Refine your search
Collections
Co-Authors
- Nishikant Gupta
- Rajeev Raghavan
- Vinod B. Mathur
- Asha Rajvanshi
- S. Sathyakumar
- J. A. Johnson
- G. S. Rawat
- Ritesh Joshi
- Kartikeya Sharma
- Jordan Rosenfeld
- P. Ragavan
- R. S. C. Jayaraj
- P. M. Mohan
- T. S. Rana
- Sagar Rajpurkar
- Anant Pande
- Sajal Sharma
- Swapnali Gole
- Sohini Dudhat
- K. V. Akhilesh
- Shoba Joe Kizhakudan
- M. Muktha
- T. M. Najmudeen
- Sujitha Thomas
- Divya Karnad
- Dipani Sutaria
- Merwyn Fernandes
- Trisha Gupta
- Naveen Namboothri
- Vardhan Patankar
- Swatipriyanka Sen
- Sijo P. Varghese
- A. Biju Kumar
- Alissa Barnes
- K. K. Bineesh
- Sajan John
- Mayuresh Gangal
- M. Hashim
- Vinod Malayilethu
- Zoya Tyabji
- Malaika Vaz
- Sandhya Sukumaran
- G. B. Purushottama
- Livi Wilson
- V. Mahesh
- Rekha J. Nair
- L. Remya
- Shikha Rahangdale
- P. P. Manojkumar
- E. Vivekanandan
- P. U. Zacharia
- A. Gopalakrishnan
Journals
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Sivakumar, K.
- Freshwater Fish Safe Zones: A Prospective Conservation Strategy for River Ecosystems in India
Abstract Views :239 |
PDF Views:89
Authors
Affiliations
1 Department of Geography, King’s College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, GB
2 Conservation Research Group, St Albert’s College, Kochi 682 011, IN
3 Department of Endangered Species Management, Wildlife Institute of India, P.O. Box 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, IN
1 Department of Geography, King’s College London, Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, GB
2 Conservation Research Group, St Albert’s College, Kochi 682 011, IN
3 Department of Endangered Species Management, Wildlife Institute of India, P.O. Box 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, IN
Source
Current Science, Vol 107, No 6 (2014), Pagination: 949-950Abstract
No Abstract.- Need for Targeted Education Programme for Preparedness and formulating Adaptive Strategies in the Indian Himalayan Region
Abstract Views :239 |
PDF Views:81
Authors
Nishikant Gupta
1,
Asha Rajvanshi
1,
S. Sathyakumar
1,
J. A. Johnson
1,
K. Sivakumar
1,
G. S. Rawat
1,
Vinod B. Mathur
1
Affiliations
1 Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, IN
1 Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, IN
Source
Current Science, Vol 109, No 7 (2015), Pagination: 1233-1234Abstract
The Indian Himalaya continues to face increasing anthropogenic stressors despite numerous conservation actions. Further, climate change has the potential to negatively affect this biodiversity rich region. To counteract the changing climatic variables, targeted education programmes could act as a strategy and assist in protecting the floral/faunal species requiring urgent intervention, and benefit communities and ecosystems at large.- Angria Bank:An Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Area of the Northwest Indian Ocean
Abstract Views :268 |
PDF Views:94
Authors
K. Sivakumar
1,
Ritesh Joshi
2
Affiliations
1 Wildlife Institute of India, P.O. Box 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, IN
2 Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi 110 003, IN
1 Wildlife Institute of India, P.O. Box 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, IN
2 Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi 110 003, IN
Source
Current Science, Vol 109, No 5 (2015), Pagination: 842-843Abstract
No Abstract.- 'Fish Festivals' in the Garhwal Himalaya:Conservation Options Amidst Age-Old Practices
Abstract Views :602 |
PDF Views:109
Authors
Affiliations
1 Sinola House, Village and P.O. Sinola, Dehradun 248 003, IN
2 Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, IN
1 Sinola House, Village and P.O. Sinola, Dehradun 248 003, IN
2 Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, IN
Source
Current Science, Vol 110, No 7 (2016), Pagination: 1155-1156Abstract
Rivers provide ecological and socio-economic benefits despite being highly threatened ecosystems. They continue to face anthropogenic and natural stresses. The Aglar in the Indian Himalaya is an important tributary of the Yamuna River, and hosts the annual 'fish festival' of the region. Field studies have revealed that this festival could harm endemic/threatened fish species of the Aglar. Lethal methods such as the use of bleaching powder and electricity should be banned; instead angling and cast netting in a regulated way could be promoted.- Ecological Flow Requirement for Fishes of Godavari River:Flow Estimation Using the PHABSIM Method
Abstract Views :226 |
PDF Views:73
Authors
Affiliations
1 Wildlife Institute of India, # 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, IN
2 Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, CA
1 Wildlife Institute of India, # 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, IN
2 Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, CA
Source
Current Science, Vol 113, No 11 (2017), Pagination: 2187-2193Abstract
Fish habitat requirements are an essential aspect of the estimation of environmental flows. In India, a few studies have proposed environmental flows for the major rivers on the basis of qualitative observation or expert opinion. As part of a study regarding the effect of altered flow across the Godavari river on fishes, we estimated flow requirement of the fishes using a physical habitat simulation model (PHABSIM). This model uses habitat requirement of selected fish species in the form of habitat suitability curves (HSCs) against river habitat availability. We developed HSCs for five economically important fishes (Bangana dero, Cirrhinus cirrhosus, Labeo calbasu, Labeo fimbriatus and Wallago attu). These HSCs indicate that B. dero prefers high velocities (0.9–1.2 m/s) compared with the other species and that L. fimbriatus prefers deeper areas (1.2–1.5 m). C. cirrhosus uses low flows with moderate depth (0.3–0.6 m/s; 0.6–1.5 m). The HSCs were used in PHABSIM along with instream habitat data recorded from four cross-sections to predict the weighted usable areas (WUAs) of the fishes. The relationship between habitat area and discharge was used to predict the minimum acceptable flow for maintaining fish habitats. On the basis of the WUA–discharge relationship curve, 26% of the mean flow was recommended as the minimum ecological flow required below the Polavaram dam of Godavari river.Keywords
Environmental Flow, Habitat Suitability Curves, Instream Flow Incremental Methodology, River Fishes.References
- Tharme, R. E., A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Res. Appl., 2003, 19, 397–441; doi:10.1002/rra.736.
- Gore, J. A., Layzer, J. B. and Mead, J., Macroinvertebrate instream flow studies after 20 years: a role in stream management and restoration. Regul. Rivers: Res. Manage., 2001, 17, 527–542; doi:10.1002/rrr.650.
- Vishmara, R., Azzellinno, A., Bosi, R., Grosa, G. and Gentili, G., Habitat suitability curves for brown trout (Salmo trutta fario L.) in the river Adda, northern Italy: comparing univariate and multivariate approaches. Regul. Rivers: Res. Manage., 2001, 17, 37–50; doi:10.1002/1099-1646(200101/02)17:1<37::AID-RRR606>3.0.CO; 2-Q.
- Jowett, I. G., Hayes, J. W. and Duncan, M. J., A Guide to Instream Habitat Survey Methods and Analysis, NIWA Science and Technology Series No. 5, New Zealand, 2008, p. 121.
- Bovee, K. D., Lamb, B. L., Bartholow, J. M., Stalnaker, C. B., Taylor, J. and Henriksen, J., Stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. Biological Resources Division Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD-1998-0004, US Geological Survey, Washington, DC, USA, 1998, p. 159.
- Annear, T. et al., Instream Flows for Riverine Resource Stewardship, Instream Flow Council, Cheyenne, WY, USA, 2004.
- Conklin Jr, D. J., Canton, S. P., Chadwick, J. W. and Miller, W. J., Habitat suitability curves for selected fish species in the central Platte river, Nebraska. Rivers, 1996, 5(4), 250–266.
- Reiser, D. W., Wesche, T. A. and Estes, C., Status of instream flow legislation and practices in North American fisheries. Fisheries, 1989, 14(2), 22–29.
- Rosenfeld, J. S. and Plotemy, R., Modelling available habitat versus available energy flux: do PHABSIM applications that neglect prey abundance underestimate optional flows for juvenile salmonids? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 2012, 69, 1920–1934; doi:10.1139/f2012-115.
- Smakhtin, V. and Anputhas, M., An assessment of environmental flow requirements of Indian river basins. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka, IWMI Research Report 107, 2006, p. 42.
- Kumara, B. K. H., Srikantaswamy, S. and Bai, S., Environmental flows in Bhadra River, Karnataka, India. Int. J. Water Res. Environ. Eng., 2010, 2(7), 164–173.
- Rajvanshi, A. et al., Assessment of cumulative impacts of hydroelectric projects on aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi basins, Uttarakhand. Technical Report, Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, 2012.
- Joshi, K. D., Jha, D. N., Alam, A., Srivastava, S. K., Vijay Kumar and Sharma, A. P., Environmental flow requirements of river Sone: impacts of low discharge on fisheries. Curr. Sci., 2014, 107(3), 478–488.
- CWC, National register of dams in India. Central Water Commission, New Delhi, 2014; www.cwc.nic.in (accessed on 31 December 2014).
- WRIS, Dams and barrages location map in India. Water Resource Information System of India, New Delhi, 2014; www.india-wris.nrsc.gov.in (accessed on 31 December 2014).
- Bovee, K. D., A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper 12, FWS/OBS-82/26, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington DC, USA, 1982, p. 248.
- Sivakumar, K., Johnson, J. A., Gokulakkannan, N., Ray, P., Katlam, G. and Bagaria, P., Assessment of ecological settings and biodiversity values of Papikonda National Park and Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Multipurpose Project Impact Zone in Andhra Pradesh for development of mitigatory measures. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, 2014, p. 159.
- Bovee, K. D., Development and evaluation of habitat suitability criteria for use in the instream flow incremental methodology. Instream Flow Information No. 21, US Fish and Wildlife Service (Biological Report 87[7]), Washington, DC, USA, 1986, p. 231.
- Jowett, I. G., Native fish and minimum flows in the Kakanui river. Conservation Advisory Science Notes No. 88, Department of Conservation, New Zealand, 1994, p. 288.
- PHABSIM, Physical Habitat Stimulation Model for Windows. User’s Manual and Exercises, Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, US Geological Survey, Washington DC, USA, 2001.
- Talwar, P. K. and Jhingran, A. G., Inland Fishes of India and Adjacent Countries, Oxford-IBH Publishing Co Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, 1991.
- Jayaram, K. C. and Dhas, J. J., Revision of the genus Labeo from Indian region with a discussion on its phylogeny and zoogeography. ZSI, Occasional Paper No. 183, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 2000.
- Mishra, S. S., Acherjee, S. K. and Chakraborty, S. K., Development of tools for assessing conservation categories of siluroid fishes of fresh water and brackish water wetlands of south West Bengal, India. Environ. Biol. Fish, 2009, 84(4), 395–407; doi:10.1007/s10641-009-9448-9.
- Ng, H. H., Wallago attu. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3, 2010, www.iucnredlist.org (accessed on 15 December 2014).
- Carbon Storage Potential of Mangroves – Are We Missing the Boat?
Abstract Views :174 |
PDF Views:80
Authors
Source
Current Science, Vol 116, No 12 (2019), Pagination: 2071-2071Abstract
No Abstract,Keywords
No Keywords.- Carbon Storage Potential Of Mangroves–Are we Missing the Boat?
Abstract Views :246 |
PDF Views:80
Authors
Affiliations
1 CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, Post Box No. 436, Lucknow 226 001, IN
2 Centre for Advanced Studies in Marine Biology, Annamalai University, Parengipettai 608 502,, IN
3 Rain Forest Research Institute, Jorhat 785 010, IN
4 Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair 744 112, IN
1 CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, Post Box No. 436, Lucknow 226 001, IN
2 Centre for Advanced Studies in Marine Biology, Annamalai University, Parengipettai 608 502,, IN
3 Rain Forest Research Institute, Jorhat 785 010, IN
4 Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Pondicherry University, Brookshabad Campus, Port Blair 744 112, IN
Source
Current Science, Vol 116, No 6 (2019), Pagination: 889-891Abstract
Increasing soil carbon stocks and protecting carbon-rich soils are crucial for achieving the Paris climate targets. Mangrove forests are the potential carbon sinks for mitigating the growing greenhouse gas emissions due to their highest carbon storage capacity per unit area compared to terrestrial forests. Furthermore, restricted global distribution of mangroves testifies their role in climate change mitigation as most effective at the national level rather than on a global scale. Nevertheless, lack of reliable estimates, insufficient data, discrepancy in the available data, increasing degradation rates and failure of conservation endeavours signify that we are missing the carbon storage potential of mangrove soil. So, here we emphasize the imperative need of country-wise site-specific precise estimates and an understanding of the spatial distribution of mangrove soil carbon stocks to recognize the actual climate mitigation potential of the mangroves as well as strengthen the conservation measures for the sustainability of mangroves.References
- Donato, D. C., Kauffman, J. B., Murdiyarso, D., Kurnianto, S., Stidham, M. and Kanninen, M., Nature Geosci., 2011, 4, 293–297.
- Alongi, D. M. (ed.), In Blue Carbon, Springer, Switzerland, 2018, pp. 23–36.
- Twilley, R. R., Chen, R. H. and Hargis, T., Water Air Soil Pollut., 1992, 64, 265– 288.
- Alongi, D. M., Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci., 2014, 6, 195–219.
- Sanders, C. J., Maher, D. T., Tait, D. R., Williams, D., Holloway, C., Sippo, J. Z. and Santos, I. R., J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci., 2016, 121, 2600–2609.
- Atwood, T. B. et al., Nature Climate Change, 2017, 7, 523–528.
- IPCC, Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX), Special Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013, p. 594.
- Alongi, D. M., Carbon Manage, 2012, 3, 313–322.
- Kauffman, J. B. and Bhomia, R. K., PLoS ONE, 2017, 12(11), e0187749.
- Walcker, R. et al., Global Change Biol., 2018, 28(6), 2325–2338.
- Murdiyarso, D. et al., Nature Climate Change, 2015, 5, 8–11.
- Jardine, S. L. and Siikamäki, J. V., Environ. Res. Lett., 2014, 9(10), 104013; doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/104013.
- Sanderman, J. et al., Environ. Res. Lett., 2018, 13, 055002.
- Siikamaki, J., Sanchirico, J. N. and Jardine, S. L., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 2012, 109, 14369–14374.
- Friess, D. A. and Webb, E. L., Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 2014, 23, 715–725.
- Rovai, A. S. et al., Nature Climate Change, 2018, 8, 534–538.
- Twilley, R. R., Rovai, R. A. and Riul, P., Front. Ecol. Environ., 2018, doi: 10.1002/fee.1937.
- Adame, M. F., Santini, N. S., Tovilla, C., Vázquez-Lule, A., Castro, L. and Guevara, M., Biogeosciences, 2015, 12(12), 3805–3818.
- Kauffman, J. B., Heider, C., Cole, T. G., Dwire, K. A. and Donato, D. C., Wetlands, 2011, 31(2), 343–352.
- Weiss, C., Weiss, J., Boy, J., Iskandar, I., Mikutta, R. and Guggenberger, G., Ecol. Evol., 2016, 6(14), 5043–5056.
- Schile, L. M., Kauffman, J. B., Crooks, S., Fourqurean, J. W., Glavan, J. and Megonigal, J. P., Ecol. Appl., 2017, 27(3), 859–874.
- Perez, A., Libardoni, B. G. and Sanders, C. J., Biol. Lett., 2018, 14, 20180237.
- Hutchison, J., Manica, A., Swetnam, R., Balmford, A. and Spalding, M., Conserv. Lett., 2014, 7(3), 233–240.
- Rovai, A. S. et al., Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 2016, 25(3), 286–298.
- Breithaupt, J. L., Smoak, J. M., Smith, T. J. and Sanders, C. J., J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci., 2014, 119, 2032–2048.
- Lovelock, C. E., Feller, I. C., Reef, R. and Ruess, R. W., Plant Soil, 2014, 379, 135–148.
- Scharler, U. M. et al., Oecologia, 2015, 179(3), 863–876.
- Xiong, Y., Liao, B., Proffitt, E. D., Guan, W., Sun, Y., Wang, F. and Liu, X., Sci. Total Environ., 2018, 619–620, 1226–1235.
- Rosentreter, J. A., Maher, D. T., Erler, D. V., Murray, R. H. and Eyre, B. D., Sci. Adv., 2018, 4, eaao4985.
- Taillardat, P., Friess, D. A. and Lupascu, M., Biol. Lett., 2018, 14, 20180251.
- Rumpel, C., Amiraslani, F., Koutika, L. S., Smith, P., Whitehead, D. and Wollenberg, E., Science, 2018, 564, 32– 34.
- Hamilton, S. and Casey, D., Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 2016, 25, 729–738.
- Maiti, S. and Chowdhury, A., J. Environ. Prot., 2013, 4(12), 1428–1434.
- Chowdhury, R. R., Uchida, E., Chen, L., Osorio, V. and Yoder, L., In Mangrove Ecosystems: A Global Biogeographic Perspective (eds Rivera-Monroy, V. H. et al.), 2017, pp. 275–300.
- Carugati, L., Gatto, B., Rastelli, E., Martire, M. L., Coral, C., Greco. S. and Danovaro, R., Sci. Rep., 2018, 8, 13298.
- Lovelock, C. E., Feller, I. C., Reef, R., Hickey, S. and Ball, M. C., Sci. Rep., 2017, 7, 1680.
- Duke, N. C. et al., Mar. Freshwater Res., 2017, doi:10.1071/MF16322.
- Harris, T. et al., NESP Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub, Report No. 2, Australia, 2017.
- Harris, R. M. B. et al., Nature Climate Change, 2018, 8, 579–587.
- Sippo, J. Z. et al., Estuarine, Coastal Shelf Sci., 2018; doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2018.10.11.
- Lewis, R. R., Milbrandt, E. C., Brown, B., Krauss, K. W., Rovai, A. S., Beever, J. W. and Flynn, L. L., Mar. Pollut. Bull., 2016, 109, 764–771.
- Romañacha, S. S., Deangelis, D. L., Koh, H. L., Li, Y., Teh, S. Y., Barizan, R. S. R. and Zhai, L., Ocean Coastal Manage., 2018, 154, 72–82.
- Duke, N. C. et al., Science, 2007, 317(5834), 41–42.
- Kennedy, H. et al., In Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands (eds Hiraishi, T. et al.), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Gland, Switzerland, 2014.
- Light-Weight Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Surveys Detect Dugongs and Other Globally Threatened Marine Species from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India
Abstract Views :278 |
PDF Views:92
Authors
Sagar Rajpurkar
1,
Anant Pande
1,
Sajal Sharma
1,
Swapnali Gole
1,
Sohini Dudhat
1,
J. A. Johnson
1,
K. Sivakumar
1
Affiliations
1 Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, IN
1 Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248 001, IN
Source
Current Science, Vol 121, No 2 (2021), Pagination: 195-197Abstract
No Abstract.Keywords
No Keywords.References
- Kelaher, B., Peddemors, V., Hoade, B., Colefax, A. and Butcher, P., J. Un-manned Veh. Syst., 2019, 8, 10.
- Fiori, L., Doshi, A., Martinez, E., Orams, M. B. and Bollard-Breen, B., Remote Sens., 2017, 9, 543–556.
- Kessel, S. T., Gruber, S. H., Gledhill, K. S., Bond, M. E. and Perkins, R. G., Mar. Biol., 2013, 2013, 1–10.
- Nykänen, M., Jessopp, M., Doyle T. K., Harman, L. A., Cañadas, A. and Breen, P., PLoS ONE, 2018, 13, 9.
- Fuentes, M. M. P. B. et al., J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 2015, 471, 77–83.
- Krause, D. J., Hinke, J. T., Perryman, W. L., Goebel, M. E. and LeRoi, D. J., PLoS ONE, 2017, 12.
- Gill, P. C., Pirzl, R., Morrice, M. G. and Lawton, K., J. Wildl. Manage., 2015, 79, 672–681.
- Yauri, S., Ramos, E., Castelblanco-Martínez, N., Niño T. C. and Searle, L., Endanger. Species Res., 2020, 41, 79–90.
- Marsh, H., Lawler, I. R., Kwan, D., Delean, S., Pollock, K. and Alldredge, M., Anim. Conserv., 2004, 7, 435–443.
- Hodgson, A., Kelly, N. and Peel, D., PLoS ONE, 2013, 8, 11.
- Marsh, H. and Sobtzick, S., Dugong du-gon (amended version of 2015 assess-ment), The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 2019.
- Marsh, H., UNEP/Earthprint, 2002.
- Pandey, N., Tatu, K. and Anand, Y., In Status of Dugong (Dugong dugon) in India report, Geer Foundation Report, 2010.
- Sivakumar, K., In Ecology and Conser-vation of Tropical Marine Faunal Com-munities, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013.
- Sivakumar, K. et al., An update on the ‘Recovery of Dugongs and their Habitats in India: an Integrated Participatory Ap-proach’ programme in Sirenews, 2019, pp. 29–34.
- Preen, A. and Marsh, H., Wildl. Res., 1995, 22(4), 507–519.
- Marsh, H., Mar. Mamm. Sci., 2000, 16, 684–694.
- Silas, E. G. and Bastion, F. A., Proceed-ings of the Symposium on Endangered Marine Animals and Marine Parks, 1985, vol. 1, pp. 167–176.
- Ranjan Kumar, R., Venu, S., Akhilesh, K. V. and Bineesh, K. K., Acta Ichthyo-logica et Piscatoria, 2018, 48(3), 289–301.
- Elasmobranch Conservation, Challenges and Management Strategy in India : Recommendations from a National Consultative Meeting
Abstract Views :111 |
PDF Views:64
Authors
K. V. Akhilesh
1,
Shoba Joe Kizhakudan
1,
M. Muktha
1,
T. M. Najmudeen
1,
Sujitha Thomas
1,
Divya Karnad
2,
Dipani Sutaria
3,
Merwyn Fernandes
4,
Trisha Gupta
5,
Naveen Namboothri
5,
Vardhan Patankar
6,
Swatipriyanka Sen
1,
Sijo P. Varghese
7,
A. Biju Kumar
8,
Alissa Barnes
5,
K. K. Bineesh
9,
Sajan John
10,
Mayuresh Gangal
11,
M. Hashim
12,
Vinod Malayilethu
13,
Zoya Tyabji
6,
Malaika Vaz
14,
Sandhya Sukumaran
1,
G. B. Purushottama
1,
Livi Wilson
1,
V. Mahesh
1,
Rekha J. Nair
1,
L. Remya
1,
Shikha Rahangdale
1,
P. P. Manojkumar
1,
K. Sivakumar
15,
E. Vivekanandan
1,
P. U. Zacharia
1,
A. Gopalakrishnan
1
Affiliations
1 ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi 682 018, IN
2 Department of Environmental Studies, Ashoka University, Sonipat 131 029, IN
3 9 Aranya Farms, Shilaj, Ahmedabad 382 115, IN
4 TRAFFIC India Office, New Delhi 110 003, IN
5 Dakshin Foundation, #1818, 9th Cross, 5th Main Road, Sahakar Nagar, Bengaluru 560 092, IN
6 Wildlife Conservation Society-India, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, 2nd Phase, Bengaluru 560 097, IN
7 Fishery Survey of India, Cochin Base, Kochi 682 005, IN
8 Department of Aquatic Biology & Fisheries, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram 695 581, IN
9 Zoological Survey of India, Chennai 600 028, IN
10 Wildlife Trust of India, Delhi 201 301, IN
11 Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysuru 570 017, IN
12 Centre for Marine Living Resources and Ecology, Kochi 682 508, IN
13 WWF-India, ‘Prasanthi’, Kadavanthra, Kochi 682 020, IN
14 Untamed Planet Films, Bengaluru 560 001, IN
15 Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun 248 001, IN
1 ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi 682 018, IN
2 Department of Environmental Studies, Ashoka University, Sonipat 131 029, IN
3 9 Aranya Farms, Shilaj, Ahmedabad 382 115, IN
4 TRAFFIC India Office, New Delhi 110 003, IN
5 Dakshin Foundation, #1818, 9th Cross, 5th Main Road, Sahakar Nagar, Bengaluru 560 092, IN
6 Wildlife Conservation Society-India, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, 2nd Phase, Bengaluru 560 097, IN
7 Fishery Survey of India, Cochin Base, Kochi 682 005, IN
8 Department of Aquatic Biology & Fisheries, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram 695 581, IN
9 Zoological Survey of India, Chennai 600 028, IN
10 Wildlife Trust of India, Delhi 201 301, IN
11 Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysuru 570 017, IN
12 Centre for Marine Living Resources and Ecology, Kochi 682 508, IN
13 WWF-India, ‘Prasanthi’, Kadavanthra, Kochi 682 020, IN
14 Untamed Planet Films, Bengaluru 560 001, IN
15 Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun 248 001, IN
Source
Current Science, Vol 124, No 3 (2023), Pagination: 292-303Abstract
Historically, India has been projected as one of the major elasmobranch fishing nations in the world. However, management and conservation efforts are not commensurate with this trend. Along with the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, several generic conservation measures are in place at the regional/local level. But India is still a long way from meeting global conservation commitments. We present here the status of elasmobranch management and conservation in India, with the specific objective of identifying the gaps in the existing set-up. We also present recommendations based on a national consultative workshop held at the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, in February 2020. We recommend the implementation of a National Plan of Action (NPOA-Sharks) and more inclusive governance and policymaking for elasmobranch conservation in India.Keywords
Consultative Meeting, Elasmobranch, Fisheries, Management and Conservation, Regulations.References
- Dulvy, N. K. et al., Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. Elife, 2014, 3, e00590; https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.005.
- Stevens, J. D., Bonfil, R., Dulvy, N. K. and Walker, P. A., The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimaeras (chondrichthyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 2000, 57, 476–494.
- Worm, B. et al., Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options for sharks. Mar. Policy, 2013, 40, 194–204.
- Dulvy, N. K. et al., Overfishing drives over one-third of all sharks and rays toward a global extinction crisis. Curr. Biol., 2021, 31(21), 4773–4787.
- Pacoureau, N. et al., Half a century of global decline in oceanic sharks and rays. Nature, 2021, 589(7843), 567–571.
- Ferretti, F., Worm, B., Britten, G. L., Heithaus, M. R. and Lotze, H. K., Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecol. Lett., 2010, 13, 1055–1071.
- Clarke, S., Milner-Gulland, E. J. and Trond, B., Social, economic, and regulatory drivers of the shark fin trade. Mar. Resour. Econ., 2007, 22(3), 305–327.
- Cardeñosa, D. et al., CITES-listed sharks remain among the top species in the contemporary fin trade. Conserv. Lett., 2018, 11(4), e12457.
- Cardeñosa, D., Fields, A. T., Babcock, E. A., Shea, S. K. H., Feldheim, K. A. and Chapman, D. D., Species composition of the largest shark fin retail-market in mainland China. Sci. Rep., 2020, 10(1), 12914; doi:10.1038/s41598-020-69555-1.
- James, P. S. B. R., Sharks, rays and skates as a potential fishery resource off the east coast of India. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Living Resources of the Seas around India, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Mandapam Camp, 1973, pp. 483–494.
- Jabado, R. W. et al., Troubled waters: threats and extinction risk of the sharks, rays and chimaeras of the Arabian Sea and adjacent waters. Fish Fish., 2018, 19(6), 1043–1062.
- Martins, A. P. B. et al., Analysis of the supply chain and conservation status of sharks (Elasmobranchii: Superorder Selachimorpha) based on fisher knowledge. PLoS ONE, 2018, 13(3), e0193969; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193969.
- Barbosa-Filho, M. L. V., Hauser-Davis, R. A., Siciliano, S., Dias, T. L. P., Alves, R. R. N. and Costa-Neto, E. M., Historical shark meat consumption and trade trends in a global richness hotspot. Ethnobiol. Lett., 2019, 10(1), 97–103.
- Karnad, D., Sutaria, D. and Jabado, R. W., Local drivers of declining shark fisheries in India. Ambio, 2020, 49(2), 616–627.
- Kizhakudan, S. J., Zacharia, P. U., Thomas, S., Vivekanandan, E. and Muktha, M., Guidance on National Plan of Action for Sharks in India, CMFRI Marine Fisheries Policy Series-2, ICAR-CMFRI, Kochi, 2015, pp. 1–102; ISBN ISSN 2394-8019.
- Day, F., The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, Fishes, London, UK, 1889, vol. 1, pp. i–xviii, 1–548, figures 1–164; vol. 2, pp. i–xiv, 1–509, figures 1–177.
- Hanfee, F., Trade in Sharks and Shark Products in India, TRAFFIC-India, New Delhi, 1997, pp. 1–50.
- Vannuccini, S., Shark utilization, marketing and trade. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 389, FAO, Rome, Italy, 1999, pp. 1–470.
- Dent, F. and Clarke, S., State of the global market for shark products. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 590, FAO, Rome, Italy, 2015, pp. 1–187.
- Okes, N. and Sant, G., An Overview of Major Shark Traders, Catchers, and Species, TRAFFIC, Cambridge, UK, 2019, pp. 1–38.
- CMFRI, Annual Report 2020, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, 2020, p. 284.
- Edwards, H., When predators become prey: the need for International shark conservation. Ocean Coastal L. J., 2006, 12(2), 305–354.
- Bhatt, J. R. and Vivekanandan, E., Coastal and marine biodiversity conservation in India. In Regional Symposium on Ecosystem Approaches to Marine Fisheries & Biodiversity, Kochi, 2013.
- White, W. T. and Kyne, P. M., The status of chondrichthyan conservation in the Indo-Australasian region. J. Fish Biol., 2010, 76(9), 2090–2117.
- Booth, H., Squires, D. and Milner-Gulland, E. J., The neglected complexities of shark fisheries, and priorities for holistic risk-based management. Ocean Coast. Manage, 2019, 182, 104994.
- Bräutigam, A. et al., Global priorities for conserving sharks and rays: a 2015–2025 strategy. Global Sharks and Rays Initiative, 2015.
- Dulvy, N. K. et al., Challenges and priorities in shark and ray conservation. Curr. Biol., 2017, 27, R565–R572; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.038.
- Yan, H. F. et al., Overfishing and habitat loss drive range contraction of iconic marine fishes to near extinction. Sci. Adv., 2021, 7(7), eabb6026; doi:10.1126/sciadv.abb6026.
- Akhilesh, K. V. et al., Status of sawfishes (Pristidae: Rhinopristiformes) in Indian waters. In Book of Abstracts, 12th Indian Fisheries and Aquaculture Forum, Chennai, India, 5–7 May 2022, p. 670.
- Akhilesh, K. V. et al. (eds), Report of the Consultative Workshop on Threatened and Protected Elasmobranchs of India: Conservation Status and Policy Needs, ICAR-CMFRI, Kochi, 4–6 February 2020, pp. 1–32.
- Mohamed, K. S. et al., Depleted and collapsed marine fish stocks along southwest coast of India – a simple criterion to assess the status. In Coastal Fishery Resources of India: Conservation and Sustainable Utilisation, Society of Fisheries Technologists, Cochin, 2010, pp. 67–76.
- Davidson, L. N., Krawchuk, M. A. and Dulvy, N. K., Why have global shark and ray landings declined: improved management or overfishing? Fish Fish., 2016, 17(2), 438–458.
- Sen, S. et al., Population dynamics and stock assessment of milk shark, Rhizoprionodon acutus (Ruppell, 1837) along Gujarat coast of India. Indian J. Mar. Sci., 2017, 46(5), 936–946.
- Dash, S. S. et al., Population dynamics and stock assessment of spadenose shark Scoliodon laticaudus Muller and Henle 1839 along Gujarat coast of India. Indian J. Mar. Sci., 2019, 48(4), 423–433.
- Sathianandan, T. V. et al., Status of Indian marine fish stocks: modelling stock biomass dynamics in multigear fisheries. ICES J. Mar. Sci., 2021, 78(5), 1744–1757.
- Roy, S. D. and George, G., Marine resources of islands: status and approaches for sustainable exploitation/conservation with special emphasis to Andaman and Nicobar. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 2010, 80(4), 57–62.
- Tyabji, Z., Wagh, T., Patankar, V., Jabado, R. W. and Sutaria, D., Catch composition and life history characteristics of sharks and rays (Elasmobranchii) landed in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India. PLoS ONE, 2020, 15(10), e0231069; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231069.
- Kiruba-Sankar, R., Lohith Kumar, K., Saravanan, K. and Praveenraj, J., Poaching in Andaman and Nicobar coasts: insights. J. Coast. Conserv., 2019, 23, 95–109; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-018-0640-y.
- CMFRI, Annual Report 2019. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, 2019, p. 364.
- CMFRI, Annual Report 2018–19. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, 2019, p. 320.
- Camhi, M., Sharks and their Relatives – Ecology and Conservation (No. 20), IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 1998, pp. 1–39.
- Kizhakudan, S. J. et al., Report of FAO–CMFRI collaborative project: a study of shark and ray non-fin commodities in India. ICAR-CMFRI, Kochi, 2020, pp. 1–127.
- Mukesh, S. P., Pandey, S. and Ramalingam, L., Marine fisheries data collection methods in India – an update. IOTC-2019-WPM10-21, 2019, p. 5; https://www.iotc.org/fr/documents/WPM/10/21
- Srinath, M., Kuriakose, S. and Mini, K. G., Methodology for the Estimation of Marine Fish Landings in India, CMFRI Special Publication, ICAR-CMFRI, Kochi, 2005, vol. 86, pp. 1–57.
- Gupta, T., Karnad, D., Kottillil, S. and Gulland, E. M., Shark and ray research in India has low relevance to their conservation. Ocean Coast. Manage, 2022, 217, 106004.
- Vivekanandan, E. and Zala, M. S., Whale shark fishery of Veraval. Indian J. Fish., 1994, 41(1), 37–40.
- Pravin, P., Whale shark in the Indian coast – need for conservation. Curr. Sci., 2000, 79(3), 310–315.
- Akhilesh, K. V., Bineesh, K. K., Gopalakrishnan, A., Jena, J. K., Basheer, V. S. and Pillai, N. G. K., Checklist of chondrichthyans in Indian waters. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. India, 2014, 56(2), 109–120.
- Sutaria, D., Parikh, A., Barnes, A. and Jabado, R., First record of the sandbar shark, Carcharhinus plumbeus (Chondrichthyes: Carcharhiniformes: Carcharhinidae) from Indian waters. Mar. Biodivers. Rec., 2015, 8, E126; doi:10.1017/S1755267215001025.
- Tyabji, Z., Jabado, R. W. and Sutaria, D., New records of sharks (Elasmobranchii) from the Andaman and Nicobar Archipelago in India with notes on current checklists. Biodivers. Data J., 2018, 6, e28593; https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.6.e28593.
- Barnes, A., Sutaria, D., Harry, A. V. and Jabado, R. W., Demographics and length and weight relationships of commercially important sharks along the north‐western coast of India. Aquat. Conserv., 2018, 28(6), 1374–1383.
- Varghese, S. P., Vijayakumaran, K., Tiburtius, A. and Vaibhav, D. M., Diversity, abundance and size structure of pelagic sharks caught in tuna longline survey in the Indian seas. Indian J. Geo-Mar. Sci., 2015, 44(1), 26–36.
- Varghese, S. P., Unnikrishnan, N., Gulati, D. K. and Ayoob, A. E., Size, sex and reproductive biology of seven pelagic sharks in the eastern Arabian Sea. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK, 2017, 97(1), 181–196.
- Fernando, D. et al., New insights into the identities of the elasmo-branch fauna of Sri Lanka. Zootaxa, 2019, 4585(2), 201–238.
- Haque, A. B., White, W. T., Cavanagh, R. D., Biswas, A. R. and Hossain, N., New records of elasmobranchs in the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh: further taxonomic research is essential. Zootaxa, 2021, 5027(2), 211–230.
- Sukumaran, S. et al., Molecular analyses reveal a lack of genetic structuring in the scalloped hammerhead shark, Sphyrna lewini (Griffith & Smith, 1834) along the Indian coast. Mar. Biodivers., 2020, 50(2), 1–6; https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-020-01040-4.
- Sreelekshmi, S., Sukumaran, S., Kishor, T. G., Sebastian, W. and Gopalakrishnan, A., Population genetic structure of the oceanic whitetip shark, Carcharhinus longimanus, along the Indian coast. Mar. Biodivers., 2020, 50(5), 1–5; https://doi.org/10.1007/s12526-020-01104-5.
- CMFRI-FSI-DoF, Marine Fisheries Census 2016 – India. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Indian Council of Agricultural Research; Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; Fishery Survey of India and Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India, 2020, pp. 1–116.
- Thomas, S. et al., Status of the hammerhead shark (Carcharhiniformes: Sphyrnidae) fishery in Indian waters with observations on the biology of scalloped hammerhead Sphyrna lewini (Griffith & Smith, 1834). Aquat. Conserv., 2021, 31(11), 3072–3086.
- Gupta, T. et al., Mitigation of elasmobranch bycatch in trawlers: a case study in Indian fisheries. Front. Mar. Sci., 2020, 7, 1–17; https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00571.
- Integrated Annual Report of Mangrove and Marine Biodiversity Conservation Foundation (Mangrove Foundation) 2015–16 to 2019–2020. Mangrove Cell, Mumbai, 2020, pp. 1–192.
- Beger, M., Harborne, A., Dacles, T., Solandt, J. and Ledesma, G., A framework of lessons learned from community-based marine reserves and its effectiveness in guiding a new coastal management initiative in the Philippines. Environ. Manage., 2005, 34, 786–801.
- Zacharia, P. U. et al., Non-Detriment Findings (NDF) for the Export of Shark and Ray Species Listed in Appendix II of the CITES and Harvested from Indian Waters, CMFRI Marine Fisheries Policy Series-6, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, 2017, pp. 1–102.
- CMFRI, Annual Report 2017–18. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, 2018, p. 304.