26

Sustainable Marine Structures | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | July 2021

Distributed under creative commons license 4.0 http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/sms.v3i2.436

Sustainable Marine Structures

http://ojs.nassg.org/index.php/sms/index

ARTICLE

Present Status of Aquatic Resource and Its Catch of Mogra River in 
Bangladesh

Chakraborty, B. K.1*   Verma A. K.2   Muniya, S.3

1. Department of Fisheries, Bangladesh and Agricultural University, Bangladesh
2. Govt. P. G. college, Saidabad, Prayaagraj, India
3. Bangladesh Agricultural University, Bangladesh

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history
Received: 15 August 2021 
Accepted: 8 September 2021 
Published Online: 20 September 2021

Bangladesh is very rich in aquatic fauna with a biodiversity. The present 
study, conducted during 2015 to 2019, recorded a total number of 131 spe-
cies (104 fish, 09 prawn, 01 snail, 04 crabs, and 13 turtles) belonging to 26 
families were identified from the Mogra River and its flood plain. About 
ten types of fishing gears, different crafts, hook and line were found oper-
ative in the river. Increasing rates of using current jal (16.0-26.40%) and 
Kapuri jal (11.0-16.70%) were identified as detrimental gears destroying 
different species. The fish productivity was decreased dramatically from 
170.63±10.81mt to 134.75±8.02 mt with a decreasing percentage of 6.26 to 
21.03% within five years. Three important aquatic species turtiles (Cyclem-
ys oldhami, Melanocheelys trjuuga and Morenia petersi) became rare and 
17 commercially important aquatic species were at the edge of extinction 
(critically endangered, CR). From the study, 67 species were recorded in 
the endangered (EN) category, 20 species vulnerable status (VU), 11 spe-
cies lower risk (LR), 07 species Least concern (LC) and 04 Data deficient 
(DF). To save the existing aquatic species in the studied riverine ecosystem 
and ensure better livelihood of the fishes, a team of local management com-
mittee, similar to the Hilsa fisheries management technology is needed.

Keywords:
Aquatic fauna
Biodiversity
Rare
Critically endangered
Endangered
Illegal fishing 
Over exploitation

　

*Corresponding Author:
Chakraborty, B. K.,
Department of Fisheries, Bangladesh and Agricultural University, Bangladesh;
Email: bborty@gmail.com

1. Introduction

River ecosystems and biodiversity help in maintaining
the ecological balance of the waterbody. There is a ne-
cessity of ecological balance for widespread biodiversity 
and the ecological balance is an indispensable need for 
human survival [1]. The biodiversity conservation and 
environmental ethics both are required for sustainable de-
velopment and survival of aquatic flora and fauna because 
biodiversity is the foundation of human life [2]. 

Biodiversity has become a major concern to the fisher-

ies biologists against the backdrop of rapid decline in the 
natural population of fish and aquatic biota across all the 
continents of the world. Biodiversity encompasses genetic 
species, assemblage, ecosystem and land cape levels of 
biological organization with structural, compositional and 
functional components [3,4]. Though loss of aquatic species 
has been occurring rapidly, the aquatic organisms have 
received comparatively little attention from conservation 
biologists [5]. A rich diversity of fish species is important 
to the ecology and sustainable productivity of the flood 
plains [6]. The resource of aquatic fauna in Bangladesh are 



27

Sustainable Marine Structures | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | July 2021

Distributed under creative commons license 4.0 http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/sms.v3i2.436

under severe threat due to over-exploitation and environ-
mental degradation, which includes human interventions 
through construction of flood control embankments, 
drainage structures and sluice gates, conversion of inun-
dated land to cropland thereby reducing water area and 
indiscriminate use of pesticides. Pollution from domestic, 
industrial and agrochemicals wastes has resulted in ex-
tinction of a considerable amount of aquatic biota in some 
stretches of the open water system [7,8]. 

The upper region of the Mogra River is connected with 
Bisnai River and Kangshow River. The riverine flows 
across the Atpara and Modon Upazilla of Netrokona dis-
trict from northern to southern Tharail and Itna Upazilla 
of Kishorgong District, before joining the Surma River. 
The water flow is continuous in the river. During mon-
soon, the water flow comes down from the upper region 
of Kangshow River and water flow does not confine with-
in the banks. As a result, it causes floods in some area of 
Atpara and Modan Upazilla every year. 

Figure 1. Location of Mogra River in the Netrokona dis-
trict, Bangladesh.

Once upon a time, Mogra River was an abundance 
of native wild fishes, shrimp, crabs and reptiles. Due 
to over-exploitation and various ecological changes of 
the Mogra River, important fish species, and reptiles 
disappeared. Now this river is under great stress and its 
existence is endangered because of the changing aquatic 
ecosystems. The upper stream of the riverine system is 
siltated, which reduces the rate of water flow and causes 
habitat degradation. Like other floodplains, the feeding 
and breeding grounds of fishes in and around the river 
have been reducing drastically from various human creat-
ed obstacles. Indiscriminate destructive fishing practices, 
soil erosion, siltation, construction of flood control and 
drainage structures, and agro-chemicals and pesticide 
have caused havoc to the aquatic biodiversity in Bangla-
desh.

2. Methodology

Experimental design

Mogra River was studied during 2015-2019 with par-
ticular emphasis on soil and water quality, biological pro-
ductivity and status exploitation of the fishery resources. 
The river comprises an average length of 20-22 km long 
course. For the purpose of the study the river course was 
divided into upper and lower regions based on soil struc-
ture, water quality and fishing activities. The river courses 
of Atpara to Nazirgonj constitute the upper region while 
the Nazirgonj to Madon constituted the lower region, 
where in the Mogra River joins with the Surma River.

Study of water quality parameters

The bamboo made meter scale was used to measure 
water depth. Water temperature (oC) was recorded using a 
Celsius thermometer and transparency (cm) was measured 
using a Secchi disc (20 cm diameter). Dissolved oxygen 
(mg/l) and pH were measured directly using a digital elec-
tronic oxygen meter (YSI, Model 58, USA) and an elec-
tronic pH meter (Jenway, Model 3020, UK). Alkalinity 
was determined following the titrimetric method.

Sampling of fish

The investigation was conducted from 2015-2019 and 
was sampled simultaneously for winter (mid November 
to mid February), pre monsoon (mid February to April), 
monsoon (May to August) and post monsoon (September 
to mid November) for assessment of fish abundance and 
availability.

Data collection

The study was based on both primary and secondary 
data, comprehensive literature review and extracts of lo-
cal knowledge and information. An organized sampling 
program spread over a reasonably long time is needed 
to get a true picture of the catch and composition. This 
study, being a rapid survey, gives only a broad picture of 
the stock of fishes, prawn, crabs and turtiles that could be 
obtained through market survey (Brojer Bazar, Nazirgong 
Bazar, Teligati Bazar, Madon sadar Bazar) and interac-
tion with fishers in the riverside and even in the river and 
secondary data were collected from the Department of 
Fisheries (DoF) and the internet. The number of six codes 
(CR, E, EN, VU, LR, LC and DD) of IUCN was followed 
to categorize the coservation of status of fishes recorded 
from the river and to compare the trend among Shannon 
index value of different years [9].



28

Sustainable Marine Structures | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | July 2021

Distributed under creative commons license 4.0

Shannon Diversity Index

Where:
H = the Shannon diversity index, Pi = fraction of the 

entire population made up of species i, S = numbers of 
species encountered, ∑ = sum from species 1 to species S.

Note: The power to which the base e (e = 2.718281828.) 
must be raised to obtain a number is called the natural 
logarithm (ln) of the number.

Analysis of experimental data

The data were analyzed through one way ANOVA us-
ing MSTAT followed by Duncan’s Multiple Range Test to 
find out whether any significant difference existed among 
the different means [10].

3. Results and Discussion

Morphometry and hydrodynamics of experim-
ental river 

Generally, there are three main sources of water input 
into the river ecosystem viz. overspill from the higher 
river channel, surface flow and regeneration. Water flows 
were resolved by both rainfall and flooded water from the 
Meghaloya's hilly range, India. In upper region, this river 
is connected with Khongsa and Bisnai River. Flooding of 
the river originated from the Kangshow and Bisnai River. 
Surface run-off and increased in river height due to inflow 
of rainwater (flood) from the upper stretch, cause inunda-
tion of floodplains. The more water gain or exchange of 
water took place during southwest monsoon when flood-
plains were flooded. The early flood phase (April to June) 
occurred in the early monsoon when the water level in 
basin was relatively low. The water level in the floodplain 
rises and falls depending on the water level in adjacent 
rivers. The deep flood phase (June to September) began 
when the water level in the river, causing deep flooding in 
the four unions of Atpara and Madon Upazillas. Floodwa-
ter in flood plains began started receding in the post-mon-
soon season (October to December). The water loss by 
various means caused shrinkage of the effective water 
area and lowering of depth in the river which is very simi-
lar to the study of Chakraborty et al. [11]. 

Physical characteristics 

Soil texture of the Mogra River bed varied from sandy 

to loam sand. Soil texture of upper river bed was having 
90.80±6.02 sandy, 7.30±2.43 loam sand and 1.9±1.72% 
clay. The dominance of sand (58.30±5.18) was also re-
corded in the lower region of the river (Table 1).

Table 1. Physical features of sediment of the  
Mogra River.

Location
Soil texture of the river bed (%)

Sandy Loam sand Clay

Upper region 40.20±4.32 43.60±5.03 17.4±3.22

Lower region 38.30±4.18 42.10±4.06 19.60±3.54

The waterw depth of the Mogra River exhibited a de-
creasing with an average value of 3.55±0.64 3.41±0.55, 
3.321±0.584 3.207±0.44 and 3.01±0.41 m during the 
study period (Figure 2). The highest depth of the river was 
recorded in the year 2015 and the lowest depth was found 
in the year 2019 and the equation of the trend line was y= 
-0.128x +3.684 (R2 = 0.981). The alarming trend of de-
crease in water depth (Figure 2) was majorly due to rapid 
siltation [11]. The observed values of the value of the physi-
co-chemical parameters of the river water are given in Ta-
ble 2. The temperature, transparency, pH, dissolve oxygen 
and alkalinity of water were found to be more or less in 
the desired range. The variations in mean water tempera-
ture of the river were not statistically significant (P>0.05). 
Water temperature of the river showed an increasing 
trend in monsoon and post monsoon and decreasing trend 
in winter which was similar observation of Mathew [12]. 
Mean Secchi disk transparency differed significantly 
(P<0.05), during the study period. Higher values were 
recorded during post monsoon and summer months due 
to reduced flow and relatively stable conditions of water 
as observed by others [13]. The pH of the studied river did 
not differ significantly (P>0.05). Transparency was con-
sistently higher in upper region and in the deeper portion 
of the river. A significant rise in pH during pre-monsoon 
and a drop in winter was noted in the river. The mean dis-
solved oxygen (DO) did not differ significantly (P>0.05). 
The pH and oxygen values of the river agreed more or less 
similar with the findings of APHA [14] and Boyd [15]. Water 
alkalinity levels were recorded medium to high as report-
ed by Clesceri et al. [16]. It differed significantly (P<0.05) 
with time. Lowest value of alkalinity was recorded in the 
in the winter during 2015.

http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/sms.v3i2.436



29

Sustainable Marine Structures | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | July 2021

Distributed under creative commons license 4.0

Figure 2. Water depth of the Mogra River between the 
year 2015 and 2019

Capture method

The fishers used wooden boats as a major craft. They 
used seine net (Bar jal and Komor jal), Thela jal, Dhar-
ma jal, Bua jal, Lift net, Cast net, Current jal and various 
types of fish Trap, Hook and Line according to season and 
availability of different species of fishes. Wide variability 
in fish traps (vair, dugair, ghuni and pholo etc.) and hook 
and line (barshi, fulkuichi, Jhupi aikra etc.) were used to 
capture different groups of aquatic lives. 

Figure 3 shows a remarkable yearly increase in fishing 
effort by using illegal fishing gear like gill net (Current 
jal) and Bar jal (kaperi jal) in the total catch. The per-
centage of catch from Current jal were 14.00%, 16.20%, 
19.80%, 22.00% and 26.20%; and Bar jal (kaperi jal) 
12.00%, 13.70%, 14.50%,15.10% and 16.50%; and Hook 
and line 10.00, 10.50, 11.00, 11.60 and 11.70% in the year 
2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively. Signifi-
cant difference in catch (P<0.05) by Current jal and Bar 
jal (kaperi jal) and Hook and line were identified. The 
contribution of catch by Komor jal were 13.00%, 12.80%, 
12.50%, 12.30% and 11.70% in the years 2015, 2016, 
2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively.

Figure 3. Contribution of different fishing gears during 
the study period (2015- 2019).

Use of different fishing gears also differed signifi-
cantly (P<0.05). Haroon et al. [17] reported eighteen types 
of fishing gears from the Sylhet sub-basin and thirteen 
types from Mymensingh sub-basin which is very similar 
to this study. The catch using Thela jal, Dharma jal, Bua 
jal, Lift net, Cast net, fish Trap and Hook and line were 
found decreasing and differed significantly (P<0.05). A 
decreasing trend in the catch of the river and its flood 
plains were recorded and the findings were similar to that 
of Chakraborty et al., and Sugunan and Bhattacharjya [11,18].

Fish catch and composition

An organized sampling program was run for a long 
time to get a real picture of the catch and composition of 
the river. The present investigation gave a broad picture 
of the stock of fishes and other aquatic lives obtained 
through market survey, landing center and interaction 
with fishers in the river. From the fishing activity in the 
Mogra River, occurrence of 104 species of fish, 09 species 
of prawn, 01 species of snail and 04 species of crabs, and 
13 species of turtles belonging to a total 26 families were 
recorded. Fishing activity run throughout the year. During 
monsoon and post monsoon, fishers used Lift net, Current 

Table 2. Physico-chemical parameters of experimental Mogra River.

Parameters
Years

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Temperature (oC)
25.74±5.01

(14.04-32.20)
26.17±6.12

(13.73-32.40)
26.48±6.08

(14.11-31.85)
26.88±6.26

(14.00-32.01)
26.14±5.88

(14.15-32.08)

Transparency (cm)
40.04±6.24d

(30.10-50.16)
50.38±7.02a

(32.22-58.14)
44.55±6.41c

(28.15-50.30)
37.19±6.88e

(27.55-50.25)
47.23±6.74b

(29.55-55.22)

pH
7.05± 2.04
(6.90-8.86)

7.66±2.22
(6.80-8.88)

8.05±2.03
(6.85-9.07)

7.77±1.88
(6.90-8.88)

8.08±2.01
(6.75-8.90)

Dissolved oxygen 
(mg/L)

6.95±1.84
(4.18-8.04)

8.84±1.88
(4.55-9.05)

7.70±1.99
(5.44-8.66)

7.22±1.72
(5.41-8.05)

7.09±1.96
(5.04-8.48)

Alkalinity (mg/L)
142.02±10.04a

(111.22-151.05)
120.66±7.22e

(110.88-135.02)
126.18±7.05d

(107.22-138.15)
131.52±8.07c

 (110.40-140.32)
136.38±7.04b

 (111.16-144.55)

Figures with different superscripts in the same row varied significantly (P>0.05).
Figures in the parenthesis indicate the range.

http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/sms.v3i2.436



30

Sustainable Marine Structures | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | July 2021

Distributed under creative commons license 4.0

jal, Cast net, Traps, and line and Hooks to catch fishes. 
Fishermen also operated kata fishing by seine net (Bar jal 
and Komor jal) in winter and spring. The catch is consist-
ed of knife fish, major carp and minor carp, small fish, cat 
fish and small cat fish, eels, prawn, crabs and reptiles (Ta-
ble 3 and Figure 4). The assessment of yearly total catch 
from the river was around 170.63±10.81 mt, 159.93±9.80 
mt 150.98±10.66 mt, 143.16±9.80 ton and 134.75±8.02 
mt during 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectivly 
(Figure 5). The catch trend line was exponential type and 
the equation was y= 180.3e-0.05x (R2 = 0.999). 

Figure 4. The production of different groups of aquatic 
lives in the Mogra River in the year 2015 to 2019.

Figure 5. Decreasing trend in the total production of 
aquatic lives in the Mogra River during 2015 to 2019.

The fish catch showed a decrease percentage at the 
rate of 6.26%, 11.52%, 16.10% and 21.03% of catch in 
the years 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-
2019, with respect to the catch of 2015 (Figure 6) and 
which exhibited a linear trend line and the equation was 
y= 4.889x + 1.5.5 (R2 = 0.999). A decrease trend in pro-
duction from the river was clearly pronounced within the 
study period of five years which was similar to the study 
of Chakraborty and Mirza [19,20] and Moyle and Leidy [21]. 
Although the production of all the recorded groups de-
creased during the study, it was pronounced more for rep-
tiles. 

Figure 6. Decreasing percentage of total production of 
aquatic lives in the Mogra River during 2015 to 2019.

Table 3 and Figure 7 exhibited the conservation status 
of the 131 aquatic wild animals of the Mogra River and 
identified as E- 04 (3%), CR-17 (12%), EN-67 (51%), 
VU-20 (15%), LR-11 (9%), LC-7 (9%) and DD-06 (4%), 
respectively. 

Figure 7. Conservation status of the recorded aquatic 
species in the Mogra River.

Status code: E- Extinct, CR- Critically Endangered, 
EN- Endangered, VU- Vulnerable, LR- Lower risk, LC- 
Not threatened DD=Data deficient (As per IUCN [22]).

The total catch in different years differed significantly 
(P<0.05). Commercial important Pata Kachim, Cyclemys 
oldhami, Kali Kachhap, Melanocheelys trjuuga and Ben-
gal Eyed Turtile, Morenia petersi were rarely found in the 
years 2015 to 2017 in the river. However these species 
were not recorded during 2019. Channa marulius, Puntius 
sarana, Barilius tileo, Sicamugil casoasia, Rohtee cotio, 
Bagarius yarrellii, Mystus seenghala, Bagarius yarrellii, 
Chaca chaca, Rama chandramara, Sisor rabdophorus, 
Pseudolaguvia muricata, Pseudolaguvia inornata and 
reptiles (Indotestudo elongata, Batagur baska, Geoclemys 
hamiltonii and Pangshura tecta (17 species) were report-
ed as critically endangered and facing an extremely high 
risk of extinction in the river system (Table 3). According 
to IUCN [23], in Bangladesh, about 56 freshwater fish spe-
cies are critically or somewhat endangered. Due to Over 

http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/sms.v3i2.436



31

Sustainable Marine Structures | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | July 2021

Distributed under creative commons license 4.0

Table 3. Status and distribution of Mogra River of northern Bangladesh.

SL
No

Group/ Family Local name Scientific name
Production (mt)

 StatusSomeswari River
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Snake headed

1 Notopteridae Chitol Notopterus chitala
0.70

±0.09
0.65

±0.05
0.59

±0.05
0.54

±0.03
0.50

±0.02
EN

2 Notopteridae Foli Notopterus notopterus
0.50

±0.04
0.44

±0.03
0.37

±0.02
0.33

±0.01
0.30

±0.01
EN

3 Belonidae Kakila Xenentodon cancila
1.90

±0.44
1.70

±0.40
1.55

±0.41
1.38

±1.10
1.26

±0.07
LR

4 Channidae Gojar Channa marulius
0.60

±0.20
0.53

±0.09
0.50

±0.07
0.48

±0.05
0.44

±0.03
CR

5 Channidae Soal Channa striata
1.03

±0.51
1.00

±0.10
0.97

±0.08
0.98

±0.09
0.92

±0.06
EN

6 Channidae Gachua Channa gachua
1.88

±0.50
1.70

±0.50
1.68

±0.44
1.66

±0.42
1.62

±0.41
CR

7 Channidae Taki Channa punctata
2.08

±0.60
2.00

±0.55
1.98

±0.50
1.95

±0.44
1.90

±0.42
LR

SubTotal
8.89

±0.69
8.02

±0.68
7.64

±0.64
7.32

±0.63
6.94

±0.62
Major carps

1 Cyprinidae Catla Catla catla
1.98

±0.80
1.84

±0.65
1.80

±0.60
1.73

±0.54
1.65

±0.50
EN

2 Cyprinidae Rui Labeo rohita
3.01

±0.30
2.88

±0.30
2.81

±0.30
2.71

±0.27
2.60

±0.21
EN

3 Cyprinidae Mrigal Cirrhinus mrigala
3.04

±0.26
3.0

±0.24
2.97

±0.22
2.90

±0.21
2.78

±0.20
EN

4 Cyprinidae Kalbaus Labeo calbasu
2.3

±0.19
2.25

±0.18
2.21

±0.17
2.16

±0.10
2.07

±0.10
EN

5 Cyprinidae Ghonia Labeo gonius
2.80

±0.17
2.50

±0.16
2.30

±0.14
2.20

±0.11
1.97

±0.10
EN

6 Cyprinidae Reba Cirrhinus reba
1.80

±0.11
1.60

±0.10
1.40

±0.09
1.20

±0.08
1.10

±0.06
EN

7 Cyprinidae Common carp Cyprinus carpio
5.50

±1.84
5.20

±1.70
5.00

±1.22
4.80

±1.10
4.50

±1.00
VU

8 Cyprinidae Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella
3.60

±1.24
3.30

±1.11
3.00

±1.01
2.95

±1.00
2.88

±0.98
VU

Sub-Total 24.03±1.17 22.57±1.12 21.49±1.09
20.65
±1.08

19.55
±1.03

Minor carp

1 Cyprinidae Along Bengala elanga
1.20

±0.07
1.10

±0.06
0.94

±0.04
0.82

±0.03
0.69

±0.01
VU

2 Cyprinidae Bhangna bata Labeo bata
1.10

±0.06
1.00

±0.05
0.80

±0.05
0.65

±0.04
0.50

±0.02
EN

3 Cyprinidae Ghora muikha Labeo pangusia
1.82

±0.05
1.80

±0.05
1.70

±0.04
1.60

±0.03
1.50

±0.03
EN

4 Cyprinidae Jarua/Utti Chagunius chagunio
0.87

±0.06
0.70

±0.05
0.62

±0.03
0.48

±0.03
0.38

±0.01
EN

5 Cyprinidae Puda Puntius sarana
0.58

±0.04
0.45

±0.03
0.22

±0.02
0.12

±0.01
0.01

±0.01
CR

6 Cyprinidae Tila koksa Barilius tileo
1.01

±0.08
0.90

±0.05
0.88

±0.04
0.84

±0.03
.81

±0.01
EN

7 Cyprinidae Bhol Raimass bola
0.86

±0.05
0.72

±0.04
0.64

±0.04
0.55
±003

0.54
±0.01

EN

Sub-Total
7.74

±0.39
6.67

±0.43
5.80

±0.45
5.06

±0.47
4.43

±0.46
Small fish

1 Cyprinidae Mola Amblypharyngodon mola 
1.88

±0.07
1.77

±0.06
1.64

±0.05
1.53

±0.05
1.45

±0.03
EN

http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/sms.v3i2.436



32

Sustainable Marine Structures | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | July 2021

Distributed under creative commons license 4.0

2 Cyprinidae Barna Baril/ Koksa Barilius barna
1.20

±0.05
1.00

±0.04
1.10

±0.04
0.96

±0.02
0.90

±0.03
EN

3 Cyprinidae Baril  Barilius bendelisis
0.66

±0.03
0.59

±0.01
0.55

±0.01
0.50
±001

0.46
±0.01

EN

4 Cyprinidae Koksa  Barilius shacra
0.55

±0.02
0.52

±0.02
0.49

±0.02
0.45

±0.01
0.41

±0.01
EN

5 Cyprinidae Koksa  Barilius tileo
0.88

±0.03
0.87

±0.03
0.84

±0.03
0.80

±0.01
0.78 
±0.0

CR

6 Cyprinidae
Aspidopara/

Morar
  Aspidoparia morar

0.66
±0.04

0.62
±0.04

0.60
±0.03

0.58
±0.02

0.55
±0.01

EN

7 Cyprinidae Chepchela Chela cachius
0.80

±0.05
0.75

±0.04
0.66

±0.03
0.62

±0.03
0.58

±0.02
EN

8 Cyprinidae Kashkhaira Chela laubuca
0.90

±0.06
0.88

±0.04
0.84

±0.04
0.81

±0.03
0.78

±0.03
EN

9 Mugillidae Kachi Kholya Sicamugil casoasia
0.66

±0.02
0.60

±0.01
0.58

±0.01
0.55
±001

0.52
±0.01

CR

10 Cyprinidae Baspata Danio devario
0.55

±0.03
0.52

±0.03
0.48

±0.03
0.45

±0.02
0.43

±0.01
EN

11 Cyprinidae Dhela Rohtee cotio
0.50

±0.03
0.40

±0.02
0.32

±0.02
0.22

±0.01
0.12 
±0.0

CR

12 Cyprinidae Chola punti Puntius chola
0.66

±0.04
0.63

±0.04
0.62

±0.03
0.61

±0.02
0.60

±0.02
EN

13 Cyprinidae Taka punti Puntius conchonius
0.70

±0.05
0.68

±0.05
0.64

±0.04
0.60

±0.03
0.58

±0.02
EN

14 Cyprinidae Phutani punti Puntius phutunio
0.80

±0.05
0.78

±0.05
0.75

±0.02
0.72

±0.02
0.68

±0.01
EN

15 Cyprinidae Jatpunti Punti Puntius Sophore
0.44

±0.03
0.42

±0.03
0.40

±0.02
0.37

±0.02
0.34

±0.01
EN

16 Cyprinidae Teri punti Puntius terio
0.70

±0.04
0.67

±0.04
0.65

±0.03
0.63

±0.02
0.60

±0.02
EN

17 Cyprinidae Tit Punti Puntius ticto
0.83

±0.05
0.80

±0.05
0.77

±0.04
0.74

±0.03
0.70

±0.02
VU

18 Cyprinidae Fulchela Salmostoma phulo
0.78

±0.04
0.75

±0.04
0.73

±0.03
0.70

±0.02
0.68

±0.02
EN

19 Cyprinidae Darkina Esomus danricus
0.50

±0.03
0.48

±0.02
0.45

±0.02
0.42

±0.02
0.12

±0.01
VU

20 Cyprinidae Kanpona Oryzias melastigma
1.00

±0.03
0.98

±0.03
0.95

±0.03
0.92

±0.02
0.88

±0.01
VU

21 Clupeidae Kachki Corica soborna
0.40

±0.03
0.38

±0.02
0.36

±0.02
0.28

±0.02
0.23

±0.01
DD

22 Cobitidae Balitora  Psilorhynchus balitora
0.40

±0.02
0.40

±0.02
0.37

±0.02
0.35

±0.01
0.33

±0.01
EN

23 Cobitidae  Balitora Psilorhynchus rahmani
0.37

±0.02
0.36

±0.01
0.22

±0.01
0.09
±001

0.08
±0.01

LC

24 Cobitidae River stone carp/ Titari Psilorhynchus sucatio
0.70

±0.07
0.66

±0.06
0.64

±0.04
0.63

±0.05
0.60

±0.03
EN

25 Cobitidae Bilturi /Bali chata Acanthocobitis botia
0.50

±0.03
0.47

±0.03
0.44

±0.02
0.42

±0.02
0.38

±0.01
EN

26 Cobitidae River loach/ Balichata
Acanthocobitis 
zonalternans

0.70
±0.05

0.68
±0.04

0.64
±0.03

0.60
±0.02

0.56
±0.03

VU

27 Cobitidae  Koirka Nemacheilus corica
0.60

±0.04
0.58

±0.03
0.56

±0.02
0.53

±0.01
0.50 
±0.2

LR

28 Cobitidae Creek loach Schistura beavani
0.40

±0.03
0.38

±0.04
0.36

±0.03
0.35

±0.02
0.32

±0.02
VU

29 Cobitidae Corica Loach/ Korika Schistura corica
0.70

±0.05
0.66

±0.05
0.63

±0.05
0.60

±0.04
0.57

±0.04
LR

30 Cobitidae Savon khorka Schistura savona
0.66

±0.04
0.62

±0.03
0.60

±0.03
0.57

±0.02
0.55

±0.02
LR

31 Cobitidae Dari Schistura scaturigina
0.40

±0.03
0.38

±0.02
0.36

±0.02
0.35

±0.02
0.32

±0.01
EN

http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/sms.v3i2.436



33

Sustainable Marine Structures | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | July 2021

Distributed under creative commons license 4.0

32 Cobitidae
Bengal loach / Bou 

mach 
Botia dario

0.60
±0.05

0.55
±0.04

0.53
±0.04

0.51
±0.02

0.48
±0.02

VU

33 Cobitidae Hora loach Botia dayi
0.60

±0.05
0.58

±0.04
0.56

±0.03
0.53

±0.03
0.50

±0.01
EN

34 Cobitidae Loach/ Puiya 
Lepidocephalichthys 

goalparensis
0.90

±0.05
0.88

±0.04
0.85

±0.02
0.83

±0.02
0.81

±0.02
EN

35 Cobitidae Goalpara loach 
Neoeucirrhichthys 

maydelli
0.55

±0.04
0.52

±0.04
0.50

±0.03
0.48

±0.02
0.45

±0.01
EN

36 Cobitidae
Gonga loach/

Poia/ Ghar poia
Somileptes gongota

0.60
±0.05

0.58
±0.05

0.55
±0.04

0.53
±0.03

0.50
±0.02

VU

37 Cobitidae Rani Botia lohachata
0.44

±0.04
0.41

±0.04
0.38

±0.03
0.36

±0.03
0.33

±0.01
LR

38 Cobitidae Rani
Lepidocephalichthys 

annandalei
0.55

±0.03
0.53

±0.03
0.52

±0.02
0.50

±0.02
0.47

±0.02
EN

39 Cobitidae Balichata Nemachilus botia
0.77

±0.04
0.74

±0.04
0.73

±0.02
0.71

±0.03
0.68

±0.03
EN

40 Centropomidae Chanda Chanda nama
1.50

±0.08
1.47

±0.05
1.44

±0.04
1.36
±004

1.28
±0.03

LC

41 Centropomidae Chanda Pseudambasis bacuculis
1.20

±0.08
1.16

±0.06
1.15

±0.05
1.13

±0.04
1.08

±0.04
EN

42 Centropomidae Ranga chanda Pseudambasis ranga
0.80

±0.05
0.74

±0.04
0.70

±0.03
0.68

±0.03
0.66

±0.02
LC

43 Gobiidae Baila Glossogobus giuris
1.20

±0.07
1.10

±0.06
1.00

±0.05
0.98

±0.04
0.94

±0.04
DD

44. Tetradontidae Potka Tetradon cutcutia
1.50

±0.08
1.44

±0.07
1.44

±0.06
1.36

±0.04
1.32

±0.04
EN

Sub-Total
32.72
±0.32

29.53±0.29 29.63±0.30
28.14
±0.29

26.63
±0.28

Cat fish

1 Bagridae Ayre Mystus aor
2.20

±0.12
2.10

±0.11
2.00

±0.10
1.98

±0.10
1.90

±0.09
EN

2 Bagridae Guizza Mystus seenghala
3.00

±0.20
2.89

±0.17
2.75

±0.14
2.66

±0.11
2.55

±0.11
CR

3 Schilbeidae Shilong Silonia silondia
1.00

±0.09
0.97

±0.08
0.93

±0.09
0.90

±0.07
0.88

±0.08
EN

4 Siluridae Boal Wallago attu
5.03

±1.84
4.90

±1.71
4.70

±1.81
4.40

±1.70
41.00
±1.40

LR

5 Bagridae Baghair Bagarius yarrellii
2.08

±0.80
1.66

±0.70
1.20
±0.7

1.11
±0.68

1.00
±0.65

CR

6 Chacidae Cheka Chaca chaca
1.50

±0.10
1.30

±0.09
1.00

±0.08
0.96

±0.08
0.90

±0.05
CR

7 Bagridae Gangmagur Mystus menoda
2.85

±0.90
2.55

±0.80
2.33

±0.78
2.00

±0.74
1.88

±0.60
EN

8 Bagridae Rita Rita rita
2.55

±0.81
2.50

±0.70
2.44

±0.70
2.20

±0.60
2.09

±0.50
EN

Sub total 20.21±1.21 18.87±1.22 17.35±1.24
16.21
±1.15

15.30
±1.08

Small cat fish

1 Bagridae Gulsa Mystus cavasius
2.20

±0.12
2.10

±0.11
2.08

±0.08
2.03

±0.07
1.90

±0.06
EN

2 Bagridae Tengra Mystus vitttus
2.70

±0.11
2.60

±0.11
2.50

±0.10
2.45

±0.10
2.40

±0.08
EN

3 Bagridae Bujuri Mystus tengra
2.70

±0.11
2.66

±0.11
2.60

±0.08
2.55

±0.07
2.51

±0.06
VU

4 Bagridae
Gura Tengra/ Futki 

bujuri
Rama chandramara

0.70
±0.06

0.60
±0.04

0.50
±0.03

0.48
±0.03

0.39
±.0.02

CR

5 Bagridae
Menoda catfish

/Arwari 
Hemibagrus menoda

0.80
±0.07

0.77
±0.05

0.75
±0.05

0.73
±0.04

0.70
±0.02

EN

6 Bagridae Kerala mystus Mystus armatus
0.90

±0.04
0.85

±0.04
0.80

±0.03
0.75

±0.03
0.70

±.0.02
EN

http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/sms.v3i2.436



34

Sustainable Marine Structures | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | July 2021

Distributed under creative commons license 4.0

7 Bagridae
Day's mystus/

Tengra 
Mystus bleekeri

0.75
±0.07

0.74
±0.05

0.72
±0.05

0.70
±0.04

0.68
±0.02

EN

8 Schilbeidae Kajuli Ailia coila
0.90

±0.08
0.86

±0.07
0.84

±0.06
0.81

±0.05
0.79

±0.04
EN

9 Siluridae Kani Pabda Ompok bimaculatus
1.58

±0.08
1.50

±0.07
1.48

±0.06
1.41

±0.06
1.37

±0.05
EN

10 Siluridae Madhu Pabda Ompok pabda
1.77

±0.09
1.60

±0.08
1.55

±0.07
1.52

±0.06
1.48

±0.05
VU

11 Siluridae Ompok pabda Ompok pabo
1.20

±0.06
1.17

±0.05
1.14

±0.06
1.10

±0.04
1.00

±0.04
EN

12 Schilbeidae Gharua Clupisoma garua
1.07

±0.08
0.96

±0.06
0.94

±0.07
0.88

±0.07
0.80

±0.05
EN

13 Schilbeidae Muri Bacha Clupisoma murias
1.40

±0.05
1.30

±0.05
1.26

±0.05
1.20
0.04

1.14
±0.03

EN

14 Schilbeidae Batasi
Pseudeutropius 

atherinoides
1.00

±0.05
0.97

±0.05
0.95

±0.03
0.92

±0.02
0.90

±.0.02
VU

15 Schilbeidae Bacha Eutropiichthys vacha
0.90

±0.04
0.88

±0.05
0.85

±0.04
0.83

±0.04
0.80

±0.02
EN

16 Sisoridae Kutakanti Hara hara
0.60

±0.04
0.55

±0.04
0.49

±0.04
0.45

±0.04
0.44

±0.04
LR

17 Sisoridae Kutakanti Hara jerdoni
1.10

±0.07
1.04

±0.06
1.00

±0.06
0.99

±0.05
0.96

±0.04
EN

18 Sisoridae  Gang tengra Nangra nangra
0.90

±0.04
0.88

±0.03
0.85

±0.04
0.82
0.04

0.79
±0.03

VU 

19 Sisoridae  Chenua Sisor rabdophorus
0.35

±0.02
0.30

±0.02
0.25

±0.03
0.16

±0.02
0.08

±.0.02
CR

20 Sisoridae
Conta catfish/ Kuta 

kanti 
Conta conta

1.24
±0.07

1.20
±0.06

1.15
±0.05

1.11
±0.04

1.05
±0.02

DD

21 Sisoridae  Kutakanti Erethistes pusillus
1.00

±0.02
0.97

±0.02
0.93

±0.01
0.12

±0.01
0.10

±.0.01
VU

22 Sisoridae Kani Tengra Pseudolaguvia muricata
0.55

±0.04
0.50

±0.03
0.46

±0.04
0.43

±0.03
0.34

±0.02
CR

23 Sisoridae Chanua Pseudolaguvia inornata
1.44

±0.09
1.33

±0.08
1.32

±0.06
1.32

±0.05
1.29

±0.05
CR

24 Clariidae  Cat fish/ Magur Clarias batrachus
0.50

±0.03
0.47

±0.03
0.45

±0.03
0.43

±0.02
0.40

±.0.02
VU

25 Heteropneustidae
Stinging catfish/

Shingi 
Heteropneustes fossilis

1.44
±0.07

1.38
±0.05

1.32
±0.05

1.30
±0.04

1.26
±0.02

LC

26 Chacidae Cheka Chaca chaca
1.70

±0.10
1.60

±0.09
1.15

±0.08
1.47

±0.05
1.33

±.0.05
LR

27 Olyridae Gagora catfish / Gobi Arius gagora
1.48

±0.07
1.40

±0.06
1.35

±0.05
1.32

±0.04
1.27

±0.02
EN

Sub-total 33.03±0.60 31.45±0.58 30.31±0.57
29.41
±0.57

28.09
±0.56

Clupidae

1 Clupidae Chapila Gadusia chapra
1.80

±0.08
1.50

±0.07
1.12

±0.06
1.00

±0.05
1.00

±0.04
EN

2 Clupidae Hilsa Tenualosa ilisha
0.98

±0.08
0.95

±0.06
0.90

±0.04
0.85

±0.02
0.82

±0.01
EN

3 Clupidae
Gizzard shad/

Chapila 
Gonialosa manmina

0.44
±0.08

0.38
±0.06

0.34
±0.04

0.31
±0.02

0.28
±0.01

EN

Subtotal
3.22

±0.68
2.83

±0.56
2.44

±0.44
2.16

±0.36
2.10

±0.38
Eels

1 Mastacembeli-dae Baim Mastacembalus armatus 
3.44

±0.14
3.35

±0.11
3.33

±0.09
3.24

±0.08
3.12

±0.07
VU

2 Synbranchidae Kuicha Monopterus cuchia
3.09

±0.10
2.98

±0.10
2.91

±0.09
2.80

±0.08
2.27

±0.08
EN

3 Mastacembelidae
Lesser spiny eel/ Tara 

baim 
Macrognathus aculeatus

2.90
±0.13

2.83
±0.12

2.76
±0.10

2.63
±0.10

2.54
±0.09

EN

http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/sms.v3i2.436



35

Sustainable Marine Structures | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | July 2021

Distributed under creative commons license 4.0

4 Mastacembelidae One-stripe spiny eel Macrognathus aral
2.20

±0.12
2.00

±0.11
1.95

±0.09
1.91

±0.08
1.86

±0.07
LR

5 Mastacembelidae
Barred spiny eel/

Pankal baim 
Macrognathus pancalus

2.55
±0.13

2.30
±0.12

2.22
±0.12

2.12
±0.11

2.04
±0.10

EN

Subtotal
14.18
±0.48

13.44
±0.54

13.17
±0.55

12.70
±0.53

12.26
±0.51

 Prawn

1 Palaemonidae Golda Isa Machrobrachiu rosenbergii
1.83

±0.07
1.77

±0.06
1.68

±0.05
1.60

±0.05
1.47

±0.04
EN

2 Palaemonidae Gura Isa
Machrobrachium

biramanicus
2.50

±0.18
2.42

±0.16
2.35

±0.15
2.28

±0.14
2.20

±0.15
DD

3 Palaemonidae Gul Isa
Machrobrachium 

malcolmsnii
1.61

±0.09
1.44

±0.05
1.32

±0.05
1.25

±0.04
1.18

±0.04
VU

4 Palaemonidae Dimua icha
Macrobrachium 

villosimanus
1.90

±0.20
1.80

±0.11
1.71

±0.10
1.64

±0.09
1.57

±0.10
LC

5 Palaemonidae
Gura icha or kuncho 

chingri
Macrobrachium lamarrei

0.88
±0.22

0.79
±0.16

0.80
±0.15

0.77
±0.14

0.75
±0.16

LR

6 Palaemonidae
Kaira icha or beel 

chingri.
Macrobrachium dayanum

0.71
±0.06

0.66
±0.03

0.60
±0.03

0.60
±0.02

0.54
±0.02

LR

7 Palaemonidae Chikna chingri. Macrobrachium idella
0.92

±0.02
0.88

±0.02
0.82

±0.01
0.77

±0.01
0.59

±0.01
DD

8 Palaemonidae Icha Macrobrachium kempi
0.87

±0.08
0.82

±0.07
0.78

±0.04
0.75

±0.04
0.72

±0.02
VU

9 Palaemonidae chingri Macrobrachium superbum
0.90

±0.06
0.84

±0.04
0.86

±0.03
0.80

±0.02
0.73

±0.02
LC

Sub-total:
11.12
±0.63

11.42
±0.62

10.92
±0.60

10.46
±0.57

7.75
±0.56

Crabs/Snail

1 Potamidae Kakra Sartoriana spinigera
2.77

±0.80
2.73

±0.61
2.54

±0.53
2.46

±0.48
240

±0.40
DD

2 Grapsidae Common Kakra
Lobothelphusa wood-

masoni
2.60

±0.06
2.40

±0.08
2.33

±0.05
2.10

±0.08
1.88

±0.04
LR

3 Grapsidae Kakra Acanthopotamon martensi
2.48

±0.08
2.33

±0.07
2.12

±0.06
2.00

±0.04
1.90

±0.03
VU

4 Parathelphusidae Kakra Pyxidognathus fluviatilis
1.08

±0.03
0.92

±0.03
0.88

±0.02
0.82

±0.02
0.78

±0.01
LC

5 Parathelphusidae Kakra Austrotelphusa transversa
1.88

±0.04
1.72

±0.05
1.44

±0.04
1.34

±0.03
1.22

±0.01
EN

6 Unionidae Bivalve Lamellidens marginalis
1.12

±0.04
1.00

±0.03
0.90

±0.02
0.85

±0.02
0.79

±0.01
VU

Sub-total:
11.93
±0.75

11.10
±0.76

10.21
±0.72

9.57
±0.70

8.97
±0.67

Reptiles

1 Testudinidae
Elongated Tortoise/ 

Kachhap
Indotestudo elongata

0.29
±0.03

0.22
±0.02

0.19
±0.02

0.13
±0.01

0.09
±0.01

CR

2 Testudinidae
Asian Giant Tortoise/ 

Chila Kachhap
Manouria emys

0.35
±0.04

0.32
±0.03

0.21
±0.02

0.18
±0.02

0.11
±0.01

EN

3 Geoemydidae
River Terrapin
/Bodo Kaitta

Batagur baska
0.16

±0.02
0.13

±0.01
0.09

±0.01
0.05

±0.01
0.01

±0.00
CR

4 Geoemydidae
Painted Roofed 

Turtile/Dhoor Kachim
Batagur dongoka

0.18
±0.02

0.14
±0.02

0.11
±0.01

0.08
±0.01

0.03
±0.07

EN

5 Geoemydidae
Oldham,s Leaf Turtile/

Pata Kachim
Cyclemys oldhami

0.26
±0.02

0.20
±0.02

0.14
±0.01

010
±0.01

0.00
±0.00

E

6 Geoemydidae
SpottedTurtile/
Kala Kachim

Geoclemys hamiltonii
0.19

±0.03
0.14

±0.02
0.12

±0.01
0.10

±0.01
0.07

±0.01
CR

7 Geoemydidae
Brahminy River 

Turtile/Kali Kaitta
Hardella thurjii

0.30
±0.11

0.24
±0.05

0.18
±0.06

0.13
±0.02

0.07
±0.01

EN

8 Geoemydidae Shila Kachhap
Melanocheelys 

tricarinata
0.30

±0.02
0.26

±0.01
0.19

±0.01
0.15

±0.01
0.08

±0.00
EN

http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/sms.v3i2.436



36

Sustainable Marine Structures | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | July 2021

Distributed under creative commons license 4.0

exploitation and various ecological changes in natural 
aquatic ecosystem of river and its floodplains, commer-
cially important aquatic lives are in the verge of extinction 
which is in agreement with the findings of Sarker [24]. 

The total catch data of the river exhibited a constant 
sharp decrease during 2015 and 2019. Some of the impor-
tant native species were noted to be losing their presence. 
The capture of fishes, crab and reptiles in the river was 
recorded highest in 2015-16, but decreased considera-
bly in 2017-2018 and the similar situation continued in 
2018-2019. Small catfishes and small fishes are dominant 
groups caught from the river. The observation was similar 
to the findings of Chakraborty and Mirza [20], Chakraborty 
[25] and Chakraborty et al. [26,11]. As a result, commercially 
important three aquatic lives of river were recorded to be dis-
appearing during this short 5 years experimental period.

A decreasing trend in catch of the river was clearly 
recorded within five years which was similar to the report 
of Chakraborty and Mirza [19] and Moyle and Leidy [21]. A 
total of thirteen species of fresh water turtles were found 
in the Mogra River and its floodplain. Khan [27] reported 
that Pangshura tecta are mainly distributed between the 
stretches of the Ganges River and the Brahmaputra Riv-
er. Bengal Eyed turtle, Morenia petersi was found in the 
rivers and its flood plains wetland. Das [28] mentioned its 
occurrence in Assam of India. Morenia petersi was reg-
ularly caught by fishermen and expert tribal hunters. Un-
fortunately, three important species of turtles became rare 
in their existence as per the catch data, within five years 
study period. 

The population of bivalve, Lamellidens marginalis as 
found in the river and its flood plains has also been de-
creasing which is considered with the observation of Ali [29] 
and Chakraborty [25]. During the study period, fresh water 
pearl bearing mussels (Bivalve, Lamellidens marginalis) 
were identified in the river. Shells of bivalve were utilized 
by rural people for production of lime which was utilized 
in aquaculture and agriculture land, and consumed with 
betel leaves and nuts.

The wildlife comprises amphibians (Bufo melanos-
tictus, Rana tigerina, Rana limnocharis, Rana cyanoph-
yctis and Salamandra salamandra etc.) aves (whistling 
duck, great crested grebe, great cormorant, red crested 
pochard, water cock, swamphen, great black headed gull, 
gray-headed fish eagle, curlew, spotted redshank etc.) and 
mammals (musk shrew, fishing cat, small Indian jackal, 
flying fox etc.) were previously reported by Chakraborty 
et al. [26].

The study clearly indicates that the aquatic lives of 
the river were subjected to over exploitation resulting in 
gradual decline in their catch. The stock of aquatic ani-
mals is reducing due to pollution and destructive fishing 
practices [30,31,11]. Indiscriminate killing of fish occurred 
due to the use of pesticides in improper doses[6], use of 
forbidden chemicals, and aerial spray of chemicals as 
used in paddy field which was very much similar to the 
observation of Chakraborty [31] and Mazid [32]. Intervention 
to control floods, adoption of new agricultural technolo-
gies and construction of road networks altered the ecology 
of rivers and its flood plains significantly which supported 
the views of Khan [33] and Ali [29]. Decreased stock of the wild 
brood fishes in their breeding ground also resulted in a re-
duction of biodiversity as noted by Nishat [34],  Zaman [35] and 
Chakraborty [36]. 

4. Conclusions

To save the stock of aquatic species in the river, a 
team of local management committee like Hilsa fisheries 
management technology is needed to develop a working 
frame-work. The deeper area of the river must be declared 
as a sanctuary to protect the aquatic lives, stricken en-
forcement of fish Act-1950 in the river, ensured stopping 
unplanned construction of flood control embankments, 
drainage system and sluice gates, conversion of inundated 
land to cropland (reducing water area); and controlling 
use of pesticides and agrochemicals in the floodplains of 
the river can save the ecosystems. The sustained produc-

9 Geoemydidae
Snail Eating Turtile/

Kali Kachhap
Melanocheelys 

trjuuga
0.40

±0.02
0.35

±0.02
0.30

±0.01
0.10

±0.00
0.00

±0.00
E

10 Geoemydidae Bengal Eyed Turtile Morenia petersi
0.08

±0.01
0.06

±0.01
0.05

±0.01
0.04

±0.00
0.0

±0.00
E

11 Geoemydidae
Indian Turtile/ Kori 

Kaitta
Pangshura tecta

0.13
±0.02

0.10
±0.01

0.10
±0.01

0.09
±0.01

0.07
±0.01

CR

12 Geoemydidae
Tent Turtile/

Majhari Kaitta
Pangshura tentoria

0.07
±0.01

0.06
±0.01

0.06
±0.00

0.05
±0.01

0.04
±0.00

EN

13 Trionychidae
Ganges Turtile/ Khalua 

Kachim
Aspideretes gangeticus

0.35
±0.03

0.32
±0.02

0.30
±0.03

0.28
±0.02

0.16
±0.01

VU

Sub-total
3.06
±0.11

2.54
±0.10

2.04
±0.08

1.48 
±0.06

0.73
±0.05

Total
170.63
±8.81

159.93
±7.40

150.98
±6.66

143.16
±5.87

134.75
±5.02

http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/sms.v3i2.436



37

Sustainable Marine Structures | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | July 2021

Distributed under creative commons license 4.0

tion level from the river will also ensure livelihood of the 
fishers.

Acknowledgement The authors are greatfully acknowl-
edged to Department of Fisheries, Bangladesh for kind 
suport and cooperation.

References

[1]  Verma A. K. (2018), Ecological Balance: An Indis-
pensable Need for Human Survival. Journal of Experi-
mental Zoology, India. 21 (1), 407-409.

[2]  Verma A. K. and Prakash S. (2020), Status of Animal 
Phyla in different Kingdom Systems of Biological 
Classification. International Journal of Biological In-
novations. 2 (2): 149154. https://doi.org/ 10.46505/ 
IJBI.2020.2211.

[3]  Noss R. F. (1990), A regional landscape approach to 
maintain diversity. Bioscience. 33, 700-706.

[4]  Cairns M. A. and Lackey R.T. (1992), Biodiversity 
and management of natural resources: The issues Fish-
eries. 17(3), 6-10.

[5]  Allendrof F. W. (1988), Conservation biology of fish-
es. Conservation Biology 2: 145-148.

[6]  Prakash S. and Verma A. K. (2020). Effect of Organo-
phosphorus Pesticides on Biomolecules of Fresh Water 
Fish, Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch). Indian Journal 
of Biology. 7(2), 65-69.

[7]  Disaster E. (1990),Floodplain protection in Central 
Europe. World Wildlife Found (WWF) Institute of 
Floodplains Ecology Visiting Card 31/90, Germany.

[8]  Alam G.N. (1996), Floodplain fisheries development 
in Bangladesh. Fisheries News Bangladesh Fisheries 
Research Institute 4(1), 3-4.

[9]  Shannon, C. E. (1948), A mathematical theory of com-
munication. Bell System Tec. J.,27, 379–656.

[10]  Zar, J. H. (1984), Biostatistics. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA. 718.

[11]  Chakraborty B. K., Bhattacharjee, S. and Muni-
ya, S. (2021), A Study of aquatic biodiversity of 
Shuthi-Shaiduli river of Bangladesh. International 
Journal of Biological Innovations. 3(1), 58-67.

[12]  Mathew, P. W. (1975), Limnology and productivity 
of Govindgarh Lake, Maddya Prodesh, India. Journal 
of Inland Fisheries Society, India 11, 16-24.

[13]  Rahman, M. S. (1992), Water quality management 
in aquaculture. BARC Prokashana, 66, Mohakhali, 
Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh 84 pp.

[14]  APHA (1998), Standard methods for the examination 
of water and wastewater, 20th edition, American Pub-
lic Health Association, Washington, DC.

[15]  Boyd, C. E. (1982), Water Quality Management for 
Pond Fish Culture. Elsevier, The Netherlands. 318 pp.

[16]  Clesceri L.S., Greenberg A.E. and Trussell R. R. 
(1989), Standard methods of the examination of wa-
ter and wastewater (17th ed.). American Public Health 
Association, American Water Works Association and 
Water Pollution Control Federation, 1015 Washing-
ton D. C., USA 20036, 10-203.

[17]  Haroon A. K. Y., Halder G.C. Rahman S.L. Raz-
zaque M.A. Alam M. and Amin S. M. N. (2002), 
Sylhet-mymensingh basin fish stock assessment. Fi-
nal Report. Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute, 
Reverine Station, Chandpur, Bangladesh 81 pp.

[18]  Sugunan, V.V. and B.K. Bhattacharya. (2000), Ecol-
ogy and fisheries of beels in Assam. Bull.No.104, 
CIFRI, Barrackpore-743101, West Bengal 66 pp.

[19]  Chakraborty B. K. and Mirza M. J. A. (2010), Aquat-
ic biodiversity of Someswari River in Bangladesh. 
Asian Fisheries Science 23, 174-193.

[20]  Chakraborty B. K. and Mirza M. J. A. (2007), Aquat-
ic biodiversity of Gharia Beel of Northern Bangla-
desh. J. Crop and Weed, India 3, 23-34.

[21]  Moyle P. L. and Leidy R.A. (1992), Loss of biodiver-
sity in aquatic ecosystem: evidence from fish fauna. 
In: P.L. Fielder and H.L. Jani (eds). Conservation of 
Biology: the theory and practice of nature conserva-
tion, preservation and management. Chapman and 
Hall, New York, USA. 562 pp.

[22]  IUCN. (2000), Red book of threatened fishes of 
Bangladesh. IUCN- The World Conservation Union 
xii+116 pp.

[23]  IUCN, Bangladesh. (1998), List of threatened an-
imals of Bangladesh. Paper presented in the Special 
Workshop on Bangladesh Red Book of Threatened Ani-
mals, 22 February 1998, Dhaka, Bangladesh. 13 pp.

[24]  Sarker, S. U. (1993), Faunal diversity and their 
conservation in freshwater wetlands. In Freshwater 
wetlands in Bangladesh issues and approaches for 
management. IUCN, The world Conservation Union, 
pp.105-122.

[25]  Chakraborty B. K. (2009), Aquatic biodiversity of 
Someswari and Nethai River and Gharia and Nidaya 
Beel of Northern Bangladesh. In: Takumi K. Na-
kamura (ed.). Aquaculture Research Progress, Nova 
Science Publishers, New York, USA. 3231-3268p.

[26]  Chakraborty B. K., Shahroz M. H., Bhuiyan A. B., 
Bhattacharjee S. and Chattoraj S. (2019), Status 
of Indian major carps spawns in the Halda River 
along with marketing and economic condition of the 
Fishers and related collectors. International Journal 
of Biological Innovations. 1 (2):40-50. https://doi.
org/10.46505/IJBI.2019.1202.

[27]  Khan, M.A.R. (1982), Chelonians of Bangladesh and 

http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/sms.v3i2.436



38

Sustainable Marine Structures | Volume 03 | Issue 02 | July 2021

Distributed under creative commons license 4.0

their conservation. Journal of Bombay Natural Histo-
ry Society 79 (i), 110-116.

[28]  Das, I. (1991), Color guide to the turtles and tortoises 
of the Indian sub continent. R & A publishing Ltd.

[29]  Ali, M. Y. (1991), Towards sustainable development: 
fisheries resources of Bangladesh International union 
for conservation of nature and natural resources. The 
World Conservation Union. National Conservation 
Strategy of Bangladesh and Bangladesh Agricultural 
Research Council. 96 pp.

[30]  Mazid M. A. and Hossain, M. S. (1995), Develop-
ment of fisheries resources in floodplains. FRI publi-
cation No. 12. Fisheries Research Institute, Mymens-
ingh, Bangladesh.

[31]  Chakraborty B. K. (2011), Present Status of Biodi-
versity in Bogajan Beel in Northern Bangladesh J. 
Fish. Soc. Taiwan 38(4), 277-300.

[32]  Mazid M. A. (2002), Development of fisheries in 
Bangladesh: plans and strategic for income genera-
tion and poverty alleviation. Fisheries Research Insti-
tute, Mymensingh, Bangladesh. pp. 78-79.

[33]  Khan H. R. (1993), Water development activities 

and their impacts on wetlands. P. 23-32. In: A. Nisat, 
Z. Hossain, M. K. Roy, and Ansarul Karim (eds.). 
Freshwater wetlands in Bangladesh: issues and ap-
proaches for management. IUCN, Gland Switzerland. 
xii+283pp.

[34]  Nishat A. (1993), Freshwater wetlands in Bangla-
desh: status and issues. P. 9-22 In: A. Nishat Z. 
Hossain, M. K. Roy, and Ansarul Karim (eds.). 
Freshwater wetlands in Bangladesh: Issues and Ap-
proaches for management. IUCN, Gland Switzerland. 
xii+283pp.

[35]  Zaman, S. M. H. (1993), Agricultural development 
and sustainability of wetlands. pp.63-178 In: A. 
Nishat Z. Hossain, M.K. Roy, and A. Karim (eds.). 
Freshwater wetlands in Bangladesh: Issues and Ap-
proaches for management. IUCN, Gland Switzerland. 
xii+283p.

[36]  Chakraborty, B. K. (2021). Induction of spawning 
and nursing pangas, Pangasianodon hypophthalmus 
(Sauvage, 1978) under hathery system. Internation-
al Journal of Biological Innovations 3(2), 264-270. 
https://doi.org/10.46505/IJBI.2021.3203

http://dx.doi.org/10.36956/sms.v3i2.436