Research Article Distribution and Diversity of ...downloads.hindawi.com/archive/2014/138360.pdf · Chaetogaster spp., Aeolosoma spp., Tubifex tubifex and Limnodrilus homeisteri .Tubifex

Research ArticleDistribution and Diversity of Oligochaetes in Selected Ponds ofThiruvananthapuram District Kerala South India

M S Ragi and D S Jaya

Department of Environmental Sciences University of Kerala Kariavattom Campus Thiruvananthapuram Kerala 695 581 India

Correspondence should be addressed to M S Ragi ragims369gmailcom

Received 4 April 2014 Revised 19 June 2014 Accepted 30 June 2014 Published 17 July 2014

Academic Editor Junbao Yu

Copyright copy 2014 M S Ragi and D S Jaya This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properlycited

The present study was carried out to evaluate the distribution and diversity of oligochaete fauna in selected ponds ofThiruvananthapuram district in Kerala South India The sediment samples were collected from three ponds seasonally duringthe period December 2006 to November 2008 In the study 10 oligochaete species which belong to 8 genera were identified in threeselected ponds These include Dero digitata Dero nivea Dero obtusa Pristina longiseta Aulophorus furcatus Stylaria fossularisChaetogaster spp Aeolosoma spp Tubifex tubifex and Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri Tubifex tubifex and Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri arethe pollution-indicator oligochaete species identified in the fresh water ponds which reveals that the studied ponds are subjectedto pollution

1 Introduction

Oligochaetes a subclass of Clitellata in phylum Annelidahave a worldwide distribution and are the most abundantbenthic organisms in many fresh water ecosystems [1]Oligochaetes are used in biodiversity studies pollution sur-veys and environmental assessment and they have economicimportance [2] Oligochaetes in general have wide geograph-ical distribution patterns [3] and their populations can some-time reach large numbers [1] Many species prefer eutrophicwaters and living onmuddy sediments with abundant detritalorganic matter [4]

The fauna of aquatic oligochaeta from India has beenstudied and identified by many scientists [5ndash14] Among themain taxonomic groups present in the most benthic macroinvertebrate communities the oligochaetes are common andabundant and some species are considered good bioindi-cators particularly for the assessment of trophic state andorganic pollution in water bodies [15]

The literature survey shows that the work performed byvarious authors on aquatic oligochaeta in water bodies ofKerala state India was meager The major objective of thepresent study is to determine the diversity and distribution ofoligochaeta fauna and its seasonal variations in three selectedponds of Thiruvananthapuram district South India

2 Methods

21 Study Area The present study was carried out in threeperennial ponds situated at different locations inThiruvanan-thapuram District Kerala state the southern part of India(Figure 1) It include the temple pond (P1) situated nearRishimangalam temple and two public ponds one situatedin Muttacaud (P2) and the other one in Vilappilsala (P3)The period of study was from December 2006 to November2008 in the postmonsoon (PM) premonsoon (PRM) andmonsoon (MON) seasons

Pond 1 (P1) is situated in 8∘291015840460710158401015840N latitude and76∘561015840283110158401015840E longitude 15 km away from Thiruvanantha-puram Central Railway station and is in the premises ofRishimangalam temple with an area of 1100m2 and depth226 cm Water in this pond is used for bathing and washingclothes Also the wastes from nearby hospital and housesare usually dumped in the surroundings of this pondPond 2 (P2) is located in 8∘241015840510158401015840N latitude and 76∘5910158401510158401015840Elongitude 13 km away from Thiruvananthapuram CentralRailway station and covering an area of 1400m2 and depth230 cm Residents in the nearby areas use the pond water forirrigation bathing and other domestic purposes Pond 3 (P3)is located in 8∘3110158401510158401015840N latitude and 77∘0210158404310158401015840E longitude19 km away from the Thiruvananthapuram Central Railway

Hindawi Publishing CorporationAdvances in EcologyVolume 2014 Article ID 138360 9 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552014138360

2 Advances in Ecology

Rishimangalam (P1)

KERALA Thiruvananthapuram district N

Vilappilsala (P3)

LocationsDistrict boundary

Muttacaud (P2)

+

+ +

+

+

+

+++++ +

+++

+

++

lowast

76∘40

9984000998400998400E 76

∘50

9984000998400998400E 77

∘09984000998400998400E 77

∘10

9984000998400998400E

76∘40

9984000998400998400E 76

∘50

9984000998400998400E 77

∘09984000998400998400E 77

∘10

9984000998400998400E

8∘509984000998400998400

N8∘409984000998400998400

N8∘309984000998400998400

N8∘209984000998400998400

N

8∘509984000998400998400

N8∘409984000998400998400

N8∘309984000998400998400

N8∘209984000998400998400

N

10 5 0 10

(km)

Figure 1 Map showing location of ponds in study area

station and with an area of 1300m2 and depth 218 cmThis pond water is extensively used by public for irrigationwashing clothes bathing and cattle wash

22 Methodology Surface sediment samples were collectedfrom four different sites of the selected ponds Samplingwas done between 600 am and 900 am Sediment sampleswere collected with a PVC made tubular corer (5 cm indiameter) inserted into the sediment at a depth of about10 cm Four replicate sediment samples from each pondwere also taken and oligochaete distribution was studiedThe samples were washed through a sieve of 02mmmesh(200120583m) in diameter and the worms were sorted manuallyby diluting small portions of the sediment residue in a petridish A subsample of 100mLwas taken and oligochaetes weresorted out using a long dropper with the help of monocularordinary dissection microscope (Olympus Japan) Countingof oligochaetes was done using a Compound microscope(Olympus Japan) All organisms were counted according tothe procedure described by Welch [16] With the help of adissection microscope the worms were picked with pincersand preserved in 10 formalin in separately labeled vialsTheworms preserved in 10 formalin were cleared with a few

drops of lactic acid Photomicrographs of oligochaetes weretaken using a compound microscope fitted with a digitalcamera Drawings were made using a camera lucida andidentification of oligochaeta to speciesgenus level was doneaccording to the taxonomic criteria adopted by Brinkhurst[17] and Ward and Whipple [18]

The species diversity was calculated using the formulaprovided by Shannon and Weaver [19] which is as follows

119904

1198671015840

119894=1

= minusΣ119875119894ln119875119894 (1)

where

1198671015840 is the species diversity index119878 is the number of species119875119894is the proportion of individuals of each species

3 Results

31 Oligochaeta Identification In this study altogether 10oligochaete species were identified which include taxa withwide ecological tolerances

Advances in Ecology 3

100120583m

(a)

20120583m

(b)

20120583m

(c)

20120583m

(d)

10120583m

(e)

10120583m

(f)

Figure 2 (andashd) Dero digitata (a) posterior end (b) ventral anterior chaetae (c) ventral posterior chaetae and (d) needle chaetae (e-f) Deronivea (e) ventral chaetae and (f) needle chaetae

Seven species from Naididae two species from Tubifici-dae and one species from Aeolosomatidae were identifiedfrom the studied pondsThe identified species includeTubifextubifex Muller 1774 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri Claparede1862 Stylaria fossularis Linnaeus 1967 Pristina longisetaEhrenberg 1828 Dero digitata Muller 1774 Dero niveaAiyer 1929Dero obtusa drsquoUdekem 1885Aulophorus furcatusMuller 1773 Aeolosoma spp Ehrenberg 1828 and Chaeto-gaster spp Von Baer 1827

32 Taxonomical Description

Family Naididae

(1) Dero Digitata Muller 1774 (Figures 2(a)ndash2(d))

Morphological Observations D digitata is one of the mostcommon species of Naididae oligochaetes It is an elongatedsegmented worm ranging in size from 6 to 32mm andweighing around 006mg The anterior part is formed byfive ventral chaetae bearing segments plus a cone-shapedprostomium and small peristomium It has no eyes Dorsalbundles from VI with 1 hair and 1 needle The distal tooth ofthe needles are longer than the proximal Ventral chaetae 4-5in IIndashV with distal teeth are longer than the proximal FromVI onwards ventral chaetae 2ndash4 with distal and proximalteeth are almost equal Branchial fossa is with 4 pairs of gillsThe presence of 1 hair and 1 needle in the dorsal bundle is acharacteristic feature of this species D digitata is most likelya cosmopolitan species it can be found in muddy deposit inponds and sluggish bog streams

(2) Dero Nivea Aiyer 1929 (Figures 2(e)-2(f))

Morphological Observations Worms consist of 34ndash37 seg-ments Body is yellowish to transparent in colour Eyes

are absent Prostomium is short and conical the branchialfossa prolonged posteriorly Three pairs of gills are on pos-terior end (usually only 2 pairs seen 3rd is reduced) Dorsalchaetal bundles start in segment VI onwards consistingof one smooth hair and one weakly curved bifid needleTeeth of dorsal chaetae are of equal length Ventral chaetaein segments IIndashV are different from those of the rest ofsegments with the upper tooth twice being as long as thelower while posteriorly the teeth are of about equal lengthand the lower teeth are slightly thicker or the upper teeth areslightly shorter than the lower ones Anterior ventral chaetaeis of 65ndash84 120583m in length

(3) Dero obtusa drsquoUdekem 1885

Morphological Observations Two ventral and one lateral pairsof gills A single crochet in each dorsal bundle with the teethbeing equal in length anterior ventral chaetae with extremelythin teeth and posterior ventral chaetaewith very short teeth

(4) Aulophorus furcatus Muller 1774 (Figures 3(e)ndash3(g) and5(e))

Morphological Observations Prostomium is bluntly conicalDorsal chaetae begin from V with 1 hair and 1 bifid needlechaetae Ventral chaetae 3ndash5 per bundle exist in anteriorbundles upper tooth are slightly longer decreasing to 2-3 posteriorly Branchial fossa is cup-shaped with a pair ofnoncontractile palps and 3 pairs of gills

(5) Pristina Longiseta Ehrenberg 1828 (Figures 3(andashc2) and5(c))

Morphological Observations The species is easily distin-guished from the foregoing species by the possessionof specially elongated long hair chaetae in segment III


(c2)

(a) (b) (c1) (d)

(e) (f) (g)

10120583m

10120583m

10120583m 10120583m

10120583m

10120583m

10120583m

Figure 3 (andashc2

) Pristina longiseta (a) anterior ventral chaetae (b) posterior ventral chaetae (c1

and c2

) needle chaetae and (d) Stylariafossularis ventral chaetae (endashg) Aulophorus furcatus (e) anterior ventral chaetae (f) posterior ventral chaetae and (g) needle chaetae

10120583m

(a)

10120583m

(b)

10120583m

(c)

10120583m

(d)

Figure 4 (a-b) Tubifex tubifex (a) ventral chaetae and (b) pectinate chaetae (c-d) Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri (c) anterior ventral chaetae and(d) posterior ventral chaetae


(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 5 (a)Dero sp anterior end (b)Dero sp posterior end (c) Pristina sp anterior end (d) Stylaria fossularis anterior end (e)Aulophorussp posterior end and (f) Chaetogaster sp anterior end

Dorsal crochets are simple pointed Elongate hair chaetae onsegment III exist Ventral chaetae are simple bifid crochetswith the upper tooth being thinner and a little longer thanthe lower

(6) Chaetogaster sp Von Baer 1827 (Figure 5(f))

Morphological Observations They are 2ndash25mm long trans-parent worms that are very common in fresh water and oftenform chains of individuals through asexual multiplicationNo dorsal chaetae exist Ventral chaetae are present Enlargedpharynx is observed

(7) Stylaria Fossularis Leidy 1852 (Figure 3(d))

Morphological Observations Proboscis projects from the apexof the prostomium Prostomium is not invaginated

Family Aeolosomatidae

(8) Aeolosoma sp Ehrenberg 1828 (Figure 6(a))

Morphological Observations Hair chaetae exist in both dorsaland ventral bundles Worms were less than 10mm longProstomium is ciliated Prominent oil droplets Oil dropletsare usually yellowish green in colour frequently yellow bluishgreen and rarely brownish yellow On the ventral surface ofthe prostomium the oil droplets are confined to the marginBody is about 2ndash35mm long in extended state Prostomiumis large flat and distinctly broader than the succeedingsegments It is very mobile They are usually spherical inshape in cross-section Chaetae exist in four bundles persegment two dorsal and two ventral are beginning justbehind the posterior end of the buccal funnel

Family Tubificidae

(9) Tubifex tubifex Muller 1774 (Figures 4(a)-4(b) and 6(b)-6(c))

Morphological Observations Lengthwas 20ndash30mm Segmentnumber was 120ndash130 Prostomium is bluntly conical Dorsalbundles exist from II with hair and bifid chaetae The dorsalbifid chaetae with distal tooth are thinner than proximal sim-ply bifid in II but pectinate in several subsequent segmentswith small outgrowth (denticles) between teeth Anteriorventral chaetae exist with thinner and longer distal tooth thanproximal the distal tooth is becoming shorter in both ventraland dorsal posterior segments Tubifex tubifex also calledthe sludge worm or sewage worm is a species of tubificidsegmented worm that inhabits in the sediments of lakes andrivers on several continentsTheworms can survive with littleoxygen by waving their hemoglobin-rich tail ends to exploitall available oxygen and can exchange carbon dioxide andoxygen through their thin skins in a manner similar to frogs

(10) Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri Claparede 1862 (Figures 4(c)-4(d) and 6(d))

Morphological Observations Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri is asmall thin worm about 20ndash35mm in length The wormappeared red in colour owing to the possession of therespiratory pigment haemoglobin Prostomium is conicalDorsal and ventral chaetae commence from II segment allbifid and similar with distal tooth being thinner and equalin length with the proximal Anterior segments bear 3ndash9 chaetae per bundle The number of chaetae per bundledecreases in the succeeding segments with about 3ndash5 in themiddle segments and 1-2 in the most posterior segments


(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 6 (a) Aeolosoma sp anterior end (b) Tubifex sp anterior end (c) Tubifex sp posterior end and (d) Limnodrilus sp anterior end

Clitellum occupies the XI and XII segmentsThe penis sheathis one of the diagnostic characters used in identificationof these worms and can be very clearly seen through thetransparent body surface The penis sheath is much longerthan broad (length-to-width ratio of about 9) and ends withan asymmetrical plate-like extremity Chloragogen tissue inthis species starts from the V segment

Seven species of oligochaetes were identified in pond 1These include Dero digitataDero nivea Aulophorus furcatusPristina longiseta Stylaria fossularis Tubifex tubifex andLimnodrilus hoffmeisteri Of these five species belong toNaididae family and two species belong to Tubificidae family

In pond 2 eight taxons of oligochaetes were identi-fied These include Dero digitata Dero nivea Dero obtusaAulophorus furcatus Chaetogaster spp Stylaria fossularisAeolosoma sppand Tubifex tubifex Six species are fromNaididae family one species from Aeolosomatidae and onespecies from Tubificidae family

In pond 3 seven species of oligochaetes were identifiedThese include Dero digitata Dero obtusa Aulophorus fur-catus Chaetogaster spp Stylaria fossularis Tubifex tubifexand Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri Five species belong to Naididaefamily and two species to Tubificidae family It was alsofound that the population density of different oligochaetespecies in the studied ponds showed seasonal fluctuationsLimnodrilus hoffmeisteri was identified as a commerciallyexploited aquatic oligochaete species andwas found in pond 1and pond 3 But in pond 2Tubifex tubifexwas the only speciesidentified in the Tubificidae family

33 PopulationDensity andDiversity of Oligochaetes Densityof oligochaetes (ind mminus3) in selected ponds during the

periods of 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 is given in Tables 1 and2 respectively In Pond 1 Dero digitata Dero nivea Aulopho-rus furcatus Pristina longiseta Stylaria fossularis Tubifextubifex and Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri were the oligochaetespecies identified during the study period In Pond 2Dero digitata Dero nivea Dero obtusa Chaetogaster spAulophorus furcatus Stylaria fossularis Aoelosoma sp andTubifex tubifex were identified during the study periodIn Pond 3 Dero digitata Dero obtusa Chaetogaster spAulophorus furcatus Stylaria fossularis Tubifex tubifex andLimnodrilus hoffmeisteri were identified during the studyperiod

The highest density was recorded for Pristina longiseta(320 ind mminus3) in P1 during the postmonsoon season Inthe second year of study (2007-2008) Pristina longisetawas found to be decreased (120 ind mminus3) at P1 duringpostmonsoon season For Dero nivea at P2 (280 ind mminus3)the next highest population density was recorded duringpostmonsoon season Aeolosoma genus was identified onlyin P2 and the highest value was 80 ind mminus3 and lowervalue was 40 ind mminus3 In P1 the density of pollution tolerantspecies Tubifex tubifex was maximum during postmonsoonseason in the second year of the study period (240 indmminus3) Also lower density value (120 ind mminus3) was notedduring the first year monsoon season In P2 density values ofTubifex tubifex were recorded to be highest during monsoonseason (120 ind mminus3) and lower density value (40 indmminus3) was recorded during the second year in premonsoonseason In P3 highest density value for Tubifex tubifex was240 ind mminus3 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri was identified onlyat P1 and P3 and the highest density was obtained atP1 (160 ind mminus3) during premonsoon and lowest density


Table 1 Density of oligochaetes (ind mminus3) in selected ponds during the period 2006-2007

Species identified PM PRM MONP1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3 P1 P2 P3

NaididaeDero digitata 160 120 160 200 160 120 160 240 160Dero nivea 200 280 mdash 160 160 mdash 120 200 mdashDero obtusa mdash 120 120 mdash 160 80 mdash 160 160Chaetogaster spp mdash 120 160 mdash 240 240 mdash 160 160Aulophorus furcatus 240 120 240 160 160 160 160 200 200Pristina longiseta 320 mdash mdash 160 mdash mdash 160 mdash mdashStylaria fossularis 160 160 160 120 80 120 120 120 160

AeolosomatidaeAeolosoma spp mdash 80 mdash mdash 40 mdash mdash 80 mdash

TubificidaeTubifex tubifex 200 80 240 160 80 160 120 120 120Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 120 mdash 80 160 mdash 80 80 mdash 120Total density 1400 1080 1160 1120 1080 960 920 1280 1080Species richness 7 8 7 7 8 7 7 8 7






value was obtained during postmonsoon (40 ind mminus3)season

The Shannon-Weaver diversity index (1198671015840) values foroligochaetes in the studied ponds in different seasons werecalculated and are given in Table 3 In Pond 1 (P1) Shannon-Weaver diversity index value for oligochaetes ranged from185 to 194 During the study period the lowest diversityindex value was noted in the postmonsoon season (190 and185) whereas highest diversity index value was observed inthe premonsoon season (194) during first year of the studyperiod and for the second year higher value was notedduring the monsoon season (191) The Shannon-Weaverdiversity index value for oligochaetes in P2 ranged from 197to 205 The lowest Shannon-Weaver diversity index value in

the first year of study was noted in the premonsoon season(197) and in the second year it was during the postmon-soon season (194) Highest 1198671015840 value was noted during themonsoon season of the study period (203 and 205) In P3Shannon-Weaver diversity index value ranges from 169ndash178Lower diversity value (169 and 172) was noted in premon-soon season during the study period Highest diversity valuewas noted during the monsoon season (178) in the firstyear while in the second year it was during the postmon-soon season (176) Shannon-Weaver diversity index valuefor oligochaetes was found lowest (169) in pond 3 duringpremonsoon season and the highest diversity index value(205) was noted in pond 2 during monsoon season of thestudy period


Table 3 Shannon-Weaver diversity index (1198671015840)

Period of study Seasons P1 P2 P3

2006-2007Postmonsoon 190 200 173Premonsoon 194 197 172Monsoon 192 203 178


4 Discussion

Aquatic oligochaeta (Clitellata) has been universally appliedon bioassessment assays as bioindicators to reflect the organicpollution in rivers and streams Total numerical density ofoligochaetes was higher in P1 (1400Nom3) during postmon-soon season in the 1st year of study period The averagenumerical density of total oligochaetes was 159 ind mminus3 forpond 1 comparatively higher density value with respect to P2and P3 During the study the most abundant genus wasDerosp in the Naididae family Among the Dero species Derodigitata was identified in all the studied ponds Dero digitataStylaria fossularis Aulophorus furcatus and Tubifex tubifexwere identified in all the ponds

During the first year (2006-2007) of the study periodthe diversity values of oligochaetes were found to be highin monsoon season at P2 and P3 whereas in the secondyear (2007-2008) of the study period the diversity values ofoligochaetes in P1 and P2were higher in themonsoon seasonShannon-Weaver diversity index values estimated show thatin pond 11198671015840 ranges from 185 to 194 and in pond 21198671015840 variesfrom 197 to 205 while in pond 31198671015840 ranges from 169 to 178

Tubifex tubifex and Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri are thepollution-indicator oligochaete species identified in the freshwater ponds which reveals that the studied ponds aresubjected to pollution Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri occurs in awide variety of surface water habitats reaching very highabundance in organically enriched areas often with Tubifextubifex [20] In the present study indicators of organicpollution Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri and Tubifex tubifex werefound together at P1 and P3 These species were found in theregions in which the organic pollution was high the DOwas too low The numbers or proportion of specific speciessuch as Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri and Tubifex tubifex are oftenused as symbolic indicators for organic pollution due to theirdominant status in polluted areas [1 21] In conditions of lowdissolved oxygen concentrations prevalent in water bodiesreceiving heavy sewage pollution Limnodrilus hoffmeisteriand Tubifex tubifex predominate and other species areeliminated in a rough sequence dependent on the levelof pollution The respiratory physiology of some speciesis adapted to operate at very low oxygen concentrationsand they are able to survive for long periods in anaerobicconditions Slow moving water with weak current enablesmore pollution and more organic debris to accumulate andthe tubificids prefer such habitats [22]

Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri was identified in pond 1 andpond 3 only Abundance of Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri was

positively correlated to the degree of eutrophication due to itsability to tolerate low dissolved oxygen as the worms exhibitvery marked physiological tolerance for oxygen depletionrelated to excess decomposable organic matter present inthe environment but they do decrease in number whenconditions are at their worst The reproductive rate of Lhoffmeisteri is also unaltered by decrease in dissolved oxygento very low concentrations [21] Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri acosmopolitan species occurring in a wide variety of surfacewater habitats is perhaps themost ubiquitous and commonlycollected freshwater tubificid worldwide despite its sexualmode of reproduction [23]

In the distribution of oligochaete species the data relatedto the water quality are as important as the physical featuresof the micro habitats in which they live The most importantof these physical features are the existence of the typeof bottom material current rate and the vegetation withthe different features [24] Similar studies on oligochaetecommunity of Dal Lake Kashmir also show that the natureof the sediment influenced the population dynamics of theoligochaetes of the lake and the dominant oligochaetes ofDal Lake Kashmir include Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri Tubifextubifex Branchiura sowerbyii Aelosoma sp and Nais spwhich thrive in sediments rich in organic nutrients [25]

5 Conclusions

In the present study Shannon-Weaver diversity index valuefor oligochaetes in ponds was found to be the lowest duringpremonsoon season and the highest diversity index valuewas noted during monsoon season of the study periodNaididae was the most diverse group identified with sixspecies and one genus genus dero was represented by threespecies Tubificidae was represented by two species belongingto two genera Aeolosomatidae was represented by one genusDero digitata Aulophorus furcatus Stylaria fossularis andTubifex tubifex were present in all the studied ponds butAeolosoma sp was present only in P2 The pollution-tolerantspecies Tubifex tubifex and Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri wereidentified in P1 and P3 and indicate the pollution of the pondsinThiruvananthapuram district Kerala South India

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper


Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr Sheila CherianRetd Lecturer (Selection grade) Department of ZoologyAll Saintsrsquo College Thiruvananthapuram Kerala India forher valuable suggestions for the identification of oligochaetesfor this study Also they thank the Head Department ofEnvironmental Sciences University of Kerala India forproviding laboratory facilities and support throughout thestudy

References

[1] R O Brinkhurst and B M G Jamieson Aquatic Oligochaeta ofthe World Oliver and Boyd Edinburg Tex USA 1971

[2] C F Mason Biology of Fresh Water Pollution Longman GroupLimited Essex UK 1996

[3] G Milbrink ldquoOn the use of indicator communities of Tubi-ficidae and some Lumbriculidae in the assessment of waterpollution in Swedish lakesrdquo Zoon vol 1 pp 125ndash139 1973

[4] G R Perez Guide for the Study of Aquatic Macro InvertebratesAntioquia Editorial Presencia Bogota Colombia 1988

[5] J StephensonTheOligochaeta vol 16 ClarendonPressOxfordUK 1930

[6] K S P Aiyer ldquoAn account of the oligochaeta of TravancorerdquoRecords of the Indian Museum vol 31 pp 13ndash76 1929

[7] Y Radhakrishna and K Saibaba ldquoNew record of fresh-wateroligochaete Aulophorus flabelliger Stephenson 1930rdquo CurrentScience vol 46 no 16 pp 564ndash565 1977

[8] B SubbaRao V S S R Rao T V Ratnam and A C S ReddyldquoStudies on salinity tolerance and preference of the tubificidoligochaeteMonopylephorus waltairensisrdquo Journal of theMarineBiological Association of India vol 21 no 1 pp 61ndash66 1979

[9] S Sobhana and N B Nair ldquoBreeding frequency of Branchiurasowerbyi Beddard and Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri Claparede(Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificidae)rdquo Comparitive Physiologyand Ecology vol 9 no 4 pp 302ndash305 1984

[10] S K Battish andM Sharma ldquoFreshwater oligochaetes with newrecords from Indiardquo Geobios New Reports vol 16 no 1 pp 80ndash84 1991

[11] S K Mukhopadhyay ldquoOligochaetardquo in State Fauna Series 3Fauna of West Bengal Part 10 pp 95ndash123 Zoological SurveyIndia Kolkata India 1998

[12] H Nesemann G Sharma and R K Sinha ldquoAquatic Annelida(Polychaeta Oligochaeta Hirudinea) of the Ganga River andadjacent water bodies in Patna (India Bihar) with descriptionof a new leech species (Family Salifidae)rdquoAnnalen des Naturhis-torischen Museums in Wien B vol 105 no 1 pp 139ndash187 2004

[13] K V Naidu The Fauna of India and the Adjacent CountriesmdashAquatic Oligochaeta Zoological Survey of India Kolkata India2005

[14] M I Naveed ldquoPreliminary studies on aquatic oligochaeta inand around Chennai Tamil Nadu Indiardquo Turkish Journal ofZoology vol 36 no 1 pp 25ndash37 2012

[15] R G Wetzel Limnology Saunders College Publishing Wash-ington DC USA 2nd edition 1983

[16] P SWelch LimnologyMcGraw-Hill NewYork NYUSA 1952[17] R O BrinkhurstAGuide for the Identification of British Aquatic

Oligochaetes University of Toronto Fresh Water BiologicalAssosciation 1971

[18] H B Ward and C Whipple Fresh Water Biology JohnWiley ampSons Chapman amp Hall London UK 1918

[19] C E Shannon and W Weaver The Mathematical Theory ofCommunication University of Illinois press Urbana Ill USA1949

[20] R O Brinkhurst ldquoOligochaetardquo in Keys to the Water QualityIndicative Organisms of the South Eastern United States F KParrish Ed pp 69ndash85 United States Environmental ProtectionAgency Office of Research and Development EnvironmentalMonitoring and Support Laboratory Cincinnati Ohio USA1975

[21] R J Aston ldquoTubificids and water quality a reviewrdquo Environ-mental Pollution vol 5 no 1 pp 1ndash10 1973

[22] S Yildiz and S Balik ldquoThe oligochaeta (Annelida) faunaof Topcam Dam-Lake (Aydin Turkey)rdquo Turkish Journal ofZoology vol 30 no 1 pp 83ndash89 2006

[23] H Swayne M Day and M J Wetzel ldquoLimnodrilus hoffmeisteri(Annelida Oligochaeta Tubificidae) in Poprsquos Cave WisconsinUSArdquo The Journal of Cave and Karst Studies vol 66 no 1 pp28ndash31 2004

[24] N Kazanci and S Girgin ldquoDistribution of oligochaeta species asbioindicators of organic pollution in Ankara Stream and theiruse in biomonitoringrdquo Turkish Journal of Zoology vol 22 no 1pp 83ndash87 1998

[25] M F Mir and A R Yousuf ldquoOligochaete community of Dallakerdquo Kashmir Oriental Sciences vol 8 pp 83ndash87 2003

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Forestry ResearchInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Environmental and Public Health

Journal of



EcosystemsJournal of


MeteorologyAdvances in

EcologyInternational Journal of


Marine BiologyJournal of


Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Applied ampEnvironmentalSoil Science

Volume 2014

Advances in


Environmental Chemistry

Atmospheric SciencesInternational Journal of



Waste ManagementJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

International Journal of

Geophysics


Geological ResearchJournal of

EarthquakesJournal of


BiodiversityInternational Journal of


ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

OceanographyInternational Journal of


The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Journal of Computational Environmental SciencesHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


ClimatologyJournal of


Rishimangalam (P1)

KERALA Thiruvananthapuram district N

Vilappilsala (P3)

LocationsDistrict boundary

Muttacaud (P2)

+

+ +

+

+

+

+++++ +

+++

+

++

lowast

76∘40

9984000998400998400E 76

∘50

9984000998400998400E 77

∘09984000998400998400E 77

∘10

9984000998400998400E

76∘40

9984000998400998400E 76

∘50

9984000998400998400E 77

∘09984000998400998400E 77

∘10

9984000998400998400E

8∘509984000998400998400

N8∘409984000998400998400

N8∘309984000998400998400

N8∘209984000998400998400

N

8∘509984000998400998400

N8∘409984000998400998400

N8∘309984000998400998400

N8∘209984000998400998400

N

10 5 0 10

(km)

Figure 1 Map showing location of ponds in study area

station and with an area of 1300m2 and depth 218 cmThis pond water is extensively used by public for irrigationwashing clothes bathing and cattle wash

22 Methodology Surface sediment samples were collectedfrom four different sites of the selected ponds Samplingwas done between 600 am and 900 am Sediment sampleswere collected with a PVC made tubular corer (5 cm indiameter) inserted into the sediment at a depth of about10 cm Four replicate sediment samples from each pondwere also taken and oligochaete distribution was studiedThe samples were washed through a sieve of 02mmmesh(200120583m) in diameter and the worms were sorted manuallyby diluting small portions of the sediment residue in a petridish A subsample of 100mLwas taken and oligochaetes weresorted out using a long dropper with the help of monocularordinary dissection microscope (Olympus Japan) Countingof oligochaetes was done using a Compound microscope(Olympus Japan) All organisms were counted according tothe procedure described by Welch [16] With the help of adissection microscope the worms were picked with pincersand preserved in 10 formalin in separately labeled vialsTheworms preserved in 10 formalin were cleared with a few

drops of lactic acid Photomicrographs of oligochaetes weretaken using a compound microscope fitted with a digitalcamera Drawings were made using a camera lucida andidentification of oligochaeta to speciesgenus level was doneaccording to the taxonomic criteria adopted by Brinkhurst[17] and Ward and Whipple [18]

The species diversity was calculated using the formulaprovided by Shannon and Weaver [19] which is as follows

119904

1198671015840

119894=1

= minusΣ119875119894ln119875119894 (1)

where

1198671015840 is the species diversity index119878 is the number of species119875119894is the proportion of individuals of each species

3 Results

31 Oligochaeta Identification In this study altogether 10oligochaete species were identified which include taxa withwide ecological tolerances


100120583m

(a)

20120583m

(b)

20120583m

(c)

20120583m

(d)

10120583m

(e)

10120583m

(f)




Family Naididae













(c2)

(a) (b) (c1) (d)

(e) (f) (g)

10120583m

10120583m

10120583m 10120583m

10120583m

10120583m

10120583m

Figure 3 (andashc2


and c2


10120583m

(a)

10120583m

(b)

10120583m

(c)

10120583m

(d)



(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)










Family Tubificidae






(a) (b)

(c) (d)




























4 Discussion







5 Conclusions





Acknowledgments


References






























Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics















100120583m

(a)

20120583m

(b)

20120583m

(c)

20120583m

(d)

10120583m

(e)

10120583m

(f)




Family Naididae













(c2)

(a) (b) (c1) (d)

(e) (f) (g)

10120583m

10120583m

10120583m 10120583m

10120583m

10120583m

10120583m

Figure 3 (andashc2


and c2


10120583m

(a)

10120583m

(b)

10120583m

(c)

10120583m

(d)



(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)










Family Tubificidae






(a) (b)

(c) (d)




























4 Discussion







5 Conclusions





Acknowledgments


References






























Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics















(c2)

(a) (b) (c1) (d)

(e) (f) (g)

10120583m

10120583m

10120583m 10120583m

10120583m

10120583m

10120583m

Figure 3 (andashc2


and c2


10120583m

(a)

10120583m

(b)

10120583m

(c)

10120583m

(d)



(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)










Family Tubificidae






(a) (b)

(c) (d)




























4 Discussion







5 Conclusions





Acknowledgments


References






























Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics















(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)










Family Tubificidae






(a) (b)

(c) (d)




























4 Discussion







5 Conclusions





Acknowledgments


References






























Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics















(a) (b)

(c) (d)




























4 Discussion







5 Conclusions





Acknowledgments


References






























Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics

































4 Discussion







5 Conclusions





Acknowledgments


References






























Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics



















4 Discussion







5 Conclusions





Acknowledgments


References






























Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics















Acknowledgments


References






























Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics


















Journal of












Volume 2014

Advances in









Geophysics














Documents

Research Article Distribution and Diversity of ...downloads.hindawi.com/archive/2014/138360.pdf · Chaetogaster spp., Aeolosoma spp., Tubifex tubifex and Limnodrilus homeisteri .Tubifex