Abundance and diversity of zooplankton in semi-intensive shrimp (Penaeus monodon) farm

Research Article Ghosh et al. (2011)

Research Article

Abundance and Diversity of Zooplankton in Semi-Intensive Shrimp (Penaeus monodon) Farm Alokesh Kumar Ghosh1, Suman Kumar Saha1, Md. Rashedul Islam1, S. M. Bazlur Rahaman1

1Fisheries and Marine Resource Technology Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna-9208, Bangladesh

INTRODUCTION Fish and Fisheries play an important role in

the social and economic life of Bangladesh in terms of income, nutrition, employment and foreign exchange earnings. The people of Bangladesh depend on fish as the principal source of animal protein. It contributes around 3.74% to the GDP and 4.04% to foreign exchange earnings through export. Fish provide 58% of national animal protein consumption. Fisheries provide livelihood to about 12 million people of the country directly and indirectly (Department of Fisheries 2009). Among fisheries products, prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii) and shrimp (Penaeus monodon) are very important. Its demand knows no bounds for its nutrition and taste. Farmers of Bagarhat District developed gher farming technology in 1980 and then spreaded rapidly to other district in coastal region, number of increase by approximately 10-20% every year.

Semi-intensive culture is such kind of culture system where a part of the nutritional needs are supplied from external sources, higher stocking densities, fertilization is used, water exchange is moderate, regular monitoring of pond environment and fish biomass and yields are moderately high (Pillay, 1990). The successfully farm management depends on natural feed and good water quality management into culturable pond. Plankton is the main sources of natural feed. Zooplankton feed on Phytoplankton and directly related with the growth of fish especially prawn and shrimp. So the study of zooplankton is so much important. Plankton is microscopic organisms that formulate the base of food chains and food webs in all aquatic ecosystems. Most forms of zooplankton are motile, and thus their distribution both vertically and horizontally may be quite variable. Zooplankton plays an important food item of omnivorous and carnivorous fishes (Alam et al., 1987). The larvae of carps feed mostly on zooplankton (Bardach et al., 1972), because zooplankton provide the necessary amount of protein

AAAnnn IIInnndddeeepppeeennndddeeennnttt,,, OOOpppeeennn AAAcccccceeessssss,,, PPPeeeeeerrr RRReeevvviiieeewwweeeddd,,, NNNooonnn---PPPrrrooofffiiittt JJJooouuurrrnnnaaalll

IIInnnttteeerrrnnnaaatttiiiooonnnaaalll JJJooouuurrrnnnaaalll ooofff LLLiiifffeee SSSccciiieeennnccceeesss YYYeeeaaarrr 222000111111 VVVooollluuummmeee 555,,, IIIssssssuuueee 111

ABSTRACT The present study was carried out on the seasonal abundance and diversity of zooplankton in a semi- intensive shrimp farm of Bagerhat district from June to December, 2008. Plankton samples were collected by conical shaped monofilament nylon net (Plankton net) and Lugol’s solution was used for preservation. The zooplankton abundance was influenced by physico-chemical factors. In the present study 5 groups of zooplankton were observed namely rotifer, copepod, cladocera, ostracoda and crustacean larvae. Among the various groups of zooplankton, the percentages of copepod, rotifer, cladocera, ostracoda and crustacean larvae in the culture system were 52%, 39%, 7%, 1% and 1% respectively. The zooplankton was dominated by copepods (52%) which showed more or less two peaks in August (833 individuals/L) and in October (815 individuals/L). Rotifer and copepod were about perennial while one genus Cypris of ostracod was found only in August. Three genus of copepod namely Diaptomus, Cyclops and Mesocyclops were identified in the study area of which Diaptomus and Mesocyclops were more or less dominant while four genus of which Brachionus and Filinia under rotifer and Daphnia and Diaphanosoma under cladocera were also found during the study period. The physico-chemical parameters and the zooplankton abundance showed some interrelationships. These relationships are helpful to understand the seasonal and spatial variation of zooplankton population. The findings of the present study would be helpful as baseline information for further plankton related research.

Key words: Abundance; Diversity; Copepod; Shrimp farm

Corresponding author

Email: [email protected] Phone No: --- Fax No: -- Editor Ganesh K. Agrawal DOI 10.3126/ijls.v5i1.5286


2 | International Journal of Life Sciences • ISSN 2091–0525 • Year 2011 • Volume 5 • Issue 1

requires for the rapid growth and development of different organs specially the gonad of fishes. The zooplankton contributes about 23% of the food item of shrimp (Alam et al., 1987), 32% of the Notopterus notopterus (Mustafa and Ahmed, 1979), 47% of the Catla catla and 6.37% of the Labeo rohita (Menon et al., 1981).

The larvae of fish especially shrimp mostly feed on zooplankton because zooplankton provide the necessary amount of protein requires for the rapid growth of the shrimp (Bardach et al., 1972). The abundance and diversity of plankton also affect the survival and growth rate of cultured fish. Their abundance and diversity greatly influence the culture system through maintaining oxygen concentration in water, ensuring the balance between O2 and CO2, enhancing the decomposition of organic matters accumulated in the pond, preventing the development of demersal microalgae and pests, stabilizing water temperature in the pond, regulating pH value and the ecosystem of the pond and also minimizing the variation of water quality parameters (Das and Bhuiyan, 1974). The relationship between the physico-chemical parameters and plankton production of pond water and their relation with monthly fluctuations of zooplankton are of great importance and basically very much essential in case of fish culture and fisheries management. Fishes are more dependent on water temperature, pH, dissolve oxygen, free CO2, alkalinity and some other salts for growth and developments (Nikolsky, 1963). Any changes of these parameters may affect the growth; development and maturity of fish (Nikolsky, 1963; Jhingran, 1985).

In order to fisheries development and to increase the present production level, proper and scientific management is essential in which the knowledge of water quality and natural productivity plays an important role. For broader economic objectives, identification, estimation of plankton abundance is essential for proper exploitation of aquatic resources that leads to economic benefits, employment and balance of ecosystem. In the light of the above, the present study has been undertaken to estimate the abundance and diversity of zooplankton in semi-intensive shrimp culture system and to know if any relationship exists between zooplankton community and different water quality parameters.

Materials and Methods Sampling station and sampling design

A semi-intensive Shrimp farm was selected for the present study which was situated beside the Bagerhat town in Bagerhat district and geographically located at 2236 to 2246 north latitude and 8940 to 8950 east longitude. The farm is on the Bhairab river. It is more or less rectangular in shape with a surface area of 4100 m2 and a depth of 2.5 meter. The farm was joined with the river by a sluich gate so that coastal water could enter into the farm by a canal. Two ponds were selected where semi-intensive culture was practiced. The samples were collected at 30 days interval from June 12th to December 10th, 2008. Three representative samples were collected to increase accuracy of the result.

Plankton collection and preservation Plankton samples were collected in monthly

intervals at 10.30 am on each sampling date by conical shaped monofilament nylon net (Plankton net). The mesh size of the plankton net was 90 µm and the diameter of the net at mouth was 30 cm. Samples were collected from pelagic waters of the ponds from different parts of the ponds. Sixty litters of pelagic water from 6 different parts of the farm were passed through the plankton net with the help of a plastic pan of 5 liter capacity. The water was passed down through the net and the plankton condensed at the lower end of the plankton net then it was collected into a glass test tube and fixed firmly (Welch, 1948). After collection, the plankton materials were transferred into glass bottles and preserved with Lugol’s solution. About 250 ml samples of plankton were preserved with 1.5 ml Lugol’s solution. After preservation the plankton samples were carried out to the Biology laboratory of Fisheries and Marine Resource Technology Discipline for further analyses.

Plankton identification Plankton cells were enumerated under a light

microscope by using Sedgwick-Rafter cell. Recognition of species is a matter of experience. Thus, a series of pencil and ink drawing on postcards of the species of the observed were prepared to identify the organisms. Identification was done following Davis (1956), Moniruzzaman (1997), Zheng (1984), Todd (1991) and Charles (1955).

Classifications and identifying characters of observed zooplankton



Zooplanktons were identified by the characteristics given by different scientists. Mesocyclops and Cyclops were identified by using the characteristics given by Todd (1991) while Diaptomus, Daphnia, Diaphansoma, Filinia, Brachionus and Cypris were identified according to Charles (1955). Characteristics of zooplankton according to different scientists are given below.Phylum: Arthropoda

Class: Crustacea

Order: Cyclopoida

Family: Cyclopoidae

Genus: Mesocyclops

Key to the genera: It has a characteristic appearance; with a streamlined cephalosome bearing four free thoracic segments and short but heavily setose antennae. The first urosome segment the sixth thoracic segment is somewhat rounded and carries two obvious lateral spine on each side (Todd 1991).

Phylum: Arthropoda

Class: Crustacea

Order: Cyclopoida

Family: Cyclopoidae

Genus: Cyclops

Key to the genera: They have the articulation between cephalosome and urosome, not between the sixth thoracic and first abdominal segments, but between the fifth and sixth thoracic segments This gives cyclopoids the appearance of a long slender urosome and the antennules are usually shorter than is typical of calanoids (Todd 1991).

Phylum: Arthropoda

Class: Crustacea

Order: Calanoida

Family:Diaptomidae

Genus: Diaptomus

Key to the genera: The genus Diaptomus is characterized by the beautifully streamlined torpedo-shaped cephalosome, five free thoracic segments and extremely long antennules, which bear three large setae two backward and one forward pointing at their tips (Charles 1955).

Phylum: Arthropoda

Class: Crustacea

Order: Cladocera

Family: Daphnidae

Genus: Daphnia

Key to the genera: Its size is less than three mm. Head armour dorsally prolonged and compressed laterally. Dorsal body wall takes the form of folds that cover the body and limbs one each side, thus forming a sort of bivalve shell. The head however remains uncovered and free. The valves of the shell are firmly grown to each other dorsally, and there is no hinge (Charles 1955).

Phylum: Arthropoda

Class: Crustacea

Order: Cladocera

Family: Sididae

Genus: Diaphanosoma

Figure 1. Map of Bagerhat Sadar Upazila and location of the study area [Red square is the study site]



Key to the genera: Body long with transparent open valve. Eye pigment black, filling end of the head. Color somewhat yellowish. No rosterm. Reflexed antenna does not reach up to the posterior margin of the valve. Pastabdominal claw with the basal spines no anal spines (Charles 1955).

Phylum: Arthropoda

Order: Ostracoda

Family: Cypidae

Genus: Cypris

Key to the genera: They have a single eye and the two are most easily distinguish from each other by the structure (Charles 1955).

Phylum: Rotifera

Class: Monogononta

Order: Ploima

Family: Brachionidae

Genus: Brachionus

Key to the Species: Anteromedian spines have broad base, posterior spines are often present, lorica is smooth and transparent; appears as one piece (Charles 1955).

Phylum: Rotifera

Class: Monogononta

Order: Flosculariaceae

Family: Filinidae

Genus: Filinia

Key to the Species: Has spine lets on the bristles in the summer in the Great Lakes. (Charles 1955).

Counting The quantitative enumeration of the

zooplankton was carried out with the help of a Sedgwick-Rafter (S-R) counting cell which is 50 mm long, 20 mm wide and 1 mm deep. Before filling the S-R cell with sample, the cover glasses were diagonally placed across the cell and then samples were transferred with a large bore pipette so that no air bubbles in the cell covers were formed. The S-R cell was let stunned for at least 15 minutes to settle zooplankton. Then plankton on the bottom of the S-R cell was enumerated by compound microscope. By moving the mechanical stage, the entire bottom of the slide area was examined carefully. To achieve a random sampling, each time 3 fields were examined

for each sample and an average of the counts had been recorded. The organisms thus counted, were expressed as cells per liter (cells) of the sample. From each sample 20 cells counts in 3 slides have been made to achieve random counts and an average of the counts has been recorded. Number of plankton (Zooplankton) in the S-R cell was derived from the following formula.

/. =ܥ × 1000 ଷ

ܮ × ܦ × ×

Where, C = Number of Organisms Counted; L = length of each strip (S-R cell length) in mm; D = depth of a strip (whipple grid image width) in mm; S = number of strips counted. The number of cells per mm was multiplied by a correction factor to adjust the number of organisms per liter (APHA 1976).

Measurement of physicochemical parameters

The physicochemical parameters such as temperature, transparency, pH, free carbon dioxide (CO2), dissolve oxygen (DO), alkalinity, hardness and salinity were measured during the study period.

Statistical analyses Correlation and regression between various water quality parameters and abundance were done using Microsoft Office Excel 1997 – 2003 and SPSS 12.

Results Zooplankton diversity and abundance

Both the diversity and abundance of zooplankton were identified through the present study.

Diversity of zooplankton The zooplankton population was composed of the numbers of copepod, rotifer, cladocera, ostracoda and different crustacean larvae (Table 1). A total of 8 genera were recorded from the study farm. Among them 3 belonged to copepod, 2 to rotifer, 2 to cladocera, 1 to ostracoda and others crustacean larvae. Brachionus and Filinia belonged to rotifer. Brachionus was found in perineal while the genus Filinia was observed only in November. Diaptomus, Cyclops and Mesocyclops were under the group of copepod of which Mesocyclops was dominant. Two genera namely Diaphanosoma and Daphnia were observed belong to cladocera while only cypris was found under the group of ostracod (Table 1).

Abundance of zooplankton



Abundance of zooplankton

The zooplankton showed a seasonal as well as monthly variation both qualitative and quantitatively. In the present study 5 groups of zooplankton were observed these are rotifer, copepod, cladocera, ostracod and crustacean larvae. During the study period, copepod was dominant in the months of June, July, August and October and represented as 77%, 72%, 80%, and 90% respectively while rotifer was dominant in the months of September, November and December and represented as 62%, 84%, and 54% respectively of total zooplankton. Ostracod was found only in the month of August. The maximum total

zooplankton abundance (18%) was found in the month of November and minimum (10%) in the month of June (Table 2). These showed that there is no significant variation of total zooplankton among different months.

Correlations of total zooplankton abundance with different water quality parameters

Zooplankton abundance was positively correlated with pH, DO, salinity while negative correlations were noticed with temperature, transparency, free carbondioxide and alkalinity. Total zooplankton had significant positive correlation with pH and salinity that means pH and salinity affect the

Month Group Genus composition of Zooplankton

June

Copepoda Diaptomus Rotifera Brachionus

Cladocera ……... Ostracoda ……....

Crustacean larvae Shrimp larvae

July

Copepoda Cyclops, Mesocyclops Rotifera Brachionus

Cladocera Diaphanosoma, Daphnia Ostracoda ………


August

Copepoda Diaptomus, Cyclops, Mesocyclops Rotifera Brachionus

Cladocera Diaphanosoma, Daphnia Ostracoda Cypris


September

Copepoda --- Rotifera Brachionus

Cladocera Diaphanosoma, Daphnia Ostracoda ………


October

Copepoda Diaptomus Rotifera Brachionus

Cladocera ----- Ostracoda -----


November

Copepod Diaptomus, Mesocyclops Rotifera Brachionus, Filinia

Cladocera -------- Ostracoda ----------


December

Copepod ………. Rotifera Brachionus

Cladocera ------- Ostracoda -------


Table 1. Name of group and genus composition (Diversity) of zooplankton in different month in the experiment



Group June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total

Copepod 533 678 833 0 815 202 523 3584

Rotifer 136 184 23 577 95 1028 633 2676

Cladocera 0 55 105 348 0 0 0 508

Ostracod 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 54

Crustacean larvae

23 29 27 0 0 0 10 89

A B

C D

E F

Figure 2. Some photographs of identified zooplankton in the experiment A: Brachionus sp. B: Diaphanosoma sp C: Crustacean larvae sp. D: Cylops sp. E: Mesocyclops sp. F: Diaptomus sp

Table 2. Abundance of

different groups of zooplankton

in different months

(Individuals/L)



total zooplankton greatly but the study showed that the number of total zooplankton per litter may change inversely for changing the temperature, transparency, free carbondioxide and alkalinity of the water (Table 3 & 4).

Physico-chemical Parameters The Physico-chemical Parameters such as temperature, transparency, pH, free carbon dioxide (CO2), dissolve oxygen (DO), alkalinity and salinity were measured during the study period (Table 5).

Discussion During the study period the total number of

zooplankton was dominated by copepod (52%) which supports Islam et al (2007) who observed copepod as a dominant group in two shrimp ghers at Khulna, Bangladesh though Ali and Islam 1983, Alam et al 1987, Ali et al 1989 found rotifer as a dominant group in different conditions. During the present study a distinct fluctuation of zooplankton population in different months as well as seasons was observed.

Particulars Co-efficient of correlation

Comments

Total Zooplankton Vs Water Temperature

-0.705 Inversely related

Total Zooplankton Vs Transparency -0.327 Inversely related Total Zooplankton Vs pH 0.548 Highly Significant Total Zooplankton Vs Free CO2 -0.543 Inversely related Total Zooplankton Vs DO 0.830 Highly Significant Total Zooplankton Vs Alkalinity -0.564 Inversely related Total Zooplankton Vs Salinity 0.349 Significant Total Zooplankton Vs Hardness -0.733 Inversely related

Parameters Name of Group of zooplankton

Co-efficient of correlation

Comments

Water Temperature

Vs

Rotifers -0.71 Inversely related Copepoda .262 Significant Cladocera .304 Significant

Crustacean Larvae .673 Highly significant Transparency

Vs Rotifers .130 Significant

Copepoda -.038 Inversely Significant Cladocera -.610 Inversely related

Crustacean Larvae -.192 Inversely related pH Vs Rotifers .820 Highly significant

Copepoda -.829 Inversely related Cladocera .490 Significant

Crustacean Larvae -.600 Inversely related Free CO2 vs Rotifers -.217 Inversely related

Copepoda .144 Significant Cladocera -.489 Inversely related

Crustacean Larvae .240 significant DO Vs Rotifers .630 Highly significant

Copepoda -.387 Inversely related Cladocera .314 Significant

Crustacean Larvae -.438 Inversely related Salinity Vs Rotifers .447 Significant

Copepoda .009 Not Significant Cladocera -.721 Inversely related

Crustacean Larvae -.138 Not significant

Table 3. Value of Co-efficient of correlation of total zooplankton & physico-chemical parameters

Table 4. Value of Co-efficient of

correlation of different group of

zooplankton & physico-chemical

parameters



Similar observations were noted by George 1961, Krishnamoorthi and Visweswara 1966, Michael 1970, Islam and Aziz 1975, Naser 1978, Ali et al 1980, Ali et al 1985, Banu et al 1987, Chowdhury et al 1989 and Jana and Sengupta 1989 in various habitats. The bulk of the zooplankton consisted of rotifer, cladocera, copepod and crustacean larvae. During the present study a total of 8 genera of different groups of zooplankton were identified. The zooplankton showed its peak (November and December) in winter. Such peak was recorded by Menon et al 1981 from a fish pond at Mymenshing. George 1964 observed maximum population of zooplankton in November, January and April to September and the major pulse was in June with 1399 units/L was observed in different habitats. The peak of zooplankton

population in winter may be due to the less rainfall, comparatively high dissolve oxygen (DO) content (5.83 mg/L in November and 5.83 mg/L in December), low free carbondioxide (6.25 mg/L in December) and high pH (7.8 in November and 7.2 in December). The lowest density of zooplankton during June may be due to the high rainfall, comparatively low dissolve oxygen (DO) content (3.3 mg/L), high free carbondioxide (12 mg/L) and low pH (7.0). During the present study, relevant Co-efficient of correlation showed total zooplankton had a highly significant relationship with pH (r =.820) and DO (r =.630). A significant relationship has also been observed with salinity (r = .447). An inverse relationship was seen in case of water temperature (r =-.71), alkalinity (r =-.022) and free carbondioxide

Parameter Minimum Maximum.

Water temperature (C) 25 29

pH 7 7.8

Free Carbondioxide (mg/L) 6 12

Dissolve Oxygen (mg/L) 3.3 5.83

Alkalinity (mg CaCO3/L) 150 266.65

Salinity (ppt) 6 15

Transparency (cm) 20 24

Table 5. Minimum and maximum values of different water quality parameters

Figure 3. The overall values of

some water quality parameters in

different month



(CO2) (r =-217.).

During the present study the rotifer was second dominant (39% of total zooplankton) group among the zooplankton. The highest population (1028 units/L) was found in November and lowest (23 units/l) in August. Resemble finding was made by Krishnamoorthi and Visweswara 1966 in Gandisagar tank in India. Islam et al 2007, found the highest abundance of rotifer was in the month of December and the lowest in September. He worked on zooplankton of two shrimp ghers in Khulna, Bangladesh. The peak in winter might be due to the favorable conditions of physico-chemical parameters and the availability of nutrients in the pond. Rotifers feed on phytoplankton to a great extent (Krishnamoorthi and Visweswara 1966). During the winter season due to higher degree of photosynthesis, amount of phytoplankton increased and in turn resulted in the higher production of nutrients of rotifers which might result in flourish of rotifers during winter season. Though the photoperiod was shorter in winter yet photosynthesis increased due to clear sky. Winter was supposed to be positive for plankton growth (Huet 1972 and Edmonson 1965). But Roy et al (2008), reported that the rotifera population prolonged in summer and decrease in the monsoon, probably due to water movement and increased in the post monsoon. The abundance of rotifers was comparatively lower in winter. During study period the genus Branchionus was observed perennial which support the report of George 1964, Das and Bhuiyan 1974, Islam et al 1974, Islam and Saha 1975, Habib et al 1984, Chowdhury et al 1989 from different habitats in different condition. The abundance of zooplankton not only depends on season but also different water quality parameters. Nayar 1965 pointed out that pH and dissolve organic content of water influence the abundance of rotifera population, where water temperature played a positive role. In the present investigation water was always alkaline. Islam et al 1974) reported the absence of Brachionus from acidic waters, while George (1964) reported the absence of Brachionus from water above pH 8.5. Lower pH value below 5 is regardless as adversive to the aquatic organisms (Nikolsky 1963, Michael 1970). Brachionus is characteristic of higher alkalinity reported by Michael (1970). During the present study relevant Co-efficient of correlation showed rotifers had a highly significant relationship with pH (r =.820) and DO (r =.630). A significant relationship has also been observed with salinity (r = .447). An inverse relationship was seen in case of water temperature (r =-.71), alkalinity (r =-.022) and free CO2 (r =-217.).

Copepod was the dominant group (52%) among the zooplankton during study period. The highest density 833 (units/L) was found in August and lowest 202 (units/L) in November when pH values were found 7.2 and 7.8 and DO values were recorded 5.0 mg/L, 5.83 mg/L respectively. Copepod was totally absent in September. More or less two peaks were evident in August and October. Resemble finding was made by Krishnamoorthi and Visweswara (1966) in Gandisagar tank in India in different condition. Roy et al 2008 observed a peak in the copepod populations in October and other peaks in December and July when pH values were found 8.4, 8.5 and 7.6 and DO values were recorded 5.52 mg/L, 5.61 mg/L and 5.75 mg/L. Islam et al (2007) observed copepod were highly abundant in monsoon and post monsoon. During the present study, relevant Co-efficient of correlation showed copepod had a significant relationship with water temperature (r =.262), free CO2 (r =.144) and inversely related with pH (r =-.829), DO (r =-.387) and alkalinity (r =-.117). Noticed that copepod had no relationship with salinity (r =-.009) and hardness (r =-.013).

Cladocera contributes 7% of the total zooplankton. The highest density 348 (units/L) was found in September and lowest 55 (units/L) in July. The members of cladocera were very poor in number. This group showed irregular pulses during the study period. Irregular pulses of cladocerons were also reported by Smyle 1957 and Straskrba 1965, Islam et al 2007 in different conditions. Islam et al 2007 reported that the irregular pulses of cladocerans might have been caused by different duration of life span of different genus. Life span of various genera depends upon various physico-chemical factors. During the study period cladocerans were only found in the month of July, August and September. Among them highest peak was observed in September. Roy et al 2008 reported that the cladocerans had their peak in monsoon and summer. The winter population was very poor. During the present study relevant Co-efficient of correlation showed cladocerans had a significant relationship with water temperature (r =.304), pH (r =.490) and DO (r =.314). An inverse relationship was seen in case of transparency (r =.630), free CO2 (r =.630), alkalinity (r =.630) and salinity (r =.630). It is found that cladocerans had no relationship with hardness. During field observation, the abundance of crustacean larvae was higher in the months of June, July and August while it was totally absent during the rest of the study period. Crustacean larvae showed positive correlation with temperature and free CO2. During this study a comprehensive observation on the physico-chemical parameters and



the zooplankton abundance and diversity has been made in a shrimp farm which was semi-intensive. The physico-chemical parameters and the zooplankton abundance showed some interrelationships. These relationships are helpful to understand the seasonal and spatial variation of zooplankton population. The plankton is considered to be the best index of the biological productivity and the nature of aquatic habitat. In semi intensive shrimp culture the growth of the individuals not only depends on the supplementary feed but also on the production of plankton. The physico-chemical parameters and the zooplankton abundance showed some interrelationships. These relationships are helpful to understand the seasonal and spatial variation of zooplankton population. So the presence of specific type of plankton is crucial for successful growth of shrimp and other aquatic organisms. From the present study it is found that the zooplankton abundance varies seasonally and it showed direct or indirect relationships with the physico-chemical parameters.

Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Mr. Abdur Rashed,

District Fisheries Officer, Bagerhat district and Dr. Khandaker Anisul Huq, Professor, Fisheries and Marine Resource Technology Discipline for providing the requisite facilities to do this research work.

REFERENCES Alam, A.K.M.N; Islam, M.A.; Mollah, M.F.A. & Haque, M.S. 1987. Status of zooplankton in newly constructed ponds and their relation to some meteorlogical and limnological factors. Bangladesh Journal of Fisheries 14(1): 83-88.

Ali, M. & Islam, M.A. 1983. Studies on the plankton of a lake in Bangladesh, Agricultural University Campus. Bangladesh Journal of Fisheries 10(1): 82-88.

Ali, M.M.; Islam, M.A. & Habib, M.A.B. 1985. Monthly abundance of zooplankton and correlation of various dominant species and nauplius of zooplankton with some water characters in a pond. University Journal of Zoology, Rajshahi University 4: 42-49.

Ali, S.; Chowdhury, A.; Chowdhury, D.R. & Begum, S. 1989. Studies on seasonal variations of physico-chemical and biological conditions in a pond. Dhaka University Studies 4(2): 113-123.

Ali, S.; Chowdhury, A. & Roy, A.R. 1980. Ecology and seasonal abundance of zooplankton in a pond in Tongi, Dhaka. Bangladesh Journal of Zoology 8(1): 41-49.

APHA.1976. Standard methods for the examination of water and waste water. Fourth edition, Ame Pub Heal Ass, Washington.

Banu, A.N.; Hasan, M.; Ali, M. & Islam, A. 1987. Plankton study of some selected ponds in different locations of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Aquaculture 9(3): 55-59.

Bardach, E.J.; Ryther, H.J. & Melarny, O.W. 1972. The farming and husbandry of fresh water and marine organisms. John-Willey and Sons, New York.

Charles, C.D. 1955. The marine and fresh water plankton. Michigan State University Press.

Chowdhury, A.N.; Ali, S.; Chowdhury, D.R. & Begum, S. 1989. Studies on seasona variations of physico-chemical and biological conditions in a pond. Dhaka University Studies. 4(2): 113-123.

Das, N.G. & Bhuiyan, A.L. 1974. Limnoplankton of some inland waters of Dhaka city. Bangladesh Journal of Zoology 9 2(1): 27-42.

Department of Fisheries. 2009. “Matshya Saptaha 09”, Fisheries Resource Information of Bangladesh (2007-2008), 105p.

Davis, C.C. 1956. Marine and freshwater plankton. Michigan State University Press, United Kingdom, 562 pp.

Edmonson, W.T. 1965. Fresh water biology. United States of America.

George, M.G. 1961. Diurnal variation in two shallow ponds in Delhi. Hydrobiologia 18: 265-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ BF00162227

George, M.G. 1964. Comparative plankton ecology of five fish tanks in Delhi, India. Hydrobiologia 27: 81-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00161489

Huet, M. 1972. Text book of fish culture breeding and cultivation of fish. Oxford Fishing News, United Kingdom, 562 pp.

Islam, A.B.M.W.; Manira, M.S.; Rahman, M.M. & Zaman, M. 2007. Zooplankton of two Shrimp Ghers at Khulna, Bangladesh. South Asian Journal of Agriculture 2 (1&2): 117-122.

Islam, A.K.M.N. & Aziz, Z. 1975. A preliminary study on the zooplankton of the north-eastern Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Botany 4(1-2): 1-32.

Islam, A.K.M.N.; Haroon, A.K.Y. & Zaman, K.M. 1974. Limnological studies of the river Buriganga. Dhaka University Studies 22(2): 99-111.

Jhingran, V.G. 1985. Fish and Fisheries of India. Hindustan Publishing Corporation, Delhi.

Jana, B.B. & Sengupta, S. 1989. Responder of dissolve oxygen and chemical oxygen demands of water to artificial aeration. International Journal of Environmental Studies 33: 307-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00207238908710507

Krishnamoorthi, K.P. & Visweswara, V.G. 1966. Hydrobiological studies in the Gandhi Sagar (Jumna Tank). Seasonal variation in plankton. Hydrobiologia 27: 50-514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00042709

Menon, M.I.; Bhuiyan, N.I. & Dewan, S. 1981. A comparative study of the rate of growth of major carps in relation to physico-



chemical and biological factors. Proceedings of 3rd National Zoological conference, Dhaka, 215-323.

Michael, J.B. 1970. Studies on the zooplankton of a tropical fish pond. Hydrobiologia 32: 47-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007 /BF00179538

Mustafa, G. & Ahmed, A.T.A. 1979. Foods of Notopterus notopterus (Pallas). Bangladeesh Journal of Zoology 7:7-14.

Moniruzzaman, K. 1997. Practical limnology and systematics of freshwater hydrophytes. Ph. D Thesis, Dhaka University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Naser, S.A.K. 1978. Diurnal movements of zooplankton in a fresh water pond in Bhagalpur, India. Bangaladesh Journal of Zoology 6: 91-96.

Nayar, C.K.G. 1965. Cyclomorphosis of Brachionus calyciflorus pillars. Hydrobiologia 25: 538-544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ BF00838512

Nikolsky, G.V. 1963. The ecology of fishes. Academic Press. London.

Pillay, T.V.R. 1990. Aquaculture principal & practice. University press, Cambridge.

Roy, K.R.; Islam, A.B.M.W.; Khan, M.A.M.; Rahaman, M.M. & Zaman, M. 2008. Zooplankton in a managed pond in Rajshahi, Bangladesh. Khulna University Studies 9(1): 91-100.

Smyle, W.J.P. 1957. Distribution and seasonal abundance of Entromostraca in Moorland pond near Windermere. Hydrobiologia 11:59-72.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00021008

Straskrba, M. 1965. Contribution to the productivity of the littoral region of pools and ponds. Hydrobiologia 3: 421-443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00045536

Todd, C.D. & Laverack, M.S. 1991. Coastal Marine zooplankton. Press syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

Welch, P.S. 1948. Limnological Methods. McGraw Hill, New York.

Zheng, Z. 1984. Marine Planktology, China Ocean Press. Beijing.

© International Journal of Life Sciences

Abundance and diversity of zooplankton in semi-intensive shrimp (Penaeus monodon) farm

Documents

Transcript of Abundance and diversity of zooplankton in semi-intensive shrimp (Penaeus monodon) farm