chapter

zooplankton

138

CHAPTER 5

STUDY OF ZOOPLANKTON

5.1 Introduction

The Zooplankton is derived from the Greek word zoon, means animal, and

planktos, means wanderer or drifter. Thurman (1997). Zooplankton are microscopic

heterotropic organisms usually too small to be seen with the naked eye, but some,

such as jellyfish, are large. Present in aquatic environment. They are present at

various depths in their own niches in every type of water bodies. Instead of

locomotory appendages, their activities are very restricted and they are found floating

freely in and around eutrophic zone.

Zooplankton comprises an important constituent of fresh water ecosystems

and their central place in food chain and webs. They transfer energy and matter from

primary producers (algal biomass) to higher trophic levels such as fish (Goswami,

2004); Kedar et. al. (2008); Imoobe and Akoma (2008). Moreover, by grazing on

phytoplankton and bacteria they help in improving water quality Pinto-Coelho

et.al.(2005). According to Verma and Munshi (1987) and Howick and Wilhm (1984)

zooplankton, are the main food substance of fishes and can be used as indicators of

the trophic condition of a water body. With the producers the phytoplankton,

consumers play an important role in the transformation of energy from abiotic forms

to the higher trophic levels ultimately leading to the fish production, which is

considered as is the final product of an aquatic environment. The study of limnatic

water fauna especially zooplankton, even if of a particular area, is extensive and

complicated due to environmental, physical, chemical and geographic variations

involving ecological, extrinsic and intrinsic factors(Majagi and Vijaykumar, 2009).

According to Thrope and Covich (1991); Carriack and Schelske (1997) the nutrient

status and the physico-chemical parameters of water body play an important role in

governing the production of plankton. Because of their short life cycle they respond

quickly to changes in water surroundings e.g. water quality, such as pH, color, taste

etc. therefore they used as indicator of overall health or condition of their habitat.

Zooplankton communities are highly sensitive to environmental variations, such as

water temperature, light, chemistry (particularly pH, Oxygen, salinity, toxic

contaminants and food availability such as algae and bacteria and predation by fishes

as well as invertebrates (Paterson, 2001). Zooplankton are identified to maintain the

139

economically important fish population and are the major mode of energy transfer

between phytoplankton and fish (Howick and Wilhm, 1984). They are the outstanding

indicators of the status of a study site and occupy a fundamental position in the food

web and top down feedback mechanisms Christoferson et. al.(1993); Jeppensen

et.al.(1999). Ramchandra et.al. (2002). The variability observed in the distribution of

zooplankton is due to abiotic parameters either climatic or hydrological limitation and

biotic parameters such as predation, competition or combination of both (Escribano

and Hidalgo, 2000) and Beyst et.al. (2001). Hence, the use of zooplankton for

environmental characterization of water body is potentially advantageous as the

quality of water affects the species composition, abundance, productivity and

physiological conditions.

Limnatic water zooplankton communities belong to four main taxonomic

groups that are Rotifera, Cladocera, Copepoda and Ostracoda. Most of the

zooplankton depend to a large scale upon various bacterioplankton and phytoplankton

for food. Many of the bigger forms feed on smaller zooplankton, forming secondary

consumer, while some of them are detritivore feeders, browsing and feeding on the

organic substance attached to substrate or lying on the bottom sediment. According to

Davies et.al.(2009) and Zuykova et.al.(2009) the effect of seasonal variations in the

physico-chemical variables causing variations in large quantity and diversity of

zooplankton and biomass dynamics, and role of abiotic factors in community

organization. Patrick(1973); William and Joseph (1991) haveobserved diurnal vertical

movements in fresh water zooplankton. Wetzel (2006) noted monthly variations and

depth wise abundance of zooplankton. Ali et. al.(1985) and many other studies have

highlighted significance of zooplankton studies of any water body to establish health

status. Many studies have been conducted globally with reference to the richness of

species, distribution of copepods and cladocerans and their relation to hydro

conditions (Dagmaret.al., 2006). Comparison of zooplankton diversity of two fresh

water wetland ecosystems of Goa was done by Das et.al. (2005).Seasonal distribution

of the population structure of zooplankton in connection with physicochemical

parameters was studied by Sarkar and Chaudhary (1999). Thus, zooplankton being in

the centre of aquatic food web, and influenced strongly by bottom-up and top-down

processes, have often been used as models for ecological paradigms (Wetzel, 2001).

Rate of Dam change (eutrophication) may best be determined through long term

140

monitoring programmes which can evaluate the trophic conditions and also provide a

baseline for present as well as future comparisons. Since zooplankton are potentially

valuable indicators of environmental changes, investigations on zooplankton are

expected to be an integral part of such programmes. Quantitative information on

actual and relative abundance (community composition) is expected to yield more

indicator value than simply presence or absence of certain species (Gannon and

Stemberger, 1978). In the present study of BMIT, to establish a food chain/web and

situation of the dam, zooplankton are also considered and their qualitative and

quantitative seasonal variations and correlation with other biotic and abiotic

parameters have been are evaluated.

5.2 Material and Method

The study area BMIT was visited at monthly intervals during the two years

period (January, 2009 to December, 2010). The water sample containing

zooplanktons were collected at the surface of study site at three stations namely BMIT

A, BMIT B and BMIT C. in between 8AM to 10 AM. According to Edmonson (1963)

ten liters of water were filtered through the plankton net No. 25 of bolting silk with

mesh size 64 micron. Net was washed with the water by inverting it to collect the

plankton attached to the net and the volume of sample was made to 100 ml. The

collected samples were taken in separate vials and preserved by 1 ml of 4 % formalin

and 1 ml of Lugol’s Iodine at the BMIT site. 10 ml of sample from each station was

further concentrated by centrifuging at 2000 RPM for 10 minutes. For quantitative

estimation of plankton, 1 ml well mixed sample was taken on ‘Sedgewick Rafter

Cell’. To calculate density of plankton the averages of 5 to 10 counts were made for

each sample and the results were expressed as number of organisms per liter of

collected sample water. Qualitative study of zooplankton was carried out up to the

genus/species level using the standard keys given by Sarode and Kamat (1984);

Philipose (1967); Tonapi (1980) and Edmondson (1963). The two year study data

(January, 2009 to December, 2010) were pooled for four months and three seasons

and analyzed for seasonal changes, with respect to summer (January, February, March

and April), Monsoon (May, June, July and August), Winter (September, October,

November, and December). Further, the Mean, Standard Error of Mean (SEM) were

calculated for each season and One Way ANOVA with no post test for various

parameters for three seasons was performed using Graph Pad Prism version 3.00 for

141

Windows (Graph Pad Software, San Diego California, USA). The correlation between

the physicochemical parameters and the zooplankton density were calculated. The

Pearson Correlation was calculated by keeping plankton as dependent variable and

other abiotic and biotic factors as independent variables with the help of SPSS 7.5 for

Windows. The P value for ANOVA is non significant if P > 0.05 (ns), Significant if

P< 0.05 (*), significantly significant (**) if P < 0.001 and highly significant if P <

0.0001.

The number of species present in an area may be considered as its ‘species

richness’ a frequently used measure Hurlbert (1971). Species richness can be

correlated positively with some measures of ecological diversity. The zooplankton

study includes four major groups such as Rotifera, Cladocera, Copepoda and

Ostracoda.

5.2.1 Rotifera

Dutrochet (1812) was the first to regard them as separate biological group

distinct from Protozoa and called them “Rotifera” and also called Rotatoria (wheel

animalecules).The “Golden period of Rotofer studies” was from 1880 to 1930 with

maximum contribution to rotifer taxonomy. Rotifers are pseudocoelomate group of

small, usually aquatic microscopic organisms with the size range between 100 to 1000

micro meter. The body of typical rotifer consists of head, trunk and foot. The head

bears the rotator organ or the wheel organ called carona (organ for locomotion and

food collection), mouth and sense organ (Dhanapathi, 2000). They are everywhere,

occurring in almost all types of fresh water bodies, from large permanent lakes to

small temporary water bodies. Rotifers feed on algae, diatoms, ciliates, bacteria and

some of them are predators. Dumont (1986) reported that interspecific competition

between cladocerans and rotifers. Being prey for plankton feeders, rotifers play an

essential role in many freshwater ecosystems. They are permanently and obligatorily

connected to aquatic habitats in all active stages, only their resting stages are draught

resistant (Hendrik, 2007). Rotifer distribution and diversity is influenced primarily by

deteriorating quality of water in freshwater ecosystems and secondarily by

eutrophication and salinization. According to Devetter and Sed’a (2003), the

nutrients, primary production, temperature, abundance of predators and competitors,

and potential food resources are important factors influencing the structure of rotifer

community. Most rotifers are not free floating, but are sessile and associated with

142

littoral substrata. Population of rotifers is highest in association with submerged

macrophytes, especially plants with richly divided leaves. In such conditions the

densities may reach up to 25,000 per liter (Edmondson, 1946) and vise a versa with

reduced sites of attachment and presumably less protection from predation, their

density is low (Wetzel, 2001).

According to Berzens and Pejler (1989) most rotifers commonly exhibit

maximam densities in early summer; in temperate regions they show wide range of

temperature tolerance. Various rotifer taxa serve as useful biological indicators of

water quality of environments within the fresh water bodies. Their ability to colonize

diversified aquatic and semi-aquatic biotopes and inherent quality to build up

substantial densities within short time intervals make them ideal for ecological

considerations as well as valuable tool for population dynamic studies.

5.2.2 Cladocera

The Cladocera belong to the subclass Branchipoda and includes minute

crustaceans commonly known as the “Water fleas” and contain about 400 species

distributed throughout the world (Frey, 1967). They are normally freshwater small

sized range of 0.2 to 5.0 micro meters. They are pelagic present in littoral and limnetic

or benthic zones of fresh water such as lakes and ponds. The Cladocera are found in

all sorts of fresh waters with higher densities in lotic than lentic systems. However,

they are known to be generally intolerant to high salt concentration in the medium

though there are species that frequently occur in brackish water. Most species are

transparent, especially those which inhabit the open waters, while others found among

the weeds of littoral and benthic zones are darkly pigmented with shades of yellow

and brown or red they also act as the link in the food chain. Most of them are

herbivorous, feeding on phytoplankton and in turn, are preyed upon by certain

invertebrates and fish, thus, involved in the transfer of energy from producers to

primary, secondary and tertiary consumers within the aquatic food web (Dodson and

Frey, 2001). The body of typical cladoceran is divided in to distinct head, thorax,

abdomen and post abdomen. Most species show sexual dimorphism, with males

generally being smaller than females. Even within a single species, the females are of

two kinds asexual or parthenogenetic and sexual or gamogenetic. Thus their

populations are mainly dominated by females. However, sexually produced

diapausing eggs are common and resistant to desiccation and other unfavorable

conditions, and may even survive passage through the digestive track of birds

143

(Figuerola et. al., 2003). Thus, birds are important propagules for their passive

dispersal. The water fleas (cladocerans) are the important component of the fauna of

freshwaters; particularly significant in the food web of stagnant waters (Forro et. al.,

2007). They actively select their food, with preference for large particles, and are

unselective filter feeders (Claes et. al., 2004). It has been reported that the life history

strategies of tropical and temperate cladoceran taxa differ in response to several

abiotic components such as temperature, light and oxygen saturation percentage while

biotic factors like predation and inter and intra-specific competition.

According to Venkataraman (1990) and Rane (2002) a high diversity of

cladocerans can be found in the littoral zone of stagnant waters, as well as temporary

water bodies. Especially Daphnia (cladoceran) are important form of organisms in

both fundamental and applied research. The canonical correspondence analysis of

cladocerans and environmental variation in the cladoceran species has shown strong

positive correlation between size of cladocerans and vegetation cover (Dagmar et. al.,

2006). Cladocerans also have certain economic importance as they are widely used in

aquaculture and these large filter feeding planktonic species have an indirect

economic impact as important fish food or phytoplankton controlling group.

5.2.3 Copepoda

The word copepods comes from Greek words kope means ‘oar’ and podos

means ‘foot’. Copepods are crustaceans and are related to crabs, lobsters and krills.

Copepods are divided into 10 orders and about 13,000 species are recognized and

only 2814 species present in fresh water bodies (Geoff et.al.,2008). Copepods are

minute 1 to 2 mm long with a teardrop shaped body and large antennae. Copepods

typically have a short, cylindrical body, with a rounded or beaked head. The head is

fused with the first one or two thoracic segments, while the remainder of the thorax

has three to five segments, each with limbs. The first pair of thoracic appendages are

modified to form maxillipeds, which help in feeding. The abdomen is typically

narrower than the thorax, and contains five segments without any appendages, except

for some tail-like "rami" at the tip (Robert, 1982). Copepods are included in the

subclass Copepoda under class Crustacea. The sub class Copepoda has three orders

the organism in which are freely living planktonic form such as Calanoida,

Harpacticoida, and Cyclopodia found in fresh and other inland water bodies and some

of them are marine. The calanoid copepods are large sized free living

microcrustaceans. The body is divided in to anterior metasome and posterior narrow

144

urosome. They are filter feeders and feed on suspended organic matter and detritus

food materials and play an important role in cycling of matter and energy in benthic

food chain and food web. Harpacticoida includes free living microcrustaceans with

length never more than 1 mm. Cyclopid copepods are predators and feed on other

microcrustaceans (Raptorial feeders). Copepods pass through a series of naupliar

stages (6 naupliar and 5 copepodid stages) during their development. They also

studied key human related issues, such as role of copepods as vectors for human

parasites and the losses caused by parasitic copepods in commercial aquaculture.

According to Dagmar et.al. (2006) analysis ordination indicating their positive

association with hydroperiod, size and vegetation cover. The presence of copepods

has been reported to improve the feeding condition of Daphnia Cladocera because

during copepod larvae grazing, the nutrients released are taken by phytoplankton

which favors the population of daphnids (Claes et.al., 2004).

According to Confer (1971) most of adult cyclopoid copepods are carnivorous

and their predatory activities play an important role in the population dynamics of

other copepods. Various, adult cyclops prey heavily on naupli of Diaptomus species

and its own species, while some species are herbivorous which feed on a variety of

algae ranging from unicellular algae to long strands of filamentous species.

Cyclomorphosis, the means of rapid, evasing swimming movements is lacking in

copepods (Kerfoot, 1980), hence they cannot defend themselves better from

invertebrate predator compared to most rotifers and cladocerans.

5.2.4 Ostracoda

The word ostracod comes from Greek word ostracon means shell or tile.

Ostracoda are small crustaceans, typically around 1 mm in size, but varying from 0.2

to 30 mm., example Giagontocypris. Their bodies are flattened from side to side and

protected by a bivalve -like, calcareous valve or "shell". They are present in all the

types of aquatic environments both marine and fresh water including heavily polluted

areas. Ostracods belong to a class Crustacean and subclass Ostracoda, sometimes

known as seed shrimp. About 70,000 species have been identified (Richards et.al.

2003). According to Martens et.al. (2008) about 2000 species and 200 genera of non

marine ostracods are found. The body consists of a head and thorax, separated by a

small constriction. Unlike many other crustaceans, the body is not clearly divided into

segments. The abdomen is absent head is the largest part of the body, and bears

appendages. Two pairs of well-developed antennae are used to swim in the water. In

145

addition, there is a pair of mandibles and two pairs of maxillae. The thorax typically

has two pairs of appendages, but these are reduced to a single pair, or entirely absent,

in many species. The two "rami" or projections, from the tip of the tail, point

downwards and slightly forward from the rear of the shell (Robert, 1982).

They are richer in shallow water bodies where weeds or algae are abundant.

Like other groups they also play significant role in transforming the energy from

producers to consumers in aquatic food web Chakrapani et.al. (1996). According to

Griffith and Holmes (2000), the carapace of Ostracoda is made up of low magnesium

calcite that fossilizes well in lake sediments, preserving information about the past

lake environment. According to Osamu Shimomura (2006) found that some ostracods

have a light producing organ in which they produce luminescent chemicals. The light

is useful for defense mechanism and mating (only in the Caribbean). These ostracods

are called "blue sand" or "blue tears" and glow blue in the dark at night.

As per the report of Griffith and Holmes (2000), the species richness and

abundance of ostracods are maximum in lake water saturated with CaCO3 and

maximum numbers of species are found in lakes with moderate conductives, which

has been indicated to determine the presence or absence of species within the water

body. Factors influencing ostracod distribution include lake depth, water temperature

and dissolved ion concentration (Mourguiart and Carbonel, 1994). High salinity

appears to influence ostracod species abundance and high ion concentrations can

cause certain species to be excluded from some lakes (Forester;1983). Thus, diversity,

abundance and seasonal fluctuations of ostracods have been linked with water quality.

The presence and absence of certain organisms can be used to determine the condition

of water. The productivity of aquatic animals directly depends on physico-chemical

features of water. Hence, the knowledge of abundance, composition and seasonal

variations of aquatic communities can help in planning successful management of a

water body. Among the biotic components phytoplankton and zooplankton both are

good indicators of fluctuations in water body as they are strongly affected by

environmental variations in water quality and respond quickly to the same. Hence,

qualitative and quantitative studies of zooplankton were also carried out at BMIT.

5.3 Result and Discussion

During the present investigation at BMIT

four groups. The total

genera (Annexure II). Zooplankton

Cladocera (12 species)

Quantitatively and qualitatively these

sequenceas:Rotifera>Cladocera>

Fig. 5.1: Percentage density of different groups of Zooplankton at

Fig. 5.2: Percentage Species richness of different groups of Zooplankton at

during January

26%

27%

16%

% Species Richness of Zooplankton Groups

Result and Discussion

During the present investigation at BMIT total zooplankton were

he total 51species of zooplankton were recorded belonging to

. Zooplankton belong to four groups:Rotifera (28 species),

species), Copepoda (7 species)and Ostracoda (4 Species)

Quantitatively and qualitatively these four groups administered

Cladocera>Copepoda>Ostracoda.

5.1: Percentage density of different groups of Zooplankton at Budki

January, 2009 to December, 2010.

Fig. 5.2: Percentage Species richness of different groups of Zooplankton at

during January, 2009 to December, 2010.

37%

32%

5%

% Density of Zooplankton Groups

D.Rotifers

D. Cladocera

D.Copepoda

D.Ostracoda

49%

8%

% Species Richness of Zooplankton Groups

Spp.R Rotifers

Spp.R Cladocera

Spp.R Copepoda

Spp.R Ostracoda

146

were divided in

belonging to 30

Rotifera (28 species),

and Ostracoda (4 Species).

groups administered same

dam during

Fig. 5.2: Percentage Species richness of different groups of Zooplankton at Budki dam

D.Rotifers

D. Cladocera

D.Copepoda

D.Ostracoda

Spp.R Rotifers

Spp.R Cladocera

Spp.R Copepoda

Spp.R Ostracoda

147

5.3.1 Density and Species richness of Zooplankton

The abundance of total zooplankton includes four quantitative components

and their abundance show significant seasonal variations. The sequence of abundance

of various zooplankton groups in decreasing order were recorded as Rotifera

(37%)>Cladocera (32%) >Copepoda (26 %) >Ostracoda (5%), (Table 5.1, Fig.5.1).

The density of total zooplankton administered significant seasonal variations

(P<0.0001 F2 21 26.4). Maximum density of the total zooplankton (Table 5.1, Fig. 5.3)

were recorded in summer (2371± 109 No/L) and minimum in winter (1271 ±77.1 No

/L), while it was moderate in monsoon (1952 ± 131No/L).The species composition of

total zooplankton occurred in decreasing order of dominance with average two years

species richness as Rotifera 49 % >Cladocera27 % >Copepoda16 % >Ostracoda 8 %

(Table 5.2, Fig. 5.2) and administered significant seasonal variations (P < 0.0001 F2

21 63.10).

Maximum species richness of total zooplankton (Table 5.2, Fig. 5.4) was

recorded in summer (24.75±1.03).and minimum species richness of total zooplankton

was recorded in winter season (13.25 ± 0.70). It showed increasing trend in monsoon

seasons with (22.75 ± 0.49).

According to Hillbricht (1977), zooplankton play a functionally significant

role in aquatic systems by consuming phytoplankton, bacteria and then releasing

nutrients back in the ecosystem or by serving as prey for transferring nutrients to

higher trophic levels. Zooplanktons, the heterotrophic animals floating in water,

constitute an important food source for many species of aquatic organisms. This

probably explains why there is so much fascination in the study of structure and

dynamics of zooplankton populations of lakes (Goldman and Horne,1983). The

zooplankton community composition in shallow water systems are not only

influenced by predation as per the observation of Donald et. al. (2001); Hampton and

Gilbert (2001) but also by, water chemistry and hydrology (Moss, 1994). The

hydroperiod and water cover are the major physical factors responsible for formation

of the various ecological communities (Shurin, 2000). According to Pennak (1946)

and Bonecker and Lansac-Toha (1996) plankton are abundant during the slow water

current, while rise in water brings about a sharp decline in their density.

In the present study of BMIT in the Maharashtra, India, the water level and the

resultant water cover have proven to be the important factors in regulating the density

of the zooplankton. Here at BMIT, highest zooplankton density was noted during

summer when the water level declined and the zooplankton got concentrated and vice

148

versa moderate during monsoon when the water level was high and plankton get

distributed and lowest recorded in winter season. Deshkar (2008) has made similar

observations at irrigation reservoirs and village ponds at the plains of semi-arid zone

of Gujarat. These regions depend on annual rainfall (Monsoon) for their water

requirement. When there is good rainfall during monsoon, the water level and the

resultant water cover are maximum during the monsoon. During monsoon the

plankton get distributed in water which can lead to the decline in their density per

liter. According to Davis (1976), the influx of rain water is known to bring about

dilution effects. Kudai et.al. (2005), recorded total 71 species were identified out of

these 38 belonging to Rotifer, 22 to Cladocera, 7 to Copepod and 4 species to

Ostracoda and 5 new species were recorded (1 Cladocera and 4 Rotifers ) and the

highest number of species were recorded from Akkialur tank (29 species) while

lowest number from Makavvalli tank ( 5 species) in Haveri district, karnataka.

In summer period the temperature of warm surface water (Gilloly, 2000) and

(Jakson, 1961) alkaline pH ideal for the zooplankton are also reported at Budki

M.I.Tank (26.5±0.96°C and pH 7.90±1.38) hence their higher density and diversity

during the summer season. The water temperature, pH and total zooplankton of study

site are significantly positively correlated (Table5.3) with total density of

zooplankton. The huge quantity of zooplankton can also be associated with the

development of phytoplankton, the producers, as their concentration also increases

along with the rising water temperature (Mitrofanova, 2000). The higher density of

phytoplankton of Budki dam in summer created a favorable place for herbivorous

zooplankton, thus increase in the density of these primary consumers. This in turn

increased the density of secondary consumer zooplankton increasing total

zooplankton density. The density of total zooplankton was negatively significantly

correlated with water cover of Budki M.I.Tank. The maximum density of total

zooplankton in summer may be attributed to higher rate of evaporation which

decreases water cover and the zooplankton get concentrated and contrasting

conditions were noted in winter when density of zooplankton was minimum when the

water cover and the water level were maximum. During monsoon the water cover and

level start increasing distributing the zooplankton in wider area and decreasing their

density. The influx of rain water in study site is known to bring about dilution effect

(Deshkar, 2008; Ekhande, 2010 andPatil, 2011), as well as nutrients in the lake which

help in buildup of zooplankton density (Michael, 1969) by winter compared to

monsoon.

According to Sharma and

probably also causes low abundance of zooplankton. Compared to monsoon a slow

rise in total zooplankton density is noted at BMIT du

stabilizing water level. Thus, the seasonal variations in total density of zooplankt

were significant (P < 0.0001 F

correlation was noted between

density at the level of 0.01 (Table 5.3).

Moss (1996) experiments on the interaction of sediment influence, aquatic plants with

the structure of phytoplankton and zooplankton communities

Budki dam is also assumed to be related to various degrees to variables such as

macrophytes. The low water levels in summer results in emergence of macrophytes

that serve as hiding places and new place to a variety of zooplankton species.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Fig. 5.3

NO

./L

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fig. 5.4

Spe

cies

Ric

hnes

s

Sharma and Sahai (1988) lower water temperature of winter

probably also causes low abundance of zooplankton. Compared to monsoon a slow

rise in total zooplankton density is noted at BMIT during winter an effect of

stabilizing water level. Thus, the seasonal variations in total density of zooplankt

were significant (P < 0.0001 F2 21 26.4) in the present study site and a positive

correlation was noted between AT, WT, TS, TDS, CO2, CL, PO4 and zooplankton

density at the level of 0.01 (Table 5.3). As per the research record of Beklioglu and

experiments on the interaction of sediment influence, aquatic plants with

the structure of phytoplankton and zooplankton communities, the cro

dam is also assumed to be related to various degrees to variables such as

The low water levels in summer results in emergence of macrophytes

that serve as hiding places and new place to a variety of zooplankton species.

Summer monsoon Winter

Fig. 5.3 :Density.Tot.Zooplankton NO./L

Summer monsoon Winter

Fig. 5.4 : Species.Richness Tot.Zooplankton

149

(1988) lower water temperature of winter

probably also causes low abundance of zooplankton. Compared to monsoon a slow

ring winter an effect of

stabilizing water level. Thus, the seasonal variations in total density of zooplankton

study site and a positive

and zooplankton

As per the research record of Beklioglu and

experiments on the interaction of sediment influence, aquatic plants with

the crop around the

dam is also assumed to be related to various degrees to variables such as

The low water levels in summer results in emergence of macrophytes

that serve as hiding places and new place to a variety of zooplankton species.

150

5.3.2 Rotifera

In the present investigation the maximum density of rotifers recorded in

summer season (997 ± 70.2No/L) which was found decreased in monsoon (697 ±

74.1No/L) and minimum density in winter season was (383± 36.3 No/L). The most

dominant quantitative component (37% density) in the Budki dam.(Table 5.1, Fig.

5.5). Rotifers exhibited significant seasonal variations (P < 0.0001, F2 21 24.1).

The Rotifers, register major dominant qualitative component among the four

groups of zooplankton with 49 % (Table 5.2, Fig.5.2) two years percentage that

varied significantly across the seasons (P < 0.0001, F221 19.20). The highest species

richness of Rotifer (Table 5.2, Fig. 5.6) was recorded in summer (13 ± 0.92) and

lowest species richness of Rotifers was recorded in winter (5.500 ± 1.06) with

increasing trend in the monsoon seasons with (11.00 ± 0.59).

According to Wallace et.al. (2006), the Rotifera is a group of prime freshwater

invertebrates that plays an important role in many freshwater ecosystems. They are

every where, occurring in almost all types of freshwater habitats, from large

permanent lakes to small temporary water body. Their abundance advocate their

importance as one of the three main groups of freshwater zooplankton in limnological

studies together with the Cladocera and Copepoda, as organisms used in mass

aquaculture (Segers,2007). Rotiferans because of their less specialized feeding habits,

parthenogenic reproduction and high fecundity, form a prominent group among the

zooplankton of a water body irrespective of the trophic status (Sampaio et.al., 2002).

They respond more quickly to the environmental changes and hence are frequently

used as indicator of changes in water quality (Gannon and Stemberger, 1978).

In the present study of Budki M.I.Tank density of rotifera administered

significant seasonal variations (F2 21 24.1) with maximum in summer while minimum

in winter. The survival and reproductive rate of rotifers are related strongly to the

quality and abundance of food (Baker, 1979). Chandrasekar (1996) observed that in

summer and monsoon, the abiotic factors such as water, temperature, turbidity,

transparency and dissolved oxygen (DO) play key role in controlling the diversity and

density of rotifers. Temperature, in addition to its effects on the rate of development

of eggs also influences the rates of biochemical reactions, feeding, movement,

longevity and fecundity of rotifers (Edmondson, 1946). At BMIT surface water

temperature in summer was (26.5± 0.96) which was probably suitable for the

reproductive rate of rotifers and resulted in its higher density. According to

Santhanam and Perumal (2003), the high zooplankton population density during the

summer period could be related to stable hydrological factors, while low density

151

during the monsoon season was attributed to heavy flood and fresh water in flow.

According to Anna and Natalia (2009) the rotifer community structure depends on a

variety of environmental factors, biological parameters, such as predation or

competition, as well as various physico-chemical factors. With the help of Canonical

Correspondence Analysis (CCA), Bruno et.al.(2005) have identified two main

environmental gradients that shape up the rotifer assemblage, a temporal gradient

mainly related with the temperature and a eutrophic gradient. When the temperature

goes down during extreme environmental conditions of winter the rotifers are also

known to undergo diapauses (Schroder, 2005). This is the season when rotifer

density was low at Budki dam too. However the increase in the density of rotifers in

summer corresponds to decrease in water level that concentrated rotifers in shallow

waters. Further, the littoral vegetation exposed during summer creates an ideal

habitat for growth of the rotifers. Thus, maximum numbers of rotifers seen during

summer indicates the influence of temperature supported by positive correlation at

0.01 level (Table 5.3). According to Alireza (1995) and Hujare (2005) high

temperature, duration of the day length intensity of sunlight during summer and

accelerating phytoplankton are some of the limiting factors that have been correlated

with the growth and abundance of rotifers.

In present study, rotifer density was significantly positively correlated with the

density of total phytoplankton (Table 5.3). Phytoplankton are important food resource

for rotifers (Devetter and Sed'a, 2003).The Budki M.I.Tank was located in North

Maharashtra, temperature falls in winter with simultaneous decline in photoperiod

creating an unfavorable environment for the rotifers. Moderate density of rotifers

recorded in the monsoon coincides with the influx of rain water that disturbs the

equilibrium of the water body. The main food of herbivorous rotifers is

phytoplankton, of which population is disturbed by the incoming rain water that

increases TS and TSS simultaneously with low light conditions caused because of

cloudy skies. probably a shortage of food is created. According to Jorge et. al. (2009)

results based on principal component analyses have shown that temperature, DO and

pH have strong effects on the rotifer species and has explained that about 70 % of the

variations occurd in zooplankton communities, further stated that rise in temperature

has been related to an increase in the rotifer diversity.

In the present investigation of Budki dam twenty eight species of Rotifers

belonging to eleven genera were recorded. Among various genera of rotifers, the

Brachinous was found to be dominant followed byKeratella. The most common

species of rotifers observed in the Budki dam ware B. caudatus, B. qudridentatus, B.

fulcatus, B. caliciflorus. B. plicatilis, B.forcicula, K. tropica and Filinia, but other

genera such as Lacana,

littoral but few species are purely

a consequence of the spatial heterogeneity of littoral habitats, which allows them to

sustain themselves as a greater diversity of forms

2009). In view of Berzens and Pejler (1989) r

of water quality assessment. More work is still required to designate regional

indicator species from different parts of India. It is presumed that rotifers utilize the

nutrients as well as phytoplankton more rapidly to build up their population. This

may be the reason for the worldwide distribution of rotifers

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Fig. 5.5

NO

./L

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Fig. 5.6

Spec

ies

Ric

hnes

s

, Monostyla and Trichocera were rare. Rotifers are typically

few species are purely pelagic (Kuczynska-Kippen,2000). This is probably

a consequence of the spatial heterogeneity of littoral habitats, which allows them to

sustain themselves as a greater diversity of forms (Basinska and Kuczynska

In view of Berzens and Pejler (1989) rotifers are considered as ideal indicators

of water quality assessment. More work is still required to designate regional

indicator species from different parts of India. It is presumed that rotifers utilize the

rients as well as phytoplankton more rapidly to build up their population. This

may be the reason for the worldwide distribution of rotifers (Pennak, 1978).

Summer monsoon Winter

Fig. 5.5 : Density of Rotifers NO./ L

Summer monsoon Winter

Fig. 5.6 : Species.Richness of Rotifers

152

were rare. Rotifers are typically

2000). This is probably

a consequence of the spatial heterogeneity of littoral habitats, which allows them to

Basinska and Kuczynska-Kippen,

otifers are considered as ideal indicators

of water quality assessment. More work is still required to designate regional

indicator species from different parts of India. It is presumed that rotifers utilize the

rients as well as phytoplankton more rapidly to build up their population. This

1978).

153

5.3.3 Cladocera

The Cladocera was second dominant group among the four groups of

zooplankton. The density of Cladocera recorded with 32 % of two year

average.(Table 5.1). It showed significant temporal variations with ( P < 0.0001 F 2 21

25.88).

As far as the density of cladocerans is concerned, it was maximum in summer

(717.4 ± 20.13No/L) and minimum in winter season (444.3 ± 31.42No/L), while

moderate in monsoon period (610.4 ± 28.34No/L). (Table5.1, Fig 5.7).

Cladocerans the second dominant qualitative component with 27 % (Fig. 5.2)

average species richness showed significant seasonal variations (P < 0.0001 F2 21

11.82). Its maximum species richness occurred in summer (6.25 ± 0.25) and

minimum in winter (4.25 ± 0.41) while medium in monsoon (5.62 ± 0.18) (Table 5.2,

Fig. 5.8).At Budki M.I.tank 12 species of Cladocera belonging to 10 genera and 6

families were recorded.

Most of the Cladocera species are primary consumers and feed on microscopic

algae and the fine particulate matter in the detritus thus influencing cycling of matter

and energy in benthic food chain of a ecosystem. The factors like water, temperature,

dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity, and transparency play significant role in

controlling the diversity and density of Cladocera. Cladocera, commonly known as

water fleas, constitute one of the major groups of animals of great economic

importance in fresh water environment. They are also generally used in aquaculture

as large filter feeding cladoceran species have an indirect economic impact as

important fish food or phytoplankton controlling group. According to Sharma and

Sharma (2009) cladocerans also show seasonal fluctuations, the maximum density of

Cladocera was also recorded in summer and minimum in post-monsoon that can be

correlated with water cover.

Maximum density of cladocerans recorded in summer due to the rising

temperature causing increase in the density of algae, detritus as well as bacteria, the

major food for cladocerans that ultimately leads to increase in overall density of

cladocerans. According to Datta Munshi (1995) large quantity of cladocerans can be

attributed to thick deposits of organic matter in an aquatic ecosystem. In winter

minimum cladocerans were recorded because of low temperature, low population of

154

perennial and a near absence of aestival cladocerans which is a common phenomenon

among cladocerans (Wetzel, 2001).

In present study moderate density of Cladocera was also observed in

monsoon, variability in limnological characteristics is expected to interfere the rate of

reproduction and lead to the low density. Food supply also plays a vital role in the

density of Cladocera(Singh, 2000). Further, in the present study cladoceran density

was significantly positively correlated with the temperature that increases the rate of

moulting and brood production of cladocerans, while rising food supply results in

increase in the number of eggs per brood. According to Fabio et. al. (2008), the lower

temporal changeability during dry season (summer) is also reported to favour the

density of zooplankton. Positively significant correlation of density of Cladocera with

AT, WT, Cl-, CO2, TS, TDS and PO4 while negatively significant correlation with

water cover transparency and DO were observed in present study. It indicates

variable influence of biotic and abiotic factors as far as cladoceran density is

concered.

In present research work total 12 species of Cladocera belonging to 10 genera

and 6 families were recorded. Moderate species richness of Cladocera was observed

in monsoon may be attributed to the dilution factor. Thus, rising temperature and

increasing food supply from algae, detritus and bacteria in summer, favour increase in

cladoceran populations. The diversity of cladocerans in the Budki M.I.tank can also

be related to macrophytes. The most frequent cladocerans at Budki dam were

Diaphanosoma species, Ceriodaphnia cornuta and Moina micrura. while four taxa

Moina, Ceriodaphnia, Microthrix and Diaphanosoma are predominantly herbivorous

typically found in tropical water bodies (Dodson and Frey, 2001). Moina was

observed throughout the year. This species is 'eurgplastic' as it can tolerate wide

range of temperature (Patil, 2011;Patil and Panda, 2003).Ceriodaphnia cornuta was

observed for about ten months from March to December, while Diaphanosoma sarsi,

Simocephalus exspinosus, Macrothrix spinosa and Claydorus species were the

species better represented in the samples of the study site at Budki. Of these all

species of Diaphanosoma and Chydorus the pollution tolerant species (Mahajan,

1981) were found in Budki dam with lower populations.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Fig. 5.7

NO

./L

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Fig. 5.8

Spe

cies

Ric

hnes

s

Summer monsoon Winter

Fig. 5.7 : Density of Cladocera NO./ L

Summer monsoon Winter

Fig. 5.8 :Species.Richness of Cladocera

155

156

5.3.4 Copepoda

In the present investigation, Copepoda was the third and quantitative

component in domination of total zooplankton (26 %) (Table 5.1, Fig.5.1) and

showed significant seasonal variations (P<0.0001 F2 21 14.27 ).The highest densities

of Copepoda was recorded in summer season (571.4 ± 21.55No/L) and the lowest

density of a Copepoda (Table 5.1, Fig. 5.9) was recorded in winter season (384.8 ±

23.99 No/L) which started increasing through monsoon.( 500.9 ± 28.76No/L) .

Copepoda the third qualitative component among the three groups (Table 5.2,

Fig.5.10) with biannual percentage average species richness of 16 %, the maximum

species richness was recorded in summer (4.12 ± 0.29) and minimum in winter

season (2.75 ± 0.16), while it was medium in monsoon period (3.12 ± 0.29). Species

richness of Copepoda also varied significantly across season (P<0.0001 F2 217.54).

Out of 51 species of total zooplankton, 7 species of copepoda belonged to 6 genera

and 2 families.

Patil (2011) and Ekhande (2010) have recorded Copepoda as the zooplankton

community to occupy third position in Lotus Lake and Yashwant Lake, Toranmal

(Maharashtra). Similar result is found in recent investigation at Budki Dam.

According to Wetzel (2001) the life cycle of limnetic cyclopoid copepods is

determined by water temperature, photoperiod, food availability and predation.

Hence, higher water temperature in summer may also be favorable for the growth and

reproduction. In summer nutrients get concentrated increasing the productivity and

also food availability in the form of phytoplankton (Goswami and Selvakumar,

1977). The lower densities of cyclopoid copepods in winter may be associated with

the diapauses either at the egg stage or in the copepodite stages with or without

encystment (Maier, 1994). In winter the temperature of water is low in the Budki

dam and the availability of food is also expected to be low. This can affect fertility of

females and mortality of adults as shown by Edmondson (1965) as well as Patil and

Panda (2003). Swar and Fernando (1980), have pointed out that food is one of the

vital factors which control zooplankton population. Most cyclopoid copepods are

carnivorous and influence the population dynamics of the other copepods by

predation. Copepoda is also an ecologically and economically important group of

zooplankton. According to Watanabele et. al. (1993), the copepods are excellent food

for zooplanktivorous fish and their nutritional value is also very high. Hence, it is

157

suggested that abundant of copepods in Budki dam may be favorable for pisciculture

practices. According to Rey et.al. (2011), the moderate density of copepods is plus

point which may be explored for pisciculture. The productivity of lakes generally

tends to be very high, particularly in tropical regions, during low water in summer

periods. Planktonic crustaceans are commonly abundant during these periods but

experience severe decline during high water periods of flood when inorganic

suspended particles are high and phytoplankton production is low.

Copepod diversity of Budki dam was comparatively poor as only 7 species

belonging to 6 genera and 2 families were recorded. Among these, 5 species such as

Cyclops, Mesocyclops leuckartii, Mesocyclops hyalines, Ectocyclops, Diaptomus.

maximum species richness was observed in summer while minimum in winter.

According to Geoff and Daniell (2007) one of which Mesocyclop species is

important as biological control agent against larvae of mosquito in tropical countries

and discussed human related issues with reference to copepod, as the role of copepod

as intermediate host for variety of parasites. Species of Mesocyclops are intermediate

host for guinea worm (Dracanculus medinensis), a debilitating nematode parasite.

Guinea worm though less prevalent in recent times remains a major health problem,

particularly in W. Africa and India copepods reproduce throughout the year. This was

evidenced by the presence of the larval forms, nauplii and copepodite, and the

appearance of number of oviparous individuals in all the months in the water samples

from Budki dam. Previous studies Kasprzak and Koschel(2000) have used copepod

abundance and occurrence as efficient biological indicators of higher trophic levels.

Eutrophication leads to decrease in the percentage of calnoid copepods, while

promotes the development of cyclopoid copepods. With reference to abiotic factors a

limited influence was noted on the copepod abundance. According to Das et.al.

(1996) copepods favour more stable environments and generally are regarded as

pollution sensitive taxa as they disappear from polluted waters. This indicates that

Budki M.I.Tank is not a polluted aquatic habitat. Das et. al. (1996) have established

a positive correlation between zooplankton densities, AT, WT, TS, TDS and

alkalinity which is same in present study except alkalinity. The water cover

transparency and DO were significantly negatively correlated with the copepod

density. It concluded that Budki water supports good density and diversity of

zooplankton that can maintain the balanced ecosystem.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Fig. 5.9

NO

./L

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Spec

ies

Ric

hnes

s

Summer monsoon Winter

Fig. 5.9 : Density of Copepodes NO./ L

Summer monsoon Winter

Fig. 5.10 : Species Richness of Copepodes

158

: Species Richness of Copepodes

159

5.3.5 Ostracoda

During the research work at Budki dam Ostracoda was the fourth and the

lowest quantitative component (5%) (Table 5.1, Fig.5.1) of zooplankton showed

significant seasonal variations (P<0.0001 F2 21 25.71). The maximum density of a

Ostracoda (Table 5.2, Fig. 5.11) was recorded in monsoon (144.3 ± 11.20 No/L) and

minimum recorded in winter (54.00 ± 6.81No/L). While medium recorded in summer

(85.63 ± 8.52 No/L).

Species richness of Ostracoda at Budki was very low with only 4 species and

two year average percentage was 8 % (Table 5.2). The maximum richness of species

recorded in monsoon (3.00 ± 0.18) and minimum recorded in winter with (0.75 ±

0.25) while slightly increased in summer period (1.12 ± 0.35), (Table5.2,Fig.5.12).

Ostracod species richness showed seasonal variations at P < 0.0001, F 2 21 19.73.

The water temperature and availability of food might be affecting the

population of Ostracoda. The decrease in the population during winter and summer

may be due to the feeding pressure of fishes. According to Ekhande (2010) higher

population of Ostracoda during monsoon is due to the abundance of fine detritus

Ostracods are mainly benthic macro invertebrates (Chakrapani et. al., 1996).

Compared to other zooplanktonic groups the maximum density of ostracods in

monsoon may be attributed to the inflow of rain water creating water current and

turbidity because of which the benthic ostracods are disturbed and come to the

surface. Being benthic in nature, plenty of dead organic matter brought to the water

body with rain runoff may help in the growth of ostracods and hence increase their

density. The dependency of ostracods on organic matter is reflected by their low

density in summer when water level is stable and no mixing of water is noted and

water temperature is moderate. According to Kaushik and Sharma (1994), ostracods

occur in greater number when the temperature of the reservoir is 20oC. Similar result

was found at Budki dam average water temperature was around (24.8 ± 0.59oC) in

monsoon while (26.5± 0.96oC) in summer which is favorable for plankton in general

but in winter when the water level and water current are well stabilized the

temperature is around (21.5±0.73oC). The present study was the first attempt to

investigate the status of this dam. The Ostracoda density is positively correlated with

AT, NO3, PO4, SO4, TSS, TDS, TS and CL at the level of 0.01and negatively

significant correlated with CA, PH, and transparency at 0.05 levels. The water body

plays a very important role in maintaining the planktonic diversity of the area. More

information concerning zooplankton and their biological characteristics and their

interaction with physico-chemical parameters of the dam is necessary for proper

understanding and management of the ecosyst

suitable environment for living.

Edmondson (1959)

recorded in the world out of which nearly one third occur in freshwaters. The

knowledge on ostracod fauna of

freshwater ostracods of Maharashtra include

spread over 4 families (Patil and Talmale, 2005).

dam only four species of

Hemicypri , Eucypris and

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Fig. 5.11

NO

./L

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Spe

cies

Ric

hnes

s

understanding and management of the ecosystem so that the aquatic fauna get more

suitable environment for living.

Edmondson (1959) found that there are nearly 1700 species of

recorded in the world out of which nearly one third occur in freshwaters. The

stracod fauna of Maharashtra is rather poor as ZSI records of

freshwater ostracods of Maharashtra includes only 38 species belonging to 15 genera

Patil and Talmale, 2005). During the present study

species of ostracods were recorded. These are Cypris

and Strandesia labiata.

Summer monsoon Winter

Fig. 5.11 : Density of Ostracodes NO./ L

Summer monsoon Winter

Fig. 5.12 : Species Richness of Ostracodes

160

em so that the aquatic fauna get more

are nearly 1700 species of ostracods

recorded in the world out of which nearly one third occur in freshwaters. The

Maharashtra is rather poor as ZSI records of

only 38 species belonging to 15 genera

study at Budki

Cypris subglobosa,

161

Table: 5.1 Seasonal Variations in density of different groups of Zooplankton (No/L) at BMIT during January, 2009to December, 2010.

(Tot. Zoo.-Total Zooplankton)

Table: 5.2 Seasonal Variations in species richness (no. of species) of different groups of Zooplankton at BMIT during January, 2009 to December, 2010.

Sr. No.

Parameters F value Summer Monsoon Winter Two Years %

1 Tot. Zoo. F2 2126.4 2371± 109 1952± 131 1271 ± 77.1

2 Rotifera. F2 21 24.1 997± 70.2 697± 74.1 383 ± 36.3 37 %

3 Cladocera. F221 25.88 717.4± 20.13 610.4± 28.34 444.3 ± 31.42 32 %

4 Copepoda. F221 14.27 571.4± 21.55 500.9± 28.76 384.8 ± 23.99 26 %

5 Ostracoda F2 21 25.71 85.63 ± 8.52 144.3± 11.20 54.00 ± 6.81 5 %

Sr. No.

Parameters F value Summer Monsoon Winter Two Years%

1 Tot. Zoo. F2 21 63.10 24.75 ± 1.03 22.75 ± 0.49 13.25± 0.70

2 Rotifera. F2 21 19.20 13.00± 0.92 11 ± 0.59 5.50 ± 1.06 49 %

3 Cladocera. F2 21 11.82 6.25 ± 0.25 5.62 ± 0.18 4.25 ± 0.41 27 %

4 Copepoda. F2 21 7.54 4.12 ± 0.29 3.12 ± 0.29 2.75 ± 0.16 16 %

5 Ostracoda F 2 2119.73 1.12 ± 0.35 3.00 ± 0.18 0.75 ± 0.25 8 %

(Tot. Zoo.-Total Zooplankton)

162

Table 5.3 Pearson correlation of total Zooplankton density along with individual group with Abiotic parameters of BMIT during January, 2009 to December, 2010.

Sr. No.

Parameter Total zooplankton

Rotifers Cladocera Copepoda Ostracoda

1 Atmospheric Temperature (AT)0C

.858** .892** .672** .803** .539**

2 Water Temperature (WT) 0C

.789** .828** .613** .731** .485*

3 Water Cover (WC) % -.770** -.814** -.676** -.697* -.160

4 Total Solids (TS) mg/L .843** .799** .764** .765** .794**

5 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L

.397 .312 .343 .365 .885**

6 Total Dissolved Solids(TDS) mg/L

.943** .938** .867** .852** .533**

7 Transparency (Trans) Cm

-.536* -448* -.530** -.460 -.850*

8 Carbon Dioxide (CO2)mg/L

.836** .811** .747** .859** .416*

9 Dissolved Oxygen(DO)mg/L

-.854* -.867* -.785** -.752** .431*

10 Chloride (CL) mg/L .849** .871** .713** .763** .530**

11 Total Hardness (TH)mg/L

.492* .580** .380 .474* -.188

12 Potentia hydrogenii (pH) .183 .291 .058 .220 -.438*

13 Nitrate (NO3) mg/L .455* .390 .421* .443* .614**

14 Phosphate (PO4) mg/L .614** .531** .536** .600** .909**

15 Sulphate (SO4) mg/L .279 .190 .242 .279 .762**

16 Calcium (Ca) mg/L .346 .410* .359 .348 -.43*

17 Magnesium (Mg) mg/L .303 .420* .161 .296 -.316

** The Pearson correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two tailed)*The Pearson correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two tailed)

163

5.4 REFERENCES

Ali, M. M., Islam, M. A. and Habib, M. A. B. (1985).Monthly abundance of

zooplankton and correlation of various dominant species and nauplius of zooplankton

with some water characters in a pond. Univ. J. Zool. Rajshahi Univ., 4. : p42-49.

Alireza, S. (1995).Biological observation of rotifer in Parisan Lake, Fars, Iran. Journal

of Environmental Biology, 16(4): p325-331.

Anna, B. and Natalia Kuczynska-Kippen. (2009). Differentiatedmacrophyte types as

a habitat for rotifers in small mid forest water bodies. J. Biologia. Biomedical and life

sciences,: p1100-1107.

Baker, R.L. (1979). Specific status of Keratella cochlearis (gosse) and K.earlinare,

Ahlstrom (Rotifera: Brachionidae), Morphological and ecological consideration.

Can.J.Zool., 57(9):p 1719-1722.

Basinska, A. and Kuczynska-Kippen, K. (2009). Differentiated macrophyte types as a

habitat for rotifers in small mid forest water bodies. J. Biologia. Biomedic Life Sci.,:

p1100-1107.

Beklioglu, M. and Moss, B. (1996). Mesocosm experiments on the interaction of

sediment influence, fish predation and aquatic plants with the structure of

phytoplankton and zooplankton communities. Freshwater Biology, 36: p315-325.

Berzens, B. and Pejler, B. (1989).Rotifer occurrences and tropical degree.

Hydrobiologia,27 :p171-180.

Beyst, B. D., Buysse, A., Dewicke and Mees, J. (2001). Surf zone hyperbenthos of

Belgian sandy beaches: seasonal patterns. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 53 :

p877-895.

Bonecker, C. C. and Lansac-Toha, F. A. (1996). Community structure of rotifers in

two environments of the upper River Parana floodplain (MS) – Brazil, Hydrobiologia,

325 : p137-150.

Bruno, B. C., Sara, C., Antunes, R. P., Amadeu, M. V. M., Soares, P. and Fernando

G. (2005). Rotifer community structure in three shallow lakes: Seasonal fluctuations

and explanatory factors. Hydrobiologia, 543 : p221-232.

Carriack, J. H. and Schelske, L. C. (1997). Have we overlooked the importance of

164

small phytoplankton in productive waters? Limnology and Ocenography, 42: p1612-

1613

Chakrapani, B. K., Krishna, M. B. and Srinivasa, T. S. (1996). A report on the water

quality, plankton and bird populations of the lakes in and around Bangalore and

Maddur, Karnataka, India. Department of Ecology and

Environment,GovernmentofKarnataka.

Chandrasekar, S.V.A (1996). Ecological studies on Saroonagarlake

,Hydrabadwithspecial reference to Zooplankton communities, Ph.D. Thesis, Osmania

University, Hydrabad.

Chandrasekhar, J. S., Babu, K. L. and Somasekar, R. K. (2003).Impact of

urbanization on Bellandur Lake, Bangalore - A case study, J. Environ. Biol., 24 (3):p

22327.

Christoferson, K., Riemann, B., Klysner, A. and Sondergaard, M. (1993).Potential

role of fish predation and natural populations of zooplankton in structuring a plankton

community in eutrophic lake water. Limnology and Ocenography, 38: p561-573.

Claes, B., Heidrun, F., Daniela, B., Barbara, S. and Maarten, B. (2004). Differential

impacts of copepods and cladocerans on lake seston, and resulting effects on

zooplankton growth. Hydrobiologia,526:p197-207

Confer, J. L. (1971).Intrazooplankton predation by Mesocyclopsedax at natural prey

densities.Limnol.Ocenogr, 16:p 663-666.

Dagmar, F., Enrique, M. and Andy, J. G. (2006).Species richness and distribution of

copepods and cladocerans and their relation to hydroperiod and other environmental

variables in Donana, south-west Spain.Hydrobiologia, 556: p327-340.

Das, P. K., Michael, R. G., and Gupta, A. (1996). Zooplankton community in

lakeTasek a tectonic lake in Garo Hills, India. Tropical Ecology, 37(2) :p257-263.

Das, S. R., Patil, S. G. and Nandi, N. C. (2005).Zooplankton diversity of wetland

ecosystems of Goa. J. Environ. And Sociobiol, 2 (1&2): p15-23.

Datta Munshi J. and Datta Munshi J. S.(1995). Fundamentals of fresh water biology,

Nanendra publishing House, New Delhi,: p222.

Davies, O. A., Abowei, J. F. N. and Otene, B. B. (2009). Seasonal abundance and

165

distribution of plankton of Minichinda stream, Niger Delta, Nigeria. Amer. J. Sci.

Res.,2 :p20-30.

Davis, C. C. (1976). Simultaneous quantitative composition of planktonic crustacean

in two New Found Land Boreal Lakes. Int. Revue., Ges. Hydrobiol, 61(6): p807-823.

Deshkar, S. L. (2008). Avifaunal diversity and ecology of wetlands in semi arid zone

of Central Gujarat with reference to their conservation and categorization . Ph. D.

Thesis submitted to the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara, India.

Devetter, M. and Sed’a, J. (2003).Rotifer fecundity in relation to components of

microbial food web in a eutrophic reservoir. Hydrobiologia,504 : p167-175.

Dhanapathi, M.V.S.S.S Taxonomic notes on The Rotifers from India, (1889-2000).

Dodson, S. I. and Frey, D. G. (2001).Cladocera and other Branchiopoda. In Thorp, J.

H. and Covich, A. P. (eds), Ecology and classification of North American Freshwater

Invertebrates, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, San Francisco, p 849-913.

Donald, D. B., Vinebrooke, R. D., Anderson R. S., Syrgiannis, J. and Graham, M. D.

(2001). Recovery of zooplankton assemblages in mountain wetlands from the effects

of introduced sport fish. Canadian Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58:p1822

- 1830.

Dumont H. J. (1986). The Tanganyika sardine in Lake Kivu: another eco-disaster for

Africa? Environmental Conservation,13 (2):p 143-148

Dutrochet, M. (1812), Recherchessurles rotifères. Annales du

Muséumd'histoirenaturelle, Paris : p l-18.

Edmondson, W. T. (1946). Factors in the dynamics of rotifer populations. Ecol.

Monogr, 16:p 357-372.

Edmondson, W. T. (1963). Freshwater biology, 2nd edn.John Wiley and sons. New

York, USA.

Edmondson, W. T. (1965). Reproductive rates of planktonic rotifers as related to food

and temperature in nature, Ecol. Monogr,35 : p 61 -111.

Ekhande, A. P. (2010). Hydrobiological studies of Yashwant Lake with special

reference to selected biodiversity. Ph. D. Thesis submitted to the Maharaja Sayajirao

University of Baroda, Vadodara, India.

166

Escribano, R. and Hidalgo, P. (2000). Spatial distribution of copepods in the North of

the Humbolt current region off Chile during coastal up dwelling. Journal of the

Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 80:p283-290.

Fabio, A. L., Luis, M. B., Luis, F. M., Claudia, C. B., Erica, M. T. and Ludgero, C. G.

(2008).Temporal coherence of zooplankton abundance in a tropical

reservoir.Hydrobiologia, 596:p176-181.

Figuerola, J., Green, A. J. and Santamaria, L. (2003).Passive internal transport of

aquatic organisms by waterfowl in Donana, south-west Spain. Global ecology and

Biogeography, 12: p427-436.

Forester, R. M. (1983). Relationship of two lacustrine Ostracod species to solute

composition and salinity: Implications for paleohydrochemistry. Geology, 11: p 435-

438.

Forro, L., Korovchinsky, N. M., Kotov, A. A. and Petrusek, A. (2007).Global

diversity of cladocerans (Cladocera; Crustacea) in freshwater.Hydrobiologia,

595:p105-124.

Frey, D.G. (1967) .Phylogenetic relationships in the family Chydoridae

(Cladocera).Mar. Biol.Assoc. Indian, Proc. Symposium on Crustacea, Part I.: p29-37

Gannon, J. E. and Stemberger, R. S. (1978).Zooplankton (Especially crustaceans and

Rotifers) as indicators of water quality. Trans. Amer. Micros. Soc., 97 (1): p16 - 35.

Geoff, A. B. and Danielle, D. (2007). Global diversity of Copepods

(Crustacea:Copepoda) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia, 595:p145-164.

Geoff, A., Boxhall, Danielle Defaye (2008). Global diversity of copepods (Crustacea:

Copepoda) in freshwater. In E. V. Balian, C. Lévêque, H. Segers& K.

Martens."Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment".Hydrobiologia,595 (1):p 195–

207.

Gillooly, J. F. (2000). Effect of body size and temperature on generation time in

zooplankton. J. Plankton Res, 22(2):p 241-251.

Giselle, V. T. and Bruce, R. F. (2007).Relationships among nitrogen and total

phosphorus, algal biomass and zooplankton density in the central Amazonia

lakes.Hydrobiologia., 595:p177-195.

167

Goldman, C. R. and Horne, A. J. (1983).Limnology. McGraw Hill Book Co., New

York, : p 464.

Goswami, C. S. and Selvakumar, R. A. (1977). Plankton studies in the Eustarine

system. Geo Proc. Syarp. Warm water.Zoopl.Spl. Publ. UNESCOLNIO, p226-241.

Goswami, S.C. (2004). Zooplankton methodology, collection and identification–a

field manual.National Institute of Oceanography, First Edition.

Griffith, H. I. and Holmes, J.A.(2000).Non marine ostracods and Quaternary

paleoenvironments, Technical Guide No. 8. Quaternary Research Association,

London, : p188.

Hampton, S. E. and Gilbert, J. J. (2001).Observations of insect predation on

rotifers.Hydrobiologia, 446/447: p115-121.

Hendrik, S. (2007).Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment.Global diversity of

rotifers (Rotifera) in freshwater.Hydrobiologia, 595:p245-256.

Hillbricht-Ilkowska, A. (1977). Trophic relations and energy flow in pelagic

plankton. Polish Ecological Studies, 3: p3-98.

Howick, G. I., and Wilhm, J. (1984). Zooplankton and benthic macroinvertebrates in

Lake Carl Blackwell.Proccedings of Okla Academy of Science, 64:p 63-65.

Hujare, M. S. (2005). Hydrobiologial studies of some water reservoirs of

HatkanangaleTahsil (Maharashtra). PhD thesis submitted to Shivaji University,

Kolhapur, India.

Hurlbert, S. H. (1971). The non-concept of species diversity: a critique and alternative

parameters. Ecology, 52:p 577-586.

Imoobe, T.O.T. and Akoma, O.C. (2008).Assessment of Zooplankton Community

Structure of the Bahir Dar Gulf of Lake Tana, Ethiopia.Ethiopian Journal of

Environmental Studies and Management,:p68-89.

Jackson, D. F. (1961).Comparative studies on phytoplankton photosynthesis in

relation to total alkalinity.Verhandl.Intern. Ver. Limnol., 14: p125-133.

Jeppensen, E., Jensen, J. P., Sondergaard, M. and Lauridsen, T. L. (1999).Trophic

dynamics in turbid and Clearwater lakes with special emphasis on the role of

zooplankton for water clarity.Hydrobiologia, 408/409:p217-231.

168

Jorge, J. C., Sarma, S. S., Martin, M. and Nandini, S. (2009). Seasonal changes in the

rotifer (Rotifera) diversity from a tropical high altitude reservoir (Valle de Bravo,

Mexico). J. Environ. Biol, 30(2): p191-195.

Kasprzak, P. and Koschel, R. (2000).Lake trophic state, community structure and

biomass of crustacean plankton.Verhandlungen der InternationalenVereinigung fur

Limnologie, 27: p773-777.

Kaushik, S. and Sharma, N. (1994).Physico-chemical characteristics and zooplankton

population of a perennial tank, MatsyaSarowar, Gwalior. Environment and Ecology,

12(2):p 429-434.

Kedar, G.T., Patil, G.P. and Yeole, S.M. (2008).Effect of physic-chemical factors on

the seasonal abundance of zooplankton population in Rishi Lake.The 12th world Lake

conference, : p88-91.

Kerfoot, W. C.(1980). Perspectives on cyclomorphosis: Separation of phenotypes and

genotypes. In W. C. Kerfoot, ed. Evolution and Ecology of zooplankton

communities. Univ. Press New England, Hanover, NH, p : 470-496.

Kuczynska-Kippen, N. (2000). Seasonal changes of the rotifer community in the

littoral zone of a polymictic lake. Verh.Internat.Verein.Limnol., 27:p 29642967

Kudari, V.A., Kadadevaru, G.G. and Kanamadi, R.D.(2005).Zooplankton

composition in ponds of Haveri district, Karnataka, Zoos Print Journal, 20

(12):p2094-2099.

Mahajan, C. L. (1981). Zooplankton as indicators for assessment of water pollution,

WHO workshop on biological indicators of an indices of Environmental pollution.

Central Bd. Prew.Cont. poll/OSM Univ. Hydrabad, : p135-148.

Maier, G. (1994). Patterns of life history among cyclopoid copepods of centr

Europe.Freshwater Biol., 31: p77-86.

Majagi, S. and Vijaykumar, K. (2009).Ecology and abundance of zoolplankton in

Karanja reservoir. Environ. Monit.Assess., 152:p 451 - 458.

Martens, K., Schon, I., Meisch, C. & Horne, D. J.(2008). Global diversity of ostracods

(Ostracoda, Crustacea) in freshwater.SpringerLink, 595 (1): p185–193.

Michael, R. G. (1969). Seasonal trend in physico-chemical factors and plankton of

169

freshwater fish pond and their role in fish culture.Hydrobiologia, 33:p 144-160.

Mitrofanova, E. Yu. (2000). Phytoplankton of Teletskoye Lake (Mountainous Altai,

Russia) Extended abstract of Cand. Sci.(Biol.) Dissertation, Moscow.p58-77.

Moss, B. (1994).Brackish and freshwater shallow wetlands- different systems or

variations on the same theme.Hydrobiologia, 275/276: p1-14.

Mourguiart, P. H. and Carbonel, P. (1994). A quantitative method of palaeolake-

level reconstruction using ostracod assemblages: an example from the Bolivian

Altiplano. Hydrobiologia, 288: p183-193.

Osamu Shimomura (2006). The ostracodCypridina (Vargula) and other luminous

crustaceans. Bioluminescence: Chemical Principles and Methods. World Scientific,

p 47–89.

Paterson, M.J. (2001). Ecological monitoring and assessment network (EMAN)

protocols for measuring biodiversity: zooplankton in fresh waters. EMAN

protocols.p45-62.

Patil, S. G. and Panda, P. (2003).Limnological studies of freshwater fish tank in

Bibinagar, Hyderabad, Part II. Rotifera. Rec. Zool. Surv. India, 101(1-2): p101-106.

Patil, S. G. and Talmale, S. S. (2005). The fresh water Ostracoda. Fauna of

Nathsagar Wetland, Zool. Surv. India, Wetland Ecosystem Series, 7: p63-75.

Patil, J.V.(2011). Study of selected faunal Biodiversity of Toranmal area, Toranmal

Reserve Forest. Ph.D. thesis, submitted to M.S. University of Baroda , Vadodara

(Gujarat), India.

Patrick, R. (1973). The effect of increasing light and temperature on the structure of

diatom communities. Limnology Ocenography, 16: p405-421.

Pennak, R. W. (1946).The dynamics of freshwater plankton populations. Ecological

Monographs, 16 (4):p 35-339.

Pennak, R. W. (1978). Freshwater invertebrates of the United States, 2nd Ed. New

York: John Wiley and Sons.p25-255.

Pinto-Coelho, R., Pinel-Alloul, B., Méthot, G. and Havens, K.E. (2005). Crustacean

zooplankton in lakes and reservoirs of temperate and tropical regions: variation with

trophic status. Can. J. Fish.Aquat. Sci., 62:p 348-361.

170

Philipose, M. T. 1967. Chlorococcales, ICAR, New Delhi, : p 356.

Ramchandra, T. V., Kiran, A., Ahylaya, N. and Deepa, R. S. (2002).Status of

wetlands of Banglore.Technical Report 86.Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.:p 1-

110-

Rane, P. D. (2002). Cladocera: Crustacea, fauna of Ujani wetland, wetland ecosystem

series, Zool.Surv. India, 3: p71-85.

Rey, D. S., Macrina, T. Z. and Reiner, E. (2011).Spatio-temporal variation of the

zooplankton community in a tropical caldera lake with intensive aquaculture (Lake

Taal, Philipines).Hydrobiologia, :p215-228.

Richard, C. Brusca & Gary J. Brusca (2003). Invertebrates (2nd ed.).

SinauerAssociates,ISBN 978-0-87893-097-5.

Robert, D. Barnes (1982).Invertebrate Zoology.Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Holt-

Saunders International, : p 683–692.

Sampaio, E. V., Rocha, O., Matsumura, T. T. and Tundisi, J. G. (2002). Composition

and abundance of zooplankton in the limnetic zone of seven reservoirs of the Parana

Panemariver Brazil. Brazilian J. Biol., 62:p 525-545.

Santhanam, P. and Perunal (2003).Diversity of zooplankton in Parangipettaicostal

waters, south east cost of India.J Mar. bio.Ass.India, 45(2): p144-151.

Sarkar, S. K. and Chaudhary, B. (1999).Role of some environmental factors on the

fluctuations of plankton in a lentic pond at Calcutta.Limnological research in

India.Daya publishing house, : p 108-130.

Sarode, P. T. and Kamat, N. D. (1984). Freshwater diatoms of Maharashtra.

Saikrupa Prakashan, Aurangabad.: p338.

Schroder, T.( 2005). Diapauses in monogonont rotifers.Hydrobiologia, 546:p 291-

306.

Segers, H. (2007). A global checklist of the rotifers (phylum Rotifera).Zootaxa, 1564:

: p1-104

Sharma, B. K. and Sharma, S. (2009). Microcrustacea (Crustacea: Branchiopoda) of

Deepor Beel, Assam, India: richness, abundance and ecology. Journal of Threatened

Taxa., 1(8): p 411-418.

171

Sharma, N. and Sahai, Y. N.(1988). Laboratory culture of fish food Daphnia cosinata

(king) cladocerans.Limnologic, 21:p 275-278.

Shurin, J. (2000). Dispersal limitation, invasion resistance, and the structure of pond

Zooplankton communities. Ecology, 81(11):p 3074-3086.

Singh, D. N. (2000).Seasonal variation of zooplankton in a tropical lake.Geobios.,

27(2-3):p 97-100.

Swar, D. B. and Fernando, C. H. (1980). Some studies on the ecology of limnetic

crustacean zooplankton in lakes Begnas and Rupa, Pokhara Valley, Nepal.

Hydrobiologia, 70: p235 -245.

Thorpe, H. J. and Covich, P. A. (1991).Ecology and classification of North American

Invertebrates. Academic Press, Inc. California, London.:p87-98.

Thurman, H. V. (1997). Introductory Oceanography. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall

College. ISBN 0-13-262072-3.

Tonapi,G.T.(1980).Fresh water animals of India, Oxford and IBH. Publ. Co.,New

Delhi, : p341.

Venkataraman, K. (1990). Life-history studies on some Cladocera under laboratory

conditions. Journal of the Andaman Science Association, Port Blair, 6: p127-132.

Verma, P. K. and Munshi, D. (1987).Plankton community structure of Badua

reservoir, Bhagalpur (India). Tropical Ecology, 28: p200-207.

Wallace, R. L., Snell, T. W., Ricci, C. and Nogrady, T. (2006). Rotifer: Biology,

Ecology and Systematic (2nd edition). In: Segers H., and Dumont, H. J. (eds). Guides

to the identification of the Microinvertebrates of the Continental waters of the world,

23(1).Kenobi Productions.Gent, Belgium and Backhuys, Academic Publishing BV.

The Hague, The Netherlands.

Watanabele, T., Ketajima, C. and Fujita, S. (1993). Nutritional values of five

organisms used in Japan for mass propagation of fish: A review. Aquaculture, 34:

p115-143.

Wetzel, R. G. (2001). Limnology: Lakes and reservoir ecosystem Academic Press

Burlington, : p 1006.

Wetzel, R. G. (2006). Limnology. Lake and River Ecosystems, Third edition original

172

ISBN: 0-12-744760-1.

William, A. D. and Joseph, T. (1991).The role of abiotic factors in community

organization. Am. Nat, 138: p1067-109.

Zuykova, E. I., Sheveleva, N. G. and Evstigneeva, T. D.( 2009). The seasonal and

interannual dynamics of zooplankton in lakeTeletskoye. Inland Water Biol., 2(3):p

234-246.

Websites

http://books.google.com/books? Id=DNrTfH5PcWoc and pg=pa49

http://dx.org/10.1007/S10750-007-9014-4.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladocera.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotifer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooplankton

http://eqbde.

http://Link, Springer.com/article/10-1007/S0750-007-9245-4.

http://special.Booksources/978-0-87893-097-5

http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/water/paper/Tr-115/ref.htm

http://www.rotifera.hausdernatur.at/Species/Index/665

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/arthropoda/crustacea/maxillopoda/ostracoda.html.

173

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Physico-chemical Parameters

The Budki M. I. Tank (Dam) at a distance of about 1Km to the north of village

Budki Taluka-Shirpur, Dist. Dhule, Maharashtra was selected for the research work.

The water from the tank is perennial and is utilized for irrigation, agricultural,

domestic and drinking purpose as well as for pisciculture. Therefore the present work

was carried out for a period of two years to evaluate the physic-chemical parameters

and planktonic diversity which influence the water quality.

Various physic-chemical parameters are known to show significant seasonal

variations. During present study of BMIT, water temperature and atmospheric

temperature showed a range of fluctuations in accordance to each other as well as the

season, with maximum recorded in summer and minimum in winter. The water cover;

which depends principally on monsoon (rainy season) in Indian climatic conditions

and determines the littoral formation; showed seasonal fluctuations. It was maximum

in monsoon due to input of water through streams continued after the rains were over,

while minimum in summer because of evaporation due to warmer temperature as well

as utilization of water for various purpose over the year. Similarly, the total solids

(TS) that comprise of total suspended solids(TSS) and total dissolved solids (TDS),

also showed seasonal variations. TS and TSS were maximum in monsoon showing

effect of mixing due to rain runoff and minimum in winter. The transparency was

recorded maximum in winter and minimum in monsoon when water runoff along with

suspended solids was brought to BMIT disturbing the settled solids.

Among the chemical parameters, pH was maximum in summer and minimum

in monsoon but remained alkaline all throughout the study period. Dissolved Oxygen

(DO) was maximum in winter and minimum in summer while free CO2 showed

opposite trend which was maximum in summer and minimum in winter. Total

hardness was maximum in summer and minimum in monsoon. Chloride contents of

Budki dam were maximum in summer and minimum in winter, the values of chlorides

are below the limit by ISI. The nutrients studied Nitrates (NO3-) and Phosphate (PO4

-

3) were maximum in monsoon and minimum recorded in winter, while Calcium (Ca)

and Magnesium(Mg) both were recorded maximum in summer and minimum in

monsoon. Sulphates (SO4) recorded maximum in monsoon and minimum in winter.

174

Thus, the physic-chemical parameters showed significant seasonal fluctuations

due to climatic conditions indicating that it was the cumulative effect of climate

which governs the abiotic components of the dam. Most of the physico-chemical

parameters of Budki dam were within the permissible limits as per WHO and ISI

standards of drinking water. However, various anthropogenic activities may influence

the water of Budki in future therefore, conservation point of view, regular monitoring

should be carried out.

Phytoplankton

The chapters 4 and 5 deal with details about the study of planktonic diversity

with their density and species richness, their correlations with abiotic and other biotic

components. The Phytoplankton, being the primary producers, form the basis of

aquatic food chain and play an important role in maintaining the equilibrium between

living and nonliving factors. Significant seasonal variations were recorded for the

density and species richness of total phytoplankton with maximum density and

species richness recorded in summer while minimum in monsoon and winter

respectively.

Maximum density of phytoplankton noted at BMIT in summer may be

attributed to maximum day length and higher temperature as is reported to stimulate

growth of the aquatic autotrophs. Additional, the water level decreases in summer

under Indian climatic conditions, the phytoplankton aggregate resulting in their

increased density. The four groups of phytoplankton studied quantitatively and

qualitatively followed a decreasing order sequence as Bacillariophyceae,

Chlorophyceae, Cyanophyceae and Euglenophyceae. In Budki dam total 59 species

belonging to 38 genera of phytoplankton were recorded during the investigation of

which 30 belong to Bacillariophyceae, 14 to Chlorophyceae, 9 to Cyanophyceae and 6

to Euglenophyceae. The Bacillariophyceae appeared the most dominant group which

was recorded maximum in summer and minimum in monsoon. While densities of

members of Euglenophceae the smallest represented group were maximum in

monsoon and minimum in winter. Maximum density and richness of Cyanophyceae

and Chlorophyceae were recorded in winter while minimum in monsoon. The species

richness of total phytoplankton showed decrease with the onset of monsoon, reaching

minimum species richness in winter when temperature and sunlight were minimum.

175

In short the exogenous factors such as addition of rain water and silt may tend to

disrupt equilibrium dynamics in monsoon while stable conditions of water in summer

with change in temperature and photoperiod influence phytoplankton positively.

Various abiotic factors were significantly, non-significantly, positively or negatively

correlated at the level of 0.05 and 0.01 (two tailed) with the phytoplankton. Hence, it

can be concluded that it is the cumulative effect of physico-chemical parameters of

BMIT which influences the phytoplankton density and species richness.

Zooplankton

Zooplankton comprise an important constituent of fresh water ecosystems and

their central place in food chain and webs. They are transferring energy and matter

from primary producers to higher trophic levels such as fish. At Budki dam

maximum density and species richness of total zooplankton were recorded in summer

while minimum in winter. The warm surface water temperature and maximum

alkaline pH of water of Budki dam in summer is ideal for the zooplankton thus these

condition leads to higher density and richness. The highest density of total

phytoplankton in summer creates favorable conditions for the herbivorous

zooplankton as well. Moreover, during summer the littoral vegetation is exposed

creating the best habitat for zooplankton particularly for rotifers which formed the

major quantitative and qualitative components (37 % and 49 % respectively) of total

zooplankton at BMIT. The density of total zooplankton was negatively significantly

correlated with water cover and transparency. This physical factor may be attributed

to the maximum density of total zooplankton in summer, when due to higher rate of

evapo-transpiration the water cover as well as level decline and the zooplankton get

concentrated. The lower water temperature of winter probably also causes low

abundance of zooplankton. Compared to monsoon a slow rise in total zooplankton

density is noted at BMIT during winter an effect of stabilizing water level. Thus, the

seasonal variations in total density of zooplankton were significant at study site and a

positive correlation was noted between water temperature and zooplankton density.

The zooplankton were recorded qualitatively and quantitatively in the

decreasing sequence as Rotifers, Cladocerans, Copepods and Ostracodes. Total 51

species belonging to 30 genera of zooplankton were recorded at Budki dam of which

28 species belonged to Rotifera, 12 to Cladocera, 7 to Copepoda and 4 to Ostracoda.

176

The present study indicates that Budki dam supports to good diversity of

Phytoplankton and Zooplankton and the water is also not polluted.

BMIT water supports good planktonic diversity, such as density and species

richness of phytoplankton with Bacillariophyceae and Zooplankton with Rotifera,

while the group such as Euglenophyta and Ostracoda the least. The study area is not

yet polluted, but BMIT water is utilized for human activities and domestic purposes.

If care is not taken it may soon undergo deterioration and develop into a deteriorated

habitat.

Water scarcity problem is becoming serious day by day including Budki

Medium Irrigation Tank. It is the only permanent water body in this area. It forms a

chief life supporting system in the area. It fulfills the domestic requirement of water

of Budki and Boradi village. Hence, it was felt necessary to monitor abiotic and

biotic components (which may affect water quality) of this undocumented water body

and its surrounding area. It is expected to increase human interference in future and

may create adverse impact on biodiversity due to deterioration. Hence to generate

scientific baseline data set the present work was undertaken. Though the population of

the village is less but their washing and bathing activities are carried out in BMIT.

The result of present study is positive. If the load of pollution and anthropogenic

activities increases in the area in future, proper steps need to be taken to maintain and

manage the ecosystem. The baseline information so collected in the study of Budki

M.I.Tank can be utilized for the conservation and management of the dam.

177

ANNEXURE I

Phytoplanktons of Budki M.I.Tank observed during

January, 2009 to December, 2010.

A) Cyanophyceae (Bluegreen algae)

Class- Cyanophyceae

Order- Synechococcales

Family- Merismopediaceae

Subfamily- Merismopedioideae

Genus-Aphanocapsa

1. Aphanocapsa montana Cramer

Order-Chroococcales

Family- Microcystaceae

Genus- Microcystis

2. Microcystis viridis A.Br. Lemm

Order- Oscillatoriales

Family- Oscillatoriaceae

Genus-Spirulina

3. Spirulina subtilissma Kuetz

Genus- Osciiiatoria

4. Oscillatoria limosa (Ag)

5. Oscillatoria brevis (Kuetz) Gomont

Genus- lyngbya

6. Lyngbya bergei Smith

Family-Phormidiaceae

Genus-Phordium

7. Phormidium ambigum (Gomont)

Order-Nostocales

Family-Nostocaceae

Genus- Nostoc

8. Nostac spongiaeformae (Vaucher)

Genus- Anabaena

9. Anabaena amphique Rao C. B.

178

B) Chlorophyceae (Green algae)

Class- Chlorophyceae

Order- Volvocales

Family-Volvocaceae

Genus -Volvox

1. Volvox sp.Bold

Genus- Eudorina

2. Eudorina sp

Order- Ulotrichales

Family- Ulotrichaeae

Genus-Ulothrix

3. Ulothrix fibriate Bold

4. Ulothrix aqualis Kuetz

Family-Microsporaceae

Genus-Microspora

5. Microspora indica Radhwa

Order-Oedogoniales

Family-Oedogoniaceae

Genus- Oedogonium

6. Oedogonium sp Bold

7. Bulbochaetae sp

Order- Chlorococcales

Family-Hydrodictyaceae

Genus- Pediastrum

8. Pediastrum simplex (Meyen)

9. Pediastrum duplex Meyen

Order-Conjugales

Family- Zygnemaceae

Genus- Spirogyra

10. Spirogyra hyalina (Cleve)

11. Spirogyra biformis Jao

Family-Desmidiaceae

Genus- Closterium

12 Closterium acerosum (Schr.) Ehr

179

13 Cosmerium anatinum Cooke

Genus- Staurastrum

14 Staurastrum spp

C) Bacillariophyceae(Diatoms)

Class -Bacillariophyceae

Order -Mastogloiales

Family -Mastogloiaceae

Genus- Mastoglia

1. Mastoglia baltica Grun.

Class -Coscinodiscophyceae

Order- Melosirales

Family- Melosiraceae

Genus- Melosira

2. Melosira islandica (O. Muell)

Class -Fragilariophyceae

Order -Fragilariales

Family -Fragilariaceae

Genus -Synedra

3. Synedra affinis Kuetz

4. Synedra acus (Kuetz)

Genus- Asterionella

5. Asterionella spp

Genus -Fragilaria

6. Fragilaria construens Ehr. Grun

7. Fragilaria zafarii Sarode Kamat

8. Fragilaria rumpens Kuetz Carl.

Class- Bacillariophyceae

Order- Naviculales

Family- Pleurosigmataceae

Genus- Gyrosigma

9. Gyrosigma accuminatum Kuetz

Family- Amphipleuraceae

Genus- Frustulia

180

10. Frustulia spp Kuetz

Family- Naviculaceae

Genus- Navicula

11. Navicula papula Kuetz.

12. Navicula cuspidate Kuetz.

13. Navicula rhynchocephala Kuetz

14. Navicula viridula Kuetz

Family- Neidiaceae

Genus-Neidium

15. Neidium longiceps Grey A. Cl. V.

Family- Pinnulariaceae

Genus- Pinnularia

16. Pinnularia interrupta W. Smith

17. Pinnularia vidarbhensis Sarode Kamat

Family- Stauroneidaceae

Genus- Stauroneis

18. Stauroneis obtuse Lagerst. V.

Order- Thalassiophysales

Family- Catenulaceae

Genus- Amphora

19. Amphora ovalis. Kuetz

Order- Rhopalodiales

Family- Rhopalodiaceae

Genus- Rhopalodia

20. Rhopalodia gibba Her O. Muell

Order- Surirellales

Family- Surirellaceae

Genus- Surirella

21. Surirella capronii Breb.

22. Surirella robusta Ehr.

23. Surirella sabsalsa W. Smith

Order - Cymbellales

Family- Cymbellaceae

181

Genus- Cymbella

24. Cymbella ventricosa Kuetz

25. Cymbella gracilis (Rabh.) Cleve

26. Cymbella aspera (Ehr.) Cleve

Family- Gomphonemataceae

Genus- Gomphonema

27. Gomphonema gracile Ehr.

28. Gomphonema intricatum Kuetz

Order- Bacillariales

Family- Bacillariaceae

Genus- Nitzschia

29. Nitzschia maharastrensis Sarode et. Kamat

30. Nitzschia jalgaonesis Sarode et. Kama

D) Euglenophyceae

Phylum- Euglenozoa

Class - Euglenoidea

Order - Euglenales

Family - Euglenaceae

Genu s- Euglena

1. Euglena spirogyra Her.

2. Euglena gaumei

3. Euglena clavata

4. Euglena fusca (Kiebs) Lemm

Genus - Phacus

5. Phacus longicauda Her Duj

6. Phacus pyrum (Ehrenb) Stein.

182

ANNEXURE - II

Zooplankton of Budki M.I.Tank observed during

January, 2009 to December, 2010

A. Rotifera

Phylum - Rotifera (Pennak, 1953)

Class - Monogonota (Remane, 1933)

Order – Ploimida (Delage, 1997)

Family – Brachionidae ((Ehrenberg, 1938)

Sub-family – Brachioninae

Genus – Brachionus (Pallas, 1938)

1. Brachionous caudatus personatus (Ahlstrom 1940)

2. Brachionous plicatilis (Muller, 1786)

3. Brachionou sbidentata (Anderson, 1889)

4. Brachionous qudridentatus (Hermann, 1783)

5. Brachionous fulcatus(Zacharias, 1898)

6. Brachionous diversicornis (Daday, 1883)

7. Brachionou splicatilis (Muller, 1786)

8. Brachionou sforficula (Wierzejski, 1891)

9. Brachionous caliciflorus (Pallas, 1776)

10. Brachionous havanaensis (Illinois)

11. Brachionous urceolaris (Muller, 1773)

Genus – Keratella (Bory de St. Vincent, 1822)

12. Keratella cockleris (Gosse, 1851)

13. Keratella procurva (Thorpe, 1891)

14. Keratella tropica (Apstein, 1907)

Genus- Platyias

15. Platyias quadricorniz(Ehrb., 1832)

Family- Colurellidae

Genus-Lapadella

16 Lapadella patella (Muller, 1786)

17 Lapadella ovalis (Muller, 1786)

Family – Lecanidae

Genus – Lecane (Nitzsch, 1827)

18 Lacana luna (Muller, 1776)

183

19 Lacana ohioensis(Herrick, 1885)

Genus – Monostyla (Ehrenberg, 1830)

20 Monostyla bulla (Gosse, 1851)

21 Monostyla lunaris(Ehrb., 1832)

Family – Trichofercidae

Genus – Trichocera (Lamarck, 1801)

22 Trichocera cylindrical species

Family – Asplanchnidae

Genus – Asplanchna (Gosse, 1850)

23 Asplanchna priodonta (Gosse, 1850)

Order – Flosculariacea

Family – Filinidae

Genus – Filina (Bory de St. Vincent, 1824)

24 Filina opaliensis (Zach, 1898)

25 Filin alogesita (Ehrb., 1834)

26 Filina pegleri ( Hutchinson, 1964)

Family – Testudinellidae

Genus – Testudinella (Bory de Vincent, 1826)

27 Testidunella mucranata (Gosse,1886)

Class – Bdelloidea (Dujardin, 1841)

Order – Bdelloida

Family – Philodinidae (Ehrb., 1838)

Genus – Rotaria (Scapoli, 1777)

28 Rotaria rotatoria (pallas,1776)

B. Cladocera

Phylum – Arthropoda

Class – Crustacea (Pennant, 1777)

Order – Cladocera (Latreille, 1829)

Family – Sididae (Baird, 1850)

Genus – Diaphanosoma (Fischer, 1850)

29 Diphanosoma sarsi (Richard,1895)

Family – Daphniidae( Straus, 1820)

Genus – Ceriodaphnia (Dana, 1853)

184

30 Ceriodaphnia cornuta (Sars, 1888)

31 Ceriodaphnia reticulate (Jurine,1820)

Genus – Simocephalus (Schodler, 1858)

32 Simocephalus exspinosus (Koch,1841)

Family – Moinidae (Goulden, 1968)

Genus – Moina (Baird, 1850)

33 Moina micrura (Kurz., 1874)

34 Moina brachiata (Jurine,1820)

Family – Bosminidae (Norman and Brady, 1867)

Genus – Bosmina (Baird, 1843)

35 Bosmina longirostris. (Muller, 1776)

Family – Macrothricidae (Norman and Brady, 1867)

Genus – Macrothrix

36 Microthrix spinosa (King, 1853)

Family – Chydoridae (Stebbing, 1902)

Sub-Family – Chydorinae

Genus – Chydorus (Leach, 1843)

37 Chydorus spp.

Sub-Family – Aloninae (Frey, 1967)

Genus – Alona (Baird, 1850)

38 Alona rectangula (Sars, 1862)

Genus – Acroperus (Baird, 1843)

39 Acroperus pulchella (King,1853)

Genus – Indialona (Petkovaski, 1966)

40 Indialona ganpati (Petkovaski, 1966)

C. Copepoda

Phylum – Arthropoda

Class – Maxillopoda (Dahl, 1956)

Sub-Class – Copepoda (Milne – Edwards, 1840)

Order – Calanoida (Sars, 1903)

Family – Diaptomidae (Baird, 1850)

Sub-Family – Diaptominae (Kiefer, 1932)

Genus-Allodiaptomus (Kiefer, 1932)

185

41 Allodiaptomus raoi membranigera(Brehm,1953)

Genus – Diaptomus (Westwood, 1836)

42 Diaptmus species (Westwood, 1836)

Order – Cyclopoida (Burmeister, 1834)

Family – Cyclopidae (Dana, 1853)

Sub-Family – Eucyclopinae (Kiefer, 1929)

Genus – Ectocyclops (Brady, 1904)

43 Ectocyclops phaleratus (Koch,1838).

Genus – Cyclops (Muller, 1770)

44 Cyclops ladakanus (Kiefer, 1936)

Genus – Mesocyclops (Claus, 1830)

45 Mesocyclops hyalinus (Rehberg, 1880)

46 Mesocyclops leuckarti (Claus, 1857)

Genus – Microcyclops (Claus, 1893)

47 Microcyclops bicolor (Sars, 1863)

D. Ostracoda

Phylum – Arthropoda

Class – Crustacea (Pennant, 1777)

Sub-Class – Ostracoda (Latrielle, 1806)

Order – Podocopida (Muller, 1894)

Family – Cyprididae (Baird, 1845)

Sub-Family – Cypridinae (Baird, 1845)

Genus – Cypris (O.F. Muller, 1776)

48 Cypris subglobosa (Sowerby, 1840)

Genus – Eucypris (Vavra, 1891)

49 Eucypris spp.

Genus Hemicypris (Sars, 1903)

50 Hemicypris anomala (Klie, 1938)

51 Strandesia labiata

Available online at www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com

Scholars Research Library

Archives of Applied Science Research, 2013, 5 (3):112-116

(http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com/archive.html)

ISSN 0975-508X

CODEN (USA) AASRC9

112

Scholars Research Library

Hydrochemical study of water from Budaki Medium Irrigation Tank, Shirpur, Dist. Dhule

(Maharashtra)

*Agale M. C. and #Patel N. G.

*Deptt. of Zoology, R.C. Patel Arts, Commerce and Science, Shirpur, Dist. Dhule (M.S.) #P.G. & Research Centre, Deptt. of Zoology, Pratap College, Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon (M.S.)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT

Nobody has done assessment of water quality of Budaki M.I. tank even though it is utilized for pisciculture,

irrigation and domestic purposes. It is an urgent need to assess the quality of water. The Physico-chemical

parameters of Budaki M.I. tank were studied during Jan. to Dec. 2010, from four different sites. The results revealed

that there was a significant seasonal variation in same physico-chemical parameters. The Water temperature ranges

from 19°C to 29°C, Total Solids 146 to 211mg/l ,Total Dissolved Solids 118 to 170 mg/l, PH 7.1 to 8.3 mg/l,

Hardness 118 to 219 mg/l, Nitrates 0.22 to 0.48 mg/l, Phosphate 3.1 to 9.1 mg/l, Calcium 7 to 35 mg/l, Magnesium

6 to 28 mg/l. Above values are within the acceptable limits of drinking water ,hence the water is potable and

suitable for various purposes.

Key words: Budaki M.I. Tank, Physico-chemical Parameters, Water quality, Water Pollution

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

Water is very important life supporting material. We depend on water for domestic needs, irrigation, sanitation and

disposal of wastes. Normally water in nature is never pure in chemical sense. In Water natural impurities are in very

low amounts, but due to industrial growth and urbanization many unwanted substances are introduced in water and

it are polluted. Polluted water is turbid, bad smelling, unpleasant and unfit for drinking and other purposes. It may

cause many diseases and is harmful to human being. Lakes, dams, rivers are important source of fresh water. The

quality of water is described by its physical, chemical and microbial characteristics. But, if some correlations were

possible among these parameters, then significant ones would be fairly useful to indicate the quality of water [21].

Many researchers have done studies on physicochemical and biological characteristics of river dam and Lake Water

[19, 22, and 25].

Study area

The Ambad nallah is a medium size irrigation tank, constructed on the junction of Ambad and Sossniya nallah near

village Budaki at a distance of about 1 km to the north of village Budaki taluka Shirpur, Dist- Dhule (M.S.). It was

constructed in 1977; it is situated at 21˚-32 �-00 latitude and 74°-52�-30 longitudes and higher at 326 above MSL in

the North Maharashtra. Its North-South linear width is 7.75 m while East-West length is 1500 m. The Catchments

area of the project is 38.85 Sq. Km. The water from the tank is perennial and is utilized for irrigation and drinking

purpose as well as for pisciculture. The water from this dam is also utilized by the tribal for domestic purpose, cattle,

and some amount is utilized for agriculture. A large number of major and minor carps are bred by tribal peoples.

Available online at www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com

Scholars Research Library

European Journal of Zoological Research, 2013, 2 (3):8-16 (http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com/archive.html)

ISSN: 2278–7356

�

8

Scholars Research Library

Study of seasonal variations of Phytoplankton and their correlation with physicochemical

parameters of Budaki Medium Irrigation Tank, Shirpur. Dist.Dhule(M.S.) India.

Agale, M. C.1., Patil J. V

2., and Patel, N.G

3.

1R.C.Patel Arts , Commerce and Science College. Dist. Dhule (M.S.) India. SVS’s Dadasaheb Rawal

College, Dondaicha. Dist. Dhule (M.S.) India. 2Department of Zoology Research And P.G Centre, Pratap College Amalner, Dist-Jalgaon (M.S.) India.

________________________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT

Seasonal variation of Phytoplankton density and species richness was studied of Budaki Medium Irrigation Tank.

This revealed that the density of phytoplankton was maximum in summer, while it was minimum in winter. Maximum

species richness of phytoplankton was recorded in summer, while minimum species richness was recorded in winter.

The phytoplankton structure depends on a variety of environmental factors that include various physico-chemical

factors. The Pearson correlation was calculated by keeping phytoplankton as dependent variable and other abiotic

factors as independent variables.

Key Words: Budaki, phytoplankton, Seasonal variation, density, species richness, correlation,

INTRODUCTION

�

The world planktons comes from an Ancient Greek word which means “floating,” or “drifting and the literature is

described by Hensen (1987) and Thurman,H.V(1997). Plankton are the microscopic and aquatic forms of animals

that freely float in aquatic environment and these are the community which is made up of tiny plates, These

organisms float through water bodies both fresh and salty around the globe. Primarily, plankton live in the sunny

zone of the aquatic environment, even though some species are found in much deeper water. Some planktons play

an important role to maintain food chain (nutrient) in the aquatic ecosystem. Their absence in the water body

indicates an aquatic disproportion.

According to Emiliani, C. (1991), the study of planktons is called planktology, a planktonic individual is referred to

as a plankter . Generally there are two types of plankton. Phytoplanktons are plant like they obtained their energy in

the form of carbohydrates by photosynthesis. Several are unicellular found in large groups called blooms that change

the colour of water body. Zooplankton possesses animal-like characteristics, and can sometimes get very large.

According to the Chandrashekhar and Kodarkar, (1997), the concept of biological indication of water quality is

rising and important aspect of aquatic assessment. Therefore many workers have used plankton as an indicator for

monitoring quality of water and status of pollution. Phytoplankton plays an important role in the aquatic

productivity, trophodynamics in aquatic environment.

Phytoplankton form good indicators of water quality as they have rapid turn-over time and are sensitive indicators of

environmental stresses. Phytoplankton survey thus help to find out the trophic status and the organic pollution in the

ecosystem (Ramchandra and Solanki 2007). Phytoplankton constitutes the basis of nutrient cycle of an ecosystem.

Being primary producers they play an important role in maintaining the equilibrium between living organisms and

abiotic factors. They are affected by physical, chemical and biological factors, making them valuable tool in

monitoring programmes. On the basis of this, many workers have emphasized that algal communities as a whole

serve as reliable indicators of pollution (Patrick, 1950; Palmer, 1969; Nandan and Patel, 1985). In India, many lakes

and reservoirs have been studied for the water quality assessment and development of fisheries (2006; Shridhar et

Journal of Global Biosciences ISSN 2320-1355

Vol. 2(5), 2013, pp. 139-144 http://mutagens.co.in

STUDY OF SEASONAL VARIATION OF BLUE GREEN ALGAE AND

THEIR CORRELATION WITH PHYSICOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS

OF BUDAKI M.I.TANK,

SHIRPUR (M.S.) INDIA

Agale Mahendra C.1 and Patel, Nisar G.

2

1Department of Zoology,

R.C.Patel Arts, Commerce and Science College.

Dist. Dhule (M.S.) India.425405. 2

P.G and Research Centre,

Department of Zoology,

Pratap College Amalner,

Dist-Jalgaon (M.S.) India. 425401.

Abstract

Seasonal variation of blue green algae density and species richness of Budaki

medium irrigation tank (Dam) was studied. This revealed that the density of blue

green algae was maximum in winter, minimum during the monsoon, and moderate in

summer. The Maximum richness of species of blue green algae was also recorded in

winter and minimum recorded in summer. The blue green algae structure depends on

a variety of environmental factors that include biological as well as various physico-

chemical parameters. The Pearson correlation was calculated by keeping blue green

algae as dependent variable and other abiotic factors as independent variables.

Key words: Blue green algae, Correlation, Seasonal variation, Budaki dam.

Date of Online: 19-10-2013

INTRODUCTION

The plankton comes from an ancient Greek word which means floating or drifting and the literature is

described by Hensen (1987) and Thurman (1997). Plankton are the microscopic and aquatic forms

of animals and plants that freely float in aquatic environment. These are the community which is

made up of tiny plates. These organisms float through water bodies both fresh and salty around the

globe. Some plankton play an important role to maintain food chain in the aquatic ecosystem. Their

absence in the water body indicates an aquatic disproportion. In the present investigation of Budaki

Medium Irrigation Tank that receives the southwest monsoon, it is an first attempt to find out the

effect of season on phytoplankton community and water quality assessment.

Blue green algae is considered as very small ancient group comprising of about 2500 species placed

under 150 genera distributed all over the world. They exist either as a unicellular individual or

filaments called trichome.They are generally found on rocks or soil forming a blackish crust when

dried out . The Cyanophyceae (Blue green algae) has been among the most studied of all the

planktonic groups. Previously classified as algae in the division Cyanophyta (Cyano = blue green),

these organisms are now considered as true bacteria called cyanobacteria with simple prokaryotic cell

structure. They occur in unicellular, filamentous or colonial forms and most of them are ensheathened

with mucilagenous sheaths either individually or in colonies. The cyanobacteria are further classified

as coccoid family Chroococcaceae (e.g. Microcystis) and filamentous families Oscillatoriceae (e.g.

Oscillatoria), Nostocaceae (e.g. Anabaena) and Rivulariaceae (e.g. Gloeotrichia). Bold (1973)

named this group as Cyanochloronata which is considered more appropriate than Cyanobacteria or

Cyanophyta. However, biochemical relationships of some selected organisms from various groups

by Schwartz and Dayhoff (1978) have shown that from biochemical point of view ‘blue greens’ are

quite distant from bacteria when their ferredoxin sequences, c-type cytochromes and 5s ribosomal

RNA sequences are taken into consideration.

Indian Journal of Plant Sciences ISSN: 2319–3824(Online)

An Open Access, Online International Journal Available at http://www.cibtech.org/jps.htm

2014 Vol. 4 (3) July-September, pp.44-51/Agale and Patel

Research Article

© Copyright 2014 | Centre for Info Bio Technology (CIBTech) 44

DIATOMS AND THEIR CORRELATION WITH PHYSICOCHEMICAL

PARAMETERS AND SEASIONAL VARIATIONS OF BUDKI M.I.TANK,

SHIRPUR (M.S.) INDIA.

*Agale M. C. and Patel N.G.

*R.C. Patel Arts, Commerce and Science College Shirpur, Dist. Dhule (M.S.) India. 425405 #Department of Zoology Research and P.G Centre, Pratap College Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon (M.S.), India

*Author for Correspondence

ABSTRACT

Seasonal variations of diatom density and species richness of Budki medium irrigation tank (Dam) was

studied. This revealed that the density of diatoms was maximum in summer, while it was minimum in

monsoon and moderate in winter season. Maximum species richness of diatoms was recorded in summer, while minimum species richness was recorded in monsoon. The diatom structure depends on a variety of

environmental factors that include biological parameters as well as various physico-chemical factors. The

Pearson correlation was calculated by keeping diatoms as dependent variable and other abiotic factors as an independent variables.

Key Words: Diatoms, Correlation, Seasonal variations Budki dam

INTRODUCTION

The word plankton comes from an ancient greek word which means “floating,” or “drifting (Hensen,

1987) and Thurman,(1997). Plankton are the microscopic and aquatic forms of plants and animals that

freely float in aquatic environment. Diatoms are the community which is made up of tiny plates, these

organisms float through water bodies both fresh and salty around the globe. Some plankton plays an important role to maintain food chain as nutrient in the aquatic ecosystem. Their absence in the water

body indicates an aquatic disproportion. In the present investigation of Budki Medium Irrigation Tank

that receives the southwest monsoon. It is the first attempt to find out the effect of season on phytoplankton community and water quality assessment.

The diatoms comprise about 1600 species grouped under about 200 genera. Bacillariophyceae constitute an important part of the fresh and marine water plankton, which form the basic food of the aquatic

animals and possess Chlorophyll A and C. This group of phytoplankton found at BMIT is the most

important group of algae. Most species of Diatoms are sessile and associated with littoral substrata. Their primary characteristics are presence of silicified cell walls. Both unicellular and colonial forms are

common among the diatoms. The group is commonly divided into the centric diatoms (Centrals), which

have radial symmetry and the pennate diatoms (Pennates) that exhibit essentially bilateral symmetry. The Pennate diatoms are differentiated into four major groups: that are 1) the Araphidineae which posses a

pseudoraphe (e.g. Asterionella, Fragillaria ) 2) Raphidioidineae, in which a rudimentary raphe occurs at

the cell ends e.g. Actinelia and Eunotia 3) The Monoraphidineae, which have a raphe on one valve and a

pseudoraphe on the other e.g. Achnanthes and Cocconeis and 4) Biraphidineae in which the raphe occurs on both the valves e.g. Amphora, Cymbella, Gomphonema, Nevicula, Nitzschia and Surirella. These

divisions are of more than taxonomic interest since distinct nutritional requirements favor the growth of

one group over another Wetzel, (2001). The diatoms in Littoral zone are important contributors of the primary production in shallow aquatic ecosystems Wetzel, (1990). Some of the genera of diatoms are

pollution tolerant. Palmer (1980) stated that Synedra acus, Gomphonema sp., Cyclotella sp. and Melosira

sp. are found in organically rich water and play an important role in water quality assessment and trophic

structure. Diatoms are important in Paleolimnological studies to reconstruct the past eutrophication of lakes on basis of paleolimnological evidences Taylor et al., (yr)

Personal Profile

1. Personal Information:

Name - Agale Mahendra Chaitram

Address - ‘ANURAJAT ’ 45/A, Vidyavihar Colony, Shirpur

Dist- Dhule (M.S.). PIN.425405.

Email Id - mca45a@gmail.com, mcagoldy@gmail.com

Mobile - +919423718792, +919421898792

2. Qualification:

Degree Year marks Percentage University

B.Sc. 1991 781/900 65 Poona University, Pune

M.Sc. 1993 1368/2000 68North Maharashtra University,

Jalgaon

3. Article Publication:

Sr. NO.

Details of Publications Publication Author (s)Level and

Date1 Paper on Seasonal

Variations In Physico-Chemical Properties Of Mehrun Pond, International Journal of pharmacology and biological sciences From 89 To 92.

Society for Science and

Environment.

Patel N.G.,Wankhedkar

P.T., AgaleM.C.

International [15-04-2011]

2 Paper on Water Quality Assessment of M.I. Tank, Near Shirpur, DistDhule,(M.S.) India.]International Journal of basic and Applied Research From 1 To 5.

Society for Education

and Research,

Osmanabada.

Agale M.C.,

Patel N.G..,

International

[20-03-2012]

3 Paper on Impact of Sugar Industry Effluents on the Quality of Ground water From DahiwadVillage,Dist-Dhule(M.S)Issue 2 Vol. 5. April 2013.

Archives of Applied Science

Research.

Agale,M.C.;

Patel N.G; Patil A.G.

International-

[ April,2013]

4 Paper on Hydrochemical Study of Water From The Budki Medium Irrigation Tank, Shirpur, Dist. Dhule (Maharashtra) Archives of Applied Science Research From 112 To 116.

Scholar research Library.

Agale M.C and Patel

N.G.

International

[14-06-2013]

5 Paper on Study of seasonal variations of Phytoplankton and their correlation with physicochemical parameters of Budaki Medium Irrigation Tank, Shirpur. Dist. Dhule(M.S.) IndiaEuropean Journal of Zoological Research 8 to 16.

Scholars Research Library

Agale,M.C.;

Patil,J.V;

Patel,N.G.

International [28-06-2013]

6 Paper on Study of seasonal Variation of Blue Green Algae and Their Correlation With Physico-chemical Parameters of Budki M.I.Tank, Shirpur (M.S) India.Journal of Global Biosciences From 139 To144.

Journal of Global

Biosciences

Agale, M.C. and Patel,

N.G.

International [19-10-2013]

7 Paper on Assessment of Water Quality of Budaki Medium Irrigation Tank Shirpur, Dist- Dhule (Maharashtra) India. Weekly Science Research JournalVol-1, Issue-51, 10 July Pages 2321 To 7871.

Weekly Science

Research Journal

Agale M.C. International [10-07-2014]

8 Paper on Diatoms and their correlation with Physico-chemical parameters and seasonal variations of Budki M. I. Tank, Shirpur (M.S.), India, Indian Journal of plant sciences Vol. 4(3)Pages 44-51.

Center for Info Bio

Technology

Agale, M.C. and Patel,

N.G.

International [Sept. 2014]

4. Research Paper Presented:

5. Conference Attendance:

Sr. No.

Name of the Seminars/Workshops

/CertificateLevel Venue Date

Spon. Organizing

body

1Seminar on Genetic / Pollution.

University Amalner 18 Aug 1996

Pratap College , Amalner.

2

Seminar on Ornithology / Entomology.

University Chalisgaon 6 Oct 1996

B.P.Arts

S.M.A. Sci. college. Chalisgaon

3National Conference of Molecular Biology.

University Shahada 23Feb

1997

P.S.G.P.V. Mandal’sShahada.

4Workshop onS.Y.B.Sc. Practical.

University Dhule 4 Oct 1997

Jaihind College,Dhule.

5

Seminar on Gene Therapy.

University Chalisgaon 19Oct

1997

RashtriyaSahakari Institute, Chalisgaon

SR. NO.

Title Of Paper Level Place Period

1

Assessment of water quality of Budki Medium Irrigation Tank, Shirpur, Dist. Dhule (M.S.),India.

National ShriShivaji college Akot.

15th Jan. 2010.

2

Mahatma Gandhi and women. National. R.C.Patel ACS, College, Shirpur.

17th - 18th Oct. 2011.

3

Impact of sugar Industry Effluent’s on The Quality of Ground water From Dahiwad Village , Dist. Dhule [M.S.]

National A.S.S. and S.P.S’s ACS College Navapur

22,23 Dec.2012

6Seminar on Vermiculture.

University Amalner 24,25Jan

1998

Pratap College, Amalner.

7Seminar in Economics District Shirpur 19

Feb 2002

R.C.P.A.S.C. College, Shirpur.

8

Workshop onF.Y.B.Sc. Syllabus Framming

University Dondaicha 27Feb

2002

Swaddharak

Viddyarthi, Dondaicha.

9Workshop (S.Y.B.Sc.)Syllabus Framming

University Shahada 12Mar 2003

P.S.G.V.P. Mandal’s, Shahada.

10Workshop on Water Quality Analysis.

University Chalisgaon 4-6Sep

2004

Rastriya ACS college, Chalisgaon.

11

Workshop on Teacher Training.

Institute Shirpur 10 to 12

Jan.2006

R.C.Patel Institute of Technology, Shirpur.

12

Conference on Sustainable Utilization of Aquatic Resources and Marine Biotechnology

National Chiplun 20Jan

2007

Uni. Of Mumbai.Chiplun.

13Workshop onF.Y.B.Sc. Syllabus Framming.

University Chalisgaon 3 Feb 2007

R.S.S.P. Mandal’sChalisgaon.

14

Seminar on Economics

State Level

Shirpur 9/2/2007

R.C.Patel, Educational Trust’s. Shirpur.

15Seminar on Emerging Trends at the Interface of Biotechnology.

National Shahada 18Feb

2007

P.S.G.P.V. Mandal’sShahada.

16Workshop on F.Y.B.sc. Practical.

University Faizpur 26Aug 2007

Tapi valley Edu. Society, Faizpur.

17 Workshop on University Pachora 3 Dec Pachorataluka

S.Y.B.Sc. Syllabusframing.

2007 Co-op society’s, Pachora.

18UGC-SAP-DRS Seminar

University NMU, Jalgaon

20Feb

2008

NMU, Jalgaon

19

Workshop on Practical For S.Y.B.Sc.

University Jalgaon 22Aug 2008

Khandesh College education Society, Jalgaon.

20Seminar on Global Warming

State Level

Shirpur 31Jan2009

K.V.P.S. Shirpur

21

Seminar on Recent Trends in AgrobasedIndustries for Community Development.

State Level

Sakri 9 Feb 2010

S.G.Patil College

Sakri.

22Certificate course in CLHRDSS

Shirpur 12Jan

2006

SES Shirpur.

23Seminar on Apiculture State level Nashik 19,20

Feb. 2010

N.B.B. Delhi, Nasik.

24Seminar on Biodiversity and Conservation

National seminar

Akot 15 Jan

2010

U.G.C, Akot.

25National conference on Gandhian thought

National seminar

Shirpur Oct 2011

U.G.C, Shirpur.

26Workshop on Practical For F.Y.B.Sc. Zoology.

University Sakri 21 July 2012

S.G.Patil College, Sakri.

27Conference on Biodiversity & Its role in Modern World.

National

Conference

Shirpur 12,13 Oct.2012

U. G.C. Shirpur.

28

National conference on “Biodiversity and Environmental impact.”

National

Conference

Navapur 22,23 Dec.2012

U.G.C.,D.S.T and N.M.U, Navapur.

29Workshop on S.Y.B.Sc. Syllabus Framing

University Pachora 12, Jan

2013

Pachorataluka Co-op society’s.

30Workshop on Practical For F.Y.B.Sc. Zoology.

University Faizpur 16July 2013

Tapi valley Edu. Society, Pachora.

31

Teacher Orientation Programme

College Shirpur 19 to 21

Aug.2014

R.C.Patel, Educational Trust’s, Shirpur.

32

Workshop on Practical For T.Y.B.Sc. Zoology.

University Dhule 22 Aug.2014

P.R,Ghogare Science College. Dhule

6. Faculty Development programs:

Sr.No

Orientation/Refresher Courses

University/ Inistitute.

Academic staff

CollegeDuration Year

1 Refresher CourseN.M.U. Jalgoan

Pune 28 days March 2001

2Orientation Course

Nagpur University

Nagpur 24 days Oct 2002

3Refresher Course N.M.U.

JalgoanPune 24 days Feb 2008

4 Refresher CourseGJU S & T

Hisar HaryanaHisar 21 Days

9th Dec. To 29 Dec2011

5

Course in Ornithology

(Intermediate Level)

Institute of Bird Studies and Natural

History Rishi Valley

Education Centre,

KrishnamurtiFoundation

of India6 Month

August to February

2006

7. Minor Research project:

Sr.No

Funding Agency

Project TitleProject Period and Amount

Present Status

1University Grant Commission

Assessment of water quality of Budaki Medium Irrigation tank, Shirpur Dist-Dhule, M.S.

2 year

[Rs. 100000]

Ongoing

9. Links (University/Research Lab/ Institution)

Indian Association of Aquatic Biologists (IAAB) Hyderabad. LM. No. 428

P.G. and Research Center, Dept. of Zoology, Pratap College Amalner Dist-

Jalgaon.

Member of Institutional animal ethics committee R.C.Patel College of

Pharmacy, Shirpur,Dist.Dhule

Member of Institutional animal ethics committee Women’s College of

Pharmacy, Shirpur, Dist. Dhule

10. Institutional Responsibilities:

Student attendance Academic Progress Committee..

College calendar Committee.

Tour & Excursion Committee.

Free Studentship SSG and Student help Committee.

Filling up forms and Allied Exam work.

Active member of (NHCF) National Foundation Communal Harmony, Delhi

Active involvement in ‘Yuvarang 2009’.

Summer Camp on ‘Basic Science Experiments’ (Resource Person)