A Study of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Diversity in the River Sabarmati, Gujarat, India
Krishnakumar B. Vaghela
Department of Life Science, School of Science, Gujarat University, Ahmedabad, India.
Devangee P. Shukla *
Department of Life Science, School of Science, Gujarat University, Ahmedabad, India.
Nayan K. Jain
Department of Life Science, School of Science, Gujarat University, Ahmedabad, India.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
Abiotic and biotic components are divided into two categories to describe the structural ecosystem. Aquatic plants and animals can find a suitable habitat in the river's water body. Planktons are an important component of the wetland ecology and may serve as a marker of altering water quality. Zooplankton mostly obtains its nutrition from phytoplankton, an ecosystem producer. Most fish larvae and other plankton-eating fishes feed primarily on zooplankton species. All aquatic ecosystems' dynamics revolve around primary productivity, which sustains various food chains and food webs. The overgrowth of macrophytes, pesticides from agricultural runoff, household garbage, sewage sludge, feces near rivers, bathing of domestic animals, washing of clothing and utensils, etc. have all put pressure on river ecosystems over the past many years. Most plants and animals struggle to survive in polluted environments, but those that can handle the stress of pollution on their own may be able to. These creatures can serve as pollution indicators, or more particularly, as bioindicators of the ecosystem's trophic condition. In this article, Sabarmati River's phytoplankton and zooplankton communities were evaluated at six different locations. The current investigations were researched from January 2017 to December 2019 over a period of around 3 years. Several published plankton manuals were used for plankton collection and identification. Aquatic flora analyzed here in two respects i.e., phytoplankton and aquatic vegetation or aquatic weeds. Phytoplankton were represented by four groups, viz. Bacilariophyceae, Chlorophyceae, Cyanophyceae, and Euglenophyceae. Diversity study reveals common planktonic forms present at different sites of sampling. In general, aquatic weeds like Hydrilla, Valesneria, Chara, Nymphea, Pistia, Typha etc. were commonly found in the study area. Protozoa, Cladocera, Copepoda and Rotifers are the main groups of zooplankton found in freshwater bodies. Six Molluscans and sixteen Arthropods were identified to be the most commonly occurring riparian fauna. The annual values of all zooplankton showed greater densities at site-1 and site-6 followed by other sites, respectively. When the data were analyzed for contribution of each phylum to the overall zooplankton densities, it was dominated by Protozoa and Arthropods throughout the study period. This was followed by Rotifera, Annelid and Nematoda, respectively. The percentile composition of protozoan fauna at six study sites suggested that on more than half of the sampling occasions their major contribution was recorded at sites 1, 2 and 6 followed by sites 5, 4 and 3, respectively.
Keywords: River Sabarmati, ecosystem, phytoplankton, zooplankton, biodiversity study, species density, pollution indicator
How to Cite
Downloads
References
Ibrahim S, A survey of zooplankton diversity of Challawa River, Kano and evaluation of some of its physicochemical conditions, Bayero Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences. 2009;2(1):19-26.
Available:https://doi.org/10.4314/bajopas.v2i1.58450
Martins FS, Moutinho A, Espinha Marques J, Formigo N, Antunes SC. Plankton characterization of alpine ponds: a case of study for the assessment of water quality in Serra da Estrela (Portugal), International Journal of Limnology. 2020;56:4.
Available:https://doi.org/10.1051/limn/2020001
Bera A, Bhattacharya M, Patra BCH, Sar UK. Phytoplankton density in relation to physico-chemical parameters of Kangsabati reservoir, West Bengal, India, International Journal of Current Research. 2014;6(6): 6989-6996.
Parveen S, Mola HRA. Comparison of physico-chemical parameters and zooplankton diversity in two perennial ponds at Aligarh, India, Journal of Environmental Biology. 2013;34(4): 709716.
Verma AK. Limnological studies of Muntjibpur pond of Prayagraj (U.P.) in relation to planktons, International Journal of Fauna and Biological Studies. 2020; 7(4):27-30.
Kumar P, Wanganeo A, Sonaullah F, Wanganeo R. Limnological study on two high altitude Himalayan ponds, Badrinath, Uttarakhand, International Journal of Ecosystem. 2012;2(5):103111.
Available:http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.ije.20120205. 04
Harsha TS, Malammanavar SG. Assessment of phytoplankton density in relation to environmental variables in Gopalaswamy pond at Chitradurga, Karnataka. Journal of environmental Biology. 2004;25(1):113-116.
Homyra NES, Naz S. Diversity of phytoplankton in central park lake, Rajshahi, Bangladesh. Pollution Research. 2006;25(2):223.
Gupta T, Dey M. Hydro biological characteristics of some semi-intensive fish culture ponds of Lumding town of Nagaon district, Assam, Current World Environment. 2013;8(1):107-115.
Available:http://dx.doi.org/10.12944/CWE.8.1.15
Rajendrakumar N, Talati et al: Phytoplankton and Zooplankt Diversity in Rural Wetlands of Anand and Kheda Districts, Gujarat India, Holistic Approach Environ. 2023;133:106–112.
Harilal CC. Phytoplankton diversity of two rivers of Kerala with special reference to aquatic nutrients. Pollution Research. 2005; 24(4):773.
Majumder S, Dhua RP, Kar S, Mishra T, Mahapatra SS, Shit S, Patra A. Zooplankton diversity influenced by hydro biological parameters in some ponds of southeastern part of Bankura town of WB, India, Internationa Journal of Advanced Research. 2015;3(5):354368.
Gaidhane DM. Plankton diversity in Wardha river near Rajura in Chandrapur District of Maharashtra, India, Int. Res. Journal of Science & Engineering. 2021; 9(4):119-123.
Malik DS, Bharti U. Status of plankton diversity and biological productivity of Sahastradhara stream at Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 2012;4(1):96-103.
Khatri N, Raval K, Jha AK. Integrated water quality monitoring of Mahi River using benthic macroinvertebrates and comparison of its biodiversity among various stretches. Appl Water Sci. 2021; 11:143.
Pathak SK, Mudgal LK. Limnology and Biodiversity of Fish Fauna in Virla Reservoir MP India. Environment conservation journal, 2005;6(1-3):41-45.
Sobha V, Harilal CC. Minerals and nutrients accumulation in Salvinia molesta (Mitchell.) with changing water quality. Geobios-Jodhpur. 2005;32(2/3):137.
Quinlan EL, Phlips EJ. Phytoplankton assemblages across the marine to low-salinity transition zone in a blackwater dominated estuary. Journal of Plankton Research. 2007;29(5):401-416.
Thirugnanamoorthy K, Selvaraju M. Phytoplankton diversity in relation to physico-chemical parameters of Gnanaprekasam temple pond of Chidambaram in Tamilnadu, India. Recent Research in Science and Technology. 2009;1(5).
Sheeba S, Ramanujan N. Phytoplankton composition and distribution in Ithikkara river, Kerala. Indian, Hydrobiology. 2005; 8(1):11.
Ochang SN, Ayotunde EO, Okey IB. Some aspect of the physico-chemical and biological properties of Cross river, an inland water body in South-eastern Nigeria. Global Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2005;4(2):139-148.
Wardle DA, Yeates GW, Barker GM, Bonner KI. The influence of plant litter diversity on decomposer abundance and diversity. Soil biology and Biochemistry. 2006;38(5):1052-1062.
Gadhia M, Surana R, Ansari E. Seasonal variations in physico-chemical characterstics of tapi estuary in hazira industrial area. Our nature. 2012; 10(1).
Froneman PW. Feeding studies on selected zooplankton in a temperate estuary, South Africa. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2000;51(5): 543-552.
Bertilsson S, Jones Jr. JB. Supply of dissolved organic matter to aquatic ecosystems: autochthonous sources. In Aquatic ecosystems. Academic Press. 2003;3-24
Daniel CB. The importance of terrestrial carbon in plankton food webs; 2005.