DOCSLIB.ORG

An Assessment of the Reproductive Biology of the Marico Barb Barbus Motebensis (Steindachner 1894) from the Upper Groot Marico Catchment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Assessment of the Reproductive Biology of the Marico Barb Barbus Motebensis (Steindachner 1894) from the Upper Groot Marico Catchment COPYRIGHT AND CITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS THESIS/ DISSERTATION o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original. How to cite this thesis Surname, Initial(s). (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation. PhD. (Chemistry)/ M.Sc. (Physics)/ M.A. (Philosophy)/M.Com. (Finance) etc. [Unpublished]: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved from: https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za (Accessed: Date). An assessment of the reproductive biology of the Marico barb Barbus motebensis (Steindachner 1894) from the upper Groot Marico catchment MINOR DISSERTATION By DALE HERMAN KINDLER submitted in the partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree MAGISTER SCIENTIAE in AQUATIC HEALTH in the FACULTY OF SCIENCE at the UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG Supervisor: Prof. G.M. Wagenaar (UJ) Co-supervisor: Dr. O.L.F. Weyl (SAIAB) 2015 Table of Content Table of Figures ......................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. v Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................... vi Abstract .................................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1 - General Introduction............................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Study species ............................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Study area.................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Study motivation ......................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Hypotheses .................................................................................................................. 7 1.6 Study aim and objectives ............................................................................................ 7 Chapter 2 - Literature Overview ................................................................................................ 8 2.1 Study species ............................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Study area.................................................................................................................. 11 2.3 Environmental parameters ....................................................................................... 14 2.4 Condition factor ........................................................................................................ 15 2.5 Gonadal development ............................................................................................... 15 2.6 Gonadosomatic index ............................................................................................... 16 2.7 Fecundity ................................................................................................................... 17 2.8 Length at maturity and growth pattern .................................................................... 17 2.9 Statistical analysis...................................................................................................... 18 Chapter 3 - Materials and Methods ......................................................................................... 19 3.1 Environmental parameters ....................................................................................... 19 3.2 Sample collection method ........................................................................................ 19 3.3 Condition factor ........................................................................................................ 20 3.4 Gonadal development ............................................................................................... 21 3.4.1 Histological processing....................................................................................... 21 3.4.2 Macroscopic and Microscopic assessment ........................................................ 21 3.5 Gonadosomatic index ............................................................................................... 22 3.6 Fecundity ................................................................................................................... 22 i 3.7 Length at maturity and growth pattern .................................................................... 23 3.8 Statistical analysis...................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 4 - Results ................................................................................................................... 24 4.1 Environmental parameters ....................................................................................... 24 4.2 Growth pattern ......................................................................................................... 24 4.3 Condition factor ........................................................................................................ 26 4.4 Gonadal development ............................................................................................... 27 4.4.1 Macroscopic assessment ................................................................................... 27 4.4.2 Microscopic assessment .................................................................................... 30 4.5 Gonadosomatic index ............................................................................................... 35 4.6 Fecundity ................................................................................................................... 38 4.7 Length at maturity ..................................................................................................... 42 4.8 Parasitic infection ...................................................................................................... 43 Chapter 5 – Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................... 45 5.1 Environmental parameters ....................................................................................... 45 5.2 Condition factor ........................................................................................................ 45 5.3 Gonadal development ............................................................................................... 45 5.3.1 Macroscopic assessment ................................................................................... 46 5.3.2 Microscopic assessment .................................................................................... 47 5.4 Gonadosomatic index ............................................................................................... 49 5.5 Fecundity ................................................................................................................... 50 5.6 Length at maturity and growth pattern .................................................................... 53 5.7 Parasitic infection ...................................................................................................... 54 5.8 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 54 5.9 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 56 Chapter 6 - Reference list ........................................................................................................ 58 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. i Fish Species in the upper Groot Marico Catchment. .............................................................. i Appendix B ................................................................................................................................ iv Fecundity traits ...................................................................................................................... iv ii Table of Figures Figure 1.1: Marico barb – Barbus motebensis (Engelbrecht & Bills, 2007) ............................... 3 Figure 1.2: The predatory largemouth bass – Micropterus salmoides photographed at the source of Kaaloog se Loop in the Marico Eye in the upper Groot Marico catchment, North West Province, South Africa (Courtesy of Darragh Woodford) ................................................. 3 Figure 1.3: Mean monthly precipitation values for Groot Marico, North West Province, South Africa. Graph redrawn from SA Explorer (2014) ............................................................. 4 Figure 1.4: Map of the Crocodile (West) and Marico Water Management Area and study area (yellow square) in the North West Province,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Groundwater Recharge Assessment in the Upper Limpopo River Basin: a Case Study in Ramotswa Dolomitic Aquifer
    Groundwater Recharge Assessment in the Upper Limpopo River Basin: A Case Study in Ramotswa Dolomitic Aquifer Submitted to the Faculty of Science, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Hydrogeology Submitted by: Simamkele Siyambonga Baqa Student number: 1098513 Supervisors: Dr. Karen Villholth (IWMI) Prof. Tamiru Abiye (Wits) July 2017 in Johannesburg Groundwater Recharge Assessment in the upper Limpopo River Basin: A case study in Ramotswa Dolomitic Aquifer Declaration I Simamkele Siyambonga Baqa declare that Groundwater Recharge Assessment in the upper Limpopo River Basin with a case study in Ramotswa Dolomitic Aquifer is my own investigation and covers no section copied in whole or in part from any source unless it is clearly acknowledged in quotation marks and with detailed, complete and precise referencing. Further, the report has not been submitted before for any degree or examination at any university. …………………………………….. (Signature) ………………… (Date) I Abstract Hydrogeological research was undertaken in the transboundary Ramotswa dolomitic aquifer to provide understanding and quantification of the processes governing recharge mechanism and rates, in order to promote efficient and sustainable groundwater resource utilization and development, as well as to improve the Ramotswa transboundary aquifer management. Hydrochemical and tracer approaches were utilized to evaluate the processes governing the recharge mechanism while the chloride mass balance approach was further applied to assess groundwater recharge rates. Results indicated that all groundwater samples contained detectable amounts of tritium highlighting the renewability of the transboundary Ramotswa aquifer resources. Two distinct water types were characterised: sub-modern waters approximately recharge prior to the 1950s and a mixture of modern and sub-modern waters of recently recharge rainfall indicative of active recharge in the area through intensive rainfall.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Fishes
    WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE state oF BIODIVERSITY 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction 2 Chapter 2 Methods 17 Chapter 3 Freshwater fishes 18 Chapter 4 Amphibians 36 Chapter 5 Reptiles 55 Chapter 6 Mammals 75 Chapter 7 Avifauna 89 Chapter 8 Flora & Vegetation 112 Chapter 9 Land and Protected Areas 139 Chapter 10 Status of River Health 159 Cover page photographs by Andrew Turner (CapeNature), Roger Bills (SAIAB) & Wicus Leeuwner. ISBN 978-0-620-39289-1 SCIENTIFIC SERVICES 2 Western Cape Province State of Biodiversity 2007 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Andrew Turner [email protected] 1 “We live at a historic moment, a time in which the world’s biological diversity is being rapidly destroyed. The present geological period has more species than any other, yet the current rate of extinction of species is greater now than at any time in the past. Ecosystems and communities are being degraded and destroyed, and species are being driven to extinction. The species that persist are losing genetic variation as the number of individuals in populations shrinks, unique populations and subspecies are destroyed, and remaining populations become increasingly isolated from one another. The cause of this loss of biological diversity at all levels is the range of human activity that alters and destroys natural habitats to suit human needs.” (Primack, 2002). CapeNature launched its State of Biodiversity Programme (SoBP) to assess and monitor the state of biodiversity in the Western Cape in 1999. This programme delivered its first report in 2002 and these reports are updated every five years. The current report (2007) reports on the changes to the state of vertebrate biodiversity and land under conservation usage.
    [Show full text]
  • River Health Programme in the North West Province
    RIVER HEALTH PROGRAMME IN THE NORTH WEST PROVINCE What is the River Health Programme? ‚ It is a national programme co-ordinated by DWAF, DEAT, WRC designed to monitor the condition of rivers in South Africa using standardised bio- monitoring techniques. What is biomonitoring? ‚ Use of living organisms as biological indicators of ecosystem or environmental “health”. ‚ Animals and plants provide a long-term integrated reflection of water quality and quantity, habitat quality and other environmental conditions What is being monitored in the River Health Programme? Indices of Ecosystem health ‚ Fish (Fish Community Integrity Index) ‚ Aquatic Invertebrates (South African Scoring System SASS4) ‚ Aquatic Habitats (Integrated Habitat Assessment System IHAS) ‚ Plants (Riparian Vegetation Index RVI) ‚ Water flow (Hydrological Index) ‚ Water quality (Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Conductivity, Temperature) ‚ River channel condition (Geomorphological Index) Advantages of biomonitoring ‚ Detects changes in water quality e.g pollution from mining, industry and agriculture ‚ Detects effects of changes in water flow e.g dams, bridges and forestry ‚ Standardized method of comparison of water quality ‚ Easy to use practical means of assessing water quality ‚ Relatively cheap and quick ‚ Can detect water quality changes which may be missed by chemical sampling ‚ Non-destructive - animals returned live to water. Disadvantages to biomonitoring ‚ A fair amount of training is required ‚ Can be open to subjective interpretation ‚ Does not provide an exact figures of water quality parameters ‚ Cannot pinpoint the exact cause of water quality problems ‚ Has no legal standing North West Rivers identified for River Health Programme ‚ Groot Marico River ‚ Hex River near Rustenburg ‚ Elands River near Rustenburg ‚ Crocodile River downstream of Hartebeespoort Dam ‚ Mooi River near Potchefstroom ‚ Schoonspruit near Ventersdorp to Orkney ‚ Harts River from Lichtenburg to Spitzkop Dam ‚ the section of the Vaal River forming the boundary between the Free State and the North West.
    [Show full text]
  • RESILIENCE in the LIMPOPO BASIN (RESILIM) PROGRAM Final Report
    RESILIENCE IN THE LIMPOPO BASIN (RESILIM) PROGRAM Final Report October 1, 2017 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Chemonics International Inc. The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States government. RESILIENCE IN THE LIMPOPO BASIN (RESILIM) PROGRAM Final Report October 1, 2107 Contract No. AID-674-C-12-00006 Cover photo: Across the Limpopo River Basin, the livelihoods of people such as this fisherman in Mozambique depend on effective transboundary management of natural resources, including water and biodiversity, as well as future climate impacts. Credit: Climate Investment Funds Action, 2014. CONTENTS Acronyms .............................................................................................................................................. i Executive Summary............................................................................................................................ ii 1. Project Context .............................................................................................................................. 1 Climate and Weather ................................................................................................................................... 1 Water Demand .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 1 8(2): 143—1 86
    2009. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 1 1 8(2): 143—1 86 THE "LOST" JORDAN AND HAY FISH COLLECTION AT BUTLER UNIVERSITY Carter R. Gilbert: Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 USA ABSTRACT. A large fish collection, preserved in ethanol and assembled by Drs. David S. Jordan and Oliver P. Hay between 1875 and 1892, had been stored for over a century in the biology building at Butler University. The collection was of historical importance since it contained some of the earliest fish material ever recorded from the states of South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Kansas, and also included types of many new species collected during the course of this work. In addition to material collected by Jordan and Hay, the collection also included specimens received by Butler University during the early 1880s from the Smithsonian Institution, in exchange for material (including many types) sent to that institution. Many ichthyologists had assumed that Jordan, upon his departure from Butler in 1879. had taken the collection. essentially intact, to Indiana University, where soon thereafter (in July 1883) it was destroyed by fire. The present study confirms that most of the collection was probably transferred to Indiana, but that significant parts of it remained at Butler. The most important results of this study are: a) analysis of the size and content of the existing Butler fish collection; b) discovery of four specimens of Micropterus coosae in the Saluda River collection, since the species had long been thought to have been introduced into that river; and c) the conclusion that none of Jordan's 1878 southeastern collections apparently remain and were probably taken intact to Indiana University, where they were lost in the 1883 fire.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Fish Fact Sheet
    FACT SHEET What a landowner should know about the INDIGENOUS FISH of the Cape Floristic Region: DIVERSITY, THREATS AND MANAGEMENT INTERVENTIONS The majority of the freshwater The Cape Floristic Region, mainly within the Western Cape Province, fish of the Cape Floristic is one of the six plant kingdoms of the world. This area, however, is Region are listed as either not only home to a remarkable number of plant species but also has a Endangered or Critically Endangered and face a very number of unique indigenous freshwater fish species. real risk of extinction! INDIGENOUS FISH are a critical component of healthy aquatic ecosystems as they form an important part of the aquatic food web and fulfill several important ecological functions. These fish need suitable habitat and good quality water, free of sediment and agrichemicals, in order to survive. The presence of indigenous fish is one of the signs of a healthy riverine Cape kurper ecosystem, making indigenous fish good bio-indicators of healthy rivers. There are four main river systems in the Western Cape, namely the Berg, Breede, Gourits and Olifants, and each system has unique fish species which only occur in ecologically healthy parts of these rivers. A good example is Burchell’s redfin in the Breede and neighbouring river systems. Genetic research on this species indicates that there could be three distinct species in the Cape galaxias Breede system. The Olifants River system is however recognised as the hotspot for indig- enous fish diversity as this system has the highest number of unique indigenous species. Research is ongoing and further genetic diversity is being uncovered for other species such as the Cape kurper and the Cape galaxias.
    [Show full text]
  • History of LIMCOM History of LIMCOM
    About Tutorial Glossary Documents Images Maps Google Earth Please provide feedback! Click for details You are here: Home>Governance>Water Governance in the Limpopo Basin >History of LIMCOM History of LIMCOM Cooperation between the Limpopo River basin states can be traced back to a number of regional initiatives, agreements and institutions which help to promote a cooperative spirit within the basin. These include: Tripartite Permanent Technical Committee (TPTC) one of the first attempts at a regional water agreement. It was established in 1983 when Mozambique, South Africa and Swaziland formalised it with the goal of making recommendations on the management of the water shortages being experienced in the Limpopo,Incomati and Maputo Rivers at that time (Van der Zaag and Savenije 1999). Limpopo Basin Permanent Technical Committee(LBPTC) between Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe was established in 1986 ( SADC 2003a). Joint Permanent Technical Commission (JPTC) between Botswana and South Africa on the Limpopo, Molopo and Nossob Rivers was formalised in 1987 ( SADC 2003a). One of the key outputs of the JPTC was the Joint Upper Limpopo Basin Study (JULBS),which was made to investigate a range of issues including evaluate the most successful and cost effective way of exploiting and regulating the main stream (Amaral and Rubik 2004). Joint Permanent Commission for Co- operation (JPCC) was a joint agreement between Botswana and South Africa was established in 1997 to deal with a variety of issues, including the transfer of water from the Molatedi Dam on the Marico River (SADC 2003a). In 1986, the “Agreement on the Limpopo Basin Permanent Technical Committee” was signed by representatives from Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe (UN- HABITAT/ UNEP 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment Is Recorded in a Decision Notice
    Environmental United States Department of Assessment Agriculture Forest Service Vegetation Management in Open Areas November 2017 Ocoee Ranger District, Polk and McMinn Counties, Tennessee Tellico Ranger District, Monroe County, Tennessee Unaka Ranger District, Cocke and Greene Counties Watauga Ranger District, Carter, Johnson, Sullivan, Unicoi and Washington Counties, Tennessee For Information Contact: Mary Miller 2800 Ocoee Street North Cleveland, TN 37312 423-476-9700 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents Glossary, Acronyms and Abbreviations ...........................................................1 Introduction .........................................................................................................7 Document Structure .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the 8Th Yellowfish Working Group Conference
    FOSAF THE FEDERATION OF SOUTHERN AFRICAN FLYFISHERS PROCEEDINGS OF THE 8TH YELLOWFISH WORKING GROUP CONFERENCE LE PARADISE RESORT, BADPLAAS 13 – 15 MAY 2004 Edited by Peter Arderne PRINTING & DISTRIBUTION SPONSORED BY: sappi CONTENTS Page List of Participants 2 Press Release 4 Welcome address -Bill Mincher (presented by Peter Mills) 6 Fishing Strategies & Tactics for the Nine Yellowfish species – Turner Wilkinson 8 Keynote Address: Mpumalanga Parks Board – Andre Coetzee 10 South African Freshwater Resources: Rights, Duties & Remedies – Morne Viljoen 11 Towards the fomulation of a Waste Discharge Charge System for South Africa - 24 Pieter Viljoen Catchment Management Approach to Conservation: What does it mean? – 34 Dr Wynand Vlok Establishment of the Elands River Conservation Area (ERYCA) – Gordon O’Brien 38 The Effect of Alien Plant Species on the Riparian Zone Water Management – 43 Hannes de Lange & Tony Poulter Fish kills in the Olifants River: Any Solution? – Dr Thomas Gyedu-Ababio 45 Yellowfish Sport Fisheries: Opportunities & Responsibilities – Kobus Fourie 48 Conservancies – A tool for river conservation involving the landowner – Peter Mills 49 Proposed project: Radio Telemetry on Labeobarbus marequensis in the Crocodile River, 54 Kruger National Park – Francois Roux The yellowfish fishery on the upper Komati: A landowners perspective – John Clarke 56 River Health: Managing and Monitoring Rivers on Sappi Plantations – Douglas 60 Macfarlane Iscor Newcastle: Water Strategy – Martin Bezuidenhout 63 Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation in South Africa – Pierre de Villiers 66 Field research update: Assessing the impact of smallmouth bass on the indigenous 67 fish community of the Rondegat River, Western Cape – Darragh Woodford Threatened fishes of Swaziland – Richard Boycott 70 Yellowfishes of Zambia & Mozambique – Roger Bills 76 Identification of conservation units of two yellowfish species: Labeobarbus 78 kimberleyensis & L.
    [Show full text]
  • Kyfishid[1].Pdf
    Kentucky Fishes Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission To conserve, protect and enhance Kentucky’s fish and wildlife resources and provide outstanding opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, shooting sports, wildlife viewing, and related activities. Federal Aid Project funded by your purchase of fishing equipment and motor boat fuels Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601 1-800-858-1549 • fw.ky.gov Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission Kentucky Fishes by Matthew R. Thomas Fisheries Program Coordinator 2011 (Third edition, 2021) Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Division of Fisheries Cover paintings by Rick Hill • Publication design by Adrienne Yancy Preface entucky is home to a total of 245 native fish species with an additional 24 that have been introduced either intentionally (i.e., for sport) or accidentally. Within Kthe United States, Kentucky’s native freshwater fish diversity is exceeded only by Alabama and Tennessee. This high diversity of native fishes corresponds to an abun- dance of water bodies and wide variety of aquatic habitats across the state – from swift upland streams to large sluggish rivers, oxbow lakes, and wetlands. Approximately 25 species are most frequently caught by anglers either for sport or food. Many of these species occur in streams and rivers statewide, while several are routinely stocked in public and private water bodies across the state, especially ponds and reservoirs. The largest proportion of Kentucky’s fish fauna (80%) includes darters, minnows, suckers, madtoms, smaller sunfishes, and other groups (e.g., lam- preys) that are rarely seen by most people.
    [Show full text]
  • Bakwena Contributes to Significant Storm Water Upgrades in Zeerust
    Bakwena contributes to significant storm water upgrades in Zeerust During heavy rains in January 2011, the Klein Marico River flooded and washed away part of the bridge linking Ikageleng Township and Zeerust in the North West Province. This highlighted an issue that the town has struggled with for some time. During heavy downpours, the main road of Zeerust in the Ramotshere Moiloa Local Municipality has been subject to frequent flooding due to aging and inadequate storm water drainage. Bakwena Platinum Corridor Concessionaire, operator of the N1N4 toll route, is contributing to the upgrade of the storm water drainage system in the main street of this Northwest town and the connection of the storm water system to the river. SANRAL which is responsible for the R49 route is also contributing to upgrade the stormwater system. Construction on the R15-million storm water upgrades started in March 2015 and will be complete in February 2017. It involves augmenting the storm water system, the reconstruction of kerb inlet structures and resurfacing the main road. V&V Consulting Engineers designed the upgrades, which also include the provision of a secondary system on the R49 that links into a bulk drainage system ensuring effective disposal of water emanating from higher lying areas. Says Jacques van Niekerk of G4 Civils, the construction company appointed by Bakwena to complete the works, “The replacement of the storm water reticulation is particularly challenging since the original plans are out of date. We found that the existing infrastructure was not installed according to good engineering practice and some of the storm water systems were not connected to the larger system.
    [Show full text]
  • Glimpopo Fact Sheet
    Fact Sheet 1 The Limpopo River flows over a total distance of The Limpopo basin covers almost 14 percent of the total 1,750 kilometres. It starts at the confluence of the Marico area of its four riparian states – Botswana, South Africa, and Crocodile rivers in South Africa and flows northwest Zimbabwe and Mozambique. And of the basin’s total area, of Pretoria. It is joined by the Notwane river flowing from 44 percent is occupied by South Africa, 21 percent by Botswana, and then forms the border between Botswana Mozambique, almost 20 percent by Botswana and 16 per- and South Africa, and flows in a north easterly direction. cent by Zimbabwe. At the confluence of the Shashe river, which flows in from Zimbabwe and Botswana, the Limpopo turns almost due Drainage Network The Limpopo river has a rela- east and forms the border between Zimbabwe and South tively dense network of more than 20 tributary streams and Africa before entering Mozambique at Pafuri. For the next rivers, though most of these tributaries have either season- 561 km the river flows entirely within Mozambique and al or episodic flows. In historical times, the Limpopo river enters the Indian Ocean about 60 km downstream of the was a strong-flowing perennial river but is now regarded town of Xai-Xai. as a weak perennial river where flows frequently cease. During drought periods, no surface water is present over The Basin The Limpopo river basin is almost circular large stretches of the middle and lower reaches of the in shape with a mean altitude of 840 m above sea level.
    [Show full text]