Fig. 1
Location map of AmdaBeel.
Table 1
Category of Water Quality.
| WQI (CCME Method) | Description | WQI (Weighted Arithmetic method) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 95–100 | Excellent | 0–25 | Excellent |
| 80–94 | Good | 26–50 | Good |
| 65–79 | Fair | 51–75 | Bad |
| 45–64 | Marginal | 76–100 | Very Bad |
| 0–44 | Poor | >100 | Unfit. |
Table 2
Determination of WQI using CCME method.
| Seasons | pH | Turbidity | TDS | Nitrate | Sulphate | TH | TC | DO | BOD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [−] | [mg dm−3] | ||||||||
| Pre-monsoon | 8.73 | 79.7 | 108.67 | 0.6 | 2.67 | 86.67 | 133 | 3.93 | 2.30 |
| Monsoon | 7.50 | 63.3 | 99.50 | 0.4 | 2.01 | 80.34 | 120 | 2.98 | 1.89 |
| Post-monsoon | 8.15 | 74.8 | 104.67 | 0.5 | 2.45 | 83.23 | 128 | 3.11 | 2.05 |
| Objectives | 6.5–8.5 | 1 | 500 | 50 | 200 | 300 | <2 | 4 | 3 |
| F1 = (2 / 9) × 100 = 22.22 | F2 = (6 / 27) × 100 = 22.22 | ||||||||
| F3 = (nse / .01nse + 0.01) = 93.71 | |||||||||
[i] This value (42.93) falls within 0–44 of the classification of water quality based on CCME and WQI method as given in Table 1. This result indicates water quality is poor in AmdaBeel.
Table 3
Determination of WQI using weighted arithmetic method.
| Parameter | Observed Value (Vi) | Standard Value (Si) | Unit Weights (Wi) | Quality Rating (Qi) | Wi × Qi |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | 8.73 | 6.5–8.5 | 0.160 | 115 | 18.400 |
| TDS | 108.67 | 500 mg/L | 0.003 | 21.7 | 0.065 |
| TH | 86.67 | 300 mg/L | 0.004 | 29 | 0.116 |
| DO | 3.93 | 6 mg/L | 0.220 | 124 | 27.280 |
| BOD | 2.30 | 2 mg/L | 0.660 | 115 | 75.900 |
[i] WQI = ∑QiWi∑ / ∑Wi; WQI = 115.96.
Fig. 2
The chart shows the main problem of beel water from peoples view.
Fig. 3
NDVI maps and its temporal changes in vegetation from 2009–2013.
Table 4
The variation in vegetation amount and beel area, after calculating pixel value.
| Year | Wetland area | Water body amount | Vegetation amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| [ha] | |||
| 2009 | 85.4 | 51.3 | 34.1 |
| 2011 | 85.4 | 37.8 | 47.6 |
| 2012 | 85.4 | 40.2 | 45.2 |
| 2013 | 85.4 | 51.4 | 34.0 |
Fig. 4
Male and female wise educational, income, occupational status of the study area.
Fig. 5
Year wise fish production of the beel.
Table 5
The year range wise income and production.
| Year | Production [kg] | Income [Rs] |
|---|---|---|
| 2010–11 | 9429 | 1052837 |
| 2011–12 | 25555 | 3513492 |
| 2012–13 | 29413 | 5971355 |
| 2013–14 | 15333 | 1247279 |
| 2014–15 | 23775 | 3871711 |
Fig. 6
Year wise selling price of fish of the beel.
Fig. 7
Charts show the relation between income and production year wise.