Research Article
 

Seasonal Assessment of Phytoplankton Diversity in Morvan Dam (Neemuch District), M.P., India



Resham Rajput and Nageshwar Wast
 
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit Linkedin StumbleUpon E-mail
ABSTRACT

Background and Objective: Since phytoplankton act as primary producers in most of the aquatic bodies and fish production are associated with phytoplankton primary productivity. Therefore, the objective of the current study was aimed to investigate phytoplankton diversity at the three selected stations (the station I, II and III) of Morvan Dam (Neemuch District, M.P.), India through seasonal surveys (Winter, Summer and Monsoon) concerning different physico-chemical profile during two annual cycles 2016-17 and 2017-2018. Materials and Methods: The plankton samples were collected seasonally from three sampling stations of Morvan Dam and counted through the counting chamber under a C.Z., inverted microscope as cells mL1 and was preserved in 70% alcohol. The qualitative analysis and diversity of phytoplankton were done as per standard formulae. Results: The Chlorophyceae exhibited the highest phytoplanktonic density among all the selected three-station, followed by Bacillariophyceae, Myxophyceae, Dinophyceae, Desmidiaceae and Xanthophyceae. The seasonal variation in density of Chlorophyceae, Xanthophyceae, Bacillariophyceae, Desmidiaceae, Myxophyceae and Dinophyceae were documented in the range from 250-810, 00-35, 210-520, 10-75, 130-400 and 0-200 mL1, respectively among all the three selected station of Morvan Dam during 2016-18. However, the total density of recorded phytoplanktonic species was found to vary from 1140-1525, 1035-1430 and 940-1405 mL1 at the stations I, II and III, respectively during 2016-18. Eventually, phytoplanktonic density, based upon Menhinick's, index at station I, II and III were noticed as 0.462458306, 0.345262562 and 0.431870654, respectively, whereas the overall phytoplanktonic diversity of Morvan Dam was estimated at 0.717249045 during 2016-18. Conclusion: Morvan Dam consists of large and diverse kinds of phytoplankton species which has been documented as Chlorophyceae>Bacillariophyceae> Myxophyceae>Dinophyceae>Desmidiaceae>Xanthophyceae (in order of abundance). The species richness of phytoplankton indicates the low pollution status and good health of other aquatic organisms in the dam during the specified period.

Services
Related Articles in ASCI
Search in Google Scholar
View Citation
Report Citation

 
  How to cite this article:

Resham Rajput and Nageshwar Wast, 2022. Seasonal Assessment of Phytoplankton Diversity in Morvan Dam (Neemuch District), M.P., India. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 17: 9-18.

DOI: 10.3923/jfas.2022.9.18

URL: https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=jfas.2022.9.18
 

INTRODUCTION

The productivity of aquatic bodies depends mainly on the density of plankton diversity and it was found that the plankton density is regulated by aquatic profile and other biotic communities in aquatic bodies. The evaluation of plankton’s productivity provides the knowledge in the context of conservation ratio on different trophic levels and resources which are needed for better management of water bodies. Phytoplankton acts as primary producers and becomes an important tool for the biomonitoring of aquatic ecosystems concerning pollution status. It has been reported that the species diversity of the phytoplanktonic group is an efficient bio-indicator to assess the quality of water bodies1. The previous study illustrates that biotic interactions and physical and chemical forces are the factors that control seasonal phytoplankton dynamics2. It has been known that phytoplankton is the foundation of the food web in any aquatic body which provides nutrients to zooplankton and also to other invertebrates, shells and finfish3 and the freshwater fishes depend mostly on zooplankton for their food source during its critical developmental stages. A lot of literature on phytoplankton diversity from freshwater bodies was observed4-13.

Since phytoplankton is the base of most of the aquatic food webs and fish production is linked to phytoplankton's primary productivity. Therefore, to establish the relationship between water quality, trophic status and fisheries, planktonic studies becomes an integral part of aquatic biology. Because of this, the attention has been focused to assess the seasonal variation (Winter, Summer and Monsoon) of phytoplankton diversity in Morvan Dam (Neemuch District), M.P., India during two annual cycles 2016-17 and 2017-18.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area: The Morvan Dam is located in Morvan Village belonging to Tehsil Jawad (Neemuch District) of Madhya Pradesh. It is a stone masonry dam is constructed on Gambhiri sub-river basin of Chambal in 1960 with latitude: 27°-37'-06"N and longitude: 75°-03'-30"E. The length and width of the dam were measured as 990 and 12 m, respectively and, its total water holding capacity is 16.46 M m3. The maximum depth and average depth of the dam were recorded as 27.42 and 13 m, respectively. The average rainfall of the dam was measured as 760 mm whereas, the water spread area and catchment area of the dam were observed as 3.21 and 62.16 km2, respectively. It covers approximately 267100 ha of total irrigation area. This dam is important to the villagers since it provides drinking water and facilitates irrigation as well as fish production.

Sampling stations: The map of the dam was taken from Google tool and Digital camera. There are three sampling stations were selected in the Morvan Dam (Neemuch District), M.P., for seasonal assessment of Phytoplankton.

Plankton analysis: The plankton samples were collected from all three sampling stations by utilizing Hansen’s Standard Plankton net composed of bolting silk no. 25.

For quantitative estimations: There are 50 L of surface water was filtered through a small plankton net and Subsample of 10 mL was taken. Plankton counting was done in a counting chamber under a C.Z., inverted microscope. Phytoplankton numbers were expressed as cells mL–1 and the collected plankton was preserved in 70% alcohol. The number of phytoplankton were estimated by using the following formula:

Image for - Seasonal Assessment of Phytoplankton Diversity in Morvan Dam (Neemuch District), M.P., India

Where:

A = Total number of individuals in observed strips
B = Volume of sample in the cell
C = Volume of observed strips
d = Concentration factor

Qualitative analysis of phytoplankton samples was done as per the standard method cited by Shah et al.14 Ananthan et al.15 and Hossain et al.16.

Biodiversity: The biodiversity of Phytoplankton was studied as per Menhinick’s’ method documented by Rombouts et al.17:

Image for - Seasonal Assessment of Phytoplankton Diversity in Morvan Dam (Neemuch District), M.P., India

Where:

s = Total number of species
n = Total number of organisms

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The diverse kinds of phytoplanktonic community at the station I, II and III of Morvan Dam (Neemuch District), M.P., in different seasons (Winter, Summer and Monsoon) during two annual cycles (2016-17 and 2017-18) has been noticed. Phytoplankton species identified were common in all the selected three-station of Morvan Dam and it has been represented by six groups viz., Chlorophyceae, Xanthophyceae, Bacillariophyceae, Desmidiaceae, Myxophyceae and Dinophyceae but their percentage composition were found to be different in all three stations.

Station I: There are a total of 41 forms were identified and out of these 15 belonged to Chlorophyceae, 2 to Xanthophyceae, 2 to Desmidiaceae, 8 to Myxophyceae, 3 to Dinophyceae and 11 to Bacillariophyceae. The Chlorophyceae was illustrated by Volvox sp., Eudorina sp., Pandorina sp., Scenedesmus sp., Ankistrodesmus sp., Coelastrum sp., Spirogyra sp., Oedogonium sp., Ulothrix sp., Cladophora sp., Chlamydomonas sp., Mougeotia sp., Pediastrum sp., Oocystis sp. and Microspora sp. Desmidiaceae was noticed as Cosmarium sp. and Desmidium sp., whereas, Xanthophyceae included Chlorobutyryl sp. and Botryococcus sp. The Microcystis sp., Agmenellum sp., Anabaena sp., Oscillatoria sp., Nostoc sp., Spirulina sp., Cochlearis sp. and Gomphosphaeria sp., represent Myxophyceae at station I of Morvan Dam. Further, Dinophyceae included Glenodinium sp., Peridinium sp. and Sphaerodinium sp. and Bacillariophyceae consists of Cyclotella sp., Synedra sp., Fragilaria sp., Navicula sp., Pinnularia sp., Nitzschia sp., Asterionella sp., Amphora sp., Gomphonema sp., Cymbella sp. and Bacillaria sp., in Table 1.

The percentage composition of phytoplankton (based upon density) indicated the following ranking in Fig. 1. Chlorophyceae (43%)>Bacillariophyceae (31%)> Myxophyceae (16%)>Dinophyceae (6%)>Desmidiaceae (3%)> Xanthophyceae (1%).

The Chlorophyceae were analyzed in the ranges from 250-810 cells mL1 whereas the range of Desmidiaceae, Xanthophyceae and Myxophyceae were noticed from 20-60, 10-20 and 135-270 cells mL1, respectively. Moreover, Dinophyceae and Bacillariophyceae were observed in the range of 00-200 and 300-455 cells mL1, respectively. The overall density of phytoplanktonic groups was noticed in the ranges from 1140 (Monsoon, 2016-17) to 1525 (Winter, 2016-17) cells mL1 during two years, 2016-18 in Table 2. In season-wise observations, Chlorophyceae exhibited peak during Monsoon, 2017-18. Whereas, Bacillariophyceae showed a peak during the summer of both years. Desmids and Myxophyceae illustrate the highest density during Winter, 2017-18. Xanthophyceae exhibited peak during Winter, 2017-18. However, the highest density of Dinophyceae was noticed during Summer, 2016-17.

Image for - Seasonal Assessment of Phytoplankton Diversity in Morvan Dam (Neemuch District), M.P., India
Fig. 1: Group-wise composition of phytoplankton at station I of Morvan Dam during 2016-18


Image for - Seasonal Assessment of Phytoplankton Diversity in Morvan Dam (Neemuch District), M.P., India
Fig. 2: Group-wise composition of phytoplankton at station II of Morvan Dam during 2016-18

Station II: In station II of Morvan Dam, there are a total of 38 forms were reported and out of these 14 belonged to Chlorophyceae, 9 to Bacillariophyceae, 8 to Myxophyceae, 3 to Dinophyceae, 2 to Desmidiaceae and 2 to Xanthophyceae. The Chlorophyceae was dominated by Volvox sp., Spirogyra sp., Oedogonium sp., Ulothrix sp., Chlamydomonas sp., Pediastrum sp., Oocystis sp. and Microspora sp. Whereas, Desmidiaceae includes Cosmarium sp., Desmidium sp. and Xanthophyceae was consists of Chlorobutyryl sp. and Botryococcus sp. but Microcystis sp., Agmenellum sp., Anabaena sp., Oscillatoria sp., Spirulina sp., Cochlearis sp., and Gomphosphaeria sp., belonged to Myxophyceae at station II. Dinophyceae consists of Glenodinium sp., Peridinium sp. and Sphaerodium sp., whereas, Bacillariophyceae included Cyclotella sp., Synedra sp., Fragilaria sp., Navicula sp., Pinnularia sp., Nitzschia sp., Amphora sp., Cymbella sp. and Bacillaria sp. (Table 1).

Based on density, the percentage composition of phytoplankton indicated the following ranking in Fig. 2.

Table 1: Phytoplankters occurred at three stations of Morvan Dam during 2016-1
Station I
Station II
Station III
2016-17
2017-18
2016-17
2017-18
2016-17
2017-18
Name of phytoplankton
W
S
M
W
S
M
W
S
M
W
S
M
W
S
M
W
S
M
Chlorophyceae
Volvox sp.*
130
55
75
140
80
75
200
-
-
220
-
-
310
-
75
405
-
100
Eudorina sp.
-
-
65
-
-
40
55
-
-
30
-
-
-
55
-
-
90
-
Pandorina sp.
-
-
-
45
40
-
-
-
10
-
-
-
-
-
65
50
90
Scenedesmus sp.
60
10
-
-
40
65
40
-
-
25
-
50
80
-
-
-
-
45
Ankistrodesmus ssp.
-
-
70
-
-
-
40
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
55
-
-
Coelastrum sp.
70
-
-
30
-
-
-
45
30
-
-
-
-
45
-
75
40
Spirogyra sp.
110
-
-
130
-
110
-
65
110
70
-
135
65
60
-
140
130
170
Oedogonium sp.
115
60
150
125
-
145
105
125
90
-
140
100
20
-
145
55
-
65
Ulothrix sp.
80
-
-
95
70
130
-
-
125
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cladophora sp.
-
-
60
30
40
65
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
40
-
Chlamydomonas sp.
-
25
-
-
-
-
35
45
-
80
95
-
15
-
-
35
-
-
Mougeotia sp.
30
-
-
40
-
30
20
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pediastrum sp.
35
40
70
50
35
80
55
25
135
20
150
70
-
75
130
45
175
35
Oocystis sp.
25
30
-
35
60
-
40
-
-
-
75
95
10
-
120
-
-
-
Microspora sp.
45
30
35
50
30
30
20
80
155
35
-
-
-
70
90
-
60
105
Desmidiaceae
Cosmarium sp.
30
20
25
20
40
10
40
30
10
50
30
20
20
20
10
40
35
Desmidium sp.
15
20
25
35
10
10
-
-
20
20
-
45
-
10
-
-
20
10
Xanthophyceae
Chlorobutyryl sp.
5
-
15
10
-
10
10
-
20
-
25
-
-
25
15
-
Botryococcus sp.
10
10
-
10
10
5
10
5
10
-
-
5
10
-
10
10
10
Myxophyceae
Microcystis sp.
60
55
-
-
100
-
70
-
150
110
90
-
-
80
85
95
-
95
Agmenellum sp.
-
-
-
-
75
55
-
70
-
70
-
95
-
25
-
-
35
-
Anabaena sp.
-
-
-
80
30
25
-
40
-
50
70
-
-
85
-
65
45
-
Oscillatoria sp.
-
25
40
-
25
25
-
-
45
-
20
35
-
50
-
25
55
35
Nostoc sp.
35
20
-
60
-
-
-
30
-
-
-
-
80
20
15
40
-
-
Spirulina sp.
60
25
-
50
-
35
25
-
-
-
-
-
35
-
75
65
45
-
Cochlearis sp.
85
95
95
80
-
-
105
-
-
130
-
-
45
40
-
40
-
70
Gomphosphaeria sp.
-
10
-
-
-
20
-
-
-
40
70
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dinophyceae
Glenodinium sp.
50
75
-
-
60
-
40
-
-
30
-
60
-
-
80
-
-
-
Peridinium sp.
40
70
-
70
30
-
30
60
-
-
40
50
20
85
50
-
-
-
Sphaerodinium sp.
-
55
-
-
-
-
-
-
50
-
-
65
-
-
-
-
Bacillariophyceae
Cyclotella sp.
90
40
-
100
-
60
65
-
-
80
-
55
-
45
-
-
-
65
Synedra sp.
-
-
-
-
80
20
-
-
60
35
-
55
45
-
-
-
90
70
Fragilaria sp.
-
20
85
-
-
45
-
-
-
60
-
-
-
75
140
-
-
-
Navicula sp.
145
120
-
35
-
50
75
-
80
-
30
-
-
-
95
105
-
-
Pinnularia sp.
-
-
30
-
35
30
-
-
-
70
65
30
-
45
-
-
-
-
Nitzschia sp.
-
45
80
-
85
35
50
95
65
-
45
-
-
-
85
-
100
80
Asterionella sp.
-
-
60
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Amphora sp.
-
100
-
-
70
-
-
50
-
75
65
-
-
80
-
-
80
-
Gomphonema sp.
-
-
65
90
-
20
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100
55
Cymbella sp.
40
60
100
-
85
40
-
85
60
-
-
65
70
-
110
50
40
-
Bacillaria sp.
160
70
-
110
100
-
100
170
85
100
75
85
95
-
-
55
110
80

Chlorophyceae (43%)>Bacillariophyceae (29%)> Myxophyceae (19%)>Dinophyceae (5%)>Desmidiaceae (3%) >Xanthophyceae (1%).

The Chlorophyceae were estimated in the ranges from 380-660 cells mL1 but the range of Desmidiaceae, Xanthophyceae and Myxophyceae were noticed from 10-75, 00-30 and 130-400 cells mL1, respectively. However, Dinophyceae and Bacillariophyceae were analyzed in the range of 00-110 and 280-420 cells mL1, respectively. The overall density of Phytoplanktonic groups was ranged from 1035 (Summer, 2016-17) to 1430 (Winter, 2017-18) cells mL1 during the study period, 2016-18 in Table 3. Phytoplankton analysis at station II of Morvan Dam exhibited that Chlorophyceae was at its peak during Monsoon, 2016-17.

Table 2: Seasonal variation in density of Phytoplanktonic groups (cells mL1) at station I of Morvan Dam during 2016-18
Years
Seasons
Chlorophyceae
Desmidiaceae
Xanthophyceae
Myxophyceae
Dinophyceae
Bacillariophyceae
Total density
2016-17
Winter
700
45
15
240
90
435
1525
Summer
250
20
10
230
200
455
1165
Monsoon
525
45
15
135
0
420
1140
2017-18
Winter
725
60
20
270
70
335
1480
Summer
400
30
10
230
90
455
1215
Monsoon
810
50
15
160
0
300
1335


Table 3: Seasonal variation in density of Phytoplanktonic groups (cells mL1) at station II of Morvan Dam during 2016-18
Years
Seasons
Chlorophyceae
Desmidiaceae
Xanthophyceae
Myxophyceae
Dinophyceae
Bacillariophyceae
Total density
2016-17
Winter
570
10
10
200
70
290
1150
Summer
380
40
15
140
60
400
1035
Monsoon
660
50
0
195
0
350
1255
2017-18
Winter
520
30
30
400
30
420
1430
Summer
460
50
0
250
90
280
1130
Monsoon
450
75
130
110
290
1055


Image for - Seasonal Assessment of Phytoplankton Diversity in Morvan Dam (Neemuch District), M.P., India
Fig. 3: Group-wise composition of phytoplankton at station III of Morvan Dam during 2016-18

Xanthophyceae and Myxophyceae showed a peak during Winter, 2017-18. Whereas, Desmidiaceae and Dinophyceae illustrate the highest density during Monsoon, 2017-18 and Bacillariophyceae were observed highest during Winter, 2017-18 (Table 3).

Station III: In the present investigation, there are a total of 37 forms were identified and out of these 13 belonged to Chlorophyceae, 7 to Myxophyceae, 10 to Bacillariophyceae, 3 to Dinophyceae, 2 to Desmidiaceae and 2 to Xanthophyceae at sampling station III of Morvan Dam during 2016-18. The Chlorophyceae was mostly represented as Volvox sp., Spirogyra sp., Pandorina sp., Eudorina sp., Pediastrum sp., Microspora sp., Oedogonium sp. and Oocystis sp., whereas, Desmidiaceae illustrates Cosmarium sp. and Desmidium sp. The group Xanthophyceae included Chlorobutyryl sp. and Botryococcus sp., however, the Myxophyceae was illustrated by Microcystis sp., Spirulina sp., Cochlearis sp., Anabaena sp., Oscillatoria sp., Nostoc sp. and Agmenellum sp. The Dinophyceae included Peridinium sp., Glenodinium sp. and Sphaerodinium sp., whereas, Bacillariophyceae was noticed as Bacillaria sp., Fragilaria sp., Cymbella sp., Nitzschia sp., Gomphonema sp., Amphora sp., Navicula sp., Synedra sp. and Cyclotella sp. (Table 1).

The percentage composition of phytoplankton indicated the following ranking in Fig. 3. Chlorophyceae (47%)> Bacillariophyceae (27%)>Myxophyceae (18%)>Dinophyceae (4%)>Desmidiaceae (3%)>Xanthophyceae (1%).

The ranges of Chlorophyceae were observed from 260-800 cells mL1 however, the range of Desmidiaceae, Xanthophyceae and Myxophyceae were analyzed from 10-60, 00-35 and 160-330 cells mL1, respectively. Further, the Dinophyceae and Bacillariophyceae were noticed from 00-150 and 210-520 cells mL1, respectively. Eventually, the overall density of Phytoplanktonic groups was estimated in the range from 940 (Winter, 2016-17) to 1405 (Summer, 2017-18) cells mL1 during the two annual cycles, 2016-18 in Table 4. Phytoplankton analysis showed that Chlorophyceae was at its peak during Winter, 2017-18. Whereas, Bacillariophyceae illustrate the highest density during Summer 2017-18 and Dinophyceae exhibited a peak during Summer, 2016-17. Myxophyceae showed the highest density during Winter, 2017-18 and Desmidiaceae illustrates the highest density during Summer, 2017-18, Xanthophyceae was observed highest during Winter 2017-18 (Table 4).

In the current study, the biological diversity of Phytoplanktonic groups based on Menhinick’s index at the station I, II and III of Morvan Dam has been summarized in Table 5-7. The range of biological diversity (based on Menhinick’s index) for Chlorophyceae, Desmidiaceae and Xanthophyceae were noticed from 0.305505046 (Monsoon, 2016-17) to 0.442718872 (Summer, 2016-17), 0.223606798 (Summer, 2016-17) to 0.365148372 (Summer, 2017-18) and 0.25819889 (Monsoon, 2016-17) to 0.516397779 (Winter, 2016-17 and Monsoon, 2017-18) respectively.

Table 4: Seasonal variation in density of Phytoplanktonic groups (cells mL1) at station III of Morvan Dam during 2016-18
Years
Seasons
Chlorophyceae
Desmidiaceae
Xanthophyceae
Myxophyceae
Dinophyceae
Bacillariophyceae
Total density
2016-17
Winter
500
20
0
160
20
210
940
Summer
260
30
30
300
150
245
995
Monsoon
605
20
10
175
130
430
1360
2017-18
Winter
800
10
35
330
0
210
1385
Summer
620
60
25
180
0
520
1405
Monsoon
650
45
10
200
0
350
1255


Table 5: Biological diversity of Phytoplanktonic groups based on Menhinick’s index at station I of Morvan Dam
Years
Seasons
Chlorophyceae
Desmidiaceae
Xanthophyceae
Myxophyceae
Dinophyceae
Bacillariophyceae
2016-17
Winter
0.377964473
0.298142397
0.516397779
0.25819889
0.210818511
0.1940285
Summer
0.442718872
0.223606798
0.316227766
0.395628284
0.212132034
0.328165062
Monsoon
0.305505046
0.298142397
0.25819889
0.172132593
0
0.292770022
2017-18
Winter
0.371390676
0.25819889
0.447213595
0.243432248
0.119522861
0.218543346
Summer
0.4
0.365148372
0.316227766
0.263752189
0.210818511
0.281284339
Monsoon
0.386500603
0.282842712
0.516397779
0.395284708
0
0.461880215


Table 6: Biological diversity of Phytoplanktonic groups based on Menhinick’s index at station II of Morvan Dam
Years
Seasons
Chlorophyceae
Desmidiaceae
Xanthophyceae
Myxophyceae
Dinophyceae
Bacillariophyceae
2016-17
Winter
0.376968517
0.316227766
0.316227766
0.212132034
0.239045722
0.234888088
Summer
0.307793506
0.158113883
0.516397779
0.253546276
0.129099445
0.2
Monsoon
0.233549683
0.282842712
0
0.143222975
0
0.267261242
2017-18
Winter
0.394676109
0.365148372
0.365148372
0.25
0.182574186
0.292770022
Summer
0.186500962
0.141421356
0
0.252982213
0.210818511
0.298807152
Monsoon
0.23570226
0.230940108
0
0.175411604
0.190692518
0.29361011


Table 7: Biological diversity of Phytoplanktonic groups based on Menhinick’s index at station III of Morvan Dam
Years
Seasons
Chlorophyceae
Desmidiaceae
Xanthophyceae
Myxophyceae
Dinophyceae
Bacillariophyceae
2016-17
Winter
0.268328157
0.223606798
0.365148372
0.237170825
0.223606798
0.207019668
Summer
0.248069469
0.365148372
0.316227766
0.346410162
0.163299316
0.255550626
Monsoon
0.243934688
0.223606798
0
0.226778684
0.175411604
0.192897129
2017-18
Winter
0.247487373
0.316227766
0.338061702
0.33028913
0
0.207019668
Summer
0.281126765
0.25819889
0.4
0.298142397
0
0.263117406
Monsoon
0.313785816
0.298142397
0.316227766
0.212132034
0
0.267261242

However, the biological diversity for Myxophyceae, Dinophyceae and Bacillariophyceae were analyzed in the ranges from 0.172132593 (Monsoon, 2016-17) to 0.395628284 (Summer, 2016-17), 00 (Monsoon, 2016-18) to 0.212132034 (Summer, 2016-17) and 0.1940285 (Winter, 2016-17) to 0.461880215 (Monsoon, 2017-18) respectively at the station I of Morvan Dam in Table 5. The biological diversity (based on Menhinick’s index) range for Chlorophyceae, Desmidiaceae and Xanthophyceae were recorded from 0.186500962 (Summer, 2017-18) to 0.394676109 (Winter, 2017-18), 0.141421356 (Summer, 2017-18) to 0.365148372 (Winter, 2017-18) and 00 (Monsoon, 2016-17, 2017-18) to 0.516397779 (Summer, 2016-17) respectively, however, the value of biological diversity for Myxophyceae, Dinophyceae and Bacillariophyceae were documented in the ranges from 0.143222975 (Monsoon, 2016-17) to 0.253546276 (Summer, 2016-17), 00 (Monsoon, 2016-17) to 0.239045722 (Winter, 2016-17) and 0.200 (Summer, 2016-17) to 0.298807152 (Summer, 2017-18) respectively at station II of Morvan Dam in Table 6. Similarly, the biological diversity (based on Menhinick’s index) for Chlorophyceae, Desmidiaceae and Xanthophyceae were analyzed in the ranges from 0.243934688 (Monsoon, 2016-17) to 0.313785816 (Monsoon, 2017-18), 0.223606798 (Winter and Monsoon, 2016-17) to 0.365148372 (Summer, 2016-17) and 00 (Monsoon, 2016-17) to 0.400 (Summer, 2017-18). Furthermore, the biological diversity for Myxophyceae, Dinophyceae and Bacillariophyceae were ranged from 0.212132034 (Monsoon, 2017-18) to 0.346410162 (Summer, 2016-17), 00 (all seasons, 2017-18) to 0.223606798 (Winter, 2016-17) and 0.192897129 (Monsoon, 2016-17) to 0.267261242 (Monsoon, 2017-18) respectively at station III of Morvan Dam in Table 7. There are a total diversity of phytoplanktonic groups based on Menhinick's index at station I, II and III of Morvan Dam were ranges from 0.53311399 (Monsoon, 2016-17) to 0.766332772 (Monsoon, 2017-18), 0.423418078 (Monsoon, 2016-17) to 0.661107357 (Winter, 2017-18) and 0.433860916 (Monsoon, 2016-17) to 0.602340494 (Summer, 2016-17) respectively however, the total Menhinick’s index of diversity for the station I, II and III of Morvan Dam was calculated as 0.462458306, 0.345262562 and 0.431870654, respectively.

Table 8: Total diversity of phytoplanktonic groups based on Menhinick's index at stations I, II and III of Morvan Dam during 2016-18
2016-17
2017-18
Plankters
Station
Winter
Summer
Monsoon
Winter
Summer
Monsoon
Total
Morvan Dam
Phytoplankton
I
0.614577024
0.732448419
0.53311399
0.597856532
0.659841607
0.766332772
0.462458306
0.717249045
II
0.589767825
0.528419391
0.423418078
0.661107357
0.475971294
0.492599257
0.345262562
III
0.521862458
0.602340494
0.433860916
0.510538754
0.560249055
0.536329565
0.431870654

The overall diversity of Morvan Dam based on Menhinick's index was estimated as 0.717249045 in two annual cycles, 2016-18 in Table 8.

There are high and diverse kinds of phytoplankton species identified in the current investigation were represented by six groups viz., Chlorophyceae, Xanthophyceae, Bacillariophyceae, Desmidiaceae, Myxophyceae and Dinophyceae in various seasons (Summer, Winter and monsoon) during two annual cycles i.e., 2016-17 and 2017-18 (Table 1). During the current study, the total density of phytoplankton species was fluctuated seasonally from 1185 mL1 (Summer, 2016-17) to 1535 mL1 (Winter, 2016-17) at station I (Table 2) whereas, the seasonal variation in phytoplankton density at station II and III of the Morvan Dam were found to be ranges from 1045 mL1 (Summer, 2016-17) to 1460 mL1 (Winter, 2017-18) and 980 mL1 (Winter, 2016-17) to 1425 mL1 (Summer, 2017-18), respectively during two annual cycles, 2016-17 and 2017-18 (Table 3 and 4).

There are a total of 27 taxa of phytoplankton were recorded, belonging to 4 families as Chlorophyceae (47%), Cyanophyceae (27%), Bacillariophyceae (23%) and Euglenophyceae (3%) in River Narmada18. However, the maximum number of species was noticed during pre-monsoon (29) and minimum during winter (23) and the Chlorophyceae group were found to be most abundant in pre-monsoon and monsoon season19. There are 10 species of Chlorophyceae, 5 species of diatoms, 3 species of Cyanophyceae and 1 Euglenophyceae were analyzed whereas, Bacillariophyceae were dominated in River Oluwa, Ondo State, Nigeria20. Chlorophyceae was found to be the most dominant group with 34.48 and 35.08% of the total phytoplankton in both perennial and non-perennial ponds followed by Cyanophyceae (34.16 and 30.79%: Perennial and non-perennial ponds), Bacillariophyceae (13.87 and 13.27%: Perennial and non-perennial ponds), Euglenophyceae (10.68 and 13.40%: Perennial and non-perennial ponds) and Dinophyceae with 6.50 and 7.27% in perennial and non-perennial ponds, respectively21. Furthermore, out of a total of 93 species of phytoplankton, 52 species were found at the Estuarine station. In estuarine station, diatoms exhibited 45.5% of the total phytoplankton populations followed by Chlorophyceae (31.0%), Cyanophyceae (13.4%), Euglenoids (9.3%), chrysophytes (0.6%) and dinoflagellates (0.2%). However, the highest total means the density of phytoplankton in the estuarine station was analyzed as 128.8±14.0 cells m L–1 22.

Whereas, 66 phytoplankton species were reported belonging to 44 genera, 34 families and six phyla and, notice the phytoplankton abundance in the order of Bacillariophyta> Charophyta>Chlorophyta> Cyanobacteria> Miozo>Euglenophyta in water bodies within the Buea Municipality, Cameroon23. The highest number phytoplankton was illustrated by Chlorophyceae (48.37%) whereas, the Cyanophyceae, Bacillariophyceae and Euglenophyceae were noticed as 26.80, 18.90 and 5.93%, respectively at one sampling station but at another sampling station, the percent ranking was noticed for Bacillariophyceae, Chlorophyceae, Cyanophyceae and Euglenophyceae as 46.46, 27.70, 17.84 and 8%, respectively in River Sutlej, Punjab24. It has been noticed that the dominance of Chlorophyceae might be due to moderate values of pH, DO content, turbidity, nitrates as well as high temperatures. Consequently, phytoplankton diversity exhibits the percent composition of Chlorophyceae, Bacillariophyceae, Cyanophyceae and Desmidiaceae as 22, 11, 10 and 1%, respectively in Krishna River, Sangli, Maharashtra25. It has been noticed the highest number of the Chlorophyceae flowed by Bacillariophyceae, Cyanophyceae and Euglenophyceae among the group of phytoplankton are during seasonal surveys of Godavari River water26. However, Phytoplankton diversity represents Chlorophyceae, Cyanophyceae, Bacillariophyceae, Dinophyceae and Euglenophyceae but the Chlorophyceae group was found to be the most significant and dominant group consisting of 37% whereas, Euglenophyceae and Dinophyceae were includes 3% of the total phytoplankton species recorded in Khedi Kalan station of Dholawad Dam (Saroj Sarovar Dam) of Ratlam District, M.P.27. There are a total of 96% of the total phytoplankton species constitute Cyanophyta, Chlorophyta and Bacillariophyta during the seasonal analysis of phytoplankton diversity and dynamics in Chamo Lake (Ethiopia) and observed the most predominant species were Chlorophyta (Pediastrum, Closterium and Scenedesmus) during the rainy seasons. Different phytoplankton species were observed during four seasons across different sampling sites. However, among all sampling sites, the maximum diversity was high during winter28. There is complete dominance of Chlorophyta has been recorded with 18 genera followed by Cyanophyta with 14 genus, Chrysophyta with 5 genera and Rhodophyta with 1 genus. These authors observed total numbers of phytoplankton, ranging from a minimum of 43 counts/L (February) to a maximum of 5508 counts/L (May) whereas, the highest number of Phytoplankton were recorded during summer and monsoon as compared to winter29. However, Sabita et al.30 observed the phytoplankton diversity of Nirmalagiri Lake and Kengeri Lake in Bangalore and reported that Chlorophyceae was the most dominant group in both lakes. These authors noticed the percentage of Chlorophyceae, Euglenophyceae, Bacillariophyceae and Cyanophyceae as 86.12, 0.90, 5.85 and 7.11%, respectively in Nirmalagiri Lake but in Kengeri Lake the percentage of Chlorophyceae, Euglenophyceae, Bacillariophyceae, Cyanophyceae, Charophyceae and Dinophyceae were found to be 76.55, is 1.24, 7.14, 12.57, 2.32 and 0.15%, respectively. There are 15 genera from 3 classes were reported as Cyanophyceae (57.9%)> Chlorophyceae (33.3%)>Bacillariophyceae (8.8%) during the study of abundance and distribution of phytoplankton across Ivo River Basin south-eastern Nigeria31. Similarly, the Chlorophyceae (55.88%) was found to dominant group followed by Bacillariophyceae (17.64%), Cyanophyceae (11.76%), Dinophyceae (5.88%) and Euglenophyceae (8.82%) during the study of seasonal distribution and diversity of phytoplankton of Gomti River, Lucknow12. Eventually, the results of the current investigation are also conformities to the literature cited by several researchers32-40.

Previous literature illustrates that hydrology, trophic status, morphometry, light availability and discharge have affected the seasonal diversity in abundance and composition of phytoplankton in Dam41-43. However, different physicochemical profiles viz., air and water temperature, pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), transparency, dissolved oxygen, total hardness, total alkalinity, nitrate and phosphate have also been analyzed and correlated together during the years of 2010-12 in Morvan Dam44. It has been noticed that the diversity and distribution of Phytoplankton exhibit a positive correlation with various physico-chemical parameters of water bodies in Dongarwada Ghat of River Narmada, Madhya Pradesh18. Further, a more or less similar pattern of results was obtained in the current investigation as suggested by previous authors45548. This study has a great significant value from an aquaculture point of view as it may help to establish the relationship between water quality, trophic status and fisheries potential of the Morvan Dam.

CONCLUSION

From the current investigation, it is clear that the Morvan Dam harbour high and diverse kinds of phytoplankton species which have been represented in the order of abundance as Chlorophyceae>Bacillariophyceae >Myxophyceae>Dinophyceae>Desmidiaceae> Xanthophyceae, however, their percentage composition were found to be different in all the three selected station during the specified period.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

The species richness of phytoplankton illustrates the low pollution status and good health of Ichthyofaunal species during the specified period in Morvan Dam. This investigation also provides baseline data to obtain the recommended quality of water for better management and improved quality of aquatic species particularly, fishes for forthcoming research in Morvan Dam.

REFERENCES

  1. Peerapornpisal, Y., C. Chaiubol, J. Pekko and H. Kraibut et al., 2004. Monitoring of water quality in ang kaew reservoire of Chiang Mai University using phyroplankton as bioindicator from 1995-2002. Chiang Mai J. Sci., 31: 85-94.
    Direct Link  |  


  2. Anneville, O., V. Ginot, J.C. Druart and N. Angeli, 2002. Long-term study (1974-1998) of seasonal changes in the phytoplankton in Lake Geneva: A multi-table approach. J. Plankton Res., 24: 993-1008.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  3. Emmanuel, B.E. and I.C. Onyema, 2007. The plankton and fishes of a tropical creek in South Western Nigeria. Turk. J. Fish Aquat. Sci., 7: 105-113.
    Direct Link  |  


  4. Saha, S.B., S.B. Bhattacharya and A. Choudhary, 2000. Diversity of phytoplankton of a sewage polluted brackish water tidal ecosystems. J. Environ. Biol., 21: 9-14.
    Direct Link  |  


  5. Pulle, J.S. and A.M. Khan, 2003. Phytoplankton study of isapur dam water. Eco. Env. Conserv., 9: 403-406.
    Direct Link  |  


  6. Pradhan, A., P. Bhaumik, S. Das, M. Mishra and S. Khanam et al., 2008. Phytoplankton diversity as indicator of water quality for fish cultivation. Am. J. Environ. Sci., 4: 406-411.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  7. Pandey, K.K., Chandrawatijee and P.S. Singh, 2011. Phytoplankton diversity in relation to physicochemical factors in some selected ponds at Patna (Bihar) India. Environ. Ecol., 29: 502-505.
    Direct Link  |  


  8. Thakur, R.K., R. Jindal, U.B. Singh and A.S. Ahluwalia, 2013. Plankton diversity and water quality assessment of three freshwater lakes of Mandi (Himachal Pradesh, India) with special reference to planktonic indicators. Environ. Monit. Assess., 185: 8355-8373.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  9. Patel, S. and S. Singh, 2014. Seasonal variations of phytoplanktons and zooplanktons in Beehar River, Rewa (M.P.). Indian J. Appl. Res., 4: 558-560.
    Direct Link  |  


  10. Kadam, S.S., 2016. Water quality and phytoplanktons of bhogaon reservoir in Parbhani District, Maharashtra, India. Int. J. Curr. Res. Acad. Rev., 4: 135-142.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  11. Hossain, M.R.A., M.M.H. Pramanik, and M.M. Hasan, 2017. Diversity indices of plankton communities in the River Meghna of Bangladesh. Int. J. Fish. Aquat. Stud., 5: 330-334.
    Direct Link  |  


  12. Dixit, V.K. and A.K. Sharma, 2019. Study of seasonal assessment of phytoplankton diversity in the Gomti River at Lucknow. Int. J. Adv. Res. Biol. Sci., 6: 71-76.
    Direct Link  |  


  13. Islam, A., S.S. Basak and Z. Hossain, 2020. Fish and plankton biodiversity in the Kishoreganj haor, Kishoreganj, Bangladesh. Genet. Aquat. Org., 4: 39-48.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  14. Shah, M.M.R., M.Y. Hossain, M. Begum, Z.F. Ahmed and J. Ohtomi et al., 2008. Seasonal variations of phytoplanktonic community structure and production in relation to environmental factors of the Southwest Coastal waters of Bangladesh. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci., 3: 102-113.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  15. Ananthan, G., P. Sampathkumar, P. Soundarapandian and L. Kannan, 2008. Phytoplankton composition and community structure of ariyankuppam estuary and verampattinam coast of pondicherry. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 3: 12-21.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  16. Hossain, M.Y., S. Jasmine, A.H.M. Ibrahim, Z.F. Ahmed and J. Ohtomi et al., 2007. A preliminary observation on water quality and plankton of an earthen fish pond in Bangladesh: Recommendations for future studies. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 10: 868-873.
    CrossRef  |  PubMed  |  Direct Link  |  


  17. Rombouts, I., N. Simon, A. Aubert, T. Cariou and E. Feunteun et al., 2019. Changes in marine phytoplankton diversity: Assessment under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Ecol. Indic., 102: 265-277.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  18. Sharma, J., A. Parashar, P. Bagare and I. Qayoom, 2015. Phytoplanktonic diversity and its relation to physico-chemical parameters of water at Dogarwadaghat of River Narmada. Curr. World Environ., 10: 206-214.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  19. Laskar, H.S. and S. Gupta, 2009. Phytoplankton diversity and dynamics of Chatla floodplain Lake, Barak Valley, Assam, North East India-A seasonal study. J. Environ. Biol., 30: 1007-1012.
    PubMed  |  Direct Link  |  


  20. Olaleye, V.F. and A.A. Adedeji, 2005. Water and planktonic quality of a palm oil effluent impacted River in Ondo State, Nigeria. Int. J. Zool. Res., 1: 15-20.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  21. Hossain, M.Y., M.M. Rahman, S. Jasmine, A.H.M. Ibrahim and Z.F. Ahmed et al., 2008. Comparison studies on water quality and plankton production between perennial and non-perennial ponds in Bangladesh. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 3: 176-183.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  22. Nursuhayati, A.S., F.M. Yusoff and M. Shariff, 2013. Spatial and temporal distribution of phytoplankton in Perak Estuary, Malaysia, during monsoon season. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 8: 480-493.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  23. Anyinkeng, N., A.M. Mih, T.A. Suh and C.C. Awah, 2016. Phytoplankton diversity and abundance in water bodies as affected by anthropogenic activities within the Buea municipality, Cameroon. J. Ecol. Nat. Environ., 8: 99-114.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  24. Kaur, S. and P. Singh, 2017. Studies on plankton diversity of River Sutlej. Punjab. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud., 5: 620-628.
    Direct Link  |  


  25. Sarwade, A.B. and N.A. Kamble, 2014. Plankton diversity in Krishna River, Sangli, Maharashtra. J. Ecol. Nat. Environ., 6: 174-181.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  26. Ghorade, I.B., V.R. Thakur, and S.S. Patil, 2014. The study on phytoplankton diversity from Godavari River water. Indian J. Res, 3: 119-121.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  27. Rawat, R. and S. Trivedi, 2018. Seasonal diversity of phytoplankton in relation to seasonal changes in physicochemical parameters of Khedi Kalan Station of Dholawad Dam of Ratlam District M. P. Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci., 6: 448-454.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  28. Fekadu, A. and S. Chanie, 2017. A seasonal study on phytoplankton diversity and dynamics of Lake Chamo, Ethiopia. Aquat. Living Resour., Vol. 30.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  29. Praveen J.H.S., N.A.T. Ramachandra, D. Narshivudu, A. Padmanabha, P. Lingesh and M. Maloth, 2019. Primary productivity and phytoplankton diversity in Pilikula Lake, Dakshina Kannada Dist, Karnataka, India. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud., 7: 133-139.
    Direct Link  |  


  30. Kumari, S.P., S. Gayathri and R.M. Mohan, 2018. Phytoplankton diversity in bangalore lakes, importance of climate change and nature’s benefits to people. J. Ecol. Nat. Resour., Vol. 2.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  31. Onyebuchi, A.V., O.A. Gabriel and E.I. Clinton, 2019. Preliminary investigation of the distribution and relative abundance of plankton and fish species in Ivo River Basin Southeastern Nigeria. Acta Sci. Med. Sci., 3: 10-17.
    Direct Link  |  


  32. Kiran, B.R., V. Kumara, D. Shanmukha and E.T. Puttaiah, 2002. Phytoplanktonic composition in Jannapura pond, near Bhadravathi Town (Karnataka). Geobios, 29: 89-92.
    Direct Link  |  


  33. George, B., J.I.N. Kumar and R.N. Kumar, 2012. Study on the influence of hydro-chemical parameters on phytoplankton distribution along Tapi estuarine area of Gulf of khambhat, India. Egypt. J. Aquat. Res., 38: 157-170.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  34. Khan, A.A. and T.A. Shah, 2015. Phytoplanktonic biodiversity in upper Lake of Bhopal, India. Int. J. Sci. Res., 4: 1748-1750.
    Direct Link  |  


  35. Rao, D.S.M. and G.M.N. Rao, 2016. Seasonal abundance of phytoplankton in relation to physico-chemical features of venkammacheruvu veeraghattam, Sriakulam(Dist.)A.P, India. IOSR J. Pharm. Bio. Sci., 11: 91-98.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  36. Sharma, R.C. and S. Singh, 2018. Water quality and phytoplankton diversity of high altitude wetland, Dodi Tal of Garhwal Himalaya, India. Biodivers. Int. J., 2: 484-493.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  37. Ogamba, E.N., E.E. Charles and S.C. Izah, 2019. Phytoplankton community of taylor creek in the Niger Delta using diversity indices. J. Plant Anim. Ecol., 1: 1-12.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  38. Belokda, W., K. Khalil, M. Loudiki, F. Aziz and K. Elkalay, 2019. First assessment of phytoplankton diversity in a Marrocan shallow reservoir (Sidi Abderrahmane). Saudi J. Biol. Sci., 26: 431-438.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  39. Tijare, R., 2020. Qualitative and quantitative study of phytoplankton of River Wainganga near Markandadeo, Dist. Gadchiroli (M.S.). Environ. Conserv. J., 21: 43-49.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  40. Hossain, M.Z., M.N. Uddin, M.M. Rahman and Z. Hossain, 2020. Present status of fish and plankton biodiversity at the Padma River in Munshiganj District, Bangladesh. World Appl. Sci. J., 38: 386-394.
    Direct Link  |  


  41. Reynolds, C.S., 2003. Planktic community assembly in flowing water and the ecosystem health of rivers. Ecol. Modell., 160: 191-203.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  42. Kumari, S.B., A.K. Kirubavathy and R. Thirumalnesan, 2006. Suitability and water quality criteria of an open drainage municipal sewage water at Coimbatore, used for irrigation. J. Environ. Biol., 27: 709-712.
    Direct Link  |  


  43. Kolayli, S. and B. Sahin, 2009. Species composition and diversity of epipelic algae in balikli dam reservoir, Turkey. J. Environ. Biol., 30: 939-944.
    Direct Link  |  


  44. Rajput, R., M.S. Sharma, V.K. Verma, V. Sharma and Sheetalnaruka, 2016. Limnological study of Morvan Dam, Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh, India. Pollut. Res., 35: 275-284.
    Direct Link  |  


  45. Krishnamoorthy, G., S. Rajalakshmi and D. Sakthivel, 2007. Diversity of plankton in Mangrove areas of Puducherry, India. J. Aqua. Biol., 22: 45-48.


  46. Shinde, S.E., T.S. Pathan and D.L. Sonawane, 2012. Seasonal variations and biodiversity of phytoplankton in Harsool-Savangi dam, Aurangabad, India. J. Environ. Biol., 33: 643-647.
    Direct Link  |  


  47. Nath, A., R.V. Neethu and J.S. Revathy, 2015. Diversity of plankton in a village pond at dhanuvachapuram, Trivandrum. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. technol., 4: 9189-9193.
    Direct Link  |  


  48. Nandigam, J., S.G. Rangaiah and M.N.R. Geddada, 2016. A study on seasonal changes of microalgae in relation to the physico-chemical parameters of Satyavaram Pond, Srikakulam Dist, India Indian. J. Geo Mar. Sci., 45: 1660-1668.
    Direct Link  |  


©  2022 Science Alert. All Rights Reserved