Proc
Natnin
SciIndia
Acad 73 No.4 pp. 255-269 (2007)
RiverIndian
Ecology
255
Review Article
River Ecology in India: Present Status and Future Research Strategy For
Management and Conservation
VK SRIVASTAVA
Department of Zoology, Jawaharlal Nehru College, PASIGHAT, P.O.-Hill- Top-791 103, Arunachal Pradesh
(Received on17 April 2007; Accepted on 24 October 2007)
The paper reviews the present ecological and biological conditions of the rivers in India, and also states management
practices and conservational approach. Works on the various rivers of the country have been surveyed and analyzed so as
to identify the constrains and problems related to management and conservation. For effective management, it is stressed
to assess precisely the ecological impacts (through biomonitoring) caused by anthropogenic activities (i.e. any developmental project and policy) by segregating the natural variations from the actual impacts caused. It is also recommended to
adopt appropriate sampling design and method (BACI, beyond BACI, Nested sampling, Rapid bioassessment etc.) and
planned study for such segregation. Further, it has become pre-requisite to integrate the findings of ecological impact
assessment (Eco IA) with the execution of projects so as to manage the sustainable lotic ecosystem with developmental
activities. Author has also advocated for the study of functional attributes along with the structural parameters; so as to get
the spectrum of variation in energy flow all along the channel and also in entire watershed. Studies related to riparian
vegetation, floodplain ecology, longitudinal and transverse flow of organic matter and energy dynamics are still very
sparse which is stressed to be undertaken. River regulation and its deleterious impact on functional state of river are
needed to be considered more.
Key Words: River Ecology; Natural Variation; Eco IA; BACI; Nested Sampling; Reference Condition
Approach; Energy Dynamics; Riparian Vegetation
Introduction
In India, rivers are classified mainly of two types based
on their geographical locations and origin. (a) Himalaya
rivers and (b) peninsular rivers. The Himalayan rivers
are glacier fed and perennial, while peninsular rivers
are altogether monsoon fed.
The perennial Himalayan rivers of the country
constitute three major river systems (e.g. Ganga,
Brahamputra and Indus), which covers various types of
catchments and provide a variety of microhabitats from
headwater to mouth. The Ganga river system (major
tributaries-Yamuna, Ghghara, Gandak, Gomati, Sone
and Tons.), Brahmaputra river system(with Siang river
as a main channel and major tributaries-Dibang, Lohit,
Subansiri, Ranganadi, Manas, Kulasi, Dhansiri,
Champamati, Sankhosh and Digaru rivers) and Indus
(consisted of Beas and Sutlej as major tributaries in
India) river systems are the principal Himalayan rivers;
but however, major stretch of Indus river flows in
Pakistan leaving back a small segment of its drainage
basin in Indian territory (Fig. 1).
As far as the nature of Himalayan rivers is
concerned, these are antecedent rivers having deep
gorges chasms, exhibiting practically vertical to convex
valley walls; and slope failure have become very
common phenomenon particularly in the belts cut by
* Address for Correspondence:
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
active faults in their hilly stretch [1]. And also, Himalaya
is the youngest mountain with comparatively more
fragile soil [2]. Therefore, Himalayan rivers provide
different gradient of habitat heterogeneity from its
headwater to mouth for colonization of aquatic fauna.
Further, because of fragility of soil and deforestation
of riparian catchments, soil erosion in upper stretch
of Himalayan rivers is very much prevalent causing
severe silting to downstream followed by habitat
destruction [3].
The ecological conditions of peninsular rivers
depend on its hydrological characteristics (like water
level, current velocity and discharge) which vary from
very lean to very high depending on relative rainfall in
respective watershed. Among peninsular rivers, majority
of them are east coast rivers (e.g. Mahanadi, Krishna,
Godavari and Cauvery) and empty their water in bay of
Bengal; while a few others i.e. west coast rivers (e.g.
Narmada, Tapi, Sabarmati and Luni) are west flowing
and drain out in Arabian sea. All the peninsular rivers
are entirely dependent on monsoonal rhythm and display
from very poor water flow to heavy flood and
accordingly exhibit the fluctuating ecological and
biological conditions. (Fig. 1)
However, almost all the Indian rivers are under the
severe despoliation caused by anthropogenic sources [4,
5]; though the magnitude of which is of varied degree
at various segments of the rivers all along the length.
Many anthropogenic modifications of river water are
256
VK Srivastava
Fig. 1: Major rivers of India
the result of despoliation caused in many sectors; but
most prominent among them are—
a) River pollution throughout the country caused by
untreated urban sewage, industrial effluents,
agricultural runoff, mining wastes, religious
ceremonies and navigational operations.
b) Indiscrimate destruction of drainage basin because
of clearing of riparian zone vegetation which, in turn,
is responsible for elevated load of suspended solid
and increased magnitude and frequency of flood
changing the level of interaction between land and
water; and hence affects allochthonous input of
energy source.
c) River regulation, lift irrigation and water allocation
without considering the ecological consequences
have influenced much adversely to the density,
diversity and productivity of aquatic bioresources.
Further, population of migratory fishes is also
negatively affected.
However, in past, a few notable review papers have
been published [6-8], but all of them cover whole
limnological scenario including lentic water bodies also;
therefore, they could not reflect a detailed state of art of
lotic ecosystem of the country. So far an exhaustive
review on lotic system of India is lacking which did
warrant the author to review the ecological and
River Ecology in India
257
biological status of the rivers. Further, because of
exponential increase of publications in various journals,
edited books and proceedings of seminars and symposia,
it is very difficult to go through all the works done
throughout the country; but the publications of high
significance have been taken in to consideration.
specially during the flooding and concluded the run-off
from heavily cultivated flood plain. The studies were
further extended to the functional aspect of Nayyar river
by Nair et al. [55] who studied the applicability of river
continuum concept and resource processing in the said
river.
Present Status of River Ecology
Biotic Characteristics
Abiotic Characters
Biotic component of any aquatic ecosystem is an
indicator to determine the productivity potential and
health of the system. In Indian rivers, studies on aquatic
biota include only documenting the amplitude of effects
on them caused by pollution from various sources; but,
however, its application as a biomonitor to assess the
ecological impact caused by the different specific
anthropogenic sources is still required to be taken up
with high precision and accuracy.
In India rivers have been studied in respect to the level
of pollution caused by cumulative effects of various
anthropogenic activities, rather than the effects caused
by specified particular project or process. Effect of
pollution as a whole in relation to various test organisms
are well documented in various Indian rivers. While
many workers [9-34] have studied general water quality
and magnitude of its deterioration caused by various
anthropogenic sources in different rivers at various
centers of the country; Mathur [35] has studied the status
of pollution in Ganga river in integrated manner for
almost entire stretch of channel, i.e. from Badrinath (near
to river headwater) to Farakka the near last point in
Indian territory and observed that generally the load of
pollution was higher to its downstream with very high
value of COD (ranging from 160.0mg/l to 240.0mg/)
and BOD (ranging from 56.0mg/l to 78.9mg/l) between
Mirzapur and Ghazipur. In general, the middle and lower
stretch of Ganga are reported to be more deteriorated
than to upper stretch; simultaneously, the alarming
increase in bacterial count at various downstream centers
of Ganga river is also a matter of great concern [36].
The effect and concentration of heavy metals to the
water of Indian rivers have been the great concern to
the biological diversity of the lotic system. The studies
related to the heavy metals have been carried out in river
Ganga [37, 38, 42, 44-46, 51], in river Subarnarekha
[39-41], in river Yamuna [43], river Son [47], river Kali
[48, 49], in river Bhagirathi [50]; and almost all of these
studies have concluded the accumulation of heavy
metals in aquatic animals including fishes, and also
caused the decline in lotic resources. However, level of
heavy metals were reported to be different in these
studied and found that the sites at the industrialized area
were much loaded with heavy metal pollution than to
non industrialized sites.
Further studies on Indian river systems have been
extended towards more specific functional
characteristics of the system; but, however such studies
are a few in numbers. Major ion chemistry with its course
to downstream in Ganga- Brahmaputra river system was
studied by Sarin and Krishnaswami [52] and Sr level in
the rivers of India and Pakistan have been reported by
Trivedi et al. [53]; further, some other workers have
studied the dynamics of carbon and organic matter in
Ganga and Brahamaputra [54] and Himalayan rivers [56]
However, in this review only plankton, benthic
macroinvertebrates, fishes and mammals have been
taken into account.
Plankton
Plankton play the role of basic living component of the
aquatic ecosystem and up to much extent, responsible
for the primary production in the river; but the
productivity potential of any lotic system is influenced
by a complex interplay of its physical and chemical
attributes.
Phytoplankton seasonality has been studied by many
workers in various Indian rivers which shows that it
exhibits a general trend of fluctuation attaining its peak
value in winter season when the flow is observed to be
lean; while its density and diversity tilts down and
achieves monsoon minima as a function of synergetic
effects of high discharge volume, pollution, turbidity
and fast current velocity [16, 57-62, 63-71]. However,
some workers [9, 58, 70] have concluded bimodal
fluctuation (with two peaks) of phytoplankton density
in Ganga river. And, a general survey regarding density
and diversity of phytoplankton in Ganga river from
headwater to distant lower stretches has been made by
Srinivasaprasad [72]. Further, Natrajan [73] has reported
about the 400% increase in phytoplankton density in
middle Ganga within twenty years of span (1960-1980)
and concluded as a result of organic nutrient richness.
Nutrient limitations have also been concluded due to
algal growth in two streams at Shillong [173]
Similarly, primary production of river system has
also been adversely affected by industrial wastes and
sewage discharge as concluded in river Mahanadi [62],
in river Khan [60] and in river Ganga [74].
Zooplankton density varied ‘hand in hand’ with
phytoplankton and exhibited a direct correlation with
the latter. Density and periodicity of the zooplankton
and effects of various anthropogenic disturbances have
258
been studied on different lotic system of the country,
notably by some workers [15, 59, 75-77, 78-83]. But,
however, its use as a biomonitor and pollution indicator
is still wanted, though a few workers [17, 36, 84, 85]
have taken up this study in different rivers. Further, Unni
and Nayak [86] have drawn the conclusion about the
increase in zooplankton population following reduction
in flow and discharge volume in Narmada river and also
opined that the low density and diversity towards the
downstream of the dam may be attributed as a possible
cause of serial discontinuity of nutrients. Bilgrami [36]
has documented a complete inventory of zooplankton
fauna from headwater to almost up to mouth of Ganga
river.
Macrozoobenthos
Macrozoobenthic organisms possess very important
position in structural studies of lotic ecosystems; and
hence can significantly be applied as biomonitor to
assess the degree of ecological impacts caused by
various sources because of their suitable properties.
Various structural properties (like density, diversity
etc.) of benthic macroinvertebrates, in respect of
temporal and spatial variations with its seasonality have
been studied by many workers. Notable contributions
among them made in Ganga river [87, 97, 100], in a
high altitude stream [88], in Sind and Lidder streams of
Kashmir [89], in Bhagirathi river, Garhwal Himalaya
[68, 94], in river Kosi, Kumau Himalaya [90], in river
Khan, Indore [91], in river Kshipra [92], in Gadigarh
stream, Miran Sahib Jammu [93], in trout streams of
Kashmir [95], in a polluted stream of Ranchi [96], in
river Cooum, Madras [98]. Further, the maiden studies
on epilithic flora and fauna in the Siang river of
Arunachal Pradesh has been carried out by Srivastava
and Sabat [99], who reported the diatom dominance in
the river during winter to pre-monsoon; and the effect
of silt load on benthic invertebrates of that river has
been studied by Srivastava [101], who has concluded
the silt load, fast water current and the factors related to
physical disturbances caused the habitat destruction of
the river and were inhibitory for the colonization of
bottom fauna. During their studies, most of the
investigators have observed that density, distribution and
diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates are greatly
influenced by discharge regime, current velocity,
riverbed composition, geological variables, pollution
and allochthonous input of energy in the river; and in
majority of the studies, the peak value of the benthic
macroinvertebrates were observed to spread over late
months of winter to early summer. But the late summer
to whole monsoon months were not conducive for the
colonization because of very fast current velocity,
inundation, silt load, unstable bottom composition and
inflow of organic pollutants from catchment areas.
Further, it has also been concluded that the distribution
VK Srivastava
of most of the species is regulated by substratum and,
water current is found to be the prime factor to provide
heterogeneity in substratum and channel characteristics
[172].
In India, studies of benthic macroinvertebrates drift
in rivers are almost lacking except the works of
Krishnamurthy and Reddy [102], who have studied
about the drift as an ecological phenomenon and have
concluded factors behind it in an unpolluted tropical
river Tunga, Western ghats of the country.
However, biological assessment of Cauvery river
catchment using macroinvertebrates was made [103] in
which workers have tried to test the applicability of water
quality monitoring approaches on Indian rivers,
developed in other countries. The deleterious ecological
consequences of impoundments on density and diversity
of benthic macro fauna in the lotic, intermediate and
lentic sections of Rihand reservoir [104] has been studied
and concluded the serial discontinuity of resources to
downstream.
Fishes
Fishes are such biotic component of the aquatic
ecosystem which makes a shuttle between aquatic
ecosystem and socioeconomic sector of the people of
the catchment. In India, the studies regarding fisheries
of inland rivers are confined mostly to its taxonomic
diversity and commercial exploitation [105,106]; but
however, literatures focusing its ecological significance
as biological indicator to assess the ecological impacts
of anthropogenic sources are very a few [107-111]. In
recent years, decline in fishery output has occurred due
to habitat destruction or its modification, chemical
pollution, overexploitation and introduction of exotic
species; besides multiple deleterious impacts of dams,
barrages and lift irrigation complexes [105, 112116].Multiple deleterious effects of dams include- (i)
diversion of water flow which cause very lean water
availability to downstream of main channel. (ii) change
of habitat from riverine to lacustrine. (iii) the checking
of spawning migration [116]. Sehgal [112] reported that
migration routes of important native fishes such as
mahasheers (Tor putitora, and Tor tor) and snow trouts
(Schizothorax richardsonii, Schizothorax plagiostomus)
have been blocked by dams. Overexploitation has also
been responsible to decline the fishes of higher economic
value such as Schizothorax sp. And Tor sp. Semiplotus
sp, Eutropichthys sp, Pangasius sp, Notopterus sp etc.
Arunachalam.et al. [110&111] have also reported low
species richness in Uchalli falls due to physical barriers;
and further they concluded that episodic events of flood
and spates have caused the wipe off of column dwelling
(Puntius dorsalis and Puntius bimaculatus) and surface
dwelling(Danio aequipinnatus) fishes in some segments
of Chittar river , western ghats. Many nemachiline
roaches from Bhavani river Coimbatore, are no longer
River Ecology in India
available, and reported to be the effect of chemical
pollution. Habitat alteration and change in spawning
ground due to natural and anthropogenic reasons have
caused many fishes of lotic system to become
endangered and vulnerable. While Ompok pabada of
Ganga and Brahmaputra system become endangered due
to silting [175&176], Notopterus chitala of Ganga river,
Tor putitora of Brahmaputra river and Cirrhinus cirrhosa
of Cauvery, Godavary, Krishna and Narmada rivers have
become vulnerable due to various anthropogenic stress,
indiscriminate fishing, construction of dams,
submergence and silting of spawning grounds [175 &
177].
Further, it has also been concluded that multi-river
projects that nconnects river system lead to abolition of
geographical barriers responsible for maintaining
reproductive isolation will cause the loss of genetic
purity and native fish germplasm [116].
Habitat destruction caused by silting is the major
problem for the inland rivers, as the silt content carried
by the Indian rivers is reported to be 2050 million tons
out of total eroded soil (from cultivable land and forests)
of 5334 million tons per annum [116]. Such massive
silting of the rivers and erosion of the soil is the
conspicuous effects of indiscriminate destruction of
riparian and catchment area vegetation. Though, there
is probably no study highlighting any specific
environmental variable as a causative factor for
dwindling fish germplasm; but synergetic effects of
various adverse factors have caused as many Indian
fishes as threatened and vulnerable species [116]. Habitat
destruction and river control projects have caused the
dwindling population of fishes in river Ganga [73] as it
has deprived breeding grounds of major carps.
Mammals
The well known mammal, which inhabit the Indian river
system is the Ganges river dolphin (Platanista
gangetica), and distributed throughout the GangaBrahmaputra river system. The animal belongs to
cetacean, and status of this animal in IUCN red data list
has been declared endangered [178] because of declining
trends of its population. It is reported [179] that
Platanista gangetica is available to the stretch of Ganga
river from Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal. The
conservational approach of Gangetic dolphin has lead
to set up the Gangetic dolphin sanctuary in Bihar
between Sultanganj and Kahalgaon for about 50 Km
stretch of main channel of Ganga river.
During survey, Sinha [179] has reported that the
largest concentrations of dolphins were located at
confluence of Farakka feeder canal and downward
meanders scattered throughout the length of the river;
and also concluded that concluded that construction of
barrages at many segments of Ganga river system and
259
its tributaries has caused severe decline in population
of Gangetic dolphin due toi. Shrinkage of habitat, and probably that is the reason
for complete absence of dolphins in Tarai (foothills
of Himalaya) region.
ii. Restriction of dolphin’s movement and inhibiting
genetic, social and ecological interaction among
individuals, groups and ecosystem.
iii. Fragmentation limits the gene flow and increases the
vulnerability of formation of individual subpopulation.
Pollution is also a major causative factor for
declining population of Platanista gangetica as
evidenced by Kannan et al. [180&181] who have
reported high content of organochlorine in the tissue of
dolphins collected from Ganga river near Patna. Further,
the situation of Ganges dolphin in Brahmaputra river
system is different. Brahmaputra river does not have
dam and also least industrial pollution; but the
population of Platanista gangetica declines alarmingly
due to several other anthropogenic and natural reasons
like over fishing of forage fishes, intentional traping,
siltation and changes of river course [182 and 183].
Conservation and Management
For the effective conservation and management, one has
to look in to the (i) problem related to the management
practices (ii) and thereafter to take the appropriate future
research strategy to overcome that.
Problems and Constrains Related to Conservation
and Management of Indian Rivers
If we think of conservation and management of lotic
system in the country, we have to consider as how much
information do we have regarding any particular river
and its basin? And, beyond what we have to start as to
prevent the further deterioration from the present status
of the river? In India unfortunatelya. The works done on the various rivers are entirely
fragmentary and there is no co-ordination, harmony
and linkage of informations from headwater to mouth
(i.e. for entire drainage basin) except Ganga river.
b. There is no any exhaustive and inventory type
information available and compiled for any river
except Ganga river, for which a detailed state of art
has been brought up by Krishnamurthy et al. [117].
c. The information regarding functional roles of riparian
vegetations and flood plains (including allochthonous
input of energy and its dynamics) to the river
ecosystem are too inadequate to draw any conclusion
about its status for conservational approach.
d. Most of the basic research works are carried out
by workers in academic institutions (rather than
river basin managers), which are mainly engaged
to document the effect of pollution to biotic
communities; but they pay less attention for “in field”
260
VK Srivastava
practical application of such studies for
conservational approach.
e. Less attention has been paid for the “in field” setting
of experiments in the river channel itself, which gives
“in situ” accurate spectrum of ecobiological
conditions of the rivers.
f. The ecological considerations of the system during
river regulation, lift irrigation and water allocation
is less accounted; especially to those rivers which
cross inter-state and inter-national boundaries. This
situation has led to various kinds of disputes related
to socio-economic dimensions of riparian states/
country, which more often, are settled politically.
During this policy process, it is the ecosystem of the
river concerned, which suffers.
g. The accuracy of the ecological impact assessment
(EcoIA) is confounded by various natural variations
due to procedural deficiencies in sampling designs
and hence the management plans get misdirected and
become less effective to achieve the target.
Natural Variations Vs Ecological Impact Assessment
(EcoIA:
Ecological Impact Assessment (EcoIA) is the process
of identifying, quantifying and evaluating the potential
impacts of defined action on ecosystem or their
components. If properly implemented, it provides a
scientifically defensible approach to ecosystem
management. It is often used in conjunction with
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies with
broader mandate, which also considers social and
economic consequences of developmental activities.
However, in this text, only ecological impact assessment
has been taken in to account [184].
For effective management plan, it becomes essential
to assess the ecological impacts caused to lotic habitat
due to anthropogenic activities (like developmental
projects and plans); and also it would have important
bearing on future policies and plans. But, accuracy of
the ecological impact assessment (EcoIA) remains in
question, because it suffers deficiencies of natural
variations caused to the different environmental sectors.
However, while assessing the impact we have to think
whetheri. Impact is being assessed accurately?
ii. Do we segregate the natural variations (of various
dimensions) from that of actual impacts caused
through anthropogenic sources?
iii. Is reference site(s) used to compare the impacted site,
really in pristine condition? Or whether both the sites
were exactly identical before the impacts caused?
iv. Do we consider of what bio-monitor (and why) will
be suitable to assess the impacts?
In general practice, the ecological impact
assessment of anthropological disturbances in Indian
rivers is done by comparing the impacted sites with
upstream non- impacted site and downstream recovery
site by considering them as reference sites. The practical
problem arises with such procedure of EcoIA is “natural
variations” (environmental variations) which is
inevitable [118,119]; but, however, it can be minimized
by appropriate sampling design so as to reach closer to
the accuracy. Dudgeon [118] has classified the four main
types of natural variations viz. longitudinal, temporal,
interstream and spatial microhabitat variations (Fig. 2).
Longitudinal spatial variability is clearly felt, as in
rivers and streams, sites are neither identical nor
Fig. 2: Types of Natural Variations in Lotic Ecosystems
River Ecology in India
independent; and there is an obvious link (gradient) of
physico-chemical and biological conditions along the
river from headwater to mouth [120]. Further, according
to river continuum concept-RCC [121] there is possible
linkage of sites along the river course because of
downstream transport of materials. Due to site linkage,
the replicate samples will not be independent, rather,
that will become sub-sample and the problem of
“psudoreplication” arises [122, 123]. Therefore, any
variation in population of any biomonitor at impacted
site can not be concluded as a result of impact only;
because variation in population caused by any impact
is not separated from that of fluctuation occurred owing
to natural variability between (or among) the sites. As a
result, whatever change in biomonitor population takes
place at impacted site, is due to the combined effects of
both: the impacts occurred from anthropogenic sources
and the natural variations of the channel. And, unless
we have the precise assessment of the impacts, we can
not frame the effective management policies to mitigate
the river and to conserve the aquatic resources “in situ”.
Similarly, temporal natural variations may be
exhibited by any natural disturbances (other than impact)
between two sampling times; and the result in decline
in biomonitor population may be confused as being the
cause of impact only. Dudgeon [118] has opined that
“spatial replication of samples on each visit to the site
will not be the solution of temporal scale variability
because they have been taken on the same occasion”.
Therefore, whatever be the sampling frequency, there
must be replication within each interval or sampling
frequency taking the expected temporal variations in to
account, so that the results should not suffer from the
effects of temporal variability; and also, while fixing
the sampling frequency, “turn over” of the biomonitor
should be considered.
In many cases, at a particular sampling station, more
than one type of microhabitats is available. Such
conditions are prevalent also in Himalayan rivers of the
country, which have a steep gradient of their topography
and conspicuous range of hydrological regimes. It has
also been observed that at many places, one bank of
river is inhabited by human settlements while other side
is not only free of that, but also harbours vegetation in
riparian strips. Such above conditions very often exhibit
microhabitats; and display a difference in their abiotic
and biotic conditions from rest of the channel. Therefore,
for a particular sampling site, sample taken from any
fixed spot may not be the actual representative of the
said site; and it will be more precise to have samples
from all the microhabitats, to have overall assessment
of the site concerned.
Inter-stream (or inter-river) variability becomes
more echoing when an impacted channel is compared
with another non-impacted river or stream (taken as a
261
reference or control channel). During such type of work
of impact assessment, following two problems causing
variability are the big questiona. Were both the rivers intrinsically identical in all
respect (chemical, physical and biological) before
the impact caused?
b. Is the magnitude of other natural variations in both
the rivers same?
If the answer of the above questions is “NO”, then
the result of EcoIA by comparing two rivers of different
characters will never be accurate.
Future Research Strategy
Before starting the conservational approach, it becomes
essential to have informations regarding the present
status of the river concern. Further, accurate ecological
impact assessment is required to be carried out and it is
advised to use biomonitor for the said purpose [118]
because aquatic organisms respond very sensitively to
any change in their habitat. But, it has always been a
matter of debate as which (and why?) organism is to be
taken as biomonitor?
However, following steps may be considered for
future research strategy based on which effective
management plan can be formulated1. Selection of appropriate biomonitor.
2. Sampling design.
3. Emphasis on functional dynamics of the river and
flood plain including maintenance of riparian
vegetation.
Selection of Appropriate Biomonitor
Selection of biomonitor should be based on the type of
impacts caused and the type of study also. Other
important considerations for the selection of biomonitor
include its sound taxonomic resolution, autecological
informations, turn over and low variability. However,
in India various types of biomonitors have been used as
test organisms (viz. plankton, fishes, macrobenthic
invertebrates, micro-organisms etc.). But, in most of the
studies related to biomonitoring and impact assessment
in lotic ecosystem, benthic macro-invertebrates have
proved to be most effective and suitable biomonitor as
they have many advantages over other biomonitors as
documented elsewhere [118, 119, 124] and respond the
changes with alarming sensitivity [125]. This property
has lead Resh [126] to give analogy to the benthic
macroinvertebrates as thermometer, which measures
temperature with high sensitivity.
Appropriate Sampling Design
While planning for ecological impact assessment
(EcoIA), case is to be taken for various types of natural
variability; and to avoid that so as to draw the inference
closer to the accuracy, appropriate sampling design
should be adopted. Green [127] has proposed specific
262
sampling protocol according to which control (upstream)
and impacted, both the sites needed to be sampled out
before and after impact occurred. But, in lotic system,
because of unidirectional flow the two sites are neither
independent nor exactly identical; and hence “pseudoreplication” may lead another problem for the accuracy
of EcoIA. In such conditions, variables of two sites can
not be statistically independent, and hence the
conclusion will test only difference between the sites
and not the actual impact caused [122]. And Green’s
protocol does not give any provision to ‘rule out’ the
temporal variations. Further, an improved method of
taking temporal replicates of samples at control and
impacted sites, before and after the impacts caused
(BACI- Before- After Control Impact), was suggested
by Stewart- Oeten et al. [123]. However, Underwood
[128, 129] modified it and proposed as beyond BACI
design with an argument that temporal replications of
the sample may not provide any relief to spatial
variability which are expected to arise because of only
one control site was taken in sampling design. Hence in
beyond BACI design, more than one control sites were
included to have spatial replicates along with the
temporal replications. Multivariate methods [130, 131]
can also be used to accentuate the accuracy and
predictability of the results.
In India, since rivers are classified as two types viz.
Himalayan Rivers and Peninsular Rivers; they exhibit
very contrasting characters regarding their flow,
discharge, physiography and accordingly ecological
conditions too.
North-eastern part of the country constitutes a
distinct type of eco-region which is heavily rainfed and
considered to be as humid tropics. The main river system
of the area is Brahmaputra river system, which is glacier
fed and its main channel named as Siang river originates
from Mansarovar glaciers. Since this entire eco-region
(and hence watersheds) receives high and erratic
precipitation, and also exhibits a conspicuous
physiographic condition; its rivers also display varied
degree of physiography from headwater to mouth. There
is every possibility to have many micro-habitats in the
rivers of this region [132]. But, almost all the peninsular
rivers are rain fed and their ecology entirely depends
on the rainfall in their respective watersheds. Hence,
the magnitude of the rainfall regulates the intensity of
discharge and flow regimes and causes temporal changes
in physical, chemical and biological condition of the
river. Therefore, to avoid the inaccuracy in the results
of EcoIA caused due to the microhabitat heterogeneity
and temporal natural variability, ‘nested sampling
design’ [133,134] with temporal and spatial nesting can
be a useful tool. Srivastava [101] has used the spatially
nested sampling procedure during the study of benthic
macroinvertebrates in Siang river. However, the impact
assessment of any project can be done by using ‘Rapid
VK Srivastava
Bioassessment Protocol’-RBP [126, 135, 136,] which
may direct another way of assessing the impact with
high precision having economy in labour and time. RBP
provides much accuracy to the result of biomonitoring
because of simultaneous habitat assessment along
with the benthic macroinvertebrates. Recently,
Sivaramkrishnan et al. [137] have compared the various
biomonitoring approaches while studying on Kavery
river and advocated that Rapid Bioassessment Protocol
(which is a multimetric approach) with habitat
assessment procedures should be applied into further
biomonitoring of South Indian rivers. Further, a refined
RBP has been developed [174] for use in the peninsular
Indian streams and river.
For biomonitoring and EcoIA at larger spatial area
(like whole watershed, eco-region etc.) selection of
reference sites (control sites) should also been taken care
of. Reynold et al. [138] in their Reference Condition
Approach (RCA) define “the reference condition as the
condition that is representative of a group of minimally
disturbed sites organized by selected physical, chemical
and biological characters”. According to them, basically
two functionally different methods are used to select
out the reference sites i.e. multimetric approach (used
in USA) and multivariate approach (used in UK and
Australia). But, many workers [139, 140] have debated
on these both the approaches and recommended
multivariate method (predictive model method) for
reference site selection. However, in India, suitability
of both the methods should be thoroughly tested, while
applying for the purpose concerned. Strategic
Environmental Assessment- SEA [168] procedures may
also be useful for the higher level policy making.
Emphasis on Functional Aspects of the River and
Riparian Vegetation
It is well studied that the functional state of river controls
its structural scenario. Role of allochthonous input and
autochthonous generation of energy, followed by its
dynamics to downstream of the lotic ecosystem,
importance of riparian vegetation and floodplains are
also studied elsewhere in temperate countries and in
some of the Asian countries.
For the study in energy dynamics, the role and linear
processing of allochthonous materials-River Continuum
Concept [121], Nutrient Spiraling [141] and Serial
Discontinuity Concept [142] may prove very useful and
to be studied on Indian rivers (specially to high gradient
segments of Himalayan rivers where lateral flow of
water is restricted). But these concepts focus only
unidirectional processing of organic matters; however,
in India, both Himalayan (to its downstream low gradient
stretches in plains) and peninsular rivers are very large
and have vast flood plains to their downstream, which
experiences periodic floods and lateral exchange of
materials. Therefore, a thorough testing of ‘RCC’ and
River Ecology in India
‘resource spiraling concept’ is required in Indian rivers.
However, for large Indian rivers, like Ganga and
Brahmaputra, application of Flood Pulse Concept-FPC
[143, 144] with conceptual modifications of its paradigm
[145] may be more useful to understand the functional
behaviour of the river (and also ecotone area) to their
downstream segments covering plains of India.
However, the studies related to energy dynamics
and functional role of flood plain and riparian vegetation
on Indian rivers are very scarce. Some notable
contributions have emphasized the organic carbon
dynamics and resource partitioning of some rivers of
southern India [109, 146]. Further, Unni and Naik [86]
have assumed the serial discontinuity of nutrients as the
reason of the declined zooplankton productivity at
downstream to the dam than upstream in Narmada river.
Studies related to flood plain ecology are also very
limited; though in Indian rivers, roles played by
floodplains to river conservation are well documented
and significantly recognized [5, 147]. While Singh and
Srivastava [149] have concluded that Macrobrachium
birmanicum choprai (Tiwari) migrates to vast shallow
inundated areas in the middle stretch of Ganga river,
where availability of food promotes the growth rate of
the individual; Bilgrami 169] has studied the effect of
flood on primary productivity of floodplain of Ganga
river and concluded that, decline and increase in net
primary productivity in natural and cultivated
vegetations respectively during post flood season. The
conspicuous role played by flood plain to the fishery
output has been studied [148] and also been concluded
that the degraded flood plain adversely affects the
fisheries production and output [67].
Riparian vegetations have important bearings for
the ecosystem of rivers as they exhibit multiscale
functional role to geomorphological, physical, chemical
and biological conditions of the river [3]. But, only a
few workers have paid attention regarding this aspect
of the river management. While Singh and Srivastava
[149] have observed that riparian vegetations act as
habitat for the juveniles of M. birmanicum choprai
which prefer bushy and shady places for colonization
in shallow inundated flood plain of middle stretch of
Ganga river; Ambasht [150] has studied the functional
role of three species of riparian macrophytes and
concluded that Saccharum bengalensis (one of the three
macrophytes studied) exhibited the highest conservation
value (cv) for water, soil and phosphorus (i.e.77.25%,
83.47% and 82.17% respectively).
Further studies have stressed and recognized about
the role of riparian vegetations and use of soil and water
inventory data for planning sustainable development in
Himalayas [151]. Gopalkrishna et al. [152] have
concluded that the cultivable lands are more prone to
erosions and nutrient loss than forested and grazing land
263
in Henwal river watershed of Tehri Garhwal of central
Himalayan region. While some workers [153, 154, 155]
have worked out as goat grazing did not induce any
change in the hydrology of the biomechanically
stabilized ravine watershed of river Yamuna; Prajapati
and Lavania [156] have done comparative evaluation
of bank stability of river Yamuna under different riparian
cover and land use, and concluded that the river bank
stability class was ‘excellent’ under forest cover but poor
under both traditional agriculture and free land grazing.
However, Watershed based research strategy for
sustainable agriculture [165] may be a useful tool for
the conservational approach. Further, Arunachalam et
al. [109, 110] have studied the effect of riparian
vegetation and other attributes of substrate complexity
on fish diversity in rivers of Western Ghat of the country;
and they concluded that high evenness index of the
substrate complexity variables is associated with high
evenness index of fish cover. Some of the workers [166
& 167] have studied elsewhere and recommended that
three layers of interactive zone of multispecies riparian
vegetation are to be maintained specially to those areas
where riparian vegetation is still available
Political- Bureaucratic Linkage
It is a non environmental factor which is responsible to
affect the state of environment including aquatic
environment too. Keeping a keen interest, the ministry
of environment and forest (MoEF), Govt. of India has
enacted an umbrella act as Environment Protection Act
[157] to provide the judicial shield to various aspects of
the environment. Environment Protection Act (EPA)
necessitates the environmental impact assessment (EIA)
followed by formulation of Environment Management
Plan (EMP) for various developmental projects
(anthropogenic activities). Accordingly, EIA notification
[158] was issued in 1994 and environmental impact
assessment has been made mandatory for 29 (twenty
nine) types of developmental projects including ‘river
valley projects’ depending on their certain investments
(as specified in para 3b and 3c of EIA notification, 1994);
one additional project was included vide its amendment
in 2000 making a total of 30 projects. Further, ministry
of environment and forest (MoEF) has issued another
fresh EIA notification 2006 [170] superseding its earlier
notification in which a total of 39 kinds of projects were
added under classification of eight different heads. All
the projects are classified under two categories ‘A’ and
‘B’. All projects or activities included in Category ‘A’
shall require prior environmental clearance from the
Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and
Forests (MoEF) on the recommendations of an Expert
Appraisal Committee (EAC) to be constituted by the
Central Government; while projects under category ‘B’
will require prior environmental clearance from the
State/Union territory Environment Impact Assessment
Authority (SEIAA). The SEIAA shall base its decision
264
on the recommendations of a State or Union territory
level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) as to be
constituted for in this notification. In the absence of a
duly constituted SEIAA or SEAC, a category ‘B’ project
shall be treated as a category ‘A’ project. Again, the
process of EIA has been tightened by the provisions that
any project or activity specified in category ‘B’ will be
treated as category A, if located in whole or in part within
10 km from the boundary of: (i) wild life protected areas
(ii) critically polluted areas (iii) notified eco-sensitive
areas, (iv) inter-State boundaries and international
boundaries. Guidelines for the preparation of EIA report
for river valley projects was notified by department of
environment, Govt. of India [159] much earlier, in which
author has pin pointed some of the important parameters
needed to be considered during preparation / formulation
and construction phases of river valley projects.
Recently, in 2001 Ministry of Environment and Forest
has published an EIA Manual [171] in which systematic
guidelines are given for EIA. In earlier and present EIA
notification [158, 170] public hearing has been made
mandatory for the projects involving large displacement
and having severe environmental ramification including
‘river valley projects’; also the procedure of public
hearing has also be spelt out. But, however, it is observed
that in some part of the country, people are unaware of
the type and magnitude of ill consequences ought to
occur by any river valley projects being launched in their
area. And, unless they know the specific kind of adverse
impact to be caused by any river valley project to its
downstream and upstream, they can not draw any
conclusion or will draw wrong conclusion regarding the
project; therefore, public hearing to those particular area
of the country will not be so effective to solve the
purpose for which it is made. Further, before the public
hearing to such area, a mass awareness programme for
the positive and negative both the effects expected to
occur to the downstream and upstream catchments of
the project concerned should be launched. However,
various deficiencies in the EIA of river valley projects
of North-East India have been pin pointed.[160, 161].
Another problem related to river management is the
water allocation and river regulation, where political
intervention becomes inevitable because most of the
rivers flow through interstate boundaries. In past, there
have been several disputes related to distribution/
allocation of river water among the states of upper and
lower riparian catchments from regulated site. Also,
many disputes have been settled [162]. Cauvery water
dispute between the state of Karnataka and Tamilnadu
is a recent example. During decision making for the
settlement of disputes at higher level, it has been clearly
observed that the issues regarding socio-economic
exploitation of water are considered only; and less care
is taken about what ecological consequences would crop
up at upper and lower riparian catchments by release /
VK Srivastava
retention of high or low volume of water from the site
of regulation? And, how will it indirectly affect
adversely to the socio-economic status of people of the
catchment. For amicable solution of interstate river water
disputes, the political level negotiations are made by
party states of river basin; but, however, if it fails for
negotiation, Government of India has enacted “Interstate
River Water Dispute Act-1956” [162],to provide for
adjudication of dispute by constituting “Water Dispute
Tribunal”(vide provisions laid down in section 4 of the
act). And, situation becomes worst when river disputes
arise between two countries; for example Ganga water
dispute (between India and Bangaladesh) and Indus
water dispute (between India and Pakistan) were
globally known cases. Whatever may be the conditions,
but during the settlement of the dispute, environmental
issues related to the river are least considered, which
ultimately appears to be the major hurdle for
management practices.
Recently, Govt. of India has decided for interlinking
the rivers with an objective to (i) provide water for
irrigation in drought-prone areas, (ii) reduce the extent
of annual flooding of the Ganga and the Brahmaputra,
and (iii) generate additional hydroelectric power [163].
In the said projects, it has been suggested that the
‘surplus’ basin can be identified and there is no harm to
transfer the water from ‘surplus’ basin to ‘scarce’ basin;
to rationalize the river water which is lost to sea. But,
considering the river water as ‘surplus’ or ‘lost’ is the
non-ecological view, which looks water for storage,
transfer and allocation only [164]. Further,
Bandhopadhyaya and Parveen [164] has concluded that,
not a single drop of water in any river can be taken as
‘surplus’ or can be said as ‘lost’ because every drop has
its significant ecological services; and transfer of water
from any river basin has to be paid in terms of ecological
damage and it is the biodiversity which has to pay the
ecological cost. Conflicts which are expected to be
inevitable regarding compensation for resettlements and
environmental damage, sharing of water among the
riparian states, co-operative management of the rivers
crossing international boundaries will pose another kind
of administrative problem. Again, it is the health of the
river which is going to suffer from this project of river
linking.
Further, no where in EIA notification and in other
provisions, the impact assessment of any river valley
project is made mandatory towards the downstream from
regulated site. Actually, the biodiversity of aquatic (in
channel), ecotone region and floodplain suffers a lot to
its downstream because of its variation in water volume
and frequency, timing and magnitude of land water
interface of riparian area; which ultimately affects socioeconomic condition of the people of downstream
catchment. Also, downstream impact is severe
sedimentation causing the loss of habitat.
River Ecology in India
Recommendations
During various river valley projects and developmental
activities, the impact assessment is done at the project
site; but following points are recommended for
accentuate the sensitivity of the assessment.
1. It is essential to prepare the detailed inventory of all
the rivers (from headwater to mouth) of the country
related to their physical, chemical and biological
conditions. These inventories will provide the basic
present status of the rivers and its energy dynamics
and can be used to assess the impact of the project
from far upstream to far downstream; which is the
basis of the future policies of the management.
2. Research related to energy dynamics and functional
state of river are strictly warranted, which is the factor
to regulate the structural components of the lotic
system.
3. For accurate study of the lotic systems, setting of ‘in
field’ experiments (in situ experiments) have become
an essential part of the study.
4. In order to have an effective management plan,
studies to whole drainage basin of entire watershed
should be taken up instead of any particular segment
or tributary of the river. Also, management of entire
watershed is an integral issue which affects the river
ecosystem, to which the pattern of land use in
watershed for agricultural purposes is to be
considered..
5. Long term research should be initiated before and
after the commission of any river valley project, so
that to evaluate the ecological impacts closer to the
accuracy which is essential to formulate the effective
management plan.
6. Since EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) has
been made mandatory by Government of India, and
EIA encompasses the overall assessment of socioeconomic impact and ecological impact. But, while
impact assessment, ecological impact assessment
(Eco IA) is to be carried out with much precision;
and in case of river valley projects, the precision of
EcoIA may be out ridden by natural variations.
Therefore, the appropriate sampling design like BACI
(Before-After Control Impact), beyond BACI, Nested
Sampling and Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP)
may be used to accentuate the accuracy. Also, the
results of EcoIA (along with whole EIA findings)
though, integrated to the policies and plans of any
developmental river valley project; but the sampling
procedures for the EcoIA should be taken care of to
minimize the natural variability and to have the more
accurate assessment.
7. Maintenance and research related to riparian
vegetation should be undertaken as to understand the
magnitude of its influence. However, the riparian
vegetations of most of the rivers in plains of the
country have been almost cleared; but the upstream
265
reaches of the Himalayan rivers, and also of some
peninsular rivers are still with some natural
vegetation. However, a detailed study is still needed
regarding how much width of the riparian vegetation
(for adequate health of the river) is essential? All
along the catchment area, three layers of interactive
zone of multispecies riparian vegetation are to be
maintained specially to those areas where riparian
vegetation is still available. Before maintaining the
interactive zone, extensive survey is to be carried out
to delineate and classify the riparian forests from rest
of the forest cover and should be declared as Riparian
Vegetation Buffer Zone (RVBZ) as a sense of
protected area with separate specific legislation. But
however, in those stretches of rivers, generally in
plains, where riparian vegetation is severely
degraded, restorative afforestation by flood resistant
species is warranted.
8. Through study of flood plains and ecotone ecology
is the need of the day, which may be indicative of
the facts related to lotic health; and hence will be the
useful information for management practices.
9. Since River Continuum Concept is the one way, and
Flood Pulse Concept and its modified version are
the two way flow of energy, which regulates the
energy budget of the river up to much extent. It is
essential to test the applicability of RCC on Indian
rivers. In India, Himalayan rivers in their hilly stretch
do not exhibit lateral inundation of water, rather only
longitudinal water current is their characteristic. But,
however, they have very vast flood plain with lateral
exchange of resources in their stretch of plains of
the country; and also some area of the country,
especially north-eastern part experience high rain fall.
Therefore, keeping the view of a conspicuous
climatic, geographical and geological situation, a
thorough and extensive study on mixed application
of RCC and FPC in upper and lower stretches of
Himalayan rivers respectively is needed to have a
better understanding of energy dynamics.
10. Since Himalaya is the youngest mountain, which is
seismologically sensitive and has fragile soil; more
care is needed while launching any river valley
project. However, mini projects may be the ecofriendly alternatives.
11. Findings of research works done in academic
institutions are to be integrated with the management
plans.
12. Strategic Environmental Assessment – SEA
procedures may be applied and strictly considered
during policy formulations and decision making at
higher level.
References
1.
Valdiya KS Dynamic Himalaya; University Press (India) Ltd.
Hyderabad, (1998) Pp 178.
266
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
VK Srivastava
Ives JD and B Messerli The Himalayan Dilemma:
Reconciling Development and Conservation; Routledge, New
York (1989) Pp 321
Srivastava VK Effects of riparian vegetation on the river
ecology and aquatic biodiversity with special reference to
Arunachal Pradesh (India) - A Review: In: Sustainable
Management of Forests- India:Khan ML and Arunachalam
A (Eds), International Book Distributors, Dehradun (2000)
Pp 135-146.
Trivedi RK Ecology and Pollution of Indian rivers: Ashish
Publishing House New Delhi (1988) pp-304.
Gopal B and M Shah Environmental Conservation 20 (1993)
243-254.
Gulati RD and G Wurtz-Schulz Hydrobiologia 72 (1980) 211222.
Michael RG Hydrobiologia 72 (1980) 15-20.
Gopal B and DP Zutsi Hydrobiologia 384 (1998) 267-290.
Lakshminarayana JSS Hydrobiologia 25 (1965) 119-226.
Ray P, SB Singh and KL Sehgal Proc Nat Acad Sci India 36
(1966) 235-275.
Rout J and B Das Bull Nat Inst Ecol 11 (2001) 25-31
Agarwal DK, SD Gaur, IC Tiwari, N Narayanswami and SM
Marawah Ind J Environ Hlth 18 (1978) 201-206
Sikandar M and BD Trpathi Proc Nat Cong Human Hlth
(1983) 40-43.
Raina V, AR Shah and SR Ahemed Indian J Environ Hlth 33
(1984) 45-50.
Verma SR, P Sharma, A Tyagi, S Rani, AK Gupta and RC
Dalela Limnologica (Berlin) 154 (1984) 69-133.
Venu P, V Kumar and MK Bhasin Acta Bot Indica 13
(1985)158-168.
Bilgrami KS and JS Dattamunshi Ecology of Rriver Ganges:
Impact of Human Activities and Conservation of Aquatic
Biota (Patna-Farakka); Final Tech. Rep. Dept of Environ.
Forest New Delhi; (1985) pp 85
Bhargava DS Efflu Wat Treat J 25 (1985) 61-65.
Venkateswarlu V Proc Indian Acad Sci 96 (1988) 495-508.
Kaul BK, SC Sharma and RK Bali Indian J Ecol 14
(1987)136-139.
Singh SR and VK Srivastava Poll Res 7 (1988) 85-92.
Azmal M and Razi-ud-din Studies on pollution of Hindon
river and Kalinadi (Indus): In: Ecology and Pollution of
Indian rivers: Trivedi RK (Ed); Ashish Publishing House New
Delhi (1988) pp 87-112.
Sah AR Physico- chemical aspects of pollution in river
Jhelum (Kashmir) during 1981-83: In: Ecology and Pollution
of Indian Rivers Trivedi RK (Ed). Ashish Publishing House,
New Delhi (1988) Pp 163-208.
Gautam A, HR Singh and OP Sati Proc Indian Natn Sci Acad
B55(1989) 111-114.
Gautam A, VP Joshi and OP Sati J Ecotoxicol Environ Monit
3(1993) 61-63
Gautam A Geobios New Reports 9 (1990) 84-87.
Sarwar SG and Rifat Poll Res 10 (1991) 69-72.
Panda RB, BK Sahu, BK Garnayak, BK Sinha and A Nayak
Ind J Environ Hlth 33 (1991) 45-50.
Pathak SP, Sanjaya Kumar, PW Ramteke, RC Murthy, KP
Singh, JW Bhattachargee and PK Ray Environ Monit Assess
22 (1992) 153-157.
30. Joshi VP, A Gautam and OP Sati Geobios New Report 10
(1992) 166-167
31. Jain CK Effect of waste disposal on quality of Water of river
Kali (Uttar Pradesh); Technical Report-148, National
Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee, India (1992) pp 64
32. Jain CK J Hydrol 182 (1996)105-115.
33. Tripathy AP and RK Das Curr Sci 68 (1995) 766-767.
34. Suvarna AC and RK Somashekhar Curr Sci 72 (1997) 640646.
35. Mathur RP Trends in physico-chemical charecterstics of the
Ganga water In: The Ganga – A Scientific Study,
Krishnamurty CR, Bilgrami KS, Das TM and Mathur RP
(Eds); Ganga Project Directorate, Ministry of Environment
and Forest Govt. of India (1991) Pp 27-38.
36. Bilgrami KS Biological profile of Ganga: Zooplankton, Fish,
Birds and other minor fauna: In: The Ganga – A Scientific
Study, Krishnamurty CR, Bilgrami KS, Das TM and Mathur
RP (Eds); Ganga Project Directorate, Ministry of
Environment and Forest Govt. of India (1991) pp 81-94.
37. Chowdhary M and A Dutta J Inst Engr India 48 (1980) 6167
38. Prasad S, A Mathur and DC Rukainwar Asian Environment
11 (1989) 73-82.
39. Dattamunshi JS and NK Singh Envionment and Ecology 7
(1989) 790 -792.
40. Singh NK, GR Dutta, M Singh and K Kshore Freshwater
Biol 1 (1989) 113-120.
41. Singh NK, MC Verma and JS Duttamunshi Freshwater Biol
2 (1990) 189-193.
42. Israili AW Poll Res 10 (1991) 103-109.
43. Israili AW and S Khurshid Poll Res 10 (1991) 215-222.
44. Singh RP, G Dayal, A Taneja and Poll Res 12 (1993) 69-73.
45. Singh RP, LR Mahavar and JP Mishra J Assam Sci Soc 34
(1992) 52-56.
46. Singh HP, R Chandra and B Singh J Inland Fish Soc India
25 (1993) 62-65.
47. Tiwari RN and RNS Yadav Curr Sci 65 (1993) 881-882.
48. Jain CK Fate of trace elements present in industrial effluents
discharged in to rivers; Technical Report ,National Institute
of Hydrology, Roorkee, India.( 1993) pp 48
49. Jain CK Wat Res 31 (1997) 154-162.
50. Gautam A and OP Sati J Env & Poll 2 (1994) 69-76.
51. Singh HP, and LR Mahavar J Environ Biol 12 (1997) 49-53.
52. Sarin MM and S Krishnaswami Nature 312 (1984) 538-541.
53. Trivedi JR, K Pandey, S Krisnhaswamy and MM Sarin Curr
Sci 69 (1995) 171-178.
54. Choudhary MT, H Saifullah, Ali Iqbal, M Mofizuddin and S
Enamul Rabir Mitt Geol Palcont Inst Univ Hamburg, SCOPE/
UNEP 52 (1982) 457-468.
55. Nair NB, M Arunachalam, KC Madhusudanan Nair and
Suryanarayana Trop Ecol 30 (1989)101-110.
56. Subrahmaniyam V and V Ittekot Carbon transport by
Himalayan rivers: In: Biogeochemistry of Major World
Rivers; Degen ET, Kempe S and Richey JE (Eds). SCOPE/
Wiley, Chishester (1991) Pp 157-168
57. Mathivanan V, P Vijayan, Selvi Sabhanayakam and O
Jayachitra J Environ Biol 28 (2007) 523-526
58. Pahwa DV and SN Mehrotra Proc Nat Acad Sci India 53
(1966) 157-189.
River Ecology in India
59. Verma SR, and RC Dalela Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol 3
(1975) 259-274.
60. Mathivanan V, P Vijayan and Selvi Sabhanayakam Curr Sci
5 (2004) 573-578
61. Prasad BN and M Saxena Indian J Environ Hlth 22 (1980)
151-168.
62. Patra AK, L Nayak and E Patnayak Trop Ecol 25 (1984) 153157.
63. Nautiyal P Proc. Indian. Acad. Sci (Anim Sci) 93 (1984) 671674.
64. Nautiyal P Uttar Pradesh J Zool 5 (1985)14-19.
65. Sabata BC and MP Nair Bull Bot Serv India 27 (1985) 219221.
66. Biswas BK and SK Konar Poll Res 20 (2001) 583-588
67. Sharma RC J Adv Zool 5 (1984) 28-33.
68. Sharma RC Indian J Ecol 13 (1985)157-160.
69. Singh SR and VK Srivastava J Adv Zool 10 (1991 a) 64-65.
70. Singh SR and VK Srivastava Poll Res 10 (1991 b) 93-101.
71. Verma MC, NK Singh and J Duttamunshi Proc Acad Environ
Biol 1 (1992) 87-94.
72. Srinivasaprasad S Biological profile of the Ganga:
Phytoplankton: In: The Ganga – A Scientific Study
Krishnamurty CR, Bilgrami KS, Das TM and Mathur
RP(Eds) Ganga Project Directorate, Ministry of Environment
and Forest, Govt. of India (1991) Pp 53-67.
73. Natarajan AV Can Spec Publ Fish Aquat Sci 106 (1989) 545560.
74. Tripathi BD An overview of hydrobiological features of the
Ganga in the stretch from Mirzapur to Ballia: In: The Ganga
– A Scientific Study. Krishnamurthy CR, Bilgrami KS, Das
TM and Mathur RP (Eds) Ganga Project Directorate, Ministry
of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India (1991) Pp 156160.
75. Jha AK, A Latif and JP Singh J Environ Pollut 4 (1997) 143151
76. Sampath V, A Srinivasan and A Ananthanarayan Proc Symp
Environ Biol (1979) 441-452.
77. Adholia UN Geo Eco Trop 3 (1979) 267-271.
78. Kulshreshtha SK, UN Adholia, AA Khan, A Bhatnagar, M
Saxena and M Baghail Int J Environ Sci 15 (1989) 27-36.
79. Kulshreshtha SK, UN Adholia, A Bhatnagar, AA Khan, and
M Baghail Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol 19 (1991) 181-191.
80. Kulshreshtha SK, UN Adholia, A Bhatnagar, Int J Environ
Studies 40 (1992) 207-216.
81. Ahmed M and A Shayestehfer J Environ Biol 12 (1991) 123
-129.
82. Sinha RK Proc Nat Acad Sci India, 62B (1992) 313-322.
83. Srivastava VK and SR Singh Proc Acad Environ Biol 4 (1995)
83-89.
84. Bilgrami KS, JS Dattamunshi and BN Bhowmic Symp
Biomonitoring State Environ (1985)141-145
85. Laal AK and M Karthikeyan Curr Sci 65 (1993) 874-875.
86. Unnisankaran K and Lakshamikant Naik International
Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences 23 (1997)116.
87. Pahwa DV Indian J Animal Sci 49 (1979) 212-219.
88. Gupta A and RG Michael Proc Workshop High Alt Entom
Wildlife Ecol. Zoological Survey of India (1983) pp 21-28.
89. Chowdhary SR Indian J Ecol 11 (1984) 160-165.
267
90. Bhatt SD, Y Bisht, and U Negi Proc Indian Natn Sci Acad
B50 (1984) 395-405.
91. Rao KS, NK Das and SS Pandya Bull Bot Soc Sagar 32
(1985)114-119.
92. Rao KS, S Jain, R Dubey, S Srivastava, U Choubey and SS
Pandya Ujjain J Hydrobiol 3 (1987) 83-87.
93. Dutta SPS and R Malhotra Ind J Ecol 13 (1986)138-145.
94. Sunder S and BA Subala Indian J Ecol 13 (1986)127-132.
95. Kumar K Proc Indian Natn Sci Acad B53 (1987) 227-234.
96. Sinha MP, N Pandey and PN Mehrotra Indian Zoologist 13
(1989)79-83.
97. Singh SR and VK Srivastava Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol 17
(1989a) 159-166.
98. Jebanesan A and M Selvenayagam J Environ Biol 15 (1994)
213-220.
99. Srivastava VK and BC Sabat Proc Acad Environ Biol 3 (1994)
229-231.
100. Srivastava VK and SR Singh Proc Indian natn Sci Acad B62
(1996) 259-279.
101. Srivastava VK J Appl Biosci 32 (2006) 44-53.
102. Krishnamurthy SV and SR Reddy International Journal of
Ecology and Environmental Sciences 22 (1996) 261-270.
103. Sivramkrishnan KG, J Morgan, Hennaford and VH Resh
International Journal of Ecology and Environmental
Sciences, 22 (1996) 113-122.
104. Srivastava NP and VR Desai J Environ Biol 18 (1997) 325331.
105. Jhingaran VG Fish and Fisheries of India Hindustan
Publishing Corporation, New Delhi ((1991) pp 727.
106. Dattamunshi JS and MP Srivastava Natural History of Fishes
and Systematics of Fresh Water Fishes of India. Narendra
Publishing House New Delhi, India (1988) pp 403.
107. Arunachalam M Measuring and monitoring the fish diversity
of Western Ghats. Salim Ali Centenary Symposium on Western
Ghats Biodiversity, Nov. 5-9, Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore; (1995) (Unpublished).
108. Arunachalam M, KC Madhusudanan Nair, J Vijverberg and
K Kortmulder Food and habitat usage of cyprinid fish
assemblages in stream pools of a south Indian rivers. Institute
of Royal Academy of Sciences The Netherlands (1988) pp89.
109. Arunachalam M, KC Madhusudanan Nair, J Vijverberg and
K Kortmulder International Journal of Ecology and
Environmental Sciences 23 (1997a) 271-295.
110. Arunachalam M, JA Johnson and A Sankarnarayanan
International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences
23 (1997b) 327-333.
111. Arunachalam M, R Soranam, JA Johanson and MA Haniffa
International Journal of Ecology and Environmental
Sciences. 23 (1997c) 335-342.
112. Sehgal KL State of art of endangered, vulnerable and rare
cold water fishes of India: In: Threatened Fishes of India.,
Dehadrai PV, Das P and Verma LR(Eds); Soc Nature
Conservation, Muzaffarnagar India (1994) Pp 127-135
113. Dehadrai PV, P Das and SR Verma (Eds) Threatened Fishes
of India; Society for Nature Conservatoin Muzaffarnagar,
(1994 ) pp 412.
114. Dhanze JR and R Dhanze Proceedings of symposium on fish
genetics and biodiversity conservation for sustainable
production, National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources,
Lucknow India (1996) pp 9-10.
268
115. Dhanze JR and R Dhanze Proc Acad Environ Biol 7 (1998)
11-16.
116. Dehadrai PV and AG Poniah International Journal of Ecology
and Environmental Sciences 23 (1997) 315-327.
117. Krishnamurthi CR, KS Bilgrami, TM Das and RP Mathur
(Eds) The Ganga–A Scientific Study. Ganga Project
Directorate, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of
India, (1991) Pp- 245.
118. Dudgeon D International Journal of Ecology and
Environmental Sciences 20 (1994) 255-285.
119. Humphrey CL and PL Dostine Mitt Internat Venein Limnol
24 (1994) 293-314.
120. Hynes HBN The Ecology of Running Waters; Liverpool
University Press Liverpool (1970) Pp 555.
121. Vennote RL, GW Minshal, KW Cummings, JR Sedel and
CE Cushings Can J Fish Aquat Sci 37 (1980)130-137.
122. Hurlbert SH Ecological Monographs 54 (1984)187-211.
123. Stewart-Oeten A, WM Murdoch and KR Parker Ecology 60
(1986)1176-1184.
124. Rosenberg DM and VH Resh Freshwater Biomonitoring and
Benthic Macroinvertebrates; Chapman and Hall New York
(1993) Pp 486.
125. Naiman RJ, OG Lonzarich, TJ Bechie and SC Ralf General
principles of classification and the assessment of conservation
potential in rivers: In: River Conservation and Management
Boon PJ, Callow P and Petts GE (Eds). John Wiley and Sons.
U K (1992) pp1-22.
126. Resh VH, RH Norris, and MT Barbour Aust J Ecol 20
(1995)108-121.
127. Green RH Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for
Environmental Biologists; Wiley Interscience New York
(1979) 257 pp.
128. Underwood AJ Aust J Mar Freshwat Res 42 (1991) 569-587.
129. Underwood AJ Aust J Ecol 12 (1993) 99-116.
130. Faith DP, CL Humphrey and P Dostine Aust J Mar Freshwat
Res 42 (1991)589-602.
131. Faith DP, P Dostine and CL Humphrey Aust J Ecol 20
(1995)167-180.
132. Srivastava VK Environmental impact assessment of river
ecosystem in North East India: In: Perspective for Planning
and Development in North-East India: Sundriyal RC,
Umashankar and Upreti TC (Eds) GB Pant Institute of
Himalayan Environment and Development, Almora UP
(1998) Pp 298-304
133. Morrisey DJ, L Howitt, AJ Underwood and JS Stark Marine
Ecology Progress Series. 81 (1992) 197-204.
134. Downes BJ, PS Lake and ESG Schreiber Aust J Ecol 20
(1995)502-514.
135. Plafkin JL, MT Barbour, KD Poter, SK Gross and RM Huges
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use in streams and small
rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish; USEPA
Washington DC (1989) pp 185.
136. Barbour MT, J Gerritsen, BD Snyder and JB Stribling Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable
rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish; 2nd
ed, USEPA Office of the Water, Washington (1999) Pp 251
137. Sivramkrishnan KG, K Venkataraman, S Sridhar and S
Manumuthai International Journal of Ecology and
Environmental Sciences 21 (1995) 141-161.
138. Raynoldson TB, RH Norris, VH Resh, KE Day, and DM
Rosenberg JN Am Benthol Soc 16 (1997) 833-852.
VK Srivastava
139. Hawkins CP, RH Norris, JN Hogue and JW Feminella
Ecological Applications, 10 (2000) 1456-1477.
140. Norris RH and CP Hawkins Hydrobiologia 435 (2000) 4-17.
141. Wallace JB, JR Webster and WR Woodall Archiv fur
Hydrobiologie 79 (1977) 506-532.
142. Ward JV and JA Stanford The serial discontinuity concept of
lotic ecosystems: In: Dynamics of Lotic Ecosystems Fontaine
TO and Bartell SM (Eds); Ann Arbom Science Publishers,
Michigan (1979) Pp 29-42.
143. Junk WJ, PB Bayley and RE Sparks Can Spl Publ Fish Aquat
Sci 106 (1989)110-127.
144. Junk WJ Arch Hydrobiol (3 supple) 115 (1999) 261-280.
145. Puckridge JT, F Sheldon, KF Walker and AJ Boulton Mar
Freshwater Res 49 (1998) 55-72.
146. Arunachalam M and LK Arun Mitteil Intern Verein Theon
Angewan Limnol 24 (1994)179-188.
147. Gopal B International Journal of Ecology and Environmental
Sciences 23 (1997)305-313.
148. Dobriyal AK and HR Singh Arch Hydrobiol 118 (1990) 93103.
149. Singh SR and VK Srivastava Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol 17
(1989 b) 475-484.
150. Ambasht RS Community structure, biomass production and
energy aspects of aquatic macrophytes and soil, water and
nutrient conservation of the Ganga: In: The Ganga- A
Scientific Study, Krishnamurty CR, Bilgrami KS, Das TM
and Mathur RP (Eds); Ganga Project Directorate, Ministry
of Environment and Forest Govt. of India (1991) pp 161165.
151. Dwivedi GK, M Dwivedi and MC Nautiyal Use of soil and
water resource inventory data for planning sustainable
development in Himalaya, In National Symposium on
Environmental Strategies for Sustainable Development. GB
Pant University, Pantnagar (1996) Pp 45.
152. Gopal Krishna, Madhu Dwivedi, MC Nautiyal and VK Sah
International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences
24 (1998) 37-47.
153. Prajapati MC, AK Tiwari, KTN Nambiar, JP Singh, BM
Mehrotra and VN Sharada Ind J Soil Cons 27 (1989) 9-16.
154. Prajapati MC, G Singh, LS Bhushan and JP Singh Growth
pattern of goat in relation with wetness and available forages
in Yamuna ravines: In: Recent Advances in Goat Production
Lokeshwar RR (Ed) Proc Int Cong Goat ( 1992) Pp 407-412.
155. Prajapati MC International Journal of Ecology and
Environmental Sciences 24 (1998)65-72
156. Prajapati MC and GS Lavania International Journal of
Ecology and Environmental Sciences 24(1998) 73-80.
157. MoEF Environment (Protection) Act; Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, New Delhi (1986)
158. MoEF The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification
(as amended on 04-05-94); Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Govt. of India, New Delhi (1994)
159. Moudgal S Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment
of river Valley Projects; Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Govt. of India, New Delhi (1985) pp224
160. Darlong VT Environmental Impact Assessment in North-East
India: A case study of river valley projects: In: Perspectives
for Planning and Development in North East India. Sundryal
RC, Umashankar and Upreti TC (Eds); GB Pant Institute of
Himalayan Environment and Development, Kosi Katermal,
Almora, UP India (1998) Pp277-289.
River Ecology in India
161. Darlong VT River valley projects vis-à-vis environmental
management in North-East India: In: Water and Water
Resource Management Datta Ray B and Athparia RP (Eds);
Omson Publications, New Delhi (1999) pp 75-88.
162. Ramana MVV Interstate river water disputes in India; Orient
Longman Ltd. Madras. India. (1992) Pp 94.
163. Rao KK Curr Sci 85 (2003) 565.
164. Bandhyopadhyay J and S Perveen The Interlinking Indian
rivers – Some questions on the scientific, economic and
environmental dimensions of the proposal; Paper presented
at seminar on Interlinking Indian Rivers: Bane or Boon?
IISWBM, Kolkata (2003) pp-34
165. Singh A Watershed Based Research Strategy for Sustainable
Agriculture; Water Technology Center, IARI, New Delhi
(2000) Pp 13.
166. Lawrence R, LS Altier, JD Newbold, SR Schnabel and PM
Graffman Water quality functions of riparian forest buffer
systems in Chesapeake Bay watershed; Rep. Nutrient
Subcommittee Chesapeake Bay Programme, Annapolis, M
D US EPA. (1995) pp 150
167. Schultz RC, JP Colletti, TM Isenhart, WW Simpkins, CW
Mizi and ML Thompson Agrofor Syst 29 (1995) 201-226.
168. Partidario MR Environ Impact Assess Rev 16 (1996) 31-55.
169. Bilgrami KS Impact of flood on productivity of diara land
and vegetation: In: The Ganga- A Scientific Study,
Krishnamurty CR, Bilgrami KS, Das TM and Mathur RP
(Eds); Ganga Project Directorate, Ministry of Environment
and Forest Govt. of India (1991) pp 99-100.
170. MoEF The Environmental Impact Assessment Notification
(14th September 2006); Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Govt. of India, New Delhi (2006).
171. MoEF The Environmental Impact Assessment- A Manual;
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, New
Delhi (2001)
172. Arunachalam M, KC Madhusudanan Nair, J Vijverberg, K
Kortmulder and H Suryanarayanan Hydrobiologia 213 (1991)
141-148
269
173. Rout J and JP Gaur Acta Oecol. 11 (1990) 631-642.
174. Sivaramkrishnan KG A Refined Rapid Bioassessment
Protocol For Benthic Macro-invertebrates for Use in
Peninsular Indian Streams and Rivers. Paper presented in
Lake-2000 (2000).
175. Yadava YS and R Chandra Some threatened carps and
catfishes of Brahmaputra river system: In: Threatened Fishes
of India, Dehadrai PV, Das P and Verma LR (Eds); Soc.
Narure Conservation, Muzaffarnagar India (1994) Pp 45-55
176. Chandra R Some endangered, vulnerable and rare
miscellaneous fishes of Ganga river system, Hilsa ilisa (Ham)
and Setipinna phasa (Ham): In: Threatened Fishes of India.,
Dehadrai PV, Das P and Verma LR(Eds); Soc Nature
Conservation, Muzaffarnagar India (1994) Pp 7-11
177. Kotwal GV Endangered, vulnerable and rare food fishes of
the east coast river system: In: Threatened Fishes of India.,
Dehadrai PV, Das P and Verma LR(Eds); Soc Nature
Conservation, Muzaffarnagar India (1994) Pp 57-61
178. Baillie J and B Groombridge (Eds) IUCN red list of threatened
animals IUCN Gland Switzerland (1996) Pp368
179. Sinha RK International Journal of Ecology and
Environmental Sciences 23 (1997)343-355
180. Kannan K, RK Sinha, S Tanabe, H Ichihasi and R Tatsukawa
Marine Pollution Bulletin 26 (1993) 159-162
181. Kannan K, S Tanabe, R Tatsukawa and RK Sinha
Toxicological and Environmental chemistry 42 (1994) 249261
182. Mohan RSL Status of river dolphin ‘sihu’ in the
Brahmaputra.: In: The River Dolphin: Proceedings of the
Workshop on River Dolphin Sibsagar, Assam, Biswas SP
(Ed); (1994) Pp 57-61
183. Biswas SP, A Baruah and RSL Mohan International Journal
of Ecology and Environmental Sciences 23 (1997)357-361
184. Treweek J Ecological Impact Assessment, Blackwell Science
Ltd, Oxford Pp 351.