Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

A Comparative Study on the Occurrence, Density and Seasonal Variations of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton in a Perennial Pond Ecosystem of Tripura, India

Chakrabarti Saumen

Department of Zoology, Women’s College, Agartala, Tripura, India

Abstract: The present study makes a comparative record on the density and seasonal variations of phytoplankton and zooplankton in a perennial pond ecosystem of Tripura during a period from March 2019 to February 2021. The present observation recorded the presence of 19 species of phytoplankton out of which 13 species under the class Chlorophyceae, 4 species under the class Cyanophyceae, 2 species under the class Bacillariophyceae and 1 species under the class Euglenophyceae and 17 species of zooplankton out of which 11 species of rotifer, 3 species of cladocera, 2 species of copepod and 1 species of ostracod in the studied pond. The percentage composition of different families under which different phytoplankton species exist was noted as well as percentage composition of each phytoplankton species was also noted. The percentage composition of different families under which different zooplankton species exist was also noted as well as percentage composition of each zooplankton species was also noted. Amongst the recorded different phytoplankton species, Merismopedia sp. was found to be dominant while Brachionus angularis was the dominant species in zooplankton. Seasonal variations of different groups of phytoplankton followed a definite rhythm of seasonal succession showing highest density in summer and lowest density in monsoon. As regards to seasonal variations of zooplankton, rotifer fauna showed highest density in winter and lowest density in summer while, cladoceran zooplankton showed its highest density in the summer and lowest density in monsoon. Similar trend of seasonal successions were also noticed in copepod and ostracod zooplankton as observed in cladoceran zooplankton during two years study period. Notable physico-chemical factors of the studied pond were also noted. The study infers that phytoplankton and zooplankton although have different environmental requirements, many of them co-exist in the same water body, their abundance may vary with seasons due to dynamic nature of the aquatic ecosystem and might be also due to optimal condition in the physico-chemical parameters of the lentic ecosystem. The present observation also presumed that the densities of phytoplankton and zooplankton are not controlled by a single factor but multiple factors conjointly governs over the seasonal abundance of phytoplankton and zooplankton in different degrees in the studied pond ecosystem.

Keywords: phytoplankton density, zooplankton density, percentage composition, seasonal variations, physico-chemical factors, pond ecosystem, Tripura

Received July 12, 2021; Revised August 17, 2021; Accepted August 25, 2021

Citation: Chakrabarti Saumen, A Comparative Study on the Occurrence, Density and Seasonal Variations of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton in a Perennial Pond Ecosystem of Tripura, India. Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 9 (8). 761-768. January 2021. doi:10.12691/aees-9-8-7

1. Introduction

Productivity of an aquatic ecosystem depends upon the seasonal dynamics of plankton, which is a heterogeneous group of microscopic plants and animals that exhibit diverse nature of occurrence over freshwater aquatic ecosystems [1,2]. In aquatic ecosystem, plankton community is considered as an ecological health indicator as the quality of water can easily change the occurrence, density as well as diversity of this community [3]. Natural resource management and successful aquaculture operation warrant a thorough knowledge on the occurrence as well as abundance and composition of plankton in any water body [4]. Due to their small size and short generation time, plankton is considered as an ideal group organisms for theoretical and experimental population ecology [5]. An in-depth knowledge of physico-chemical conditions and plankton of any water body is not only useful for assessing the productivity of the aquatic systems but it also focus a better understanding of the population fish in the water bodies [6]. The occurrence as well as abundance of plankton under natural conditions is very much related to the tolerance range (ecological optimum), dependent on physico-chemical factors (water temperature, oxygen content and pH) as well as on the biotic interactions among organisms [7,8,9,10] In aquatic ecosystem, the plankton community comprises of phytoplankton, the primary producers and zooplankton, the primary consumers. Phytoplankton are highly diverse group of photoautotrophic organisms with chlorophyll-a and unicellular reproductive structures which are important for aquatic habitats [11]. In aquatic ecosystem, the primary production is mainly depends upon phytoplankton density and composition which is used as food for zooplankton as well as planktivore fishes in food web [12]. As the phytoplankton plays an important role in oxygen amelioration, binding and removal of certain toxic substances from the water body, so the study of phytoplankton is of immense limnological importance [13,14]. Phytoplanktons which inhabit the euphotic zone are the main causes of high turbidity in water if density increases [15]. In aquatic ecosystem, the variation in turbidity levels and nutrient availability is used for explaining the seasonal succession in phytoplankton life forms [16]. As for better growth, reproduction, and survival, the phytoplankton are primarily dependent on some physicochemical parameters, especially on nitrates and phosphates, so also all aquatic consumer life viz., zooplankton, aquatic invertebrates, fish larvae etc., are dependent on them at least at an early stage of their life cycle for nutritional security [17,18]. Certain unfavourable alteration in the water quality parameters could adversely affect phytoplankton yield, i.e. primary productivity which in turn brings about attendant problems (such as depletion of dissolved oxygen concentrations at night or super saturation of dissolved oxygen in the day, shortage of food, competition for available food, stress and death) to all aquatic consumer life [19,20]. Zooplankton forms an indispensable link between the primary producers and consumers of aquatic ecosystem [21]. In ecological point of view, zooplankton is one of the most important biotic components influencing all the functional aspects of an aquatic ecosystem such as food chains, food webs, energy flow and cycling of matter [22]. Zooplankton are important fauna of freshwater lentic ecosystems as they occupy the centre of the aquatic food web and is considered as an important live food for almost all freshwater fish species at some stage in their life history [23]. Zooplankton has been used as an indicator for monitoring the water quality, trophic status and pollution level [24]. Environmental factors such as total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), water temperature (WT), water transparency and the biomass of microalgae all play important roles for the succession of zooplankton communities [25]. Ponds are rich components of biodiversity like flora, fauna of natural, local and regional significance [26]. Ponds habitats are also very vulnerable especially to pollution stresses because their small size gives them limited buffering capacity compared to lakes and rivers [27]. In Tripura, no in-depth studies were made on phytoplankton and zooplankton assemblages in pond ecosystem till date. In the present study, a comparative account was undertaken to observe the density, percentage composition as well as seasonal variations of phytoplankton and zooplankton in a perennial pond ecosystem of Tripura, India.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The present observation was carried out in a freshwater pond located at Shibnagar, Agartala, Sadar Subdivision, West District of Tripura, India during March 2019 to February 2021. It lies geographically at the Latitude 23° 50' 9.78" N and Longitude 91° 16' 45.80" E. The studied pond is perennial and almost square shaped. The surface area of the water body is of about 1.2 ha. The mean depth of the water column in the studied pond fluctuates from 0.8 m during summer season to 2.0 m in the monsoon season. The littoral zone of the pond harbours Eichhornia crassipes and Lemna minor. This pond is selected with the objectivity that this pond is used for scientific rearing of Indian Major Carps.

2.2. Collection and Enumeration of Biotic Samples

The biotic samples (phytoplankton and zooplankton) have been collected from the littoral zones of the studied pond through plankton net trawling at weekly intervals and fixed immediately with 4% formalin and enumeration has been done quantitatively in the laboratory through Sedgwick Rafter Plankton Counting Cell and results were expressed as ind/l.

2.3. Identification of Biotic Samples

Phytoplankton species was identified following keys of [28].

Zooplankton species were identified following works of [29,30,31].

2.4. Physico-chemical Analysis of Water Sample

Physico-chemical parameters of water have been analysed following the standard methods of [32].

3. Results and Discussion

The lists of phytoplankton and zooplankton species recorded in the studied pond are shown in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. The percentage composition of different families under which different phytoplankton species belongs and the percentage composition of each phytoplankton species of the total phytoplankton population in the studied pond recorded are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. The percentage composition of different families under which different zooplankton species belongs and the percentage composition of each zooplankton species of the total zooplankton population in the studied pond recorded are presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively. Seasonal variations in the mean density(ind/l) of plankton (phytoplankton and zooplankton) in the studied pond during a period from March 2019 to February 2021 is presented in Figure 5. Physico-chemical parameters of the studied pond are presented in Table 3.

Table 1. List of Phytoplankton species in the studied pond

Table 2. List of Zooplankton species in the studied pond

Figure 1. Percentage composition of different families of phytoplankton in the studied pond

Figure 2. Percentage composition of each phytoplankton species of the total phytoplankton population in the studied pond

Figure 3. Percentage composition of different families of zooplankton in the studied pond

Figure 4. Percentage composition of each zooplankton species of the total zooplankton population in the studied pond

Amongst 19 species of phytoplankton, 13 species under the class Chlorophyceae belonging to 14 genera and 10 families; 4 species under the class Cyanophyceae belonging to 3 genera and 3 families; 2 species under the class Bacillariophyceae belonging to 2 genera and 2 families and 1 species under the class Euglenophyceae belonging only 1 genera and 1 family. Quantitative analysis during the study period revealed that amongst the Chlorophyceae, Scenedesmaceae is the dominant family with 3 species (Scenedesmus quadricauda, Tetrastrum sp. and Coelastrum microporum) followed by Selenastraceae with 2 species (Monoraphidium arcuatum and Ankistrodesmus spiralis), Zygnemataceae with 2 species (Spirogyra parvula and Zygonema sp), Desmidiaceae with 1 species (Cosmarium nitidulum), Hydrodictyaceae with 1 species (Pediastrum tetras), Chlamydomonadaceae with 1 species (Chlamydomonas polypyrenoideum), Chlorellaceae with 1 species(Chlorella vulgaris), Volvocaceae with 1 species (Volvox sp.) and Ulotrichaceae with only 1 species (Ulothrix zonata). Amongst Cyanophyceae, Merismopedia sp. belongs to family Merismopediaceae, Anabaena sp. belongs to family Nostocaceae and Chroococcus sp. belongs to family Chroococcaceae. Amongst Bacillariophyceae , Cymbella sp. belongs to family Cymbellaceae while Pinnularia sp. belongs to family Pinnulariaceae. Euglena acus was the only species belongs under the class Euglenophyceae was observed in the studied pond.

The percentage composition of different families under which different phytoplankton species exist was also noted (Figure 1). Amongst Chlorophyceae phytoplankton, the percentage composition of family Scenedesmaceae, Selenastraceae, Zygnemataceae, Desmidiaceae, Hydrodictyaceae, Chlamydomonadaceae, Chlorellaceae, Volvocaceae and Ulotrichaceae were 21%, 13%, 7%, 3%, 5%, 2%, 11%, 2% and 3% respectively. Amongst Cyanophyceae phytoplankton, the percentage composition of family Merismopediaceae, Nostocaceae and Chroococcaceae. were 13%, 5% and 1% respectively. In the Bacillariophyceae phytoplankton, the percentage composition of family Cymbellaceae and Pinnulariaceae were 8%. and 3%. while in the Euglenophyceae phytoplankton, the percentage composition of the family Euglenaceae was 3%.

The percentage composition of each phytoplankton species in the studied pond was also noted (Figure 2). Amongst Chlorophyceae, the percentage composition of the Scenedesmus quadricauda, Tetrastrum sp. and Coelastrum microporum under the family Scenedesmaceae were 11%, 6% and 4% respectively. The percentage composition of the Monoraphidium arcuatum and Ankistrodesmus spiralis under the family Selenastraceae were 8% and 5%. The percentage composition of the Spirogyra parvula and Zygonema sp. under the family Zygnemataceae were 2% and 5%. Cosmarium nitidulum under the family Desmidiaceae was 3%, Pediastrum tetras under the family Hydrodictyaceae was 5%, Chlamydomonas polypyrenoideum under the family Chlamydomonadaceae was 2%, Chlorella vulgaris under the family Chlorellaceae was 11%, Volvox sp. under the family Volvocaceae was 2% and Ulothrix zonata under the family Ulotrichaceae was 3%. Amongst Cyanophyceae, the percentage composition of Merismopedia sp. belongs to family Merismopediaceae was 13%, Anabaena sp. belongs under family Nostocaceae was 5% and Chroococcus sp. belongs under family Chroococcaceae was 1%. Amongst Bacillariophyceae the percentage composition of Cymbella sp. belongs under the family Cymbellaceae was 8% while Pinnularia sp. belongs under the family Pinnulariaceae was 3%. In the Euglenophyceae, the percentage composition of Euglena acus under the family Euglenaceae was 3%.

Amongst 17 species of zooplankton, 11 species of rotifera belonging to 7 genera and 5 families; 3 species of cladocera belonging to 3 genera and 2 families; 2 species of copepod zooplankton belonging to 2 genera and 1 family and 1 species of ostracod zooplankton belonging only 1 genera and 1 family. Quantitative analysis during the study period revealed that in the rotifer zooplankton, Brachionidae is the dominant family with 6 species (Brachionus angularis, Brachionus quadridentatus, Brachionus forficula, Brachionus urceolaris, Brachionus caudatus and Keratella tropica) followed by Lecanidae with 2 species (Lecane luna, Monostyla bulla), Trichocercidae with 1 species (Trichocerca cylindrica), Colurellidae with 1 species (Lapadella ovalis) and Euchlanidae with 1 species (Euchlanis dilatata). In the clodoceran zooplankton, Daphniidae is the dominant family with 2 species (Ceriodaphnia cornuta and Simocephalus vetulus) followed by family Chydoridae with only 1 species (Chydorus sphaericus). Copepod zooplankton belongs under only 1 family viz., Cyclopidae having 2 species (Mesocyclops leuckarti and Microcyclops varicans). Ostracod zooplankton belongs under 1 family viz., Cyprididae having only 1 species (Stenocypris sp.).

The percentage composition of different families under which different zooplankton species exist was also noted (Figure 3). Amongst rotifer zooplankton, the percentage composition of family Brachionidae, Lecanidae, Trichocercidae, Colurellidae and Euchlanidae were 39%, 13%, 9%, 7% and 5% respectively. Amongst Cladoceran zooplankton, the percentage composition of family Daphniidae and Chydoridae were 13% and 4% respectively. In the Copepod zooplankton, the percentage composition of family Cyclopidae was 8%. In the ostracod zooplankton, the percentage composition of family Cyprididae was 2%.

The percentage composition of each zooplankton species in the studied pond was also noted (Figure 4). Amongst rotifer zooplankton, the percentage composition of the Brachionus angularis, Brachionus quadridentatus, Brachionus forficula, Brachionus urceolaris, Brachionus caudatus and Keratella tropica under the family Brachionidae were 13%, 5%, 7%, 2%, 3% and 9%. The percentage composition of the Lecane luna and Monostyla bulla under the family Lecanidae were 5% and 8%. The percentage composition of the Trichocerca cylindrica under the family was Trichocercidae was 9%, Lapadella ovalis under the family Colurellidae was 7% and Euchlanis dilatata under the family Euchlanidae was 5%. Amongst cladoceran zooplankton, the percentage composition of Ceriodaphnia cornuta and Simocephalus vetulus under the family Daphniidae were 9% and 4% respectively and the percentage composition of Chydorus sphaericus under the family Chydoridae was 4%. Amongst copepod zooplankton, the percentage composition of Mesocyclops leuckarti and Microcyclops varicans under the family Cyclopidae were 6% and 2%. In the ostracod zooplankton, the percentage composition of Stenocypris sp. was 2%.

Amongst the density of the phytoplanktonic groups, the density of the Chlorophyceae was highest in summer (1351 ind/l) and lowest in monsoon season (529 ind/l) during a period from March 2019 to February 2021 (Figure 5). The density of the Cyanophyceae was found to highest in summer season (913 ind/l) and lowest in monsoon season (287 ind/l) during two years study periods. The density of the Bacillariophyceae was highest in summer (417 ind/l) and lowest in monsoon season (113 ind/l). Euglenophyceae was the least dominant group of phytoplankton and its highest density observed during summer season (69 ind/l) and lowest density (13 ind/l) observed during monsoon during the observation period from March 2019 to February 2021 (Figure 5).

As regards to seasonal variations of zooplankton, the seasonal variations in the density (mean density) of rotifers in the studied pond exhibited a definite rhythm of seasonal succession showing highest density (523 ind/l) in the winter and lowest density (97 ind/l) in the summer during a period from March 2019 to February 2021(Figure 5). On the contrary, the density of cladoceran zooplankton showed its highest density (353ind/l) in the summer while the lowest density (57ind/l) in monsoon and copepod zooplankton also showed highest density (139 ind/l) in summer and lowest density (23 ind/l) in monsoon during two years study periods. Ostracod population showed its highest density (73 ind/l) in summer and lowest density (17ind/l) in monsoon during the observation periods from March 2019 to February 2021 (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Seasonal variations in the mean density (ind/l) of phytoplankton and zooplankton in the studied pond during a period from March 2019 to February 2021

During summer seasons, due to evaporation when the water level of the water body decreases, the phytoplankton gets aggregated also and as a result the density of the phytoplankton also becomes increases [33,34]. Several noteworthy researchers [35,36,37] observed highest density of phytoplankton in summer and emphasized the role of temperature and light for highest density of phytoplankton during summer season. Researchers [1,15,38] opined that during summer season, high pH may be one of the important determining factors responsible for maximum density of phytoplankton in summer. Researchers [8,39,40] reported that during monsoon season, high rainfall causes flooding of water bodies which in turn causes drifting of phytoplankton along with the water and as a result lowest density of phytoplankton was observed in the monsoon season. [41] opined that during monsoon, turbidity of the water becomes high and this high turbidity level have an adverse effect on the abundance of phytoplankton by absorbing solar energy in the surface water thereby impairing the photosynthesis process which in turn causes a sharp fall in the phytoplankton density during monsoon.[42] reported that during monsoon season, the high concentration of carbon dioxide have an adverse influence on the density of phytoplankton which in turn resulted in the decrease of phytoplankton population in the monsoon.

[43] opined that during the winter season, availability of food and optimal conditions of some physico-chemical parameters such as temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen were noticed which might be the reasons for the highest density of rotifers in the winter season. During summer, lower dissolved organic matter content as well as minimum availability of live food biota were observed which might be the reasons for lowest density of rotifers in the summer [44]. In the summer season favourable range of temperature and availability of food in the form of bacteria, nanoplankton and suspended detritus might be the reasons for maximum density of cladocera in the summer [10,21,45]. In monsoon, some physico-chemical factors such as water temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity are responsible for the lowest density of cladocera zooplankton [22,46,47]. [48] opined that the maximum density of copepod zooplankton may be attributed to the availability of food, competition with other species and the effect of over fishing during summer. During monsoon season, due to dilution effect, the concentration of some physico-chemical factors such as water temperature, pH, salinity, TDS are not in favour for the growth of copepods which in turn result in the lowest density of copepods during monsoon season [49,50]. In the present observation, the highest ostracod population density was recorded in the summer season while lowest density in monsoon and this observation was similar with the observation of [51].

Table 3. Physico-chemical parameters of the studied pond

All four groups of phytoplankton recorded in the studied pond showed their peak abundance during summer period. Researchers [52,53,54] opined that long duration of photoperiod coupled with high temperature favoured the growth of phytoplankton during summer season. In the present observation, the highest density of phytoplankton was recorded in the temperature range of 25-28°C. Researchers [15,55] reported that high pH values promote the algal growth. In the present observation, the highest density of phytoplankton was recorded in the pH value of 7.4-7.6. [56] observed negative correlation between phytoplankton abundance and pH and reported that acidic water resulted in low phytoplankton density. [4] reported that temperature, salinity, turbidity and nutrient concentration play vital role in influencing the growth of phytoplankton.

In the present observation, the highest density of zooplankton was observed in the temperature range of 22-26°C. [57] and [58] observed that the temperature ranging between 24-29°C was conductive for the abundant occurrence of zooplankton. pH of the studied pond ranges from 6.2-8.6. [59,60,61] reported that alkaline nature of pH is considered favourable for zooplankton abundance. Dissolved oxygen is directly related with the zooplankton abundance. [62] opined that the highest peak of dissolved oxygen found in winter fall coincided with the peak of zooplankton abundance. The present observation also shows high dissolved oxygen concentration ranges from 5.8-8.0 ppm (Table 3).

4. Conclusion

The present study infers that different phytoplankton and zooplankton species thrive successfully and co-exist in the studied pond ecosystem, although they have different environmental requirements and their densities may vary with different seasons of the year due to dynamic nature of the aquatic ecosystem and might be also due to optimal condition in the physico-chemical parameters of the studied lentic ecosystem. The ecological niches in an aquatic ecosystem are very plastic and are likely to be fluctuate widely which in-turn influence in the composition and abundance of phytoplankton and zooplankton. A particular population of phytoplankton and zooplankton is able to exploit its ecological niches to its maximum and the peaks of phytoplankton and zooplankton are, therefore duo to differential ecological niches of studied lentic ecosystem. So, in the light of present study, it can be concluded that not a single factor but multiple factors governs over the densities of phytoplankton and zooplankton in the studied pond ecosystem.

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully expresses his gratitude and acknowledges Prof. (Dr.) S. Banik, Professor, Department of Zoology, Tripura University (A Central University) for his valuable suggestions in the field of aquatic ecology. The author also expresses his deepest sense of gratitude and obligation to the Principal, Women’s College, Agartala, Tripura for providing laboratory facility.

References

[1]   | Venkteshwaralu, V, An ecological study of Algae of the river Moosi, Hyderabad, India with special reference to water pollution III. Algal periodicity, Hydrobiologia., (34). 533-560. 1969.
[2]   | Moss, B, Ecology of Freshwaters. Blackwell Scientific Publications, New York, pp. 332. 1980.
[3]   | Singh, U.B., Ahluwalia, A.S., Sharma, C., Jindal, R. and Thakur, R.K., Planktonic indicators: A promising tool for monitoring water quality (early-warning signals), Ecology, Environment and Conservation, 19(3). 793-800. 2013.
[4]   | Tilman, D, Resource competition and community structure, Princeton University, Princeton, 1982.
[5]   | Rothhaupt, K. O, Plankton population dynamics: Food web interactions and abiotic constraints, Freshwater Biology 45. 105-109. 2000.
[6]   | Narasimha, R.K. and Benarjee, G, Physico- chemical factors influenced plankton biodiversity and fish abundance – A case study of Nagaram Tank of Warangal, Andhrapradesh, International Journal of Life sciences Biotechnology and Pharma Research, 2(2). 248-260. 2013.
[7]   | Palmer, C.M, Composite rating of algae tolerating organic pollution, British Phycology Bulletin, 5. 78-92. 1969.
[8]   | Mustafa, S. and Zubair, A, Environmental factors and planktonic communities of Baigul and Nanaksagar reservoirs, Nainital, J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Society, 82. 13-21. 1997.
[9]   | Pramanik, S., M.A. Gani, M.M. Alfasane and M. Khondker, Seasonality of phytoplankton and their relationship with some environmental factors in an urban pond of old Dhaka, .Bangladesh J. Bot. 45(1). 195-201. 2016.
[10]   | Chakrabarti, Saumen, Comparative explanatory note on the occurrence, density, percentage composition and seasonal variations of rotifer and cladoceran fauna in a pond ecosystem of Tripura, India, International Journal of Recent Scientific Research 10 (10). 35559-35563. 2019.
[11]   | Yerli, S.V., Kivrak, E., Gürbüz, H., Manav, E., Mangit, F. and Türkecan, O, Phytoplankton community, nutrients and chlorophyll a in Lake Mogan (Turkey), with comparison between current and old data, Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 12. 95-104. 2012.
[12]   | Sarvala, J., Helminen, H., Saarikari, V.; Salonen, S. and Vuorio, K., Relations between planktivorous fish abundance, zooplankton and phytoplankton in three lakes of differing productivity, Hydrobiologia, 3&3. 81-95. 1998.
[13]   | Sen, B., Alp, M.T., Sonmez, F., Kocer, M.A.T. and Canpolat, O, Relationship of Algae to Water Pollution and Waste Water Treatment. In: Elshor-bagy, W. and R.K. Chowdhury (Eds.), Water Treatment, Intech Open Limited, London. 2013.
[14]   | Gupta, C., Prakash, D. and Gupta, S, Role of Blue Green Algae in Environment Management. In: Ram Prasad (Eds.), Environmental Microbiology, I.K. International Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., India, 2015.
[15]   | Verma, J. and Mohanthy, R. C, Phytoplankton and its correlation with certain physico-chemical parameters of Dammukundpur pond, Poll. Res., 14. 233-242. 1995.
[16]   | Margalef, R, Life forms of phytoplankton as survival alternatives in an unstable environment, Oceanologia Acta, 1. 493-509, 1978.
[17]   | Smith, V.H, Low nitrogen to phosphorus ratios favor dominance by blue-green algae in lake phytoplankton, Science, 221. 669-672. 1983.
[18]   | Watson, S., McCauley, E. and Downing, J.A, Sigmoid relationships between phosphorus, algal biomass and algal community structure, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 49. 2605-2610. 1992.
[19]   | Grover, J.P, Resource competition in a variable environment: Phytoplankton growing according to Monod’s model, Am. Nat., 136. 771-789. 1990.
[20]   | Sarnelle, O, Nutrient enrichment and grazer effects on phytoplankton in lakes, Ecology, 73. 551-560. 1992.
[21]   | Mili, K., Rout, S.K., Jana, D., Annupama, R.R. and Chakraborty, S, Study of zooplankton population in three ponds of Eastern Kolkata,West Bengal, India, Journal of Experimental Zoology, 20(1). 255-259. 2017.
[22]   | Manoharan, D., Isaiarasu, L., Suresh Kumar, R. and Mariaappan, V, Observations on the occurrence and diversity of zooplankton in the surface water of three tropical ponds at Thiruparankundram near Madurai, Tamilnadu, India, International Journal of Fauna and Biological Studies, 2(4). 114-119. 2015.
[23]   | Lampert, W, Zooplankton research: the contribution of limnology to general ecological paradigms. Aquatic Ecology, 31. 19-27. 1997.
[24]   | Soto, D. and Rios P.D.L, Influence of trophic status and conductivity on zooplankton composition in lakes and ponds of Torres del Paine National Park (Chile), Biologia, 61(5). 541-546. 2006.
[25]   | Hu, M.H., Yang, L.L. and Liu, Q.G, Do physicochemical variables regulate the distribution of zooplankton communities in reservoirs dominated by filter feeding carp, Chinese Journal of Oceanology and Limnology, 32(2). 266-277. 2014.
[26]   | Ghanai, A.H., Parveen, S. and Khan, A. A, Study of some physico-chemical parameters in Medical Pond, Aligarh, The Ekologia, 10. 88-96. 2010.
[27]   | Scheffer, M., Geest, G.J.V., Zimmer, K., Jeppesen, E. and Sondergaard, M. 2006. Small habitat size and isolation can promote species richness: Second-order effects on biodiversity in shallow lakes and ponds, Oikos , 112. 227-231. 2006.
[28]   | Fritsch, F.E, The structure and reproduction of the algae. Vol.1. Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 791 pp. 1979.
[29]   | Pennak, R.W, Rotifera. In: Freshwater Invertebrates of United States.1st edn. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1978.
[30]   | Battish, S.K, Freshwater zooplankton of India. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi, 232 pp. 1992.
[31]   | Edmondson, W.T, Rotifera. In: Freshwater Biology (Edmondson, W.T. Ed.) John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1992.
[32]   | APHA, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 22nd ed., APHA-AWWA-WEF, Washington, DC. 2012.
[33]   | Willén, E, Phytoplankton and Water Quality Characterization: Experiences from the Swedish Large Lakes Mälaren, Hjälmaren, Vättern and Vänern, Ambio, 30( 8). 529-537. 2001.
[34]   | Padisak, J., Reynolds, C.S. and Sommer, U, Intermediate disturbance hypothesis in phytoplankton ecology, Hydrobiology, 249. 1-199. 1993.
[35]   | Sreenivasan, Sounder Raj, R. and Franklin, T, Diurnal and seasonal changes in a productive shallow tropical pond, Phycos,. 86-103. 1974.
[36]   | Arumugon, P. T. and Furtado, J. I, Physico-chemistry desertification and nutrient budget of a low land eutrophicated Nalayasian reservoir and its limnological implications, Hydrobiologia., 70. 11-24. 1980.
[37]   | Verma, M. C., Singh, S. and Thakur, P, Ecology of a perennial wetland: An overview of limnobiotic status, Journal of Env. and Pollu, 8(1). 53-59. 2001.
[38]   | Mathew Thomas, Deviprasad, A. G. and Hosmani, S. P, Physico-chemical parameters and plankton communities in the wetlands of Mysore district, J. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Monit., 17(1). 91-96. 2007.
[39]   | Tiwari, D, Algal Dynamics of a polluted river, Nature, Environment and Pollution Technology, 3(1). 95-98. 2004.
[40]   | Jadhav, S. B. and Chavan, N. S, Study of phytoplankton population from water resources of Jotiba (Wadi Ratnagiri), Maharashtra, Nature, Environment and Pollution Technology, 8(1). 37-42. 2009.
[41]   | Rana, K. S, Impact of solar radiation on the aquatic ecosystem. A case study of Soor Sarowar, Agra, Nature, Environment and Pollution Technology, 8(2). 43-49. 1991.
[42]   | Pundhir, P. and Rana, K. S, Pollution dynamics of phytoplankton in the wetland area of Keoladeo National Park, Bharapur (Rajsthan), Eco. Env. and Cons., 8(3). 253-235. 2002.
[43]   | Sivakami, R., Sugumar, R., Sumithra, P. and Amina, S, Rotifer diversity and its seasonal variation of two perennial temple ponds of Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu, Asia Pacific Journal of Research, 2(8). 157-162. 2013.
[44]   | Paulose, P.V. and Maheshwari, K., Seasonal variation on zooplankton community structure of Ramgarh lake, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 12th World Lake Conference, pp.82-87. 2008.
[45]   | Bhat, N, A., Wanganes, A. and Raina, R, Spatio-temporal variation of the zooplankton community in a tropical wetland (Bhoj wetland), Bhopal, India, J. Ecol. Nat. Environ., 8(8). 252-270. 2014.
[46]   | Somani, V. and Pejawar, M, Crustacean zooplankton population of the lake Maunda, Thane, Maharashtra, J. Aqua. Biol., 19(1). 56-57. 2004.
[47]   | Krishnamoorthy, G.S., Rajalakshmi, S. and Sakthivel, D, Diversity of Zooplankton in mangrove areas of Puducherry. India, J. Aqua. Bio., 22 (1). 45-48. 2007.
[48]   | Meshram Wasudha J, Seasonal diversity of copepods in relation with physico-chemical status of Devtaki pond,Distt. Gondia, Gondia (M.S.), India, Int. J. of Life Sciences , Special Issue A2. 147-149. 2014.
[49]   | Maruthanayagam, C., Sasikumar, M., and Senthilkumar, C,. Studies on zooplankton population in Thirukkulam pond during summer and rainy seasons, Nature, Environment and Pollution Technology, 2(1). 13-19. 2003.
[50]   | Kedar, G.T., G.P. Patil and S.M. Yeole, Effect of physicochemical factors on the seasonal abundance of zooplankton population in Rishi Lake, Proceedings of Taal 2007: The 12th World Lake Conference, pp. 88-91. 2008.
[51]   | Sunkad, B.N. and Patil, H.S, Water quality assessment of Fort lake of Belgaum(Karnataka) with special reference to zooplankton, J. Environ Biol., 25(1). 99-102. 2004.
[52]   | Ganapati, P.N. and Raman, A.V, Phytoplankton in relation to pollution in Visakhapatnam harbour, East-Coast of India, Indian Journal of Marine Science, 3. 184. 1979.
[53]   | Kopoczynska, E.E, Seasonal variation in phytoplankton in the grand river mouth area of lake Michigan, Polskie Archiwum Hydrobiologii, 27(1). 95-123. 1980.
[54]   | Nazneen, S, Influence of hydrological factors on the seasonal abundance of phytoplankton in Kinjhar Lake, Pakistan, Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol., 65(2). 269-282. 1980.
[55]   | Nandan, S.N. and Patel, R.J, Ecological studies of algae In: Aquatic ecology (ed. by Mishra, S.R. and Saksena, D.N.). Ashish Publishing House. New Delhi, pp. 69-99. 1992.
[56]   | Asha, M.S, Effect of Water Quality on Phytoplankton Abundance in Selected Ponds of Nedumangad Block Panchayat, Kerala, Emer Life Sci. Res., 1(2). 35-40. 2015.
[57]   | Jana, B. B., De, U.K. and Das, R. N, Environmental factors affecting the seasonal changes of net plankton in two tropical fish ponds in India, Schweiz. Z. Hydrobiol. 42. 225-246. 1980.
[58]   | Romo, S, Seasonal Zooplankton patterns in a shallow oligotrophic lake Loch Rusky, Scotland, U. K., Ann. Limno., 26. 11-18. 1990.
[59]   | Khan, M. A, Observation on zooplankton composition, abundance and periodicity in two floodplain lakes Kashmir Himalayan Valley, Acta Hydrobiologica 15. 174-176. 1987.
[60]   | Nogueira, M. G, Zooplankton composition, dominance and abundance as indicators of environmental compartmentalization in Jurumirim reservoir (Paranaoanema River) Sao Paulo, Brazil., Hydrobiologia 455. 1-18. 2001.
[61]   | Mulani, S. K., Mule, M. B. and Patil, S. U, Studies on water quality and zooplankton community of the Panchganga river in Kolhapur city, Journal of Environmental Biology 30. 455-459. 2009.
[62]   | Ahmad, U., Parveen, S., Mola, H.R., Kabir, H.A. and Ganai, A.H, Zooplankton population in relation to physicochemical parameters of Lal Diggi pond in Aligarh, India, Journal of Environmental Biology 33. 1015-1019. 2012.