Physico Chemical Studies and Zooplankton Diversity Studies of Three Lakes in Hyderabad City, Telangana, India Dr

Home , Himayat Sagar, Hyderabad, Mir Alam Tank, Osman Sagar, Saroornagar Lake

© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162) Physico Chemical Studies and Zooplankton Diversity Studies of Three Lakes in Hyderabad City, Telangana, India Dr. G. Y. Bhargavi1, S. Ram Gopal Reddy2

1. Department of Zoology, Sarojini Naidu Vanitha Mahavidyalaya, Nampally, Osmania University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. 2. Department of Zoology, Osmania University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.

ABSTRACT

Zooplanktons are cosmopolitan in nature and they are found to inhabit all freshwater tropical wetlands.

The present investigation deals with the study of monthly changes of diversity and density of

Zooplankton in three lakes named Saroornagar Lake, Noor Mohammed Kunta (Katedhan Lake) and Mir

Alam tank of Hyderabad City. The work was carried out for a period of two years from June 2014 to

May 2016. The samples were analyzed on the same day for different physico-chemical factors like Water

-2 - - ++ ++ -2 -3 3- temp, pH, CO3 , HCO3 , Cl , O.M, T.H, Ca , Mg , T.S, TDS, SO4 , PO4 , NO , SiO2, DO, BOD

following the standard methods (APHA, 1995). The population status of Zooplankton categorized into

four major groups, viz, Rotifera > Cladocerans > Cyclopoid-Copepods> Ostracods. Rotifera were the

dominant group of Zooplankton recorded with respect to diversity and population density status in all the

three lakes.

KEYWORDS

Zooplankton, diversity, physicochemical, Saroornagar Lake, Noor Mohammed Kunta (Katedhan Lake),Mir Alam Tank, Hyderabad City

INTRODUCTION

Freshwater ecosystem is under expanding dangers and weights all through the world (Dudgeon et al., 2005;

Pattnaik, 2007). This has been overstrained and harmed in different ways like mechanical squanders, sewage, horticultural overflow with chemical squanders and abundance supplements. Releases of poisons debase the nature of water, just as influencing the soundness of sea-going ecosystems. Freshwater of the world is on the whole encountering quickening rates of subjective and quantitative corruption (Wetzel,

1992). As per Dudgeon et al. (2005) dangers to worldwide freshwater biodiversity under five classifications

JETIR1906616 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 219

© 2019 JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6 www.jetir.org (ISSN-2349-5162) like over misuse, water pollution, stream adjustment, annihilation and debasement of living space and intrusion of extraordinary species. These consolidated and associating impacts have brought about the populace decay and range decrease of freshwater biodiversity around the world.

Freshwater condition has much faunal diversity, among them zooplankton plays a huge job in interlinking sustenance web and vitality move. All things considered, numerous examinations prescribe that the network size of chosen real zooplankton as biological markers for evaluating the trophic status and water quality

(Ferdous and Muktadir, 2009; Haberman and Haldna, 2014). Thus, eutrophication is one of the most pervasive environmental issues in charge of water quality corruption around the world. There are numerous examinations showing the impact of eutrophication on changes in the bounty and structure of zooplankton

(Gliwicz, 1969; Patalas, 1972; Maier, 1998). The present examination means to survey the trophic status of a water system tank through zooplankton species piece, diversity alongside couple of physicochemical components.

Study area

Hyderabad is the capital of southern India's Telangana state. A noteworthy community for the innovation business, its home to numerous upscale restaurents and shops. Its memorable destinations incorporate

Golconda Fort, a previous precious stone exchanging focus that was before the Qutb Shahi dynastic capital.

Important facts

Area: 650 km²

Elevation: 505 m

Weather: 36°C, Wind W at 5 km/h, 78% Humidity

Population: 2.637 million (3001) (UNdata).

Description of Stations selected for study in Hyderabad

Station I: Saroornagar Lake: Saroornagar Lake is a lake in Hyderabad, India. From the year of its creation in 1626, the lake remained largely clean until 1956 when Hyderabad expanded. Spread over 99 acres (40 ha), the lake was restored by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority in 2003–04 at a cost of

₹200 million (US$2.9 million). After the restoration of the lake, migratory birds returned to the lake in big numbers a few years later.

JETIR1906616 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 220

Station II: Lake Noor Mohammed Kunta (Katedhan Lake): Lake Noor Mohammed Kunta (Lake NMK) is a small surface water body located in Kattedan Industrial Estate (KIE) of Rajendranagar Municipality in

Shivrampally Village of Rangareddy district in the southern suburbs of Hyderabad City has water spread of

27 acres and an independent catchment area of 175 hectares. It flows down to Shivarampally lake then to

Voora cheruvu and ultimately to Mir Alam tank.

Station III: Mir Alam Tank: Mir Alam Tank is a reservoir in Hyderabad, Telangana, India. It is located to the south of Musi river. It was the primary source of drinking water to Hyderabad before Osman Sagar and

Himayat Sagar were built. It is connected to National Highway7 near Palm Valley (Tadbun). The tank is named after Mir Alam Bahadur, then Prime Minister of Hyderabad State (1804 - 1808), during the reign of

Asaf Jah III, the third Nizam of Hyderabad state. Mir Alam laid the foundation for the tank on 20 July 1804 and it was completed in about two years on 8 June 1806. Nehru Zoological Park lies adjacent to the tank and

Telangana Tourism operates boats on the lake, for which one has to enter through the zoo.

Materials and Methods

The water samples from the surface were collected from the three sampling stations every month in polythene cans for a period of 2 years from June 2014 to May 2016. The samples were analyzed on the same

-2 - - ++ ++ day for different physico-chemical factors like Water temp, pH, CO3 , HCO3 , Cl , O.M, T.H, Ca , Mg ,

-2 -3 3- T.S, TDS, SO4 , PO4 , NO , SiO2, DO, BOD following the standard methods (APHA, 1995).

Collection of water samples for estimation at different Zooplankton groups:

For the analysis Zooplankton groups like Rotifers, Cladocerans, Copepods (Calanoids, Cyclopoids and

Harpacticoids) and Ostracods, samples were collected from the lakes. The zooplankton net was made by the bolting nylon silk (mesh size 50nm) was used for collection of zooplankton. This net was conical shape and reducing cone with the bottle at its end. For quantitative analysis collection of zooplankton, the net is towed horizontally and obliquely in surface water of the study area. For quantitative analysis, ten bucket full of water (one bucket = 10 liters) samples were collected from each sampling sites and filtered out through the net. After transferring the sample in air tight plastic bottles, it was kept carefully with labeling and preserved immediately using 4% formaldehyde. After returning to the laboratory 1 ml from this concentrated zooplankton sample from each sampling sites, were observed under the microscope (40X) (Olympus Cx21).

JETIR1906616 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 221

Systematic identification and counting was done by using key given in [Edmondson, 1959; and Battish,

1992].

Results and Discussion

The results are represented in tabular format

JETIR1906616 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 222

JETIR1906616 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 223

JETIR1906616 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 224

MONTHLY VARIATION IN ZOOPLANKTON IN SAROORNAGAR LAKE / STATION-I (June 2014-May 2016)

Rotifers Cladocerans Cyclopoid- Sl.No Ostracods Year Copepods 1 14-Jun 160 45 89 55

2 July 250 24 72 41

3 Aug 143 65 75 61

4 Sep 106 75 45 52

5 Oct 90 98 25 60

6 Nov 95 152 32 46

7 Dec 55 65 52 58

8 15-Jan 32 100 65 56

9 Feb 85 65 85 45

10 Mar 124 81 105 40

11 Apr 155 145 64 40

12 May 210 74 79 45

13 15-Jun 125 40 98 42

14 Jul 103 25 65 66

15 Aug 146 125 50 69

16 Sep 112 130 15 75

17 Oct 118 160 43 80

18 Nov 110 230 68 79

19 Dec 65 150 101 83

20 16-Jan 55 190 111 61

21 Feb 100 115 110 55

22 Mar 125 110 105 50

23 Apr 153 80 102 50

24 May 170 85 103 48

AVERAGE 120.2916667 101.2083333 73.29166667 56.54167

JETIR1906616 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 225

MONTHLY VARIATION IN ZOOPLANKTON IN SAROORNAGAR LAKE / STATION-I (June 2014- May 2016) 300

250

200

150 Rotifers Cladocerans 100 Cyclopoid-Copepods 50 Ostracods

Jul

Oct Oct

Sep Feb Feb Sep

Apr Apr

Dec Dec

Mar Mar

July

Aug Aug Nov Nov

May May

15-Jan 16-Jan

14-Jun 15-Jun Axis Title

MONTHLY VARIATION IN ZOOPLANKTON IN SAROORNAGAR LAKE / STATION-I (June 2014-May 2016)

JETIR1906616 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 226

MONTHLY VARIATION IN ZOOPLANKTON IN NOOR MOHAMMED KUNTA (KATEDHAN LAKE)-STATION-II (June 2014-May 2016)

Cyclopoid- Sl.No Year Rotifers Cladocerans Ostracods Copepods 1 14-Jun 89 150 65 65 2 July 164 165 85 71 3 Aug 45 95 68 88 4 Sep 55 86 89 87 5 Oct 68 90 26 72 6 Nov 46 95 15 71 7 Dec 89 56 17 72 8 15-Jan 126 65 26 68 9 Feb 145 25 65 69 10 Mar 95 36 145 61 11 Apr 75 54 105 62 12 May 85 95 89 55 13 15-Jun 122 125 96 50 14 Jul 86 113 101 61 15 Aug 120 85 70 65 16 Sep 85 90 25 65 17 Oct 105 80 20 70 18 Nov 150 70 25 88 19 Dec 115 75 75 87 20 16-Jan 95 90 103 78 21 Feb 65 50 130 67 22 Mar 65 49 95 61 23 Apr 60 65 55 50 24 May 75 100 81 49 AVERAGE 92.7083 83.5 69.625 68

JETIR1906616 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 227

MONTHLY VARIATION IN ZOOPLANKTON IN NOOR MOHAMMED KUNTA (KATEDHAN LAKE)-STATION-II (June 2014-May 2016) 180

160

140

120

100 Rotifers

80 Cladocerans Cyclopoid-Copepods 60 Ostracods 40

Jul

Oct Oct

Sep Feb Feb Sep

Apr Apr

Dec Dec

Mar Mar

July

Aug Aug Nov Nov

May May

15-Jan 16-Jan 15-Jun 14-Jun

MONTHLY VARIATION IN ZOOPLANKTON IN NOOR MOHAMMED KUNTA (KATEDHAN LAKE)- STATION-II (June 2014-May 2016)

JETIR1906616 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 228

MONTHLY VARIATION IN PHYTOPLANKTON IN MIR ALAM TANK -STATION-III (June2014-May 2016)

Cyclopoid- Sl.No Year Rotifers Cladocerans Ostracods Copepods 1 14-Jun 125 186 110 87 2 July 145 168 87 93 3 Aug 132 135 64 101 4 Sep 125 13 25 112 5 Oct 185 124 51 92 6 Nov 220 82 75 91 7 Dec 165 65 95 71 8 15-Jan 167 84 75 80 9 Feb 123 75 76 75 10 Mar 102 135 85 66 11 Apr 60 165 162 64 12 May 96 165 165 53 13 15-Jun 168 158 142 52 14 Jul 125 110 65 72 15 Aug 110 100 85 81 16 Sep 140 120 75 92 17 Oct 103 115 90 91 18 Nov 110 75 35 81 19 Dec 166 65 18 72 20 16-Jan 105 70 25 71 21 Feb 95 67 30 65 22 Mar 105 65 70 62 23 Apr 120 70 153 50 24 May 105 45 125 50 AVERAGE 129.042 102.375 82.625 76

JETIR1906616 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 229

MONTHLY VARIATION IN PHYTOPLANKTON IN MIR ALAM TANK - STATION-III (June2014-May 2016) 250

200

150 Rotifers Cladocerans 100 Cyclopoid-Copepods

50 Ostracods

Jul

Oct Oct

Feb Sep Feb Sep

Apr Apr

Dec Dec

July Mar Mar

Aug Aug Nov Nov

May May

15-Jan 16-Jan 15-Jun 14-Jun MONTHLY VARIATION IN ZOOPLANKTON IN MIR ALAM TANK-STATION-III (June 2014-May 2016)

Diversity of Rotifera [Organisms/L]

Rotifers representing two orders (Pliomida, Flosculariacea) under the class Monogononta were collected from the study area. In the present study, 17 species of Rotifers belonging to 4 families and 5 genera were recorded. The number of Rotifera was found to be maximum in Station - II during summer season and minimum were seen in Station- I during monsoon season. Brachionidae was most common with 13 species

(2 genera) followed by Filinidae 2 species (1 genus), Lecanidae one species and Testudinillidae one species of these, the genus Brachionus was represented by 10 species, while the 3 species belonged to genus

Keratella, 2 species belonged to genus Filiinia and one species belonged to genus Lacana followed by

Testudinella. These 17 species belong to genus Brachionus, Keratella, Filinia, Lacana and Testudinella.

Similar findings were made by (Lynne and Witty, 2004 ; Altaff, 2004; Forro, 2008; Vipul, 2012; Jhaydee,

2014).

Diversity of Cladocera [Organisms/L].

This species is distinguished by a small roundish rectangular head with sloping dorsal side, eye occupies almost the whole area of the head and different forms and sizes, usually conical or rectangular. Antennules small in size, not reaching hind edge of carapace Swimming antennae are long and strong Altaff (2004).

JETIR1906616 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 230

Cladocerans vary in size from 0.2 to 6.0 mm long and their identification is only possible with the help of a microscope. The head has a single median compound eye, and a carapace covering the apparently unsegmented thorax and abdomen. In most species, the body is not segmented, but it is covered by a secreted shell. Similar findings were made by (Lynne and Witty, 2004 ; Altaff, 2004; Forro, 2008; Vipul, 2012;

Jhaydee, 2014).

At the Station I, total of 14 Cladocera species were also identified, comprising Diaphonasoma sarsi, D. excium, Ceriodaphnia cornuta, Daphnia magna, Moina mircura, Moina brachiata, Biapertura karua,

Bosminopsis dieterus, Bosminia longirostris, Chydrous sphaericus, Chydorus barroisi, Alona pulchella,

Alona cambouei and Pleuroxus trignanellus. Bosminopsis dieterus and Moina mircura were the major contributors towards Cladocera density of Station – I

At the Station II, total of 14 Cladocerans species were also identified, comprising Diaphonasoma sarsi, D. excium, Ceriodaphnia cornuta, Daphnia magna, Moina mircura, Moina brachiata, Biapertura karua,

Bosminopsis dieterus, Bosminia longirostris, Chydrous sphaericus, Chydorus barroisi, Alona pulchella,

Alona cambouei, Pleuroxus trignanellus were the major contributors towards Cladocera density of Station -

II.

At the Station III, total of 15 Cladocerans species were also identified, comprising Diaphonasoma sarsi, D. excium, Ceriodaphnia cornuta, Daphnia magna, Moina mircura, Moina brachiata, Biapertura karua,

Bosminopsis dieterus, Bosminia longirostris, Chydrous sphaericus, Chydorus barriosi, Alona pulchella,

Alona cambouei, Pleuroxus trignanellus and Pleuroxus denticulatus were the major contributors towards

Cladocera density of Station - III.

Diversity of Cyclopoid-Copepods [Organisms/L].

The copepods constitute dominant planktonic group of both freshwater and marine habitats. It includes three free living groups viz., Calanoida, Cyclopoida and Harpacticoida They play a vital role as primary consumers in the aquatic ecosystem. These utilize varieties of food items ranging from detritus, bacteria to a wide array of unicellular and multicellular phytoplankton and themselves serve as an excellent food for zooplanktivorous fish. Some freshwater copepods acts as important predators of mosquito larvae and are

JETIR1906616 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 231

actively used in biological control of mosquitoes in malaria affected areas. Similar findings were made by

(Lynne and Witty, 2004 ; Altaff, 2004; Forro, 2008; Vipul, 2012; Jhaydee, 2014).

A total of 3 Cyclopoid - Copepods were also identified, comprises Mesocyclops edax, Mesocyclops

thermocyclopoides and Cyclops virids.

Diversity of Ostracods [Organisms/L]

Ostracods representing one order Podocopida were found in the study area. The present study, Ostracods

community comprises of 7 species belonging one family (Cyprididae). In the present study, 7 species of

Ostracods belonging to 7 genera were recorded. The 7 species consists of Eucypris bispinosa ,Hemicypris

fossulata., Cyclocypris leavis, Cypris protubera, Standesia elongate , Cyclocypris globosa, Hemicypris

fimbriatus.

At the Station I, total of 6 Ostracods were also found,viz., Eucypris bispinosa, Hemicypris fossulata,

Cyclocypris leavis, Cypris protubera, Standesia elongate, Cyclocypris globosa were the major contributor

towards Cladocera density of Station - I.

At the Station II, total of 7 Ostracods were identified comprising of Eucypris bispinosa, Hemicypris

fossulata, Cyclocypris leavis, Cypris protubera, Standesia elongate, Cyclocypris globosa and Hemicypris

fimbriatus was the major contributor towards Cladocera density of Station – II.

At the Station III, total of 7 Ostracods were also identified, consist of Eucypris bispinosa, Hemicypris sp.,

Cyclocypris leavis, Cypris protubera, Standesia elongate, Cyclocypris globosa and Hemicypris fimbriatus

were the major contributors towards Cladocera density of Station – III. Similar findings were made by

(Lynne and Witty, 2004 ; Altaff, 2004; Forro, 2008; Vipul, 2012; Jhaydee, 2014).

REFERENCES

1. Altaff K., (2004) A Manual of Zooplankton, Compiled for the National, workshop on Zooplankton, The New College, Chennai, 1-154. 2. APHA, 1995. Standard Methods For Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition, American Public Health Association, Washington D. C. 3. Battish S.K. 1992. Fresh water zooplankton of India. Oxford and IBH Publ. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Pp. 69-114.

JETIR1906616 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 232

4. Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A.H., Gessner, M.O., Kawabata, Z.I., Knowler, D.J., Leveque, C., Naiman, R.J., Prieur-Richared, A., Soto, D., Stiassny, M.L.J., and Sulliva, C.A. 2005. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev., 81: 163-182. 5. Edmondson, W.T. (1959). Fresh water Biology [ED] Edmond.W .T., 2nd ED., John Willey and sons. Inc., New York. 6. Ferdous, Z., and Muktadir A.K.M. 2009. A Review: Potentiality of Zooplankton as Bioindicator. American J. Appl. Sci., 6(10): 1815-1819. 7. Forro .I, Korovchinsky A.A.Kotov E.A and Petrusek (2008). Globel diversity of Cladocerans in freshwater . Hydrobiologia 595.117-184. 8. Gliwicz, Z.M. 1969. Studies on the feeding of pelagic zooplankton in lakes with varying trophy. Ekologia Polska, 17: 663-707. 9. Haberman, J and Haldan, M. 2014. Indices of zooplankton community as valuable tools in assessing the trophic satate and water quality of eutrophic lakes: long term study of lake Vortsjarv. J. Limnol., 73(2): 263-273. 10. Jhaydee Ann F. Pascual, Eric Zeus C. Rizo, Boping Han, Henri J. Dumont and Rey Donne S. Papa (2014). Taxonomy and distribution of four Cladoceran families (Branchiopoda: Cladocera: Moinidae, Bosminidae, Chydoridae and Sididae) in Philippine inland waters. Raffles Bulletin Of Zoology 62: 771–794. 11. Lynne M.Witty (2004).Practical Guide to Identifying Freshwater Crustacean Zooplankton. Cooperative Freshwater Ecology unit. 12. Maier, G. 1998. Copepod communities in lakes of varying trophic degree. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie, 136(4): 455-465. 13. Patalas, K. 1972. Crustacean plankton and the eutrophication of St. Lawrence Great Lakes. J. Fish. Res. Boar. Canada, 30: 519-542. 14. Pattnaik, A. K. 2007. Institutional Mechanism for Monitoring and evaluation. Proceedings of Taal 2007: The 12th World Lake Conference, India. pp 17. 15. Vipul Sharma, Bhoopendra, K.V., Ridhhi, S., Madhu, S.S., Kuldeep, S.G. (2012). A report on the freshwater Cladocera (Crustacea: Branchiopoda) of south Rajasthan (India). International Journal of Environmental Sciences, Vol.3(1). 16. Wetzel, R.G. 1992. Clean water: A fading resource. Hydrobiologia, 243/244: 21-30.

JETIR1906616 Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR) www.jetir.org 233