Food Composition and Niche Characteristic of Giant………….in Kampar River, Indonesia (Wibowo, A., et al)

FOOD COMPOSITION AND NICHE CHARACTERISTIC OF GIANT FEATHERBACK ( lopis, Bleeker 1851) IN KAMPAR RIVER, INDONESIA

Arif Wibowo1, Ridwan Affandi2 and Dwi Atminarso1 1Researcher Institute for Inland Fisheries (RIIF), Mariana, Palembang, Indonesia 2Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Sciences, Bogor Agricultural University Received April 18-2012; Received in revised form June 02-2014; Accepted June 04-2014 Email: [email protected].

ABSTRACT

This paper provides information on the diets of Chitala lopis in Kampar River, Riau Province based on study conducted from Mei 2009 to November 2010. Fish species were obtained from fishers using modified nets, traps, hooks and lines. Specimens were cold with cool box at the point of collection and transported to the laboratory. A total of 176 fish specimens were inspected and their stomach contents were examined. The month-wise collection and experiments were made to exhibit the seasonal variation in food preferences, and feeding habit of the fish. Frequency of occasion and numerical methods were used in this study. Results of denote that C. lopis fed on juvenile fish, shrimp, plant material, insects, worms, benthos, gravel and unidentified organism. The consumption of shrimp tends to increase due to giant featherback’s size, which relates to wider mouth, energy, location (water depth) and gonad development, also there is an increase of shrimp consumption during dry season. In giant featherback, the percentage of consumed shrimps is associated with sex and season, meanwhile the consumption of small fish and plant material is related to fish’s size, sampling station and maturity index. Giant featherback tends to be more selective consuming certain food’s group while growing.

KEYWORDS: Giant featherback, food composition, niche, Kampar River

INTRODUCTION reduce pressure on its natural populations and design effectively management strategies for its sustainability Giant featherback is an English name for Chitala in nature. Therefore it is important to understand the lopis which is synonymous with Notopterus chitala. dynamics of food composition and niche characteristic, This species belongs to family in this information is not only providing basic information order (Kottelat et al., 1993; 1997). for domestication efforts but also reflecting the The existent of Indonesian giant featherback origin condition of giant featherback’s habitat in nature as from Asia mainlands which is distributed through the basis for population management. The research Great River that connected between Asia mainlands objectives are to examine the dynamics of food with mainland is Indonesia. Nowadays giant composition and niches characteristics in order to featherback distributed in almost all major rivers and formulate and develop management strategies of giant their watersheds, flood areas and lakes in Sumatra, featherback in the Kampar River. Kalimantan and Java Island. MATERIALS AND METHODS Over fishing activities, unfriendly fishing gears and Study Area changing environmental conditions led to declining fish species (Pollnac & Malvestuto, 1991), including giant Kampar River in the island of Sumatera emanates featherback. Directorate General of Fisheries (2000) in the mountainous Bukit Barisan that is substantial recorded an annual production of giant featherback in for Riau Province fisheries. The river has 413.5 Indonesia continued to decline, namely: 8,000 tons kilometer long, its average depth is 7.7 m and width (1991), 5,000 tons (1995) and 3,000 tons (1998). is 143 m. The total catchment of Kampar River is Linearly, the annual production of Kampar River’s giant approximately 12.000 km2. featherback also decreased, with 50 tons in 2003, 30 tons in 2004, 20 tons in 2005, 9 tons in 2006 and 10 Catch Sampling and Laboratory Procedures tons in 2007 (Riau Fisheries, 2008). Fishes were randomly sampled almost monthly Appropriate management strategies are extremely from five sampling stations located along the Kampar needed to avoid the extinction of Kampar River’s giant River (Fig. 1). The fish specimens were collected by featherback, these strategies including efforts to modified nets, traps, hooks and lines from May 2009 increase domestication of this species in order to to November 2010. ______Corresponding author: Research of Research Institute for Inland Fisheries Jl. Beringin, No. 08, Mariana Palembang 1 Ind.Fish.Res.J. Vol.20 No.1 June 2014 : 1-10

Figure 1. Five sampling stations located along the Kampar River, Indonesia (marked with red dot).

Samples were cold in iced blocks at the point of size was pooled between 611 to 750 mm and finally collection before being transported to the laboratory the large size was grouped between 751 to 960 mm. of Biology, Research Institute for Inland Fisheries for The ranged was tried to be as similar as possible, analysis. Data on size, sex and maturity stage were however in order to make good interpretation a group gathered for all fish samples. Body weight and gutted has longer size range than the others. weight were measured to the nearest 0.1 gram (g), gonads to the nearest 0.1 mg after depleting excess - Niches water with a pile of filter paper while standard length was measured in centimeter employing a measuring Extensive analysis of dietary niche was conducted board. Specimens were operated and the gut grabbed in order to see the proportion of food resources to repeal the stomach. The contents were cleared utilized by the fish. Broad niche was calculated using into petridish for analysis. The gonad maturity was the formula proposed by Levins in Krebs (1989). classified into four stages: I immature; II developing or recovering spent; III maturing; and IV ripe based on RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Cassie modification (Effendi, 1997; 2002). RESULTS

Diets Analysis Total Catch

- Index of preponderance There were 176 giant featherbacks collected during sampling periods (Fig. 2). Overall size ranged from Index of preponderance (IP) was calculated using 401 to 960 mm and weight ranged from 350 to 7100 the formula of Natarajan & Jhingran in Effendie (1979). g. Proportion of catch composition dominated by a In The index of preponderance method, the small group, with its percentage ranging from 54.05 - occurrence of food items was revealed as the 79.49% (Fig. 3). percentage of the total number of stomach containing food. Fish samples were analyzed based on season, which can be distinguished according to the dry Ontogenic variations in size, sampling stations, season (April, May, June, July), intermediate maturity and season-related diet were investigated by (February, March, August, September) and rainy employing correspondence analysis in SPSS 12.0 season (October, November, December, January) for 3 size classes of fish namely small, medium and referring to meteorology station. The large-size fish. Size classes were derived from all fish greatest number of fish was captured in the rainy length pooled across the sampling months. Small size season and had the least catch occurred during the was grouped ranged from 401 to 610 mm, the medium dry season (Fig. 4).

2 Food Composition and Niche Characteristic of Giant………….in Kampar River, Indonesia (Wibowo, A. et al)

it is easier to identify. A number of 153 specimen of giant featherbacks have stomach content while 23 individuals were empty condition. In general there are eight groups of food in giant featherback stomach, i.e small/juvenile fish, shrimp, plant material, insects, worms, benthos (others then worms), gravel and unidentified organism (Fig. 5).

100 90 81,98 80 70 60 50 40 Figure 2. The amount of fish collected at each 30 20 sampling station during sampling period. 7,80 7,94 Index of prepoderance (%) 10 0,31 0,37 0,13 0,23 1,24 0 48 p l s s s l d h ia t m o e e 44 1 fis im r c r th av fi l r te se o n r ti al sh a n w e g n 40 2 m i b e 2 1 m t id 10 s n n 36 la u 6 p food volume (ml) 32 9 28 15 large 24 3 medium 20 small Figure 5. Giant featherback’s food composition in 16 4 31 32 general (N = 153). 12 27

Total catch (individual) catch Total 20 8 13 4 0 - Food composition based on sex Kutopanjang Teso (n=20) Langgam Rantau Baru Kuala Tolam (n=37) (n=39) (n=37) (n=43) Sampling station The purpose of analysis is to determine whether there is any existed difference between food Figure 3. The amount of fish collected based on size. composition consuming by male and female. After the standardization process (which is comparing male

60 and female giant featherback on the same group size, 50 station, season and maturity index), we concluded 50 43 that female giant featherback consuming more 40 crustaceans (shrimp) compare to male (Fig. 6). Large 30 Medium - Food composition based on sex and fish’s size Small 20 16 15 13 Both male and female giant featherback consuming 10 4 7 Total catch (individual) catch Total 2 3 more shrimps when they grow, (Fig. 7). However small 0 fish is the dominant food consumed by giant dry season intermediate rainy season featherback in almost all size both male and female Season (Fig. 8).

Figure 4. The amount of fish collected based on - Food composition based on sex and season season. It can be informed that both female and male giant Food Composition featherback starting to consume shrimps in - Food composition in general substantial amount during intermediate and dry season (Fig. 9). There is a tendency, the percentage of Observations food composition of giant crustaceans increased linear with increasing fish’s featherback only performed in stomach site because size, especially in rainy season. However, the pattern of digested reason. It was assumed that food organism is not explicit during intermediate and rainy season in this stomach site was not digested completely, so (Fig. 10).

3 Ind.Fish.Res.J. Vol.20 No.1 June 2014 : 1-10

Male 100 Female 100 90 90 77,50 80 72,93 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40 30 30 22,32 20 12,85 6,33 20 10 2,31 0,45 0,15 0,41 0,00

Index of prepoderance (%) 4,55 Index of prepoderance (%) 10 0 0,08 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,00 0 l s s l h p ia ts o e d is im r c rm h v fie l s s l f r te se o t ra ti h p ia ts o e d sh a n w en g n fis im r c rm h v fie m i b e r te se o t ra ti t id sh a n w en g n n n m i b e la u t id p an un food volume (ml) pl food volume (ml)

Figure 6. Giant featherback’s food composition based on sex, (male, n = 7, female, n = 6).

Female 100

90

80 unidentified gravel 70 benthos 60 worms 50 insects 40 plant material 30 shrimp 20 fish

Index of prepoderance of Index (%) 10

0 small (n=63) medium large (n=9) (n=19) Fish's size

Figure 7. Giant featherback’s food composition based on sex and fish’s size (small size = 401-610 mm), (medium size = 611-750 mm), large size = 750-960 mm).

100 90 unidentified 80 gravel 70 benthos 60 worms 50 insects 40 plant material shrimp 30 fish 20 Index of prepoderanceofIndex (%) 10 0 Small (n=108) Medium (n=36) Large (n=9) Fish's size

Figure 8. Giant featherback’s food composition based on fish’s size.

Male Female 100 100 90 90 80 80 unidentified 70 70 60 gravel 60 50 unidentified benthos 50 40 gravel 40 worms 30 benthos 30 insects 20 worms 20 plant material 10 insects

Index of prepoderance Indexof (%) 10

0 (%) prepoderance of Index shrimp plant material 0 fish shrimp large large large (n=2) small (n=4) small small (n=26) (n=16) (n=6) (n=8) (n=2) large large large (n=3) (n=2) (n=2) small small fish small medium medium medium (n=11) (n=27) (n=24) (n=5) (n=8) (n=7) medium medium medium Dry season Intermediate Rainy season Dry Season Intermediate Rainy season Season Season

Figure 9. Giant featherback’s food composition based on sex and season.

4 Food Composition and Niche Characteristic of Giant………….in Kampar River, Indonesia (Wibowo, A. et al)

100 90 80 70 60 unidentified 50 gravel 40 benthos 30 worms 20 insects 10 Index of prepoderanceIndexof (%) 0 plant material shrimp large large large (n=2) (n=4) (n=3) fish small small small (n=50) (n=43) (n=15) (n=7) (n=13) (n=16) medium medium medium Dry season Intermediate Rainy season Season

Figure 10. Giant featherback’s food composition based on season.

Male Female

100 100 90 90 unidentified unidentified 80 80 gravel gravel 70 70 benthos benthos 60 60 worms worms 50 50 insects insects 40 40 plant material plant material 30 30 shrimp shrimp 20 20 fish fish 10 10 Index of prepoderanceIndex of (%) prepoderance of (%) Index 0 0 Kutopanjang Teso (n=8) Langgam Rantau Baru Kuala Tolam Kutopanjang Teso (n=10) Langgam Rantau Baru Kuala Tolam (n=18) (n=12) (n=12) (n=15) (n=18) (n=22) (n=12) (n=26) Sampling station Sampling station

Figure 11. Giant featherback’s food composition based on sex and sampling station.

100 90 80 unidentified 70 gravel 60 benthos worms 50 insects 40 plant material 30 shrimp 20 fish Index of prepoderance(%) of Index 10 0 Kuala Tolam Rantau Baru Teso (N=16) Waduk Langgam (N=34) (N=22) (N=30) (N=12) Sampling station

Figure 12. Giant featherback’s food composition based on sampling station.

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Index of prepoderance (%) prepoderance of Index large large large large large (n=2) (n=3) (n=2) (n=3) (n=1) small small small small small (n=5) (n=4) (n=2) (n=10) (n=20) (n=28) (n=21) (n=29) (n=13) (n=12) medium medium medium medium medium Kutopanjang Teso Langgam Rantau Baru Kuala Tolam

Sampling station fish shrimp plant material insects worms benthos gravel unidentified Figure 13. Giant featherback’s food composition based on fish’s size and sampling station.

5 Ind.Fish.Res.J. Vol.20 No.1 June 2014 : 1-10

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Index of prepoderance(%) of Index 0 (n=8) dry dry (n=13) (n=16) (n=7) (n=9) (n=5) (n=3) (n=6) (n=9) (n=2) (n=15) (n=21) (n=10) dry season dry dry season dry dry season dry intermediate intermediate intermediate intermediate intermediate rainy season rainy rainy season rainy rainy season rainy rainy season rainy season rainy season(n=16) season(n=12) Kutopanjang Teso Langgam Rantau Baru Kuala Tolam Sampling station

fish shrimp plant material insects worms benthos gravel unidentified Figure 14. Giant featherback’s food composition based on season and sampling station.

Male Female

100 100 90 90 unidentified unidentified 80 80 gravel gravel 70 70 benthos benthos 60 60 worms worms 50 50 insects insects 40 40 plant material plant material 30 30 shrimp shrimp 20 20 fish fish

Index of prepoderance (%) prepoderance of Index 10 prepoderance (%) of Index 10 0 0 I II III IV I II III IV Maturity Index Maturity index

Figure 15. Giant featherback’s food composition based on sex and maturity index.

100% 90% 80% unidentified 70% gravel benthos 60% worms 50% insects 40% plant material 30% shrimp 20% fish Index of prepoderance(%) of Index 10% 0% I II III IV Maturity index

Figure 16. Giant featherback’s food composition based on maturity index.

- Food composition based on sex and sampling - Food composition based on sampling station station and season

Small fishes become the major food of giant Giant featherback only consumed small fishes featherback both male and female in every sampling during rainy season in every station (Fig. 14). Food station (Fig. 11). Giant featherback in Waduk consumption was highly variable during dry season Kutopanjang and Langgam station exhibit less and intermediate, even though small fish still become shrimps consumption (Fig. 12), compare with others major giant featherback’s food. station. -Food composition based on sex and maturity - Food composition based on fish’s size and index sampling station Small fishes were remain the major giant Food composition was variable based on giant featherback’s food, however there is a substantial featherback’s size and station (Fig. 13). However, there shrimp consumption during the stage IV of maturity was a substantial plant material consumption in Kuala index, especially in male (Fig. 15). In the Tolam station compare to other stations. standardization schema (comparing maturity index

6 Food Composition and Niche Characteristic of Giant………….in Kampar River, Indonesia (Wibowo, A. et al)

Figure 17. Giant featherback’s food composition based on sampling station and maturity index. with the same size, sex, season and station), the consumption of shrimp was seen on every stage of maturity index (Fig 16).

- Food composition based on sampling station and maturity index

Station Teso and Kuala Tolam exhibit high consumption level of shrimp during the fourth stage of maturity index, whereas no existed shrimp in giant featherback’s stomach in Langgam and Kutopanjang during the sampling period (Fig. 17).

100 - Correspondence food composition 90 unidentified 80 gravel 70 High consumption level of shrimps was detected benthos 60 Figure 18. Correspondence between sampling stationworms at station Teso and Koala Tolam (Fig.18). Kuala Tolam 50 and diet competition. insects has also exhibited a magnitude level of plant materials 40 30 plant material consumption, whereas small fishes were more 20 shrimp consumed in Langgam, Rantau Baru and Waduk 10 fish Kutopanjang (Fig. 19). Shrimps have strong prepoderance (%) of Index 0 correspond with sex and season, meanwhile the level GSI I GSI GSI I GSI GSI I GSI GSI I GSI GSI I GSI GSI II GSI GSI II GSI GSI II GSI GSI II GSI GSI II GSI GSI III III GSI GSI III III GSI GSI III III GSI GSI III III GSI GSI III III GSI GSI IV GSI GSI IV GSI GSI IV GSI GSI IV GSI consumption of small fishes and plant materials are IV GSI Kutopanjang Teso Langgam Rantau Kuala highly related with fish’s size, sampling station and Baru Tolam maturity index. Sampling station

Food Niche - Food niche based on size classes

Food niche ranged from 1.023-3.054 and 0.023- 0.614 after standardization scheme. The highest food niche was 3.054 found in 401 - 470 size class, while the lowest food niche was 1.023 in size class of 821 – 960 (Tab. 1). Figure 19. Correspondence between food index with - Food niche based on sampling station season, size, sampling stations and maturity. Based on sampling station, food niche ranged from 1.752 - 3.235 and 0.188 - 0.558 after standardization niche with 3.054, while Waduk Kutopanjang as the schem (Tab. 2). Kuala Tolam was the highest food lowest food niche’s station with 1.752.

7 Ind.Fish.Res.J. Vol.20 No.1 June 2014 : 1-10

Table 1. Food niches based on size classes of to Cyprinus carpio var specularis, reported by Manon giant featherback & Hossain (2011). The consumption of shrimp in C. lopis tends to increase as raises in body and mouth Classes Niche size. Labropoulou et al. (1997) stated that ontogenetic Standardization size value switches in feeding habits are a general phenomenon among fish and result from increases in body and 401-470 3.054 0.228 mouth size that permit fish to capture a broader range 471-540 1.975 0.122 of prey sizes and types. Ontogenetic variations in diet 541-610 2.259 0.523 composition were also observed on hairtail (Trichiurus 611-680 1.906 0.302 margarites), ranging from 121 to 561 mm PLs (Yan et al, 2012). Related to energy, larger fish needs more 681-750 1.614 0.614 energy than small fish, so they prefer more energy 751-820 2.138 0.379 food (Effendie 2002). This research informed that 821-890 1.023 0.023 higher shrimp’s consumption detected during maturity index in stage IV. It was logical, since shrimp contains Table 2. Broad dietary niche based on Giant lots of cholesterol. Cholesterol substances were Featherback sampling station needed to stimulate the formation steroid hormones that play an important role in gonad maturation process. Yan et al (2012) informed with increasing Sampling Food niche Standardization gonad maturity stages, higher feeding intensity and station fewer empty stomachs were observed. Waduk 1.752 0.188 Kutopanjang C. lopis pointed season differences in diet Teso 2.659 0.276 composition and feeding intensity, as also observed in many teleost species such as fish species in a Langgam 1.96 0.24 boreal tidal basin (Kellnreitner et al., 2012). There is Rantau Baru 2.522 0.19 a substantial increase of shrimp consumption during Kuala Tolam 3.235 0.558 dry season, while only limited to juvenile fishes were consumed during rainy season. According to Effendie (1997), the amount and variety of food consumed DISCUSSION usually depend on age, place and time. Juvenile fish was less present during the dry season, so the giant The major food items of Chitala lopis in Kampar featherback move deeper to the bottom, this condition River were similar, mainly juvenile/small fish, shrimp, is contrast during rainy season as a result of spawning plant material, insects, worms, benthos (other than season. Low shrimp consumption has been detected worm), gravel and unidentified organism. The feeding in Langgam and Waduk Kutopanjang, presumably due habits were identical to those notified by Adjie & to the water depth. In deeper waters, the oxygen Utomo, (1994) in the Lempuing, Musi River; and Adjie content lower and high concentrations of organic et al. (1999) on Chitala lopis from Batanghari River, materials, so that this life zone supports less shrimp- Jambi. The presence of high percentage of certain like crustaceans species. In giant featherback, the food, juvenile fish, in their stomach marked preference percentage of consumed shrimps has been for specific food type as also found in C. chitala larvae correspondence with sex and season, meanwhile actively feed on several types of organisms (tubifex, small fish and plant material are related to fish’s size, chironomous larvae and plankton) (Sarkar et al., 2006) sampling station and maturity index. and Oreochromis niloticus fed on mainly macrophytes (Oso et al., 2006). Examination of the diet showed Small giant featherback consumed more variety that there was high percentage of plant material of C. food group compared to large fish, it assumed that lopis from Kuala Tolam station in their stomach. This small sized to have wider niches breadth than large result was strongly related to appearance of dense giant featherback. Giant featherback tend to more riparian vegetation along the sampling station. Effendi selective consumed foods when they grow as carnivore (1997) stated that the availability of food, flavor, food fish. According to Nikolsky (1963) carnivorous and size, color, texture and taste are the factors govern predatory fish tend to be more specialists. Giant the food consumption. featherback from Kuala Tolam station exhibited the most broad michrohabitat niches, meanwhile species Immature fishes were fed with almost equal from Kuto Panjang reservoir has very narrow niches, intensity throughout the year; this finding was similar tend to be specialists, relying on comparatively few

8 Food Composition and Niche Characteristic of Giant………….in Kampar River, Indonesia (Wibowo, A. et al) food sources. The classification of broad niches is Instalation of inland fisheries, 32-36. (In Bahasa linked to food’s abundance, fish condition and the Indonesia). ability of fish to utilize the available food. Lagler (1972) mentioned that not all types of food resources will be Adjie, S., Husnah & A.K. Gaffar. 1999. Study of consumed, but depending on food’s size, the biology giant featherback (Notopterus chitala) at availability of food in nature and the food’s taste. The Batanghari River, Jambi Province. Indonesia maintenance of natural populations is an important Journal of Fisheries, 1: 38-43. (In Bahasa aspect of sustainability. This study showed that based Indonesia). on food consumption and broad niches Langgam station is the most suitable habitat for giant Directorate General Fisheries. 2000. Indonesian featherback, which can be designed as conservation fisheries statistic. Ministry of Agriculture. Jakarta. area. (In Bahasa Indonesia).

CONCLUSION Effendie, M.I. 1997. Fisheries Biology. Yayasan Pustaka Nusatama. Yogyakarta. (In Bahasa The major food items of Chitala lopis in Kampar Indonesia). River were mainly juvenile/small fish, shrimp, plant material, insects, worms, benthos (others then worm), Effendie, M.I. 1979. Fisheries Biology Methods. gravel and unidentified organism. Immature fishes were Yayasan Dewi Sri. Bogor. (In Bahasa Indonesia). known to feed with almost equal intensity throughout the year. However the consumption of certain food, Effendie, M.I. 2002. Fisheries Biology. Yayasan such as shrimp, tends to increase as proceeds from Pustaka Nusatama. Yogyakarta. (In Bahasa raises in body, mouth size and gonad maturity stages. Indonesia). There is a substantial increase of shrimp consumption during dry season, while only limited to juvenile fishes Kellneitner, F. M. Pockberger & H. Asmus. 2012. were consumed during rainy season. Seasonal variation of assemblage and feeding guild structure of fish species in a boreal tidal basin. Small sized giant featherback consumed more Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 108 (1): variety food’s group compared to large fish, it assumed 97–108. that small sized to have wider niches breadth than large giant featherback. Giant featherback tend to Kottelat, M., S.N. Kartikasari, A.J. Whitten & S. more selective consume certain foods when they are Wirjoatmodjo. 1993. Freshwater Fishes of Western growing because they are carnivore fish. Giant Indonesia and Sulawesi. Periplus Editions Limited. featherback from Kuala Tolam station exhibit the most Jakarta. 221 p. broad michrohabitat niches, meanwhile species from Kuto Panjang reservoir has very narrow niches, tend Kottelat, M., S.N. Kartikasari, A.J. Whitten & S. to be specialists, relying on comparatively few food Wirjoatmodjo. 1997. Freshwater Fishes of Western sources. This study showed that based on food Indonesia and Sulawesi. Periplus Editions and consumption and broad niches Langgam station is Emdi Project Indonesia. Jakarta, 293 p. the most suitable habitat for giant featherback, which can be designed as conservation area. Krebs, C. J. 1989. Ecological Methodology. Harper and Row Publisher. New York, 371-391p. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Labropoulou, M., A. Machias, N. Tsimenides & A. We are grateful for all reviewers provided thorough Eleftheriou. 1997. Feeding habits and ontogenetic and helpful reviews of the manuscript. The authors diet shift of the striped red mullet, Mullus would like to acknowledge Research Institute for Inland surmuletus Linnaeus, 1758. Fisheries Research, Fisheries, Mariana for funding support for the year 31: 257–267. 2009 to 2010. Lagler, K.F. 1972. Freshwater Fishery Biology. W. M. REFERENCES C. Hal. 371-191. Brown Company Publisher Dubuque. Iowa. 404 p. Adjie, S & A.D. Utomo. 1994. Biology aspects of giant

featherback at Lubuk lampam, South Sumatra. Manon, M.R & M D Hossain. 2011. Food and feeding Proceeding evaluation, research result and habit of Cyprinus carpio var. Specularis. J. Sci. management of inland fisheries. Research Foundation, 9 (1&2): 163-181.

9 Ind.Fish.Res.J. Vol.20 No.1 June 2014 : 1-10

Nikolsky, G.V. 1963. The Ecology of Fishes. Academic Riau Fisheries. 2008. Captured fisheries statistic of Press. New York. Riau Province. Government Office of Fisheries Affairs. Pekan Baru. Riau. (In Bahasa Indonesia). Oso, J.A. I.A Ayodele & O. Fagbuaro. 2006. Food and Feeding Habits of Oreochromis niloticus (L.) Sarkar, U.K., W.S. Lakra, P.K. Deepak, R.S. Negi, and Sarotherodon galilaeus (L.) in a Tropical S.K. Paul & A. Srivastava. 2006. Performance of Reservoir. World Journal of Zoology 1 (2): 118- different types of diets on experimental larval 121. rearing of endangered Chitala chitala (Hamilton) in recirculatory system. Aquaculture 261: 141– Pollnac, R.B & S.P. Malvestuto. 1991. Biological and 150. Socio Economic Condition for the Development of Riverine Fisheries Resources in Kapuas and Musi Yan, Y., J. Chen, H. Lu, G. Hou & J. Lai. 2012. Feeding River. Scientific meeting, river management for habits and ontogenetic diet shifts of fisheries. Jakarta. 231 p. (In Bahasa Indonesia). hairtail, Trichiurus margarites, in the Beibu Gulf of the South China Sea. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 32 (1):18–25.

10