Table 2.
Sitewise fish species recorded during the study from Gomal Zam Dam. The conservation status of each species was given according to Bibi et al. [23] and IUCN 2021-3 [46].
| Species | Conservation status | Swai Nallah, n (%) | Dotani village, n (%) | Gomal Khula, n (%) | Ab | RA | %RA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T. putitora | Endangered | 28 (31.81) | 32 (36.36) | 28 (31.81) | 88 | 0.13 | 12.52 |
| C. watsoni | Least concern | 18 (43.90) | 14 (34.14) | 9 (21.95) | 41 | 0.06 | 5.83 |
| C. diplocheilus | Least concern | 17 (36.17) | 14 (29.78) | 16 (34.04) | 47 | 0.07 | 6.69 |
| B. pakistanicus | Not evaluated | 26 (26.80) | 37 (38.14) | 34 (35.05) | 97 | 0.14 | 13.80 |
| B. vagra | Least concern | 40 (34.48) | 44 (37.93) | 32 (27.58) | 116 | 0.17 | 16.50 |
| M. armatus | Least concern | 8 (57.14) | 4 (28.57) | 2 (14.28) | 14 | 0.02 | 1.99 |
| T. zhobensis | Not evaluated | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 | 0.00 | 0.14 |
| C. auratus | Least concern | 13 (31.70) | 13 (31.70) | 15 (36.58) | 41 | 0.06 | 5.83 |
| L. dycheilus | Least concern | 49 (37.40) | 31 (23.66) | 51 (38.93) | 131 | 0.19 | 18.63 |
| C. carpio | Vulnerable | 16 (43.24) | 10 (27.02) | 11 (29.72) | 37 | 0.05 | 5.26 |
| W. attu | Near threatened | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 | 0.00 | 0.14 |
| C. reba | Least concern | 10 (41.66) | 6 (25) | 8 (33.33) | 24 | 0.03 | 3.41 |
| L. diplostomus | Least concern | 10 (35.71) | 9 (32.14) | 9 (32.14) | 28 | 0.04 | 3.98 |
| H. molitrix | Near threatened | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 1 | 0.00 | 0.14 |
| C. marulius | Least concern | 2 (33.33) | 1 (16.66) | 3 (50) | 6 | 0.01 | 0.85 |
| C. idella | Not evaluated | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (100) | 1 | 0.00 | 0.14 |
| P. sophore | Least concern | 11 (39.28) | 8 (28.57) | 9 (32.14) | 28 | 0.04 | 3.98 |
| B. bagarius | Near threatened | 1 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 | 0.00 | 0.14 |
| Total | 249 | 226 | 228 | 703 | 1.00 | 100.0 |