Post-restoration ecological assessment on the zooplankton dynamics of the Adyar creek and estuary

  • K. Altaff
  • A. Janakiraman
  • M. S. Naveed
  • M. Asrar Sheriff
  • M. War
  • J. Sugumaran
  • G. Mantha


The Adyar estuary is one of the highly productive transitional zones of southeast India, situated in the southern part of Chennai city and acts as a nursery ground for several endemic flora and fauna. Since few decades, due to anthropogenic activities,indiscriminate dumping and discharge of domestic and industrial wastes and pollutants has environmentally damaged the Adyar estuary lowering many of its ecological and socio-economic attributes. In order to mitigate further environmental damage and to restore it to its earlier pristine condition, the Government and several non-Governmental agencies have undertaken ecological restoration measures to enhance its ecology and diversity. In order to evaluate the restoration process, our present study attempts to assess the diversity and abundance of zooplankton population in the restored and non-restored parts of the Adyar creek and estuary. 34 species belonging to 12 zooplankton groups from 4 stations of the Adyar creek and estuary were recorded. Copepods and rotifers were the dominant groups of zooplankton in Adyar estuary. The overall density of zooplankton from 4 stations ranged between 11.5 ± 4.39 and 23,046.67 ± 2872.68 Ind l−1. In general, Adyar estuary recorded higher zooplankton abundance than creek. The relative percentage composition was maximum for rotifers with 85.67% at Station-IV. Copepods dominated Station-I, whereas rotifers dominated the other 3 stations. Overall results indicate that the restoration activities had beneficial effect on the hydrological parameters and in increasing the diversity of zooplankton in the restored part of the Adyar creek and estuary compared to the non-restored part. Ecological indices have been used to assess the present status of the restored and non-restored parts in the Adyar creek and estuary.


Adyar estuary Zooplankton Diversity Ecology Restoration 



Authors are thankful to The Chennai Rivers Restoration Trust, Chennai, Tamil Nadu for their encouragement and also to the Head, P.G. and Research Department of Zoology, The New College, Chennai for providing necessary facilities for conducting this research work.


  1. Aboul Ezz SM, Abdel Aziz NE, Abou Zaid MM, Raey ME, Abo-Taleb HA (2014) Environmental assessment of El-Mex Bay, southeastern Mediterranean by using Rotifera as a plankton bio-indicator. Egyptian J Aq Res 40:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alpine AE, Cloern JE (1992) Trophic interactions and direct physical effects control phytoplankton biomass and primary production in an estuary. Limnol Oceanogr 37:946–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altaff K (2004) A manual of zooplankton. UGC, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Yamani FY, Skryabin V, Gubanova A, Khvorov S, Prusova I (2011) Marine zooplankton practical guide for the northwestern Arabian gulf volume 1. Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, KuwaitGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson D, Glibert PM, Burkholder JM (2002) Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries 25:704–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ansari ZA, Parulekar AH (1998) Community structure of meiobenthos from tropical estuary. Indian J Mar Sci 27:362–366Google Scholar
  7. Arlt G (1983) Taxonomy and ecology of some harpacticoids (Crustacea, Copepoda) in the Baltic Sea and Kettegat. Zool Jahrbücher Syst 110:45–85Google Scholar
  8. Balmford A, Bond W (2005) Trends in the state of nature and their implications for human well-being. EcolLett 8:1218–1234Google Scholar
  9. Beck MW, Heck KL Jr, Able KW, Childers DL, Eggleston DB, Gillanders BM, Halpern B, Hays CG, Hoshino K, Minello TJ, Orth RJ, Sheridan PF, Weinstein MP (2001) The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 51:633–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borja A, Bricker SB, Dauer DM, Demetriades NT, Ferreira JG, Forbes AT, Hutchings P, Jia X, Kenchington R, Marques JC, Zhu C (2008) Overview of integrative tools and methods in assessing ecological integrity in estuarine and coastal systems worldwide. Mar Poll Bull 56:1519–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buskey EJ (1993) Annual pattern of micro- and mesozooplankton abundance and biomass in a subtropical estuary. J Plankton Res 15(8):907–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapman PM (1989) Current approaches to develop sediment quality criteria. Environ Toxicol Chem 8:589–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) Primer v6: user manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E Ltd, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  14. Cloern JE (2001) Our evolving conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 210:223–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costanza R, Dárge R, Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton PM, Van Den Belt D (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coull BC (1977) Marine flora and fauna of the northeastern United States. Copepoda: Harpacticoida.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Tech Rep National Marine Fisheries Service 399:1–48Google Scholar
  17. Day JH (1980) What is an estuary? S African J Sci 76:198Google Scholar
  18. Dhanapathi MVSSS (2000) Taxonomic notes on the rotifers from India (from 1880–2000). Publ no. IAAB, Hyderabad, p 10Google Scholar
  19. Duarte CM (2009) Coastal eutrophication research: a new awareness. Hydrobiologia 629:263–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dussart BH, Defaye D (2001) Introduction to the Copepoda. In: Dumont HJF (ed) Guide to the identification of the microinvertebrates of the continental waters of the world,2nd edn. Backhuys Publishers, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  21. Hughes BB, Levey MD, Brown JA, Fountain MC, Carlisle AB, Litvin SY, Greene CM, Heady WN, Gleason MG (2014) Nursery Functions of U.S. West Coast Estuaries. In: The State of Knowledge for Juveniles of Focal Invertebrate and Fish Species. The Nature Conservancy, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. Huys R, Gee JM, Moore CG, Hamond R (1996) Marine and brackish water harpacticoid copepods. Part 1. Keys and notes for identification of the species. In: RSK B, Crothers JH (eds) Synopses of the British Fauna, vol 51, pp 1–352Google Scholar
  23. Ismael AA, Dorgham MM (2003) Ecological indices as a tool for assessing pollution in El-DekhailaHarbour (Alexandria, Egypt). Oceanologia 45:121–131Google Scholar
  24. Janakiraman A, Naveed MS, Asrar Sheriff M, Altaff K (2017) Ecological restoration assessment of Adyar creek and estuary using meiofaunal communities as ecological indicators for aquatic pollution. Reg Stud Mar Sci 9:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jassby AD, CloernJE CBE (2002) Annual primary production: patterns and mechanisms of change in a nutrient-rich tidal ecosystem. LimnolOceanogr 47:698–712Google Scholar
  26. Kasturirangan LR (1963) A key for the identification of the more common planktonic Copepoda of Indian coastal waters. CSIR, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  27. Kennish MJ (2002) Environmental threats and environmental future of estuaries. Environ Conserv 29:78–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leandro SM, Morgado F, Pereira F, Queiroga H (2007) Temporal changes of abundance, biomass and production of copepod community in a shallow temperate estuary (ria de Aveiro, Portugal). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 74:215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lepš J, Šmilauer P (2003) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. McLusky DS, Elliot M (2004) The estuarine ecosystem: ecology, threats and management. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moreno M, Ferrero TJ, Gallizia I, Vezzuulli L, Albertelli G, Fabiano M (2008) An assessment of the spatial heterogeneity of environmental disturbance within an enclosed harbour through the analysis of meiofauna and nematode assemblages. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 77:565–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mukherjee B, Nivedita M, Mukherjee D (2010) Plankton diversity and dynamics in a polluted eutrophic lake, Ranchi. J Environ Biol 31:827–839Google Scholar
  33. Mumby PJ, Hastings A (2008) The impact of ecosystem connectivity on coral reef resilience. J Appl Ecol 45:854–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nagelkerken I, Sheaves M, Baker R, Connolly R (2015) The seascape nursery: a novel spatial approach to identify and manage nurseries for coastal marine fauna. Fish Fisher 16:362–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Newell GE, Newell RC (1963) Marine plankton- a practical guide. Hutchinson and Co. Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Pearson TH, Rosenberg R (1978) Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 16:229–311Google Scholar
  37. Peres-Neto P, Legendre P, Dray S, Borcard D (2006) Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87:2614–2625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Perry R (2003) A guide to the marine plankton of Southern California, 3rd edn. UCLA Ocean Globe, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  39. Pielou EC (1966) The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collection. J TheorBiol 13:131–144Google Scholar
  40. Pihl L, Baden SP, Diaz RJ (1991) Effects of periodic hypoxia on distribution of demersal fish and crustaceans. Mar Biol 108:349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pritchard DW (1967) What is an estuary: physical viewpoint. In: Lauff GH (ed) Estuaries. AAAS, Washington DC, pp 3–5Google Scholar
  42. Rajendran M (1973) Copepoda. In: Michael RG (ed) A guide to the study of freshwater organisms, Supl 1. J Madurai Univ, India, pp 103–151Google Scholar
  43. Rocha O, Matsumura-Tundisi T, Sampaio EV (1997) Phytoplankton and zooplankton community structure and production as related to trophic state in some Brazilian lakes and reservoirs. Verh Int Verein Limnol 26:599–604Google Scholar
  44. Rosenberg R (1975) Stressed tropical benthic faunal communities of Miami, Florida. Ophelia 14:93–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Santhanam R, Velayutham P, Gegathesan G (1989) A manual of freshwater ecology. DayaPublishingHouse, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  46. Schneiders A, Daele TV, Landuyt WV, Reeth WV (2012) Biodiversity and ecosystem services: complementary approaches for ecosystem management? Ecol Indic 21:123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shannon EC, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  48. Sheaves M, Baker R, Nagelkerken I, Connolly RM (2015) True value of estuarine and coastal nurseries for fish: incorporating complexity and dynamics. Estuar Coasts 38:401–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Strickland JDH, Parsons TR (1968) Determination of dissolved oxygen: in: a practical handbook of seawater analysis. Fish Res Bd Canada Bull 167:71–75Google Scholar
  51. Switzer TS, Chesney EJ, Baltz DM (2009) Habitat selection by flatfishes in the northern Gulf of Mexico: implications for susceptibility to hypoxia. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 381:S51–S64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tapia-González FU, Herrera-Silveira JA, Aguirre-Macedo ML (2008) Water quality variability and eutrophic trends in karstic tropical coastal lagoons of the Yucatán peninsula. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 76:418–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tucker JM, Schwartz MK, Truex RL, Wisely SM, Allendorf FW (2014) Sampling affects the detection of genetic subdivision and conservation implications for fisher in the Sierra Nevada. Conserv Genet 15:123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Varghese M, Krishnan L, Kuttyamma VJ (2006) Systematic account on rotifer of the genus Brachionus from Cochin backwater. J Mar Biol Assoc India 48:147–155Google Scholar
  55. Villate F, Iriarte A, Uriarte I, Intxausti L, Sota A (2013) Dissolved oxygen in the rehabilitation phase of an estuary: influence of sewage pollution abatement and hydro-climatic factors. Mar Poll Bull 70:234–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Xu H, Zhang W, Jiang Y, Zhu M, Al-Rasheid KAS (2012) Influence of sampling sufficiency on biodiversity analysis of microperiphyton communities for marine bioassessment. Environ SciPollut Res 19:540–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Altaff
    • 1
  • A. Janakiraman
    • 2
  • M. S. Naveed
    • 3
  • M. Asrar Sheriff
    • 3
  • M. War
    • 3
  • J. Sugumaran
    • 4
  • G. Mantha
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Marine BiotechnologyAMET UniversityChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Advanced Zoology& BiotechnologyGuru Nanak CollegeChennaiIndia
  3. 3.P. G.and Research Departments of ZoologyThe New CollegeChennaiIndia
  4. 4.Department of ZoologyKhadir Mohideen CollegeAdirampattinamIndia
  5. 5.Department of Marine Biology, Faculty of Marine SciencesKing Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia
  6. 6.Environment and Life Sciences Research CenterKuwait Institute for Scientific ResearchShuweikhKuwait

Personalised recommendations