ISSN: 2332-2608

Journal of Fisheries & Livestock Production
Open Access

Our Group organises 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events every year across USA, Europe & Asia with support from 1000 more scientific Societies and Publishes 700+ Open Access Journals which contains over 50000 eminent personalities, reputed scientists as editorial board members.

Open Access Journals gaining more Readers and Citations
700 Journals and 15,000,000 Readers Each Journal is getting 25,000+ Readers

This Readership is 10 times more when compared to other Subscription Journals (Source: Google Analytics)

Benthos Composition and Abundance in Lentic Ecosystems

Fatima M, Ahmad U, Bhat BN, Hassan T and Parveen S*
Limnology Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India
*Corresponding Author: Parveen S, Limnology Research Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 202002, Uttar Pradesh, India, Tel: 0571 270 0935, Email: saltanatparveen@yahoo.co.in

Received: 06-Jun-2017 / Accepted Date: 01-Jul-2017 / Published Date: 05-Jul-2017 DOI: 10.4172/2332-2608.1000240

Abstract

The Benthic invertebrates such as nymphs of stonefly, mayfly, caddisfly larvae, snails, mussels, crustaceans, rat-tailed maggot, etc., convert and transport nutrients from one part of the water body to another, influencing nutrient cycling. In the present study, phytobenthos comprised of three major groups namely Bacillariophyceae, Chlorophyceae, Myxophyceae, whereas zoobenthos comprised of eleven major groups namely Protozoa, Rotifera Cladocera, Ostracoda, Coleoptera, Diptera, Ephemeroptera, Hemiptera, Trichoptera, Gastropoda and Odonata. The study revealed that zoobenthos were more dominant than phytobenthos. Among zoobenthos, Dipterans were found to be abundant followed by Cladocerans and least were Trichopterans, whereas among phytobenthos Bacillariophyceae was found to be most dominant followed by Chlorophyceae and Myxophyceae. The negative but significant correlation between zoobenthos and phytobenthos in all selected water bodies during study indicated grazing of former on latter proving top down control in these lentic ecosystem.

Keywords: Benthos; Phytobenthos; Zoobenthos; Lentic waterbodies

Introduction

Freshwater ecosystems are considered as one of the most essential natural resources for the survivability and success of all the living organisms including man. The habitat is generally divided into Lentic and Lotic ecosystems. The term lentic refers to standing bodies of water such as lakes, reservoirs, and ponds. These ecosystems generally have three zones – Littoral, Limnetic and Benthic zone. The term Benthos is derived from two Greek words “Ben” meaning ‘the collection of organisms living in or on the sea or lakes’ and “Thos” ‘the bottom of sea or lakes’. Benthos can be classified on a number of basis i.e., on the basis of size; Macrobenthos, Meiobenthos and Micro benthos; On the Basis of Location; Endobenthos, Epibenthos and Hyperbenthos; On the basis of Type; Zoobenthos includes animals and Phytobenthos which comprises of plants. The Benthic invertebrates such as nymphs of stonefly, mayfly, caddisfly larvae, snails, mussels, crustaceans, rattailed maggot, etc., convert and transport nutrients from one part of the water body to another, influencing nutrient cycling. They ingest organic matter such as leaf litter and detritus and in turn serve food for higher aquatic organisms such as fish, forming a basic link between organic matter and higher aquatic animals in food web. They are sensitive to changes in habitat and pollution, especially to organic pollution [1].

Materials and Methods

Sites (Plate 1-4)

The present study was carried out on four fresh water bodies of Aligarh (latitude 27° 30' N and longitude 79° 40' E), namely Shekha Jheel, Nai Basti pond, Laldiggi pond and Chautal pond. Laldiggi, Chautal and Nai Basti ponds having 1 ha area, located in the vicinity of the Aligarh Muslim University campus receive water from domestic discharge and rain water which accumulates during rainy season. These are used by washer men extensively for washing clothes, thus adding detergents and certain chemicals that bring changes in its chemical composition. The Shekha Jheel is a 25 ha lake near the village of Shekha, 17 km east of Aligarh. It is a fresh water perennial water body that came into existence after the formation of the Upper Ganges Canal which flows adjacent to the lake. It is maintained by the Forest Department. Sampling was done fortnightly from 9th March, 2016 to 23rd April, 2016. Samples were collected from selected water bodies between 8 am and 9 am and were analysed for following physicochemical parameters were analysed: Air and water temperatures, dissolved oxygen (DO) and free carbon dioxide (CO2).

Benthos collection, separation and identification

The bottom mud scrapper with low towline designed and described by Miclhae [2] was used to collect the samples from the waterbodies. For benthos analysis, samples were diluted with tap water to prepare slurry in a bucket and sticks, leaves, debris were removed. Then slurry was divided into ten subsamples. Each subsample was first sieved by B.S. no. 30 (0.5 mm) mesh sieve kept above the sieve B.S. no. 72 (0.2 mm) in order to retain smaller organisms (meio) on the latter. Organisms were kept in separate vials and fixed in 10% formalin solution (4% formaldehyde) and labelled. For qualitative and quantitative analysis 1 mL of fixed sample was taken on glass slide and studied under dissecting microscope. Individuals were identified up to genus level with the help of keys given by Edmondson et al. [3] and Needham and Needham [4] and frequency of each taxon was noted and expressed as individual/m² [2-4].

Results And Discussion

Physico-chemical parameters

In all selected water bodies air temperature ranged from a minimum of 26.4°C to a maximum of 38.8°C from 8th March to 23rd April, 2016 whereas water temperature ranged from a minimum of 23.1°C to a maximum of 33.2°C from 8th March to 23rd April, 2016. The surface water temperature of all selected water bodies followed closely the trend of air temperature during study period. Reduction in solar radiation due to shorter day length may explain lower temperature during the month of March. Increase in both air and water temperature during the month of April is attributed to the increase in solar radiation comparatively due to longer day length. pH values of all selected water bodies ranged from a minimum of 7.0 to a maximum of 8.0 during month of March, 2016 whereas during the month of April, it ranged from a minimum of 7.5 to a maximum of 8.5. Increased values of pH in all selected waterbodies during the study period could be related to increased level of photosynthesis carried out by phytoplankton and macrophytes, wherein CO2 is consumed, and hence pH is raised. The decrease in dissolved oxygen and the increase in Carbon dioxide in all the selected water bodies from 8th March to 23rd April, 2016 clearly justify the fact that as temperature increases oxygen holding capacity of water decreases while carbon dioxide increases due to high rate of decomposition. Lower values of carbon dioxide were observed in Nai Basti The decrease in dissolved oxygen and the increase in Carbon dioxide in all the selected water bodies from 8th March to 23rd April,2016 clearly justify the fact that as temperature increases oxygen holding capacity of water decreases while carbon dioxide increases due to high rate of decomposition. Lower values of carbon dioxide were observed in Nai Basti The decrease in dissolved oxygen and the increase in Carbon dioxide in all the selected water bodies from 8th March to 23rd April, 2016 clearly justify the fact that as temperature increases oxygen holding capacity of water decreases while carbon dioxide increases due to high rate of decomposition. Lower values of carbon dioxide were observed in Nai Basti The decrease in dissolved oxygen and the increase in Carbon dioxide in all the selected water bodies from 8th March to 23rd April, 2016 clearly justify the fact that as temperature increases oxygen holding capacity of water decreases while carbon dioxide increases due to high rate of decomposition (Tables 1-4).

Parameters Temperature (°C) pH D.O. (mg/L) Co2 (mg/L)
Dates Air Water      
9/3/2016 26.4°C 23.1°C 7.5 4.6 mg/L 21.0 mg/L
23-03-2016 29.0°C 27.1°C 8 4.0 mg/L 30.0 mg/L
8/4/2016 33.0°C 30.8°C 8 1.8 mg/L 35.0 mg/L
23-04-2016 34.3°C 31.1°C 8.5 2.0 mg/L 39.0 mg/L

Table 1: Fortnight variations in physicochemical parameters in Lal Diggi pond.

Parameters Temperature (°C) pH D.o. (mg/L) Co2 (mg/L)
Dates Air Water      
9/3/2016 28.3°C 26.0°C 8 3.0 mg/L 18.0 mg/L
23-03-2016 31.2°C 29.4°C 7.5 2.5 mg/L 16.0 mg/L
8/4/2016 34 .0°C 31.0°C 8.5 1.8 mg/L 20.0 mg/L
23-04-2016 35.9°C 33.2°C 8.5 1.6 mg/L 25.0 mg/L

Table 2: Fortnight variations in physicochemical parameters in Nai Basti pond.

Parameters Temperature (°C) pH D.O. (mg/L) Co2 (mg/L)
Dates Air Water      
9/3/2016 27 .8°C 23.6°C 7 3.1 mg/L 26 mg/L
23-03-2016 30.8°C 26.9°C 7.5 2.4 mg/L 24 mg/L
8/4/2016 33.0°C 30.2°C 7.5 2.1 mg/L 28 mg/L
23-04-2016 35.0°C 33.1°C 7.5 1.9 mg/L 36 mg/L

Table 3: Fortnight variations in physicochemical parameters in Chautal pond.

Parameters Temperature (°C) pH D.O. (mg/L) Co2 (mg/L)
Dates Air Water      
8/3/2016 27.0°C 24.0°C 7.5 4.9 mg/L 17.0 mg/L
22-03-2016 28.9°C 25.2°C 7.5 4.0 mg/L 21.0 mg/L
7/4/2016 34.2°C 30.0°C 8.5 3.2 mg/L 19.0 mg/L
20-04-2016 38.8°C 33.0°C 8 2.2 mg/ 24.0 mg/L

Table 4: Fortnight variations in physicochemical parameters in Shekha Jheel.

Lower values of carbon dioxide were observed in Nai Basti pond during study period (Table 2), might be due to high photosynthesis of phytobenthos and macrophytes.

Benthos

In distribution of benthic flora, light plays a very important role when the water is sufficiently shallow. The studied waterbodies, being shallow light reaches the bottom sediments in plenty and as a result of it, phytobenthos grow in greater abundance. The phytobenthos comprised of three major groups namely Bacillariophyceae, Chlorophyceae and Myxophyceae. The variations in Phytobenthos density in the selected water bodies were recorded from a minimum of 38 No/m² to a maximum of 151 No/m² (Tables 5-7; Figures 1-4) in Nai Basti pond ranged from a minimum of 85 No/m² to a maximum of 151 No/m²;. in Shekha jheel, from a minimum of 39 No/m² to a maximum of 74 No/m². Phyto benthos of Chautal pond; from a minimum of 51 No/m² to a maximum of 117 No/m² and in Lal diggi pond, phyto benthos ranged from a minimum of 38 No/m² to a maximum of 73 No/m² (Tables 5-7). Chlorophyceae formed the most abundant group followed by Baillariophyceae and Myxophyceae in Lal Diggi, Chautal and Nai Basti pond whereas Bacillariophyceae formed most abundant group in the Shekha jheel followed by Myxophyceae and Chlorophyceae (Figure 5a-5d). Chlorophyceae showed a direct relation with the temperature. Kumar et al. [5] reported that higher water temperature and low dissolved oxygen support the growth of Chlorophyceae. Statistically, phytobenthos showed positive significant correlation with Water temperature, Carbon dioxide and pH whereas as negative but significant correlation with zoobenthos, in all the four studied waterbodies. With dissolved oxygen significant positive correlation in shekha jheel only whereas significant negative in rest of the waterbodies (Tables 8-11). Benthic fauna are widespread in their distribution and can live on all bottom types and thus found even in the soil beneath puddles. The zoobenthos comprised of eleven major groups namely Protozoa, Rotifera, Cladocera, Ostracoda, Coleoptera, Diptera, Ephemeroptera, Hemiptera, Trichoptera, Gastropoda and Odonata (Tables 12-15). Among zoobenthos, Dipterans were found to be abundant followed by Cladocerans and least were Trichopterans. In the present investigation, zoobenthos of Nai Basti pond ranged from a minimum of 59 No/m² to a maximum of 117 No/m²: in Lal Diggi pond, it was ranged from a minimum of 121 No/m² to a maximum of 179 No/m²; in Chautal pond, it was ranged from a minimum of 75 No/m² to a maximum of 128 No/ m²: in Shekha jheel, it ranged from a minimum of 92 No/m² to a maximum of 120 No/m² (Tables 8-11) (Figure 6a-6d). During study period it was observed that Nai Basti pond is the most productive in terms of phyto benthos whereas Lal Diggi pond in terms of zoobenthos. During the present investigation Cladocerans were found to be abundant in Nai Basti pond while Dipterans in Chautal pond and Gastropods in Shekha jheel. The abundance of dipterans was represented by Chironomus and Culex. Chironomus can survive in low oxygen condition as well as polluted water body. Therefore, its high number in Chautal pond indicated polluted nature [6]. The availability of maximum number of Gastropods could be correlated to the cumulative effect of alkaline nature of water, high calcium contents and macrophytic vegetation [7]. Trichopterans were found to be the least abundant in all ponds. Kabir et al. [6] reported that these insects are sensitive to pollution. The zoobenthos showed negative but significant correlation with Water temperature and pH in Chautal pond, Shekha jheel and in Lal Diggi; with CO2 in Chautal pond and Shekha jheel, whereas in Nai Basti pond zoobenthos showed positive significant correlation with water temperature, pH and CO2. However, with dissolved oxygen these animals showed positive significant correlation in all water bodies (Tables 10-13). The result of present investigation revealed that zoobenthos were more dominant than phytobenthos (Table 16). The negative but significant correlation between zoobenthos and phytobenthos in all selected water bodies during study indicated grazing of former on latter proving top down control in these lentic ecosystems [8-10].

fisheries-livestock-production-naibasti-pond

Figure 1: Naibasti pond.

fisheries-livestock-production-chautal-pond

Figure 2: Chautal pond.

fisheries-livestock-production-laldiggi-pond

Figure 3: Laldiggi pond.

fisheries-livestock-production-shekha-jheel

Figure 4: Shekha Jheel.

fisheries-livestock-production-phytobenthos-waterbodies

Figure 5a-5d: Percent Composition of different Phytobenthos in the selected waterbodies.

fisheries-livestock-production-phytobenthos-waterbodies

Figure 6a-6d: Percent Composition of different Zoobenthos in the selected waterbodies.

Date/Genera 9/3/2016 23-03-2016 8/4/2016 23-04-2016
Bacillariophyceae        
Navicula spp. 13 17 25 31
Diatoma spp. 12 17 26 21
Cocconeis spp. - - - -
Total 25 34 51 52
Chlorophyceae        
Chlorella spp. 16 22 19 26
Ulothrix spp. - - - -
Clorococcus spp. - - - -
Oedogonium spp. - - - -
Tetrapedia spp. - - - -
Crucigenia spp. 15 20 24 29
Hydrodictyon spp. 5 9 13 11
Total 36 51 56 66
Myxophyceae        
Gomphosphaeria spp. 14 18 23 21
Oscillatoria spp. 10 14 19 12
Nostoc spp. - - - -
Total 24 32 42 33
Grand total 85 117 149 151

Table 5: Fortnight distribution of phytobenthos (no/m²) in nai basti pond.

Date /Genera 9/3/2016 23-03-2016 8/4/2016 23-04-2016
Bacillariophyceae        
Navicula spp. 5 8 13 7
Diatoma spp. - - - -
Cocconeis spp. 11 16 23 29
Total 16 24 36 36
Chlorophyceae        
Chlorella spp. - - - -
Ulothrix spp. - - - -
Clorococcus spp. 13 19 11 26
Oedogonium spp. - - - -
Tetrapedia spp. 10 12 16 21
Crucigenia spp. - - - -
Hydrodictyon spp. - - - -
Total 23 31 27 47
Myxophyceae        
Gomphosphaeria spp. - - - -
Oscillatoria spp. 7 12 9 14
Nostoc spp. 5 8 16 20
Total 12 20 25 34
Grand total 51 75 88 117

Table 6: Fortnight distribution of phytobenthos (no/m²) in chautal pond.

Date /Genera 9/3/2016 23-03-2016 8/4/2016 23-04-2016
Bacillariophyceae        
Navicula spp. 8 13 18 15
Diatoma spp. - - - -
Cocconeis spp. 11 16 12 17
Total 19 29 30 32
Chlorophyceae        
Chlorella spp. - - - -
Ulothrix spp. 5 7 3 9
Clorococcus spp. - - - -
Oedogonium spp. - - - -
Tetrapedia spp. - - - -
Crucigenia spp. - - - -
Hydrodictyon spp. - - - -
Total 5 7 3 9
Myxophyceae        
Gomphosphaeria spp. - - - -
Oscillatoria spp. 6 5 8 11
Nostoc spp. 9 12 19 22
Total 15 17 27 33
Grand total 39 53 60 74

Table 7: Fortnight distribution of phytobenthos (no/m²) in shekha jheel

Date /Genera 9/3/2016 23-03-2016 8/4/2016 23-03-2016
Bacillariophyceae        
Navicula spp. 12 17 27 21
Diatoma spp. - - - -
Cocconeis spp. - - - -
Total 12 17 27 21
Chlorophyceae        
Chlorella spp. - - - -
Ulothrix spp. - - - -
Clorococcus spp. - -   -
Oedogonium spp. 3 2 1 5
Tetrapedia spp. 11 18 15 25
Crucigenia spp. - - - -
Hydrodictyon spp. - - - -
Total 14 20 16 30
Myxophyceae        
Gomphosphaeria spp. - - - -
Oscillatoria spp. 4 6 5 7
Nostoc spp. 8 9 11 15
Total 12 15 16 22
Grand total 38 52 59 73

Table 8: Fortnight distribution of phytobenthos (no/m²) in lal diggi.

Date /Genera 9-03-2016 23-03-2016 8-04-2016 23-04-2016
Coleoptera        
Berosus  sp. - - - -
Total - - - -
DIPTERA        
Chironomus  sp.        
Culex  sp. 27 25 21 28
Total 27 25 21 28
Ephemeroptera        
Cynigmula  sp.        
Total - - - -
Hemiptera        
Belostoma  sp. - - - -
Notonecta  sp. 5 4 8 3
Ptilostomis   sp. - - - -
Total 5 4 8 3
Odonata        
Libellula  sp. - - - -
Total - - - -
Trichoptera        
Phryganaea larvae - - - -
Total - - - -
Cladocera        
Bosmina  sp. - - - -
Moina sp. 15 23 13 6
Chydorus  sp. 14 17 7 4
Daphnia   sp. 21 18 12 6
Total 50 58 32 16
Ostracoda        
Cypris  sp. 13 9 12 7
Cypridopsis  sp. - - - -
Total 13 9 12 7
Gastropoda        
Amnicola  sp. - - - -
Gyraulus  sp. - - - -
Campeloma  sp. - - - -
Rotifera        
Asplanchna  sp. - - - -
Keratella  sp. - - - -
Protozoa        
Euglena  sp. 19 21 7 5
Total 19 21 7 5
Grand   total 114 117 80 59

Table 9: Fortnight  distribution of zoobenthos (no/m²)  in nai basti pond.

Date/Genera 9/3/2016 23-03-2016 8/4/2016 23-04-2016
Coleoptera        
Berosus spp. 28 16 11 -
Total 28 16 11 -
Diptera        
Chironomus spp. 3 8 18 11
Culex spp. - - - -
Total 3 8 18 11
Ephemeroptera        
Cynigmula spp. 25 18 9 -
Total 25 18 9 -
Hemiptera        
Belostoma spp. 21 15 8 13
Notonecta spp. 19 12 7 4
Ptilostomis spp. - - - -
Total 40 27 15 17
Odonata        
Libellula spp. 11 3 8 23
Total 11 3 8 23
Trichoptera       -
Phyrganaea larvae - - - -
Total        
Cladocera        
Bosmina spp. - - - -
Moina spp. - - - -
Chydorus spp. - - - -
Daphnia spp. - - - -
Total        
Gastropoda        
Amnicola spp. 9 9 15 18
Gyraulus spp. 4 11 17 22
Campeloma spp. - - 2 10
Total 13 20 34 50
Ostracoda        
Cypris spp. - - - -
Cypridopsis spp. - - - -
Total        
Rotifera        
Asplanchna spp. - - - -
Keratella spp. - - - -
Total        
Protozoa        
Euglena spp. - - - -
Total        
Grand  total 120 92 95 101

Table 10: Fortnight distribution of zoobenthos (no/m²) in shekha jheel.

Date /Genera 9/3/2016 23-03-2016 8/4/2016 23-04-2016
Coleoptera        
Berosus spp. - - - -
Total        
Diptera        
Chironomus spp. 28 8 22 17
Culex spp. 30 21 19 13
Total 58 29 41 30
Ephemeroptera        
Cynigmula spp. - - - -
Total        
Hemiptera        
Belostoma spp. - - - -
Notonecta spp. - - - -
Ptilostomis spp. - - - -
Total        
Odonata        
Libellula spp. - - - -
Total        
Trichoptera        
Phryganaea larvae 10 7 2 -
Total 10 7 2 -
Cladocera        
Bosmina  spp. 26 18 7 3
Moina spp. 20 13 5 1
Chydorus spp. - - - -
Daphnia spp. - - - -
Total 46 31 12 4
Gastropoda        
Amnicola spp. - - - -
Gyraulus spp. 8 15 11 17
Campeloma spp. - - - -
Total 8 15 11 17
Ostracoda        
Cypris spp. - - - -
Cypridopsis spp. 18 11 7 2
Total 18 11 7 2
Rotifera        
Asplanchna spp. 6 8 11 15
Keratella spp. 10 14 19 23
Total 16 22 30 38
Protozoa        
Euglena spp. 23 20 27 30
Total 23 20 27 30
Grand total 179 135 130 121

Table 11: Fortnight distribution of zoobenthos (no/m²) in lal diggi pond.

Date /Genera 9/3/2016 23-03-2016 8/4/2016 23-04-2016
Coleoptera        
Berosus spp. - - - -
Total        
Diptera        
Chironomous spp. 9 17 11 17
Culex spp. 8 13 9 16
Total 17 30 20 33
Ephemeroptera        
Cynigmula spp. - - - -
Total        
Hemiptera        
Belostoma spp. - - - -
Notonecta spp. 26 23 10 5
Ptilostomis spp. - - - -
Total 26 23 10 5
Trichoptera        
Phryganaea larvae - - - -
Total        
Odonata        
Libellula spp. - - - -
Total - - - -
Cladocera        
Bosmina spp. - - - -
Moina spp. - - - -
Chydorus spp. - - - -
Daphnia spp. - - - -
Total        
Ostracoda        
Cypris spp. 43 32 15 6
Cypridopsis spp. - - - -
Total 43 32 15 6
Rotifera        
Asplanchna spp. 20 15 8 -
Keratella spp. - - - -
Total 20 15 8 -
Gastropoda        
Amnicola spp. - - - -
Gyraulus spp. 22 27 23 31
Campeloma spp. - - - -
Total 22 27 23 31
Protozoa        
Euglena spp. - - - -
Total        
Grand total 128 127 76 75

Table 12: Fortnight distribution of zoobenthos (no/m²) in chautal pond.

Parameters Parameters Correlation Significant at p=0.05
(r  value)
Air temperature Water temperature 0.997 ?
Water temperature Carbon  dioxide 0.819 ?
Dissolved  oxygen ?0.965 ?
pH 0.787 ?
Zoo benthos ?0.882 ?
Phyto benthos 0.987 ?
Carbon  dioxide Phyto benthos 0.849 ?
Zoo benthos ?0.821 ?
Dissolved oxygen ?0.646 ?
pH 0.317 ?
Dissolved  oxygen Zoo benthos 0.92 ?
Phyto benthos -0.945 ?
pH 0.962 ?
pH Phyto benthos 0.77 ?
Zoo benthos ?0.780 ?
Zoo benthos Phyto benthos ?0.984 ?

Table 13: Statistical brief of water quality parameters in chautal pond.

Parameters Parameters Correlation Significant at p=0.05
(r  value)
Air temperature Water temperature 0.982 ?
Water temperature Carbon  dioxide 0.982 ?
Dissolved  oxygen ?0.958 ?
pH 0.87 ?
Zoo benthos ?0.998 ?
Phyto benthos 0.932 ?
Carbon  dioxide Phyto benthos 0.98 ?
Zoo benthos 0.988 ?
Dissolved oxygen ?0.911 ?
pH 0.947 ?
Dissolved  oxygen Zoo benthos 0.941 ?
Phyto benthos -0.863 ?
pH ?0.753 ?
pH Phyto benthos 0.981 ?
Zoo benthos ?0.888 ?
Zoo benthos Phyto benthos ?0.940 ?

Table 14: Statistical brief of water quality parameters in laldiggi pond.

Parameters Parameters Correlation Significant at p=0.05
(r  value)
Air temperature Water temperature 0.997 ?
Water temperature Carbon  dioxide 0.722 ?
Dissolved  oxygen ?0.975 ?
pH 0.734 ?
Zoo benthos ?0.879 ?
Phyto benthos 0.95 ?
Carbon  dioxide Phyto benthos 0.885 ?
Zoo benthos ?0.802 ?
Dissolved oxygen ?0.842 ?
pH 0.146 ?
Dissolved  oxygen Zoo benthos 0.946 ?
Phyto benthos 0.996 ?
pH ?0.643 ?
pH Phyto benthos 0.585 ?
Zoo benthos ?0.671 ?
Zoo benthos Phyto benthos ?0.955 ?

Table 15: Statistical brief of water quality parameters in shekha jheel.

Parameters Parameters Correlation Significant at p= 0.05
(r  value)
Air temperature Water temperature 0.991 ?
Water temperature Carbon  dioxide 0.749 ?
Dissolved  oxygen ?0.970 ?
pH 0.563 ?
Zoo benthos 0.869 ?
Phyto benthos 0.96 ?
Carbon  dioxide Phyto benthos 0.671 ?
Zoo benthos ?0.978 ?
Dissolved oxygen ?0.773 ?
pH 0.834 ?
Dissolved  oxygen Zoo benthos 0.886 ?
Phyto benthos -0.989 ?
pH ?0.715 ?
pH Phyto benthos 0.642 ?
Zoo benthos ?0.816 ?
Zoo benthos Phyto benthos ?0.808 ?

Table 16: Statistical brief of water quality parameters in nai basti pond.

Conclusion

Present investigation revealed that zoobenthos were more dominant than phytobenthos. Among zoo benthos, Diptera was found to be the abundant group followed by Cladocerans and least was Trichopterans. Chironomus which is a representative of Dipterans is the pollution indicator. Trichopterans are sensitive to the pollution, so they are least abundant. Chlorophyceae formed the most abundant group in Lal Diggi, Chautal and Nai Basti pond. Zoobenthos are inversely related to phyto benthos in all the ponds indicating former grazing on latter. The presence of zoo benthos along with phytobenthos in all samples indicated nutrient rich and productive pond bottom thereby proving favourable environment for benthic animals especially fish.

Acknowledgements

The first author is indebted to Chairman Professor Iqbal Pervez, Department of Zoology Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh for providing necessary facilities to complete this project.

References

  1. Ramachandra TV, Ahalya N, Murthy R (2005) Aquatic ecosystem Conservation restoration and management. Capital Publishing Company New Delhi.
  2. Michael P (1984) Ecological methods for field and laboratory investigations. McGraw Hill Publishing Company Limited: 400.
  3. Edmondson WT ,Ward HB, Whipple GC(1978)Freshwater Biology (2nd edn.), John Wiley and Sons Inc New York: 1248.
  4. Needham JG, Needham PR (1962) A Guide to the Study of the Freshwater Biology. Holden-Dey Inc Francisco, p. 108.
  5. Kumar NJI, Sharma G, Kumar RN, Joseph S (2005) An assessment of eutrophication and weed growth of certain wetlands of Gujrat. Trivedy RK editor. In Recent advances in water pollution research book Enclave Jain Bhavan Jaipur pp: 129-150.
  6. Kabir H, Parveen S, Ahmad U and Ganai AH (2013) Benthic insect diversity in sewage fed pond of Aligarh region. Int J of Biodiversity and Conservation 5: 209-214.
  7. Garg RK, Rao RJ, Saksena DN (2011) correlation of molluscan diversity with physicochemical characteristics of Ramsagar reservoir Ind. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 1: 202-207.
  8. APHA (1992) Standard methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association AWWA WPCF Washington DC USA: 1193.
  9. Ahmad U, Parveen S, Hassan T, Bhat BN (2013)A study on Limnology and Biodiversity of Crustaceans and Macrophyte infested water bodies of Aligarh region. International journal of plant animal and environmental sciences.
  10. Trivedy RK, Goel PK (1984) Chemical and biological methods for water pollution studies. Environmental Publications Karad India, p. 250.

Citation: Fatima M, Ahmad U, Bhat BN, Hassan T, Parveen S (2017) Benthos Composition and Abundance in Lentic Ecosystems. J Fisheries Livest Prod 5: 240. DOI: 10.4172/2332-2608.1000240

Copyright: © 2017 Fatima M, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Top