Submitted by

Submitted to
Class: xi Science Miss Sanatombi
 P eN

Abstract and Introduction

Methodology and Results and OiScussion 2

ZoopTankton variation tables

Conclusion and References

 CERYIFICATE

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

¥'•. Khumujam Arjun Meitei a <

FANCIER HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL THOUBAL. OKRAM
WANGMATABA

Miss Sanatombi
FANCIER HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
OEPARMENT OF BIOLOGY.
THOUBAL, OKRAM WANGMATABA
 ACRNOLEDGEMEMY

I would like to express my deep sense of appreciation and sincere thanks to

' S* *! ” Ot h '« Biology lecturers and nao - teaching staffs of the Fancier
Higher Secondary School, Thoubal for their valuable guidance and supervision on
this project work.

I also extend my thanks to Sir K. Saratchandra Singh, Principal and Sir Asem
Raju Singh, Vice Principal, Fancier Higher Secondary School, Thoubal for providing
their essent›aI assistance and co-operation.

Name: Khumujam Arjun Meitei

XI (5cieiice)

Council Roll No.: 14040

 B(OLOGY
PROJECT
REPORT ON

Department of Biology
FANCIER HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THOU8AL
In the partial fulfilment of the requirement for the Council Higher Secondary
School Certificate Examination 2023 24

Miss Sanatombi
Lecturer, Biology

Name': Khumvjam P•r}un Me\tei

Class: X!
Regd. No : 75B5
Council Roll No. 14040

DEPARYMENT OF BIOLOGY
FANCIER HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL
THOUBAL, OKRAM WANGMATABA
2023-24
.Țype com ÇQSÜlt WNÆ] Aithriipods

page 3
 r a rennial pond is rain fed ąç well
ąy t;șe d to be utilized fo' i 8čttion, Tą¡
•vniCh for
is used capture fł Sher S
t water re sour Cț iç
Ì'€' S ã
a ea oł i,g is. km
temples were collected from different P5. The surface waier
2019 aßd suth samples were
‹oilected at trice in month
water thŁoUgh plankton Tn9 Säm oles
ring u h 80d CCl n
concentrated zooplankton sample wksp tențrated up to too
r se s ' d i. The
ș
samples w ere analyzed quøiîtøt; y ńe help of ą'¥, r rrriaiin. The
idefltifiC¥tiof\ of zoo planktons was
e
under the m C^O Scqoe 'C I di f fqFent tYpes of zooptanktons. T Î\
qua carried out U
**"'8 ’SYS 8^d published literature. The t

f' ïtItatlve
estimatio wă s dank hy øt\øg ş;d
three different groupnviz . P‹otozoa W:c‹8rates eel! 9^PI8n kton was represented by
, o‹ii« ¿l BÜd
F Uùropod0. *ercentage compositions of
thete
planktonic forms were indiCative of its r ichncss and øo \s ib e concr
ibution in organic prøçfcłc¢jyÌțy øç
well as trophic Status maintenance. it ïs ^st›a/tY observed t I the greater population of the rotifers.
ea

The ranBe of zoop\ankton between 174 to 769 n/l, and average was 378.42 n/f, the m›nimum
zooplankton was in March and maximum were in one month of October, ftabfe-J). The 2Ctøp\ankton
forms were represented ‹n the phylum !›ke Prptozoa, Rotiíera anõ Arthropoda. wherein Arthropoda
was dominating two different suõ C ÍaSSes of Arthropoda, i.e. Copepods (73.43%) 4nd Cladacera
[26.56%) were abundantly present ïn I* t w¿i!er of fhîs pond Table 2. Correlation of physics-chemical
positive relationship. All the tyees of
properties with zoop ła nkton aguidance indicates
‹ ç gtøt marginal decì›ned trend from June to May with no significant
ț0Dplanktonic forms
va ;øtmøøt No›veve , during month of September, October and November
i

relationship with nkto

Onthiy
n den5İt was /›igh țhäł Coincides with the simiIar condition for nutrients as
pla
gy i‘ - hem r Cä I property of Wäter. The annual percentage composition of various
0
well as some p s C
revealed 7.gon protozoa, 3$.32% Rotifer, 5.41% Arthropoda
rep percentage of zooplankton from p0nd revealed different
and M IO Wdt@F 9 Uałitÿ. Protozoan and Rotìfers were less numerical\y
FibfJ ted
mote. Arthropods were represented by vaciery of
however, hs of several insects.
Eo e oÜ5 8**
t £'aSonaI Variation.During post monsoon such stages were abundant.The
We øøplankton certainly get lnñuencsd by che phÿțło<hemicaI properties of

page *.
 1 he above Sindüwahİ bond
is e d 5 9ll às receives flood water from Sìndewahi an
1dentified to he w‹iized for irrigation. The zooplankton
Relatio ••th wg{@y
n quality parameter s. The range c'f
k1arCh add maximum were in the mont ãV ge was 37B.42 all, the min w«w •••rlankton was in
mP
y\tylum like Pro totoa, R ot îfera and Arthro
poda. The Agthopods were dominated as a different sub
,usscs l.e. CoPepods (zs. 43a ) and 8!8docera
tz6.56%t. @tgring month of September, October and
November compare! Ş plankton dens
YV was high that 474 I National Conference on “Recenc
ïrends In Mathematicai, PhVS tCBl.
Chemica ubrary, tiłe Sciences. - 2020 ISSN 23Z/-Ø21S
i.
i1‹tr: //w ww.irJse. in C oincides with the sîmiiar a d dition for
nutrients as well as some phySłCO-
t ub pert Y ’ater. The ann Uä percentag
e composicion of various representati• @ @P@Mp'î'
of zooplankton revealed 7.90% Protozoa. z5.32x Potter, 5.41% Arthropoda and Miscellaneous 2.64%
ZooP fankton Is one of the necessities to eva(uate fresh water reservoir in respect to their ecological
nd fisheries status. ConfI\CtS of interest: The authoFS SŁdted that no conflicts of Interest.

j.Adoni AD, JoShi DG, Cho urasia sx, vaishya AK, Yadav M and Verma HG. A wo k book
imnol blushed by D

toop!ankton population ìn Sagar lake Bhandara, Maharashtra, J. Curr. Sci., 17, 54Y—550 (2008).
Edmandson WY. ter 8 ìa ìogy 3nö Eó John Wiley and So New Y› k ț1963)

J2, 16-22 Î .996)

5. Patil Shilpa G, Chonde Sonal G, Jadhav Aasawąri 5 and Raut Prakash 0, Impact of PhysicoChemiœî
Characteristics of Shivaji University lakes on Phytopiankton Communities, Kolhapur, India, Res. J.
Recent Sci.,1(2), 56-60 (2012)
6, PôŁłkh Ankita N and Mankodi PC. Limnology Of Sama Pond, Vadodara Any, Gujaraț, Res. J. Recent
1(1), 16-21 (2O12ț
7. Shah Madhuri R. Parikh Ankita N and Mankodi PC. Study of seasonal variation in plankton
yødodara, ìndia Environ and Ecoplan