Aquatic Biodiversity in the Paddy Fields of Kashmir Valley (J and K) India
The aquatic biodiversity of the rice fields of Kashmir was investigated with special reference to plankton, nekton and benthic fauna. The study aimed at investigating the taxocoenosis and ecology of the various components of the aquatic biodiversity harbouring, the rice fields of Kashmir. The study encompassed a period of two successive crop cycles between Apr 2005 and Dec 2006. A total of 88 taxa were reported from the representative study sites. Phytoplankton was represented by 29 taxa, zooplankton comprised of 23 taxa and 1 larva, 29 taxa belonged to nekton and 7 taxa represented benthic fauna. The study was carried out at six representative study sites separated spatially and covering various administrative areas of the valley. The significance of paddy fields in preserving biological diversity of the region was highlighted.
Received: September 06, 2011;
Accepted: November 09, 2011;
Published: December 16, 2011
Rice fields are dynamic, temporary and transitional ecosystems that have been
managed by man in collaboration with nature since times immemorial. Developed
with the sole motive of rice crop production these vast agro-ecosystems harbour
a varied range of flora and fauna (Bahaar and Bhat, 2011).
Besides providing food to more than half of the worlds population, rice
fields generate other minor produce including fish, medicinal plants, fodder
etc. In addition to the economic benefits, rice fields play numerous ecological
roles including maintenance of trophic structures, nutrient recycling, ground
water recharge and most importantly harbours diverse floral and faunal communities
(Dhyani et al., 2007). The most important thing
about rice field biota is that they have evolved through centuries to adapt
themselves to highly manipulated, eutrophic and transitional conditions of these
unique ecosystems. During each crop cycle, tonnes of artificial fertilizers
and numerous agro-chemicals including weedicides and pesticides are added to
rice paddies. As a direct consequence to this, the hydrological and sedimental
conditions change drastically which in turn places a huge stress on the environmental
factors and biology of the biota. However, this peculiar flora and fauna has
adapted itself to these dynamic changes and successfully colonize the rice fields.
Being the most manipulated and frequently disturbed ecosystem, a curious mixture
of flora and fauna can be observed within the rice field (Bahaar
and Bhat, 2011). The periodic disturbance resulting from cultural operations
and agrochemical use have a profound effect on the nutrient status, pH, O2
concentration and the community composition of aquatic and terrestrial biota
inhabiting these rice fields. The rice fields undergo various seral stages during
the crop cycle while transforming from a terrestrial ecosystem to a wetland
ecosystem and back. These cyclic changes have been occurring since times immemorial
being managed by man so efficiently that no major detrimental effects on the
various components of this ecosystem were reported. However, in the future,
there is every likelihood that crop intensification may take a toll on the aquatic
and terrestrial biota along with the physico-chemical environment that determines
the productivity of this ecosystem. Agronomic practices serve as an over-riding
factor that controls the overall ecology and biodiversity of the rice field
ecosystem. These human interventions governing the hydrology and rice field
ecology (Heckman, 1979; Bambaradeniya,
2000) have clearly revealed that agronomic practices change the physical,
chemical and biological conditions in the rice field ecosystem, making them
less favourable for certain organisms and more favourable for others (Bambaradeniya
and Amerasinghe, 2003). The bio-ecological studies on the rice fields of
Kashmir are scarce and the present investigation, which is first of its type
in the region was carried out with the same backdrop. Emphasis was laid on carrying
out the study in a multi-aspected ecosystem approach.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
During the present investigation, 6 spatially variable study sites were selected in different administrative zones of Kashmir valley. The representative sites included:
||Kupwara (34°02N; 74°16E) in
north west Kashmir
||Bandipora (34°06N; 74°44E) located in north Kashmir
||Budgam (34.63°N; 76.04°E) lying in south west Kashmir
||Srinagar (35°5N; 74°47E) in north east Kashmir
||Pulwama (33°53N; 74°55E) in south Kashmir and
||Anantnag (33.73°N; 75.15°E) situated towards south east of Kashmir
Plankton: Composite planktonic samples were collected by filtering 10
L of water (Lim et al., 1984; Madoni,
1987; Ferrari et al., 1991) along a 500 m
line transect at each study site. Sampling was done at fortnightly intervals.
The concentrated samples (100 mL) were preserved in Lugols solution and counted
by drop count method. Identification was done under a stereoscopic binocular
microscope with the help of available standard taxonomic references (Pennak,
1978; Rajapaksa and Fernando, 1982; Sharma,
1983; Martens, 1984; Madoni,
1987; Edmondson, 1989; Cox, 1996).
The results were expressed as number per liter No. L-1.
Nekton: A metal frame (25x25x5 cm) was lowered into the water column
and slowly pulled out after 15 min when the disturbance caused due to placing
the frame into water had minimized. At each site, 5 random samples were collected
along a 500 m transect. The organisms were sorted manually, placed in separate
containers and brought to the laboratory for further investigations. Soft bodied
organisms were preserved in 4% formaldehyde while hard bodied forms like adult
aquatic insects were dry preserved. Identification was done in accordance with
Rajagopal and Rao (1955), Linsenmaier
(1972), Pennak (1978) and Edmondson
Macrozoobenthos: Samples were collected randomly by carefully driving
a high-sided square frame (20x20 cm) into the sediment (Southwood
and Henderson, 2000). The sample was taken by digging out the sediment upto
a depth of 10 cm. Five representatives samples were collected from each study
site. The sediment was sieved through a 0.5 mm sieve. During the dry phase soil
macrofauna was collected following Folgarait et al.
(2003). Five soil monoliths of 15x15x10 cm were excavated manually at each
study site on either side of the line transect. The soil block was placed in
a tray, broken softly with hand and organisms sorted manually. The organisms
were placed in a tray, hand sorted and kept in separate labelled containers.
Soft bodied organisms were preserved in 4% formalin, whereas, hard bodied organisms
were preserved in 70% ethanol. Density was calculated in terms of ind. m-2.
Identification of the samples was done following Rajagopal
and Rao (1955), Pennak (1978) and Edmondson
The phytoplanktonic taxocoenosis was represented by 29 genera belonging to
3 families of Chlorophyceae, Bacillariophyceae and Cyanophyceae (Table
|| Average population density No. L-1 of phytoplankton
at the study sites
|| Average population density No. L-1 of zooplankton
recorded at the representative sites
These families were comprised of 14, 11 and 4 genera. Study sites Kupwara,
Bandipora, Budgam and Srinagar registered a total of 26 taxa of phytoplankton,
28 taxa were recorded at site Pulwama, while 21 taxa were noticed at Anantnag.
The zooplanktonic community comprised of 23 genera and a larva, spread over seven groups (Table 2). These included Protozoa, Nematoda, Rotifera, Cladocera, Copepoda, Ostracoda and Diptera. Twenty one taxa were recorded at Kupwara, Bandipora, Budgam; 20 taxa were collected from Budgam; 23 and 22 taxa were registered at Pulwama and Anantnag, respectively.
Nektonic fauna in the rice fields of Kashmir included 26 genera belonging to
nine different groups (Table 3). Coleoptera was represented
by 10 taxa including Berosus sp., Dytiscus marginalis., Gyrinus
sp., Helophorus sp., Hydrophilus sp., Laccobius sp., Laccophilus
sp., Rhantus sp. and 2 unidentified beetle species. Crustacea included
Branchinecta acanthopenes, Cyzicus sp., Eulimnadia sp. and Gammarus
sp. Microvelia sp., Plea sp. and Sigara sp. belonged to
Hemiptera. Diptera was represented by Chironomous and mosquito larvae. Gastropoda
included Gyraulus circumstratus and Lymnaea stagnalis. Cyprinus
carpio and Gambusia sp. represented Cypriniformes. Acarina, Anura
and Odonata were represented by Atax sp., tadpoles and dragonfly nymphs,
|| Average population density (ind/m2) of nekton
at the study sites
Twenty two genera were recorded at sites Kupwara, Bandipora, Srinagar, Pulwama;
20 taxa were registered at site Budgam, while 19 taxa were collected from site
The macrozoobenthic analysis of the representative sites of rice fields of Kashmir revealed the presence of 7 taxa of macro zoobenthos (Table 4). These included 5 genera from Annelida, 1 genus belonging to Arthropoda and 1 representing Mollusca. Annelida was represented by Allolobophora rosea, Bra nchuira sowerbyi, Hirudo sp., Lumbricus terrestris and Tubifex tubifex. Arthropoda included Chironomous larva whereas, Mollusca was represented by Bithynia tentaculata. Kupwara, Bandipora, Srinagar, Pulwama, Anantnag registered a total of 6 taxa each, while 5 taxa were recorded at Budgam site.
|| Average population density (ind/m2) of macro-zoobenthos
at the study sites
The overall phytoplanktonic analysis of the rice fields depicted an increasing
trend upto the first half of early summer and after attaining a peak value exhibited
almost a steady decrease till the end of aquatic phase. Abundant phytoplanktonic
populations developed till the tillering phase as a result of high light and
nutrient availability. The phytoplanktonic populations declined considerably
after the tillering phase probably due to reduced insolation. Population density
was observed to be low at all the study sites during the first week of crop
cycle. Bacillariophyceae represented itself as the most dominant group followed
by Chlorophyceae, while Cyanophyceae was the least dominant family. The development
of diatoms in the initial stages of colonization may be attributed to the availability
of solar radiations in ample quantities and lower water temperatures which are
known to favour their growth and multiplication (Hickel,
1973). In addition to this, the puddling of soil releases large quantities
of readily available nutrients into the flood waters which help in the luxuriant
growth of Bacillariophyceae and Chlorophyceae (Kaul et
The zooplanktonic micro succession began with the flooding of rice fields.
Initially, Protozoa was quantitatively the dominant group followed by Cladocera,
Rotifera, Diptera and Copepoda. Average density registered an increasing trend
upto midsummer, followed by a general decline thereafter. Peak populations coincided
with rich densities of phytoplankton which act as food sources for the zooplankters.
Further, the availability of congenial conditions including high levels of dissolved
oxygen, moderate temperature and neutral to alkaline pH aided their luxurious
growth (Wetzel, 2001; Cole, 1983).
However, post tillering as the canopy grew thick, phytoplankton populations
declined, DO levels receded and pH turned acidic, the zooplankton populations
dropped significantly drawing support from Fores and Comin
(1992) and Hutchinson (1967). A general overview of
the rice field nektonic fauna depicted an increase in the average population
density till the first half of early summer and a decline thereafter. The significant
build-up of population density during early summer may be a probable consequence
of a rich growth of crustaceans, mainly Branchinecta acanthopenes. Further,
the availability of food materials in surplus quantities seems to have aided
luxurious growth of nekton at this particular stage of aquatic phase. The most
dominant component of the nektonic fauna in the flood water of the representative
study sites was Coleoptera. During the aquatic phase, decomposing organic matter
is found in rice fields in large quantities, these beetles by virtue of luxuriant
food sources thrive successfully in the rice fields.
The overall analysis of the macro zoobenthic fauna of the representative study
sites exhibited peak populations during late spring probably in response to
thick populations of dipteran larvae that formed quantitatively the most dominant
macro benthic component in this particular period. Population density depicted
a decline from early summer probably as a consequence of growing compaction
of the sediments which is known to hamper the survival of dipteran larva (Williams,
1984; Brunke and Gonser, 1999; Mallard
et al., 2000). In addition, the declining levels of soil organic
matter may be held responsible for the decrease in the population of tubificids
(Simpson et al., 1993; Millbrink,
1980; Brinkhurst and Cook, 1980). The absence of earthworms
further aided in declining the overall populations after late spring. Their
disappearance could be attributed to the highly supersaturated conditions coupled
with increasing acidity of the ecosystem (Astrid, 1983;
Edwards and Bohlen, 1996).
While studying the biodiversity associated with the aquatic component of the rice fields of Kashmir plains, a total of 88 taxa were reported. These organisms belonged to various floral and faunal groups including phytoplankton (29 taxa), zooplankton (23 taxa, 1 larva), nekton (29 taxa), and macro-zoobenthos (7 taxa). The taxocoenosis was found to be fairly similar probably in response to the prevalence of similar climatic conditions. Slight variations in the community composition could likely be the outcome of local micro climatic interferences. The role of rice field agro-ecosystems in preserving the biodiversity of the region was evident.
1: Dhyani, S.K., J.S. Samra, Ajit, A.K. Handa and Uma, 2007. Forestry to support increased agricultural production: Focus on employment generation and rural development. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev., 20: 179-202.
Direct Link |
2: Bahaar, S.W.N. and G.A. Bhat, 2011. Community organization and distribution of lepidoptera in the rice fields of kashmir (J and K) India. Asian J. Biol. Sci., 4: 563-569.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
3: Bambaradeniya, C.N.B and F.P. Amerasinghe, 2003. Biodiversity associated with the rice field agroecosystem in Asian countries: A brief review. Working Paper 63. International Water Management Institute, Colombo Sri Lanka.
4: Bambaradeniya, C.N.B., 2000. Rice field: An important man made habitat of Herpetofauna. Proceeding of the 4th Asian Herpetological Congress, July 16-20, 2000, Chengdu, China -
5: Brinkhurst, R.O. and D.G. Cook, 1980. Aquatic Oligochaete Biology. Plenum Press, New York
6: Brunke, M. and T. Gonser, 1999. Hyporheic invertebrates-the clinal nature of interstitial communities structured by hydrological exchange and environmental gradients. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 18: 344-362.
Direct Link |
7: Cole, G.A., 1983. Textbook of Limnology. C. V. Mosby Company, London
8: Cox, E.J., 1996. Identification of Freshwater Diatoms from Live Material. 1st Edn., Chapman and Hall, London, Pages: 158
9: Edmondson, W.T., 1989. Freshwater Biology. 1st Edn., John Wiley New York
10: Edwards, C.A. and P.J. Bohlen, 1996. Biology and Ecology of Earthworms. 1st Edn., Chapman and Hall, London, UK
11: Ferrari, I., A. Bachiorri, F.G. Margaritora and V. Rossi, 1991. Sucession of cladocerans in a northern Italian ricefield. Hydrobiologia, 225: 309-318.
12: Folgarait, P.J., F. Thomas, T. DesJardins, M. Grimaldi, I. Tayasu, P. Curmi and P.M. Lavelle, 2003. Soil properties and the macrofauna community in abandoned irrigated rice fields of northeastern Argentina. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 38: 349-357.
13: Fores, E. and F.A. Comin, 1992. Ricefields: A limnological perspective. Limnetica, 10: 101-109.
14: Heckman, C.W., 1979. Rice field ecology in North East Thailand. Monogr. Biol., 34: 228-228.
15: Hickel, B., 1973. Phytoplankton in two ponds in Kattmandu Valley (Nepal). Int. Revue. ges. Hydrobiol., 58: 835-842.
16: Hutchinson, G.E., 1967. A Treatise on Limnology. I. Introduction to lake Biology and Limnoplankton. Vol. 2, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp: 1115
17: Kaul, V., D.N. Fotedar, A.K. Pandit and C.L. Trisal, 1978. A Comparative Study of Plankton Populations of Some Typical Fresh Water Bodies of Jammu and Kashmir state. In: Environmental Physiology and Ecology of Plants, Sen, D.N. and R.P. Bansal (Eds.). Bishen Singh, Mahendra Pal Singh, India, pp: 249-269
18: Lim, R.P., M.F Abdullah and C.H. Fernando, 1984. Ecological studies of cladocera in rice fields of Tanjung Karng, Malaysia, subject to pesticide treatment. Hydrobiologia, 113: 99-103.
19: Linsenmaier, W., 1972. Insects of the World. 1st Edn., McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, Pages: 392
20: Astrid, L.H., 1983. Influence of agricultural practices on earth worms (lumbricidac). Acta Agric. Scand., 33: 225-234.
21: Madoni, P., 1987. Estimation of production and respiration rates by the ciliated protozoa community in an experimental rice field. Hydrobiologia, 144: 113-120.
22: Mallard, F., J.V. Ward and C.T. Robinson, 2000. An expanded perspective of the hyporheic zone. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol., 27: 431-437.
23: Martens, K., 1984. On the freshwater Ostracods (Crustacea, Ostracoda) of the sudan, with special reference to the Red Sea Hills, including a description of a new species. Hydrobiol, 110: 137-161.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
24: Millbrink, G., 1980. Oligochaete Communities in Population Biology: The European Situation with Special Reference to Lakes in Scandinavia. In: Aquatic Oligochaeta Biology, Brinkhurst, R.D. and D.G. Cook (Eds.). Plenum Press, London, pp: 433-455
25: Pennak, R.W., 1978. Freshwater Invertebrates of United States. 1st Edn., John Wiley and Sons, New York
26: Rajagopal and S. Rao, 1955. Aquatic and amphibious mollusks of the Kashmir valley, India. Proceeding of the Symposium Mollusca I. pp: 94-121.
27: Rajapaksa, R. and C.H. Fernando, 1982. The Cladocera of Sri Lanka (Ceylon), with remarks on some species. Hydrobio, 94: 49-69.
28: Sharma, B.K., 1983. The Indian species of the genus brachionus (Eurotatoria: Monogononta: Branhionidae). Hydrobiologia, 104: 31-39.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
29: Simpson, I.C., P.A. Roger, R. Official and I.F. Grant, 1993. Density and composition of aquatic oligochaete populations in different farmers rice fields. Biol. Ferti. Soil., 16: 34-40.
30: Southwood, T.R.E. and P.A. Henderson, 2000. Ecological Methods. 3rd Edn., Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK
31: Wetzel, R.G., 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems. 3rd Edn., Academic Press, San Diego, USA., Pages: 1006
32: Williams, D.D., 1984. The Hyporheic Zone as a Habitat for Aquatic Insects and Associated Arthropods. In: The Ecology of Aquatic Insects, Resh, V.H. and D.M. Rosenberg (Eds.). Praeger Scientific, New York, pp: 430-455