%),
followed by Diopatra neapolitana (27.98%), Prionospio
cirrifera (17.15 %), Parheteromastus tenuis (7.18 %)
and Dendronereis aestuarina (6.03%) have max. %
contribution
Maxi. av. density of Namalycastis indica in St.2 (3131
ind./m2).
Paraprionospio pinnata (av. 62 ind./m2), Dipolydora
flava (av. 44 ind./m2) and Diopatra neapolitana (4137
ind./m2) obtained only in St. 10.
Micronephthys oligobranchia, Sigambra parva,
Cossura costa, Aphelochaeta filiformis, Scoletoma
impatiens, Sabellaria pectinata and Pectinaria sp. was
only in present St. 9 and 10 (max. av. density in St.10)
Parheteromastus tenuis the max. av. density in St. 9
(643 ind./m2)
Prionospio cirrifera - observed between St. 5 and St.
10. Its max. av. density in St. 9 (1487 ind./m2) and St.
10 (454 ind./m2).
A total of 19 species of polychaetes were identified during the study period (Phylum Annelida, Class
Polychaeta Orders (Phyllodocida, Capitellida, Spionida, Cossurida, Terebellida, Eunicida, Sabellida,
Terebellida), 14 Family and 18 Genus)- (KX098491- Prionospio cirrifera, KX098492 - Glycera alba,
KX098493 – Micronephtyis oligobranchia, KU205267 - Dendronereis aestuarina)

Unnithan et al., 2001
(1996-1997)
2011-2013 period
Dendronereis sp.,
Dendronereis aestuarina,
Dendronereis arborifera,
Nereis chingrihattensis,
Ceratonereis sp,
Prionospio cirrifera and
Capitellid sp.
Nemalycastis indica (80%)
Dendronereis aestuarina
(20%)
Kurian,
1972
Ansari,
1974
Pillai,
1977
Saralade
vi et al.,
1991
Unnitha
n et al.,
2001
2011-
2013
Polychaetes
Polychaet
es
Polychaet
es
Polychaete
s Amphipods
Polychaete
s
Amphipods Bivalves
Crustacea
ns Molluscs
Polychaete
s
Crustacean
s
Isopods Decapods Molluscs
Amphipod
s
Oligochaet
es Molluscs
Bivalves
Amphipo
ds - - -
Oligochaet
es
Gastropods
- - - -
Chironomi
ds
Sea
anemone
- - - -
Tanaeids
Prawns
- - - -
Nemertean
s
Goboid
fishes
- - - -
Britle stars - - - -
Long term changes in the macrobenthic
distribution in Vembanad
Variation in major Polychaete species in south
of TMB
 The presence of organisms such as Oligochaete,
Chironomids, Tanaeids and Nemerteans were
increased
 Polychaete species diversity of southern sector
was reduced
 Polychaete sspecies in southern sector was
reduced from seven to two species.
 Nemalycasis indica contribute about 80% and
20% by Dendronereis aestuarina. These are
associated mainly with estuarine and terrestrial
nature

63
Ceratonereis sp.
Dendronereis aesturina
Nephtys oligobranchia
Prionospio cirrifera
Cossura coasta
Namalycastis indica
Diopatra neapolitana
Sigambra parva
Parheteromastus
tenuis

64
Species (2011-2012) PRM MN PM
Apseudes chilkensis 10.60 20.86 29.38
Cirolana fluviatilis 0.45 0.00 2.72
Apanthura sandalensis 7.73 6.80 11.23
Xenanthura orientalis 23.36 42.31 29.75
Mysid sp. 0.00 0.15 1.23
Cumacea sp. 0.27 0.59 0.37
Eriopisa chilkensis 5.48 6.51 12.35
Photis geniculata 46.00 5.77 3.83
Gammarus sp. 4.94 15.38 8.39
Psammogammarus sp. 1.17 1.63 0.74
Seasonal variation of Peracarid crustaceans
Species (2012-2013) PRM MN PM
Apseudes chilkensis 7.7 3.9 4.4
Cirolana fluviatilis 1.6 0.0 0.5
Apanthura sandalensis 4.3 10.1 4.4
Xenanthura orientalis 19.5 40.7 30.1
Mysid sp. 0.0 0.1 0.3
Eriopisa chilkensis 2.5 1.3 2.5
Photis geniculata 51.1 38.3 54.5
Gammarus sp. 12.7 5.1 3.1
Psammogammarus sp. 0.5 0.5 0.1
During first year the maximum population
density during PRM (42.8 %) followed by PM (31
%) and MN (26 %).
PRM season: P. geniculata (46 %)
MN season : X. orientalis (42.3 %)
PM season : X. orientalis (29.8 %).
During second year the maximum density
during PM (38 %) followed by MN (32.6 %)
and PRM (29.1 %).
PRM season: P. geniculata (51.1 %)
MN season : X. orientalis (40.7 %)
PM season : P. geniculata (54.5 %)

65
Psammogammarus sp.
Apanthura sandalensis
Photis geniculata
Xenanthura orientalis
Apseudes chilkensis
Gammarus sp.Cirolana fluviatilis

66
1. AZTI- Marine Biotic Index (AMBI)
Biotic coefficient
Ecological
group Benthic health
Site disturbance
classification
0.0 < AMBI ≤ 0.2
0.2 < AMBI ≤ 1.2
I
Normal
Impoverished
Undisturbed
1.2 < AMBI ≤ 3.3
III Unbalanced
Slightly
disturbed
3.3 < AMBI ≤ 4.3
4.3 < AMBI ≤ 5.0
IV - V
Transitional to
pollution
Polluted
Moderately
disturbed
5.0 < AMBI ≤ 5.5
5.5 < AMBI ≤ 6.0
V
Transitional to
heavy pollution
Heavy polluted
Heavily
disturbed
6.0 < AMBI ≤ 7.0
Azoic Azoic
Extremely
disturbed
2. Multivariate AMBI (M – AMBI)
The M-AMBI classification of reference values were ‘High’,
>0.8; ‘Good’, 0.57–0.80; ‘Moderate’, 0.38–0.57; ‘Poor’, 0.20–
0.38; and ‘Bad’, < 0.20.
BOPA classification Index value
High (unpolluted) 0.0≤BOPA≤0.025
Good (slightly polluted) 0. 025≤BOPA≤0.13
Moderate
(moderately polluted) 0. 13≤BOPA ≤0.199
Poor (heavily polluted) 0.199≤BOPA≤ 0.26
Bad (extremely polluted) 0.26≤BOPA≤0.3
3. Benthic Opportunistic Polychaetes
Amphipods Index (BOPA)
4. BENTIX
Bentix EQS Classification
4.5 ≤ Bentix < 6 High Normal
3.5 ≤ Bentix < 4.5 Good Slightly
polluted
2.5 ≤ Bentix < 3.5 Moderat
e
Moderately
polluted
2.5 ≤ Bentix < 2.5 Poor Heavily
polluted
0 Bad Azoic

Fishery - Vembanad
 Eighty three species of finfishes, five species of
Penaeid shrimps, three species of Palaemonid prawns,
two species of crabs were identified
 The estimates of annual fishery production indicated
an annual landing of 4387.31t, in which 480.98t and
3906.33t contributed by southern and northern zone of
Vembanad
 The finfishes contributed by 26.7% (1192.17t) and
crustaceans contributed 73.29% to the (3195.14t)
 Cichilids, Cyprinids, Mullets, Cat fishes, Ambassids,
Scaenids and Half beaks were the major fin fish
groups
 In cichilids, Etroplus suratensis and Etroplus
maqulatus formed the major fishery
 Three vulnerable species- Himanitura uarnak,
Horabagrus brachysoma, Hyporhampus xanthopterus
Year
Annual Yeild
(ton)
South North
1988 -
1989
504.0 6698.1 Kurup
1993
1995-1996 415.3 - CIFRI
2001
1996-1997 485.04 - CIFRI
2001
2011-2012 480.98 3906.33 MoEF
2013
Horabagrus brachysoma Hyporhampus xanthopterus Himanitura uarnak

67%14%
3%
3%
2%
1%
8% 1%
1%
Etroplus suratensis
Etroplus maculatus
Labeo dussumieri
Hyporhamphus
xanthopterus
Megalops
cyprinoides
Percentage Composition of Dominant Fish Species
22%
64%
8% 6%
Metapenaeus
dobsoni
Metapenaeus
monoceros
Macrobrachiu
m rosenbergi
Fenneropenaeu
s indicus
60%
24%
7%
8%
1%
Metapenaeus
dobsoni
Metapenaeus
monoceros
Macrobrachiu
m rosenbergi
Shellfish- Northern part of Vembanad
68
Finfish- Southern part of Vembanad Finfish- Northern part of Vembanad
Shellfish- Southern part of Vembanad
Macrobrachium rosenbergii contribute
maximum (64%), followed by Metapenaeus
dobsoni (22%)
Maximum of 67% contributed by Etroplus
suratensis
Etroplus suratensis contribute 37% followed by
Mullets (31%) and Tachysurids (20%)
37%
31%
20%
6%
6%
Etroplus
suratensis
Mullets
Tachysuridae
In shell fish Metapenaeus dobsoni contribute
60% in northern part followed by
Metapenaeus monoceros (24%)

New entrants
1995-1997
Disappeared
1995-1997
Declining production
2012-2013
Anguilla bicolor Nematolosa nasus Lates calcarifer
Puntius srana Hilsa ilisha Lutjanus argentimaculatus
P. filamentosus Tachysurus falcatus Chanos chanos
P.mahecola
Ophichtyus
microcephalus
Stolephorus sp
Labeo dussumieri Haplochilus lineatus Leiognatus sp
Labeo rohita Mugil troscheli Gerres sp
nathus guintheri Eleutheronema Channa sp
Clarius batracus Therapon puta Macrobrachium rosenbergii
Wallago attu Lutianus johnius M. idella
Ompok bimaculatus Leognathus sp Metapenaeus dobsoni
Amblypharyngodon mola Gerres oblonges M. monoceros
Heteropneustus fossilis
Trichogaster
brevirosteris
Clarius batracus Palaemon carcinus
Mastacembelus armatus
Macrognathus guintheri
Channa striatus
Anabas testudineus
Dynamics in fish species and production in South of barrage
 Seven species of fin fish production
were declined drastically
 The marine and estuarine
dependent species such as Lates
calcarifer and Lutjanus
argentimaculatus in southern part is
very rare
 The production of prawn species
such as Macrobrachium rosenbergii,
Macrobrachium idella, Metapenaeus
dobsoni & . M. monoceros were
reduced
 The opening and closing of barrage
adversely affect the migratory
species
 An alarming reduction of capture
fishery in the Vembanad and the
impact of operation of barrage on
fishery was reported by
Padmakumar et al., 2001

Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)
Southern Zone Northern Zone
Amblypharyngadon microlepis Ambassis ambassis
Amblypharyngodon mola Arius maculatus
Anabas testudineus Arius subrostratus
Channa marulius Chanos chanos
Channa orientalis Cynoglossus cynoglossus
Channa striatus Etroplus suratensis
Etroplus maculatus Johnius coitor
Heteropneustus fossilis Leiognathus brevirostris
Horabagrus brachysoma Leiognathus dussumieri
Hyporhampus xanthopterus Liza parsia
Labeo dussumeri Mugil cephalus
Puntius amphibius Paraambassis thomassi
Puntius filamentous Stolephorus commersonnii
Puntius melanostigma Thryssa dussumeri
Puntius sarana Valamugil speigleri
Macrobrachium rosnbergii Metapenaeus dobsoni
Fenneropenaeus indicus
Metapenaeus monoceros
Most abundant fish species in Vembanad
 gill net - 3.04 kg h-1
 stake net - 2.43 kg h-1
 Chinese dip net - 2.01 kg h-1
 seines -1.2 kg h-1
 cast net - 0.72 kg h-1
 hook and line - 0.34 kg h-1
In the Kodungaloor – Azhikode estuary the CPUE of
gillnet was 6.91kg h-1, followed by Chinese dip net
(2.01kg h-1) and stake net (3.05kg h-1) (Bijoynandan
et al., 2012). Decreasing CPUE denote the fishery
decline in Vembanad

Diversity indices of finfishes in Vembanad during the
study period
Dendrogram – Bray-Curtis similarity index
of finfishes abundance
MDS– Bray-Curtis similarity index of
finfishes abundance
 Two separate clusters were formed for
finfishes in Southern and northern zone of
Thaneermukkom barrage.
Shannon Weinner
divesity and Margaraf
richness indices
increase towards
northern stations
 Station 1 to 3, 4 to 7 & 9 to 10
showed over all 80% similarity
1995-1996 period 2012-2013 period
 Percentage contribution of Etroplus suratensis was
reduced from 46.9% to 36.19%
 Channa sp. reduced from 29.7% to 3.6% and Hemiramphus
also reduced from 6.3% to 6%.
Drastic Reduction in the Fishery production of
Vembanad

Production trend of Macrobrachium rosenbergii over the last six decades
Landings of Macrobrachium
rosenbergii
1960-61 400 t Raman (1965)
1985-86 39 t Raman (1985)
1994-96 113 t Kurup (1998)
1996-97 62 t CIFRI (1997)
2012-
2013
57.69t MoEF (2013)
Migration & recruitment pattern of
M.rosenbergii
• Disruption of physical and biological continuity with coastal
waters fuelled the decline of endemic prawn M.rosenbergii, in
its home ground.
• Closure of the barrage during December to April for summer rice,
disrupted breeding migration down stream. It prevented migration
of post larvae back to home grounds - Kuttanad
• Current exploited stock of M. rosenbergii from the whole lake
was 57.69t
• Highest catch (429 t) was recorded in 1960 (Raman, 1967)
• During 1994-995 and 1995-1996 the exploited stock was
112.85t and 129.44t respectively (Kurup and Harikrishnan,
2000)
• During 1995-96 and 1996-1997,the catch in the southern zone
was 57.93 and 36.33t respectively (Unnithan et al., 2001)
• During1999 to 2000 - 65.2 t and it reduced to 26.72t during
2000-2001 (Padmakumar, 2002)

Horabagrus brachysoma
Labeo dussumieri
Channa micropeltes
Clarias dussumieri
Gonoproktopterus curmuca
Wallago attu
Etroplus suratensis
Threatened
Endemics

• The State of Kerala leads India in the production of clams with estimated annual landings
of about 66,000 tons in 2008–09
• The black clam, Villorita cyprinoides (Family, Corbiculidae) contributes 45,000 t, or
about two-thirds of this total (Narasimham et al., 1993; CMFRI Annual Report, 2009).
• Most of the annual production of black clams, about 25,000 t, comes from Vembanad
Lake where almost 4,000 fishermen harvest them (Bijoy Nnadan, 2008)
• Lake also has large sub-fossil deposits of black clam shells that are mined for commercial
use
• The main raw material used for cement production by TCL is lime shell, which is
dredged out of Vembanad backwaters
Year Live Clam Production South(%) North(%)
1988 - 1989 7025t 47.43 52.57 Kurup 1990
2011 - 2012 3800t 49 51 MoEF 2012
Clam Fishery
74

Meiofaunal diversity in Vembanad
South of Barrage
North of Barrage Meiofauna consists of Nematode (43%), Harpacticoid
copepod (31%), Molluscs (15%), Polychaetes (6%)
 Nematode, Herpacticoid copepod contribute 43% and
36 % in the south of barrage.
 North of barrage- Nematode contribute 40%, followed
by Herpacticoid copepod (35%) and Molluscs (18%)
 Polychaetes in the meiofauna were young ones of
polychaetes in that area

Composition and community structure of macro
invertebrates
Kole lands are considered as one of the richest community structure of macroinvertebrates.
Frayer et al. (2001) estimated that 87 percent of the wetland losses from the mid-1950's to
the mid-1970's were due to agricultural conversion.
Insecta
64.1%
Nematoda
0.1%
Oligochaeta
0.2%
Euhirudinea
6.5%
Mollusca
5.8%
Ostracoda
2.0%
Branchiopoda
9.8%
Isopoda
0.3%
Decapoda
3.3%
Arachnida
6.8%
Pisces
1.0%
percentage composition of macroinvertebrates
Insecta
Nematoda
Oligochaeta
Euhirudinea
Mollusca
Ostracoda
Branchiopoda
Isopoda
Decapoda
Arachnida
Pisces
Classes

Ephemeroptera
Odonata
4X
4X
4X
Caenis nigropunctata Ephimerella sp.
Centroptilum sp.
Ictinogomphous rapax
2X
2X 2X
Crocothermis servillia Agriocnemis lacteola

Oriental Darter, Great Cormorant, Openbill-stork,
Painted Stork,, White Necked Stork, Spotbilled Pelican
Glossy Ibis, White Ibis, Lesser Whistling Teal, Cotton
Teal, Gargany, Pintail Duck, Spot Billed
Duck,Montagus Harrier, Steppe Eagle, Booted
Eagle,Osprey,Pacific Golden Plover, Common
Redshank, Green Shank, Wood Sandpiper, Common
Sandpiper, Small Pratincole,Black Headed Gull,
Blackwinged Stilt etc
Birds
Major Groups
Ducks & Teals,Cormorants,Herons &
Egrets, Gulls & Terns, Birds Of Prey

Large Egret, Ibis, Cormorant
White Ibis
Darter
Cherakozhi
Darter

White Breasted
Kingfisher
Indian Shag
Lesser Whistling Teal Northern Pintail

Free Floating
Eichhornia crassipes
Salvinia molesta
Pistia stratiotes
Submerged
Myriophyllum
Elodea canadensis
Hydrilla vertyicillata
Shrubs/ Trees
Ipomoea carnea
Mimosa pigra
Melaleuca quinquenervis
Tamarix ramosissima
Salix petiolaris
Schinus terebinthifolius
Triadica sebifera
Common Inland Aquatic Invasive Plants
Emergent/ Marsh Herbs
Typha angustifolia
Typha orientalis
Typha x glauca
Alternanthera philoxeroides
Lythrum salicaria
Phragmites australis
Spartina anglica
(S. alterniflora x maritima)
Spartina densiflora
Arundo donax
Phalaris arundinacea
Polygonum cuspidatum
Juncus articulatus
Impatiens glanduliflora

Macrophytes
FAMILY SPECIES NAME G.Form stn1 stn2 stn3 stn4 stn5 stn6 stn7 stn8
Onagraceae Ludwigia sp. EA A B C
Pontederiaceae Eichhornia crassipes FF A C A B
Pontederiaceae Monochoria vaginalis FF A A B A
Nymphaceae Nymphaea pubescens AF A A B
Nymphaceae Nymphaea stellata AF A B B
Menyanthaceae Nymphoides indicum EA A B C
Convolvulaceae Ipomea pescapre EA A A C
Convolvulaceae Convolvulus sp. EA A A A
Hydrocharitaceae Hydrilla verticillata AH C A B A
Lentibulariacae Utricularia aurea FS B B B A A
Typhaceae Typha angustifolia EA A A A
Salviniaceae Salvinia molesta FF A A B A A
Parkeriaceae Ceratopteris sp. FF A A
Poaceae Hygroryza aristata FF A A
Scrophularaceae Lymnophyla hetrophylla AF B B A A
Alimataceae Sagittaria sp. EA A A
Marsileaceae Marsilea quadrifoliata EA C B
Poaceae Oryza sativa WH C C C
Lemnaceae Lemna sp. FF A A
Amarantaceae Alternanthera sp. WH A B A
frequency
Class A 1-20%
Class B 21-40%
Class C 41-60%
Macrophytes identified: 16 families and 20 sp.

Species of Macrophytes identified
Nymphoides indicum
Nymphaea pubescensNymphaea stellata
EA
AF AF

TOTAL NO OF AMPHIBIANS
•In the world - 6759 1.12.10
(AmphibiaWeb.org)
•In India – 305
•In Northeast India – 105
•In Arunachal Pradesh – 62 (till last
publication)
Vembanad : 60 +

Amolops assamensis
(Sengupta et al, 2008)
Fejervarya pierrei
(Dubois, 1975)
Rhacophorous suffry
(Bordoloi,Bortamuli&Ohler,2007)
Limnonectes
laticeps
(Boulenger, 1882)
Rana livida
(Blyth, 1856)
Polypedates leucomystax
(Gravenhorst, 1829)

Mangroves
Total No. = 4,060 species
969 floral (24% ) +
3091 fauna (76%)
8 groups of organisms
exceeding 100 species
No other countries in
World recorded
No. Groups No. of
species
Floral group
1 Mangrove species (True+ Associates) 130
2 Seagrass vegetation 11
3 Marine algae (Phytoplankton + Seaweeds) 559
4 Bacteria 69
5 Fungi 104
6 Actinomycetes 23
7 Lichens 32
Faunal group
8 Prawns 55
9 Crabs 139
10 Insects 711
11 Mollusks 311
12 Other invertebrates 749
13 Fish parasites 7
14 Fin fish 546
15 Amphibians 13
16 Reptiles 85
17 Birds 45
18 Mammals 71

MANGROVE FAUNAL DIVERSITY
• Vertebrates:
• Mammals: 86 spp.
• Birds, 513 spp.
• Reptiles, 57 spp.
• Amphibians 14 spp.
• Fishes, 663 spp.
invertebrates:
Insects: ~1415 spp.
Crustaceans : 420 spp.
(~280 spp. of crabs and
prawns)
Spiders:163 spp.
Molluscs: 250 spp.
Annelids (segmented worms : 271 spp.
(polychaetes: 242 spp.),
& Remaing other lower forms
Protista: 349 spp.
(unicellular organisms)
Total mangrove faunal diversity: > 4580 spp.
(~ 4.5 % of total 100693 spp. animal diversity recognized from India).

Hot spot mapping
• Polychaete species in station 10 (Aroor) made it a
polychaete diverse area-can be considered as an area of
pollution studies
• Occurrence of maximum number of 11 species
• Station 8 (Varanadu) showed maximum species diversity
(4.7) and richness (5.3) of fish species , made this zone a
fishery diversity rich area
• black clam Support a lucrative shell fishery around
Pathiramanal
• High concentration of total carbon and organic
carbon in the southern station-hot spot for
carbon dynamic studies
• A good habitat was observed for fresh water
zooplankton species Heliodiaptomus cinctus
in the southern stations

Ecological decay
Anthropogenic pressure on natural resources
Reduction in the water spread area of Kuttanad:
The water spread area of Vembanad both in terms of square area and
cubic area has substantially decreased over the last 100 yearsbefore
agriculture started in Kuttanad, the original expanse of Kayal was
36,329 ha; this reduced to about 23,750 ha in the year 1983.
Observations in 1992 revealed only 13,224 ha and this further
declined to 12,504 ha in the year 2000. The annual rate of decline
during the first phase (1834-1983) was 0.23 %, which during the
second phase (1983- 1992) increased to 4.93 % and to 0.68 % during
the third phase (1992-2000). Similarly, the depth of the Kayal is also
decreasing. Survey across selected points in the Kayal over 50 years
showed that the Kayal bed is getting filled up and becoming
shallower.

FISHERIES
FLOOD
CONTAINING AGRICULTURE
INTERVENTIONS
INDUSTRY
TOURISM
ECOLOGICAL
VALUES
INLAND
TRANSPORT
Complimenting and conflicting values; Vembanad Wetland

HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATIONS
Ditching and draining dry up the wetlands
Canals constructed for flood control, navigation,
etc drain the wetlands
Land clearing/land use changes and subsequent
erosion – sediments increase BOD levels and
change the hydrology
Dams and diversions change flooding pattern and
sediment transport and nutrient movement

Integration of complex WEB of interactions in nature and still
complex WEB of
human needs and values
NATURAL RESOURCES
RRWERESOURCES
Water
HUMAN NEEDS,
EXPECTATIONS & VALUES
Water
Clothing
Shelter

Ecosystem approach
Holistic concept
Bringing together two important components:
Complex web of interactions in nature
More complex web of interrelationships among
human needs, expectations and value system
Shifting Paradigms

Strategies:
Involvement of all stakeholders
Encourage public participation
Raise public awareness
Build capacity
Develop appropriate institutional structures
Shifting Paradigms

Threats to
biodiversity
Habitat destruction
Pollution
Species Introductions
Global Climate Change
Exploitation
Threatened: population low but extinction
less imminent
Endangered: nos so low that extinction
imminent

Regulatory Regime for Wetlands--MoEF
Threats:
Anthropogenic threats/ impacts to be
regulated
- Conversion
- Pollution
- Water inflow/withdrawals
- Resource extraction (e.g. fishing)
- Disturbance (e.g. eco-tourism)
Functions:
- Hydrological (ground water
recharge/irrigation/flood control)
- Drinking water
- Fish stocks
- Biodiversity conservation (both present
and potential use)
- Water purification Landscape aesthetics
- Cultural/religious aspects
Category
Level of Regulation:
A
Centre
B
State
C
Local
Body/Panchayat
Need for having clear eligibility of criteria for the selection
of the wetlands for the Regulatory Regime, taking into account a
matrix of its functions, and biotic stresses with weight ages being
assigned for these factors:

Gap areas
• Structured data on biodiversity entities -composition
,diversity , community structure greatly lacking .
National net work research programme needs to be
evolved.
• Multi institutional net working required
• Functional role (predation, patchiness, feeding etc.) of
major species to be characterized
• Carbon cycling, sequestration and the energy transfer of
soil fauna to be quantified and their role in regulating
climate change needs to be documented.
• Many species are still to be categorized under the IUCN
and other status
• Atlas on fauna and flora to be evolved for the respective
region based on detailed studies

• Many species are not yet identified
• Many taxonomic ambiguities need molecular approaches
• Need international collaborations for improving the taxonomic
studies , with inter linking of international programmes in
wetland studies
• Many species are loosed by pollution and other activities
• Tourism and related activities are affecting the biodiversity at
minute-organism level, but our studies are restricted to certain
groups
• A common and feasible sampling approach that includes
protocols and field and laboratory guidelines for comparable
standardized sampling and analysis is required for the success
of a monitoring program, that is lacking in India
• Ecofriendly tourism and biodiversity should be propagated

Bijoy Nandan S - UEI Day 2 - Kochi Jan18

Bijoy Nandan S - UEI Day 2 - Kochi Jan18

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Bijoy Nandan S - UEI Day 2 - Kochi Jan18

Similar a Bijoy Nandan S - UEI Day 2 - Kochi Jan18 (20)

Más de India UK Water Centre (IUKWC)

Más de India UK Water Centre (IUKWC) (20)

Último

Último (20)

Bijoy Nandan S - UEI Day 2 - Kochi Jan18