CHAPTER - I

INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION

2.5 million square kilometers of fresh water area constitute one of the important

fishery resources of the world. It includes great river systems (Ganga, Nile, Amazon, etc),

lakes (Victoria, Nyasa, Chilka), ponds and canals of Southeast Asia, etc.

(Srivstava, 1998). India also has vast inland fishery resources (Nath and Das,2004;

Das,2011) in the form of rivers and canals, reservoirs, tanks and ponds, estuaries, flood

plain lakes and wetlands, etc (Table 1 and Table 2).These resources provide tremendous

scope for fish production. The North East (NE) Region of India comprising the state of

Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura and

Sikkim is also one of the few fresh water fish biodiversity hotspots in the world. The

region has vast and varied water resources (Table 3) including mighty rivers the

Brahamaputra and Barak (Tripathi, 2003; Kar, 2007a, 2007c; Baruah, 2009; Mahanta and

Goswami, 2009; Bhattacharjya, 2010). Among the N.E states, Assam has 3.90 lakh ha

(Anon, 2008) of inland water resources (Table 4), out of which, more than one lakh ha

(Baruah, et al, 2000 ; Shrivastava and Bhattacharjya, 2003; Kar 2007a) area are wetlands.

The Ramsar Convention (1971) defined wetlands as "areas of marsh, fen, peat

land or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is

static or flowing, fi-esh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water, the depth of

which at low tide does not exceed six metres". Moreover, Maltby's (1991) definition of

wetland is more comprehensive which states that:

"Wetlands occupy the transitional zone between permanently wet and generally

dry environments. They share characteristics of both environments, yet cannot be

classified exclusively as either aquatic or terrestrial".

Wetlands are available throughout the world in different forms and shapes,

Ramsar has identified 1643 wetlands that cover 145.73 million ha (Anon, 2007). Among

the South Asian countries, Bangladesh has forty million ha of wetland resources

(Rahman, 1987). In India, Government has identified 648507.0 ha of wetland area. State

wise list of Wetlands of International importance in India under Ramsar Convention is

shown at Table 5.

India has extensive wetlands (Table 6) of 2.02 lakhs ha (Sugunan, et al. 2000).

These are low-lying areas. These wetlands are mostly situated on floodplains of major

rivers viz. Ganga, Brahmaputra, Barak, Godavari, Cauvery and Krishna river basins.

Hence, they are better designated as floodplain wetlands (Dey, 1981; Dey and Kar, 1990 ;

Sugunan, 1997; Shrivastava and Bhattacharjya, 2003; Kar, 2000b,2004,2005). These

floodplains are the flat land bordering rivers that is subject to flooding which tends to be

most expensive along the lower reaches of rivers (Maltby,1991).

Floodplains can be classified in several ways, e.g., into permanently or seasonally

flooded ones (ICLARM, 1999, Kar, 2007a). Based on the flow of water, these can be

divided into (a) the running (lotic component) and (b) the standing (lentic components)

waters (Welcomme, 1979, Kar, 2009). These vary widely in area, shape, depth, extent of

riverine connection, etc. and have tremendous potential for development of capture,

culture and culture-based fisheries in them.

In most of the states, floodplain wetlands are locally called by different names,

such as Beels, Charhas, Baor.Haors and Annas (in Eastern India); Mauns, Chaurs and

Dhars ( in Bihar); Pats (in Manipur); Boar, Jheel (in West Bengal); Tals (in Uttar

Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh ); Sar and Dal (m Jammu & Kashmir ), etc. (Vass,1997;

Srivastava and Bhattacharjya, 2003; Kar,2004,2007a). Floodplain wetland resources of

India including Assam and other North East states are indicated at Table 7. These

floodplain wetlands together constitute important fishery resources in the State of West

Bengal, Bihar, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura and Meghalaya (Kar and Dey,

1982b; Kar,1990,2007a,c; Sugunan et al, 2000) besides Assam. West Bengal has an area

of more than 42500 ha of floodplain area spreading through out the state except few

districts like Purulia and Midnapore .The average annual yield of three different kind of

Beels of West Bengal are viz. 150-350 kg/ ha (shallow Beel), 250-475 kg/ha (deep water

Beel) and 500-1000 kg/ ha (medium water Beel) (Mukhpadhyay,1997).

Since time immemorial, these floodplains and their associated wetlands have been

utilized for well being of human societies. In many areas including Bangaldesh and India

(Minkin et.al., 1997 ; Thompson et.al., 1999),wetlands are the principal resource for the

survival of both rural and urban communities which provide fish, birds, edible plants,

reptiles, etc., water (for drinking and irrigation), building materials (reeds and timber).

transport and communication routes, effective sewage treatment systems, fertile soils for

agriculture, and buffers against flooding, erosion and nutrient loss (Howes, 1995;

Srivastava and Bhattacharjya, 2003; Kar, 1986,1996,1996c , 2005c,2010).

Kar (2007a, 2010) stated that in Assam and in adjoining Tripura and

Bangladesh, 3 kinds of wetlands are generally found namely:

(ayBeeP:- These are perennial wetlands which contain water throughout the year,

(b)'Haor':- These are seasonal wetlands which contain water for some period of

the year only, particularly, during the rainy season. As such, they are also called'

floodplain wetlands and

(c) 'Anua':- These are peculiar river-formed perennial oxbow-type wetlands

which are generally formed due to change in river course and which may or may not

retain connection with the original river.

The Assam Remote Sensing Application Centre and the Space Application Centre

has also developed classification system for the wetlands in Assam.

Goswami (1997) stated that Assam Beel can be categorized into four

morphologically distinguishable types, viz. (i) Typical oxbow (horse-shoe shaped), (ii)

Tube and canal type, (iii) Oval or saucer shaped and (iv) Dendritic tectonic type.

In India, Assam has maximum number of wetlands, commonly called as Beels

and are associated with river Brahamputra and Barak (Dey, 1981; Sugunan and

Bhattacharjya, 2000; Baruah et.al, 2000; Kar, 2000,2001, 2002, 2000a, 2003a , 2003b,

2008 ; Bhattacharjya, 2008, 2009). It constitutes an important, most productive and

potential fishery resources in the state and covers approximately 72.45% of total lentic

water areas of the state. However, its existing average production is only about 173

kg/ha/year against the estimated production potential of 1000-1500 kg/ha/year (Sugunan

and Bhattacharjya,2000; Srivastava and Bhattacharjya, 2003; Kar ,2007a, Anon,2010)

Further, different Beel have different management options viz. capture fisheries

and various forms of fisheries enhancements (including culture-based fisheries and

aquaculture) depending upon the extent of human intervention in the management

process for different types of Beels (e.g. open/close, large/small, etc.).

Assam has approximately 1392 Beek (Dey, 1981) covering almost 100,000

hectare, which is 49.5% of the total area under floodplain wetlands in India (Goswami,

1997; Srivastava and Bhattacharjya, 2003 ). Beeh constitute c_28.9% of the total fishery

resources (347,000 hectare) and as much as 70.4% of lentic water bodies (142,000

hectare) of Assam (Bhattacharjya, 2002; Kar, 2001,2002, 2004, 2007a). Out of 1392

Beels in Assam, 423 (30.4%)) are registered and 969(69.6%)) are unregistered ( Table 8).

Among, unregistered Beel, 52.1% are under the control of the state government and

47.9%) fall under the public sector. Goswami (1997) stated that as per government

records, there are 430 registered and 766 unregistered Beels while the remote sensing

data show more than 3000 Beels in Assam. Thus, they are one of the largest and the most

potential fishery resources of the State of Assam (Kar, 1984, 1990; Srivastava and

Bhattacharjya, 2003, Kar 2007a, 2010).

Except few works (Kar, 1982a,b 1982b, 1984, 1986,1987,1988, 1990 ; Dey and

Kar, 1990, Kar,2007a), precise data on fish yield from Beeh are not available. However,

they reportedly contribute @ 12.5% of the total fish production of the state (Srivastava

and Bhattacharjya, 2003). Kar (1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 2007a) reported 332 mt yield

from Sone Beel in Assam. These wetlands generally possess high potential for in situ

fish production and where the topography allows; provide a 'collection sink' for the fish

produced in the flooded catchment areas. Further, most of the riverine fishes are

harvested from the adjoining Beels. The open Beeh act as breeding and nursery grounds

for a number of riverine fishes including Indian major carps.

The registered Beeh (numbering 423) that are under the administrative control of

the Revenue Department of the Government of Assam and the Assam Fisheries

Development Corporation (AFDC) generate considerable amount of revenue for these

government establishments. However, a combination of the natural processes of river-bed

evolution and anthropogenic changes {e.g., extensive flood control/irrigation works and

over exploitation) have reduced fish production of many Beeh through reduced auto-

stocking from rivers, deplefion of fish stocks, siltation, habitat destruction and heavy

macrophyte infestation. Conducting a study on Garjan Beel of Kamrup district of Assam,

Bordoloi (2008) stated that the Beeh were under tremendous anthropogenic stress and are

shrinking at an alarming rate. Effect of natural calamities and various mode of

exploitation of fishery resources have caused depletion of fish stock of indigenous

species ( Deka et.al,2005 ). Jhingran and Pathak (1987), Baruah et.al, (2000) mentioned

about the available fish species and soil and water quality (Table 9) of a typical Beel of

the State.

Sugunan et al. (2000), Shrivastava and Bhattacharjya (2003), Anon (2010)

indicated that fish yield from the Beels of Assam could be raised to 1,000-1,500 kg/

ha/year. Thus, there is an urgent need to formulate sound development and management

norms for effective utilization of the Beeh of Assam to increase their fish production in a

sustainable way.

In today's perspective, effective development and management of wetlands

/floodplain wetlands/5ee/5 call for a comprehensive strategy, ranging fi"om conservation,

legal frame works and policy support for inventorization, institutional mechanism need to

be strictly followed for its sustainable development (Ghosh,2001; Srivastava and

Bhattacharjya , 2003; Kar 1996, 2000a, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b, 2007b, 2009,

2010; Bhatatcharjya, 2008). Simultaneously, two aspects namely community

participation and involvement of Non Government Organization (NGO) in the process of

development, conservation and management of these resources including community's

capacity building need to be ensured at the same time (Bhattacharjya , 2001; Kar 2003c ;

Barman, et.al,2006 ; Barman, et.al,2009).

In Assam, though few investigators have made strong attempt to study limnology

and fishery aspect of selected Beeh of Assam (Dey,1981; Lahan,1983; Kar, 1984 ;

Goswami,1985), systematic studies on role of people's participation on each stages of

development and management of Beel fisheries of Assam are not much

(Kar,1998a,2003c,2007a,2010). Barman (2004) mentioned that in fisheries management,

community-based fisheries organization is the most prominent factor which can mostly

affect on sustainable development of Beel through its direct effect on Beel user's

knowledge level on sustainable development of Beel fisheries. It is worthy to mention

here that considering the importance of people's participation in each stage of

development program, government of Assam initiated development interventions in few

selected Beels through community participation under World Bank funded Assam Rural

Infrastructure and Agricultural Service Project (ARIASP) during 1996-2001. In the

follow-up project of ARIASP, popularly called as Assam Agricultural Competitiveness

Project (AACP), an initiative has also been taken to develop 1000 ha of Beel Fisheries

through Community-based Fisheries Management (CBFM).

1.1 Impact of development and management of flood plain wetlands /Beel fisheries

due to community-based fisheries management

Today Community-based Fisheries Management (CBFM) has been gaining

much importance among the different stakeholders involved in fisheries and aquaculture.

From various studies, it is revealed that CBFM allows greater stake holders' participation

in decision making process, creates more transparent management system, enhances

competence with rules and regulations, greater co-operation between stakeholders,

strengthening management efficiency, reduce government cost, minimizing fishing

conflict, improve resource users' assesses to social, human, physical, financial and

natural capitals and promotes sustainable development and management ( Kar,

1989b;Salim 1998; Kar, 2000a,b,c,2003c; Barman,2005, 2007; Islam et.ai, 2006). Thus,

CBFM approach can be regarded as the most potential and effective management

approach for sustainable development of the Beel fisheries (Mazumdar, 1998;

Bhattacharjya, 2001; Kar, 1998a, 2007; Barman, 2004, 2005, Barman, et. al. 2006, 2009).

Sitka Declaration (2005) stated that CBFM always promotes diverse, selective fisheries,

maintain habitat integrity through use of low impact gear and practices.(

vyww.ecotrust.org/cbfm). Barman et a/. (2005) indicated that due to involvement of fisher

community in the pen culture practices in the Dek Beel of Kamrup district of Assam, the

cost of pen culture was reduced to a great extent and capacity building of the Beel users

found to be enhanced with respect to construction and installation of pens in the Beel.

Due to community-based mana gement of Beel namely in Ganja Khawari Beel (9.0 ha) in

Hailakandi district; Kacharidal Beel (5.20 ha) in Darrang district and Barmonipur (6.0 ha)

Beel in Marigaon district , fish production was raised to substantial level ,community

empowerment was ensured, people's participation was strengthened resulting in

sustainable development of these Beels.

The AACP, which came into existence in the state of Assam with effect from

Feb-March, 2005 to empower the poor fish farming communities (as clusters/ groups)

and to enhance their socio economic livelihood through Beel fisheries development, is a

unique example of community-based fisheries management approach. Under this project,

participatory development intervention been proposed in 1000 ha of Beels throughout the

state within five years by forming Beel Development Committee (BDC) from the

surrounding Beel users. It is hoped that the approach will ensure (a) effective community

participation, (b) environmental safeguards to the Beels and Beels users, (c) involvement

of NGO to ensure social safeguards in the entire process of development and

management of Beels . Executive Committee (EC) consisted of five community members

and one NGO representative and one government officer. It is responsible for overall

management of BDC as per the project guideline to ensure sustainable development of

the candidate Beels. Similarly, to ensure effective, transparent procurement, a community

led three persons formed Social Audit Committee (SAC) for those Beels.

1.2 . Objective of the study:

The three AACP Beels namely (a) Kutuha Bar Beel (16.00 ha) in Dibrugharh

district, (b) Amuguri Basa Pathar Beel (49.80 ha) in Golaghat district and (c) Talu Malu

Beel (22.00 ha) in Dhubri district were taken as study Beel and (d) Bithorkuri Beel (20.00

ha) under greater Sone Beel of Karimganj district of Assam was taken as control Beel.

Project intervention had been taken in the studied Beels (excluding control Beel) as per

the provision of AACP guideline and all observations, results are accordingly highlighted

in the light of development consequence of those Beels under the supervision of BDC.

The study includes the following objectives:

i. To study the socio-economic profile of community Beel users,

ii. To see the impact of Community-based Fisheries Management (CBFM) on

development and management of Beel fisheries,

iii. To identify the variables contributing most significantly to the Beel users

knowledge level on CBFM.

iv. To find out the different critical factors associated with successftil CBFM for

sustainable fish production from the studied Beels.

Table 1 . Fisheries Resources of India

4o

1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6

Resource

Coast line Exclusive Economic Zone Continental shelf Rivers and canals Reservoirs Pond and Tank Oxbow lake and derelict water Brackish waters Estuaries

Unit

Km Mil.sq,km Mil.sq,km Km Million ha Million ha Million ha Million ha Million ha

Resource size

8129 2.02 0.56

197024 3.15 2.35

1.3 1.24 0.29

Source: NFDB, 2010 (http:://nfdb.ap.nic.html/aboutus.htm)

Table 2 . Inland Water Resources of India

4o

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Resource

Rivers Mangroves Estuaries Estuarine wetlands (bheries) Backwater / lagoons Large & Medium reservoir Small reservoir Flood plain wetlands Upland lakes

Uni

Km Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Resource size

29000 356000 300000 39000 190500 1667809 1485557 202313 720000

Source: Nat/t and Das (2004)

Table 3. Aquatic resources of the North-Eastern states of India

Name of the state

Assam Manipur Meghalaya Nagaland Sikkim Tripura Arunachal Pradesh Mizoram Total

Source: Tripathi (2003)

Rivers (km)

4,820 3,360 5,600 1,600 900

1,200 2,000 1,750

21,230

Lakes and Reservoirs (ha)

1,713 28,600

-

4,740

35,053

Ponds & tanks (ha)

25,432 Negligible

50,000

12,811 Negligible

1,859 90,102

Beels, oxbow lakes, derelict water etc.(ha)

1,12,000 40,000

Negligible

40,000

1,92,000

Table 4. Water resources of the state of Assam

SI

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Source

Resource

River Fisheries

Beel / Oxbow lakes

Forest Fisheries

Derelict Water Bodies/ Swamp

Reservoir Fisheries

Ponds/ tank

Community Tank

Total

; Department of Fisheries, Assam (2008)

Un

Ha

Ha

Ha

Ha

Ha

Ha

Ha

Ha

Water area

205000

100000

5017

39000

1713

35300

3500

3,89,530

Table 5. State wise list of Wetlands of International importance in Ramsar Convention.

SI. State/UT Name of Ramsar site Area No (Ha) 1 Andhra Pradesh Kolleru Lake 90100

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Assam

Himachal Pradesh

Jammu and Kashmir

Kerela

Madhya Pradesh

Manipur Lake

Orissa

Punjab

Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Tripura

Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

Deepor Beel

Pong Dam Lake

Kenuka Wet lands

Chandertal Wetland

Wular Lake

Tsomoriri

Hokera Wetlands

Surinsar-Mansar Lake

Ashtamudi Wetlands

Sasthamkotta Lake

Vembananad -Kol

Bhoj Wetlands

Loktak Lake

Chilka Lake

Bhitarkanika Mangoves

Harike Lake

Kanjli

Roper

Sambhar Lake

Keoladeo National Park

Point Calimere Wildlife

Rudrasagar Lake

Upper Ganga River

East Kolkata Wetlands

Total sites (25)

4000

15662

20

49

18900

12000

1375

350

61400

373

151250

3201

26600

116500

65000

4100

183

1365

24000

2873

38500

240

26590

12500

677131

India under

Date of declaration

19/8/02

19/08/02

19/08/02

8/11/05

8/11/05

23/3/90

19/8/02

8/11/05

8/11/05

19/8/02

19/8/02

19/8/02

19/08/02

23/03/09

1/10/81

19/08/02

23/3/90

22/01/02

22/01/02

23/3/90

1/10/83

19/8/02

8/11/05

8/11/05

19/8/02

Source : Conservation of Wetlands in India: A profile (2007)

10

Table: 6. Area of wetlands in India

SI Resources

1 Area under paddy cultivation

2 Area suitable for fish culture

A Fresh water

B Brackish water

3 Area under capture fisheries

4 Mangroves (G0I,1991 )

5 Estuaries

6 Backwater

7 Man-made impoundment

8 Rivers including main tributaries

9 Canals and irrigation channels

Total area of wet lands ( excluding rivers )

Source: Asian Wetland Bureau (1991)

Unit

Million ha

Million ha

Million ha

Million ha

Million ha

Million ha

Million ha

Million ha

Million ha

Km

Km

Million ha

Resources size

40.9

3.6

1.6

2

2.9

0.4

3.9

3.5

3

28000

113000

58.2

Table. 7. Distribution of Flood plain wetland resources in India

SI

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

State

Arunachal

Pradesh

Assam

Bihar

Manipur

Meghalaya

Tripura

West Bengal

Total

River basin

Kameng,Subansiri,Siang,Di

bang, Lohit, Dihing and Tira

Brahmaputra and Barak

Gandak and Kosi

Iral, Imphal and Thoubal

Someshwari and Jinjiram

Gumti

Ganga & Ichamati

Source: Sugunan,1995b

Local name

Beel

Beel

Mauns &Chaurs

Pat

Beel

Beel

Beel & Jheel

Area (Ha)

2500

100000

40000

16500

213

500

42500

202213

11

Table.8. Registered and unregistered Beels of Assam District Registered Unregistered

Govt, sector Private sector Total

Hailakandi Karimganj Cachar Darrang Sonitpur Dibrugarh and Tinsukia Dhubri Goalpara Kokxajhar Barpeta Kamrup Nalbari Karbi Anglong Dhemaji N.Lakhimpur North Cachar Morigaon Nowgaon Golaghat Jorhat Sibsagar Total

11 26 34 17 3 19 37 13 4

48 23 26 0 9 13 0

44 38 20 22 16

423

0 21 21 13 10 0

75 32 22 25 9 8 0

21 36 0 62 120

1 19 10

505

18 12

179 1 9 19 0 0 0 2 14 14 0

49 25 0 11 14 47 22 28

464

29 59

234 31 22 38 112 45 26 75 46 48 0

79 74 0

117 172 68 63 54

1392

Source: Goswami (1997).

Table 9(A). Fish species commonly available in the Beels of Assam

SI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Fish species Chela laubuca Chela atpar Securicula gora Salmostoma bacatla Salmostoma phuto Esomus danrica Danio devario Rasbora elenga Rasbora daniconius Rasbora rasbora Aspidopariajaya Aspidoparia morar Barilius barila

SI 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Fish species Changunius changunio Tor tor Tor putitora Cirrhinus mrigala Cirrhinus reba Catla catla Crossocheilus latius latius Noenacheilus botia boita Botia dario Lepidocephalichthys guntea Somileptes gongota Rita rita Batasio spp.

SI 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

Fish species Glyptothorax telchitta Clarias batcrachus Hetreopneustes fossilis Chaca chaca Xenonthodon cancila Channa marulius Channa striatus Channa gachua Channa stewartii Channa panctatus Amphiphonous cuchia Chanda nama Chandaranga

12

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Barilius barna Barilius shacra Barilius bola Barilius bendelistis Barilius tileo Barilius spp. Cyprinus carpio, communis Cyprinus carpio, specular is Fundus chola Puntius sophore Puntius sarana Puntius ticto Puntius gerius Puntius conchonius Osteobrama cotia Labeo rohita Labeo gonius Labeo calbasu Labeo bata Labeo dyocheilus Labeo nandina Labeo dero Labeo pangusia Labeo angara

51 52 53 54 55 56 57

58

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

Chandramara chandaramara Mystus cavasius Mystus vittatus Mystus bleekeri Mystus mnoda Mystus aor Mystus seenghala

Ompok binaculatus

Ompokpabo Ompok pabda Wallago atu A ilia cot la Ailia punctata Pseudeutropius atherinoides Clupisoma garua Eutropitichthys vacha Silonia silondia Pangasius pangasius Amblyceps mangois Bagarius bagarius Gagata cenia Nangra viridescens Erethistes pussilus Glyptothorax cavia

88 89 90 91 92 93 94

95

96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106

Badis badis Nandusnandus Sicanugil cascasia Rhinomugil corsula Glossogobius giuris Anabas testudineus Colisa fasciata

Colisa latius

Colisa chuna Colisa baculis Macrognathus aculeatus Mastacembalus armatus Mastacembalus pancalus Tetradon cutcutia Gadusia chapra Setipinna phasa Notopterus chitala Notopterus notopterus Ambypharyngodon mola

Source: Baruah et.al (2000)

Table 9(B). Soil and water quality of a typical Beel

B

I 2

Soil quality 3 4 1 2 3 4

Water quality 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14

Parameters Ph Organic carbon (%) Available nitrogen-N (ppm) Available phosphorus-P (ppm) Temperature (degree centigrade) Transperancy (cm) Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) Ph Free carbondi oxide (ppm) Bicarbonate(ppm) Specific conductivity (mhos/cm) Total Hardness(ppm) Calcium (ppm) Magnesium (ppm) Dissolved Oxygen matter (ppm) Phosphote (ppm) Nitrate (ppm) Silicate (ppm)

5.10 2.80

605.00 40.00

18.50 48.00 4.27 6.40 2.00

15.00 34.90 13.90 5.00 3.00 2.77 0.02 0.05 4.90

Range to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to

5.80 5.90

782.00 170.00 31.50 121.00

11.20 7.60

12.00 40.00 73.10 35.60 15.80 6.80 4.80 0.10 0.40

12.20 Source, Jhingran andPthak (1987)

13