Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 17 (2020) 100273

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rsase

Assessing the water spread area available for fish culture and fish
production potential in inland lentic waterbodies using remote sensing: A
case study from Chhattisgarh State, India
Arur Anand a, P. Krishnan b, *, G. Kantharajan c, Arun Suryavanshi a, Prashant Kawishwar d,
Uday Raj e, Ch Srinivasa Rao b, S.B. Choudhury e, C. Manjulatha f, D.E. Babu f
a
Regional Remote Sensing Centre, NRSC, ISRO-Department of Space, Nagpur, 440033, India
b
ICAR-National Academy of Agricultural Research Management, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, 500030, India
c
ICAR-National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources, Lucknow, 226002, India
d
Chhattisgarh Council of Science & Technology, Raipur, 492014, India
e
National Remote Sensing Centre, ISRO-Department of Space, Hyderabad, 500037, India
f
College of Science and Technology, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, 530003, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Inland lentic waterbodies have a major role in contributing to nutritional and livelihood security of the rural poor
Inland fisheries in India. Generating a spatio-temporal resource inventory of the small waterbodies has immense potential in
Aquaculture evidence-based fisheries development planning, so as to enhance the fish production (quantity) and productivity
Water spread area
(quantity per unit area). The present study provides a framework for mapping these waterbodies using high
Fish production potential
Normalized difference water index
resolution Cartosat 1 PAN and IRS ResourceSAT LISS IV merged imagery, determining the spatio-temporal water
spread area and effective water spread area available for fish culture using Sentinel 2 Multi Spectral Imagery, for
the years 2016–18. It provides an approach for determining the number of fingerlings required and estimating
the production potential under standard production parameters, based on the extent of water available for fish
culture in the waterbodies. The framework was piloted in Chhattisgarh, a landlocked State in Central India,
which has a large number of inland waterbodies. A total of 121,529 waterbodies, with an area of 202,016 ha
were mapped, of which 97% had an extent less than 5 ha. The total extent of waterbodies was 37% higher than
the most recent estimate by Government of India. Availability of water in the waterbodies of the state, for a
duration of at least 8 and 11 months in a year, was found to be 74% (149,484 ha) and 50% (102,167 ha)
respectively, which indicates the vast scope for promotion of intensive aquaculture in the state. Minimum
number of fingerlings required for stocking the available water was estimated as 403 million. This framework can
be replicated across the country and other regions with poor in-situ data, for effective management of inland
waterbodies through location-specific data-driven intervention planning.

1. Introduction area of approximately 130,000 ha. (MPEDA, 2019). Reduction in the

India is the second largest fish producer in the world with a pro­
duction of 11.41 million tonnes (MT) (2016–17), which however ac­
counts only for 6.6% of the global production. Cultured fish production
of 6.5 MT (freshwater: 5.8 MT; brackishwater: 0.7 MT) accounts for 57%
of the total fish production in India (DAHD&F, 2018). The most
important freshwater aquaculture species in India are Indian major
carps, minor carps, catfishes and Chinese carps, while shrimps pre­
dominate the brackishwater aquaculture sector in India, with a reported
share of marine fisheries from 71% (1950) to 33% (2015–16) (DAHD&F,
2017), shows a remarkable shift in the dependence of fish production
from marine capture fisheries to aquaculture-based finfish and shellfish
production. Thus, more focus is being given to existing underutilised
natural waterbodies (coastal area, freshwater ponds, lakes, tanks and
reservoirs) to optimally exploit their productivity potential, than the
farm-based aquaculture, which requires converting the existing lands
into ponds. Planning of fish culture programmes requires comprehen­
sive databases of existing waterbody resources, their status and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: krishnanars@yahoo.com (P. Krishnan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2019.100273
Received 30 March 2019; Received in revised form 15 September 2019; Accepted 27 October 2019
Available online 31 October 2019
2352-9385/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Anand et al.
potentials, along with the knowledge of constraints and opportunities.
Satellite-based Remote Sensing (RS) imagery provides a synoptic
coverage of large areas, and due to the repetitive nature of the coverage
the extent of water spread mapped in different seasons can show the real
status of the water availability at different times of the year (Rao and
Raju, 2010). With the availability of high resolution panchromatic and
multispectral satellite data, mapping of waterbodies, their extents and
seasonal water availability has become more reliable (Sawaya et al.,
2003; Ottinger et al., 2018).
Chhattisgarh is a land-locked state but has abundant lentic fresh­
water bodies varying in sizes such as village ponds, irrigation tanks,
small, medium and large reservoirs. Fishery production in the state is
mostly dependent on fish catch from the lentic waterbodies apart from
wild caught fish from the Mahanadi river system. The state has recorded
fish production of 0.376 MT in 2016–17, which is about 3.3% of the
country’s production (GoCG, 2018). In the present study, the water­
bodies of the state have been mapped using high resolution Sentinel 2
Multi Spectral Imagery (MSI) to estimate their seasonal (Rabi/Summer)
Water Spread Area (WSA), effective WSA available for fish culture and
minimum possible fish production potential through low intensity fish
farming.
An estimate of the extent of WSA available for fish culture is the
primary and critical parameter in planning fishery development pro­
grammes. It is necessary for setting an annual fish production target,
estimating the requirement of fish fry and fingerlings for stocking and
planning hatchery production. This estimate of water available for fish
culture, hitherto done by visual assessment by field personnel, is
attempted with the use of high resolution, multispectral and multi-
temporal satellite imagery. Identification of non-productive areas in
waterbodies i.e. silted and aquatic weed infestation is also discussed.
Thus, the study provides a framework for high resolution Remote
Sensing-based assessment of the potential WSA available for fish culture
in inland lentic waterbodies, and their effective management and
utilization.
Fig. 1. Study area - Chhattisgarh State, India.
2
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 17 (2020) 100273
2. Study area and data description
2.1. Study area
Chhattisgarh state of India, is located between 17� 500 to 24� 080 N
latitude and 80� 15’ to 84� 130 E longitude (Fig. 1). The average annual
rainfall of Chhattisgarh is around 1400 mm, of which about 90% is
confined to the monsoon season (June to September) (CGWRD, 2019).
The state possesses 3573 km length of riverine network (Hydrology
Project, 2019). Official statistics of total standing water bodies (lentic)
available is very limited and accounts for 166,000 ha, of reservoirs,
tanks and ponds. Rural ponds of a total of 83,000 ha are reported to have
50% potential area suitable for fish culture (GoCG, 2018). The present
study covers the lentic waterbodies of entire Chhattisgarh state.
2.2. Data description
The present study used Sentinel 2 MSI level 1C datasets with spatial
resolution of 10 m for the visible bands i.e. Blue (Band#2), Green
(Band#3), Red (Band#4) and Near InfraRed (Band#8). The high spatial
resolution is necessary to study seasonal water availability in small
waterbodies of �4000 m2, which typically represent a majority of the
waterbodies in the study area. These ortho-corrected imageries provide
radiometric measurements in the form of top of atmosphere (TOA)
reflectance (ESA, 2015; Chen et al., 2015). Imagery pertaining to three
cropping periods of years 2016–2018, were used for the study. The
entire state of Chhattisgarh is covered by 26 tiles of Sentinel 2 dataset
(each tile covers 100 km2) (Supplementary Material, SM Fig. 1). Based
on the availability of cloud free imagery either Sentinel 2A (launched on
23 June 2015) for the year 2015–18, or Sentinel 2B (launched on 7
March 2017) for the years 2017–18 have been used. A total of 156 image
tiles (26 tiles � 2 times/year from 2015 to 18) were obtained from
Copernicus open access hub (Copernicus, 2019) (Supplementary Mate­
rial, SM Table 1).
A. Anand et al.
3. Methodology
3.1. Generation of waterbody outer boundary layer
As the present study included only the lentic water bodies of
�4000 m2, the exclusion of non-waterbody wetland areas like rice
paddies, inundated and waterlogged areas was necessary. A waterbody
outer boundary/extent layer vector file was generated and used as a
mask for separating the actual waterbody from non-waterbody areas. It
was digitised following visual interpretation of data sets of Cartosat 1
PAN þ IRS ResourceSAT LISS IV merged imagery with 2.5m resolution,
and pertaining to the period from October 2016 to February 2017
(NRSC, 2011). The outer boundary of a waterbody was interpreted by
discriminating the farthest water mark of a waterbody visible as tonal
discontinuity of wet areas from the bordering dry area.
3.2. Selection of study season to estimate water available for fish culture
The inland waterbodies of Chhattisgarh, i.e. ponds, lakes, tanks and
reservoirs are filled up primarily by monsoon rains from June to
September (CGWRD, 2019). The smaller waterbodies (<10 ha in area)
have multiple uses, from community requirements to agriculture, while
the larger ones (>10 ha) are mostly for irrigation, drinking water and
fishery purposes. The local agricultural cropping patterns/seasons (Rao
et al., 2015), were considered in selecting satellite imagery of the suit­
able time period, pertaining to the study area. Kharif (or monsoon) crop
season from July to October corresponds to the post-monsoon or
maximum water levels of the waterbody in terms of the water-spread
area. Rabi (or winter) crop season from November to February corre­
sponds to water in the receding intermediate phase of the water levels
following use for irrigation. Zaid (or summer) crop season extends from
March to May.
The water extent available in February (Rabi season) was considered
as water available for at least 8 months, which corresponds to the
minimum necessary requirement for fish culture (FAO, 1992; NFDB,
2016). Similarly, the month of May (Zaid/summer season) shows the
minimum water extent which is available in a waterbody for at least 11
months. Thus, the two time periods selected for the current study were
the months of February (by which time, the irrigation needs of the two
major cropping seasons are met) and May (by when the summer crop
irrigation needs are also met) (Rao et al., 2015). Imagery taken in these
two months thus shows the residual available water for fish culture at
the respective point in time. The detailed scheme for the selection of
study period for obtaining satellite imagery is depicted in Fig. 2.
3.3. Extraction of water surface layer
Methodology adopted in the current study for extraction of water
surface layer is summarised in Fig. 3. The image ratio, Normalized
Difference Water Index (NDWI) (McFeeters, 1996) was used to generate
a Water Surface Area (WSA) map from each individual image (Eq. (1)).
XGreen ​ XNIR
NDWI ¼
XGreen þ XNIR
NDWI generated using the Green and Near Infra-Red (NIR) bands of
Table 1
Interpretation of water availability in the composite layer based on Rabi and
Summer season water availability.
Sl. No. Season of aggregate Water availability interpreted in composite
image layer
Rabi Summer
1 Dry bed Dry bed Dry bed
2 Water Dry bed 8 month
3 Water Water 11 month
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 17 (2020) 100273
Sentinel 2A/2B MSI image highlights the difference between water and
land. Thresholding NDWI values for each layer representing water pixels
was done manually by on-screen interpretation, by comparing the false
colour composite image with the NDWI product in geo-linked adjacent
windows in Erdas IMAGINE. Water pixel thresholds were then used to
create a water spread bitmap from each of the individual NDWI prod­
ucts. The NDWI threshold values for water in rabi season ranged from
0.01 � 0.03 to 0.61 � 0.09 and those in zaid season ranged from
0.03 � 0.02 to 0.66 � 0.07.
Three-year study period from 2016 to 2018 was considered, since a
single year image does not truly represent the water surface area of
seasonal waterbodies, particularly in areas with annual fluctuations in
monsoon rains and dynamic pattern of water usage, as observed in our
study area. The water surface area images derived from NDWI for the
month of February (Rabi season) for three consecutive years were
aggregated into a single February/Rabi season aggregate (8 month)
water availability layer. Similarly, the NDWI products from imagery for
the month of May (Summer/Zaid season) for the three years were
aggregated into a single May/summer season (11 month) water avail­
ability layer. Water Presence Frequency (WPF) was used to aggregate
the respective NDWI water bitmaps of the study area into the two (Rabi/
Zaid) aggregates (Eq. (2)) (Borro et al., 2014; Pal and Talukdar, 2018).
Pn
Ij
WPFj ¼ i¼1 � 100 (2)
n
Where, WPFj ¼ Water Presence Frequency of jth pixels in a time period;
Ij ¼ jth pixel having water in the selected NDWI images; n ¼ number of
images.
The output WPF value ranged from 0 to 100%. Higher pixel value
indicated presence of water in multiple images at the pixel location and
value approaching zero indicated presence of water in lesser number of
images. Based on the WPF, the Rabi/Zaid aggregate image pixel values
were reclassified into two classes viz., dry bed area (<66% WPF) and
water (WPF � 66%). A pixel had to have water in at least two of the
three study years for that particular month/season to be considered as a
water pixel in the respective output aggregate images.
3.4. Generating a composite seasonal water surface area map
A final composite WSA map was generated by integrating the two
annual aggregate maps from the previous step viz., Rabi aggregate
(representing 8 month water availability) and Zaid aggregate (repre­
senting 11 month water availability). The two aggregate bitmap images
were first converted into vector shapefiles and merged using the union
tool in ArcGIS®. The resultant composite vector layer had attributes
from both the seasonal aggregates. The polygons in the composite layer
were recoded using the attributes present in the two individual seasons
as shown in Table 1. After recoding the polygons, each waterbody
spatially comprised of one or more of the zones viz., 1. Dry bed zone/
zone with water availability for less than 8 months, 2. An 8 month water
availability zone that holds water from June/July up to Feb/Mar, and 3.
An 11 month zone that holds water from June/July up to May.
(1)
3.5. Field verification
To understand the dynamics of the waterbodies and usage patterns,
field trips were undertaken to water bodies of different sizes in the study
area, during rabi and zaid seasons. Five waterbodies each of the nine size
classes (Table 2) were selected (n ¼ 135) from the districts representing
three different geographical features of the State viz., Northern hilly
areas (Surguja district), Central plains (Mahasamund district), and
Southern hilly areas (Kanker district). The same waterbodies were
visited once each in Rabi and Zaid (summer) seasons in at least two of
the three study years. The aspects such as general water storage level,
weed presence, turbidity, etc. were assessed visually. Information on
3
A. Anand et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 17 (2020) 100273

Fig. 2. Schema for choosing two time period imagery (February and May) for mapping water availability in the waterbodies Fig. 3. Flowchart of the methodology.

Table 2
Distribution of waterbodies in different size range classes in Chhattisgarh state.
Size range classes (ha) Count Aggregated area

Number % Area (ha) %

0.4–1 89,640 73.76 35,490 18

1–2 19,508 16.05 27,126 13
2–5 9095 7.48 26,698 13
5–10 1869 1.54 12,747 6
10–20 919 0.76 13,979 7
20–50 296 0.24 10,127 5
50–10 111 0.09 7561 4
100–200 39 0.03 5221 3
200–500 30 0.02 9677 5
500–1000 7 0.01 4832 2
>1000 15 0.01 48,559 24
Total 121,529 100 202,016 100

fish culture practices such as culture system characteristics, species

cultured, duration of culture, fish stocking density, survival rate (%),
and yield per unit area were gathered from the lessees.

3.6. Estimating fingerlings requirement and minimum fish yield potential

from seasonal WSA

The fingerlings requirement and possible minimum potential for fish

production in these waterbodies were calculated based on the following
assumptions, field observations and literature available,

i. Fish culture in most of the natural waterbodies in Chhattisgarh is

Fig. 3. Flowchart of the methodology.
under low intensity or traditional culture method (Ghosh and
Indu, 2005), with a stocking density ranging from 2000 to 10,000
fingerlings per hectare. Composite culture technique is followed

4
A. Anand et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 17 (2020) 100273

with species combinations derived from among the Indian major
carps (Catla catla, Labeo rohita and Cirrhinus mrigala), minor carps
(Labeo calbasu and L. bata), carnivorous species (Heteropneustes
fossilis, Clarias batrachus) and in a few cases, common carp
(Cyprinus carpio) and Chinese carps (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
and Ctenopharyngodon idella).
ii. Areas under the two water availability zones (8 or 11 months) are
calculated for each waterbody.
iii. Conservative stocking densities of fingerlings per hectare, their
survival rates and average grow out/harvest weights, for water
availability for 8 and 11 months durations were derived as shown
in Table 3.
iv. A minimum of 1 m water depth is required for composite fish
culture (FAO, 1992; Jena et al., 1998; FAO, 1995; FAO, 2000;
FAO, 2009) and hence for calculations of fingerlings and yield,
the shallow peripheral extents that have water availability
ephemerally from July to February were not considered.
Considering the above mentioned criteria, number of fingerlings
required for the water area available was estimated by Eq. (3).
F ¼ AZ � SD
Where,
F ¼ Total number of fingerlings required for stocking in a water
availability zone (8/11 month) (nos.)
AZ ¼ Area of water availability zone (8/11 month) (ha)
SD ¼ Stocking density of the particular water availability zone (as
per literature and field survey) (nos./ha)
The total minimum number of fish fingerlings required for stocking
in a particular waterbody (nos./ha) was estimated by Eq. (4).
X1 X1
PF ¼ FR þ FZ (4)
n n
Y ¼ Potential fish yield in a water availability zone (8/11 month)
(kg/year)
F ¼ Total number of fingerlings required for stocking in a water
availability zone (8/11 month) (nos.)
AW ¼ Average weight of individual fish at harvesting a water
availability zone (kg)
SR ¼ Survival rate in a water availability zone (%)
Subsequently, total minimum potential fish yield of a particular
waterbody (kg/ha/year) can be estimated by Eq. (5).
X1 X1
PY ¼ n
YR þ n
YZ (6)
Where,
PY ¼ Estimated total minimum potential fish yield from a waterbody
YR ¼ Yield from 8 month water availability zone
YZ ¼ Yield from 11month water availability zone
n ¼ number of polygons in a zone
The statistics of estimated minimum possible fish production and
(3) fingerlings required, from available water surface area, was generated
for all the available individual waterbodies. It was summarised at state/
district/taluk/village level using a customised geo-spatial data display,
query and summary tool.
3.7. Geospatial data tool and statistical analyses
A simple display, query and statistics generation tool was prepared
for using the waterbody and fisheries GIS database as a user friendly
geospatial data utilization tool. The software package, written in
Microsoft Visual studio 6 Visual Basic development environment and
open source GIS application MapWinGIS, is capable of displaying the
GIS layers, generation of the statistics of the waterbody at waterbody/
village/taluk/district levels and summarising the same in a tabular

format (Fig. 4). Statistical analysis of the estimated and reported

Where, PF ¼ Estimated total minimum number of fingerlings
required for a waterbody
FR ¼ Numbers required for 8 month water availability zone
FZ ¼ Numbers required for 11month water availability zone
n ¼ number of polygons in a zone
Then fish culture yield potential was estimated by Eq. (5).
Y ¼ F � AW � SR
Where,
numbers of fingerlings and yield such as correlation, regression, test of
significance were carried out using SPSS® package.
3.8. Extent of algal cover and siltation in water bodies
Aquatic vegetation within the waterbody extents is discriminated
from water, by its negative NDWI values, which were observed to be
(5) around 0.49 � 0.1. Water with suspended silt can be identified by
bright cyan colour of water in false colour composite imagery, together
with bright tone of the catchment area. The landscape is usually domi­
nated by land without scrub/vegetation, which suggests the possibility
of soil erosion being the cause of the siltation (NRSC, 2011). The NDWI

Table 3
Standard culture characteristics used for estimation of potential fish yield from waterbodies for 8 and 11 months water availability.
Waterbody Size 11 months water availability zone (Z) 8 months water availability zone (R) References
range (ha)
Stocking density Survival rate Average harvest Stocking density Survival rate Average harvest
(SD) (nos./ha) (SR) (%) size of fish (AW) (SD) (nos./ha) (SR) (%) size of fish (AW)
(kg) (kg)

<1 4000 60 0.75 3000 50 0.6 FAO (1992); Jena et al. (1998); FAO,
1–2 5000 60 0.75 4500 40 0.6 2006; Vass et al. (2009); De et al.
2–5 5500 60 1 4000 35 0.8 (2016); Sinha et al. (1985)
5–10 8000 60 1 7000 30 0.8 Discussion with aquaculture and
fisheries experts and peers
10–25 4000 40 1 3500 30 0.9 FAO (1992); Jena et al. (1998); FAO,
25–40 1500 30 1.25 1300 30 1.25 2006; Vass et al. (2009); Vass et al.
(2009); Mane (2014)
40–200 1300 25 1.5 1200 25 1.5 Sugunan and Katiha (2004); Vass et al.
200–1000 900 20 2 800 20 2 (2009); NFDB (2016)
>1000 250 10 2 250 10 2 Sugunan (2001); Sugunan (1995); De
Silva (2001)

5
A. Anand et al.
Fig. 4. Step-wise screenshots of customised GIS display, query and summary tool showing (A) Chhattisgarh state, (B) selected districts, (C) waterbodies therein, (D)
statistics of waterbodies at taluk, (E) village and (F) individual waterbody levels.
values of such waters with suspended silt were observed to be about
0.17 � 0.09. The total area under the aquatic vegetation and water with
suspended silt categories were not estimated as they were beyond the
scope of the current study. The importance of these two issues observed
in a large number of waterbodies during the study however merited a
mention.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Remote sensing based mapping of inland waterbodies
4.1.1. Inventorying waterbodies
In the current study, the number, extent and spatial distribution of
waterbodies in Chhattisgarh state, across administrative districts have
been determined, along with the water availability across seasons, using
high resolution remote sensing imagery. Their spatial distribution is
represented at state, district and village levels in Fig. 5. We have
delineated a total of 121,529 waterbodies varying in size from 4000 m2
to >1000 ha (Table 2; Fig. 6). These can be broadly categorized into:
village ponds, tanks, low earthen dams and reservoirs. Small
6
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 17 (2020) 100273
waterbodies (<5 ha) account for 97.29% of the total number of water­
bodies and 44% of the total aggregated water spread.
Satellite imageries provide a snapshot of the surface features of
various waterbodies like pond, lake, reservoir etc., and allow for esti­
mation of their areal extents (Ingole et al., 2015). The National Wetland
Atlas (SAC, 2011) provided data on the total extent of wetlands in India
including the state of Chhattisgarh. The mapping was done at 1:50,000
scale with a minimum mapping unit (MMU) of 2.25 ha. Inland water­
bodies mapped in Chhattisgarh state included reservoirs (90,389 ha)
and ponds/tanks (40,226 ha), and excluded the smaller waterbodies
(MMU < 2.25 ha). The atlas does not provide the detailed statistics on
the number and area of inland waterbodies at district/taluk/village
level, as required for planning their effective utilization for fisheries.
Other reports indicated the area of waterbodies in Chhattisgarh as 147,
000 ha (DAHD&F, 2017) and 166,500 ha (GoCG, 2018). The state
administration of Chhattisgarh reports 67,159 rural ponds covering
about 83,900 ha and 1770 reservoirs covering 82,600 ha. Lack of ac­
curate spatial databases and information about the extent of water
spread in small waterbodies hampers their effective utilization (Mar­
othia, 2009).
A. Anand et al.
Fig. 5. Waterbodies digitised from high resolution merged imagery displayed at (A) state level, (B) district level and (C) village level.
The total area of waterbodies in Chhattisgarh, delineated in the
current study is 202,016 ha, which is 54%, 37% and 21% higher in
comparison to the previous reported statistics of 130,615 ha (SAC,
2011), 147,000 ha (DAHD&F, 2017) and 166,500 ha (GoCG, 2018),
respectively. Thus, the use of latest high resolution satellite imagery and
GIS helps in accurately mapping and updating the geospatial and sta­
tistical databases of all available waterbodies.
4.1.2. District-wise distribution of waterbodies
District-wise distribution of waterbodies in Chhattisgarh is given in
Table 4. The 27 districts of Chhattisgarh state can be classified based on
the land cover and topography. The northern and southern districts are
hilly/undulating in topography while the central region comprises of
relatively plain area which is dominated by agriculture (CGWB, 2017).
The number of waterbodies in the central plains are more (n ¼ 77,013)
than those in the hilly areas (n ¼ 44,516). The smaller ponds/tanks
(0.4–1 ha) are more in Raigarh district (n ¼ 7568), whereas the larger
waterbodies like reservoirs of >1000 ha area are more in Dhamtari
district (n ¼ 4).
4.1.3. Seasonal water availability in the waterbodies
The available seasonal WSA, from the 8 and 11 months water
availability datasets, was quantified and compiled for the study area,
district-wise (Table 5). The WSA in a waterbody recedes from post
monsoon to Feb. and to summer season in a dynamic manner (Fig. 7),
and this varies widely with the size and use of the waterbody. Hence, in
the current study, zones based on water availability within a waterbody,
were identified separately. The WSA available for at least 8 months
(total of 8 and 11 months availability) as a percentage of the total
waterbody area is summarised in Table 5. District level statistics of 8
7
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 17 (2020) 100273
month water availability indicated that hilly and forested districts like
Sukma, Bijapur and Narayanpur, where the waterbodies are <100 ha in
size, show the 8 month water availability of 49%–69%. Jashpur, Dan­
tewada, Bemetra and Balrampur districts with waterbodies <200 ha in
size also show water availability about 50%. Districts such as Korba,
Dhamtari, and Surajpur, which have large reservoirs (>1000 ha) show
water availability of >80%. The central districts, where agriculture is
the mainstay, show a range from 60% to 80% water availability. Janjgir,
Balodabazar and Raipur, with large number of smaller waterbodies and
with maximum size <500 ha, show a water availability of 70%. An
increasing trend in the available WSA for at least 8 months was observed
due to increase in the number of waterbodies with area >50ha. How­
ever, a district like Balrampur with all waterbodies <50 ha also showed
59% water availability for 8 months. The WSA available for at least 11
months as a percentage of total waterbody area is shown in Table 5.
Sukma shows the least amount of available WSA after 11 months (21%)
and Korba the highest (82%). Percentage change in the available WSA
from 8th to 11th month shows the maximum in Bijapur (55%) and
minimum in Korba (10%).
The state with a total waterbody area of 202,016 ha thus has at least
74% (149,484 ha) of the area covered by water for at least 8 months. It
was also observed that 50% (102,167 ha) of the total waterbody area in
the state retains water for at least 11 months and the WSA between the
two time periods reduces by 37%. The higher WSA availability could be
attributed to policy measures, which help retain water in the waterbody
yearlong such as, effective management of the waterbodies and good
water management practices viz., restoration of water bodies, water use
efficiency in agriculture and other purposes, farm practices that demand
less water, etc (GoI, 2014). Other major factors that determine the water
availability are agriculture being or not the major activity and extent of
A. Anand et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 17 (2020) 100273

Fig. 6. Waterbodies of varying sizes in Chhattisgarh.

rainfall in a given area. (Table 6) as estimated from the standard stocking densities (Table 1) for
different sized waterbodies, factoring the extent of seasonal water
availability zones of 8 and 11 months (Table 5). The minimum number
4.2. Remote sensing based management of inland waterbodies
of fingerlings required to utilise the available water in the waterbodies
of Chhattisgarh state has been estimated at 403 million. The Chhattis­
4.2.1. Estimation of fingerling requirement
garh state currently produces 1975 million carp fry, of which 1061
Assessing the number of fingerlings required for stocking, is the first
million are stocked in the waterbodies (GoCG, 2018). With an estimated
and major step in effective management of fish culture in waterbodies.
survival rate of 60%, it is assumed that the state has the capacity to
Calculating the stocking requirement based on only one season water
produce 636 million fish fingerlings, which is about 1.6 times the esti­
availability status would be unreliable. For e.g. post monsoon, the water
mated fingerling requirement. The study provides for effective stocking
extent (WSA) would be maximum and calculations based on this WSA
management so as to optimize the yield. Districts with higher number of
would lead to overstocking, when the water level goes down in summer.
smaller waterbodies and higher water availability viz., Balod, Baloda­
Conversely, the summer water extent would be minimum and stocking
bazar, Bilaspur, Jangir, Raipur and Rajnandgaon, would require more
based on summer WSA would lead to under stocking at the initial stages,
fingerlings than the other districts. The availability of water in the
when the waterbody has higher water levels. In practice, the State
waterbodies between February (8th month) and May (11th month) is
administration, in the absence of RS & GIS support, estimates water
very significant in terms of extending fish culture period to the 11th
availability for fish culture, from an average of maximum (post
month thereby increasing the fish yields. The districts with minimum
monsoon; Aug.–Sep.) and minimum (summer; May) water extents based
change in this period can adopt higher stocking densities and plan
on visual assessment, to calculate the fingerlings requirement.
intensification of aquaculture.
In the current study, a median approach was taken by estimating the
The intended utility of the waterbodies and their administrative
WSA at two points of time (8 & 11 months), as RS allows precise WSA
ownership would influence the decisions related to stocking fingerlings
estimates at different points in time. We provide the district-wise min­
and fishery management measures. Smaller waterbodies and tanks in
imum number of fingerlings required for stocking the waterbodies

8
 A. Anand et al.
Table 4
District-wise distribution of waterbodies (numbers) in Chhattisgarh State.
District Geographic Area (sq. km) Number of waterbodies under different size range classes (ha) Total

0.4–1 1–2 2–5 5–10 10–20 20–50 50–100 100–200 200–500 500–1000 >1000

Central Plains Balod 3358 2176 953 528 81 56 24 4 2 2 1 3 3830

Balodabazar 4665 2834 1390 665 133 50 9 7 1 1 0 0 5090
Bilaspur 5539 6420 1720 746 138 70 13 8 5 1 1 1 9123
Durg 2299 1606 1001 622 142 55 12 8 0 1 1 0 3448
Gariabandh 4842 4330 538 256 37 18 9 6 2 1 0 1 5198
Janjgir 3863 5193 2033 808 139 52 16 2 1 1 0 0 8245
Kanker 7213 7206 623 207 41 31 17 2 1 2 1 0 8131
Kawardha 4192 2374 578 189 34 21 9 2 0 4 0 0 3211
Mahasamund 4752 3575 1229 750 192 72 20 11 7 1 0 1 5858
Mungeli 2782 1571 796 312 35 15 7 4 0 0 0 1 2741
Raigarh 7048 7568 1225 515 131 69 11 7 3 2 1 0 9532
Raipur 2905 1867 1303 845 180 57 7 11 3 3 0 0 4276
9

Rajnandgaon 8091 5823 1547 635 141 109 45 16 8 4 1 1 8330

Hilly/Forested Balrampur 6260 3283 237 84 25 24 8 0 0 0 0 0 3661
Bemetra 2864 1416 793 417 98 40 12 4 0 0 0 0 2780
Jashpur 5854 5698 176 63 13 6 5 2 1 1 0 0 5965
Bastar 5385 2273 336 98 21 14 10 0 1 0 1 0 2754
Bijapur 9382 487 270 204 71 26 2 1 0 0 0 0 1061
Dantewada 2896 986 124 45 11 5 2 0 1 0 0 0 1174

Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 17 (2020) 100273

Dhamtari 4085 3326 919 482 52 12 6 2 1 0 0 4 4804
Kondagaon 5091 4368 215 43 16 8 7 2 0 1 0 0 4660
Korba 6596 4390 551 175 40 36 12 1 0 1 0 1 5207
Koriya 6603 3773 208 62 16 23 11 4 0 2 0 0 4099
Narayanpur 3719 546 40 10 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 603
Sukma 5445 1348 392 206 38 13 5 1 0 0 0 0 2003
Surajpur 5444 2138 145 66 27 22 5 3 1 0 0 1 2408
Surguja 4024 3065 166 62 15 12 11 2 1 2 0 1 3337
Total 121,529
A. Anand et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 17 (2020) 100273

Table 5
District-wise estimated water availability for fish culture (8 & 11 months).
District Water bodies Available WSA (ha) Water retention status (%) Change in available WSA from
8th to 11th months (%)
Total Total area for 8 for 11 Availability for at least Availability for at least
nos. (ha) months months 8 months 11 months

Central Balod 3830 16,569 5345 9162 88 55 37

Plains Balodabazar 5090 8180 2083 3532 69 43 37
Bilaspur 9123 14,167 3176 6398 68 45 33
Durg 3448 7870 1474 4157 72 53 26
Gariabandh 5198 7056 1530 3939 78 56 28
Janjgir 8245 10,528 3099 4817 75 46 39
Kanker 8131 6649 2434 2260 71 34 52
Kawardha 3211 4874 1219 2307 72 47 35
Mahasamund 5858 12,901 2935 4882 61 38 38
Mungeli 2741 4831 844 2470 69 51 25
Raigarh 9532 10,468 3122 3757 66 36 45
Raipur 4276 9783 1882 5077 71 52 27
Rajnandgaon 8330 16,873 3908 8042 71 48 33
Hilly/ Balrampur 3661 2577 713 799 59 31 47
Forested Bemetra 2780 5013 1041 1876 58 37 36
Jashpur 5965 2752 617 876 54 32 41
Bastar 2754 3363 832 1810 79 54 31
Bijapur 1061 2234 599 495 49 22 55
Dantewada 1174 1076 261 361 58 34 42
Dhamtari 4804 18,528 4644 12,011 90 65 28
Kondagaon 4660 2683 678 862 57 32 44
Korba 5207 19,405 1743 15,854 91 82 10
Koriya 4099 3478 816 1625 70 47 33
Narayanpur 603 465 70 250 69 54 22
Sukma 2003 2503 651 527 47 21 55
Surajpur 2408 3297 673 1974 80 60 25
Surguja 3337 3894 929 2045 76 53 31
Total 121,529 202,016 47,317 102,167 74 50 37

Table 6
District-wise estimated fingerlings required and estimated and reported fish
yield.
District Estimated Estimated Reported fishery
fingerlings potential fish productiona(Tonnes)
requirement (in production
millions) (Tonnes)

Balod 25 10,725 12,945

Balodabazar 25 11,219 23,783
Bilaspur 31 13,348 22,173
Durg 23 10,716 14,670
Gariabandh 12 5021 9750
Janjgir 36 16,151 40,748
Kanker 15 5861 15,662
Kawardha 10 4059 14,546
Mahasamund 25 11,112 39,776
Mungeli 10 4440 8350
Raigarh 24 10,175 24,926
Raipur 30 14,557 25,151
Rajnandgaon 32 13,589 27,709
Balrampur 6 2445 4716
Bemetra 14 6236 11,098
Jashpur 4 1879 3863
Bastar 7 2941 6386
Bijapur 5 2281 2966
Dantewada 2 1062 3200
Dhamtari 18 7332 17,906
Kondagaon 5 2176 3696
Korba 17 6552 21,025
Koriya 6 2683 3273
Narayanpur 1 476 1827
Sukma 5 2186 3800
Surajpur 9 3242 4749
Fig. 7. A typical waterbody showing available water extent in (A) February
Surguja 5 2079 5757
(Rabi season), (B) May (Summer season) and (C) composite layer with water
Total 403 174,543 374,451
available for 8 month and 11 month periods.
a
GoCG (2018); For the year (2016–17)*.
the state serve multiple uses like storage, irrigation and groundwater
recharge and the reservoirs are intended for irrigation, power generation smaller village waterbodies in the state are with the respective local self-
and flood control. The administrative control for the utilisation of the governing bodies, and reservoirs are governed by the state

10
A. Anand et al. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 17 (2020) 100273

administration (GoCG, 2002-2003). Fishery management activities are
limited to ranching of the fingerlings and harvesting of marketable size
fishes in all the types of waterbodies (Bhendarkar et al., 2017).
4.2.2. Estimation of fish yield potential
District-wise summary of minimum fish production potential esti­
mated from seasonal water availability zones (8 and 11 months), is given
in Table 6. The total annual minimum fish production potential
conservatively estimated from the available WSA for the state is 174,543
metric tonnes, using the satellite imagery for the period 2016–18. There
was significant variation (p < 0.05) in the estimated fisheries potential
among the different districts within and between the broad geographical
areas viz., hilly and plain areas. Among the hilly areas, Bemetra,
Dhamtari, Korba and Surajpur showed higher potential than Nar­
ayanpur, Dantewada and Jashpur. Among the central districts, Baloda­
bazar, Bilaspur, Janjgir, Raipur and Rajnandgaon districts showed
higher fish yield potential, which could be attributed to the presence of
larger number of smaller waterbodies with extended water availability
of 8–11 months.
The reported district-wise fish production (Table 6) (GoCG, 2018)
and the RS-based estimated minimum fish production potential showed
a highly significant (p < 0.001) positive correlation (R ¼ 0.89), indi­
cating the reliability of WSA based yield estimates. The study also
showed a significantly (p < 0.001) positive correlation (R ¼ 0.67) be­
tween the actual fish yield reported from the districts and their respec­
tive WSAs (minimum 8 month). This clearly indicates that the effective
water availability for at least 8 months is a reliable indicator for fish
production in the state. As the practices in fish culture, productivity of
individual waterbody, aquaculture management practices vary with
each district, our approach provides for substituting the state-wide
stocking densities, survival rates and yield parameters with in situ and
localised parameters, which would aid in planning location-specific
intervention strategies. Waterbodies in the districts with up to 70%
water availability (Table 5) present a further scope for adoption of
higher intensity aquaculture.
The stocking rates and fish yield in natural waterbodies such as the
one in this study are lesser when compared to artificial aquaculture
ponds due to the lower level of fishery management possible (Sugunan
and Katiha, 2004). Waterbodies in Chhattisgarh state are of the
un-drainable village ponds/tanks/reservoir types, filled up primarily by
monsoon rainfall. The water levels and the duration for which it is
available is determined by the actual utility of the waterbody. As the
fishery managers have no control on the water availability and its
duration, such waterbodies are appropriate for low intensity or tradi­
tional methods of fish culture, with little or no external input in terms of
feed, fertiliser and water exchange (FAO, 1992; FAO, 1995; Edwards,
1999; FAO, 2000; Ghosh and Indu, 2005; FAO, 2009).
The 8-month water availability area in the state is 74% of the total
area of water bodies, which is extremely significant in terms of the
effective water availability for fisheries as an activity in the waterbodies,
otherwise meant for irrigation purposes, and also offer very good po­
tential for intensification (Manjappa et al., 2017; FAO, 2005-2019;
Ghosh and Indu, 2005).
over a period of years leads to vast reduction in the water holding ca­
pacity of the waterbody (Froehlich et al., 2017). Suspended silt in the
water column reduces phytoplankton growth affecting fish growth and
fish yield (Sipaúba-Tavares et al., 2011). A GIS database of the water­
bodies prone to siltation and with aquatic weeds forms an invaluable
tool for the administration to initiate de-weeding activities before
stocking as mentioned by Shaw (2005).
4.3. Fisheries development planning and policy making
Aquaculture in small waterbodies not only ensures the nutritional
security but also empowers the rural population economically (Das,
2006; Pandey et al., 2012). Fisheries development planning for a state
depends on the current extent of fisheries production, potential yield
and the estimated yield gap. The most crucial factor for determining the
yield and yield gap from inland waterbodies is the knowledge of the
number, extent of such waterbodies and the period for which water is
available in each of them. The fish production statistics for a state is
usually compiled by aggregating the production data collected by the
field officers, from respective local administrative units. The
district-wise inland fish production statistics of Chhattisgarh state
(GoCG, 2018), is listed in Table 6. As per the Government of Chhattis­
garh reports (GoCG, 2018), the average productivity in Chhattisgarh
state from the smaller waterbodies 3055 kg/ha/year and it is higher
than the national average of 2200 kg/ha/year (PIB India, 2017). The fact
that the extent of waterbodies delineated in the current study in
Chhattisgarh is 21%–37% higher than the estimated extent of Union
Government (DAHD&F, 2014) and State Government (GoCG, 2018),
respectively, implies that the estimates on the average yield from the
state (production per unit area) and policy inferences drawn thereof,
based on its comparison with the national average, are inappropriate.
Use of latest high resolution geo-spatial databases of waterbodies and
seasonal water availability, as shown in this study, is the only solution to
effective planning and fisheries production.
Traditionally, ponds/waterbodies where semi intensive aquaculture
is practiced are smaller in size, ranging up to a maximum size of 5 ha, as

4.2.3. Aquatic vegetation infestation and siltation issues in waterbodies

During the course of this study and field visits, it was observed that
the waterbodies had native and non-native aquatic macrophytes and
weeds. The commonly observed aquatic weeds included floating weeds
like Eichhornia, Pistia, Lemna, submerged weeds like Vallisneria, Cerato­
phyllum and Hydrilla and emergent weeds such as Trapa etc. Water
bodies covered with aquatic weeds have lesser fish productivity due to
physical hindrance, limiting the space for fish, causing siltation, less
plankton productivity and oxygen availability (Kumar, 2011). Aquatic
weeds can be monitored with multispectral imagery (Cho et al., 2008;
Schmidt and Witte, 2010) and are easily mapped with the higher reso­ Fig. 8. Waterbodies with (A & B) aquatic macrophytes and (C & D) siltation
lution Sentinel 2 imagery as shown in Fig. 8. Similarly, silt deposited due to soil erosion (indicated by arrows) in catchment areas.

11
A. Anand et al.
these can be managed very well in terms of water quality, feed, fish stock
management and harvesting (SEAFDEC, 1980; FAO, 1995; FAO, 2000;
FAO, 2009), when compared to a larger waterbody where management
measures for fishery are extremely difficult to implement (De Silva and
Funge-Smith, 2005). In Chhattisgarh, 17 districts with higher water
availability and with large number of smaller waterbodies can be ideally
prioritised for intensification of aquaculture.
Small reservoirs (50–1000 ha) are a major resource with 14% of the
water resource and are ideally suitable for reservoir-based carp seed
production systems, as an alternative to land-based nursery rearing.
Medium and large reservoirs of size >1000 ha contribute to 24% of the
available water resources. The state of Chhattisgarh has also successfully
carried out cage culture on pilot basis in its large reservoirs with a re­
ported average productivity of 3500 kg/cage unit/year (Bhendarkar
et al., 2017). To augment the fishery production of Indian reservoirs, the
national guidelines for cage-based fish culture (NFDB, 2016) has iden­
tified reservoirs of size > 1000 ha as suitable for cage aquaculture. Thus,
a total of 15 reservoirs (medium and large category) from districts such
as Gariabandh, Mungeli, Korba, Surajpur and Surguja have good pros­
pects, in terms of significant water availability for 11 months, for
adoption of cage-based aquaculture in addition to the capture-based
aquaculture, as being practised, currently. Similarly, the marginal
areas of these reservoirs, within the 8 month water availability zone are
suitable for pen-based fish culture and seed production.
The current framework for remote-sensing based determination of
the extent of water bodies available for fish culture, as demonstrated in
Chhattisgarh state, which is endowed with a larger number smaller
waterbodies, would aid in focussed spatial intervention planning for
increasing the fishery production in these waterbodies through exten­
sive and semi-intensive fish culture methods. The RS- based estimates of
fingerlings required and potential fish yield from available seasonal
WSA, as demonstrated in Chhattisgarh, can be replicated in regions with
poor in-situ data and where the field parameters for planning fisheries
are scarce. Thus, the study calls for the use of high-resolution satellite
imagery and GIS based mapping and updating the geospatial and sta­
tistical databases of all waterbodies in the country using a uniform
methodology for institutionalizing evidence-based decision making in
this sector.
5. Conclusion
The present study demonstrates a framework, for mapping the extent
of inland lentic waterbodies using high resolution satellite imagery &
GIS, estimation of seasonal availability of water in terms of WSA and
fingerlings required for stocking and assessment of fish production po­
tential from available water resource. The framework piloted in
Chhattisgarh showed that the total extent of waterbodies is 202,016 ha.
The estimated minimum number of fish fingerlings for low intensity
culture in the available water in the state is 403 million, while the state
currently produces 636 million fingerlings, to cater to the entire inland
fish culture sector, including the private ponds. This calls for creation of
necessary infrastructure and capacity building so as to realize the full
fish production potential. With each of the districts having waterbodies
of different sizes and numbers, RS based estimates help in prioritising
the fingerlings supply based on water resource availability. Out of the
total number of 121,529 waterbodies almost 97% of them are small
(<5 ha), indicating high potential for intensification of aquaculture.
Water availability in the waterbodies of the state is very good, with 74%
(149,484 ha) availability for at least 8 months and 50% (102,167 ha)
availability for 11 months. Almost 50% of the total waterbody area is
from waterbodies >10 ha in size, which are ideal for development of
hatchery and nursery facilities especially in the districts with large
reservoirs. Medium and large reservoirs comprising 24% of total water
resources have good potential for cage and pen-based culture. The
current framework can be adopted at various geographic scales, espe­
cially in data poor regions, to generate the geo-spatial database of
12
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 17 (2020) 100273
waterbodies for aiding the resource managers in evidence-based
resource planning and scientific management of the small waterbodies.
Funding
The research was supported by internal funding from Indian Space
Research Organization (ISRO).
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the support extended by the Di­
rector of NRSC and CGM, RCs, NRSC in the study. Support of CCoST,
Raipur is also thankfully acknowledged. Authors also thank the Euro­
pean Space Agency (ESA) for the Sentinel 2 MSI data and access to
Copernicus Open Access Hub for the same. Project Director, SIS-DP,
NRSC-ISRO is thanked for the IRS satellite data and theme layers of
Chhattisgarh state.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rsase.2019.100273.
References
Bhendarkar, M.P., Sundaray, J.K., Ananth, P.N., Pradhan, S., 2017. Aquaculture
development in Chhattisgarh, India: what, why and how? Int. J. Fish. Aquat. Stud. 5
(4), 272–278.
Borro, M., Morandeira, N., Salvia, M., Minotti, P., Perna, P., Kandus, P., 2014. Mapping
shallow lakes in a large South American floodplain: a frequency approach on
multitemporal Landsat TM/ETM data. J. Hydrol. 512, 39–52. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.02.057.
CGWB, 2017. Ground Water Year Book of Chhattisgarh 2016-17. Central Ground Water
Board, Government of India Ministry of water resources and ganga rejuvenation,
Raipur, India, p. 134.
CGWRD, 2019. Chhattisgarh state water resources department. http://www.cgwrd.
in/waterresource/wr.html. (Accessed 2 October 2019).
Chen, C., Qin, Q., Chen, L., Zheng, H., Fa, W., Ghulam, A., Zhang, C., 2015. Photometric
correction and reflectance calculation for lunar images from the Chang’E-1 CCD
stereo camera. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 32 (12), 2409–2422. https://doi.org/10.1364/
JOSAA.32.002409.
Cho, H.J., Kirui, P., Natarajan, H., 2008. Test of multi-spectral vegetation Index for
floating and canopy-forming submerged vegetation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 5 (5), 477–483.
Copernicus, 2019. Copernicus open access hub. . (Accessed 20 February 2019).
Das, S.K., 2006. Small-scale rural aquaculture in Assam, India - a case study. NAGA,
World Fish Centre Quarterly 29 (1 & 2), 42–47. http://pubs.iclarm.net/res
ource_centre/NagaV29-1and2-article6.pdf. accessed 15 November 2018.
De, H.K., Saha, G.S., Safui, L., Chandra, S., Adhikary, S., Barik, N.K., Eknath, A.E., 2016.
Impact of aquaculture field school on community fish farming. Indian J. Fish. 63 (2),
154–158. https://doi.org/10.21077/ijf.2016.63.2.44892-25.
De Silva, S.S., 2001. Reservoir fisheries: broad strategies for enhancing yields. In: De
Silva, S.S. (Ed.), Reservoir and Culture-Based Fisheries: Biology and Management.
Canberra. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, ACT,
Australia, pp. 7–15.
De Silva, S.S., Funge-Smith, S.J., 2005. A review of stock enhancement practices in the
inland water fisheries of Asia. Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission, Bangkok, Thailand.
RAP Publication No. 2005/12, p. 93.
DAHD&F, 2014. Handbook on fisheries statistics - 2014. Department of animal
husbandry, dairying and fisheries, ministry of agriculture and farmers welfare.
Government of India, p. 166. http://dahd.nic.in/documents/handbook-fisheries-st
atistics2014. (Accessed 15 December 2018).
DAHD&F, 2017. Annual report - 2016-’17. Department of animal husbandry, dairying
and fisheries, ministry of agriculture. Government of India, p. 162. http://dahd.nic.
in/sites/default/filess/Annual%20Report%202016-17.pdf. (Accessed 15 December
2018).
DAHD&F, 2018. Annual report - 2017-’18. Department of animal husbandry, dairying
and fisheries, ministry of agriculture. Government of India, p. 199. http://www.dah
d.nic.in/documents/reports. (Accessed 15 January 2019).
Edwards, P., 1999. Technical Options for Aquaculture for a Rural Livelihood. Paper
Presented at Joint FAO/NACA Consultation for the Development of a Regional
Collaborative Programme in Sustainable Aquaculture for Rural Development,
pp. 29–31. March 1999, Chiengrai.
A. Anand et al.
ESA, 2015. In: SENTINEL-2 user handbook, 1, p. 64, 2. https://sentinel.esa.int/
documents/247904/685211/sentinel-2_user_handbook. (Accessed 15 March 2019).
FAO, 1992. Fish Culture in Undrainable Ponds. A Manual for Extension. FAO Fisheries
technical paper no. 325, FAO, Rome, p. 239.
FAO, 1995. The Farming Systems Approach to Development and Appropriate
Technology Generation, vol. 10. FAO farm systems management series, Rome,
p. 229. FAO.
FAO, 2000. Small Ponds Make a Big Difference: Integrating Fish with Crop and Livestock
Farming. Rome. FAO, Rome, Italy, p. 30p.
FAO, 2005-2019. National Aquaculture Sector Overview. National Aquaculture Sector
Overview Fact Sheets, India. In: Ayyappan, S. (Ed.), FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Department [online]. Rome. Updated 4 April 2014. http://www.fao.org/fishery/co
untrysector/naso_india/en. (Accessed 4 March 2019).
FAO, 2006. Cultured Aquatic Species Information Programme. Catla catla. Cultured
Aquatic Species Information Programme. In: Jena, J.K. (Ed.), FAO Fisheries and
Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 26 February 2006. http://www.fa
o.org/fishery/culturedspecies/Catla_catla/en. (Accessed 2 March 2019).
FAO, 2009. Farm Ponds for Water, Fish and Livelihoods. FAO diversification booklet no.
13. FAO, Rome, p. 74. http://www.fao.org/3/i0528e/i0528e00.htm. (Accessed 2
March 2019).
Froehlich, D., Narayan, P., Kumar, M., 2017. Estimating reservoir capacity loss from
sedimentation. In: Third National Dam Safety Conference, vols. 18–19, pp. 1–16.
February 2017, Roorkee, India.
Ghosh, S., Indu, R., 2005. Inland Culture Fisheries in Village Tanks and Ponds: A Multi-
Location Study in India. Anand: IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program, p. 26.
GoCG, 2002-2003. New Fisheries Policy: 2002-2003. State Department of Fisheries,
Government of Chhattisgarh.
GoCG, 2018. Statistics of Fish Production. Department of Fisheries. Government of
Chhattisgarh, Raipur. http://agriportal.cg.nic.in/fisheries/FishEn/Default.aspx%
20%20. (Accessed 1 September 2018).
GoI, 2014. Water Policy for Drought Proofing Chhattisgarh, Planning Commission.
Government of India, New Delhi. http://planningcommission.gov.in/reports/serep
ort/ser/index.php?repts¼sty_wtrpolicy.htm. (Accessed 10 June 2019).
Hydrology Project, 2019. River Basin in Chhattisgarh. http://www.hydrologyproject.cg.
gov.in/Basin%20details/river_basin_in_chhattisgarh.htm. (Accessed 2 October
2019).
Ingole, N.A., Ram, R.N., Ranjan, R., Shankhwar, A.K., 2015. Advance application of
geospatial technology for fisheries perspective in Tarai region of Himalayan state of
Uttarakhand. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 1 (181) https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40899-015-0012-9.
Jena, J.K., Aravidakshan, P.K., Suresh, C., Muduli, H.K., Ayyappan, S., Chandra, S., 1998.
Comparative evaluation of growth and survival of Indian Major Carps and exotic
carps in raising fingerlings. J. Aquacult. Trop. 13 (2), 143–149.
Kumar, S., 2011. Aquatic weeds problems and management in India. Indian J. Weed Sci.
43 (3& 4), 118–138.
Mane, A.M., 2014. Studies on the impact of fingerlings stocking on the production of
major carps in a minor reservoir. Int. J. Life Sci 2 (4), 394–398.
Manjappa, N., Patil, R., Pavadi, P., 2017. Potential use of village tanks and farm ponds
for aquaculture in Karnataka, India - a case study. Int. J. Res. Appl. Nat. Soc. Sci. 5
(10), 45–50.
Marothia, D.K., 2009. Governance and institutional change in traditional commons:
lessons from Chhattisgarh, India. In: Proceeding of 4thWorld Congress on
Conservation Agriculture. ICAR, New Delhi, pp. 463–477.
McFeeters, S.K., 1996. The use of Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) in the
delineation of open water features. Int. J. Remote Sens. 17, 1425–1432. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01431169608948714.
MPEDA, 2019. Marine products export development authority of India. http://mpeda.
gov2019. (Accessed 26 January 2019).
NFDB, 2016. Guidelines for Cage Culture in Inland Open Waterbodies of India.
Department, National Fisheries Development Board, Hyderabad, India, p. 20. http
13
Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 17 (2020) 100273
://nfdb.gov.in/PDF/GUIDELINES/Guidelines%20for%20Cage%20Culture%20in%
20Inland%20Open%20Water%20Bodies%20of%20India.pdf. (Accessed 2 March
2019).
NRSC, 2011. Space based information support for decentralized planning (SIS-DP):
preparation of geo spatial layers using high resolution (Cartosat-1 PanþLISS-IVMx)
ortho-rectified satellite imagery. In: Remote Sensing and GIS Applications Area,
National Remote Sensing Centre, Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO),
Department of Space, Government of India, p. 226. Hyderabad.
Ottinger, M., Clauss, K., Kuenzer, C., 2018. Opportunities and challenges for the
estimation of aquaculture production based on earth observation data. Remote Sens.
10 (7), 1076. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10071076.
Pal, S., Talukdar, S., 2018. Impact of missing flow on active inundation areas and
transformation of parafluvial wetlands in Punarbhaba–Tangon river basin of Indo-
Bangladesh. Geocarto Int. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2018.1469676.
Pandey, R.P., Colavito, L.A., Khatiwada, S., 2012. Small-scale fish farming in mid- and
far-western regions of Nepal. In: Shrestha, M.K., Pant, J. (Eds.), Small-scale
Aquaculture for Rural Livelihoods: Proceedings of the National Symposium on
Small-Scale Aquaculture for Increasing Resilience of Rural Livelihoods in Nepal.
Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, Tribhuvan University, Chitwan, Nepal,
and The WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia, pp. 53–59.
PIB India, 2019. Retrieved from. http://pib.nic.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID¼15
124492017. (Accessed 4 March 2019).
Rao, V.V., Raju, P.V., 2010. Water resources management. In: Roy, P.S., Dwivedi, R.S.,
Vijayan, D. (Eds.), Remote Sensing Applications. ISRO-National Remote Sensing
Centre. Dept. of Space, Govt. of India, Hyderabad, pp. 133–164.
Rao, V.U.M., Subba Rao, A.V.M., Chandran, M.A.S., Kaur, P., Kumar, P.V., Rao, B.B.,
Khandgond, I.R., Srinivasa Rao, Ch, 2015. District Level Crop Weather Calendars of
Major Crops in India. Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad,
p. 40.
SAC, 2011. National Wetland Atlas, SAC/EPSA/ABHG/NWIA/ATLAS/34/2011. ISRO-
Space Applications Centre, Ahmedabad, India, p. 310.
Sawaya, K.E., Olmanson, L.G., Heinert, N.J., Brezonik, P.L., Bauer, M.E., 2003. Extending
satellite remote sensing to local scales: land and water resource monitoring using
high-resolution imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 88 (1–2), 144–156. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rse.2003.04.006.
Schmidt, M., Witte, C., 2010. Monitoring aquatic weeds in a river system using SPOT 5
satellite imagery. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 4 (1), 043–528. https://doi.org/10.1117/
1.3431039.
SEAFDEC, 1980. Fish Farming Handbook. Aquaculture Department. Southeast Asian
Fisheries Development Center, Tigbauan, Iloilo, Philippines. https://repository.sea
fdec.org.ph/handle/10862/1490. (Accessed 1 September 2018).
Shaw, D.R., 2005. Translation of remote sensing data into weed management decisions.
Weed Sci. 53 (2), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1614/WS-04-072R1.
Sinha, V.R.P., Chakraborty, R.D., Tripathi, S.D., Das, P., Sinha, M., 1985. Carp culture:
package of practices for increasing production. In: Aquaculture Extension Manual
New Series No. 2, vol. 4. ICAR-CIFRI, Barrackpore, pp. 6–26.
Sipaúba-Tavares, L.H., Donadon, A.R.V., Milan, R.N., 2011. Water quality and plankton
populations in an earthen polyculture pond. Braz. J. Biol. 71 (4), 845–855.
Sugunan, V.V., 1995. Reservoir Fisheries of India. FAO fisheries technical paper no. 345.
FAO, Rome, p. 423.
Sugunan, V.V., 2001. Status of culture-based fisheries in small reservoirs in India. In: De
Silva, S.S. (Ed.), Reservoir and Culture-Based Fisheries: Biology and Management.
Canberra. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, ACT,
Australia, pp. 274–280.
Sugunan, V.V., Katiha, P.K., 2004. Impact of stocking on yield in small reservoirs in
Andhra Pradesh, India. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 11 (2), 65–69. https://doi.org/10.1046/
j.1365-2400.2003.00370.x.
Vass, K.K., Shrivastava, N.P., Katiha, P.K., Das, A.K., 2009. Enhancing fishery
productivity in small reservoir in India. a technical manual. World Fish Centre 19.
Technical Manual No. 1949ss. The World Fish Centre, Penang, Malaysia.