Download File
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
International Journal of Current Advanced Research ISSN: O: 2319-6475, ISSN: P: 2319-6505, Impact Factor: 6.614 Available Online at www.journalijcar.org Volume 7; Issue 12(C); December 2018; Page No. 16517-16523 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24327/ijcar.2018.16523.3057 Research Article SEASONAL VARIATIONS OF FRESH WATER ZOOPLANKTON FROM WELLINGTON LAKE, CUDDALORE DISTRICT OF TAMIL NADU, INDIA Balamurugan K*., Senthil Kumar G and Muthalagi S Department of Zoology, T. K. Govt. Arts College (Grade-I), Vriddhachalam - 606 001 ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article History: The zooplankton populations play a vital role in food web, food chain in nutrient recycling Received 4th September, 2018 and transfer of organic matter from primary producers to secondary consumers in Received in revised form 25th freshwater. The seasonally variations of fresh water zooplankton were investigated from October, 2018 Wellington Lake, Cuddalore district of Tamil Nadu, India. The sampling was carried out Accepted 18th November, 2018 from January 2016 to December 2016. In the present investigation, totally 24 species of Published online 28th December, 2018 zooplankton from 4 taxa were identified along with Rotifers (10), Copepods (9), Cladocera (4) and Ostrocoda (1). The rotifer was dominant groups of total zooplankton. The Key words: descending order of abundance in the various groups of zooplankton is as follows: Rotifers > Copepods > Cladocera > Ostrocoda. The maximum of population density was reported Zooplankton, Freshwater, Rotifers, Copepods, in post monsoon season and minimum was reported in monsoon season during the study Cladocera, Ostrocoda and Diversity period. It was concluded that the seasonally variations of fresh water zooplankton was also influenced by physicochemical parameters. Copyright©2018 Balamurugan K et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. INTRODUCTION Their distribution is related with a complex of factors such as change of climatic conditions, physical and chemical Freshwater zooplankton plays an important role in ponds, parameters and vegetation cover (Neves et al., 2003). They lakes and reservoirs ecosystem of food chain and they are serve as bioindicators and are a reliable tool for determining fundamental character in the significance of an aquatic the status of water pollution (Contreras et al., 2009). ecosystem. (Manickam et al., 2014). Zooplankton is small, floating or drifting and weakly swimming animals found in Thus zooplankton association, richness, abundance, seasonal various water bodies. The various functional aspects of an variation and diversity can be used for the assessment of water aquatic system, such as food chains, food webs, energy flow quality and for pisciculture management practices. They are and cycling of matter are influenced by the zooplankton varying in contribution to total abundance and biomass members, which are important biotic components of an aquatic depending on trophic status and predation by system (Sinha and Islam, 2002). They constitute an important zooplanktonicvorous fish (Fernando, 2002). Zooplankton link between primary producers and consumers of higher order composition, distribution and movement are also influenced by in aquatic food web. Human demands on freshwater physical and chemical characteristics of the ecosystem (Pinto- ecosystems have risen steeply over the past century leading to Coelho et al., 2005). In lakes, distinct differences between the large and growing threats to biodiversity around the world composition and community dynamics of littoral and limnetic (Dudgeon et al., 2006). zooplankton may occur which necessitate separate evaluations (Matsumara and Tundisi, 2005). Zooplankton research became All the secondary production in aquatic ecosystems directly or increasingly important in recent years since these floating indirectly relies on them. They play a major role in recycling organisms serve as a reproductive base for both marine and nutrients as well as cycling energy within their respective freshwater ecosystems. environments. Freshwater zooplankton consists of mainly four major groups (Protozoa, Rotifer, two Orders of Crustacean In India, many of the lakes and reservoirs have been studied viz., Cladocera and Copepoda). Most of the species occur for the distribution, abundance and diversity of zooplankton. In in fresh or saline water and about 620 species are Tamil Nadu limited works were carried out by Senthil Kumar Currently known (Forro et al., 2008). and Sivakumar (2008); Rajagopal et al. (2010); Deenadayalamoorthy and Mazher Sultana (2011); Krishnamoorthy and Selvakumar (2012); Annalakshmi and Amsath (2012); Amsha Devi et al. (2013); Sivakami et al. *Corresponding author: Balamurugan K (2013); Manickam et al. (2014); Suganthi et al. (2014) and Department of Zoology, T. K. Govt. Arts College (Grade-I), Manickam et al. (2015). But, there is insufficient reference for Vriddhachalam – 606 001 the seasonal variations of zooplankton with respective Seasonal Variations of Fresh Water Zooplankton From Wellington Lake, Cuddalore District of Tamil Nadu, India Wellington Lake, Cuddalore district, Tamil Nadu. Hence, in the present study an attempt was made to find out the variation 4500 4000 of zooplankton according to season. 3500 3000 MATERIALS AND METHODS 2500 2000 Zooplankton samples were collected from Wellington Lake 1500 (Reservoir), Keezhachcheruvai (Latitude: 11° 20' 10" N; 1000 Individuals/l Nos. of 500 Longitude: 79° 32’ 40" E), Tittagudi taluk, Cuddalore district 0 of Tamil Nadu, India. They were collected from January 2016 to December 2016, at the time of morning hours 6.30 am to 8.30 am in the monthly intervals. The samples were filtered in 100 liters of water through the standard plankton net (No. 10, mesh size 148μm). The plankton samples were transferred to a Fig 1 Monthly Variations of Zooplankton Population Density plastic bottle and preserved in 5 % formalin solution. The The percentage composition of zooplankton, the rotifers were preserved sample was transferred to laboratory. In the found to be the dominant group by constituting 45.10% from laboratory, the plankton samples were poured into a broad the total zooplankton groups. Copepods formed the second Petri dish and they were separated into different groups like dominant group with a percentage contributing of 38.21% Rotifers, Copepods, Cladocerans and Ostracodes under the followed by Cladocera 16.83% and Ostrocoda 1.55% (Fig. 2). binocular stereo zoom microscope using a fine pointed A monthly variation of zooplankton groups percentage painting brush and a needle. composition was observed. The percentage composition of The quantitative and qualitative analysis of planktonic zooplankton was varied from 9 % to 26%. Maximum was organisms was carried out using Sedgwick Rafter plankton reported during the post monsoon and minimum was reported counting cell (APHA, 2005). The diluted samples were in the monsoon season during the study period (Fig. 3). thoroughly mixed and 1 ml of the sample was pipette out into the Sedgewick-Rafter counting chamber using a wide mouthed Ostrocoda 1.55 pipette for the enumeration. The number of zooplankton in 1 ml represents organisms per liter. The zooplankton was counted under a compound microscope and each species was Copepoda 38.21 recorded. The systematic identification of plankton was followed by Dhanapathi (2000) and Altaff (2004). Cladocera 16.83 Enumeration was carried out in the samples and mean value was calculated (Santhanam et al., 1989). Zooplankton Rotifers 45.10 diversity indices were calculated the standard formula of Shannon and Weaver (1949) and Pielou (1966). 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 RESULTS Fig 2 Percentage composition of zooplankton groups Seasonal variations, abundance and distribution of varies zooplanktonic forms observed in the study area during the December November 6% present investigation. Totally 24 species of zooplankton from 4 4% October taxa were identified from the study area. The Population January 5% density of zooplankton was ranged from 1347 to 3885 indi./l 9% (mean 26 to 1748). The maximum was recorded Post monsoon Februry September 11% season and Minimum in Monsoon season during the study 7% period (Fig.1). The composition and community structure of August March zooplankton was observed and species belongs to diverse 8% 11% groups viz., 10 species of Rotifers, such as Brachinous July calyciflorus, B. bidentatus, B.falcatus, B. diversicornis, B. 9% April 11% caudatus, B. forficula, Filinia longiseta, Trichocer June May caporcellus, Keratella cochlearis and K. tropica, 9 species of 9% 10% Copepods, such as Heliodiaptomus viduus, Neodiaptomus Fig 3 Monthly Variations of Zooplankton groups Percentage lindbergi, Cyclops strenuous, Eucyclops speratus, Mesocyclops cyclopoides, M. aspericornis, M. hyalinus, Seasonally distribution and abundance of Zooplankton was Nauplius sp. and Cyclops sp., 4 species Cladocera, such as investigated from the study period. Rotifers, copepods, Daphnia magna, Daphnia Pulex, D. carinata and Moina sp. Cladocerans and Ostracodes constitute the major groups of and 1 species Ostrocoda such as Cypris sp. only was present zooplankton, which occupy an intermediate position in the during the study period. Among them Brachinous calyciflorus food web and mediate the transfer from lower to higher trophic was dominant species of Rotifer