N

Save Nature to Survive QUARTERLY

5(3&4) : 105-109, 2011 www.theecoscan.in

ASSESSMENT OF BYCATCH AND DISCARDS IN MARINE CAPTURE

FISHERIES FROM URAN (RAIGAD), NAVI MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

R. PAWAR PRABHAKAR
Veer Wajekar Arts, Science and Commerce College,
Phunde - 400 702, Uran (Dist. –Raigad), Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
E-mail: prabhakar_pawar1962@yahoo.co.in

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION The retained catch of non-targeted but

Most fisheries are at least partially non-selective and they catch organisms that
were not originally targeted. Bycatch is a catch that is either unused or unmanaged
(Davies et al., 2009). The bycatch is an issue of critical ocean conservation and
resource management concern. In global marine fisheries, bycatch represents
40.4% of marine catches, exposing systemic gaps in fishery policies and
management. The commercial fishing, especially the indiscriminate capture of
non-target organisms is one of the most urgent threats to the world’s remaining
fish stocks (Worm et al., 2006). The unusable or unwanted sub-set of bycatch is
known as ‘discards’, which is subsequently thrown back to the sea, often dead or
dying (Harrington et al., 2006). According to FAO, unused catch is that which is
not used for consumption, sold for any purpose, or reused by the fisher as bait.
The unmanaged catch refers to individual species or groups of different species
that does not have specific management to ensure the take is sustainable (FAO,
2005).
Today, bycatch becomes one of the most significant nature conservation issues
in the world due to its role in degrading marine ecosystems. The bycatch is so
pervasive that it affects the marine fauna including benthic invertebrates, juvenile
fishes, sharks, sea turtles, seabirds and marine mammals (Lewison et al., 2004).
Four major gear groups i. e. shrimp trawls, pelagic trawls, purse seines and the
high sea driftnets stand at the top in generating bycatch due to lack of selectivity
and results in capture of a huge quantity and diversity of non-target species
(Alverson et al., 1994).
Though bycatch and discards were degrading marine ecosystems, it also has
both direct and indirect impacts on marine biodiversity by killing huge amount of
non-target species and young ones of commercially valuable species. Except few
reports (Rao, 1988; Menon, 1996; Menon et al., 2000; Kurup et al., 2003; Biju
and Deepthi, 2006), meager information is available on quality and quantity of
marine fisheries bycatch and discards from Indian waters. The present study
aims at qualitative and quantitative assessment of bycatch and discards of marine
fishery landings at Uran coast (Raigad), Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra.
commercially viable species plus all discards in
marine capture fisheries is referred to as
‘bycatch’. At present, bycatch is a prominent
international issue raising ecological concerns
as some of the bycatch species of marine
mammals, seabirds, sea turtles, elasmobranches
and fin fishes are vulnerable to overexploitation
and slow to recover from large population
declines. Bycatch alters biodiversity and
ecosystem functions along with the behavior of
species that learn to take advantage of discards.
It also raises social issue over waste. During
this study, a total of 101 species were recorded
from the marine capture fisheries bycatch and
discards at Karanja and Mora landing centers
from Uran (Raigad), Navi Mumbai,
Maharashtra. The recorded species have shown
juveniles and subadults of commercially
valuable organisms and were represented by
29 species of fin fishes, 22 species of crustaceans,
31 species of gastropods, 11 species of bivalves,
3 species of cephalopods, 4 species of
polychaetes and 1 species of sponges. The species
recorded abundantly in bycatch includes
Lepturacanthus savala, Johnius soldado,
Sciaena dussumierii, Coilia dussumierii and
Acetes indicus (Jawla Paste Shrimp). At present,
creeks from Navi Mumbai region were major
fishing grounds for fin fishes and shell fishes
but in future, for conservation of marine
biodiversity resources, several principles and
approaches require consideration when
developing measures to reduce bycatch through
changes in fishing gear and methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

KEY WORDS
Study area Bycatch, Discards
Juveniles, Marine ecosystem
Uran (Lat. 18º50’ 5" to 18º50’ 20" N and Long. 72º57’ 5" to 72º57’ 15" E) with
Navi Mumbai, Uran
the population of 23, 251 is located along the eastern shore of Mumbai Harbour
opposite to Coloba (Fig. 1) and is a major fishery landing center in Raigad district, Received : 25.06.2011
Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, west coast of India. A creek called ‘Uran creek/
Revised : 23.07.2011
Sheva creek’ encircles Uran city on the north side and is continuous with the
Panvel creek and Thane creek joining Arabian Sea. Towards the south, Dharamtar Accepted : 12.09.2011
creek encircles Uran and the creek is continuous with the Karanja creek and Pen-
*Corresponding author
Khopoli creek. Along coast of Uran, trawl nets with a small cod end mesh size

105
R. PRABHAKAR PAWAR

and purse seines were operated as major fishing gears and the crustaceans, 31 species of gastropods, 11 species of bivalves,
catch is landed at Mora and Karanja, the major landing centers 3 species of cephalopods, 4 species of polychaetes and 1
at Uran. species of sponges. Numerous small sized species and
The coastal environment of Uran has been under considerable juveniles of commercially valuable species were represented
stress since the onset of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT, an in the discards.
International port), Nhava-Seva International Container Fishes
Terminal (NSICT), Container Freight Stations (CFS) etc. These 29 species of fishes representing 28 genera and 23 families
activities affect the diversity of fin fish and shell fish resources. were recorded from the study sites (Table 1). Among all the
Entire region of Mora and Karanja landing centers is species of fishes recorded, abundance of ribbon fishes/spiny
considered as study area and sampling was conducted during hair tail (Lepturacanthus savala), croakers (Johnius soldado),
October-November 2009. dhoma (Sciaena dussumierii) and gold spotted grenadier
Sampling procedures anchovy (Coilia dussumierii) were recorded at both sites.
During present investigation, two stations namely Mora and Species like Bleeker’s whipray (Himantura bleekeri) and Sharp
Karanja were selected for qualitative and quantitative nose stingray (H. gerrardi) were rare whereas stripped mullet
assessment of species diversity from bycatch and discards. (Mugil cephalus), cat fish (Mystus seenghala), three stripped
From both the stations, ten samples were collected during tiger fish (Terapon jarbua) and mudskippers (Boleophthalmus
October-November 2009. Species representing the most boddarti) were very common.
common groups were collected from the bycatch and discards Crustaceans
and preserved in 10% buffered formaldehyde. The recorded 22 species of crustaceans representing 15 genera and 10
animals were identified up to species level as far as possible in families were recorded during present investigation (Table 2).
the laboratory. Among crustaceans, Prawns, shrimps and lobsters were
represented by 13 species of 7 genera and 4 families where as
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION crabs were represented by 9 species of 8 genera and 6 families.
Qualitative and quantitative assessment of species diversity At Karanja, the discard was dominated by Jawla Paste Shrimp
from the bycatch and discards at Mora and Karanja landing (Acetes indicus) and tonnes of juveniles of A. indicus and
centers have recorded 101 species of bycatch and were prawns of family Penaeidae were discarded back into the sea.
represented by 29 species of fin fishes, 22 species of Juveniles of edible crabs from family Portunidae and other
Table 1: Fishes identified from bycatch and discards at Mora and Karanja landing centers, Uran, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
Order Family Binomial Name Populations of bycatch
(Mean ± SD)
Carcharhiniformes Carcharhinidae Scoliodon sorrakowah (Maller and Henle, 1837) 7±2.64
Rajiformes Dasyatidae Himantura bleekeri (Blyth, 1860) 3 ± 1.63
Himantura gerrardi (Grey, 1851) 2 ± 1.17
Perciformes Sparidae Argyrops spinifer (Forsskal, 1775) 3 ± 0.89
Gobiidae Boleophthalmus boddarti (Pallas, 1770) 6 ± 1.83
Scombridae Euthynnus affinis (Cantor, 1849) 5 ± 1.34
Rastrelliger kanagurta (Cuvier, 1816) 4 ± 3.80
Gerreidae Gerres filamentosus (Cuvier, 1849) 3±1.10
Sciaenidae Johnius soldado (Lacepede, 1802) 7±4.15
Sciaena dussumierii Cuvier, 1830) 8±3.11
Centropomidae Lates calcarifer (Bloch, 1970) 6±1.66
Trichiuridae Lepturacanthus savala (Cuvier, 1829) 13±3.48
Carangidae Megalaspis cordyla (Linnaeus, 1758) 5±1.36
Parastromateus niger (Bloch, 1795) 5±1.85
Stromateidae Stromateus argenteus (Euphrasen, 1788) 6 ± 2.17
Polynemidae Polynemus tetradactylus (Shaw, 1804) 4 ± 1.83
Pricanthidae Priacanthus hamrur (Forsskal, 1775) 4 ± 1.66
Scatophagidae Scatophagus argus (Linnaeus, 1758) 5 ± 1.75
Terapontidae Terapon jarbua (Forsskål, 1775) 7 ± 1.83
Cichlidae Tilapia mosambica (Peters, 1852) 4 ± 1.45
Clupeiformes Engraulidae Coilia dussumieri (Valenciennes, 1848) 15 ± 2.25
Thryssa mystax (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) 4 ± 1.14
Clupeidae Tenualosa ilisha (Hamilton, 1822) 4 ± 1.63
Mugiliformes Mugilidae Mugil cephalus (Linnaeus, 1758) 11 ± 2.75
Chelon macrolepis (Smith, 1846) 11 ± 3.61
Siluriformes Bagridae Mystus seenghala (Sykes, 1839) 13 ± 3.39
Pleuronectiformes Cynoglossidae Cynoglossus macropepidotus (Bleeker, 1851) 4 ± 1.36
Anguilliformes Muraenidae Gymnothorax pseudothyrsoideus (Bleeker, 1852) 6 ± 2.17
Aulopiformes Synodontidae Harpadon nehereus (Hamilton, 1822) 13 ± 3.00

106
 BYCATCH AND DISCARDS IN MARINE CAPTURE FISHERIES

Table 2: Crustaceans identified from bycatch and discards at Mora and Karanja landing centers, Uran, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
Order Family Binomial Name Populations of bycatch
(Mean ± SD)
Decapoda / Penaeidae Fenneropenaeus indicus (H. M.- Edwards,1837) 8 ± 2.06
Dendrobranchiata Penaeus monodon (Fabricius, 1798) 8 ± 1.57
Penaeus penicillatus (Alcock, 1905) 7 ± 1.14
Penaeus semisculatus (De Haan, 1844) 7 ± 1.81
Penaeus merguiensis (de Man, 1888) 5 ± 1.68
Metapenaeus affinis (H. Milne Edwards, 1837) 5 ± 1.36
Metapenaeus dobsoni (Miers, 1878) 5 ± 1.81
Metapenaeus stridulans (Alcock, 1905) 4 ± 1.08
Parapenaeopsis sculptilis (Heller, 1862) 3 ± 2.26
Parapenaeopsis stylifera (H. M.Edwards, 1837) 6 ± 1.47
Sergestidae Acetes indicus (H. Milne Edwards, 1830) 14 ± 2.65
Palinura Palinuridae Panulirus polyphagus (Herbst, 1793) 4 ± 1.40
Brachyura Portunidae Scylla serrata (Forsskål, 1775) 6 ± 1.34
Portunus sanguinolentus (Herbst, 1796) 4 ± 1.14
Portunus pelagicus (Linnaeus, 1758) 4 ± 0.98
Charybdis cruciata (Herbst, 1789) 4 ± 1.28
Matunidae Matuta lunaris (Forsskål, 1775) 3 ± 0.63
Xanthidae Leptodius exaratus (H. Milne Edwards, 1834) 4 ± 1.29
Eriphiidae Eriphia smithii (Macley, 1838) 4 ± 0.90
Ocypodidae Uca annulipes (H. Milne Edwards, 1837) 3 ± 0.49
Anomura Paguridae Pagurus prideaux (Leach, 1815) 3 ± 0.70
Stomatopoda Squillidae Squilla mantis (Linnaeus, 1758) 5 ± 1.02

Table 3 : Gastropods identified from bycatch and discards at Mora and Karanja (Uran)
Order Family Binomial name Populations of bycatch
(Mean ± SD)
Archaeogastropoda Trochidae Trochus stellatus (Gmelin, 1791) 3 ± 0.70
Trochus radiatus (Gmelin, 1791) 3 ± 0.70
Trochus tentorium (Gmelin, 1791) 2 ± 0.70
Euchelus asper (Gmelin, 1791) 3 ± 0.70
Clancules ceylonicus (Nevill, 1869) 2 ± 0.66
Neritimorpha Neritidae Nerita oryzarum (Recluz, 1841) 3 ± 0.66
Nerita crepidularia (Lamarck, 1816) 2 ± 0.63
Nerita albicilla (Linnaeus, 1758) 2 ± 0.89
Caenogastropoda Strombidae Tibia curta (Sowerby, 1842) 2 ± 0.70
Hypsogastropoda Bursidae Bursa lissostroma (Smith, 1914) 2 ± 0.64
Bursa spinosa (Lamarck, 1816) 2 ± 0.90
Bursa elegans (Sowerby, 1835) 2 ± 0.33
Bursa tuberculata (Brodrip, 1833) 3 ± 0.78
Naticidae Natica picta (Recluz, 1844) 2 ± 0.49
Natica maculosa (Lamarck, 1799) 2 ± 0.50
Planaxidae Planaxis sulcatus (Born, 1778) 4 ± 0.90
Potamididae Telescopium telescopium (Linnaeus, 1758) 3 ± 0.70
Potamides cingulatus (Gmelin, 1791) 4 ± 1.14
Neogastropoda Muricidae Murex adustus (Lamarck, 1799) 2 ± 0.60
Murex tribulus (Linnaeus, 1758) 2 ± 0.46
Ocinebra bombayana (Melvill, 1893) 2 ± 0.66
Thais carinifera (Lamarck, 1822) 3 ± 0.89
Turridae Surcula javana (Linnaeus, 1758) 2 ± 0.49
Surcula amicta (Smith, 1877) 2 ± 0.49
Clavus crassa (Smith, 1888) 2 ± 0.50
Buccinidae Babylonia spirata (Linnaeus, 1758) 2 ± 0.64
Cantharus spiralis (Gray, 1846) 2 ± 0.40
Cancellaridae Cancellaria costifera (Sowerby, 1835) 2 ± 0.66
Volemidae Hemifuus pugilinus (Born, 1778) 3 ± 0.75
Hemifuus cochlidium (Linnaeus, 1758) 2 ± 0.66
Onchidiidae Onchidium damelii (Samper, 1882) 3 ± 0.92

non-edible species of crabs were found common at both the representing 20 genera and 13 families were recorded at both
study stations. landing centers (Table 3). Species like Hemifusus pugilinus,
Gastropods H. cochlidium, Telescopium telescopium, Nerita crepidularia,
Juveniles and subadults of 31 species of gastropods Trochus radiatus, Bursa tuberculata, Tibia curta and Murex

107
R. PRABHAKAR PAWAR et al.,

Table 4: Pelecypods, Cephalopods, Polychaetes and Sponges identified from by catch and discards at Mora and Karanja landing centers, Uran,
Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
Order Family Binomial Name Populations of bycatch
(Mean ± SD)
Pelecypods
Pteriomorpha Arcidae Arca granosa (Linnaeus, 1758) 3 ± 0.87
Veneroida Veneridae Callista erycina (Linnaeus, 1758) 2 ± 0.49
Katelysia opima (Gmelin, 1791) 3 ± 0.66
Dosinia cretacea (Reeve, 1850) 2 ± 0.78
Meretricinae Merettrix meretrix (Linnaeus, 1758) 3 ± 0.90
Merettrix casta (Chemnitz, 1782) 2 ± 0.75
Merettrix lyrata (Sowerby, 1851) 2 ± 0.64
Mactridae Mactre cornea (Poli, 1791) 2 ± 0.64
Dosiniiae Vellorita cyprinoids (Gray, 1825) 2 ± 0.68
Eulamellibranchiata Ostreidae Placenta placenta (Linnaeus, 1758) 4 ± 0.87
Pectinidae Chlamys singaporina (Sowerby, 1842) 2 ± 0.64
Cephalopods
Sepiida Sepiidae Sepia officinalis (Linnaeus, 1758) 7 ± 1.30
Teuthida Loligunidae Loligo vulgaris (Lamarck, 1798) 8 ± 1.25
Octopoda Octopodidae Octopus herdmani (Hoyle, 1904) 7 ± 1.22
Polychaetes
Aciculata Nereidae Perinereis cultrifera (Grube, 1840) 4 ± 1.03
Perinereis vancauria (Grube, 1840) 3 ± 0.75
Pseudonereis anamola (Gravier, 1901) 3 ± 0.78
Eunicida Eunicidae Marphysa sanguinea (Montagu, 1815) 2 ± 0.78
Sponges
Leucosoleniida Leucosoleniidae Leucosolenia complicata (Montagu, 1818) 4 ± 1.11

tribulus were recorded as common in discards at Karanja.
Pelecypods
11 species of bivalves representing 9 genera and 7 families
were recorded in juvenile forms at both study sites (Table 4).
Abundantly recorded bivalve species in the discards were
Katelysia opima, Dosinia cretacea, Meretrix meretrix and
Chlamys singaporina.
Cephalopods
Undersized cephalopods recorded include 3 species
representing 3 genera and 3 families (Table 4). Juveniles of
Sepia officinalis and Loligo vulgaris were common while
Octopus herdmani was rare in the bycatch.
Polychaetes
4 polychaete species representing 3 genera and 2 families
Figure 1: Legend general map of study area
were identified and Perinereis cultrifera, Pseudonereis anamola
and Marphysa sanguinea were abundant in discards at both
sites (Table 4).
Sponges
One species of sponge i.e. Leucosolenia complicata
representing the family Leucosolenidae was recorded in
fragmented form only at Karanja (Table 4).
Role of bycatch in degrading marine ecosystems has made it
one of the most significant nature conservation issues in the
world (Harrington et al., 2006) with serious food-security
implications for up to 1 billion people who depend on fish as
their principle source of protein (The World Bank, 2008).
Alverson et al. (1994) have provided an estimate of global
discards in commercial fisheries of 27.0 million mt with a
range from 17.9 to 39.5 million mt.
Bycatch can alter biodiversity and ecosystem functions by
removing top predator and prey species at unsustainable levels
(Myers et al., 2007). Discarded bycatch raises a social issue
over waste and from 1992 – 2001, an average of 7.3 million
ton of fish were annually discarded, representing 8% of the
world catch (FAO, 2005). Davies et al. (2009) reported bycatch
as an insidious problem of invisible fishing resulting from
widespread unmanaged fisheries and enormous quantities of
biomass are being removed from the ocean without any form
of effective management. Even though bycatch is degrading
marine ecosystems, a consistent understanding of bycatch is
lacking due to several unresolved issues: definition,
measurement and quantification.
India is rich in natural resources and the annual harvestable
fishery potential of the country is estimated to be 3.48 million
ton (Verlecar et al., 2007). It is established that the fish biodiversity
of the country is diminishing at an alarming rate in all the aquatic
zones (Mahanta, 2004). Over-exploitation and indiscriminate

108

killing of juveniles and brood fishes are the major cause for
imperilment of fishes (Pandey and Das, 2004).
From Indian waters, work of following investigators on bycatch
and discards is worth to mention here. According to Menon
(1996), the bycatch landings of trawlers in Karnataka, Kerala
and Tamil Nadu studied during 1985 – 90 represents 20
genera of fishes, 26 crustaceans, 23 gastropods, 15 bivalves,
10 echinoderms, polychaetes, anemones, sponges, gorgonids,
ascidians and echiuroids along with large number of juvenile
young fishes and cephalopods. CMFRI (2002) recorded
presence of 185 species as bycatch from the landings of
trawlers from Pak Bay and Gulf of Mannar and is represented
by ground fish, stomatopods, undersized prawns, gastropods,
bivalves, inedible crabs, echinoderms, sea weeds and sea
grasses. The discards of bottom trawlers from Kerala coast
have shown the presence of 103 species of fin fishes, 65
gastropods, 12 bivalves, 8 shrimps, 2 stomatopods, 12 crabs,
5 cephalopods, 3 echinoderms and 4 jelly fishes along with
epifaunal species and juveniles of commercially valuable
species (Kurup et al., 2003). Biju and Deepthi (2006) recorded
presence of 5 species of reptiles, 262 fin fishes, 12
echinoderms, 140 molluscs, 4 prawns, 12 crabs, 5
stomatopods, 3 lobsters, 1 sipunculid worm, 1 bryozoan, 7
cnidarians, 3 sponges with many species of hermit crabs and
annelids in the trawl bycatch of Kerala coast. Bycatch and
discards by trawlers at Mumbai have shown that 1671 tonnes
of bycatch with a catch rate of 200 kg/hr was landed during
January to December 2007, which formed 22% of the total
catch. 73 species of fin fishes and shellfishes constituted the
Low Value Bycatch (LVB) and considering the size at maturity,
all were juveniles (CMFRI, 2008).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support provided by University Grants Commission,
Western Regional Office, Pune is gratefully acknowledged [File
No: 47-599/08 (WRO) dated 2nd Feb 2009]. The author is
thankful to The Principal and Faculty Members, Dept. of
Zoology, Veer Wajekar Arts, Science and Commerce College,
Phunde (Uran) for encouragement and support. Special thanks
are due to Miss L. S. Patil for the critical reading of the
manuscript. The author is thankful to the anonymous reviewer
for valuable suggestions in the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Alverson, D. L., Freeberg, M. H., Murawaski, S. A. and Pope, J. G.
1994. A global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. FAO
Fisheries technical paper no. 339: 235.
Biju, A. and Deepthi, G. R. 2006. Trawling and bycatch: Implications
on marine ecosystem. Curr. Sci., 90 (7), 922 – 931.
CMFRI: Annual Report 2001 – 2002. Central Marine Fisheries
109
BYCATCH AND DISCARDS IN MARINE CAPTURE FISHERIES
Research Institute, Cochin. pp. 96 – 99.
CMFRI: Research Highlights 2007 – 2008. Central Marine Fisheries
Research Institute, Cochin. pp. 12.
Davies, R. W. D., Cripps, S. J., Nickson, A. and Porter, G. 2009.
Defining and estimating global marine fisheries bycatch. Marine Policy,
doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2009.01.003, 1-79.
FAO. 2005. Discards in the World’s Marine Fisheries: an update.
FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No 470. Rome: Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations.
Harrington, J. M., Myers, R. A. and Rosenberg, A. A. 2006. Wasted
fishery resources: discarded bycatch in the USA. Fish and fisheries. 6:
350 – 361.
Kurup, B. M., Premlal, P., Thomas, J. V. and Vijay, A. 2003. Bottom
trawl discards along Kerala coast: A case study. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc.
India. 45: 99 – 107.
Lewison, R. L., Crowder, L. B., Read, A. J. and Freeman, S. A. 2004.
Understanding impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine megafauna.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 19: 598 – 604
Mahanta, P. C. 2004. Species Survival Programme – A Need towards
Protection of Threatened Fishes. Paper presented at the National
Seminar on Biodiversity, Biotechnology and Environmental Toxicology
in the New Millennium. The Institute of Science, Mumbai on 22nd to
24th Nov 2004, pp. 1 – 2.
Menon, N. G. 1996. Impact of bottom trawling on exploited resources.
In Marine Biodiversity, Conservation and Management (Eds Menon
N G and Pillai C S S), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute,
Cochin. pp. 97 – 102.
Menon, N. G., Nammalwar, P., Zachariah, P. U. and Jagadis, I.
2000. Investigations on the impact of coastal bottom trawling on
demersal fishes and macrobenthos. Central Marine Fisheries Research
Institute, Annual Report 1999 – 2000, Cochin. pp. 55 – 57.
Myers, R. A., Baum, J. K., Shepherd, T. D., Powers, S. P. and Peterson,
C. H. 2007. Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks
from a coastal ocean. Science. 315(Mar): 1846 – 1850.
Pandey, A. K. and Das, P. 2004. Fish Biodiversity Conservation:
Current Concepts and Future Directions. Paper presented at the
National Seminar on Biodiversity, Biotechnology and Environmental
Toxicology in the New Millennium. The Institute of Science, Mumbai
on 22nd to 24th Nov 2004, pp. 1 – 2.
Rao, K. S. 1988. Ecological monitoring of trawling grounds. J. Indian
Fish. Assoc. 18: 239 – 244.
The World Bank, The Sunken Billions, 2008. The Economic
Justification for Fisheries Reform. Agricultural and Rural Development.
The World Bank. Washington D. C.
Verlecar, X. N., Snigdha, Desai., S. R. and Dhargalkar, V. K. 2007.
Shark hunting – an indiscriminate trade endangering elasmobranches
to extinction. Curr. Sci. 92(8): 1078 – 1082.
Worm, B., Barbier, E. B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J. E, Folke, C,
Halpern, B. S., Jackson, J. B. C., Lotze, H. K., Micheli, F., Palumbi,
S. R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K. A., Stachowicz, J. J. and Watson, R. 2006.
Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science.
314: 787–790. http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit73/
Fegan%20fishing.htm
INSTRUCTION TO AUTHORS

..........From P 104 MEMBERSHIP OF THE JOURNAL

be distinguished in the text and in the references by letter The individual membership is open only for students and
arranged alphabetically followed by the citation of the authors. Others can become members of the journal by
years eg.2004a, 2004b. paying the institutional rates. The membership form should
Standard abbreviations and units should be used, SI units be neatly filled preferably in BLOCK letters. All the authors
are recommended. Abbreviations should be defined at first should become subscribers.
appearance and there use in the title and abstract should CORRESPONDENCE
be avoided. Generic names of chemical should be used.
Any correspondence regarding the manuscript should be
Genus and species names should be typed in italics.
made with Executive Editor to whom the paper has been
PROOFS AND REPRINTS submitted.
Page proofs will be sent by e-mail to the corresponding All correspondence regarding subscription, non-receipt of
author. The corrected proofs should be returned to the the issues etc. should be made with the managing editors.
Executive Editor within 7 days of receipt. The delay in
REMITTANCES
sending the proofs may shift the paper of the next issue.
Correspondence through e-mail will be preferred to avoid All payments must be made by DD in the name of "The
delay. Bioscan" payable at Ranchi. Outstation cheques will not
be accepted.
No gratis reprints are supplied. Authors have to purchase
25 or a multiple of it (as ordered) by paying the cost Address for correspondence
decided on the basis of number of printed pages. The paper Dr. M. P. Sinha
will not be printed without proper payment of reprint cost Executive Editor
in due time. D-13, Harmu Housing Colony
Ranchi - 834002, Jharkhand (India)
e-mail: m_psinha@yahoo.com

THE ECOSCAN : SUBSCRIPTION RATES

India SAARC Other
(Rs) Countries Countries
Individuals One Year 1,000 2000(I:C) US $200
Life Member 10,000
Institutions One Year 3,000 6000(I:C) US $400
Life Member 30,000

*Life Member will receive the journal for 15 years while other benefits will continues whole life
Note: 25% concession is given to all categories of subscriptions to contributors, students, researchers, scientists,
academic and research institutions and libraries on the above mention rates

THE ECOSCAN : MEMBERSHIP FORM

Please enter my subscription for the above journal for the year ............................................ / life member.

Name: ....................................................................................................................................................

Address: .................................................................................................................................................

E-mail: ...................................................................................................................................................

Payment Rs. : .................................................................................................. by DD / MD in favour of

THE BIOSCAN payable at Ranchi, No. ..................................... Dated ................................... is enclosed.

NOTE: FOR MEMBERSHIP THE ABOVE INFORMATION CAN BE SENT ON SEPARATE SHEET

110