PROJECT REPORT 3 3 1 4 0 9

A Case Study from the Ashambu Hills Landscape Southern , (May 2009 - October 2010)

By Robin Kurian Abraham*, R. Rajesh & Nachiket Kelkar * T.C. 11/1123, YMR Jn., Nanthencode , Kerala, India 695 003 email: [email protected] Disclaimer The information presented herein this report represents unpublished data and is thus not permitted for distribution beyond official circulation. The images and maps provided herein are the copyright property of Robin Kurian Abraham (and colleagues) and cannot be reproduced or distributed in any form without prior written permission from the copyright holder/s.

Cover photographs Front: A collage of Protected Areas in the Ashambu Hills; in the image is Bhavania australis Back: Top Left: climbing the River; Bottom Right: at the headwaters of the River

All Photo Credits: Robin Kurian Abraham, unless where mentioned Project Members...... 4

Summary...... 5

Introduction...... 5

Project Aims...... 7

Methods...... 7

Study Area...... 7

Data collection and compilation...... 8

Preparing a preliminary checklist...... 8

Sampling freshwater : species occurrence...... 8 Ecological and anthropogenic covariates

influencing freshwater fish communities...... 9 Stakeholder awareness and perception:

assessing opportunities for conservation...... 9

Data analysis...... 9

Estimating species richness under imperfect detection...... 9 Relationship of species richness with ecological

and anthropogenic covariates...... 12

Describing threats to fish species...... 12

Results...... 12

Discussion: Conservation implications...... 13

Conservation Recommendations...... 16

Conclusion...... 19

Tables...... 25

References...... 30

Acknowledgements...... 35

Appendices...... 36 Do Protected Areas of India’s conserve fish diversity?

Project Members

Robin Kurian Abraham R. Rajesh Nachiket Kelkar Occupation: Conservation Occupation: Fisherman Occupation: Wildlife Ecologist Biologist

Project Role: Project Role: Field Expert & Project Role: Data Analyst Principal Investigator Assistant & Logistics Support

Robin’s interest in Rajesh alias Reji, a forest Nachiket’s interest in freshwater fishes has tracker and fisherman par aquatic systems have stimulated his work excellence, has explored led him to study the on this group. While the wilderness of the biodiversity of rivers in concerned about their Ashambu Hills landscape, the Gangetic floodplains conservation, his main for work and for bread. and hills streams of interests are in freshwater His detailed knowledge the Western Ghats, the fish biogeography, of local ecology, estuarine lake of Chilika ecology, evolution & wild & fishes and the coral reefs of the behavior essentially make him Lakshadweep Islands. the project’s sampling compass.

4 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity? Robin Kurian Abraham, R. Rajesh & Nachiket Kelkar Summary

errestrial Protected Areas (PAs) designed to preserve charismatic species, have been recently challenged in their efficiency in conserving obscure species that are not often conservation priority. TIn this study in India’s Western Ghats, a biodiversity hotspot, we aimed to assess effectiveness of PAs in conserving freshwater fishes in the Ashambu Hills landscape in Kerala. We compared sites inside and outside PAs for fish species richness and identified covariates influencing them. We obtained a total of 60 species, including regional endemics, a potentially novel species and four range extensions. Higher numbers of fish species endemic to the Western Ghats were recorded in the mid-elevation zones of Protected Areas, than adjacent unprotected areas. The biased distribution of PAs towards higher altitudes and inaccessible localities may explain the greater of hill stream fish species. Magnitude of threats to freshwater fish habitats was much higher in unprotected areas. But some threats were also present inside protected areas, clearly pointing to the lack of appropriate legislation, monitoring and enforcement for freshwater fish conservation. Despite being educated and aware of threats faced by freshwater systems, local people were overall passive to destructive, illegal practices such as dynamite- fishing and sand-mining. These issues prevailed in the human dominated landscapes outside PAs. Our study stresses the importance of PAs in conserving threatened and endemic hill-stream fishes of the Western Ghats. Effective conservation would require a landscape-level approach to freshwater fish conservation with fundamental changes in attitudes of all stakeholders and also changes in the existing legislation for conservation, along with strictly curbing any activities destructive to river ecology. It is of utmost importance to maintain intact freshwater habitats that exist in PAs.

Introduction

lobally, freshwater ecosystems are the most river conservation, restoration and management. Gseverely affected due to human development Water abstraction and pollution, degradation of and economic activities (Richter et al. 2003, freshwater habitats, for food and Collen et al. 2008, Vörösmarty et al. 2010). The the aquarium trade, modification of flow regimes anthropogenic pressure on freshwater resources and sediment fluxes by dams and irrigation is extreme, and has led to critical endangerment projects, and introduced invasive species are the of freshwater biodiversity at both global and major threats to freshwater fishes today (Duncan regional scales (Allan & Flecker 1993, Richter et al. & Lockwood 2001, Cowx 2002, Almeida et al. 2002, 2003, Dudgeon et al. 2005). Conserving freshwater Dudgeon 2005). fish diversity and abundance for their ecological Freshwater Protected Areas (PAs) have been function and economic value is a significant part of proposed as a management solution for conserving 5 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

both freshwater biodiversity and hydrological al. 2005). Apart from critical hydrological services, services (Keith 2000, Saunders et al. 2002, Crivelli they are also highly important for biodiversity 2002, Abell et al. 2007, Suski & Cooke 2007). However, conservation, with a very high endemism of flora the means with which freshwater conservation and fauna (Myers et al. 2000). In the Southern has been afforded is predominantly through Western Ghats, PA coverage extends from the existing terrestrial PA networks. Studies report inundated forested catchment areas of dams at mid- that this measure has been largely inadequate elevations built across many west-flowing rivers, to for freshwater systems (see Herbert et al. 2009). high-altitude, inaccessible landscapes at the crest Selection of terrestrial PAs is mostly biased towards of the Western Ghats. The inherent inaccessibility relatively inaccessible landscapes and difficult of the landscape has been a major factor in the terrain, often at higher elevations (Joppa & Pfaff declaration and sustenance of these areas as PAs. 2009). Such PAs naturally would not represent the As with plants, invertebrates and vertebrates, longitudinal dimension of river systems in entirety freshwater fish diversity in the Western Ghats ranks (Nel et al. 2009). Therefore, existing PAs may not be high, with around 290 species and a high degree fully effective in protecting freshwater fish diversity of endemism (>45%) (Myers et al. 2000, Daniels across riverine landscapes (Maitland 1995, Keith 2002). However, baseline information on 2000, Crivelli et al. 2002). and distribution of the region’s fish fauna needs to Adequate spatial representation of river systems be well-documented (Raghavan et al. 2007) and in networks has been proposed to is, at present, fragmented or inconsistent. Despite offset threats to freshwater ecosystem services, the rich diversity, there are few studies that have fish resources and biodiversity (Nel et al. 2007, quantitatively assessed impacts of anthropogenic 2009). However, in human-dominated landscapes pressures and land management regimes on in developing countries, excessive pressures freshwater fish assemblages (although see Bhat on natural resources directly conflict with the 2003, 2004, Sreekantha et al. 2007, Raghavan et al. legal inviolateness of more accessible PAs. Thus, 2008, Johnson & Arunachalam 2009). There have landscape-scale conservation of easy and open been no studies on how the existing PA network in access systems such as rivers and wetlands can the Western Ghats affects conservation of freshwater seriously overlap with diverse stakeholder needs fish species. dependent on terrestrial and freshwater habitats We investigate through this study the importance (Dudgeon et al. 2005). of existing Protected Areas for fish conservation Further, the focus of conservation in terrestrial in the Ashambu Hills landscape of the Southern PAs has predominantly been on charismatic species Western Ghats. This region is very rich in fish species such as mammals and birds. Recent studies have diversity and endemism, and also has some degree shown that protected areas designed primarily to of faunal similarities with Sri Lanka (Bossyut et al. conserve such species are not adequate for many 2004). We compare fish species richness across ‘lesser taxa’ or obscure species groups (Rodrigues different sites within PAs and in unprotected (Non- et. al. 2004). Protected areas have been established PA) areas in this landscape (for similar approaches in India’s Western Ghats, a biodiversity hotspot, with see Curtis et al. 1998, Corbacho & Sanchez 2001, positive results for charismatic species of mammals Anand et al. 2010). It is a priori expected that fish and birds (Bawa et al. 2007). Yet, a recent study has species diversity will be higher in the larger ’ indicated that this conservation model may not be rivers than in the hill streams (Bhat & Magurran 2006). adequate for amphibian conservation (Vasudevan Studies have shown that increasing trophic levels et. al. 2006). and species diversity are supported with increasing The Western Ghats mountain range, straddling stream order and decreasing altitude (Vannote et the west coast of the point of origin for al. 1980). We also expect higher richness of species several streams that form the headwaters of many endemic to Western Ghats (referred to hereafter as important rivers, the main source of freshwater to Western Ghats’ endemics) within PAs (Bergl et al. the plains of peninsular India (Krishnaswamy et 2007) due to factors such as geographical isolation 6 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Figure1. Map showing the Ashambu hills landscape, Western Ghats, Kerala, India. The elevation and land-use gradient across the landscape with the existing protected area network is shown here. Sampling sites on each river are indicated of river valleys and the associated specializations in Project Aims the habits of these species (Daniels 2002, Dahanukar et al. 2004). The specific objectives of our study were: It must be noted here that hill streams are mostly 1. To assess distribution of fish diversity across within the PA network, while the larger stream different management regimes and identify orders in the plains are largely non-protected, open threats to freshwater fish conservation access areas. Is this skewed nature of PA selection 2. To investigate the effects of ecological and affecting fish diversity, distribution and ultimately anthropogenic covariates on fish species richness their conservation? In other words, what are the and occurrence implications of the existing framework of PA 3. To communicate findings of this project to management for conserving endemism and species stakeholders such as local communities, PA richness? To answer these questions we compared a managers, NGOs and educational/research range of sites with regards to freshwater fish species institutions to facilitate optimal conservation of richness, across a land-use gradient comprising of fish resources in this landscape. PAs, rubber plantations, coconut plantations, mixed gardens, and rural or urban areas. A comprehensive checklist of freshwater fishes potentially found in the Methods region has also been compiled based on the latest taxonomic updates and information. We recorded information on threats to conservation of freshwater Study Area fishes across this landscape, and assessed levels of awareness and perception of different stakeholders Our study area comprised of five river basins towards threats to conservation of freshwater fishes. within and Thiruvananthapuram districts of Effects of various anthropological and ecological Kerala state, India. These west-flowing rivers (, covariates on distribution of freshwater fishes in the , Vamanapuram, Karamana and ) are region were also investigated. the main rivers within the Ashambu Hills landscape 7 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

in Kerala (Figure 1) (Basak et al. 1995, Biju et al. 2000). Johnson & Arunachalam 2009, Eschemeyer & Fong These hills are biogeographically unique, with many 2010) we prepared a preliminary checklist of fish species of plants, amphibians and invertebrates species recorded from, or that may be potentially unique to them even within the Western Ghats (Nair found in this region. This checklist had 105 fish 1991). The Kerala part of these hills contains five species belonging to 59 genera in 23 families (see protected areas including three wildlife sanctuaries Appendix 2), and based on the taxonomic treatment (WLS) (Shendurney, Peppara and Neyyar) and two provided by Eschmeyer & Fong (2010) with a few reserve forests (RF) ( and ) modifications based on Jayaram (1994). We also and adjoins a tiger reserve. All these management collected information about occurrence for many of zones are contiguous with a large forested region the listed species by consultations with freshwater (the Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve in Tamil fish taxonomists (Biju Kumar, A., Daniels, R.J.R., Bhat, Nadu state) which marks the southernmost point of A., Shaji, C. P., Raghavan, R., Anvar Ali, P.H., Sheeba, the Western Ghats within India. Owing to its peculiar S., Weerakoon, D., Dahanukar, N. – Pers. Comm). location and natural barriers (the Ariyankavu/ Shenkotta pass in the north, and the Palk Strait in the Sampling freshwater fishes: south between India and Sri Lanka), the landscape is a very unique biotope within the Western Ghats. species occurrence We systematically selected 20 sampling locations With the exception of Ithikkara (origin at 240 m ASL), across the five rivers (Table 1), with equal numbers all other rivers originate at elevations beyond 1600 of sites in the highlands, midlands and lowlands m ASL, in the Ashambu hill range running along the (Figure 1). Each river had three to five uniformly border of the Kerala and states (Basak spaced sampling points within the elevation et al. 1995). All these rivers rise from either a fully range of 10 to 200 m, and represented the four protected (WLS) area or from an area under partial broad land-use types (protected area / reserve protection (RF). They proceed westward to meet forest, rubber plantation, coconut plantation / the Arabian Sea, passing through a similar land-use mixed-gardens, semi-urban / urban area). We gradient (in respective order) with mainly rubber chose to restrict sampling within this elevation plantations, coconut plantations, mixed gardens range to compare similar sites within protected and paddy cultivation to urban, semi-urban to rural and non-protected areas. Sites in higher altitudes areas. The Ithikkara and Vamanapuram rivers are were opportunistically surveyed to record species without major dams; Neyyar and Kallada have one with restricted distributions. We carried out fish dam each, while Karamana has two. surveys and identification through non-destructive sampling by using methods of sampling suited Data collection and compilation to nature of the river course, stream order, flow, presence of aquatic vegetation and local human disturbance. At each site we used cast-nets till local Preparing a preliminary checklist species saturation was obtained; and visual surveys Based on an exhaustive review of published to record fish species presence. At sites with calm literature, field guides, ecological studies, short flow and uniform depth, gill-nets were deployed to notes and reports, taxonomic assessments and catch mobile fish species. Hooks and lines were used previous checklists from this or neighbouring to catch predatory fish species such as eels (Anguilla regions (Silas 1951, Menon 1987, Jayaram 1991, spp.), and snakeheads (Channa spp.). Fish 1994, Pethiyagoda 1994, Lal Tekriwal & Arunava Rao catches found in nets of fishermen at certain sites 1999, Sheeba 1999, Arunachalam 2000, Biju et al. were also opportunistically collected, wherever 2000, Martin et al. 2000, Bhat 2003, Dahanukar et possible. Fish were identified using taxonomic al. 2004, Easa & Shaji 2003, Thomas 2004, Raagam keys and photographic identification from various & Rema Devi 2004, Pethiyagoda & Kottelat 2004, field guides. We followed the taxonomic treatment Devi et al. 2005, Raghavan et al. 2007, 2008, provided by Eschmeyer and Fong (2010) for species 8 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

identification. Owing to continued bad weather for specific threats in past and present experience, over 3 months during the prime sampling period and future predictions. Threats were enlisted using (torrential rains and resulting flash floods and swift the IUCN Red List Guidelines (IUCN 2010a, 2010b). flow of the rivers), we could not replicate sampling (Robin Kurian Abraham is currently involved in status at any of these sites. assessment of several fish species of the Western Ghats for the IUCN Red List Assessment, 2010.) We also compiled a review of all environmental Ecological and anthropogenic covariates and biodiversity conservation related acts in India influencing freshwater fish communities to identify legal framework for conservation of Along with sampling fishes, we measured freshwater fish (see Singh 1998, Government of many explanatory variables of ecological and India 2010). anthropogenic covariates (Table 2). Selected variables were based on previous literature (Jowett & Richardson 1996, Freeman et al. 2001, Cowx 2002, Bhat 2003, 2004, 2005, Chakarabarty Data analysis & Das 2006, Humpl & Pivnicka 2006, Habit et al. 2006, Sreekantha et al. 2007) on their ecological Estimating species richness under importance to fishes as well as in relation to known threats in the landscape. Local and landscape-level imperfect detection threats to freshwater habitats and fish species were ‘Imperfect detection’ refers to the capture also recorded (Table 3) and mapped using a GIS process by which species sampled at a site are only platform. We digitized spatial polygons to classify a fraction of the total number of species present land-use category within a GIS, using ground data. at that site. The heterogeneous representation This categorization was used to represent the broad of species in sampling could be due to individual land-use characteristic of that area. species’ differences in relation to ecological and We identified important land-use changes for observation-related factors (Royle & Dorazio 2008). individual river basins in the last 20 years using To address this problem of imperfect detectability recent satellite imagery (available in 2009) and of fish species captured, we used a Bayesian topographical maps (at 1:25,000 cm resolution, hierarchical modeling approach to estimate total published in 1989). Association between elevation species richness, given our sample data. Bayesian class and land-use type was tested using a Cramer’s analysis allows us to incorporate uncertainty in V test for contingency tables. A threat-index based parameter values by treating each parameter on ranked information on locally observed threats in models as a random variable based on some was assigned to each site. Local and landscape- appropriate statistical distribution (Spiegelhalter et level threats were described at various sites in the al. 2007). This is called a prior distribution and can region to serve as a guide for policy makers and PA be used to represent prior knowledge about model managers. parameters (for example, occurrence probability of species) (Royle & Dorazio 2008). The Bayesian hierarchical model specifies the probabilistic Stakeholder awareness and perception: process model that describes how the actual assessing opportunities for conservation occurrence probabilities may potentially vary, and Informal discussions and semi-structured further an observational probability model for interviews with a variety of stakeholders of the rivers species detected from the actual data (samples). of the landscape were carried out to understand A procedure called data augmentation was used awareness of ecology and conservation threats to represent the expected number of species that and the general perception towards fish species were actually never caught (Royle & Dorazio 2008). and fish resources. Through the interview surveys The augmented dataset represented the process we collected data on presence and perception of model for occurrence probability as a binomial 9 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Sampling for fishes in the Cast-netting in the (80m ASL) in a non-protected area inside a Protected Area © Vicky Lakshmanan

Interviewing a resident at the Ithikkara River © Nikhil James

Testing the water quality of the Neyyar River in a non-protected area 10 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Figure 2. Box Plot showing comparitive species richness of Western Ghats’ endemic fishes

Rivers within PAs have higher species richness of Western Ghats’ endemic fish species than in unprotected areas

Figure 3. Species richness of Western Ghats’ endemic fishes with increasing elevation

Log-log plot of Western Ghats’ endemic species richness in relation to elevation (in metres). Mid-elevation sites within Protected Areas have the most endemic species

Figure 4. Species richness was highest in intermediate stream-orders, in the mid-elevation areas

11 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

random variable with ‘detection or non-detection’ on threat scores to enlist the best and worst sites outcomes from the sampled spatial unit(s). Spatial in terms of conservation value, both within PAs subsamples of species richness were used as and outside PAs. Maps describing land-use type, replicates to derive the observation model for each threats, freshwater fish occurrence and distribution, land-use class (PA, Rubber plantation, Lowland and ranked information for different sites and areas, agriculture), with detection probability drawn from were produced using GIS software ArcView™ GIS a binomial distribution. This approach is analogous 3.3. All statistical analyses were conducted using to estimation of closed populations based on the software R 2.10.1 (R Development Core Team sampled individuals (‘species’ in this case) with 2010). The Bayesian analyses were conducted using individual heterogeneity in detectability (Royle & both the software R® and WinBUGS (Spiegelhalter Dorazio 2008). The numbers of species added with et al. 2007). the data augmentation for each land-use class were based on information elicited from literature reviews that suggested occurrence of between 85 to 100 Results species from the area. Uniform prior distributions were used for occurrence and detection probability The total number of species found in the study of species in the augmented dataset. We obtained was 60, belonging to 36 genera and 16 families posterior estimates of species richness for each (Appendix 1). Protected areas had higher species of ‘treatment’ by updating our data on fish species Western Ghats endemic fishes than reserve forest with prior expectations about species richness or non-protected areas (Figure 2). PAs also had in the Bayesian model. These ‘corrected species more ‘threatened’ species than in non-protected richness’ values from protected areas (WLS, RF), areas. There was a significant association between rubber plantations and lowland agriculture areas elevation class and protection status, with regards to were visually compared. They were also compared species richness (Cramer’s V = 0.57121, p = 0.00008). with ‘expected species richness’ values derived from Lowland agriculture sites had the highest estimated published information on three broad-scale surveys total species richness, followed by sites inside PAs, of freshwater fishes across this region (Biju et al. and sites in rubber plantations in the midlands 2000, Easa & Shaji 2003, Thomas 2004). had the lowest species richness (Table 3). However, expected richness values for these sites differed

considerably, with PAs having the highest number Relationship of species richness of species (Table 3). Species richness increased with with ecological and anthropogenic elevation to about 800 m and declined at higher covariates elevations (Figure 3). Sites in PAs were mostly similar to each other in terms of presence and magnitude of We used generalized linear models (Poisson local threats. But, many threatened fish species and Regression) to investigate the relationship between even common species of commercial or ecological fish species richness and explanatory variables (Table importance had higher relative abundance, or were 2) using a stepwise variable selection procedure. recorded only inside PAs. We used the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) for The spatial coverage (areal extent) of rivers model selection. in PAs for midland areas (mean 29.04 km2, range 1.0 to 71.35 km2) was less than the coverage in Describing threats to fish species unprotected midland areas (mean 48.27 km2, range Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to group 29.1 to 77.26 km2). Undammed rivers had hardly different sites based on threat intensity values for a any spatial coverage of midland stretches in PAs set of threat-related variables (Table 2). We looked (1 to 1.7 km2). Physical and chemical parameters for deviations from expected clusters, especially to were mostly similar between unprotected and see whether sites from PAs and non-PAs clustered protected areas, except nitrate and phosphate together. A simple ranking procedure was used values that indicated higher organic pollution in 12 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Figure 5. Cluster analysis chart showing similar sites based on prevalent threats

Dendrogram based on hierarchical cluster analysis, showing similar and different sites clustered as per prevalent threats at each site (site codes elaborated in Table 1) 0 2 4 6 8 10 I3 I1 I2 I0 K5 K4 K3 K1 V3 V2 V1 N3 N4 N1 N2 KP1 KD4 KD1 KD2

High threats Medium threats Low threats

Non-PAs (Table 5). We also recorded exceptionally conservation of indigenous and endemic freshwater high coliform counts (≥1600 mpn/100ml) in fishes in India is thus found to be virtually non- some of the RF and WLS sites. Reserve Forest sites existent. recorded higher intensity of threats and were more similar to unprotected sites than to PAs (Figure 5). The recorded the highest number Discussion: Conservation of freshwater fish species (36) for any river in the implications landscape, followed by Neyyar (31), Ithikkara (18), Karamana (14) and Vamanapuram (14). Neyyar Protected Areas (PAs) in the Southern Western and Karamana, the rivers closest to the capital city, Ghats are found to be very important for conservation Thiruvananthapuram, had the most significant and of endemic fish species. This reflects freshwater fish negative-impact land-use changes over the last 20 endemism in higher, more inaccessible reaches of years. The Vamanapuram and Kallada rivers were the the hill ranges, where physical isolation of stream least affected in terms of land-use change (Appendix habitats has led to higher endemism rates (Sheldon 3). People interviewed were mostly aware of the 1988). Thus, PAs in this landscape would play an negative impacts of various ‘threats’ to river systems important role in conservation of endemic fish and fish resources. Sand-mining, dynamite fishing, fauna. Bias in PA selection towards higher altitudes organic waste disposal and untreated acid waste (Joppa & Pfaff 2009), although criticized, seems disposal from rubber plantations were found to be important for rare, endangered and biologically the most critical threats (Table 4). However, many unique freshwater fish species [for example: torrent correspondents showed complete indifference, fishes of the family Balitoridae, hill-stream catfishes when asked about important measures for river like Glyptothorax spp. and barbs like spp., even conservation and reduction of threats. commercially important fishes such as Mahseer Tor The existing legislation pertaining to wildlife spp. facing severe population declines (Dahanukar et conservation, environmental protection, water al. 2003), in unprotected areas]. The PA coverage for conservation, biodiversity, or Protected Area endemic and endangered taxa was thus high in our management did not even mention freshwater fish study (unlike Bergl et al. 2007). It must be noted that diversity, conservation or exploitation guidelines. these species were never recorded in mid-elevation However, a recently passed Inland Fisheries Act areas in unprotected areas, possibly because of (Kerala), is seriously flawed and inadequate in dynamite-fishing and other disturbances. Careful addressing any of the pending issues with regard translocation and release of such rare endemics to species/habitat conservation. The framework for (Wikramanayake 1990) could play an important role 13 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

in their conservation even in non-PA areas, provided not by isolation from northern rivers. We also found existing threats are mitigated. high morphological variation in Puntius fasciatus, a We also found that common species that are species (or species complex; Jayaram 1991) found in widely distributed across the landscape and using all five rivers. This leads us to report the presence of a wide range of habitats, also had higher relative a potential novelty (Abraham et al. In Prep.). Range abundance inside mid-elevation sites at PAs extensions to rivers originating in the Ashambu Hills (Devictor et al. 2007). However, riverscape-level were recorded for Garra mcclellandi, Garra hughi, protection of freshwater fishes is inadequate in the Puntius mahecola and Puntius jerdoni. present situation. The populations of many species As expected, all sites within PAs (especially the in mid-elevation river zones have been heavily WLSs) were similar to each other in magnitude depleted by a wide range of threats. Most midland of threats. However, ‘partially protected’ RF sites river zones showed large changes in land-use, with clustered together with non-PA sites, indicating remarkable increases in area under Hevea brasiliensis similar threat intensity and human interference. (Rubber) and Acacia auriculiformis plantations. These High coliform counts within some PAs may be an land-use changes have been most prominent in indication of high human movement and usage of midland unprotected areas (Kumar 2006). Expected hill streams. This could be due to a higher influx of species richness of freshwater fishes was highest tourists and pilgrims accessing certain PAs. for mid-elevation sites (inside and outside PAs), Based on these comparisons, we also identified based on previous information (Easa & Shaji 2003, sites inside WLSs and RFs that require higher Thomas 2004). We also found a humped species- management intervention and conservation elevation relationship that may suggest a mid- measures. This approach can be extended to more domain effect (Fu et al. 2006) on species richness. sites to identify sites critical to conservation of Mid-elevation protected areas had much higher freshwater fishes (Darwall & Wie 2005). Presence of richness than rubber plantations at similar altitudes. threats within PAs suggests that river conservation In unprotected areas, the lower elevation sites had even within terrestrial PAs (Nel et al. 2007) needs to be lowest endemism, but higher total species richness improved. The Shendurney WLS (Kallada River) was than PAs due to higher stream order, contribution found to be relatively the ‘best’ managed protected from tributaries, and higher occurrence of marine area in terms of conservation and monitoring, and and brackish-water species. Neyyar WLS had the most intrinsic threats. Studies in this region over the last 50 years, from Some fish species were recognized as indicator Silas (1951) to Thomas (2004) have either been species owing to peculiarities in their occurrence restricted to a few groups or biased towards lower across the landscape (Lawler et al. 2003). For elevations. It appears that certain species were instance, the endangered Malabar Mahseer assumed present in high elevations without actual Tor malabaricus, widely distributed across the sampling, or owing to taxonomic misidentification. landscape, was found mainly in streams within The spatial coverage of our study has been wider PAs. This species has been heavily affected by and the focus more ecological. The best possible dynamiting and overfishing through much of its use of even sporadic prior information on fish fauna range, and might have a few refuges left, within has been made in developing checklists, and we PAs. Presence of sensitive species such as Channa hope they would serve as a guide to policy makers spp. (resident predators) indicates relatively pristine and managers, as well as conservation scientists. habitat condition and absence of dynamiting, while The Ariyankavu/Shenkotta pass, the northern presence of loaches or gobies (benthic dwelling geographic boundary of this region, is thought species) indicates absence of sand-mining. Exotic to be an important biogeographic barrier for species such as the Common Carp Cyprinus carpio distribution of many vertebrate taxa. We suggest and the Grass Carp Ctenopharyngodon idella, that distribution of many species does not respect introduced in dam reservoirs as commercial food this barrier. The few exceptions present could be fishes, may have a severe impact on local food fishes because of the affinities with Sri Lankan species, (Koehn 2004), particularly Mahseer and local carps, 14 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

and abundances in localities where Common Carp fishes. We noticed high levels of indifference in the are present can help us estimate relative impact of ground staff of individual PAs. exotic fishes. Other exotics like Rohu Labeo rohita, A catchment-scale approach to fish conservation Catla Catla catla and Mrigal Cirrhinus mrigala from demands inclusion of local stakeholders in policy northern rivers are also problematic for the survival and decision-making, with a clear ecological of indigenous species. Invasive species such as understanding of issues pertaining to freshwater the Nile Tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus were conservation at multiple levels (Collares-Pereira & reported to be very common almost throughout Cowx 2004). However, even these local stakeholders, the landscape. In sporadic cases, exotic aquarium with all their awareness about environmental species like South American Suckermouth problems, were found to be highly ambivalent of the family Loricaridae (species often unknown towards conservation initiatives. Therefore, to respondents) were collected from natural water we strongly advocate directed management bodies. intervention by regulatory authorities (fisheries, An additional threat is the illegal collection irrigation, forests, wildlife, tourism etc.) at present, of endemic species from protected areas for the driven by scientifically established understanding. international aquarium trade. We were informed of We propose that targeting PA managers for training several species of loaches of the families Balitoridae programs about maintaining ecological functions to and Cobitidae, being in demand abroad. This safeguard the important role of PAs for freshwater extraction of endemic loach species occurs inside fish conservation can be a good first step. At other PAs because, as our study shows, most endemic levels of management, such as for rubber plantation hill-stream fishes are present only inside PAs. So, owners, agriculturists and rural and urban citizens, such illegal collection of such species is rampant co-management systems for river stretches could in certain areas with easier access and through be envisioned, with multiple modes of resource intimation with local ground staff. ownership and utilization (Linke et al. 2007, Sarkar At the landscape scale, our study reflects the et al. 2008). These may range from private control widespread apathy towards freshwater conservation, (privately managed estates can be involved actively and linked to it a ‘boom-and-bust’ culture (Raghavan in restoration and conservation of river stretches) in et al. 2007) towards freshwater fish diversity or the midlands along with village self-government led fish resources. This attitude is clearly reflected in initiatives. New provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) the legislation instruments that are available for Act can be used to create community reserves and freshwater biodiversity . None conservation reserves, with varying roles of local of the environment- or water-related acts, or acts communities in management and conservation. In related to ‘fish resources’ explicitly treat indigenous the lowlands, community reserves could potentially freshwater fish conservation as of any concern. There be very useful for management of fish resources. is no mention of the word ‘fish’ in many of the acts The study region is also home to the Kani and that have proved highly effective in conservation of Vedar tribes, living in landholdings within and other wildlife. Non-existent legislation is ultimately around PAs (wildlife sanctuaries). Some of them responsible for the threats to freshwater fish species indulge occasionally in dynamite-fishing and use inside PAs, as the enforcing authorities seem to of poisons derived from plants, to induce fish kills. have no awareness regarding fish biodiversity and The Kanis have started cultivating rubber and other no legal facility to take appropriate action against monoculture crops in their land holdings inside offenders. Even ground staff such as forest watchers some PAs and such activities are affecting the water and contract labourers such as trek-path workers bodies inside the PA, especially noticed in Neyyar use forest streams to catch fishes (prohibited in a WLS. There has been a drastic assimilation of urban wildlife sanctuary as per the Wild Life (Protection) culture and lifestyle adopted by these scheduled Act, (1972)) using destructive techniques such as tribals on reservation lands inside PAs (Miller & bio-poisons, dynamite and gill-nets. Forest guards Murugan Kani 2004), and is leading to severe would quiz us about the best sites to catch large ecological impacts and pollution 15 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Despite this problem, it is true that lower interview respondents often described in detail accessibility of people to PAs controls intensity their ecological understanding of these threats. of threats to freshwater sources and ecologically Despite complaints about dynamite fishing, their sensitive hill-streams. Outside PAs, the most attitude continued to be indifferent. Many were significant threats recognized by people were actually proud of being a ‘dynamite fisher’ as they sand-mining, dynamite fishing, and dumping of said they got ‘lots of fishes’. However, there were untreated wastes and acidic wastes from rubber also people who were against such practices but plantations. They further said that using the rivers felt helpless to act against organized groups and even for bathing had become a dangerous thing, poorer people who often practiced illegal activities, either due to allergic reactions caused by rubber which fetched easy money. Kerala is India’s most estate pollution, or by slippage of the unstable literate state and has had a long tradition of rural river bed due to prolonged sand-mining. People education that has definitely played a role in local recognized all these activities as illegal and said that conservation practices. It is therefore very difficult they take place in connection with local politicians to understand this paradox. and influential individuals. Many people reported In conclusion, we emphasize that presence of that food fishes had become rare in their area Protected Areas, despite little active enforcement because of constant dynamite fishing. and indifferent management of freshwater resources During our sampling and interview phase, we is important for conservation of many endemic were occasionally threatened by certain hostile and threatened fish species. However, PAs are not groups of people operating with the sand-mafia, enough for conserving lowland fish species and prostitution rackets, illicit liquor brewers and thus have only partial benefits for freshwater fish unemployed youth involved in illegal activities. diversity. State managed protected zones along the Threats to social security such as criminal gangs, river and community-based conservation initiatives illicit liquor production and organized prostitution including local self-governments, religious bodies rackets along the stream banks (though seemingly and NGOs are needed for effective conservation unrelated) make many sites difficult to access and of freshwater fish communities in the lowlands. affect conservation and research efforts. Most importantly, a wide change in local attitudes There were also some ‘anomalous’ sites both and legislation capacity to protect freshwater inside and outside PAs, where expected threat levels ecosystems and aquatic biodiversity are needed were not seen. Some sites, although inside Reserve urgently. Forests, are used by people for extraction of sand and illegal fishing, like the lower reaches of the Kulathupuzha Reserve forests. On the other hand, Conservation the presence of religious areas in the same area (a Recommendations temple) led to a reduction in direct or intentional threats around the temple premises. For instance, This study found that Protected Areas in river reaches near temples had much lower levels of the Ashambu Hills are of high importance for dynamite fishing or sand mining. It is possible that conservation of many Western Ghats endemic community control through religious collective species of freshwater fishes. This also holds true for action might lead to a positive attitude towards species considered as ‘range-restricted’, ‘rare’ and conservation. ‘threatened’ by different conservation assessments Our expectation that lack of awareness about done in the landscape or in the surrounding areas ecological threats led to the high prevalence (Biju et al. 2000, Easa and Shaji 2003, Sreekantha of destructive practices such as sand-mining or et al. 2007). Migratory species of commercial and dynamiting did not hold true. On the contrary, we conservation importance (e.g. the endangered discovered that people knew perfectly well the Malabar Mahseer Tor malabaricus) also depend ultimate cause of their actions, but were completely on hill streams for a good part of their life-cycle indifferent towards it. Answers provided by (Sheldon 1988, Dahanukar et al. 2003). Thus, the 16 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

onus for active conservation of these species rests this, the Fisheries Department will need to develop with PA managers, in this case the Kerala State alternatives by breeding large, fast growing local Department of Environment and Forests, and the species, which might prove to be a lesser threat to local Forest Divisions in charge of the five protected indigenous endemics. areas in this landscape. We find that forest officials b) Presence of many local threats was recorded and even ground staff are not fully aware of the inside PAs across the landscape. These chiefly importance of conserving rare and endemic involved sporadic dynamite fishing, use of bio- freshwater fishes that find refuge inside PAs. As we poisons for fishing, exotic invasive fishes, pollution have discussed already, considering fish as ‘wildlife’ and solid wastes from unregulated tourism and or ‘biodiversity’ is still a non-existent concept owing pilgrim movement, occasional sand-mining in some to lack of legislation that addresses freshwater fish Reserve Forest (RF) areas and rubber plantations conservation. Even within PAs, although at a lesser on lands within PAs allotted to the Kani tribes. We magnitude, a multitude of threats to freshwater strongly recommend regular monitoring of human fishes prevails, that can be minimized only by activity within the area. This is particularly true for active involvement and sensitization of regulatory two user groups: tourists from Thiruvananthapuram authorities. We provide recommendations about or neighboring areas, and forest watchers, trek-path PA managers regarding their potential role in workers and forest department labourers. Tourists, conservation and monitoring of threats to hill pilgrims and trekkers indulge in a lot of point-source stream habitats and fish species within PAs. pollution and solid-waste dumping. Plastic wastes, a) Most of the protected areas in the Ashambu alcohol bottles, and several such non-biodegradable Hills landscape comprise the higher reaches and materials are thrown into streams, which can have more inaccessible areas, and extend upto the serious implications for fish species. Alcohol bottles catchment areas of dams built across the rivers of especially, are discarded in a very irresponsible the area. Reservoir utilization and management fashion i.e. by smashing them onto rocks. This are under the purview of district-level irrigation creates problems for resident animals that frequent and fisheries departments, but the surrounding water bodies to drink water. PA management could reaches of forest and stream networks fall under incorporate strategies for regulating the higher the Forest Department’s PA jurisdiction. Reservoirs recent influx of tourists and pilgrims to PAs through act as significant artificial disturbances to the fish which the trek-paths to the revered mountain ecology of both feeder-streams/tributaries and the Agasthyamala, located inside Neyyar WLS, run. It river itself, through a variety of interventions by would also prove good to check such visitors for departments other than the Forest Department. The possession of alcohol bottles and other pollutant release, cultivation and production of exotic invasive articles, prior to granting them permission of entry fish species within reservoirs, predominantly for into any PA. commerce is the biggest direct threat to freshwater There has also been an increase in such fish species in PAs. Endemic and range-restricted irresponsible venturing into protected forests, species are highly affected following the introduction under the label of ‘ecotourism’. Contract labourers of invasive species in the reservoirs. This is thus a case employed by the department often camp by stream which requires inter-departmental co-ordination. sides and use destructive methods to catch fish for The irrigation, power and fisheries departments the pot, most importantly, using dynamite and and their senior officials need to be involved in bio-poisons (plant derived) to fish out hill streams. the process of PA management, as the reservoir is These practices are also used by some members of of importance in management of human activity, the Kani tribes inhabiting some PA areas. We found and ecological conservation in the area. Strict bans that dynamiting had severely affected the endemic are needed to stop further introduction of exotic Malabar Mahseer, one of the region’s endemic food fishes such as Oreochromis mossambicus, and highly valuable food fish species. There needs Cyprinus carpio, Catla catla, Labeo rohita, Cirrhinus to be increased patrolling and monitoring of not mrigala and Ctenopharyngodon idellus. Alongside just terrestrial but also the access routes via dam 17 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Gravel mined from the river bed of the Neyyar River Sand illegally collected near the Poonthura Estuary in the Drainage

Karamana River at the lower reaches, polluted by adjacent tourist resorts Sand mining in the Kallada River

18 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

improving the awareness towards freshwater fishes, of both forest staff and visitors/tourists. Overall, the Forest Departments need to read beyond the rule books. There needs to be a change in the perception of the managers towards freshwater fishes, from being mere ‘protein sources’ or ‘game’, to being highly important biodiversity conservation targets and critical ecosystem components that maintain freshwater ecosystem functions through trophic mass-balance and nutrient cycling.

Conclusion

In this study, taking the Ashambu Hills as an example, we aimed at assessing if protected areas of the Western Ghats preserve fish species diversity. Our specific objectives were to: i) To estimate the representation of indigenous stream fish fauna in protected areas and outside: We found that Protected Areas were harbouring higher species richness and densities of endemic species as well as several widely distributed species. ii) To identify factors that significantly influence stream fish communities inside and outside protected areas: Anthropogenic pressures in the form of habitat reservoirs. Finally, penalizing offenders is necessary destruction by sand-mining and dynamite fishing, to control these disturbances within PAs. Amongst over-fishing and pollution, negatively influenced fish other threats, sand mining was also seen to be communities in non-PAs, whereas dams and exotic practiced within some RFs. This is the biggest species influenced fish communities inside PAs. threat to freshwater systems in the non-PAs, but the magnitude within PAs is much lower. There iii) To identify measures that are required for is an urgent need to curb sand mining activities optimal conservation of stream fishes in the study wherever possible. People living around the dam area: areas fish in the reservoir waters, but often move We have identified several measures for the optimal into PAs for catching stream fishes. This activity conservation of fishes. To begin with, a fundamental needs to be banned to minimize impacts of fishing awareness of the richness and composition of fish in hill streams in PAs. species in the Western Ghats is lacking among the c) There is a need to improve existing general public and even among many conservation information and interpretation centres for professionals and the importance of river habitats for awareness about biodiversity. These centres, run several organisms and local communities. The absence by the forest departments are very informative for of legal provisions to protect threatened fish species is most higher taxa like mammals, birds and reptiles, also a key issue that need to be addressed immediately. but haven’t realized their true potential for aquatic Finally, the regular, unscientific introduction of exotic organisms. They could be effectively combined species into protected areas that serve as refuge with responsible ecotourism activities managed habitats for many endemic species also needs to be by the forest department, and help a great deal in controlled. 19 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

The key finding of the study is that Protected dominated Western Ghats landscape, especially in Areas in the Ashambu Hills are of extremely high the southern parts. It is extremely important that importance for conservation of many species of people value river systems as a critical lifeline for the freshwater fishes endemic to the Western Ghats numerous ecosystem services provided in terms of and even for many widely distributed species, providing clean water for drinking and all important depending on the extent of midland river stretches domestic chores, as well as for flood control, inside protected areas. However, most areas in the agriculture and transfer of nutrients and sediment unprotected lowland and midland stretches are from the mountains into the plains. Rivers also severely degraded and still under threat. are a major source of protein in the form of fishes, Many anti-social elements operating along river molluscs and . Additionally, people are stretches in illegal sand-mining and illicit-liquor exploiting river sand sediment for buildings and brewing operations also hampered our research other constructions. activities and attempts to access sampling points. So, streams and rivers that service the entire Also, the weather has been extremely unpredictable landscape through which they flow need to be with excessive rain received in the study area in effectively managed and attempts made to restore the past year, when field-work was being carried them, before the situation becomes irreversible. out. Additionally, many stream areas, especially But, in order to do this, there have to be top- in the higher elevations that were frequented by down initiation on the governing body’s part, irresponsible tourists, had been littered with glass with effective monitoring and swift action taken shards from broken liquor bottles, with such areas towards curbing illegal activities. There still remain being very challenging and proving injurious on infinite dimensions remaining to be understood some occasions. Yet, we were able to gather a vivid about rivers, but opportunities to understand the picture of the river systems and the fish fauna they natural rhythms of rivers are becoming increasingly support, in the Ashambu Hills Landscape and the bleak, due to the multitude of anthropogenic mounting problems they face. modifications accorded to rivers. So, it is important The threats from this study can be generalized, to focus on aspects that require urgent attention albeit with varying degrees across most west- and can be pragmatically addressed at the earliest flowing river systems in the highly human- to halt further negative changes.

20 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

The headwaters of the Vamanapuram River inside the Kallar Reserve Forest (1350 m ASL)

Undisturbed riverbed of the Karamana River The headwaters of the Kallada River inside the inside Peppara Wildlife Sanctuary Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary (1220m ASL)

Agasthyamala (1868m ASL), the highest peak in the Ashambu Hills

21 Some of the freshwater fish species found 1. Anguilla bengalensis 2. Mystus malabaricus 3. Puntus ticto living in the streams originating from the 4. Devario malabaricus 5. Tor malabaricus 6. Carinotetraodon travancoricus Ashambu Hills: 7. Pristolepis marginata 8. Channa diplogramma (juv.) 9. Puntius exclamatio 10. Xenentodon cancila 11. Nemacheilus triangularis 12. Puntius cf. fasciatus 13. Barilius bakeri 14. Garra mcclellandi 15. brachysoma 16. Etroplus suratensis 17. Bhavania australis 18. Puntius mahecola 19. Heteropneustes fossilis 20. Puntius jerdoni 21. Ompok malabaricus 22. Puntius filamentosus 23. Pseudambassis ranga 24. Garra hughi (Images 9., 10. & 18. by A. Bijukumar) Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Discussing the effects of existing (destructive) fishing techniques and recommending sustainable practices to local fishermen © Nikhil James Students sampling fish and measuring stream parameters

Workshop introducing students to freshwater fish taxonomy, ecol- Robin Abraham participating in the ‘Western Ghats Freshwater ogy and conservation organized at the Department of Aquacul- Biodiversity Assessment Red-list Workshop’ organized by the IUCN ture, University of Kerala © A. Bijukumar © Kevin Smith

24 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Table 1. Sampling sites for freshwater fish species in the Ashambu Hills landscape

No. Sampling Site ID Name Protection1 Elevation range2, Land-use Status 1. Neyyar 0 (N0) Athirumala PA H, Rainforest, Shola, Grassland 2. Neyyar 1 (N1) Meenmutty PA M, Semi-evergreen forest 3. Neyyar 2 (N2) Komba PA M, Moist-deciduous forest, Kani settlement 4. Neyyar 3 (N3) Non-PA L, Rubber plantation, Coconut plantation, Settlement 5. Neyyar 4 (N4) Mambazhakkara Non-PA L, Coconut plantation, Banana, Tapioca, Paddy, Settlement 6. Karamana 1 (K1) Pandipathu PA H, Evergreen forest, Shola, Grassland 7. Karamana 2 (K2) - Non-PA M, Rubber plantation, Settlement 8. Karamana 3 (K3) Manjamoodu Non-PA M, Rubber plantation, Coconut plantation 9. Karamana 4 (K4) - Non-PA L, Urban, coconut plantation, Settlement 10. Vamanapuram 1 Kallar PA H, Evergreen forest, Shola, (V1) Grassland 11. Vamanapuram 2 Noor-acre Estate Non-PA M, Rubber Plantation (V2) 12. Vamanapuram 3 Vamanapuram Non-PA L, Urban, (V3) Coconut Plantation 13. Ithikkara 0 (I0) Chitthara, Palode PA H, Oil-Palm Plantation, Reserve RF Forest 14. Ithikkara 1 (I1) Non-PA M, Rubber plantation, Temple 15. Ithikkara 2 (I2) Ayur Non-PA L, Coconut plantation, Paddy 16. Ithikkara 3 (I3) Non-PA L, Near estuary 17. Kulathupuzha 1 Kulathupuzha PA M, Reserve Forest, (KP1) Settlement 18. Kallada 1 (KD1) Umayar PA M, Evergreen forest 19. Kallada 2 (KD2) Urukunnu Non-PA M, Rubber plantation, Settlement 20. Kallada 3 (KD3) Non-PA L, Coconut plantation, Settlement, Semi-urban

Key: 1 – PA (Protected Area), Non-PA (Non-Protected Area). 2 – L = Lowland, M = Midland, H = Highland; Shola is the local name for Montane Cloudforest.

25 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Table 2. Details of ecological and anthropogenic covariates measured at sampling sites.

Variable Units, measurement details Description Elevation (ct) Metres above sea level, GISa Obtained from satellite imagery Slope (ct) Degrees, GIS Obtained from satellite imagery Aspect (ct) Ratio, GIS Obtained from satellite imagery Stream order (o) Order, GIS, Toposheetsb Stream order Substrate (cg) Substrate category, Muddy, rocky, sandy, and combinations Observation of these types Canopy cover (ct) Percentage, Observation Measured as percent cover above stream width Surface Temperature (ct) Degrees Celsius, Measured from water surface for Water thermometer day and night Air Temperature (ct) Degrees Celsius, Thermometer Measured for day and night Habitat Type (cg) Category, Observation, GIS Forest, Rubber plantation, Coconut plantation, Semi-urban / urban area Protection Status (cg) Category, Observation, GIS Wildlife Sanctuary, Reserve Forest, Non-protected Distance from Metres, GIS Distances as-the-crow-flies; for settlement/town reservoir – both upstream and PA; reservoir (ct) downstream distances Plantation type (cg) Category, Observation, GIS, Rubber, Coconut, Oil palm, Tapioca, Toposheets Banana, Paddy; Observation Water quality Laboratory analysesd Physico-chemical and biological variablesc (ct) parameters (Table 5) Threats (p/a)e Observation, Interviews Sand-mining, dynamite fishing, industry, solid wastes, settlement, pilgrimage, overfishing, crop, wood plantation, non-wood plantation

Key: a – GIS software Idrisi ANDES 15.0 (ClarkLabs 2006); and Google Earth™; b – Survey of India Toposheets of resolution 1: 25,000 and 1: 50,000 cm, published in 1989-1990. c – Physico-chemical parameters assessed at each site. d– Laboratory analyses conducted by the Regional Research Laboratory (RRL)[CSIR], Industrial Estate P.O., Thiruvananthapuram 695019, Kerala, India. e – Threats identified from the IUCN Red List Guidelines (IUCN 2010) and from our interviews’ data. Acronyms in brackets in the column ‘Variable’ refer to type of variable: ct – continuous, cg – categorical, o – ordinal, p/a – presence/absence

26 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Table 3. Species richness across Protected Areas, rubber plantations and lowland agriculture/ settlement areas in the Ashambu Hills landscape

Land-use Total species richness Sampled species Estimated and Western Ghats richness2 species endemic species richness1 richness3 Protected Area 63 (21) 33 57 (10) Rubber Plantation 73 (20) 25 50 (14) Lowland agriculture and 78 (7) 29 62 (13) semi-urban areas

Key: 1 – From review of previous literature with information from the area, (Easa and Shaji 2003, Biju et al. 2000, Thomas 2004). Numbers in brackets are standard deviations, derived from gaps in information, by assigning subjective probability classes to species with uncertain status. Std. deviations indicate sampling bias in previous studies, towards lowland areas that are easily accessible. 2 – Actual species richness observed in our samples from the three areas. A total number of 60 species was sampled. 3 – Estimated species richness from Bayesian hierarchical model for occurrence and detection probabilities. Numbers in brackets are standard deviations around estimated richness.

27 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Table 4. Threats to freshwater habitats and fish species recorded in the landscape. Threat Rank Area affected (PA/Non- Fishes found to be Target groups/Solutions PA) (Low/Mid/High) critically affected proposed/Agencies to be (Habitat) involved for change Sand-mining 1 Non-PAs, midlands and Species belonging to Sand-mining mafia / Complete Lowlands throughout, the families Gobiidae, ban, curbing the mafia / occasional in PAs Cobitidae and Balitoridae; Environmental action groups, also Puntius spp. and local self-governments & police Hypselobarbus spp. of

Non-PAs, throughout, Tor malabaricus, Unemployed youths, forest- Dynamite-Fishing 2 occasional in PAs: Hypselobarbus curmuca, dwelling tribes, nuisance especially Neyyar & Wallago attu, Ompok elements in villages / Complete Karamana bimaculatus, Horabagrus ban / Village Panchayats, brachysoma, resident community-level monitoring predators such as agencies Channa spp.; also smaller endemic fishes

Rubber acid wastes 3 Throughout Non-PAs in Channa spp., and other Rubber plantation owners, midlands resident fishes. labourers / Complete ban, better eco-friendly disposal of wastes / Environmental research, Waste Management, Private Initiative

Solid wastes 4 Throughout, also in Most native riverine fish Tourists, pilgrims, forest PAs because of human species watchers, trackers, guards, movement, tourism and urban and rural citizens, pilgrimage plantation owners and farmers / Reduction necessary, monitoring / Forest and Environment Departments, Irrigation and Village or Town Development Authorities, Town Planning

Urban sewage 5 Lowlands, extremely Most native riverine fish Everyone living in the landscape and industrial high in Karamana, species / Severe reduction necessary wastes Neyyar & Kallada / Forest and Environment Departments, Irrigation and Village Town Development Authorities, Town Planning

Overfishing 6 Throughout the land- Mahseer Tor spp., Fishermen and citizens / scape except PAs. Hypselobarbus spp., Regulated fishing, monitoring / Channa spp., Fisheries Departments, Village Anguilla spp., and all Self-Governments, Community major food-fishes. Action Groups

Exotic species 7 Reservoirs and sur- Major native food- Fisheries and Agriculture rounding streams, in fishes (Tor spp.) and Departments / Ban on further PAs and non-PAs many species affected introductions of exotic species by exotics Cyprinus /Environmental NGOs and carpio & Oreochromis Action Groups mossambicus 28 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Table 5. Results of water quality assessments of water samples from 14 sampling sites (4 PA*, 10 Non-PA) a) Physico-chemical parameters

No. Sample pH Conductivity, COD Sulphate PO4` NO3 SiO2 Cl HCO3 Area MS (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)

1. NEY-03 7.03 39.2 14 10. 6 0.007 0.108 0.845 5.73 48 2. NEY-04 7 39.7 14 6.5 BDL 0.085 0.78 5.78 46 3. KAR-03 7.12 28.3 14 3. 3 0.284 0.225 0.717 4.75 36 4. KAR-04 7.06 39. 9 19 6. 1 BDL 0.094 0.727 4.68 50 5. ITK-1* 6.69 110.6 25 14. 7 0.008 0.104 0.909 16 102 6. ITK-2 6.57 107.1 30 10. 9 0.01 0.151 1.25 13.6 116 7. ITK-3 6.76 96 28 4. 8 0.026 0.068 1.09 15.3 86 8. KLD-2 6.9 33..5 10 2. 7 0.006 0.091 0.546 5.04 36 9. KLD-3 6.85 30..3 14 1. 4 0.027 0.178 0.518 4.97 40 10. VAM-3 6.94 68..3 25 4. 7 0.02 0.119 1.19 7.96 86 11. VAM-1* 6.53 33. 8 12 3.77 BDL 0.2 0.76 2.57 50 12. VAM-2 6.56 39 11 2.54 BDL 0.08 0.64 2.59 54 13. KAR-1* 6.38 29. 3 14 0.91 BDL 0.11 0.44 2.92 32 14. NEY-1* 6.16 47. 7 16 1.26 BDL 0.002 0.56 3.32 56

b) Biological parameters

Sample Area Total bacterial Presence/absence of Coliform count e-coli count/ml × 103 Coliform mpn/100ml count/ml NEY-03 2.5 present ≥1600 6 NEY-04 2.8 present ≥1600 4 KAR-03 3 present ≥1600 8 KAR-04 3.2 present ≥1600 5 ITK-1* 2 present 1600 3 ITK-2 2.2 present 900 4 ITK-3 1.8 present 1600 3 KLD-2 2.3 present ≥1600 2 KLD-3 2.5 present 1600 2 VAM-3 3 present 900 3 VAM-1* 1.5 present 500 10 VAM-2 1.2 present 300 5 KAR-1* 3.2 present ≥1600 240 NEY-1* 3.5 present ≥1600 530

29 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

1. ABELL, R., ALLAN, J.D. & LEHNER, B. (2007) Unlocking the potential of protected areas for freshwaters. Biological Conservation, 134, 48–63. 2. ABRAHAM, R.K., KELKAR, N.S., BIJUKUMAR, A., & SHAJI, C. P. (2010) Puntius sp. novo., a new cyprinid species. Manuscript In Prep. 3. ADAMSON, E.A.S., HURWOOD D. A. & MATHER. P. B. (2010) A reappraisal of the evolution of Asian snakehead fishes (Pisces, Channidae) using molecular data from multiple genes and fossil calibration. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 56(2): 707-717. 4. ALLAN, J.D. & FLECKER, A.S. (1993) Biodiversity conservation in running waters. BioScience, 43, 32– 43. 5. ALMEIDA, P.R., QUINTELLA, B.R., COLLARES-PEREIRA, M.J., COELHO, M.M. & COWX, I.G. (2002) Freshwater fish conservation: options for the future. 6. ANAND, M.O., KRISHNASWAMY, J., KUMAR, A. & BALI, A. 2010. Sustaining biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes: remnant forests matter. Biological Conservation, In Press. 7. ARUNACHALAM, M. (2000) Assemblage structure of stream fishes in the Western Ghats (India). Hydrobiologia, 430, 1–31. 8. BAWA, K.S., DAS, A., KRISHNASWAMY, J., KARANTH, K.U., KUMAR, N.S., & RAO, M. (2007). Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – Ecosystem Profile. Western Ghats and Sri Lanka Biodiversity Hotspot. Western Ghats region. ATREE, Bangalore, India. 9. BERGL, R.A., OATES, J.F. & FOTSO, R. (2007) Distribution and protected area coverage of endemic taxa in West Africa’s Biafran forests and highlands. Biological Conservation, 134, 195–208. 10. BHAT, A. (2003) Diversity and composition of freshwater fishes in river systems of central western ghats, India. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 68, 25–38. 11. BHAT, A. (2004) Patterns in the distribution of freshwater fishes in rivers of Central Western Ghats, India and their associations with environmental gradients. Hydrobiologia, 529, 83–97. 12. BHAT, A. & MAGURRAN, A.E. (2006) Taxonomic distinctness in a linear system: a test using a tropical freshwater fish assemblage. Ecography, 29, 104–110. 13. BIJU, C.R., THOMAS, K. R. & AJITHKUMAR, C.R. (2000). Ecology of hill streams of Western Ghats with special reference to fish communities. Final Report, 203 pp, Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, India. 14. BOSSUYT, F., MEEGASKUMBURA, M., BEENAERTS, N., GOWER, D.J., PETHIYAGODA, R., ROELANTS, K. ET AL. (2004) Local endemism within the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka biodiversity hotspot. Science, 306, 479. 15. CAMBRAY, J.A. (2003) Impact on indigenous species biodiversity caused by the globalisation of alien recreational freshwater fisheries. Hydrobiologia, 500, 217–230. 16. CHAKRABARTY, D. & DAS, S.K. (2006). Fish community structure and ecological degradation in tropical rivers of India. Web Ecology, 6, 27–36. 17. COLLARES-PEREIRA, M.J. & COWX, I.G. (2004) The role of catchment scale environmental management in freshwater fish conservation. Fisheries management and Ecology, 11, 303–312. 18. COLLEN, B., MCRAE, L., KOTHARI, G., MELLOR, R., DANIEL, O., GREENWOOD, A., AMIN, R., HOLBROOK, S. & BAILLIE, J. (2008) Living Planet Index. 2010 and beyond: rising to the biodiversity challenge (edited. by J. Loh), WWF, Gland, Switzerland. 19. COLWELL, R.K. 2006. EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 8. Persistent URL . Accessed 20/4/2010. 20. CORBACHO, C. & SÁNCHEZ, J.M. (2001) Patterns of species richness and introduced species in native freshwater fish faunas of a Mediterranean-type basin: the Guadiana River (southwest Iberian Peninsula). Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, 17: 699–707. 30 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

21. COWX, I.G. (2002) Analysis of threats to freshwater fish conservation: past and present challenges. Conservation of Freshwater Fishes: Options for the future, 201–220. 22. CRIVELLI, A.J. (2002) The role of protected areas in freshwater fish conservation. Conservation of freshwater fishes: options for the future. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom, 373–388. 23. CURTIS, B., ROBERTS, K.S., GRIFFIN, M., BETHUNE, S., HAY, C.J. & KOLBERG, H. (1998) Species richness and conservationof Namibian freshwater macro-invertebrates, fish and amphibians. Biodiversity and Conservation, 7, 447–466. 24. BASAK, P., JAMES, E.J. & NANDESHWAR, M.D. (1995) Water Atlas of Kerala. Central Water Resources Development and Management Institute / STEC, Calicut, Kerala, India. 25. DAHANUKAR, N., RAUT, R. & BHAT, A. (2004) Distribution, endemism and threat status of freshwater fishes in the Western Ghats of India. Journal of Biogeography, 31, 123–136. 26. DAMU, T. (2003). Helping “Ecosystem People” protect wilderness and their own welfare. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 27. DANIELS, R.J.R. (2002). Freshwater fishes of Peninsular India. In. Gadgil, M. (edited) India - A lifescape 2. Universities Press, Hyderabad, pp 287. 28. DARWALL, W.R.T. & VIÉ, J.C. (2005) Identifying important sites for conservation of freshwater biodiversity: extending the species-based approach. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 12: 287– 293. 29. DEVI, K.R., INDRA, T.J., RAGHUNATHAN, M.B. & RAVICHANDRAN, M.S. (2005) Fish fauna of the Anamalai hill ranges, Western Ghats, India. Zoos’ Print Journal, 1809–1811. 30. DEVICTOR, V., L. GODET, L., JULLIARD, R., COUVET, D. & JIGUET, F. (2007). Can common species benefit from protected areas? Biological Conservation, 139, 29-36. 31. DUDGEON, D. (2005) River rehabilitation for conservation of fish biodiversity in monsoonal Asia. Ecology and Society, 10, 15. 32. DUNCAN, J.R. & LOCKWOOD, J.L. (2001) Extinction in a field of bullets: a search for causes in the decline of the world’s freshwater fishes. Biological Conservation, 102, 97–105. 33. DUDGEON, D., ARTHINGTON, A.H., GESSNER, M.O., KAWABATA, Z.I., KNOWLER, D.J., LÉVÊQUE, C. ET AL. (2005) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews, 81, 163–182. 34. EASA, P.S. & SHAJI, C.P. (2003). Biodiversity Documentation for Kerala - Part 8: Freshwater Fishes - KFRI Handbook No.17, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Kerala, India. 35. ESCHMEYER, W.N., AND FONG, J.D. (2010). Species of Fishes by family/subfamily. On-line version dated 31/05/2010. URL: http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/ SpeciesByFamily. asp 36. FAUSCH, K.D., TORGERSEN, C.E., BAXTER, C.V. & LI, H.W. (2002) Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. BioScience, 52, 483–498. 37. FREEMAN, M.C., BOWEN, Z.H., BOVEE, K.D. & IRWIN, E.R. (2001). Flow and habitat effects on juvenile fish abundance in natural and altered flow regimes. Ecological Applications, 11, 179-190. 38. FU, C., HUA, X., JUN, L., CHANG, Z., PU, Z., & CHEN, J. (2006). Elevational patterns of species richness and endemic richness in the Hengduan Mountains, China: geometric constraints, area and climate effects. Ecography, 29, 919-927. 39. . 2010. Ministry of Environment and Forests. Website.URL: http://moef.nic.in/ modules/rules-and-regulations/ Accessed 25/5/2010. 40. HABIT, E., BELK, M.C., TUCKFIELD, R.C. & PARRA, O. (2006) Response of the fish community to human- induced changes in the Biobıo River in Chile. Freshwater Biology, 51, 1–11. 41. HUMPL, M. & PIVNICKA, K. (2006) Fish assemblages as influenced by environmental factors in streams in protected areas of the Czech Republic. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 15, 96–103. 31 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

42. IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 11 March 2010. 43. IUCN Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. 2010. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version . Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. http://intranet.iucn. org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/RedListGuidelines.pdf. 44. JAYARAM, K.C. (1994). The freshwater fishes of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka – a handbook. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, India. 45. JAYARAM, K.C. (1991). Revision of the Puntius Hamilton. Records of the Zoological Survey of India – Occasional Paper No. 135, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, India. 46. NEL, J.L., REYERS, B., ROUX, D. J. & COWLING, R.M. (2009) Expanding protected areas beyond their terrestrial comfort zone: Identifying spatial options for river conservation. Biological Conservation, 142, 1605-1616. 47. JOHNSON, J.A. & ARUNACHALAM, M. (2009) Diversity, distribution and assemblage structure of fishes in streams of southern Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 1, 507–513. 48. JOPPA, L.N., & PFAFF, A. (2009). High and far: biases in the location of Protected Areas. PLoS One, 4, 1-6. 49. JOWETT, I.G., & RICHARDSON, J. (1996). Relative effects of in-stream habitat and land use on fish distribution and abundance in tributaries of the Grey River, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 30, 463-475. DOI 0028-8330/96/3004-0463. 50. KEITH, P. (2000) The part played by protected areas in the conservation of threatened French freshwater fish. Biological conservation, 92, 265–273. 51. KOEHN, J.D. (2004) Carp (Cyprinus carpio) as a powerful invader in Australian waterways. Freshwater Biology, 49, 882–894. 52. KRISHNASWAMY, J, LELE, S & JAYAKUMAR, R. (2005) (Editors) Hydrology and watershed services in the Western Ghats: Effects of Land-cover and Land-use change. Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, India. 53. KUMAR, B.M. (2006). Land use in Kerala: changing scenarios and shifting paradigms. Journal of Tropical Agriculture, 42, 1-12. 54. LAL TEKRIWAL, K. & ARUNAVA RAO, A. (1999). Ornamental Aquarium Fish of India. Kingdom Books, United Kingdom. 55. LAWLER, J.J., WHITE, D., SIFNEOS, J.C. & MASTER, L.L. (2003) Rare species and the use of indicator groups for conservation planning. Conservation Biology, 17, 875–882. 56. LINKE, S., PRESSEY, R.L., BAILEY, R.C. & NORRIS, R.H. (2007) Management options for river conservation planning: condition and conservation re-visited. Freshwater Biology, 52, 918. 57. MARTIN, P., HANIFFA, M.A. & ARUNACHALAM, M. (2000). Abundance and diversity of macroinvertebrates and fish in the Tamiraparani river, . Hydrobiologia, 430, 59-75. 58. MAITLAND, P.S. (1995) The conservation of freshwater fish: past and present experience. Biological Conservation, 72, 259–270. 59. MENON, A.G.K. (1987). The and the adjacent countries – Pisces, Vol. IV. Teleostei – Cobitidae, Part I: Homalopteridae. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, India. 60. MILLER, E. & MURUGAN KANI, N. (2004). Cultivating a forest language: Development ideas for Kani tribal people of Tamil Nadu’s Kanniyakumari district. Proceedings of the First All-India Conference of the Kanniyakumari Academy of Arts and Sciences (KAAS), Nagercoil. 61. MINNS, C.K., KELSO, J.R.M. & RANDALL, R.G. (1996) Detecting the response of fish to habitat alterations in freshwater ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53, 403–414. 62. MYERS, N., MITTERMIER, R.A., MITTERMIER, C.G., DA FONSECA, G.A.B., & KENT, J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853-858. 63. NAIR, S.C. 1991. Southern Western Ghats. Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH), New Delhi, India. 32 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

64. NEL, J.L., ROUX, D.J., MAREE, G., KLEYNHANS, C.J., MOOLMAN, J., REYERS, B., ROUGET, M. & COWLING, R.M. (2007). Rivers in peril inside and outside Protected Areas: a systematic approach to conservation assessment of river ecosystems. Diversity and Distributions, 13, 341-352. 65. PASCUAL, M., MACCHI, P., URBANSKI, J., MARCOS, F., RIVA ROSSI, C., NOVARA, M. & DELL’ARCIPRETE, P. (2002a) Evaluating potential effects of exotic freshwater fish from incomplete species presence– absence data. Biological invasions, 4, 101–113. 66. PETHIYAGODA, R. (1994) Threats to the indigenous freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka and remarks on their conservation. Hydrobiologia, 285, 189–201. 67. PETHIYAGODA, R. & KOTTELAT, M. (2005) A review of the barbs of the Puntius filamentosus group (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) of southern India and Sri Lanka. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 12, 127–144. 68. R DEVELOPMENT CORE TEAM. (2008). R: A language and environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. http://www.r-project.org. Accessed August 2008. 69. RAAGAM, P.M., & REMA DEVI, K. (2004). An overview of the hill trouts (Barilius spp.) of the Indian region. Zoos’ Print Journal, 20, 1847-1849. 70. RAGHAVAN, R., ANVAR ALI, P.H. & PRASAD, G. (2007). Need for a comprehensive reassessment of the of critically endangered (?) freshwater fishes of Kerala. Current Science, 92, 721- 723. 71. RAGHAVAN, R., PRASAD, G., ALI, P.H. & SUJARITTANONTA, L. (2007) ‘Boom and bust fishery’in a biodiversity hotspot–Is the Western Ghats losing its most celebrated native ornamental fish, Puntius denisonii Day? Current Science, 92, 1671. 72. RAGHAVAN, R., PRASAD, G., ALI, P.H. & PEREIRA, B. (2008) Fish fauna of River, part of Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot, Kerala, India: patterns of distribution, threats and conservation needs. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 3119–3131. 73. RICHTER, B.D., BRAUN, D.P., MENDELSON, M.A. & MASTER, L.L. (2003) Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology, 11, 1081–1093. 74. RODRIGUES, A.S.L., ANDELMAN, S.J., BAKARR, M.I., BOITANI, L., BROOKS, T.M., COWLING, R.M., FISHPOOL, L.D.C., DA FONSECA, G.A.B., GASTON, K. J., HOFFMANN, M., LONG, J.S., MARQUET, P.A., PILGRIM, J.D., PRESSEY, R.L., SCHIPPER, J., SECHREST, W., STUART, S.N., UNDERHILL, L.G., WALLER, R.W., WATTS, M.E.J., & YA, X. (2004). Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature, 428, 640-643. 75. ROYLE, J.A., & DORAZIO, R. (2008). Hierarchical modeling and inference in ecology - the analysis of data from populations, metapopulations and communities. Academic Press, USA. 76. SARKAR, U.K., PATHAK, A.K. & LAKRA, W.S. (2008) Conservation of freshwater fish resources of India: new approaches, assessment and challenges. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 2495–2511. 77. SAUNDERS, D.L., MEEUWIG, J.J. & VINCENT, A.C.J. (2002) Freshwater protected areas: strategies for conservation. Conservation Biology, 16, 30–41. 78. SHEEBA, S. (1999) Certain Aspects of the Ecology of the Ithikkara River. Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, India. URL: http://www.mgutheses.org./page/?q=T%201127&search=&page=3&rad=# Accessed 21/1/2010. 79. SHELDON, A.L. (1988) Conservation of stream fishes: patterns of diversity, rarity, and risk.Conservation Biology, 2, 149–156. 80. SILAS E.G. (1951). Fishes from the High Range of . Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 50, 323-330. 81. SINGH, K. (1998). Handbook of environment, wildlife and forest protection laws in India. pp 467, Natraj Publishers, New Delhi, India. 82. SPIEGELHALTER, D. J., THOMAS, A., BEST, N.G., & LUNN, D. (2007). WinBUGS Version 1.4.3 User Manual. MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, U.K.

33 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

83. SREEKANTHA, M.D., MESTA, D.K., RAO, G.R., GURURAJA, K.V. & RAMACHANDRA, T.V. (2007) Fish diversity in relation to landscape and vegetation in central Western Ghats, India. Current Science, 92, 1592–1603. 84. SREEKANTHA, M.D., GURURAJA, K.V. & RAMACHANDRA, T.V. (2008). Nestedness pattern in freshwater fishes of the Western Ghats: an indication of stream islands along riverscapes. Current Science, 95, 1707-1714. 85. SUSKI, C.D. & COOKE, S.J. (2007) Conservation of aquatic resources through the use of freshwater protected areas: opportunities and challenges. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16, 2015–2029. 86. THOMAS, R. K. (2004). Habitat and distribution of hill-stream fishes of Southern Kerala (South of Palghat Gap). PhD Thesis, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Kerala, India. 87. VANNOTE, R.L., MINSHALL, G.W., CUMMINGS, K.W., SEDELL, J.R. & CUSHING, C.E. (1980). The River Continuum Concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 37, 130-137. 88. VASUDEVAN, K., KUMAR, A. & CHELLAM, R. (2006) Species turnover: the case of stream amphibians of rainforests in the Western Ghats, southern India. Marine, Freshwater, and Wetlands Biodiversity Conservation, 147–157. 89. VÖRÖSMARTY, C.J., MCINTYRE, P.B., GESSNER, M.O., DUDGEON, D., PRUSEVICH, A., GREEN, P., GLIDDEN, S., BUNN, S.E., SULLIVAN, C.A., REIDY LIERMANN, C. & DAVIES, P.M. (2010) ‘Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity’. Nature, 467(7315), 555-561. 90. WIKRAMANAYAKE, E.D. (1990). Conservation of Endemic Rain Forest Fishes of Sri Lanka: Results of a translocation experiment. Conservation Biology, 4, 32-37.

34 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

e sincerely thank Dr. Ajith Kumar, and always encouraged the work. Chacko, Ajimon, Course Director, Post Graduate Pro- Francis, Chandrankutty, Sukumaran and Thomas Wgram in Wildlife Biology and Conserva- Ammavan provided us with excellent help in the tion, WCS-India, for his constant motivation, critical field, and we shared some memorable sightings in guidance and for being an ever-inspiring mentor the Agasthyamala forests. Mr. Rajan M. provided us since the beginning of the project. We thank Dr. with a room during the project period. Mr. Vijayku- Uma Ramakrishnan of the National Centre for Bio- mar, Mr. Pachha Ravi, Mr. Sreekuttan, Mr. Shobhana logical Sciences, for her interest in the project and Das, Mr. Kuriakose Abraham, Mr. Sali, Mr. Aruviyode for kindly providing an affiliation with her lab. Dr. Surendran, Mr. Jayan Manikuttan, helped us with Jagdish Krishnaswamy of ATREE, Bangalore and Dr. field logistics providing places to stay. Dr. Rajeev Geoff Hyde of NCBS provided timely advice and Raghavan, Fibin Baby, and Dr. P.H. Anvar Ali of Con- suggestions regarding sampling methodology servation Research Group, Kerala provided us with and scientific communication, respectively. Dr. A. useful literature, references and suggestions with Bijukumar of the Department of Aquaculture and use and maintenance of nets. We were fortunate Fisheries, University of Kerala, patiently helped us to interact with ecologists and taxonomists like identify any doubtful specimens, answered every Dr. Satheesh Chandran Nair, Dr. Shanthi Nair, Dr. E. odd query, and even lent his books and equip- Kunhikrishnan, Dr. C.P. Shaji, Dr. Sanjeev Ghosh, Dr. ments for fieldwork. Dr. Kurian Mathew Abraham Sanjay Molur, Dr. Sheeba, Dr. R.J. Ranjit Daniels, Dr. of Mar Thoma College, Thiruvalla, was constantly Neelesh Dahanukar, Dr. Robin Vijayan, Dr. Devaka supportive of our work, and a great companion in Weerakoon, and Dr. Anuradha Bhat. Mr. M.C. Kiran the field. The Kerala Forest Department gave timely of ATREE provided us with DEM files of the land- permits for all field work. We are most grateful to scape. Ms. Sigy Susan George (New Zealand) helped the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), us by donating invaluable equipment for fieldwork. Kerala, the Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife & Dr. Abraham Kurian and family; and Mr. K.K. George Biodiversity), and the DFOs of each Wildlife Sanctu- and family, tolerated us throughout the work and ary and Reserve Forest in Thiruvananthapuram and always provided full support to the work. We thank , for facilitating our entry inside the Dr. K. Ullas Karanth and Dr. Ravi Chellam for their Protected Areas: Mr. P. I. Pradeep Kumar (Shendu- encouragement. Dr. R. Sukumar and Jisha analyzed runey WLS), Mrs. Girija (Peppara WLS) and Ms. Ro- our water quality samples at the Regional Research hini (Kallar RF). Ms. Rohini, Mr. Jyothi (Neyyar WLS) Laboratory, (NIIST-CSIR), Thiruvananthapuram. and Mr. Pradeep Kumar are particularly thanked Vicky Lakshmanan, Roberto Caceres, Nikhil James, for their constant encouragement, interest, and and Smrithiraj provided great company in field. for providing us with knowledgeable field assis- Aathira Perinchery and Veena P.G. helped with vari- tants. Ms. Rini of the Kerala Forest Headquarters, ous things. We also thank friends from the M.Sc. Thiruvananthapuram, gave us updates on the per- Program in Wildlife Biology and Conservation, and mit processing patiently. Mr. Purushottam of the Dr. Uma Ramakrishnan’s lab (Lab-3) at NCBS, Banga- National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore lore and friends from the Conservation Leadership and Mr. Jose Alexander, State Bank of India, Thiru- Program workshops and meetings in China. The vananthapuram ensured smooth management of sharing of information and experiences about their our funds. Praveen Muralidharan Pillai helped us in projects will be ever-invaluable. Finally, we express many ways in logistics, including giving his vintage sincere gratitude towards Robyn, Lynn, Kiragu and jeep for fieldwork. Mr. C.T. Varghese kindly pro- Stuart, the CLP team, for their support, guidance vided us with contacts throughout the landscape, and patience with our project. 35 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Appendix 1. Annotated checklist of species sampled during the study. Taxonomy follows Eschmeyer and Fong (2010).

Genus Species Author Preferred Elevation Occurence in Occurence in Habitat Range Rivers PAs/Non-PAs Chanda nama Hamilton 1822 Ru m KLD NPA Parambassis thomassi (Day 1870) Ru m KLD, VAM, KAR, NEY NPA Pseudambassis ranga (Hamilton 1822) Ru m KLD, KAR, NEY NPA Anguilla bengalensis (Gray 1831) Ru, Pl l,m,h KLD, ITK, VAM, PA, NPA KAR, NEY Aplocheilus lineatus (Valenciennes 1846) Pl l,m KLD, ITK, VAM, PA, NPA KAR, NEY Aplocheilus blockii (Arnold 1911) Pl m NEY NPA (Günther 1864) Pl l,m KLD, KAR, NEY PA, NPA Mystus bleekeri (Day 1877) Pl m, h NEY NPA Mystus malabaricus (Jerdon 1849) Pl m, h KLD, ITK, VAM, PA, NPA KAR, NEY Mystus oculatus (Valenciennes 1840) Ru, Pl m NEY NPA Bhavania australis (Jerdon 1849) Ra h KLD NPA Travancoria jonesi Hora 1941 Ra, Ri h KLD, VAM PA Nemacheilus guentheri Day 1867 Ra, Ru, Ri h NEY PA Nemacheilus triangularis Day 1865 Ra, Ru, Ri m,h KLD, VAM, KAR, NEY PA, NPA Lepidocephalichthys thermalis (Valenciennes 1846) Ra, Ru, Ri m,h KLD PA Xenentodon cancila (Hamilton 1822) Ru, Pl l,m KLD, ITK, VAM, NPA KAR, NEY Channa gachua (Hamilton 1822) Ru, Pl l,m VAM PA Channa marulius (Hamilton 1822) Ru, Pl l,m VAM, KLD PA, NPA Channa striata (Bloch 1793) Ru, Pl l,m KLD, ITK, VAM, NPA KAR, NEY Channa diplogramma ^ (Day 1865) Ru, Pl m KLD PA Etroplus maculatus (Bloch 1795) Ru, Pl l,m KLD, ITK, VAM, PA, NPA KAR, NEY Etroplus suratensis (Bloch 1790) Ru, Pl l KLD, ITK, VAM, NPA KAR, NEY Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters 1852) Ru, Pl l,m NEY, KLD PA, NPA Clarias dussumieri Valenciennes 1840 Pl m KLD, NEY PA, NPA Heteropneustes fossilis (Bloch 1794) Pl l,m NEY PA Dayella malabarica (Day, 1873) Ru m KLD NPA Salmophasia balookee (Sykes 1839) Ru m NEY NPA Devario cf. aequipinnatus (McClelland 1839) Ru, Pl l,m,h KLD, ITK, VAM, PA, NPA KAR, NEY Devario malabaricus (Jerdon 1849) Ru, Pl l,m,h KLD, ITK, VAM, PA, NPA KAR, NEY Rasbora daniconius (Hamilton 1822) Ru, Pl l,m,h KLD, ITK, VAM, PA, NPA 36 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

KAR, NEY Amblypharyngodon melettinus (Valenciennes 1844) Ru l,m NEY NPA Barilius bakeri Day 1865 Ra, Ru m, h KLD, ITK, VAM, PA, NPA KAR, NEY Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus 1758 Pl m KLD, NEY PA Tor malabaricus (Sykes 1839) Pl m, h KLD, VAM, KAR, NEY PA Garra mcclellandi + (Jerdon 1849) Ra, Ru h NEY PA Garra mullya (Sykes 1839) Ra, Ru, Pl, Ri l, m, h KLD, ITK, VAM, PA, NPA KAR, NEY Garra hughi Silas 1955 Ra, Ru, Pl, Ri h VAM, NEY PA Hypselobarbus curmuca (Hamilton 1807) Ru, Pl m, h KLD, ITK, VAM, PA, NPA KAR, NEY (Sykes 1839) Ru, Pl m KLD PA Hypselobarbus kurali Menon & Ru, Pl m KLD PA Rema Devi 1995 (Day 1873) Ru, Pl m KLD NPA Puntius mahecola (Valenciennes, 1844) Ru, Pl m KAR, NEY NPA Puntius dorsalis (Jerdon 1849) Ru, Pl m, h KLD, ITK, VAM, NEY PA, NPA Puntius exclamatio Pethiyagoda & Ru, Pl m KLD PA Kottelat 2005 Puntius fasciatus (Jerdon 1849) Ru, Pl, Ri m, h KLD, VAM, KAR, NEY PA, NPA Puntius filamentosus (Valenciennes 1844) Ru, Pl m KLD, ITK, VAM, PA, NPA KAR, NEY Puntius sp. novo. * Ru, Pl m ITK NPA Puntius jerdoni + (Day 1870) Ru, Pl m KLD PA Puntius parrah Day 1865 Ru, Pl m KAR NPA Puntius narayani (Hora 1937) Ru, Pl m, h KLD PA Puntius sarana (Hamilton 1822) Ru, Pl l, m KLD, ITK, NEY PA, NPA Puntius ticto (Hamilton 1822) Ru, Pl, Ri m KLD, ITK, KAR, NEY PA, NPA Sicyopterus griseus (Day 1877) Ru l, m KAR NPA Awaous gutum Talwar & Jhingran, 1991 Ru l, m KAR NPA Glossogobius giuris (Hamilton 1822) Ru l, m KLD, ITK, VAM, KAR NPA Hyporamphus limbatus Valenciennes, 1847 Ru, Pl l KLD NPA Mastacembelus armatus (Lacepède 1800) Ru, Pl, Ri l, m, h KLD, NEY PA, NPA Pristolepis marginata Jerdon 1848 Ru, Pl l, m KLD, NEY PA, NPA Ompok bimaculatus (Bloch 1794) Ru, Pl m, h NEY PA, NPA Ompok malabaricus (Valenciennes 1840) Ru, Pl m, h NEY, KLD PA, NPA

Key: Author names not in brackets indicate original descriptions unchanged. Names in brackets indicate redescriptions. Rivers: KLD – Kallada, ITK – Ithikkara, VAM – Vamanapuram, KAR – Karamana, NEY – Neyyar. PA – Protected Area, NPA – Non-Protected Area, Elevation range: l – low, m – mid, h – high. * - Abraham et al. In Preparation, so still not a valid species. + – Range extension to the Ashambu Hills Landscape, ^ - Taxonomy follows new molecular study showing that the Indian species of Giant Snakehead, previously Channa micropeltes should be treated as a distinct species C. diplogramma (Adamson et al. 2010). Preferred Habitat: Ru – Run, Ri – Riffle, Ra – Rapid, Pl – Pool.

37 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Appendix 2. IUCN Red List Status of freshwater fish species known from the Ashambu Hills landscape. The checklist is derived from previous literature (Biju et al. 2000, Easa and Shaji 2003, Thomas 2004) and updated by current knowledge. The IUCN assessment data has been compiled from CAMP (1997). Assessments for the present year (2010) are underway, and Robin Kurian Abraham is assessing many species included in this list.

Family Genus Species IUCN (1997 CAMP) Endemism Main Threats Status Ambassidae Chanda nama VU HL Ambassidae Parambassis dayi EN WG HL Ambassidae Parambassis thomassi VU WG HL, DY, IN Ambassidae Pseudambassis ranga DD HL Anabantidae Anabas testudineus VU HL, IN, DY Anguillidae Anguilla bengalensis EN HL Anguillidae Anguilla bicolor EN HL Aplocheilidae Aplocheilus lineatus LC HL Aplocheilidae Aplocheilus blockii DD HL Batasio travancorica EN WG HL, DY Bagridae Horabagrus brachysoma EN WG HL, DY Bagridae Mystus armatus LC HL Bagridae Mystus bleekeri VU HL Bagridae Mystus cavasius LC HL Bagridae Mystus keletius DD HL Bagridae Mystus malabaricus EN WG HL, DY Bagridae Mystus montanus VU HL Bagridae Mystus oculatus LC HL Bagridae Mystus vittatus VU HL Balitoridae Bhavania australis EN WG HL Balitoridae Travancoria jonesi EN WG HL Balitoridae Nemacheilus denisoni DD WG Balitoridae Nemacheilus guentheri DD WG HL Balitoridae Nemacheilus pulchellus DD WG HL Balitoridae Nemacheilus triangularis LC WG HL Balitoridae Pangio goaensis DD HL Balitoridae Lepidocephalichthys thermalis LC Belonidae Xenentodon cancila DD HL, DY Channidae Channa gachua VU HL, DY, IN Channidae Channa marulius LC HL, DY, IN Channidae Channa striata LC HL, DY Channidae Channa diplogramma CR WG HL, DY, OF Cichlidae Etroplus maculatus LC HL, DY Cichlidae Etroplus suratensis DD HL, DY Cichlidae Oreochromis mossambicus * Clariidae Clarias dussumieri VU WG HL, OF, IN Clariidae Heteropneustes fossilis VU HL, DY Clupeidae Dayella malabarica LC WG HL Cyprinidae Laubuca dadyburjori DD WG HL 38 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Cyprinidae Salmophasia boopis LC WG HL, DY Cyprinidae Salmophasia balookee EN HL, DY Cyprinidae Esomus danricus VU Cyprinidae Esomus thermoicos DD Cyprinidae Devario cf. aequipinnatus LC HL Cyprinidae Devario malabaricus LC WG HL Cyprinidae Rasbora daniconius DD HL Cyprinidae Amblypharyngodon melettinus LC HL, DY Cyprinidae Amblypharyngodon microlepis DD HL Cyprinidae Barilius bakeri VU WG HL, EX Cyprinidae Barilius bendelisis LC HL Cyprinidae Barilius gatensis DD WG HL Cyprinidae Cyprinus carpio * Cyprinidae Ctenopharyngodon idella * Cyprinidae Osteobrama bakeri EN WG HL Cyprinidae Labeo dussumieri EN WG HL, EX Cyprinidae Labeo rohita LC HL Cyprinidae Labeo calbasu LC HL Cyprinidae Tor malabaricus VU WG HL, OF, DY, EX Cyprinidae Catla catla * Cyprinidae Cirrhinus mrigala * Cyprinidae Garra mcclellandi EN WG HL, DY, EX Cyprinidae Garra mullya LC HL, DY, EX Cyprinidae Garra hughi EN WG HL Cyprinidae DD WG HL Cyprinidae Horalabiosa joshuai DD HL, EX Cyprinidae Hypselobarbus curmuca EN WG HL,OF,DY,EX,IN Cyprinidae Hypselobarbus kolus EN WG HL, DY Cyprinidae Hypselobarbus kurali EN WG HL, DY Cyprinidae Osteobrama bakeri DD WG HL, DY, IN Cyprinidae Puntius mahecola NT WG HL, IN Cyprinidae Puntius arulius EN HL Cyprinidae Puntius bimaculatus DD HL, DY, IN Cyprinidae Barbodes carnaticus VU WG HL Cyprinidae Puntius chola VU HL, DY, IN Cyprinidae Puntius conchonius VU HL, DY, IN Cyprinidae Puntius denisonii EN WG HL, DY, OF Cyprinidae Puntius dorsalis EN HL, DY Cyprinidae Puntius exclamatio VU WG-Ash HL, EX, DY Cyprinidae Puntius fasciatus EN WG HL, DY Cyprinidae Puntius filamentosus DD HL, DY, IN Cyprinidae Puntius sp. nov DD WG-Ash HL Cyprinidae Puntius jerdoni EN HL, EX, DY Cyprinidae Puntius parrah EN HL Cyprinidae Puntius narayani DD WG HL, EX, DY Cyprinidae Puntius sarana LC WG HL, OF, IN, DY Cyprinidae Puntius tambraparniei CR WG HL Cyprinidae Puntius ticto LC HL, EX, DY, IN 39 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Cyprinidae Puntius vittatus VU HL Gobiidae Sicyopterus griseus DD HL Gobiidae Awaous gutum DD HL Gobiidae Glossogobius giuris LC HL, DY, IN Hemirhamphidae Hyporamphus limbatus DD HL Mastacemelidae Mastacembelus armatus LC HL, OF, DY, IN Mastacemelidae Macrognathus guentheri VU HL, DY Nandidae Pristolepis marginata VU WG HL, DY Notopteridae Notopterus notopterus LC HL Osphronemidae Pseudosphromenus cupanus DD HL, DY Siluridae Ompok bimaculatus EN HL, DY Siluridae Ompok malabaricus CR WG HL, DY, EX Siluridae Wallago attu LC HL, DY, OF Sisoridae Glyptothorax annandalei EN HL Sisoridae Glyptothorax madraspatanus VU WG HL Synbranchidae Monopterus fossorius EN HL, OF, DY Syngnathidae Microphis cuncalus VU HL Tetraodontidae Carinotetraodon travancoricus EN WG HL, OF

Key: IUCN Status: LC – Least Concern, NT – Near Threatened, VU – Vulnerable, EN – Endangered, CR – Critically Endangered, DD – Data Deficient, * – Exotic Species. Endemism: WG – Western Ghats, WG-Ash – Ashambu Hills. Threats: HL – Habitat Loss, DY – Dynamite Fishing, OF – Overfishing, EX – Exotic species, IN – Industrial Pollution.

Appendix 3. Land-use changes in the five river basins of the Ashambu Hills landscape over the last 20 years.

Neyyar: Expansion of Neyyatinkkara town, declaration of the Neyyar WLS, changes in Kani settlements inside Neyyar WLS, electric power-lines entering the forest area for Kani settlers, increase in check dams, extension of agriculture, roads, trek-paths within WLS, opening up of forest in Sanctuary area. Karamana: Construction of dam and reservoir, Increase in coconut plantations, Kottur Reserve Forest changed to exotic Acacia plantations, large increase in industrial units, mixed agriculture, vast expansion of settlements and agriculture, reduction of forest. Vamanapuram: Increase in exotic Acacia plantations, roads. Ithikkara: Large increase in area under rubber plantations, increased area of oil palm plantations around Palode/ Reserved Forests. Kallada: Increase in mixed agriculture, rubber plantations.

40 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

Key Threats to Freshwater Fish inside Protected Areas

1. Regular introduction of large sized Exotic Species into dam reservoirs by the Fisheries Department, which negatively impact indigenous native species of fish and other aquatic organisms

2. Disposal of plastic refuse and irresponsible disposal of liquor bottles (often by smashing them on rocks near streams) inside Wildlife Sanctuaries and Reserve Forests by tourists and pilgrims, many of whom carry these with them, especially on the Agasthyamala trek route and in Hill Station.

3. Illegal fishing inside Wildlife Sanctuaries and Reserve Forests by Forest Department ground staff like watchers and contract labourers who clear fire lines and trek paths, regu- larly, along with fishermen accessing PA streams via dam reservoirs.

The Common/Eurasian Carp (Cyprinus carpio), an introduced species that aggressively out-competes native and endemic species. Studies from other countries where thay have been introduced have documented the vast damage caused by this species to aquatic ecosystems and native fishes. Hence, it would be illogical to assume that such exotic species have any long term benefit in our landscape.

Tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus), an exotic species from Africa has succesfully colonozed most freshwater habitats in the Indian peninsula and is an aggressive competitor with many native fish species. 41 Do Protected Areas of India’s Western Ghats conserve fish diversity?

42 Design Concept & Layout by Robin Kurian Abraham