JCBPS; Section D; November 2019 –January 2020, Vol. 10, No. 1; 053-065. E- ISSN: 2249 –1929 [DOI: 10.24214/jcbps.D.10.1.05365.

Journal of Chemical, Biological and Physical Sciences

An International Peer Review E-3 Journal of Sciences Available online atwww.jcbsc.org

Section D: Environmental Sciences CODEN (USA): JCBPAT Research Article

Seasonal Variation in Planktonic Fauna of Sarangpani Pond,

Pramod Kumar1, Ashwani Wanganeo1 Rajni Raina2 and Fozia Sonaullah1

1Department of Environmental Sciences and Limnology, , Bhopal, India. 2Department of Zoology, Government Science and Commerce College (Benazir), Bhopal, M.P., India.

Received: 10 January 2020; Revised: 24 January 2020; Accepted: 30 January 2020

Abstract: Present study was aimed to assess the zooplankton diversity and entire ecological condition of Sarangpani pond of Bhopal city. Total of 78 zooplankton species were recorded from the ponds waters during two years of study period which consisted of Rotifera 29 species (37%), Cladocera &Protozoa 16 species each (20% each), Copepoda 13 species (17%) and Ostracoda 4 species (5%). Among all the zooplankton classes, species belongs to the class Rotifera were recorded their dominance during both the years of study. The dominance of Rotifers population in terms of quality has been recorded. Seasonal variation of zooplankton population recorded maximum species diversity of class Rotifera during summer (1st year) and winter season (2nd year). On the other hand, minimum population density was contributed by class Copepoda in all the season. Presence of various pollution indicator zooplankton species indicates and evidences the high anthropogenic pressure and direct mixing sewage from the nearby catchment in the pond waters which has accelerated the eutrophication in the Sarangpani pond. Keywords: Zooplankton, Trophic status, anthropogenic activities, Sewage pollution.

53 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D ; November 2019 –January 2020, Vol. 10, No. 1; 053-065 DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.10.1.05365.]

Seasonal Variation … Pramod Kumar et al.

INTRODUCTION

Zooplankton provides the main food for fishes and can be used as indicators of the trophic status of water body1,2,. They provide an important link between trophic status and water quality of the aquatic ecosystems. Being a vital and important biological component of the aquatic ecosystem, zooplankton are able to reflects any environmental changes which helps us to monitor the entire ecological conditions of aquatic ecosystem. Changes in the zooplankton species composition have been used as indication of increased eutrophication of fresh waters3.

Zooplankton are not only useful as bio-indicators to help us detect pollution load, but are also helpful for ameliorating polluted waters. They assume a great ecological significance in aquatic ecosystem as they play vital role in food web, nutrient recycling, and in transfer of organic matter from primary producers to secondary consumers like fishes4. Hence, zooplankton communities, based on their quality and species diversity, are used for assessing the productivity vis -a‐ vis fishery resource, fertility and health status of the ecosystem5.

Generally, species composition and community structure of zooplankton in a water body is found to be fairly constant and cannot be changed for many decades, but it changes when water body is under stress pollution or eutrophication. Therefore, during the assessment of the ecological status of water bodies the species composition, quantitative characteristics of individual species and groups of zooplankton is of great importance6,7.

Bhopal district has numerous aquatic resources supporting rich biodiversity. Among all the water bodies, only few references are available on the planktonic biodiversity of Sarangpani pond. Therefore, an attempt has been made to investigate the composition of the zooplankton community in Sarangpani pond during 2007-2008.The present study on planktonic fauna of Sarangpani pond will be helpful for researcher for further studies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Study Area: Sarangpani pond is also called as Pond as it is situated in the Piplani area of BHEL city of Bhopal and lies between Latitude 23º12'13.23" N and Longitude 77°25'18.31"E at an elevation of 1601ft. This is mainly used for fish culture. Due to mixing of organically enriched effluents from catchment the quality of water body has degraded. Few Dhobi Ghats are established along periphery of the pond. Apart from this, large quantities of domestic wastes from surroundings are also added into the pond. Most of the time the pond is covered with Eichornia crassipes and green algal blooms mainly composed of Cyanobacteria. For the present study a single sampling site was selected at the central point of the pond, close to floating fountain. Some important morphometric features of the Sarangpani pond were estimated and documented during present study which is given in Table 1 and the location of the pond is shown in Fig. 1.

54 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D ; November 2019 –January 2020, Vol. 10, No. 1; 053-065 DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.10.1.05365.]

Seasonal Variation … Pramod Kumar et al.

Table 1: Some Important Morphometric Features of the Sarangpani Pond, Bhopal

Features Sarangpani Pond Physical Location Bhopal City (Piplani) Type of Dam Earthen dam Latitude 23°14'37.30"N Longitude 77°28'18.66"E Maximum length (m) 420 Maximum width (m) 160 Maximum depth (m) 4.6 Minimum depth (m) 0.8 Sources of water Rain water, Domestic sewage Washing & Bathing, Aquaculture, Main use of water Recreation and Gardening in

Surroundings Areas

Figure 1: Location of Sarangpani Pond in the

For enumeration of zooplankton population of surface and bottom waters, water samples (20 liters) were filtered with the help of plankton net made of bolting silk of mesh size of 20 µm and concentrated in 100 ml of plastic vials followed by preserving with 5% formaldehyde solution / 0.5 ml of prepared Lugol’s iodine solution. For identification of zooplankton species up to the species level for their taxonomic and various morphometric characters the concentrated samples were examined under the inverted microscope (Metzer made) following the available standard taxonomic references8-16.

55 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D ; November 2019 –January 2020, Vol. 10, No. 1; 053-065 DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.10.1.05365.]

Seasonal Variation … Pramod Kumar et al.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The qualitative and quantitative details of zooplankton species of Sarangpani pond are summarized in Table 2 and 3. Ostracoda 5%

Copepoda Rotifera 17% 37%

Cladocera 21% Protozoa 20%

Fig. 2: Qualitative contribution and Percentage composition of zooplankton classes

During present investigation (2007-2008) total of 78 zooplankton species were identified from Sarangpani pond which were composed of Rotifera (29 species & 37 %); Protozoa and Cladocera (16 species & 20 % each); Copepoda (13 species & 18 %) and Ostracoda (4 species & 5 %) (Fig. 2 and Table 2).

Table 2: Seasonal qualitative enumeration of zooplankton of Sarangpani pond, Bhopal

Name of the Taxa 2007 2008 Rotifera W S M PM W S M PM Anuraeopsis coelata(Beauchamp, 1932) + + + + + Anuraeopsis fissa (Gosse, 1851) + + + + + Anuraeopsis sp. + + + + + + + + Ascomorpha sp. (Perty, 1850) + + + + + + + + Brachionus angularis(Gosse, 1851) + + + + + + + + Brachionus bidentata(Anderson, 1889) + + + + + Brachionus budapestinensis (Daday, 1885) + + + + + + + Brachionus calcyfloryus(Pallas, 1766) + + + + + + + Brachionus caudatus (Barrois and Daday, 1894) + + + + + + + Brachionus diversicornis (Daday, 1883) + + + + + + Brachionus falcatus (Zacharias, 1898) + + + + + + Brachionus patulus (Muller. 1786) + + + + + + + Brachionus rubens (Ehrenberg, 1838) + + + + + + Brachionus sp. (Pallas, 1766) + + + + + + + Cephalodella gibba (Ehrenberg, 1830) + + + + + + + +

56 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D ; November 2019 –January 2020, Vol. 10, No. 1; 053-065 DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.10.1.05365.]

Seasonal Variation … Pramod Kumar et al.

Filinia longiseta (Ehrenberg, 1834) + + + + + + + + Filinia opoliensis (Zacharias, 1898) + + + + Filinia terminalis (Plate, 1886) + + + + + + + Keratella cochlearis (Gosse, 1851) + + + + + + + + Keratella sp. + + + + Keratella tropica (Apstein, 1907) + + + + + + + + Lecane aculeate (Jakubski, 1912) + + + + + Lecane sp. (Ehrenberg 1832) + + + + + + + Lepadella ovalis (Muller, 1896) + + + + + + Mytilinia sp. (Ehrenberg, 1832) + + + + + Polyarthra sp. (Hood, 1893) + + + + + + + Testudinella sp. (Hermann, 1783) + + + + + + Trichocerca cylindrica (Imhof, 1891) + + + + Trichocerca sp. (Lamarck, 1801) + + + + Total Number of Species 22 25 19 25 26 23 19 24 Protozoa Arcella discoides (Ehrenberg, 1843) + + + + + + + + Arcella polypore (Penard, 1890) + + + + + + + Arcella sp. (Ehrenberg, 1832) + + + + + + + + Arcella vulgaris (Ehrenberg, 1832) + + + + + + + + Centropyxis aculeate (Ehrenberg, 1838) + + + + + + + + Centropyxis constricta (Ehrenberg, 1841) + + + + + + + Centropyxis ecornis (Ehrenberg, 1841) + + + + + + + + Centropyxis sp. (Stein, 1857) + + + + + + + Coleps sp. (Nitzsch, 1827) + + + + + + + + Cryptodifflugia sp. (Penard, 1890) + + + + + + + Difflugia acuminate (Ehrenberg, 1838) + + + + + Difflugia sp. (Leclerc, 1815) + + + + + + + + Difflugia lobostoma (Leclerc, 1815) + + + + + + + Difflugia urceolata (Carter, 1864) + + + + + + Nuclearia simplex (Cienkowski, 1865) + + + + + Paramecium caudatum + + + + + + Total Number of Species 12 15 14 16 15 15 14 12 Cladocera Alona sp. (Baird, 1843) + + + + + + Bosmina longirostris (Muller, 1785) + + + + + + + + Bosmina sp. (Baird, 1845) + + + + + + + Ceriodaphnia laticaudata (Muller, 1867) + + + + + + + + Ceriodaphnia sp. (Sars, 1885) + + + + + + + + Chydorus sp. (Muller, 1785) + + + + + + Daphnia lumholtzi (Sars, 1903) + + + + + +

57 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D ; November 2019 –January 2020, Vol. 10, No. 1; 053-065 DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.10.1.05365.]

Seasonal Variation … Pramod Kumar et al.

Daphnia obtusa (Kurz, 1875) + + + + + + + Daphnia similis (Claus, 1876) + + + + + + + + Daphnia sp. (Muller, 1785) + + + + + + + + Diaphanosoma sp. (Fischer, 1850) + + + + + + + Macrothrix sp. (Bold, 1660) + + + + + + + Moina brachiata (Jurine, 1820) + + + + + + + Moinadaphnia macleayi (King, 1853) + + + Pleuroxus similis (Vavra, 1900) + + + + + + + Simocephalus sp. (Muller, 1776) + + + + + + Total Number of Species 15 15 13 14 15 14 9 14 Copepoda Diaptomus nudus (Marsh, 1904) + + + + + Eucyclops sp. (Sars, 1909) + + + + + + + + Heliodiaptomus contortus (Gurney, 1907) + + + + + + + Heliodiaptomu sviduus(Gurney, 1916) + + + Mesocyclops leuckarti(Claus, 1857) + + + + + + + + Mesocyclops sp. (Sars, 1914) + + + + + + + + Thermocyclops crassus(Fischer, 1853) + + + + + + + + Thermocyclops hylinus (Rehberg, 1880) + + + + + + Thermocyclops sp. (Fischer, 1853) + + + + + + + Phylodiaptomus blanci (Guerne& Richard, 1896) + + + + + Cyclops sp. (Muller, 1785) + + + + + + + Diaptomus sp.(Westwood, 1836) + + + + + Nauplius larvae (Muller, 1785) + + + + + + + + Total Number of Species 10 11 10 9 12 12 10 11 Ostracoda Cypricercus sp. (Klie, 1940) + + + + + + Cypris sp. (Baird, 1845) + + + + + + + + Stenocypris sp. (Baird, 1859) + + + + + + + + Stenocypris malcolmsoni (Brady, 1886) + + + + + + + + Total Number of Species 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 Note: W=Winter; S=Summer, M=Monsoon and PM=Post monsoon.

During the assessment of seasonal variation of zooplankton species in Sarangpani pond, maximum diversity (70 species) was documented during summer season (1st years) whereas during 2nd year maximum diversity (72 species) was recorded during winter season (Table 3). Optimal thermal and nutritional condition and higher concentration of dissolved oxygen might be responsible for the higher population of rotifers during summer season17. Prevalence of zooplankton species in freshwater habitats during summer season may be due to the various ecological factors such as high temperature, high oxygen, higher productivity rates, high concentrations of biologically important nutrients such as nitrate and phosphates18-20.

58 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D ; November 2019 –January 2020, Vol. 10, No. 1; 053-065 DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.10.1.05365.]

Seasonal Variation … Pramod Kumar et al.

2nd year of present study witnesses dominance of class Rotifera during winter season. Anuraeopsis fissa, Brachionus angularis, Filinia longiseta, Filinia terminalis, Lecane aculeate and Lecane sp. were the most dominant species. The dominance of Rotifers in winter season may be attributed to the favorable temperature and availability of abundant food in the form of bacteria and suspended detritus21,22,23,24,25,26. Several workers documented higher zooplankton diversity during winter months. They observed that the winter season is most favorable period for the growth and multiplication of zooplankton species22,27. During second year (2008) central India especially (Bhopal) has faced severe drought during whole summer due to the lack of rainfall and the very low water level was recorded in Sarangpani pond. The drought was the major reason for the reduction plankton diversity during summer months of 2nd year while winter season recorded higher diversity. Overall qualitative enumeration of zooplankton (1st& 2nd year) of Sarangpani pond showed the following sequence of dominance:

Rotifera > Protozoa > Cladocera > Copepoda > Ostracoda

During 1st year, Sarangpani pond showed the following sequence of dominance of zooplankton:

Rotifera > Cladocera = Protozoa > Copepoda > Ostracoda.

On the other hand, during 2nd year sequence of dominance of the different classes of zooplankton in Sarangpani pond was as:

Rotifera > Protozoa > Cladocera > Copepoda > Ostracoda.

Table 3: Seasonal qualitatively enumeration of zooplankton during present study

2007 2008 Name of the Class W S M PM W S M PM Rotifera 22 25 19 25 26 23 19 24 Protozoa 12 15 14 16 15 15 14 12 Cladocera 15 15 13 14 15 14 9 14 Copepoda 10 11 10 9 12 12 10 11 Ostracoda 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 Total 62 70 59 68 72 68 56 65 Note: W=Winter; S=Summer, M=Monsoon and PM=Post monsoon.

Seasonal Results of 1st year: Class Rotifera contributed 22 species and 36% of the total population during the winter season. Class Protozoa showed its present with 12 species and 19%, Cladocera 15 species and 24%, Copepoda 10 species and 16%, and Ostracoda 3 species and 5% of the total zooplankton population during winter season (Table 3 and Figure 3). The sequence of dominance of zooplankton classes was as: Rotifera > Cladocera > Protozoa >Copepoda > Ostracoda

59 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D ; November 2019 –January 2020, Vol. 10, No. 1; 053-065 DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.10.1.05365.]

Seasonal Variation … Pramod Kumar et al.

During summer period, again maximum and minimum contribution was made by class Rotifera and Ostracoda, and contributed25 species (36%) 4 species (6%) respectively. Class Protozoa and Copepoda showed its presence with 15 species (21%) each whereas Class Copepoda contributed 11 species (16%) during summer season (Table 3 and Figure 3). The sequence of dominance of zooplankton classes during the summer period was as:

Rotifera > Cladocera = Protozoa>Copepoda > Ostracoda

Only 19 species (32%) of class Rotifera were recorded during monsoon season along with14 species (24%) of Protozoa, 13 species (22%) of Cladocera, 10 species (17%) of Copepoda and 3 specie (5%) of Ostracoda. The maximum contribution was made by Rotifera and minimum was by Ostracoda (Table 3 and Figure 3). The sequence of dominance of zooplankton classes were as:

Rotifera >Protozoa >Cladocera > Copepoda > Ostracoda

Class Rotifera contributed 25 species and 37% of the total population during the post monsoon season along with 16 species (23%) of Protozoa, 14 species (21%) of Cladocera, 9 species (9%) of Copepoda and 4 specie (6%) of Ostracoda (Table 3 and Figure 3). The sequence of dominance of zooplankton classes were as:

Rotifera >Protozoa >Cladocera > Copepoda > Ostracoda

Ostracoda 5% Ostracoda 6% Rotifera Copepoda Rotifera 36% 16% 36% Copepoda Winter 16% Summer

Cladocera Cladocera 21% 24% Protozoa Protozoa 19% 21% Ostracoda Ostracoda 6% 5% Rotifera 37% Rotifera Copepoda Copepoda 32% 13% 17% Post-Monsoon Monsoon Cladocera 21% Cladocera 22% Protozoa Protozoa 23% 24% Fig. 3: Class wise percentage composition of zooplankton on seasonal basis (during 1st Year)

60 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D ; November 2019 –January 2020, Vol. 10, No. 1; 053-065 DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.10.1.05365.]

Seasonal Variation … Pramod Kumar et al.

Seasonal Results of 2nd Year: Class Rotifera contributed 26 species and 36% of the total population during the winter season. Class Protozoa and Cladocera showed its present with 15 species and 21% each. Class Copepoda contributed 12 species and 17%, and Ostracoda 4 species and 5% of the total zooplankton population during winter season (Table 3 and Figure 4). The sequence of dominance of zooplankton classes was as: Rotifera > Protozoa = Cladocera > Copepoda > Ostracoda During summer period, maximum and minimum contribution was made by class Rotifera and Ostracoda, and contributed 23 species (34%) and 4 species (6%) respectively. Class Protozoa, Cladocera and Copepoda contributed 15 species (22%), 14 species (20%) and 12 species (18%) respectively (Table 3 and Figure 4). The sequence of dominance of zooplankton classes during the summer period was as: Rotifera > Protozoa > Cladocera > Copepoda > Ostracoda During 2nd year, again maximum 19 species (34%) of class Rotifera were recorded during monsoon season along with 14 species (25%) of Protozoa, 9 species (16%) of Cladocera, 10 species (18%) of Copepoda and 3 specie (7%) of Ostracoda. The maximum contribution was made by Rotifera and minimum was by Ostracoda (Table 3 and Figure 4). The sequence of dominance of zooplankton classes were as:

Rotifera > Protozoa > Copepoda > Cladocera > Ostracoda

Class Rotifera contributed 24 species and 37% of the total population during the post monsoon season along with 18 species (50%) of Protozoa, 22 species (23%) of Cladocera, 17 species (14%) of Copepoda and 4 specie (6%) of Ostracoda (Table 3 and Figure 4). The sequence of dominance of zooplankton classes were as: Rotifera > Cladocera > Protozoa > Copepoda > Ostracoda

Ostracoda Ostracoda 5% 6% Rotifera Rotifera Copepoda Copepoda 36% 34% 17% 18% Winter Summer

Cladocera Cladocera 21% 20% Protozoa Protozoa 21% 22% Ostracoda Ostracoda 7% 6% Rotifera Copepoda Rotifera Copepoda 34% 17% 37% 18% Monsoon Post-Monsoon

Cladocera Cladocera 16% Protozoa 22% Protozoa 25% 18% Fig. 4: Class wise percentage composition of zooplankton on seasonal basis (during 2nd Year)

61 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D ; November 2019 –January 2020, Vol. 10, No. 1; 053-065 DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.10.1.05365.]

Seasonal Variation … Pramod Kumar et al.

Over all class wise percentage contribution of all the seasons has been shown in Figure 3 and 4. During present study, class Rotifera recorded its dominance among all the zooplankton classes during all the seasons (Table 3). The qualitative dominance of class Rotifera in India has also been reported various authors 28-32. Among class Rotifera, the species recorded dominance were Anuraeopsis sp., Ascomorpha sp., Brachionus angularis, Brachionus budapestinensis, Brachionus calcyfloryus, Brachionus caudatus, Brachionus patulus, Brachionus sp., Cephalodella gibba, Filinia longiseta, Filinia terminalis, Keratella cochlearis, Keratellatropica, Lecane sp. and Polyarthra sp. All these species were documented during most of the seasons of the present study (Table 2). After Rotifera, Protozoa was the second dominant group of planktonic fauna in Sarangpani pond. Among Protozoa, Arcella discoides, Arcella sp., Arcella vulgaris, Centropyxis aculeate, Centropyxis ecornis, Difflugia sp. recorded its dominance during all the seasons of present study (Table 2). Bosmina longirostris, Bosmina sp., Ceriodaphnia laticaudata, Ceriodaphnia sp., Daphnia obtusa, Daphnia similis, Daphnia sp., Diaphanosoma sp., Macrothrix sp., Moina brachiata were the most common species which occurred throughout the study period among the class Cladocera (Table 2). A very marginal species contribution was made by class Copepoda in the Sarangpani pond. The species occurred throughout the study were Eucyclops sp., Mesocyclops leuckarti, Mesocyclops sp., Thermocyclops crassus, Thermocyclops sp. and Nauplius larvae (Table 2). On the other hand, class Ostracoda showed its least contribution during all the seasons in terms of species diversity and represented by only 4 species in the Sarangpani pond. Out of these, three species namely Cypris sp., Stenocypris sp. and Stenocypris malcolmsoni recorded its dominance throughout the study period. The least presence of class Ostracoda in Indian water bodies has also been reported by several ecologist20, 28,32- 35. A marked seasonal variation in zooplankton population was recorded during the present investigation. In general, the maximum density was observed in summer season (1st year) and winter season (2nd year), while low density was observed in monsoon season during both the year of present study (Table 3 and Figure 5). Comparatively less zooplankton diversity recorded during monsoon season in on account of high turbidity which restricts growth of the planktonic population. Besides this, regular flash out of pond water during the rain is also a major cause of less plankton diversity as well as density20.

75

70

65

60

55 No. ofNo. species 50 W S M PM W S M PM 2007 2008

Figure 5: Variation of zooplankton diversity during different season 62 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D ; November 2019 –January 2020, Vol. 10, No. 1; 053-065 DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.10.1.05365.]

Seasonal Variation … Pramod Kumar et al.

The presence of Arcella vulgaris, Difflugia sp., Brachionus angularis, Brachionus falcatus, Brachionus terminalis, Cephalodella gibba, Keratella cochlearis, Keratellatropica, Lecane luna, Bosmina sp., Chydorus sphaericus, Daphnia pulex, Diaphanosoma excisum, Mesocyclops leuckarti, and Thermocyclops crassus in all the seasons indicates the higher trophic status of the pond as these species are indicator of eutrophication 3, 20, 32, 36-42.

CONCLUSION

Planktonic fauna of the Sarangpani pond reveals the eutrophic condition of the pond waters which is an account of high anthropogenic activities and mixing of sewage which more responsible for the eutrophication and rapid deterioration of the pond waters. It was observed that the pond water is not safe for bathing and drinking purposes.

REFERENCES

1. P. K. Verma, and D. Munshi, Plankton community structure of Badua reservoir, Bhagalpur (India). Tropical Ecology, 1987, 28, pp 200-207. 2. M. B. Rao, and E. V. Muley, Seasonal and Species of Zooplankton organisms and their succession in two freshwater ponds at Waghulipoona, Proc. Symp. Ecol. Anim. Pool. Zool. Surv. India, 1981, 2, 6364 pp. 3. A. Wanganeo, and R. Wanganeo, Variation in Zooplankton population in two morphologically dissimilar rural lakes in Kashmir Himalaya. Nat. Acad. Sci. 2006, 76(3):222-239. 4. K. Krishnamurthy, R. Santhanam and V. Sundararaj, The trophic tier. Bull. Mar. Sci. 1979, 209- 217 pp. 5. P. Perumal, P. Sampathkumar and P. Santhanam, Zooplankton of Parangipettai coastal waters. Monograph series, UGC-Special Assistance Programme, 1998, Vol. I. CAS in Marine Biology. Annamalai University, Parangipettai, India, 31. 6. I.N. Andronikova, Structural and functional organization of the zooplankton in lake ecosystems., SPb. Science, 1996, pp-189. 7. A. V. Makrushin, Biological analysis of water quality, Edited by G.G. Winberg.-L., 1974, 60 pp. 8. J. G. Needham and R. P. Needham, A guide to the study of freshwater biology. Holdenday, INC Cali 1972, 94 (III), U.S.A. 9. R.W. Pennak, Freshwater invertebrates of United States, 2ndEdn. John Willey Sons Inc., New York, 1978. 10. R. Victor and C.H. Fernando, The fresh water Ostracoda (Crustacea: Ostracoda) of India. Records of the zoological survey of India, 1979, 74(2), pp 147-242. 11. R.G. Michael, and B.K Sharma, Fauna of India and adjacent countries. Indian Cladocera (Crustacea: Branchipoda: Cladocera). Zool. Sur. India:, 1988, p 261.

63 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D ; November 2019 –January 2020, Vol. 10, No. 1; 053-065 DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.10.1.05365.]

Seasonal Variation … Pramod Kumar et al.

12. W. T. Edmondson, Freshwater biology. 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, U.S.A., 1959. 13. S.K. Battish, Freshwater zooplankton of India. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Ltd. New Delhi, 1992. p.233. 14. Y.R Reddy, Copepoda: Calanoda: Diaptomidae: Guide to the identification of the microinvertebrates of the continental waters of the world, 1994, Vol.5, SPB Publishers, The Hague, Netherland. 15. B. K. Sharma, The Indian species of the genus Brachionus (Eurotatoria: Monogononta: Brachionidae). Hydrobilogia, 1983. 16. M.V.S.S.S Dhanapathi, Rotifers from , India–III. Hydrobiologia, 2003, 48(1), pp 916. 17. R. Singh, Rotifer fauna of Jamalpur, Munger, . J. of curr. Bio. Sci., 1991, Vol. 8: 45-48. 18. A M. Ostojic, Effect of eutrophication on changes in the composition of zooplankton in the Grosnica Reservoir (Serbia, Yugoslavia), Hydrobiol., 2000,436: 171–178 pp. 19. E. F. Ude, L.L.C. Ugwu, and B.O. Mgbenka, Evaluation of zooplankton diversity in Echara River, Nigeria. Cont. J. Biol. Sci., 2011, 4 (1): 1-5. 20. P. Kumar, A. Wanganeo, R. Wanganeo R, F. Sonaullah, Seasonal variations in Zooplankton Diversity of Railway Pond, Sasaram, Bihar. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2011, 2:2, pp 1007-1016. 21. D. N. Singh, Seasonal variation of zooplankton in tropical lake. Geobios., 2000, 27(2-3): 97-100. 22. K.S. Kumar, The fresh water zooplankton of some lakes in Dharmapuri district Tamilnadu. J. Aqua. Biol., 2001, 16(5-10). 23. S. P. Singh, D. Pathak, and R. Singh, Hydrobiological studies of two ponds of Satna (M.P), India. Eco. Env. Cons. 2002, 8: 289-292. 24. M. Webber, M.E. Edwards, C. Cambell and D. Webber, Phytoplankton and zooplankton as indicator of water quality in Discovery Bay Jamaica. Hydrobiol. 2005,545: 177-193. 25. B. J. Ugaleand C. A. Jawale, Biodiversity and seasonal fluctuations of zooplanktons in Jagatunga Samudra reservoir of Kandhar, India. J. Exp. Sci., 2010, 1(2):1-02. 26. M. Karuthapandi, D. V. Rao and B. Xavier-innocent, Zooplankton composition and diversity of Umdasagar, Hyderabad. Int. J. Life Sci. Educ. Res. 2013, 1(1) 21-26. 27. Abdus, Saboor and K. Altaff, Qualitative and Quantitative analysis of zooplankton population of tropical pond during summer and rainy season. J Eco Biol, 1995, 7(4), pp 269–275. 28. D. P. Zutshi, B.A. Subla, and M.A. Khan, Comparative limnology of nine lakes of Jammu and Kashmir Himalayas. Hydrobiol.1980, 72: 101-112. 29. C. Usha, Observations on community analysis of zooplankton from Gandhi Sagar reservoir. Mandsaaur M. P. India, 1997, 21-32 pp.

64 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D ; November 2019 –January 2020, Vol. 10, No. 1; 053-065 DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.10.1.05365.]

Seasonal Variation … Pramod Kumar et al.

30. M.P.S. Kohli, K. Dubey, C. Prakash, C.S. Chaturvedi, and R.J. Jadhav, Observations on some hydrobiological features of lake Powai near (Maharastra). J. Inland Fish. Soc. India,1998, 30: 37-49. 31. S. K. Pawar, and J. S. Pulley, Studies on physico- chemical parameters in Pethwadaj dam, Nanded District in , India. J. Aqua. Biol. 2005,20 (2): 123-128. 32. R. Raina, P. Kumar, F. Sonaullah, and A. Wanganeo (2013): Limnological study on a Samrat Ashok Sagar with special reference to zooplankton population. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 2013, 5(6), 317-332. 33. M. Monawar, Limnological studies on freshwater ponds of Hyderabad, India. Hydrobiol.,1970, 31:101-128. 34. S. K. Kulshreshtha, Biodiversity of Tropical Aquatic Eco-system. Anmol Pub. Pvt. LDT., New Delhi, 2005,438. 35. C.S. Patil and BYM Gouder, Fresh water invertebrates of Dharwad, Prasaranga, Karnatak University, Dharwad,1989. 36. A. David, and S. Roy, Studies on the pollution of the river Dana, North Bihar by sugar and distillery wastes. Environ. Hlth., 1966, 8: 6-35. 37. R. Raina, Plankton dynamics and Hydrobiology of Bod-Sar Lake, Kashmir, 1981, Ph.D Thesis. Kashmir University, Kashmir (Unpublished). 38. S. P. Sharma, and D. N. Saxena, Zooplanktonic fauna of some perennial impoundments at Gwalior, India. J. Jiwaji Uni. Press, 1981, 9:73-92. 39. S. K. Chourasia, and A. D. Adoni, Zooplankton dynamics in a shallow eutrophic lake. Proc. Nat. Symp. Pure Appl. Limn. Bot. Soc. Sagar., 1985, 32: 30-39. 40. M. S. Agarkar, H. K. Goswami, S. Kaushik, S.N Mishra., A.K. Bajpai and U.S. Sharma, Biology, conservation and management of Bhoj Wetland 1. Upper Lake Ecosystem in Bhopal. Bionat., 1994, 14 (2):1119. 41. R. Raina, A. Wanganeo, F. Sonaullah and P. Kumar, Variation in summer Limnological characteristics of Bod-sar wetland over a period of more than two decades. Journal of Himalayan Ecology and Sustian. Dev., 2009, 4. 42. P. Kumar, A. Wanganeo and F. Sonaullah, A Preliminary Limnological Study on Shershah Suri Pond, Sasaram, Bihar. Asian J. Exp. Sci., 2010, 24: 2, 219-226.

Corresponding author: Dr. Pramod Kumar Department of Environmental Sciences and Limnology, Barkatullah University, Bhopal-462026, India, Email: [email protected] Mobile: +91-8384016398

65 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. D ; November 2019 –January 2020, Vol. 10, No. 1; 053-065 DOI:10.24214/jcbps.D.10.1.05365.]