UTTAR PRADESH JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY

38(1): 26-34, 2018

ISSN: 0256-971X (P)

AN ASSESSMENT ON ZOOPLANKTON DIVERSITY

BETWEEN THREE FRESHWATER HABITATS OF BARAK
VALLEY, ASSAM

DAS UMA1*, DAS PAPIA1, KAR SULATA1, JAYAPALAN CHITRA2

AND KAR DEVASHISH1
1
Division of Wetlands, Fishery Science and Aquaculture, Department of Life Science and Bioinformatics,
Assam University, Silchar-788011, India.
2
Soil Zoology Section, Zoological Survey of India, M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata - 700 053, India.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. Author DU designed the study, performed all the
field study and wrote the protocol. Authors DP and KS performed the statistical analysis and finally. Authors JC
and KD managed all literature searches. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

ARTICLE INFORMATION
Editor(s):
(1) Carmen Georgeta Nicolae, University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, Romania.
(2) Marcelo Abidu Figueiredo, Federal Rural University of Rio Janeiro, Brazil.
Reviewers:
(1) Ahmed Karmaoui, Southern Center for Culture and Sciences, Morocco.
(2) Amany Saad Amer, Central Lab for Environmental Quality Monitoring (CLEQM), Egypt.
(3) Fábio Henrique Portella Corrêa de Oliveira, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco, Brazil.

Received: 16th April 2018

Accepted: 27th June 2018
Published: 7th July 2018 Original Research Article

ABSTRACT
A study was carried out to assess the diversity trend of zooplankton (ZP) in three freshwater habitats of Barak
valley, Assam. Weekly collection of plankton samples have been done for three months from July 2015 to
September 2015. Total 41 genera have been encountered during the study among which 32 genera found from
Chatla haor (Site A), 29 genera found from Kar bhala wetland (Site B) and 26 genera found from NIT pond
(Site C). The entire ZP community belongs to three major groups namely Cladocera, Copepoda and Rotifera.
Beside these three groups there is one more group namely Ostracoda which comprises a small functional group
in this particular region. In this present study the emphasis has given to the first three major groups.

Keywords: Zooplankton; freshwater; diversity; aquatic.

1. INTRODUCTION population dynamics of ZP is a major tool to

determine the life process in a freshwater ecosystem
According to Hutchinson [1] ZP in a freshwater moreover eutrophication process also influences the
ecosystem plays an important key role within the food composition and productivity rate of ZP [3].
chain as they act as primary and secondary linkage. Madhusudhana said ZP shows quick and sensitive
ZP are also able to indicate the availability of certain response due to environmental alteration, nutrient
fish species, hence they helps to determining the availability and several levels of pollution which
population densities [2]. Community structure and results changes in plankton community structure in
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Corresponding author: Email: u_das10@rediffmail.com;


terms of their tolerance, diversity, abundance in that
habitat [4]. Their abundance and diversity helps to
reveal the condition of aquatic environment [5]. They
also act as bio indicator and useful tool for assessing
health of water bodies [6].
Therefore, the aim of the study was to evaluate the
taxonomic composition, abundance and diversity of
ZP which helps to determine their diversity trend and
significant differences between the freshwater habitats
of Barak Valley, Assam.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Study Area
Chatla Haor is a seasonal floodplain wetland
(24º42’69.7’’ N, 92º46’26.4’’ E) situated about 20 km
south of Silchar town. Karbhala wetland (24ºN
latitude and 92º42’ E longitude) situated within
Rosekandy tea estate approximately 7 km away from
Assam University, Silchar and NIT pond
(24º45’36.0’’ N and 092º47’37.5’’ E) situated within
National Institute of Technology, Silchar campus.
2.2 Collection and Identification
ZP collection was done according to standard
literature of Battish [7], with the help of plankton net
(muslin cloth) of 125 µm mesh size fixed in a circular
frame of 30 cm diameter fitted with a 90 cm long
rope. Tow method was applied for the collection of
ZP species. After collection, the samples were taken
to the laboratory condition and again filtered with the
help of plankton net as mentioned earlier. Then the
plankton samples transferred into Tarson 100 ml
plankton tube and then preserved in 5% formalin. To
achieve the accuracy in the study weekly collection
was done about three months from July 2015 to
September 2015. Each and every collection again
contains 3 times sampling.
For quantitative analysis, collected ZP samples were
observed and counted using Sedgwick-Rafter
Counting Chamber under light microscope according
to required magnification (X10 initially, followed
X40). The identification was done following
standard keys and literature by Needham and
Needham [8], Pennak [9], Battish [7], Michael and
Sharma [10], Sharma [11], Sharma and Sharma [12].
Abundance of (ZP) diversity of the study areas were
analysed statistically using standard literature by Zar
[13].
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
During the entire study a good diversity trend have
been observed within the three fresh water habitats.
27
Uma et al.; UPJOZ, 38(1): 26-34, 2018
All the water bodies were blessed with total 41 ZP
genus which have been recorded during the
study. Among them 32 genera found from Chatla haor
(Site A), 29 genera found from Karbhala wetland
(Site B) and 26 ZP genera found from NIT pond
(Site C). List of all available ZP species and
their occurrence in different months are mentioned in
Table 1. In Site A highest relative abundance recorded
for Neodiaptomus sp. whereas lowest relative
abundance recorded for Polyarthra sp. (Fig. 1).
Again in Site B Mesocyclops sp. have been found to
be dominant species while Cypris sp. Found to be
least dominant (Fig. 2). In Site C again Mesocyclops
sp. found to be most abundant and Polyarthra sp.
and Euchlanis sp. found to be least abundant
(Fig. 3).
All the available ZP species belongs to four groups
namely Cladocera, Copepoda, Rotifera and
Ostracoda. Among the four ZP groups Cladocera,
Copepoda and Rotifera are the major groups in this
region as Cladocera contains total 15 genera,
Copepoda contains total 4 genera and Rotifera
contains total 21 genera. In Figs. no. 4, 5 and 6
relative abundance of these three major groups have
been represented with the value of regression
equation. In all three sites the value of regression
equation found to be significant which indicates how
closely the three major groups namely Cladocera,
Copepoda and Rotifera are related to each other. In
Site A Rotifera found to be dominant group whereas
Copepoda were found to be least dominant. In case of
Site B Cladocera found to be most dominant group
and in Site C Copepoda found to be most dominant
group while Rotifera found to be least dominant both
in Site B and Site C. Bray Curtis cluster analysis have
been done to determine the relationship between the
several species in each aquatic habitat. In Figs. no 7, 8
and 9 dendrogram are showing how closely the
species are related to each other.
In all the three study sites species richness found to be
high in Rotifera. Lowest species richness recorded
from copepod. This sequence (Rotifera>Cladocera>
Copepoda) reveals qualitative dominance of Rotifera
which concurs the statement of Sharma [14,15,16]
and Sharma and Sharma [17]. Rich and good diversity
of rotifer community indicates good heterogeneity and
good microhabitat of the freshwater bodies and
floodplain lakes which agree with the findings of Jose
de Paggi [18], Bonecker et al. [19] and Shiel et al.
[20] those who describes the composition of rotifer
community from floodplains of Argentina, South
America and Australia. The present study also
confirms the hypothesis of Segers et al. [21]
according to which tropical and subtropical
floodplains are the richest habitats for rotifers.
 Uma et al.; UPJOZ, 38(1): 26-34, 2018

Table 1. List of ZP species encountered in the three fresh water habitats during the study period

Zooplankton species Site A Site B Site C Site A Site B Site C Site A Site B Site C
July July July Aug Aug Aug Sep Sep Sep
Bosmina sp. BOS + - - + - + + - +
Bosminopsis sp. BOSP + + + + + - + + -
Diaphanosoma sp. DIA + + + + + + + + +
Pseudochydorus sp. PSEU - + - - + - - + -
Chydorus sp. CHY + + + + + + + + +
Alona sp. ALO + + + + + + + + +
Alonella sp. ALON - + - - + - - + -
Sida sp. SID + - - + - - + - -
Simocephalus sp. SIM + - - + - - + - -
Macrothrix sp. MAC + + + + + - + + +
Daphnia sp. DAP + + - + + - + + -
Scapholeberis sp. SCA + - + + - + + - -
Ceriodaphnia sp. CER + - - + - - + - -
Pleuroxus sp. PLE + + - + + - + + -
Moina sp MOI + + + + + + + + +
Mesocyclops sp. MES + + + + + + + + +
Thermocyclops sp. THE + + + + + + + + +
Neodiaptomus sp. NEO + + + + + + + + +
Heliodiaptomus sp. HEL + + + + + + + + +
Anuraeopsis sp. ANU + - - + - - + - -
Brachionus sp. BRA + + + + + + + + +
Asplanchna sp. ASP + + + + + + + + +
Ascomorpha sp. ASC + - + + - - + - -
Cephalodella sp. CEP + - - + - - + - -
Colurella sp. COL - + - - + - - + -
Euchlanis sp. EUC - + - - + + - + -
Filinia sp. FIL + + + + + + + + +
Keratella sp. KER + + + + + + + + +

28
 Uma et al.; UPJOZ, 38(1): 26-34, 2018

Zooplankton species Site A Site B Site C Site A Site B Site C Site A Site B Site C
July July July Aug Aug Aug Sep Sep Sep
Lepadella sp. LEP + + + + + + + + +
Lecane sp. LEC + + + + + + + + +
Mytilina sp. MYT - + - - + - - + -
Philodina sp. PHI - + - - + - - + -
Plationus sp. PLA + + - + + - + + -
Platyias sp. PLAY - - + - - + - - +
Polyarthra sp. POL - - + + - - - - +
Pompholyx sp. POM + + - + + - + + -
Scaridium sp. SCAR - - + - - + - - +
Testudinella sp. TES + + - + + - + + -
Trichocerca sp. TRI + + + + + + + + +
Trichotria sp. TRI - - + - - + - - +
Cypris sp. CYP + + + + + + + + +
Total 31 29 24 32 29 22 31 29 22
*Site A – Chatla haor, Site B – Karbhala wetland, Site C – NIT pond

40
Relative abundance

35
30
(mean±SE)

25
20
15
10
5
0
CHY
ALO

NEO
MES
SID

MOI

ANU
MAC

BRA

LEC
CER

FIL
BOS

DAP

TES
BOSP

ASP

CEP

LEP

CYP
TRI
DIA

SCA

PLE

THE

ASC

PLA
SIM

HEL

KER

POL
POM
Zooplankton species

Fig. 1. The relative abundance (mean ± SE) of the different plankton species observed in 12 samples for a period of three month of Site A

29
 Uma et al.; UPJOZ, 38(1): 26-34, 2018

60

Relative abundance
50

(mean±SE)
40
30
20
10
0

CHY
ALO

NEO
MES

CYP
PHI
MOI
MAC

LEC

POM
ALON

HEL
BRA

EUC
FIL
DAP
BOSP

ASP

LEP

MYT

TES
TRI
DIA
PSEU

PLE

THE

PLA
COL

KER
Zooplankton species

Fig. 2. The relative abundance (mean ± SE) of the different plankton species observed in 12 samples for a period of three month of Site B

60
reelative abundance

50
(mean±SE)

40
30
20
10
0
BOS

ASP

LEP

TRI
TRI
DIA

THE
MAC
SCA

ASC
EUC

LEC
HEL
BRA

FIL
KER

POL
SCAR
CHY

PLAY
ALO

NEO
BOSP

MES

CYP
MOI

Zooplankton species

Fig. 3. The relative abundance (mean ± SE) of the different plankton species observed in 12 samples for a period of three month of Site C

30
 Uma et al.; UPJOZ, 38(1): 26-34, 2018

Site A y = 114.5x2 - 441.5x + 714 Site B y = 74.5x2 - 466.5x + 1029

R² = 1 R² = 1
500 800
Abundance
400

Abundance
600
300
200 400
100 200
0 0
Cla Cop Rot Cla Cop Rot

Plankton groups
Plankton groups

Fig. 4. Relative abundance of ZP groups during the study of Site A Fig. 5. Relative abundance of ZP groups during the study of Site B

Site C y = -56x2 + 212x + 45

R² = 1
300
Abundance

200
100
0
Cla Cop Rot

Plankton groups

Fig. 6. Relative abundance of ZP groups during the Study of Site C

31
 Uma et al.; UPJOZ, 38(1): 26-34, 2018

Fig. 7. Dendrogram representing the clusters of the different ZP species of Chatla haor based on the
relative abundance in 12 samples collected for a period of three months

Fig. 8. Dendrogram representing the clusters of the different ZP species of Kar bhala wetland based on
the relative abundance in 12 samples collected for a period of three months

Fig. 9. Dendrogram representing the clusters of the different ZP species of NIT pond based on the relative
abundance in 12 samples collected over a period of three months

32

Cladocera shows great response against pollutants
and thus they act as important biological tool for
water pollution Jose and Kumar [22]. Second higher
species richness represented by the cladoceran
community which is about 15 genera which is also
better than the record of 14 species from 37 floodplain
lakes of Assam, Sarma [23]. The study was done
during the months of July to September when the
temperature ranges from 28ºC to 31ºC. Cladocera
maintains their species richness with latitude and also
found to be in good concentration both in the warm
temperate and subtropical zone of both hemispheres
(within 25ºC –50ºC) including the tropical hilly
regions [24].
Copepods belong from the order Cyclopoida
and they considered as important food items in
freshwater habitat, even their nauplii also treat
as food for feeding fry [25]. Besides the cyclopoides
Heliodiaptomus and Neodiaptomus also
encountered during the study. Heliodiapomus and
Neodiaptomus are the most common diaptomid
genera of plankton community found in tropical India
[26].
4. CONCLUSION
The present study has given a clear evidence
that zooplankton species recorded was comparatively
high. Three major groups of ZP community
Cladocera, Copepoda and Rotifera were documented
throughout the entire investigation. The entire
study expressed that qualitatively Rotifera were the
dominant ZP group in all three study sites
but in quantitative study Cladocera were most
dominant group and rotifer were least dominant.
The availability of zooplankton reveals a favorable
condition and nutrient availability for aquatic
organisms in the water bodies. The results of this
investigation describe the diversity trends of
zooplankton community which leads to future
research directions and advance trends of fishery
research fields.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author conveys her thankfulness to
Assam University for financial assistance to
pursue the research work and also convey the
sincere gratitude to the Department of Life
Science and Bioinformatics, Assam University,
Silchar.
COMPETING INTERESTS
Authors have declared that no competing interests
exist.
33
Uma et al.; UPJOZ, 38(1): 26-34, 2018
REFERENCES
1. Hutchinson GE. A treatise on Limnology II,
Introduction to lake biology and the
limnoplankton. 1967;11-15.
2. Shinde SE, Pathan TE, Sonawane DL.
Seasonal variations and biodiversity of
zooplankton in Harsool-Savangi dam,
Aurangabad, India. Journal of Environmental
Biology. 2012;33: 741-744.
3. Bhora Chandan, Kumar Arvind. Plankton
diversity in the wetland of Jharkhand. A. P. H.
Publishing Corp. New Delhi. 2004;91-123.
4. Madhusudhana RK, Krishna PV, Jyothirmayi
V, Hemanth KV. Biodiversity of zooplankton
communities in a perennial pond at lake
Kolleru region of Andhra Pradesh, India.
International Journal of Advanced Research.
2014;2(7):33-41.
5. Goswami AP, Mankodi PC. Study on
zooplankton of fresh water reservoir Nyari-II
Rajkot district, Gujarat, India. ISC Journal of
Biological Science. 2012;1(1):30-34.
6. Xiao B, Sun L, Feng D, Yu N, Chen L. Meta-
zooplankton community structure and its
relationship with environmental factors in
Wenruitating River. Journal of Hydroecology.
2012;33(4):14-20.
7. Battish SK. Freshwater zooplankton of India.
New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co.;
1992.
8. Needham JG, Needham PR. A guide to the
study of fresh water biology. San Francisco:
Holden- Day, Inc. 1962;108.
9. Pennak RW. Fresh water invertebrates of the
United States. John Wiley and Sons, New
York. 1978;515.
10. Michael RG, Sharma BK. Fauna of India,
Indian Cladocera. Department of Zoology,
North- Eastern Hill University. Pub: Zoological
Survey of India, Calcutta; 1988.
11. Sharma BK. Fresh water Rotifers (Rotifera:
Eurotatoria). Fauna of West Bengal. 1999;
(Part ll,i-iv):1-609.
12. Sharma BK, Sharma Sumita. Freshwater
rotifers (Rotifera: Eurotatoria). Fauna of
Tripura. 2002;(Part 4):163-224.
13. Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis. Dorling
Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd., licenses of
Pearson Education in South Asia; 2011.
14. Sharma BK. Rotifera. In : Animal resources of
India. Protozoa to Mammalia: State of the Art:
69-88. Zool. Surv. India, Calcutta; 1991a.
15. Sharma BK. Faunal diversity in India: Rotifera.
In: Faunal Diversity of India (Eds. Alfred JRB,
Das AK, Sanyal AK.) ENVIS Centre,
 Uma et al.; UPJOZ, 38(1): 26-34, 2018

Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta. 1998a; composition and diversity. Hydrobiologia.

57-70. 1993;250:63-71.
16. Sharma BK. Rotifer communities of floodplain 22. Jose Reeja, Kumar MGS. Seasonal abundance
lakes of the Brahmaputra basin of lower Assam of crustacean zooplanktons in achencovil river,
(N. E. India): Biodiversity, distribution and Kerala, India. International Journal of
ecology. Hydrobiologia. 2005;533:209-221. Scientific Research. 2013;2(1).
17. Sharma BK, Sharma Sumita. Biodiversity of 23. Sarma PK. Systellzatics, distribution and
freshwater rotifers (Rotifera: Eurotatoria) from ecology of zooplankton of sonze floodplain
North-Eastern India. Mitt. Mus. Nat. kd. Berl. wetlands of Assam, India. Ph. D thesis, Gauhati
Zool. Reihe. 2005a;81:81-88. University, Assam; 2000.
18. Jose de Paggi S. Composition and seasonality 24. Korovchinsky NM. The Cladocera (Crustacea:
of planktonic rotifers in limnetic and littoral Branchiopoda) as a relict group. Zoological
region of a floodplain lake (Parana River Journal of the Linnean Society. 2006;147:109–
System). Rev. Hydrobiol. trop. 1993;26:53-64. 124.
19. Bonecker CC, Lansac-Toha FA, Rossa DC. 25. Szlauer B, Szlauer L. The use of lake
Planktonic and non-planktonic rotifers in two zooplankton as feed for carp (Cyprinus carpio
environments of the upper Parana river L.) fry in pond culture. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat.
floodplain, state of Mato Grosso do Sui. Brazil. 1980;10(1):79-102.
Brazil. Arch. Bioi. & Techllology. 1998;41: 26. Ranga Reddy Y. Zooplankton diversity:
447-456. Freshwater planktonic Copepoda with key to
20. Shiel RJ, Green JD, Nielsen DL. Floodplain common calanoid and cyclopoid genera in
biodiversity: Why are there so many species? India. In: Water Quality Assessment,
Hydrobiologia. 1998;387/388:39-46. Biomonitoring & Zooplankton Diversity (Ed.
21. Segers H, Nwadiaro CS, Dumont H. Rotifera Sharma BK). Department of Zoology, North-
of some lakes in the floodplain of the river Eastern Hill University, Shillong. 2001;174-
Niger (Imo State, Nigeria). II. Faunal 183.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
© Copyright MB International Media and Publishing House. All rights reserved.

34