-

A METHOD FOR
ESTIMATING THE STANDING CROPS AND SPECIES COMPOSITIONS
OF RESERVOIRS USING SAMPLE NETTING AND A ROTENONE COVE
SAMPLE ILLUSTRATED WITH SAMPLE NETTING DATA FROM BUNDH
BARETHA 14 OCTOBER 1969 - 20 JANUARY 1971.
Prepared by
Philip M. Fearnside
American Peace Corps Volunteer
Bundh Baretha Fish Farm
Dist. Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
April 11, 1971.
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.) JNTRODUCTION
A.) Need for Estimate. p.1
B.) Summary of the Method for Making the Estimate .... p.1-2
II.) MAiqNG THE ESTIMATE
A.) The Catchability Correction Factor (C .C .F.)
1 . ) Need for a C . C. F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 3
2.) Computation of the C. C .F... . . . . . p. 3
3 ) Use of the C. C F. . . . . . . . . . . p 4
B.) The Habitat Correction Factor (H.C.F.)
1.)NeedforanH.C.F ............. p.4
2.) Definitions of the four habitats (with fig. I). p. 4
3 . ) Computation of the Mean Depth. . . . . . . . . . . p. 5
4.) Computation of the H. C .F.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 5
5.) Table of Information on the Habltats........ p. 5
6.) Figure II: Area of Water Spread vs. Water
depth for Bundh Baretha ......... . p. 6
7.) Figure III: Capacity Curve for Bundh Baretha. . ~ 7
C.) THE NET-WISE BREAKDOWN TABLE
1.) Explanation of C'.)lumn in Net-wise Breakdown
Table.................................... p. 8
2 .) Sample page from Net-Wise Breakdown Table.. p.9
D.) THE TABLE OF DATA FROM ALL NETS COMBINED.
1.) Explanation of Columns in the Table of Data
from All Nets Combined .................
2.) Sample Page from Table for Data from All Nets
Combined . ............................... .
III.) BUNDH BARETHA: THE RESULTS SO FAR
A.) MATERIALS .AND METHODS
p .10-11
p .13
1.) Sample Netting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p .14
2.) Rotenone Cove Sample.................... p.15
B.) SIZE GROUP SUB-TOTALS AND SPECIES TOTALS SECTION
FROM TABLE OF DATA FROM ALL NETS COMBINED... p .15/19
C.) TABLE SHOWING SPECIES COMPOSITION OF A HYPOTHETICAL
SET OF 1 00 NETS OF EACH MESH SIZE SET EVENLY DISTRIBUTED
THROUGHOUT THE RESERVOIR p. 20
Page ii.
D.) PIE GRAPHS SHOWING SPECIES COMPOSITION or
HYPOTHETICAL SET
1 .) Figure IV: for Estimate of Composition of Entire
Hypothetical Catch Based on All Fish in Bundh
Baretha Sample Netting 14 Nov'69-Jan 20'71... p.2l
2.) Figure V: for Estimate of Composition of That
Portion of the Hypothetical Catch Comp:>sed of
Fish Weighing Less than 2 kgs. . .... . . . p.21
E.) COMMENTS ON THE BUNDH BARETHA RESULTS.... p.22
IV. LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD AND SOME POSSIBLE REMEDIES
A.) UNREPRESENTATIVE ROTENONE SAMPLE.......... p.23
B.) UNREPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE NETIING........ p.23
C.) LEARNING BIAS IN lHE SAMPLE. NETTING......... p.24
D.) SMALLNESS OF THE SAMPLE. . p. 24
E.) EXTREMELY LOW CATCHABILITIES OF SOMESPBCIES AND
SIZE , , p, 24-25
:; VARIATIONS OF CATCHABILITIES WITH THE LUNAR CYCLE ... 25
,.,
V JGONCL UDING REMARKS , p. 2 5-2 6
A METHOD FOR ESTIMATING THE STANDING CROPS AND SPECIES
COMPOSITIONS OF RESERVOIRS USING SAMPLE NE'ITING AND A
ROTENONE COVE SAMPLE ILLUSTRATED WITH SAMPLE NE'ITING
DATA FROM BUNDH BARETHA 14 OCT. '69 - 20 JAN. '71.
I. INTRODlJQTION;
A. t m ~ FOR MAKING ESTIMATE;
B.
Determing the species composition of a reseiVoir's flsh population
should be one of the first orders of business for anyone attempting to
set reservoir management policy. Once an estimate of the species
composition of the reseiVoir population has been made
1
comparison
with the species composition of the commercial catch will quickly
reveal selective fishing. Selective fishing for major carps can cause
a reservoir to become taken over by weed-fish. Once selective
fishing has been identified
1
it can be effectively countered under
the proposed base-rate fishing contract plan 'by raising or lowering
the base-rate percentages charged for the various species. Species
which are declining for any reason -- be it selective fishing
1
spawning failure, or whatever --can be protected by appropriate
base-rate percentage adjustments.
A second way in which the method can be put to immediate use
in Rajasthan is in the suggested common carp pilot study. In order
to determine whether introducing common carp in Rajasthan reservoirs
will adversely affect major carp populations, the species composi-
tion etc. of one reservoir should be determined before and after
establishment of a common carp population. This method should
produce a useable estimate using simple and inexpensive means;
only sample nets and rotenone are required.
\
\
SUMMARY OF METHOD FOR MAKING ESTIMATE:
The key to making an estimate of the reservoir population based
on sample netting is the relatiG.>nship between the density of the fish
population and t."le number of fish that get caught in the nets. When
there are twice as many fish per hectare of water I one must assume
that twice as many fish will be caught per one-hundred nets set. In
order to find a constant relating the standing crop of each species
and size of fish with the catch-per-unit-effort information from the
sample netting, a comparison must be made between the catch-per-
unit-effort data from sample netting in a small part of the reservoir
(a cove in this case) with the actual population of the cove as
determined by a rotenone sample. The relationship between the
catch-.per-unit-effort and the pouplation density will be the same
ln the cove as in the reservoir as a whole I so the constant
.... /2
)
or "catchabillty correction factor
11
(C .c .F.) can be used with the
sample netting data from the whole reservoir to estimate the populations.
Instead of using a catch-per-unit-effort (C :U .E.) value for the
oove determined directly by sample netting in the cove, a hypothetical
C. U .E. must be constructed based on sample netting from the rest of
the reservoir. This is made necessary by the fact that Indian carps learn
quickly to avoid the gill n e t s
1
introducing a heavy bias from learnlng
under intensive fishing pressure. The sample netting data in the reservoir
is collected with a few nets set over an extended period of time, thus
minimizing the bias from learning.
A prediction is first made of what the catch would be if hypothetical
set of 100 nets were made. Since different species of fish live in different
habitats --some living only in shallow and some only in deep water, for
example --the species composition of the cove will not be the same as
for the reservoir as a whole. If there is a greater percentage of shallow
water in the cove than in the reservoir as a whole, one would expect to
catch more shallow-water fish in 100 nets set in the cove than in 100
nets evenly distributed throughout the reservoir. A prediction of the
hypothetical catch for pre-rotenone sample netting in the cove must
therefore be based on data collected separately in the different habitats
and then combined Ln proportions reflecting the habitat composition of
the cove. The prediction is made by computing C. U .E. data for four
different habitats in the reservoir as a whole, and then multiplying
eech by a
11
habitat correction factor .. {H.C .F.) for the oove: the
fraction of the total volume of the cove occupied by each habitat.
A similar predicted catch for a hypothetical set of 100 nets of
each mesh-size set evenly distributed throughout the entire reservoir
must be made fa estimation of the actual standing crop of each species
in the reservoir. The jump from the catch of the species per 100 sets
to the number of kilograms per hectare of water area is made by multi-
plying the Catch-per-unit-effort for each habitat by the catchability
correction factor. These values are in turn multiplied by a second
H. C. F. reflecting the percentage of the total volume of water in the
reservolr represented by each habitat. Adding the values for the four
habitats then yields the standing crop of each species. The percentages
represented by each species in the total standing crop of fish in the
reservoir is the species composition of the reservoir.
3
II. MAKING THE ESTIMATE:
A. THE CATC!ii}.BU.ITY CORRECTION FACTOR .(C, C .F.):
1. NEED FOR A C ,C .Fi
A catchability correction factor (C ,C,,F) is needed to obtain
a true picture of the fish populations from catch-per-uni!' effort data
by counteracting the bias introduced by the selectivity of the sampling gear.
Because of the differences in habits, body shape, the presence of
absence of easily-entangled spines, etc. each size group of each species
of fish has a different succeptibility to being caught in each of the
different mesh-sizes of sample net. Mystus seenghalla, with its
serrated dorsar and pectoral spines, is easily ensnared in nets of
almost any mesh size--very large ones are sometimes cauq'-t in the one
inch bar mesh riet. Channa marulius, on the other hand, has no spines
and has a tapering body-shape that makes it unlikely to be caught in
gill-nets. The percentage of C. marulius in the sample catch might well
be much less than its actual percentage of the fish population in the
reservoir. A correction factor for the catchability of each species must
therefore be obtained to make the sampling results useful in estimating
the species composition of the reservoir. This is obtained by comparing
the sum of the catches-per-unit-effort in all nets ( ~ C . U .E.) with the
actual population as determined from a complete kilf with rotenone.
2. COMPUTATION OF THE C .C .F:
The catchability correction factor is computed from the
following formula:
A
C .C .F. =
p
where:
11
C. C. F" is the catchability correction factor for a given species and
size group,
11
A
11
is the actual standing crop of that species and size group in
kilograms per hectare as determined from a rotenone cove sample, and
11
P
11
is the predicted catch-per-unit-effort for the cove: This
represents the number of kilograms of each species and size group that
would be caught if 100 sets of each mesh-size of net were made in the
cove with the nets proportionately dtstribufed to the habitats represented
in the cove. In other words, this is too sum of the values for the four
habitats, each of which is the sum of the catches-per-unit-effort for
all mesh-sizes of net times the habitat correction factor for the cove:
P=
>
: . . ~
AH
( . ; ~ C U E x H C F
A!\f
)
(cove)
Here
11
P
11
ls the predicted catch-per-unit-effort for the cove,
11
J6
11
is the summation of the values for the four habitats (value for
shallow-water habitat+ value for surface deep habitat+ . ),
"A--if
11
is the summation of the -values for all the nets (value for
one-inch bar mesh net +value for 1-1/2 inch bar mesh net + .. )
"C. U .E.
11
is 'the catch-per-unit-effort: the catch per 100 sets
of all nets for the given species and size group,

the habitat correction factor cove-- the
portion of the l:otar water volume of the cove occupied by each of tte
four habitats
3. USE OF THE C .C .F:
The standing crops can be computed using the C. C. F. using
the formula:
-_
Standing crop = C .C .F. X AN ""P..L. ;.
where :
11
Standing crop" is the number of kilograms per hectare of a given
species and size group in the habitat ln question,
nc .c .F. II is the catchabllity correction factor for the given
species and size group, and
11
P" is the ptedicted C. U. E. described above.
B THE HABITAT CORRECTION FACTOR (H. C. F,):
1. NEED FOR AN H C I' :
Dlfferent species of fish are specialized fo live in specific
habitats of reservoir. To gain an idea of the fish populations of the entire
reservoir from sample netting, nets must be set in all of the habitats.
Since the nets are not evenly distributed throughout the reservoir, the
fishing effort will vary from habitat to habl tat. Species characteristlcally
inha_biting the habitats receiving the greatest fishing pressure will be
overrepresented Ln the sample catch. To counter this bias, catch -per-
unit-effort (C. U. E.) figures must be computed separately for each of
the four habitats, then multiplied by an habitat correction factor reflecting
the fraction of the reservoir occupied by each habitat, and finally
recombined by adding together the corrected values for the C. U. E in the
four habitats .
2. DEFINITIONS OF THE FOUR HABITATS:
For the purposes of sample netting, the reservoir has been
arbitrarily divided into four habitats which are defined as follows:
a) Shallow water habitat: This is defined as all water less than
ei9ht feet ln depth.
b) Surface deeo habitat: This is defined as the top eight feet of
all areas of the reservoir more than eight feet in depth.
c) Bottom deep habitat; This is defined as all water more than
eight feet from the surface and less than eight feet from the bottom.
d) Midwater deep habitat: This is defined as all water more than
eight feet from the surface and more than eight feet from the bottom.
.. The four habitats are illustrated below in figure 1. -- __ w "-""-vf\..
- .... -. ... . - -- ----- - .. - --- -- ----- -- - --- .. ------ --- ---------- --- --.- ___ ... / .. - . .?t cl Ft"
,_ - _ / ;
1
-:'.-, 'S'J Rfl\-ct. .DEE.-? ; // f' -
F 1
........_ - ' . I
ig. -..._! __,__ ....... .. ------ - ------ ---. . 3 ;:.
- - ----- -..- ... I "' ,.
,/ ....!.. .. ..., ,. :" '1!:1( ,
// "'-- :. . 1HZ t: ,.
.. o . \ ., .. .. . ... , . . # - /. - - ) :J ,::.,.. .
,.12. \,If[ - .. - --
-'---- .. _ J)ecf.J cross sectionofthereservolr
--- ___ , .... - showln habitats.
5
3 COMPUTATION OF THE MEAN DEPTH;
Because the depth of the reservoir fluctuates a great deal
during the period of sample netting
1
the fraction of the water volume
occupied by each habitat does not remain constant. Ideally, separate
H .C .F. values should be for each day, but since the amount
of work involved in this task would be prohibitive
1
a mean value will be
used in computing the habitat correction factors. This is obtained by
summing the lake level figures for all the days on which nets were set
and dividing by the number of days . The average lake level for 56 days
on which nets were set in Bundh Baretha from 14 October 1969 to 20
January 1971 was 21.2 feet.
4. COMPUTATION OF THE H.C.F.;
The proportions of the total water volume of the reservoir
represented by each of the four habitats are computed as shown below.
Values for the areas arx:J water volume of the reservoir at various levels
are taken from figures I and II.
a.) Surface deeQ: Area at 13,.2 feet times a feet times 0.04356 mcf/
acre-ft.: 820 acres X 8ft X 0.04356 mcf/acre-foot = 2a6 million cubic feet.
'
b.) Shallow Volume at 21.2 feet minus. the volume at 13.2 feet minus
the surface deep volume:
875 mcf - 475 mcf - 2a6 mcf = 114 mcf
c,) Bottom deep; The surface deep volume minus the overlap volume.
The overlap volume equals the difference between the area at 13 .2 feet and
the area at 5.2 feet times a feet times 0.04356 mcf/acre-ft. divided by 2:
2 86 mcf - (820 acres - 270 acres) X 8 ft X 0. 0435 6 mcf/acre-ft =
190
mcf
2
d.) Midwater deeg; Volume at 13 .2 ft. minus the bottom deep volume:
475 mcf- 190 mcf = 285 mcf.
5 TABLE OF INFORMATION ON HABITATS:
Habitat area in volume in % of tbtal H .C .F.
acres mcf water volume
Shallow 800 114 13.0 0.130
Midwater deep 820 2a5 32.5 0.326
Surface deep 820 286 32.7 0.327
Bottom deep 820 190 21.7 0.217
Total 1620 875 100.00 1. 000
*values at lake level of 21.2 ft (672 .2 ft above MSL)
Page 6
6.) FIGURE II: AREA OF WATER SPHEAD VERSUS WATER DEPTH FOR BIDillH BARETHA
2500
-
' {
/2920"
.f
2560*
.
1
/"
2420**
I .
2000
At 21.2 ft -- sample
netting average depth
f'rom Oct.
1
69 to - .. ,
Jan.
1
71 - area .....,. __ .
is 1620 acres o
-
1500
1 1400*
I .
'
1000 -Area a.t
5 2 f't
ls 270
500
,. 480*
11
, '
0
0 10
depth of' water
20
at dam in
30
f'eet
-
--
40
651 661
671 681
691
elevation above :ivLS .S. in f'eet
* figures taken f'rom a monument on the dam
-
II
** j f'igureK f'rom Fisheries Pro act Re ort f'or Bundh Baret"ha,
issued by: Of'f'ice of' Dep. Dir. Fisheries Animal Hus. Dept.,
Jaipur, Dated: 1967-8.


i
I
Page 7
7. ) FIGURE III:
CAPACITY CURVE FOR BUNDH BARETHA
(VOLUME OF WATER VERSUS WATER DEPTH)
.. \ .......... ..
l800T
!
l
I
I
I
1500 r-
1200 ..
I
l
l
l
./
I
I
r
< 1096*
At 21.2-f't --the mean
1
1
depth for sample j
900
I_ netting days, _
I Oct. '69 --
I the volume is 1
875 mcf. 1
731
*
I
/
600 c j
At 13.2 ft I
val ume .- -.. ;>-/
is 475 mcf//
-/,313*
300!
I ./
!/
I/,

0 ________ ._ ______
--J
0
10 2
,.,
\_I
30
depth of water at dam in feet
651 661 671 681
elevation above M.S.L. in feet
..
l
_____ }
40
691
* figures taken from a monument on the dam
. .
8
C, 'l'HE BREAKDOvvN TABLE:
1) EXPlANATION OF COLUMNS IN NET-WISE BREAKDOWN TABLE:
COLUMN Q --NET: The bar mesh size of the sample net.
COLUMN R --HABITAT: The four habttats into which the reservoir has
been divided are defined on page 4 in the section on the Habitat
Correction Factor.
COLUMN T --NUMBER OF TIMES NET SET: This is the sum of the
figures from the "effort" column in the raw data proforma described
in the paper "Procedure and Need for Collection of Sample Netting
Data at Bundh Baretha" ( Jan. 2 8
1
1971}, page 7.
COLUMN U --SIZE GROUP: Since the C.C.F.'s for different size
groups are different, a size-wise breakdown is necessary to get a
true picture of the reservoir populatidn .. The size groupings of less
than 1 kg, 1-1 .5 kgs, 1. 5-2 kqs, arrl 2-5 kgs
1
and more than
5 kgs were chosen arbitrarily for convenience in co:nputlng A-T
values later on. The smaller the range of weights ln each catego.ry,
the more accurate the predictions will be. Only 5 size group
categories were made because of the prohibitive amount of work
involved in furthers ubdi vision into smaller categories.
COLUMN V --NUMBER OF FISH CAUGHT: This is the number of
individual fish actually caught in the sample netting. This information
is useful in judging the reliability of thG figures, and pro;ides a
firm tie with reality throughout lest one forget the pitifully small
number of observations on which the whole estimate is based.
COLUMN W -- KGS of FISH CAUGHT: The number of kilograms of
fish falling into the given category that were actually caught in
the sample netting.
COLUMN X--C .U .E.: The catch-per-unit-effort is the number
of kilograms of fish caught per 100 sets of the specified net. This
is obtained by dividing the value in column 'W (kg of fish caught}
by the value in column T (number of times net set} and multiplying
by 100 0
A sample page from the net-wise breakdown table fellows showing
figures for Labeo calbasu caught in the 2" and 2-1/2" nets. The
full table is 38 pages in length and is thus too bulky to be included
here.
NET-WISE BREAK"O'Jl'.T TABLE
2"
I
less
than
1 kg
4 '?..7 2?, .5 I
l
1-1.5
--------,
12.0 kg 2 2.1 17.5
,_.
I'
J

kg

2-5
kg

more
than
_Jig_-+----t----+-----
Hab.
sub-
total
less
than
1 kg
6
3
4.8 40.0
?, .o ... _2,8_&_
.:_.c. l-1.5
-'Ek'-'":g'=-=-+----4----- ------
1.5-?.
7 0
.. -
.,_5
_k..:::;g:...--+---t----
--
Hab. t--
sub- L
.... +-----+----- t
less
than 13 o 8 51 5
1 kg ---.
T:l.S 7 7.4 38.8
- .. -
1.5-'?.
,_lF.K.---+------If----+-------
19. o __ +-?_ . _B_-+-_14 __ _._. 7_
more
than
kg:;....,-+----+----+-----
Hab.
sub ..
total
less
than
21
3
?.0.0 105.0
?.5 17.8
.....:l:::::......!.ko!:.l::g;>.....f---+----+------
5 6.15 48.1
1-1.5
14.( kg
..... ....... ----
kg I --+----!-----I
-2":0.5 kg
----------+-----+----1
more 1
t 12an 5 ;
Hab.sub- 8 8.65 65.9 !
2-t
Kg of
fish
caught
C .U.
I
'
........ __ --------+----
5 5.9 49.0
--------t----+-----
I l?.o 1 1.5 12.5
6.0
------1-----+----
-----+-------+-----

7 8.3 69.0
---- --- r-- -----+----
!_ _______
? 2-5 41.7

3
I
0" ,..,
I -----i----:-1---
1
t---+----+---
5 7.5 124.9
.......... _. __ - -----+------
2.7 13.4 3
r---g--+----1-3-.-4+-6-6-. 9-
20.125 3
.T ..
2
4.9 ?.4.4
?..0 10.0
....... --- -+-----+----1
17 ?.3.0 114./
----- ---------+-----
1 0.9 5.61
--f-----t----+-----
3 3.5 22.5
t- -----+----+----...
9.4 15.925 1 1.5
I
I -----+------+-----
1

-10-
D. THE TABLE OF DATA FROM ALL NETS COMBINED:
1) EXPlANATION OF COLUMNS IN .THE .. TABLE OF DATA FROM
ALL NETS COMBINED .. :
COLUMN A -- HABITAT: The four habitats of the reservoir are
defined on page four of this paper in the section on the habitat
correction factor.
COLUMN B -- H .C .F.: The habitat correction factor is derived
in a separate section on pages 4-7 oi .this paper.
COLUMN C --SIZE GROUP: This is the same as column U of the
net-wise breakdown table. An additional category has been
added in the size-group sub-totals section for the total figures
for fish weighing less than 2 kgs. Because of the low catch-
abilities oi the larger fish in gUl nets, the estimate of that
portion of the population composed o individuals weighing less
than 2 kgs is likely to be more accurate than the estimate for
the population as a whole from the species totals figures. If the
sample of larger individuals proves to be too small for an accurate
estimate. some other method wlll have to be used for that section
of the population.
COLUMN D --NO. OF FISH CAUGHT: This is the sum of the
_figures entered for the specified category in column V (no. of
fish caught) oi the net-wise breakdown table.
<::"'"
COLUMN E _.:-cuE: This is the summation of the catch-per-unit-
efforts for alfRets. The figures in this column represent the num-
ber of kgs of iish in each size group category that would be caught
if 100 sets of all (800 individual nets total) were made in the
specified habitat. The values C. U .E. are computed by
summing the C.U .E.'s for each category (column X of the net-
wise breakdown table) i.e. the value for catla weighing less
than one kg caught in the shallow water in the 1 inch net+ the
value for less than one kg catla caught in the shallow water in
the 1 V2
11
net. + etc.
The habitat sub-total represents the number of kgs of each species
that would be caught were 100 nets of each mesh size to be set
in the given habitat.

COLUMN F -- :2;. C.U .E. x H.C.F.: This is the summation of the
for all nets times the habitat correction
factor. The figures 1n this column represent the number of kgs
of fish ill each size group category that would be caught in each
habitat if 100 sets each rnesh-size of net were made in the
whole reservoir evenly distributed throughout the reservoir (the
number of nets set in each habitat proportional to the volume o
water in that habitat.) The values are obtained by multiplying
the values in column E (the U .E.) by the values in column
>=o a ha i

-11-
The habitat sub-totals represent the kgs of fish of each species
that would be caught in the given habitat if 100 sets of all nets
were made 1n the whole reservoir evenly distributed. This is
obtained by adding the size group 1gures for the habitat in
question
COLUMN G -- NO. OF FISH CAUGHT: This is the sum of the
entries for the specified category in column D.
COLUMN H -- C.C.F.: The derivation oc the catchability cor-
rection factor is described in a separate section on page 3 of this
paper .. Additional information from a rotenone cove sample will
be needed to obtain values for this correction factor.
COLUMN I -- U .E. X H .C .F.: This iS the sum of the catch-
all nets times the habitat correction factor.
The values entered here are the sum of the appropriate entries in
column F.
The size group subtotals represent the weight of fish in each size
group that would be caught if the evenly distributed hypothetical
set of 100 nets of each kind were made in the reservoir. This is
obtained by :1dding the appropriate size group entries in column F.
The species total represents the number of kgs of the species that
would be caught if the evenly distributed set were made. This is
the sum the five size group sub-totals.
COLUMN J-- Z:c.U.E. XH.C.F. XC.C.F.: This is the sum-
mation of the from all nets times the habitat
correction factor times the catchability correction factor. The
size-group sub-totals represent the calculated standing crop in kg/
hectare of each size group of each species in the reservoir as a
whole. The species total row represents the standing crop of each
species in kg/H.A. in the reservoir as a whole. The figures in
the size group sub-totals rows of column J are computed by
multiplying the corresponding figure in the size group sub-totals
rows of column I by the C .C. F. (column H). The species total
is the sum of the size group sub- totals
COLUMN K -- % C. U .E. X H .C. F.: This is the percentage
of the sum of the catch-per-tnit-efforts for all nets times the
habitat correction fc)ctor. The size-group sub-totals represent the
percentaqe of the catch of fish i.."1. the specified size group that
would be repn"'sented by the given species if a hypothetical set
of 100 nets of each mesh size were made with the nets evenly
distributed throughout the reservoir. They are computed by
dividing the corresponding size group sub-total in column I
( XH.C.F.) by the size-group sub-total in the all
totals section of the table, and multiplying by 100%.
The species total figures for column K indicate the percentage of
the total hypothetical catch represented by the species. Note,
this is computed by dividing the species total figure for column I

-12-
by the grand total figure for column I ( .SZ C. U .E. X H .C .F.) and
an
multiplying by 100% -- not by adding the size group sub-totals
of column K.
COLUMN L - - O F ~ C.U.E. XH.C.F. XC.C.F.: This is the
percentage of the suf!Hha tion of the catch-per-unit-efforts for all
nets times the habitat correction factor times the ca tchability
correction factor. The size group sub-totals in this column
represent the percentage of the total standing crop of each species
represented by each size group i.e. the percentage of the total
biomass of catla in the reservoir composed of individuals weighing
less than 1 kg. 3tc. The values for the size group subtotals are
computed by dividing the corresponding size group subtotals for
the species in question in column J by the species total in column
J and multiplying by 100%.
The species totals represent the percentage of the total standing
crop of fish in the reservoir represented by each species. This
is computed by dividing the species total in column J by the all
species grand total in column J and multiplying by 100%.
A sample page from the table for data from all nets combined
showing the figures for L. calbasu has been attached. Because
the full table contains 19 pages it is too bulky to be included
here. The size group sub-totals and species totals sections
1
however
1
have been attached as pages.
zMDDLJ u. DHLl!'t L"llvl" l'!.LL Iu!ILb GOl'!BINE.iU
Size N"o. of --d:CTTE -:.CUE
ita1 Gro11J fish Jan an x
caugh1
Size
Group
D..
ffi

['-
C\"'
0 C'0
<
.

0
co
p..




['-
0 r-l
tl ""

0 0
p:)

kf!
2-5
kg
more
than
5 kg
Hab.
sub-
total
less
than
1 kg
< 1-1.5
kg
l.S-2
kg
2-5
kg
more
than
5 kg
Hab
sub-
total
less
than
1 kg
1 ... 1.5
kg
1.5--::>
kg
?.-5
kg
-
more
than
5 kg
Hab.
sub-
total
less
than
1 kg
1-1.5
_kg
1.5-?.
kg
2-5
kg .
11
23
18
6
6
53
8
10
2
more -chan
5 kg.
Hab.sub-

totFLl.
l
164.1 53.5
84.2 ?.7-w5
119.6 39.0
50.3 16.5
68.5
105
31.6 6.9
81.9 17.7
?.0.7 4.51
134.? 29.1
I
No of -CCF
fish an x:an x
HCF {
CCF
......
'
% o_ f L% of
p;CUE
an x an x
HCF HCF
X X
HCF CCF
-
til
H


I
0
b

til
Cl
IJj
I



t-1
til
14
III. BUNDH BARETHA : THE RESULTS SO FAR;
.- .
A. MAtERIALS AND METHODS USED FOR COLLECTION OF BUNDH BARETHA DATA:
.
1) SAMPLE NETTING:
a) 8.AMPLE GEAR: 1\;set of 12 sinking gill nets of 8 different mesh slzes was
us.ed in collecting the sample netting data. The nets belonging to the American Peace
Corps. Specifications are given below:
Bar
Mesh
Size (in.)
1"
1-1/2"
2"
2-1/2 II
311
3-1/2 II
411
511
Bar Stretch Stretch Twine
Mesh Mesh Mesh Size
Size Size (in,) Size. (American
(em.) (em.) N orne nclat ure)
2.5 2" 5.1 104
3.8 3" 7. 6 104
5.1 4" 10.2 104
6.4 5" 12.7 104
7.6
611
15.2 104
8.9
7 II
17.8 139
10.2
811
20.3 139
12.7
10 II
25.4 208
Length of nets: 60 ft. (18/29 me'ters)
Depth of nets : 8 ft. (245 em.)
Distance between ties : 3 6 em ..
Number of
Mesh as per
tie.
16
10
8
6
5
4
4
3
Floats : # 125 hard Length: 5 "(12, 7 em.)
1
Thickness 1-1/4"(3.2 cm.),Hole size: 9/32"(0.7 em.)
Leads : # 16 ( 1 oz. or 2 8 grams)
Lead and float lines : 1/4" braided polyethylene rope
Float placement: attached every 6th tie.
Lead placement : attached every 2nd tie.
Manufacrurer of nets: Nylon net Co., 7 Vance Ave., Memphis
1
Tenn. U.s .A.
b) OTHER EQUIPMENT USED IN SAMPLE NETTING: Twelve-foot tin and wood
rowboats belonging to the-Rajasthan Fisheries Department were used during most
of the study. Towards the end of the study a nin-foot teak plywood boat belonging
to the American Peace Corps was obtained. This was used with a 5 horsepower
Johnson outboard motor which had teen given to the Fisheries Department by
U .N .I.C .E.F.
Data was collected using a steel measuring tape I a standard fish measuring
board
1
and two kitc.asn-type spring balances., one with 50 gram calibrations and
one with 5 gram calibrations.
c) SAMPLING PROCEDURE: The procedure used for setting the nets
1
making
the observations
1
and recording the information is described in a separate paper:
PROCEDURE AND NEED FOR COLLECTION OF SAMPLE NETTING DATA AT BUNDH
BARETHA
1
Jan 28
1
1971.
2) ROTENONE COVE SAMPLE:
a) NEEDED: 50 kgs of 5% active ingredient rotenone(derris root
power), and block nets (to be improvised from commercial-type drag nets or
chaundis) a re needed. The Department has offered to make rupee payment for
rotenone and the American Peace Corps is to arrange the purchase from the U.s .A.
Rotenone is not available in India.
b) PROCEDURE TO BE USED: The procedure to be used in applying the rotenone
and collecting the data is described in a separate paper: PROPOSAL FOR A ROTENONE
COVE SAMPLE IN BUNDH BAAETHA, Sept 29, 1970.
B. SIZE-GROUP SUB-TOTALS AND SPECIES TOTAL SECTIONS FROM "TABLE OF DI!A
FROM ALL NETS COMBINED" FOR BUNDH BAAETHA SAMPLE NETI'ING,l4 Nov. '69
20 Jan. 1971:
QatJ,a catl:l
L, [Ohita
C, mriqala
Size No. of CCF
X S: CUE---% of %of
Group
an an '""nCUE fish
caught
H C F HCF >(1 X HCF an X CCF
CCF
c G H I
I
less
than 3 0.533
1 kg _____ --------------------------------- ..
1.5-2
kg
-z-=r
1 3.14
--
K L
0.16
1.15
kg 11 29.15 5.45
"SpecieS" _____ --------------------------- --- ------------
Total 15 32.823 2.11
ress ___ - ---- ----- - ------ ------------- ----- - ------------ -- ----- -- - - - ---
than
2 kg 4 3.673 0.445
less
11 5.3 1.57 than
1 kg.
l-1.5
kg.
1,;5-2
---------------------------------------------- --
9 20.87
9 ----- -- --
kg 16 51.1 18.7
-- ... -------- -----
' 2 -5-------
kg 17 62.24 11.6
-specTes _________ --- ----- --- --- --
Total 53 139.51 9.0
L-ess------------------------
than 36 77.27 9.25
2 kg
Less
than 9 4.2 34
...:.1-=k.=..ogL.:.'-------------- ----------------------
1-1.5
kg 9 15.87
7_. 5_ - -------- -
____ -- ---
kgs 4 14.66 5.32
L. calbasu
L .fimbrtatus
L. bata
L&.gonius
--------
2-5
kgs 6
Species
Total 28
Less
than 22
2 kg
Less
than 43

1-1.5
kgs. 3 8
1.5-2
kgs 12
2.:.-5
Kgs 6
6.72 1.25
-- -------------------
42.484
----..-...----

35.764 4.3
41.5 12.3
79.8 35.5
49.74 18.1
22.4 4.2
S.r)ecies
Total 99
------------------;---
Less
than
2 kg 93
Less
than
1_
1-1.5
kgs 3
i.s-:.:2--
kgs 2
2-5
kgs 1
Species
Total 41
less
than
2 kgs 40
less
than 116
kg.
Species
Total 116
Less
than 116
2 kgs
less
than
1 kg 22
1-1.5
kgs 3
Species
193.44 12.5
171.04 20.5
'
12.754 3.8
------------------.
4.44 1.97
3.67 1.34
1.3 0.24
22 .164 1.43
20.864 2.5
50.34 15.9
50.34 3.25
50.34 6.05
- - - - - - - - - - --
14.7 4.2
4.53 2.01
_____________ __________ 1.21
Less
than 25
2 kgs
18.7
2.25
I
B. sarana
17
Size No of CCF
Group fish
caught
Less
than 111
1 kg
1-1.5
kgs 6
Species
%of %of
an an 'S::_CUE Fn CUE
X C X HCF ern X HCF
HC F X
36.12 10.8
16.0 7.15
Total 117 52.12 3.37
Less
than
2 kg 117
52.12 6.3
-------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - .,. -
C. reba
Catla X rohu
hybrid
Less
than 125
23.82
-----------
Species
Total 125
Leiss
than 125
2 kg
23.82
23.82
----------------
Less
than 1
0.59
1 kg
7.1
1. 69
2. 86
0.175
Species
Total 1
:Less
0.59 _________
than 1
0.59 0.071
2 kgs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -
W .attu
-------
.
M .Seenghalla
'
Less
than 3
0. 847
0.25

1.5-2
kgs 1 ____
2-.:::g-------
Kgs 3 17.6 3.3
More-
than 5 44.65 25.0
5 kg __ s:--------------
species
Total 12 72.457 4.67
--Less
than 4
10.64 7 2.0
2 kgs
----------------
- - - - -- -- - - -
Less 42
than 1 kg.
,l-1.5
1<:9 32
1 :5--2 ---
kgs 37
39.54 11.8
__ _ _ __________ 82 ._! s _______
140.75
51.7
-
M seenghalla
(contd )
M. annatus
Gaaa ta
M.cavassius
-- -- - - --
-- -- -- --
18
Size No .of CCF
Group fish
caught
c G
2-5
kgs 49
More
than
5 kgs 6
Species
Total 166
Less
than
2 kgs 111
Less
than 88
1 kg
Species
Total 88
Less
than
2 kgs 88
Less
than
1 kg 2
Species
Total 2
Less
than
2 kgs 2
Less
than
1 kg 12
Species
Total 12
Less
than
2 kgz 12
- - - -- - -
Less
than 123
1 kg
Sp3cies
Total 123
Less
than
2 kgs 123
-- - -- - -
--
--
H
--
--
--

X an
HCF -X
--
--
HCF
X
CCF
I I
379.1
82.6
724 .14
262.44
30.05
33.05
33.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.491
2 ..191
2.491
-- - - --
12.986
12.986
12.986
-- - - - -
%:>f
2
-CUE . CUE
an X an X
--
--
HCF HCF
X
CCF
K L
71.0
46.2
46.6
31.5
9.8
2.14
4.0
0. 61
0.132
0.246
0.74
0.161
0.3
-- -- - -
3. 86
0. 835
1.56
-- -- - -
--
--
I
-
--
N, notpptreous
Size No.of
Group fish
caught
C G
Less
than
\ 1 kg 84
Species
Total 84
Less
than
2 kgs 84
19
CCF ~ C U E
an
X
HCF
H I
51.75
51.75
51.75
~ C U E %of %of
an ~ C U E ~ r.uE
x n arr
X X
Ha' HCF HCF
X X
CCF CCF
J K L
15.3
3.35
6.2
--------------------------
-----------
Less
N, Qhltala than
1 kg 3 1.344 0.402
2-5
kgs 4 17.44 3.26
More
than
5 kgs 7 50.9 28.8
31'pecies
Total 14
69.684 4.5
Less
than
2 kgs 3 1.344 0.162
- -- -- -- -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - -- -
Less
than
1 kg 833 333.54
ALL SPECIES TOTALS 1-1.5
kgs 100 224,. 66
1.5-2
kgs 73 272.86
2-5
kgs 97 535.51
More
than
5 kgs 18 l77.66
Grand
Total 1121 1544.23
Less
than
2 kgs 975 831.06
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - - -- -- -- -- - - -- --
---------
-.

C
1
SfEClES COMfOSITION OF A OF 100 NETS OF EACH MESH
SIZE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE RESERVOIR (% of iU:l CUE X HCFl
FOR ALL FISH FOR FISH VVEIGHING LESS
THAN 2 Kgs.
No of % of No. of % of
fish on which CUE fish 0n

an CUE
estimate
an X
which X
-is based. HCF estimate HCF
is based
MAJOR QAR:fS&
Catla Catra 16 2.11 4 0.45
L. rohita 53 9.0 3S 9.25
C. mrlgala 28 2.74 22 4.3
L. calbasu 99 12.5 93 20.5
L. fimbriatus 41 1."13 40 2.5
total major 236 27.78 195 37.0
MINOR CARfS:
L. bata 110 3.25 116 6.05
-L. gonius 25 1.21 25 2.25
B. sarana 117 3.37 117 6.3
C. reba 12 5 1. 69 125 2.85
catla X rohu
hybrid
,
0.04 1 0.07 ...
total minor 384 9.55 384 17.53
ffiEDATORS:
W. attu 12 4.57 4 2.0
M. seenghalla 116 46.6 111 31.5
M. armatus 88 2.14 88 4.0
Gagata 2 0.13 2 0.25
totaYpredators 218 53 0 5L1 205 37.75

M. Cavassius 12 0.16 12 0.3
0. Pabda 123 0.84 123 1.56
N. notopterous 8.:1 3.35 84 G.2
N. chi tala 14 4.5 3 0.16
total other
233 8.85 222 8.22
,.
D. SPECIES 'COMPOSITION OF A HYPOTHETICAL SET OF 100 NETS OF EA.CH :MESH SIZE
ZlCUE X HCF):
1.) FIGURE IV: GRAPH SHOWING ESTIMATE OF COMPOSITION OF ENTIRE HYPOTHETICAL
CATCH BASED ON ALL FISH IN BUNDH BARET.Hl SAMPLE NETTING 14 Nov. 1961
20 Jan. 1971:
PREDATORS
2.) FIGURE V: GRAPH SHOWING ESTIMATE OF COMPOSTTION OF TH.I.T PORTION OF
CATCH COMPOSED OF FISH WEIGHING LESS THAN KGS,
BA.SED ON ONLY THOSE FISH IN BUNDH BARETHA SAMPLE NETTDIG WEINGING
LESS THAN TWO KGS. 11 Nov. 1969 -- 20 Jan. 1971:
# .)7 75%
i
,..
:;r
.
Note: These data do B.1 represent an estimate of the composition
of the rese:flvoir fish populations. The data have not been oorrected .
for the varying of the species and smze
groups in the sampling gear. This will be after catchability
correction factors (C.C.F. 's) have 'l!reen computed from rotenone cove
sample data.


22
E. COMMENTS ON THE BUNDH BARETHA RESULTS:
The study LsI of course
1
not as yet complete and the ultimate goal of
a population estimate of the reser;oir will have to await the results of the
planned rotenone cove sample. The present data has certain weaknesses 1 which
are discussed along with possitive remedies in the section entitlecj "Limitations
of the Method and Some P"Jss ible Remedies" on page 22. The most obvious
limitation of the present data is the conspicuous absence of large catla and
rohu from the sample catch. A separate presentation of the data for only
that portion of the catch composed of individuals weighing less than two kgs
. has therefore been made to give a more relative picture of at least part
of the population. Here the predators are not quite so over-represented as
they are in the figures for the ontlre catch. The largo fraction attributed
to M. e;eenghalla will be further r3duced when the data is corrected for
catchability after the rotenone sample.
Even in its present imperfect and incomplete state, certain facts are
obvious from the present results. One is that the rC:lservoir contains a large
population of L. calbasu which is not being harvested by the contractor.
The second is that M. Seenghalla is like wise being avoided by the commereial
fishermen. The same can be said for N. notogetrous and the minor carps.
Another fact is that the vast populations of catla that are the legend
of yesteryear exist no more.
Immediate action is needed to curb selective fishing and prevent further
deterioration of the fish populations. Fortunately I sebctive fishlng will
be combated in future years with a naw base"'1"atc system for setting nyalty
rates to be started at Bundh Baretha in the 1971-72 fishing season.
23
IV. LIMITATIONS OF THE METliOD AND SOME POSSIBLE REMEDIES:

There are a number cf pitfalls which must be avoided when using this method of
population estimation. There are also lnherent weaknesses w.hich must be
compensated for as much as possible to produce a useable estimate. Some of
these problems and possible remedies are discussed below:
A. UNREPRESENTAtiVE ROTENONE SAMPLE:
1) PROBLEM: If the covo ch.:.Jsen for the rotenone sample is unrepresentative
of the reservoir
1
the C. C .F.'s based on the sample will be wrong. At certain
times of year the fish concentrate in parw of the reservoir I as when
they move to the upper end of the parts ::>f the reservoir at the start of the
monsoon. Some species may move groups at other times of the year also I
introducing a chance e>f error. The estimation method makes the assumption
that the fish are evenly distributE::d within such habitat_.
2) REMEDY: The problem of an unrepresre tatlve rotenone sample can be
minimized by carefully picking a cove that is typical of the reservoir in all
outward reservoir in all outward respects. The time of year of the sample
is also Important; the sample should perhaps not be taken from April to
September. If more than one rotenone sample could be taken and the results
averaged
1
this would obviously be better.
The rotenone sample can also be checked for gross deviations from reservoir-
wide averages by comparing the results of sample netting in the cove aft-2r
blocking it off Immediately prior to taking the sample with the results that
would be predicted for the cove from sample netting data from the reservoir
as a whole The learning factor must be remembered in considering the
pre-rotenone sample netting in the cove. In spite of this I a large school of
some species of fish could be detected from the ne.tting.
B. UNREPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE NETIING:
1) PROBLEM: An unrepresentative sample can contaminate the results
by giving misleadlrg C. U .E's in the sample netting data. If the fish are not
evenly distributed within each the four habitats at the time of the sample
netting
1
the catch-per-unit-effort figures will sho'N a bias which will be
multiplied many times in computing the estimated standing crops. There is some
Indication in the data of unequal distribution of some species
1
such as Catla
1
within the habitats. Since an <21Utboard motorboat was not procured until quite
late in the sampling period
1
most of the netting was done in the lo\\'er end
of the reservoir.
2) REMEDY: The problem of unrepresentative sample netting can best be
countered by making the sets in as many different parts of the reservoir as
possible. An effort was made to d'J this in the Bundh Baretha sample netting I
after obtaining a motorboat towards the end of the study I but ins ufflcle nt
time remained to balance off any bias that may have resulted from the mass
of data being collected within easy rowing distance of the dam. In the future
the reservoir should be divided into sampling regions and the nets should be
rotated among them systematically. Also
1
it should be noted that the boat
presently-belng used with the department's UNICEF outboard motor belongs to
the American Peace Corps will not remain after the end of the Peace Corps
program. The D apartment should 1purchase an adequate boat of its own
as soon as possible.
-
24
An additional point to remember with regards to unrepresentative sample
netting is that sample netting should not be done at times "Jf year when
them is reason to believe that the fish populatbns are unevenly distributed
within the habitats.
C. LEARNING BIAS IN SAMPLE NETTING:
1) PROBLEM: The Indian Major Curps are very quick to lec.rn to avoid gill
nets. This is easily seen during the r:>yalty fishing when a regular pattern
can be seen of a high catch -per-untt -eff:>rt the first day, followed by a
sharp decline. The fishing is normally interrupted by the contractor a number
of times during the season fc)r a variety cf reasons. After each interruption
the starts off high and then falls off rapidly as the fish learn to avoid the
nets. Sample dono lmmediatd y after a period of fishing by the
contractor yielded miserably small catches. i'lso, if the nets were set
in the same place several nlghts in succession the catches decreased
dramatically. Such learned avoidance c:>uld severely bias the sample.
2) REMEDY: Bias from learning can be mlntmized by collecting the sample
under conditions of wec2k but extended fishing pressure. It is the
intensive fishing pressure of commercial fishing that causes the learning
bias. Sample netting should not be done during or soon after a perlod of
fishing by the c.::>ntractor. Care should be taken not to set nets in the
same place on two nights in succession. The nets should be rotated
systematically between widely a separately between wldely
sampling areas. Any data suspect of bias from learning should not be used
D . SMALL NESS OF THE SAMPLE:
1) PROBLEM: Because :::>f the great effort required to get a large sample
through sample netting, the number of fish in each category is always likely
to remain small. When the difference of a single fish can significaratly
change the prediction, the sample must be considerec too small to be
reliable.
2) REMEDY: The small sample problem can :mly be c0untercd by making
the sample as large as possible. More sets should be made with large
mesh sized nets and in sparsc:!ly populated habitats such as the bottom
deep. '!he estimate is :_-,nly .:1s g.:>od as the category with the least cases.
The best way to judge when the point :>f diminishing returns has been
passed for sample size and the sample is large enough is to analyze the
data and make a population estimate at several points during the collection
of the data. If the predicted perc0ntages of the various species do not
change significantly with the addition of more data, then the sample ls
large enough .
E. EXTREMELY LOW CATCHABILITIES OF SOME SPECIES AND SIZE GROUPS:
1) PROBLEM: No matter how many times the nets are set, there will
not be a sufficient number of individuals caught in certain categories
with very low catchabilities to give a reliable C. C. F. for that category.
Very large fish
1
for example
1
have not been caught in the sample netting,
yet obviously exist in the reservoir since the contractor takes many

25
in his royalty catch. Certain species such as Channa marulius have
unusually low catchabilities and are not present in the sample catch. Any
category with so few cases that the addition or subtraction or a single
fish can greatly affect the estimate must be considered unreliable.
2 .) REMEDY: The problem of very low catchabilitics can be compensated
by 1.) increasing the size of the sample and 2 .) using catch-per-unit effort
data for other kinds of gear. Larger mesh sized gill nets, flag nets (faslas),
hoop nets, trap nets, drag nets (chaundis), and trotlines for predators like
Channa marulius.
C. U. E. data for certain parts of the commercial catch might be
useable with caution. The royalty data is biased by learning and by the
practice of discarding unwanted varieties of fish. Porha.ps for a few
.
cases, however, as for large catla caught on the first day of fishing, the
data would be useable. One other factor to keep in mind when using drag
net data from the commercial catch is the tremendous variation in the effective-
ness of the gear in different depths of the water. If sufficient ingenuity is used.
surely much could be found in this large and easily gathered body of
information on the royalty catch that would add to the value of the population
estimate.
As a last resort, the problem of extremely low catchabilities can be
dealt with by using the data from the rotenone cove sample directly for
estimating the reservoir populations of species and size groups not
adequately represented in the sample netting catch. This makes. the assumption
either that the habitat composition of tre sampled cove is the same as the
reservoir as a whole, or that the fish are evenly distributed throughout the
habitats of the reservoir. Both of these assumptions are highly unlikely.
Using this method the kg/H .A. in the sampled cove would be taken as equal
to the kg/H .A. for the entire reservoir.
F. VARIATIONS OF CATCHABILITIES WITH THE LUNAR CYCLE:
1.} PROBLEM: There is some evidence that the catch-per-unit-efforts
decrease when the m::>on is full. This etas could greatly prejudice the
popula tlo n estimate.
2.) REMEDY: More study is needed t:J assess the baia from the moon.

The bias would be assessed by further subdividing the data and computing
catch-!Jer- unit-efforts separately for data collected when the moon is more
than half full and data collected when the moon is less than half full. If the
bias were found to be significant, then the ultimate remedy would be to do
sample netting only on those days when the moon is less than half full.
V. CONCLUDING REMARKS:
The method for estimating standing crops and species compositions of
reservoir fish populations using catch-per-unit-effort data from sample
netting and gear selectivity (catchability) information from a rotenone
cove sample can be an easy and cheap tool for making reservoir management
decisions in Rajasthan. When used in conjunction with other methods such
as catch-per-unit-efforts from other gear or direct extensi:m of rotenone
information to cover sections .:)f the fish population not adequately represented
26
in the sample netting catch, it promises to yield serviaeable pvpulation estimates.
These estimates can be put to immediate use in Rajasthan in setting royalty
rates under the proposed base-rate system to counter selective fish lng (See
proposal for improvement of fishing c:>ntract arrl auction system at Bundh
Baretha
1
Sept 29, 1970; an illustration-.:> how the base-rate system would
work, Dec 5
1
1970; the base-rate system: .Jbjections answered
1
March 29,1971;
a Guide to the Base-Rate system March 30, 1971) and in conducting the
suggested common carp pilot study (see Report of work done at Bundh Baretha
July 15
1
1970, page 0) at some reservoir in Rajasthan.
PF:v