01. limnological survey · limnological survey of three tropical water reservoirs in eastern india...

Tropical water reservoirs in Eastern India 5Acta Botanica Malacitana 32. 5-16 Málaga, 2007

INTRODUCTION

Plankton is a kaleidoscopic spectrum oforganisms with representatives from almost

all phyla of animals and thousands of nonflowering plants. From unicellularprotozoans, invertebrates, bacteria todiatoms, all drift around as the plankton

LIMNOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THREE TROPICAL

WATER RESERVOIRS IN EASTERN INDIA

Sanjib Kumar DAS1* and Debajyoti CHAKRABARTY2

1 Research Scholar (Environmental Science Department), Netaji Subhas Open University, 1, WoodBurn Park, Kolkata-700020, India

2Reader and Head, Department of Zoology, Krishnagar Govt.College, Krishnagar-741101, Nadia, India.

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Recibido el 15 de septiembre de 2006 , aceptado para su publicación el 11 de enero de 2007Publicado "on line" en febrero de 2007

ABSTRACT. Limnological Survey of three Tropical Water Reservoirs in Eastern India. Planktoncommunities of three water reservoirs of India reflect direct relationship with organic pollution. Theassessment of water quality as high or low organically polluted for three water bodies have beenachieved with help of algal community, which can be used as indicator of organic pollution. Algalpollution indices according to Palmer (1969) and Watanabe’s (1962) based on genus and specieswere used in rating water samples for high or low organic pollution. Among 26 genera found in India20 most frequent and common genera of algae were taken into account for indexing pollution status.Water Quality Index (WQI) on the basis of weighting and rating of the chemical parameter was alsoused to correlate the Palmer index with Physical-chemical parameters of water reservoirs.

Key Words. Palmer Index, organic pollution, water reservoir, algae, plankton, water quality index.

RESUMEN. Estudio limnológico de tres embalses de la India Oriental. Las comunidades planctónicasde tres embalses de la India reflejan relaciones directas con la polución orgánica. Se ha evaluado lacalidad del agua de estos embalses atendiendo a la comunidad algal que alojan, lo que puede usarsecomo indicador de polución orgánica. Se ordenaron las muestras de agua, desde alta hasta baja poluciónorgánica, de acuerdo con los índices de Palmer (1969) y Watanabe (1962) basados en géneros yespecies. Entre los 26 géneros encontrados en la India, se seleccionaron los 20 más comunes yfrecuentes para los cálculos de los índices citados. También se calculó el índice de la calidad del agua(Water Quality Index, WQI), y se correlacionó con el índice algal de Palmer así como con losparámetros físico-químicos del agua de los embalses.

Palabras clave. Índice de Palmer, polución orgánica, embalses, algas, plancton, índice de calidad delagua.

6 S.K. Das & D. Chakrabarty

community. The rate of production ofplankton is determined by a host ofenvironmental parameters like physico-chemical properties of water and soil,meteorological characteristics of the regionand morphometric and hydrographic featuresof the water body (Dahl and Wilson, 2000).It has been found that the relationshipbetween phyto and zooplankters was bothinverse and direct during different seasonsof the year. A direct relationship existsbetween plankton production and pollutionof water body. Common phytoplanktonspecies belonging to various groups of algaehas been listed and grouped under

Cyanophyceae , Chlorophyceae,Bacillariophyceae, Dianophyceae etc.Research in the freshwater ecology of algaerelated to water pollution is sparse, and it isnecessary of detailed study for searchingindicator species (Gunale and Balakrishnan,1981). The present investigation was undertaken to study the algae of polluted watersof three water reservoirs of Krishnagar cityof district Nadia of West Bengal an easternstate of India. The aim of the present researchto find out the presence of indicatorphytoplankton species in organicallypolluted sites.

Study AreaThe morphometric and hydrological

characteristics of three chosen reservoirs arelocated in the city of Krishnagar in WestBengal State of India. The three sitesinvestigated are situated near the tropic ofcancer situated at longitude 88033/E, latitude23024/N, of eastern province of India. Thesampling sites were chosen from WaterReservoir-I, Water Reservoir-II and WaterReservoir-III.

Niche characterization: Water Reservoir I(WR-I)It is located in the north direction of

Krishnagar city near National Highway 34.It is a permanent Water Reservoir of about0.33 Hectare. The depth of the WR-I is 1.50meter. The point source pollution of WR-Iwas increased due to agricultural run off,regular washing of cloths by washer man,decomposition of jute plants, dumping ofindustrial waste (Brick Factory) and byaddition of wastewater from nearby areas.

Water Reservoir II (WR-II)It is located in the north direction of

Krishnagar city near National Highway 34.It is a permanent Water Reservoir. Thecatchment area of the Water Reservoir is ofabout 0.37 Hectare. The depth of the WR-IIis about 1.4 meter. The WR-II gets effluentsregularly from cattle washing, from domesticwastewater, the decomposition of jute plants,and the immersion of clay idols the mainreason of pollution

Water Reservoir III (WR-III)It is located in the east direction of

Krishnagar city. It is a permanent WaterReservoir. The area of the Water Reservoiris about 0.23 Hectare. The depth of the WR-III is about 1.1 meter. The Water ReservoirIII receives external domestic refuse,agricultural run off soil erosion resulting inloss of biota.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Water samples were collected once amonth from all the three water reservoirs forPhysical-chemical and bacteriologicalanalysis. Subsurface samplings were donethrough plastic containers (volume approx.2 lit.) during 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. from depth adepth of 5 cm. Temperature and pH weremeasured immediately after collection of thesample. Physical-chemical analysis forConductivity, Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.),

Tropical water reservoirs in Eastern India 7

Biological Oxygen Demand (B.O.D.) initial,Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Totalalkalinity, Total Hardness, Ammonia calnitrogen were performed in the laboratoryon same day or within a week. Analyses ofall parameters were done following thestandard methods as out lined in StandardMethods (2002) and in Wetzel and Likens(2004).

Water Quality Index (WQI) (Fig 1)values were calculated (Ott, 1978; Harkins,1974) on the basis of weighting and ratingof the chemical parameter as follows.

i=n

WQI (Q) = ∑ wi q

i

i=1

Where wi and q

i are the unit weight and

the quality rating of the i th parameterrespectively.

WQI for various water bodies werecalculated as follows.

The weighting (wi) for various water

quality parameters are assumed to beinversely proportional to the recommendedstandard. The proportionality constant K iscalculated as per following formula.

i=n

K = 1 / ∑ 1/ vi,

i=1

qi = 100 Σ (v

i / s

i )

Where vi is the measured value of the

i th parameter and si is the standard of

permissible value. This equation ensures thatq

i = 0 when a pollutant is totally absent in

water and qi = 100 when the value of this

parameter is just equal to its permissiblevalue. Thus the higher the value of q

i the

more polluted is the water. However, qpH

andq

D.O. were calculated on the basis ofq

pH = 100 Σ (v

pH -7.00) / (8.50- 7.00)

considering the ideal value of pH is 7.00 and

qD.O.

= 100 Σ (14.60- vD.O .

) / (14.60-3.00) as the ideal value of D.O. is 14.60mg.!l-1 (the solubility of pure O

2 in pure water

at 00 C) and 3.00 mg.l-1 is the minimumstandard value.

Water Quality Index (WQI) values (Fig1), a subjective indices, to represent theactual condition of water quality, has beencomputed considering the level of pH,Conductivity, Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.).WQI values could be classified as <50=Excellent; 51–80=Good; 81–110=Fair;111–140=Poor; >140=Unacceptable(IWMED, 2002).

Algal samples were collected atmonthly intervals from three water reservoirsof Krishnagar city of district Nadia of WestBengal during January, 2003 to December,2004. The quantitative and qualitative studyof four groups of algae viz. ,Bacillariophyceae, Cyanophyceae,Chlorophyceae and Euglenophyceae wasmade for two years. Free and floatingphytoplanktonic alga (epiphytic) werecollected using a plankton net made up ofnybolt cloth (No. 48) and the epilithic algawere sampled from the upper surface ofboulders (255 mm surface area) with asuitable brush developed in the laboratory.Samples were allowed to settle for 24 hourand the supernatant decantated after sievingthrough plankton net.

The list of pollution tolerant genera andspecies of algae were recorded. Algalpollution indices according to Palmer (1969)based on genus and species were used inrating water samples for high or low organicpollution. 20 most frequent genera of algaewere taken into account. A pollution indexfactor was assigned to each genus bydetermining relative number of total pointsscored by each algae.

The following numerical values forindividual zones have been followed Palmer(1969):


Sr. No. Genera Total Points WR-I WR-II WR-III

1 Oscillatoria 171 + + +2 Euglena 162 + + +3 Chlamydomonas 114 + + +4 Scenedesmus 113 + + +5 Chlorella 102 - + +6 Nitzschia 99 + + +7 Navicula 91 + + +8 Synedra 59 + + +9 Ankistrodesmus 56 - - +

10 Phacus 58 - + +11 Phormidium 51 + + +12 Cyclotella 48 + + +13 Closterium 44 + + -14 Pandorina 43 + - +15 Lepocindis 37 + + +16 Spirogyra 38 + - +17 Anabaena 35 - - +18 Pediastrum 36 + - -19 Trachelomonas 33 - + -20 Fragillaria 35 - + -21 Chlorogonium 32 + - -22 Ulothrix 34 - - +23 Eudorina 29 + + +24 Lyngbya 29 - - +25 Spirulina 24 + - -26 Cymbella 25 + + +27 Coelastrum 23 + + -28 Achnanthes 20 + - -29 Pinnularia 17 + + -30 Cosmarium 18 + - -31 Staurastrum 15 + + -32 Selanastrum 16 - + +

Table 1. Pollution tolerant genera of algae from three Water Reservoir in order to decreasing emphasis(Palmer, 1969). Géneros de algas presentes en tres embalses de la India, tolerantes a la polución,ordenados en orden decreciente según el índice de Palmer (1969).

00-10 suggests lack of organic pollution.10-15 indicates moderate pollution.15-20 indicates probable high organic

pollution.20 or more confirmed high organic

pollution.44-Theoretical maximum (Probably not

attainable except under the most stringentartificial conditions).

We also performed the calculation based


on Watanabe’s (1962) index of the relativedegree of water pollution based upon typesof diatoms to assess organic pollution of thechosen water bodies:

2A + B – 2C / A + B – C ◊ 100Where,A = number of intolerant speciesB = number of indifferent speciesC = number of pollution tolerant species

RESULTS

In present investigation a total of 32pollution tolerant genera of algae wererecorded in three water reservoir. The threewater reservoirs were evaluated using thevalues of Palmer index (1969) of pollution

(tab.1). Pollution tolerant species of algaefrom three water reservoirs in order ofdecreasing emphasis are shown in table 2.In present study 19 pollution tolerant speciesof algae were observed in water reservoirs(tab.2). The total score for any reservoir wasalways greater than twenty indicating thehigh organic pollution (tab.3). In this studycommon 12 pollution tolerant genera of algaewere observed in water reservoirs (tab.1).Out of twelve common genera Oscillatoriawas found to be the highest participant in allthe water reservoirs. WQI (Water QualityIndex) value have been tested and found tovary between 111.54–122.64 in case of WR-I, 115.61–128.60 in case of WR-II and120.46–131.90 in case of WR-III (fig. 1). Themean value for three water reservoirs showed

Sr. No. Species Total Points WR-I WR-II WR-III

1 Oscillatoria limosa 94 + - +2 Euglena viridis 41 + - -3 Scenedesmus quadricauda 42 + + -4 Synedra ulna 32 + + +5 Oscillatoria chlorina 30 - + -6 Chlorella vulgaris 28 - + +7 Cyclotella meneghiniana 28 + + +8 Euglena gracillis 25 - + -9 Navicula cryptocephala 26 + - -

10 Euglena oxyuris 20 + -11 Closterium acerosum 22 + - -12 Euglena acus 19 - - +13 Synedra acus 15 + + +14 Coelastrum microporum 13 + + +15 Navicula cuspidata 13 + - -16 Pediastrum duplex 11 + - -17 Trachelomonas volvocina 12 - + -18 Euglena proxima 9 - + -19 Tetraedron muticum 11 - + -

Table 2. Pollution tolerant species of algae from three Water Reservoir in order of decreasing emphasis(Palmer, 1969). Especies de algas tolerantes a la polución en tres embalses de la India, ordenados enorden decreciente según el índice de Palmer (1969).


a marked difference (≤ 50). We found a closeresemblance (r = 0.54; P < 0.051) betweenmean WQI (Water Quality Index) value andPalmer’s index of pollution. The calculationof Watanabe’s index also showed highervalues for the three water reservoirs studiedand was similar trend (tab.3).

The result of the physico-chemicalparameters in water reservoir-III andcompared to other two reservoirs shows thedissolved oxygen content in water reservoir-III remained ≤ 2 mg.!l-1 through most of thetime of the year (November-January). Duringthe October monsoon season, the organicmatter present in the surface runoff reducedthe level to 1 mg.!l-1, (tab.4) which is likelyat or near the effect concentration for aquaticlife (Jhingran, 1997) .This DO sag indicatedthe continuous presence of substantialamount of dissolved organic load in thewater. This DO sag indicated the continuouspresence of substantial amount of dissolvedorganic load in the water. In contrast, theother two reservoirs (WR-I and WR-II)remained in a better state with respect to

dissolved oxygen through most of the timeof the year (tab.4). Slight reductions inoxygen concentration were observed duringmonsoon (Jun-Aug) months. The averagelevel of BOD was high in case of WR-III(tab.4) and the modes of seasonal variationin these aquatic bodies were to some extentsimilar (tab.4). The mean level of hardnessof water reservoir-III was higher than othertwo reservoirs (WR-I and WR-II) duringstudy period and showed a similar trend inseasonal variation (tab.4). The variation incase of total alkalinity showed similar trendwith hardness (tab.4).

Specific conductance remained almostunaltered during the study period and showedhigher values (<200 µS.cm-1) than normalconcentration in all the reservoirs. We founda good correlation between higher values ofspecific conductance and Cyanophyceaegroup of algal population (r = 0.76; P <0.001) in the three water reservoirs studied.Temperature was recorded highest duringApril – May (> 40ºC) and showed its lowestvalue during January – February (> 10ºC)

Figure 1. Mean monthly variation of Water Quality Index (WQI) during the study period for the threeWater Reservoirs.


(tab.4). We have found a positive correlationwith the temperature and occurrence ofChlorophyceae group of alga (r = 0.80; P <0.001) in the three water reservoirs. The PO

4-

P values were found to be directlyproportional with occurrence to theabundance of algal populations. A gooddegree of correlation (r = 0.82; P < 0.001)was found between PO

4-P concentration and

the number of pollution tolerant algal group(r = 0.82; P < 0.001). Similar such significantcorrelation was also found for NH

4-N

concentration (r = 0.76; P < 0.001) thenumber of pollution tolerant algal group.

The use of Watanabe’s (1962) andPalmer indexes (1969) reveals a greaterpollution in reservoir-III compared to othertwo reservoirs (tab.3).

Group Genera Palmer’s Index numbers

WR-I WR-II WR-III

1. Bacilloriophyceae Navicula 3 3 3Nitzschia 3 3 3Chlorella 1 1 1Synedra 2 2 2Fragillaria - - 1

2. Cyanophyceae Oscillatoria 5 5 5Phormidium 1 1 1Spirulina 1 1 -Lyngbya - - 1

3. Chlorophyceae Chlamydomonas 4 4 4Chlorella - 3 3Ankistrodesmus - - 2Closterium 1 1 -Pandorina 1 - 1Eudorina 1 1 1Scenedesmus 4 4 4Pediastrum - - -

4. Euglenophyceae Euglena 5 5 5Phacus - 2 2Lepocindis - 1 1

Total 32 37 40

Watanabe’s (1962) index 250 257 333

Table 3 Palmer’s Pollution Index in the three Water Reservoirs. Índice de polución de Palmer (1969)en tres embalses de la India.


Pa

ra

mete

rR

ese

rv

oir

Ja

nF

eb

Ma

rA

pr

Ma

yJ

un

Ju

lA

ug

Sep

Oct

No

vD

ec

Tem

pera

ture

WR

-I20

.322

.025

.029

.030

.029

.028

.128

.029

.029

.026

.224

.0(º

C)

(0.5

)(0

.5)

(0.5

)(0

.7)

(0.6

)(0

.7)

(0.6

)(0

.6)

(0.7

)(0

.7)

(0.7

)(0

.8)

WR

-II

20.5

21.0

25.5

29.2

30.1

29.3

28.4

28.2

29.1

29.0

26.1

24.3

(0.6

)(0

.7)

(0.6

)(0

.6)

(0.8

)(0

.6)

(0.7

)(0

.8)

(0.5

)(0

.7)

(0.8

)(0

.7)

WR

-III

20.8

21.2

25.9

29.6

30.3

29.9

28.5

28.8

29.5

29.3

26.5

24.6

(0.7

)(0

.6)

(0.4

)(0

.7)

(0.6

)(0

.6)

(0.7

)(0

.7)

(0.5

)(0

.7)

(0.7

)(0

.5)

pHW

R-I

8.93

8.98

8.88

8.95

8.86

8.92

8.98

8.99

8.95

8.87

8.65

8.90

(0.1

9)(0

.14)

(0.1

7)(0

.20)

(0.1

5)(0

.18)

(0.1

4)(0

.20)

(0.1

5)(0

.17)

(0.1

4)(0

.20)

WR

-II

8.97

9.00

8.93

8.98

8.93

8.98

9.04

9.02

9.08

8.95

8.88

8.94

(0.1

6)(0

.19)

(0.1

4)(0

.12)

(0.1

7)(0

.16)

(0.2

0)(0

.15)

(0.1

8)(0

.14)

(0.1

6)(0

.19)

WR

-III

9.15

9.40

9.17

9.09

9.25

9.20

9.18

9.10

9.27

9.29

9.09

9.10

(0.2

0)(0

.14)

(0.1

8)(0

.15)

(0.1

7)(0

.13)

(0.1

6)(0

.18)

(0.1

7)(0

.12)

(0.1

4)(0

.16)

Fre

e C

O2

WR

-I1.

051.

081.

101.

151.

240.

990.

860.

951.

181.

201.

281.

16(m

g l-1

)(0

.03)

(0.0

1)(0

.01)

(0.0

2)(0

.02)

(0.0

2)(0

.01)

(0.0

1)(0

.01)

(0.0

2)(0

.02)

(0.0

1)W

R-I

I1.

241.

291.

391.

441.

531.

351.

231.

361.

481.

551.

591.

32(0

.02)

(0.0

3)(0

.03)

(0.0

2)(0

.04)

(0.0

3)(0

.02)

(0.0

3)(0

.03)

(0.0

4)(0

.02)

(0.0

2)W

R-I

II1.

391.

481.

561.

611.

681.

421.

331.

391.

531.

691.

761.

54(0

.03)

(0.0

4)(0

.03)

(0.0

5)(0

.04)

(0.0

4)(0

.03)

(0.0

2)(0

.03)

(0.0

4)(0

.03)

(0.0

4)

Con

duct

ivit

yW

R-I

595.

458

1.8

651.

866

2.3

640.

651

3.6

520.

051

0.3

519.

957

9.8

530.

554

6.4

(µºS

cm

-1)

(15.

6)(1

8.5)

(16.

2)(1

1.3)

(17.

5)(1

0.1)

(15.

4)(1

3.7)

(15.

8)(1

9.2)

(20.

5)(1

8.3)

WR

-II

605.

258

8.6

654.

566

9.1

645.

651

9.9

524.

851

6.7

525.

358

6.6

539.

954

9.3

(13.

3)(1

5.7)

(11.

6)(1

7.5)

(12.

4)(1

9.5)

(14.

6)(2

0.1)

(10.

6)(1

5.8)

(17.

4)(1

4.5)

WR

-III

615.

559

5.4

660.

367

4.8

653.

952

4.6

536.

552

5.4

531.

259

5.6

546.

555

8.5

(19.

2)(1

3.7)

(15.

8)(1

0.6)

(16.

2)(1

7.4)

(11.

3)(1

5.6)

(12.

8)(1

7.9)

(16.

8)(1

8.5)

Tot

al s

olid

sW

R-I

243.

326

8.0

258.

828

3.2

253.

322

5.7

223.

322

1.3

213.

923

7.1

229.

324

9.5

(mg

l-1)

(18.

6)(1

5.3)

(17.

8)(2

0.5)

(23.

9)(1

9.4)

(24.

8)(1

8.9)

(16.

7)(2

0.4)

(23.

7)(1

9.9)

WR

-II

249.

627

6.9

263.

329

4.4

262.

523

1.1

237.

522

8.8

219.

524

8.6

238.

825

5.4

(16.

3)(1

5.8)

(19.

3)(2

2.6)

(15.

9)(2

1.4)

(18.

7)(1

6.8)

(23.

4)(1

8.9)

(24.

3)(2

1.5)

WR

-III

257.

728

1.6

270.

630

5.7

270.

924

2.3

246.

823

5.5

233.

725

9.3

256.

626

4.2

(18.

9)(2

0.4)

(16.

8)(1

5.9)

(18.

7)(1

4.5)

(11.

9)(1

7.2)

(19.

9)(1

5.6)

(18.

9)(1

6.6)

Tropical water reservoirs in Eastern India 13T

otal

alk

alin

ity

WR

-I19

5.4

205.

021

7.6

185.

219

2.8

139.

017

3.2

148.

311

8.9

106.

517

9.3

182.

7(m

g l-1

)(1

7.3)

(15.

8)(1

8.6)

(20.

3)(1

6.5)

(19.

9)(1

5.4)

(17.

8)(1

9.5)

(20.

8)(1

6.9)

(18.

5)W

R-I

I21

0.2

215.

522

3.9

195.

520

1.3

145.

618

8.8

159.

313

0.5

116.

218

6.8

196.

3(1

8.7)

(15.

9)(1

6.8)

(17.

2)(1

5.3)

(18.

9)(1

6.7)

(21.

4)(2

2.6)

(24.

3)(1

8.9)

(21.

5)W

R-I

II22

4.3

231.

524

2.9

213.

620

8.3

158.

819

9.5

172.

914

4.6

128.

919

8.4

213.

9(1

9.5)

(17.

9)(2

3.6)

(25.

1)(1

9.9)

(16.

8)(2

1.5)

(19.

4)(2

1.8)

(18.

6)(2

4.9)

(20.

7)

Tot

al h

ardn

ess

WR

-I11

4.6

119.

612

8.4

106.

799

.793

.789

.193

.389

.880

.691

.310

8.4

(mg

l-1)

(15.

8)(1

8.3)

(16.

5)(1

9.6)

(17.

9)(2

0.8)

(16.

7)(1

9.4)

(15.

2)(1

7.5)

(19.

8)(1

6.3)

WR

-II

128.

613

3.4

149.

911

9.3

107.

511

0.7

96.3

101.

698

.686

.211

4.5

119.

6(1

9.3)

(15.

8)(1

7.9)

(19.

5)(1

5.9)

(20.

5)(1

6.4)

(18.

6)(1

5.7)

(17.

2)(2

0.1)

(18.

4)W

R-I

II14

4.3

156.

616

8.5

134.

711

9.9

123.

610

2.3

113.

510

9.4

100.

912

9.5

138.

6(1

6.6)

(19.

4)(1

7.9)

(20.

4)(1

8.8)

(14.

5)(2

0.7)

(17.

8)(2

0.8)

(15.

9)(1

7.5)

(19.

8)

Dis

solv

ed O

2W

R-I

5.69

5.58

5.66

5.59

5.84

5.00

3.88

3.53

6.74

6.80

6.65

6.05

(mg

l-1)

(0.0

1)(0

.01)

(0.0

2)(0

.02)

(0.0

1)(0

.01)

(0.0

1)(0

.02)

(0.0

2)(0

.02)

(0.0

2)(0

.01)

WR

-II

4.53

4.00

4.82

4.42

5.00

3.86

3.16

3.76

3.25

4.24

4.20

4.80

(0.0

1)(0

.02)

(0.0

2)(0

.01)

(0.0

1)(0

.02)

(0.0

1)(0

.01)

(0.0

1)(0

.01)

(0,0

1)(0

.02)

WR

-III

1.65

1.20

0.90

1.05

1.08

0.84

0.89

0.79

0.87

0.82

1.90

1.73

(0.0

1)(0

.01)

(0.0

1)(0

.01)

(0.0

1)(0

.01)

(0.0

1)(0

.01)

(0.0

1)(0

.01)

(0.0

1)(0

.01)

BO

DW

R-I

1.04

1.06

1.08

1.05

1.19

1.01

1.03

1.09

1.02

1.09

1.06

1.05

(mg

l-1)

(0.0

1)(0

.02)

(0.0

2)(0

.02)

(0.0

2)(0

.02)

(0.0

3)(0

.03)

(0.0

3)(0

.03)

(0.0

3)(0

.02)

WR

-II

1.39

1.66

1.29

1.49

1.79

1.75

1.68

1.81

1.79

1.73

1.88

1.80

(0.0

1)(0

.03)

(0.0

1)(0

.01)

(0.0

2)(0

.02)

(0.0

4)(0

.03)

(0.0

3)(0

.02)

(0.0

4)(0

.02)

WR

-III

3.38

3.39

3.44

3.64

3.16

3.49

3.84

3.95

3.90

3.98

3.35

3.17

(0.0

2)(0

.03)

(0.0

2)(0

.01)

(0.0

2)(0

.02)

(0.0

3)(0

.03)

(0.0

3)(0

.03)

(0.0

5)(0

.03)

NH

3-N

WR

-I0.

930.

950.

860.

890.

920.

950.

900.

980.

950.

920.

960.

94(m

g l-1

)(0

.03)

(0.0

3)(0

.02)

(0.0

2)(0

.03)

(0.0

3)(0

.02)

(0.0

4)(0

.03)

(0.0

3)(0

.03)

(0.0

2)W

R-I

I0.

960.

980.

880.

950.

940.

990.

931.

050.

990.

970.

981.

01(0

.02)

(0.0

2)(0

.01)

(0.0

3)(0

.01)

(0.0

2)(0

.03)

(0.0

3)(0

.02)

(0.0

3)(0

.02)

(0.0

2)W

R-I

II1.

051.

241.

111.

231.

291.

331.

361.

391.

251.

181.

091.

11(0

.03)

(0.0

3)(0

.01)

(0.0

2)(0

.02)

(0.0

2)(0

.03)

(0.0

3)(0

.02)

(0.0

2)(0

.03)

(0.0

2)

Tot

alW

R-I

0.61

0.53

0.29

0.20

0.23

0.30

0.39

0.49

0.43

0.54

0.55

0.58

phos

phor

ous

(0.0

9)(0

.03)

(0.0

8)(0

.01)

(0.0

3)(0

.05)

(0.0

7)(0

.02)

(0.0

4)(0

.02)

(0.0

4)(0

.06)

(mg

l-1)

WR

-II

0.65

0.59

0.39

0.28

0.35

0.38

0.45

0.56

0.53

0.59

0.65

0.69

(0.0

2)(0

.04)

(0.0

3)(0

.01)

(0.0

9)(0

.02)

(0.0

4)(0

.06)

(0.0

3)(0

.06)

(0.0

4)(0

.09)

WR

-III

0.95

0.63

0.45

0.36

0.48

0.46

0.59

0.69

0.76

0.82

0.85

0.89

(0.0

6)(0

.05)

(0.0

7)(0

.05)

(0.0

3)(0

.04)

(0.0

3)(0

.02)

(0.0

9)(0

.05)

(0.0

9)(0

.07)

Tab

le 4

. M

e an

mon

thly

va r

iati

on o

f so

me

phys

ico-

c hem

ica l

pa r

ame t

e rs

of t

he W

R-I

, W

R-I

I a n

d W

R-I

II.

The

mon

ths

a re

show

n by

the

fir

stth

ree

inic

ial

lett

e rs.

Ove

rall

me a

n a n

d S

D (

in p

a re n

the s

e s,

belo

w t

he o

vera

ll m

e an

valu

e ).

Vari

ació

n m

ensu

al d

e al

guna

s c a

rac t

e rís

tic a

sfí

sic o

-quí

mic

as d

e lo

s e m

bals

e s W

R-I

, W

R-I

I y

WR

-III

. L

os m

e se s

se

mue

stra

n po

r la

s tr

e s l

e tra

s in

icia

les

(en

ingl

é s).

Med

ia y

de s

v iac

ión

e stá

ndar

(e n

tre

paré

nte s

is,

y de

bajo

de

la m

e dia

cor

resp

ondi

e nte

).


DISCUSSION

Throughout the globe algal communitiesare used to study aquatic pollutions and the useof algal communities can be correlated withwater pollution studies (Sonneman et al., 2001;Walsh, 2000; Bate et al., 2002). The mostimportant effect of organic pollution in a waterbodies is due to enrichment of nutrients andtotal number of algal species (Winter andDuthie, 2000). Prasad and Singh (1980)emphasized the importance of biologicalsurvey in monitoring water quality, which isdependent on qualitative and quantitativecomposition of aquatic population. Algalcommunities are generally abundant, diverseand important component in aquaticecosystem. They collectively show a broadrange of tolerance along a gradient of aquaticproductivity, individual species have specificwater chemical requirements (Werner, 1977;Round, 1991).

The epilithic and epiphytic algae mayform excellent indicators of water pollution(Round, 1993). In present investigation, theoccurrence of Oscillatoria, Phormidium,Lyngbya and Ulothrix as epilithic algae andcertain diatom like Gomphonema asepiphytic were recorded repeatedly andconsidered as indicators of pollution in viewof the results of water quality index (Palmer,1969; Venkateswarlu, 1979; and Nandan &Patel, 1985a). We have found the higherscore for Watanabe’s index and Palmer index(tab.3) in case of water reservoir-III, whichindicate accentuated levels of eutrophication.The other values of water quality index (Fig1) and Palmer index (tab.3) also indicates theconfirmation for water reservoir-III.

We found a positive correlation betweenhigher values of specific conductance, PO

4,

NH4-N, water quality index with

Cyanophyceae group of algae in all the threereservoirs, similar to the finding of Rey etal. (2004). However, Pearsall (1932) was the

first to show a marked correlation betweenorganic pollution and blue-green algae alongwith certain diatoms like Melosira sp. Thepresent study revealed the dominance ofOscillatoria in all the reservoirs indicatingpollutants are of biological origin and aresimilar to the observations of Rai & Kumar(1976) and Coste, Bosca & Dauta (1991).

Besides, the other two pollution tolerantspecies such as Euglena and Navicula wererecorded in all the three-water reservoirs andshows agreement with earlier findings ofHosmani and Bharati (1980) who studiedcertain polluted and unpolluted ponds ofKarnataka state in India. Recent reports byNewall and Walsh (2005) also indicatedthese similarities in their observation andconfirmed the importance of suchassemblage of algae with organic pollutionin water bodies.

Many workers (Hosmani and Bharati,1980; Nandan and Patel, 1985b) used solelyPalmer’s index of pollution for rating watersamples for high or low organic load andfound that the total score of each waterreservoir was greater than twenty andconfirmed high organic pollution infreshwater bodies. In present study, total 32pollution tolerant genera were recorded andsimply indicated that all three waterreservoirs were organically polluted. It hasbeen emphasized by many workers that algalcommunities as a whole are reliableindicators of pollution rather than singlealgae (Patrick, 1965; Palmer, 1969; Tayloret al. 2004). Recent approach for assessmentof pollution therefore, tends to use algalcommunities as indices rather than singlealgal indicator as it was true in present study.

REFERENCES

BATE, G.C., J.B. ADAMS & J.S. VAN DERMOLEN -2002- Diatoms as Indicators of


Water Quality in South African River Systems.WRC Report No. 814/1/02. Water ResearchCommission. Pretoria. 164 pp.

COSTE M., C. BOSCA & A. DAUTA -1991-. Useof algae for monitoring rivers in France. In:Whiton B A, Rott E and Friedrich G (eds.)Use of Algae for monitoring Rivers. E. Rott,Institüt für Botanik. Univ. Innsbruk. 75-88.

DAHL, M. & D. WILSON -2000- Current statusof freshwater quality models. Technicalreport, Karlstad University, May 2000.

GUNALE, V.R. & M.S. BALAKRISHNAN -1981- Biomonitoring of eutrophication in thePavana, Mula and Mutha rivers throughPoona. Indian J. of Environ. Hlth., 23(4), 316-322.

HARKINS, R.D. -1974- An objective WaterQuality Index. J. Wat. Pollut. Control. Fed.46, 588.

HOSMANI, S.P. & S.G. BHARATI -1980- Algaeas indicators of organic pollution. Phycos19(1), 23-26.

IWMED (Institute of Wetland Management andEcological Design) -2002- Final report onwater quality monitoring of Churni River atRanaghat and Jalangi River at Krishnagar.April-2002, West Bengal Pollution ControlBoard, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700098, India.

JHINGRAN, V.G. -1997- Fish and Fisheries ofIndia. Second ed. Hindustan PublishingCorporation, New Delhi, India.

NANDAN, S.N. & R.J. PATEL -1985a-Eutrophication in Vishwamitri river flowingthrough Baroda city. Geobios 2, 60-62.

NANDAN, S.N. & R.J. PATEL -1985b- Pollutionstudies of Vishwamitri river flowing throughBaroda. Biovigyana 11(2), 209-210.

NEWALL, P. & C.J. WALSH -2005- Responsesof epithil ic diatom assemblages tourbanization influences. Hydrobiologia 532,53-67.

OTT, W.R. -1978- Environmental Indices Theoryand Practices, Ann. Arbor. Aci. Publis, Inc:202-213.

PALMER, C.M. -1969- A composite rating ofalgae tolerating organic pollution. J. Phycol.5, 76-82.

PATRICK, R. -1965- Algae as indicator ofpollution: An biological problem in waterpollution 3rd seminar Robt. A. Tuff Sanitory

Eng. Centre Cincinati Ohio, 223-232.PEARSALL, W.H. -1932- Phytoplankton in ten

English lakes II. J. Ecol. 22, 241-262.PRASAD, B.N. & Y. SINGH -1980- Algal

hydrobiology in India: A review. Nat. Aca.Sci. Indi., Golden Jubilee CommemorationVol. 271-300.

RAI, L.C. & H.D. KUMAR -1976- Systematicand ecological studies on algae of somehabitats near Sahupuri, Varanasi. NovaHedwigia 27, 803-812.

REY PA DE LA, J.C. TAYLOR, A. LAAS, L.VAN RENSBURG & A. VOSLOO -2004-Determining the possible application value ofdiatoms as indicators of general water quality:A comparison with SASS 5. Water SA Vol.30 No. 3:325-332.

STANDARD METHODS -2002- StandardMethods for the Examination of Water andWaste Waters (21st edn.), American WaterWorks Association (AWWA), Water PollutionControl Federation (WPCF) and AmericanPublic Health Association (APHA)Washington DC, USA.

ROUND, F.E. -1991- Diatoms in river water-monitoring studies. J. Appl. Phycol. 3, 129-145.

ROUND, F.E. -1993- A review and methods forthe use of Epilithic Diatoms for Detecting andMonitoring Changes in River Water Quality.Methods for the examination of water andassociated materials. HMSO Publications.London.

SONNEMAN, J.A., C.J., P.F. WALSH BREEN &A.K. SHARPE -2001- “Effects of urbanizationon streams of the Melbourne region, Victoria,Australia. II. Benthic diatom communities.”Freshwater Biology 46(4), 553-565.

TAYLOR, S.L., S.C. ROBERTS, C.J. WALSH& B.E. HATT -2004- Catchment urbanisationand increased benthic algal biomass instreams: linking mechanisms to management.Freshwater Biology 49, 835–851.

VENKATESWARLU V. -1979- Taxonomy andecology of algae in the River Moosi,Hyderabad (India)‘ Nova Hedwigia 27, 661-676.

WALSH, C.J. -2000- “Urban impacts on theecology of receiving waters: a framework forassessment, conservation and restoration.”


Hydrobiologia 431(2), 107-114.WATANABE, T. -1962- On the biotic index of

water pollution based upon the speciesnumber of Bacillariophyceae in the TokoroRiver in Hokkaido // Jap. Journal of Ecology12(6), 216-222.

WERNER, D. (ed.) -1977- The biology ofDiatoms. University of California Press.

Berkeley. CA.WETZEL, R.G. & G.E. LIKENS-20 04-

Limnological Analysis. (3rd edn.) Springer(India) Private Limited, New Delhi, India.

WINTER, J.G. & H.C. DUTHIE -2000- “Epilithicdiatoms as indicators of stream total N andtotal P concentration.” Journal of the NorthAmerican Benthological Society 19(1), 32-49.

01. limnological survey · limnological survey of three tropical water reservoirs in eastern india...

Documents