See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259893018

Assessment of phytoplankton primary productivity of two urban pond

ecosystems of Bangladesh

Article · January 2009

CITATIONS READS

4 1,047

2 authors:

Munira Sultana Moniruzzaman Khondker

East Delta University University of Dhaka
7 PUBLICATIONS   31 CITATIONS    137 PUBLICATIONS   694 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Natural Radioactivity Levels and Radiological Risk Assessment of Surface Water of Wetland Tanguar Haor, Sunamganj District, Bangladesh View project

University Grants Commission of Bangladesh for providing financial support to conduct the study (Project ID: Bio-11/2017/151). View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Moniruzzaman Khondker on 12 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Dhaka Univ. J. Bio. Sci. 18(2): 127-135, 2009 (July)

ASSESSMENT OF PHYTOPLANKTON PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY

OF TWO URBAN POND ECOSYSTEMS OF BANGLADESH

MUNIRA SULTANA1 AND MONIRUZZAMAN KHONDKER

Department of Botany, University of Dhaka, Dhaka 1000, Bangladesh

Key words: Potential primary productivity, Pond ecosystems, Trophic state

Abstract
Potential primary production of phytoplankton (PP) and its cohort
limnological variables were analyzed for two ponds of Dhaka city for one
year. Average PP from Museum and SH-pond were obtained 0.681 and
0.263 mg O2/l/h. The highest rate of PP (1.56 mg O2/l/h) was obtained
in April in Museum pond and February in SH-pond. There were
significant, positive correlation between PP and some variables i.e., PAR,
SRP, chl.-a and phaeopigment in Museum pond. In contrast, though
positive correlations were found between PP and the above variables in
SH-pond, but those were not significant. SH-pond is still passing a
mesotrophic state, whereas, Museum pond is nearly reaching eutrophic
state.

Introduction
About 1.13% of the land of Bangladesh is occupied by ponds.(1) The main
sources of water in rural areas of most developing countries like Bangladesh still
continue to be dependent upon uncovered wells or shallow communal ponds.
Those water bodies are used for almost all means of domestic water supply.
Small scale aquaculture is also practiced there. However, in densely populated
urban areas for example Dhaka metropolis (population density >2500/km2),
most of the pond systems have already been disappeared due to excessive
pressure of increasing inhabitants and gradual gaining of commercial
importance of the city. Nevertheless, only a few existing ponds often provide
support to the water requirements to the impoverished urban dwellers and
overall those ponds share for the existence of fresh air of the city through
photosynthetic production of oxygen by phytoplankton. But diverse human
activities and an overall lack of measures to protect water quality often
contribute to severe contamination of those pond ecosystems.
Photosynthetic carbon fixation by phytoplankton represents the major part
of the organic production in most water body.(2) The rate of carbon fixation at the

1Present address: Leibniz Institute of Fresh Water Ecology and Inland Fisheries,
Müggelseedam 301, D-12587, Berlin, Germany.
128 SULTANA AND KHONDKER

primary level provides the best assessment of the result of physical, chemical,
and biological interactions determining the actual fertility of any environment.(3)
Phytoplankton is the base of the food web thus providing much of the food
resource to grazers in lower trophic levels. Studies on physicochemical factors
and phytoplankton productivity are essential for the proper management of
water resources and for the prediction of the potential changes in the aquatic
ecosystem.(4)
Primary production of phytoplankton in different aquatic ecosystems has
received considerable attention.(5-11) Information on primary productivity of
aquatic ecosystems from Bangladesh is limited.(12-15) This paper compares
productivity of phytoplankton for one year between two ponds of Dhaka
metropolis. Possible relationships between production rates and the seasonal
succession of phytoplankton pigment content and some other environmental
variables are discussed.

Materials and Methods

Museum pond and Shahidullah Hall pond (SH-pond), located in the National
Museum Complex and Curzon Hall campus of Dhaka University, respectively
(23º46´ N, 90º23´ E) were selected for the present study. Both the ponds are well
protected against the hazardous urban wastewater input but small scale
aquaculture and bathing by the local inhabitants are allowed in it. Detailed
description of the study sites has been provided.(16)
Water samples were collected between June, 1995 and May, 1996 fortnightly
except March (1995) and October and November (1996) when a single sample
was collected in each. As companion parameters of potential primary production
of phytoplankton (PP), photosynthetic active radiation (PAR), water temperature,
soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP), phytoplankton biomass as chlorophyll-a
(chl.-a), and phaeopigment concentration were determined. A 5 l capacity
Schindler’s depth sampler was used to collect the water sample from 50 cm
depth of the pond surface. Immediate after collection, water temperature was
recorded from the mercury centigrade thermometer housed in the sampler. The
whole quantity of the sample water was then poured in a 5 l capacity darkened
container and transported to the laboratory. Light and dark bottle O2 technique
was used for the determination of phytoplankton primary productivity. Three
replicates of each of initial oxygen, light and dark bottles (Pyrex, glass stopper,
120 ml cap.) were immediately filled with the respective pond water. The initial
oxygen bottles were immediately fixed by adding Winkler’s reagents for oxygen
determination and the light and dark bottles were incubated by placing them
ASSESSMENT OF PHYTOPLANKTON PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY 129

horizontally on the floor of a porcelain basin (78.5 × 18.5 cm, depth 21.2 cm). A
continuous flow of tap water inside the basin was maintained. This experiment
was carried out on the roof of the Department of Botany, University of Dhaka for
6 hours under natural light. Incident solar radiation (PAR) was measured using
an aerial collector (LI-190SB) and a radiometer (LI-185B) at the site of
incubation. All the oxygen measurements were carried out following Winkler’s
titration method (17) and the oxygen production was calculated by deducting the
dark bottle value from the light bottle. The data are expressed per unit time and
volume of pond water.
A known volume of water was filtered in the labortory through Whatman
GF/F filter paper (2.5 - 4.7 cm dia.) with the help of a Sartorius vacuum
filtration device (GmbH, Göttingen/Fed. Rep. Germany). Chl.-a was extracted
with the hot ethanol method(18) using a Schimadzu spectrophotometer (UV-120-
02). Simultaneously, the filtrate water was transferred to acid washed
polystyrene bottles for Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) analysis.(19)
All data were checked for the assumption of normal distributions and
homogeneity of the variances before statistical analyses. The regression analysis
of various parameters such as PAR, SRP, temperature, chl.-a, etc. with PP was
performed using MS Excel. One-way ANOVAs were used to determine statistical
significance of the above parameters with PP as the main factor and to find out
statistical differences of the SRP and chl.-a concentration with the studied
ponds as the main factors. For both of the one-way ANOVAs were done by using
STATISTICA (version 5).

Results and Discussion

Total PAR input ranged between 640 and 1321 µE/m2/s. The highest PAR
was recorded in August and the lowest in December (Fig.1A). A second peak of
PAR was also observed in April (Fig. 1A). Water temperature ranged between
20.0 and 31.7°C and almost closely for both the ponds. In SH-pond the highest
water temperature was recorded in June while for Museum pond it was observed
in July. The water temperature was low for both the studied ponds in January
(Fig. 1B). The SRP concentration of water of Museum and SH-pond showed more
or less seasonal fluctuations (Fig. 1C), but in comparison to the Museum pond
the range was significantly lower (one-way ANOVA, p < 0.05) in SH-pond than in
the Museum pond (Fig. 1C). Annual average SRP concentration of surface water
for Museum and SH-pond were 41.48 and 25.63 µg/l, respectively.
Phytoplankton biomass (as chl.-a) represented a unimodal growth both for
Museum (peak appeared in April, 58.01 µg/l) and SH-pond (peaking in July,
ranged: 3.53 - 23.72 µg/l) and it was significantly higher in Museum pond than
130 SULTANA AND KHONDKER

)1500 ) 4040 Museumpond

Museum pond
1 1500 C
- º( 35

Temperature (ºC)
s 35
e SH-pond
SH-pond
PAR (µEm2/S)
2
- r 30
30
m1000
1000 u
t 25
E a
r 25
µ
( 500 A e 20 B
500 p 20
R m15
A e 15
P 00 T 10
10

150
C
SRP (µg/l)

100

50

0
80
D
Chlorophyll a (µg/l)

60

40

20

25 E
20
Phaeopig. (µg/l)

15

10

5
0

1.8
1.6
F
1.4
PP (mg O2/l/h)

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Jan Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Months
Fig.1. Seasonal fluctuations of monthly average (A) PAR, (B) water temperature, (C) SRP, (D)
Chlorophyll-a (chl.-a), (E) Phaeopigment, and (F) Primary productivity of phytoplankton of the two
investigated ponds. Vertical bars indicate ± SD (n = 3).
ASSESSMENT OF PHYTOPLANKTON PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY 131

that of SH-pond (one-way ANOVA, p < 0.001) (Fig. 1D). In SH-pond, chl.-a
concentration started to decrease from August and it reached its lowest value in
September (3.53 µg/l), while Museum pond also showed its lowest chl.-a
concentration (13.66 µg/l) in the same month (Fig. 1D). In contrast,
phaeopigment expressed its highest and lowest concentration in April (23.10
µg/l) and July (4.13µg/l) for Museum pond and September (1.48 µg/l) and July
(6.66 µg/l) for SH-pond, respectively (Fig. 1E).
A time vs. rate curve of potential primary productivity of phytoplankton (PP)
for both of the ponds has been drawn in Fig. 1F. In Museum pond, the rate of PP
started declining from the month of June and continued until October.
Afterwards, there was a slight trend of increasing in the rate of PP. In contrast,
there was no significant drop or rise noticed in the rate of PP for SH-pond in
between June and November (Fig. 1F). Daily average PP from Museum and SH-
pond were obtained 0.681 and 0.263 mg O2 l/h. The highest rate of PP obtained
in April and February in Museum (1.56 mg 02 l/h) and SH-pond, respectively
(Fig. 1F).
Temperature and PAR both had a positive correlation with PP in both of the
ponds (Fig. 2A-B), however, it was only significant in case of the interaction
between PAR and PP of Museum pond (one-way ANOVA, p < 0.05) (Fig. 2B).
Moreover, the average concentration of chl.-a, SRP and phaeopigment had a
significant (one-way ANOVA, p<0.01 for chl.-a, p < 0.05 for SRP and p < 0.01 for
phaeopigment) and positive correlation with PP of Museum pond (Fig. 2C and
2E, data of phaeopigment not shown). In contrast, there was a positive
correlation for the above parameters with PP of SH-pond, but those were not
significant (one-way ANOVA, p > 0.05 for all of chl.-a, SRP and phaeopigment)
(Fig. 2D and 2F, data of phaeopigment not shown).
Importance of PAR as primary energy source for pond metabolism needs no
longer explanation. It is so vital that the whole pelagic food chain would stop
functioning without it. If the light intensity exceed more than 1400 µE/m/s, the
rate of photosynthesis decreases.(1) In the present investigation, the range of
PAR and temperatures were 600-1231 µE/m2/s and 24.9 - 34.1°C. Within that
range of PAR, when light intensity increases, the rate of PP also increases. This
fact has been established in the present study by a direct significant positive
correlation between PAR and PP (r = 0.40, p < 0.05) in Museum pond. Although
light often coincides with temperature, the positive relationship of temperature
and PP was not significant in the present investigation. Besides, PP was
positively and significantly related to chl.-a (r = 0.70, p < 0.01), SRP concen-
tration (r = 0.55, p < 0.05), and phaeopigment (r = 0.52, p < 0.01) in Museum
pond. In SH-pond, chl.-a concentration started to decrease from August and it
132 SULTANA AND KHONDKER

A B

C D

E F

Fig. 2. Relationship between primary productivity of phytoplankton (PP) and (A) temperature (B) PAR
(C) chlorophyll-a in Museum pond (D) chlorophyll-a in SH-pond (E) SRP in Museum pond, and (F)
SRP in SH-pond.
reached its lowest value in September, while Museum pond also showed its
lowest chl.-a concentration in the same month. This result supported by the
data obtained by Skidmore et al.(20) They reported a declination in
phytoplankton chl.-a concentration (6-18 µg/l) in August to October in the River
Trent and its tributaries in UK.
ASSESSMENT OF PHYTOPLANKTON PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY 133

In Museum pond, maximum PP (1.56 mg 02 l/h) occurred in April, while

temperature and PAR were 28°C and 1180 µE/m2/s, and when SRP and
photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), and primary productivity reached their
annual maxima. In contrast, SH-pond didn’t follow the same trend. Although
PAR and temperature values were the highest in August and SRP and chl.-a
reached in their maximum value in April and July, but PP attained in their
maximum value in the month of February. That is why non-significant positive
correlations observed among PAR, chl.-a and SRP with PP of SH-pond (Fig. 2 B,
D and F). That means, neither the PP of SH-pond PAR dependent, nor SRP and
chl.-a dependent, there might be some other factors which regulate the PP of
SH-pond. The present finding is in close agreement with the results that(1)
reported for the same pond. They suggested that nutrient limitation and
extensive grazing pressure was responsible for lower biomass of phytoplankton
which could not trigger PP significantly even though PAR was sufficient.
Khondker and Kabir(1) reported phytoplankton biomass (chl.-a) between 7.02
and 22.06 µg/l and peaking in March. However, in the present investigation a
peak of chl-a concentration was observed in July under an increase in SRP
concentration by 5.6 µg/l for the same pond.(1)
Furthermore, daily average PP from Museum and SH-pond were obtained
0.681 and 0.263 mg O2 l/h, respectively. Few data on PP of pond ecosystems of
Bangladesh are available.(21) For SH-pond, PP at 10 cm (0.48 mg O2 l/h) as
reported by Khondker and Kabir(1) is about 2 times higher than the value
obtained in the
Table 1. Annual average values (± SD) of primary production of phytoplankton (PP)
and relevant parameters of the investigated ponds.

Name of Temperature SRP Chl.-a Phaeopigment PP

the (ºC) (µg/l) (µg/l) (µg/l) (mg O2/l/h)
pond
Museum 27.29 ± 3.92 41.48 ± 28.29 26.09 ± 12.57 10.91 ± 5.12 0.681 ± 0.35
pond
SH-pond 27.17 ± 3.62 25.63 ± 16.89 9.60 ± 5.38 3.79 ± 1.63 0.263 ± 0.14

present investigation. Comparing to these, PP of Museum pond (0.681 mg

O2/l/h) is three times higher. Rab et al.(21) reported the PP of a pond situated at
Boyra, Mymensingh, ranged 7.80-9.44 g C m-3d-1. When our present data is
converted to the same unit of measurement, the rate of PP of presently
investigated ponds were two - four times lower than that of obtained by Rab
et al.(21)
134 SULTANA AND KHONDKER

Comparing present results with the mean values of chlorophyll-a, PP and

SRP data as described by Wetzel,(22) it can be said that both the studied ponds
are passing mesotrophic to eutrophic state (Table 1). In case of SH-pond the
state of transition of trophic state is purely natural as because of no significant
change in the chl.-a concentration as reported by Khondker and Kabir(1) and
present investigation period. However, Museum pond is nearly reaching
eutrophic state as indicated in the trophic state scaling proposed by Wetzel.(22)
But the rate and way of transition of the trophic state of Museum pond can only
be determined by carrying out further studies and continuing monitoring on
water quality.

References
1. Khondker, M and MA Kabir 1995. Phytoplankton primary production in a
mesotrophic pond in sub-tropical Bangladesh. Hydrobiologia 304: 39-47.
2. Odum EP 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. Saunders, New York, pp. 573.
3. Goldman C 1963. The measurement of primary productivity and limiting factors in
freshwater with carbon-14, p. 103-113. In: MS Doty (ed.), Proceedings of the
Conference on Primary Productivity Measurement, Marine and Freshwater,
Hawaii Univ. 1961. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission report, TID-7633.
4. Descy JP 1993. Ecolgoy of the phytoplankton of the river Moselle: effects of
disturbances on community structure and diversity. Hydrobiologia 249: 111-116.
5. Cloern JE 1987. Turbidity as a control on phytoplankton biomass and productivity.
In: Estuaries. Continental Shelf Research 7: 1367-1381.
6. Devassy VP and JI Goes 1989. Seasonal patterns of phytoplankton biomass and
productivity in a tropical estuarine complex. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. 99(5): 485-
501.
7. Cole JJ, NF Caraco and BJ Peierls 1992. Can phytoplankton maintain a positive
carbon balance in a turbid, freshwater, tidal estuary. Limnol. Oceanogr. 37:
1608-1617.
8. Boyer JN, RR Christian and DW Stanley 1993. Patterns of phytoplankton primary
productivity in the Neuse River estuary, North Carolina, USA, Marine Ecology
Progress Series 97: 287-297.
9. Kromkamp J, J Peene, P van Rijswijk, A Sandee and N Goosen 1995. Nutrients, light
and primary production by phytoplankton and microphytobenthos in the
eutrophic, turbid Westerschelde estuary (The Netherlands), Hydrobiologia 311: 9-
19.
10. Nayar S, G Gowda and TRC Gupta 1999. Size fraction primary productivity of a
tropical coastal lagoon on the southwest coast of India. Asian Fisheries Science
12(3): 217-222.
 ASSESSMENT OF PHYTOPLANKTON PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY 135

11. Desmit X, JP Vanderborght, P Regnier and R Wollast 2005. Control of phytoplankton

production by physical forcing in a strongly tidal, well-mixed estuary.
Biogeosciences 2: 205–218.
12. Khondker M, AKMN Islam and R Islam 1988. Studies on the primary productivity of
Dhanmondi lake. Dhaka Univ. Stud. Pt. E 3(1): 15-21.
13. Haldar GC and KK Ahmed 1991. Preliminary studies on primary production of the
Kaptai lake. Bangladesh J. Zool. 6: 9-14.
14. Ahmed KKU, GC Haldar, SB Saha and SK Paul 1994. Studies on primary production
in Kaptai reservoir. Bangladesh J. Zool. 22(1): 69-77.
15. Ahmed KKU, SU Ahmed, GC Haldar, MRA Hossain and T Ahmed 2005. Primary
Production and Fish Yield Estimation in the Meghna River System, Bangladesh.
Asian Fish. Sci. 18: 95-105.
16. Sultana M, M Khondker and A Aziz 1999. Plankton composition and its seasonal
dynamics in two urban ponds. Dhaka Univ. J. Biol. Sci. 8: 35-43.
17. Wetzel RG and GE Likens 1979. Limnological analysis. W.B. Saunders Co.,
Philadelphia, 357 pp.
18. Marker AFH, CA Crowther and RJM Gunn 1980. Methanol and acetone as solvents
for estimating chlorophyll a and phaeopigments by spectrophotometry. Arch.
Hydrobiol.- Adv. Limnol. 14: 52-69.
19. Murphy J and JP Riley 1962. A modified single solution method for the
determination of phosphate in natural water. Anal. Chim. Acta 27: 31-36.
20. Skidmore ER, SC Maberly and BA Whitton 1998. Patterns of spatial and temporal
variation in phytoplankton chlorophyll a in the River Trent and its tributaries.
Sci. Tot. Env. 210-211: 357-365.
21. Rab MA, MA Islam, M Eaqub and M Idris 1978. Studies on soil, primary productivity
and growth rate of major carps (Catla catla, Labeo rohita and Cirrhina mrigala) in
an artificial pond of village Boyra, Mymensingh. Bangladesh J. Aq. Cult. 1(1):
52-63.
22. Wetzel RG 1983. Limnology. Saunders College Publishing House, Philadelphia, p.767.

(Manuscript received on 22 September, 2008; revised on 29 November, 2009)

View publication stats