You are on page 1of 15

ESSENCE - International Journal for Environmental Rehabilitation and Conservation

Volume VIII: No. 1 2017 [145 – 159] [ISSN 0975 - 6272]


Trophic status in Freshwater Lentic Ecosystem of Dhukeshwari Temple Pond

Deori With Reference To Zooplanktonic Assemblage

Bhandarkar, S.V.1 and Paliwal, G.T.2

Received: February 1, 2017  Accepted: May 11, 2017  Online: June 30, 2017

The present study is primarily based on the work suspended detritus in the pond water. The
conducted on the cultural eutrophication in lentic Crustacean assemblage forms the major part of
ecosystem of Dhukeshwari temple pond situated at zooplankton community constituted by the crucial
Deori. The Dhukeshwari temple pond is under group like Cladocera, Copepoda and Ostracoda and
unsustainable anthropogenic stress. The zooplankton the diversity within groups. They are sensitive to
assemblages were recorded qualitatively and environmental accelerations, therefore these
quantitatively. Zooplanktons was represented by 83 organisms used as important tool to evaluate the
species, and consisted of members from Rotifera trophic status of ecosystems. In the present study,
(46) belonging to 15 families from 03 orders; 27 species of order Cladocera were recorded from
Cladocera (27) belonging to 06 families; Copepoda the 06 families, with highest diversity with 08
(6) and Ostracoda (04). The zooplankton consisted species in family Chydoridae and family Aloniae
of Rotifera, Cladocera, Copepoda and Ostracoda. with 08 species.
The quantitative relationship amongst different Keywords: Zooplankton | Rotifers | Crustacea
groups of zooplankton in Dhukeshwari Temple
| Trophic status | Ecosystem
pond was Rotifera > Cladocera > Copepoda >
Ostracoda during the study. In Total zooplanktons
the Rotifera were recorded maximum (2039/ltr) Introduction
(61%) followed by Cladocera (1033/ltr) (31%), Freshwater ecology is an intriguing field
Copepoda (202/ltr) (6%), Ostracoda (84/ltr) (2%). because of the great diversity of aquatic
It is disclosed that the rotifer fauna can be linked habitats. The freshwater habitat exhibit huge
with favorable conditions and availability of diversity based on the genesis, geographical
abundant food in the form of bacteria, micro-
location, hydro-biological regimes and
phytoplankton, nano-plankton, animal waste and
substrate factors. The ponds and lakes are
For correspondence: more productive ecosystems and their
Department of Zoology, Manoharbhai Patel College of importance as life supporting systems in
Arts, Com. & Science, Deori. Dist. Gondia, Maharashtra
Department of Zoology, S. S. Jaiswal College, Arjuni- controlling water cycles and cleaning the
Morgaon, Dist. Gondia, Maharashtra environment has acknowledged by wetland
Bhandarkar & Paliwal/Vol. VIII [1] 2017/145 – 159

experts worldwide. Generally lake possessed a categorized on the basis of richness of

vast array of diversity in its faunal composition nutrients. The poor nutrient material, low
which is dynamic and responsive to deviation productivity and when the water is clear,
from normal ecological homeostasis. known as Oligotrophic state which having low
Unfortunately they are degrading, become concentration of plant life. Only small quantity
polluted due to inflow of domestic effluents, of organic matter grows in an Oligotrophic
washing clothes, vehicles, cattle, immersion of lake or ponds; phytoplankton, zooplankton,
idols etc. resulting in the accumulation of toxic attached algae, macrophytes (aquatic weeds),
chemicals and sludge leading to ecological bacteria and fish are all present as small
imbalance. A well established and balanced populations. There may be various kinds of
ecosystem has all the physicochemical factors plankton and other organisms but not very
in optimum range and support maximum many of each species or type. With little the
diversity of biota. However due to open nature production of organic matter little
of the system, continues exchange of matter accumulation of organic sediment at the
and energy goes on. Any change in the bottom and therefore smaller the population of
physicochemical environment has got its effect bacteria and due to very little consumption of
on biotic community due to fact that different oxygen, lots of oxygen present from surface to
species of flora and fauna show variations in bottom. In Mesotrophic state, intermediate
their responses to the altered water quality. level of nutrients; production of plankton is
Hence, highly sensitive species are eliminated intermediate, some loss of oxygen in lower
altogether while other, more resistant and waters, oxygen may not be entirely depleted
tolerant dominate the medium. and water is moderately clear with Secchi disc
The ‘Trophic status’ of any water bodies can depths. Mesotrophic ecosystems usually have
evaluated by physicochemical and biological dispersed weed beds and weeds are sparse
characteristics and also be determined by within bed. Fish is often good in such waters.
physiographical parameters. The freshwater While in Eutrophic state, higher the nutrients
bodies can be classified with respect to their therefore the productivity is high and lower
biological productivity. Rawson (1956), Zafar water clarity, resulting in good plant growth
(1959), Pennak (1955), Neumann (1927), and possible algal blooms (Closs et al., 2004).
Strom (1924), Rao (1953), Zafar (1964), Such waters also produce high number of
Welch (1952) gave major contribution for the zooplankton and the fish that feed on the
classification of water bodies. It is a process zooplankton. Due to higher the production of
useful to characterize the ‘Trophic Status’ of a organic matter provides the food for high
particular water body at any given time. A term numbers of bacteria and benthic macro-
‘Trophic status’ of water body is used as a invertebrates. Eutrophic waters are often
description of the water body for this purpose. relatively shallow. Although the intensity,
The status of freshwater ecosystems can be frequency and extent of algal blooms have

Bhandarkar & Paliwal/Vol. VIII [1] 2017/145 – 159

tended to increase in response to human- slowly and concentrated sample were

induced eutrophication, algal blooms are a collected. All samples were preserved in 4%
naturally occurring phenomenon. The rise and formalin. The quantitative zooplanktons were
fall of algae populations, as with the enumerated by Sedgwick Rafter Cell method.
population of other living things, is a feature of The average of the three counts was converted
a healthy ecosystem (Bianchi et al. 2000). to number of individuals per liter of pond
The Importance of plankton communities, in the water samples. The total number of planktons
Trophic dynamics of freshwater ecosystems has present in per liter of sample is calculated by
long been recognized, as these organisms, not formula of Welch (1952). The quantity of
only regulate the aquatic productivity by each genus was calculated in U/L of Pond
occupying almost middle position in food chain, water. Specimens were identified according
but also indicate environmental status in a given to key from Edmondson (1959), Plaskit (1997),
time. These organisms are regarded as valuable Dhanapathi (2000), Sehegal (1998), Sharma
bio-indicator to depict the Trophic status of water and Michael (1988), Pennack (1978).
quality of their environments within Arvindkumar, (2015) and photographed were
limnosaprobity (Sladecek, 1983). In India made with Metzer-M-Co-axial Trinocular
biological assessment was effectively employed Digital Research Microscope Vision plus-5000
as an indicator technique in a number of recent DTM.
studies involving assessment of pollution impact Study Site
from domestic sewage and industrial effluents The Dhukeshwari Temple pond was
(Deevey et al., 1941; Koul et al., 2000). constructed before 50 years ago by
Historically Butcher (1924) was the first to impounding natural low lying areas nearby
recognize the importance of biological analysis Goddesses “Dhukeshwari” Temple (N 210 4’
in overall assessment of aquatic environment. 29.4405”, E 800 21’ 44.6565”) along the
Material and Method National Highway No. 6, mainly for
agricultural purposes. Expanding urbanization
The Zooplanktons were collected once in a
in the catchments area with consequent
month during the period of proposed work.
increase in anthropogenic activities,
Quantitative samples of zooplankton was
culminating in the introduction of untreated
collected by filtering 100 liters of sub-surface
domestic sewage and immersion of idols,
water through plankton net made of a silk
offerings, commercial waste and other socio-
bolting cloth No. 25 (mesh size 0.04m).
cultural practices also contributed to nutrient
Samples were transferred to a small enamel
enrichment of this pond.
tray; the inside of the net was also washed so
as to collect any sticking plankton to it. Few Observation and Result
drops of formalin were put to narcotize the Zooplanktons was represented by 83 species,
animal and when they become motionless and and consisted of members from Rotifera (46)
settle down, the supernatant water was discard belonging to 15 families from 03 orders;
Bhandarkar & Paliwal/Vol. VIII [1] 2017/145 – 159

Cladocera (27) belonging to 06 families; microscopic animal life that passively float or
Copepoda (6) and Ostracoda (04). (Table 2 to swim. The zooplankton in lentic environment
Table 4). consist of heterogenous assemblage of minute
Seasonal Abundance floating micro and macro-invertebrates, and
The representations of seasonal fluctuations in their qualitative study provides good indices of
percentage of different groups of zooplanktons water quality and the capacity of water to
are shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1-5. In Total sustain heterotrophic communities. They act as
zooplanktons the Rotifera were recorded primary consumers in aquatic ecosystem and
maximum (2039/ltr) (61%) followed by constitute and important link between primary
Cladocera (1033/ltr) (31%), Copepoda (202/ltr) producers and consumers of higher order like
(6%), Ostracoda (84/ltr) (2%). The fishes in the food chain of aquatic ecosystem.
zooplanktons were recorded maximum of
Fig: 1. Seasonal distribution of
1969/ltr (58%) during summer season and Zooplankton in Winter
minimum of 595/ltr (18%) during monsoon in
2% Rotifera
the study period. In winter season, Rotifera
4% Cladocera
accounted for 66%, Cladocera 28%, Copepoda Copepoda
4% and Ostracoda 2%. In summer season, Ostracoda
Rotifera accounted for 54%, Cladocera 36%, 28%
Copepoda 7% and Ostracoda 3%. In Monsoon
season, Rotifera accounted for 76%, Cladocera
18%, Copepoda 5% and Ostracoda 1%. The
Rotifera were recorded maximum (1059/ltr)
(52%) in summer season while minimum
Fig: 1. Seasonal distribution of
(453/ltr) (22%) in the monsoon season. The
Zooplankton in Winter
Cladocera were recorded maxima (704/ltr)
2% Rotifera
(68%) in the summer season while minimum
4% Cladocera
(104/ltr) (10%) in the monsoon season. The Copepoda
Copepods were recorded maximum (140/ltr) Ostracoda
(70%) in the summer season while minimum 28%
(30/ltr) (15%) and (31/ltr) (15%) in the
monsoon and winter season respectively. The
Ostracoda were recorded maximum (66/ltr)
(72%) in the summer season while minimum
(8/ltr) (9%) in the monsoon season. Zooplankton operations facilitate food web
Discussion connectivity and cascading interactions in
Zooplankton is an integral component of trophic structure of aquatic communities. The
aquatic ecosystem and comprises of multitude of micro level transfers,
Bhandarkar & Paliwal/Vol. VIII [1] 2017/145 – 159

transformations of biomass and energy

mediated by zooplankton help to sustain Fig: 5 Season wise distribution of
Total Zooplankton
stability and health of ecosystem. Zooplankton
helps in Bio-monitoring of the environmental Winter Summer Monsoon
pollution as they are tolerant to adverse
environmental conditions. They are capable of
measuring the actual response of organisms or 18%
population to the environmental entities.

Fig: 3. Seasonal distribution of

Zooplankton in Monsoon 58%

5% 1% Rotifera
Copepoda In the present investigation as far as seasonal
Ostracoda fluctuation is concerned the rotiferans
dominated during summer season followed in
76% winter season while minimum during monsoon
season. High density of rotifers during summer
season might be due to high temperature which
is suitable for their growth, reproduction and
development and availability of nutrients due
Fig: 3. Seasonal distribution of
Zooplankton in Monsoon to bacterial decomposition. Low density of
Rotifers during monsoon season may be
5% 1% Rotifera attributed to dilution effect, cloudy weather
and low temperature while during winter, it
Ostracoda may be coincides with a substantial decrease in
temperature in the pond. Similar observation
76% was reported by Arvind Kumar (1994). Similar
findings were reported by Kaushik and Sharma
(1994). Jorge et al., (2009) reported highest
density and diversity of Rotifers during
summer months in Valle de Bravo reservoirs,
The zooplankton consisted of Rotifera, Mexico, due to increase in temperature. The
Cladocera, Copepoda and Ostracoda. The rotifers invariably constitute a dominant
quantitative relationship amongst different component of freshwater zooplankton and
groups of zooplankton in Dhukeshwari Temple contribute significantly to their dynamics and
pond was Rotifera > Cladocera > Copepoda > production (Sharma, 1991).
Ostracoda during the study.
Bhandarkar & Paliwal/Vol. VIII [1] 2017/145 – 159

Zooplankton Seasonal Total Number

S. No.
Group Winter Summer Monsoon Total
1 Rotifera 527 1059 453 2039
2 Cladocera 225 704 104 1033
3 Copepoda 31 140 30 202
4 Ostracoda 17 66 8 84
5 Total 800 1969 595 3358
Table: 1. Seasonal variation of Total Zooplankton 2014-2015

S. No. Systematic Position Rotifer Spp

1 Phylum: Rotifera Brachionus calyciflorus

Family: Brachionidae
2 Brachionus falcatus
3 Brachionus durgae
4 Brachionus plicatilis
5 Branchionus quadrientatus
6 B. quandridentatus var entzi
7 B. quandridentatus var melhini
8 B. quandridentatus v. brevispinus
9 Brachionus ureceolaris
10 Platyas quadricornis
11 Platyas quadricornis andhraensis
12 Family:Euchlanidae Beauchampiella eudactylotum
13 Family:Epiphanidae Epiphanes macrourus
14 Family:Colurellidae Lepadella patella
15 Lepadella lepadella ovalis
16 Colurella adriatica
17 Family:Lecanidae Lecane bidentata
18 Lecane cornuta
19 Lecane decipiens
20 Lecane donnerianus ventral
21 Lecane hamata
22 Lecane obtuse
23 Lecane pyriformis
24 Family:Trichocercidae Trichocerca rattus
25 Trichocerca tigris
26 Family:Trichotriidae Trichotria tetractis
27 Trichotria similis
28 Family:Trichosphaeridae Horaella brehmi
29 Family:Asplanchnidae Asplanchna intermedia
30 Asplanchnopus bhimnavaramensis
31 Asplanchna brighwelli
32 Family:Gastropodidae Ascomorpha ecaudis
33 Family:Notommatidae Cephalodella forficula
34 Cephalodella gibba
35 Cephalodella panarista
36 Scaridium longicaudatum
37 Esophora anthadis
38 Family:Mytilinidae Mytilina ventralis
39 Family:Testudinellidae Testudinella patina
40 Testudinella semiparva
41 Testudinella mucronata

Bhandarkar & Paliwal/Vol. VIII [1] 2017/145 – 159

42 Family:Filinidae Filinia species

43 Family: Philodinidae Rotaria neptunia
44 Rotaria rotatoria
45 Macrotrachela quadricornifera
46 Philodina spp
Table: 2. Rotifer species in Dhukeshwari Temple pond
S. No. Systematic Position Cladocera spp
1 Order: CLADOCERA Diaphanosoma sarsi
Family: Sididae
2 Family: Bosminidae Bosmina longirostris
3 Bosminopsis deitersi
4 Family: Chydoridae Pleuroxus denticulatus
5 Pleuroxus trionellus
6 Pseudochydorus globossus
7 Chydorus latus
8 Chydorus ovalis
9 Chydorus sphaericus
10 Dunhevedia serrata
11 Acroperus harpae
12 Subfamily: Aloniae Allona affinies
13 Alona davidi punctata
14 Alona quadrangularis
15 Allona Monacantha
16 Alona rectangula richardi
17 Bipertura karua
18 Kurzia longirostris
19 Leydigia acanthocercoides
20 Family:Daphniidae Ceriodaphnia cornuta
21 Scapholebris kingi
22 Simocephalus exspinosus
23 Simocephalus vetulus
24 Family:Macrothricidae Ilyocryptus sordidus
25 Ilyocryptus spinifer
26 Macrothrix laticornis
27 Macrothrix rosea
Table : 3: Cladoceran species in Dhukeshwari
Temple pond
S. No. Systematic Position Copepods and Ostracods spp
1 Order: Calanoida Diaptomus nudus
Family: Diaptomidae
2 Diaptomus oregonensis
3 Heliodiaptomus viduus
4 Spicodiaptomus chlospinus
5 Order: Herpacticoida Canthocamptus staphylinoids
Family: Canthocamptidae
6 Order:Cyclopoida Mesocyclops leuckart
7 Class:OSTRACODA Cypris dentata
Family: Cypridae
8 Cypris reticulata
9 Cypris subglobossa
10 Herpetocypris barbatus
Table 4: Copepodes and Ostracodes in
Dhukeshwari Temple Pond

Bhandarkar & Paliwal/Vol. VIII [1] 2017/145 – 159

In the present study 46 species of freshwater eutrophication (Mahajan et al., 1981, Sladeck
rotifers belonging to 15 families from 03 1983). Chandrashekhar and Kodarkar (1995)
orders were recorded from the lentic ecosystem described six species of Brachionus from
of Dhukeshwari temple pond, Deori District Saroornagar lake Hyderabad and reported that
Gondia. These organisms are regarded as B. calyciflorus was most dominant followed by
valuable bioindicator to depict the trophic B. caudatus in term of seasonal occurrence and
status of water quality (Pejler 1989). Arora biomass and un-uniform occurrence of B.
(1963) reported that species of Brachionus forficula, B. durgae, B. bidentata and B.
have a wide range of occurrence and found angularis in monthly collections due to
from potable water to diluted sewage tanks. In changes in water quality associated with
much polluted water they occur in small nutrient concentration in summer. Somani &
number but abundant in moderately polluted Pejawar (2003) in Lake Masunda Thane
waters. He recorded B. calyciflorus, B. reported the dominance of these tolerant
caudatus, B. falcatus and B. quadridentatus genera as an indication of onset of
from heavily polluted Jumma Tank and B. eutrophication in the ecosystem.
urceolaris from oxidation ponds of NEERI In the present observation too, Brachionus spp
Nagpur. was most dominant. The occurrence of these
In the present findings the family Brachionidae species indicates the water of this pond is
was dominant with 11 species; of which genera polluted. Some species flourish in highly
Brachionus with 09 species and two species of eutrophic waters while others are very
Platyas is recorded. Some species of sensitive to organic or chemical wastes (El-
Brachionus were considered as indicators of Enany, 2009). In addition to the above
mesotrophic and eutrophic conditions in described species, some others rotifers were
several Central Indian waters by Unni (1985). also considered as indicators of eutrophy. The
Bhandarkar et al., (2008) reported 07 species species like B. quadridentatus, Lepadella have
of Brachionus from the highly Eutrophic better tolerance for alkalinities, Platyas
Kalikar pond in Bramhapuri. Bhandarkar and quadricornis, epiphanus, and Rotaria rotatoria
Paliwal, (2012) reported 09 species of rotifers have been recorded from Eutrophic and
from the different productive water bodies of heavily polluted waters (Pattnaik, 2014).
Lakhani. Bhandarkar and Bhandarkar (2008) Dominance of rotifers further confirmed the
Likewise 19 species of rotifers were also Eutrophic nature of the lake (Pejler, 1965;
recorded from the various water bodies in Arora, 1961, 1966; Unni, 1985; Sharma, 1987).
Bramhapuri. High rotifer population in the lake However further detailed studies on seasonal
waters indicate pollution due to direct entry of variation in diversity and biomass would be
untreated domestic sewage from input area helpful in evaluation their bio-indicator role in
(Arora, 1966). A number of studies have eutrophication.
evaluated Brachionus sp. as indicator of
Bhandarkar & Paliwal/Vol. VIII [1] 2017/145 – 159

Rotifers comprise major community in the report was given ZSI (1991) and Bohara
zooplankton assemblage of the Dhukeshwari (2004). In the present investigation
Temple pond. Brachionus formed the Dhukeshwari Temple pond showing more
dominant and diversified genus among the Cladoceran diversity presumably may be due
rotifers throughout the study period. Lecane to important bio-ecological relationship
also formed second dominant and are often between macrophytes and zooplankton and its
present in tropical aquatic body. From the conformity with Venkatraman et al., (2000).
present study it is disclosed that the rotifer Burns and Schallenberg (2001) made some
fauna can be linked with favorable conditions observations on the consumer effects of
and availability of abundant food in the form protozoa by Cladoceran and Copepods in the
of bacteria, micro-phytoplankton, nano- lakes of Newzealand reported that copepods
plankton, animal waste and suspended detritus are more effective consumers of protozoa than
in the pond water. Cladocersns, particularly in Eutrophic
In the present investigation, the Crustacean conditions. Many works done India on
assemblage forms the major part of Crustacea, some of them are Shah and Pandit
zooplankton community constituted by the (2013), Ghantaloo et al., (2012), Gulam
crucial group like Cladocera, Copepoda and Mohideen (2006), Gulam Mohideen et al.,
Ostracoda and the diversity within groups. (2008), Ahmad and Parveen, (2013), and so
These groups are most important and useful as on. Michael (1973) and Murugan (1989)
food for fishes. They are sensitive to carried out an extensive study on the ecology
environmental accelerations, therefore these of cladoceran species from Madurai. Bhat et
organisms used as important tool to evaluate al., (2015) reported 11 spp of Cladocera, 5
the trophic status of ecosystems. In the present species of Copepoda and 3 species of
study, 27 species of order Cladocera were Ostracoda during ecological investigation of
recorded from the 06 families, with highest zooplankton abundance in the Bhoj Wetland at
diversity with 08 species in family Chydoridae Bhopal.
and family Aloniae with 08 species. In Planktons are considered as indicator of the
subclass Copepoda, 04 species were recorded trophic status of a water body because of their
from order Calanoida, 01 species with order specific qualitative features and their capacity
Herpacticoida and 01 species with Cyclopoida. to reproduce in large number under
04 species from single family for Class environmental conditions that are favorable to
Ostracoda were also observed. them. (Vollenweider and Frei, 1953).
In the present investigation the Cladoceran Zooplankton represents the link between
were more during the summer season followed primary producers and secondary consumer, so
by winter and minimum in the monsoon it significantly influencing the food web
season. Kotangle (1988) reported highest peak structure (Marazzo and Valentin, 2001).
of Cladocera during summer months. Similar Zooplankton occurrence, distribution and
Bhandarkar & Paliwal/Vol. VIII [1] 2017/145 – 159

abundance are of extreme importance in production (Gonzalez, 2000). The abundance

aquatic systems since they are sensitive to of Cladocera in the vegetated areas was higher
disturbances including eutrophication due to than un-vegetated areas (Benkurt and Guven,
anthropogenic impacts such as urbanization, 2009). Cladocerens are able to utilize bacteria
domestic, and industrial pollutants and sewage as food source efficiently (Wylie and Currie,
disposal which can alter ecosystem 1991).
components (Vidjak et al., 2006). Cyclopoids and Cladocerans were found to be
In the present investigation the crustacean associated with increasing productivity. The
faunal assemblage was subdominant in ratio of Calanoids to Cyclopoids plus
zooplankton population. A high diversity of Cladocerans was found to be good indication
Cladocerans can be found in the littoral zone of of trophic condition and valuable index of
stagnant waters. The habitat is often negatively pollution (Khan and Rao, 1981). The
influenced by human activities, and especially abundance of Copepoda is due to the
the loss of temporary waters may lead to a decreasing of eutrophication level (El Enany,
decrease of diversity or even local extinction of 2009). Balamurugan et al., (1999) reported six
some species (Forro et al., 2008). Patil and species of copepods belonging to order
Gouder (1989) Michael (1973), and Mustaq Cyclopoida from water body with heavily
(1990) observed that some Cladoceran species loaded organic enrichment due to influx of
can flourish well in polluted waters and hence sewage. Species of Cyclops recorded more due
serves as good biological indicators of water to the abundance of diatoms and blue green
pollution. According to sensitivity of organism algae (Meshram, 1996). Kurasawa (1975)
to water sewage pollution Bosmina noticed the dominance of Copepoda in
longirostris, Chydorus sphearicus and nauplius oligotrophic lakes but Cyclopoid Copepods
larvae (Copepods) are pollution tolerant were dominant in Eutrophic lakes of tropical
groups of zooplankton (Saad et al., 2013). region. Bhandarkar and Paliwal (2010)
Crustacean species like Ceriodaphnia corunata reported 9 species of copepods from various
and Cypris spp can survive in high abundant water bodies in Lakhani, in which 1 species of
macrophytes environment (Ahmad, 2012). Diaptomidae and 8 species of Cyclopidae
Crustaceans of freshwater ecosystems play an reveals that the water bodies of Lakhani are
important role in the aquatic food web. They Eutrophic. Harpacticoid Copepods are almost
contribute to a high reduction of the exclusively littoral inhabiting macro
phytoplankton biomass since the majority of vegetation, mosses in particular, and the littoral
them are filter feeders and hence they may in sediments (Sharma, 2001). Gulati (1978) stated
this way greatly improve the water quality. that if the food supply is high or increasingly
Crustaceans are able to consume great up for stretch of time, Cladocera build up in
quantities of phytoplankton from the open high number and biomass to dominate Lake
water zone thereby influencing the primary Zooplankton.
Bhandarkar & Paliwal/Vol. VIII [1] 2017/145 – 159

Anil Kumar et al., (2004) observed that higher the organic matter and nutrient
copepods were mainly dominated by availability in the habitat of lentic ecosystem of
Mesocyclops species and Cladocerans, the pre- Dukeshwari Temple Pond Deori. The
dominancy of rotifer and copepods indicate the Crustaceans diversity indicates trophic status
nutrient availability in some ponds of Durg- of the water body as they have specific
Bhillai city, CG. Ostracods are important qualitative features and capacity to reproduce
indicators of the structure and function of under favorable ecological conditions. The
freshwater ecosystems and their ecological species diversity of Crustaceans in general and
status (Mezquita et al., 1999). Ostracod Cladoceran diversity in particular can be linked
diversity is one of the most important with natural purifying system in fluctuated
ecological parameters in water quality and water.
meiobenthic biodiversity assessment, because Acknowledgement
it is strongly affected by environmental
The author is grateful to the Director, UGC
conditions (Selcuk Altinsacli et al., 2015).
(WRO) Pune for sanction of the MRP. I am
They have received much less attention than
also thankful to Dr. D. K. Bisen, Principal, M.
the Claodcerens and Copepods (Pennak, 1978).
B. Patel College, Deori for his consistent
They inhabit a wide variety of environments
encouragement during study period.
and found almost everywhere in all types of
freshwaters, like lakes, ponds, swamps, cave
water and even heavily polluted areas etc. Ahmad U. and Parveen S. (2013): Impact of
Aquatic macrophytes on crustacean
In the present investigation, summer maxima
zooplankton population in a vegetated
of Ostracoda may be attributed to higher water
pond at Aligarh, India. Internation
temperature, decrease in water level and
journal of plant, Animal and
increased availability of its food. Similar result
Environmental sciences. 3(1):107-112.
was reported by Padmanabha et al., (2008) in
Dalvoi Lake Mysore. Ostracoda is represented Anil Kumar, S. Tripathi and P. Ghosh, (2004):
by Cypris sps. Ramulu et al., (2011) observed Status of freshwater in 21 century: a
and indicate that the increase in water quality review. In Water Pollution: Assessment
increases the population density of Ostracods and Management (Edited by) Arvind
Kumar and G. Tripathi. Daya Publishers,
in perennial tank Warangal due to pollution
load of domestic sewage. Further studies on Delhi, 520 p.
diversity of these species would be helpful in Arora, H. C. (1963): Studies on Indian Rotifera
evaluating their bio-indicator role. - II. J. Zool. Soc. India., 15: 112-121.
Crustacean faunal assemblage was Arora, H.C. (1966): Studies on Indian Rotifera
subdominant in zooplankton population. From - III. J. Zoo. Soc. India., 16: 1-6.
the present study it is disclosed that the higher
the diversity of Crustaceans may be due to
Bhandarkar & Paliwal/Vol. VIII [1] 2017/145 – 159

Arvind Kumar (2015): Freshwater Plankton (2000): Cyanobacterial blooms in the

and Macrophtes of India. Daya Baltic Sea: Natural or human-
Publishing House, New Delhi. 362. induced? Limnol. Ocenogr. 45:716-726.
Balamurugan S., B.M. Gulam Mohideen and P. Burns, C. W. and Marc Schallenberg (2001):
Subramanian (1999): Biodiversity of Calanoid Copepods versus Cladocerans;
zooplankton in Cauveri river at Consumer effects on Protozoa in Lakes
Tiruchirapalli, TamilNadu., J. Aqua. of different Trophic status. Limnol.
Biol. Vol. 14 (1&2): 21-25. Oceanogr., 46 (6): 1558-1565.
Bhandarkar S.V. and Bhandarkar, W.R. Chandrasekhar, S.V.A. and Kodarkar, M.S.
(2008): Comment on Rotifer Diversity in (1995): Studies on Brachionus from
Two Water Bodies of Bramhapuri, Saroornagar lake, Hyderabad. J. Aqua.
Maharashtra. J. Curr, Sci. 12 (2):505-510 Biol., 10 (1 & 2): 48 -52.
Bhandarkar S.V. and Paliwal G.T. (2010): Dhanapathi, M.V.S.S.S. (2000): Taxonomic
Diversity of Copepods in different water notes on the rotifers from India (from
bodies from Lakhani, Maharashtra 1889-2000) IAAB. Publishing no. 10
(India): Environment Conservation Hyderabad, India. 169pp.
Journal 11(3): 81-83. Edmondson, W.T. (1959): “Freshwater
Bhandarkar S.V. and Paliwal, G.T. (2012): Biology”, 2 ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Observation on the Collection of London-Chapman and Hall Ltd., New
Zooplankton in Lakhani Lake, Lakhani, York, USA. 1248.
District Bhandara, Maharashtra. Int. J. El-Enany, H.R, (2009): Ecological studies on
Environ. Rehabil. Con. III (1): 38 – 41 planktonic and epiphytic
Bhandarkar, W.R, Bhandarkar, S.V. and microinvertebrates in Lake Nasser,
Murkute, V.B. (2008): Observation on Egypt. Ph. D. Zool. Dept. Thesis, Fac.
Species Diversity of Brachionus Sci. Banha Univ., 311.
(Rotifera) from Kalikar Pond, Forro, L., Korovchnsky, M. N., Kotov, A. A.
Bramhapuri, District Chandrapur. M.S. J. and A. Petrusek (2008): Global diversity
Aqua. Biol. I &II 23 (2): 4-7. of Cladocerans (Cladocera;Crustacea) in
Bhat N. A., Raina R. and A. Wanganeo (2015): freshwater. Hydrobiologia. 595:177-184.
Ecological investigation of zooplankton Ghantaloo, U. S., Kamble S. M. and J. P.
abundance in the Bhoj wet land, Bhopal Sarwade (2012): Study of Cladocera
of central India: Impact of environmental species diversity with reference to
variables. International journal of Chydoridae and Bosmanidae family of
Fisheries and Aquaculture.7(6):81-93. Nira left bank canal Baramati and
Bianchi T. S., E. Engelhaupt, P. Westman, T. Tarangawadi Lake of Indapur Taluka
Andren, C. Rolff, and R. Elmgren.
Bhandarkar & Paliwal/Vol. VIII [1] 2017/145 – 159

District Pune, India. IJSID, 2(6), 511- Part 9. Zooplankton. In: JIBP Synthesis
515. Vol.10 Eds) Mori S. and Yomamoto G.
Gonzalez, EJ, (2000), Nutrient enrichment and Tokyo University Press Tokyo. 436.
zooplankton effects on the phytoplankton Marazzo, A. and Valentin, J. L. (2001): Spatial
community in Microcosms from EI and temporal variations of Penilia
Andino reservoir (Venezuela): avirostris and Evadne tergestina
Hydrobiology, 434: 81-96. (Crustacea, Branchiopoda) in a tropical
Gulam Mohideen B.M., Hameed P. S. and C. bay, Brazil. Hydrobiologia, 445, 133-
Shajitha (2008): Studies on the Diversity 139.
and Abundance of Cladocerans in Guntur Meshram C.B. (1996): Limnological studies of
pond (Tiruchirapalli, Tamilnadu): Wadali lake, Ammaravati., Ph. D.
Sengupta, M. and Dalwani, R. (Editors) Thesis.
proceedings of Taal 2007: The 12th world Mezquita F, Tapia G, Roca J.R. (1999):
lake conference: 470-476. Ostracoda from springs on the eastern
Gulam Mohideen, B. M. (2006): Studies on the Iberian Peninsula: ecology, biogeography
zooplankton diversity in River Kaveri and palaeolimnological implications.
stretch at Tiruchirapalli and reproductive Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol;
biology of a cyclopoid copepod 148:65-85.
Eucyclops serrulatus (Fisher) Ph. D. Michael, R. G. (1973): Cladocera and
Thesis submitted Bharathdasan Rotatoria In: A guide to the freshwater
University, Tiruchirappalli. 1-121. organism. J. Madurai Univ. Suppl. 1:23-
Gulati, R. D. (1978): The ecology of common 85.
planktonic crustacea of freshwater in the Murugan, N. (1989): Dyanamics of population
Netherlands. Hydrobiologia. 59 (2): 101- of Ceriodaphnia Cornuta from a seasonal
122 pond in Madurai. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci.
Kaushik S. and D.N. Sharma (1994): 98: 211-222.
Physicochemical characteristics and Mustaq, M. (1990): A Study on cladoceran
zooplankton population of perennial fauna of River Kaveri, Tiruchirappalli M.
lake, Malsya Sarovar, Gwalior. J. Phil, Thesis submitted to Bharathidasan
Environ. Ecol.1:429-434. University, Tiruchirapalli. 1-65.
Khan, M.A. and Rao, I.S. (1981): Zooplankton Nauman, E. (1927): Zur Kritik des
in the evaluation of pollution. Cent. Bd. planktonbegriffe. Ark.f. bot.21 A:1-18
Prev. Cont. Poll. Osm. Univ. Hyderabad, Padmanabha B. and S.I. Belagali (2008):
India, 121-133. Ostracods as indicators of pollution in
Kurasawa H. (1975): Productivity of the lakes of Mysore. Journal of
communities in Japanese inland waters. Environmental Biology, 29(5):711-714.
Bhandarkar & Paliwal/Vol. VIII [1] 2017/145 – 159

Patil, C.S. and Gouder, B.Y.M. (1989): (2013): Sewage pollution and
Freshwater invertebrates of Dharwad zooplankton assemblages along the
(Karnatak State, India): Prasaranga Rosetta Nile Branch at El Rahawy area,
Karnatak University, Dharwad, India, Egypt. IJESE. 4: 29-45.
144 pp. Sehgal, K.L. (1983): Planktonic copepod of
Pattnaik B.S. (2014): Seasonal dynamics of freshwater ecosystem Interprint, New
some zooplanktons in two fresh water Delhi.
ponds. Indian journal of applied research. Selçuk Altınsaçlı, Songül Altınsaçlı, Ferda
4(10):43-47 Perçin-Paçal (2015): Ecological
Pejlar, B. 1965. Regional ecological studies of requirements of Ostracoda (Crustacea) in
Swedish freshwater zooplankton, Deştin, Dipsiz and Pınarbaşı karst
Uppsala. Zoo. Bidrag Fran., 36: 407- springs (Yatağan, Muğla, Turkey) JEZS;
515. 3 (2): 146-155.
Pennak, R.W. (1978):“Freshwater Sharma, B. K. (2001): Zooplankton Diversity:
invertebrates of United nd States”. 2 ed. Freshwater Planktonic and Semi
John Wiley and Sons Inc. London- planktonic Rotifera. In: Water quality
Chapman and Hall Ltd., New York, Assessment, Biomonitoring and
USA. 803. Zooplankton Diversity (Ed.Prof. B. K.
Pennak, R.W. (1978):“Freshwater Sharma), Department of zoology, North
invertebrates of United nd States”. 2 ed. Eastern Hill University, Shillong,
John Wiley and Sons Inc. London- Meghalaya, 190-210.
Chapman and Hall Ltd., New York, Sharma, B.K. (1987): Indian Brachionidae
USA. 803. (Eutrotaria: Monogononta) and their
Plaskitt, FJW (2008): Microscopic fresh water distribution. Hydrobiologia, 144: 269-
life, Biotech Books, Delhi. 274. 273.
Ramulu, N., G. Benerjee., K. Srikanth., B. Sharma, B.K. (1991): Rotifera, (Animal
Ravindar and P. Gowri., (2011): Resources of India-State of Art ZSI):
Seasonal changes in the ostracod Sladeck, V. (1983): Bilological indicators of
population in relation to the water quality. Hydrobilogia, 100: 169-
physicochemical changes of a perennial 201.
tank in Warangal district, A.P. Somani, V. and M. Pejawar (2003): Rotifer
International Journal of Advanced diversity in Lake Masunda, thane
Biotechnology and Research, 2(2): 286- (Maharashtra): J. Aqua. Biol., 18 (1): 23-
290. 27.
Saad, Abdel-Halim A. Emam W. M., El-
Shabrawy, G.M. and Gowedar F. M.
Bhandarkar & Paliwal/Vol. VIII [1] 2017/145 – 159

Unni, K.S. (1985): Comparitive limnology of Welch, P.S. (1952): Limnology: McGraw Hill
several reservoirs in Central India. Int. book Company, New York, Toronto and
Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 70 (6): 845-856. London (2nd Ed), pp538.
Vidjak, O., Bojanic, N., Kuśpilic, G., Welch, P.S. (1952): Limnology: McGraw Hill
Marasovic, I., Gladan, N.Z., Brautovic, I. book Company, New York, Toronto and
(2006): Annual variability and trophic London (2nd Ed), pp538.
relations of the mesozooplankton Wylie, J.L. and D.J. Currie (1991): The
community in the eutrophicated coastal relative importance of bacteria and algae
area (Vranjic Basin, eastern Adriatic as food sources for crustacean
Sea): J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 86: 19- zooplankton. Limnol. Oceanogr., 36:
26. 708-728.
Vollenweider, R. A. Frei, M. (1953): Vertikale Zafer, A. R. (1964): On the ecology of algae in
and Zeitliche Verteilung der certain fish ponds of Hyderabad. India:
Leitfahigkeit in einemeutrophen Physico-chemical complexes.
Gewasserwahrend der Hydrobiologia 23: 179-195.
sommerstagnation. Schweiz. Z.
Hydrology 15:58-67.