Chapter Two LITERATURE REVIEW - Indian ETD Repository @ INFLIBNET
PLANKTONS - Indian ETD Repository @ INFLIBNET: Home
122
Chapter II PLANKTONS
Transcript of PLANKTONS - Indian ETD Repository @ INFLIBNET: Home
Chapter II
PLANKTONS
PLANKTONS
Introduction
Plankton populations in rivers are not nearly as dense as those of lakes.
Time is too short for much multiplication of plankton, since relatively little time is
needed for a given quantity of water to flow from its source to the sea. The
plankton from head water to outlet varies tremendously (in quantity and quality)
and the plankton of rivers at one level varies with that of others. Rivers is
constantly moving so it is difficult to obtain a clear analysis of stream plankton
Plankton of rivers varies according to (1) chemistry of the water (including
gases and nutrients) (2) temperature (3) amount of suspended matter, all of
wh~ch are related to elevation gradient ,surface wind and current affect the
horizontal d~stribution of plankton.
Phytoplankton and zooplankton dynamics have been studied extensively
In lentic fresh waters (lakes and reservoirs), yet comparatively little research has
focussed on lotic waters (rivers). The investigations in river planktons are scanty
due to practical difficulties in the survey and sampling of flowing water
A. Phytoplankton
Introduction
Algae play an Important role in the limnology and ecology. The effect of
algae on water chemistry and vice versa, productivity of organic matter and the
relation to the food chain, the bottom sediments, light penetration all are involved.
Many aspects of fishery biology deal with algae.
Algae are the predominant photosynthesizers of fresh water as of all
aquatic environments. Light is a highly critical factor, of course, because of its
role in photo- synthesis. Most common algae in fresh water are diatoms, blue
green algae and green algae.
Review of Literature:
Following are some of the important,studies carried out the phytoplankton
in major rivers of the world:Fritsch (1903) and Rice (1938) made observations on
the phytoplankton of the river Thames. Kofoid (1908) did a study of the plankton
of Illinois river from 1894 to 1898. Allen (1920) did a quantitative and statistical
study of plankton of San Joaquin River and its tributaries near Stocktonl
California. Turner (1927) made a biological survey of Fox Wisconsin and Flame
Bean River. Wisconsin with special reference to pollution. Biological studies of
polluted areas in the Genesee river system, New York was carried out by Classen
(1927). A study of the plankton ecology of the Upper Mississipi was cariied out by
Reinhard (1931). A quantitative study of phytoplankton, of the white river canal
Indiana was made by Coffing (1937). Reese (1937) studied the microflora of the
non-calcarious streams Rheidol and Melinder with special reference to water
pollution from Lead mines in Cardiganshire. The effect of sewage from Nash ville
upon the plankton population of the Cumberland was studied by Brinley (1942a).
In the same year he also used plankton algae as indicators of the sanitary
condition of a stream (1942 b ).A study of physical and chemical aspects relating
to algal growth in the River Nile by Abdin (1948 a),study on the seasonal
distribution of phytoplankton in the River Nile was done by Abdin (1948 b).Berner
(1951) studied the limnology of the Lower Missouri River. A study on the
systematic account of the phytoplankton of the Blue and White Nile was
conducted at Khartoum by Brook (1954). A study on the seasonal plankton
development in the White and Blue Nile at Khartoum by carried out Rzoska et al
11 955), an ecological study of algae of saline river was done by Michigan by Blum
(1957). A study on the seasonal growth and succession of plankton algae in the
White Nile was conducted by Prowse and Talling (1958). Allanson (1961) made
investigations on the physical, chemical and biological conditions of polluted
waters in the Juksskei Crocodile river. Claus and Reimer (1961) studied
phytoplankton quantitatively and qualitatively from Danube river. Algal
communities and their seasonal relations have been studied from North Carolina
stream by Whitford and Schumacher (1963). Quantitative analysis of
phytoplankton along rocky mountain divided transect was carried out by Kidd
(1964). A study on the development of plankton in relation to hydrobiological
regime in the Blue Nile was done by Talling and Rzoska (1967). A limnological
study of the Lower Columbia River, during 1967 to 1968 was done by Clark and
Snyder (1970). Robert et al (1974) used phytoplankton as water pollution indices
in Colarado river. The ecological studies on algae were carried out from the
Moruya river. Australia by Potter et al, (1975). Van Landigham (1976) made
comparative evaluation of water quality on the St. Joseph river by 3 methods of
algal analys~s. A quantitative study of phytoplankton was done in the river Avon
by Aykalu (1978). Moore (1979) observed seasonal succession of phytoplankton
In a large sub arctic river. Phytoplankton of four rivers, the Tyne, Wear, Tees and
Swale have been studied by Holmes and Whitton (1981). Galvin Chabriere and
Cazaubon (1983) made a study of periphyton in a polluted section of Var river.
France and noticed the spatial evaluation of the algal population during a period
of intense pollution. Dorota Sieminiak (1983-84) studied the epipelic algae in
marginal parts of the Przeczyce reservoir and of neighbouring sectors of the
River Czarnaprzemsza. (Upper Silesia).Shirley and Hickman (1984) studied the
seasonal, physical, chemical and algal changes in 5 rivers flowing through the oil
sand region of Alberta, Canada. Mueller (1984) investigated the succession of
Bacillariophyceae in the fresh water area of Pevestorf of the Elbe river (West
Germany). Wasylik (1985) made an investigation on the diatom communities in
pure and polluted waters in the Biala Przemsza river basin, Poland. Saad
Massoud and Abbas (1 985) made seasonal. qualitative and quantitative studies
of phytoplankton on the Rosetta branch of the Nile river, Egypt. Pieters (1987)
made observations of temporal trends in phytoplankton diversity in the Vaal River
at Balk fontein, South Africa. The changes of phytoplankton were observed under
various hydrobiological situations from the arms of Danube River, Hungary
Sobelle and Kimmel (1987) made a large scale comparison of factors influencing
phytoplankton abundance in rivers, lakes and impoundments. Pierre (1987)
studied algal flora and eutrophication in the upper Meuse river, France. Pieterse
and Vanzyl (1988) observed the relation between phytoplankton diversity and
environmental factors in the Vaal river at Balk fontein, South Africa. Speller
(1990) studied the taxonomy of discoid centric diatoms based upon observations
of population from the river Thamez, Eng1and.A study on the prognoses of
changes in phytocoenoses of the river Dunajec in Southern Poland as result of
hydrotechnical construction was done by Jacek Senecki and Halina Bucka
(1 992). Josette Garnier (1995) studied the seasonal succession of diatoms and
chlorophyceae in the drainage network of the Seine river in France. Tesolin and
Tell (1996) made observations on the epiphytic algae on floating macrophytes of
Parana river , South America. Robert G. Sheath et al (1996) studied the,
composition, distribution and physiological adaptations.of a Tundra stream macro
algae of North Americachristiance Hudon et al (1996) studied the down stream
variations of.phytoplankton in the St.Lawrence river in Canada. Choi et al (1997)
studied the distribution of phytoplankton in the Kum river, Korea.
The following are some of studies of phytoplankton in major rivers of India.
Ghousuddin (1934) studied the algal flora of river Moosi. Chacko and Ganapati
(1949) examined the hydrobiology of the Adayar river.lyengar and Venkataraman
(1951) observed seasonal succession of the algal flora of the river Coourn at
Madras with special reference to the Diatornaceae on the East Coast of India.
Gunate and Balakrishnan (1951) used algae as biornonitoring of eutrophication in
the Parana, Mula and Muthe rivers flowing through Poona. Ganapati (1955)
noted the abundance of plankton and its relation to transparency of water in
Cauvery river. Phytoplankton ecology of river Hooghly at Palta, West Bengal was
studied by Roy, (1955). A quantitative study of the plankton and physico-
chemical conditions of the river Jamuna at Allahabad was made by Chakrabarty
et al (1959). Lakshminarayana (1965) studied the physico-chemical characters of
water, seasonal growth and succession of the phytoplankton in the river Ganges.
A study of some aspects of ecology of the river Ganga and Jamuna at Allahabad
during 1958 -1959 was carried out by Raj et al (1966). Rai (1978) made
observations on algal communities of the Ganges river at Varanasi. Jeeji Bai and
Rajendran (1980) used phytoplankton constituents as indicators of water quality
in the study of Adyar river Venkateswaralu (1981)also used algae as indicators of
river water quality and pollution. Hydrobiological characters and phytoplankton
population was studied in the river Kosi of Western Himalaya by Bhatt et al
(1985). Bhowmick and Singh (1985 a) studied phytoplankton population in
relation to physico chemical factors of river Ganga at Patna. The distribution of
algal flora in polluted and non-polluted regions in Yamuna river at Agra was also
studied by Sengar-and his co-workers (1985). Sengar and Sharma (1987)
studied the role of algae in the river Yamuna. The phycological and physico-
chemical evaluations of the river Ayad, Udaipur were made by Rana and Palria
(1988). Venkateswarlu et al (1990) studied the ecology of algae in the river
Moosi, Hydrabad. Shaji and Patel (1991) studied chemical and biological
evaluation of pollution in the river Sabarmati at Ahmedabad. Umamaheswara
Rao and Sarojini (1992) studied the composition, abundance and vertical
distribution of phytoplankton and fungi of Krishna and Godavari river mouths,
east coast of lndia. Nomitasen (1995) studied the phytoplankton in rivers of lndia.
Yadava and Bilgrami (1995) studied the monitoring of rivers through biological
devices
Hydrobiology of Beypore river was studied by John and Alexander (1968),
Ramanujan (1984) studied the ecology of the Kallar river. Balakrishnan Nair
(1986) studied the river ecology of Western Ghats;Kallada and Neyyar river,
Synudeen sahib (1992) studied the ecological aspects of Kallada river. Shibu and
Ritakumari (1995) studied the phytoplankton and productivity of the riverine and
estuarine zones of the Paravur lake. Nair and Nirmala (1995) studied the impact
of salinity on the planktonic communities of a freshwater riverine system with
reference to Beypore estuary.
Materials and Methods:
Monthly collections of planktons were made from six stations using
plankton net made up of bolting silk (mesh 25, diameter of the pore 6 0 ~ ) . The
samples were immediately preserved in 4% formalin. Numerical estimation of
phytoplankton was made by Lackey's drop method (Lackey, 1938,
Vollen weider. 1969). Identification of phytoplankton species was made as per
the observat~ons made up by Prescott (1962) and Sarma and Khan (1980).
Results:
A. Phytoplankton:
The phytoplankton in the six stations of the river showed variations
because of the diverse physico-chemical conditions. The algal (phytoplankton)
component of lthikkara river consisted of the members of Cyanophyceae,
Chlorophyceae. Bacillariophyceae, Euglenophyceae, Chrysophyceae,
Dinophyceae and Rhodophyceae.
Station I
The phytoplankton in this station consisted of 29.6% Cyanophyceae (Blue
green algae),l9.3% Chlorophycean (Green algae),50.8% Bacillariophyceae
(Diatoms) and 3% of Euglenophyceae and Rhodophyceae
(miscellaneous)(Table.2. I .and Fig. 2.1 .). During the twelve months of
collection,diatoms (Bacillariophyceae) were the dominating forms.
Annual averages revealed that Bacillariophyceae were the dominant
group. Annual averages of Cyanophyceae was 538 unit llitre, Chlorophyceae
was 350 unitsllitre, Bacillariophyceae was 923 units llitre and miscellaneous
(Euglenophyceae and Rhodophyceae) was 5 unitsllitre.
Seasonal averages of dry season showed that cyanophyceae was 1059
unitsllitre. Chlrophyceae was 236 unitsllitre, Bacillariophyceae was 1763
unitsllitre and miscellaneous including Euglenophyceae and Rhodophyceae was
5 unitsllitre . seasonal averages of wet season showed that Cyanophyceae was
16 unitsllitre, Chlorophyceae was 231 unitsllitre, Bacillariophyceae was 81 units1
litre and miscellaneous was 8 unitsllitre.(Table 2.1 9).
In dry season Bacillariophyceae was the dominating group,
Chlorophyceae dominated during wet season. Phytoplankton was remarkably
abundant during dry season.
Monthly fluctuation of phytoplankton showed four peaks in February,
March, Apr~l and May (February -17.93%, March - 21.32%. April-25.18% and
May-24.92%) (Table 2.20).
The blue green algae (Cyanophyceae) showed two peaks, one in April
(49.05% - 3165 unitsllitre) and another in May (39.87% ie. 2575 unitsllitre).
Green algae (Chlorophyceae) showed two peaks, one in March (30.54% -1283
unitsllitre) and another in May (20.92% - 879 unitsllitre) . Four peaks of diatoms
were observed in February (31.72% -. 3636 units1 litre),March (25.36% -. 2765
unitsllitre), April (19.35% - 21 10 unitsllitre) and May (18.13% -. 1976 unitsllitre)
Diatoms were abundant in February and March and blue green algae were
abundant in April and May.(Table 2. 1,&2..2, Fig.2.1)
Durrng the twelve months of collection the diatoms were the dominant
forms. Chlorophyceae and Bacillariophyceae were seen throughout the year.
In Cyanophyceae, Oscillator~a was the dominant genus. Oscillatoria showed two
peaks,one in April (2321 unitsllitre) and another in May (1201 unitsllitre).
Merismopedia was seen only in April and May .Phormidium was abundant in May
and was seen in April, May and August.
In the case of Chlorophyceae (Green algae) Closterium sp. was the
dominant genus. Closterium sp. was found in the plankton throughout the year.,
their number was high in October (330 unifflitre)Mougeotia and Spirogyra were
found during seven months. Their number was high in March, Oedogonium was
frequent forms and their number was high in May. Rhizoclonium, Euastrum,
Micrasterias Hyalotheca, Sphaerozosma were very frequent forms.
In the case of diatoms Navicula was found in all the months except in
March and June. Navicula was abundant in February (425 unifflitre), April (633
unitsllitre and in May (656 unifflitre). Fragillaria was seen during eight months.
Two peaks of Fragillaria were obse~ed,one in February (2168 unitsllitre) and
another in March (2110 unitsllitre). Pinnularia was found during seven months.
Two peaks were observed, one in April (422 unitsllitre) and another in May (492
unifflitre) Gophonema ,which was found during five months and a peak (464
unitsllitre) was observed in February. Suniella was found during February, March
and April .The peak was in April (21 1 unitsllitre). Synedra was found in February,
March. July and November, The peak (116 unifflitre) was in February. Nitzschia
was found in March, May and July. The peak was in March (182 unifflitre).
Melosira, Cyclotella, Pleurosigma and Cymbella were very rare forms.
In Englenophyceae, Euglena was seen only in March and In
Rhodophyceae, Audouinella was seen in September only. They were also very
rare in the plankton
In station I, Closterium was only species seen through out the year
(Table 2.27)
Qualitative analysis of phytoplankton
C1ass:Cyanophyceae
Order: Chroococcales.
Merismopedia sp.
Order: Oscillatoriales.
Spirulina sp.
Oscillatoria tenuis,
0.princeps.
Phormidium Sp.
Lyngbya.sp.
Order: Nostocales
Anabaena.
Class: Chlorophyceae
Order: Oedogoniales
Oedogonium sp.
Order: Cladophorales.
Rhizoclonium sp.
Order: Zygnematales.
Mougeotia sp.
Spirogyra sp.
Netrium sp.
Gonatozygon sp.
Closterium rnoniliferurn.
C kuetzingii.
C. lineaturn.
Euastrurn verrucosum
Micrasterias thomsiana
M mahabalipurensis.
Hyalotheca. sp
Sphaerozosma sp.
Class:Euglenophyceae:
Euglena sp.
Class:Bacillariophyceae
Nitzschia. sp.
Melosira sp.
Cyclotella. sp.
Fragillaria. sp.
Synedra sp.
Navicula. sp.
Pinnularia sp.
Pleurosigma sp.
Cyrnbella. sp.
Gomphonema. sp.
Surirella. sp.
Class: Rhodophyceae.
Audouinella indica
Stastion.11
In stat~on II, phytoplankton consisted of 21.3% Cyanophyceae (blue green
algae. 38 4%, Chlorophyceae,34.0% Bacillariophyceae and 10.3%
rnlscellaneous (Euglenophyceae and Rhodophyceae)
Annual average revealed that Chlorophyceae was the dominant group
Cyanophyceae was 1139 unltsllitre, Chlorophyceae was 1889 unitsllit,
Bac~llariophyceae was 1672 unitll and miscellaneous was 221 unitllitre
Seasonal average revealed that phytoplankton was abundant in dry
season.Seasonal average during dry season showed that Cyanophyceae was
2177 unitsllitre, Chlorophyceae was 3435 unitsl litre, Bacillariophyceae was 3244
unitsllitre and miscellaneous was 439 unitsllitrein the plankton.Among
miscellaneous forms Euglenophyceae was the dominant group. Rhodophyceae
was very rare. Seasonal average during wet season showed that the
Cyanophyceae was 100 unitsl litre, Chlorophyceae was 344 unitsllitre,
Bacillariophyceae was 100 unitsllitre and miscellaneous was 4 unitllitre. (Table
2.19)
Seasonal averages of dry and wet season showed that Chlorophyceae
was the dominant group.Phytoplankton in wet season was remarkably low.
Monthly fluctuation of phytoplankton in this station revealed that there was
one peak in April (73.03%).(Table 2.20)
Cyanophyceae (blue green algae) showed one peak in April (94.6%-
12928 unitllitre) and Chlorophyceae (green algae) showed one peak in April
(76 52%-17347 unitsllitre). Euglenophyceae was also abundant in Apri1(95.58% -
2532 unitsllitre). Bacillariophyceae was the dominant group in Apri1(51.42% -
10320 units1 litre). Bacillariophyceae (diatoms) gradually increased from
February to April. Chlorophyceae and Bacillariophyceae were observed
throughout the year. Cyanophyceae was seen throughout the year except in
August, Euglenophyceae was observed only in four months; March, April, May
and June. Rhodophyceae was very rare and was found only in December and
October. (Table 2.4 & 2.5 Fig.2.2).
Among Cyanophyceae Oscillatoria was the dominated genus. It was found
throughout the year,except in August,and was abundant in April. Merismopedia
was abundant in April and was found only in March, April and May. Phormidium
was a frequent form. Aphanocapsa, Spirulina and Lyngbya were rarely seen.
Among Chlorophyceae, Closterium and Spirogyra were the dominated
genera. They were observed throughout the year. Oedogonium, Pediastrum,
Mougeotia, Micrasterias, Cosmarium and Hyalotheca were sub dominant forms.
Penium, Pleurotaenium and Xanthidium were found frequently. Stigeoconium,
Dictyosphaerium, Ankistrodesmus, Kirchneriella, Pediastrum, Tetradron,
Scenedesmus. Crucigenia, Zgynema, Cylindrocystis, Treubaria, Netrium,
Gonotozygon, Euastrum. Staurastrum,and Spondylosium were rarely seen.
In the case of Bacillariophyceae,Fragillaria, Navicula and Surirella were
the dominant forms. Synedra, Gophonema and Pinnularia were subdominant
forms.Diatorna, Pleurosigma and Nitzschia were frequently seen and Melosira,
Achnanthes, Diploneis, Gyrosigma, Cymbella and Amphora were rarely found in
this station.
Among Rhodophyceae Audouinella sp was the only form and It was very
rare. From the analysis of phytoplankton in this station Clostenum was the only
genera seen throughout the entire period of collection (Table 2.28).
Qualitative analysis of Phytoplankton:
Class; cyanophyceae
Order: Chroococcales:
Aphanocapsa sp.
Merismopedia sp.
Order: Oscillatoriales
Spirulina sp.
Oscillatoria princeps
0. tenuis.
Phormidium sp
Lyngbya sp.
Class: chlorophyceae
Order; Chaetophorales
Stigeoclonium sp
Order; Oedogoniales
Oedogonium sp
Order; Chlorococca~es
Pediastrum duplex
Dictyosphaerium pulchellum
Ankistrodesmus sp.
Kirchneriella sp.
Tetraedron sp.
Scenedesmus quadricauda
Scenedesmus abundans.
Crucigenia sp.
Order: Zygnematales
Mougeotia sp.
Zygnema sp.
Spirogyra sp.
Cylindrocystis brebissonii
Treubaria sp.
Netflum sp.
Gonatozygon sp.
Closterium kuetzingii
C lineatum.
Penium spirostriolatum.
Pleurotaenium kayei
P. verrucosum.
P.ovatum.
Euastrum verrucosum
Micrasterias pinnatifida
M. foliacea
M. thomsiana.
Cosmarium connatum
C. quadratum
Xanthidium freemanji
X. tetras.
Staurastrum setigerum
Spondylosium sp.
Hyalotheca sp.
Desmidium sp.
Class: Euglenophyceae
Euglena acus
Phacus sp.
Class: Bacillariophyceae
Melosira sp.
Diatorna sp.
Fragillaria sp.
Synedra sp.
Achnanthes sp.
Navicula sp.
Pinnularia sp.
Diploneis sp.
Gyrosigma sp.
Pleurostgma sp.
Gomphonema sp.
Cymbella sp.
Amphora sp.
Nitzschia reversa
Surirella tenera
Class. Rhodophyceae
Audouinella godwardense
A. indica
A. sarmari.
Station Ill
Observations of phytoplankton in the station Ill revealed that it contained
4% Cyanophyceae (blue green algae), 55.7% Chlorophyceae (green algae),
36 7% Bacillariophyceae (diatoms) and 3.6% miscellaneous forms.
miscellaneous forms included Englenophyceae, Dinophyceae and
Rhodophyceae (Table. 2.4.and Fig.2.3)
Annual averages of phytoplankton showed that Chlorophyceae was the
dominant group (8214 unitsllitre). Annual averages of Cyanophyceae was 591
unitsllitre, Bacillariophyceae (diatoms) was 5415 unitsllitre and miscellaneous
was 528 unitsllitre (miscellaneous contains Euglenophyceae was 503 unitsllitre,
Dinophyceae was 16 unitsllitre and Rhodophyceae was 7.6 units/litre).SeasonaI
averages of phytoplankton revealed that phytoplankton was abundant in dry
season and was very low in wet season. During dry season seasonal averages
of Cyanophyceae was 1024 unitsllitre, Chlorophyceae was 15635 unitsllitre,
Bacillariophyceae was 101 12 unitsllitre and miscellaneous was 21 unitsllitre.
During wet season average of Cyanophyceae was 159 unitsllitre.
Chlorophyceae was 794 unitsllitre. Bacillariophyceae was 720 unitsllitre and
miscellaneous was 21 unitsllitre. (Table 2.19).
Chlorophyceae was dominant in both dry and wet season. During wet
season phytoplankton was comparatively low.
The quantity of phytoplankton was highest in April (118814 unitsllitre;
67.13%) and was high in January (12588 unitsllitre; 7.1 I%), February 7292
unitsllitre (4 12%) and March 26335 unitsllitre (14.85%) (Table 2.8 &2.20) .In
January. February and March . Bacillariophyceae was the major constituent and
in April, Chlorophyceae was the major constituent in planktons.
Cyanophyceae was predominantly seen in March (1250 units1 litre) and
In April (4549 unitsllitre)(Table 2.8).The major constituent of the group
Cyanophyceae was Merismopedra (234 unitsllitre )in March and (41 85
169
units1litre)in April. Merismopedia was seen only in three months, March, April
and June. In June Merismopedia was very low (17 unitsllitre )
In Cyanophyceae Oscillatoria was the dominant form. Oscillatoria was
absent in January. September and November. Phormidium was a frequent form.
Mtcrocystis, Aphanocapsa, Spirulina, Lyngbya, Microcoleus, Anabaena and
Scytonema were seen very rarely
Chlorophyceae was predominantly seen in April (84603 unitsllitre;
8557%)(Table 2 7 & 2.8). The dominant forms of Chlorophyceae were
Oedogonium, Closterium, Micrasterias, Cosmariurn, and Hyalotheca. The
subdominant forms of Chlorophyceae were Pediastrum, Mougeotia, Spirogyra
and Pleurotaenium. Xanthidium and Euastrum were seen frequently. Pandorina,
EudorIna. Dictyosphaerium, Dimorphoccus, Ankistmdesmus, Selanastrum,
Kirchneriella. Scenedesmus, Crucigenia, Tetrastrum, Netrium, Actinocfaenium,
Staurastrum, Spondylosium, Sphaerozosma and Desmidium were seen rarely.
All of these forms were abundant in April.
Euglenophyceae was a frequent form. Euglena was seen frequently and
Phacus was found rarely.
Among Chrysophyceae. Dinobryon was seen in October. In the case of
Dinophyceae, Ceratium was seen only in March.
170
Bacillariophyceae showed peaks in March (23461 units1
litre - 36.10%) and April (23988 unitsllitre - 36.10%)(Table 2.7 & 2.8) .The major
constituent of these two peaks were Fragillaria, Synedra, Navicula, and
Gophonema. Fragillaria, Synedra, Navicula, Gophenema and Surirella were
abundant in the phyplankton. Surirella was found throughout the year. Melosira,
Pinnularia, Pleurosigma and Nitzschia were seen frequently. Tabellaria, Eunotia.
Diploneis, Diatoma, Cymbella, Campylodicus and Gyrosigma were found rarely
(Table 2.29).
Among Rhodophyceae, Compsopogon. and Audouinella were seen rarely
In the phytoplankton. Chlorophyceae and Bacillariophyceae were observed
throughout the year ( F1g.2.3)
Qualitative analysis of phytoplankton:
Class: Cyanophyceae
Order: Chroococcales.
Microcystis sp.
Aphanocapsa sp.
Merismopedia sp.
Order: Oscillatorjales
Spirulina sp.
Oscillatoria princeps
0. tenuis.
Phormidium sp.
Lyngbya sp.
Order: Nostocales
Anabaena sp.
Scytonema sp.
Class: Clorophyceae
Order: V O I V O C ~ ~ ~ S
Pandorina sp.
Eudorina elegans.
Order: Chaetophorales
Stigeoclonium sp.
Order: Oedogoniales
Oedogonium sp.
Order: Chlorococcales
Pediastrum duplex
P. simplex
Dictyosphaerium pulchellum.
D.chreubergianum.
D~morphococcus sp.
Ankistrodesrnus sp.
Selanastrum sp.
Kirchneriella sp.
Scenedesmus quadricauda.
S. obliquus.
S. dimorphus.
S. bernardii
Crucigenia sp.
Tetrastrum heterocanthum
T. sp.
Order: Zygnematales
Mougeotia sp.
Spirogyra sp.
Netn'um digitus
Closterium moniliferum
C. kuetzingii
C. lineatum
Pleurotaenium kayei
P. ovatum
P. verrucosum
Euastrum sp.
Micrastenas thornsiana
M.mahabalipurensis
M. foliacea
Actinoctaenium sp.
Cosmarium quadraturn
C. connaturn
C subspeciosurn
Xanthidiurn freeman;;
X. hastiferum
Sfaurastrum setigerum
S. sexangulare
Spondylosium sp.
Sphaerozosma sp.
Desmidium sp.
Hyalotheca sp.
Class: Euglenophyceae
Euglena acus
Phacus sp.
Class: Chrysophyceae
Dinobryon sp.
Class: Dinophyceae
Ceratiurn sp.
Class: Bacillariophyceae
Melosira sp.
Tabellaria sp.
Fragillaria sp.
Synedra sp.
Eunotia alpina
E. elegans
Navicula sp.
Pinnularia sp.
Diploneis sp.
Diatoma sp.
Pleurosigma sp.
Gomphonema sp.
Cymbella sp.
Nitzschia reversa
Surirella sp.
Campylodiscus sp.
Gyrosigma sp.
Class: Rhodophyceae
Compsopogon sp.
Audouinella sarmari
A. indica
A. quilonensis
Station IV
Analys~s of the phytoplankton in station IV showed that 13.3% was
Cyanophyceae, 33 2% was Chlorophyceae, 53% was Bacillariophyceae and
0 5% was m~scellaneous forms. Miscellaneous forms included Euglenophyceae,
Chrysophyceae, D~nophyceae and Rhodophyceae
Annual averages of phytoplankton revealed that Cyanophyceae was 494
unitsllitre, Chlorophyceae was 1237 unitsllitre, Bacillariophyceae was 1973
unitsllitre and miscellaneous forms were 19 unitsllitre. In station IV,
Bacillariophyceae was the dominant group
Phytoplankton was abundant in dry season and was low in wet season.
During dry season, seasonal average of Cyanophyceae was 880 unitsllitre.
During wet season it was 107 unitsllitre. Chlorophyceae was 1387unitsllitre in dry
season and it was 1087 unitllitre in wet season. Seasonal average of
Bacillariophyceae was 2712 unitsllitre in dry season and 1233 unitsllitre during
wet season. Seasonal averages of dry season showed that misellaneous was 31
units 1 litre and in wet season it was 8 unit I litre (Table 2.19).
Bacillariophyceae was dominant group both in dry and wet season.
Phytoplankton was dominant in May (8125 unitsllitre; 18.65%). Phytoplankton
gradually increased from December to May. In April phytoplankton was 6382
unttsllitre (1428%) and in June it was 7036 unitsllitr'e (15.74%) (Table2.11 &
2.20)
Cyanophyceae was the major constituent of the phytoplankton in May. In
January, February and March major constituent of phytoplankton was
Bacillariophyceae. In April Chlorophyceae was the major constituent of
phytoplankton and in June Bacillariophyceae was the major constituent (Table
2.11).
Cyanophyceae was predominantly seen in May(3661 unitsl litre; 61.77%)
(Table 2.10 & 2.11). Among the blue green algae Oscillatoria was seen
throughout the period of the study except in February. Maximum number of
Oscillator~a was observed in May (363 unitsl litre). Merismopedia was seen in
December. February and in May. In May number of Merismopedia was 3034
unitsllitre Merismopedia was the major constituent of Cyanophyceae.
M~crocystis, Aphanocapsa, Spirulina, Phormidium, Lyngbya Anabaena and
Scytonema were rarely seen
Chlorophyceae (green algae) showed two peaks, one in April (3288
un~tsllitre-.22.14%) and other in May (3491 unitsllitre; 23.52%)(Table 2.10
&2 11) Oedogon~um. Spirogyra, Closterium, and Cosmarium were the dominant
forms among the Chlorophyceae (Green algae). Pediastrum, Mougeotia,
Micrasterias and Hyalotheca were subdominant forms. Pleurotaenium and
Netnum were found frequently. Oedogonium was abundant in April (2514
unrtsllitre) Closterium was abundant in August (1374 unitsllitre).
Dictyosphaerium. Kirchneriella, Scenadesmus, Zygnema, Penium, Euastrum,
Actinoctaen;um, Xanthidium, Staurastrum, Spondylosium, Sphaerozosma, and
Gymnozyga were found rarely in the phytoplankton of the station.
Dinobryon among Chrysophyceae, Compsopogon and Audouinella among
Rhodophyceae, Ceratiurn among Dinophyceae were seen very rarely.
Among Bacillariophyceae a peak was observed in June 5454 unifflitre
(21 35%) (Table 2.10 &2.11) Synedra was seen through out the period of the
present study and peak was observed in February (1512 unitsllitre). Melosira,
Fragillar~a, Navicula, Synedra, and Surirella were the dominant forms. Surirella
was seen throughout the period of collection and a peak was observed in March
(720 units/litre). Pinnularia and Gophonema, were the subdominant forms,
Pleurosigma, Amphora, Nifzschia were seen frequently. Tabellaria, Gyrosigma,
Diatoma, Cyrnbella and Carnpylodiscus were seen rarely (Table 2.30)
Cyanophyceae, Chlorophyceae, and Bacillariophyceae were seen
throughout the period of collection (Fig.2.4)
Qualitative analysis of phytoplankton.
Class: Cyanophyceae
Order: Chroococcales.
Microcystis sp.
Aphanocapsa sp.
Merismo pedia sp.
Order: Oscillatoriales.
Spirulina sp.
Oscillatoria tenue
Phormidium sp.
Lymybya sp.
Order: Nostocales
Anabaena sp.
Scytonema sp.
Class: Chlorophyceae
Order: Oedoaoniales
Oedogonium sp.
Order: Chlorococcales
Pediastrum tetras
Dictyosphaeriurn sp.
Kirchneriella sp.
Scenedesmus quadricauda
S. obliquus.
S. dirnorphus
Order: Zygnematales
Mougeotia sp.
Zygnema sp.
Spirogyra sp.
Nefrium digitus
Closteriurn kuetzingii
C, rnoniliferurn
C. lineatum
Penium spirostriolatum
Pleurotaenium kayei
P. ovatum.
Euastrum sp.
Micrasterias mahabalipurensis
M. pinnatifeda
Actinoctaenium sp.
Cosmarium quadratum
C. subspeciosum
Xanthidium hastiferum
Staurasfrum sexangulare.
Spondylosium sp.
Sphaerozosma sp.
Gymnozyga sp.
Hyalothec sp.
Class: Euglenophyceae
Euglena sp.
Class: Chrysophyceae
Dinobtyon sp.
Class: Dinophyceae
Ceratium sp.
Class: BaciIlariophyceae
Melosira sp.
Tabellaria sp.
Fragillaria brevistriata
Synedra sp.
Navicula sp.
Pinnularia sp.
Gyrosigma sp.
Pleurosigma sp.
Diatoma sp.
Gomphonema sp.
Cymbella sp.
Amphora Sp.
Nitzschia Sp.
Surirella tenera
Campylodiscus sp.
Class : Rhodopyceae
Compsopogon sp.
Audouinella godwardense
Among phytoplankton of this station, 19.1% was Cyanophyceae, 10.2%
was Chlorophyceae, 69 7% was Bacillariophyceae and 1% was miscellaneous
Constituent of the rnlscellaneous included Englenophyceae, Chrysophyceae and
D~nophyceae
The annual averages of phytoplankton showed that Cyanophyceae was
325 unifflitre, Chlorophyceae was 173 unitllitre,Bacillariophyceae was 1185
unitllitre and miscellaneous was 16 unit/ litre. Bacillariophyceae (diatoms) was
the dominant group of phytoplankton.
During the dry season phytoplankton was dominant. Seasonal average of
Cyanophyceae was same (324 unitsllitre) in both dry and wet season. In dry
season Chlorophyceae was 15 unitsllitre where as in the case of wet season
Chlorophyceae was 332 unifflitre. Chlorophyceae was abundant in wet season.
Seasonal averagesshowed that the Bacillariophyceae was abundant in dry
season (1913 unitsllitre) and it was low (456 unifflitre) in wet season.
Miscellaneous was also dominant in wet season (22 unitsllitre) and was less(l1
unitsllitre )in dry season( Table 2.19).
Bac~llariophyceae (diatoms) was found dominant in both dry and wet
season. Phytoplankton was abundant in April (8027 unitsllitre; 39.38%) the next
peak was in March 3016 unitsllitre (14.79%) (Table.2.14 & 2.20)
Cyanophyceae was predominantly seen in November (1254 unitsflitre;
32.15%) (Table 2.13 &2.14).0scillatoria was a subdominant form, it showed a
peak in June (461 unitsllitre). Aphanocapsa and Merismopedia were frequently
seen. Aphanocapsa showed a peak in April (1093 unitsllitre). Microcystis,
Phormidium and Lyngbya were seen rarely. Phormidium was seen November
only (945 unitsllitre).
Chlorophyceae was abundantly seen in August 895 unitsl litre (43.02%)
and October (748 unitsllitre; 35,94%)(Table 2.13 & 2.14). Closterium, Spirogyra
and Hyalotheca were the frequent forms Oedogonium, Pediastrum,
Dicfyosphaerium, Mougeotia, Zygnema, Pleurotaenium, Micrasterias,
Acbnoctaeniurn, Cosmarium, Desmidium and Sphaerozosma were seen rarely
Among Euglenophyceae Phacus, Euglena; among Chrysophyceae
D~nobryon and Ceratium among Dinophyceae were seen very rarely.
Bacillariophyceae showed a peak in April 6944 unitsl litre (48.96%).
Bacillar~ophyceae was 2708 unitsllitre (10.03%) in March (Table 2.13 &2.14)
Fragillaria. Gyrosigma and Campylodiscus were abundant in April. Synedra and
Carnpylodiscus were the dominant forms. Melosira, Fragillaria, Gyrosigma,
Nitzschia, Surirella were the sub dominant forms. Navicula and Pleurosigma
were observed frequently. Tabellaria, Eunotia, Cocconeis, Pinnularia, Diatoma,
Gomphonema and Amphora were seen rarely (Table 2.31)
In station V Bacillariophyceae was observed throughout the period of the
present study(Fig.2.5).
Qualitative analysis of Phytoplankton.
Class: Cyanophyceae
Order: Chroococcales
Microcystis sp.
Aphanocapsa sp.
Merismopedia sp.
Order: Oscillatoriales
Oscillatoria sp.
Phormidium sp
Lyngbya sp.
Microcoleus sp.
Class: Chlorophyceae
Order: Oedogoniales
Oedogonium sp.
Order: Chlorococcales
Pediastrum duplex
DictyosphaeriLlm pulchellum
Order: Zygnematales
Mougeotia sp.
Zygnema sp.
Spirogyra sp.
Closteriurn moniliferum
C. lineaturn
Pleurofaeniurn ovaturn
Micrasterias foliacea
Actinoctaeniurn sp.
Sphaerozosrna s p
Hyalotheca sp.
Desrnidiurn sp.
Class: Euglenophyceae
Phacus sp.
Euglena sp.
Class: Chrysophyceae
Dinobryon s p
Class: Dinophyceae
Ceratiurn fusus
C, tripos
Peridiniurn depressurn.
Class: Bacillariophyceae
Melosira sp.
Tabellaria sp.
Fragillaria brevistriata
Synedra sp.
Cocconeis sp.
Navicula sp.
Pinnularia sp.
Gyrosigma sp.
Pleurosigma sp.
Diatoma sp.
Gomphonema sp.
Nitzschia sp.
Surirella sp.
Campylodiscus sp.
Amphora sp.
Station VI
In the phytoplankton of station VI 19.4% was Cyanophyceae. 7.8% was
Chlorophyceae 56.6% was Bacillariophyceae, and 16.2% was miscellaneous
forms. Constituents of the miscellaneous forms were Euglenophyceae,
Chrysophyceae and Dinophyceae
Annual averages of phytoplankton showed that Bacillariophyceae was the
dominant group (346 unitsllitre). Cyanophyceae was 463 unitsllitre,
Chlorophyceae was 186 unitsllitre and miscellaneous was 385 unitsllitre.
(Euglenophyceae was 9 unitsllitre. Chrysophyceae was 16 unitsllitre and
Dinophyceae was 792 units1 litre).
Seasonal average of phytoplankton showed that Cyanophyceae in the dry
season was 700 unitsllitre while in the wet season it was 225 unitllitre.
Chlorophyceae was dominant in wet season (290 unitsllitre). The number of
Chlorophyceae decreased during dry season (83 unitllitre). Bacillariophyceae
was 2026 unitsllitre in dry season and 667 unitsllitre in wet season. During the
dry season miscellaneous forms (Euglenophyceae, Chrysophyceae and
Dinophyceae) were 720 unitsl litre. They were observed during the dry season
only. Bacillariophyceae was dominant in both dry and wet season (Table 2.19)
Phytoplankton was abundant in February (12305 unitsl litre;36.45%). In
April phytoplankton was 7799 unitsllitre (23.11%) and in January it was 4796
unitsllitre (14.21%) (Table 2.20). In February, Dinophyceae was the major
constituent (7307 unitsllitre; 76.88%) of phytoplankton. The peak of
Cyanophyceae was also observed in February. The peak of Bacillariophyceae
was observed in April.(Table 2.16 & 2.17).
Among Cyanophyceae Oscillatoria was the dominant forms. Oscillatoria
showed peak in June (887 unitsllitre.) Merismopedia was seen frequently and
showed a peak in February (2403 unitsllitre). Microcystis, Aphanocapsa,
Spirulina, Phormidium were seen very rarely in the plankton of the station.
Peak of Chlorophyceae was observed in October (812 unitsl litre-36.3%).
Peak of Spirogyra was observed in October (360 unitsl litre)( Table 2.16&2.17).
In Chlorophyceae Spirogyra was the dominant form Hyalotheca was seen
frequently. Oedogoniurn, Pediastrum, Dictyosphaerium, Mougeotia, Triplaceras,
Micrasterias and Xanthidium were seen rarely.
Among Euglenophyceae, Euglena and among Chrysophyceae. Dinobryon
were seen rarely, but among Dinophyceae. Ceratium was seen abundantly in
February (7307 unitsllitre) and it was seen in January, February, March and April.
Bacillariophyceae was dominant in April and January (Table 2.16 &
2.17.).Peaks of Gyrosigma (1 192 unitsllitre) and Campylodiscus (2708 unitsllitre)
were observed in April. Peaks of Fragillaria, Synedra. Nitzschia and Pleurosigma
were observed in January. Synedra, Gyrosigma, Nitzschia and Campylodiscus
were the dominant forms. Fragillaria, Cocconeis, Navicula, Pleurosigma were the
subdominant forms. Gornphonema, Amphora, Sun.mlla were frequently seen in
the plankton. Melos~ra, Tabellaria, Eunotia, Pinnularia and Cymbella were rarely
observed.(Table 2.32).
In station' VI Cyanophyceae and Bacillariophyceae were present
throughout the course of study ( Fig.2.6).
Observations of qualitative analysis phytoplankton in all stations revealed
that the maximum phytoplankton was observed in station Ill and the minimum
was observed in station V. Seasonal variations of phytoplankton showed that it
was abundant in dry season and was very low in wet season. Bacillariophyceae
(diatoms) was the only group of algae found throughout the year in all stations.
Cyanophyceae and Chlorophyceae were dominant groups in all the stations.
Dinophyceae and Chrysophyceae were absent in station I and station II.
Euglenophyceae and Rhodophyceae were seen very rarely. In station Ill,
Chrysophyceae was absent. Euglenophyceae, Dinophyceae and Rhodophyceae
were rarely seen and they were very low in station IV. In station V and VI
Rhodophyceae was absent, Euglenophyceae and Chrysophyceae were rrarely
seen. Monthly variations of phytoplankton revealed that it was maximum in April
and it was minimum in November and December.
Qualitative analysis of Phytoplankton.
Class: Cyanophyceae
Order: Chroococcales
Microcystis sp.
Aphanocapsa sp.
Merismopedia sp.
Order: Oscillatoriales
Spirulina s p.
Oscillatoria sp.
Phormidium sp.
Class: Chlorophyceae
Order: Oedogoniales
Oedogoniurn sp.
Order: Chlorococcales
Pediastrum tetras
Dictyospharium chrenbergianum
Order: Zygnematales
Mougeotia sp.
Spirogyra sp.
Triplaceras gracile var. undulatum
Micrasterias thomsiana.
Xanthidium hasfiferum
Hyalotheca sp.
Class: Euglenophyceae
Phacus sp
Euglena sp.
Class: Chry sophyceae
Dinobryon sp.
Class: Dinophyceae
Ceratium fusus
C.tripos
Peridiniurn depressum
Goniaulax polyedra
Class: Bacillariophyceae
Melosira sp.
Tabellaria sp
. Fragillaria sp.
Synedra sp.
Eunotia sp.
Cocconeis sp.
Navicula sp.
Pinnularia sp.
Gyrosigma sp.
Gomphonema sp.
Cymbella sp.
Amphora sp.
Nitzschia reversa
Surirella tenera
Campylodiscus sp.
Pleurosigma sp.
Statistical Analysis
Station I
Cyanophyceae showed direct correlation with nitrate content and silicate
content of the water and inverse relation with dissolved oxygen and hydrogen ion
concentration of the water. Chlorophyceae was found to have a direct correlation
with hydrogen ion concentration of water and inverse relation with
Cyanophyceae. Bacillariophyceae showed direct correlation with nitrate content
of the water and an inverse relationship with the Chlorophyceae (Table.2.3.).
Station II
Cyanophyceae showed direct correlation with temperature of the water
and the Chlorophyceae was inversely correlated with phosphate.
Bacillariophyceae showed inverse relationship with Cyanophyceae and
Chlorophyceae in the phytoplankton of the river(Table.2.6.).
Station Ill
Cyanophyceae showed direct correlation wjth phosphate content of the
water and Bacillariphyceae showed an inverse with Cyanophyceae and
Chlorophyceae. (Table.2.9.).
Station IV.
Cyanophyceae showed an inverse relationship with hydrogen ion
concentration of the water. Bacillariophyceae was positively correlated with
sil~cate and it showed an inverse relationship with Cyanophyceae and
Chlorophyceae. (Table.2.12.).
Station V
Chlorophyceae showed a direct relationship with nitrate content of the
water and Bacillariophyceae showed an inverse relation with nitrate content of
the water and Chlorophyceae(Table.2.15.).
Station VI
Cyanophyceae showed an inverse relationship with nitrate and silicate
Chlorophyceae was found to be positively correlated with silicate content of the
water and Bacillariophyceae showed an inverse relationship with Cyanophyceae.
(Table.2.18.).
Analysis of varience ANOVA
Cyanophyceae:
Results of analysis of variance comparing Cyanophyceae between
different stations revealed that no significant difference could be observed
between stations Results of two- way analysis of variance comparing
Cyanophyceae showed no significant difference between different stations and
seasons. (Table 2.21 8, 2.22.).
Chlorophyceae:
Results of analysis of variance comparing Chlorophyceae revealed no
significant difference could be between stations .Results of analysis of variance
comparing Chlorophyceae revealed that significant difference could be found
between stations and between seasons. Two way analysis of Chlorophyceae
showed no significant difference between stations and seasons (Table 2.23 &
2 24 )
Bacillariophyceae:
Results of analysis of variance comparing Bacillanophyceae revealed no
significant difference between stations. Results of analysis of variance comparing
Bacillarophyceae revealed significant difference between seasons but no
significant difference between stations. Two way analysis of Bacillariophyceae
revealed no significant difference between stations and seasons.(2.25 & 2.26).
List of various items of phytoplankton in lthikkara river.
Class: Cyanophyceae
Order: Chroococcales
Microcystis sp
Aphanocapsa sp.
Merismopedia sp.
Gomphosphaeria sp.
Order: Chamaesiphonales
Myxosarcina sp.
Order: Oscillatoriales
Spirulina sp.
Oscillatoria sp.
Phormidiurn sp.
Lyngbya sp.
Microcoleus sp.
Order: Nostocales
Anabaena sp.
Scytonema sp.
Class: Chlorophyceae
Order: Volvocales
Eudorina elegans
Order: Tetrasporales
Sphaerocysfis Sp..
Asterococcus sp.
Order: Ulotrichales
Cylindrocapsa. sp.
Order: Chaetophorales
Stigeoclonium sp.
Order: Oedogoniales
Oedogonium. sp
Bulbochaete sp.
Order: Cladophorales
Rhizoclonium sp.
Order: Chlorococcales
Golenkinia sp
Micractinium sp.
Pediastrum tetras
Pediastrum sp.
Coelastrum sp.
Dictyosphaerium sp.
D. pulchellum
0. Chrenbergianum
Treuabaria sp.
Dimorphococcus sp.
Ankistrodesmus sp.
Selenastrum sp.
K~rchnenella Sp.
Tetraedron gracile
Scenedesmus quadricauda
S. obliquus
S. dimorphus
S. bernardii
S. abundans.
Crucigenia sp.
Tetrastrum sp.
T. heteracanthum
Tetrallantos. sps.
Order: Zygnematales.
Mougeotia sp.
Zygnema sp.
Spirogyra sp.
Cylindrocystis brebissoni
Cylindrocystis sp.
Netrium digitus var rhomaboideum
Gonatozygon sp.
Closterium monilifenrm
C. lineaturn
C. gracile
C. kuetzingii
Peniurn spirostriolaturn
Pleurotaeniurn kayei
P. baculoides.
P. ovaturn
P. verrucosurn
Triploceros gracile var undulatum.
Euastrurn sp.
E. verrucosurn.
Micrasterias pirinatifida
M. foliacea
N. thornsiana
N. rnahabalipurensis.
Actinoctaeniurn
Cosrnariurn decoraturn
C. connaturn
C. quadraturn.
C. subspeciosurn
Cosrnariurn sp.
Xanthidiurn bengalicurn
X. freeman;;
X. hasfiferum
Xanthidium sp.
Staurodesmus C U ~ / ~ ~ U S
Staurastrum sp.
S. sexangulare.
S. setigerum
Arthrodesmus sp.
Spondylosium sp.
Sphaerozosma sp.
Desmidium sp.
Gymnozyga sp
.Hyalotheca sp.
Class: Euglenophyceae
Order: Euglenales
Euglena spp.
Euglena acus
Phacus sp.
Class: Chrysophyceae
Order: Chysomonadales
Mallomonas sp.
Dinobryon sp.
Hyalobryon sp.
Class: Dinophyceae
Ceratium fusus
C. tripos
Peridinium depressum
Goniaulax polyedra
Class: Bacillariophyceae
Order: Centrales
Melosira sp.
Cyclotella sp.
Chaetoceros sp.
Order: Pennales
Tabellaria sp.
Diatoma sp.
Fragillaria sp.
F. brevistriata
F. capunica
Synedra sp.
Synedra ulna
Synedra affinis
Eunotia alpina
E. lunaris
Achnanthes sp
Cocconeis placentula
Navicula sp.
Diploneis. sp
Gyrosigma sp.
Pleurosigma sp
Gomphonema lanceolatum
Cymbella affimis
Amphora ovaiis
Nitzschia amphibia
N. reversa
Surirella robusta
Sutirella tenera
Campylodiscus sp
Class: Rhodophyceae
Order: Bangiales
Compsopogon sp
Order: Nermalionales Audouinella quilonensis
A. godwardense Batrachospermum sp.
Table.2.4. Monthly variation of each groups of phytoplankton(%)
Table.Z.l. Monthly variation of each groups of phytoplankton(%)
Station I
Station II ~ - ~ ~ . - . ~ ~
1 Month
-. ~~~ .
Month Cyano Chloro
~hyfa , ph@ ~ . .
1995 Dec 0.34 1 0.48 ~~ ~ ~~ . ~~~ .~ ~
1996 Jan , 0.38 3.64 I
Feb 6.43 , ~~~~ ~~~
Mar 8.2 30.54 , ..
Euglen / Bacillari
ophyfa 1 ophfla -
/ 0.17----
1 0.70
'
Rhodop
hyta -
-
~ ~ --
A P ~ 49.05 , 5.02 I 19.35 I~ 31% 1
- 96.55 i 25.36 :
C
May 39.87 ' 20192 - . - . -
18.13 [ --
Jun 0.79 1.80 I .4e1 -- ~ -- ~
!
JUI 1.80 j 1.75 , ~ ~ ~ ~~~ - -- ~~ ~-
Aug 0.14 6.07 !
SeP ~. ~ . ~ . ~
Oct 0.4 9.14 ~-~~~~
I N O ~ 1, ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ -~ -~ -
Table.2.10. Monthly variation of each groups of phytoplankton(%)
STATION IV
Table.2.7. Monthly variation of each groups of phytoplankton(%)
STATION Ill ~ ~
Month cyan0 ,, Chloro 1 ' ~ T ~ l e n o !
phyta phyta phyta ~~-
: 1 9 9 5 ~ e c 0.48 0.19 t- . 1
1996 Jan 102 585 , , - : 1 6 2 i
Feb 1.24
Bacillari
ophyta
0.07
10.30
8.60
Rhodo
phyla
4.34
38.04
1 Mar 18.30
A P ~
May 2 30 5.39 . ~ ~~~ . Jun 3 1 8 046 0.21 0.74
I . ~~~~ ~ . ~~~ . 2.43 0.83 0.28 18.48
-
j 0.19 7.60 , -- ~ ~ -- .- .,---
Sep 0.23 1 -~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~.
606 )49- ; Oct 4-- I . ~ - ~- +
Nov 0.16 0.05 0.10 0.11 . ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~L
0.40
0.28 31.54
Table.2.13. Monthly variation of each groups of phytoplankton (%) STATION V
I . -
~ -~ ~ - I _ . . . . _
Table.2.16. Monthly variation of each groups of phytoplankton (%)
STATION VI , , Month ~ C y ~ ~ h ~ r o p Euglen I I I
hyta I hyta ophyta . - - - -
19956& I
0.47 2 01 - . ~ ~-
1 1996 Jan
(Mar - - I - & . - I Apr 13.65 100
Chrysop
hyta
- - 100
- - - - - - - - - - -- ~-
Dino
phyta
- 0.81
76.88
4.08
18.23
- -
- - - -
~
Bacillario
phyta
1.66
25.85
' 13.68
1.08
32.18
0.79
5.34 .
3.75
3.74
7.52
3.1 1
1.30
203 Fig.2.1.Monthly variation of major group of phytoplankton in %
Station l
1995 19% Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
Fig.2.2.Monthly variation of major group of phytoplankton in % Station ll
1995 19% Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
204 Fig.2.3.Monthly variation of major group of phytoplankton in %
Station Ill
1995 19% Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jut Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
Fig.2.4.Monthly variation of major group of phytoplankton in % Station IV
1995 1996 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
205 Fig.2.5.Monthly variation of major group of phytoplankton in %
Station V
1995 1996 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
Fig.2.6.Monthly variation of major group of phytoplankton in % Station VI
1995 1996 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jar?
~ . ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ ....... ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ' Cyanophyceae .Chlorophyceae
i Badlariophyceae
Table.2.2. Monthly variation of phytoplankton unWl Station I
. . ~ ~ 7.
8 I
1
Chlorophyta
2 29 i I I
i Total 61 254 1 3906 4646 5486 5430 i 280 267 / 290 ! 656 : 475 46 21788 1
I I
Table.2.5. Monthly variation of phytoplankton unit11
Station II
Table.2.8. Monthly variation of phytoplankton unitll
Station Ill
.-
N O V ~ Total
Table.2.11. Monthly variation of phytoplankton unit11
I Dec Jan I Feb 1 Mar Apr ' May
I
fl Cyanophyta 380 1 34 1 383 1 440 1 386 / 3661 I I I I I 1 4 Chlorophyta 1 779 976 i 558 1 1294 I 3288 I 3491 1 I / I I I 1
$ 1 Euglenophyta I i i 1 55 / 1 35 1 I I 1 I I I
I] Chrysophyta I 1 27 / I I I I I 1 I iJ Dinophyta 1 55 1 I I I I I I I
il Bacillariophyta / 1058 1 2650 1 3417 ( 3442 1 2708 1 2999
-1 Jul I Aug Sep
117
--
19
5054 223 1132 830
19
7036 812 4718 1578
-- Oct - 60 - 161
Nov Total
Table.2.14. Monthly variation of phytoplankton uniffl
STATION V --
i !
1' Cyanophyta : i ! 1 2l Chlorophyta i I : 3 / 3
[d l Chrysophyta
I
61 Bacillariophyta
Total
Table.2.17. Monthly variation of phytoplankton uniffl
STATION VI
Dec
17
5
6 128
285
Jan
Dinophyta
Bacillariophyta
Tr - I
85 448
115 448
863
1988 Total
-
Feb ! Mar 1 Apr I May Jun PI Aug - .-- -1~ -
268 606
681 339
Sep
...25- - i 232 ~ W % G I . _ i .... ~~ 38 , -- 1 38 1 7 2 5 8 9 5 L +-+ j
77
4178
Oct 1 Nov 1 Total -1 -+. !
60
40
I
283
383
604
768 4796
I I 1 26
7307
2211
106 1254 1 3900 i I
-67 22 1 72 21 1 /
I i
I i
1215
1822 12305
-- - j 1
25 i 38
191
248
387
174
66
63
14221
20383
i Y
1 j
664
714
1 66 ! I
256
1151
502
1468
1733
5200
1141
6944
8027
2708
3016
427
1302
7799
726
2532
211
361
!
I
9504
16160
33753
612
1240
857
1407
Table.2.19. Phytoplankton (averages unitllitre)
--- . .
Annual % Seasonal Average
I I averages Dry season I Wet season
-- -. - - 1139 23.1 2177 100
~
I 2 Chlorophyta 1 1889 38.4 3435 344 , - -
1672 34 3244 100
22 1 4.5 439 4
I
i I
. ~.~~ ~ ...... I 1 Chlorophyta 1 I I
, 591 4 1024 159
Chlorophyta , 8214 55 7 15635 794
541 5 36.7 10112 720
528 3.6 1034 2 1 r-
I
350 23 1 19.3 386
324
332
456
324
15
1913
19.1
10.2
69.7
/ 4
325
173
1185
7-Tstat ion v ' I I
/ . -
/ I
I
2 C
1 3 Miscellanious
--
Cyanophyta
~hloro~hyta-
Bacillariophyta .... ~~~ . ~ -~.
16
Table.2.20. Monthly variation of phytoplankton (in percentage.) , . - . _-
i season
Table. 2.3.Station I
Correlation coefficient values relating various Physico-chemical parameters and impo .~.. .... . .. .~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~. ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ -~~ ~. ~~~ ~
~ ~ ~~
1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .- L 1 --.-A .. .-
I .TEMPERATURE-- 0.1261 -0.5%8-98 0.0747 0.281 1 0.0474 0.5743* 0.2188-0.1375 0.0095
2.pH I 0.0302 -0.3947 0.0617 0.1413 0.0691 -0.1206 -0.516? 0.561;-0.2680
3.02
4.COt
5 .NITRATE
6.NITRITE
7.PHOSPHATE
8. SILICATE
9.CYANOPHYCEAE
I 0.CHLOROPHYCEAE
1 1 .BACILLARIOPHYCEAE
0.41 18 -0.654$'0.1505 -0.505g-0.5775~-0.643 jf 0.3863 0.0058
0.0803 -0.2982 -0.4487-0.4136 0.1256 -0.0026 -0.1616
-0.0451 0.4587 0.3 100 0.5307~ 0.0258 -0.4481
0.3923 0.3781 -0.1301 -0.3353 0.5184
0.2650 0.1878 0.0518 -0.171 1
0.5018-0.4489 0.1722
-0.5710*-0.0842
-0.767f1
* Significant at 5% level ** Significant at 1% level
(:orrelation coefficient values relating various Physico-chemical parameters and important phytoplankton groups ~~ ~~~ ~p-~~ ....
4 5 6 7 8 8 10 1 1 ~
1 .TEMPERATURE
2.pH
TO2
4.C02
5.NITRATE
6.NITRITE
7,PHOSPHATE
8.SILICATE
9.CYANOPHYCEAE
1O.CHLOROPHYCEAE
1I.BACILLARIOPHYCEAE
- ~ p - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ---- .
0.2729 '0.7685~0.3331 0.2451 0.1942 0.3148 -0.0269 0.5017~0.0650 -0.3669
-0.0740 -0.3408 0.1908 -0.1474 0.2965 -0.2625 0. 1380 0.0330 -0.1086
0.3546 -0.3789 -0.2 126 -0.0433 Q.3069 -0.162 1 -0.2214 0.3343
-0.649?*0.1868 -0.1343 -0.0846 -0.0205 -0.4027 0.3829
0.4945-0.4852 0.33 14 -0.0892 0.3555 -0.21 88 ** 0.4733 0.8037 0.2589 0.3226 -0.3957
-0.4414 0.0069 -0.559; 0.4415
-0.1416 0.4732 -0.3300
-0.0865 '0.5 19;
-0.797t1
* Significant at 5% level ** Significant at 1% level
TabIe.2.9. Station 111
Correlation coefficient values relating various Physico-chemical parameters ancl important phytoplankton groups -~ -- -- -
----I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 1 1 - - -
I TEMPETIATtIRE 0- 0.1481 0 1556 0.2374 0.0682 0.1423 0.0624 0.4551 -0.4605
2.pH I 0,1374 -0.3381 0.1525 -0.3850 3.3312 -0.2784 -0. 1365 0.3535 -0.2148
X 0 2
4.CO:
5.NITRATE
6.NITRITE
7.PHOSPHATE
8.SILiCATE
9.CYANOPHYCEAE
10,CHLOROPHYCEAE
I 1.BACILLARIOPHYCEAE
-0.0679 0.0240 -0.2375 -0.0451 '0.21 51 0.039 1 -0.2522 0.2356
-0.3421 -0.1124 -0.0564 '0.3446 -0.2958 0.0168 0.1421
0 . 6 9 6 ~ 0.6672* 0.70;? 0.31 15 0.1168 -0.1988 C*
0.6746~ 0.9376 0.372 1 0.172 1 -0.3042
0.6508* 0.774y 0.0199 -0.3794
0.4388 0.3053 -0.4375
0.0469 -0.542;
-0.8585*'
* Significant at 5% level ** Significant at 1% level
I Table.2.12. Station I\'
I (:orrelation coefficient values relating various Physico-chemical parameters ant1 important phytoplankton groups
AE
* Significant at 5% level 1
** Significant at 1% level
Table.2.15. Station V
Correlation coefficient values relating various Physico-chemical parameters and important phytoplankton groulls , ~~~ ~ -- .- ~ . . ~~
~~~~~ ~~~~ -.- ~~~ ~
1 2 3 4 0 - . ~-+ .-
i 0.4246 -0.527q 0.1955 0.1399 0.5804'-0.0446 0 .5173~ 0.4493 -0.2581 -0.0481
0.0453 -0.6041 0.3963 0.4180 0.3836 0.3654 -0.4310 0.2283 0.11 14 i I I
I I .BACILLARIOPHYCEAE J * Significant at 5% level ** Significant at 1% level
Table.2.3. Station VI
<:orrelation coefficient values relating various Physico-chemical parameters and important phytoplankton groups 7~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ,~
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I 1 1 - i- -- --
~~TEMPERATURE 1 0.3845 0.1427 0.6359* 0.4548 0.5596" 0.2551 01818 0.3726 0.2608 -0.1138 1 I
( 2.pH I -0.2324 -0.4590 0.3908 0.0885 0.385.; -0.1664 0.1864 -0.1337 -0.1634 I
3 . 0 2
4.C02
5 .NITRATE
6.NITRITE
7.PHOSPHATE
8.SILICATE
9.CYANOPHYCEAE
1O.CHLOROPHYCEAE
1 1 .BACILLARIOPHYCEAE
0.0760 0.2988 0.1161 -0.4090 0.3220 -0.2732 0.3139 0.2273 1
-0.4396 -0.3259 -0.471 1 -0.4347 -0.0129 -0.1760 -0.1872
0.1225 0.5322* 0.5948-0.4977' 0.2967 0.4522 C?
-0.1687 -0.3348 0.2426 -0.2710 0.1760 m
0.4285 -0.3503 0.4925 0.1722
-0.5485* 0.5794* 0.3665
-0.2762 -0.656f * -0.1112
* Significant at 5% level ** Significant at 1% level
Table.2.2l.Results of ANOVA and DUNCAN test comparing Cyanophyceae
between different stations.
Source DF SS MSS F Ratio
Between Groups 5 1015.7574 203.1515 0.7928
Within Groups 66 16912.8779 256.2557
Total 71 17928.6353
Sub grouping of cyanophyceae means due to Duncan's test.
Group I. Mean i SD
Station I 18.37 f 19.93
I I 12.39 i 13.74
111 09.83 f 11.75
IV 12.66 i 12.98
V 17.80 * 18.54
VI 20.16 k 17.34
Table.2.22 Results of Anova Comparing Cyanophyceae between different Stations
and Seasons.
Source SS DF MSS F Ratio
Stat~on 1015.757 5 203.151 0.747
Season 0.202 1 0.202 0.001
Station X Season
Residual
Total
Station I 1.
2.
Station I1 1.
2.
Station Ill 1.
2.
Station IV 1.
2
Station V 1.
2.
Station VI 1.
2 .
1. Dry Season
2.Wet Seq~qn
1621.238 5 324.248 1.272
15291.438 60 254.857
17928.635 71 252.516
Mean + SD
27.21 f 23.16
9.54 f 12.26
9.31 f 11.69
15.47 f 16.01
4.79 f 4.50
14.88 * 14.91
12.84 f 12.45
12.48 i 14.69
14.21 * 18.31
21.39 f 19.74
23.18 f 19.76
17.15 i 15.79
Table.2.23 Results of ANOVA and DUNCAN test comparing Chlorophyceae
between different stations.
Source DF SS MSS F Ratio
Between Groups 5 11072. 7208 2214.5442 4.3293 **
Within Groups 66 33760.7333 51 1. 5263
Total 71 44833.4541
Sub grouping of Cyanophyceae means due to Duncan's test.
Group I Mean * SD
Station V 15.10 * 25.22
VI 13.05 * 15.97
Group II
Station I 40.39 f. 30.88
I1 43.05 f 20.51
Ill 40.10 k 21.32
IV 36.71 f 18.68
** S~gnificant at 1 % level.
Table.2.24. Results of ANOVA comparing Chloropnyceae between different
stations and seasons.
Source SS DF MSS F Ratio
Station 11072.721 5 2214.544 4.932'*
Season 5583.582 1 5583.582 12.435"
Station X Season 1236.621 5 247.324 0.551
Residual 26940.531 60 449.009
Total 44833.454 71 631.457
Mean +_ SD.
Station I 1 24.59 f 20.78
2. 56.19 + 32.67
Station II 1. 39.37 f 22.25
2. 46.73 * 19.94
Staation Ill 1 33.27 f 23.65
2. 46.93 + 18.12
Station IV 1 30.88 * 12.92
2 42 53 + 22.78
Station V 1 02.47 it 3.31
2 27.73 _+ 31.72
Station VI I 04.97 f 5.60
2. 21.12 f 19.31
1. Dry Season
2.Wet Season
'*Significant at 1 % level.
Table.2.25 Results of ANOVA and DUNCAN test comparing
Bacillanophyceae between different Stations.
Source DF SS MSS F Ratio
Between Groups 5 5458.0271 1091.6054 1.751 9
Within Group 66 41124.8114 623.1032
Total 7 1 46582.8385
Sub grouping of Bacillariophyceae means due to Duncan's test.
Mean k S.D.
Group I
Station I 40.15 f26.04
Station I1 42.57* 23.81
Station 111 47.69 f 25.56
Station IV 49.44 f 22.15
Station VI 56.78 * 25.57 Group II
Station Ill
Station IV
Station V
Station V1
Table.2.25. Results of ANOVA comparing Bacillariophyceae between
different stations gnd seasons.
Source SS DF MSS F Ratio
Station 5458.027 5 1091.605 1.893
Season 3574.654 1 3574.654 6.214*
Station x Season 3033.841 5 606.768 1.055
Residual 34516.316 60 575.272
Total 46582.838 7 1 656.096.
Station I 1. 48.08 it 24.50
2. 32.22 k 27.21
Station II 1. 47.86 i 27.37
2. 37.29 i 20.76
Station Ill 1. 59.24 * 26.09
2. 36.1 3 i 20.88
Station IV 1. 55.68 i 18.90
2. 43.21 * 25.08
Station V 1. 82.09 f 18.20
2. 49.66 * 23.84
Station VI 1 . 51.83 k 30.79
2. 61.73 f 20.77
1. Dry Season
2. Wet Season
'Significant at 5% level.
Table. 2.27. Quantitative analysis of phytoplankton (unitllitre.) Station I
Contd
~ ~ ~~. ~~~~ ~ ~~~ - , - - . . . -
Apr . ~~
('l;~ss : (:?asoph?cere
May 1 J U ~
I
i j 1
i I i Orrler Chroococc~les.
.L ! ‘ ,~ I . \ ~ I~ , / I ‘ , ~ ,u sp I
i !
I
JUIY
1
Aug sep
I 1
Order Oscillatoriales : 1 I I .\/I,, ~,/,,ar ,I, 5 i I
O v f / / c r ~ ~ ~ r / ~ ~ Y/J 1 25
l'i7r,r,,,,'lli,,,, 51) !
I !.l.l,:</~j~<, ,,, I 4
i I
I Order - Noslocales
! -Iiarhrre,,u sp
i i ~ I Class. Clorophyceae 1 i
I
I I i
I I Order: Oedogoniales i Oc.dogo~>,~,n~ sp
38
38
ocr -Nov
I i
9
15
110
.-
I
I 5 2 3 2 i 1
I 1
i
I
, Order: ( ' l ;~dopI~orale~ i
! Ilt~iri~cloniurn sp i
I Order: Zygnematales I
I i S 3 1 lor,~eoll'r sp
I 25 77 561 1
i 1 .\!~lro,ql,l.~,. sp 1 ' 3 9 374
, .\",/,,,,/,I </ ,~, l l , . , 76 I # j
1 '/,,.~/,~r,,tm $1, I 20 'r ' 154 187
I ! i . l ,< ,~ l~~, , t , , ,Y/>.
. ~ i
I
I 1201 151
I 828 ,
19
18
164
;lo
18
.
97
1
i
242
243
i I
16 J 9
I 86 .
i i
25
26
40
I
297 125
! i
..
i
4
I
3
i 1
330 4
i 13 1
( 2 L
Table. 2.28. Quanlitativc allalysis of phytoplanktoll (unifflitre.) Station 11
CIHSS : C'?anophYcepe
Order ~'hroororrales.
l / l / l ~ l l l , ~ < ~ ~ l / ~ , ~ l 5p
1 j ~ n ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ t h ~ >
order Osrillaloriales
\ / , /I ?,/,lit, $1,
f ) \ < , I / / ~ , I O ~ , < , $1,.
i ' / t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ , , , 5,)
l l / l , L ! / ~ , l ~ ~ , <I,
Class. Clorophyreae
! Order. (.l~aefophorales
\ ' l / ~ < , , , < /,,!,,I,,,, ,,I
0rdi.r: Oedogoniales
i )<,<~,,WJIJ, , , / I I su
Ordrr (:l~lorucorcales
1'~~<//<, , lr l , , , , \ / I .
I )I< / I ,>,,2/,',',~1J,,,, ,/,
Il,ii\l,,,,/<~,,,,,,, \,' h~vrl,i~crtellu sp.
\< < ~ l > < ~ , / < . , , , , , , , , ,A,,
f ' I l, '.l,~,',ll/<, $1,
I <,Ir<,<Y/r<,,, ,,, Order-: Zygnernatales
~~~ ~~ ~
Contd
Contd.
- ~~
\/O1,,ir"~,/,'l $0 ! I I .;5 - 7 - 53
\ / I I I ' C J , ~ I , , ~ , sl, 00 26
i I ! I \<,I, ,,,,,, \/'
I 1 / ~ ~ ~ f c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ )/I. ' 87 .3U4
!
i ' / ~ ~ i ~ r o ~ ~ ~ c ~ i ~ i i ~ i ~ ~ ,\I>. 1 1 : ! 18
I
1 lf'l~lr,,,,, ,\'/I.
i
l i ~ < r ~ , ~ t < , r i c ~ t $1,. 1 I 1 2 235 : 1 1 '<I,,,,',~,,O,, ,/>~ I 39
\i,,,l/,,</,,,t,, ,,, 0 0 ; ~i ' l l l l~, . , i~l , , , l ,/I i i
. \ /~oI I</~, /o\ I I , , , I S,I 1 I
l l ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ l l ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ hi, i O 5 I.! I
/l,',il'.,!,,, $1, I
1 I 1 1 <~, , l~' ,r i , , ,/>.
iJ~,,,,l,,,, $1, 9 ! 1
( ~ ' O / l ~ , / ~ ~ ~ l , ~ , , i l ,/, " ~ I 1 .l / i , i</r~~o<:l , \ i , \ $1,.
('lass E~rprrsophycrar
~ . l l , ~ / ~ ~ i i ' , Cl'i,., I I
! I ' / ~ ~ , ' ~ l l , <[I ~, Clsss. Bacillariophycene
I 13
I ! . \ /u/o,it , , sp 148 635
/~r~! ,<~/ /urru sp I I 392
.St /,<,<I, <, sp 1 .3 61 188 ! - i , A u v ~ , c , , / ~ , sp 78
/ ' I I I I I , , / c o , ~ , $1,. 1 966 ' / ) ~ / d ~ ~ t , ~ ~ ~ ~ >p 54'2
1 1 . . . - -
228 283
232
120
228
52
40
607
13
13
67
82
1332
905
1473
169
298
219
6589
4381
439
1976
1756
2170
362
1311
1098
7248
' ?,
14
42
5
9
14
5
18
- 48
117
156
19
10
120
0
10
10
10
2 1
19
83
10
39
15
61
53
8
I5
8
I
61 6 72 4
61 3
8 13 7
9
I .. ~...
~
19 4
i l8 I 24
i
i 8 18 1
1 16
5 I I S 1
10
1 5 I
I i !
9
10
5
5
3
2
I
I
. ~ ~ ~- 229 i )/',/<ttt,<, 51, " 1 28 219
l'i<,!,,t,,,p,,<, 511 130 522
i .w~l/,/to/l'~t,t,, sp
i 'l/ll/'~~//<, sp
\ I / : , < I,/<, $1,
\ i ~ r ~ t , .I /( , sp i 219
I i 8l'r,>>,~,,,<, qp
1 3 85 I i !
I ~ l l / ~ l , ~ ~ , < , , / I 237
I 1 I < /li<,,,//,<~\ ,,! ('lass Hhodophvreac 1 5 i
l ~ l < / ~ ~ , ~ , , , ' ~ / l < , ,I,
'Table. 2.29. Quantitative analysis of phytoplankt,
(lass : ( ; ~ ~ i o p h y c e a r
Order Chroototcales,
. \ / l C V ( ~ ~ \ f i \ Sp
..I,'~"""'L"/"" \p.
\ /c,r, ~ , v o / ~ ~ , ~ / t ~ t sp
Ordrr Osrillalorirles
\/>!,,,/,,,<, ,,, ( J \ < , / / , r l< l r , , , $1,
i ' l ~ ~ ~ l ~ l l l l < / l , , , l ~ 51)
1 ) ,,,k.hj<, 51,
l / , , . , < ~ ' , , / < ~ , , , , / z
Order - hestr,cnles
f,,~,h',',,!,, ,,> C j follcnr<r sp
(:lass. Clorophyceae
Order: \olrocales
/ ' < , l l ~ / ~ ~ l ~ l l l ~ t Sll
/.,,'I,,~I,,~, $1,.
Orcler. < : I ~ r r f ~ ~ ~ h o ~ ~ i ~ I r s
.\I,,v<,<,' i,,,,,,,,,, \I1
Ordrr: Ordogosinles
1 Jc<h,,y,,i,,unr
Order C'hlorocorrales
- ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ - - ~ - - ~
J a n
on (unitnitre.) Station UI
Contd.
Contd.
~' i~ss. iJ i tbo~~hyceac
( i~/<,l,l,,,, \p
Class. Bacillariophyceae
\l<,i<l,l,?, ip
ioht, / /<,r ,<~ \p
i f',,y,/i<,r,<, 5p
\,l.l!,,</?<, i,:
i .~, , ,<, / ,<, $1,
.A<,>,,' ,,I<, ,,, i ' lrllll~i<,ll~i y,.
1 ~ l / l / O l , ~ ~ , , ,p / l l ' , l ,~, l ,~, ,,)
i2/',l,/ ,l,,,L,,,!<, 5p
1 ,',>!~!/,h,,,,<.,,,<, ,,I
( :l~i7//>'~//" ,"
\ ' I /:\< I,,<, $1,
.sl,r,r',i/<, 5,)
( i,r,,/),/o</,w,,< sp
1 r'lr,,\t,Lr,,,', >,I
( ' I : I S \ RLacloph\rr:tr
1 i ~ n ~ p v , / x , ~ o t , sp
..~/i'l,,,,,,,'.//<, \,,. ~- ~ ~
Contd
Contd
~~ ~~ ~~ ~ .~ ~ . -- ~-~ - 234 . s /> , r , , , ~~ l< , . s,,
I I ,l;,l,,,,t,l ?I,.
1 74 I
1 ' / ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ r t ~ t t r ~ \/,. .3\l ; 614 I I05
; 3 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ! I I O C I U ~ ~ I I ! ~ ~ ! I ? sp i
1 ',~,lll'lr,,,lll $1) I
36 79 16 I l l 26 1
, , I ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ l ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : 1 I
.\/<,,,,,,.,/ ,,,, ,I $1, I j
1
.\/)<,,,<ll./<,,,,t,,, 5"
, .\/,/~<,',ro:<~.\n,~t sp.
1 ~ ~ ~ l l l l l ~ , ~ , ~ ' , .,/I.
19
1 i / f l .~,/<>l/ l<,< ' 1 SI,
158 256 74
Class &:~~grcnophyreae
I /.l/,L!/',,,<, .,/P.
i 2 '
/'I,<,',,, h,,
l 1 Class. Chrysophyceae
I / ) ~ I I , , ~ I : I , O , I hp
19 I
f '~,nu,w) i l l
I ('lass. Uncillariophyce~e
57 I
/~tbc,//<,r,'r s o
, / ~ r c i g ~ / / ~ z r ~ ~ ~ y~ I
304 -~ ~~
7
266
? I
318
/'c,,,,,,,,, \ / I .
/ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ / < , < ~ t l , , , , , l . , / I . ! , I
I i 42 1
/ . . I ~ c I % I ~ I , I ~ I .S/I 15 2 1
I i ! I :\ ! I L ~ ? ~ , . S I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ . S 5,). 45 36 I
i
41 195 1
I 213 1 4 0
I J i 1 I I
181
I I 1
6 1
214
179
7
16
399
553
10
1616
16
32
148
37
1374
'l'able. 2.31. Quantitative analysis of phytoplankton (unitflitre.) Station V
(:lass : ('yanophyceae
Order Chrnococcales.
. \ l i c , r , x : r ~ ~ i . ~ sp
~ l / ~ i n s a , a i ~ . ~ o sp.
.\ / ~ ~ r , ~ , , ~ o / ~ ~ ~ ~ / i ~ , sp
Order. Oscillaterialcs
0,' /ll<,lr,, ,', $1, l ' l / , , , 1 '
1 ,,,xh,,, \ , I
\ l l ~ t O < ~ , I < r , , \ I ,
('lass. ('lornpl~yccae
Order: Oedngosiale5
~ ~ " < / ~ ~ , y ~ ~ , , , ,,,,, 5,l
Onlrr : ( %l~~rococcu/e.~
I2<,d,~,.\1r,,t,~ $1,
I ~ i ~ l ~ ~ o \ / l / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r i l , , ~ , .s/,.
Order: Zygnematales
.\/0~,:<<,01!<, st1
/,,r,,<,,,,,, \/,
\'/,,,.,,g, r,, <I,
1 ' / , , \ I>,,,,,,,, $1)
/ ' l<~!~r,tl<,,,,,,,,,,, ,I>.
1 / / < ~ l < , ~ l < , , ,',, \/, . - I<~~~rr, i . iui . , , i , , t ,~ sp
Contd
.Y/>l~',,~r,,:,,, ,,,<, sp.
I ' < . ! I I , , < / , ~ , , ~ \I,
/ l l< , /< , l / ,< '~~ ' , ,[>
( ' 1 ~ ~ s El~gce~~ophyceae
/ . l l~ /< , , , ' , $1,
/'/l',< ,,, sp
(:lass. ( ' h t y ~ o p h ~ c e a e
/ ~ I , , , I ~ ~ , . , , , J ,I>
( ' l a s s . I > i ~ ~ o p t ~ ~ c r ~ e
1 '~ ,~< I I I , , , , , s,,.
('lass. I%rcillariophyceae
I .1/',/0~,,.<, ,,%
/<the/Icsxl 5p
: l ~ r c ~ g ~ / / ~ r r i o sp
Y I I , L , < ~ ~ , $1)
/.!,,,<,I,,, v/>
i .A'fl,l< ,,I,, sp
/ ' i~i l , , , / , , , /<, '1'
I ~ ~ ~ / l O l l ! ' , >,I
/ ' I L ~ I ~ ~ O \ , , ' ~ , , , ~ / 5p
i ~ ~ ~ / I I / ' / ~ ~ ~ , , < ~ , , , ~ I s,,
~ ~ i l : ~ , /2,,, ,,, . \ l f l ' l r ,~/ /<, >,I
( '<,/tl/!, I<,</,,' d , . , S,]
' (1.1 r<,,,,q,,,,, ,,, ( '<ICL~,,<~,, \I,
~ ~
I'ahle. 2.32. Quantitative analysis of phytoplankton (unifflitre.) Station \'I
(:lass : Cyanophyreae
Order ('l~rooroccales.
.\l~<,roc:l )I,.$ sp
~4/1i2a,,~,'.<,p,,u sp.
.\/"'.""I,'/"'/'<, sp
Orrler Osrillatoriales
.S / i~ ru / ,~ ,< t . sp
( I , , ! / / ' , IC>~ ,< , , / I
i'/,r~,,,,i</,l,,,, \I,
Class. (:lorophyreae
Order: Oedogoniales
i)~,,ir,,<.i,,i,,,,,, \I,
Order ('hlorococcrles
/'<,'/8<,$1r#,,,, ,/>
/ ) I < 1 1 < , \ /~ / ,OC~, , , , , I s,,.
Order: Lygnematales
1 / ~ ~ 1 ~ , ~ , ~ 0 1 , < , $1,
,\'/,,,r!,q,.,>,. ,,> l / , ' r < , , ' < ~ V , < , , $1,.
\<r,,l/,,'/,,,,,, \/*.
tl~'l/~~l/l~'<, .>/I
/ ~ ' / ~ / c ~ c ~ ~ I ~ ' , \ . < / I .
Class Eupcenophycene
I />,,,q/?,,', \ / a
Contd
Discussion
Phytoplankton
The seasonal dynamics of the phytoplankton is influenced by the climatic
conditions as well as the physico-chemical characteristics of the river. A marked
difference in the composition and in the relative abundance of various algal
groups was observed in the river.
The settled volume and the individual numbers of phytoplankton were very
weak during the wet season while many fold increase in phytoplanktonic
populations was noted during the dry season. The turbidity and the heavy water
current will prevent the growth of phytoplanktons during the wet season. During
dry season, the river water turn to more lacustrine and the addition of nutrients
will favour the growth of planktons.
Hydrological factors such as discharge or water residence time are
thought to be of greater importance to planktonic development in rivers.
(Reynolds 1988: Pace et al. 1992).
During the present study monthly average of the phytoplankton showed
that the maximum quantity of phytoplankton was observed in April except in
station IV and Vl.ln station IV, maximum quantity was observed in May and the
station VI in February. These variations may be due to the man made physical
disturbances, that is .collection of sand from the river bed. Usually the quantity of
phytoplankton increased from December onwards and decreased from May
onwards. The period from June to November, when there was heavy rain, the
phytoplankton was very Poor in most of the stations. Increased flow rate was the
main factor controlling phytoplankton. A similar low quantity of phyto-plankton
during wet season was reported by Roy (1955) and Shetty et al (1961) in the
Hooghly river. Chakrabarty et a1 (1959) in the Jamuna river, Ramanujan (1984) in
Kallar river. Balakrishnan Nair (1986) in the Kallada and Neyyar river, Synudeen
Sahib (1992) in the Kallada river. Kyong Ha et a1 (1998) in Nakdong river and
Sueli Train & Luzia Cleide Rodrigues (1998) in Baia river. Observations of Kofoid
(1908) in the Illinois river and Berner (1951) in the Missouri river have noted the
adverse effect of the sudden influx of water on planktonic forms in the river
during monsoon season, when a large quantity of water is added to the river. The
atmosphere become cloudy in rainy season, the cloudy atmosphere prevented
light penetratron which inturn might have had some effect on the phytoplankton.
Claus and Reimer (1961) in their study of Danube river at Vienna made a
relationship between the number of individuals and the amount of water. The
higher water level during the rainy season, might have resulted the reduction of
phytoplankton population. Besides, a rise in turbidity resulted from greater rainfall
leading to silting, disturbing in normal oxygen, carbon dioxide exchange which
m~ght have consequently inhibited the growth of phytoplankton as recorded by
Bhatt et al (1985) in their study of River Kosi of the Western Himalaya.
In the present investigation Bacillariophyceae formed the bulk of the algal
population in lthikkara river. Chlorophyceae and Cyanophyceae were followed by
Bac~llariophyceae. Diatoms (Bacillariophyceae) dominated the phytoplankton
during the period when the stream flow decreased. In most large rivers, a bloom
dominated by diatoms, occurs after the decrease of discharge in spring, where
as mixed population of Chlorophyceae and diatoms comprises the summer
phytoplankton. This pattern has been observed in the Sacremento River,
Cal~fornia (Greenberg; 1964), in the Thames river, U.K (Lack 1971). in the Lot
Rlver. France (Capblancq and Dauta 1978), in the Loire River, France (Champ
1980). In the Meuse River, Belgium (Descy 1987) and in the Seine River, France
(Josette Garn~er et a1 (1995). The phytoplankton of the river Thames is often
dominated by diatoms (Speller, 1990).
The quantity of phytoplankton gradually increased from station I to Ill and
decreased from station IV to VI. Maximum phytoplankton was observed in station
Ill and minimum was observed in station V. The low quantity of phytoplankton in
stat~on V may be due to the oil pollution effected from cleaning of motor vehicles.
The quant~ty of phytoplankton in station I was also low. Higher concentration of
phytoplankton in station Ill was mainly due to the increase the quantity of
nutrients. On either side of this portion of the river there are sloping banks where
rubber and plantain plantations are located. During rainy season the fertilizers
used in the plantations are easily washed into the river. Thus the river become
lacustrine, moreover a deep pool was observed in this region so that during dry
season mult~plication of phytoplankton was favoured. Tristicha-ramosissima,
Willis, a hydrophyte was very abundant in station Ill, which helps to increase the
production of phytoplankton especially diatoms and desmids. Tristicha
rarnosissrma is a suitable substratum for multiplication of phytoplanktons. The
branches and leaves of the plants provides a network space where the
phytoplanktons were located Maximum number of genera and species of
phytoplankton occured in this region.
In statlon V and VI, in the down stream reaches of the river,
Bacillar~ophyceae was remarkably abundant than the other groups of planktons.
The next prom~nant group was Cyanophyceae followed by the Chlorophyceae. In
the rlverlne zone second prominant group was Chlorophyceae followed by
Cyanophyceae. Similar findings of the dominance of diatoms at the esturine
zones (station V and VI) were made by Nair et al (1979) in the Vembanad lake,
Mathew and Nair (1981) in the Veli Lake and Shibu et al (1995) in Paravur Lake.
The Incidence of diatoms which formed the major component of the
phytoplankton at the esturine zone corresponds well with the higher value of
sal~n~ty (Shibu 1995). The present observation of the dominance of green algae
at the riverine zone agrees well with the findings of Gopinathan (1985) in certain
Inland water bodies of Kerala. Even during, heavy rain, there was an increase in
the quantity of phytoplanktons in certain months in all the stations. This may be
due to the effect of the increased quantity of nutrients in the water due to rain
washings. Similar observations made by Shaji (1990) in Sabarmati river.
The phosphate and nitrate content of the various stations during the
phytoplankton peaks were not always high. The low concentration of phosphates
and n~trates during the months when quantity of phytoplankton was high may be
due to the utilization of the nutrients by the phytoplankton Similar observations
were made by Ramanujan (1984) in Kallar river. Welch (1952) and Chakrabarty
et a1 who made (1959) made quantitative study of the plankton and physico-
:hemlcal cond~trons of the river Jamuna, observed that n~trate and phosphates
are not always co-related with phytoplankton.Silicates also do not have any
relatlonsh~p w~th the phytoplankton in general. The same observation was made
by Chakrabarty et al (1959) in their study of the river Jamuna.
According to Cholnoky (1968) the hydrogen ion wncentration of the
envlronment is vitally instrumental in determining the composition of the algal
communities. Hustedt (1937-39) pointed out that alkaline waters have more
species than in acidic ones. There is a considerable difference of opinion
regarding the effect of hydrogen Ion concentration on phytoplankton. In the
present study, the hydrogen ion concentration was found always acidic at all the
s~tes where large quantity of phytoplankton was harvested. From the data, it is
revealed that an increase or decrease in the hydrogen ion concentration value
cannot accelerate the growth of phytoplankton. It is just because of the fact that
behaviour of different group of algae varies with the variations in hydrogen ion
concentrat~on It has also been observed that hydrogen ion wncentration of
water played an Important role in determining the composition of phytoplankton
communities rather than the abundance of phytoplankton which is partly agreeble
to the finding of Cholnoky (1958).
Cyanophyceae
In lthikkara river, Cyanophyceae showed their peak development during
summer months with a maxima in April in all the stations except in station IV &
VI. In station IV B VI the quantity of Cyanophyceae was maximum in May and
February respectively. This period was characterised by high temperature and
Intense light. Apparently, both these factors stimulated the growth of
Cyanophyceae which is in confirmation with the observations of Ganapati (1960)
in the Ecology of tropical waters, Venkateswarlu (1969~) in the River Moosi and
Shaji (1990) in the Sabarmati river. The fluctuation of Cyanophyceae in station VI
may be due to the periodicity of Cyanophyceae. Most of the Cyanophycean
members have a tendency to multiply twice in an year, one is early summer and
other in the beginning or at the end of monsoon period. Apart from temperature
and light intencity, this tendency also appears to be one of the important factors
responsible for the increase in the quantity of Cyanophyceae (Shaji 1990).
Many workers attach much importance to the dissolved organic matters
with respect to the periodicity of Cyanophyceae (Pearsall, 1932 b; Venkateswarlu
1969 b.c.). Singh (1960) has observed that the low concentration of dissolved
oxygen in the water is associated with the abundance of Cyanophyceae. In the
present study oxygen content in the dry season was lower than that of the wet
season. Abundant growth of Cyanophyceae was found to be favoured by low
concentration of oxygen which is in contrary to the view of Munawar (1970 b)
who observed a direct relationship between dissolved oxygen and
Cyanophyceae.
Blue green algae have the ability to grow rapidly in the minimal quantities
of nitrate and phosphate (Peamall, 1932 b). Later on, this view has been
supported by Philipose (1959). In the present data, low concentration of nitrate in
dry season was associated with the abundance of Cyanophyceae which also
agrees with the observations of Sengar and Sharma (1 987) in the river Yamuna.
In lthikkara river Cyanophyceae was dominated by Oscillatoria spp.
From the above examination, it is quite evident that high alkaline hydrogen
ion concentration, low concentration of oxygen, nitrates and moderate
concentration of phosphates favoured the profound growth of Cyanophyceae in
river water.
Chlorophyceae
The maximum population of Chlorophyceae was observed in dry season
especially in summer months in all the stations except in the stations V & VI. In
dry season more sunlight is available. Due to this reason Chlorophyceae was
abundant in dry season. More over temperature is one of the important factors
contfoll~ng the population. In V & VI station Chlorophyceae was dominant during
wet season this may be due to increase the quantity of dissolved oxygen
The fluctuations of Chlorophycean population and accompanying physico-
chemical factors have been studied by a number of investigators. Chakrabarty et
al (1959) have noticed that increase of Chlorophyceae controlled by the
temperature and the dissolved oxygen in water. Ramanujan (1984) in his study of
river Kallar stated that water temperature is one of the most important f a a s in
controlling the Population Of Chlorophyceae. Shaji (1990) made similar
observation in Sabarmati river. Venkateswarlu et al (1990) pointed out that
ChloroPh~ceae represented the dominant group at the polluted stations where as
the diatoms and other groups were present in low percentage. But it is also
interesting to note that, in general, a variety of species belonging to the
Chlorophyceae were found in unpolluted habitat. Ramanujan (1984) noticed that
green algae flourished in the environment when the diatoms were low. The
present study also these views confirmed. In station II & Ill Bacillario phyceae
was low when Chlorophyceae was high. Bacillario phyceae increased in stations
I. IV, V and VI while Chlorophyceae decreased
Bacillariophyceae
The quantity of Bacillariophyceae reached the maximum during the
summer months. The effect of temperature on diatom periodicity has been
described by a number of investigators. Shaji (1990),observations in Sabarmati
river pointed out that the water temperature plays an important role in the
periodicity of diatoms. Philipose (1959) and Pahwa and Mehrotra (1966) in their
study on the river Ganges observed that Bacillariophyceae attained their
maximum number in summer months.
The increased quantity of phytoplankton during summer months may be
due to h~gher concentration of free carbondioxide present in the water which may
~nfluence the growth of diatoms. Patrick (1948) thinks that "carbondioxide, like
oxygen is a substance which undoubtedly is important for diatom growth, but as
yet little is known about the specific requirements of diatoms for it". Eddy (1 927)
concludes from his culture study that this gas improves growth of diatoms and
remarks that in natural waters abundance of carbondioxide resulting from the
bacterial action on the accumulated bottom detritus is an important factor in their
growth. Ramanujan (1984) in his syudy on the ecology Kallar river has observed
that higher concentrationof carbondioxide influenced the growth of diatoms.
Observations of present study revealed that the increased quantity of diatoms
durtng dry season may be due to the higher concentration of carbondioxide.
Oxygen concentration never influenced the diatom population during present
study.
Many investigators (Pearsall, 1923; Atkins, 1926-27; Roy, 1955;
Venkateswarlu 1969 b, c; Hosmani and Bharati, 1980 b) pointed out the
~mportance of silica, nitrate and phosphate as single factor or as factor complex
in the periodicity of diatoms. Roy (1955) showed that the higher concentration of
silica was associated with both the minima and maxima of phytoplankton,mainly
composed of Bacillariophyceae. In the present study fluctuations of silicate never
influenced the diatoms population. Pearsall (1922) has pointed out that the
increase in nitrate concentration help in the growth of diatoms. Butcher (1924)
pointed out that the diatoms were maximum in the river Wharfe when the nitrate
was abundant. As pointed out by Ruttner (1953) the diatoms are capable of
absorbing phosphates in much larger quantities than their immediate
requirement. The excess is said to be stored in their body and utilised afterwards
when they are not available in the medium. Such a behaviour of diatoms towards
phosphorus may thus sometimes give an impression that they are capable of
withstanding phosphorus deficient waters.
However, the increase in their population was mainly influenced by
physical factors rather than chemical factors. Velocity of flow, water level and
wind are the main physical factors influencing the population of diatoms. From
the present study, it can be concluded that the abundance and periodicity cannot
be correlated with any one factor, but complex factors like silicate, nitrate,
phosphate, dissolved oxygen and carbondioxide.
B ZOOPLANKTON
Introduction:
The zooplankton occupy a central position between the autotrophs and
other heterotrophs and form an important link in food webs of the fresh water
ecosystem. Zooplankton is intermediate link between phytoplankton and fish.
' Zooplankton community contains both herbivores and carnivores, the latter
belonging to the tertiary producers, or even to some higher level of production. A
knowledge of their abundance, composition, and seasonal variation, therefore, is
an essential pre-requisite for any successful aqua culture programme.
Zooplankton is a good indicators of changes in water quality because it is
strongly affected by environmental conditions and responds quickly to changes in
environmental quality. Among the zooplankton, rotifers are apparently the most
sensitive indicators of the water quality.
Review of Literature
Kofo~d (1908) studied the plankton of llinois river. Allen (1920) studied the
plankton of San Joaquin river. Biological study in Genesee river was carried out
by Classen(1927). The plankton ecology of the upper Mississippi river was
conducted by Reinhard (1931). A study of the limnology of the Lower Missouri
river was done by Berner (1951). Rzoska et al (1955) studied the seasonal
plankton development in the White and Blue Nile at Khartoum. Allanson (1961)
made lnvest~gations on the physical.chemical and biological conditions of
polluted waters in the Jukskei Crocodile river. Talling and Rzoska(1967) studied
the development of plankton in relation to hydrobiological regime in the Blue Nile.
Clark and Snyder (1970) studied the limnology of Columbia river. Barbara
Szlauer(l984) studied the possibilities of obtaining zooplankton from the river
Plonia to feed young fish. Maria Paloma Jimenez Alrarez(1988) observed the
harpacticoid copepods from Una do Prelado river (Sao Paulo, Brazil). Debenay
et al (1989) studied the ecological zonation of the Casamance river (Senegal)
and also studied the variation of foraminifera, zooplankton, abiotic factors. A
study of phytoplankton and zooplankton (cladocera and copepoda) relationship in
the eutrophicated river Danube in Hungary was done by Anna Bothar and Keve
T Kiss. Paul N. Turner (1996) studied preliminary data on rotifers in the
~nterstitial of the Ninneseah river in Kansas. U.S.A. A study of the impact of long
term alternations of discharge and spate on the chironomid community in the
lowland Widawka river in central Poland was done by Maria Grzybkowska
et.al.(1996).Bonecker and Lansac -Toha (1996) studied the community structure
of rotifers in two environments of the upper river Parana flood plain in Brazil.
Basu and Pick (1996) investigated about the factors regulating phytoplankton
and zooplankton biomass in temperate rivers in eastern Canada. Yvesmarneffe
et al (1996) observed the zooplankton of the lower river Meuse in Belgium1
depending on the seasonal changes and impact of industrial and municipal
discharge.
Ganapat~ and Chacko (1951) studied the physical,chemical and
biological conditions of the river of Upper Palmis. Chacko and Srinivasan (1955)
!made hydrobiological studies on major rivers like Godavari, Tungabhadra.
Krishna and Cauvery in Tamil Nadu. A study on the plankton ecology of Hoogly
at Palts. West Bengal was carried out by Roy (1955). A quantitative study of the
plankton of the river Jarnuna at Allahabad was done by Chakrabarty et al (1959).
Certain aspects of ecology of the river Ganga and Jamuna at Allahabad was
studied by Raj et al (1966). The hydrobiological studies on the Khan river,
Maharastra was carried out by Bapat and Madalpure (1971). Hydrobiological
aspects of river Yamuna have extensively been carried out by Rai. H.
( 1 962.1974). Vaas et al (1977) made hydrobiological studies on river Jhelum.
Chacko et al (1953) studied the hydrobiology of Malampuzha river. John
and Alexander (1968) were studied the hydrobiology of Beypore river.
Ramanujan (1984) studied the planktons of Kallar river. Balakrishnan Nair (1986)
studied the phytoplankton and zooplankton of Kallada and Neyyar river.
Synudeen Sahib (1992) studied the planktons of Kallada river. Impact of salinity
on the planktonic communities of a fresh water riverine system with reference to
Beypore estuary was studied by Nair et al (1995).
Materials and Methods
Zooplanktons were collected monthly from six station using plankton net
made up of bolting silk (Mesh 8). The samples of zooplanktons were fixed in 2-
3% formalin. Counting of zooplankton was done by using Sedwick-Rafter cell and
density is represented in organisms per litre. Zooplanktons were identified as per
the methods followed by Battish (1992) and Ward & Whipple (1992)
Results
Freshwater zooplanktons are generally smaller in size. The principal
zooplankton in lthikkara river comprised of Protozoa, Rotifera, Crustacea
(especially Cladocera, Copepoda and Ostracoda) and meroplanktonic organisms
including insect larvae.
In all the stations during all the seasons the quantity of zooplankton was
found to be very low compared to that of phytoplankton. A station wise account of
the zooplankton populations is given below:
Station I
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of zooplankton in station I revealed
that it was very low compared to the other five stations.
Qualitative analysis of Zooplankton
Protozoa Difflugia
Rotifera Lecane
Brachionus falcatus
Crustacea
Cladocera
Daphnia
Copepoda
Cyclops.
Nauplius
Meroplankton
Nympth of May fly.
Zooplankton was abundant in dry season especially in April (30.67%).
Zooplanktons was not reported in December, March and May. Minimum
zooplankton was observed in November (0.23%)(Table 2.33). Copepoda was the
dominant group and protozoa was the subdominant group. Rotifers and
rneroplanktonic organisms were frequent forms. Cladocerans and Ostracods
were seen rarely (Table 2.34).
Station II
The quantity and quality of zooplanktons were high in the station II when
compared to that of the station I.
Following organisms were observed in this station .:
Protozoa Difflugia
Astramoeba
Arcella
Centropyxis
Rotifera Lecane
Monostyla
Brachionus calciflorus
Brachionus spp.
Keratella cochlearis,
Crustacea
Daphnia
Ostracoda
C y pris
Copepoda
C yclopoid Copepod
Nauplius larva
Cyclops
Zoea larva
Mysis larva
Harpacticoids
Meroplankton
Nymph of Mayfly.
Nymph of stone fly.
Larvae of diptera
Nymph of mites.
Zooplankton was high during dry season and low during wet season.
Copepods were the dominant forms. Copepods were abundant in dry season,
except in August and September. They were found throughout the year.
Protozoa was the dominant group in wet season. Cladocerans and Ostrapodes
were seen very rarely (Table 2.33). Annual variation of zooplankton showed that
they were maximum in April and five peaks were observed in March, April, May
and June. The quantity of zooplankton was maximum in April (20.38%) and was
minimum in August (1.07%) Nauplius larvae were abundant (Table 2.34)
Station Ill
Zooplankton in this station was qualitatively high compared to the other five
stations.
Qualitative analysis of zooplankton
Protozoa Difflugia
Arcella
Centropyxis aculcata
Rotifera
Lecane
Monostyla quadridentata
Brachionus calciflorus
B. angularis
6.falcatus
Brachionus spp.
Keratella tropica
K.cochlearis
Philodina sp.
Trichocerca.
Crust acea
Cladocera
Daphnia
Moina daphnia
Streblocerus
Ostracoda
Cypris.
Stenocyph.
Copepoda
Nauplins larva
Zoea larva
Cyclops
Calanoid copepod
Mysis larva
Veliger larva of Eulimella intidissima.
Meroplan kton
Nymph of may fly.
Nymph of stone fly
Larvae of diptera
Damsal fly larvae
Nymph of mites.
Qualitatively arid quantitatively zooplankton was high during dry
season,especially in April. Copepods were abundant and were found throughout
the year, except in September. Rotifers were the next abundant forms and they
were maximum in April. Protozoa and meroplanktonic organisms were sub
dominant forms and Cladocera and Ostracoda were frequent forms. During wet
season all groups of zooplanktonic organisms were very low. Nauplius larvae
were the dominant forms. Maximum number of zooplankton was observed in
April (61.97%) and minimum was observed in December (0.10%) (Table 2.33 &
2.34).
Station IV
Quantity of zooplankton was higher in station IV compared to station Ill
but the number of forms was low.
Qualitative analysis of zooplankton.
Protozoa
Difflugia
Arcella
Centropyxis
Euglypha
Rotifera
Lecane
Monostyla
Brachionus angularis
Bfalcatus.
Keratella tropica
K. cochlearis
Trichocerca longiseta
Crustacea
Cladocera
Daphanosoma.
Ostradacoda
Cypris
Copepoda
Zoea larva
Cyclops
Mysis larva
Harpacticoids
Meroplankton
Nymph of stone fly
Larvae of Diptera
Nymph of of mites
The zooplankton was abundant in dry season. Copepods were the
dominant forms and were maximum in April. All groups of zooplankton was
abundant in March, April and May. Rotifers were also dominant forms.
Protozoans were subdominant forms. Cladocerans were frequent forms
Ostracoda and meroplanktonic organisms were seen rarely. Nauplius larva
Cyclops and Daphnosoma were the predominant forms. Maximum number of
zooplankton was observed in April (78.09%) and minimum number was observed
In November (0.02%) (Table 2.33 8 2.34).
Station V
Quantitative analysis of zooplankton revealed that it was lesser than that of the
lVth station.
Follow~ng organisms were observed
Protozoa
Difflug~a
Polystornella (Elphidium)
Rotifera
Lecane
Brachionus falcatus.
B. calciflorus.
Keratella cochlearis
K. vulga.
Crustacea
Cladocera
Daphanosoma
Copepoda
Nauplius larva
Zoea larva
Cyclops
Mysis larva
Calanoid copepod.
Veliger larvae of Eulimella intidissima.
Meroplankton
Larvae of Diptera
During dry season zooplankton was more abundant compared to the wet
season. All groups of zooplankton were abundant in February,March, April and
May. A peak was observed in March. Copepods were the dominant forms and
occurred throughout the year. Cladocerans were sub dominant forms,protozoa
and rotifera were found frequently,ostracoda was absent. Meroplanktonic
organisms were rare forms. Nauplius larvae were dominant forms and occurred
through the year. Cyclops were the sub dominant forms. The zooplankton was
maximum in March (60.92%) and was minimum in December (0.17%) (Table
2.33 & 2.34).
Station VI
Compared to the other five stations the quantity of zooplankton in this station was
very high.
Follow~ng forms were found in the zooplankton
Protozoa
Dlfflug~a
Polystomella (Elph~d~um)
Rotifera
Lecane
Brach~onus calc~florus
Brach~onus spp
Keratella cochlear~s
K troplca
Notholca
Crustacea
Cladocera
Daphanosoma
Daphnta
Ostracoda
Cypr~s
Copepoda
Nauplrus larva
Zoea larva
Cyclops
Mysis larva
Calanoid copepod
Harpacticoids
Veliger larvae of Eulimella intidissima
Meroplankton
Larvae of Diptera
Nauplius larva and Cyclops were the dominant forms. Copepods were
found throughout the year. Zooplankton was abundant in dry season especially in
January. February, March and April. A peak was observed in April. Cladocera
and rotifera were subdominant forms. Protozoa was observed frequently.
Ostracoda and meroplanktonic organisms were the rare forms. Maximum
number of zooplankton was observed in April (38.39%) and minimum number
was observed in November (0.11 %). (Table 2.33 & 2.34)
Observations of zooplankton in all the stations revealed that it was
abundant in dry season and low in wet season. Quantitatively zooplankton was
progressively increasing from station I to VI ,but a slight decrease was observed
in station V. Copepods were dominant forms in all stations.During dry season
maximum number of zooplankton was observed in April and during wet season
maximum number was observed in June. The maximum number of
zooplankton.was observed in station VI and the minimum number of zooplankton
was obsewed in station I.
A study of the percentage occurrance of each group of zooplankton in all
stations revealed the following facts. Protozoans and rotifers were dominant in
station Ill and IV. Protozoans and rotifers were seen very poorly in station 1 and
1 1 . Cladocerans were abundant in station VI. Cladocera Increased from station I
to station VI. A slight decrease in their number was observed in station IV.
Maximum number Ostracoda was observed in station Ill. Ostracoda was absent
in station V. Copepoda was dominant in station VI. Copepoda was very poor in
station 1 and it was increased from station I to VI. A slight decrease in their
number was noticed in station V. Meroplankton was abundant in station Ill only
(table 2.33 & 2.34).
Zooplanktons in lthikkara river
Protozoa
Difflugia
Astramoeba
Arcella
Centropyxis sp
Euglypha
Polystomella (Elphidium)
Rotifera
Lecane
Bachionus falcatus
6.calciflorus
Brach~onus sp..
6.angularis
Keratella cochlearis
K.tropica
Kvulga
Monostyla sp.
Monostyla quadridentata
Philodina
Trichocerca sp.
Trichocerca longiseta
Notholca
Crustacea
Cladocera
Daphnia
Moina daphnia
Streblocerus
Daphanosoma
Ostracoda
Cypris
Stenocypris
Copepoda
Naupllus
Zoea larva
Cyclops
Mysls larva
Cyclopoid copepod
Harpacticoides
Calano~d copepod
Veliger larva of Eul~mella ~ntrdlssima
Meroplankton
Nymph of may fly
Nymph of stone fly
Larvae of d~ptera
Nymph of m~tes
Damsal fly larva
Ilble.1.34. Percentage of the annual variation of each group of zooplankton in n c h station.
Discussion
B zooplankton
The density of zooplankton in lthikkara river during the period of present
study was generally poor at all the representative sampling sites. This general
trend in the comparatively less abundance of zooplankton in rivers can be
justified on the basis of the reports from the other tropical rivers (Sanchez et al.
1985) of Venezuela. Yves Marneff et al (1996) from his studies of the lower river
Meuse pointed out that zooplankton in rivers is scanty. Ramanujan (1984) in the
study of river Kallar observed that the quantity of zooplankton was very poor. To
the present study also agrees to this fact. It is generally assumed that the
zooplankton of rivers is imported from stagnant water in permanent or temporary
communication with the river (Beach, 1960; Hynes, 1972; Vranovsky, 1974; Jose
de Paggi, 1988). According to Odum (1959) the flowing water is unfavorable for
zooplankton. In rivers, the flow regime is probably one of the most important
factors associated with the abundance of river zooplankton (Pace et al 1992;
Basu and Pick 1996) High flow generally reduces the zooplankton density
(Holden and Green,l960;Talling and Rzoska; 1967; Shiel et al ,1982; Ferrari et
a l l 1989; Yves Marneffe et al 1996).Because of unidirectional water flow in the
upper reaches, river zooplankton is generally transported down stream and fresh
water species are displaced by saline species at river mouth and estuarine areas
(Bayly, 1965; Bugler, 1979;Egborge, 1987;Tafe. 1990; Conley and
Turner.,l99l),the present study confirmed this view. Basu,and Pick (1996) in
their study on temperate rivers pointed out that zooplankton biomass in rivers in
much lower than in lakes and zooplankton populations in rivers are dominated by
rotifers and small crustaceans. Zooplankton in rivers may be regulated by water
resident time. During the present study zooplankton populations were gradually
increased from head water.to river mouth. Maximum zooplankton population was
observed in the region where river join the Paravur lake, Crustaceans and
Rotifers were the dominant forms. Observations and study of Rzoska et al (1961)
in river Nile, Winner (1975) his study of ecology of the rivers ,Sanchez et al (1985
)in his study of the rivers in the Eastern Plains of Venezuela, Saunders and
Lewis (1988 a) their study of a tropical white water river, Pace et al (1992) their
study of Hudson River, Thorp et al (1994) their study of Ohio river, Yves Marnefte
(1996) in his study of the lower river Meuse, Basu and Pick (1997) in their study
of a Low Land temperate river, Roger Pourriot et al (1997) in their study of river
zooplankton. Viroux (1997) in his study of two Low Land rivers, the Moselle and
the Meuse and Kobayashi et al (1998) in their study of Nepean river showed that
rotifers tend to be the most abundant zooplankton in rivers, followed by
crustaceans.
Roger Pourriot et al (1997) in their study of river Marne the dominance of
small organism such as rotifers in river plankton is assumed to be the result of
fish predation on large zooplankton as well as of a short generation time which
allows their insitu reproduction, in spite of a short residence time of the water.
The studies done by John Varkey and Alexander (1 968) in Beypore river
,Ramanujan (1984) in Kallar river and Balakrishnan Nair (1986) in Neyyar and
Kallada river, they observed that crustaceans were the dominant forms followed
by rotifers. Present study also confirmed this view. The forms that present in the
zooplankton of the lthikkara river were similar to those found in river
Brahmaputra (Chacko and Srinivasan, 1955; Jhingran, 1982), in river Jamuna
(Chakrabarty et al 1959); in river Ganga (Ray et al 1966); in Godavari river
Bhavani river and Kaveri river (Jhingran. 1982).
In general in all the stations the quantity of phytoplankton and
zooplankton was very low from August to December. During these months the
phytoplankton was also low, because of the heavy rain during this periodjntlush
of rain water causes strong currents which wash away the phytoplankton. The
depletion of phytoplankton naturally affect the population of zooplankton.
Ramanujan (1 984) also made a similar observation in his study on the ecology of
the Kallar river. Yves Marneffe et al (1996) in their study of river Meuse pointed
out that low flow in summer was favourable to the growth of zooplankton. During
the low flow period, the flow rate control the riverine zooplankton population.
Balakrishnan Nair (1986) in his studies on the Neyyar and Kallada river observed
that higher densities of zooplankton occurred during the pre-monsoon season.
John Varkey and Alexander (1968) in their study of Beypore river and
Ramanujan (1984) in his study of the Kallar river observed that the zooplankton
was abundant from January to June. In the present study also this was the
general trend.
