8 XI November 2020

https://doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2020.32267
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 8 Issue XI Nov 2020- Available at www.ijraset.com

Zooplankton of Kagzipura and Mombatta Lakes,

Aurangabad (Maharashtra)
Avinash A. Wakode1, Ather Quadri2
1
Department of Zoology, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad, (M.S.) India
2
Department of Zoology, Maulana Azad College, Aurangabad- (M.S.) India

Abstract: Two freshwater bodies, Mombatta and Kagzipura lakes were surveyed for their zooplankton during the year 2016-17.
The water was sampled for zooplankton species likIe Rotifera, Cladocera, Copepoda, Ostracoda and Protozoa every month using
standard plankton Net. Twelve species of Cladocera, 8 from Copepoda, 7 from Ostracoda, 16 from Rotifera and 4 from Protozoa
were observed from the samples collected from both the lakes. The results exhibit a good diversity of all zooplankton groups, that
are normally found in a freshwater body. The study points to the importance of studying such kind of habitats, and thus their
conservation.
Keywords: Zooplankton, Aurangabad, Kagzipura lake and Mombatta lake.

I. INTRODUCTION
Biodiversity is the variety of life on Earth, that includes the 8 million plant and animal species on the planet, the ecosystems that
house them, and also the genetic diversity in them. Without animal and plant biodiversity there is no future for all of us.
Biodiversity is a complex and interdependent system, where every member plays an important role contributing in as many ways
possible. The food we eat, the air we breathe, the water we drink and the weather that makes our planet habitable is all possible due
to these important interactions. Biodiversity loss is now becoming a more pressing issue than climate change itself. Biodiversity
works at different levels, first genes, then individual species and then the communities of creatures and finally entire ecosystems
(freshwater, marine etc). Here, the biological component interplays with the physical environment. These complex interactions have
made earth habitable for these many years up till now.
Zooplankton are important as bioindicators and are known to predict the physico-chemical condition of any water body. Their
presence-absence, diversity and abundance are important parameters to understand the water quality as well. They can indicate the
eutrophic levels, type of pollutants, temperature, pH etc of any aquatic ecosystem.
They also play an important role in the maintaining ecology of the freshwater habitats. They are also important economically, as
they are at the lower end of the food chain and are protein-rich source for fishes and crustaceans, which we eat. These fishes and
crustaceans are important in aquaculture practices. Zooplankton include microscopic free-floating organism like Rotifers,
Cladocerans, Copepods, Ostracoda and Protozoans[1,2]
Zooplankton of Mombatta and Kagzipura lakes were surveyed during the year 2016-17. The water was sampled for zooplankton
including Rotifera, Cladocera, Copepoda, Ostracoda and Protozoa. Twelve species of Cladocerans, 8 Copepods, 7 Ostracods, 16
Rotifers and 4 Protozoa were observed from the samples taken from both the waterbodies. The results exhibit a good diversity of all
zooplankton groups, that are normally found in a freshwater body.

II. MATERIAL AND METHODS

Zooplanktons were sampled every month from February 2016- January 2017. Sampling for zooplankton was done between 9-10 am
every time a visit was done at the collection sites.The two sites selected for collection for the yearlong study wereMombatta lake
and Kagzipura lake, Aurangabad.
The Mombatta lake is located (latitude 19° 57’ 42” N and longitude 75° 13’ 24” E) near Daulatabad village, Aurangabad about 15
km from the main Aurangabad city. It is on an average approximately 8 meters deep. The Kagzipura lake is situated in Daulatabad
valley and is used for aquaculture practices [3-6]. The water body is located (latitude 19° 57’ N and longitude 75° 15’ E) near
Kagzipura village, Aurangabad, about 17 km from the Aurangabad city. It is approximately 8-9 meters deep and is used for fishing
and irrigation [3-6].

709 709
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 8 Issue XI Nov 2020- Available at www.ijraset.com

A. Zooplankton collection methodology:

Samples were normally taken between 9 am -10 am every time, every month from the both the collection sites. Zooplanktons like
rotifers, cladocerans, copepods, ostracods were collected with filtering 100 liter of water through a fine mesh Plankton Net. A 100
ml container was attached to the bottom end of the plankton net (Number 25). Approximately100 litres of water were taken from
each of both the lakes and put into the plankton net. The material and zooplankton bigger than the mesh size of the plankton net
remained in the net and got collected in the 100 ml container. This concentrated sample containing the zooplankton was then
preserved and fixed using 4-5% formaldehyde solution immediately. The sample was transferred to sterile and clean 100 ml plastic
containers which were then properly labelled with the details such as collector name, sample station number, collection date,
collection time, original sample quantity and other observable parameters like temperature, pH etc[7-8]. The collection bottles were
then immediately put in a dark place and taken to the laboratory for further analysis like zooplankton identification.

B. Zooplankton Identification Methodology:

The collected zooplanktons were then taken to the laboratory for further analysis and identification under a compound microscope
fitted with a digital camera. Zooplankton like rotifers, cladocerans, copepods and ostracods were identified using available literature
like thesis, research papers, monographs etc [9-12].

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The studies done at both the lakes revealed 12 species of Cladocerans, 8 Copepods, 7 Ostracods, 16 Rotifers and 4 Protozoa were
observed from the samples taken from both the waterbodies. Total 47 Zooplankton were revealed from the studies done over a
period of one year.Kagzipura Lake was inhabited with 11 species of Cladocerans, 6 Copepods, 6 Ostracods, 13 Rotifers and 2
species of Protozoa. Sampling of Mombatta Lake revealed 7 species of Cladocerans, 8 Copepods, 5 Ostracods, 15 Rotifers and 3
species of Protozoa. Thus, both Kagzipura Lake and Mombatta Lake revealed 38 zooplankton species each. The study results co-
insides with most of the studies that have taken place in the collection region[3-6,13,14]

Figure 1: Species richness of all the five groups for both the lakes

The overall species richness was the same for both the lakes with 38 species/lake (Table 1). The distribution of species of the five
groups varied between the lakes with more species of rotifers and copepods observed in Mombatta lake (Rotifers= 15; Copepods=
8) while cladocerans, ostracods and protozoans were more in number in Kagzipura (Cladocera= 11; Ostracoda=6; Protozoa=2)
(Figure 1). The Phylum Rotifera was the most dominant group in most of the collections done and overall as well. Rotifers are
known to be dominant in most of the stagnant waterbodies[1,11]
Maximum species were observed in the month of February (late winter) and then steadily decreased until September (end of
Monsoon season) after which the numbers did not follow any specific pattern (Table 1).

710 710
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 8 Issue XI Nov 2020- Available at www.ijraset.com

Species data in both the lakes

Collection months Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
Kagzipura Lake
1. Cladocera
Ceriodaphnia cornuta 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Ceriodaphnia reticulata 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Chydorus reticulatus 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Chydorus sphaericus 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Daphnia longiramus 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Diaphanosoma orientalis 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
Diaphanosomasarsi 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Leydigia acanthocercoides 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Macrothrix rosea 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
Moina macrocopa 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1
Moina micrura 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1
2. Copepoda
Heliodiaptomus viduus 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
Mesocyclops hylanus 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1
Nauplius larvae 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Paracyclops fermbrialis 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1
Rhinodiaptomus indicus 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
Tropocyclops parasinus 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
3. Ostracoda
Candona suburbana 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Cypraea reticulatus 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cyprinus nudues 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Cypriochonca alba 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cypriodapsis halvetica 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hemicypris fossiculata 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
4. Protozoa
Euplotes sp. 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Stentor sp. 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
5. Rotifera
Asplanchna priodonta 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
Brachionus bidentata 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
Brachionus caudatus 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
Brachionus diversicornis 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1
Brachionus forficula 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Brachionus quadridentatus 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1
Euchlanis dilatata 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Filinia terminalis 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
Keratella tropica valga 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Lecane luna 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
Phillodina sp. 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Polyathra major 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Trichopria tetractis 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
Mombatta Lake
Cladocera

711 711
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 8 Issue XI Nov 2020- Available at www.ijraset.com

Ceriodaphnia cornuta 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Ceriodaphnia reticulata 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Chydorus sphaericus 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Daphnia longinus 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Diaphanosoma sarsi 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Macrothrix rosea 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
Moina macrocopa 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Copepoda
Eodiaptomus sp. 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
Heliodiaptomus viduus 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Mesocyclops hyalinus 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
Mesocyclops leuckarti 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
Nauplius larvae 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Paracyclops familiales 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Rhinediaptomus indicus 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
Tropocyclops parasinus 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
Ostracoda
Candona suburbana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Cypraea reticulatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Cypridopsis helvetica 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Cyprinus nudues 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Hemicypris fossiculata 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Protozoa
Phacus sp. 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
Euplotes sp. 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
Paramecium sp. 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Rotifera
Asplanchna priodonta 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
Brachionus angularis 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1
Brachionus bidentata 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
Brachionus calyciflorus 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
Brachionus caudatus 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
Brachionus diversicornis 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
Brachionus forficula 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0
Brachionus quadridentatus 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
Euchlanis dilatata 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
Filinia terminalis 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
Keratellatropica 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
Lecane luna 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
Phillodina sp. 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Polyathra major 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
Trichopria tetractis 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
Grand Total (Both Lakes) 51 48 46 47 34 25 28 26 41 34 40 27
Table 1: The species data of both the lakes for one year (starting from February to January) along with total occurrences as Grand
Total. (Month names abbreviated to first three alphabets; 1 – represents presence of species and 0 – represents absence)

712 712
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 8 Issue XI Nov 2020- Available at www.ijraset.com

A. Protozoa
Protozoan organisms are one celled, heterotrophic (using organic carbon as a source of energy), belonging to kingdom Protista. Protozoa
are unicellular organisms and 16 phyla of protists contain free-living freshwater protozoan species. They are one of the most
commonly found zooplankton. They live in a variety of moist habitats including freshwater, marine environments, and the soil. Protists
(Euglena) produce energy by photosynthesis and form the base of food chain and webs. They are the most important grazers of
microbes in freshwater habitats and the only grazers found in anoxic conditions. They are highly dominant in sediments. Benthic
ciliate biomass accounts for upto 10% of total benthic invertebrate biomass. Protozoans like Amoeba, Paramecium are non-
photosynthetic and are heterotrophs. In the present study 4 species of Protozoans were found viz. Euplotes, Paramecium,
Phacusand Stentor. Two species of Protozoa, Euplotes sp. and Stentor sp. were observed in Kagzipura Lake whereas, 3 species
Phacus sp., Euplotes sp., Paramecium sp. were seen in Mombatta Lake.
Euplotes sp. were the most commonly seen species while Phacus sp. was the rarest with 4 occurrences. Mombatta lake showed a
greater number of species every month for most of the sampled months. There were no protozoans observed for the monsoon period
(June-Sept) in both the lakes. Only a single species of protozoan was observed in Kagzipura in the winter months of November and
December (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Monthly species richness of Protozoa in both the lakes

B. Ostracods
Ostracods are a class of small crustaceans with about 8000 species. They are commonly known as seed shrimp due to their small
size. Their carapace, the upper shell of crustaceans, is bivalved like molluscan mussels. They can be found in lakes, wetlands,
seasonal pools, groundwater, streams and mosses.
A total of 7 species were found in the collections with Hemicyprisfossiculata being the most commonly seen and Cypriochonca alba
the most rarely seen species respectively. Five species were found in Mombatta Lake viz. Candonasuburbana, Cypraeareticulatus,
Cypridopsis Helvetica, Cyprinus nudues and Hemicyprisfossiculata. Six species of Ostracods Candonasuburbana,
Cypraeareticulatus, Cyprinus nudues, Cypriochonca alba, Cypriodapsishalvetica and Hemicyprisfossiculata were found in
Kagzipura Lake (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Monthly species richness of Ostracoda in both the lakes

Ostracods were relatively rare in Mombatta lake with richness never exceeding two species and no species recorded for some
months. No species were observed for the month of October for both the lakes A maximum of 4 species were observed in Kagzipura
lake.

713 713
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 8 Issue XI Nov 2020- Available at www.ijraset.com

C. Cladocera
Cladocerans are aquatic crustaceans, belonging to the phylum Arthropoda. Cladocerans swim using their second antenna. They
normally feed on zooplankton and phytoplankton. They are found abundantly in both temporary and permanent stagnant
waters. More than 620 species are known, but the real number of species might be 2–4 times higher.
A total of 12 species were found in both the lakes of which Chydorussphaericus and Moinamacrocopa were the most common
species while Daphnia longiramus was rare with only 4 occurrences. Eleven species of cladoceran were found in Kagzipura Lake,
whereas 7 were documented from Mombatta Lake (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Monthly species richness of Cladocera in both the lakes

Kagzipura lake had more species than Mombatta lake for most of the collection months. There was a very high difference (more
than 2 times) of species number between the lakes in certain months. Single species were reported in Mombatta for a few months
and this trend was not observed in Kagzipura lake.

D. Copepoda
Eight species of copepods were observed along with napuliar stages which could not be identified until genus/species levels. The
most common species observed wereHeliodiaptomusviduus, Rhinediaptomus indicus and Mesocyclopshyalinus.
Paracyclopsfamiliales was the rarest species with only 4 occurrences. Seven species in Mombatta lake and 5 species in Kagzipura
lake were observed with some unidentified naupliar stages.

Figure 5: Monthly species richness of Copepoda in both the lakes

There was a succession in the species numbers seen for both the lakes. Mombatta lake had higher species than Kagzipura until June
with no species seen in the month of July while Kagzipura lake showed increasing number of species from July till January (Figure
5).

714 714
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 8 Issue XI Nov 2020- Available at www.ijraset.com

E. Rotifera
Sixteen species were seen in total from both the lakes. The predatory Asplanchnapri odonta was the most commonly occurring
species while Keratella tropica was the rarest with less than 7 occurrences (in total). Thirteen species of rotifers in Kagzipura Lake
and 15 species in Mombatta lake were documented during the study.
Monthly variation varied between the 2 lakes with Mombatta lake showing more species number than Kagzipura for most of the
months. More species were seen in Kagzipura for only 2 months viz. August and January. Least number of species (<5) were seen in
November in Kagzipura and December in Mombatta lake (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Monthly species richness of Rotifera in both the lakes

Monthly variation varied between the 2 lakes with Mombatta lake showing more species number than Kagzipura for most of the
months. More species were seen in Kagzipura for only 2 months viz. August and January. Least number of species (<5) were seen in
November in Kagzipura and December in Mombatta lake.

Total occurrences of species (both lakes combined)

Group Species Total occurrences
Ceriodaphnia cornuta 7
Ceriodaphnia reticulata 7
Chydorus reticulatus 4
Chydorus sphaericus 10
Cladocera Daphnia longiramus 9
Diaphanosoma orientalis 6
Diaphanosoma sarsi 7
Leydigia acanthocercoides 5
Macrothrix rosea 8
Moina macrocopa 10
Moina micrura 6
Eodiaptomus sp. 7
Heliodiaptomus viduus 13
Mesocyclops hyalinus 11
Mesocyclops leuckarti 6
Copepoda Nauplius larvae 12
Paracyclops familiales 4
Paracyclops fermbrialis 7
Rhinediaptomus indicus 12
Tropo cyclopsparasinus 13
Candonasuburbana 5
Cypraea reticulates 4
Cypridopsis helvetica 3
Ostracoda Cyprinus nudues 6
Cypriochonca alba 2
Cypriodapsis halvetica 3
Hemicypris fossiculata 9
Euplotes 14
Protozoa Paramecium 7
Phacus 6
Stentor 7

715 715
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved
 International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)
ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.429
Volume 8 Issue XI Nov 2020- Available at www.ijraset.com

Asplanchna priodonta 19
Brachionus angularis 9
Brachionus bidentata 18
Brachionus calyciflorus 8
Brachionus caudatus 15
Brachionus diversicornis 16
Brachionus forficula 13
Rotifera Brachionus quadridentatus 18
Euchlanis dilatata 13
Filinia terminalis 16
Keratellatropica 6
Keratella tropica valga 11
Lecane luna 16
Phillodina sp. 13
Polyathra major 12
Trichopria tetractis 14
Table 2: Total occurrences considering both lakes for each species from every group

The rotifer, Brachionus bidentata(18) was the most frequently occurring zooplankton in the overall collections, followed by Filinia
terminalis (16) another rotifer. The Ostracods, Cypriochonca alba and Cypriodapsis halvetica were the least seen zooplankton in
overall collections.

IV. CONCLUSION
The overall diversity of the studied lakes showed a good diversity of Zooplankton. Sixteen rotifers, 12Cladocerans, 8 Copepods, 7
Ostracods, and 4 Protozoa were observed from the collected samples. The results exhibit a good diversity of the zooplankton
groups, especially Rotifera and Cladocera. This is always the case in most of the Zooplankton collections. Rotifers are dominant in
terms of their numbers and diversity as well. This is due to their ability to survive in all types of habitats.

V. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Head, Department of Zoology, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad for
providing necessary laboratory facility.

REFERENCES
[1] Edmonson W.T. 1959. Rotifera, (2nd edition) Fresh-Water Biology John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[2] Balasubramanian A., 2011. Aquatic Ecosystems - Freshwater types. University of Mysore.
[3] Samrat, A. D., Wanjule, R. V., &Pande, B. N (2012). Physico-Chemical and Biological Status of Kagzipura Lake Near Aurangabad. Proceeding of
International Conference SWRDM-2012, 1-3.
[4] Shaikh, R., Chourpagar, A. R., & Kulkarni, G. K. (2017). Biochemical composition of selected Meiobenthic fauna, cultured copepod Mesocyclopsleuckarti
(Claus, 1857) from Mombatta Lake. International Journal of Fauna and Biological Studies, 4(2), 47-49
[5] Arak, G. V., &Mokashe, S. S. (2012). Copepod diversity of Tembhapury Lake, Aurangabad region, MS, India. International Journal of Science and Research
(IJSR), 3(12), 976-979.
[6] Arak, G.V, and Mokashe, S. S. (2014). Rotifer Fauna in Lake Kagzipura of Aurangabad District, Maharashtra, India. The Ecoscan, 8(1&2), 59-62.
[7] Welch, P. S. (1948). Limnological methods. McGraw Hill, New York, USA.
[8] APHA. (2005). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public Health Association (APHA): Washington, DC, USA.
[9] Battish, S K (1992) Freshwater Zooplankton of India. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 233 pp.
[10] Tonapi, G. T. (1980). Fresh water animals of India; an Ecological approach.
[11] Pennak, R. W. (1989). Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States. Protozoa to mollusca.
[12] MVSSS, D. (2000). Taxonomic notes on the Rotifers from India–FAAB Publication.
[13] Kedar, G. K., Patil, G. P., &Yeole, S. M. (2008). Effect of physicochemical factors on the seasonal abundance of zooplankton population in Rishi Lake. In
Proceeding of Taal: the 12th world lake conference (pp. 88-91).
[14] Sontakke, G and Mokashe, S (2014) Diversity of zooplankton in Dekhu reservoir from Aurangabad, Maharashtra. Journal of Applied and Natural Science 6
(1): 131-133.

716 716
©IJRASET: All Rights are Reserved