journal of research in biology volume 4 issue 3

Aim and Scope

Journal of Research in Biology is an international scientific journal committed to the development and spread of

research in Biological sciences. It accepts research articles with affiliation to biological science from all around the globe and

publishes them in the journal. The submitted articles are peer-reviewed by experts in the field and editorial board members. Make

the most of your research by publishing articles in Journal of Research in Biology.

Journal of Research in Biology works as a portal for biological scientific research publication. It works to promote the use

of biological sciences knowledge in the world public policy, and to develop and advance science policy that serves the needs of scientific research and education communities, particularly the biological sciences.

The journal has been uniquely positioned to help members of the scientific community; become effective advocates for their science and to be better known for the public that relate to or impact the biological sciences.

Call for Papers

Journal of Research in Biology seeks Research Articles, Short Communications and Mini reviews. The Journal will accept

and review submissions in English from any author, in any global locality. A body of international peers will review all

submissions with potential author revisions as recommended by reviewers, with the intent to achieve published papers that:

Relate to the field of Biology

Represent new, previously unpublished work

Advance the state of knowledge of the field

Conform to a high standard of presentation.

Disclaimer: Journal of Research in Biology is not responsible for the content of individual manuscripts. Manuscripts available in this journal were peer reviewed. Manuscripts accepted in the issues conform to the editorial policies. But more details regarding the nature of their research, conflicts in their workplace, plagiarisms, stealing of others property, manipulation of data, illegal formulation of a paper from other allied papers etc., were all not known to us. Any details, queries regarding the manuscripts should be only dealt with the authors and not with the publisher. The concept of peer review can only limit the plagiarism to a small extent where as it is the work of the public and the individuals to identify and stop the illegal formulation of new articles from the other. The publisher invites all details regarding the plagiarism of an article published in the journal provided with the original data and supplementary files for confirmation. On identifying plagiarism issues in an article, the article published will be removed from the journal website and further on the citation of the same will be debarred. Provided the author of the manuscript will be prohibited to publish his/her other studies in our journal or throughout the journals under our portal.

List of Editors of Editors in the Journal of Research in Biology

Managing and Executive Editor:

Abiya Chelliah [Molecular Biology] Publisher, Journal of Research in Biology.

Editorial Board Members:

Ciccarese [Molecular Biology] Universita di Bari, Italy.

Sathishkumar [Plant Biotechnologist] Bharathiar University.

SUGANTHY [Entomologist] TNAU, Coimbatore.

Elanchezhyan [Agriculture, Entomology] TNAU, Tirunelveli.

Syed Mohsen Hosseini [Forestry & Ecology] Tarbiat Modares University (TMU), Iran.

Dr. Ramesh. C. K [Plant Tissue Culture] Sahyadri Science College, Karnataka.

Kamal Prasad Acharya [Conservation Biology] Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Norway.

Dr. Ajay Singh [Zoology] Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur

Dr. T. P. Mall [Ethnobotany and Plant pathoilogy] Kisan PG College, BAHRAICH

Ramesh Chandra [Hydrobiology, Zoology] S.S.(P.G.)College, Shahjahanpur, India.

Adarsh Pandey [Mycology and Plant Pathology] SS P.G.College, Shahjahanpur, India

Hanan El-Sayed Mohamed Abd El-All Osman [Plant Ecology] Al-Azhar university, Egypt

Ganga suresh [Microbiology] Sri Ram Nallamani Yadava College of Arts & Sciences, Tenkasi, India.

T.P. Mall [Ethnobotany, Plant pathology] Kisan PG College,BAHRAICH, India.

Mirza Hasanuzzaman [Agronomy, Weeds, Plant] Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Bangladesh

Mukesh Kumar Chaubey [Immunology, Zoology] Mahatma Gandhi Post Graduate College, Gorakhpur, India.

N.K. Patel [Plant physiology & Ethno Botany] Sheth M.N.Science College, Patan, India.

Kumudben Babulal Patel [Bird, Ecology] Gujarat, India.

CHANDRAMOHAN [Biochemist] College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University.

B.C. Behera [Natural product and their Bioprospecting] Agharkar Research Institute, Pune, INDIA.

Kuvalekar Aniket Arun [Biotechnology] Lecturer, Pune.

Mohd. Kamil Usmani [Entomology, Insect taxonomy] Aligarh Muslim university, Aligarh, india.

Dr. Lachhman Das Singla [Veterinary Parasitology] Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, India.

Vaclav Vetvicka [Immunomodulators and Breast Cancer] University of Louisville, Kentucky.

José F. González-Maya [Conservation Biology] Laboratorio de ecología y conservación de fauna Silvestre, Instituto de Ecología, UNAM, México.

Dr. Afreenish Hassan [Microbiology] Department of Pathology, Army Medical College, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Gurjit Singh [Soil Science] Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Amritsar, Punjab, India.

Dr. Marcela Pagano [Mycology] Universidade Federal de São João del-Rei, Brazil.

Dr.Amit Baran Sharangi [Horticulture] BCKV (Agri University), West Bengal, INDIA.

Dr. Bhargava [Melittopalynology] School of Chemical & Biotechnology, Sastra University, Tamilnadu, INDIA.

Dr. Sri Lakshmi Sunitha Merla [Plant Biotechnology] Jawaharlal Technological University, Hyderabad.

Dr. Mrs. Kaiser Jamil [Biotechnology] Bhagwan Mahavir Medical Research Centre, Hyderabad, India.

Ahmed Mohammed El Naim [Agronomy] University of Kordofan, Elobeid-SUDAN.

Dr. Zohair Rahemo [Parasitology] University of Mosul, Mosul,Iraq.

Dr. Birendra Kumar [Breeding and Genetic improvement] Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Lucknow, India.

Dr. Sanjay M. Dave [Ornithology and Ecology] Hem. North Gujarat University, Patan.

Dr. Nand Lal [Micropropagation Technology Development] C.S.J.M. University, India.

Fábio M. da Costa [Biotechnology: Integrated pest control, genetics] Federal University of Rondônia, Brazil.

Marcel Avramiuc [Biologist] Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava, Romania.

Dr. Meera Srivastava [Hematology , Entomology] Govt. Dungar College, Bikaner.

P. Gurusaravanan [Plant Biology ,Plant Biotechnology and Plant Science] School of Life Sciences, Bharathidasan University, India.

Dr. Mrs Kavita Sharma [Botany] Arts and commerce girl’s college Raipur (C.G.), India.

Suwattana Pruksasri [Enzyme technology, Biochemical Engineering] Silpakorn University, Thailand.

Dr.Vishwas Balasaheb Sakhare [Reservoir Fisheries] Yogeshwari Mahavidyalaya, Ambajogai, India.

Dr. Pankaj Sah [Environmental Science, Plant Ecology] Higher College of Technology (HCT), Al-Khuwair.

Dr. Erkan Kalipci [Environmental Engineering] Selcuk University, Turkey.

Dr Gajendra Pandurang Jagtap [Plant Pathology] College of Agriculture, India.

Dr. Arun M. Chilke [Biochemistry, Enzymology, Histochemistry] Shree Shivaji Arts, Commerce & Science College, India.

Dr. AC. Tangavelou [Biodiversity, Plant Taxonomy] Bio-Science Research Foundation, India.

Nasroallah Moradi Kor [Animal Science] Razi University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Iran

T. Badal Singh [plant tissue culture] Panjab University, India

Dr. Kalyan Chakraborti [Agriculture, Pomology, horticulture] AICRP on Sub-Tropical Fruits, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya,

Kalyani, Nadia, West Bengal, India.

Dr. Monanjali Bandyopadhyay [Farmlore, Traditional and indigenous

practices, Ethno botany] V. C., Vidyasagar University, Midnapore.

M.Sugumaran [Phytochemistry] Adhiparasakthi College of Pharmacy, Melmaruvathur, Kancheepuram District.

Prashanth N S [Public health, Medicine] Institute of Public Health, Bangalore.

Tariq Aftab Department of Botany, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India.

Manzoor Ahmad Shah Department of Botany, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, India.

Syampungani Stephen School of Natural Resources, Copperbelt University, Kitwe, Zambia.

Iheanyi Omezuruike OKONKO Department of Biochemistry & Microbiology, Lead City University,

Ibadan, Nigeria.

Sharangouda Patil Toxicology Laboratory, Bioenergetics & Environmental Sciences Division,

National Institue of Animal Nutrition

and Physiology (NIANP, ICAR), Adugodi, Bangalore.

Jayapal Nandyal, Kurnool, Andrapradesh, India.

T.S. Pathan [Aquatic toxicology and Fish biology] Department of Zoology, Kalikadevi Senior College, Shirur, India.

Aparna Sarkar [Physiology and biochemistry] Amity Institute of Physiotherapy, Amity campus, Noida, INDIA.

Dr. Amit Bandyopadhyay [Sports & Exercise Physiology] Department of Physiology, University of Calcutta, Kolkata, INDIA .

Maruthi [Plant Biotechnology] Dept of Biotechnology, SDM College (Autonomous),

Ujire Dakshina Kannada, India.

Veeranna [Biotechnology] Dept of Biotechnology, SDM College (Autonomous), Ujire Dakshina Kannada, India.

RAVI [Biotechnology & Bioinformatics] Department of Botany, Government Arts College, Coimbatore, India.

Sadanand Mallappa Yamakanamardi [Zoology] Department of Zoology, University of Mysore, Mysore, India.

Anoop Das [Ornithologist] Research Department of Zoology, MES Mampad College, Kerala, India.

Dr. Satish Ambadas Bhalerao [Environmental Botany] Wilson College, Mumbai

Rafael Gomez Kosky [Plant Biotechnology] Instituto de Biotecnología de las Plantas, Universidad Central de Las Villas

Eudriano Costa [Aquatic Bioecology] IOUSP - Instituto Oceanográfico da Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil

M. Bubesh Guptha [Wildlife Biologist] Wildlife Management Circle (WLMC), India

Rajib Roychowdhury [Plant science] Centre for biotechnology visva-bharati, India.

Dr. S.M.Gopinath [Environmental Biotechnology] Acharya Institute of Technology, Bangalore.

Dr. U.S. Mahadeva Rao [Bio Chemistry] Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, Malaysia.

Hérida Regina Nunes Salgado [Pharmacist] Unesp - Universidade Estadual Paulista, Brazil

Mandava Venkata Basaveswara Rao [Chemistry] Krishna University, India.

Dr. Mostafa Mohamed Rady [Agricultural Sciences] Fayoum University, Egypt.

Dr. Hazim Jabbar Shah Ali [Poultry Science] College of Agriculture, University of Baghdad , Iraq.

Danial Kahrizi [Plant Biotechnology, Plant Breeding,Genetics]

Agronomy and Plant Breeding Dept., Razi University, Iran

Dr. Houhun LI [Systematics of Microlepidoptera, Zoogeography, Coevolution,

Forest protection] College of Life Sciences, Nankai University, China.

María de la Concepción García Aguilar [Biology] Center for Scientific Research and Higher Education of Ensenada, B. C., Mexico

Fernando Reboredo [Archaeobotany, Forestry, Ecophysiology] New University of Lisbon, Caparica, Portugal

Dr. Pritam Chattopadhyay [Agricultural Biotech, Food Biotech, Plant Biotech] Visva-Bharati (a Central University), India

Table of Contents (Volume 4 - Issue 3)

Serial No Accession No Title of the article Page No

1 RA0428 A review on the distribution of Western Hoolock Gibbon (Hoolock

hoolock) in Northeast India.

Pallab Deb, Prabhat Kumar Rai and Parimal C. Bhattacharjee.

1301-1310

2 RA0352 Meiosis and Chromosome Complement of Atractomorpha lata (=A.

bedeli) (Mochulsky, 1866) (Orthoptera: Pyrgomorphidae) Collected in

Cameroon.

Seino Richard Akwanjoh, Dongmo Tonleu Ingrid, Dongmo Alain and

Manjeli Yacouba.

1311-1316

3

RA0432

Diversity, distribution, threats and conservation action of fish fauna in

Chinnar Reservoir, Tamil Nadu.

Manickam Raja, Rajendiran Ramkumar and Pachiappan Perumal.

1317-1327

4

RA0389

New locality record of yellow collared wolf snake Lycodon flavicollis

mukherjee and bhupathy, 2007 from seshachalam biosphere reserve,

Eastern Ghats, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Bubesh Guptha M, Thulasaiah T and Sivaram Prasad NV.

1328-1331

http://jresearchbiology.com/documents/RA0428.pdf




Article Citation: Pallab Deb, Prabhat Kumar Rai and Parimal C. Bhattacharjee. A review on the distribution of Western Hoolock Gibbon (Hoolock hoolock) in Northeast India. Journal of Research in Biology (2014) 4(3): 1301-1310

Jou

rn

al of R

esearch

in

Biology

A review on the distribution of Western Hoolock Gibbon

(Hoolock hoolock) in Northeast India

Keywords: Western hoolock gibbon, Hoolock hoolock, Northeast India, southern Assam, distribution, conservation.

ABSTRACT: The Western hoolock gibbon (Hoolock hoolock) occurs in the forests of Northeastern India, found in the following states : Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Mizoram. In this article, we discuss the published information on distribution of Hoolock gibbons in Assam and other areas of Northeast. Several studies were carried out on the presence or absence from the protected areas but Hoolock gibbons are also present outside the protected areas particularly in Reserve Forest (RF), Private Forest (PF) and Community Forest (CF) and Village Reserve Forest (VRF). The distribution status of Hoolock gibbon in Northeast India is still not conclusively known. In the presence of above facts, this paper briefly reviews the studies on Western hoolock gibbon across its distribution range in Northeast India because it is essential to understand the population status and distribution of any endangered species like Hoolock gibbon for formulating action plan for their conservation.

1301-1310 | JRB | 2014 | Vol 4 | No 3

This article is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which gives permission for unrestricted use, non-commercial, distribution and reproduction in all medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

www.jresearchbiology.com Journal of Research in Biology

An International

Scientific Research Journal

Authors:

Pallab Deb1*,

Prabhat Kumar Rai1 and

Parimal C. Bhattacharjee2.

Institution:

1. Department of

Environmental Science,

Mizoram University,

Aizawl, Mizoram, India.

2. Former Professor,

Department of Zoology,

Gauhati University, Assam,

India.

Corresponding author:

Pallab Deb.

Email Id:

Web Address: http://jresearchbiology.com/documents/RA0428.pdf.

Dates: Received: 04 Mar 2014 Accepted: 22 Mar 2014 Published: 03 Jun 2014

Journal of Research in Biology

An International Scientific Research Journal

Original Research

ISSN No: Print: 2231 –6280; Online: 2231- 6299

INTRODUCTION

Hoolock gibbon (Hoolock hoolock) a tree

dwelling ape, characterized by its white brows, also

known as “White Browed Gibbon” is the only ape found

in the Indian Subcontinent (Figure 1 and 2). In 2005,

Mootnick and Groves described Hoolock as two distinct

species, the Western hoolock gibbon (Hoolock hoolock)

and the Eastern hoolock gibbon (Hoolock leuconedys).

The Western hoolock gibbon (Hoolock hoolock) occurs

in the forests of Northeastern India, found in the

following states : Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura,

Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Mizoram. Where as

the Eastern hoolock gibbon (H. leuconedys) found only

in the state of Arunachal Pradesh and certain places of

Assam (Chetry and Chetry, 2011). There has been a

gradual decline by more than 90% in the population of

Hoolock gibbon in the wild because of several kinds of

human actions or human activities (Walker et al., 2007).

The species is threatened by habitat loss, shifting

agriculture, expansion of tea gardens and coffee estates,

various kinds of developmental projects, monoculture

tree plantations, hunting for food and traditional

medicine. (Choudhury, 1990, 1991, 1996a; Srivastava,

1999; Ahmed 2001; Malone et al., 2002; Solanki and

Chutia, 2004, Das et al., 2006; Walker et al., 2007). In

this article, we discuss the published information on

distribution of hoolock gibbons in Assam and other areas

of Northeast.

Hoolock Gibbon in Northeast India

The Northeastern region of India is most

significant as it represents the confluence of the Indo-

Malayan, Indo-Chinese and Indian biogeographical

realms. The Northeastern region is unique in providing a

profusion of habitats of various primates (Srivastava,

2006). The Hoolock gibbon was first described by

Harlan and Burrough (1834) and assigned to the genus

Hylobates by Blanford (1888-1891). Most of the earlier

descriptions of the Hoolock are of taxonomic interest or

natural history observations (Alfred and Sati, 1986).

After McCann‟s (1933) two months study on the

behavior of the Hoolock in the Naga Hills in 1930,

followed by an exploratory study conducted by Tilson

(1979) in the Hollangapar Reserve Forest in upper

Assam. Since 1980‟s , there has been a keen interest in

primate studies in Northeast. Several studies on the

Western hoolock gibbon‟s population and distribution

status in Northeastern India were carried out by several

workers. In Assam (Tilson, 1979; Choudhury, 1990,

1996a, 1996b, 2000, 2001, 2009a, 2009b; Das et al.,

2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2005, 2009; Kakati, 2004, 2006;

Kakati et al., 2009), Tripura (Mukherjee, 1982; Gupta,

2001; Gupta and Dasgupta, 2005), Meghalaya (Alfred

and Sati, 1986, 1990; Choudhury, 1998, 2006; Gupta and

Sharma, 2005a; Sati, 2011), Mizoram (Misra et al., 1994;

Gupta and Sharma, 2005b; Choudhury, 2006), Nagaland

(McCann, 1933; Choudhury, 2006), Manipur

(Choudhury, 2006) and Arunachal Pradesh (Chetry et al.,

2003 and Kumar et al., 2009 and Das et al., 2009).

The presence of Hoolock gibbon in Manipur was

reported by Choudhury (2006). Hoolock gibbons were

located in the wildlife sanctuaries of Bunning, Jiri-

Makru, Kailam,Yangoupokpi-Lokchao and Zeilad.

According to Choudhury (2006) Hoolock gibbons are

also found in the Shiroi and Anko (Anggo Ching) ranges,

but the declining trend continues everywhere in Manipur.

Hoolock gibbons are still found in the jungle of Manipur

but it is very sad to learn that poaching is a serious threat

to this endangered species whose number is declining

day by day.

Hoolock gibbons are also present in Meghalaya.

Survey on Hoolock gibbon in Jaintia Hills was carried

out by Gupta and Sharma during the month of May 2003.

They carried out the survey in Narpuh Block-I RF and

Narpuh Block-II RF and the corridor area joining the

Narpuh RF ( Block-II ) with the Saipung Reserve Forest.

A total area of about 36.44 km2 was surveyed in the

Jaintia Hills and 17 groups of gibbons were located

(Gupta and Sharma, 2005a). In Nongkhyllum wild life

Deb et al., 2014

1302 Journal of Research in Biology (2014) 4(3): 1301-1310

sanctuary 15 groups of Hoolock gibbon located in this

sanctuary, ten were located inside the sanctuary, four

groups in Reserve Forests and only one group was

located in a private forest at Umla (Gupta and Sharma,

2005a). A total of 39 groups of gibbon were located in

West Garo Hills including Nokrek National Park and

Nokrek Biosphere Reserve. The Balpakram National

Park (200km2) lies in the West Garo Hills and West

Khasi Hills districts of southern Meghalaya. A total of

three groups were located in Balpakram National Park

(Gupta and Sharma, 2005a). Four groups in Siju wild life

sanctuary and adjacent areas in South Garo Hills. They

also surveyed Baghmara Pitcher Plant Sanctuary and

Reserve Forest and found that five groups of Hoolock

gibbon are living inside the Baghmara Reserve Forests.

A total of 83 gibbon groups were recorded in this study.

Choudhury (2006) also reported the presence of Hoolock

gibbon in Balpakram and Nokrek national parks and in

the wild life sanctuaries of Nongkhyllum and Siju.

During a long-term study on the Hoolock gibbon in West

Garo Hills District, a detailed survey was made by

Alfred and Sati and a total of 42 family groups and four

solitary individuals of gibbons were recorded (Alfred and

Sati, 1990). J.P. Sati again conducted a survey on

Hoolock gibbon in West Garo Hills District in the year

2007. A total of 25 family groups of gibbons were

located in West Garo Hills (Sati, 2011). According to

Sati (2011) the diminishing trend of Hoolock gibbon

population is 26.2% in West Garo Hills District of

Meghalaya.

In Nagaland Gibbons have been recorded in all

the districts (Choudhury, 2006). They occur in Intanki

National Park and Fakim Wildlife Sanctuary and

Singphan Reserved Forest. But according to Choudhury

(2006) gibbon has disappeared from Pulie Badge and

Rangapahar Wildlife Sanctuaries.

Gupta and Sharma (2005b) estimated the

population of gibbons in all the existing protected areas

and the Reserved Forests of Mizoram. And they reported

72 groups of gibbons, only 3 (4.2%) groups were

actually sighted of the remaining groups, 20 groups

(27.8%) were located based on the songs heard during

the surveys and the presence of remaining 49 groups

(68%) were based on the secondary information (Gupta

and Sharma, 2005b). Hoolock gibbons are also present in

all the districts of Mizoram (Choudhury, 2006). Hoolock

gibbon present in all the wildlife sanctuaries and

National Parks of Mizoram. According to Choudhury

(2006) the existence of Hoolock Gibbon in Tawi

Wildlife Sanctuary is doubtful.

In Tripura, the presence of Hoolock gibbon was

reported by Mukherjee (1982). Gupta (2001) confirmed

Journal of Research in Biology (2014) 4(3): 1301-1310 1303

Deb et al., 2014

Figure 1. Western hoolock gibbon (Hoolock hoolock),

Adult male. Photo: © Pallab Deb Figure 2. Western hoolock gibbon (Hoolock hoolock),

Adult female. Photo: © Pallab Deb

the presence of Hoolock Gibbon in Trishna and Gumti

Wildlife Sanctuaries. In 2005 Gupta and Dasgupta

recorded a total of 39 groups over an area of 53km2;

16 groups were confirmed through personal

communications with the local people and forest staff.

Songs were heard from 15 groups and only eight groups

were actually sighted.

In Arunachal Pradesh very few studies were

conducted on Gibbons till 2003. Chetry et al., (2003)

conducted a quantitative study in Namdapha National

Park on the population status of gibbons. And they

recorded ten groups with a total population of 33.

Another study on the distribution and population status

of Western hoolock gibbons in Namdapha National Park

was done by Kumar et al., (2009). They recorded a total

of twenty groups with a total population of 50. Eleven

groups (55%) were recorded by indirect observations

where as nine groups (45%) were observed directly. Das

et al., (2009) reported a total of 46 groups of Hoolock

gibbons in Arunachal Pradesh during their surveys in

2005-2006 with an average group size of 3.1 individuals.

The distribution status of Hoolock gibbon in

Assam was described by various researchers. Tilson

(1979) observed the behaviour of Hoolock gibbon in the

different seasons in Assam and he reported the group

size of 3.2 individuals for 25 groups and 3.4 for 7

groups. Choudhury (1990) studied the population

dynamics of Hoolock gibbon at 8 different groups in

Assam. Choudhury (2009a) has given a rough population

estimate of Karbi Anglong district of Assam indicates

that the total numbers of Hoolock gibbons today could be

between 2,400 and 3,200. This number can be compared

to an estimate in 1991-1992 of 3,500-4,800. The

distribution and status of Hoolock gibbon in Tinsukia

and Dibrugarh district was described by Choudhury

(2009b). According to him the Gibbon number was near

about 1,700 in 1995-1996 but recently their number may

be fewer than 1,300 individuals. Study on impact of

forest fragmentation on the Hoolock gibbon in Assam

was done by Kakati (2004, 2006). Kakati et al., (2009)

again carried out a survey in fragmented forests of

eastern Assam. The survey was conducted in Dibrugarh,

Digboi, Doom-Dooma and Tinsukia Forest Divisions in

2002. They found the encounter rates for Gibbon groups

were lowest in the small forest fragments and increasing

as the forest size increased . They recorded similar trends

with group sizes. Das et al., (2003a) recorded 80 areas as

Hoolock gibbon habitat in Northeastern India and a total

of 379 Gibbons were recorded and the number varied

from 1 to 25 among these areas. Das et al., (2009)

estimated the population of Hoolock gibbons in Assam

to be around 4,500-5,500 individuals (excluding solitary

individuals), and the total area of Gibbon habitat as

7,369km2. Today, most of the forest patches in Assam

are small and isolated. Such small size and scattered

forest fragments unable to support above 300 gibbon

population and some scattered forest fragments contain

one pair of gibbon (Das et al., 2009). Das et al., (2011)

identified ten priority „conservation areas‟ for long term

conservation of Hoolock gibbon in Assam. Each priority

conservation area include a cluster of wild life

sanctuaries, reserved forests and proposed reserved

forests. These conservation areas or forest complexes

have the greatest potential for long term conservation of

Western hoolock gibbon in Assam. Of these ten priority

conservation areas of Assam, Karbi Anglong district of

central Assam, comprises five priority conservation

areas, two priority conservation areas are in Southern

part of Assam. One priority conservation areas is in

Dibrugarh and Tinsukia districts and Kamrup and

Nawgaon districts has one each. Five priority

conservation areas or forest complexes out of these ten

have been identified from Karbi Anglong. Of these five

priority complexes, the Langlakso-Mikir Hills-Kalyoni

complex and Borjuri-Jungthung-Western Mikir Hills

forest complex are two important forest complexes of

Karbi Anglong district, prioritized for long term

conservation of western Hoolock gibbon in the state

Deb et al., 2014


(Biswas et al., 2013). Biswas et al., (2013) has

undertaken a survey of these two priority complexes to

know the habitat quality and status of the western

Hoolock gibbon. They recorded a total of 80 individuals

with 27 family groups of Hoolock gibbon during the

survey. From Langlakso-Mikir Hills-Kalyoni forest

complex they recorded 61 individuals in 20 family

groups and from Borjuri-Jungthung-Western Mikir Hills

forest complex they recorded 19 individuals in seven

family groups and the overall family groups ranging

from two to five individuals (Biswas et al., 2013). They

estimated the population of Hoolock gibbon in

Langlakso-Mikir Hills-Kalyoni forest complex between

682 to 871 groups and 2015 to 2578 individuals with the

mean number predicted at approximately 2296. Similarly

the population of Hoolock gibbon in Borjuri-Jungthung-

West Mikir Hills forest complex between 157 to 193

groups and 465 to 571 individuals with the mean number

predicted as approximately 518.

Hoolock Gibbon in Southern part of Assam

Southern region of Assam is known as “Barak

Valley”. The region is named after its main river

“Barak”. Hoolock gibbons are found in the various parts

of Barak Valley in Assam (Choudhury, 2004; Dattagupta

et al., 2010; Das et al., 2003a; Das et al., 2011; Deb

et al., 2010-11; Islam et al., 2013). In the Southern part

of Assam, Hoolock Gibbons are found in Barail

Protected Reserve Forest, North Cachar Hills Reserve

Forest, Innerline Reserve Forest, Barail Reserve Forest,

Katakhal Reserve Forest, Longai Reserve Forest, Singla

Reserve Forest and Patharia Reserve Forest (Das et al.,

2003a). When identifying ten priority forest complexes

Das et al., (2011) emphasized on two basic criteria,

habitat integrity and biological importance for long-term

conservation of Hoolock gibbon in Assam. Out of ten

priority forest complexes in Assam two priority forest

complexes are in Barak Valley viz. Innerline-Kathakhal-

Singhla-Barak complex and Barail Wildlife Sanctuary-

Barail protected Reserve Forest-Unclassified forest north

of Barail WLS-North Cacher Complex. Hoolock gibbons

are also found in several tea estates of Barak Valley. Deb

et al., (2010-11) reported the existence of Hoolock

gibbons in Rosekandy and Silcoorie tea estates. Islam

et al., (2013) reported the presence of 10 family groups

of Hoolock gibbons with a total population of 33 in

Innerline Reserved Forest of Barak Valley.

Hoolock gibbon habitat is usually the closed

canopy of tropical evergreen forests, tropical wet

evergreen forests, tropical semi-evergreen, tropical moist

deciduous and subtropical hill forests in India (Srivastava

1999; Molur et al., 2005). The species is threatened by

anthropogenic activity such as fuelwood collection, use

of forest resources and forest land, extracting medicinal

plants and wild vegetables and mainly because of

agricultural activities. Such kind of anthropogenic

activity leads fragmentation of habitat (Kumar et al.,

2009). Habitat fragmentation restricts the movement of

Hoolock gibbon through the canopy in search of food.

Hoolock gibbon generally eat fruits, leaves and flowers.

When their preferable food is insufficient gibbon also

consume bamboo shoots (Kumar et al., 2013). Hoolock

gibbon is mostly frugivorous but during winter season

the choice shifted from fruit to leaves (Kakati, 2006).

The distribution status of Hoolock gibbon in Northeast

India is still not conclusively known. Several studies

were carried out on the presence or absence from the

protected areas but Hoolock gibbon also present in

outside protected areas particularly in Reserve Forest

(RF), Private Forest (PF), Community Forests (CF) and

Village Reserve Forest (VRF).

Conservation

Tropical and subtropical forest of Northeast India

is the habitat of Hoolock gibbon in India. But the

declining trend of Hoolock gibbon population continues

in its entire distributional range (Kumar et al., 2013).

Hoolock gibbons are protected by law in India. But it is

unfortunate that their conservation has not been taken up

seriously till date. The communities living in or near the

Deb et al., 2014


Hoolock gibbon habitat depends on forest resources and

bad economic conditions along with population influx

play devastating role in respect of survival parameters of

this species. Hoolock hoolock is listed by the IUCN Red

List of Threatened Species as “Endangered”. The species

was listed on Schedule-I, the highest schedule on the

Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act in 1972 and also in

Appendix-I of CITES. Western hoolock gibbon is also

included in the list of 25 most endangered primate

species of world (Walker et al., 2009). There are various

conservation efforts for Hoolock gibbon but the species

is still not out of danger. The Government of India is not

serious enough about the conservation issues affecting

the country‟s only ape species (Chetry and Chetry,

2011). Immediate step for conservation of Hoolock

gibbon is to initiate baseline research both in captivity

and in the wild. The species is distributed across nine

zoos in India with a total of 40 numbers (Srivastav and

Nigam, 2009). The species has a poor breeding history in

captivity in Indian zoos. However, the species has a

number of animals which have the potential to contribute

their genes to the captive population (Srivastav and

Nigam, 2009). To create environment of ex-situ

conservation awareness and to initiate captive breeding

programme for selected endangered species of the

region, Aizawl Zoological Park, Mizoram was

established in 2002. Every effort has been made to

provide required housing, feed and health care to all the

animals in the zoo as per Central Zoo Authority of India

technical guidance and financial support. According to

annual inventory of Aizawl Zoological Park 2007-2008,

of mammals, the opening stock of Hoolock gibbon as on

01.04.2007 was one male and four female, a total of five

individuals and closing stock as on 31.03.2008 was a

total of seven individuals with two male and five female

gibbons because of acquisition of one male and one

female gibbon. No news of captive breeding of Hoolock

gibbon during that period of time (Mizoram State

Pollution Control Board, 2009). But the present status of

male Hoolock gibbon in Aizawl Zoological Park is not

clear. For successful captive breeding of Hoolock gibbon

Central Zoo Authority of India can adopt co-operative

breeding programme with other zoos in North East India

by transferring animals and sharing their off-springs. For

conservation of Hoolock gibbon in the wild need a

detailed strategy action plan for the future conservation.

Das et al., (2011) already identified ten priority

conservation areas or forest complexes which have the

greatest potential for long term conservation of western

Hoolock gibbon in Assam. Similar identification of

priority forest complexes are required in other North

Eastern states. All the states of North East India have a

huge conservation scope but despite of having

conservation scope Hoolock gibbon is facing enormous

anthropogenic pressure ranging from habitat loss,

encroachment, fragmentation and hunting throughout the

entire distribution range making the species extremely

vulnerable. The primates and the local people directly

dependent on the same forest resource for their basic

requirements is the main cause for concern (Kumar et al.,

2009). Most local people are unaware about the legal

status of Hoolock gibbon and lack of trust towards forest

department are big conservation problem (Biswas et al.,

2013).

CONCLUSION

For conservation of this species the government

should start a Hoolock gibbon project through out the

entire distribution range of the species to determine the

present distribution, population status and evaluate

different kinds of threats. It will give a baseline

information to formulate area specific action plan. We

need to provide alternative livelihood to the people

settling in and around the Protected Areas, Reserve

Forest, Protected Forest etc. Community education

program for local people could encourage the local

community to participate in the management process.

We hope that Hoolock gibbon shall continue their loud

Deb et al., 2014


songs in the jungle of North East India in the coming

years without any disturbances.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We dedicate this study to all the primatologists

for providing valuable literatures on Western Hoolock

gibbon. First author would like to thank Dr. Jayanta Das

(Wildlife Areas Development & Welfare Trust, Assam)

for his guidance. First author is also thankful to Dr.

Mrinal Kanti Bhattacharya (Department of Botany &

Biotechnology, Karimganj College, Karimganj, Assam)

for his untiring support.

REFERENCES

Ahmed A. 2001. Illegal trade, and utilization of primates

in India. In: Gupta, A.K. (ed.) Non-human Primates of

India, ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas. 1

(1): 177-184.

Alfred JRB and Sati JP. 1986. The gibbons with

special reference to Hylobates Hoolock, p. 384-390. In:

Majupuria, T.C. (ed.) Wildlife Wealth of India:

Resources and Management. Tec. Press Service,

Bangkok.

Alfred JRB and Sati JP. 1990. Survey and census of

the hoolock gibbon in West Garo Hills, Northeast India.

Primates. 31(2): 299-306.

Biswas J, Taro R, Ronghang A and Das J. 2013.

Conservation of Western Hoolock Gibbon Hoolock

hoolock in Langlakso-Mikir Hills Kalyoni and Borjuri-

Jungthung-Western Mikir Hills Landscape, Assam,

India. Final Report of Primate Research Centre NE India

and People‟s Trust for Endangered Species Collaborative

Project. ( NO. PRCNE/Tecr-8), J. Biswas (editor). 1-49.

Blanford WT. 1888-1891. The Fauna of British India,

including Ceylon and Burma: Mammalia. Taylor and

Francis, London.

Chetry D and Chetry R. 2011. Hoolock gibbon

conservation in India. Gibbon Journal. Nr.6 :7-12.

Chetry D, Medhi R, Biswas J, Das D and

Bhattacharjee PC. 2003. Non-human Primates in the

Namdapha National Park, Arunachal Pradesh, India.

International Journal of Primatology. 24(2): 383-388.

Choudhury A. 2009a. The Distribution, Status and

Conservation of Hoolock Gibbon, Hoolock hoolock, in

Karbi Anglong District, Assam, Northeast India, Primate

Conservation. 24:117-126.

Choudhury A. 1990. Population dynamics of Hoolock

Gibbons (Hylobates hoolock) in Assam, India. American

Journal of Primatology. 20(1): 37-41.

Choudhury A. 1991. Ecology of the Hoolock Gibbon

(Hylobates hoolock), a lesser ape in the tropical forests

of north-eastern India. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 7(1):

147-153.

Choudhury A. 1996b. Primates in Bherjan, Borajan and

Podumani Reserve Forests of Assam, India, Asian

Primates. 5 (3-4):10-11.

Choudhury A. 1996a. A survey of Hoolock Gibbon

(Hylobates hoolock) in southern Assam, India. Primate

report. 44: 77-85.

Choudhury A. 1998. A survey of primates in the Jaintia

Hills. ASP Bulletin. 22(3): 8-9.

Choudhury A. 2000. A survey of Hoolock Gibbon

(Hylobates hoolock) in Dibru-Saikhowa National Park,

Assam, India. Primate Report. 56:61-66.

Choudhury A. 2001. Primates in northeast India: An

overview of their distribution and conservation status .

ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas. 1(1):92-

101.

Choudhury A. 2004. Vanishing habitat threatens

Phayre‟s leaf monkey. The Rhino Foundation. NE India


Deb et al., 2014

Newsletter. 6:32-33.

Choudhury A. 2006. The distribution and status of

Hoolock Gibbon, Hoolock hoolock, in Manipur,

Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Nagaland in Northeast India.

Primate Conservation. 20: 79-87.

Choudhury A. 2009b. The Hoolock Gibbon (Hoolock

hoolock) in Tinsukia and Dibrugarh Districts of Assam,

India, Asian Primates Journal. 1(2):24-30.

Das J, Biswas J, Bhattacharjee PC and Mohnot SM.

2009. The distribution and abundance of hoolock

gibbons in India. In: S Lappan , DJ Whittaker, Eds. The

Gibbons. Springer, New York. p. 409-433.

Das J, Biswas J, Medhi R, Bose J, Chetry D,

Bujorborua P and Begum F. 2003b. Distributional

status of Hoolock Gibbon (Bunopithecus hoolock) and

their conservation in southern Assam, India. Tiger paper.

30(4): 26-29.

Das J, Biswas J, Das N, Molur S and Bagley F. 2011.

Strategic plan for western hoolock gibbon conservation

in Assam, India. Gibbon Journal Nr. 6. Gibbon

Conservation Alliance, Zurich, Switzerland. 30-33.

Das J, Biswas J, Bhattacharjee PC and Mohnot SM.

2006. First distribution records of the Eastern Hoolock

Gibbon Hoolock hoolock leuconedys from India. Zoo‟s

Print Journal. 21(7): 2316-2320.

Das J, Feeroz MM, Islam MA, Biswas J, Bujarborua

P, Chetry D, Medhi R and Bose J. 2003a. Distribution

of Hoolock Gibbon (Bunopithecus hoolock hoolock) in

India and Bangladesh. Zoo‟s Print Journal. 18(1): 969-

976.

Das J, Bhattacharjee PC, Biswas J and Chetry D.

2005. Western Hoolock Gibbon: Socioecology, Threats

and Conservation Action Plan. Department of Zoology,

Gauhati University, and Primate Research Centre,

Northeast Centre, Guwahati, India. 70p.

Das J, Bhattacharjee PC, Biswas J and Chetry D.

2004. Western Hoolock Gibbon: Socioecology, Threats

and Conservation Action Plan. A report of Primate

Research Center, Gauhati University, Assam. India. 70p.

Dattagupta S, Gupta A and Ghose M. 2010. Non-

Timber Forest Products of the Inner Line Reserve Forest,

Cachar, Assam, India: dependency and usage Pattern of

forest-dwellers. Assam University journal of Science &

Technology: Biological and Environmental Sciences.

6(1):21-27.

Deb M, Roychoudhury S and Bhattacharjee PC. 2010

-11. Hoolock Gibbon: An Endangered Ape of Northeast

India and its Conservation. Biotech, An Annual Journal

of Dept. of Biotechnology. 3(1): 21-25.

Gupta AK and Sharma N. 2005a. Conservation status

of Hoolock gibbon (Bunopithecus hoolock) in

Meghalaya. In: Gupta, A.K., N. Sharma, S. Dasgupta, D.

Chakraborty & R. Hazarika (eds.) Conservation of

Hoolock Gibbon in Northeast India. ENVIS Bulletin:

Wildlife and Protected Areas. 8: 87-150.

Gupta AK and Sharma N. 2005b. Conservation status

of Hoolock gibbon (Bunopithecus hoolock) in Mizoram.

In: Gupta, A.K., N. Sharma, S. Dasgupta, D.

Chakraborty & R. Hazarika (eds.) Conservation of

Hoolock Gibbon in Northeast India. ENVIS Bulletin:

Wildlife and Protected Areas. 8: 27-86.

Gupta AK and Dasgupta S. 2005. Conservation status

of Hoolock Gibbon (Bunopithecus hoolock) in Tripura.

ENVIS Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas. 8: 151-

170.

Gupta AK. 2001. Status of Primates in Tripura. ENVIS

Bulletin: Wildlife and Protected Areas, Non-Human

Primates in India.1(1), 127-135.

Harlan R and Burrough M. 1834. Description of a

species of Orang, from the North-Eastern Province of

Deb et al., 2014


British East India, Lately the Kingdom of Assam.

Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 4:52

-59.

Islam M, Choudhury P and Bhattacharjee PC. 2013.

Preliminary study on Population status and Activity

budgeting of Western Hoolock Gibbon (Hoolock

hoolock) in the Inner-Line Reserved Forest of Barak

Valley, Assam, India. International Journal of Scientific

and Research Publications. 3(3).1-8.

Kakati K. 2004. Impact of forest fragmentation on the

hoolock gibbon in Assam, India. PhD thesis, University

of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Kakati K. 2006. Fragment-living- a study of hoolock

gibbons in Assam, India. The Gibbon‟s Voice 8(1): 1-4.

Kakati K, Raghavan R, Chellam R, Qureshi Q and

Chivers DJ. 2009. Status of Western hoolock gibbon

(Hoolock hoolock) populations in fragmented forests of

eastern Assam. Primate Conservation 24:127-137.

Kumar A, Devi A, Gupta AK and Sarma K. 2013.

Population, Behavioural Ecology and Conservation of

Hoolock Gibbon in Northeast India. Rare Animals of

India. 242-266.

Kumar A, Mary PP and Bagchie P. 2009. Present

distribution, population status, and conservation of

western Hoolock gibbons Hoolock hoolock (Primates:

Hylobatidae) in Namdapha National Park, India. Journal

of Threatened Taxa. 1(4): 203-210.

Malone N, Purnama AR, Wedana M and Fuentes A.

2002. Assessment of the sale of primates at Indonesian

bird markets. Asian Primate 8(1-2):7-11.

McCann C. 1933. Notes on the colouration and habits of

the White-browed Gibbon or Hoolock (Hylobates

hoolock Harl.). Journal of Bombay Natural History

Society 36:395-405.

Misra C, Raman T and Johnsingh A. 1994. Survey of

primates, serow, and goral in Mizoram. Report, Wildlife

Institute of India, Dehra Dun.

Mizoram State Pollution Control Board (MSPCB).

2009. Mizo-Envis. News Letter, 3(2):5-7.

Molur S, Walker S, Islam A, Miller P, Srinivasulu C,

Nameer PO, Daniel BA and Ravikumar L. 2005.

Conservation of Western Hoolock Gibbon ( Hoolock

hoolock hoolock) in India and Bangladesh: Population

and Habitat Viability Assessment (P.H.V.A.) Workshop

Report, 2005. Zoo Outreach organisation/ CBSG-South

Asia, Coimbatore, India. 132p.

Mootnick A and Groves C. 2005. A new generic name

for the hoolock gibbon (Hylobatidae). International

Journal of Primatology 26(4):971-976.

Mukherjee RP. 1982. Survey of non-human primates of

Tripura. India. Journal of Zoological Society of India. 34

(1-2): 70-81.

Sati JP. 2011. Current status of Western Hoolock gibbon

Hoolock hoolock Harlan in west Garo Hills, Meghalaya,

India. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 3(2): 1520-1526.

Solanki GS and Chutia P. 2004. Ethno Zoological and

Socio-cultural aspects of Monpas of Arunachal Pradesh.

Journal of Human Ecology. 15(4): 251-254.

Srivastava A. 1999. Primates of Northeast India.

Megadiversity Press, Bikaner, 208p.

Srivastava A. 2006. Conservation of threatened primates

of Northeast India. Primate Conservation. 20:107-113.

Srivastav A and Nigam P. 2009. National Studbook of

Hoolock Gibbon (Hoolock hoolock). Wildlife Institute of

India, Dehradun and Central Zoo Authority, New Delhi.

1-24.

Tilson RL. 1979. Behaviour of Hoolock Gibbon

(Hylobates hoolock) during different seasons in Assam,

Deb et al., 2014


India. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society. 76

(1):1-16.

Walker S, Molur S and Brockelman WY. 2007.

Western Hoolock Gibbon, Hoolock hoolock

(Harlan,1831).pp.18. In: Primates in Peril: The World‟s

25 Most Endangered Primates 2006-2008, Mittermeier,

R.A., J. Ratsimbazafy, A.B. Rylands, L. Williamson, J.F.

Oates, D. Mbora, J.U. Ganzhorn, E. Rodriguez-Luna, E.

Palacios, E.W. Heymann, M.C.M.Kierulff, L.

Yongcheng, J. Supriatna, C. Roos, S. Walker and J.M.

Aguiar. Primate Conservation. 22:1-40.

Walker S, Molur S, Brockelman WY, Das J, Islam A,

Geissmann T and Peng-Fei F. 2009. Western hoolock

gibbon Hoolock hoolock (Harlan, 1831). In: Mittermeier

RA, Janette Wallis, Anthony B. Rylands, Jörg U.

Ganzhorn, John F. Oates, Elizabeth A. Williamson,

Erwin Palacios, Eckhard W. Heymann, M. Cecília M.

Kierulff, Long Yongcheng, Jatna Supriatna, Christian

Roos, Sally Walker, Liliana Cortés-Ortiz, and Christoph

Schwitzer. Eds. Primates in Peril: The World‟s 25 Most

Endangered Primates 2008-2010, IUCN/SSC Primate

Specialist Group (PSG), International Primatological

Society (IPS), and Conservation International (CI),

Arlington, VA, p. 62-64.

Deb et al., 2014


Submit your articles online at www.jresearchbiology.com

Advantages

Easy online submission Complete Peer review Affordable Charges Quick processing Extensive indexing You retain your copyright

[email protected]

www.jresearchbiology.com/Submit.php.

Article Citation: Seino Richard Akwanjoh, Dongmo Tonleu Ingrid, Dongmo Alain and Manjeli Yacouba.

Meiosis and Chromosome Complement of Atractomorpha lata (=A. bedeli) (Mochulsky, 1866) (Orthoptera: Pyrgomorphidae) Collected in Cameroon. Journal of Research in Biology (2014) 4(3): 1311-1316

Jou

rn

al of R

esearch

in

Biology

Meiosis and Chromosome Complement of Atractomorpha lata (=A. bedeli)

(Mochulsky, 1866) (Orthoptera: Pyrgomorphidae) Collected in Cameroon.

Keywords: Atractomorpha lata, Pyrgomorphidae, karyotype, meiosis.

ABSTRACT:

This article presents detailed information on the meiotic process and karyotype of Atractomorpha lata (=A. bedeli), a Pyrgomorphidae grasshopper endemic to the West and North-West Regions of Cameroon. It includes chromosome number, morphology and chromosome lengths. The meiotic process in the species was normal and chiasmate with a mean chiasma frequency of 12.874 ±0.29. The percent rod shaped bivalents present was significantly higher (P<0.05) than percent ring shaped bivalents. Percent bivalents with 1, 2 and 3 chiasmata were in the series: 1 chiasmata > 2 chiasmata > 3 chiasmata. The X chromosome revealed the reversal type of heteropycnosis. The detailed karyotype of A. lata from Cameroon (Africa) is here described for the first time. The species has a diploid karyotype of 23 and the sex mechanism is XX –XO. Short chromosome arms were visible in mitotic Metaphase chromosomes hence the chromosomes in the species were acrocentric. The karyotype revealed three large, five medium and one small chromosomes (3LL – 5MM – 1SS). Chromosome lengths varied from 8.40 to 2.10μm and the haploid set was 56.39μm long. The X chromosome was 5.6μm and medium in size.

1311-1316 | JRB | 2014 | Vol 4 | No 3



An International


Authors:

Seino Richard Akwanjoh1, 4,

Dongmo Tonleu Ingrid1,

Dongmo Alain2 and Manjeli

Yacouba3.

Institution: 1. Department of Animal

Biology, Faculty of Science,

University of Dschang,

P.O. Box 353 Dschang, Cameroon.

2. Laboratoire de Biologie et de

Physiologie des Organismes Animaux, Faculté des Sciences,

Université de Douala,

Cameroon.

3. Department of Biotechnology

and Animal Production, Faculty

of Agronomy and Agricultural

Sciences, University of Dschang, P.O. Box 222

Dschang, Cameroon.

4. Department of Biological Science, Faculty of Science,

University of Bamenda,

P.O. Box 39 Bamenda,

Cameroon


Seino Richard Akwanjoh.

Email Id:

Web Address: http://jresearchbiology.com/

documents/RA0352.pdf.

Dates: Received: 16 Apr 2013 Accepted: 23 May 2013 Published: 03 Jun 2014

Original Research




INTRODUCTION

Atractomorpha lata (=A. bedeli) is a common

grasshopper found in the West and North-West Regions

of Cameroon. Though this species has been reportedly a

pest of rice and Medicinal plants on the Asian continent

(Anonymous, 1972; Kobayashi et al., 1972; Lee et al.,

2007), it is yet to be implicated with pest activities in

Cameroon or on the African continent.

Karyotype is an important asset of a species and

can serve for identification purposes (Channaveerappa

and Ranganath, 1997). It is also a useful tool in

cytotaxonomic, evolutionary and phylogenetic studies

(Verma and Agarwal, 2005). A review of Sannomiya

(1973), John and King, (1983) and Yao et al., (2004),

revealed that some Atractomorpha species have

karyotypes with chromosome numbers that vary from

2n = 19 to 38 acro-telocentric chromosomes. This

variation in chromosome number is due principally due

to the presence of supernumerary chromosomes. Up to

19 B, chromosomes have been reported in some

populations of Atractomorpha species.

There is a paupacy in literature of cytogenetic

information for Cameroonian (African) Atractomorpha

species. This report is therefore a first description of the

karyotype and meiotic process in the African A. lata

(=bedeli) collected from Cameroon.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten male individuals used for this study were

collected on the Campus of the University of Dschang,

Cameroon. Two of the insects were pre-treated with

colchicine to ensure that mitotic chromosomes were

obtained while the others were not so treated in order to

easily obtain meiotic chromosomes (Tepperberg et al.,

1997).

Mitotic and meiotic chromosomes were

respectively obtained from individuals treated with 1%

colchicine and untreated individuals of A. lata.

Chromosome smears were prepared with the Lactic

Propionic Orcein squash technique of Seino et al.,

(2012a). Testes fixed in 3:1 Ethanol: Acetic acid were

squashed on clean microscope glass slides and stained

with 2% lactic – propionic orcien.

The meiotic process was assessed by

examination of stages and substages present. Chiasma

frequencies were counted from ten cells in Diplotene/

Diakenesis in ten individuals. Mitotic Metaphase

chromosomes were measured directly from the Lietz

photomicroscope with the help of the ocular and stage

micrometres. Chromosome morphology was determined

from the presence of minute short arms and confirmed

using the shapes of the chromosomes in first meiotic

anaphases and second meiotic metaphases and

anaphases. Chromosome size groups were determined

from Relative Chromosome Lengths (RCL) and

separated using the Duncan’s Multiple Range Test

(DMRT).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Meiotic process

The meiotic stages observed in this species are

Prophase -1 (Zygotene, Pachytene, and Diplotene),

Metaphase -1, Anaphase -1, Telophase-1, Metaphase- 2

and Anaphase -2 (Figure.1). In Diplotene (Figure. 1d),

chiasmata were present. There was no precocious

movement of chromosomes in Anaphase- 1(Figure. 1f).

As per the criteria of Verma and Agarwal, (2005), the

meiotic process in this species was judged as normal and

chiasmate. This type of meiotic process is reportedly

ancestral and characteristic for the Orthoptera (White,

1973; Hewitt, 1979). Chiasma frequency per cell varied

from 11 – 16 with a mode of 13 and a mean of

12.84±0.29. A perusal of Table 1 revealed the mean

percent rod shaped bivalents (69.2%) to be significantly

higher (P<0.05) than the mean percent ring shaped

bivalents (32.9%). Also the mean percent bivalents with

1, 2 and 3 chiasmata were in the series: 1 – chiasmata

(67.1%) > 2 – chiasmata (23.1%) > 3 – chiasmata

Seino et al., 2014


(9.7%). Similar observations have been reported for

Taphronota thaelephora and Dictyophorus griseus

(Seino et al., 2012 a and b). The X chromosome stained

darker than the autosomes in Prophase-1 but stained

lighter than the autosomes in Metaphase-1 and

Anaphase-1, therefore exhibiting the reversal type of

heteropycnosis. Reversal heteropycnosis has been

considered characteristic of the Orthoptera grasshoppers

(White, 1973; Hewitt, 1979).

Karyotype

Few karyotype studies have been done on

African Pyrgomorphidae in general and of species from

Cameroon in particular. Mitotic Metaphase chromosome

counts revealed 19 chromosomes in males (Figure. 2).

There were also 9 bivalents and one univalent X

chromosome in Diplotene and Metaphase -1. Therefore

the diploid chromosome number for A. lata was 19

(2n=19) with the XX♀ – XO♂ sex determining

mechanism. This is another example of the characteristic

Pyrgomorphidae karyotype since Pyrgomorphidae

species show karyotype uniformity with 19

chromosomes (White, 1973; Hewitt, 1979; Seino et al.,

2012 a & b). The chromosome number recorded for

A. lata in this study is in agreement with that recorded

for A bedeli (Sannomiya; 1973; 1978) and seven

Atractomorpha species (A. sinensis, A. burri,

A. yunnanensis, A. peregrina, A. sagittaris, A. psittacina

and A. lata) in Guizhou (Yao et al., 2004). However

presence of B chromosomes (varying from 1 – 7) in the

Tofuwato – Japan population of A. Bedeli (=lata)

reported by Sannomiya (1973) is not found in this

Cameroonian population.

Seino et al., 2014


b c

d

a

e f

g h i

Figure 1: Meiotic stages in Atractomorpha lata: a) Leptotene; b) Zygotene;

c) Pachytene; d) Diplotene; e) Metaphase- 1; f) Anaphase -1; g) Early

Telophase -1; h) Anaphase -2; i) Telophase -2; Arrow = X- chromosome;

ch = chiasma; ct = centromere

The chromosomes of A. lata were all

characterised by being a simple rod type with a near

terminal attachment at the tapering ends. Short

chromosome arms were present in most of the

chromosomes (Figure.2). Centromeres were therefore in

the near terminal regions of the chromosomes. As per the

criteria of Levan et al., (1964), the chromosomes in

A. lata collected in Cameroon were therefore acrocentric

in morphology. The acrocentric nature of these

chromosomes was confirmed by the V-shaped nature of

the chromosomes in Anaphase -1 (Figure1 f) and the

I -shaped nature of the chromosomes in Anaphase- 2

(Figure. 1i) (William and Ogunbiyi, 1995). No secondary

constrictions were observed.

The individual chromosomes were also

characterised by length. A perusal of Table 2 revealed

that chromosomes in A. lata ranged from 7.52 to 3.42μm

and the total haploid length (including the X

chromosome) was 56.39 μm. The X chromosome was

5.6μm long. The chromosomes were occurred in three

sizes; long, medium and short (Figure. 3) (Table 3).

There were 3 long, 5 medium and 1 short chromosome

pairs (3LL: 5MM: 1SS). The X- chromosome was

medium (Table 3). Chromosomes in most Orthoptera

grasshoppers occur in size groups of long, medium and

short (White, 1973; Seino et al., 2012 a and b). This

report is in agreement with the report of Yao et al.,

(2004) who also observed the chromosomes of seven

Seino et al., 2014


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X

Chromosome pair

Rela

tive C

hro

mo

so

me L

en

gth

(RC

L)

Figure. 3: Idiogram of karyotype of A. lata. The

chromosomes occur in size groups of long, medium and

short (3LL: 5MM: 1SS). The X chromosome is medium.

Table 1: Mean chiasma frequency per cell, percent rod and ring shaped bivalents and percent bivalents with

1-, 2- and 3- chiasmata determined from ten cells in Diplotene of Atractomorpha lata.

Mean Cell

Chiasma

Frequency

Rod shaped

bivalents

Ring shaped

bivalents

Bivalents with

1- chiasma

Bivalents with

2 -chiasmata

Bivalents with

3 -chiasmata

X % X % X % X % X %

A.lata 12.84±0.29 0.692 69.2 0.329 32.9 0.671 67.1 0.231 23.1 0.097 9.7

Table 2: Mitotic Metaphase chromosome lengths (µm) and long: short arm ratio in Atractomorpha lata

chromosome

1μm 2μm 3μm 4μm 5μm 6μm 7μm 8μm 9μm 10μm

Total length 7.52 6.93 6.91 5.65 5.18 5.08 5.04 5.03 3.42 6.1

Long arm 6.49 5.91 5.92 5.04 4.22 4.20 4.03 4.22 2.8 5.3

Short arm 1.03 1.02 0.99 0.61 0.96 0.88 1.01 0.81 0.62 0.8

Long arm: short arm ratio 6.60 5.79 5.98 8.26 4.40 4.77 3.99 5.21 4.52 6.63

Figure. 2: Mitotic Metaphase chromosomes in A. lata.

Short chromosome arms (arrowed) are visible in

most of the chromosomes

Atractomorpha species collected in Guizhou to occur in

three size groups of long medium and short. However,

the X chromosome in this study was medium in size

while in the Guizhou species of Atractomorpha the X

chromosome was the longest chromosome in the

genome.

The apparent absence of B chromosomes in this

study does not dismiss the existence of supernumeraries

in Cameroonian populations of A. lata (= bedeli). The

presence of B chromosomes are known to vary with

population (Camacho et al., 2000). During this study no

meiotic and karyotype aberrations were detected.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are deeply indebted to Mr Akongte Peter,

MSc student in the Department of Animal Biology of the

University of Dschang, Cameroon, who collected the

specimens used for this study. Our sincere thanks go to

Professor Mpoame Mbida, Head of the Applied Ecology

Laboratory (LABEA), Department of Animal Biology in

the University of Dschang, Cameroon, for laboratory

facilities.

REFERENCES

Anonymous. 1972. A list of plant diseases, insect pests

and weeds in Korea; Seoul, Korean Society of Plant

Protection, 424.

Camacho JPM, Sharbel TF and Beukeboom LW.

2000. B-chromosome Evolution. Phil. Trans. R. Soc.

Lond., 355(1394): 163 – 178.

Channaveerappa H and Ranganath H. 1997.

Karyology of a few species of South Indian acridids. II.

Male germ line karyotypic instability in Gastrimaargus.

Journal of Biosciences, 22(3): 367 – 374.

John B and King M. 1983. Population cytogenetics of

Atractomorpha similes I. C-band variation. Chromosoma

88(1): 57 -68.

Seino et al., 2014


Sp

ecie

s

Tota

l n

um

ber

of

chro

moso

mes

per

cel

l in

the

ma

le

Sex

det

erm

inin

g

mec

ha

nis

m

Nu

mb

er o

f ch

rom

oso

me

per

siz

e gro

up

Tota

l c

hro

moso

me

len

gth

(μ

m)

(Hap

loid

set

)

Morp

holo

gy o

f

chro

moso

mes

Len

gth

(μ

m )

of

X c

hro

moso

me

Siz

e of

X

chro

moso

me

Lon

g

Med

ium

S

hort

♀ -

♂

A. la

ta

19

XX

-XO

3

5

1

56.3

9 μ

m

All

Acr

oce

ntr

ic

5.6

3 μ

m

Med

ium

Tab

le 3

: M

orp

hom

etri

c ch

ara

cters

of

the

ka

ryo

typ

e of

A.

lata

coll

ecte

d f

rom

Cam

ero

on

Hewitt GM. 1979. Grasshoppers and Crickets. Animal

cytogenetics. Insecta, I. Orthoptera. Vol. 3. Grebruger

Borntraeger Ed. Berlin Stuttgart.

Kobayashi T, Hasegawa T and Kegasawa K. 1972.

Major insect pests of leguminous crops in Japan. Trop.

Agric. Res. Ser., Japan, 6: 109 – 126.

Lee DW, Park JC, Kim DS, Kim CS and Choo HY.

2007. Kinds and occurring time of insect pests in

medicinal plant Garden. Http://agris.fao.org/aos/records/

KR2008003318.

Levan A, Fredga K and Sondberg AA. 1964.

Nomenclature for centric position of chromosomes.

Hereditas, 52(2): 201 - 220.

Sannomiya M. 1973. Cytogenetic studies on normal

populations of grasshoppers with special reference to B-

chromosomes. I. Atractomorpha bedeli. Chromosoma

44: 99 - 106.

Sannomiya M. 1978. Relationship between crossing-

over and chiasma formation in a translocation

heterozygote of Atractomorpha bedeli (Acrididae,

Orthoptera). Heredity 40(2): 305 - 308.

Seino RA, Tongleu ID and Manjeli Y. 2012a.

Cyotgenetic characterisation of Taphronota thaelephora

Stal.1873.(Orthoptera: Pyrgomorphidae) from

Cameroon. II. Description of mitotic chromosomes.

International Journal of Biological and Chemical

Sciences, 6(4): 1624 – 1632.

Seino RA, Manjeli Y and Dongmo TI. 2012b.

Cytogenetic studies in Dictyophorus griseus (Reiche &

Faiemaire, 1849)(Orthoptera: Pyrgomorphidae) from

Cameroon. II. Karyotype. Agriculture and Biology

Journal of North America, 3(7): 292 – 295.

Tepperberg JH, Moses MJ and Nath J. 1997.

Colchicine effects on meiosis in the male mouse. 1.

Meiotic prophase: synaptic arrest, univalents, loss of

damaged spermatocytes and a possible checkpoint at

Pachytene. Chromosoma, 106(3): 183 – 192.

Verma PS and Agarwal VK. 2005. Cell Biology,

Molecular Biology, Evolution and Ecology. Chand &

Company Ltd. Ram Nagar, New Delhi 110 055.

White MJD. 1973. Animal cytology and Evolution. 3rd

edition. Cambridge University Press. 961.

William GO and Ogunbiyi BI. 1995. Chromosome

morphology and meiosis in Zonocerus variegatus L.

(Orthoptera, Pyrgomorphidae). Cytologia, 60(2):111-

116.

YAO Shi-hong XIE Ai-lin and XU Ping-li. 2004.

A comparative study on the karyotypes and c-banding of

seven Atractomorpha species in Guizhou. Journal of

Guizhou Normal University (Natural Science) 2004 - 2.

Seino et al., 2014



Advantages


[email protected]


Article Citation: Manickam Raja, Rajendiran Ramkumar and Pachiappan Perumal. Diversity, distribution, threats and conservation action of fish fauna in Chinnar Reservoir, Tamil Nadu. Journal of Research in Biology (2014) 4(3): 1317-1327

Jou

rn

al of R

esearch

in

Biology

Diversity, distribution, threats and conservation action of fish fauna in

Chinnar Reservoir, Tamil Nadu

Keywords: Chinnar reservoir, Eastern Ghats, biodiversity status, sand mining, threats.

ABSTRACT: The freshwater fish fauna of the Chinnar reservoir/Chinnar River a tributary of the Cauvery River system in the Tamil Nadu at the Eastern part of Ghats was studied. A total of thirty two (32) species of freshwater fish belonging to seven (7) orders, ten (10) families and twenty four (24) genera were recorded. Out of the 32 species, the present study recorded the presence of three (3) threatened, one (1) vulnerable and twenty eight (28) least concerned species. The highest species diversity was recorded in Chinnar Reservoir (n=22) and lowest diversity was found in the Gujjarahalli (n=9). The fish fauna of the Chinnar reservoir is threatened due to anthropogenic activities such as deforestation leading to siltation, sand mining, over fishing by using dynamite, organic and inorganic pollution. Hence, there is an urgent need to develop and implement conservation plans that are needed.

1317-1327 | JRB | 2014 | Vol 4 | No 3



An International


Authors:

Manickam Raja,

Rajendiran Ramkumar

and Pachiappan Perumal.

Institution:

1. Department of

Biotechnology, Periyar

University, Periyar Palkalai

Nagar, Salem- 636 011

Tamil Nadu, India.


Manickam Raja.

Email Id:



Dates: Received: 11 Mar 2014 Accepted: 22 Mar 2014 Published: 06 Jun 2014



Original Research


INTRODUCTION

The ichthyofauna of Eastern Ghats have not been

thoroughly studied as that of the Western Ghats. Rema

Devi and Indra (2003) have listed 127 fish species from

Eastern Ghats based on their extensive collections and

the earlier reports beginning with Day (1878). The

Eastern Ghats are a series of broken and weathered relict

embodies as a series of isolated hills in the peninsular

plateau (Mani 1974). Krishnagiri and Dharmapuri parts

of the Eastern Ghats are the discontinuous patches of

hills with fragmented dry deciduous forest types by

which small streams originate. The region is mostly

covered with agricultural lands (66.5%), the dry

deciduous and dry deciduous scrub forests constitute

about 6.8%. Evergreen and semi-evergreen forests forms

about 0.3% (NRSA, 2007).

The reservoirs and lakes were the main assets

exploited due to inland fisheries. The understanding of

fish faunal diversity is a foremost feature for the

exploitation of freshwater reservoirs (Battul et al., 2007).

The detailed information of fishery resources, their

availability and distribution in a particular water body is

essential for proper consumption of its fishery resource

(Pawar et al., 2007). The spatial and temporal patterns of

diversity, distribution and species composition will be

useful to study the factors influencing the fish

community structure (Galacatos et al., 2004). Many fish

species have become highly endangered by human

engrossment in the riverine ecosystems as a result of

habitat loss (Lima-Junior et al., 2006; Mas-Marti et al.,

2010). Freshwater fishes are one of the most threatened

taxonomic groups (Darwall and Vie, 2005) because of

their high sensitivity to the alteration of aquatic habits

(Laffaille et al., 2005; Sarkar et al., 2008; Kang et al.,

2009).

Ichthyofauna diversity on different river systems

of India have been surveyed by Jayaram et al., (1982),

Talwar and Jhingran (1991), Menon (1992) and

contemporary works include those of Rema Devi (1992),

Rema Devi et al., (1999), Easa and Shaji (1997), Rema

Devi and Raghu Nathan (1999), Arunachalam and

Sankaranarayanan (1999), Rema Devi and Indra (2000),

Arunachalam and Muralidharan (2007, 2008 and 2009),

Arunachalam et al., (2006, 2013, and 2014), Raja et al.,

(2014). So far, very little scientific studies have been

carried out on the reservoirs of Tamil Nadu.

The Chinnar River takes its origin from a

wetland system called Thali Lake or Thali Big Tank.

Sanathkumar River, the name at its origin from Thali

Lake and the adjoining streams waters from fragmented

hilly terrain were regulated with several Anicut/check

dams, confluences with Chinnar River and regulated as

Chinnar Reservoir. The Chinnar Reservoir (Panjapalli

Dam) is located (12°29'29"N 77°55'26"E) in Panjapalli-

village of Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu. The

reservoir formed by the dam is a lake of 420 acres

impounding 500 mile cubic feet of water at its maximum

level. The reservoir comprises of an earthen dam of 365

m length across river Chinnar. The irrigation network

consists of one main canal, two distributaries and twelve

direct sluices. The reservoir provides irrigation for

1600.63 ha of land under the old and new commands in

Palacode and Karimangalam Taluks of Dharmapuri

District apart from services by means of groundwater

recharge, nutrient supply, water purification, recreation

and habitats for various biota. The Chinnar river

confluences with Cauvery river at Hogenakkal, which is

situated at 61Km from Chinnar reservoir.

Chinnar reservoir is one of the important

reservoirs in northern part of Tamil Nadu that need

serious attention in its management and conservation of

fishery resources. Detailed studies on fish fauna of this

reservoir are still lacking. To fill this gap, the present

study was carried out in order to examine the diversity,

distribution, threats and conservation plan for fish fauna

in the different spreads of Chinnar reservoir.

Raja et al., 2014


MATERIALS AND METHODS

The fish survey and collections were done

covering in 12 sites upstream/downstream of Chinnar

reservoir in Dharmapuri District, Tamil Nadu (Fig. 1)

viz; Chinnar Reservoir (S1), Panjapalli (S2), Periyanoor

(S3), Samanur (S4), Marandahalli (S5), Upparahalli (S6),

Chikkapavalli (S7), Sukkanahalli (S8), Nallur (S9),

Ganganahalli (S10), Chikkamarandahalli (S11) and

Gujjarahalli (S12). Fish were collected with the help of

gill nets, cast nets and drag nets during January-

December, 2013. The sampling was made in 100-200 m

stretches of each site. Local fisherman was involved in

netting and collection. The specimens were lively

photographed with Canon 1100 Digital SLR camera and

representative specimens of each species were fixed in

7% formalin and preserved in 70% alcohol for voucher

collection. The collected specimens were transported to

the Department of Biotechnology Cum Laboratory

museum of the Periyar University Museum of Natural

History (PUMNH- a newly started one in the year 2013),

Salem, Tamil Nadu, India and assigned the specimen

catalogue numbers (Accession number PUMNH 71-102.

The species identification was carried out using Talwar

and Jhingran, (1991); Jayaram, (2010) and nomenclatural

names were followed by the catalogue of fishes of the

California academy of sciences (Eschmeyer and Fricke,

2011; Pethiyagoda et al., 2012) and fish status was

checked in IUCN red list (IUCN, 2013).


Raja et al., 2014

Figure 1. Showing the locations/ study sites of upstream/downstream

areas of Chinnar Reservoir, Tamil Nadu.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The details of fish species recorded from the

present study sites are given in Tables 1 & 2. The

Chinnar reservoir preserves a rich variety of fish species,

on the basis of studies conducted so far, as it harbour

thirty two (32) species of fish species (Fig.2); belonging

to seven (7) orders, ten (10) families and twenty four

(24) genera. Among those only one species of

Osteoglossiformes- Notopterus notopterus was recorded.

Cypriniformes dominates the catch list with seventeen

(17) species belonging to twelve (12) genera also, five

(5) species of Siluriformes belonging to two (2) families

and four (4) genera were seen. One species of

M u g i l i f o r m e s , C y p r i n o d o n t i f o r m e s a n d

Synbranchiformes such as Xenentodon cancila,

Aplocheilus lineatus and Mastacembelus armatus and six

(6) species of Perciformes belonging to three (3) families

and four (4) genera are identified.

In the upstream/ downstream of Chinnar

reservoir the presence of highest species diversity

(Fig. 3) was recorded in Chinnar reservoir (S1; n=22),

followed by the Panjapalli (S2; n=18). The lowest

species diversity was recorded in the Gujjarahalli (S12;

n=9) and Nallur (S9; n= 10). The present survey records

Raja et al., 2014


Figure 2. Showing the some of the fish species collected from

Chinnar Reservoir.

the presence of three (3) economically important as well

as near threatened species, Mystus armatus, Ompok

bimaculatus, Oreochromis mossambicus; one (1)

vulnerable species Cyprinus carpio and twenty eight

(28) species are in least concerned categories. According

to IUCN 'Red list 2013' 3% of the species are in

vulnerable state, 9% are near threatened and 88% are

least concerned in Chinnar reservoir (Fig. 4).

The fish species such as Devario aequipinnatus,

Rasbora cauverii, Dawkinsia filamentosa, Puntius chola,

Puntius dorsalis, Pethia ticto, Pethia conchonius,

Aplocheilus lineatus having the prominent ornamental

value due to small size and bright colours can be used as

aquarium fishes. The economically important and high

commercial valued fish species such as Notopterus

notopterus, Gibelion catla, Labeo calbasu, Labeo rohita,

Ompok bimaculatus, Clarias batrachus, Heteropneustes

fossilis, Mastacembelus armatus, Channa marulius, and

Channa punctata were also found in much abundance.

Whereas, only one species of hill adapted fish species,

Garra mullya was recorded.

The fish fauna of Chinnar River is under threat as

a result of several anthropogenic interferences;

deforestation leading to siltation, inorganic pollution of

the river, dynamite fishing, and recreational activities are

common in most of the stretches of the river. The

evidence collected from the local people and local

fisherman shown high decline in the fish population in

previous decade due to dynamite fishing by nearby black

granite quarry mining workers and excessive in stream

sand-and-gravel mining of the river belt.

The scientific studies on the environmental

impact of mining were carried out at different forest

regions (Ram Prasad, 1992). During October 10, 2009

the High court of Madras, appointed Professor

M. Arunachalam as an Expert-Commissioner to provide

an assessment of sand/gravel mining impact on Chinnar

Raja et al., 2014


Figure 3. Species diversity within the study sites of Chinnar Reservoir, Tamil Nadu.

Figure 4. Conservation status of fish species collected

from different study sites of Chinnar Reservoir,

Tamil Nadu.

http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatget.asp?tbl=species&spid=31336

Raja et al., 2014


Ta

ble

1 L

ist

of

fish

sp

ecie

s in

Ch

inn

ar

Res

erv

oir

, T

am

il N

ad

u.

Sl.

No

L

ist

of

Fis

hes

O

rder

F

am

ily

V

ern

acu

lar

na

me

Co

nse

rv

ati

on

Sta

tus-

(IU

CN

20

13)

1

No

top

teru

s n

oto

pte

rus

Ost

eoglo

ssif

orm

es

No

top

teri

dae

C

ho

ttaval

ai,

Chap

pat

hi,

Chen

nav

alai

Lea

st C

on

cern

2

S

alm

op

ha

sia

ba

cail

a

Cyp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Val

achel

, V

ella

chi-

kend

a L

east

Co

nce

rn

3

Sa

lmo

pha

sia

boo

pis

C

yp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Sam

paj

L

east

Co

nce

rn

4

Ba

rili

us

ga

ten

sis

Cyp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Art

cand

ee

Lea

st C

once

rn

5

Ba

rili

us

ben

del

isis

C

yp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Ven

nat

hi-

ken

dai

, A

kk

ili

var

atan

kend

ai

Lea

st C

once

rn

6

Dev

ari

o a

equ

ipin

na

tus

Cyp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Van

nat

hip

od

i, S

elai

par

avai

L

east

Co

nce

rn

7

Ra

sbo

ra c

au

veri

i C

yp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Pat

taku

nju

, B

hav

ani

kend

ai

Lea

st C

once

rn

8

Am

bly

ph

ary

ng

od

on

mel

etti

nu

s

Cyp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Pac

hat

hal

ai k

end

ai

Lea

st C

once

rn

9

Cyp

rinu

s ca

rpio

Cyp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Car

p

Vuln

erab

le

10

D

aw

kin

sia

fil

am

ento

sa

Cyp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Chaval

le,

Mo

cha-

ken

dai

L

east

Co

nce

rn

11

P

un

tiu

s ch

ola

C

yp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Putt

i- k

end

ai,

Kar

oo

n

Lea

st C

once

rn

12

P

un

tiu

s d

ors

ali

s C

yp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Sal

l- k

end

ai,

Pal

po

ora

n,

Mo

okan

am

- ken

dai

L

east

Co

nce

rn

13

P

eth

ia t

icto

C

yp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Pull

i kend

ai

Lea

st C

once

rn

14

P

eth

ia c

on

cho

niu

s C

yp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Val

li k

end

ai

Lea

st C

once

rn

15

G

ibel

ion

ca

tla

C

yp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Kat

la,T

ho

pp

a m

een,

Ko

ora

kend

ai,

Kar

avai

L

east

Co

nce

rn

16

L

ab

eo c

alb

asu

C

yp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Kak

kam

een,

Kar

up

pu

sel,

Kar

unchel

, K

urr

imenu

L

east

Co

nce

rn

17

L

ab

eo r

oh

ita

C

yp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Ken

nad

i- k

end

ai,

Ro

hu

Lea

st C

once

rn

18

G

arr

a m

ull

ya

Cyp

rinif

orm

es

Cyp

rinid

ae

Kal

lu k

ora

vai

L

east

Co

nce

rn

19

M

ystu

s a

rma

tus

Sil

uri

form

es

Bag

rid

ae

So

nan

ng k

elet

ee

Nea

r T

hre

aten

ed

20

M

ystu

s ca

vasi

us

Sil

uri

form

es

Bag

rid

ae

Nai

kel

uth

i, V

ella

kel

ete

Lea

st C

once

rn

21

O

mp

ok

bim

acu

latu

s S

iluri

form

es

Bag

rid

ae

Sav

alla

i, S

ilai

val

ai

Nea

r T

hre

aten

ed

22

C

lari

as

ba

tra

chu

s S

iluri

form

es

Cla

riid

ae

Thal

- m

een,

Thal

- kend

ai

Lea

st C

once

rn

23

H

eter

op

neu

stes

fo

ssil

is

Sil

uri

form

es

Cla

riid

ae

Thay

lee/

Thai

lim

een

Lea

st C

once

rn

24

X

enen

todo

n c

an

cila

M

ug

ilif

orm

es

Bel

onid

ae

Ko

kk

um

een,

Vel

lai

mo

ora

l L

east

Co

nce

rn

25

A

plo

chei

lus

lin

eatu

s C

yp

rino

do

nti

form

es

Cyp

rino

do

nti

dae

M

und

akan

ni,

Manan

kann

i, V

anam

par

tha

mee

n

Lea

st C

once

rn

26

M

ast

ace

mb

elu

s a

rma

tus

Synb

ranch

ifo

rmes

M

asta

cem

bel

idae

A

arra

h

Lea

st C

once

rn

27

P

ara

mb

ass

is r

an

ga

P

erci

form

es

Cen

tro

po

mid

ae

Kan

nad

i m

een

Lea

st C

once

rn

28

E

tro

plu

s m

acu

latu

s P

erci

form

es

Cic

hli

dae

S

etha

ken

dai

, B

om

mi

Lea

st C

once

rn

29

E

tro

plu

s su

rate

nsi

s P

erci

form

es

Cic

hli

dae

S

ella

- kas

u,

Pura

di,

Sel

lad

ai m

een

L

east

Co

nce

rn

30

O

reo

chro

mis

mo

ssa

mb

icu

s P

erci

form

es

Cic

hli

dae

T

ilap

ia, Ji

lab

i-m

een

Nea

r T

hre

aten

ed

31

C

ha

nn

a m

aru

liu

s P

erci

form

es

Chan

nid

ae

Avir

i-P

uver

al,

Iru v

raal

L

east

Co

nce

rn

32

C

ha

nn

a p

un

cta

ta

Per

cifo

rmes

Chan

nid

ae

Ko

rava

Lea

st C

once

rn

http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatget.asp?tbl=genus&genid=2568




Raja et al., 2014

Ta

ble

2.

Fis

h d

istr

ibu

tio

n f

rom

up

stre

am

/do

wn

stre

am

are

as

of

Ch

inn

ar

Res

erv

oir

, T

am

il N

ad

u.

(‘+

’ =

Pre

sen

t; ‘

-’ =

Ab

sen

t)

Sl.

No

. L

ist

of

Fis

hes

S

1

S2

S

3

S4

S

5

S6

S

7

S8

S

9

S1

0

S1

1

S1

2

1

No

top

teru

s n

oto

pte

rus

(Pal

las,

17

69)

+

- -

- -

+

- -

+

- -

-

2

Sa

lmo

pha

sia

ba

cail

a (

F.H

amil

ton,

18

22

) +

-

+

+

+

- -

- +

-

- +

3

Sa

lmo

pha

sia

boo

pis

(F

.Day

, 1

87

4)

+

+

- -

- +

+

-

- +

-

+

4

Ba

rili

us

ga

ten

sis

(Val

enci

en

nes

, 1

84

4)

+

+

+

- +

+

-

- +

+

+

+

5

Ba

rili

us

ben

del

isis

(F

.Ham

ilto

n,

18

07

) +

-

+

- -

- +

+

-

+

- +

6

Dev

ari

o a

equ

ipin

na

tus

(McC

lell

and

,18

39

) -

+

+

+

+

+

- +

+

+

+

-

7

Ra

sbo

ra c

au

veri

i (J

erdo

n,

18

49

) -

+

- +

+

-

- +

-

+

+

-

8

Am

bly

ph

ary

ng

od

on

mel

etti

nu

s (V

alen

cien

nes,

18

44

) +

-

+

+

- -

- +

-

- +

-

9

Cyp

rinu

s ca

rpio

Lin

nae

us,

17

58

+

- -

+

- -

+

- -

- -

-

10

Da

wki

nsi

a f

ila

men

tosa

(V

alen

cien

nes

, 1844)

- +

-

+

- +

-

+

- -

+

-

11

Pu

nti

us

cho

la (

F.H

amil

ton,

18

22

) -

+

+

- -

+

- +

-

+

- +

12

Pu

nti

us

do

rsa

lis

(Jer

do

n,

18

49)

- +

-

- -

+

- +

-

+

- +

13

Pet

hia

tic

to (

F.H

amil

ton,

18

22

) +

-

- +

-

- +

-

- +

-

+

14

Pet

hia

co

nch

on

ius

(F.H

amil

ton,

18

22

) +

+

+

-

+

- +

-

+

- +

-

15

Gib

elio

n c

atl

a (

F.H

amil

ton,

18

22

) +

+

-

- -

- +

-

- -

- --

16

La

beo

ca

lba

su (

F.H

amil

ton,

18

22

) +

-

- -

+

- -

+

- -

+

-

17

La

beo

ro

hit

a (

F.H

amil

ton,

18

22

) +

+

+

- -

+

- -

+

- -

+

18

Ga

rra

mu

llya

(S

ykes,

18

39

) -

+

- +

-

- -

+

- -

+

-

19

Mys

tus

arm

atu

s (D

ay,

18

65

) +

-

- -

+

- +

-

- -

+

-

20

Mys

tus

cava

siu

s (F

.Ham

ilto

n,

18

22)

+

+

- -

- +

-

- +

-

+

-

21

Om

po

k b

ima

cula

tus

(Blo

ch,

17

94

) +

+

+

-

- -

+

- -

+

- -

22

Cla

ria

s b

atr

ach

us

(Lin

nae

us,

17

58)

+

+

- +

-

- -

+

- +

-

-

23

Het

ero

pn

eust

es f

oss

ilis

(B

loch

, 1

794

) +

+

-

- -

- -

- -

+

- -

24

Xen

ento

do

n c

an

cila

(F

.Ham

ilto

n,

18

22)

- -

+

- -

- +

-

+

- +

-

25

Ap

loch

eilu

s li

nea

tus

(Val

enci

ennes,

18

46

) +

-

+

- +

+

-

+

+

+

+

+

26

Ma

sta

cem

bel

us

arm

atu

s (L

acep

ede,

18

00)

- +

-

+

- -

- -

- +

-

-

27

Pa

ram

ba

ssis

ra

ng

a (

F.H

amil

ton,

18

22)

- -

+

+

- -

- -

- -

+

-

28

Etr

op

lus

ma

cula

tus

(Blo

ch,

179

5)

+

+

- -

- +

-

+

- -

- -

29

Etr

op

lus

sura

ten

sis

(Blo

ch,

17

90

) +

-

+

- +

-

- -

- -

+

-

30

Ore

och

rom

is m

oss

am

bic

us

(W.K

.H P

eter

s, 1

85

2)

+

- -

- +

+

-

- +

-

- -

31

Ch

an

na

ma

ruli

us

(F.H

amil

ton

, 1

822

) -

+

- -

+

- +

-

- -

- -

32

Ch

an

na

p

un

cta

ta (

Blo

ch,

17

93

) +

-

- -

+

+

+

- -

- -

-

http://research.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatget.asp?tbl=genus&genid=2568


river ecosystem and the land use pattern along the

stretches of river below the reservoir. His report

concluded that, the river system under assessment needs

at least five years to restore and hence sand/gravel

mining should not be carried out for the next five years

(Arunachalam, 2009).

Instream sand mining resulted in the habitat loss

and channel morphology alteration leads to dreadful

conditions of aquatic biota; this continued mining cause

the entire stream to excavation (Kondolf et al., 2002) and

negative effects on aquatic life (Johnes and O’Sullivan,

1989). An increase in the amount of fine sediments

increase the amount of sediment-associated nutrients

(especially phosphorus) and contaminants in the river

water. This increases the amount of water quality

degradation caused by excessive nutrients with the

resulting negative impacts to aquatic life (Owens and

Walling, 2002; Correll, 1998). Ecosystem integrity also

embodies the degree of self-organization (Muller et al.,

2000). Once the system’s reliability is troubled by human

actions, the natural patterns of species structure and

associated ecological processes (e.g. food web dynamics)

are likely to be replaced by others that may not provide

the means for enduring species existence (Chellappa

et al., 2003). In India the protection of aquatic

biodiversity is ineffective due to the lake of scientific

data and conservation plans.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Interaction with the local fishermen and Inland

fisheries department regarding the abundance of fish

diversity in the Chinnar reservoir resulted the

overexploitation plays a major role to eradicate the fish

species. The majority of the fish catch is during monsoon

season. Only, nets with large size gill nets are allowed in

the rainy season, which are useful to catch the exotic

species. Culturing techniques for endangered/threatened

species should be developed to protect the endangered/

threatened species by taking critical steps to conserve the

genetic diversity. The removal of the exotic species,

Oreochromis mossambicus is advantageous to reservoir

fishery. The presence of tilapia decreases the population

of other fish species. Thus, it is beneficial to remove this

population by selective fishing. In view of the existing

practices there is an urgent need to take up certain

conservation approach to control the drastic drop down

in fish population and to save the vulnerable, threatened

species from wiping out of the region. Though, there are

certain legal restrictions in few areas, but it remained un-

productive due to lack of uniformity in its

implementation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The corresponding author is grateful to SERB-

DST (Government of India) - Start up Research Grant for

Young Investigators (vide File No. DST No. SB/YS/LS-

36/2013) and also thank Mr. S. Mariappan for line

drawing.

REFERENCES

Arunachalam M and Muralidharan M. 2007. New

record of Batasio sharavatiensis Bhatt and Jayaram from

Tunga river, Karnataka. Zoo’s Print. 22 (5): 2680-2682.

Arunachalam M and Muralidharan M. 2009.

Nemacheilus stigmofasciatus, a new species of

nemacheiline loach (Cypriniformes: Balitoridae) from

the Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa. 1

(3): 147-150.

Arunachalam M and Sankaranarayanan A. 1999.

Fishes of Gadana river in Kalakkad Mundanthurai tiger

reserve. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society.

96: 232-238.

Arunachalam M, Muralidharan M, Murugan M and

Soranam R. 2006. Diversity and Distributional pattern

of cypriniformes in streams and rivers of Western Ghats.

Abstracted In: Symposium on Biology of Cypriniformes,

Raja et al., 2014


12-15 October, 2006, Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese

Academy of Sciences, Wuhan, P. R .China.

Arunachalam M, Raja M, Malaiammal P and

Richard LM. 2014. New species of Aborichthys

(Cypriniformes: Balitoridae) from Arunachal Pradesh,

India, Species. 7(18): 33-47.

Arunachalam M, Raja M, Mayden RL and Chandran

A. 2013. Olyra astrifera a new species of Olyrid catfish

from the Western Ghats, Southern India (Teleosti:

Bagridae: Olyrininae) and the designation of Neotype,

Olyra longicaudata McClelland, 1842 from north-eastern

India. International Journal of Zoology and Research.

3(2): 51-60.

Arunachalam M, Raja M, Nandagopal S,

Vijayakumar C, Malaiammal P and Showket AB.

2014. Range extension of endangered earthworm eel

Pillaia indica Yazdani, 1972 (Synbranchiformes:

Chaudhuriidae) from West Bengal, India. Research and

Reviews. Journal of Ecology and Environmental

Sciences. 2 (1): 5-8.

Arunachalam M. 2009. Assessment of Chinnar River

and the alleged damage to agricultural lands by sand

mining, Report submitted to the High court of Madras:

45p.

Arunachalam M and Muralidharan M. 2008.

Description of a new species of the genus Psilorhynchus

(Teleostei: Psilorhynchidae) from a Western Ghat stream

in Southern India. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology. 56 (2):

405-414.

Arunachalam M, Raja M, Nandagopal S and Mayden

RL. 2013. Garra palaruvica, A new cyprinid fish

(Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae) from Kerala, Western

Ghats, Peninsular India, International Journal of Zoology

Research. 3 (1): 62-68.

Battul PN, Rao KR, Navale RA, Bagale MB and Shah

NV. 2007. Fish diversity from Ekrukh Lake near

Solapur, Maharashtra. Journal of Aquatic Biology. 22(2):

68-72.

Chellappa S, Camara MR, Chellappa NT, Beveridge

MCM and Huntingford FA. 2003. Reproductive

ecology of a neotropical cichlid fish, Cichla monoculus

(Osteichthyes: Cichlidae). Brazilian Journal of Biology.

63 (1): 17-26.

Correll DL. 1998. The role of phosphorus in the

eutrophication of receiving waters: a review. Journal of

Environmental Quality. 27 (2): 261-266.

Darwall WRT and Vie JC. 2005. Identifying important

sites for conservation of freshwater biodiversity:

extending the species based approach. Fish Management

Ecology. 12 (5): 287-293.

Day F. 1878. The fishes of India: being a natural history

of the fishes known to inhabit the seas and freshwaters of

India, Burma and Ceylon. Text and atlas in 2 parts.

London. Indian Reprint by Jagmander Book Agency,

New Delhi. XX+ 778 p. 195 plates

Easa PS and Shaji CP. 1997. Freshwater fish diversity

in Kerala part of Nilgiri Biosphere reserve. Current

science. 73 (2): 180-182.

Eschmeyer WN and R Fricke. 2011. Catalog of fishes

electronic version (20 December, 2013). Electronic

database accessible at http://research.calacademy.org /

research/ichthyology/catalog/ fishcatmain.asp/.

Galacatos K, Barriga-Salazar R and Stewart DJ.

2004. Seasonal and habitat influences on fish

communities within the lower Yasuni River basin of the

Ecuadorian Amazon, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

71 (1): 33-51.

IUCN. 2013. List of Threatened Species. Version

2013.3. Electronic database accessible at http://

Raja et al., 2014


www.iucnredlist.org/. Captured on 20 December 2013.

Jayaram KC, Venkateshwaralu T and Ragunathan

MB. 1982. A survey of the Cauvery river system with a

major account of its fish fauna. Records of the

Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper 36, 115 p.

Jayaram KC. 2010. The freshwater fishes of the Indian

Region. Narendra Publishing House, New Delhi, India.

616.

Johnes PJ and O’Sullivan PE. 1989. Nitrogen and

phosphorus losses from the catchment of Slapton Ley,

Devon- an export coefficient approach, Field Studies.

7 (2): 285-309.

Kang B, He D, Perrett L, Wang H, Hu W, Deng W

and Wu Y. 2009. Fish and fisheries in the Upper

Mekong: current assessment of the fish community,

threats and conservation. Reviews in Fish Biology and

Fisheries. 19(4): 465-480.

Kondolf GM, Smeltzer M and Kimball L. 2002.

Freshwater gravel mining and dredging issues. Prepared

for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Washington Department of Ecology, Washington

Department of Transportation. 122.

Laffaille P, Acou A, Guillouet J and Legault A. 2005.

Temporal changes in European eel, Anguilla anguilla,

stocks in a small catchment after installation of fish

passes. Fish Management Ecology. 12 (2): 123-129.

Lima-Junior SE, Cardone IB and Goitein R. 2006.

Fish assemblage structure and aquatic pollution in a

Brazilian stream: some limitations of diversity indices

and models for environmental impact studies. Ecology of

Freshwater Fish. 15 (3): 284-290.

Mani MS. 1974. Ecology and biogeography in India.

The Hague: Dr. W. Junk Publishers. 772.

Mas-Marti E, Garcia Berthou E, Sabater S,

Tomanova S and Munoz I. 2010. Comparing fish

assemblages and trophic ecology of permanent and

intermittent reaches in a Mediterranean stream.

Hydrobiologia. 657(1): 167-180.

Menon AGK. 1992. Taxonomy of the mahseer fishes of

the genus Tor Gray with description of new species from

the Deccan. Journal of the Bombay Natural History

Society. 89 (2): 210- 228.

Muller F, Hoffmann-Kroll R and Wiggering H. 2000.

Indicating ecosystem integrity - theoretical concepts and

environmental requirements. Ecological Modelling. 130

(1-3): 13-23.

National Remote Sensing Agency. 2007. Biodiversity

characterization at landscape level in Eastern Ghats and

east coast using Satellite Remote Sensing and

Geographic Information System. NRSA, Govt. of India,

Hyderabad. 310p.

Owens PN and Walling DE. 2002. The phosphorus

content of fluvial sediment in rural and industrialized

river basins. Water Research. 36 (3): 685-701.

Pawar SK, Mane AM and Pulle JS. 2007. The fish

fauna of Pethwadas Dam Taluka Kandhar in Nanded

District, Maharashtra, India. Journal of Aquatic Biology.

22(2): 55-58.

Pethiyagoda R, Meegaskumbura M and Maduwage

K. 2012. A synopsis of the South Asian fishes referred to

Puntius (Pisces: Cyprinidae). Ichthyological Explorations

of Freshwaters. 23(1): 69–95.

Raja M, Kavitha M, Ramkumar R, Anandhi M and

Perumal P. 2014. Ichthyological survey of the checklist

of fauna in Stanley Reservoir, Tamil Nadu, South India-

Diversity, Distribution, Threats and Conservation action.

Discovery life. 6(16): 21-30.

Raja et al., 2014


Ram Prasad. 1992. Ecological reclamation of Mines

areas in Madhya Pradesh. Vacham. 3(2): 45-46.

Rema Devi K and Indra TJ. 2003. An updated

checklist of Ichthyofauna of Eastern Ghats, Zoo’s Print.

18 (4): 1067-1070.

Rema Devi K and Indra TJ. 2000. Freshwater

Ichthyofaunal resources of Tamil Nadu 77 –97 pp. In:

Ponniah, A. G. and Gopalakrishnan. A. (Eds.). Endemic

Fish Diversity of Western Ghats. NBFGR – NATP

Publication-1, National Bureau of Fish Genetic

Resources, Lucknow, U.P., India. 347.

Rema Devi K and Raghunathan MB. 1999. Report on

the Ichthyofauna of North Arcot district, Tamil nadu,

Records of Zoological Survey of India. 97 (1): 163-177.

Rema Devi K, Indra T, Raghunathan MB, Bai M and

Ravichandran MS. 1999. Ichthyofauna of

Tambraparani river system of Tamil Nadu. Zoo’s Print.

12 (7): 1-2.

Rema Devi K. 1992. On a small collection of fish from

Javadi Hills, North Arcot District, Tamil Nadu, Records

of Zoological Survey of India. 91 (3-4): 353-360.

Sarkar UK, Pathak AK and Lakra WS. 2008.

Conservation of freshwater fish resources of India: new

approaches, assessment and challenges. Biodiversity

Conservation. 17 (10):2495-2511.

Talwar PK and Jhingran AG. 1991. Inland fishes of

India and adjacent countries. Vol.1, IBH Publishing,

New Delhi.

Raja et al., 2014



Advantages


[email protected]


Article Citation: Bubesh Guptha M, Thulasaiah T and Sivaram Prasad NV. New locality record of yellow collared wolf snake Lycodon flavicollis mukherjee and bhupathy, 2007 from seshachalam biosphere reserve, Eastern Ghats, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Journal of Research in Biology (2014) 4(3): 1328-1331

Jou

rn

al of R

esearch

in

Biology

New Locality Record of Yellow Collared Wolf Snake Lycodon flavicollis Mukherjee and Bhupathy, 2007 from Seshachalam Biosphere Reserve,

Eastern Ghats, Andhra Pradesh, India

Keywords: Seshachalam Biosphere Reserve, Lycodon flavicollis, New Locality Record, Andhra Pradesh.

ABSTRACT: During field survey, we encounter live specimen of Lycodon flavicollis while it was crossing the path at about 1130 hrs on 20th September 2013. Near a close to the famous temple of Sri Lord Venkateswara (13° 42 N & 79° 20’E). During the time of collection, it was cool and cloudy. Subsequently, the specimen was photographed and released after collection of morphometry measurements. In the present paper, we provide additional and new locality record in Eastern Ghats.

1328-1331 | JRB | 2014 | Vol 4 | No 3



An International


Authors:

Bubesh Guptha M*,

Thulasaiah T and

Sivaram Prasad NV.

Institution:

Bio - Lab of Seshachalam

Hills, Wildlife Management

Circle, Kapilatheertham,

Tirupati - 517 501,

Andhra Pradesh, India


Bubesh Guptha M.

Email Id:



Dates: Received: 19 Oct 2013 Accepted: 02 Dec 2013 Published: 11 Jun 2014



Original Research

ISSN Number: Print: 2231 –6280; Online: 2231- 6299

INTRODUCTION:

Amphibians and reptiles play a major role in

ecological food wed, as both predators and prey. Herpits

also provide a significant benefit to agriculture and

recreational activity as consumers of insects, rodents, and

other pest species Amphibians and reptiles, 2006).

Lycodon, one of the most widespread Asiatic snake taxa,

ranges from the Caspian Sea to the Philippines and

Indonesia. Over 25 species have been reported to date

(Smith, 1943; Biswas and Sanyal, 1965; Lanza, 1999;

Slowinski et al., 2001; Daltry and Wuster, 2002), and 11

of them occur within the Indian subcontinent (Mukherjee

and Bhupathy, 2007). The Eastern Ghats is of broken and

isolated hills of the Deccan Plateau, unlike the

continuous mountain range of Western Ghats of the

southwestern India (Chettri and Bhupathy, 2010). The

collection site of Lycodon flavicollis is located in

Seshachalam hill ranges. These hill ranges are a part of

the Eastern Ghats, spread over Chittoor and Kadapah

districts of Andhra Pradesh. The predominant vegetation

type is tropical southern dry mixed deciduous forest

(Champion and Seth, 1968). The vegetation is a mix of

the tropical southern dry mixed deciduous types and

includes three protected areas, namely Sri Venkateswara

Wildlife Sanctuary, Sri Venkateswara National Park and

Seshachalam Biosphere Reserve. This range is the

richest floristic hot spot harboring many endemic and

rare plants. The entire sanctuary is an uninhabited large

chunk of dry deciduous Red Sanders bearing forest

(Bubesh et al., 2013).

METHODOLOGY:

Totally 53 field days were spent to rapidly assess

the Herpetofauna Since August 2011 onwards, we are

Guptha et al., 2014


Source: Google Earth.

Figure 1: Distribution map for Lycodon flavicollis in India (after Mukherjee and Bhupathy 2007),

with an Yellow spot indicating the earlier record from Anaikatti Hills, Tamil Nadu, Western Ghats

and Pink spot indicating the new locality record for Seshachalam Hills, Andhra Pradesh, Eastern

Ghats.

carrying out a detailed biodiversity inventory of the

Seshachalam Biosphere Reserve in Chittoor and Kadapa

districts, Andhra Pradesh. Data collection will be carried

out by using Visual Encounter Survey Method. The

sanctuary area was different and all habitats were

randomly explored on the basis of habitat and

availability of the species. All important major and minor

water bodies, including seasonal rivulets were

extensively explored for aquatic species.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

During nature trail in Seshachalam Biosphere

Reserve we encounter live specimen of Lycodon

flavicollis dated 20th September 2013 at 1130 hrs. The

specimen was collected from the habitat close to the

famous temple of Sri Lord Venkateswara (13°42’N and

79°20’E) (Fig-1). Surrounding mixed vegetation forest.

During the time of collection, it was cool and cloudy.

Subsequently, the specimen was photographed and

released after collection of morphometry measurements.

All measurements are in mm (Table-1). So far very little

information is available or published about this species,

Lycodon flavicollis a new species were described

recently from Anaikatti Hills, Tamil Nadu, Western

Ghats (Mukherjee and Bhupathy 2007).

Yellow Collared Wolf Snake Lycodon

flavicollis is a species of non venomous snake, Snout

broad, much depressed, long, spatulate, with the upper

lip swollen. Uniform brownish grey above, with a yellow

collar (Figure- 2 and 3).

Threats

Management intervention should ensure

checking of illegal entry especially red sander smugglers,

livestock pressure etc. Forest fire is one of the major

threats in the Seshachalam hills.

RECOMMENDATION:

We recommend that further studies be carried out

in the Eastern Ghats and its surrounding areas at the

earliest possible opportunity to confirm the presence of

Guptha et al., 2014


Figure 2: Showing head and aspects of dorsal

coloration in Lycodon flavicollis Figure 3: Showing aspects of head and dorsum

of Lycodon flavicollis

Table 1: Morphometry of Lycodon flavicollis from

Seshachalam Biosphere Reserve

Particulars Measurements

Ventral 217

Sub Caudal 68

Supralabials 9

Tail Length 41mm

Head Length 8mm

Head Width 5mm

Total Length 280mm

many such new species. Also everyone should realize

that the protection of habitat is an important aspect in

conservation of such species.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

We are thankful to Sri A.V. Joseph, IFS, PCCF

(WL) and CWW, Andhra Pradesh for giving permission

to carry out field studies in Seshachalam Biosphere

Reserve. Special thanks to Sri M. Ravi Kumar, IFS,

Conservator of Forests, WLM Circle, Tirupati for

encouragement and necessary helps. We also thank Sri

K. Madhu, Miss K. Rohini Anusha, Sri V. Bhavani

Shankar, Sri G. Uma Maheswar and Sri P. Prudhvi Raj

from the Bio-Lab of Seshachalam Hills who

accompanied along with the survey.

REFERENCES:

Amphibians and Reptiles. 2006. Wildlife Habitat

council. (Natural resources conservation Service),

Number, 35. www.parcplace.org.

Biswas S and Sanyal DP. 1965. A new species of Wolf

snake of the genus Lycodon Boie (Reptilia: Serpentes:

Colubridae) from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Proc. Zool. Soc. Calcutta, 18, 137 – 141.

Bubesh MG, Chalapathi Rao PV, Sivaram Prasad

NV and Madhu Babu P. 2013. New Locality Record of

Brown vine snake Ahaetulla pulverulenta (Dumeril,

Bibron & Dumeril, 1854), in Seshachalam Biosphere

Reserve, Eastern Ghats, Andhra Pradesh, India.

Universal Journal of Environmental Research and

Technology. 2(5): 456-457.

Champion HG and Seth SK. 1968. A revised survey of

the forest types of India. Govt. of India Press, Delhi.

Chettri B and Bhupathy S. 2010. Three little known

reptile species from the Araku Valley, Eastern Ghats

with notes on their distribution. Journal of Threatened

Taxa 2(8): 1109-1113.

Daltry JC and Wuster W. 2002. A new species of Wolf

Snake from the Cardamom Mountains, Southwestern

Cambodia. Herpetologica. 58(4): 498 – 504.

Lanza B. 1999. A new species of Lycodon from

Philippines, with a key to the genus (Reptilia: Serpentes:

Colubridae). Tropical Zool., 12: 89 – 104.

Mukherjee D and Bhupathy S. 2007. A New Species

Of Wolf Snake (Serpentes: Colubridae: Lycodon) From

Anaikatti Hills, Western Ghats, Tamil Nadu, India.

Russian Journal of Herpetology. 14(1): 21 – 26

Slowinski JB, Pawar S, Win H, Thin T, Gyi SW, Oo

SL and Tun H. 2001. A new Lycodon (Serpentes:

Colubridae) from Northeast India and Myanmar

(Burma). Proc. California Acad. Sci., 52(20): 397 – 405.

Smith MA. 1943. The Fauna of British India, including

Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Amphibia. Vol. III.

Serpentes, Taylor and Francis, London.

Guptha et al., 2014



Advantages


[email protected]


http://www.parcplace.org

Guidelines for Authors

The article should be addressed to "The Editor".

Submission of an article implies that it has never been published in any other journals and if accepted, it will not be published

elsewhere.

All papers are first reviewed by the editor. Papers found lacking will not be considered. Others will be sent for a detailed peer-review

process.

Journal Manuscript Format

The manuscript should be typed in “Times new Roman” font with font size 11 and 1.5 line spacing. The page size should be strictly A4. All images should be in JPEG format. The article is to be submitted should accompany a covering letter with name and complete address

(including Telephone Number and e-mail ID) of the author/s. The completed article should be sent to [email protected]

Title

The title should briefly identify the subject and indicate the purpose of the document. The title should supply enough information for the reader to make a reliable decision on probable interest. Do not use all caps; instead use caps only at the first word of the title and/or at

scientific names, abbreviations etc., Center the authors' initials and last names directly below the title.

Abstract

The abstract should include a hypothesis or rationale for the work, a brief description of the methods, a summary of the results, and a conclusion: The abstract should be less than 250 words. Do not include literature citations or references to tables, figures or equations.

Keywords

A short list of keywords or phrases should be included immediately after the abstract as index words. Choose keywords that reflect the content of your article. Note that words in the title are not searchable as keywords unless they are also included in the keyword list.

Body of the Article

The introductory section of the text should include a brief statement of why the research was conducted. It should also define the

problem and present objectives along with a plan of development of the subject matter. The introductory section also usually includes a brief

survey of the relevant literature on the topic.

Materials and Methods

Provide sufficient detail so that the work may be repeated. Do not give details of methods described in readily available sources.

Instead, refer to the source and describe any modification. Figures that illustrate test apparatus and tables of treatment parameters or equipment specifications are appropriate here.

Results and Discussion

This section describes the solution to the problem stated in the introductory section. Use figures and tables to visually supplement the

presentation of your results. The text must refer explicitly to all visuals, and you must interpret the visual elements to emphasize the evidence on which your conclusions are based. Do not omit important negative results.

In addition, relate your findings to previous findings by identifying how and why there are differences and where there is agreement. Speculation

is encouraged, but it must be identified.

Conclusion

This is a summary of your results. In this section, state any conclusions that can be drawn from your data. You may also include

suggestions for future research. The conclusion may be a subsection of the Results and Discussion section, or it may be a separate section. Data

or statements cited in your conclusion must have been stated previously in the article. Do not introduce new information in the conclusion.

Acknowledgement

Acknowledgements are optional. Use them to thank individuals or organizations that provided assistance in materials, expertise, or

financing. The acknowledgements will appear at the end of the text and should be limited to one or two sentences.

References

All sources cited in the text must be listed in the References, and all documents listed in the References must be cited in the text. Accuracy of citation is the author's responsibility.

mailto:[email protected]

Reference Style

References should be cited in the text in the form (Author et al, 1987) and listed in alphabetical order at the end of the article as follows:

Schernewski G, Neumann T. The trophic state of the Baltic Sea a century ago: a model simulation study. J Mar Sys., 2005;53:109–124.

Kaufman PD, Cseke LJ, Warber S, Duke JA and Brielman HL. Natural Products from plants. CRC press, Bocaralon, Florida. 1999; 15-16.

Kala CP. Ecology and Conservation of alphine meadows in the valley of flowers national park, Garhwal Himalaya. Ph.D Thesis, Dehradun: Forest Research Institute, 1998; 75-76.

http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/pdf/1746-4269-1-11.pdf.

Appendix

Use an appendix for material that is too long to include in the text of the article.

Manuscript Charges

Journal of Research in Biology is an International Research Journal. This Journal provides immediate access to all published full-text

articles to interested readers from all around the world. The availability of the author’s paper makes the scientific community to understand and develop an impact in the concerned research field. It also increases the chance of more citations of the published work, which in turn can be

translated into more recognition of research. This journal also accelerates research and knowledge building worldwide.

Publishing an article in Journal of Research in Biology requires payment of the manuscript processing charges, once the manuscript is

accepted for publication. The payment is to be made by one of the authors, their university/organization, or funding entity. The manuscript

processing charges are fixed so as to allow publishers to recover manuscript processing expenses and the cost of making the full-text available on the Internet to all interested researchers.

For Indians

The charges for submission of a Research article is Rs 2100, up to 8 pages and for more pages, each page costs Rs 250.

For Foreign nationals

The charges for submission of a Research article is USD 100, up to 8 pages and for more pages, each page costs 15 USD.

Copyright

Authors who publish in Journal of Research in Biology retain the copyright of their work which allows the unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction of an article in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.

If you have any queries kindly contact us at [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

journal of research in biology volume 4 issue 3

Documents