ISS 0375- 5

Rec. zool, Sura. India: 113(Part-4): 01-12,2013

DIY RSITY AND D: S RIBUTION OF I C FO . AMIN FERA FROM TAMILNADU COAST, IND_A

SIV ALEELA, G. AND VENKATAR..AMAN, K. ** Marine Biology Regional Centr:e

Zoological Suroey of India, Chennai- 600 028 Zoological Suroey of India, New Alipore, ~o.lkata-700 053)fo)fo

E-mail: gsivaleela@yahoo.com*. venkyzsi56@gmail.oom**

INTRODUCTION

The foraminiferans .are the most diverse . hylum of meofauna. Foraminifera are found in

all marine envir,onments, they may be pl~otic or benthic in mode of life. It has been estimated that the total number of foraminiferans species might be approximately 4000 living species of foraminifera. The present paper deals with the distribution and diversity of marine foraminiferans all over Tamilnadu Coast. Foraminif,eral distribution has been reported by many workers. Foraminiferans were the most abundant group of meiofauna at all the sampling sites. The number of species per station ranged from 11 to 32.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The sediment samples were ,collected from intertidal areas of Tamil adu coast during 2006 to 2007. Twelve stations were chosen for the present study from Chennai-l Pondicherry..:2, Cuddalore-3, Karaikal-4, agapattinam-5, Thondi-6, Thiruchendur-7, Tuticorin-8, Mandapam .. 8, P.aniban-l0, Rarn@s",raram-l1 and Kanyakumari along the Tamil Nadu Coast. Sedim@nt samples were collected with a plastic corer (3 ,em internal diameter) up to a depth of 15 cm. Sampling was made during low tide, mostly near the mid tide level. The samples were vertically subdivided into slices of 0~21 24, 4--6, 6-10 and 10~15 cm depth. Meiobenthos was extracted hom sediments by decanting with tap

water .and washing through a 500 nun sieve suspended above a 45 Jim sieve (McIntyre, 1969). Animals w,er'e stored in 5'% formaldehyde solution and coloured with Rose Bengal (0.1 g in 100 ml distilled w.ater).

istory and Distribution of Foraminiferans

Th@ r'ecent lIeviews of Bhalla et al. (2007) and Khare etal. (2007) on foraminifer.al studies in near shore I1egions of western and eastern coasts of India reveal that most of the studies are r~lated to taxonomic and ecological aspects and palaeoenvironmental interpretations. A few studies have been undertaken along the eastern coast of India on applied aspects of F'oraminifera. Taxonomic and ·ecological studies on f.or.aminifera £r·om west coast 'of India were carried out by some rese.arehers. Bhalla '&: Nigam (1979) and Bhalla & Gaur (1987) worked on foram diversity of CaJangute and Colva beach sands respectiv,ely, Bhalla '& Raghav (1980) studied the ec,ology ,of For.aminifera of Malabar Coast and suggested that salinity is the chief governing factor. Raj & Chamyal (1998) stud~ ed the ecology of foraminifera of Mahi valley ·of Gujarat. Shar,eef & Venkatachalapathl (1988) reported 40 .and 41 species of foraminifera from Bhatkal .and Devgad islands, respectively. Nigam (2005) addressed the question as to how environmental issues ·can be solved throu.gh Foraminifera. Some studies were carri@d out on taxonomy .and ecology of Forminifera from beaches .and estuaries of east coast of India.

2

Foraminiferal diversity in relation to different

ecological ,conditions was reported by Bhalla

(1968) from Vishakhapatnam beach sands,

Hamsa (1973) and Kathal & Bhalla (1998) from

Palk Bay and Gulf of Mannar, Narappa ,et al., (1981) fllom Godavari river system, and Kathal

et al. (2000) from Kanyakumari, and

Satyanarayana et at, (2007) fr,om Nagapattinam.

V,ery s ,canty literature is av,ailable on

Foraminifera of Lakshadweep (Gupta 1973i Rao

et al. 1987; Saraswati 2007). To utilize these

marine protists efficiently, adequate knowledge

of their diversity ,and distribution pattern in

modem ,environment is of utmost importance.

Theefore,a study of intoertidal fo ams was

undertaken cQmparing the east a31d west-coast

and the sens'tivity of oams to monsoo IS. S

pa per pres,ents the scanning electron

photomicrogr,aphs ,of inte ,tidal forams along

the Indian coast~ so ,as to benefit reseaIchers in

diverse areas who use Fora era.

Foraminifer,ans Diversity

A total 'of 37 species of foraminiferans as

belon-8in.s to 21 families were recorded in the

presentsrudy,. The I istis as follows (Tab e-1)

Abundance of foraminifer,ans

The foraminiferan density ~anged from 24 to

285 indo 10 cm-2, 72 to 220 ind.l0 ,cm-2

, 65 to 340 indo

10 cm'~~ 20 to 210 indo 110 cmoz, 40 to 210 indo 10 ,cm 4 ,

90 to 190 indo 10 cm-2, 90 to 235 indo 10 cm-1

, 15 ~o

140 indo 10 cm-2~ 110 to 160 indo 10 ,cmeZ, 90 to 240

indo 10 cm·2,85 to 190 indo 10 cui2 and 50 to 150 ind

10,cm4 at stations 1-12 respectiv,ely during 2006 .

Whereas during 2007, it was observed 24~151

no/l0 cm2, 90. .. 175 no/10 cm2

, 45-180 no/l0 'cmz,

50~330 no/10 cm2, 5e90 no/liQ cm2

, 80~395 no/l0

cm2, 20-495 no/ 0 c 2,20-70 no/10 ,c 1

2, 90- 55

no/l0 ,cm2, 90-290 no/l0 cm2,40-180 no/l0 cm2

and 60-150 no/IO 'cm2 at stations 1 - 12

respectively.

The mean density of foraminiferans ranged

between 67 no/lO cm2 and 160 no/l0 cm2 during

2006 and 32 no/tO crn2 and 275 no/l0 crn2 during

2007. Highest densities of foraminife~a w,ere

recorded at station 7 during 2006 and 2007 (Figs. 2

Rec. zoot Surv. India

& 3)~ while lowest density w ,as 'Observed at

stations 8 ,and 5 respectively during 2006 and

2007.

Species compos +tion of foraminiferans

A total of 37 species belonging to 24 genera

were identified. The number of species per station

ranged between 13 to 24. The forarniniferans were

dominated by Rosalina globularis (0.63-3.39%),

Quinqueloculina bradyana (0.5-3.38 %)~ Epcmides repandus (0.67-2.26%), Rosalina agglutinans (0.37-2.08 %) and Triloculina sp. (0.27-1.51 %) There w,as

only seven species, which occurred in all the 12 stations . These are Eponides repan,dus, Quinqueloculina bra,dyana~ Rosalina globulans, Rosalina agglutinans, RosaUna bradyi, - Spirillina limbata and 'Triloculina sp. (Table 17). The -spedes

such as America sp., Cibicides l,obo,tulus~ C. refulegens, Cydammina sp., Rotalia pulchella, Elphidium sp., Glnbig~inita sp., Neooonorbina sp., Nonion depressulum~ Ori.dosalis umbonatus~

Planulina sp., Planorbullina sp., Q, laevigata, Q. ,agglutianans, Q. ,oblanga, 'Q. lamarkiana, Spirillina lateseptata, Spiro,loculina antillarum, Textularia cuneiformis, T. candiana and T. ,agglutinans were

observed occasionally.

Family c,ompos *tion of foraminifer,ans

A t'Otal of 21 families of foraminiferans were

recorded. These were in order of their

importance: Rosalinidae (1.89-6.23%),

Hauerinidae (0.75-3.69%), Eponididae (0.67-

2.26%), Rotaliidae (0.34-2.26%) and Spirillinidae

(0.3-2.38). 'Only 5 families could be ,characterized

as very common at all the 12 stations. These are Eponidida,e, Hauerinida,e, Rotaliida,e,

Spirillinidaeand Miliolidae.

The families such as Soritidae~ Cibicidae, Cy,clamminidae, Elphidiidae~ Cand,e' nidae,

Vaginulinidae, Neoconorbinidae, Nonionidae,

Heter,olepidae and Planulinidae were occurred

sporadically.

Diversity indic,es of foraminiferans

The div'ersity indices w'er,e lowest at stations 9 (Mandapam) and 11 (Ramesw,aram), which c,an

be ,considered as Lndications of the stress at these

sites. At station 11 " s situated very dose ~o

SlY ALEELA & VENKA TARAMAN : Diversity ,and Distribution of Benthic Foraminifer,a 3

F'oraminnerans of 'T,amimadu (Table ... l)

FORAMINIFERANS

Family: Amerid:ae

1. America sp. -------.lL:JJ -~JJ~JJ~~~ Family: Soritidae I 2 Amphisorus sp.

Family: Bolivin· dae

,_3 __ B_Oll_'Vin_a_ab_bre_Via_ta_~L=L:J~~J~~~~~~~ Family: Cibicidae

4 Cibicides lohotulus

5 C. reful~gens

Family: Cycl.amm· oidae

6 I Cyclammina sp.

Family: Disc10rbidae

7 Discorbis sp ..

8 Rotalia pulchella

I

+ ~ + ~--=-~J~J -~~~

9 I R. translucens - -=.J -=.J _=.1.:J - --=..J - --=..J Family: Elphidiiclae I

._l_O _Elp_hid_ium_ sp_, _-----aI~~~JJJJ~J~~~ Family: ponididae

I I Eponides repandus

Family.: Caadeinidae

12 Globigerina sp.

13 G,lobigerinita sp.

I

1 ".P!JI1IJ°ll :.{I~.i I+I+T~-- + + + + I + + 1+1+ + 1 !Apv.lnl 6l:

1-1-1-1-1+ -1-1-1-1+1- + 1 vuIJoqap.lIJ/JA '8 I 8l:

1+ + + I + + + + + + + F + S!.IIJZnqoj3 '8 a

1-1-1+1-1-1+1-1-1-1-1+1-1 IJUIJP!.IOz! '8 9l:

1+ + I+~ + I+-r:;:- + + + I SUVUlmjaaIJIJUljIJS08 SZ

1 "·PJU!llIsoli :.{I~d VUVp/.J.VUlV/ '0

vauvlqo ·~I£z

lZ

61

'ds vUllnuv/cl 8[

aVPlU!lDU8Id :AI~d

-1-1- -1-1 - I-r:;:-~I-I-I-I STIIIJuoqwn sl1IJsopl.10 LI

1

1-1-1-1-1+ + -1-1-1+1+1- wnznss;udap UO~UON 9 I

1

1-1-1+1-1- +

V!PU 'a..ms '100Z '='~~

SlY ALEELA & VENKA TARAMAN : Diversity ,and Distribution of Benthic Foraminifera 5

Family: Spirillinidae

31 Spiril.lina lateseptata

32 S. limbata

Family: Nubecolariidae

1_3_3 _SP_irol_OCU_lina_an_tilla_. rum~LJ~~JJ~~JJ~~~

Family: extolariidae I 34 Textularia cuneiformis ~~~JJ~~JJ~~~

--"IJJ~JJ~~JJ~~ + 35 T. candiana

36 T. agglutinans ------"IJ~ -~J~~~J~~~ Family: Miliolidae

37 Triloculina sp.

Rameswaram temple. At stations I , 2 and 3 had higher va ues 'Of divletsity ind'ces although ~t had very high density of foraminiferans. It must be also be stated that the sediment here was fine sand. (Table-2)

Th,e k ~d ,ominan'ce curves for the foraminiferans species and stations show that in terms of dominance and divlerse ,are similar (Fig. 4). The k~dominance curv'es wlere significant diff,er,ent from the stations. At stations '9 and 11 are the most highly dominated. Pr'Obably because at stations 11 situated very dose to Rameswaram temple, which was hi,ghly disturbing by tourist. Whereas stations 2 and 3 are the more diverse. It must be also be stated that the sediment her,e was fine sand. Thus the foraminiferal population and diversity are highest in very fine grained sediments, while density decreases coarser grained sediments. These findings also support the results of Shann'On-Wiener diversity index (HI) and MDS analysis. The differences betw,een the other stations aJle less amenable interpretation as the curves cross (Fig. 4)

Fig. 4. Average k-dominance ,curves derived from for,aminiferans species at aU the 12 stations

I

of Tamil Nadu cloast. Vertic.al distribution of foraminiferans.

The upper layers of O~2 em (20~120 indo 10 cm~

2; 4-11 % of the total meiofauna at this interval) and 2-4 em interval (10~70 indo 10 cm-2; 3- 0% of the total meiofauna at this interv,al) shows ,a I ~gh

abundance of foraminiferans in muddy sediments (Fig. S.d, e, f, g, h, j & k) whereas in sandy sediment, the maximum value of 90 indo 10 cm.z (9% of the total abundance) was recorded at 2-

4cmmt'€rval (Fig. 5.a, b"C & 1».

From 4--6 em " te val in sandy sedi lents, a minimum of 8 ind. 10 cm-2 and maximum of 45 ind. 10 em ~ was recorded, whereas in muddy sediments rang,e between 2 .. 85 indo 1.0 em -2 was recorded.

The other depth intervals of san dy sediments had 4-12 indo 10 cm'2 and 0-15 indo 10 cm·2 at 6-110 em and 1.0-15 em intervals respectively. In muddy sediments, it's range from 0 to 1.0 indo 110 cm'2 ,at 6-10 em interval. However, it was totally absent in 110-15 em depth interval in muddy sedjments.

Foraminiferans we~e most important among meiofauna, probably because all sampling sites

6 Rec. zoot Surv. India

N

t INDIA

Fi,g. 1. Map showing the study area

SlY ALEELA & VENKA TARAMAN : Diversity ,and Distribution of Benthic Foraminifera

Foraminiferans

8f 1 81.2 St.3 8 t.4 St5 8t St 7 818 81. 9 St1 0 S111 Stl 2

Stations

Fig. 2: Mean density of foraminiferans of Tamil Nadu coast during 2006 and 2007 (av'erage of five replicates).

Foraminuerans e ~ 015

2

2 T ·2

T -1

HI·

Fig-3: Clll-Chermai; PDY -PuducherrYi CUO·Cuddalore; KAR-Karaikal; NAG-Nagapattinam; THO-Thondi; THI':Thiruchendur; TUT -Tuticorin; MAN-Mandapanti P AM-Pamban; RAM-Rameswaram; KAN­Kanyakumari; 1~2006: 2~2007

7

8 Rec. zoot Surv. India

y , . 100

., y

~ y 80

60 St.1 St.2

:::R St.3 Q

Cl) • St.4 > St.5 ~ 40 laJ "5 + St.6 E ::::J x St.7 () /-

,.,,,.;~"

* St.8 20 St.9

V St.10 [] St.11 ¢ St.12

0 I I I I I I I I I I I

1 10 100

Fig. 4: Aver.age k-dominanoe curves derived from foraminifer.ans species.at all the 12 stations of Tamil Naducoast.

SlY ALEELA & VENKA TARAMAN : Diversity ,and Distribution of Benthic Foraminifera

a. Station

-1

20 40

o nslty (no/100m")

C. tatlon 3

1l-1

2U 4

e. Station 5

lU I)U

D nsity (noJ10cm~)

g. Station 7

o 20 10 60 80

D2007

6

2007

0 , 006

20

200

I:IU

2007

2006

00 120

(J 2

b. Station 2

4U BU J

n it) (I~QI 10~m~1

d Station

2007

200G

D 2

E 1·~ '"

11- "

0-2 2-

4

10- ~

R-1

..fi

-,c:::3II'"

l o 20

r

f. Station 6

40 6r R

h . Station 8

60 80

200 2006

10

I 2001

2006 0-15 ..... --------------..,-.,J

o lG 20 3 40

Fig S: Vertical distribution of fo a ans of I amil Nadu coast at stations 1- 2

'9

10

Fig. 5 • Conted.

i.S ti n9

o·:!

E ~

200 2006

0 20 40 fO 80

E 2-~ u

.J: 4-8 t. ~-1[ I 2(»07 ca 1:12006

lJ 5 ~========;:::=======;========:::::;;7 o 20 40 60

Density (no/10cm2)

-.1.

E 2-4 :::.. £ L-6 ~

~ -1

'0 15

o 20

....

~ 20

Rec. zool. Surv. India

j . Stati n 10

a 6G 80

I. st tlon 12

2007

2006

LlO o

SlY ALEELA & VENKA TARAMAN : Diversity ,and Distribution of Benthic Foraminifera 11

Table 2. Sharmon-Wiener diversity index (HI) and evermess of Foraminiferans species at various stations of Tamil Nadu coast during 2006 and 200.7.

Stations :S I

N D I

JI HI (lo,g2) leLambda'

1 20 116 3.997 0.9498 4.105 0.9402 2 24 152 4.578 0.9655 4.427 0.9547 3 22 144 4.226 0.9408 4.195 0.941 4 14 107 2.782 0.9743 3.71 0.9272 5 13 92 2.654 0.9489 3.512 0.90.71 6 15 124 2.904 0.9558 3.734 0.9216 7 19 1,60 3.547 0.9416 4 0.9265 8 20 67 4.519 0.9616 4.156 0.9498 9 12 135 2.242 0.9577 3.433 0.90.53 10 1'7 146 3.211 0.9158 3.743 0.91

11 13 1 9 2.511 0.9693 3.587 0.919 12 16 85 3.376 I 0.9622 3.849 0.9345

'[able 3 : One-way ANOV A of all species of f,oraminiferans and different stations.

Factor SS I Df Ms

A (Between Groups) 246.40. 11 22.40

R(A) (Within Groups) 9654.81 432 22.35

AR (Total) 9901.21 443

situated in the marine environment had fine sand, Similar observ,ation was made by Varsheny .et al. (1984) and Nigam and Chaturvedi (2000). It is w,ell known that foraminiferans occur mostly under high saline cond~ Hons w~ th few spec~ ,es

penetrating int.o the estuarine ,conditions (Gooday,1988).

I F(cal) I I P(F<=F(cal» F(O.05)

1.002 N.S. (P>.O.05) I 0.443 1.811

I

ACKNO~EDGEMENTS

The author is thankful to Director, ZSI, ~olkata ~or support and facilities provided to carryout my Ph.D programme and for his guidance and encouragement in Ph.D and also Officer-in-charge Dr.C.Venkatraman, Scientist-C and officer-in-charge MBRC/ ZSI for his support.

REFERENCES

Bhalla, S.N. 1968. Recent foraminiEera mom Visakhapatnam beach sands and its relation to the known formageographical provinces in the Indian 'Ocean. Bull. Nat. Inst. Sci. India, 376e392.

Bhalla, S. . and 'Gaur, K. ,198'7. ecent fo .. :e, a from Colva bea,ch sands, Goa, J. Pal. Soc. India, 32: 22-30.

Bhalla, S.N. : Khave, N., Sharunuke:ta, D.J .. and Henriques, P.J. 2007. For,aminifera studies in nearshore regions .of Western coast .of India and Laccadives Islands: A review. 2007. Indian J . Mar. Sci., 36 (4) : 272~287.

Bhalla, S. . and Nigam, R.A.1979. N,ote on recent foraminifera from Calongute beach sands, Goa. 1979. Bull. Indian Geol. Assoc., 12: 239-240.

Gooday, .J.,1988.Sarco astigopho ,a. In: I 'ggins, R.P.. andH. Thie (eds.),Introductiontothestudy,of Meiofauna, Smithsonian institution Press, Washington D.C.: 243-257.

Gupta,M.V.S.N.1973. A preliminary report on the foraminiferal assemblages from the lagoon sediment of I<aravati Atoll (Laccadives). Curr .. Sd.,42: 781-7.82.

12 Rec. zoot Surv. India

Hamsa.l K.M. S.A. 1973. Foraminifera of the Palk Bay and Gull of Mannar. ,.Mar. Bio. Asso. India: 418-423.

Higgins, Robert P. & Hjalmar Thiel. 1988. Introduction to the study of meiofauna. Washing~on, D.C. : Smithsonian Institution Press, 488 p.

Kathal, P.K.; Bhalla, S.N. and Rajiv Nigam. 2000. Foramgeographical affinities of the West and East coasts of India : An approach through duster analysis and ,comparison of taxonomical, environmental and ecological parameters of recent f'oraminioferaIthanatotopes. ONGC Bulletin, 37(2): 65 e75.

Kathat P.K. and Bhatta, S.N. 1998. Recent foraminiferal Thanatocoenoses from Gulf of Mannar, India, News Jahabuch Geologieund Paleontologie" V,,207 . .1 pt. 3: 419-431.

Khare, N., Chatrrvedi, S.K. and Majumder, A. 2007. An overview of ioraminiferal studies in nearshoJle r-egions off ,eastern c,oast of India ,and Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Indian J. Mar. Sci., 36(4) : 288= 300.

McIntyre, A.D., 1969. Ecology of marine meiobenthos. BioI. Rev.,M: 245~290.

Nar,appa, K,V'J Rao, M.s. and Rao, M.P. 1981. Living ~oraminifera from the estuarijle complex of the Goulami and Nalareva distributaries of riv,er 'Godav,ari - part I, living populations in relation to ecological factors. Proe. IX Indian ColI. Mic~opal. s'traiti.f : 49-68.

Nigam, R. and Chaturvedi, S.K. 2000.Foraminiferal study from Kharo creek, Kachchh (Gujarat), North West coast of India. Indian J. Mar .. Sd., 29: 133~ 138.

Rao, K.K., Sivadas, P. ; Narayanan, B.: Jayalakshmy , K.V. and Krislman Kutty" M.l'987. Distribution of for,aminifera in the lagoons of certain Islands ·0£ the Lakshadw,eep Archipelago" Arabian Sea .In"dian J. Mar. Sci .. , 16: 16'1 ... 178.

Shar'eef, N.A. and Venl<.atachalapathy" V. 1988. Foraminifera from the shore sands of Bhal<tal and Devgad. Islands" W,est Coast of lndia .J. Geol. Soc. India, 31: 432-441.

Var;shney, P.K., K. Govindan and Desai B.N., 1984. Meiobenthos of polluted and unpolluted Environments of Verso va, Bombay. Mahasagar, 17(3): 151 .. 160.

Manuscript received: 01..(}8 .. 2012; Accepted: 20 .. 05 ... 2013