A comparative study of zooplankton diversity and abundance from

2nd International Conference on Agriculture, Environment and Biological Sciences (ICAEBS'15) August 16-17, 2015 Bali (Indonesia)
A comparative study of zooplankton diversity
and abundance from three different types of
water body
Azma Hanim Ismail, and Siti Azrin Zaidin

sites with aim of contributing to the knowledge of zooplankton
diversity in Malaysian water bodies.
Abstract—In this study, we compared the species composition
and diversity of planktonic Rotifera, Cladocera and Copepoda
between river, irrigation canal and rice field ecosystem in Balik
Pulau, Penang, Malaysia. The present study was carried out from
October 2013 to February 2014. Average total diversity of
zooplankton tended to be the highest in river (24 species) and the
lowest in rice field (19 species). Despite the relatively high species
number of zooplankton supported by river, irrigation canal water
body seems to contribute considerably higher total abundance than
the other two types of ecosystem. Data analysis highlighted
significant difference in zooplankton abundance among the different
types of water body (p = 0.004). The zooplankton abundance was
influenced by physical factors of the water bodies. Correlation
analysis revealed a strong positive relationship between zooplankton
abundance and water transparency (r = +0.547), while there exists a
weak negative correlation with dissolved oxygen (r = -0.238) and
temperature (r = -0.234). The findings of the present study provide
useful knowledge on the spatial organization of zooplankton diversity
in different types of freshwater ecosystem as well as can be used as
management strategies to protect the aquatic biodiversity in the
agricultural area.
Keywords— Rotifera, Cladocera, Copepoda,
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. Study Site
Balik Pulau is a suburban area on the southwest part of
Penang Island. The present study was carried out in three types
of freshwater ecosystems in Balik Pulau which were river,
irrigation canal and rice field. Five stations were established
(Fig. 1) and the characteristics of each station are shown in
Table I.
Malaysia,
zooplankton.
I. INTRODUCTION
Zooplankton are microscopic animals that act as primary
and secondary links in the food webs of all aquatic
ecosystems. They feed on phytoplankton which directly
provide food source for larval vertebrates and invertebrates as
well as related to the growth of juvenile and larger fish. They
are also important component in the transfer of energy from
primary producers of phytoplankton to higher trophic levels
such as fish [1]. Regarding the habitat, zooplankton are
cosmopolitan fauna and inhabit all freshwater bodies of the
world [2]. These communities are also sensitive to various
substances in water such as nutrient enrichment and pollutants.
Thus, they have often been used as indicators to assess the
condition and change of the freshwater environment
particularly in the northern hemisphere [3]. The present study
has been undertaken to determine the zooplankton diversity
and abundance in relation to physical parameters in the study
Fig. 1 Study area with sampling stations of irrigation canal, rice
field and Burung River in Balik Pulau, Penang.
Azma Hanim Ismail, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia,
Siti Azrin Zaidin, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
http://dx.doi.org/10.17758/IAAST.A0715053
37
2nd International Conference on Agriculture, Environment and Biological Sciences (ICAEBS'15) August 16-17, 2015 Bali (Indonesia)
TABLE I
CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLING STATIONS IN BALIK PULAU, PENANG
Station
Ecosystem
Mean depth (m)
1
Irrigation canal
0.65
2
Irrigation canal
0.55
3
Rice field
0.15
4
Burung River
1.05
5
Burung River
1.48
taxonomic level according to the standard taxonomic
references [4], [5] and [6].
Geographic coordinates
5°2007.62 N,
100°1241.33 E
5°2019.08 N,
100°1244.33 E
5°2015.11 N,
100°1241.79 E
5°2034.20 N,
100°1246.19 E
5°2033.75 N,
100°1247.36 E
C. Data Analyses
In order to provide more information on zooplankton
community dynamic, some ecological indices were calculated
which were diversity indices (Simpson Index and ShanonWiener Index), richness indices (Margalef Index and
Menhinick Index) and evenness index (Pielou Index)
according to [7].
All of the data has been compiled into Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet based on sampling stations and sampling months.
Normality test was performed using SPSS to determine
whether the input data is normally distributed. Since the data
was not normally distributed, non-parametric analysis of
Kruskal-Wallis was performed in order to see if there is any
difference on zooplankton species number and abundance
between sampling stations.
Spearman correlation was used to describe the degree of
relationship [8] between zooplankton abundance and physical
parameters. The result can show how strongly pairs of
variables such as temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen and water
transparency are related to zooplankton abundance. Spearman
correlation was performed and the range of values was
between +1 to – 1. When the coefficient, r exceed 0.5, thus it
indicates that the correlation is strong.
B. Data Collection
Field sampling was conducted monthly from October 2013
until February 2014 for 5 months. Zooplankton samples were
collected by filtering 40 L of water through a Wisconsin
conical plankton net (35 µm mesh size). Samples were
transferred into 120 ml screw cap plastic container and
preserved with 70% ethanol before transported to the
laboratory. Three sample replicates were collected for each
station to increase accuracy of the result. Station 3 dried out
during the sampling occasion so it present fewer samples
compared to the other stations.
In - situ parameters including dissolved oxygen (DO),
temperature and pH were measured at the surface water of all
sampling stations. Dissolved oxygen (DO) (mg/L) and
temperature (°C) were measured using a YSI meter (Model
57), while pH was measured using the Orion pH meter (Model
230A). Water transparency was measured using Secchi disc.
The disc was lowered slowly into the water until it was
disappeared from eyesight. The depth at which the pattern on
disc is no longer visible was recorded. Water depth was
measured using scaled rope attached with a weight at the end
of the rope. Then, it was lowered into the water until reached
the bottom. The depth was taken as a measure of water depth.
In the laboratory, three sub-sample of 1 mL for each
replicate were examined under a compound microscope
(Olympus BX40) at various magnifications using a SedgwickRafter counting cell. In order to ensure that the plankton was
fairly distributed, sample bottle has been shaken before
introducing into the cell. 1 ml of well mixed sub-sample was
filled into the cells using an adjustable volume pipette. Then
cover slip was placed gently to avoid any air bubbles trapped
in the cell. Sample was allowed to settle for at least 10 minutes
to ensure that zooplankton was settled into a single layer.
These steps were repeated three times for each sample bottle
and an average of the counts was recorded. The organisms
were expressed as individual per liter (ind/L) of the sample.
Zooplankton abundance was derived from the following
formula:
Individu / L = AC / L
III. RESULTS
A. Zooplankton Diversity
A checklist of zooplankton species occurred in the study
sites are shown in Table II.
B. Zooplankton Abundance
Zooplankton abundance throughout the study period is
shown in Fig. 2. The highest zooplankton abundance (182
ind/L) was recorded in the month of November 2013 while the
lowest abundance (19 ind/L)) was noticed in the month of
February 2014. All zooplankton groups occurred at the highest
abundance in November 2013 while the lowest in February
2014 which was dominated by Rotifera, followed by
Copepoda and Cladocera.
Fig. 3 shows the percentage of zooplankton abundance at
each station during the study period. Rotifera shows the
highest abundance at all sampling stations compared to the
other groups. The highest abundance of Rotifera occurred at
Station 5 (145 ind/L), Copepoda at Station 2 (12 ind/L), while
Copepoda at Station 3 (9 ind/L). Based on result of KruskallWallis test, there was a statistically significant difference in
zooplankton abundance between sampling stations (p = 0.004).
C. Physical Parameters
Dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH and water transparency
were measured while collecting zooplankton samples. Their
mean and standard error values are given in Table III.
Where, A = Average number of individual per mL; C =
Volume of concentrated sample in mL; L = Volume of filtered
water in L
Zooplankton were identified and enumerated at the lowest
http://dx.doi.org/10.17758/IAAST.A0715053
38
2nd International Conference on Agriculture, Environment and Biological Sciences (ICAEBS'15) August 16-17, 2015 Bali (Indonesia)
TABLE II
ZOOPLANKTON SPECIES CHECKLIST AND DISTRIBUTION BY SAMPLING STATION DURING THE STUDY PERIOD (OCTOBER 2013 UNTIL FEBRUARY 2014)
ORDER
1
2
STATION
3
4
5
Branchionus angularis
Branchionus nilsoni
Branchionus forficula
Branchionus quadridentatus
Keratella cochlearis
Anuraeopsis sp.
Plationus patulus
Lepadella sp.
Colurella uncinata
Dicranophoroides sp.
Asplanchna sp.
Lecane bulla
Lecane hamata
Lecane lateralis
Lecane luna
Lecane papuana
Lecane cf. ungulata
Lophocharis sp.
Notommata sp.
Proalides sp.
Scaridium sp.
Conochillus sp.
Filinia sp.
Testudinella sp.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Diaphanosoma sarsi
Diaphanosoma sp.
+
-
+
-
+
+
-
-
Adult
Nauplii
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
FAMILY
SPECIES
ROTIFERA
Branchionidae
Lepadellidae
Ploimida
Flosculariacea
Bdelloidea
CLADOCERA
Diplostraca
Dicranophoridae
Asplanchnidae
Lecanidae
Mytilinidae
Notommatidae
Proalidae
Scaridiidae
Conochilidae
Filinidae
Testudinellidae
Sidiidae
COPEPODA
Cyclopoida
Fig. 2 Different groups of zooplankton abundance during the study
period
http://dx.doi.org/10.17758/IAAST.A0715053
Fig. 3 Different groups of zooplankton abundance at all sampling
stations during the study period
39
2nd International Conference on Agriculture, Environment and Biological Sciences (ICAEBS'15) August 16-17, 2015 Bali (Indonesia)
Zooplankton abundance was strong positively correlated
with water transparency (r = 0.547) while negative correlations
were found with dissolved oxygen (r = -0.238) and
temperature (r = -0.234). Correlations of zooplankton
abundance with physical parameters in the study sites are
given by Table IV.
TABLE III
MEAN VALUES (MEAN ± SE) OF PHYSICAL PARAMETERS IN ALL SAMPLING
STATIONS
4.92 ± 0.30
Temperature
(°C)
27.82 ± 0.24
7.12 ± 0.11
Water transparency
(m)
0.55 ± 0.06
5.24 ± 0.30
28.33 ± 0.33
7.12 ± 0.11
0.57 ± 0.06
3
3.42 ± 0.70
28.00 ± 0.31
7.28 ± 0.23
0.15 ± 0.02
4
3.44 ± 0.42
28.05 ± 0.38
5.79 ± 0.24
0.82 ± 0.04
5
4.16 ± 0.33
28.11 ± 0.26
6.26 ± 0.29
0.82 ± 0.07
Station
DO (mg/L)
1
2
pH
D. Ecological Indices
Table V shows the ecological indices at all sampling
stations during the study period. The highest value of Margalef
TABLE IV
SPEARMAN CORRELATION VALUES OF ZOOPLANKTON ABUNDANCE AND PHYSICAL PARAMETERS DURING THE STUDY PERIOD
Zooplankton DO
Temperature
pH
Transparency
1.000
Zooplankton
-0.238*
1.000
DO
-0.234*
0.037
1.000
Temperature
0.076
0.407**
-0.067
1.000
pH
0.547**
-0.199
-0.415**
-0.382**
1.000
Transparency
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Station
1
2
3
4
5
TABLE V
ECOLOGICAL INDICES AT ALL SAMPLING STATIONS DURING THE STUDY PERIOD
Richness indices
Diversity Indices
Eveness indices
Menhinick
Margalef (R1)
Simpson (D)
Shannon-Wiener (H’)
Pielou (J)
(R2)
5.46
2.50
0.83
1.09
0.76
4.27
2.02
0.85
1.07
0.81
4.79
2.90
0.93
1.20
0.94
5.60
2.65
0.90
1.21
0.84
5.15
2.16
0.88
1.17
0.82
The number of zooplankton species recorded in rice field
ecosystem of present study was lower than that reported in
references [17] and [18]. However, reference [19] reported
lower species number of zooplankton compared to Burung
River in the present study. The differences of species number
among the studies probably due to the differences in terms of
sampling frequency, sampling methods and physical
parameters measurements during the sampling periods.
In the present study, zooplankton abundance was strong
positively correlated with water transparency. This is good
evidence that an increase in the water transparency leads to an
increase in the zooplankton communities [12]. The Simpson
index in the present study shows high values (0.83 - 0.93)
which indicated that the communities are mature and stable as
the dominance is shared by large number of species. Low
diversity which is usually showed close to zero values is a
signal that the communities are under stress conditions [20].
The Pielou index values which are more than 0.5 indicated that
the zooplankton ecology is balance during the study period. If
the values are less than 0.5, it could be an indicator of the
presence of ecological stress with the occurrence of few
dominant species at high density in the study site [21].
index occurred at Station 4 (5.60) while the lowest value found
at Station 2 (4.27). Menhinick index showed the highest value
of richness at Station 3 (2.90) while the lowest value was at
Station 2 (2.02). The values of diversity index of Simpson
index varied from 0.83 to 0.93 while the values for ShanonWiener index fluctuated between 1.07 and 1.21. Pielou’s
Evenness index showed the highest value of 0.94 at Station 3
while the lowest value was recorded at Station 1 for 0.76.
IV. DISCUSSION
The present study showed that rotifers dominated all three
types of water body in terms of species richness and
abundance. This finding is in accord with work by [9] and
[10], who reported that rotifers are the dominant group in their
study sites. The high number of rotifers in freshwater
ecosystem is due to their less specialized feeding habits, high
fecundity and short developmental rates [11]. In fact, this
pattern is common in freshwater ecosystem such as lakes,
ponds, rivers and streams [12].
Cladocera and Copepoda were observed in lower species
richness and abundance compared to Rotifera. This is due to
the effects of size-selective predation by fish [13] and the
changes in chemical characteristics of the water condition [14].
In terms of copepods, the abundance of nauplii was always
higher than the adult stages [15]. This is probably due to the
larger size of adult forms which increase the predation
intensity compared to juvenile forms [16].
http://dx.doi.org/10.17758/IAAST.A0715053
V. CONCLUSION
The qualitative analysis of zooplankton from all three
aquatic ecosystems revealed the presence of three taxonomic
groups: Rotifera, Cladocera and Copepoda. From those,
40
2nd International Conference on Agriculture, Environment and Biological Sciences (ICAEBS'15) August 16-17, 2015 Bali (Indonesia)
[15] H. Y. Zakaria, A. A. Radwan and M. A. Said, “Influence of salinity
variations on zooplankton community in El-Mex Bay, Alexandria,
Egypt,” Egypt. J. Aquat. Res. vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 52–67, 2007.
[16] E. V. Sampaio, O. Rocha, T. Matsumura-Tundisi and J. G. Tundisi,
“Composition and abundance of Zooplankton in the limnetic zone of
seven reservoirs of the Paranapanema River, Brazil,” Braz. J. Biol. vol.
62, pp. 525–545, 2002.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842002000300018
[17] A. B. Ali, “Seasonal dynamics of microcrustacean and rotifers
communities in Malaysian ricefields used for rice-fish farming,”
Hydrobiologia, vol. 206, pp. 139-148, 1990.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00018640
[18] A. S.R.M. Shah and A. Ali, “Distribution and seasonal dynamics of
zooplankton in the Muda rice agro-ecosystem,” in Sustainable rice
production in Malaysia beyond 2000, M. Nashriyah, S. Ismail, N. K.
Ho, A. Ali, K. Y. Lum and M. Mashhor, Eds. Malaysia: Malaysia
Institute for Nuclear Technology (MINT) and Muda Agricultural
Development Authority (MADA), 2002, pp. 285.
[19] N.Z. Zulikha, F.M. Yusoff, J. Nishikawa, A. Arshad and H.M. MatiasPeralta, “Mesozooplankton composition and abundance in a tropical
estuary during monsoon season,” Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Science. vol 8, pp. 430-440, 2013.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/jfas.2013.430.440
[20] M. C. Dash, Fundamental of Ecology. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill,
2003, pp. 516-527.
[21] S. M. Frutos, A. S. Poi de Neiff and G. Neiff, “Zooplankton abundance
and species diversity in two lakes with different trophic states
(Corrientes, Argentina),” Acta Limnol. Bras. vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 367–
375, 2009.
rotifers are best represented as number of species diversity and
abundance, followed by cladocerans and copepods in nauplius,
copepodite and adult froms. The dominance of zooplankton
species is highly variable in different types of water body
according to nutrient levels, predator and other environmental
factors which then affects the other biotic components of the
ecosystems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research project was supported by funds from
Universiti
Sains
Malaysia
(grant
no.
1001/PBIOLOGI/811243). The authors are grateful to Dr.
Russell Shiel for helping with the identification of
zooplankton.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
R.S. Stemberger, “An inventory of rotifer species diversity of northern
Michigan inland Lakes,” Archiv für Hydrobiologie. vol. 118, pp. 283302, 1990.
S. K. Mukhopadhyay, B. Chattopadhyay, A. R. Goswami and A.
Chatterjee, “Spatial variations in zooplankton diversity in waters
contaminated with composite effluents,” J. Limnol. vol. 66, pp. 97-106,
2007.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/jlimnol.2007.97
D. Rissik, D. van Senden, M. Doherty, T. Ingleton, P. Ajani, L.
Bowling, M. Gibbs, M. Gladstone M, T. Kobayashi, I. Suthers and W.
Froneman, “'Plankton-related environmental and water-quality issues,”
in Plankton, a guide to their ecology and monitoring for water quality,
1st ed. I.M. Suthers, D. Rissik, Eds. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing,
2009, pp. 39–72.
R. W. Pennak, Freshwater invertebrates of the United States. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1978, pp. 1-803.
B. A. G. Idris, Freshwater zooplankton of Malaysia (Crustacea:
Cladocera). Malaysia: Universiti Pertanian Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor,
1983, pp. 10-151.
R. J. Shiel, A guide to identification of rotifers, cladocerans and
copepods from Australian inland waters. Albury: Co-operative Research
Centre for Freshwater Ecology, Murray-Darling Freshwater Research
Centre, 1995, pp. 1-142.
E. Ogbeigbu, Biostatistics, a practical approach to research and data
handling. Nigeria: Minex publishing Company Limited, Benin City
Nigeria, 2005, pp. 153-155.
J. H. Zar, Biostatistical analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, 1999, pp. 395-398.
W. Reckendorfer, H. Keckeis, G. Winkler and F. Schiemer,
“Zooplankton abundance in the River Danube, Austria: the significance
of inshore retention. Freshwater Biol. vol. 41, pp. 583–591, 1999.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00412.x
A. M. Rabee, “The effect of Al-Tharthar – Euphrates Canal on the
quantitative and qualitative composition of zooplankton in Euphrates
River,” J. Al-Nahrain Univ. vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 120–128, 2010.
J. D. Allan, “Life history patterns in zooplankton,” American
Naturalist., vol. 110, pp. 165–176, 1976.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/283056
I. F. Neves, D. Rocha, K. F. Roche and A. A. Pinto, “Zooplankton
community structure of two marginal lake of river (Cuiaba) (Mato,
Grosso, Brazil) with analysis of rotifer and Cladocera diversity,” Braz. J.
Biol., vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 329–343, 2003.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842003000200018
J. F. Pankow, Aquatic Chemistry Concepts. Chelsea: Lewis Publishers,
1991, pp. 109–127.
E.S.F. Medeiros, and A.H. Arthington, “The importance of zooplankton
in the diets of three native fish species in floodplain waterholes of a
dryland river, the Macintyre River, Australia,”.Hydrobiologia, vol. 614,
pp. 19– 31, 2008.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10750-008-9533-7
http://dx.doi.org/10.17758/IAAST.A0715053
About Author:
Spatial organization of zooplankton community
will contribute to the knowledge of zooplankton
diversity in Malaysian water bodies.
41