effect of urbanization on nutrient loading and ... 9/t9_oral_04_ppt.pdf · c.k.t.a.c.s. college new...

C.K.T.A.C.S. College New Panvel and B.N. Bandodkar College, Thane

Effect of Urbanization on Nutrient Loading and PhytoplanktonDensities in River Gadhi and Deharang Reservoir, Panvel, Maharashtra

Minakhsi N. Gurav1 and Madhuri K. Pejaver2

1 C.K. Thakur A.C.S. College, New Panvel, Maharashtra2 B.N. Bandodkar College Of Science, Thane, Maharashtra


RationaleThe study was undertaken because of the following reasons• The increased urbanization is leading to increased pollution

stress on water bodies.• Sewage disposal is one among various anthropogenic activities

that cause pollution.• Sewage disposal leads to nutrient enrichment and alteration in

phytoplankton community structure and excessive growth.• In India many water bodies are still neglected and very few

studies are carried on nutrient loading and its effect onphytoplankton densities.

• Gadhi River and Deharang Reservoir are water bodies in Panvelwhich are not yet studied for the above said reason.


Description of Study Area


Sample collectionSurface water in dark colour 500 ml bottle

Immediate Preservation500 ml Surface water + Lugol’s iodine solution made in formaline

Long Time Fixation4% Formaline

Concentration Settlement & Decanting upper layer

Identification (Fritsch, 1979; Sarode and Kamat, 1984; Bellinger, 1992 )

Quantitative analysis(Lackey’s Drop Method)

Materials and MethodsFor Phytoplankton


Materials and MethodsFor Nutrient analysis

Sample collectionSurface water in plastic carboy

Nutrient Analysis

Nutrients Methods

Silicates Molybdosilicate Method

Nitrates PhenoldisulphonicAcid Method

Phosphates Stannous Chloride Method


Materials and Methods

For Correlation between Nutrients and phytoplankton Densities

Pearson correlation was considered at 0.5 levelsignificance to indicate the relationship betweennutrient load and phytoplankton densities.

Results



Monthly variation in silicates (mg/l) during the study period

Sites

MonthsS1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7

Apr-06 6.50 6.20 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50

May-06 8.80 14.20 13.80 16.20 14.30 12.30 10.30

Jun-06 0.40 0.40 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.40 0.40

Jul-06 0.60 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00

Aug-06 0.80 5.20 4.10 5.20 5.20 4.20 4.00

Sep-06 10.20 12.80 0.00 1.12 12.60 1.95 11.00

Oct-06 3.60 3.50 4.20 4.80 2.80 4.80 4.80

Nov-06 10.80 6.60 11.20 12.20 15.40 10.40 14.40

Dec-06 4.80 5.20 8.00 8.80 8.20 8.40 5.80

Jan-07 8.40 6.80 7.80 4.80 9.80 7.80 9.20

Feb-07 6.60 18.00 15.00 15.60 10.60 10.70 5.80

Mar-07 12.80 5.20 6.80 6.20 1.95 5.00 5.20

Apr-07 3.60 4.80 44.80 8.00 0.00 5.20 28.20

May-07 24.00 26.30 27.00 37.95 28.00 11.70 20.30

Jun-07 11.20 11.20 10.80 11.20 6.00 4.40 3.40

Jul-07 33.00 8.37 19.25 9.48 35.00 35.00 33.00

Average 9.13 8.49 11.32 9.34 9.83 8.11 10.21

Monthly variation in nitrates (mg/l) during the study period

Sites

Months

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7

Apr-06 0.64 0.89 0.83 0.58 6.00 6.70 6.20

May-06 0.52 1.30 0.78 14.54 18.00 13.50 9.00

Jun-06 0.70 0.50 0.70 0.45 0.70 0.50 0.50

Jul-06 0.28 0.42 0.48 0.34 0.34 0.26 0.40

Aug-06 0.65 0.85 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.65

Sep-06 1.71 2.60 1.40 1.70 1.80 1.60 1.50

Oct-06 0.00 0.18 0.27 0.00 0.18 0.27 1.30

Nov-06 0.36 2.15 0.90 0.65 0.70 0.80 0.72

Dec-06 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.27

Jan-07 5.60 5.60 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20

Feb-07 0.36 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.09 1.50 1.00

Mar-07 0.09 0.09 0.65 0.72 0.36 0.72 0.36

Apr-07 1.50 0.40 2.15 2.50 2.60 2.55 2.15

May-07 0.65 0.54 0.72 0.65 0.81 0.45 0.81

Jun-07 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.50

Jul-07 5.60 5.60 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20

Average 1.20 1.35 1.43 2.25 2.84 2.67 2.36



Sites

Months S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7

Apr-06 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.31 0.19 0.44 0.19

May-06 0.19 0.12 0.38 0.57 1.60 3.40 0.89

Jun-06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.31 0.12

Jul-06 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.06 1.80 0.19

Aug-06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.12

Sep-06 0.06 0.06 0.63 0.12 0.25 19.65 0.82

Oct-06 0.06 0.06 0.48 0.10 0.33 10.80 0.82

Nov-06 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.06 0.63 8.03 1.08

Dec-06 0.63 0.70 0.70 0.89 2.40 3.70 1.08

Jan-07 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.25 3.00 2.70 1.20

Feb-07 0.12 0.19 0.25 0.12 0.19 2.70 1.02

Mar-07 0.38 0.38 0.63 1.14 2.70 4.20 0.70

Apr-07 0.19 0.44 0.44 1.20 2.70 1.80 2.70

May-07 0.06 0.12 0.19 1.30 1.70 5.40 1.40

Jun-07 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.92 3.42 4.30 2.60

Jul-07 0.20 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.62 0.62 0.27

Average 0.19 0.22 0.33 0.46 1.25 4.37 0.95

Monthly variation in Phosphates (mg/l) during the study period


Graph Indicating Sitewise Variation in Average Nutrient Concentration


Graph Indicating Monthly Variation in Phytoplankton Densities


Sitewise Distribution of Average Phytoplankton Densities


Sites NitratesPhytoplankton densities Correlation Coefficient

Cyanophyceae Chlorophyceae Bascillariophycea Cyanophyceae ChlorophyceaeBascillariophycea

e

S1 0.91 7221 40 70325 -0.2 -0.1 0

S2 1.06 39750 27296 136839 0.5 -0.2 -0.4

S3 1.10 33030 74846 28694 -0.1 -0.06 -0.2

S4 1.99 583614 90278 1341132 0.1 0.3 -0.1

S5 2.61 469599 357888 1070047 0.6 -0.1 -0.1

S6 2.43 436580 288096 243737 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2

S7 2.10 337880 534257 136831 0 -0.1 -0.2

Relation between nitrate concentration and phytoplankton densities and correlation coefficient


Sites PhosphatesPhytoplankton densities Correlation Coefficient

Cyanophyceae Chlorophyceae Bascillariophycea Cyanophyceae Chlorophyceae Bascillariophyceae

S1 0.19 7222 41 65930 -0.1 0.0 0.0

S2 0.22 39750 27296 128287 0.1 0.2 0.2

S3 0.33 33030 74846 28694 0.2 -0.1 -0.3

S4 0.46 583615 90278 1341132 0.7 0.0 0.5

S5 1.25 440250 357888 1003169 0.2 0.2 0.3

S6 4.37 436581 288096 243738 0.0 -0.1 -0.2

S7 0.95 337881 534257 136831 0.5 0.1 0.1

Relation between phosphate concentration and phytoplankton densities and correlation coefficient


Sites Silicates

Phytoplankton densities Correlation Coefficient

Cyanophyceae Chlorophyceae Bascillariophyceae Cyanophyceae Chlorophyceae Bascillariophyceae

S1 9.13 7222 41 65930 0.0 0.0 0.0

S2 8.49 39750 27296 128287 0.1 0.0 0.1

S3 11.32 33030 74846 28694 0.1 0.7 -0.2

S4 9.34 583615 90278 1341132 0.8 0.0 0.8

S5 9.83 440250 357888 1003169 0.4 -0.1 -0.2

S6 8.11 436581 288096 243738 0.0 0.0 -0.2

S7 10.21 337881 534257 136831 0.4 -0.2 0.0

Relation between silicates concentration and phytoplankton densities and correlation coefficient


♣ Due to urbanization the nutrient load increases leading to phytoplanktonbloom leaving the nutrients undetectable most of the time or in very highdensities.

♣ Nutrients are essential phytoplankton for their growth in very trace amounts.Nutrient loading creates excess nutrients and leads to bloom. This bloom mayliberate toxic substances most of the time. This means the water quality isunder threat from nutrient enrichment, even if the degree of blooming wasstill low when compared to blooming in temperate regions or nutrients arebelow detectable levels.

♣ Thus, it should be a matter for serious concern and increased awarenessorregarding the impacts of land use in reservoir and watershed areas. All landuse activities around the reservoir need to be managed appropriately andsustainably in der to protect the ecosystem health from adverse algal blooms.

Conclusions


References:

APHA: (1985) Standard Methods for the examination of water and waster water , 15th edition. APHA, New York, USA.

Bellinger, E. E. (1992) A key to common algae. Freshwater, esturine and some coastal species. The Institute of Water and Environmental Management, London. pp: 139.

Chapman, A.D. and Schelske, C.L. (1997) Recent appearance of Cylindrospermopsis (Cyanobacteria) in five hypereutrophic Florida Lakes. Journal of Phycology, 33, pp. 191-195.

Faust, S.D. and O.M. Aly, (1981) "Chemistry of Natural Waters", Am Arbor Science Publishers. Inc., Michigan.

Fritsch, F. E. (1979) The structure and reproduction of algae. Vol. 1 and 11. Vikas Publishing House.

Goldman, C.R. and Horne, A.J. 1994. Limnology. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 576.

Graham, L.E. and Wilcox, L.W. (2000) Algae. Prentice - Hall Inc, London. pp. 987.

Graneli, E., Carlson, P. and Leggrant, C. (1999) The role of C, N and P in dissolved and particulate organic matter as a utrient source for phytoplankton growth, including toxic species. Aquatic Ecology, 33, pp. 17 - 27.

Karydis M. (2009) Eutrophication assessment in coastal waters based on indicators: a literature review. Global NEST Journal, 11(4), pp. 373-390.

Meesukko Chatnaree, Nantana Gajaseni , Yuwadee Peerapornpisal and Alexey Voinov (2007) Relationships Between Seasonal Variation and Phytoplankton Dynamics in Kaeng Krachan Reservoir, Phetchaburi Province, Thailand. The Natural History Journal of Chulalongkorn University 7(2), pp:131-143

Oudra, B. (1990) Bassins de stabilization anairobie facultatifpour le traitement des eaux us&es d. Marrakesh: Dynamigue du phytoplankton microplankton et picoplankton) et &valuation de lu biomane primaire. These de 3eme cycle. Univ, Cady Ayyad. Fac. Sci. Marrakesh, pp. 144.

Radwan , A.M. (2005) Some factors affecting the primary production of phytoplankton in Lake Burullus. EGYPTIAN Journal of Aquatic Research Vol. 31 No. 2, pp: 72-88.

Radwan , A.M. (1994) study on the pollution of Damietta branch and its effects on the phytoplankton. Ph. D. Thesis Tanta Univ. Faculty of Science. pp. 289.

Sarode, S. T. and Kamat N. D. (1984) Freshwater diatoms from Maharashtra. Saikrupa Prakashan, Aurangabad.

Trivedy, R. K. and Goel, P.K. (1984) Chemical and Biological methods for water pollution studies. Environmental Publ., Karad, India, pp; 122.


Acknowledgement

§ Vidya Prasarak Mandal’s B.N. Bandodkar College, Thane

§ Janardan Bhagat Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha’s Changu Kana ThakurArts, Commerce College, New Panvel

effect of urbanization on nutrient loading and ... 9/t9_oral_04_ppt.pdf · c.k.t.a.c.s. college new...

Documents