International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ___________________________________ ISSN 2278-3202Vol. 2(4), 37-43, April (2013) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 37 Seasonal Variations and Diversity of Zooplanktons Community Structure in Chenani Hydroelectric Reservoir, its Feeding Channel and River Tawi, Udhampur, J&K, IndiaMohan V.C., Sharma K.K. and Sharma A. Department of Zoology, University of Jammu, Jammu (180006) J&K INDIA Available online at: www.isca.in Received 13th February 2013, revised 17th February 2013, accepted 19th March 2013Abstract Reservoir, its connecting channel and feeder river Tawi were studied for a period of one year from September 2011 to August 2012 for its water quality parameters and zooplanktons community structure. Physico-chemical parameters viz. air temperature, water temperature, transparency, pH, DO, FCO2, carbonates, bicarbonates, chloride, calcium, magnesium, sulphate, phosphate and nitrate were analysed which showed seasonal fluctuations of these water bodies. Water remained alkaline throughout the study period with pH ranged from 8.1 to 8.9. Parameters viz. bicarbonates, calcium, magnesium and transparency showed increase during post monsoon (September) to winter (February) where as FCO, chlorides, phosphates, sulphates and nitrates showed decline during this period. However much fluctuation have not been reported in the concentration of phosphates, sulphates and nitrates which showed an increase during rainy season. Both qualitatively and quantitatively analysis were made to investigate the seasonal fluctuations and distribution of zooplanktons. Qualitatively zooplanktons were composed of six species of Protozoan (Centropyxis aculeate, Nebela collaris, Trinema enchelys, Euglena gracilis, Arcella vulgaris and Amoeba sp.), five species of Rotifera (Lepidella ovalis, Colurella adriatica, Branchionus angularis, Monostyla lemaris and Cephalodella intuta), three species each of Ciliata (Paramecium sp , Euglypha ciliate and Vorticella convallaria), Cladocera (Daphnia silmilis, Alona monocantha and Alona costata) and Copepoda (Eucyclops sp, Mesocyclops sp., and Nauplius larva of Copepod). Quantitatively Protozoa was dominant throughout the study period with Trinema enchelys, Euglena gracilis and Arcella vulgaris constituting the largest share of Protozoan. Copepoda was the second dominant group present throughout the study period followed by Cladocera, Rotifera and last were the group ciliate. Zooplanktons species richness, diversity and evenness were calculated. Values of Margalef’s index (R= 2.89) and Menhinicks index (R=0.92) were found higher at site 6 and site 5 and lowest (2.81 and 0.68) at site 1 respectively. Simpson index (I=0.30) was found higher at site 5 and lowest (0.14) at site 1. Shannon’s-Weiner’s index (H’) values (2.75) was found highest at site 1 and lowest (2.29) at site 5. Maximum species evenness (0.92) was recorded at site 1 while minimum (0.79) at site 5. Keywords: Zooplanktons, physico-chemical parameters, seasonal fluctuations, correlation, diversity index. Introduction Zooplanktons are microscopic organisms, acts as integral components of aquatic food web and contribute significantly to productivity of freshwater ecosystems. They are performing at second trophic level in energy flow and switch over to conversion of detritus matter into edible animal food. They occupy anintermediate position in the food web and mediate the transfer of energy from lower to highertrophic levels. Being heterotrophic in nature, they play a key role in cycling oforganic materials in an aquatic ecosystem. Due to short life cycle,zooplankton communities often respond quickly to environmental change. The changes in physico-chemical conditions of water can be reflected directly on the bioticcommunity of ecosystem. As a majorelement in aquatic biota, the zooplankton community often exhibits dramatic changes inresponse to the changes in the physico-chemical properties of the aquatic environment. The study of zooplankton has been a fascinating subject for a long time. In the last two decades much attention has been paid in tropical countries towards the study of biology, ecology and toxicology of zooplankton due to their important role in the rapidly emerging concepts in environmental management like environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), bio indication of pollution and biological monitoring. Hencezooplankton association, abundance, seasonal variation, richness and diversity can be used as forthe assessment of water pollution and for pisciculture management practices. Thus in the present study, zooplanktons has been studied qualitatively and quantitatively and the results are correlated with the physico-chemical factors to get a better understanding of the structure and function of this important aquatic ecosystem.Material and MethodsStudy area and stations: Chenani hydroelectric reservoir is whole concrete and is situated 15 km away from Udhampur city of J&K state of India. It lies between 32°57’ N latitude and International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ ISSN 2278-3202 Vol. 2(4), 37-43, April (2013) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 38 75°10’ E longitude at an elevation of 1045m above MSL. It is connected with river Tawi with an artificial whole concrete canal of about 9 km. It has the dimension of 750×150×22 feet with a capacity of 15Mw. Reservoir, its connecting channel and feeder river Tawi were studied for a period of one year from September 2011 to August 2012. In the present study seven stations viz. I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII were selected, out of which stations I, II, III and IV lies in the reservoir (stations I and II at the inlet whereas stations III and IV were situated near the outlet). Stations V and VI were situated in the canal (station V at about 4 km away from reservoir and station VI at 5 km beyond station V towards feeding section of river Tawi) and station VII was situated at river Tawi. Analysis of Physico-chemical parameters: Water samples were collected once every month from these stations and estimated for physico-chemical parameters like water temperature, air temperature, transparency, pH, dissolved oxygen, free carbon dioxide, carbonates, bicarbonates, calcium, magnesium, chloride, sulphates, nitrates and phosphates by standard methods of APHA Zooplankton sampling and analysis: Zooplankton samples were collected by filtering 25 litres of water through standard plankton net (77 mesh bolting silk) and the samples were fixed in 5% of formalin. Zooplanktons were identified by keys5-8. Analysis involved by transferring of 1 ml sub sample from each of the samples to the Sedgewick-Rafter counter and counting of cells within 10 squares of the cells, chosen randomly and Analysis was done on a Sedgwick-Rafter counting cell, under compound microscope. N = A × 1000 × C V × F × C Where, N= Number of zooplankton cells or units per litre of original water, A= Total number of zooplankton counted, C= Volume of final concentration of the samples in ml, V=Volume of a field in cubic mm, F= Number of fields counted, L= Volume of original water in litres, Statistical analysis was done using SPSS programme. Results and DiscussionSeasonal variations in the Physico-chemical parameters of Chenani hydroelectric reservoir, its connecting channel and river Tawi had been studied during the study period of Sept. 2011 to Aug. 2012 and are shown in table 1. Temperature is a key factor which controls all the chemical reactions and biological processes in a water body. Water temperature followed similar trends as that of air temperature and ranged between 9.5C (Dec.) to 24C (June). pH of water remained alkaline throughout the year and ranged between 8.1 (Jan.) to 8.9 (June). High value of pH may be due to waste discharge, microbial decomposition of organic matter and sewage discharge by surrounding human population 9-10. Dissolved oxygen showed an increase with the decline in water temperature and its values ranged between 4.75 mgl-1 (Sept.) to 9.60 mgl-1 (Jan.). The value of FCO ranged between 1.20 mgl- 1 (Feb.) to 6.29 mgl-1 (Sept.). Dissolved oxygen, bicarbonates, calcium and magnesium showed seasonal fluctuations with an increase from post monsoon (September) to Winter (February) where as values of FCO, chloride, phosphate, sulphate and nitrate showed decline in same seasons in all the stations. Data on the temperature, nutrient concentrations, pH range, dissolved oxygen values, and Secchi transparency were in general agreement with limnological characteristics of these water bodies. The zooplanktons in Cheneni hydroelectric reservoir, connecting channel and river Tawi comprised of Protozoa (six genera), Ciliate (three genera), Rotifera (five genera), Cladocera (three genera) and Copepod (three genera) as shown in figure 1. Qualitative and Quantitative analysis of different zooplanktons are shown in table 3 and table 4 respectively. Among all the zooplanktons recorded from these water bodies, Protozoa was found to be the most dominant group both qualitatively and quantitatively and was represented by six species viz. Centropyxis aculeate, Nebela collaris, Arcella vulgaris, Amoeba sp., Euglena gracilis and Trinema enchelys. Protozoa represented 46.54 % of all the zooplanktons recorded from these water bodies during the study period. Maximum density of Protozoa (44.5 ind./litre) was found in station III in summer season where as minima in average no. of Protozoa (24.25 ind. /litre) was noticed in station VI during monsoon season. Amoebasp. is noticed only twice in the month of Sept. and Oct. (2011). Summer rise in quantitative count of total zooplanktons were contributed by Protozoa and may be attributed to increased production of detritus and bacterial richness, at higher temperature, on which Protozoans were known to feed11- 14. Low temperature, rise in pH, low bicarbonate, Ca, Mg and total hardness favouring winter highest Protozoan peak in a reservoir15. Qualitatively Copepods were represented by Eucyclops sp., Mesocyclops sp., andNauplius larva of Copepod.Quantitatively Copepod was the second dominant group of Zooplanktons and represents 19.50% of the total population of zooplanktons. Maximum number of Copepods were obtained from station I (25.25 ind./ litre) during Summer season whereas least density of Copepods were found in station VII (2.5 ind./litre). Copepods were also found in maximum number during summer months and minimum during monsoon months16. Cladocera was the third dominant group of Zooplanktons and was represented by Daphnia silmilis, Alona monocantha and Alona costata. The number of Cladocera were found to be maximum in station I (17 ind./litre) during summer season and minima were seen in station VII (1.5 ind./litre) during monsoon season. The group Rotifera was represented by five species viz. Lepidella ovalis, Colurella adriatica, Branchionus angularis, Monostyla lemaris and Cephalodella intuta and it represents the fourth dominant group and constitute 11.97 % of total zooplanktons. Maxima in number of cell per litre were found in station I having (15.5 ind./litre) during summer season whereas minima (1.5 ind./litre) were found in International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ Vol. 2(4), 37-43, April (2013) International Science Congress Association station VI during monsoon. The winter rise in Rotifers can be linked to favoura ble temperature and availability of abundant food in the form of bacteria and suspended detritus Ciliate was the least abundant group forming 8.45 % of total number of zooplanktons, composed of Euglypha ciliate and Vorticella convallaria. Maxima in number of Cilates were found in station II (13 ind./litre) in summer season and minima in station VI (1.25 ind./litre) during monsoon season. Figure-1 Showing the annual variation in the composition of different groups in seven stations There were a distinct seasonal fluctuations and composition of the zooplanktons in these water bodies with productive (Feb. to June), retardation (July to August) and recovery (September October) periods. This may be due to similar condition for nutrients as well as some physico- chemical property of water An overall study of total zooplankton had showed trimodal seasonal variations with October, February, June peaks, July, August and September decline. October rise in zooplanktons were also studied21- 22 . The low number of zooplanktons in monsoon might be due to the fall in temperature, low light penetration and heavy water flow wash off the surface zooplanktons. The unsettled and disturbed water Column was resulting from the rain water and hea vy out flow and inflow retard the zooplankton population23 . Further, it is a fact that the diversity of zooplankton is always less in the flowing fresh water compared to stagnant water like that of reservoirs. Seasonal variations in the total number of zoo the study period are given in table 5 and figure 2. Correlation between zooplanktons species and physico parameters of water such as water temperature, pH, transparency, pH, dissolved oxygen, free carbon dioxide, carbonates, bica rbonates, calcium, magnesium, chloride, sulphates, nitrates and phosphates were studied as shown in table 2. The correlation studies between different zooplanktons groups population density and physico- chemical parameters showed negative correlation with t emperature, chloride, nitrates, phosphates and sulphates whereas showed positive but not significant correlation with transparency, free CO bicarbonates at 5% level of significance. Analysis of co  International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ International Science Congress Association station VI during monsoon. The winter rise in Rotifers can be ble temperature and availability of abundant food in the form of bacteria and suspended detritus 17- 19. Group Ciliate was the least abundant group forming 8.45 % of total number of zooplanktons, composed of Paramecium sp., Maxima in number of Cilates were found in station II (13 ind./litre) in summer season and minima in station VI (1.25 ind./litre) during Showing the annual variation in the composition of different There were a distinct seasonal fluctuations and composition of the zooplanktons in these water bodies with productive (Feb. to June), retardation (July to August) and recovery (September October) periods. This may be due to similar condition for chemical property of water 20. An overall study of total zooplankton had showed trimodal seasonal variations with October, February, June peaks, July, August and September decline. October rise in zooplanktons . The low number of zooplanktons in monsoon might be due to the fall in temperature, low light penetration and heavy water flow wash off the surface zooplanktons. The unsettled and disturbed water Column was vy out flow and inflow . Further, it is a fact that the diversity of zooplankton is always less in the flowing fresh water compared to stagnant water like that of reservoirs. Seasonal variations in the total number of zoo planktons during the study period are given in table 5 and figure 2. Correlation between zooplanktons species and physico -chemical parameters of water such as water temperature, pH, transparency, pH, dissolved oxygen, free carbon dioxide, rbonates, calcium, magnesium, chloride, sulphates, nitrates and phosphates were studied as shown in table 2. The correlation studies between different zooplanktons chemical parameters emperature, chloride, nitrates, phosphates and sulphates whereas showed positive but not significant correlation with transparency, free CO 2, pH and bicarbonates at 5% level of significance. Analysis of co - efficient of correlation (r) of total Protozoans a zooplanktons had shown mostly insignificant results and is in accordance to the findings24- 25 . The species diversities, richness and equitability index’s were analysed using the following indices of Shannon- Wiener index (H’) Margalef’s index (R28 , and Evenness index (E) data revealed that maximum species diversity and richness in term of Shannon- Wiener index (H’= 2.75) and Margalef’s index (R =2.92) were found in station I and station VI and minimum (H’= 2.29 and R =2.81) at site VI and station I respectively. Value of Evenness (E) was higher at site I while low at site VI as given in table 5 and figure 3. Figure - Showing the seasonal variation in the composition of different groups in seven stations during study period Zooplanktons species diversity index and Simpson’s index (I) varied from 0 to 1 gives the probability that two individuals drawn from a population belonged to the same species. Shannon’s index (H’) combines species richness an evenness components as one overall index of diversity. Higher  \n \n \n\r \r  \n  \r \r\n \r \n\n  \n\n\n  International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ ISSN 2278-3202 Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. 39 efficient of correlation (r) of total Protozoans a nd total zooplanktons had shown mostly insignificant results and is in . The species diversities, richness and equitability index’s were analysed using the following Wiener index (H’) 26, Simpson index (I)27, , and Evenness index (E) 29. Analysis of data revealed that maximum species diversity and richness in Wiener index (H’= 2.75) and Margalef’s index =2.92) were found in station I and station VI and minimum =2.81) at site VI and station I respectively. Value of Evenness (E) was higher at site I while low at site VI - 2 Showing the seasonal variation in the composition of stations during study period Zooplanktons species diversity index and Simpson’s index (I) varied from 0 to 1 gives the probability that two individuals drawn from a population belonged to the same species. Shannon’s index (H’) combines species richness an d species evenness components as one overall index of diversity. Higher   \n \n \n\r \r  \n  \r \r\n \r \n\n \n\n\n  \n \n \n\r \r  \n  \r \r\n \r \n\n   \n \n \n\r \r  \n  \r \r\n \r \n\n International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ ISSN 2278-3202 Vol. 2(4), 37-43, April (2013) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 40 values of these index’s indicated greater species diversity, hence it showed higher species diversity at site I. Further higher values of species richness at site 1 showed abundant food and suitable physico-chemical factors compared to other sites. Higher the value of S-WDI, the greater is the plankton diversity30. ConclusionZooplanktons density was maximum in summer and least in the monsoon seasons. Summer rise in zooplanktons may be due to favourable physico-chemical parameters whereas monsoon decline is due to dilution effect, high turbidity and less photosynthetic activity by the primary producers. On other hand chemical variables are also within the permissible limit, indicates that these water bodies are productive and suitable for fish culture, irrigation, domestic and drinking purpose. Acknowledgement I am highly thankful to CSIR, New Delhi for financial assistance as Junior Research Fellowship and Head department of Zoology Prof. K. K. Sharma for providing me valuable guidance and laboratory facilities. Table-1 Mean variations in the physico chemical parameters of seven stations during Sept. 2011 to Aug. 2012 Parameters units Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6 Station 7 Air temp. C 27.79 ± 6.89 27.80 ± 6.88 27.79 ± 6.89 27.80 ± 6.88 27.80 ± 6.88 27.80 ± 6.88 27.80 ± 6.88 Water temp. C 17.46 ± 5.81 17.51 ± 5.80 17.55 ± 5.75 17.55 ± 5.75 17.44 ± 5.79 17.40 ± 5.83 17.41 ± 5.83 Transparency cm 209.91 ± 110.03 210.25 ± 109.29 209.23 ± 110.42 209.50 ± 110.30 211.16 ± 110.64 210.50 ± 109.71 210.58 ± 109.38 pH 8.37 ± 0.158 8.40 ± 0.158 8.40 ± 0.165 8.37 ± 0.224 8.39 ± 0.189 8.35 ± 0.175 8.36 ± 0.102 Dissolved O2 mg/l 7.77 ± 1.64 7.76 ± 1.64 7.76 ± 1.65 7.76 ± 1.64 7.76 ± 1.64 7.75 ± 1.64 7.76 ± 1.65 Free CO2 mg/l 3.95 ± 1.58 3.94 ± 1.58 3.93 ± 1.57 3.94 ± 1.58 3.93 ± 1.57 3.95 ± 1.57 3.95 ± 1.57 Bicarbonates mg/l 118.76 ± 20.42 121.53 ± 19.00 120.91 ± 20.25 121.91 ± 18.38 120.26 ± 19.17 118.78 ± 20.30 118.78 ± 20.35 Carbonates mg/l 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Chloride mg/l 8.24 ± 4.14 8.85 ± 4.55 8.38 ± 3.96 8.26 ± 4.37 8.65 ± 4.93 8.16 ± 4.15 8.12 ± 4.47 Calcium mg/l 70.07 ± 12.24 65.01 ± 20.31 66.53 ± 17.42 70.56 ± 12.08 70.42 ± 12.06 69.87 ± 12.10 69.44 ± 12.31 Magnesium mg/l 57.26 ± 22.71 55.90 ± 22.22 56.77 ± 22.60 56.04 ± 21.68 57.13 ± 23.01 58.66 ± 22.59 56.92 ± 22.53 Sulphate mg/l 0.079 ± 0.053 0.077 ± 0.052 0.079 ± 0.053 0.077 ± 0.052 0.077 ± 0.052 0.077 ± 0.050 0.078 ± 0.051 Nitrate mg/l 0.170 ± 0.053 0.162 ± 0.051 0.164 ± 0.059 0.169 ± 0.054 0.157 ± 0.047 0.164 ± 0.053 0.155 ± 0.052 Phosphate mg/l 0.171 ± 0.055 0.156 ± 0.060 0.170 ± 0.053 0.156 ± 0.051 0.158 ± 0.051 0.166 ± 0.052 0.161 ± 0.051 Table-2 Correlation between physico-chemical parameters and various zooplankton groups Parameters Protozoa Ciliate Rotifera Cladocera Copepod Water temp. - 0.31 - 0.15 - 0.20 - 0.15 0.01 Transparency - 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.22 0.25 pH - 0.08 0.32 0.34 0.21 0.42 Dissolved O2 -0.44 - 0.28 0.07 - 0.31 - 0.16 Free CO2 0.38 0.25 - 0.02 0.38 0.22 Bicarbonates 0.39 0.39 0.06 0.14 0.15 Carbonates - - - - - Chloride - 0.40 - 0.07 - 0.04 - 0.22 - 0.09 Calcium - 0.30 0.03 0.05 - 0.25 - 0.01 Magnesium 0.12 - 0.01 - 0.01 0.21 0.07 Sulphate - 0.10 - 0.49 - 0.36 - 0.11 - 0.29 Nitrate - 0.47 - 0.48 - 0.15 - 0.47 - 0.36 phosphate - 0.46 - 0.38 - 0.48 - 0.61 - 0.49 International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ Vol. 2(4), 37-43, April (2013) International Science Congress Association Monthly variation in zooplanktons species occurrence during Zooplanktons Summer Protozoa Mar. 2012 Apr. 2012 Centropyxis aculeate - + Nebela collaris + + Arcella vulgaris + + Euglena gracilis + + Trinema enchelys + + Amoeba sp. - - Ciliate Paramecium sps - + Euglypha ciliate + + Vorticella convallaria + + Rotifera Lepidela ovalis - + Colurella adriatica - + Monostyla lemaris - + Cephalodella intuta + + Branchionus angularis - + Cladocera Daphnia similis + + Alona monacantha + + Alona costata + + Copepoda Eucyclops sp. + + Mesocyclops sp. + + Nauplius larva of copepod + + Showing species richness, diversity and evenness index’s of total Where, N0 = No. of species, R = Margalef’s index, R Evenness index and D = Dominance index   \r \n \r \n  \r \n International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ International Science Congress Association Table-3 variation in zooplanktons species occurrence during Sept. 2011 to Aug. 2012 Summer Rainy May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 Aug. 2012 Sep. 2011 Oct. 2011 Nov. 2011 + + - - + + + + + - - + + + + + - + + + + + - - + + + + + - - + + + - - - - + + - + + - - - - - + + - - + + + + + - - - + - + + - - + + + + + - - + + - + + - - + + - + + - - + + + + + - - + + + + + - - + + + + + - - + + + + + - - + + + + + - - + + + + + - - + + + + + - - + + + Figure-3 Showing species richness, diversity and evenness index’s of total zooplanktons species at seven study sites. = Margalef’s index, R 2 = Menhinick’s index, I =Simpson index, H = Shannon Weiner index, E =  \r \n  \r \n \r \n \r \n International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ ISSN 2278-3202 Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. 41 Sept. 2011 to Aug. 2012 Winter Nov. 2011 Dec. 2011 Jan. 2011 Feb. 2011 + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + + - - - - - - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + zooplanktons species at seven study sites. H = Shannon Weiner index, E =  \r \n ! ! "! #! $! %! International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ ISSN 2278-3202 Vol. 2(4), 37-43, April (2013) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 42 Table-4 Monthly variation in zooplanktons (no./litre) of water at seven stations from Sep. 2011 to Aug. 2013 Group Stations Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Total Protozoa I 17 45 19 24 38 45 22 39 47 48 14 12 370 II 19 39 13 38 24 47 20 34 47 63 16 4 364 III 15 57 30 29 44 34 37 63 27 51 17 13 417 IV 16 20 12 15 31 30 26 21 32 47 14 10 274 V 11 34 19 26 16 42 20 30 21 48 24 14 305 VI 10 26 22 16 23 34 28 17 19 36 12 3 246 VII 9 26 19 13 22 39 23 24 17 33 13 10 248 Mean 13.85 35.28 19.14 23 28.28 38.71 25.14 32.57 30 46.57 15.71 9.42 317.7 Ciliate I 7 4 4 3 5 9 8 10 7 13 4 1 84 II 5 8 5 2 4 9 11 13 12 16 2 0 87 III 4 0 2 5 3 8 9 8 11 19 3 0 72 IV 5 0 2 0 3 4 7 6 4 12 4 2 50 V 0 5 0 2 3 3 6 3 2 8 0 0 32 VI 1 4 3 6 5 2 3 5 8 12 3 1 53 VII 2 4 2 5 2 3 2 2 5 8 1 0 36 Mean 3.42 3.57 2.57 3.28 3.57 5.42 6.57 6.71 7 12.57 2.42 0.57 59.14 Rotifera I 11 18 5 11 7 9 4 19 12 27 7 2 132 II 10 14 12 13 6 6 9 7 14 15 14 1 121 III 9 13 7 17 3 5 4 12 13 17 6 0 106 IV 1 3 1 2 4 2 0 11 10 14 4 0 52 V 0 3 2 3 2 4 2 3 9 10 3 0 41 VI 0 7 9 1 2 0 2 0 12 12 4 1 50 VII 7 10 1 1 6 3 4 9 11 14 2 2 70 Mean 5.42 9.71 5.28 6.85 4.28 4.14 3.57 8.71 11.57 15.57 5.71 0.85 81.71 Cladocera I 5 12 9 6 13 12 10 16 19 23 4 3 132 II 4 10 11 9 9 6 8 11 16 18 6 0 108 III 6 11 12 5 9 4 9 9 19 22 2 2 110 IV 7 12 12 9 12 9 8 9 10 10 2 0 100 V 4 7 9 5 7 9 10 4 7 12 4 1 80 VI 5 7 6 10 4 9 4 1 2 14 2 0 64 VII 0 2 5 7 1 3 7 9 6 9 4 0 53 Mean 4.42 8.71 9.14 7.28 7.85 7.42 8.0 8.42 11.28 15.42 3.42 0.85 92.42 Copepod I 11 12 16 15 14 12 13 11 32 45 13 6 200 II 15 15 17 3 4 4 14 15 27 35 10 5 164 III 5 9 11 12 10 15 12 17 24 41 8 3 167 IV 10 9 17 8 11 5 10 13 14 20 4 2 113 V 8 8 13 11 9 13 9 7 8 13 0 3 99 VI 4 9 11 9 4 12 7 6 12 15 0 2 91 VII 3 5 9 11 4 7 10 13 9 12 0 2 87 Mean 8.0 9.50 13.42 9.85 8.0 9.71 10.71 11.71 18.0 25.85 5.0 3.28 131.5 Table-5 Seasonal variations in the total number of five groups of zooplanktons in all the stations Group Summer Monsoon Winter No. of Organisms Percentage (%) Protozoa 940 520 764 2224 46.54 Ciliate 230 70 104 404 8.45 Rotifera 276 152 144 572 11.97 Cladocera 302 122 222 646 13.52 Copepod 464 181 287 932 19.50 International Research Journal of Biological Sciences ________________________________________________ ISSN 2278-3202 Vol. 2(4), 37-43, April (2013) Int. Res. J. Biological Sci. International Science Congress Association 43 Table-6 Annual variation of zooplanktons and biodiversity indices in different stations Diversity indices Index Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6 Station 7 Species Richness (N) (R) (R 2 ) 20 2.81 0.68 20 2.85 0.71 20 2.84 0.87 20 2.83 0.89 20 2.86 0.92 20 2.89 0.84 20 2.88 0.84 Species Diversity (I) (H) 0.14 2.75 0.16 2.69 0.20 2.61 0.21 2.46 0.30 2.29 0.21 2.50 0.21 2.50 Species Evenness (E) 0.92 0.89 0.87 0.85 0.79 0.85 0.85 Dominance (D) 0.85 0.83 0.79 0.78 0.69 0.78 0.78 Where, N0 = No. of species, R= Margalef’s index, R2 = Menhinick’s index, I =Simpson index, H = Shannon Weiner index, E = Evenness index and D = Dominance index.References1.Waters T.F., Secondary production in inland waters, Advance in Ecological Research, (10) 11-167 (1977) 2.Gupta M.C. and Sharma L.L., Trophic status and zooplankton of Amarchand reserviour, Udaipur, Rajasthan, C.P. 02: NSL (2007)3.Sharma M.S., Sharma V. And Malara H., Biodiversity of zooplankton in relation to different types of aquatic pollution,C.P. 46) 300-302 (2007) 4.APHA, American Public Health Association Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Ed, Washington DC, 2, (1998)5.Ward H.B. and Whipple G.C., Freshwater Biology, Jhon Willey and Sons.Inc. New York, London, (2) 1248 (1959) 6.Mellanby H., Animal life in Freshwater, Cox and Wyman Ltd. London, () 78-101 (1963) 7.Tonapi G.T., Freshwater animals of India, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. New Delhi, 110001 (1980) 8.Bhouyain A.M. and Asmat G.S.M., Freshwater zooplankton from Bangladesh, Gazi Publishers, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 32-151 (1992) 9.Patil S.G., Chonde S.G., Jadhav A.S. and Raut P.D., Impact of Physico-Chemical Characteristics of Shivaji University lakes on Phytoplankton Communities, Kolhapur, India, Research Journal of Recent Sciences,1(2), 56-60 (2012)10.Parihar S.S., Kumar A., Kumar A., Gupta R.N., Pathak M., Shrivastav A. and Pandey A.C.,Physico-Chemical and Microbiological Analysis of Underground Water in and Around Gwalior City, MP, India, Research Journal of Recent Sciences,1(6), 62-65 (2012)11.Zutshi N., Effects of Jammu city sewage water on abiotic and biotic factor of the river Tawi, Jammu Ph. D. Thesis, University of Jammu, India (1992) 12.Sladeck V., Rotifers as indictors of water quality, Hydrobiol., 100,169-201 (1983)13.Sharma, J., Effect of Industrial wastes and sewage on abiotic and biotic (Plankton and Macrophytes) components of Behlol nullah, Jammu. Ph. D thesis, University of Jammu, Jammu (1999) 14.Wetzel R.G., Limnology, Lake and River Ecosystems, Published by Academic Press, a Harcourt Science and Technology Company, USA (2001) 15.Dutta S.P.S., Kumar S. and Kumari V., Seasonal fluctuationsin protozoan in Kunjwani pond, Jammu, Geobios, New Reports 10(2) 121-124 (1991) 16.Thirupathaiah M., Sravanthy C. and Sammaiah C.,Diversity of zooplankton in Lower Manair reservoir, Karimnagar, AP, India, International Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 1(7), 27-32 (2012)17.Singh D.N., Seasonal variation of zooplankton in tropical lake, Geobios., 27(2-3), 97-100 (2000)18.Vandysh O.I., Zooplankton as an indicator of state of lake of ecosystem polluted with mining waste water in Kola Peninsula, Russian J. Ecol., 35(2), 110-116 (2004) 19.Webber M., Edwards M.E., Cambell C. and Webber D., Phytoplankton and Zooplankton as indicator of water quality in Discovery Bay Jamaica, Hydrobiologia, 545, 177-193 (2005)20.Bhandarkar S.V. and Gaupale D.T., Correlation Coefficient of physico-chemical properties with zooplankton population in Sagar lake Bhandara, Maharashtra, J. Curr. Sci., (17) 547–550 (2008) 21.Somani V.U., Pejavar M.K., Rotifer diversity in lake Musunda, Thana, Maharashtra Jo. Aqua. Biol18 (1) 23-27 (2003) 22.Goswami A.P. and Mankodi P.C., Study on Zooplankton of Fresh Water Reservoir Nyari – II Rajkot district, Gujarat, India, ISCA Journal of Biological Sciences,1(1), 30-34 (201223.Sharma A., Hydrobiology of Basantar river. Ph. D. Thesis. University of Jammu, India (2009) 24.Rathore V., Hydrobiology of Ujh river, Kathua, J and K. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Jammu, (200925.Shannon C.E. and Weaver W., The mathematical theory of communication, University Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, 117 (194926.Simpson E.H., Measurement of diversity, Nature, London 163-681 (194927.Margalef R., Perspectives in ecological theory, University Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 111 (196828.Pielou E.C., Ecological diversity, John Wiley, New York, 165 (197529.Dash M.C., Fundamentals of Ecology, Tata McGraw Hill Publ. Comp. Ltd. New Delhi, (1996) 30.Gilbert J.J., Limnol. Oceanogr., (33) 1286–1303 (1988)