This article was downloaded by: [77.6.117.

5] On: 21 December 2011, At: 09:38 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Marine Biology Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/smar20

Temporal and spatial distribution of fish and shrimp assemblage in the Bakkhali river estuary of Bangladesh in relation to some water quality parameters
Md. Rashed-Un-Nabi , Md. Abdulla Al-Mamun , Md. Hadayet Ullah & M. Golam Mustafa
a b b a a a

Institute of Marine Sciences and Fisheries, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh The World Fish Center, Bangladesh and South Asia Office, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Available online: 04 Jul 2011

To cite this article: Md. Rashed-Un-Nabi, Md. Abdulla Al-Mamun, Md. Hadayet Ullah & M. Golam Mustafa (2011): Temporal and spatial distribution of fish and shrimp assemblage in the Bakkhali river estuary of Bangladesh in relation to some water quality parameters, Marine Biology Research, 7:5, 436-452 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17451000.2010.527988

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Marine Biology Research, 2011; 7: 436452

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Temporal and spatial distribution of fish and shrimp assemblage in the Bakkhali river estuary of Bangladesh in relation to some water quality parameters

MD. RASHED-UN-NABI1*, MD. ABDULLA AL-MAMUN1, MD. HADAYET ULLAH1 & M. GOLAM MUSTAFA2
1

Institute of Marine Sciences and Fisheries, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh, and 2The World Fish Center, Bangladesh and South Asia Ofce, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

Abstract Fish and shrimp species, together with water quality data, were collected from two different stations located inside the Bakkhali river estuary of Bangladesh during winter, premonsoon and monsoon periods. Significant temporal differences were observed for water temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen. The average catch of fish and shrimps per net between stations varied between 1.8990.36 kg at station 1 and 7.5494.39 kg at station 2, while the average catch in winter, premonsoon and monsoon periods was found to be 2.7991.08 kg/net, 6.3191.03 kg/net and 5.0692.89 kg/net, respectively, with a significant difference in catch per net between stations although no significant difference in catch per net was observed between seasons. A total of 18,467 individuals of fish (35 species) and shrimp (10 species) were found in the present study. Three species of shrimps were observed to be dominant ( 10.0%) and these were Metapenaeus lysianassa (17.07%), Ambassis dussumieri (14.54%) and Macrobrachium villosimanus (12.13%). Clear differences in faunal abundances were observed between seasons and stations with higher mean abundances during winter (1747.839421.99 individuals/5 kg) and at Station 1 (14449866.74 individuals/5 kg). Similarly, the diversity indices, both ShannonWiener and Margalef, showed significant differences between stations and seasons (except Shannon for stations). Analyses of similarity (ANOSIM) results confirm both spatial and temporal differences in species community structure with a highly diverse assemblage. Canonical Correspondence Analysis results indicated that salinity and transparency were the main variables influencing fish and shrimp distribution in the Bakkhali river estuary.

Key words: Ambassis dussumieri, analysis of similarity, Bakkhali river estuary, Metapenaeus lysianassa, species assemblage

Introduction Estuaries are transition zones between sea and freshwater; they are occupied by a combination of freshwater and marine species as well as juveniles (Claridge et al. 1986). They serve important economic functions including transportation, industry and tourism, but also drainage of waste from domestic, industrial and agriculture activities (Heip & Herman 1995; RazGuzman & Huidobro 2002). Simultaneously, these ecosystems offer protection, not only for resident species, but also for a wide range of marine and freshwater species which migrate there at certain

stages of their life cycle (Weinstein 1985; Weisberg et al. 1996; Cowley and Whitfield 2002; McLusky and Elliott 2004; Blaber 2000). Fish assemblage structure of estuaries is characterized by high diversity and high abundance, especially for juveniles (Whitfield 1999). An examination of the ecological factors is important in defining habitats for fishes and has been the main focus of many previous studies (Able 1999; Martino & Able 2003). Most estuaries are characterized by high biological productivity associated with relatively extreme and varying environmental conditions (Day et al. 1989; Kennish 1990; Whitfield 1999). As boundary systems between

*Correspondence: Md. Rashed-Un-Nabi, Institute of Marine Sciences and Fisheries, University of Chittagong, Chittagong 4331, Bangladesh. E-mail: mrnimscu@yahoo.com Published in collaboration with the University of Bergen and the Institute of Marine Research, Norway, and the Marine Biological Laboratory, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

(Accepted 19 August 2010; Published online 4 July 2011; Printed 11 July 2011) ISSN 1745-1000 print/ISSN 1745-1019 online # 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/17451000.2010.527988

Bakkhali estuary fish and shrimp assemblage 437 watersheds and the sea, estuaries exhibit environmental gradients that favour the recruitment of a variety of species with diverse physical and trophic structures (Sanchez & Raz-Guzman 1997; Harris et al. 2001; Kimmerer et al. 2001). Since estuaries serve as nurseries for many commercially important fish and crustaceans (Shenker & Dean 1979; Weinstein 1979; Rakocinski et al. 1996; Blaber 2000; Elliott & Hemingway 2002; Akin et al. 2003), it is necessary to examine the environmental factors that shape the species assemblage structure. Fishes play an important role in estuaries as they constitute permanent and temporary community components, with marine species visiting these habitats for feeding, reproduction, growth and protection (Raz-Guzman & Huidobro 2002). The distributions of fish within biologically and physically complex estuarine systems may be influenced by many mechanisms. Several estuarine ecologists have pointed out that biotic processes, such as competition and predation, may be important in driving the occurrence of spatial and temporal patterns of fish abundance and assemblage in estuaries (Holbrook & Schmitt 1989; OgburnMatthews & Allen 1993; Lankford & Targett 1994; Barry et al. 1996). By nature, estuarine habitats are highly productive (Nixon et al. 1986; Day et al. 1989) and their role as nursery grounds for fishes is well documented for temperate (Powles et al. 1984; Elliott et al. 1990; Kennish 1990; Drake & Arias 1991; Szedlmayer & Able 1996; Whitfield 1999; Blaber 2000; Shackell & Frank 2000; Elliott & Hemingway 2002) and tropical regions (Raynie & Shaw 1994; Sanvicente-Anorve et al. 2000; Harris et al. 2001; Cowley & Whitfield 2002; Franco-Gordo et al. 2003). Several biological and abiotic factors affect the occurrence and habitat of fish and shrimp within estuaries. These factors include salinity, temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen (DO), freshwater inflow, structural attributes of habitat, depth, geographic distance from the estuary mouth, and hydrography (Gunter 1961; Blaber & Blaber 1980; Weinstein et al. 1980; Rogers et al. 1984; Zimmerman & Minello 1984; Thorman 1986; Peterson & Ross 1991; Sogard & Able 1991; Cyrus & Blaber 1992; Rakocinski et al. 1992; Cowen et al. 1993; Everett & Ruiz 1993; Szedlmayer & Able 1996; Fraser 1997; Maes et al. 1998; Marshall & Elliott 1998; Araujo et al. 1999; Wagner & Austin 1999; Whitfield 1999; Hagan & Able 2003; Jaureguizar et al. 2003; Martino & Able 2003). The assemblages of fish in estuaries are variable both in terms of species composition and distribution patterns (Harris et al. 1999). Changes in species assemblage are continuous, according to reproductive seasons of the species and the environmental fluctuations (Whitfield 1994; Harris & Cyrus 1995; Hettler & Hare 1998; Garcia et al. 2003). However, through discussion with local fishermen from the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh, during the present study, there seems to be a general tendency for estuarine fish larvae to peak in abundance during the monsoon in this region. Furthermore, Hossain et al. (2007) also reported a similar trend for juvenile fish species at Naaf river estuary. Fish and shrimp assemblage structure in the estuaries of Bangladesh has not been well studied; although there are some scattered works on different biological aspects of the coastal estuarine system of Bangladesh (Hossain et al. 2007), none of them examined the species assemblage structure. The Bakkhali river estuary located at the southeastern part of Bangladesh is heavily supported by small scale and multigear fisheries. The coastal areas show a typical tropical multi-species fisheries ecosystem. There are about 490 species of fishes (Hossain 1971) and 19 species of shrimps/prawn (Chowdhury & Sanaullah 1991) available in this area. These fisheries are characterized by fishing households rather than commercial organizations and play a greater role in sustaining the livelihoods and ensuring the food security of large numbers of rural people throughout the developing world (Whitmarsh et al. 2003). The future of these potentially huge resources has not been well documented. However, for the sustainability of this fishery resource proper scientific study is an urgent task. Hence, the present study has been designed to provide an extensive report on the fish and shrimp assemblage structure of Bakkhali river estuary in relation to water quality parameters. Materials and methods Study area The Bakkhali river estuary is located at the southeastern coast of the Bay of Bengal in Bangladesh (Figure 1). A number of small streams originating from the south-eastern hills of Mizoram (India) meet at the Naikhongchhari of Bandarban district and form the river Bakkhali. It flows through Naikhongchhari and Ramu of Coxs Bazar district and falls into the Moheshkhali channel of the Bay of Bengal. This river is relatively wide compared to other rivers of the Coxs Bazar district and has a length of about 67 km. The Bakkhali river estuary has a semidiurnal tidal regime. Its hydrology is also heavily influenced by monsoon wind. The tidal range varied between 0.07 m and 4.42 m during neap and spring tide respectively (Hossain and Lin 2001). Salt intrusion extends up to 6 km upstream where a rubber dam was constructed for irrigation purposes.

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

438

Md. Rashed-Un-Nabi et al.

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

Figure 1. Map of Bakkhali river estuary and location of sampling stations (St1, St2).

The bottom of this river consists mainly of mud and sand particles. The estuarine zone is also characterized by long intertidal mudflats where mangrove vegetation (mainly Avicennia sp.), natural ullo grass Imperata cylindrica, cord grass Spartina sp. and sea grass Halophila beccarii are present (Hena et al. 2007). The lower part of this estuary is heavily influenced by anthropogenic and industrial activities including fish harbours, fish processing plants and a large number of fish and shrimp farms. The large amount of organic and inorganic waste changes the chemical characteristics of the water body by producing toxic substances, which ultimately affect the biodiversity. Sampling took place at two stations (Figure 1), one (St1) about 5 km upstream from the estuary, which is protected from the sewage and anthropogenic intervention, and another (St2) at the lower stream near the mouth of the estuary, heavily

influenced by domestic and industrial activities. Apart from these two stations, nets were not set on a regular basis in the other areas of the Bakkhali river estuary. Net setting and collection of samples was largely dependent on the local fishermen who have used these areas for generations. Therefore, these areas are allowed for fishing only by the local fishermen. Hence, through negotiation with the local fishermen these two stations were considered for the present study. Sampling gear The fish and shrimp samples were collected using barrier nets known locally as Char jal (Figure 2). In Coxs Bazar region, Char jal are used to catch various aquatic species from river banks inundated during high tide. Net fencing is made from bamboo

Bakkhali estuary fish and shrimp assemblage 439

Figure 2. A Char jal in the Bakkhali river estuary.

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

poles which are submerged during high tide. Samples are collected during low tide. The net frame is around 2.5 m in height and 150 m in length, forming part of a circle so that there is approximately 120 m distance between two ends of the net. The nylon net has a mesh size of 0.8 cm. Bamboo poles are secured on the shore of the river during low tide. During high tide the water is allowed to enter and after 22.5 h of the high tide the fishermen secure the upper portion of the net and create a barrier. At low tide all the animals inside the fence become trapped and the fishermen harvest the fish, shrimp and crab. Finally, the net is released from the bamboo and is ready for the next high tide. Sampling periodicity Samples were collected each month between December 2007 and August 2008. Of the four seasons specified by Mahmood et al. (1994), three seasons were chosen the winter (December, January and February), premonsoon (March, April and May) and monsoon (June, July and August) to conduct the sampling. Sampling was done during the full moon and new moon, as during these periods higher abundance of fish and shrimps were reported by the fishermen. No samples were collected during the post-monsoon period (September, October and November) as the fishermen become engaged in Hilsha fishery, which is the single largest commercial fishery of Bangladesh (Mazid 2002). Fishermen are engaged by Hilsha boat owners to leave this less-profitable Char jal fishing during the post monsoon season. Sample collection Sample catches from Char jal were taken directly from the nets. In the laboratory, samples were sorted

and identified to species level (Fischer & Whitehead 1974; Shafi & Kuddus 1982a, 1982b; Talwar & Jhingran 1991; DeBruin et al. 1995). The total numbers of each species and their wet weight from each net were also recorded. During sampling, in situ water quality parameters were measured at each sampling site. The salinity, pH, temperature and dissolved oxygen were determined by using a refractrometer (NewS-100, TANAKA, Japan), a pen pH meter (s327535, HANNA Instruments), a thermometer in centigrade and a DO meter (HI 9142, HANNA Instruments), respectively. A Secchi disc (20 cm diameter) was used to measure the water transparency. Data analysis Diversity of the species assemblage was expressed by the ShannonWiener index (H?) (Shannon 1949; Shannon & Weaver 1963; Ramos et al. 2006) using the following formula: H? 0
S X i01

Pi 1log Pi

where S is the total number of species and Pi is the relative cover of ith species. Richness was measured by Margalef index (d) (Margalef 1968) using the following formula: d 0 (S (1)=log(N); where S is total species and N is total individuals. For environmental parameters (temperature, salinity, DO, pH and water transparency) one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to calculate if there is any difference between two stations. The same procedure was followed for seasons. Prior to ANOVA tests, all data were checked for normality

440

Md. Rashed-Un-Nabi et al. Results Environmental parameters The measured environmental parameters are summarized in Table I and illustrated in Figure 3. Water temperature ranged between 218C (in winter; January 2008 at St1) and 318C (in premonsoon and monsoon; March and July 2008, respectively, at St2) with a mean of 27.1693.338C. No significant difference was observed in temperature between stations (F1,12 0 2.13, P 0 0.17). However, winter season showed a significant difference from monsoon and premonsoon (F2,12 066.65, PB0.001) although there was no significant difference between premonsoon and monsoon. Salinity values (mean 20.00911.94) ranged from 2.00 ppt (during monsoon season; August 2008) to 31.00 ppt (during winter season; December 2007 and February 2008). No significant differences were found in salinity between the stations (H 00.788, P 00.375), while significant differences were observed among the seasons (H 015.316, PB0.001) with very low salinity during monsoon (Figure 3). Oxygen concentration (mean 04.2190.58) attained a maximum in March (5.02 mg/l at St1) and a minimum in June (3.24 mg/l at St1). No significant differences were found in oxygen concentration throughout stations (F1,12 00.30, P00.59); in contrast, significantly higher dissolved oxygen concentration was observed during premonsoon season (4.7990.24 mg/l) compared to winter (4.1290.40 mg/l) and monsoon (4.4090.49 mg/l) seasons (F2,12 09.22, PB0.001). Water transparency varied from 26 cm (during monsoon; July 2008 at St2) to 70 cm (during winter season; January 2008 at St1) with a mean of 42.839 14.86 cm. Significant differences were observed in water transparency between stations (F1,12 0212.08, P B0.001). Similarly, water transparency exhibited a strong seasonal gradient (F2,12 09.06, P 00.01). Mean value in winter season (62.0094.69 cm) was noticeably higher than the premonsoon (37.839 3.63 cm) and monsoon season (28.6692.16 cm). The highest pH value (7.7) was observed during the premonsoon season at St1, while the lowest pH value (6.3) was observed during the winter season, also at St1. Mean pH value was observed to be 7.2090.34. No significant differences were found for pH between stations (F1,12 01.20, P 00.29) and among the seasons (F2,12 01.28, P 00.31). Species community composition by weight The catch per net at St1 ranged between 1.31 kg (during winter season) to 2.52 kg during the premonsoon period with an average of 1.8990.36 kg.

using the KolmogorovSmirnov test and homogeneity of variances using Levene test (Sokal & Rohlf 1998). Furthermore, in the event of significance, a post hoc Tukey HSD test was used to determine which means were significantly different at a 0.05 level of probability (Spjotvoll & Stoline 1973). The KruskalWallis test (Akin et al. 2005) was performed on data which did not satisfy the assumptions of normality and homogeneity, after performing diverse data transformations (Clarke & Warwick 1994). Except for salinity, all other water quality parameters met the criteria of normal distribution and homogeneity of variances. One-way analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) (Clarke & Warwick 1994) was used to conclude the significance of spatial and temporal variation in the fish and shrimp assemblage structure. This test is based on a BrayCurtis rank similarity matrix and was calculated using log-transformed data. Similarity percentages analysis (SIMPER) (Clarke 1993) was used to observe the percentage contribution of each species to the average dissimilarity between samples of the various seasons and station-pair combinations. Hierarchical agglomerative clustering with group average linking and non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (nMDS) were performed to investigate similarities among stations and seasons (Clarke & Warwick 1994). This analysis was based on the BrayCurtis similarity measure (Bray & Curtis 1957). Only species with more than 1% of the total species were included in the analysis to avoid any unusual effects of rare species. All the multivariate analyses were performed using the software PRIMER V6 (Plymouth Routines Multivariate Ecological Research) (Clarke & Warwick 1994). Associations between species and environmental variables were examined with the canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) using the ECOM 1.32 version (Environmental Community Analysis 2000) software. To reduce the effects of rare species, only species contributing 1% of the total based on all species and samples were included in CCA after log transformation (Log10(x'1)). CCA was proposed to constrain the axes in classical Correspondence Analysis (CA) to be linear functions of a-priori defined or measured variables associated with species records. The ordination axes of CA are termed Eigenvectors. Each Eigenvector has a corresponding Eigenvalue, often denoted by l. The Eigenvalue is actually equal to the (maximized) dispersion of the species scores on the ordination axis, and is thus a measure of importance of the ordination axis. The first ordination axis has the largest Eigenvalue (l1), the second axis the second largest Eigenvalue (l2), and so on. The Eigenvalues of CA all lie between 0 and 1. Values over 0.5 often denote a good separation of the species along axis (Jongman et al. 1995).

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

Bakkhali estuary fish and shrimp assemblage 441

Table I. Mean of the different environmental parameters in different seasons and stations during the study period. Season Winter Premonsoon Monsoon Station 1 Station 2 Sampling St1W1 St2W1 St1P1 St2P1 St1M1 St2M1 Temperature (8C) 22.3391.15 23.3390.57 29.3391.15 3091.00 28.6691.15 29.3391.52 26.7793.49 27.5593.32 Salinity (ppt) 29.6690.57 30.6690.57 25.6691.15 26.3390.57 2.3390.57 5.3390.57 19.22912.80 20.77911.74 Transparency (cm) 65.3394.04 58.6692.30 4092.00 35.6693.78 29.3392.51 2892.00 44.88916.22 40.77914.03 pH 7.2390.2082 6.8690.5132 7.3390.4726 7.0390.05774 7.390.3606 7.4390.2082 7.2890.31 7.1190.37 DO(mg l (1) 4.1590.48 4.0990.42 4.8590.14 4.7390.34 3.8190.58 3.6590.49 4.2790.60 4.1690.59

The average catch per net at St1 during winter, premonsoon and monsoon seasons was found to be 1.6490.29 kg, 1.9490.57 kg and 2.1090.07 kg, respectively. Of the fish species, Liza tade was found to be the most abundant (23.6%) followed by Mystus gulio (11.96%), Gerres filamentosus (9.34%) and Terapon jarbua (8.76%). Among the shrimps, Macrobrachium villosimanus was found to be moderately higher (7.98%) in species composition by weight. Only 12 species contribute about 90% of the total catch. No significant difference was observed in average catch per net between winter, premonsoon and monsoon (F2,6 01.37, P00.32). The catch per net at St2 ranged between 2.71 and 14.77 kg with an average of 7.5494.39 kg. The average catch per net at St2 during winter, premonsoon and monsoon seasons was found to be 3.949 1.94 kg, 10.6792.12 kg and 8.0195.86 kg, respectively. The highest percentage (27.40%) was found for the fish Mystus gulio followed by Acanthopagrus latus (10.25%), Cynoglossus cynoglossus (8.12%) and Macrobrachium villosimanus (7.47%). Only 13 species including those reported above contributed about 87.11% of the total catch (Table II). No significant difference was observed in average catch per net between winter, premonsoon and monsoon (F2,6 02.42, P 00.17). However, a significant difference was obtained in average catch per net between St1 and St2 (F1,16 0 14.74, P 00.001), but no significant difference was observed among the seasons (F2,15 01.09, P 00.35). Species community composition by number During the study period a total 18,467 fish, shrimp and crab were collected from the Char jal with a mean abundance of 10269803 ind/5 kg of species (Table II). The maximum species abundance (2869 ind/5 kg of species) was observed during the winter at St1 while the minimum (241 ind/5 kg of species) was observed during the monsoon period at St2. The species abundance per net in St1 ranged between 412 ind/5 kg (during monsoon season) to 2869 ind/5 kg during the winter period, with an

average of 1444.009886.74 ind/5 kg. The average abundance during winter, premonsoon and monsoon seasons were found to be 2304.669489.24 ind/ 5 kg, 1585.669341.70 ind/5 kg and 441.66925.73 ind/5 kg, respectively. Ambassis dussumieri was found highest (16.83%) followed by Metapenaeus lysianassa (15.27%), Gerres filamentosus (12.45%) and Terapon jarbua (11.10%) in species abundance. Only 18 species contributed about 97.25% of the total catch. A significant difference was observed in average species abundance between winter, premonsoon and monsoon (F2,6 022.26, P 00.002). The species abundance per net in St2 ranged between 241 ind/5 kg to 1601 ind/5 kg with an average of 607.889477.25 ind/5 kg. The average abundance during winter, premonsoon and monsoon seasons was found to be 1191.009357.31 ind/ 5 kg, 368.66998.77 ind/5 kg and 264919.92 ind/ 5 kg, respectively. The highest percentage (23.49%) was found for Macrobrachium villosimanus followed by Metapenaeus lysianassa (21.35%), Mystus gulio (9.16%) and Ambassis dussumieri (9.10%). Only 13 species contribute about 92.56% of the total abundance (Table II). A significant difference was observed between winter, premonsoon and monsoon (F2,6 016.83, P 00.003). A significant difference in average species abundance was also observed between stations (F1,16 06.42, P 00.02) and seasons (F2,15 08.58, P 00.003).

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

Species diversity The ShannonWiener diversity index ranged between 0.95 (at St2 during monsoon) and 2.62 (at St1 during premonsoon) with a mean diversity value of 1.9190.46 (Figure 4A). No significant difference was observed (F1,16 00.915, P 00.353) in the mean ShannonWiener diversity values between the stations. However, this difference was found significant between the seasons (F1,16 014.264, P B0.001) with higher mean diversity value (2.41690.16) during the premonsoon period.

442

Md. Rashed-Un-Nabi et al.

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

Figure 3. Temporal and spatial variations in mean environmental parameters at the study area (s, St, st, station).

The minimum Margalef richness value (1.14) was observed at St1 during monsoon while the maximum value (4.50) was found in station St2 during premonsoon (Figure 4B) with a mean richness value of

2.5291.08. The mean species richness values at St1 and St2 was found to be 1.8590.49 and 3.2091.09, respectively. In the case of seasons, the highest mean richness value (3.3091.22) was observed in

Bakkhali estuary fish and shrimp assemblage 443

Table II. Fish and shrimp species recorded in the Bakkhali river estuary from December 2007 to August 2008 showing relative contribution (%) to the total abundance by stations and seasons. Station Species name Metapenaeus lysianassa (De Man, 1888) Ambassis dussumieri Cuvier, 1828 Macrobrachium villosimanus (Tiwari, 1949) Terapon jarbua (Forsskal, 1775) Gerres filamentosus Cuvier, 1829 Liza tade (Forsskal, 1775) Mystus gulio (Hamilton, 1822) Metapenaeus monoceros (Fabricius, 1798) Butis butis (Hamilton, 1822) Acanthopagrus latus (Houttuyn, 1782) Eleutheronema tetradactylum (Shaw, 1804) Glossogobius giuris (Hamilton, 1822) Valamugil speigleri (Bleeker, 1858-59) Cynoglossus cynoglossus (Hamilton, 1822) Pseudapocryptes elongatus (Cuvier 1816) Penaeus semisulcatus de Haan, 1844 Macrobrachium rude (Heller, 1862) Mugil cephalus Linnaeus, 1758 Johnius belangerii (Cuvier, 1830) Exopalaemon stylifera (H. Milne-Edwards, 1840) Sardinella fimbriata (Valenciennes, 1847) Escualosa thoracata (Valenciennes, 1847) Penaeus indicus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 Metapenaeus brevicornis (H. Milne Edwards, 1837) Portunus pelagicus (Linnaeus, 1758) Scylla spp. Sillago sihama (Forsskal, 1775) Platycephalus indicus (Linnaeus, 1758) Setipinna taty (Valenciennes, 1848) Apocryptes bato (Hamilton, 1822) Scatophagus argus (Linnaeus, 1766) Cynoglossus lingua Hamilton, 1822 Ilisha megaloptera (Swainson, 1839) Penaeus japonicus Bate, 1888 Eleotris fusca (Forster, 1801) Penaeus monodon Fabricius, 1798 Lutjanus johnii (Bloch, 1792) Siganus javus (Linnaeus, 1766) Nuchequula blochii (Valenciennes, 1835) Coilia dussumieri Valenciennes, 1848 Macrobrachium rosenbergii (De Man, 1879) Labeo rohita (Hamilton, 1822) Plotosus canius Hamilton, 1822 Oreochromis niloticus niloticus (Linnaeus, 1758) Hyporhamphus limbatus (Valenciennes, 1847) Total number of taxa Total number of individuals Mean Stdev Shannon Stdev Margalef Stdev Code Mly Adu Mvi Tjr Gft Ltd Mgl Mmc Bbt Alt Etd Ggr Vsg Ccg Plc Pss Mrd Mcp Jbg Esf Sfb Etc Pic Mbc Ppg Scy Ssh Pid Stt Abt Sag Clg Imp Pjp Efc Pmd Ljn Sjv Lbc Cdm Mrb Lrh Pcn Tnt Hlb Total ind. 3152 2685 2240 1687 1684 1130 861 810 769 432 415 396 395 194 183 164 154 150 147 130 124 99 65 48 47 37 36 31 31 24 23 22 21 18 15 11 10 8 6 5 3 2 1 1 1 45 18,467 1026 803 (%) 17.07 14.54 12.13 9.14 9.12 6.12 4.66 4.39 4.16 2.34 2.25 2.14 2.14 1.05 0.99 0.89 0.83 0.81 0.80 0.70 0.67 0.54 0.35 0.26 0.25 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 St1 (%) 15.27 16.83 7.35 11.10 12.45 6.96 2.77 3.85 5.56 2.35 3.17 1.82 1.96 0.00 1.38 1.26 1.15 1.02 0.00 1.00 0.79 0.76 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28 12,996 1444 866.75 2.01 0.33 2.17 0.13 St2 (%) 21.35 9.10 23.49 4.46 1.21 4.13 9.16 5.67 0.84 2.30 0.05 2.91 2.56 3.55 0.07 0.00 0.09 0.31 2.69 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.86 0.68 0.15 0.35 0.42 0.22 0.18 0.40 0.15 0.33 0.27 0.20 0.18 0.07 0.11 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 41 5471 607.89 477.25 1.81 0.56 3.84 0.66 Win (%) 27.57 20.64 13.38 9.83 10.90 4.57 0.10 0.22 0.10 2.43 0.00 1.43 0.30 0.56 0.00 1.56 1.42 1.43 0.00 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.32 0.13 0.34 0.09 0.00 0.11 0.22 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.14 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 10,487 1747.83 421.99 1.69 0.24 2.71 0.24 Season Premon (%) 4.45 8.89 14.28 6.00 7.73 7.52 3.10 4.50 12.74 1.89 7.08 2.80 5.22 0.73 3.12 0.00 0.09 0.00 2.51 0.00 2.11 1.69 1.11 0.00 0.22 0.39 0.00 0.38 0.39 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.17 0.00 0.10 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 32 5863 977.17 207.77 2.42 0.13 3.30 1.23 Mon (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.36 4.16 9.92 31.55 24.70 0.57 3.12 0.00 3.87 2.74 4.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.05 16 2117 352.83 22.81 1.62 0.23 1.56 0.40

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

premonsoon while the lowest mean value (1.569 0.40) was observed during monsoon. Significant differences were found for Margalefs index for both stations (F1,16 011.34, P 00.004) and seasons (F1,16 06.757, P 00.008).

Species assemblage The analysis of similarity (ANOSIM) showed significant difference in assemblage structure between stations (Global R 00.365; P 00.008) (Table III). Species assemblage at each station was found to be

444

Md. Rashed-Un-Nabi et al.

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

Figure 4. Temporal and spatial variations of (A) ShannonWiener index and Abundance and (B) Margalef diversity index and Abundance of the Bakkhali sh and shrimp assemblage. St, station.

highly diverse and at St1 Liza tade (15.24%), Terapon jarbua (15.10%), Gerres filamentosus (13.45%) and Acanthopagrus latus (10.86%) were found to be the most dominant ( 10%) species, while at St 2 Terapon jarbua (12.48%), Cynoglossus cynoglossus (11.57%) and Mystus gulio (11.16%) were found to

be the dominant ( 10%) species (Table IV). According to SIMPER results, other contributory species to the assemblage structure of the studied area were Glossogobius giurus, Metapenaeus monoceros, Metapenaeus lysianassa, Valamugil speigleri, Ambassis dussumieri and Butis butis (Table IV).

Table III. Result of one-way ANOSIM (R value and signicant levels) and SIMPER analysis of sh and shrimp abundance between stations and different seasons. ANOSIM Average dissimilarity (%) 40.46 SIMPER Most discriminating species Metapenaeus lysianassa Contribution (%) 10.23

Groups St1 vs. St2

R 0.036

P 0.08

Winter vs. Premonsoon Winter vs. Monsoon Premonsoon vs. Monsoon

Analysis of similarity results among different seasons Global R00.726 P 00.001 0.491 0.04 34.70 1 0.02 48.29 0.594 0.02 39.95

Butis butis Metapenaeus lysianassa Macrobrachium villosimanus

10.62 18.36 11.42

Bakkhali estuary fish and shrimp assemblage 445

Table IV. Average similarity and discriminating sh and shrimp in each station using SIMPER analysis. Average similarity (%) Station 1 (69.63%) Contributory species Species Liza tade Terapon jarbua Gerres filamentosus Acanthopagrus latus Glossogobius giurus Valamugil speigleri Metapenaeus lysianassa Mystus gulio Ambassis dussumieri Macrobrachium villosimanus (%) 15.24 15.10 13.45 10.86 9.76 8.17 5.69 5.61 5.47 4.26 Station 2 (69.53%) Contributory species Species Terapon jarbua Cynoglossus cynoglossus Mystus gulio Liza tade Glossogobius giurus Metapenaeus monoceros Acanthopagrus latus Valamugil speigleri Gerres filamentosus Butis butis Metapenaeus lysianassa (%) 12.48 11.57 11.16 9.66 9.36 8.58 7.67 6.86 5.65 5.59 4.27

observed by cluster analysis. Two clusters were identified the first consists of St2 during monsoon and premonsoon period along with St1 during monsoon, and the second group consists of St1 during premonsoon and winter along with St2 during winter (Figure 5). Canonical correspondence analysis CCA eigenvalues of the first four axes were 0.36 (CCA1), 0.34 (CCA2), 0.11 (CCA3), and 0.10 (CCA4). Speciesenvironment Pearson correlation coefficients for the first four axes were 0.96, 0.92, 0.82, and 0.79, respectively. The cumulative percentage variance of species for the first four axes (CCA 14) was 49.18. The first and second axes modelled 19.4 and 18.1% of species data, respectively. Therefore, the results obtained from the first two axes were plotted (Figure 6). However, the vector length of a given variable indicates the importance of that variable in CCA analysis. Salinity (0.92), which has the longest vector along the first axis, was significantly correlated with premonsoon at St1 (Figure 6). Furthermore, transparency was also significantly associated (0.81) with winter season of St1 and St2. As shown in CCA ordination (Figure 6), high values of salinity concentration are the most significant water parameters for Butis butis and Eleutheronema tetradactylum. High values of water transparency was associated with occurrence of Ambassis dussumieri and Gerres filamentosus. High values of pH are associated with the occurrence of Valamugil speigleri, Glossogobius giurus and Metapenaeus monoceros. However, Acanthopagrus latus showed the highest association with dissolved oxygen (DO), while no species was found to be closely associated with temperature.

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

A highly diverse species assemblage was also observed among all seasons through SIMPER analysis (Table III). Significant difference were observed for temporal community structure of the studied area (Global R 00.726; P 00.001) with a clear separation of different seasons. The pair-wise comparison of seasons also showed distinct separation (Table V). Metapenaeus lysianassa (17.19%) and Ambassis dussumieri (13.43%) were found to be the most contributory species during winter, while during the premonsoon season it was Velamugil spaglari (11.23%) and Mystus gulio (10.38%). On the other hand, Mystas gulio (21.21%) and Terapon jarbua (17.12%) were found the most contributory species during the monsoon season (Table V). At the similarity level of 65%, no marked separation, either for the stations or for the seasons, was

Table V. Average similarity and discriminating sh and shrimp in each season using SIMPER analysis. Average similarity (%) Winter (79.07%) Contributory species Species Metapenaeus lysianassa Ambassis dussumieri Liza tade Terapon jarbua Macrobrachium villosimanus Glossogobius giurus Acanthopagrus latus Gerres filamentosus Metapenaeus monoceros (%) 17.19 13.43 10.44 10.20 9.68 9.49 9.32 8.90 4.33 Premonsoon (72.65%) Contributory species Species Valamugil speigleri Mystus gulio Terapon jarbua Liza tade Butis butis Acanthopagrus latus Glossogobius giurus Metapenaeus lysianassa Ambassis dussumieri Macrobrachium villosimanus Gerres filamentosus (%) 11.23 10.38 9.76 9.52 8.5 7.61 7.21 7.16 7.07 6.69 5.97 Monsoon (78.87%) Contributory species Species Mystus gulio Terapon jarbua Metapenaeus monoceros Liza tade Glossogobius giurus Valamugil speigleri Acanthopagrus latus Gerres filamentosus (%) 21.21 17.12 13.68 11.49 9.65 8.01 7.71 7.16

446

Md. Rashed-Un-Nabi et al. St2, where lower transparency was observed in St2 compared to St1. This may be due to the higher water turbulence downstream (St2) due to strong tidal fluctuation and anthropogenic causes such as the presence of the fish harbour, jetty, etc., in the mouth of the river (St2). Comparatively lower dissolved oxygen was observed at both stations. Hena & Khan (2009) also reported a lower level of DO in the same estuary (1.895.37 mg/l). This may be due to the nearby domestic, agricultural and industrial waste water discharges which affect the water and sediment quality and lead to a hypoxic condition, as stated by Van Eck et al. (1991). Fluctuations in water transparency influence the primary productivity which ultimately affects the fish distribution (Arthington & Welcome 1995; McAllister et al. 2001). Rozengurt & Hedgepeth (1989) reported changes in natural recruitment and species abundance in the Caspian Sea due to an increase in salinity. McAllister et al. (2001) also reported changes in species abundance due to a salinity increase. According to Maes et al. (2004), dissolved oxygen is one of the most important factors for fish abundance and distribution. Fish communities are highly affected by temperature within estuaries (Cyrus & Mclean 1996). A sudden increase or decrease in water temperature may cause fish mortality (Blaber 2000). Environmental parameters such as temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, water transparency and pH play an important role for species abundance and diversity (Whitfield 1999), especially for the tropical regions where the fluctuation of these parameters are frequently due to seasonal changes (Blaber 2000). The Bakkhali river estuary is no exception. Significant temporal differences were observed for temperature, salinity, water transparency and dissolved oxygen during the present study which may almost certainly affect the assemblage structure. Species composition The average catch per net at St2 (7.5494.39 kg) was found to be significantly higher compared to St1 (1.8990.36 kg). St2 is located in the river mouth and possesses a highly diverse type of larger-sized fish compared to St1. On the other hand, at St1 a small area of salt marsh is situated nearby, which acts as the nursery ground for small and juvenile fishes. As fish grew, their daily food requirement also increased and fish began to migrate to the river mouth/estuary in the search of food (Davies & Day 1986). Hence, larger fish were caught and the total weight of the catch per net was higher at St2. A total of 45 fish and shrimp species were recorded during the study. Among them are Metapenaeus lysianassa, Ambassis dussumieri, Macrobrachium

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

Figure 5. Dendrogram (A) showing cluster based on BrayCurtis similarity matrix of catch composition, and the ordination in 2D (B) using MDS on the same similarity matrix. St, station; W, winter; p, pre-monsoon; m, monsoon.

Discussion Environmental parameters During the present study, no significant spatial variation was observed for temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen and pH. This is most probably due to the presence of a rubber dam upstream of this river, which prevents freshwater influx in this area during winter and premonsoon and ultimately the whole area, i.e. both St1 and St2, is similarly governed by the brackish water entering through tidal influence. In the same way, during monsoon, the rubber dam remains open and huge amount of freshwater is discharged through the dam. As a consequence, the water parameters in both stations remain the same. However, a significant difference in water transparency was observed between St1 and

Bakkhali estuary fish and shrimp assemblage 447

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

Figure 6. The CCA ordination of species abundance and environmental parameters (code for each species is given in Table II; St, station; p, premonsoon; m, monsoon; w, winter).

villosimanus, Terapon jarbua, Gerres filamentosus, Liza tade, Mystus gulio, Metapenaeus monoceros, Butis butis, Acanthopagrus latus, Eleutheronema tetradactylum, Glossogobius giurus, Valamugil speigleri, and Cynoglossus cynoglossus, each contributing more than 1% of the composition. Islam et al. (1992) reported about 185 species from the coastal waters of Bangladesh collected from the estuarine set bagnet. On the other hand Hossain et al. (2007) reported about 161 species collected by different types of net from Naaf river estuary located around 50 km from the present study site. A smaller number of species observed in the present investigation is most probably due to the use of only one type of net, i.e. Char jal which catches only species living very near to the shore and closer to the bottom. Another reason is the controlled environment of the Bakkhali estuary by the rubber dam limiting the species abundance. Also, the daminduced changes in water characteristics may have profound effects on species numbers in the river (McAllister et al. 2001). During the study period, only one exclusively freshwater fish (Labeo rohita) was collected. The rubber dam, constructed at the upper stream of the river, creates an unusual environment. During the monsoon season huge amounts of freshwater flow into the river and create a freshwater-influenced estuarine environment where salinity ranges were found to vary from 2.3390.57 to 5.3390.57. This supports the findings of the presence of a freshwater species in the investigated area. Freshwater fishes are

usually incapable of osmoregulating in saltwater and consequently tend to be found in estuaries only when salinities decline to very low levels during periods of heavy freshwater discharge (Potter & Hyndes 1999). Species abundance The species abundance found in the Bakkhali river estuary is composed of small numbers of species with high contribution and a large number of species whose contributions are very negligible, a common feature of estuarine faunal populations (Gaughan et al. 1990; Harrison & Whitfield 1990; Drake & Arias 1991; Harris & Cyrus 1995; Whitfield 1999). The number of taxa in this study (45 species) was found to be lower than in the Naaf river estuary, another estuary close to the study area (Hossain et al. 2007). However, these types of judgements must be based on differences in sampling gear, sampling period and most importantly habitat characteristics. Moreover, each estuarine system may have a different abiotic environment (Blaber 1997), resulting from the tidal range, freshwater input, geomorphology and human pressure (Dyer 1997; McLusky & Elliott 2004) which also affects the species abundance. So a difference in species abundance is not likely to be the exception. A remarkably lower number of species was observed in the upstream area (St1) of the Bakkhali river estuary, but the diversity index H? was much higher. Out of 45 total species, 17 were relatively

448

Md. Rashed-Un-Nabi et al. respectively. This may be due to the use of Char jal, a different gear compared with the previous study, and a higher average salinity gradient for most of the sampling period. Species diversity Seasonal variation in species diversity is a very common phenomenon in tropical estuaries and the estuary studied here is not different. However, no significant difference for the diversity values (both ShannonWiener and Margalef) between the stations indicated that the ecosystem for both stations was unique. However, the diversity values were lower than the value reported by Hossain et al. (2007) where the Shanon value was found to be 2.6. This difference may be due to the use of multigear fishing materials in the Naaf river estuary, the controlled environment of the Bakkhali estuary which limits the species interaction from the upstream communities and scarcity of marine species which normally come to the estuary for breeding. Although several studies have reported the dominance of the resident species in the estuaries (Thompson 1966; Hotos & Vlahos 1998), in the case of the Bakkhali estuary no species was found to be dominant. Rather than a single species, five to six species were found to be dominant at different stations and different seasons. Blaber (2000) also stated that the estuarine resident species are a relatively insignificant proportion of the fish fauna available in an estuary and are generally all relatively small-sized fish. Metapenaeus lysianassa was found most abundant overall (17.07%). However, the species showed its maximum abundance during the winter season (27.57%) and at St2 (21.35%). As M. lysianassa is a marine-dominant species, it only appears during the winter season at St2 where the salinity is very high. Ambassis dussumieri also showed the same trend except of higher abundance (16.83%) at St1. This is most probably due to the presence of salt marshes at St1. A similar trend was observed for Macrobrachium villosimanus except for the fact that they were dominant during premonsoon (14.28%) and winter (13.38%). As this species is a brackish species, it shows a higher abundance during premonsoon and winter seasons. Mystus gulio and M. monoceros were more abundant during the monsoon season at St2, while M. monoceros is a brackish to marine habitat species. However, their higher abundance at St2 during the monsoon period may be due to spawning. The same is also probably true for freshwater to brackish-water species such as Mystus gulio.

common in the upper stream which is characterized by juveniles of large-sized species and adults of small-sized species. The main reason for the high abundance of juvenile fishes is the presence of a salt marsh and seagrass bed at St1. These observations agree with the comments of Hena et al. (2007) seagrass and salt marsh habitats are among the most productive ecosystems in the world in terms of the quantity of vegetation production closely linked to the high production rates of associated fisheries. The lower stream (St2) has a wider zone and is characterized by strong tidal influence and mangroves. As a consequence, relatively higher numbers of species with brackish to marine origin were captured in this zone. Downstream, water transparency showed higher values (28.0065.33 cm) when compared to other estuaries of Bangladesh (Mahmood 1986). This is because freshwater flows are scarce here for a major part of the year leading to the presence of marine species which have been described as being related to clearer waters (Blaber et al. 1997). The exception occurred during monsoon months (June, July) when the rubber dam is opened causing a flushing effect by freshwater flows from the upper, hilly areas. An estuarine water body along with mangrove plants is the most productive region for zooplankton especially for shrimps and prawns (Hena & Khan 2009). The Bakkhali river estuary is influenced by mangrove plants including Avicennia alba, A. marina, and Acanthus ilicifolius, which have created a huge potential habitat for phytoplankton, zooplankton, shellfish and fish larvae. Plankton communities living in mangrove waters are well adapted to the water motion (Alongi 2009). Whether a source of food, shade, or refuge, mangrove forests are an important habitat for coastal organisms that either float or swim on the ebb and flood of the tide (Alongi 2009). Following this pattern, the Bakkhali river estuary also supports a huge abundance of shellfish of both marine and brackish origin. Although mangroves support fisheries by playing a significant role as nursery ground for shrimps including the giant tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) which is the major species of the industrial bottom trawl fishery of Bangladesh (Islam & Haque 2004), the present study did not show the same result for the penaeid group where P. monodon, P. indicus, P. semisulcatus and P. japonicus were found to be 0.06, 0.35, 0.89 and 0.10%, respectively. The same was encountered for Macrobrachium rosenbergii (0.02%), although it is the major species found in different estuarine studies of Bangladesh. On the other hand, Metapenaeus lysianassa (bird shrimp), Macrobrachium villosimanus and Metapenaeus monoceros contributed 17.07, 12.13 and 4.39% of total catch,

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

Bakkhali estuary fish and shrimp assemblage 449 Species assemblage Regarding spatial and temporal fish and shrimp assemblage structure, two major groups were indicated by cluster analysis in the Bakkhali river estuary. Group 1 comprises the sample of the monsoon season from St1 and St2 along with the premonsoon season from St2 within a 65% similarity level. The capture of abundant large-sized species in the premonsoon and monsoon seasons and the absence of the major contributing species like Metapaeneus lysianassa, M. villosimanus and Ambassis dussumieri substantiates this. The sample taken from the lower stream during the premonsoon season at St2 included large numbers of adult fish species. The abundant presence of A. dussumieri, Terapon jarbua, Gerres filamentosus, Liza tade and Butis butis also supports this grouping. Group 2 comprises the samples from St1 and St2 during the winter season and samples from St1 during the premonsoon period. In general, samples from St1 and St2 during winter showed the same trend on the basis of catchability. Seasonality is the most important feature among different studied parameters affecting the fish and shrimp assemblage, similar to results from other estuaries (Whitfield 1989; Loneragan & Potter 1990; Drake & Arias 1991; Barletta-Bergan et al. 2002; Young & Potter 2003). In general, differences between seasons were observed to be more pronounced in this study. According to Lam (1983), the seasonal water variability in the spawning area has an important influence on the spawning activity, and on nursery areas (McErlean et al. 1973). Canonical correspondence analysis In CCA, species plotted closer to the vector, have stronger relationships with them. Species located near the origin either do not show a strong relationship to any of the variables or are found at average values of environmental variables (Marshall & Elliott, 1998). In this study, salinity, water transparency and pH were found to be three significant variables affecting species composition in the studied estuary. However, temperature and DO were not found to be significant. Half of the species in the estuary had average values in relation to environmental variables. Only two species, Eleutheronema tetradactylum and B. butis, indicated a strong response to the longitudinal salinity gradient. The five variables measured in this study explained species distributions well compared with most other estuarine studies where salinity and transparency were found to be the most influential factors for fish distribution patterns. For example, Marshall & Elliott (1998) found that five environmental variables accounted for 18.4% of the total species variation even though they included bottom, mid and surface values of each variable in CCA. Rakocinski et al. (1996) used 11 environmental variables that together explained only 21.9% of the total species variations in CCA. On the other hand, Martino & Able (2003) explained 29.9% of the total species variation in Mullica River Estuary, New Jersey, using five environmental variables that included salinity and geographic distance. However, during this study, environmental variables accounted for 49.18% of the total species variation. These results are also in agreement with Akin et al. (2005) for the Koycegiz Lagoon Estuary, Turkey. Conclusion In the Bakkhali river estuary, environmental influence was apparently more extensive during premonsoon and winter, when water transparency and salinity fluctuation leads to an increase in diversity. In this study, seasonality of the environmental conditions explained the major variations of the fish and shrimp assemblage. Seasonal variations occurred not only in total abundance and diversity, but also in the structure of the species assemblage of the Bakkhali river estuary. Besides seasonal variations, the assemblage also exhibited a defined spatial pattern. The migrating marine species Metapenaeus lysianassa was more abundant in the shallow salt marsh zones, while estuarine residents showed more or less equal distribution throughout the seasons except for Mystus gulio. The presence of this species seems to be more related to the spawning season during monsoons. In the Bakkhali river estuary, the four common fish species Ambassis dussumieri, Terapon jarbua, Gerres filamentosus, Liza tade were present for most of the sampling time, which is possibly due to their higher salinity tolerance. Favourable environmental conditions, mainly salinity, enable these fish species to spawn. Therefore, it can be said that these species use the Bakkhali estuary as a spawning ground.

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

References
Able KW. 1999. Measures of juvenile sh habitat quality: examples from a National Estuarine Research Reserve. In: Beneka LR, editor. Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22, Bethesda, MD: America Fisheries Society, p 20732. Akin S, Buhan E, Winemiller KO, Yilmaz H. 2005. Fish assemblage structure of Koycegiz Lagoon Estuary, Turkey: Spatial and temporal distribution patterns in relation to environmental variation. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 64:67184. Akin S, Winemiller KO, Gelwick FP. 2003. Seasonal and temporal variation in sh and macrocrustecean assemblage

450

Md. Rashed-Un-Nabi et al.

Fishery Resources of Sri Lanka. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organisation. 400 pages. Drake P, Arias AM. 1991. Composition and seasonal uctuations of the ichthyoplankton community in a shallow tidal channel of Cadiz bay (S.W. Spain). Journal of Fish Biology 39:24563. Dyer KR. 1997. Estuaries. A Physical Introduction, 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. 195 pages. Elliott M, Hemingway KL. 2002. Fishes in Estuaries. Oxford: Blackwell. 636 pages. Elliott M, OReilly MG, Taylor CJL. 1990. The Forth estuary: A nursery and overwintering area for North Sea shes. Hydrobiologia 195:89103. Environmental Community Analysis. 2000. ECOM Version-1.32. Designed by Henderson PA, Seaby RMH, PISCES Conservation LTD, Pennington UK. Computer Program. Everett RA, Ruiz GM. 1993. Coarse woody debris as a refuge from predation in aquatic communities: An experimental test. Oecologia 93:47586. Fischer W, Whitehead PJP, editors. 1974. FAO Species Identication Sheets for Fishery Purposes. Eastern Indian Ocean (shing area 57) and Western Central Pacic (shing area 71). Vols. 14. Rome: FAO. Franco-Gordo C, Godnez-Domnguez E, Suarez-Morales E, Vasquez-Yeomans L. 2003. Diversity of ichthyoplankton in the central Mexican Pacic: A seasonal survey. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 57:11121. Fraser TH. 1997. Abundance, seasonality, community indices, trends and relationships with physicochemical factors of trawled sh in upper Charlotte Harbor, Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 60:73963. Garcia AM, Vieira JP, Winemiller KO. 2003. Effects of 1997e1998 El Nino on the dynamics of the shallow-water sh assemblage of the Patos Lagoon estuary (Brazil). Estuarine, Coast and Shelf Science 57:489500. Gaughan DJ, Neira FJ, Beckley LE, Potter IC. 1990. Composition, seasonality and distribution of ichthyoplankton in the Lower Swan estuary, south-western Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 41:52943. Gunter G. 1961. Some relations of estuarine organisms to salinity. Limnology and Oceanography 6:18290. Hagan SM, Able KW. 2003. Seasonal changes of the pelagic sh assemblage in a temperate estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 56:1529. Harris SA, Cyrus DP. 1995. Occurrence of larval shes in the St. Lucia estuary, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science 16:33350. Harris SA, Cyrus DP, Beckley LE. 1999. The larval sh assemblage in nearshore coastal waters off the St Lucia estuary, South Africa. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 49:789811. Harris SA, Cyrus DP, Beckley LE. 2001. Horizontal trends in larval sh diversity and abundance along an ocean estuarine gradient on the northern KwaZulu-Natal coast, South Africa. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 53:22135. Harrison TD, Whiteld AK. 1990. Composition, distribution and abundance of ichthyoplankton in the Sundays river estuary. South African Journal of Zoology 25:61168. Heip CHR, Herman PMJ. 1995. Major biological processes in European tidal estuaries: A synthesis of the JEEP-92 project. Hydrobiologia 311:17. Hena MKA, Khan MAA. 2009. Coastal and estuarine resources of Bangladesh: Management and conservation issues. Maejo International Journal of Science and Technology 3:31342. Hena MKA, Short FT, Sharifuzzaman SM, Hasan M, Rezowan M, Ali M. 2007. Salt marsh and seagrass communities of Bakkhali Estuary, Coxs Bazar, Bangladesh. Estuarine, Coastal and Self Science 75:7278.

structure in Mad Island Marsh Estuary, Texas. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 57:26982. Alongi DM. 2009. The Energetics of Mangrove Forests. London: Springer. 212 pages. Arau?jo FG, Bailey RG, Williams WP. 1999. Spatial and temporal variations in sh populations in the upper Thames estuary. Journal of Fish Biology 55:83653. Arthington AH, Welcome RL. 1995. The conditions of large river systems of the world. In: Armantrout NB, editor. Conditions of the Worlds Aquatic Habitats. Proceedings of the World Fisheries Congress, Theme 1. Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA: Science Publishers Inc. p 4575. Barletta-Bergan A, Barletta M, Saint-Paula U. 2002. Structure and seasonal dynamics of larval sh in the Caete river estuary in North Brazil. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 54:193206. Barry JP, Yoklavich MM, Cailliet GM, Ambrose DA, Antrim BS. 1996. Trophic ecology of the dominant shes in Elkhorn Slough, California, 19741980. Estuaries 19:11518. Blaber SJM. 1997. Fish and Fisheries of Tropical Estuaries (Fish and Fisheries Series, 22). London: Chapman and Hall. 367 pages. Blaber SJM. 2000. Tropical Estuarine Fishes: Ecology, Exploitation and Conservation. Oxford: Blackwell Science. 372 pages. Blaber SJM, Blaber TG. 1980. Factors affecting the distribution of juvenile estuarine and inshore sh. Journal of Fish Biology 17:14362. Blaber SJM, Farmer MF, Milton DA, Pang J, Wong P, Ong B. 1997. The ichthyoplankton assemblages of Sarawak and Sabah estuaries: composition, distribution and afnities. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 45:197208. Bray JR, Curtis JT. 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecology Monographs 27:32549. Chowdhury ZA, Sanaullah M. 1991. A check list of the shrimps/ prawns of the Moheshkhali Channel, Coxs Bazar. Bangladesh, Journal of Zoology 19:14750. Claridge PN, Potter IC, Hardisy MW. 1986. Seasonal changes in movements, abundance, size composition and diversity of the sh fauna of the Severn estuary. Journal of the Marine Biology Association of the UK 66:22958. Clarke KR. 1993. Non parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18:11743. Clarke KR Warwick RM. 1994. Change in Marine Communities. An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. Plymouth: Natural Environment Research Council. 144 pages. Cowen RK, Hare JA, Fahay MP. 1993. Beyond hydrography: Can physical processes explain larval sh assemblages within the Middle Atlantic Bight? Bulletin of Marine Science 53:56787. Cowley PD, Whiteld AK. 2002. Biomass and production estimates of a sh community in a small South African estuary. Journal of Fish Biology 61:7489. Cyrus DP, Blaber SJM. 1992. Turbidity and salinity in a tropical Northern estuary and their inuence on sh distribution. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 35:54563. Cyrus DP, McLean S. 1996. Water temperature and the 1987 sh kill at Lake St Lucia on the south eastern coast of Africa. Southern African Journal of Aquatic Sciences 22:10510. Davies BR, Day JA. 1986. The biology and conservation of South Africas vanishing Waters. CEMS, University of Cape Town and the Wildlife Society of Southern Africa. 487 pages. Day Jr, JW, Hall CAS, Kemp WM, Yanez-Arancibia A. 1989. Estuarine Ecology. New York, NY: Wiley. 558 pages. DeBruin GHP, Russell BC, Bogusch A. 1995. FAO Species Identication Field Guide for Fishery Purposes. The Marine

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

Bakkhali estuary fish and shrimp assemblage 451

Hettler Jr, WF, Hare JA. 1998. Abundance and size of larval shes outside the entrance to Beaufort inlet, North Carolina. Estuaries 21:47699. Holbrook SJ, Schmitt RJ. 1989. Resource overlap, prey dynamics, and the strength of competition. Ecology 706:194353. Hossain MM. 1971. The commercial shes of the Bay of Bengal (survey for the development of sheries, East Pakistan, Chittagong). UNDP Project publication. No. 1 PAK 22:16. Hossain MS, Das NG, Chowdhury MSN. 2007. Fisheries management of the Naaf River. Coastal and Ocean Research Group of Bangladesh, Institute of Marine Sciences and Fisheries, University of Chittagong. 267 pages. Hossain S, Lin CK. 2001. Land use zoning for integrated coastal zone management: remote sensing, GIS and RRA approach in Coxs bazaar coast, Bangladesh. ITCZM monograph, No. 3, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand. 25 pages. Hotos GN, Vlahos N. 1998. Salinity tolerance of Mugil cephalus and Chelon labrosus (Pisces: Mugilidae) fry in experimental conditions. Aquaculture 167:32938. Islam MS, Khan MG, Quaym SA, Chowdhury SZA. 1992. Estuarine set bagnet shery of Bangladesh. Marine Fisheries Survey Management and Development Project, Dept. of Fisheries, Chittagong, Bangladesh. 50 pages. Islam MS, Haque M. 2004. The mangrove-based coastal and nearshore sheries of Bangladesh: Ecology, exploitation and management. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 14:15380 Jaureguizar AJ, Menni R, Bremec C, Mianza H, Lasta C. 2003. Fish assemblage and environmental patterns in the Ro de la Plata estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 56:92133. Jongman RH, Ter Braak CJF, Tongeren OFR. 1995. Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 299 pages. Kennish MJ. 1990. Biological sspects. In: Ecology of Estuaries, vol. II. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 391 pages. Kimmerer WJ, Cowan Jr JH, Miller LW, Rose KA. 2001. Analysis of an estuarine striped bass population: Effects of environmental conditions during early life. Estuaries 24:55674. Lam TJ. 1983. Environmental inuences of gonadal activity in sh. In: Hoar WS, Randall DJ, Donaldson EM, editors. Fish Physiology Vol. 9. London: Academic Press. p 65116. Lankford Jr TE, Targett TE. 1994. Suitability of estuarine nursery zones for juvenile weaksh (Cynoscion regalis): Effects of temperature and salinity on feeding, growth and survival. Marine Biology 119:61120. Loneragan NR, Potter IC. 1990. Factors inuencing community structure and distribution of different life-cycle categories of shes in shallow waters of a large Australian estuary. Marine Biology 16:2537. Maes J, Van Damme PA, Taillieu A, Ollevier F. 1998. Fish communities along an oxygen-poor salinity gradient (Zeeschelde Estuary, Belgium). Journal of Fish Biology 52:53446. Maes JS, Damme VP, Meire F, Ollevier. 2004. Statistical modeling of seasonal and environmental inuences on the population dynamics of an estuarine sh community. Marine Biology 145:103342. Mahmood N. 1986. Effects of shrimp farming and other impacts on mangroves of Bangladesh. Proceedings of The Workshop of Strategies for the Management of Fisheries and Aquaculture in Mangrove Ecosystems, Bangkok, Thailand, FAO Fisheries Report. No. 370. 248 pages. Mahmood NM, Chowdhury JU, Hossain MM, Haider SMB, Chowdhury SR. 1994. A Review of the State of Environment Relating to Marine Fisheries of Bangladesh. In: Holmgren S, editor. An Environmental Assessment of the Bay of Bengal Region. Report No. 67, Bay of Bengal Program. Madras, India. 247 pages. Margalef R. 1968. Perspectives in Ecological Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 111 pages. Marshall S, Elliott M. 1998. Environmental inuences on the sh assemblages of the Humber Estuary, U.K. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 46:17584. Martino EJ, Able KW. 2003. Fish assemblages across the marine to low salinity transition zone of a temperate estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 56:96987. Mazid MA. 2002. Development of Fisheries in Bangladesh. Plans and Strategies for Income Generation and Poverty Alleviation. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Nasima Mazid Publications. 176 pages. McAllister DE, John F, Craig, Davidson N, Delany S, Seddon M. 2001. Biodiversity Impacts of Large Dams Background Paper No. 1 prepared for IUCN/UNEP/WCD International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and the United Nations Environmental Programme. 49 pages. McErlean AJ, OConnor SG, Mihursky JA, Gibson CI. 1973. Abundance, diversity and seasonal patterns of estuarine sh populations. Estuarine, Coastal and Marine Science 1:1936. McLusky DS, Elliott M. 2004. The Estuarine Ecosystem. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 214 pages. Nixon SW, Oviatt CA, Frithsen J, Sullivan BJ. 1986. Nutrients and the productivity of estuarine and coastal marine ecosystems. Journal of the Limnological Society of South Africa 12:4371. Ogburn-Matthews V, Allen DM. 1993. Interactions among some dominant estuarine nekton species. Estuaries 16:84050. Peterson MS, Ross ST. 1991. Dynamics of littoral shes and decapods along a coastal riverestuarine gradient. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 33:46783. Potter IC, Hyndes GA. 1999. Characteristics of the ichthyofaunas of southwestern Australian estuaries, including comparisons with Holarctic estuaries and estuaries elsewhere in temperate Australia: A review. Australian Journal of Ecology 24:395421. Powles H, Auger F, Fitzgerald GJ. 1984. Nearshore ichthyoplankton of a north temperate estuary. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 41:165363. Rakocinski CF, Baltz DM, Fleeger JW. 1992. Correspondence between environmental gradients and the community structure in Mississippi Sound as revealed by canonical correspondence analysis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 80:135257. Rakocinski CF, Lyczkowski-Shultz J, Richardson SL. 1996. Ichthyoplankton assemblage structure in Mississippi sound as revealed by canonical correspondence analysis. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 43:23757. Ramos S, Cowen RK, Re P, Bordalo AA. 2006. Temporal and spatial distribution of larval sh assemblages in the Lima estuary (Portugal). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 66:30314. Raynie CR, Shaw RF. 1994. Ichthyoplankton abundance along a recruitment corridor from offshore spawning to estuarine nursery ground. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 39:42150. Raz-Guzman A, Huidobro L. 2002. Fish communities in two environmentally different estuarine systems of Mexico. Journal of Fish Biology 61:18295. Rogers SG, Targett TE, Von Sant SB. 1984. Fish nursery use in Georgia salt marsh estuaries: The inuence of springtime freshwater conditions. Transactions of American Fisheries Society 113:595606. Rozengurt MA, Hedgepeth JW. 1989. The impact of altered river ow on the ecosystem of the Caspian Sea. Review of Aquatic Sciences 1:33762. Sanchez A, Raz-Guzman A. 1997. Distribution patterns of tropical estuarine brachyuran crabs in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Crustacean Biology 17:60920.

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

452

Md. Rashed-Un-Nabi et al.

Wagner MC, Austin HM. 1999. Correspondence between environmental gradients and summer littoral sh assemblages in low salinity reaches of the Chesapeake Bay, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 177:197212. Weinstein MP. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nursery for shes and shellsh in Cape Fear River estuary, North Carolina, USA. US Fish and Wildlife Service Fishery Bulletin 77:33957. Weinstein MP. 1985. Distributional ecology of shes inhabiting warm-temperate and tropical estuaries: community relationships and implications. In: Yanez-Arancibia A, editor., Fish Community Ecology in Estuaries and Coastal Lagoons: Towards an Ecosystem Integration. Universidad Nacional Auton oma de Mexico, Mexico, p 285309. Weinstein MP, Weiss SL, Walters MF. 1980. Multiple determinants of community structure in shallow marsh habitats, Cape Fear River Estuary, North Carolina, USA. Marine Biology 58:22743. Weisberg SB, Wilson HT, Himchak P, Baum T, Allen R. 1996. Temporal trends in abundance of sh in the tidal Delaware River. Estuaries 19:72329. Whiteld AK. 1989. Ichthyoplankton in a Douthern African surf zone: Nursery area for the postlarvae of estuarine associated sh species? Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 29:53347. Whiteld AK. 1994. An estuary-association classication for the shes of southern Africa. South African Journal of Science 90:41117. Whiteld AK. 1999. Ichthyofaunal assemblages in estuaries: A South African case study. Review of Fish Biology and Fisheries 9:15186. Whitmarsh D, Pipitone C, Badalamenti F, DAnna G. 2003. The economic sustainability of Artisanal sheries: The case of the trawl ban in the Gulf of Castellammaare, NW Sicily. Marine Policy 27:48997. Young GC, Potter IC. 2003. Do the characteristics of the ichthyoplankton in an articial and a natural entrance channel of a large estuary differ? Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 56:76579. Zimmerman RJ, Minello TJ. 1984. Densities of Penaeus aztecus, Penaeus setiferus and other natant macrofauna in a Texas salt marsh. Estuaries 7:42133.

Downloaded by [77.6.117.5] at 09:38 21 December 2011

Sanvicente-Anorve L, Flores-Coto C, Chiappa-Carrara X. 2000. Temporal and spatial scales of ichthyoplankton distribution in the southern Gulf of Mexico. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 51:46375. Shackell NL, Frank KT. 2000. Larval sh diversity on the Scotian shelf. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 57:174760. Sha M, Quddus MM. 1982a. Fisheries Resources of Bangladesh [Bangladesher Matshaya Sampad, in Bengali]. Dhaka: Bangla Academy. 444 pages. Sha M, Quddus MM. 1982b. Fisheries Resources of Bay of Bengal [Bonggoposagarer Matshaya Sampad, in Bengali]. Dhaka: Bangla Academy. 426 pages. Shannon CE. 1949. Communication in the presence of noise. Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers 37:1021. Shannon CE, Weaver W. 1963. The Mathematical Theory of Communications. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. 125 pages. Shenker JM, Dean JM. 1979. The utilization of an intertidal salt marsh creek by larval and juvenile shes: Abundance, diversity and temporal variation. Estuaries 2:15463. Sogard SM, Able KW. 1991. A comparison of eelgrass, sea lettuce macroalgae, and marsh creeks as habitats for epibenthic shes and decapods. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 33:50119. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1998. Biometry: The Principles and Practices of Statistics in Biological Research. New York, NY: WH Freeman and Company. 850 pages. Spjotvoll E, Stoline MR. 1973. An extension of the T-method of multiple comparisons to include the cases with unequal sample sizes. Journal of the American Statistical Association 68:97678 Szedlmayer ST, Able KW. 1996. Patterns of seasonal availability and habitat use by shes and decapod crustaceans in a southern New Jersey estuary. Estuaries 19:697709. Talwar PK, Jhingran AG. 1991. Inland shes of India and adjacent countries. IBH publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, Vol. 12. 1158 pages. Thomson JM. 1966. The grey mullets. Oceanography and Marine Biology. An Annual Review 4:30135. Thorman S. 1986. Physical factors affecting the abundance and species richness of shes in the shallow waters of the southern Bothnian Sea (Sweden). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 22:35769. Van Eck GTM, Pauw DN, Langenbergh VM, Verreet G. 1991. Emissies, gehalten, gedrag en effecten van (micro) verontreinigingen in het stroomgebied van de Schelde en Scheldeestuarium. Water 60:16481.

Editorial responsibility: Geir Ottersen