J. Env. Bio-Sci., 2016: Vol.

30 (1):101-107
(101) ISSN 0973-6913 (Print), ISSN 0976-3384 (On Line)

ANTHROPOGENIC THREATS TO FRESHWATER TURTLES IN

UPPER GANGES RIVER WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO INDIAN
NARROW HEADED SOFTSHELL TURTLE (CHITRA INDICA)
Ashutosh Tripathi, Dinesh Bhatt* and Navjeevan Dadwal
Avian diversity and Bioacoustics Lab, Department of Zoology and Environmental Science,
Gurukula Kangri University, Haridwar-249404, Uttarakhand, India
[Corresponding author E-mail*: dineshharidwar@gmail.com]

Received: 20-01-2016 Accepted: 08-05-2016

In India the turtle populations have declined drastically during the last few decades as a result of direct and indirect human
interventions. To assess the possible threats on freshwater turtle, a study was conducted in upper Ganges River during 2008-09
and 2012-14 from Farrukhabad (27°23'56.27"N; 79°37'39.36"E) to Kanpur (26°28'27.32"N; 80°22'27.97"E) within a stretch of 158.46
km. The results of the present study indicate that the main threats to this species were from poaching, fishing and human
encroachment such as riverine agriculture and sand mining. Out of 42 predated nests C.indica, the observed predation on natural
nest and exploitation by human was 26.19% and 73.80 %, respectively. The assessment of socio-economic stress in the study site
revealed that an average of 412 fishing boats, 405 hook nets, and 97 drift nets were found active per year during the study period.
Out of 12 species, nine species viz. Nilssonia gangetica, Nilssonia hurum, Chitra indica, Geoclemys hamiltonii, Hardella thurjii,
Lissemys punctata, Pangshura tecta, Pangshura tentoria and Pangshura smithii were affected more and exploited due to increasing
demand for traditional medicines and delicacy.

Chelonians have been existing for nearly 300 million years but
due to anthropogenic impacts and climate change, turtles have
become one of the most endangered vertebrates1. In this study,
the major study site (Ganges River system) is one of major
drainage systems of India, which possess significant
conservation values by having the largest contiguous and most
viable breeding populations of the critically endangered species
such as freshwater Dolphin (Platanista gangetica), Gharial
(Gavialis gangeticus) and twelve species of freshwater turtle
including highly threatened Red-crowned roofed turtle (Batagur
kachuga), Three striped roofed turtle (Batagur dhongoka) and
Indian narrow headed softsell turtle (C.indica)2.
The previous studies conducted on freshwater turtles of India
have mainly addressed the taxonomy and their distribution
ranges3-7. However, data on demographic and life histories of
Indian turtles are still lacking8-9. In India, the population of
different species of freshwater turtles is rapidly declining in
different river systems, which require prompt research and
conservation programmes in different parts of India9-11. The lack
of information on life history stages, ecology, population status
and possible threats on turtles has been considered as one of
the major issues to work out management strategies for turtles2.
This study deals with the major threats and conservation issues
for turtles with special reference to endangered C.indica in
NAAS Rating (2016)-4.20
Ganga River System (lower section of Upper Ganga River)
Uttar Pradesh, India, with the following objectives in view-1)
quantification of natural nest predation, and 2) estimation of
anthropogenic exploitation of C.indica and other sympatric
species.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Systematic boat surveys were conducted during 2008-2009
and 2012 -2014 along 158.46 km stretch of study area from
Ghatiaghat, Farrukhabad District (27°23'56.27"N,
79°37'39.36"E) to Suklaganj, Kanpur District (26°28'27.32"N,
80°22'27.97"E). Sand banks and Islands were marked by using
GPS (Garmin-72). A series of fixed reference points were
marked with the nearest village12. Observations were made
with binocular (Nikon 10X25) on direct and indirect threats
and documented on data sheet. Dead specimens (carcasses)
and old turtle shells, lying along the river banks, were also
examined and measured to account the rate of mortality. Status
of nesting banks, general habitat attributes, type and frequency
of human activities and potential threats were recorded.
Interviews were conducted with local inhabitants, fishermen
and frontline forest department staff to gather information on
the historical status of the study area and to obtain the details
of human activities and poaching pressure. Interactions were

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)

 ANTHROPOGENIC THREATS TO FRESHWATER TURTLES IN UPPER GANGES RIVER
also made with riverside cultivators to understand the impact
of river side agriculture on turtles. Illegal turtle consignments
were checked with the help of forest department/police officers
to see the availability of numbers of turtle species (Plate-1).
For the predation assessment, all freshly predated as well as
excavated nests (nesting pit only) were counted. Predators
were identified by foot print near the nest's pit. Following
observation, nest remnants were reburied and fresh nests were
marked to avoid recounting during subsequent surveys. All
intact nests were marked with numbered sticks at a
considerable distance of 5-10 ft13.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
During study year 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013 and 2014, the natural
nests predation of C.indica was recorded as 1.4%, 2.43%,
3.4%, 1.96% and 1.85% respectively. Whereas, the natural
nest predation of N. gangetica was noted as 14.78%, 13.41%,
7.95%, 15.68% and 12.03% respectively. While, the natural
nest predation of P. tentoria was found as 83.8%, 84.14%,
88.63%, 82.34% and 66.11, respectively (Fig-1). During the
study period overall 522 nests were found predated, in which
the highest nest predation was recorded on Pangshura spp.
(88.6%), than the Nilssonia spp. (13.6%) and C.india (2.2%)
by Jackal (Canis aureus) and Bengal monitor (Varanus
bengalensis). A total of 42 nests of C.indica were found
predated during the study period in which n=11 (26.19%) nests
were predated by animals and n=31 (73.80%) nests were found
predated by human being (Plate-2).
Further, C. indica caught in illegal consignments during 2012,
2013 and 2014 were recorded as 1.29%, 4.90% and 3.63%
respectively. While, Geoclemys hamiltonii in illegal consignment
during year 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013 and 2014 were noted as
24.82%, 38.78%, 18.96%, 35.58% and 39.93%, respectively.
The presence of L. punctata during year 2008, 2009, 2012,
2013 and 2014 was observed 48.90%, 53.94%, 31.46%,
48.47% and 28.38%, respectively. During year 2012 & 2014,
the presence of P. tentoria in consignment was 9.48% &
20.13%, respectively. P. smithii during year 2009, 2012 & 2014
was found 7.27%, 16.38% & 5.94%, respectively. P. tecta
during year 2008, 2012 & 2014 was counted as 17.52%,
15.51%, and 1.98%, respectively. N. gangetica during year
2008, 2012, and 2013 was seen 8.76%, 6.89%, and 11.04%,
respectively (Fig-2).
Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)
(102)
An average of 412 fishing boats, 405 hook nets, 97 drift nets
(Plate-3) were encountered across five years. Major threats to
turtle species were due to poaching, fishing and egg predation
by man. Riverside agriculture, sand mining, habitat
encroachment were other threats observed in the study area.
C.indica was found rare in illegal consignment (Plate-4) however;
P. tecta, P. tentoria, P. smithii, L. punctata, G. hamiltonii and
N. gangetica species were common in illegal trade (Plate-5).
32 carcasses of softshell without calipee (Plate-6) and 92
carcasses of hardshell were found in the study area (Plate-7).
On the basis of 12 seized turtle consignment observed in Uttar
Pradesh, presence of L. punctata (39.4%) and G. hamiltonii
(32.1%) species was much higher than C.indica (2.2%) in
illegal consignment. Riverside agriculture was observed on 38
locations and sand mining was observed on 26 locations while
illegal exploitation was observed at 27 locations (Plate-8 & 9)
of the study area during the study period.
The result of present study indicates that the highest nest
predation was recorded on Pangshura spp. than Nilssonia spp.
(N. gangetica and N.hurum) or C.india. In Chitra nests, the
exploitation of eggs by poachers was observed significantly
higher than the natural predators Jackal (Canis aureus) and
Bengal monitor (Varanus bengalensis)14. The major threats to
turtle species were poaching, fishing and anthropogenic
exploitation. Riverside agriculture, sand mining and habitat
encroachment were other serious threats observed in the study
area. The most endangered species C.indica was also observed
in an illegal consignment other than Pangshura, L. punctata,
G. hamiltonii and N. gangetica. Carcasses of softshell and
hardshell turtles were found along the river stretch within the
study area.
The literature suggested that the higher rate of nest predation
in Emydid nests were reported in Chambal River15. It has been
mentioned that egg predators are skilled to join the turtle nesting
sites during nesting season and causes intense depredation16.
Chitra nests have spatial separation from other contemporary
nesters (N. gangetica) and therefore have great chance to
escape from the detection by predators17. However, the eggs
and the flesh of C.indica have been observed to be consumed
by local riverine communities of the Ganga River14.
In our study it was observed that by having a different
reproductive seasonality from other sympatric species like
 (103) TRIPATHI, BHATT AND DADWAL
Nilssonia, which not only attracts natural predators as well as
human to poach its nests, the exploitation of C.indica eggs by
human being are much higher than the natural predation, which
seems a serious threat and may be largely affecting the
population status of the species in entire range of distribution.
Exploitation of nests by man was also observed on Pangshura
and Nilssonia during the present study.
It has been reported that turtles are being killed for subsistence
use in and around almost all river systems in India27. Softshell
turtle like L. punctata is mainly captured for the consumption
of its flesh, while the large softshell turtles like N. gangetica,
N. hurum and C.indica are being poached for flesh as well as
for calipee, which has good economic value in international
market14. The flesh of Chitra spp. generally not valued as much
as that of the other trionychid18-19. In parts of Nepal, C.indica is
considered to be a delicacy, and bones and flesh are used in
the preparation of medicines for the treatment of viral
infections20. Poachers mainly target hatchling and males of
Pangshura and only hatchlings of G.hamiltonii species in Ganga
due to their smaller size, which attract people21. In Uttar
Pradesh, Unnao and Suklaganj (Kanpur district) are the biggest
hub for illegal turtle trade.
During 2012, a consignment was caught near Etawah District,
in which three species of soft-shell turtle were identified,
including N. gangetica, L. punctata and C. indica which shows
that the C.indica is still being smuggled and is in demand for
flesh. The most common turtle species frequently observed in
trade were N. gangetica, G. hamiltonii, P tentonia, P.tecta and
L. punctata. Harvesting of hatchling for pet trade recently
introduced due to increasing demand of keeping turtle in fish
aquarium. In Ganga, the species of Pangshura and G. hamiltonii
are critically under threat due to trade of turtles for
domestication. An interview with aquarium seller revealed that
the price of these turtle varies from 250 INR to 2500 INR.
Fishermen informed us that local people eat turtle eggs for
aphrodisiac and for the treatment of tuberculosis. To fulfill the
local demand, poacher victimizes C.indica nest due to its big
clutch size and secretly sale it locally at the rate 5-6 rupees
per egg. Poachers also informed us about the collection of
G.hamiltonii and H.thurjii and smuggle live specimen to West
Bengal and Bangladesh to fulfill the demand of Kalipooja.
The pressure on the river was observed with an average of 412
Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)
fishing boats, 405 hook nets and 97 drift nets during the study
period along the 158.6 km of study area. Fishing activity was
mostly recorded along the Azadnagar, Chiyasar, Hariganj,
Nanamau Bridge, Baleypur, Ranipur, Jalesar, Dulhadevi,
Kushumkhor, Rajapurwa, Yakubnagar, Safiyapur village. During
the surveys, fishermen were seen using the mostly fishing net
of 4 to 6 finger gap, dragnet and hooks nets, which explain the
occurrence of turtle carcasses lying along the water edge.
Evidently, the Ganga river basin is highly populated river system
on earth which abode about 450 million people with an average
550 individuals per square kilometer. Its river bank holds 30
cities, 70 towns and thousands of villages which releases over
1.3 billion liters sewage effluent per day directly into the river22-23.
More than 6 million tons of chemical fertilizers and 9000 tones
of pesticides used annually are discharged in Ganga River
basin24.
We observed riverside agriculture consistently increasing the
study period. We marked 38 locations, where riverine agriculture
was extremely higher. Farmers informed us about the presence
of turtle nests in their nursery and egg get destroyed during
plantation of saplings. It has also been observed that farmers
were frequently using the chemical fertilizers and high quantity
of pesticides in their nursery, which is undeniably fatal for
aquatic fauna of Ganga River.
As previously documented that by destroying nesting beaches,
sand mining has become one of the most serious factors
threatening the survival of tropical Asian turtles25. Sand banks
/ bars are important resting and breeding sites for fresh-water
turtles, and ground-nesting birds like the Indian Skimmer, Black-
bellied Tern, Little Tern, Small Pratincole, Thick-knee27-29, etc.
During the present study, sand mining was recorded at 26
locations, where the excavated turtle nests were observed.
This becomes particularly serious because the sandy river
banks being mined are invariably nesting banks of all hard-
shelled turtles including endangered C. indica species.
Chitra spp. seems genetically adapted to show the diverse
reproductive seasonality from other sympatric soft-shell like
genus Nilssonia, but despite this adaptation it attracts natural
predators as well as human to poach its nests.The exploitation
of C.indica eggs by human is higher than the natural predation,
which seems a serious threat and may be largely affecting the
 ANTHROPOGENIC THREATS TO FRESHWATER TURTLES IN UPPER GANGES RIVER (104)

Fig.1: The natural nest predation (%) of three freshwater turtle species during study years
2008-2009, 2012-2014.

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)

 (105) TRIPATHI, BHATT AND DADWAL

Fig.2: Relative account (%) of turtle species caught in illegal consignments in Uttar Pradesh from
2008-2009, 2012-2014.

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)

 ANTHROPOGENIC THREATS TO FRESHWATER TURTLES IN UPPER GANGES RIVER (106)

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)

 (107) TRIPATHI, BHATT AND DADWAL

population status of the species in entire range of distribution.
Nest predation by man was also observed on Pangshura and
Nilssonia other than the C.indica.
Overall, the study species adapted to have its survival
throughout its entire range of distribution but due to various
anthropogenic activities including illegal exploitation, over
fishing, sand mining, riverside cultivation, damming of rivers,
deforestation, water pollution, silting of riverside ecosystem
9. Moll, E.O. (1984). In: Hamadryad. 9(3):9.
10. Rao, R.J. (1990). In: WII. Mimeo. 1:212.
11. Choudhury, B. C. and Bhupathy, S. (1993). In: TRAFFIC India,
World Wide Fund for Nature- India and Wildlife Institute of India,
New Delhi.
12. Sharma R.K. (2003). In: Executive Summary of Chambal River
census submitted to MP Forest Department.
13. Tuberville, T.D., and V.J. Burke. (1994). J. Herp. 28:514.
14. Das, I. and Singh, S. (2009). Chitra indica (Gray 1830). In: IUCN/

are some of the factors which may be greatly responsible for SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Chelonian

causing extinction of chelonian species in future. Research Monographs No. 5, 027.1.

15.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
16.
Authors are thankful to Cleveland Metropark Zoo and Zoological
17.
Society, Cleveland, US and Turtle Survival Alliance, Fort Worth,
Texas, US for financial support for this study. We are thankful 18.
to the Uttar Pradesh Forest Department who is highly
supportive for turtle studies in the Ganga River. We would like 19.
to acknowledge Mr. Bhaskar Mani Dixit, Mr. Khem Bahadur
Bhadauria and Mr. Pradeep Sexena for their great support to 20.
acquire knowledge on illegal turtle trade. We thank Mohm.
Rafiq, Mr. Shekhabat and Mr. Taufiq for their help to conduct 21.
Rao, R.J. and Singh, L.A.K. (1987). Journal of Bombay Natural
History Society. 84 (1): 55.
Carr, A.(1967). Natur.Hist., 76(7): 46.
Bhadauria, R.S., Pal, A., and Basu, D. (1990). Bom Nat. His.
Soc., 87:364.
Chaudhuri, B. L. (1912). In: Records of the Indian Museum.,
7:212.
Ahmed, N. (1955). In: Directorate of Fisheries. Government of
East Bengal., Dacca.
Shrestha, T.K. (1996). In: Proceedings of the International
Congress of Chelonian Conservation. SOPTOM, Gonfaron.
Datta, A. (1998). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society

this study. Posthumous thanks to Mr. Dhruvjyoti Basu for 95:121.

22. W W F (2003). In: Managing Rivers Wisely, www.panda.org/
encouraging us for this study in Ganges River.
livingwaters/publications
REFERENCES 23. Behera, S., Areendran, G., Gautam, P. and Sagar, V. (2011). In:
New Delhi, WWF-India.
1. Klemens, M.W. (2000). In: Turtle Conservation, Washington D.C.:
24. Wong, C.M., Williams, C.E., Pittock, J., Collier, U., and Schelle, P.
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1-4.
(2007). In Switzerland: WWF-International.
2. Rao, R. J. (2009). In: ENVIS, WII, chapter-15.
25. Moll, E. O. (1997). In: An International Conference (J. V. Abbema,
3. Smith, M.A. (1933). In: Vol. (1) Loricata, Testudines. Today and
ed.), . 37. New York Turtle and Tortoise Society, New York.
Tomorrow's Printers and publishers, New Delhi.
26. Hussain, S. A. (2009). In: Aquatic Conservation-Marine and
4. Pritchard, P.C.H. (1979). In: T.F.H. Publications, Neptune, New
Freshwater Ecosystems 19:127.
Jersey.
27. Moll D and Moll E.O. (2004). In: Oxford University Press, 393.
5. Daniel, J.C. (1983). In: Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc., Bombay.
28. Sundar, K. S. G. (2004). Forktail 20: 89.
6. Das, I. (1985). WWF-India (Eastern region). Eureka pub. Serv.,
29. Nair, T. (2010). In: National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata
Calcutta.
Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore.
7. Tikader, B.K. and Sharma, R.C. (1985). In: Zoological Survey of
India, Calcutta.
8. Rao, R.J. (1982). In: Ph. D. thesis, Bhopal University, Bhopal.

Print to PDF without this message by purchasing novaPDF (http://www.novapdf.com/)