International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies 2017; 5(2): 425-429 

E-ISSN: 2347-5129
P-ISSN: 2394-0506
(ICV-Poland) Impact Value: 5.62 Biodiversity assessment of Kodar reservoir of
(GIF) Impact Factor: 0.549
IJFAS 2017; 5(2): 425-429 Chhattisgarh
© 2017 IJFAS
www.fisheriesjournal.com
Received: 15-01-2017 SS Mishra, S Mohanty, MS Chari and HK Vardia
Accepted: 16-02-2017

SS Mishra Abstract
DADF, Ministry of Agriculture, In the context of massive loss of biodiversity, conservation of freshwater fauna has received increasing
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, attention in recent times. Hence, assessment of the aquatic biodiversity and potential for the exploitation
India of natural resource of Chhattisgarh was attempted. Freshwater fish biodiversity in Kodar reservoir has
been represented about 44 sps. Belonging to 14 families. Some of the important fish species found in the
S Mohanty reservoir were viz Catla, Rohu, Mrigal, Grass carp, Silver carp, Common Carp, Olive barb, Pangasius
Division of Livestock and and Mystus species etc. Along the stretch of the reservoir, 29 dominant phytoplankton species
Fisheries Management, ICAR representing 9 families under 4 major divisions were enlisted along-with their distinct quantitative
Research Complex for Eastern variations. Likewise, Zooplankton comprised of 11 species representing 8 families under three major
Region, Patna, Bihar, India
phyla, along-with a great quantitative variation in different seasons at different study stations.
MS Chari
Indira Gandhi Krishi Keywords: Reservoir, diversity indices, fish fauna, planktonic biomass, abundance
Viswavidyalaya, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, India 1. Introduction
Biodiversity in inland waters is important to sustain health of the ecosystem as well as the
HK Vardia
prosperity of our society. It is also significant for its economic value as a habitat for
Dean, College of Fisheries,
Kawardha, Chhattisgarh, India commercially important species and plays an important role in food and nutritional security of
people, especially in the rural areas. India is well known for its mega biodiversity of biological
wealth, harbouring over 12 percent of the shell fish and fin fishes (Kapoor and Sarkar, 2003)
[18]
. The diversity of fish fauna has its own importance like other aquatic and terrestrial
animals. They constitute very important trophic link in water bodies. Some of them are
commercially important species with good economic value.
Biodiversity, the variety and variability of life, is found on every continent and in every ocean
worldwide. The central India has enormous potential in terms of diverse water resources in the
form of stream, rivers, reservoirs, subterranean aquatic systems, traditional lakes and domestic
ponds with a wide variety of fresh water fishes. Chhattisgarh in particular is blessed with a
number of natural resources and lies in the catchment of the rivers, the Mahanadi, Godavari,
Ganga and Narmada. Their main tributaries are Kharun, Tandula, Arpa, Hasdeo, Shivnath,
Sabari, Indrawati, Sone and Tanda. Some Reservoirs are also there, which helps to improve
the fish production of the state; they are Gangrel, Hasdeo bang, Sondur, Dud, Kodar and
Kumhari etc.
Fish and fisheries are dispensable part in the life cycle and livelihood of this country and is the
part of our cultural heritage. Reservoirs provide significant contributions to the global
fisheries. In many parts of the world, a reservoir fishery is essential and often represent an
irreplaceable resource of low cost animal protein providing balanced human diet. No fish
biodiversity study has been conducted in Kodar reservoir of Mahasamund district so far. With
the aim of conducting biodiversity study of the district a small effort has been made to
understand the ichthyobiodiversity.

2. Materials and Methods

Chhattisgarh state was formed after bifurcation of old Madhya Pradesh in 1st November 2000.
Correspondence
Geographically Chhattisgarh is situated between 17o 46’– 24o 80’ N latitude and 80o 15’ – 84o
SS Mishra 24’ E longitude. It has hilly areas, plateau and river basins. Chhattisgarh plains form basin of
DADF, Ministry of Agriculture, many rivers and its water potential is trapped in the form of some reservoirs. The state receives
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, a good amount of precipitation (1200-1600 mm) as well.
India
~ 425 ~ 
International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies  
 
2.1. Selection of reservoir 3. Results
Kodar reservoir is located near Tumgaon, 4 km towards Present study records a total of 44 fish species (+ marked in
Saraipalli on N.H.-6, in the district Mahasamund. The table 2) were observed in Kodar reservoir, out of 44 species 2
perennial reservoir, Kodar is situated between 210 47’ – 210 belong to the order Osteoglossiformes (2 species of
31’ N latitude and 820 14’ – 820 19’ E longitude. Beautiful Notopteridae), 18 species belong to the order Cypriniformes
green forests are present near the periphery of this reservoir. (18 species of Cyprinidae), 14 species belong to the order
The Full Reservoir Level (FRL) is 3588 ha and the Dead Siluriformes (3 species of Siluridae, 6 species of Bagridae, 1
Storage Level (DSL) is 512 ha (Table 1), so the average water species of Schilbeidae, 1 species of Pangasiidae, 1 species of
spread area is 2080 ha. The average depth is 19 m. The fish Saccobranchidae and 2 species of Claridae), 9 species belong
production recorded from this reservoir in the year (2008-09) to the order Perciformes (2 species of Centropomidae, 1
was 60.90 tons as per records of Directorate of fisheries, species of Nandidae, 2 species of Cichlidae, 3 species of
Raipur. Fisheries Mahasangh (Federation) leased this Anabantidae and 1 species of Gobiidae) and 1 species belong
reservoir to Rukuseth for five years for fisheries activity. to the order Mastacembeliformes (1 species of
Mastacembelidae). With the exception of a few small species
2.2. Selection of sampling site of carp minnows, all others are fairly well known and do not
There is only one landing site in the reservoir. Kohri in Kodar call any special comments from a systematic point of view.
reservoir is the major fish landing center. Fish samples were Among the Cyprinidae family: Catla catla, Cirrhinus mrigala
collected during the whole fishery season from March to and Labeo rohita are the dominant fishes in the reservoir
August at an interval of 4-5 days. The collected specimen was comprising of approximately 70% of the fish landings in the
preserved in 10% formaldehyde solution and 4 g borax total catch. These three well-known major carps of high
powder was added to avoid formation of formaldehyde gas. cultivable value were recorded good numbers. Besides native
fishes, some exotic fishes and minor carps were also observed
2.3. Identification of fishes in the reservoir. They were silver carp, Hypophthalmichthtys
Fishes were identified with the help of the keys given by molitrix and common carp, Cyprinus carpio which were
(Day, 1986; Datta Munshi and Shrivastava, 1988; Jhingran, thriving very well. Among minor and medium sized carps
1991 and Jayaram, 1994) [8, 6, 17, 16]. Identification of fish Labeo bata, Labeo calbasu, Cirrhinus reba, Labeo boga,
specimen was based on diagnostic characters such as body Puntius ticto, Puntius sophore, and Puntius chola were also
form, colour, size, shape and position of fins, meristic features observed.
such as number of rays in a fin or the number of scales in a
specific series, presence of distinctive organs such as barbels, Table 1: Particulars of the Reservoir Kodar (Source- Directorate of
or the lateral line and various body proportions such as ratio fisheries, Raipur, 2012-13)
of length of the head to the total length of the body, etc. After Particulars Kodar
identification, fish species were compared amongst various Altitude (above MSL) 295
sampling sites in different river basins and the frequency of Year of dam impoundment 1981
occurrence differed significantly. Catchment area (sq. km) 725.27
Gross storage capacity (ha m) 2050
2.4. Catch composition of fishes Dead storage capacity (ha m) 512
Fish catch composition in the reservoir was studied. It Water spread area at FRL (ha) 3588
comprised of roughly 70% Indian major carps, 20% minor Maximum depth of reservoir (m) 27.78
carps, medium sized carps and 10% cat fish and other fishes. Total catch (ton) (2008-09) 60.90
Out of minor carps, medium sized carps like Labeo bata and Number of fishermen 217
Labeo calbasu contribute a major share. Height of the main dam (m) 28.53

Table 2: Comparison of Ichthyofauna reported by different workers in the Mahanadi Basin

Jayaram & Desai & Present
S. Hora Singh Omprakash Dev Dahire
Fish species Majumdar Shrivastava study
No. (1940) (2004) (2004) (2008) (2008)
(1976) (2004) Kodar
1 Anabas testudineus (Bloch) - - + + - + + +
2 Anabas oligolepis (Bleeker) - - + + - + + +
3 Amblypharyngodon mola (Ham.) + + + + + + + +
4 Amblyceps mangois (Ham.) + - - - - - + -
5 Aspidoparia morar (Ham.) - + - - + - - -
6 Ailia coila (Ham.-Buch) - + - - - - - -
7 Badis badis(Ham.) + + - - - - -
8 Bagarius bagarius + + - + - - - -
9 Barilius bendelesis (Ham.) + + + + + + - -
10 Barilius barna(Ham.) + + - - - - - -
11 Barilius barila(Ham.- Bush.) - - - - + - - -
12 Barilius vagra(Ham.) - + - - - - - -
13 Catla catla (Ham. ) - + + + + - + +
14 Cirrhinus mrigala (Ham. ) - - + + + - + +
15 Cirrhinus reba(Ham. ) - - + + + + + +
16 Chela (Laubuca) laubuca (Ham.) + - - - + - - -
17 Ctenopharyngodon idella (Val.) - - + + - + + +
18 Channa gachua (Ham.) + - + + - + + -

~ 426 ~ 
International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies  
 
19 Channa marulius (Ham.) - - + + - + + -
20 Channa orientalis (Bloch and Schn.) - - - - + - + -
21 Channa punctatus (Bloch) + + + + - + + -
22 Channa striatus (Bloch) - + + + + + + -
23 Chanda nama (Ham.) - + + + + + + +
24 Chanda ranga (Ham.) + + + + + + + +
25 Clarias batrachus (Linn) + - + + - + + +
26 Clarias gariepinus (Bloch) - - + - - + + +
27 Clupisoma bastari (Datta and Karmakar) - - - - + - - -
28 Clupisoma garua(Ham.-Buch) - + - - - - - -
29 Colisa faciatus(Bl. &Schn.) - - + + - + + +
30 Cyprinus carpio (Linn.) - - + + - + + +
31 Denio devario (Ham.) - - + + + + + +
32 Danio aequipinnatus (Ham.) + - - - - - - -
33 Denio (Brachydenio) rerio (Ham.) + + - - - - - -
34 Garra annandalei - - + + - - - -
35 Esomos danricus (Ham.) + + - - + - - -
36 Eriethistes hara (Ham.) + - - - - - - -
37 Eutropiichthysvacha (Ham.-Buch) - + + + - + + +
38 Gagata cenia (Ham.) - + - - - - - -
39 Garra gotyla gotyla (Gray) - - - - + - - -
40 Garra mullya (Sykes) + - - - - - - -
41 Glossogobius giuris (Ham.) + + + + + + + +
42 Gonialossa manmina (Ham.) - + - - - - - -
43 Gudusia chapra(Ham.) - - + + + + + -
44 Gonoproktopterus kolus - - + + - + - -
45 Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch) + - + + - + + +
46 Hypophthalmichthys molitrix(Val.) - - + + - + + +
47 Arichtisthys nobilis (Rich.) - - + + - + + +
48 Labeo angra (Ham. ) - - + + - + - -
49 Labeo bata (Ham. ) - + + + + + + +
50 Labeo boga (Bloch) - - + + - + + +
51 Labeo boggut (Sykes) + - + + - + - -
52 Labeo calbasu (Ham.) - - + + + - + +
53 Labeo fimbriatus (Bloch) - - - - + - +N -
54 Labeo gonius (Ham.) - - + + + + + -
55 Labeo rohita (Ham.) - + + + + + + +
56 Lepidocephalichthys guntea (Ham.) + + + + + + - -
57 Macrognathus aculeatus (Bloch) + + + + - - + -
58 Mastacembelus pancalus (Ham.) + + + + + - + -
59 Mastacembelusarmatus (Lacepede) + + + + + - + +
60 Mystus aor (Ham.) + - + + + - + +
61 Mystus seenghala (Sykes) - + + + + - + +
62 Mystus bleekeri (Day) - - + + + + + +
63 Mystus tengara (Ham.) + + + + - - + +
64 Mystus vittatus (Bloch) + + + + + - + +
65 Mystus cavassius (Ham.) + + + + + - + +
66 Nandus nandus (Ham.) + - + + + + + +
67 Noemacheilus botia (Ham.) + - + + - - - -
68 Noemacheilus denisonnii (Day) + - - - + + - -
69 Notopterus chitala (Ham.) - - + + - + + +
70 Notopterus notopterus (Pallas) - + + + + + + +
71 Ompok bimaculatus (Bloch) - + + + + + + +
72 Oreochromis mossambica (Peters) - - + + - + + +
73 Oreochromis niloticus (Linn.) - - + + - + + +
74 Orichthys cosuatus (Ham.) + - - - - - - -
75 Osteobrama cotio (Ham.) - + + + + + + -
76 Osteobrama vigorsii (Sykes) - - - - + - - -
77 Pangasius pangasius (Ham.) - - + + - + + +
78 Pseudeotropius atherinoides (Bloch) + - + + - - + -
79 Parluciosoma daniconius(Ham.- Buch.) + + + + + + - +
80 Puntius chola(Ham.) - - + + - + + +
81 Puntius dorsalis (Jerdon) + - + + + + - -
82 Puntius gelius(Ham.) + + - - - - - -
83 Puntius guganio(Ham.) + - - - + - - -
84 Puntius phutunio(Ham.-Buch.) - - - - + - + -
85 Puntius sarana (Ham.) + + + + + + + +
86 Puntius sophore (Ham.) + + + + + + + +

~ 427 ~ 
International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies  
 
87 Puntius tetrarupagus (McClelland) + - - - - - - -
88 Puntius ticto (Ham.) + + + + + + + +
89 Rita rita (Ham.) - - + + - + - -
90 Rita chrysea (Day) - + - - - - - -
91 Rhinomugil corsula (Ham.) - + + + + - - -
92 Salmostoma bacaila (Ham.) + + + + + + - +
93 Salmostoma phulo (Ham.- Bush) - - - - + - - -
94 Tor tor(Ham.- Bush) - - - - - +N +N -
95 Wallago attu (Bl. And Schn.) - + + + + + + +
96 Xenentoden cancila (Ham.) + + + + + + + -
Recorded = (+); Not recorded = (-); New record = (N)

Similarly the species which were absent in the list of Jayaram

and Majumdar (1976) [16] but recorded in the present study
are: Anabas testudineus (Bloch), Anabas oligolepis (Bleeker),
Cirrhinus reba (Ham.), Ctenopharyngodon idella (Val.),
Clarias batrachus (Linn), Clarias gariepinus (Bloch), Colisa
faciatus (Bl. &Schn.), Cyprinus carpio (Linn.), Gudusia
chapra (Ham.), Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch),
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Val.), Arichtisthys nobilis
(Rich.), Labeo boga (Bloch), Mystus aor (Ham.), Mystus
bleekeri (Day), Nandus nandus (Ham.), Notopterus chitala
(Ham.), Oreochromis mossambica (Peters), Oreochromis
niloticus (Linn.), Pangasius pangasius (Ham.) and Puntius
chola (Ham.). The species which are absent in present study
and reported by Jayram and Majumdar (1976) [16] are as
Fig 1: Occurrence of different fish species in Kodar reservoir of follows: Aspidoparia morar (Ham.), Ailia coila (Ham.-Buch),
Chhattisgarh Ailia coila (Ham.-Buch), Badis badis (Ham.), Bagarius
4. Discussion bagarius, Barilius barna (Ham.), Barilius vagra (Ham.),
The present study indicates that, the Kodar reservoir resources Clupisoma garua (Ham.-Buch), Denio (Brachydenio) rerio
are rich in fish fauna. A total of 44 different species belonging (Ham.), Esomos danricus (Ham.), Gagata cenia (Ham.),
to 5 orders, 14 families and 28 genera were recorded from this Gonialossa manmina (Ham.), Mastacembelus pancalus
region. In the erstwhile reservoirs of Madhya Pradesh (Ham.), Puntius gelius (Ham.), Rita chrysea (Day) and
(including Chhattisgarh) a total of 191 species of fishes were Rhinomugil corsula (Ham.).
recorded on the basis of study done by various scientists from In Comparison between the enlisted fish fauna of present
1940 to 2001 (Dubey, 2007) [11]. However in Chhattisgarh a study (2009) and Singh (2004) [26] only 8 species were not
total of 95 species were recorded by different scientists (Hora, reported earlier. Those species include, Catla catla (Ham.),
1940; David, 1959; Jayaram and Majumdar, 1976; Vardia, Cirrhinus mrigala (Ham.), Garraannandalei, Labeo boggut
1991; Singh, 2004; Omprakash, 2004; Desai and Shrivastava, (Sykes), Labeo calbasu (Ham.), Mastacembelus pancalus
2004; Dev, 2008, Dahire, 2008) [14, 7, 16, 30, 26, 9, 10, 5]. (Ham.), Pseudeotropius atherinoides (Bloch) and Rhinomugil
In the present study, comparison is made between the present corsula (Ham.).
study and studies done by earlier workers in Mahanadi river Comparative study with Omprakash (2004) [21] reveals that,
system (Table 2). It is observed that, 9 species are commonly one species namely Clarias gariepinus (Bloch) was reported
reported by all studies in Mahanadi till date which includes in the present study. Similarly 18 fish species reported by
Amblypharyngodon mola (Ham.), Chanda ranga (Ham.), Omprakash (2004) [21] are not found in the present study
Glossogobius giuris (Ham.), Mystus vittatus (Bloch), Mystus (Bagarius bagarius, Barilius bendelesis, Channa gachua,
cavassius (Ham.), Parluciosoma daniconius (Ham.), Puntius Channa marulius, Channa punctatus, Channa striatus,
sarana (Ham.), Puntius sophore (Ham.), Puntius ticto (Ham.). Gonoproktopterus kolus, Labeo angra, Labeo boggut,
Present study when compared with the work of Hora (1940) Lepidocephalichthys guntea, Noemacheilus botia,
[14]
, few species which were not reported by him but reported Osteobrama cotio, Osteobrama vigorsii, Pseudeotropius
in the present study are: Anabas testudineus (Bloch), Anabas atherinoides, Puntius dorsalis, Rita rita and Rhinomugil
oligolepis (Bleeker), Cirrhinus reba (Ham.), corsula, Xenentoden cancila) with rest of species are common
Ctenopharyngodon idella (Val.), Chanda nama (Ham.), to both the studies.
Clarias gariepinus (Bloch), Colisa faciatus (Bl. &Schn.), Biodiversity threats in the form of diverse types of human
Cyprinus carpio (Linn.), Eutropiichthys vacha (Ham.-Buch), interventions are the main reasons for the alarming variations
Gudusia chapra (Ham.), Gonoproktopterus kolus (Sykes), of fish populations in most of the reservoirs. The great
Hypophthalmichthys molitrix (Val.), Arichtisthys nobilis altitudinal differences coupled with varied physiography have
(Rich.), Labeo bata (Ham.), Labeo boga (Bloch), Labeo contributed to great variations in the region, having definite
gonius (Ham.), Labeo rohita (Ham.), Mystus seenghala pockets representing tropical, sub–tropical areas.
(Sykes), Mystus bleekeri (Day), Notopterus chitala (Ham.), Unsustainable exploitation by using un prohibited fishing
Notopterus notopterus (Pallas), Ompok bimaculatus (Bloch), methods are very rampant together with habitat destruction of
Oreochromis mossambica (Peters), Oreochromis niloticus natural spawning and breeding ground of the fishes through
(Linn.), Pangasiu spangasius (Ham.), Puntius chola (Ham.), sand mining are the major causes of population decline and
and Wallago attu (Bl. and Schn.). endangerment as reported by Kurup et al. (2001) [19].

~ 428 ~ 
International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies  
 
Records of the Indian Museum. 1940; 42(20):365-374.
5. Conclusion 15. Jayaram KC. The fresh water fishes of India, Pakistan,
With the rapid aqua-expansion, population explosion and Bangladesh, Burma and Srilanka. Zool. Survey of India
ever-increasing demand for fish as protein-rich food, aquatic publication Kolkata. 1994.
ecosystems of India are under constant pressure due to 16. Jayaram KC, Majumdar N. On a collection of fish from
anthropogenic stresses like habitat destruction, over the Mahanadi. Zoological Survey of India. 1976; 69:305-
exploitation, indiscriminate killing of juveniles and adults, 323.
excessive water abstraction leaving inadequate water for fish, 17. Jhingran VG. Fish and fisheries of India, Hindustan Publ.
aquatic pollution, disease and uncontrolled introduction of Corp. Delhi. 1991.
exotics. Among the fish culturing countries in the globe, India 18. Kapoor D, Sarkar VK. Expending initiatives for
took a major share of large diversity of fish fauna and more conservation and sustainable exploitation of fish genetic
number of threatened fish. It is needed to undertake research bio-diversity of India. 2003; 23(1):37-65.
to increase fundamental understanding of the factors and 19. Kurup BM, Manojkumar TG, Radhakrishnan KV.
processes that regulate biodiversity in fresh water systems to Germplasm Inventory, Evaluation and Gene banking of
predict the likely effects of human induced changes, to the freshwater fishes. NAT-ICAR Research Report. Cochin
effects of human activity and to plan effective restoration and University of Science and Technology, Cochin, Kerala.
rehabilitation initiatives. Some strategies and scientific 2001, 364.
interventions should be made for fish biodiversity 20. Prakash O, Singh S, Vardia HK, Chari MS. Status of fish
conservation to protect the native fish fauna as well as the diversity of Raipur district, Chhattisgarh. Freshwater fish
ecosystem. diversity of central India, National Bureau of Fish
Genetic Resources, Lucknow, India. 2007, 118-129.
6. References 21. Prakash O. Fish Diversity in the Water Resources of
1. Agarwal SS. Some aspects of Limnology of Ramaua dam Northern Part of Raipur District of Chhattisgarh State.
with special reference to phytoplankton and zooplankton. MFSc Thesis. IGKV, Raipur (C.G.). 2004, 1-78.
Ph.D. Thesis, Jiwaji University, Gwalior. 1980. 22. Pandey BL, Rao PNL, Singh BK, Pisolkar MD.
2. Annual Report of Chhattisgarh, Directorate of Fisheries, Observation on qualitative abundance of plankton in
Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2008. Bhatghar reservoir, J. Inland Fish. Soc. India. 1993;
3. Ayyappan S. Hand book of fisheries and aquaculture. 25(2):48-50.
Indian Council of Agricultural Research. New Delhi. 23. Pathak SK, Mudgal LK. Biodiversity of zooplankton of
2006, 1-36. Virla reservoir Khargone (M.P), India, In: Arvind Kumar
4. Chauhan BS. Fish and Fishes of the Patna state, Orissa. (ed.). Biodiversity and Environment. A.P.H. Publishing
Records of Indian Museum. 1947; 45(2-3):267-282. Corporation, New Delhi. 2004, 317-321.
5. Dahire V. Fish Diversity in the riverine resources of 24. Sarkar T. A study on biodiversity of phytoplankton /
Janjgir-Champadistrict of Chhattisgarh, India. M.F.Sc. periphyton in relation to fisheries in selected ponds and
(Inland Fisheries) Thesis, IGKV. Raipur. 2008, 1-105. minor reservoirs of Raipur (Chhattisgarh). M.F.Sc.
6. Datta Munshi JS, Shrivastava MP. Natural History of Thesis. I.G.K.V. Raipur. 2009, 32-90.
fishes and systematic of freshwater fishes of India. 25. Shukla KSS. Present status of ichthyofauna diversity of
Narendra Publishing house, Delhi. 1988. upper stretch of river Tapti with reference to its habitat
7. David A. Fish of the river Sone with observations on the diversity. Fresh water fish diversity of central India,
zoogeographical significance. Journal of the Zoological National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Lucknow,
Society of India. 1959; 9(1):9-15. India. 2007, 58-65.
8. Day F. The fishes of India, A natural history of the fishes 26. Singh S. Fish Bio-Diversity In The Water Resources of
known to inhabit the seas and fresh waters of India, South Raipur District of Chhattisgarh State. M.F.Sc
Burma and Ceylon. Vol. I &II , Today & Tomorrows Thesis. I.G.K.V. Raipur (C.G.). 2004.
book Agency, New Delhi. 1986, 1-778. 27. Singh S, Chari MS. Ichthyofauna of the river Kharun,
9. Desai VR, Kumar D, Shrivastava NP. Fish fauna of Environment and Ecology. 2006; 24(4):844-849.
Ravishankar Sagar Reservoir. Journal Inland Fish Society 28. Sinha M. Fish genetic resources of the north-eastern
of India. 2004; 29(2):54-57. region of India. Journal of Inland fish Society of India.
10. Dev R. Fish biodiversity in the riverine resources of Durg 1994; 26(1):1-19.
district of Chhattisgarh, India. M.F.Sc. (Inland Fisheries) 29. Tripathi K, Chandrakar P. Chhattisgarh Atlas. 2nd edition
Thesis, IGKV. Raipur. 2008, 1-69. Graphics, Raipur. 2000.
11. Dubey GP. A review of Fish Fauna of Madhya Pradesh 30. Vardia HK. Pre-impoundment fishery survey of the river
with their Present Status, Freshwater Fish Diversity of Indravati in relation to Bodhghat Hydel Project. Zonal
Central India, National Bureau of Fish Genetic Agricultural Research Station, Indira Gandhi Agricultural
Resources, Lucknow, India. 2007, 19-34. University, Kumharawand, Jagdalpur Survey Bulletin-I.
12. Fu C, Wu J, Chen J, Wu Q, Lei G. Freshwater fish 1991.
Biodiversity in the Yangtze River basin of China:
patterns, threats and conservation. Biodiversity and
Conservation, Volume 12. Springer. 2003; 37:1649-1685.
13. Halder P. Population Dynamics and Stock Assessment of
Catla catla (Hamilton) in the Kaptai Reservoir,
Bangladesh. Asian Fisheries Science. 2005; 16:121-131.
14. Hora SL. On a collection of fish from the Headwaters of
the Mahanadi River, Raipur district, Central Provinces.

~ 429 ~