Distribution and Abundance of Gelatinous Zooplankton in Coastal Waters of Port Blair, South Andaman

Journal of Aquaculture & Marine Biology

Abstract Research Article

Study on gelatinous zooplankton distribution, abundance and species composition Volume 5 Issue 6 - 2017 was undertaken during March’13, April’13, August’13, December’13 and February’14. A total of 16 species belonging to 10 taxa were recorded of which 8 taxa belonged to Station1 and 9 taxa to Station2 respectively. Hydromedusae 1Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, 3 (6.01 ind/m ) was found to be the most dominant taxa recorded followed by Pondicherry University, India Chaetognaths (1.64 ind/m3), Larvaceans and Siphonophores showed a similar 2Department of Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Port Blair abundance (1.21 ind/m3). Station1 had high species richness (d=15) than Station2 Pondicherry University, Andaman & Nicobar Islands (d= 9). Distribution and abundance of gelatinous zooplankton was regulated by hydro-biogeographic parameters. Gelatinous zooplankton taxa were found to be *Corresponding author: G Padmavati, Department of influenced by single or multiple abiotic and biotic factors. The absence or lower Ocean Studies and Marine Biology, Port Blair Pondicherry limit of required factors was responsible for restricted distribution of species such University, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India, Tel: 03192- 213307; Fax: 03192-261568; as Pleurobranchiapileus, Bassiabassensis, Eireneceylonensis, Eirenehexanemalis, Email: Helgicirrahamalayensis and Octophialuciumindicum. Clustering of Station1 and Station2 samples (similarity value 23.01%) was observed due to occurrence of Received: May 30, 2017 | Published: June 22, 2017 similar taxa in both stations. Cluster with least similarity and highest similarity found in Station1 indicating periodic blooming of gelatinous zooplankton taxa. Lack of literature on this ignored taxa and their noxious effect reported all over the world point out necessity of this study.

Keywords: Gelatinous zooplankton; Nematocyst; Eutrophication; Diversity; Distribution; Andaman sea

Introduction belonging to various taxa such as medusa (both Hydromedusae and Scyphomedusae), Siphonophores, Ctenophores, Chaetognaths, Andaman and Nicobar islands are emergent remnants Pteropods, Heteropods, Appendicularians, Salps, Doliolids and of tertiary mountain chains, which originated as a cause of Pyrosomes [10]. All these taxa are anatomically characterized by presence of mesogleal layer, still they differ from each other The Andaman Islands are the extension of the submerged in various features such as reproduction, predatory mode, and geological upheaval, along with volcanic and oceanic influences. Arakan Yoma Mountain range of Myanmar and the Nicobar digestion etc. scarcity of studies on gelatinous zooplankton are the continuation of the Mentawai Islands to the south and distribution is due to the fragile nature of these unique groups southeast of Sumatra. These two island groups situated in the of organisms [11]. Studies on gelatinous zooplankton population 0 0 0 0 Bay of Bengal span 6 45’ N to 13 41’ N and 92 12’ E to 93 57’ of Tamil Nadu coastal water were carried out by Pallavan [12]. E. These island ecosystems are well known for its biodiversity, Apart from this study other reports from Indian Ocean waters are mainly on Hydromedusae, Scyphomedusae and new records of best tourist destinations in the world. Currently, a high degree of various gelatinous species. anthropogenicfishery potential activity and tribal is fading populations the bio-wealth which make of Andaman it one of Sea. the Andaman Sea cannot be excluded from gelatinous zooplankton Even though gelatinous zooplankton got less attention, jelly (abbreviated as ‘GZP’ throughout this literature) studies, as these Cnidarian and Ctenophora [13] organisms enjoy a worldwide distribution. are infamous worldwide due to their noxious effect and periodic fishes (zooplanktons of phyla Biological Studies on Andaman Sea are less as compared from different parts of world seas, such as Mediterranean Sea to other seas in the Indian Ocean [1]. Most of the gelatinous [14-17].blooming / aggregating nature. Jellyfish blooms were reported zooplankton species are cosmopolitan to Indian Ocean; the previous studies on gelatinous zooplankton from Indian Ocean

Studies on Indian hydrozoa were carried out by Vannuci & Navas et [18],Major climate factors change influencing[19], and invasion domination of GZP of[20]. gelatinous Noxious al.were [2-8]. mostly Till now confined from India: to any 212 specific species taxon of Hydrozoa, of this wide 25 species group. zooplankton are eutrophication (Arai et al., 2001), overfishing of Scyphozoa, 5 species of Cubozoa and 600 species of Anthozoa have been reported. The 12 species of Ctenophores, among the raftseffects act of as Jellyfish surface blooms,for attachment affects fisheryof polyp activity of hydrozoans by clogging and 100-150 species known from the World Ocean, occur in the Indian scyphozoans,fishing nets sometimes sometimes damages overfeeding fishing of the gear coastal [21]. Aquacultureaquaculture Seas [9]. Gelatinous zooplankton is a collective term for organisms

system leads to eutrophication and it ends up in jelly fish blooms and higher economic loss [22]. Jellyfish ingression on water

Submit Manuscript | http://medcraveonline.com J Aquac Mar Biol 2017, 5(6): 00139 Distribution and Abundance of Gelatinous Zooplankton in Coastal Waters of Port Blair, Copyright: 2/8 South Andaman ©2017 FuadSaneen et al.

screens of Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) reduced plant population structure of gelatinous individuals. Methodology efficiency,Similar andcases resulted of power-plant in shutdown shutdown, of power station power [23]. reduction and rotary screen damage were reported by Matsueda [24,25]. Samples were collected during March, April, August, December 2013 and February 2014 from two stations viz. Junglighat (St. 1) causality’s are resulted by severe case and were reported by (YesudaJellyfishes 2003), affects Fenner& tourism Williamson through its(1996). sting Nematocyst attacks, death venoms and of various species are known for it’s neurotoxic, cytotoxic, withlocated a mesh at 11° size 39′N of and200 92ºµm 43′E.and a Whereasmouth area St. 2of , Burmanallah0.2 m² were haemolytic, and cardio depressive effects [26]. Many species of located at 11° 33′N and 92° 43′E (figure 1). Zooplankton nets GZP are invasive species; accidental entry of these species to a of the net, horizontal hauling was carried at surface water for 10 minutesused for duringcollection day [27].(04 30 The hrs). flow Collected meter wassamples fixed was at thepreserved mouth immediately to avoid autolysis by using 4% formalin, 1-2 ml of newThe ecosystem current disruptsstudy aimed the ecosystem to investigate and energythe distribution flow [20]. and glycerin were added to exclude the loss of quality of gelatinous abundance of gelatinous zooplankton, from the coastal waters of samples due to formalin induced shrinkage. Physico-chemical parameters of Seawater, such as water temperature, salinity, pH, from Andaman Sea, on this neglected group of animals indicates and Dissolved oxygen were analyzed and recorded throughout thetwo specificnecessity areas, of this in Port study. Blair, Population South Andaman. dynamics Lack of of literaturesgelatinous the study period from both stations [28]. Laboratory analysis zooplankton in relation to varying hydro-biographic factors was was carried out after 7 days of preservation with glycerin allowed the specimens to regain their original size and texture. For the of gelatinous taxa from coastal waters of this island will be an assetinvestigated to taxonomic throughout studies the study in Indian period. Ocean.Taxonomic Ichthyoplankton classification Nikon SMZ 1500 model stereoscope were used, and Nikon camera monthly population variation was studied to depict the predatory observation, sorting and taxonomic identification of specimens in species composition and species richness will be analyzed (Coolpix P6000) used for taking photographs. The classification force exerted by ‘GZP’ on fishery sector. Zoogeographic variation manualsand identification [29-32]. of specimens up to the lowest possible taxonomic level was done by using standard identification to find out the favoring factors for domination and variation in

Figure 1: Map showing study locations, St. 1 (Junglighat) and St. 2 (Burmanallah).

Citation: FuadSaneenCV, Padmavati G (2017) Distribution and Abundance of Gelatinous Zooplankton in Coastal Waters of Port Blair, South Andaman. J Aquac Mar Biol 5(6): 00139. DOI: 10.15406/jamb.2017.05.00139 Distribution and Abundance of Gelatinous Zooplankton in Coastal Waters of Port Blair, Copyright: 3/8 South Andaman ©2017 FuadSaneen et al.

Results and Discussion wiz, Diphyeschamissonis, Bassiabassensis, Eudoxoidesspiralis, Eudoxoidesmitra and Diphyesbojani. Three different larval forms Correlation of GZP species with physico-chemical parameters larvae were recorded totally. Fish eggs were observed in samples from 30‰ - 33‰, pH between 6.9 - 8.6 and Dissolved oxygen ofsuch both as stations. Late Trochophore, Distribution flatworm of species larvae across and the Ophiopluteusstudy area is rangedAt St. from 1, water 3.1 temperaturemg/L - 4.9 mg/L.ranged At from St- 27 2, ºCsomewhat - 33 ºC, Salinity stable depicted in Table-1. Variation in the abundance and diversity of different gelatinous zooplankton taxa was observed during this study. At St. 1 Hydromedusae was the most abundant fromcondition 3.1 mg/l prevailed, - 4.9 mg/l. water A temperaturewide variation ranged in water from temperature 27 ºC -28 group of Gelatinous Zooplankton during the study period (6.01 wasºC , salinity(30recorded at ‰St. 1,- 33‰),while other pH between parameters 7 - showed8.6 and aDO relatively ranged ind/m3). Chaetognaths comprised the second most abundant closer similarity in its ranges between the stations. group (1.64bind/m3) followed by Ctenophores (1.21 ind/m3), Siphonophores (1.21 ind/m3), Thaliaceans (0.7 ind/m3 During the study, four species of medusae showed a embryo (0.45 ind/m3) and Larvaceans (0.14 ind/m3) and late positive correlation with salinity, viz, Eireneceylonensis trochophore larvae (0.01 ind/m3) (Figure 4). St. 2 Larvaceans), was fish Eirenehexanemalis (r=0.08), the most abundant group (1.12 ind/m3) followed by Chaetognaths Helgicirrhamalayensis (r= 0.065), Octophialuciumindicum (0.88 ind/m3), late trochophore larvae (0.81 ind/m3), Fish embryo (r=(correlation 0.148). coefficientWhereas Leriopetetraphylla r= 0.048), showed a positive (0.43 ind/m3), Siphonophores (0.19 ind/m3), Thaliacea (0.11 correlation with dissolved oxygen (0.229). Ctenophore species ind/m3), Flatworm larvae (0.03 ind/m3) Ophioplutieus larvae Pleurobranchiapileus showed positive correlation with both pH (r (0.03 ind/m3), while Hydromedusae were recorded at a lowest = 0.151) and DO (r= 0.602). Chaetognath species Sagittaenflata abundance value of (0.007 ind/m³; (Figure 5). showed a positive correlation with salinity (r = 0.246) and dissolved oxygen (r= 0.615). Sagittameenakshiae showed positive Ctenophores were represented by a single species correlation with all three factors other than temperature. The Pleurobranchiapileus, and it was restricted to St. 1, its positive single representative of Thaliacea Thaliademocratica showed correlation with pH and DO indicating higher abundance in positive correlation with salinity (r = 0.140). Among Larvaceans St. 1. High pH and higher DO values at St. 2 was also observed Oikopleurasp. showed a positive correlation with salinity, pH and compared to St.1 but this locality failed to promote proliferation DO, where as its sister taxa Fritillariasp.showed positive correlation of Ctenophores. Chaetognaths were the second most dominant taxa in both station, their active predatory nature and higher of Siphonophores, Diphyeschamissonis that showed correlation adaptability to varying abiotic factors indicate their successful with temperatureDO (r= 0.314), and Bassiabassensissalinity. The correlation correlation coefficient with salinity values distribution. The single species of Doliolids, Thaliademocratica (r= 0.286), Eudoxoidesspiralis correlation with DO (r = 0.221), was recorded from both stations; they showed a positive Eudoxoidesmitra correlation with DO (r= 0.227), Diphyesbojani correlation with salinity, with an optimum range of 30psu-33 psu showed negative correlation to all the factors. Late trochophore recorded during the study period. Two species of Siphonophores, Eudoxoidesspiralis and Eudoxoidesmitra were restricted to embryo showed positive correlation with salinity (r = 0.603) and St. 1 and showed positive correlation with DO. Whereas, pHlarvae (r = showed0.226). Flat a positive worm larvae correlation showed with positive pH (rcorrelation = 0.635), with fish Bassiabassensis were restricted to St. 2 where it showed positive pH (r = 0.309) and DO (r = 0.065). Ophiopluteus larvae showed correlation with salinity and DO. Two different life stages of positive correlation with all factors other than temperature, Bassiasp. such as eudoxoid and polygastric stages were observed salinity (r = 0.272), pH(r= 0.340), DO (r= 0.026) (Table 3). during the months of December-13 and February-14, indicating their reproductive developmental period. Diphyeschamissonis and Species composition and abundance Diphyesbojani were recorded from both stations. Diphyesbojani showed negative correlation to all physicochemical factors and A total of 16 species of GZP plus 3 different larval forms D. chamissonis showed positive correlation with DO. Both solitary and aggregate life forms were recorded during the months of recorded overall during the study period. Medusoid forms December-13 and February-14. wereand laterepresented and early by developmental two orders stagesLeptomedusae of fish embryo and order were Trachymedusae. Leptomedusae include species such as Dendrogram (Figure 2) produced from square root Eirenehexanemalis, Eireneceylonensis, Helgicirrahamalayensis, transformed group average data showed clustering of St. 1 and and Octophialuciumindicum. Order Trachymedusae was St. 2 samples showed 23.01% similarity due to the occurrence represented by Leriopetetraphylla. Ctenophores had a single of common taxa (such as Chaetognaths, Hydromedusae and Fish representative species Pleurobranchiapileus. Two species of embryo) in both stations, cluster formed in St. 1 between all the Chaetognaths- Flaccisagittaenflata and Sagittameenakshiae was samples showed a similarity of 30.64%, whereas the same in St. 2 recorded during the study period. The damaged specimens of showed a higher similarity of 36.59% indicating even distribution Chaetognaths were categorized as Sagittasp. Two major taxa of taxa in St. 2. Cluster with highest similarity (63.57%) at of urochordates, Larvacea and Thaliacea was recorded during St. 1, formed between samples JNMAR-13 and JNAPL-13 this study, the larvacean taxa was represented by two species (JN=Junglighat; March – April’13) followed by the cluster formed viz, Oikopleurasp. and Fritillariasp. Thaliacean taxon was between samples BHAUG-13 and BHFEB-14 (61.27%) from St. represented by a single species, Thaliademocratica. Five different 2 (BH= Burmanallah; Aug’13 & Feb’14). The cluster with least species of Siphonophores was encountered during this study similarity (33.48%) among the stations was observed in St. 1

between samples of JNDEC-13 and JNAUG-13 followed by 39.69% to high species diversity where each species showed a maximum similarity, resulted by the aggregation of samples of JNFEB-13, density according to availability of optimal conditions compared JNMAR-13 and JNAPL-13. MDS (multi-dimensional scaling) to St. 2, that made the samples more dissimilar. Due to lower ordination (Figure 3) on ‘GZP’ community abundance square root species diversity at St. 2, this locality became less competitive transformed data showed, formation of two distinct aggregations for gelatinous species, so the endemic gelatinous species at St. among Samples of St. 1 and St. 2 respectively at a stress of 0.1. The 2 showed much stable occurrence in all the collected samples samples of St. 2 were clustered in least distance indicating their which made the samples more similar, and aggregation of samples higher similarity than St. 1 as observed in the dendrogram. The (Figure 3). Graph showed stress values of 0.1 that corresponded higher dissimilarity between the monthly samples at St. 1 was due to a good ordination with no misleading interpretation [33]. Table 1: List of species recorded during the study period from St.1 & St. 2.

Station-1 ( Junglighat ) Station-2 ( Burmanallah ) Species name & Larvae Mar- Apr- Aug- Dec- Feb- Mar- Apr- Aug- Dec- Feb- types. 13 13 13 13 14 13 13 13 13 14

Eireneceylonensis + + + + + _ _ _ _ _

Eirenehexanemalis + + + + + _ _ _ _ _

Helgicirrahamalayensis + _ + + + _ _ _ _ _

Octophialuciumindicum + + _ _ + _ _ _ _ _

Leriopetetraphylla + + + + _ _ _ _ + _

Pleurobranchiapileus + + + + + _ _ _ _ _

Sagitta sp. + + _ + _ + + + + +

Flaccisagittaenflata + _ + + + _ _ _ + _

Sagittameenakshiae + _ _ _ + _ _ _ + _

Thaliademocratica _ _ _ _ + _ + _ + +

Oikopleurasp. + + _ + _ _ + + + +

Fritillariasp. + + _ _ _ _ + + + +

Diphyeschamissonis + _ + _ + _ _ + + +

Bassiabassensis ______+ +

Eudoxoidesspiralis _ _ + _ + _ _ _ _ _

Eudoxoidesmitra _ _ + ______

Diphyesbojani _ _ + _ + _ + _ _ _

Late trochophore + _ _ + _ + + + + +

Fish embryo + + _ _ + + + + + +

Flatworm larvae _ _ _ _ _ + + _ _ +

Ophiopluteus larvae ______+ _

Figure 2: Bray Curtis similarity dendrogram showing similarity between St. 1 and St. 2. Pleurobranchiapileus Leriopetetraphylla *(JN indicates St. 1 AND BH indicates St. 2).

Octophialuciumindicum Eireneceylonensis

Figure 3: MDS showing spatial distribution of gelatinous zooplankton at St. 1 & St. 2.

Bassiabassensis Diphyeschamissonis Figure 6:

Gelatinous species identified during the study period. The abundance of gelatinous zooplankton in St. 1 was comparatively higher than St. 2. Bio-Geographic variation of both Figure 4: Abundanceof different GZP taxa at St. 1. stations is primary factor promoting periodic successful diversity and survival of various ‘GZP’ taxa. St. 1 is a bay region, land logged condition, here diminish wind driven water circulation, and culminate in high temperature, salinity which promote nutrient enrichment [34]. This region is a major harbor in Port Blair; it is polluted due to in higher anthropogenic activity. Both study area had almost similar range of physicochemical variations,

proliferation of gelatinous zooplankton, though few taxa showed aand restricted relatively distribution equal amount in both of areas. fish Both embryo stations to promote had similar the salinity range of 30 ‰ - 33 ‰ even though Leptomedusaeviz, Eirenehexanemalis, Eireneceylonensis, Helgicirrahamalayensis, and Octophialuciumindicum showed restricted distribution at St. 1, these species showed a positive correlation with salinity. The Trachymedusae Leriopetetraphylla was dominant group of Figure 5: Abundance of different GZP taxa at St. 2. medusae among the stations which showed a positive correlation

with DO. DO range of 3.5 mg/l - 4.5 mg/l was optimum for this species. This was the only species of medusae recorded from both of geographical barriers promoted the Larvaceans to dominate in the stations, showing a broad range of geographic distribution. St.Lesser 2. In anthropogenic St. 2 physico-chemical influence, factors low pollution was the ratekey anddeterminant absence Occurrences of low density from the samples with high DO value were noted during this study. Purcell [35] stated that warm water more than one abiotic factors showed better adaptive capability temperature and higher salinity promoted asexual reproduction andof species wide range distribution, of distribution and abundance. even if Taxonthey consist influenced of low by of medusae but it was not so in this study area i.e. at St. 2 where in Port Blair, which lead to the occurrence of lower abundance of geographic differences in both stations and variation of species richness. St. 2 i.e. Burmanallah is an active fishing zone anthropogenicsimilar conditions activity. prevailed, The DO which values may at St.point 1 was out comparatively the influence linked with the distribution and diversity of ‘GZP’ taxa, as it is lower than St. 2 which lead to slight hypoxic condition promoting aof major ichthyoplanktons component in here. the Thisdiet of ichthyoplankton adult and juvenile deficiency gelatinous was aggregation of medusae in terms of density and diversity as carnivores. The complexity of St. 1 was due to its higher diversity, observed in this study has been reported earlier (Purcell et al., which is contributed by relative abundance of each species in 2001b) [35]. All the medusae forms recorded during the present St. 1. Evenness of ‘GZP’ taxa compared the relative similarity of study were previously reported from Andaman Sea [3]. population size of corresponding taxa. Hydromedusae was the taxa with highest species richness (d=5), even though this taxa The ‘GZP’ taxa in the both stations showed wide variation showed discontinuous occurrence in sample resulted in evenness value 0.6036 from St. 1, in St. 2 this taxa showed a very low as physicochemical parameters, geographical features of evenness (0.007) and species richness (d=1; Table 2). Similarly, in distribution which is influenced by many factors, such siphonophores and ctenophores showed higher diversity at St. 1. predators and availability of food source etc. St. 2 showed high Whereas the rest of the taxa showed a higher diversity at St. 2, abundancelocality, anthropogenic of Larvaceans influence, whereas pollution,St. 1 showed less high abundance abundance of these taxa had similar species richness as found in St. 1, the higher of hydromedusae. Both study regions had almost similar ranges evenness value of these groups recorded from St. 2 (Table-2). of abiotic factors but it was not enough to support domination Among the ‘GZP’ taxa showed abrupt increase in population of other gelatinous taxa such as medusae and ctenophores in size particularly hydromedusae, ctenophores compared to St. 2. This highlights the role of geographic locality features other individual taxa during the study period at St. 1 indicating and anthropogenic activity as the key determinant factor in distribution and proliferation of gelatinous zooplankton taxa. distribution and high diversity, indicates that these taxa chose At St. 2 Larvaceans were most abundant taxa with two suitabletheir ability environmental to thrive in condition polluted to environment. proliferate and Their dominate confined in representatives Oikopleurasp. and Fritillariasp. Both species particular habitats [36-40]. showed positive correlation with physico-chemical factors. Table 2: Species Richness (d), Species Abundance (ind/m3) and Pielou’s Evenness (J’) of individual taxa from St-1 and St-2.

Station 1 Station 2

Taxa d Ind/m-3 J’ d Ind/m-3 J’

Hydromedusae 5 6.01 0.6036 1 0.007 0

Ctenophores 1 1.21 0.7962 0 0 0

Chaetognaths 2 1.64 0.7501 2 0.88 0.8493

Thaliaceans 1 0.7 0 1 0.11 0.7385

Larvaceans 2 0.14 0.346 2 1.12 0.6062

Siphonophores 4 1.21 0.3981 3 0.19 0.944

Late trochophore 1 0.01 15 1 0.81 0.8649

Flatworm larvae 0 0 0 1 0.03 0

Ophiopluteus larvae 0 0 0 1 0.03 2.164

Fish embryo 1 0.45 0.4947 1 0.43 0.9982

Table 3: Spearman rank correlation (r) between various environmental partameters.

Species Name Temperature (0C) Salinity (psu) pH Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) Eireneceylonensis -0.01472 0.004873 -0.19127 -0.14095 Eirenehexanemalis -0.06968 0.089099 -0.08802 -0.14909 Helgicirrhamalayensis -0.08556 0.065264 -0.09636 -0.13473 Octophialuciumindicum 0.061611 0.148222 -0.13587 -0.25674 Leriopetetraphylla -0.02036 -0.44054 -0.31876 0.229053 Pleurobranchiapileus -0.18516 -0.40771 0.151079 0.602199 Sagittasp. 0.809217 0.190319 -0.37462 -0.5435 Flaccisagittaenflata -0.07557 0.246785 -0.20892 0.615879 Sagittameenakshiae -0.09129 0.517333 0.005187 0.504622 Thaliademocratica -0.02537 0.140593 -0.11705 -0.22112 Oikopleurasp. -0.0518 0.592223 0.156927 0.120836 Fritillariasp. 0.026849 0.380363 -0.17977 0.486524 Diphyeschamissonis -0.02746 -0.37157 -0.35432 0.314137 Bassiabassensis -0.02756 0.286319 -0.1058 0.11691 Eudoxoidesspiralis -0.02035 -0.44205 -0.3252 0.221441 Eudoxoidesmitra -0.01961 -0.44444 -0.32034 0.227831 Diphyesbojani -0.08422 -0.15439 -0.22157 -0.09045 Late trochophore -0.3971 -0.09493 0.635538 -0.14097 Fish embryo -0.00595 0.60308 0.226965 -0.7091 Flatworm larvae -0.21569 -0.44444 0.309836 0.065094 Ophiopluteus larvae -0.28818 0.272166 0.34088 0.026575 Conclusion References 1. Bhattathiri PMA, Devassy VP (1981) Primary productivity of the zooplankton from the coastal waters of Port Blair, South Andaman. Andaman Sea. Indian J Mari Sci 10: 243-247. In theThis present study study, is the a first total report of sixteen on distributionspecies of ‘GZP’ of gelatinousbelonging 2. Vannucci M, Navas D (1973) On ecology of indian ocean hydromedusae, to ten taxa such as medusae, ctenophores, Chaetognaths, IOBC Handbook 5: 1-54. Appendicularians, Doliolids, Siphonophores and developmental 3. Santhakumari V (1993) A study of Medusa from Andaman and Nicobar waters. J ZoolSoci Ker 3(1): 37-43. species composition between St. 1 and St. 2 were recorded. Gelatinousstages of fourspecies different vizPleurobranchiapileus, taxa was identified. Eudoxoidesspiralis, A variation in 4. Eudoxoidesmitra, Eireneceylonensis, Eirenehexanemalis, Odisha coast, Bay of Bengal. J Current Sci 104(4): 25. Kumar SB, Panigrahy RC (2013) Jellyfish bloom along the south Helgicirrahamalayensis, and Octophialuciumindicum showed 5. Santhakumari V (1996) Medusa from sea around Laccadive group restricted distribution to St. 1. At St. 2 species such as Bassia of islands (7 -18 N/69 -76 E) proc. second workshop scient,result, FORV sagarsampadaº º pp.249-255.º º restricted distribution. This study indicates that St. 1 had a higher bassensis, Ophiopluteuslarvae, and flatworm larvae showed 6. Santhakumari V (1997) Species composition, distribution and abundance of gelatinous zooplankton than that of St. 2, and abundance of hydromedusae in the exclusive economic zone of the their abundance and successful diversity is governed by factors east coast of india. JSeto Mar Bioi Lab 38(112): 53-61. viz geographical features of locality, anthropogenic activity, 7. Santhakurnari V, Tiwari LR, Nair VR (1999) Species composition, abundance and distribution of hydromedusae from dharamtar physicochemical variations and lack of predators. The inability of availability of dietary source, extent of pollution, fishing activity, estuarine system, adjoining bombay harbor. Indian J of Mar Sci pp. St. 2 to accommodate a diverse population of ‘GZP’ was due to the 158-162. variation in these governing factors. The lower similarity between the samples of St. 1 is due to periodic dominance of individual 8. Ganapati PN, Nagabhushanam R (1958) Seasonal distribution of gelatinous taxa, creating variation in species diversity. the hydromedusae off the Visakhapatnam coast. J. Mem. Oceanogr. Andhra Univ Ser 62: 91-99.

9. Venkataraman K, Wafar M (2005) Coastal and marine biodiversity of 25. Aurelia India. Indian J Marine Sci 34: 57-75. aurita(Linne). Jpn Fish Resour Cons Assoc, Tokyo (in Japanese with EnglishYasuda abstract). T (1988) Studies on the common jelly-fish, 10. Hamner WM, Madin LP, Alldredge AL, Gilmer RW, Hamner PP (1952) Underwater observations of gelatinous zooplankton:sampling 26. Rodrí problems, feeding biology, and behavior. J Limnol Oceanogr 20(6): of active compounds in venom from Pelagianoctiluca(Scyphozoa: 907-917. Pelagiidae)guez JS,from Martínez the Caribbean NLL (2011) Sea ,J IsolationCiencias Marinas and prepurification 37(3): 369- 377. 11. Raskoff KA, Sommer FA, Hamner WM, Cross KM (2003) Collection and Culture Techniques for Gelatinous Zooplankton, Marine Biological 27. UNESCO (1968) Zooplankton sampling Monographs on Oceanography Laboratory. J Biol Bull 204: 68-80. Methodology 2, UNESCO, Paris. 12. Iyyapparajanarasimapallavan G (2013) Distribution and abundance 28. Strickland JDH, Parsons TRA practical handbook of seawater analysis. of gelatinous zooplankton along tamilnadu coastal waters. J Biol Sci Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 167 (2): 310. 13(1): 18-25. 29. Conway DVP, White RG, Ciles JHD, Gallienne CP, Robins DB (2003) 13. Guide to coastal surface zooplankton of the south western Indian ocean, occasional publication of the marine biological association of 929-938.Gibbons MJ, Richardson AJ (2013) Beyond the jellyfish joyride and the United Kingdom,no i5, Playmouth, UK. global oscillations: advancing jellyfish research, J Plankton Res 35(5): 14. Canepa A, Fuente V, Sabatés A, Piraino S, Boero F, et al. (2014) 30. Perry RA (2003) guide to the marine plankton of southern California Pelagianoctiluca in the Mediterranean sea (e-Book) springer (3rd Edn), UCLA OceanGLOBE and Malibu High School 1-319. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, new york London. 31. Conway DVP (2012) Marine zooplankton of southern Britain. Part 1: 15. Radiolarian, Helizoa, Foraminifera, Ciliophora, Cnidaria, Ctenophora, species, causes and consequences, J Mar Poll Bul. 60(7): 954-963. Platyhelminthes, Nemertean, Rotifer and Mollusca AWG. John. Dong Z, Liu D, Keesing JK (2010) Jellyfish blooms in china: dominant Occasional publications. Marine biological association of the United 16. Fleming NEC, Harrod C, Houghton JDR (2013) Identifying potentially Kingdom, UK pp. 1-138. EnviInterct 4: 263-272. 32. (1989) Zhengzhong Marine plankton, china ocean press, Beijing, harmful jellyfish blooms using shoreline surveys. J Aquaculture ISBN: 3-540-15720-15724. 17. Kaneda A, Kohama T, Kawamura Y, Takeoka H (2007) Periodicity in the accumulation of gelatinous zooplankton during the summer season in 33. Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001) Change in Marine Communities: the coastal area of iyo-nada, J Japan Limnol. Oceanogr 52(2): 707-715. An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. PRIMER-E, Plymouth, UK, pp. 38. 18. Arai MN (2005) Predation on pelagic Coelenterates: A review. J Mar Biol 85: 523-536. 34. Papathanassiou E, Panayotidis P, Anagnostaki K (1987) Notes on the Aurelia aurita Lam. In Elefsis Bay 19. Buecher E, Goy J, Planque B, Etienne M, Dallot S (1997) Long-term (Saronikos Gulf, Greece). PSZNI: J MarEcol 8(1): 49-58. Liriopetetraphylla in Villefranche Bay between 1966 biology and ecology of the jellyfish and 1993 compared to Pelagianoctiluca pullulations. J OceanolActa 35. Purcell JE, Arai MN (2001) Interactions of pelagic cnidarians and 20:fluctuations 145-157. of

20. Graham WM, Bayha KM (2007) Biological invasions by marine 36. ctenophoresArai MN (2001) with Pelagic fish: a coelenteratesreview. J Hydrobiol. and eutrophication: 451(155): 27-44. a review. J Hydrobiol 155: 69-87. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp: 240-255. jellyfish. In: Nentwig W (Eds.), Ecological studies, J BiologicalInvas. 37. Fernandes V, Ramaiah N (2014) Distributional Characteristics of 21. surface-layer mesozooplanktons in the Bay of Bengal during the 2005 Biol 48: 199-205. winter monsoon. Indian J Geo-Marine Sci 43(2): 176-188. Omor M (1978) Zooplankton ﬁsheries of the world: a review. J Mar 22. Hung JJ, Hung CS, Su HM (2008) Biogeochemical responses to the 38. Oueda A, Wgueda, Kabre AT, Zongo F, Kabre GT (2007) Diversity, removal of maricultural structures from an eutrophic lagoon (tapong abudance and seasonal dynamics of zooplankton community in south bay) in taiwan. J Mar Env Res 65: 1-17. saharan reservoir (burkinafaso) J Biol Sci 7: 1-9. 23. Masilamoni JG, Jesudossk KS, Nandakumar KK, Satpathy K, Nair VK, et 39. blooms and their direct consequences for humans: A review. J Mar power plants. JCurrent Sci. 79(5): 569. EcolPurcell Prog EJ, 350: Uye 153-174.SI, Lo WT (2007) Anthropogenic causes of jelly fish al. (2000) Jellyfish ingress: a threat to the smooth operation of coastal 24. Matsueda N (1969) Presentation of Aurelia aurita atthermalpower 40. Qazim SZ Anzari ZA (1981) Food components of Andaman Sea. Indian station. Bull Mar BiolStnAsamushi13: 187-191. J Mar Sci 10: 276-279.