Survey on landing of trash fishes in the major fish ...nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/41649/1... · The fishes that are not commercially important can be converted into value

Indian Journal of Geo Marine Science

Vol.46 (05), May 2017, pp. 1022-1043

Survey on landing of trash fishes in the major fish landing centers of

Tuticorin, South east coast of India

K. Immaculate jeyasanta & Jamila Patterson

Suganthi Devadason Marine Research Institute, 44 - Beach Road, Tuticorin - 628001,

Tamil Nadu, India

[E.Mail: [email protected] ]

Received 19 February 2015 ; revised 15 May 2015

This paper discusses the composition of the trash fishes in the study area. Totally 2502, 817 tonnes were recorded as

trash including 2009.346 tonnes in Tuticorin fishing harbour, 168.722 tonnes in Tharuvaikulam and 324,749 tonnes in

Thirespuram fish landing area during August 2010 to July 2011. Totally of 103 species of different trash fishes were recorded, in

which Leiognathidae family was dominant. Two way ANOVA of fish landing data showed a significant deviation (P<0.05)

between species and months in the landing centers of Tuticorin coast. This study concludes that the trash fishes were found to be

more in the Tuticorin coast. Fishing of juvenile fishes affects the wild fishery resources, proper regulation of net size must be

improved for the conservation of marine resources. The fishes that are not commercially important can be converted into value

added products and can be marketed, so that the livelihood of fisher folks can be improved.

[Key words: Trash fishes, Catch composition, Trawlers, Tuticorin coast, Non renewable marine resources]

Introduction

Fisheries play an important role in Indian

economy and it is one of the most important

economic activities along the coastal areas1,2

.

According to FAO3 total capture fisheries

production of India was estimated about 93

million tons and the contribution from marine

capture fisheries was about 90%. Annual marine

fishery potential of Indian EEZ is estimated as

3.93 million tons4 and the sector-wise

contribution of marine fish landings are 71% in

mechanized sector, 24% in motorized sector and

5% in artisanal sector5.

In India, trawling is one of the most

important commercial fishing methods followed

in mechanized sector. A major portion of the

world‟s fish supply for human consumption is

provided by trawls6 in terms of investment and

yield, trawling is considered to be a very effective

method for capturing demersal fish populations7, 8

.

Trawl fishing begin in 1956 at export markets

through funding provided by foreign aid

organizations 9. Introduction of trawl fishing led

to an increase in commercial landings in the initial

years. In India, 67.9 and 32.1% of trawlers are

operated in west and east coast respectively. The

number of trawlers operating in Indian waters has

been recently estimated as 29,241 with a

maximum in Gujarat (27.4%) followed by Tamil

Nadu (18.1%), Maharashtra (14.4%), Kerala

(13.6%), Karnataka (8.6%), Andhra Pradesh

(6.2%), Orissa (4.6%), Goa (2.8%), West Bengal

(2.1%) and Pondicherry (1.1%) and Daman & Diu

(1.1%)10

. However, the trawlers are an efficient

gear led to a fairly rapid fishing of commercially

targeted stocks11, 12

.

Commercial fishing not only affects the

targeted species but also several other species that

are caught incidentally. Apart from the targeted

species fished during trawl fishing, non - targeted

species commonly referred as by catches were

also caught. By catches includes species of little

commercial importance, which are dumped into

the sea or on the shore after reaching the fish

landing sites. The estimate of 2006 suggests that

7.3 million tonnes of the global catch are

discarded annually as bycatch13

.The unutilized

sub-set from in the bycatches are known as

„discards‟. The bycatch and discards were

collectively referred as trash fishes14

. The term of

trash has been used to denote fish usually non

targeted that are caught as bycatch and normally

has no price in the market15

. Over-capitalization

of fishing industry is considered as one of the

reasons for the problems of trash fish as this

INDIAN J. MAR. SCI., VOL. 46, NO. 05, MAY 2017

encourages wasteful fishing practices such as

„race for fish‟. Rapid technological development

which has occurred in the capture fisheries

sector16, 17

and using of small net size18

caused

increased landings of the trash fishes. As the trash

fishes caught from capture fisheries are incidental

and unavoidable, it is better to utilize the trash

fishes for acceptable purposes like production of

fishery products19

. The decline in biomass of fish

species such as the demersal stocks20

and the

small pelagic stocks21

, trash fishes has gained

some degree of importance especially in the third

world countries, for domestic / household

consumption and as raw material for locally

processed fishery products (fish sauce, dried fish

etc.) and fish meal22

.

FAO estimates suggest that there have

been reductions in the amount of discards over

time13, 23

. One factor contributing to this trend is

an increase in the landing of previously discarded

trash fishes24

that is processed as feed for

aquaculture and livestock, used as farm manure,

and in some cases, sold for human consumption15

.

But there is no much knowledge on species

composition of trash fishes landed in the currently

selected study area. There is a need to study in

detail of the species landing statistics and size

composition of trash fishes including juveniles of

commercially important species appearing in the

catch. Checklist on trash fishes constituents is

helpful in improving knowledge regarding the

biodiversity of the region and is an important tool

for fisheries management. It also contributes to

knowledge of distribution of non-conventional

species, which are poorly represented in the catch

statistics based on commercial landings19

. In this

paper, an attempt has been made to study the trash

fishes landing details of three major landing areas

of Tuticorin coast for one year and study was

focused on the quantity of the trash fishes landing

and species composition.

Materials and Methods

Fortnight observations were made in

three major landing centres of Tuticorin such as

Fishing harbour (13°

19‟ 06” N / 93°

04‟ 24” E)

Tharuvaikulam (09°53.729' N, 78° 09.958' E) and

Thirespuram (08°49.068' N, 78° 09.668' E) of

Tuticorin coast -and data on quantity of catch,

effort and species composition were collected

during August 2010 to July 2011. Methodology

adopted is stratified multi-stage random sampling

technique, Catch per unit effort (CPUE) followed

after Srinath, et al.,25

.

Data on catch per day was enquired from

fisher folks working in daily trip trawlers and

other boats. Out of the total number of fishing

days, sampling was done for 16 -18 days per

month in each selected study areas, number of

fishing crafts operated on the particular fishing

day in the particular fish landing site and fish

catch by different fishing gears were enquired

from the boat workers and carefully noted down.

Species level composition of by catches and their

weights from the operated boats on the effort day

were surveyed, calculated and tabulated. The

resultant data gives the total by catch landed in

the given day in the surveyed boats and then the

data is made up to total number of boats involved

in fishing in the particular fishing day and finally,

the resultant data was further calculated for one

month by multiplying the total number of effort

days during the month. Two way ANOVA was

performed to study the difference between the

species and months of the all three landing areas.

After the survey, random samples which

include important species of fishes, mollusks like

squids, cuttle fish, bivalve‟s, gastropods and

crustaceans like prawns and crabs found along

with the trash fishes were collected, washed and

packed in polythene bags and were transferred to

the laboratory in ice boxes. In the laboratory, the

fishes were sorted based on the species variations

and the number of individual species belonging to

different families were counted and the dominant

families were observed and noted down

throughout the study period, the specimens

collected were identified up to species level using

recent fish taxonomic workers and revisions

(FAO species identification sheets26

and online

species identification websites (www.fish

base.org, www. cephbase. org, www.shell

museum.org and www.sea shells.org), and the

identified species were photo documented. The

collected samples were preserved in ice for future

analysis and studies.

The total trash fish compositions were

divided into three categories27

. The length and

weight analyses of the known species were

carried out in order to compare juvenile‟s length

with common and maximum body length of

fishes. Based on commercial importance and

length-weight variations of trash fishes, they were

categorized into 3 types viz, juveniles of

commercially important species, low value

species and species unaccepted for human

consumption.

1023

http://www.fish/

http://www.sea/

IMMACULATE AND JAMILA: SURVEY ON LANDING OF TRASH FISHES

Table 1- Trash fish species of the major landing centres of Tuticorin coast

FIN FISHES

Family Species Family Species

Leiognathidae

Gazza minuta (Bloch, 1795) Balistidae

Abalistes stellatus (Lacepede, 1798)

Leiognathus bindus (Valenciennes ,1835) Odonus niger (Trewavas, 1974)

Leignathus brevirostris (Valenciennes ,1835) Trichiuridae

Trichiurus gangeticus (Gupta, 1966)

Leiognathus daura (Cuvier, 1829) Trichiurus lepturus (Linnaeus , 1758)

Leiognathus dussumieri (Valenciennes ,1835)

Fistulariidae

Fistularia commersonii (Rupell, 1835)

Leiognathus elongates (Gunther, 1874) Fistularia petimba (Lacepede, 1803)

Leiognathus equlus (Forsskal, 1775) Fistularia villosa (Klunzinger, 1871)

Leiognathus splendens (Cuvier, 1829)

Lutjanidae

Lutjanus malabaricus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801)

Caesionidae

Pterocaesio chrysozona (Cuvier, 1830) Lutjanus argentimaculatus (Frosskal, 1975)

Pterocaesio pisang (Bleeker,1853) Lutjanus lutjanus (Bloch, 1790)

Pterocaesio tessellate (Carpenter, 1987)

Carangidae

Atule mate (Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1833)

Dipterygonotus balteatus (Valenciennes ,1830) Caranx sp (Alleyne and Malcleay, 1877)

Clupeidae

Sardinella albella (Valenciennes ,1847) Carangoides praeustus (Benett, 1830)

Sardinella fimbriata (Valenciennes ,1847) Cangoides malabaricus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801)

Sardinella gibbosa (Bleeker, 1849) Carangoides hedlandensis (Whitley, 1933)

Sardinella longiceps (Valenciennes ,1847) Carangoides praeustus (Bennett, 1830)

Sardinella jussieui (Valenciennes ,1847) Alepes kalla (Cuvier, 1833)

Spratelloides delicatulus (Bennett, 1847) Dasyatidae

Himantura bleekeri (Blyth, 1860)

Anodontosoma chacunda (Hamilton) Himantura gerrardi (Gray, 1851)

Pristigasteridae

Pellona dayi (Wongratana, 1983) Ostraciidae Lactoria cornuta(Linnaeus, 1758)

Pellona ditchela (Valenciennes,1847) Priacanthidae Cookeolus japonicus (Cuvier, 1829)

Opisthopterus tardoore (Cuvier, 1829) Mugilidae

Liza parsia (Hamilton- Buchanan, 1822)

Ilisha megaloptera (Swainson,1839) Liza vaigiensis (Forsskal, 1775)

Synodontidae

Saurdia tumbil (Bloch,1795)

Plotosidae

Plotosus canius (Hamilton- Buchanan, 1832)

Saurdia undosquamis (Richardson, 1848) Plotosus limbatus (Valenciennes, 1787)

Trachinocephalus myops (Forster, 1801) Plotosus lineatus (Thunberg, 1787)

Pleuronectidae Poecilopsetta colorata ( Gunther, 1880) Echeneidae Echenesis naucrates (Linnaeus, 1758)

1024


Acanthuridae

Acanthurus leucossteron (Bennett,1932) Engraulididae

Stolephorus commersonii (Lacepede, 1803)

Acanthurus dussumieri (Valenciennes, 1835) Stolephorus indicus (Van Hasselt ,1823)

Acanthurus triostegus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Labridae

Halichoeres scapularis (Bennett, 1831)

Ammodytidae Bleekeria viridianguilla (Fowler, 1931) Halichoeres dussumieri (Valenciennes ,1839)

Soleidae Solea elongate (Day,1877) Halichoeres hortulanus (Lacepede, 1801)

Euryglossa orientalis (Bloch & Schneider,

1801) Scorpaenidae

Pterois volitans (Linnaeus, 1758)

Mullidae

Upeneus bensasi (Temminck & Schlegel, 1842) Brachypterois serrulata (Richardson, 1846)

Upeneus vittatus (Forsskal, 1775) Pterosis russelli (Bennett, 1831)

Upeneus moluccensis (Bleeker,1855) Aploactinidae Apolemichthus taprobanensis (Whitely 1933)

Upeneus sundaicus (Bleekar, 1855)

Tetradontidae

Triacanthus biaculeatus (Bloch, 1786)

Upeneus sulphurous(Cuvier, 1829) Triacanthus nieuhofii (Bleeker, 1852)

Dactylopetridae Dactyloptena orientalis (Cuvier, 1829) Arothron hispidus (Linnaeus, 1758)

Pomacanthidae Pomacanthus imperator (Bloch, 1787) Pomacentridae

Amphiprion sebae (Bleeker, 1853)

Pomacentrus coelestis (Jardan & Starks, 1901)

CRABS SHRIMPS

Portunidae

Portunus pelagicus (Linnaeus, 1766)

Penaeidae

Metapenaeus brevicornis (Fabricus, 1798)

Scylla serrata (Forskal, 1775) Metapenaeus dobsoni (Miers, 1878)

Scylla tranquebarica (Forskal, 1775) Solenocera crassicornis (H Milne Edwards, 1837)

Charybdis natator (Herbst, 1789) Sicyonia sp (Fabricus, 1798)

Charybdis feriatus (Linnaeus, 1758) Sergestidae Acetes indicus (H Milne Edwards, 1830)

Portunus sanguinolentus (Herbst, 1783) SHELL FISHES

CEPHALOPODS GASTROPODS

Sepiidae Sepia pharonis (Ehrenberg, 1831) Babyloniidae Babylonia spirata (Linnaeus, 1758)

Sepiella inermis (Van Hasselt, 1835) Muricidae Meurex tribulus (Linneaus, 1758)

Loliginidae

Loligo duvauceli (Orbigny, 1835) Volemidae Hemifusus pulgilinus (Born, 1778)

Loligo sinhaalensis (Ortmann, 1891) BIVALVES

Octopodidae

Octopus vulgaris (Lamark, 1798 ) Pteriidae Pinctada radiata (Leach, 1814)

Octopus aegina (Gray, 1849)

Octopus globosus (Appelof, 1886)

1025


0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

Fishing Harbour Tharuvaikulam Thirespuram

Landing area

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

Mo

nth

ly l

an

din

g (

ton

s)

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

Leio

gnath

idae

Caesio

nid

ae

Am

mo

dytid

ae

Clu

peid

ae

Pristr

igaste

rid

ae

Syno

do

ntid

ae

Acanth

urid

ae

So

leid

ae

Ple

uro

nectid

ae

Mullid

ae

Lab

rid

ae

Plo

tosid

ae

Ap

loactinid

ae

Tetr

ad

ontid

ae

Lutjanid

ae

Echeneid

ae

Sco

rpaenid

ae

Eng

raulid

idae

Cara

ng

idae

Dasyatid

idae

Ostr

aciid

ae

Priacanth

idae

Mug

ilid

ae

Trichiu

rid

ae

Fitula

riid

ae

Dacty

lop

terid

ae

Po

macanth

idae

Po

macentr

idae

Balistid

ae

Cra

bs

biv

alv

es

Gastr

op

od

s

Cep

halo

po

ds

Pra

wns

An

nu

al

lan

din

g (

ton

s)

Fig.1- Total landing of trash fish (tons) Tuticorin coast

Results

The fin and shellfishes of the trash were

identified and presented in Table 1. During the

period of observation, 103 species of non-targeted

species comes under trash in trawl nets were

recorded. The major components of trash fish

species in trawl by catches were 8 species of

Leiognathidae, 7 species of Clupeidae and

Carangidae and Cephalopods, 6 species of

Portunidae, 5 species of Mullidae, 4 species of

Caesionidae, Penaeidae and Pristrigasteridae, 3

species of Synodontidae, Fistularidae,

Acanthuridae, Labridae, Scorpanidae,

Tetradontidae, Lutjanidae, Plotosidae and

gastropods, 2 species of Dasyatididae, Soleidae,

Engraulididae, Ostraciidae, Priacanthidae,

Dactylopteridae, Pomacanthidae, Sergestidae and

bivalve pinctada radiate.

The details on fishing crafts and gears were

collected from the oral interviews conducted with

the traditional fisher folks involved in fishing

operation along the major landing centre of

Tuticorin coast and the details were shown in

Table 2. The major fishing gears operated in

Tuticorin coast includes trawl net and gill net and

the principal craft used in fishing includes

trawlers, vallams and fibre boats.

Trash fishes are highly found as incidental

catch in trawl nets and these trawl nets are highly

operated in the fishing areas of Tharuvaikulam

and Tuticorin fishing harbor. From the random

observations of fishing in all three landing areas,

Tuticorin fishing harbor was observed with

composition of different species of targeted

commercial catch and higher amount of non

commercial catch (trash fishes). Hence, trawl net

is one of the major causes of high trash fishes

composition in Tuticorin coast.

During the study period of Aug-2010 to

July - 2011, the total landing of trash fish (Fig.1)

in Tuticorin fishing harbour, Tharuvaikulam and

Thirespuram coast were 2009,346 t ; 168,722 t

and 324,749 t respectively. The monthly data on

family wise occurrence of trash fishes in Tuticorin

fishing harbour is shown in Table 3 and Fig. 2

Table 2- Type of fishing crafts & gears operated in major landing centres of Tuticorin coast

Major Landing centres

Crafts

Gears

Fishing harbour

Trawler

Trawl net

Thirespuram

Vallam, FRP

Shrimp net, Belonid net, Crab net, Lobster net, Gill net, Sardine net, Disco

net, Shore seine, Push nets, Hooks & Long line.

Tharuvaikulam

Vallam, Trawler

Shrimp net, Belonid net, Crab net, Lobster net, Gill net, Disco net, Shore

seine, Push nets, Hooks & Long line.

Fig. 2- Monthly landing of trash fish (tons) in fishing

harbour Fig. 3- Annual landing of trash fish (tons) in fishing harbour

1026


Table 3- Monthly data on family wise occurrence of trash fish (kg) collected from Tuticorin fishing harbour on August 2010 to July 2011

Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Total

Leiognathidae 95600 105500 33600 87000 106900 110200 114800 94315 94400 0 38600 48700 929615

Caesionidae 28950 28410 11800 33800 44200 34920 26515 36150 34650 0 27008 13598 320001

Ammodytidae 42875 33850 9800 19815 23950 25805 37500 17099 22850 0 2435 13351 249330

Clupeidae 5432 7875 3275 7305 10305 2835 8994 6640 8891 0 2463 2381 66396

Pristrigasteridae 3930 2741 750 1874 2775 2940 8350 4090 3210 0 1670 1198 33528

Synodontidae 9725 1375.5 550 945 1420 2030 3370 1715 938 0 1340 544 23952.5

Acanthuridae 1973 1684 700 1780 2177 1600 4217 1880 1239 0 13410 635 31295

Soleidae 14795 10068 3880 9275 10480 7960 11823 9920 8255 0 915 4005 91376

Pleuronectidae 2610 1837 340 934 1530 810 2187 1475 1085 0 687 555 14050

Mullidae 5315 1839 530 1280 1985 720 3978 2235 1315 0 1058 735 20990

Labridae 76 1265 380 835 1200 830 43 1058 740 0 56.5 275 6758.5

Plotosidae 1098 1490 617 487 954 222 874 317 278 0 51 170 6558

Aploactinidae 56 408 18 42.5 353 160.5 21.5 512.5 73 0 2455 19 4119

Tetradontidae 2326 2535 1440 1987 2505 3545 3755 3039 2216 0 706 1310 25364

Lutjanidae 3815 1390 310 720 1655 960 3017 1195 684 0 113 565 14424

Echeneidae 56.5 43 1 13 25.5 74.5 220 28.5 13 0 1037 5.6 1517.6

Scorpaenidae 2946 771 351 483 761 1342 3534 977 668 0 1014 421 13268

Engraulididae 1748 1051 395 800 1180 1405 4200 1090 1029 0 920 328 14146

Carangidae 3360 1240 340 740 1310 840 2265 1205 1006 0 745 355 13406

Dasyatididae 270 424 150 385 369 835 427 770 515 0 1054 185 5384

1027

IMMACULATE AND JAMILA: SURVEY ON LANDING OF TRASH FISHES Ostraciidae 1820 509 265 480 661 1105 1291 640 686 0 3250 350 11057

Priacanthidae 3145 4939 1990 3495 4605 3195 6180 2845 3605 0 903 1160 36062

Mugilidae 1161 470 385 258 555 963 207.4 755 510 0 756 380 6400.4

Trichiuridae 895 809 551 325 659 858 463 785 580 0 263 280 6468

Fitulariidae 686 52.5 20.5 25.5 37 148.5 478 18.5 44.8 0 776 106.5 2393.8

Dactylopteridae 2605 688 325 675 727.5 795 279 821 625 0 14.5 310 7865

Pomacanthidae 34.5 111 2.5 21 161.5 29.5 40 18.5 20 0 13.5 7.5 459.5

Pomacentridae 95.5 28.75 5 27 41 52 73 17.5 24.2 0 745 8 1116.95

Balistidae 2655 780 137 463 660 940 304.5 875 560 0 3433 340 11147.5

Crabs 1195 1335 970 649 883 3135 2235 1200 802 0 1742 575 14721

Bivalves 1215 403 510 311 482 1350 467 591 620 0 1249 280 7478

Gastropods 270.5 401.5 418 365 472 1180 2272 2780 650 0 1025 290 10124

Cephalopods 1117 890 425 560 1035 1195 351 920 770 0 0 435 7698

Prawns 90 80 60 33 75 145 120 53 70 0 70 80 876

Total 243941 217293.3 75291 178188 227088.5 215125 254851.4 198030.5 193622 0 111977.5 93937.6 2009346

Table 4- Monthly data on family wise occurrence of trash fish (kg) collected from Tharuvaikulam landing centre on August 2010 to July 2011


Leiognathidae 850 658 518 482 782 586 414 725 821 0 258 158 6252

Caesionidae 581 298 485 350 275 521 925 588 137 0 348 496 5004

Ammodytidae 482 258 458 315 426 378 853 914 345 0 452 354 5235

Clupeidae 892 1008 359 759 892 762 815 809 948 0 908 842 8994

Synodontidae 235 381 176 326 210 276 315 344 408 0 214 285 3170

1028


Acanthuridae 382 145 254 351 237 340 291 245 318 0 408 375 3346

Soleidae 108 90 142 270 178 169 107 91 200 0 182 145 1682

Pleuronectidae 75 86 95 18 82 95 82 63 72 0 45 63 776

Mullidae 1009 1456 1898 1562 825 937 861 924 1005 0 489 962 11928

Labridae 470 365 875 987 368 478 558 365 247 0 263 354 5330

Plotosidae 545 426 545 385 658 345 345 156 147 0 47 158 3757

Tetradontidae 1455 1025 1036 895 687 963 874 725 634 0 997 836 10127

Lutjanidae 1586 1478 547 589 1278 759 2687 1045 789 0 189 478 11425

Echeneidae 42 21 14 19 25 14 24 14 28 0 34 12 247

Scorpaenidae 558 784 354 224 788 354 287 418 598 0 324 478 5167

Engraulididae 657 889 1245 1047 889 784 1047 824 457 0 254 1079 9172

Carangidae 689 897 421 968 1028 874 545 247 368 0 427 474 6938

Dasyatididae 1024 874 654 347 754 1054 478 663 475 0 347 748 7418

Ostraciidae 578 458 269 784 354 147 268 187 254 0 347 227 3873

Priacanthidae 2454 1458 2036 1421 2234 998 1788 2047 888 0 748 634 16706

Mugilidae 987 254 785 354 247 178 204 113 247 0 174 189 3732

Trichiuridae 897 457 357 354 874 138 745 558 421 0 247 347 5395

Fitulariidae 247 247 48 107 124 107 134 88 75 0 34 88 1299

Dactylopteridae 124 41 18 33 18 25 17 25 74 0 21 32 428

Pomacanthidae 85 45 36 68 17 22 36 47 55 0 16 12 439

Pomacentridae 12 42 32 19 18 22 14 11 8 0 9 16 203

Balistidae 850 756 1045 698 745 986 457 885 98 0 165 174 6859

Crabs 887 198 1045 456 387 974 749 635 1047 0 457 241 7076

Bivalves 887 245 785 1044 745 263 147 854 365 0 478 1045 6858

Gastropods 450 287 893 478 347 974 421 265 147 0 341 211 4814

Cephalopods 256 523 478 345 887 324 147 654 123 0 345 244 4326

Prawns 78 45 52 78 69 165 114 32 24 0 34 55 746

20432 16195 17955 16133 17448 15012 16749 15561 11823 0 9602 11812 168722

1029


Table 6- Monthly data on family wise occurrence of trash fish (kg) collected from Thirespuram landing centre on August 2010 to July 2011


Leiognathidae 372 703 327 253 606 416 685 637 482 315 352 541 5689

Clupeidae 3958 5286 2693 1394 1306 2372 1205 1642 2531 1267 1382 1463 26499

Synodontidae 82 126 93 56 73 92 42 65 79 53 37 81 879

Acanthuridae 1593 2431 1832 1782 1500 1232 941 1195 1294 974 834 1204 16812

Soleidae 46 73 58 93 37 52 71 83 92 51 48 80 784

Mullidae 259 304 298 426 316 243 184 375 229 348 383 392 3757

Labridae 0 0 8 0 0 13 0 7 9 3 0 6 46

Plotosidae 16 23 0 11 21 0 0 0 15 0 13 18 117

Aploactinidae 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 0 21

Lutjanidae 5765 7642 2641 4932 7481 8342 3624 2943 8723 2456 4736 3782 63067

Echeneidae 0 0 25 38 15 43 58 40 36 41 43 29 368

Scorpaenidae 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 11

Engraulididae 574 819 746 503 913 483 627 485 583 625 715 753 7826

Carangidae 9583 7391 8424 6832 10238 9484 6328 8472 6826 6542 9482 8746 98348

Dasyatididae 379 473 591 362 529 492 128 286 391 215 124 183 4153

Ostraciidae 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 10

Priacanthidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 8

Mugilidae 1434 1205 946 913 1204 816 869 1200 714 821 643 1065 11830

Trichiuridae 1260 1048 924 976 1135 792 514 391 79 24 0 0 7143

Pomacanthidae 17 24 0 0 0 35 0 4 0 6 0 0 86

Pomacentridae 12 10 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 9 6 47

Balistidae 462 395 358 403 618 528 206 594 463 312 498 396 5233

Crabs 2107 1846 2358 1945 1395 1539 2731 2857 1403 1137 1005 1627 21950

Bivalves 653 284 231 143 151 135 182 193 274 235 204 294 2979

Gastropods 1543 2045 1873 943 841 1395 1431 1824 1163 1283 947 983 16271

Cephalopods 2143 1984 2351 2139 1842 2843 743 946 1184 1326 1645 1133 20279

Prawns 1204 942 913 814 941 886 924 765 721 809 792 825 10536

Total 33464 35054 27690 24966 31168 32239 21506 25004 27308 18848 23892 23610 324749

1030


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Le

iog

na

thid

ae

Ca

esio

nid

ae

Am

mo

dytid

ae

Clu

pe

ida

e

Syn

od

on

tid

ae

Aca

nth

uri

da

e

So

leid

ae

Ple

uro

ne

ctid

ae

Mu

llid

ae

La

bri

da

e

Plo

tosid

ae

Te

tra

do

ntid

ae

Lu

tja

nid

ae

Ech

en

eid

ae

Sco

rpa

en

ida

e

En

gra

ulid

ida

e

Ca

ran

gid

ae

Da

sya

tid

ida

e

Ostr

aciid

ae

Pri

aca

nth

ida

e

Mu

gilid

ae

Tri

ch

iuri

da

e

Fitu

lari

ida

e

Da

cty

lop

teri

da

e

Po

ma

ca

nth

ida

e

Po

ma

ce

ntr

ida

e

Ba

listid

ae

Cra

bs

biv

alv

es

Ga

str

op

od

s

ce

ph

alo

po

ds

Pra

wn

s

An

nu

al

lan

din

gs

(t

on

s)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Mo

nth

ly l

an

din

g (

ton

s)

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Leio

gnath

idae

Clu

peid

ae

Syno

do

ntid

ae

Acanth

urid

ae

So

leid

ae

Mullid

ae

Lab

rid

ae

Plo

tosid

ae

Ap

loactinid

ae

Lutjanid

ae

Echeneid

ae

Sco

rpaenid

ae

Eng

raulid

idae

Cara

ng

idae

Dasyatid

idae

Ostr

aciid

ae

Priacanth

idae

Mug

ilid

ae

Trichiu

rid

ae

Po

macanth

id…

Po

macentr

idae

Balistid

ae

Cra

bs

biv

alv

es

Gastr

op

od

s

cep

halo

po

ds

Pra

wns

An

nu

al

lan

din

gs (

ton

s)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Mo

nth

ly l

an

din

gs

(to

ns)

Annual landings of trash fishes in

Tuticorin fishing harbour are illustrated in Fig. 3.

From the observation, Tuticorin fishing harbour

portrays maximum landing of 2009, 346 t with

highest composition of fishes from the family

Leiognathidae (929,615 t), Caesionidae (320,001

t) and Ammodytidae (249,330 t). There is a little

fluctuation in the monthly landing of trash fishes

with the lowest landing (227,088.5 t) in October

2010 and highest landing (254,851.4 t) during

February 2011 (Fig.2).

The monthly and annual landings of trash

fishes in Tharuvaikulam were lesser compared to

other major fish landing centers of Tuticorin

coast. In this region annual catch was about

168.722 t (Table. 4 with highest composition of

fishes from the family Priacanthidae (16,706 t),

Mullidae (11,928 t) and Lutjanidae (11,425 t)

(Fig.4).

There is a little fluctuation in the monthly

landing of trash fishes with the lowest landing

(9,602 t) in June 2011 and highest landing (20,432

t) during August 2010. The monthly data on

family wise occurrence of trash fishes in

Tharuvaikulam is shown in Table 4 and Fig. 5.

Annual landings of trash fishes from country boats

and trawlers were portrayed in Table. 5 which

states total catch of trawlers (131.392 t) are

dominant and total catch of country boats

accounted to about 37.330 t

Fig. 4- Annual landing of trash fish (tons) in Tharuvaikulam Fig. 5- Monthly landing of trash fish (tons) in Tharuvaikulam

fish landing centre fish landing center

Fig. 6- Annual landing of trash fish (tons) in Thirespuram Fig. 7- Monthly landing of trash fish (tons) in Thirespuram

The monthly data on family wise occurrence of

trash fishes in Thirespuram is shown in Table 6 and

Fig. 6. Monthly landings of trash fishes in

Thirespuram are shown in Fig 7. Trash fishes catch

were found second dominant in Thirespuram

compared to other major landing centers of Tuticorin

coast, in this region annual catch was observed to

about 324,749 t, with highest composition of fishes

from the family Carangidae (98,348 t), Lutjanidae

(63,067 t) and Clupeidae (26,499 t). There is a little

fluctuation in monthly landing occurrence of trash

fish with the lowest landing of 18,848 t in May-11

and highest landing during September- 2010 with a

catch of about 35,054 t.

1031


Table 7. Annual Boat wise catch of Thirespuram coast

Thirespuram(kg)

Family name Vallam FRB Total catch

Leiognathidae 4030 1659 5689

Clupeidae 19840 6659 26499

Synodontidae 670 209 879

Acanthuridae 12500 4312 16812

Soleidae 610 174 784

Mullidae 2980 777 3757

Table 5- Annual Boat wise catch of Tharuvaikulam Landing center

Tharuvaikulam (kg)

Family name Trawler Vallam Total catch

Leiognathidae 5120 1132 6252

Caesionidae 3515 1489 5004

Ammodytidae 4230 1005 5235

Clupeidae 6820 2174 8994

Synodontidae 2625 545 3170

Acanthuridae 2830 516 3346

Soleidae 1122 560 1682

Pleuronectidae 545 231 776

Mullidae 8820 3108 11928

Labridae 4055 1275 5330

Plotosidae 2468 1289 3757

Tetradontidae 8459 1668 10127

Lutjanidae 9233 2192 11425

Echeneidae 140 107 247

Scorpaenidae 3630 1537 5167

Engraulididae 7890 1282 9172

Carangidae 5200 1738 6938

Dasyatididae 5929 1489 7418

Ostraciidae 2536 1337 3873

Priacanthidae 13985 2721 16706

Mugilidae 2700 1032 3732

Trichiuridae 4268 1127 5395

Fitulariidae 1010 289 1299

Dactylopteridae 375 53 428

Pomacanthidae 338 101 439

Pomacentridae 165 38 203

Balistidae 5241 1618 6859

Crabs 5520 1556 7076

Bivalves 5846 1012 6858

Gastropods 3147 1667 4814

Cephalopods 3040 1286 4326

Prawns 590 156 746

Total (t) 131,392 37,330 168,722

1032


Labridae 38 8 46

Plotosidae 86 31 117

Aploactinidae 18 3 21

Lutjanidae 55400 7667 63067

Echeneidae 260 108 368

Scorpaenidae 11 - 11

Engraulididae 6320 1506 7826

Carangidae 85720 12628 98348

Dasyatididae 3055 1098 4153

Ostraciidae 10 - 10

Priacanthidae 8 - 8

Mugilidae 9780 2050 11830

Trichiuridae 5995 1148 7143

Pomacanthidae 73 13 86

Pomacentridae 47 - 47

Balistidae 4800 433 5233

Crabs 18350 3600 21950

Bivalves 2310 669 2979

Gastropods 13000 3271 16271

Cephalopods 18477 1802 20279

Prawns 7800 2736 10536

Total(t) 272,188 52,561 324,749

Table 8- Two way ANOVA of fish landing data between species and months in three landing areas

Fishing harbour SS df MS F P-value Remarks

Between species 7.75E+10 33 2.35E+09 47.94394 7.8E-112 *

Between months 2.02E+09 11 1.83E+08 3.742992 4.39E-05 *

Total 9.73E+10 407

Tharuvaikulam

Between species 38771707 31 1250700 18.36684 2.94E-55 *

Between months 9816018 11 892365.3 13.10461 8.01E-21 *

Total 71808304 383

Thiresupuram

Between species 1.03E+09 26 39587066 110.3194 6.9E-133 *

Between months 10292809 11 935709.9 2.607594 0.003523 *

Total 1.14E+09 323

“*”- Significant at 5% level, “NS” – Not significant

1033


Table 9- Average length and weight of juvenile trash fishes of commercially important species in fishing

harbour

Families & Species

Length (cm)

Weight (g) Trash fish Common Maximum

Leiognathidae

Gazza minuta 7.0 4.5 9.5 14

L.brevirostris 8.5 2.0 9.5 13.5

L.daura 5.5 2.5 9.5 14

L.dussumieri 8.0 2.0 10.9 14

L.equlus 9.0 3.0 16 24

L.splendens 4.5 3.0 9.5 14

Clupeidae

Sardinella albella 15.5 4.5 9.0 17

S.fimbriata 14.5 7.5 12.5 23

S.gibbosa 15 8.0 12 17

S.longiceps 15.5 7.0 14 20

S.jussieui 11.5 7.0 12 17

Spratelloides delicatulus 11.0 4.2 7.5 9

Anodontostoma chacunda 11.0 7.0 9.5 17

Pristigasteridae

Pellona ditchela 21.5 8.5 17 22

Synodontidae

Saurdia tumbil 25 .0 8 20 40

Truchinocephalus myops 25 .0 9.5 20 35

Acanthuridae

Acanthurus leucosternon 15 .0 4.0 19.5 23

A. dussumieri 23 .0 6.5 10 54

A. triostegus 25 .0 6.3 15 24

Caesionidae

Pterocaesio chrysozoma 20.0 5.5 15 25

P.pisang 15 5.5 15 25

P.tessellata 15 5.0 10 25

Pleuronectidae

Poecilopsetta colorata 15 8.1 10 15

Samoris cristatus 15 8.7 15 15

Solea elongate 18 8.5 15 30

Euryglossa orientalis 25 8.2 10 25

Mullidae

Upeneus bensasi 15 3.8 7.0 20

U.moluccensis 25 3.8 10 20

U. vittatus 25 4.5 4.0 28

U.sundaicus 24 4.0 4.0 25

Lutjanidae

Lutjanus malabaricus 20.0 7.5 15.5 100

L.argentimaculatus 12.5 10.0 16 120

L.lutjanus 11.5 10.5 15.5 30

Engraulididae

1034


Table 10- Average length and weight of low valued trash fish species in fishing

harbour

Average body

weight (g)

Average body

length (cm)

Tetraodontiforms

Tricanthus biaculeatus 50 8.5

T.nieuhofii 35 8.0

Arothron hispidus 45 8.5

Plotosidae

Plotosus canius 8.5 15

P.limbatus 7.5 8.5

Stolephorus commersoni 10 4.0 12 18

S.indicus 9.5 4.0 10 18

Carangidae

Carangoides oblongus 35 9.2 30 46

C.malabaricus 24 10.3 20 30

35

22 C.hedlandensis

C.praeustus

35

20

7.5

7.0

25

21

Dasyatididae

Himantura bleekeri 35 10.2 45 105

H.gerrardi 30 15.0 90 90

Mugilidae

Liza parsia 11.2 6.8 15 16

Liza vaigiensis 10 8.3 14.2 70

Crab:Portunidae

Portunus pelagicus 15 3.5 15.5 44

Scylla serrata 18 2.5 20 40

Scylla tranquebarica 14 4.0 20 40

Charybdis natator 20 9.2 25 40

Charybdis feriata 15 4.0 15 40

Sepiidae

Sepiella inermis 7 3.0 15 20

Octopodidae

Octopus vulgaris 15 15 30 130

Octopus aegina 20 10 15 40

Loliginidae

Loligo duvaucelli 10 3.0 20 30

L. singhaalensis 15 7.5 25 40

Bivalve: Pteriidae

Pinctada radiate 5.0 6.2 10 20

Saccostera cuculata 30 7.5 5.0 28

Gastropod:Babyloniidae

Babyloniia spirata 17.5 10.5 40 50

Muricidae

Chichoreus virginicus

Meurex tribulus

20

15

60mm

17.2mm

2.5 6.5

160mm 65mm

Volemidae

Hemifuscus pugiliensis 4.15 62mm 75mm 160mm

1035


P.lineatus 8.0 8.0

Ostraciidae

Lactoria cornuta 15 18.0

Priacanthidae

Cookeoles japonicus 30 7.5

Trichiuridae

Trichiurus gangeticus 30 20

T.lepturus 15 15

Fistulariidae

Fistularia commersonii 30 30

F.petimba 40 15

Balistidae

Abalistus stellatus 15 18.0

Monacanthus sps 10 10.0

Pristigasteridae

Pellona sps 10 11.0

Pellona dayi 9.5 11.7

Opisthopterus tardoore 11.5 9.5

Ilisha megaloptera 10.2 10.5

Synodontidae

Saurdia undosquamis 10 8.0

Carangidae

Caranx sps 20 8.0

Alpes kalla 25 13.0

Atule mate 15 11.0

Mullidae

Upeneus sulphureus 10 14.0

Table 11-Average length and weight on trash fish Species unaccepted for human consumption in fishing

harbour

Average body

weight (g)

Average body

length (cm)

Caesionidae

Dipterygonotus balteatus 25 8.9

Ammodytidae

Bleekeria viridianguilla 26 9.5

Labridae

Halichoeres scapularis 45 13.3

Halichoeres dussumieri 50 8.0

Halichoeres hortulanus 45 10.5

Xiphocheilus typus 35 7.5

Scorpaenidae

Pterosis volitans 45 8.0

Pterosis russelli 70 7.0

Brackypterosis serrulata 60 13.0

Aploactinidae

Apolemichthus taprobanensis 25 15.0

Echeneidae

Echensis naucrates 35 15

Dactylopteridae

Dactyloptena orientalis 30 15.0

Pomacanthidae

Pomacanthus imperator 15 17.5

Pomacentridae

Pomacentrus coelestics 20 8.7

Amphiprion sebae 25 9.2

Leiognathidae

Leiognathus bindus 15 9.1

L.elongatus 15.5 10.9

Fitulariidae

Fistularia villosa 25 30.0

1036


Annual landing of trash fishes from

country boats (vallam and fiber boats) in

Thirespuram were tabulated in Table 7, and the

table states that highest landing was observed in

vallam with catch was about 272,188 t followed

by fiber boats (52,561 t). As this fishing area does

not have trawl boats, fishing ban during the month

of May is not applicable to this fishing village.

Two way ANOVA of fish landing data showed a

significant deviation (P<0.05) between species

and months in all the three landing areas (Table.

8).

The trash fishes in the study area come

under the family of Leiognathidae, Mullidae,

Mugilidae, Engraulididae, Pristigasteridae,

Trichiuridae and Sepiidae, Loliginidae etc. The

juveniles of commercially important fishes were

found as non-targeted by catch in greater amounts

in fishing harbour due to trawl net fishing in this

region and lesser in Tharuvaikulam and

Thirespuram due to limited use of trawl net. The

average length-weight of each species of trash

fishes were compared with the average value of

fishes and confirmed as juveniles. Further

classification was based on their commercial

values. The average body length and weight were

noted for juveniles, low value fishes and

unaccepted fishes for human consumption. The

length-weight analysis of three categories of trash

fish species were listed in Tables 9, 10 and 11.

Plate. 1- Trash Fishery

Fig. a- Trawl net catches Fig. b- Trawl nets (5mm mesh size)

Fig. c- Commercial target fishes – Tuna Fig. d - Commercial target fishes – Loligo sp.

1037


Fig. e - Juveniles of Leiognathus sp. Fig. f - Juveniles of Trichurus lepturus

Fig. g - Species unaccepted for human consumption

Fig. h - Low value species

1038


Fig. i - Trash fishes taken for drying Fig. j - Drying of trash fishes in poultry industry

Discussion

For several decades, certain categories of

fishes had little economic value because of their

small size, poor quality or limited appeal to

consumers. Today trash fish are rapidly gaining

favor, especially as overall stocks of fish decline.

Trash fishes constitute about 40% of the total

marine fish landings28

. The quantity of fisheries

by-catch and discards in various oceans and seas

around the world was reported as 27 million tons

from 1980 and early 1990s and this is more than

half of the fishes fished for human consumption29

.

Clucas14

reported that the trash fishes in Brazil

were being utilized, so 45,300 tonnes of trash

fishes is used, while 408,600 tonnes is being

discarded. The Brazilian shrimp and prawn catch

during 2000 - 2003 was 51,000 tonnes annually.

The shrimp and prawn fisheries alone would have

generated around 453,900 tonnes of trash fishes

annually, because shrimps are bottom burrowing

species and the trawl nets scrap the bottom so that

lots of deep sea fishes were caught as trash,

among them total global discards of trash fish is

16.7 million tonnes from shrimp fisheries alone30

while Food and Agriculture Organization31

reported a reduced rate of 20 million tonnes of

trash fishes. Again Food and Agriculture

Organization32

later FAO33

reported the discard

rate as 8% of the total catch, represented by 7.3

million tonnes. The Central Marine Fisheries

Research Institute (CMFRI), Cochin in 1979

reported 79.18% (315,902 tonnes) of the total

landings is represented as trash; the percentage of

trash was high in Gujarat (92.58), followed by

Tamil Nadu (91.04) and Pondicherry (86.52)33

. In

the present study, compared to the earlier reports a

total of 2502,817 tonnes were recorded as trash

from the three major landing areas of Tuticorin

region for a period from August 2010 to July

2011. Among the total landing, 2009,346 t;

168,722 t and 324,749 t were trashes from

Tuticorin fishing harbour, Tharuvaikulam and

Thirespuram coast respectively.

The species composition of trash fishes

caught from Mandapam and Palk bay region

includes Congresox sp., Channa punctata,

Tetradon sp., Canthigaster sp., Etroplus sp.,

Lactoria sp., Narcine timlei, Chaedoton sp. and

Saurida tumbil34

. In the Gulf of Carpentaria about

15 species of trash fishes were observed35

.This

includes the number of abundant species from the

families of Leiognathidae, Carangidae and

Sciaenidae. Sujatha19

reported low value trash

fishes of Visakhapatnam and it was about 228

species belonging to 68 families and it constitutes

about 11% of the total trawl landings. In Veraval,

low value trash fishes of 87 species belonging to

42 families include juveniles of commercial

finfish and shell fishes36

. Totally 282 species of

marine organisms were observed from the trawl

by catch of Cochin and it includes, 191 species of

fin fishes, 11 species of shrimps, 3 species of

lobsters, 13 species of crabs, 11 species of

cephalopods, 45 species of mollusc, 2 species of

echinoderms, 2 species jelly fishes, 2 species

1039


stomatopods and one species each sea snake and

sea turtle. The trash fish landings of trawlers in

Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu during 1985-

90 was recorded as 20 genera of fishes, 26 genera

of crustaceans, 23 genera of gastropods, 15 genera

of bivalves, 10 genera of echinoderms,

polychaetes, anemones, sponges, gorgonids,

ascidians and echiuroids, besides a large number

of juveniles of fishes and cephalopods37

. Palk Bay

and the Gulf of Mannar have shown the presence

of 185 species in the trash fish, represented mainly

by ground fish, stomatopods, shrimps, gastropods,

bivalves, crabs, echinoderms, sea weeds and sea

grass38

. In the present study the major fish landing

centers of Tuticorin such as fishing harbour,

Tharuvaikulam and Thirespuram landings of trash

by trawl and other fishing methods composed of

81 species of fin fishes, 11 species of crustaceans

and 11 species of molluscs with a total of 103

species.

Trash fishes including low valued fishes,

juveniles of commercial fish species, were

estimated in 1990, by Chinese fisheries specialists

to account for 70 percent of China‟s marine

catch39

. The evidence indicates that the percentage

of trash fishes has increased over the past two

decades. Monitoring of catch composition in the

East China Sea in 1994 showed that juveniles

represented more than 90 percent of the catch of

the large head hair tail Trichiurus lepturus, one of

the major commercial species of the catch

composition in the past40, 41

. Heavy landing of

juvenile threadfin bream in Munambam and

Cochin were reported42

. It is the same case in the

study area as large quantities of juveniles are

fished every day. The amount of 66 - 94% of

juvenile fishes found as trash in Vishakhapatnam

by small trawlers was reported43, 44

. By catches

from the shrimp fishing constitute more than 50%

immature fish45

. During the peak fishing seasons

fishing operations, bull trawlers in South Kannada

coast in Karnataka capture juveniles of

commercially important fish, amounting to 23%

of the total catches46

. Uses of extremely small

cod-end mesh size (8-10 mm) than the legally

required cod end was the reason for landing of

too many juveniles as trash fishes47

. In the present

study the percentage of juveniles fished is

significantly higher.

Trash fishes characterized at Kangkar fish market

in Singapore were divided into three categories,

juveniles of commercially important species, low

valued species and species unaccepted for human

consumption48

. In the present study also

depending upon the length-weight of the species

of trash, economic value and commercial

preferences, trash fishes were characterized into

juveniles, low commercial valued fishes and

fishes unacceptable for human consumption. In

the present study after characterization of trash

fishes, 21 species of fishes coming under

juveniles, 11 families are coming under low value

and species unacceptable for human consumption.

Most of the juveniles are very small size. All the

fishes were simply kept on the floor until

auctioning was over in the landing centers then it

was simply carried to the drying area for poultry

feed making.

Detailed description about crafts and

gears of Tuticorin district and composition of

trash fishes were reported by Ragupathy

Venkatachalam (2005)49

and resulted that silver

bellies (Leiognathidae) were the most abundant

constituent (23.2%) in the non-commercial

catches of Tuticorin. In the present study 8 species

of the Leiognathidae family was dominant species

of trash with a size range of 5.5-12 cm among the

major landing areas of Tuticorin region. The

family Caseionidae (4 species) was found to be

the second dominant species in the Tuticorin

region. The results coincided with the results of

Blaber et al.,

34. Present study revealed that in

Tuticorin fishing harbour is the dominant trash

fish landing area and it was found to be lesser in

the other two major fish landing centers like

Thirespuram and Tharuvaikulam and this may be

due to the limited use of trawl fishing in these

regions.

In china, 70% of trash fishes were landed

in port by otter trawling50

. In the present study

also maximum trash fishes were fished by

trawlers. Single day trawlers are the only class of

trawlers capable of landing bulk amount of trash

fishes caught in each jurisdiction51

. In the current

study also huge quantity trash fish landing is

mainly by trawling. Trash fishes constitute 10-

20% of total catches (271,000 tonnes) landed was

1040


estimated by trawlers operating along Indian

coastline2. In northern Mandabam coast during

January to December 2008 from the trawler along

with the commercial catches of prawns,

14,549.573 tonnes of fishes were landed as trash.

Among this total fishes, 13,927.9 tonnes were

commercial fishes and 620.673 tonnes were trash

fishes. Commercial fishes includes Leiognathus

sp., Upeneus sp., Lutjanus sp., Mugil cephalus,

Plotosus lineatus, Scarus sp., Siganus sp.,

Epinephalus sp., Carangoids sp., Sepia sp. and

Pelagicus sp. etc. and trash fishes includes

Congresox sp., Channa punctata, Tetradon sp.,

Canthigaster sp., Etroplus sp., Lactoria sp.,

Narcine timlei, Chaedoton sp. and Saurida

tumbil34

. Unusual heavy landing of trash fishes at

Tuticorin fishing harbor were reported by

Zacharia and Kandan 52

. Results from the present

study showed that landing of trash fishes have

increased due to increased number of trawlers

operated along the coastline and the small mesh

size of the cod end of the nets. Similar survey was

carried out in by trawl fisheries on the northeast

coast of Bay of Bengal in 2003-0450

.

Trawl nets were the main indicators of higher

amount trash fish fishing. The number of

trawlers operated was in Tuticorin fishing harbour

is higher and the trash fishes landing also too high

in this region53

. But information is not available

about species composition so the amount of trash

fish and its species composition were assessed in

the present study to get better information about

the trash fishes. Every year 45 days fishing ban

from April 2 to 15th of May for mechanized

trawlers and the bans was not applicable to

country crafts (Vallam). But during this periods

trash fishes were also observed and this states that

some fisher folks operates trawl net from vallam

which is one of the major reason for trash fish

captures during the ban period.

Approximately 15, 00000 t of trash fishes

were utilized every year globally by poultry farm.

Most of the trash fishes were dried and send to the

poultry farms, the fisher folks are not much aware

about the species composition of fishes. Surely

this type of utilization of trash fishes by poultry

farms definitely affects the wild fishery; because

the fisher men are utilizing these trash fishes for

income they are not much aware about the growth

of the fishes. This is one of the main causes which

affect the wild fishery. The utilization of trash

fishes is not legally permitted, previous days the

fisher folks utilize small amount of trash fishes for

manufacturing dried fishes. But now a day the

fisher folks are utilizing tonnes of the trash fishes

for drying and transporting it to various poultry

farms. During drying process the juvenile fishes

cannot be seen in mixed trash fishes because the

fishes used to shrink within two days when they

are dried under the hot sun so juvenile fishes

cannot be seen separately. Legal permission of

trash fishes which affects the wild fish population

in future. Because by catches can become targeted

if it is not captured illegally. In this situation

proper regulation in the usage of net sizes should

be implemented also usage of trawler boats should

be reduced. If proper regulations were

implemented then the by catches of fishes can be

reduced and the population of fishes can be

increased. The unavoidable fishes caught that are

not important for human consumption can be

converted into value added products and can be

marketed. This can increase the livelihood of

fisher folks.

Conclusion

The information regarding the trash fishes of

Tuticorin coast was surveyed and this study would

assist the researcher to get better understanding on

fishery resources. In conservation point of view,

million tons of trash fishes have been discarded

every day in this region. So research should be

carried out for processing of this resource and

studies should be made for the proper utilization

of these protein rich resources. Exploitation of the

present resource is a foremost disaster in marine

ecosystem. It implies need of creating awareness

about the fishing vessels and nets and the

importance of fishery resources and illegal effect

of over fishing. So this study will be useful for the

conservation officials to take proper actions about

these valuable resources.

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to Dr. J.K.

Edward Patterson, Director, Suganthi Devadason

Marine Research Institute for providing facilities.

1041


References

1. FAO, Fishery statistics: Capture production. FAO

Yearbook, (2002a) Vol. 94/1.

2. Jayaraman, R., Overview of status and trend of

trash fish from marine fisheries and their

utilization, with special reference to aquaculture:

India. Mar. Fish. Infor. Ser., T&E Ser., No. 149

(2004): 1. pp 6.

3. FAO, The state of world fisheries and aquaculture.

FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food

and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations, Rome, (2010a) pp. 197.

4. Sudarsan, D., John, M. E. and Somvanshi, V. S.,

Marine fishery resource potential in the Indian

exclusive economic zone - an update, Bull. Fish.

Surv. India., 20 (1): (1990) 20 – 27.

5. CMFRI, Annual Report 2006 - 2007. Central

Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, 2006a.

pp. 126.

6. Sainsbury, J.C., Commercial Fishing Methods - An

Introduction to Vessels and Gear, (Fishing News

Books Ltd., Farham) 1996, p. 352.

7. Scofield, W. L., Trawling gear in California.

California Department of Fish and Game, Fish. Bul,

(1948): pp. 2.

8. Uddin, A. M. K., Iftekhar, M. S., Abedin, M. J.

and Islam, M.S., Overview of status and trend of

trash fish from marine fisheries and their

utilization, with special reference to aquaculture:

Bangladesh, 2004.

9. Devaraj, M. and Vivekanandan, E., Marine

capture fisheries of India - Challenges and

opportunities, Curr Sci., 76(1999): 314 - 332.

10. GoMBRT, Analysis of fishing practices of Gulf of

Mannar Biosphere reserve management strategy for

the Gulf of Mannar, Compendium of research

finding on biodiversity conservation and

sustainable use in Gulf of Mannar Biosphere

reserve, (Fisheries College and Research Institute,

Tuticorin) 2012, p. 203 - 215.

11. Bavinck, M., Marine Resource Management,

Conflict and regulation in the fisheries of the

Coromandel Coast, (Sage Publications India Pvt.

Ltd, New Delhi) 2001, p. 105.

12. Bhathal, B. and Pauly, D., Fishing down marine

food webs and spatial expansion of coastal fisheries

in India, 1950–2000, Fish Res., 91 (2008) 26 – 34.

13. Kelleher, K., Discards in the world‟s marine

fisheries: an update. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. No. 470

(2005): pp.131.

14. Clucas, I., A study of the potions for utilization of

by catches and discards from marine capture

fisheries: 9.1.2 Nephtops. FAO Fisheries Circular,

No: 928: (1997): FIIU/C928, 59 pp.

15. Nunoo, F. K. E., Boateng, J.O., Ahulu, A. M.,

Agyekum, K. A. and Sumaila, U. R., When trash

fish is treasure: the case of Ghana in West Africa,

Fish Res., 96 (2009) 167 -172.

16. Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Gueınette, S., Pitcher, T.

J., Sumaila, U. R. and Walters Pramod, G., Trawl

fishery along the India's northeast coast: an analysis

of catches, seasonal changes and ecological

impacts, Marine Affairs Program, MMM Project,

Dalhousie University, 2000.

17. Valdemarsen, J. W., Technological trends in

capture fisheries, Ocean and Coastal Management,

44 (2001): 635 - 651.

18. Kennelly, S J. and Broad Hurst, M. K., By-catch

begun: changes in the philosophy of fishing

technology, Fish Technol., 3 (2002) 340 - 355.

19. Sujatha, K., Finfish Constituents of Trawl By-catch

off Visakhapatnam, Fish. Technol., 32 (1995) 56 -

60.

20. Armada, N. B., State of the demersal fisheries. P:

42-46. In: DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture-

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources), In:

Turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine

fisheries, (Coastal Resource Management Project,

Cebu City, Philippines) 2004, p. 378.

21. Zaragosa, E.C., Pagdilao, C. R. and Moreno, E. P.,

Overview of the small pelagic fisheries, p. 32-37.

In: DA-BFAR (Department of Agriculture - Bureau

of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources). In:

Turbulent seas: The status of Philippine marine

fisheries, (Coastal Resource Management Project,

Cebu City, Philippines) 2004, p. 378.

22. Sammy Malvas, A., A review on trash fish

production and fish feed requirements of the

Philippines, Regional workshop on low value and

trash fish in the Asia – Pacific region, (Department

of Agriculture, Philippines) 2005, p. 1-7.

23. Zeller, D. and Pauly, D., Good news, bad news:

global fisheries discards are declining but so are

total catches, Fish Technol., 6 (2005) 156 – 159.

24. Funge-Smith, S., Lindebo, E. and Staples, D., Asian

fisheries today: the production and use of low

value/trash fish from marine fisheries in the Asia-

Pacific region, (FAO RAP Publication No.

2005/16) 2005, p. 38.

25. Srinath, M., Kuriakose, S. and Mini, K. G.,

Methodology for estimation of marine fish landings

in India, CMFRI spl. Publ, 86 (2005) 57pp.

26. FAO, FAO species identification sheets for fishery

purposes. Western Indian Ocean (Fishing Area 51).

FAO Fisheries Department. Rome, 1(1984) 233.

27. Masatosi, S., Pang yong, L. and Sen Min, T.,

Preliminary study of trash fish landed at Kangkar

fish market in Singapore, Bull Jpn Soc Sci Fish.,

44(6) (1978) 595 – 600.

28. Velayutham, P. and Ramadhas, V., Utilization of

trash fish for fish sauce, Proc. National seminar on

marine biodiversity as a source of food medicine.

(SDMRI research publication) 3: 2003, p. 154 -156.

29. Alverson, D. L., Freeberg, M. H., Murawski, S. A.

and Pope, J. G., 1994. A global assessment of

bycatch and discards, FAO Fish. Tech. Pap., No.

339, (1994) pp 233.

30. Andrew, N.L. and Pepperell, J. G., The by-catch of

shrimp trawl fisheries, Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu.

Rev., 30 (1992) 527- 565.

31. FAO, The State of World Fisheries and

Aquaculture, Food and Agriculture Organization,

Rome, (1998), pp 128.

1042


32. FAO, Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries,

Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, (2004)

p. 41.

33. George, M. J., Suseelan, C. and Balan, K., By-catch

of shrimp fisheries in India, Mar. Fish. Inf. Serv.

Tech. Ext. Ser., 2 (1981) 3 -13.

34. Blaber, J.M., Brewer, D.T., Salini, J. P. and Kerr,

J., Biomasses, catch and abundances of demersal

fishes, particularly predators of prawns, in a

tropical bay in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Aust. Mar.

Biol., 107 (1990): 397- 408.

35. Puthra Pravin, T. and Manohardoss, R.C.,

Constituents of low value trawl bycatch caught off

Veraval, Fish Technol., 33(1996) (2): 121-123.

36. Menon, N.G., Impact of bottom trawling on

exploited resources. In: Marine Biodiversity,

Conservation and Management. edited by Menon,

N.G., Pillai, C.S.S., Central Marine Fisheries

Research Institute, Cochin, 1996, p. 97-102.

37. CMFRI, Annual Report 2001- 2002, Central

Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin,

(2002): pp 96 – 99.

38. Wang, S. and Zhan, B. Y., Chinese Fisheries

Management. In: Proceedings of the

IFRS/IIFET/ZENGYOREN symposium on fisheries

management in Southeast Asia, Tokyo. August 26 -

September 3, 1991.

39. Qian, Z. and Yang, N., The fishery industry in

China. FAO fishery industry profile, vol. 21.

Copenhagen: FAO, (1998).

40. Zhong, Y. and Power, G., Fisheries in China:

Progress, Problems and Prospects, Can J Fish

Aquat Sci., 54 (1997) 223 - 238.

41. Sobhana, K.S., Heavy landing of juvenile threadfin

bream at Munambam and Cochin. (Cadalmin -

CMFRI News Letter, Research highlights), 1: 2011,

p. 128.

42. Salagrama, V., The story of globalization,

modernization and the artisanal fisheries of India.

Country Reports South Asia, 4 (2002) 20 – 57.

43. Sujatha, K., Trash fish catch of the trawl fishery off

the Visakhapatnam, J. Aquat. Biol., 11 (1996): pp

17 – 23.

44. Sivasubramaniam, K., Biological aspects of shrimp

by catch. BOPB News, 40 (1990) 7 - 10.

45. Prathibha Rohit, T., Alli, C., Gupta, H., Uma, S.

and Bhat, N., Increased exploitation of juvenile

fish population by bull trawlers during the early

post-monsoon fishing season of 1992 along the

Dakshina Kannada coast, Karnataka, Mar. Fish.

Infor. Serv., T&E Ser., No.122 (1993) pp 9 - 12.

46. Kumar, A B. and Deepthi, G. R., Trawling and by-

catch: Implications on marine ecosystem, Curr.

Sci., 90 (2006): 7 pp 922 - 931.

47. Sinoda, M., Lim, P.Y., and Tan, S. M., Preliminary

study of Trash fish landed at Kangkar fish market

in Singapore, Bull Jpn Soc Sci Fish., 44: 6 (1978)

595 - 600.

48. Siva Rama Krishnan, T., Rajesh, S. and Jamila, P.,

Trawl fishing of penaeid prawn in the northern

Mandabam coast of palk bay, World journal of fish

and marine sciences, 4 (2012): 3 pp 278 – 283.

49. Ragupathy Venkatachalam, A., Sustainable

fisheries and community management systems,

Environment and Growth of the 2nd South Asian

Economics Students Meet 2005 at Lahore,

Pakistan, Jan. 28-30, 2005, being organized by the

Lahore University of Management Sciences

(LUMS), 2005.

50. Richard Grainger, G., Xie, Y., Li, S. and Guo, Z.,

Production and utilization of trash fish in selected

Chinese ports, Regional workshop on low value

and trash fish in the Asia-Pacific Region, (Fishery

information, Data and statistics unit, FAO) 2005, p.

1-13.

51. Pramod, G., Trawl fishery along the India's

northeast coast: an analysis of catches, seasonal

changes and ecological impacts, Marine Affairs

Program, MMM Project, Dalhousie University,

(2009).

52. Zacharia, P. and Kandan, P. U., Unusual heavy

landing of rays and skates at Tuticorin Fisheries

Harbour. Mar. Fish. Infor. Ser. T&E Ser., (2010)

No: 205. 53. Eline, V. H. and Marjanka, S. A., Critical look at

fisheries management practices: The 45-day ban in

Tuticorin District, Tamil Nadu, India, (Master ‟s

degree Biology project. University of Amsterdam),

2:2003, p. 1-150.

1043

Documents

Survey on landing of trash fishes in the major fish ...nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/41649/1... · The fishes that are not commercially important can be converted into value