A suitable procedure based broadly on stratified random sampling for estimation of fish production from Hirakud reservoir is described. The total fish production for the years 1978 and 1979 from Hirakud reservoir, along with seasonal variation of different species is discussed

George, V.C.

Kesavan Nair, A.K.

Khan, A.A.

Varghese, M.D.

Aquatic Commons

Fish. Techno!. (1981) 18, 17-23 17 
Estimation of Fish Production from irakud Reservoir 
M.D.VARGHESE, A.K.KESAVAN NAIR*, V.C.GEORGE and A.A. KHAN 
Burla Research Centre of Central Institute of Fisheries Technology, Burla-768 017 
A suitable procedure based broadly on stratified random sampling for ~stimation 
of fish production from H.irakud reservoids described. The total fish productwn for the 
years 1978 and 1979 from Hirakud reservoir, along with seasonal variation of different 
species is discussed. 
Information on the magnitude of the 
fishery resources is essential for the develop-
ment, exploitation and conservation of any 
fishery. This can be achieved by assessing 
total fish production, species composition 
and variation in their abundance. Many 
workers have discussed estimation procedu-
res for marine fish production (Bal & 
Banerjee, 1951; Sukhatme et al. 1958; Pause 
& Sastri, 1960; Banerjee, 1971; Banerjee & 
Chakraborty, 1972; and Krishnan Kutty 
et al. 1973). Pillai (1960), Shetty & Ghosh 
(1963) and Anon (1969) have described the 
procedures for estimating riverine and estu-
arine fish statistics. But so far no systematic 
attempt has been made to estimate the 
actual fish production from reservoirs. 
According to Padam Singh et al. (1978) and 
Sastri et al. (1979), the state-wise inland fish 
production is based on marketing figures and 
personal judgement. Anon (1976) stressed 
the need for formulating procedures to esti-
mate the fish production from reservoirs. 
The foregoing is an account of such a pro-
cedure to assess the fish production from 
Hirakud reservoir. 
Materials and Methods 
Marketing centres and rail heads w~;re 
taken as the frame as the boats did not stick 
to definite landing centres. The weight of 
the fish despatched from each rail head could 
be obtained from the daily despatch registers 
of the railways. As only three rail heads 
were involved (Fig. 1) a complete enumera-
tion procedure was found feasible for assess-
ing the quantity of fish transported through 
*Present address: Central Institute of Fisheries 
Technology, Cochin-682 029 
Vol. 18, 1981 
•At:ttUlALD 
RAIL. HfiAO 
IIIIAP!PCETINO C:ftlff'R( 
Fig. 1. Hirakud reservoir, Hirakud dam, rail heads 
and marketing centres 
rail heads. But to estimate the market 
arrivals the quantity brought to the market 
were recorded by sample survey method. 
For this purpose the total number of marke-
ting centres, eight in number were listed 
(Fig. 1 ). A stratification based on the inten-
sity of arrivals (Krishnan Kutty et al. 1973) 
was made and this resulted in the formation 
of two strata, one containing two good 
markets (Jharsuguda and Ra:igarh) and the 
other containing the rest and it was possible 
to record the whole quantity of fish brought 
to the marketing centres on selected days. 
By making the marketing centre days as the 
sampling units, a single stage sampling was 
found sufficient. Thus broadly, a stratified 
random sampling design with marketing 
centres as the sampling units was planned. 
18 M. D. VARGHESE, A. K. KESAVAN NAIR, V. C. GEORGE AND A. A. KHAN 
Selection of the sampling units using 
simple random sampling, would not be 
appropriate as this involves space-time-varia-
tion apart from causing practical difficulties 
(Banerjee & Chakraborthy, 1972 and 
Krishnan Kutty et a!. 1973). Following 
these authors, the days of observation were 
selected systematically with a random start 
and the centres randomly, in such a way 
that each cluster of 5 or 7 days was adequa-
tely represented .. The number of l11arke-
ting centres· to be observed. for fixing the 
sampli1'1g error at 10% at the i11onthly level 
was found to be approximately 14 a month, 
from a preliminary sample. However to 
fully utilise the services of two field staff, 
14 days' work was programmed for each 
staff for sampling and for complete enumera-
tion. In order to work out the species wise 
composition of the total catch recorded at 
the ntil heads, a sampling of the fish packages 
brought to the. rail heads was also made. 
For this purpose 6-7 days of observations 
from the rail heads in turn were made, the 
observation days being chosen systematically 
ensuring that each week was represented 
alike. For the good centres closer to the 
rail heads, the sampling days were allotted 
on the· basis of the selection made for the 
rail head sampling by choming the following 
day as the day of observation. The first day 
was chosen randomlv out of the first three 
days of the month ai1d the subsequent days 
after every fourth or fifth day. An additional 
day of observation was made on the prece-
ding day of the rail head observation day 
in such a way that each cluster of two weeks 
of a month was represented alike. On tllis 
basis the sampling fraction worked out to 
7x 100 
2 X 30 £b 12 %, for a month of 30 days. 
For the stratum of-minor centres, the first 
day was selected randomly out of the first 
3 days of the month as was done for the 
other stratum. The other days are selected 
systematically (every other day basis). As 
alternate days are included in the sample, 
each cluster of 5 days was equally represented. 
The sampling fraction for this stratum was 
14X 100 
6 X 30 D:: 8 ~~- Thus the good centres 
for which the variability in the catch was 
high was sampled more frequently. 
The data were collected regularly both 
from rail heads and marketing centres as. 
programmed. In the case of the latter, the 
species wise quantity of fish brought by each 
vendor on the day of observation was 
recorded. With regard to rail heads, the 
quantity of fish despatched on each day of 
the month was copied down from the. con-
cerned registers. A sample from the lot 
brought for despatch was exarnined for 
species-wise and total weights. 
The monti1ly total arrivals for each 
n 
A NxD ~t­
stratum was estimated as: y = ·-- i= 1 1 
n 
where N, is the number of 'marketing 
centres in the stratum; D, the number of 
days in the month; n, the number of market-
ing-centre-days sampled and t, the total 
arrival at the ith marketing-centre-day 
included in the sample. The estimated 
variance of this estimate o:o._ 
raridom sampling basis was obtained by 
v (y) = N 2 D 3 _1 { ~t 2- ( ~ ti )2 } 
n n-1 t,:-i· n 
The estimated arrivals and their variances 
for the entire marketing centres for a month 
were obtained by adding the corresponding 
estimates for the two strata. The estimated 
annual total and its variance were worked 
out by pooling the respective monthly totals. 
The standard errors of the monthly estimates 
(of market arrivals) were worked out as, 
/2 ("') ~- =fv Y 
and the percentage errors as, 
x 100 
\ 
..; 
2 A 
~y 
1 
The corresponding annual estimates were 
obtained as, 
respectively. 
¥~v( Y) 
12 2 A X 100 
~~ y 
1 1 
FISHERY TECHNOLOGY 
FISH PRODUCTION FROM HIRAKUD RESERVOIR 19 
Table 1. Estimated month-wise landings brought to the marketing centres and rail heads during 
1978 and 1979 (in tonnes) 
1978 
Marketing Rail Total 
centres heads 
January 25.2 15.4 40.7 
February 19.0 20.4 39.4 
March 31.0 30.3 61.3 
April 29.3 47.8 77.1 
May 36.0 60.4 96.4 
June 37.0 81.7 118.7 
July 34.6 50.4 85.0 
August 25.5 29.1 54.6 
September 28.9 26.5 55.4 
October 25.6 20.8 46.4 
November 23.5 13.5 37.0 
December 26.3 15.4 41.7 
Total 342.0 411.7 753.7 
Results and Discussion 
Annual landings for 1978 and 1979 
were estimated at 753.7 tonnes and 749.8 
tonnes respectively (Table 1). But Jhingran 
120 ,. 
I \ 
' I I 
I \ I 
' 100 
---15179 
-- --liil'l"EI 
Fig. 2. Seasonal ca.tch of fish from Hirakud 
reservoir 
Vol. 18, 1981 
1979 
Marketing Rail Total 
centres head~ 
25.1 18.8 43.9 
20.6 19.1 39.7 
33.2 23.6 56.8 
39.4 28.6 68.0 
34.5 45.5 80.0 
43.0 38.9 81.9 
48.1 51.0 99.1 
29.2 32.0 61.2 
27.1 16.1 43.2 
33.8 25.4 59.2 
35.7 28.7 64.4 
33.9 18.5 52.4 
403.6 346.2 749.8 
& Tripathi (1976) have reported the annual 
production as 15.3 tonnes for 1965-66. This 
increase in output was attributable to the 
increased fishing effort by improved techni-
ques in recent years. Moreover their figures 
were not based on regular sampling. The 
arrivals at local market have been estimated 
at 342.0 tonnes (45 %) and 403.6 tonnes 
(54~~) respectively for 1978 and 1979 (Table 1 
and Fig. 3). The despatches from rail heads 
for the corresponding years figured 411.7 
tonnes (55%) and 346.2 tonnes (46 %). 
This discrepancy may be attributed to the 
disruption in the movement of boats conse-
quent on lowering of water level in 1979 
when compared to 1978. David eta!. (1969) 
have observed similar phenomenon in 
Tungabhadra reservoir. 
The percentage of error was the same 
(2.6 %) in both the years and the &tandard 
errors were in the order of 8.7 and 10.4 
tonnes in 1978 and 1979 respectively. With 
regard to monthly estimates, the standard 
error ranged between 1 to 4 and 1 to 6 tonnes 
for 1978 and 1979 respectively. The 
percentage error figured 4.1 to 12.2% and 
5 to 13.8% for the corresponding years 
(Table 2). In general a tendency for higher 
values of error associated with higher quan-
tity was observed. This justified an alloca-
tion proportional to the yield, as a near 
optimum one (Hansen et al. 1953) and hence 
the increased sampling fraction for the stratum 
containing the two good centres. 
20 M. D. VARGHESE, A. K. KESA VAN NAIR, V. C. GEORGE AND A. A. KHAN 
Table 2. Month-wise estimated market arrivals (in tonnes), standard errors of the estimates and 
percentage errors in 1978 and 1979 
Esimated market Standard error Percentage error 
arrivals 
1978 1979 1978 
January 25.3 25.1 3.09 
February 19.0 20.6 1.07 
March 31.0 33.2 3.20 
April 29.3 39.4 2.75 
May 36.0 34.5 2.37 
June 37.0 43.0 3.80 
July 34.6 48.1 3.81 
August 25.5 29.2 1.45 
September 28.9 27.1 1.94 
October 25.6 33.8 1.73 
November 23.5 35.7 1.00 
December 26.3 33.9 1.88 
Total 342.0 403.6 8.74 
April to July was found to be the best 
season for the fishery in both the years (Fig.2). 
This was in confirmity with earlier obser-
vations (George et a!. 1973). The peaks 
occurred in June 1978 and July 1979. The 
peak season accounted for 47% (both years 
combined) of the total output. The average 
monthly landings during this period amounted 
to 88 tonnes whereas it was 50 tonnes for 
the remaining months. Wide fluctuations 
in the landings during lean months had not 
been observed. 
The seasonal trends in the market arrivals 
and rail head despatches coincided with the 
fluctuation in the total landings (Fig. 3) in 
both the years. The contribution of the 
peak season was found to be 50% and 43.9% 
of the total landings in 1978 and 1979 res-
pectively. The figures in respect of peak 
season for the marketing centres remained 
constant, while those of rail head declined 
from 58.4% 1n 1978 to 47.4% in 1979. As 
already stated similar trend was maintained 
in the annual despatches from rail heads. 
This variation might have been due to disru-
ption in the transportation of fish, coupled 
with lesser production of quality fish during 
the peak season of 1979, when the major 
carps constituted 21 % of the total catch 
of this period as against 29% in 1979. Since 
major carps formed the major constituent 
1979 1978 1979 
1.91 12.2 7.7 
2.76 5.6 13.4 
2.33 10.4 7.0 
3.51 9.4 8.9 
2.51 6.6 7.3 
3.25 10.3 7.5 
6.46 11.1 13.8 
2.24 5.7 7.7 
1.06 6.7 11.3 
1.70 6.9 5.0 
2.24 4.1 6.3 
2.55 7.3 7.5 
10.39 2.6 2.6 
of fish sent to other places, the decline in 
landings of these fishes might have reflected 
in the rail head despatches. 
As seen from Table 3, M. seenghala, S. 
silondia and C. catla accounted for 12.6, 
12.5 and 12.2% of the total landings res-
pectively in 1978, and in 1979 their figures 
were 16.6, 13.0 and 8-.0%. In both the 
years, W. attu, R. cotio, L. calbasu and L. 
fimbriatus individually formed more than 
5 % of the total fish landings. The total 
landings of L. rohita declined from 6.6% 
in 1978 to 3. 7% in 1979. This decline in 
the production of L. rohita may be due to 
failure of monsoon in 1979. Anon (1980) 
has observed similar trend in the landings 
of L. rohita and C. catla in Govindsagar 
reservoir. In the case of W. attu the figure 
for 1979 was low compared to 1978. 
But during 1979 the percentage of G. 
chapra rose to 7% as against 4.2% in 1978. 
Similar trend was also noticed in L. calbasu. 
However, most of the abundant species did 
not show much variation in landings. 
The pattern of abundance was more or 
less the same in the case of predominant cat 
fishes like, M. seenghala, W. attu and S. 
silondia (Fig. 4). But the carps were not 
showing similar trends in the successive years. 
As evident from Fig. 4, the best season for 
FISHERY TECHNOLOGY 
FISH PRODUCTION FROM HIRAKUD RESERVOIR 21 
Table 3. Species-wise landings from Hirakud reservoir during 1978 and 1979 (in tonnes) 
Name offish 1978 1979 
Cat/a cat/a (Hamilton) 91.8 62.5 
Labeo.fimbriatus(Bioch) 37.7 43.8 
Labeo calbasu (Hamilton) 45.8 60.4 
Labeo rohita (Himilton) 49.6 27.6 
Labeo bat a (Hamilton) 18.7 28.2 
Cirrhina mrigala (Day) 21.1 12.9 
Bar bus tor (Day) 4. 7 1.9 
Bar bus sarana (Day) 15.6 15.5 
Mystus seenghala (Sykes) 95.3 125.1 
Mystus aor (Hamilton) 7.4 6.6 
Mystus tingra (Hamilton) 1.3 1.4 
Siloniasilondia(Hamilton) 94.2 97.8 
Wallago attu (Schneider) 65.3 44.5 
Eutroplichthys vacha (Hamilton) 30.6 26.2 
Ritachrysea(Day) 20.2 15.1 
Bagarius bagarius (Hamilton) 1.1 3.1 
Notopterus chitala (Hamilton) 36.7 30.6 
Notopterus notopterus (Pallas) 1.9 8. 7 
Gudusia chapra (Hamilton) 31.7 52.1 
Rohtee cotio (Day) 56.3 55.0 
Glossogobius giuris (Hamilton) 6.0 10.3 
Rhinomugil corsula (Hamilton) 6.3 4.9 
Sciaenids sp. 5.3 4.1 
Chela bacaila 4.6 5.3 
Channa sp. 3.5 3.9 
Others 1.0 2.3 
TOTAL 753.7 749.8 
&0 
40 
20 
197 9 
M. seenghala, W. attu and S. silondia 
was observed to be April to August, 
with peaks in May (1978) and June 
(1979) in the case of M. seenghala, June 
1978 and July 1979 for S. silondia and 
June (1978) and August (1979) for 
W.attu. 
"' p;l 
z 
z 
0 
E-< 
80 
60 
40 
20 
1976 
Of all the major carps L. .fimbriatus 
showed more or less similar pattern of 
occurrence with a peak from May to 
August. In the case of L. calbasu, the 
peak was noticed in June and July 
respectively for 1978 and 1979. But 
the peak season for C. catla was diffe-
rent in these vears. In 1978 maximum 
r;_·.-~_;_·_. ~-~;.· ; _ fi 
18 
kan~ingb was- ~ec~dtt dur~ng Jun.e, 
;.,: 7 ;2,· '8' -:':" .~ ep en: er a~ c o er w ereas m mfl ?~i ?i '~• ~~· .~.:~ :;, :;:; :~. ~~ i';n 1979, 1t was m August, October and 
1~11 ~:: :~ i~ {{ ii: ::~ ~; if~ r~n ·* ~u~~~f~~· i~~;ee~:~~~:~: ~~~~!:U~~~ 
JAN FEe MAR APR MAY JuN JuL AuG sEP ocT Nov DEc to May. April to July was found to 
0 RAil HEADS ~ MARKETING CENTRES be the best SeaSOn for£. rohzfa in 1978 
Fig. 3. Seasonal pattern in the quantities of fish 
arrived in the markets and despatched 
through rail heads in 1978 and 1979 
but no specific trend could be observed 
:in 1978, except that the catch was 
declining from June. 
Vol. 18, 1981 
22 M. D. VARGHESE, A. K. K:ESA VAN NAIR, V. C. GEORGE. AND A. A .. KHAN 
35 
30 
" I \ I 
' 25 I \ I \ 
20 
•5 
10 
·-
5 --~ 
_______ _._.., 
~-- R COtiO 
0 
20 
..... 
' 15 
' 
' 10 
... _ 
_ _ _,._ ___ .... ___ 
5 -..... -- ,. L calbasu 
0 
20 
15 
10 
5 ----... L fimbriatus 
0 
(/) 
w 20 z 
z 
0 
15 
I- 10 
5 c cat Ia 
0 
20 
15 
~0 
,5 W. attu 
0 
20 
15 
10 
5 ~..--
0 
20 
15 
~0 
5 
0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 
1978 ~----· 1979 
Fig. 4. Seasonal landings of important fishes from the reservoir during 1978-'79 
FISHERY TECHNOLOGY 
FISH PRODUCTION FROM HIRAKUD RESERVOIR 23 
As mentioned already the present survey 
covered the fish catch of the reservoir brought 
to the marketing centres for sale and to the 
rail heads for onward transportation to 
other places. The quantity of fish purchased 
direct from fishermen for human consum-
ption could not be included owing to pra-
ctical difficulties. But this does not appear 
to be of any significance. As some of the 
marketing centres are unapproachable, the 
possibility of omissions could not be ruled 
out. As is usual with other surveys the 
frame can be updated periodically. Inclu-
sion of catches from ponds (sources other 
than reservoir) in the rail head despatches 
is another source of discrepancy. But this 
has been found to be of lesser magnitude as 
identified from the despatches by constant 
observation. 
The authors are grateful to Dr. C.C. Panduranga 
Rao, Director, Central Institute of Fisheries Techno-
logy for according permission to publish this paper. 
They also record their thanks to the late Shri 
G. K. Kuriyan, former Director, for encouragement 
and guidance during the course of this study. 
References 
Anon (1969) Half yearly Technical Report 
Jan.-June 1969. Cent. Inland Fish. 
Res. Inst. Barrackpore (unpublished) 
Anon (1976) Rep. Nat. Com. Agric. and 
Irrigation, Govt. of India, New Delhi 
Anon (1980) Proceedings of Sixth Work-
shop, All India Co-ordinated Research 
Project on Ecology and Fisheries of Fresh 
Water Reservoirs Nov. 25 & 26, 1980, 
Simla. Cent. Inland Fish. Res. Inst. 
Barrackpore 
Bal, D. V. & Banerjee, S. K. (1951) Proc. 
Indo-Pacif Fish. Coun. Sec II, 
Banerjee, S. K. (1971) in Fishery Statis-
tics. FAO Pub!. No 10, FC/DEV 
71/5, p. 15 
Vol. 18, 1981 
Banerjee, S K. & Chakraborthy, D. (1972) 
Proc. Symp. Living Resources of the Seas 
Around India. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. 
Inst. Spl. Publ, p. 176 
David, A., Ray, P., Govind, B. V. & Banerjee 
R. K. (1969) Bull. Cent. Inland Fish. 
Res. Inst. 13, 188 
George, V. C., Naidu, R. M. & Kunjipalu, 
K. K. (1973) Fish. Techno!. 10, 71 
Hansen, M. H., Hurvitz, W. N. & Madow, 
W. G. (1953) in Sample Survey 
Methods and Theory. Vol. 1, p. 638, 
John Wiley & Sons. Inc., New York 
Jhingran, V. G. & Tripathi, S. D. 
Proc. Symp. Dev. Utilisation 
Fish. Resources. Indo-Paci:fi. 
Counc. 53, 1 
(1976) 
Inland 
Fish. 
Krishnan Kutty, M., Kesavan Nair, A. K. & 
Qasim, S. Z. (1973) Indian J. Fish. 
20, 16 
Padam Singh, Raheja, S. K. & Pranesh 
Kumar (1978) Abstract, III Conf 
Agric. Res. Statisticians. April 24 to 
26, Indian Agric. Statistical Res. Insti-
tute, New Delhi 
Pillay, T. V. R. (1960) Sci. Cult. 16, 6 
Pause, V. G. & Sastry, K. V. R. (1960) 
FA 0 Expanded Tech. Assistance Pro-
gramme Rep. 1247, 176 
Sastri, S., Padam Singh & Raheja, S. K. 
(1979) !CAR Golden Jubilee Souvenir 
volume. Indian Agric. Statistical Res. 
Inst. New Delhi 
Sastri, H. P. C. & Ghosh, K. K. (1963) 
Indian J. Fish. 10, 48 
Sukhatme, P. V., Panse, V. G. & Sastry, 
K. V. R. (1958) Biometrics, 14, 78 


Estimation of fish production from Hirakud reservoir

http://aquaticcommons.org/18117/1/FT18.1_017.pdf

Estimation of fish production from Hirakud reservoir

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Aquatic Commons