Download Phytoplanktonic Diversity Index with Referernce to Mucalinda

Sengupta, M. and Dalwani, R. (Editors). 2008
Proceedings of Taal2007: The 12th World Lake Conference: 462-463
Phytoplanktonic Diversity Index with Referernce to Mucalinda Sarovar,
Bodh-Gaya
M. Shamsul Islam
P.G. Dept. of Botany, Magadh University, Bodh-Gaya, India
ABSTRACT
Concept of diversity indices indicates the pollution stress. The species richness of a community which
relates the number of species has been regarded as an important index of diversity. Biological diversity
has been focussed as an important ecological event, as it reflects the extent of life processes. The
application of phytoplanktonic diversity index to the biological monitoring of water quality is based on
the premise that communities under stress undergo a reduction in diversity. Pollution being a form of
ecological stress will therefore, result in reduction in diversity of planktonic communities to an extent
depending upon the degree of stress. In Mucalinda Sarovar, Bodh-Gaya Shannon & Weaver's diversity
index have been calculated for Chlorophycean, Bacillariophycean, Cyanophycean and Euglenophycean
groups. Species diversity index is a statistical abstraction with two components reflecting the number of
species (richness) and the distribution of individuals of all species (equitability) at a particular site of
aquatic ecosystem. In the present investigation the values lie between 01 and 03, which reflect a mildly
pollution status of the pond in question.
INTRODUCTION
Phytoplankton, which are the microscopic free
floating autotrophs - are by far the best studied of
all biotic groupings in inland waters and oceans.
The community structure and productivity of
phytoplankton assemblages in relation to
environmental factors and biological interaction
have also received great deal of attention. The
pioneer limnologists Kolkwitz and Marsson (19081909) described that some species tend to occur
under a certain kind of pollution and their presence
is indicative of water quality. A number of indices
including Shannon and Weavers (1949) species
diversity index have been used to assess the
pollution status of aquatic bodies. Margalef (1958)
recommended the use of information theory by
Shanon & Weaver (1949) for studying the structure
of algal community. This was further elaborated by
Pielou (1977) and Sugihara (1980); Bilgrami
(1988, 89), Islam & Kumar (2003) documented
importance of diversity indices in modern
experimental limnology.
MATERIAL & METHODS
All the phytoplanktonic samples were collected at
monthly intervals during the year 2006 from
Mucalinda Sarovar, Bodh-Gaya.
Shannon and Weaver's diversity index is an
expression of correlation with pollution status of
the ecosystem (Wilhm and Dorris, 1966;
Washington, 1984) which is based on Shannon's
information theory (Shannon and Weaver, 1949).
It has been calculated by using the following
formula:
3
d'= (ni/N) Σi=1
log2 (ni/N)
Where, d' = Shannon's index
s = Number of species in the sample,.
ni = Number of individuals of each species.
N = Total number of individuals in the sample
(N= ni)
Log2 = 1.443 In N.
1.443 = Amplification factor, Hutchinson (1967)
RESULT & DISCUSSION
Phytoplankton, the dominant aquatic life forms
which comprise of green algae, blue green algae,
diatoms and euglenoids were observed as the basis
on which the limnetic life depends (Table 1.)
The lowest value of Shannon's diversity index
was 2.86 in June and higher values were expressed
in January as 3.46. The annual average was 3.32
for Chlorophycean members.
In Cyanophycean members lowest was in July as
2.68 and highest in October as 3.3 with an annual
average of 3.10.
In Bacillariophyceae lowest was in June, July
and August as 2.68 and highest value was 3.22 in
November & Dec. with an annual average of 2.96.
In Euglenophyceae lowest was 2.00 in August
and highest figured as 2.86 in December with an
annual average of 2.57. The result of
Euglenophycean member shows variations and
prove to be insignificant.
Species diversity is statistical abstraction with two
components reflecting the number of species
(richness) and the distribution of individuals of all
species (equitability) at a particular site.
Communities with a similar richness may differ in
diversity, depending on the distribution of
individuals among the species.
Table 1: Shannon & Weaver's Phytoplanktonic Diversity Index operating in Mucalinda Sarovar during 2006
Chlorophyceae
H'
3.48
3.48
3.42
3.29
3.21
2.86
3.21
3.43
3.54
3.29
3.20
3.43
3.32
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Average
Cyanophyceae
H'
3.29
3.11
3.11
3.01
3.00
2.68
2.86
3.11
3.29
3.30
3.21
3.29
3.10
Wilhm and Dorris (1966) have suggested a
relationship between species diversity and pollution
status of aquatic ecosystems and classified as
follows:
>3
1-3
<1
= clean water
= moderately polluted
= heavily polluted.
Staub et. al. (1970) proposed a different scale of
pollution in terms of species diversity index, which is
a modified one and states a negative correlation
between Shannon's index and pollution.
3.0 - 4.5 =
Slight
2.0 - 3.0 =
Light
1.0 - 2.0 =
Moderate
0.0 - 1.0 =
Heavy
Thus, experimental limnological expressions of
diversity index can be compared with both the lines
of Wilhm and Dorris (1966) and Staub et. al. (1970).
It can be well stated that Mucalinda Sarovar, Bodh
Gaya is moderately to heavily polluted. Thus, the
pollution state of the pond can be stated without
calculating the losses at the consumer level as well as
decomposer level in biomonitoring of aquatic
ecosystem.
OBSERVATION
Bacillariophyceae
H'
3.08
3.10
3.08
2.86
2.86
2.68
2.68
2.68
3.00
3.08
3.22
3.22
2.96
Euglienophyceae
H'
2.68
2.68
2.68
2.68
2.68
2.43
2.43
2.00
2.43
2.68
2.68
2.86
2.57
Hutchinson, G.E. (1967). Introduction to lake biology and
the limnoplankton. A treatise on Limnology, Vol. 2
John Wiley and Sons. Inc. N.Y. 1115.
Islam, M.S. & Kumar, R. (2003) - Diversity Index and
Pollution Status of An Aquatic Ecosystem,
Environmental
Pollution
Problems
and
Management, Jaspal Prakashan, Patna, 207-209
(2003).
Kolkwitz, R. and Marsson, M. (1908) Okologie der
pflanzklichen Saprobein. Ber. Dtisch. Bot. Ges., 26 :
505-519.
Margalef, R. (1958) Information theory in Ecology. Den.
System, 3 : 36-71.
Pielou, E.C. (1977) Mathematical Ecology. New York.
John Wiley and Sons :385.
Shannon, C.E. and Weaver, W. (1949). Mathematical
theory of communication, (Urbana III : Univ. of
Illinois Press), 117.
Staub, R., Appling, J.W. Hofsteiler, A.M. and Hess, I.J.
(1970). The effect of industrial waster of Memphis
and Shelby country on primary plankton producers;
Bioscience, 20 : 905-912.
Sugihara, G. (1980). Minimal community structure. An
explanation of species abundance patterns. Amer.
Nat., 116 : 770-787.
Washington, H.C. (1984). Diversity, Biotica and Similarity
indices.Water Res., 18 (6) : 653-694.
Wilhm, J.L. and Dorris, T.C. (1966). Species diversity of
benthic macroinvertebrates in a stream receiving
domestic and oil refinery effluents. Amn. Midl. Nat.
76: 427-449.
REFERENCES
Bilgrami, K.S. (1988). Biological monitoring of rivers,
problems and prospects in India; Manual of Aquatic
Ecotoxicology. Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New
Delhi, 37 : 245-250.
Bilgrami, K.S. (1988). Biological monitoring of rivers,
problems and prospects. J.I.B.S. 68 :1-9.
463