Zooplankton

Introduction

Zooplankton, a diverse and ubiquitous group of microscopic animals, are the unsung heroes of
aquatic ecosystems. They play a pivotal role in the intricate web of life, serving as vital links in
the food chain and influencing the overall health and productivity of water bodies. Their
abundance, diversity, and distribution provide valuable insights into the environmental
conditions and ecological dynamics of a given aquatic system.

Zooplankton are heterotrophic organisms, meaning they cannot produce their food and rely on
consuming other organisms for sustenance. They are broadly classified as either holoplankton,
which spend their entire life cycle drifting in the water column, or meroplankton, which are the
larval stages of benthic (bottom-dwelling) organisms that are temporarily planktonic during their
development. This diverse group encompasses a wide range of taxa, including protozoans,
rotifers, copepods, cladocerans, and the larval stages of various invertebrates, such as jellyfish,
crabs, and barnacles (Thorp and Covich 2001). Zooplankton play a critical role in aquatic
ecosystems, contributing significantly to their structure, function, and stability. Their key
ecological roles include; primary consumers, food sources, nutrient cycling, and water quality
(Gulati and Demott 1997). On the other hand, the abundance and distribution of zooplankton are
influenced by a complex interplay of environmental factors such as nutrient availability, water
temperature, salinity, oxygen levels, predation, and competition (Badsi, et al., 2010). Therefore,
monitoring zooplankton communities provides valuable insights into the health and functioning
of aquatic ecosystems. Changes in zooplankton abundance, diversity, and species composition
can indicate; Eutrophication: Excessive nutrient levels can lead to algal blooms, which can have
negative impacts on zooplankton communities (Yuan, and Pollard), Pollution: The presence of
certain zooplankton species or the absence of others can be indicative of pollution levels (Jakhar
2013), and Climate Change: Changes in temperature, salinity, and oxygen levels associated with
climate change can have significant impacts on zooplankton populations (Richardson 2008).
 Material and Methods

Zooplankton samples were collected through a vertical haul from the upper 1 meter of
each site by plankton net of 55 um mesh size. Collected samples were kept in plastic
bottles with some seawater and immediately preserved with neutral formalin until reach a
final concentration of 4 %. In the laboratory, samples were made up to a standard volume
(100ml). 1-3 ml were used for counting using a binocular microscope. Zooplankton
species were identified according to the key references and expressed as an individual per
cubic meter (ind. m-3).

Results and discussion:

The zooplankton community recorded along the study area was represented by 5 species,
in addition to the uncharacterized larval forms. The recorded zooplankton forms belong
to Protozoa, Rotifera, Copepoda, and Meroplankton (Table 1).

Table (1). Spatial distribution of zooplankton taxa (individual m-3).

species st. 1 st. 2 st. 3 st. 4 st. 5 st. 6 Average
Protozoa
Euplotes sp. 0 133 0 16667 0 0 2800
Total density of protozoa 0 133 0 16667 0 0 2800
Rotifera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Brachionus plicatilis 140000 57333 15667 61000 6000 3333 47222
Keratella quadrata 133 267 0 333 0 0 122
Philodina roseola 0 667 0 0 0 0 111
Total density of Rotifera 140133 58267 15667 61333 6000 3333 47456
Copepoda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nauplius larvae 5733 8000 1000 19000 6333 0 6678
copepodite stage of calanoid 2800 1333 0 667 0 0 800
Paracartia latisetosa 133 0 0 0 0 0 22
Total density of Copepoda 8667 9333 1000 19667 6333 0 7500
meroplankton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Polychaeta larvae 0 267 0 0 0 0 44
 Molluscan larva 0 0 0 333 0 0 56
Free-living Nematoda 0 0 0 333 0 0 56
Ostracoda 0 0 0 0 0 333 56
Total density of meroplankton 0 267 0 667 0 333 211
Total density of zooplankton 148800 68000 16667 98333 12333 3667 57967

Protozoa:

Protozoa were only represented by one species; Euplotes sp. It attained the highest densities
observed at Site 4 (16667 individuals/m3) which may indicate potential importance for lower
trophic levels.

Rotifera:

Rotifera was represented by three species; Brachionus plicatilis , Keratella quadrata ,

and Philodina roseola.

 Brachionus plicatilis was the most abundant rotifer, with high densities at all sites,
especially Site 1 (140000 ind./m3).

 Keratella quadrata and Philodina roseola were present in lower densities.

Copepoda:

Copepod densities varied between sites, where, Site 4 exhibited the highest density (19667
ind./m3). Copepoda was represented by one adult species (Paracartia latisetosa) and larval
stages (Nauplius larvae and copepodite). Nauplius larvae and the copepodite stage of
calanoid were the most abundant copepods. While Paracartia latisetosa was present in minimal
numbers in site 1.

Conclusion:

 The low-diverse zooplankton community indicates a poor ecosystem.

 The higher zooplankton densities at Site 4 indicate a potentially favorable habitat for fish
and other larger predators.
  The dominance of Brachionus plicatilis indicates high eutrophication and salinity
variation.

 The dominance of Brachionus plicatilis and Nauplius larvae in several sites indicates a
stable and productive environment for filter-feeding organisms.

 Comparing zooplankton densities across sites provides valuable insights into the spatial
variability of productivity, salinity, and water quality.

References:

Thorp, J.H., & Covich, A.P. (2001). Ecology and classification of North American freshwater
invertebrates. Academic Press.

Gulati, R.A.M.E.S.H. and Demott, W.I.L.L.I.A.M., 1997. The role of food quality for
zooplankton: remarks on the state‐of‐the‐art, perspectives and priorities. Freshwater
Biology, 38(3), pp.753-768.

Badsi, H., Ali, H.O., Loudiki, M., El Hafa, M., Chakli, R. and Aamiri, A., 2010. Ecological
factors affecting the distribution of zooplankton community in the Massa Lagoon
(Southern Morocco). African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 4(11),
pp.751-762.

Yuan, L.L. and Pollard, A.I., 2018. Changes in the relationship between zooplankton and
phytoplankton biomasses across a eutrophication gradient. Limnology and
oceanography, 63(6), pp.2493-2507.This introduction provides a comprehensive overview
of the significance and ecological role of zooplankton within aquatic ecosystems. The
references cited offer further information and in-depth exploration of the topics discussed.

Jakhar, P., 2013. Role of phytoplankton and zooplankton as health indicators of aquatic
ecosystem: A review. International Journal of Innovation Research Study, 2(12), pp.489-
500.

Richardson, A.J., 2008. In hot water: zooplankton and climate change. ICES Journal of Marine
Science, 65(3), pp.279-295.