Abstract—In this study, we compared the species composition

and diversity of planktonic Rotifera, Cladocera and Copepoda

between river, irrigation canal and rice field ecosystem in Balik

Pulau, Penang, Malaysia. The present study was carried out from

October 2013 to February 2014. Average total diversity of

zooplankton tended to be the highest in river (24 species) and the

lowest in rice field (19 species). Despite the relatively high species

number of zooplankton supported by river, irrigation canal water

body seems to contribute considerably higher total abundance than

the other two types of ecosystem. Data analysis highlighted

significant difference in zooplankton abundance among the different

types of water body (p = 0.004). The zooplankton abundance was

influenced by physical factors of the water bodies. Correlation

analysis revealed a strong positive relationship between zooplankton

abundance and water transparency (r = +0.547), while there exists a

weak negative correlation with dissolved oxygen (r = -0.238) and

temperature (r = -0.234). The findings of the present study provide

useful knowledge on the spatial organization of zooplankton diversity

in different types of freshwater ecosystem as well as can be used as

management strategies to protect the aquatic biodiversity in the

agricultural area.

Keywords— Rotifera, Cladocera, Copepoda, Malaysia,

zooplankton.

I. INTRODUCTION

Zooplankton are microscopic animals that act as primary

and secondary links in the food webs of all aquatic

ecosystems. They feed on phytoplankton which directly

provide food source for larval vertebrates and invertebrates as

well as related to the growth of juvenile and larger fish. They

are also important component in the transfer of energy from

primary producers of phytoplankton to higher trophic levels

such as fish [1]. Regarding the habitat, zooplankton are

cosmopolitan fauna and inhabit all freshwater bodies of the

world [2]. These communities are also sensitive to various

substances in water such as nutrient enrichment and pollutants.

Thus, they have often been used as indicators to assess the

condition and change of the freshwater environment

particularly in the northern hemisphere [3]. The present study

has been undertaken to determine the zooplankton diversity

and abundance in relation to physical parameters in the study

Azma Hanim Ismail, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia,

Siti Azrin Zaidin, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia

sites with aim of contributing to the knowledge of zooplankton

diversity in Malaysian water bodies.

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS

A. Study Site

Balik Pulau is a suburban area on the southwest part of

Penang Island. The present study was carried out in three types

of freshwater ecosystems in Balik Pulau which were river,

irrigation canal and rice field. Five stations were established

(Fig. 1) and the characteristics of each station are shown in

Table I.

Fig. 1 Study area with sampling stations of irrigation canal, rice

field and Burung River in Balik Pulau, Penang.

A comparative study of zooplankton diversity

and abundance from three different types of

water body

Azma Hanim Ismail, and Siti Azrin Zaidin

2nd International Conference on Agriculture, Environment and Biological Sciences (ICAEBS'15) August 16-17, 2015 Bali (Indonesia)

http://dx.doi.org/10.17758/IAAST.A0715053 37

TABLE I

CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLING STATIONS IN BALIK PULAU, PENANG

Station Ecosystem Mean depth (m) Geographic coordinates

1 Irrigation canal 0.65 5°2007.62 N,

100°1241.33 E

2 Irrigation canal 0.55 5°2019.08 N,

100°1244.33 E

3 Rice field 0.15 5°2015.11 N,

100°1241.79 E

4 Burung River 1.05 5°2034.20 N,

100°1246.19 E

5 Burung River 1.48 5°2033.75 N,

100°1247.36 E

B. Data Collection

Field sampling was conducted monthly from October 2013

until February 2014 for 5 months. Zooplankton samples were

collected by filtering 40 L of water through a Wisconsin

conical plankton net (35 µm mesh size). Samples were

transferred into 120 ml screw cap plastic container and

preserved with 70% ethanol before transported to the

laboratory. Three sample replicates were collected for each

station to increase accuracy of the result. Station 3 dried out

during the sampling occasion so it present fewer samples

compared to the other stations.

In - situ parameters including dissolved oxygen (DO),

temperature and pH were measured at the surface water of all

sampling stations. Dissolved oxygen (DO) (mg/L) and

temperature (°C) were measured using a YSI meter (Model

57), while pH was measured using the Orion pH meter (Model

230A). Water transparency was measured using Secchi disc.

The disc was lowered slowly into the water until it was

disappeared from eyesight. The depth at which the pattern on

disc is no longer visible was recorded. Water depth was

measured using scaled rope attached with a weight at the end

of the rope. Then, it was lowered into the water until reached

the bottom. The depth was taken as a measure of water depth.

In the laboratory, three sub-sample of 1 mL for each

replicate were examined under a compound microscope

(Olympus BX40) at various magnifications using a Sedgwick-

Rafter counting cell. In order to ensure that the plankton was

fairly distributed, sample bottle has been shaken before

introducing into the cell. 1 ml of well mixed sub-sample was

filled into the cells using an adjustable volume pipette. Then

cover slip was placed gently to avoid any air bubbles trapped

in the cell. Sample was allowed to settle for at least 10 minutes

to ensure that zooplankton was settled into a single layer.

These steps were repeated three times for each sample bottle

and an average of the counts was recorded. The organisms

were expressed as individual per liter (ind/L) of the sample.

Zooplankton abundance was derived from the following

formula:

Individu / L = AC / L

Where, A = Average number of individual per mL; C =

Volume of concentrated sample in mL; L = Volume of filtered

water in L

Zooplankton were identified and enumerated at the lowest

taxonomic level according to the standard taxonomic

references [4], [5] and [6].

C. Data Analyses

In order to provide more information on zooplankton

community dynamic, some ecological indices were calculated

which were diversity indices (Simpson Index and Shanon-

Wiener Index), richness indices (Margalef Index and

Menhinick Index) and evenness index (Pielou Index)

according to [7].

All of the data has been compiled into Microsoft Excel

spreadsheet based on sampling stations and sampling months.

Normality test was performed using SPSS to determine

whether the input data is normally distributed. Since the data

was not normally distributed, non-parametric analysis of

Kruskal-Wallis was performed in order to see if there is any

difference on zooplankton species number and abundance

between sampling stations.

Spearman correlation was used to describe the degree of

relationship [8] between zooplankton abundance and physical

parameters. The result can show how strongly pairs of

variables such as temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen and water

transparency are related to zooplankton abundance. Spearman

correlation was performed and the range of values was

between +1 to – 1. When the coefficient, r exceed 0.5, thus it

indicates that the correlation is strong.

III. RESULTS

A. Zooplankton Diversity

A checklist of zooplankton species occurred in the study

sites are shown in Table II.

B. Zooplankton Abundance

Zooplankton abundance throughout the study period is

shown in Fig. 2. The highest zooplankton abundance (182

ind/L) was recorded in the month of November 2013 while the

lowest abundance (19 ind/L)) was noticed in the month of

February 2014. All zooplankton groups occurred at the highest

abundance in November 2013 while the lowest in February

2014 which was dominated by Rotifera, followed by

Copepoda and Cladocera.

Fig. 3 shows the percentage of zooplankton abundance at

each station during the study period. Rotifera shows the

highest abundance at all sampling stations compared to the

other groups. The highest abundance of Rotifera occurred at

Station 5 (145 ind/L), Copepoda at Station 2 (12 ind/L), while

Copepoda at Station 3 (9 ind/L). Based on result of Kruskall-

Wallis test, there was a statistically significant difference in

zooplankton abundance between sampling stations (p = 0.004).

C. Physical Parameters

Dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH and water transparency

were measured while collecting zooplankton samples. Their

mean and standard error values are given in Table III.

2nd International Conference on Agriculture, Environment and Biological Sciences (ICAEBS'15) August 16-17, 2015 Bali (Indonesia)

http://dx.doi.org/10.17758/IAAST.A0715053 38

TABLE II

ZOOPLANKTON SPECIES CHECKLIST AND DISTRIBUTION BY SAMPLING STATION DURING THE STUDY PERIOD (OCTOBER 2013 UNTIL FEBRUARY 2014)

ORDER FAMILY SPECIES STATION

1 2 3 4 5

ROTIFERA

Branchionidae Branchionus angularis + - - + -

Branchionus nilsoni + + - + -

Ploimida

Branchionus forficula - + + + +

Branchionus quadridentatus - - - + -

Keratella cochlearis - - + + +

Anuraeopsis sp. + + + + +

Plationus patulus + - - + -

Lepadellidae Lepadella sp. + + + + +

Colurella uncinata + + + + +

Dicranophoridae Dicranophoroides sp. + + + + +

Asplanchnidae Asplanchna sp. + + + + +

Lecanidae Lecane bulla + + + + +

Lecane hamata + + + + +

Lecane lateralis + + - - -

Lecane luna + + + + +

Lecane papuana + + - + -

Lecane cf. ungulata + - - + -

Mytilinidae Lophocharis sp. + + - + -

Notommatidae Notommata sp. + - - + -

Proalidae Proalides sp. + + + + +

Scaridiidae Scaridium sp. + - + + +

Conochilidae Conochillus sp. + + + - +

Flosculariacea

Filinidae Filinia sp. + + + + +

Testudinellidae Testudinella sp. - + + - +

Bdelloidea + + + + +

CLADOCERA

Diplostraca

Sidiidae Diaphanosoma sarsi + + + - -

Diaphanosoma sp. - - + - -

COPEPODA

Cyclopoida

Adult + + + - +

Nauplii + + + + +

Fig. 2 Different groups of zooplankton abundance during the study

period

Fig. 3 Different groups of zooplankton abundance at all sampling

stations during the study period

2nd International Conference on Agriculture, Environment and Biological Sciences (ICAEBS'15) August 16-17, 2015 Bali (Indonesia)

http://dx.doi.org/10.17758/IAAST.A0715053 39

TABLE III

MEAN VALUES (MEAN ± SE) OF PHYSICAL PARAMETERS IN ALL SAMPLING

STATIONS

Station DO (mg/L) Temperature

(°C) pH

Water transparency

(m)

1 4.92 ± 0.30 27.82 ± 0.24 7.12 ± 0.11 0.55 ± 0.06

2 5.24 ± 0.30 28.33 ± 0.33 7.12 ± 0.11 0.57 ± 0.06

3 3.42 ± 0.70 28.00 ± 0.31 7.28 ± 0.23 0.15 ± 0.02

4 3.44 ± 0.42 28.05 ± 0.38 5.79 ± 0.24 0.82 ± 0.04

5 4.16 ± 0.33 28.11 ± 0.26 6.26 ± 0.29 0.82 ± 0.07

Zooplankton abundance was strong positively correlated

with water transparency (r = 0.547) while negative correlations

were found with dissolved oxygen (r = -0.238) and

temperature (r = -0.234). Correlations of zooplankton

abundance with physical parameters in the study sites are

given by Table IV.

D. Ecological Indices

Table V shows the ecological indices at all sampling

stations during the study period. The highest value of Margalef

TABLE IV

SPEARMAN CORRELATION VALUES OF ZOOPLANKTON ABUNDANCE AND PHYSICAL PARAMETERS DURING THE STUDY PERIOD

Zooplankton DO Temperature pH Transparency

Zooplankton 1.000

DO -0.238* 1.000

Temperature -0.234* 0.037 1.000

pH 0.076 0.407** -0.067 1.000

Transparency 0.547** -0.199 -0.415** -0.382** 1.000

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

TABLE V

ECOLOGICAL INDICES AT ALL SAMPLING STATIONS DURING THE STUDY PERIOD

Station

Richness indices Diversity Indices Eveness indices

Margalef (R1) Menhinick

(R2) Simpson (D) Shannon-Wiener (H’) Pielou (J)

1 5.46 2.50 0.83 1.09 0.76

2 4.27 2.02 0.85 1.07 0.81

3 4.79 2.90 0.93 1.20 0.94

4 5.60 2.65 0.90 1.21 0.84

5 5.15 2.16 0.88 1.17 0.82

index occurred at Station 4 (5.60) while the lowest value found

at Station 2 (4.27). Menhinick index showed the highest value

of richness at Station 3 (2.90) while the lowest value was at

Station 2 (2.02). The values of diversity index of Simpson

index varied from 0.83 to 0.93 while the values for Shanon-

Wiener index fluctuated between 1.07 and 1.21. Pielou’s

Evenness index showed the highest value of 0.94 at Station 3

while the lowest value was recorded at Station 1 for 0.76.

IV. DISCUSSION

The present study showed that rotifers dominated all three

types of water body in terms of species richness and

abundance. This finding is in accord with work by [9] and

[10], who reported that rotifers are the dominant group in their

study sites. The high number of rotifers in freshwater

ecosystem is due to their less specialized feeding habits, high

fecundity and short developmental rates [11]. In fact, this

pattern is common in freshwater ecosystem such as lakes,

ponds, rivers and streams [12].

Cladocera and Copepoda were observed in lower species

richness and abundance compared to Rotifera. This is due to

the effects of size-selective predation by fish [13] and the

changes in chemical characteristics of the water condition [14].

In terms of copepods, the abundance of nauplii was always

higher than the adult stages [15]. This is probably due to the

larger size of adult forms which increase the predation

intensity compared to juvenile forms [16].

The number of zooplankton species recorded in rice field

ecosystem of present study was lower than that reported in

references [17] and [18]. However, reference [19] reported

lower species number of zooplankton compared to Burung

River in the present study. The differences of species number

among the studies probably due to the differences in terms of

sampling frequency, sampling methods and physical

parameters measurements during the sampling periods.

In the present study, zooplankton abundance was strong

positively correlated with water transparency. This is good

evidence that an increase in the water transparency leads to an

increase in the zooplankton communities [12]. The Simpson

index in the present study shows high values (0.83 - 0.93)

which indicated that the communities are mature and stable as

the dominance is shared by large number of species. Low

diversity which is usually showed close to zero values is a

signal that the communities are under stress conditions [20].

The Pielou index values which are more than 0.5 indicated that

the zooplankton ecology is balance during the study period. If

the values are less than 0.5, it could be an indicator of the

presence of ecological stress with the occurrence of few

dominant species at high density in the study site [21].

V. CONCLUSION

The qualitative analysis of zooplankton from all three

aquatic ecosystems revealed the presence of three taxonomic

groups: Rotifera, Cladocera and Copepoda. From those,

2nd International Conference on Agriculture, Environment and Biological Sciences (ICAEBS'15) August 16-17, 2015 Bali (Indonesia)

http://dx.doi.org/10.17758/IAAST.A0715053 40

rotifers are best represented as number of species diversity and

abundance, followed by cladocerans and copepods in nauplius,

copepodite and adult froms. The dominance of zooplankton

species is highly variable in different types of water body

according to nutrient levels, predator and other environmental

factors which then affects the other biotic components of the

ecosystems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research project was supported by funds from

Universiti Sains Malaysia (grant no.

1001/PBIOLOGI/811243). The authors are grateful to Dr.

Russell Shiel for helping with the identification of

zooplankton.

REFERENCES

[1] R.S. Stemberger, “An inventory of rotifer species diversity of northern

Michigan inland Lakes,” Archiv für Hydrobiologie. vol. 118, pp. 283-

302, 1990.

[2] S. K. Mukhopadhyay, B. Chattopadhyay, A. R. Goswami and A.

Chatterjee, “Spatial variations in zooplankton diversity in waters

contaminated with composite effluents,” J. Limnol. vol. 66, pp. 97-106,

2007.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/jlimnol.2007.97

[3] D. Rissik, D. van Senden, M. Doherty, T. Ingleton, P. Ajani, L.

Bowling, M. Gibbs, M. Gladstone M, T. Kobayashi, I. Suthers and W.

Froneman, “'Plankton-related environmental and water-quality issues,”

in Plankton, a guide to their ecology and monitoring for water quality,

1st ed. I.M. Suthers, D. Rissik, Eds. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing,

2009, pp. 39–72.

[4] R. W. Pennak, Freshwater invertebrates of the United States. New York:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1978, pp. 1-803.

[5] B. A. G. Idris, Freshwater zooplankton of Malaysia (Crustacea:

Cladocera). Malaysia: Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor,

1983, pp. 10-151.

[6] R. J. Shiel, A guide to identification of rotifers, cladocerans and

copepods from Australian inland waters. Albury: Co-operative Research

Centre for Freshwater Ecology, Murray-Darling Freshwater Research

Centre, 1995, pp. 1-142.

[7] E. Ogbeigbu, Biostatistics, a practical approach to research and data

handling. Nigeria: Minex publishing Company Limited, Benin City

Nigeria, 2005, pp. 153-155.

[8] J. H. Zar, Biostatistical analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Upper

Saddle River, 1999, pp. 395-398.

[9] W. Reckendorfer, H. Keckeis, G. Winkler and F. Schiemer,

“Zooplankton abundance in the River Danube, Austria: the significance

of inshore retention. Freshwater Biol. vol. 41, pp. 583–591, 1999.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00412.x

[10] A. M. Rabee, “The effect of Al-Tharthar – Euphrates Canal on the

quantitative and qualitative composition of zooplankton in Euphrates

River,” J. Al-Nahrain Univ. vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 120–128, 2010.

[11] J. D. Allan, “Life history patterns in zooplankton,” American

Naturalist., vol. 110, pp. 165–176, 1976.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/283056

[12] I. F. Neves, D. Rocha, K. F. Roche and A. A. Pinto, “Zooplankton

community structure of two marginal lake of river (Cuiaba) (Mato,

Grosso, Brazil) with analysis of rotifer and Cladocera diversity,” Braz. J.

Biol., vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 329–343, 2003.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842003000200018

[13] J. F. Pankow, Aquatic Chemistry Concepts. Chelsea: Lewis Publishers,

1991, pp. 109–127.

[14] E.S.F. Medeiros, and A.H. Arthington, “The importance of zooplankton

in the diets of three native fish species in floodplain waterholes of a

dryland river, the Macintyre River, Australia,”.Hydrobiologia, vol. 614,

pp. 19– 31, 2008.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9533-7

[15] H. Y. Zakaria, A. A. Radwan and M. A. Said, “Influence of salinity

variations on zooplankton community in El-Mex Bay, Alexandria,

Egypt,” Egypt. J. Aquat. Res. vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 52–67, 2007.

[16] E. V. Sampaio, O. Rocha, T. Matsumura-Tundisi and J. G. Tundisi,

“Composition and abundance of Zooplankton in the limnetic zone of

seven reservoirs of the Paranapanema River, Brazil,” Braz. J. Biol. vol.

62, pp. 525–545, 2002.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842002000300018

[17] A. B. Ali, “Seasonal dynamics of microcrustacean and rotifers

communities in Malaysian ricefields used for rice-fish farming,”

Hydrobiologia, vol. 206, pp. 139-148, 1990.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00018640

[18] A. S.R.M. Shah and A. Ali, “Distribution and seasonal dynamics of

zooplankton in the Muda rice agro-ecosystem,” in Sustainable rice

production in Malaysia beyond 2000, M. Nashriyah, S. Ismail, N. K.

Ho, A. Ali, K. Y. Lum and M. Mashhor, Eds. Malaysia: Malaysia

Institute for Nuclear Technology (MINT) and Muda Agricultural

Development Authority (MADA), 2002, pp. 285.

[19] N.Z. Zulikha, F.M. Yusoff, J. Nishikawa, A. Arshad and H.M. Matias-

Peralta, “Mesozooplankton composition and abundance in a tropical

estuary during monsoon season,” Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic

Science. vol 8, pp. 430-440, 2013.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/jfas.2013.430.440

[20] M. C. Dash, Fundamental of Ecology. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill,

2003, pp. 516-527.

[21] S. M. Frutos, A. S. Poi de Neiff and G. Neiff, “Zooplankton abundance

and species diversity in two lakes with different trophic states

(Corrientes, Argentina),” Acta Limnol. Bras. vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 367–

375, 2009.

About Author:

Spatial organization of zooplankton community

will contribute to the knowledge of zooplankton

diversity in Malaysian water bodies.

2nd International Conference on Agriculture, Environment and Biological Sciences (ICAEBS'15) August 16-17, 2015 Bali (Indonesia)

http://dx.doi.org/10.17758/IAAST.A0715053 41