Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 9, September 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
Planktonic Abundance and Diversity In Great KWA River, Cross River State, Nigeria
Antai, Ekpo Eyo* and Joseph, Akaninyene Paul
Institute of Oceanography, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria ABSTRACTS Studies on the abundance and diversity of plankton (phytoplankton and zooplankton) in Great
Kwa River, South Eastern Nigeria, was undertaken bi-weekly for 3 months from July to
September 2013. Samples were collected from two stations based on human activities at these
stations. The Objective of the study was to determine the abundance and Distribution of
various planktonic groups across the sampling stations. Samples were collected using the
pour through method. A total of 26 species and 574 phytoplankton individuals belonging to 4
families were observed during the study. The families represented were Bacillariophyceae
49.83%, Chlorophyceae 21.25%, Chrysophyceae 16.55 and Cyanophyceae 12.37. A total of
23 species and 344 Zooplankton individuals belonging to 5 taxonomic groups were also
identified during the study. The groups represented were Rotifera 28.49%, Arthropoda
24.71%, Palaemonidae 16.86%, Ciliophora 15.12% and Annelida 14.82%. This study showed
diversity in plankton distribution in Great Kwa River and their possible impacts on the local
fisheries is discussed
KEY WORDS: Phytoplankton, Zooplankton, Abundance, Diversity, Great Kwa River, Calabar. *Corresponding Author. Email: ekpo.eyoa @yahoo.com INTRODUCTION Plankton is any drifting organisms that inhabit the pelagic zone of aquatic ecosystems
and they serve as the food base that supports aquatic life. The phytoplankton are the
primary producers which serves as food majorly for zooplankton which in turn serves as
an important source of food to crustaceans and fish (Thurman, 1997). They therefore, serve
as a major source of organic carbon in rivers and may represent an important source of
oxygen in low-gradient aquatic ecosystem. An assessment of plankton community and
abundance will enhance our understanding of biological productivity and fish population
dynamics (Williams 1962, Fagade and Olaniyan 1974, Abohweyere 1990 and Onyema
141
IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 9, September 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
2007)).
Although phytoplankton distribution and abundance are largely influenced by the light and
nutrient, alteration of their natural environment by man can greatly distort this equilibrium.
These may explain why plankters are used as bioindicators to monitor aquatic pollution.
Zooplankton is ecologically an important group of aquatic organisms that occupy a wide
range of habitats. They constitute essential biotic components which influences the efficiency
of an aquatic ecosystem such as energy flow through various trophic interactions (Park and
Shin, 2007). Copepods have been shown to be the major link between phytoplankton
and first level carnivores while arrow worms are the common carnivores in zooplankton
(Tse et al., 2007).
The species composition, diversity, biomass and season of maximum abundance of
zooplanktonic organisms differ in water bodies (FAO, 2006). The study is designed to
estimate the abundance of various planktonic groups as well as to assess the variations in
abundance and distribution of various planktonic groups across the sampling stations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS Study Area and Sample Collection
The study was undertaken at 2 locations at the Great kwa River. Great Kwa River is one of
the main tributaries of Cross River Estuary in Cross River State, Nigeria. It discharges into
the estuary at latitude 4.450N and longitude 8.200E South East Nigeria. Substratum here is
covered with sand and clay with an average depth of 0.1m. It is slow flowing and has low to
medium transparency. It is located in the thick forested belt of South-East Nigeria and
transverses through mangrove to fresh water swamp. The fringes of the river are dominated
by the Nypa fruticans that has displaced mangrove plants, elephant grasses (Pennisetun
purpureun), palm trees (Elias guineesis) and fan palm (Hyphaene petersiana) supporting an
incredible array of animal life. The swampy region is greatly influenced by physical
conditions as the tides continually exhibit fluctuations. The climate is governed by two
seasons the wet (April to October) and the dry (November to March)
142
IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 9, September 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
Samples were collected from 2 stations (Fig. 1) along Great Kwa River, a tributary of Cross
River estuary. The stations are impacted by human activities. Station 1 (Esuk Atu) has low
transparency and the substratum is mainly sandy clay. Station 2 (Idundu) has medium
transparency with substratum of coarse sand and clay.
Samplings were undertaken fortnightly in the mornings from July to September 2013 by pour
through method. Twenty litres of the water sample were collected just beneath the surface
and poured through 55µm mesh size plankton net. These were repeated 5 time to add up to
100 litres. The planktons were immediately fixed with 5% formalin solution in 50 ml
sampling bottle and transported to the laboratory for analysis and identification. The samples
were concentrated to 10mls to enable analysis.
One ml of the preserved sample was taken using a pipette. This was place into Sedgwick-
rafter counting chamber and viewed under different magnifications (x100 and x400) using a
light binocular microscope (Nikon 400 binocular microscope). These were done in
triplicates. The plankton were identified and sorted into different taxonomical groups with
the aid of appropriate identification schemes (Mann 2000, Prasad 2000, Castro and Huber
2005).
Fig 1: Map of Great Kwa River Showing the Sampling Stations
143
IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 9, September 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
Ecological diversity indices
In this study, three ecological statistics were used to obtain the estimation of species
diversity, species richness and species evenness.
Margalef’s Index (d): is a measure of species richness and is expressed as:
d = (S – 1)/InN
Where;
d = Species richness index
S = Number of species in the sample
N = Number of individuals in the samples (Margalef, 1951)
Shannon and Weiner’s Index (H): is a measure of species abundance and evenness and is
expressed as:
H = ∑ (Ni/N log2 Ni/N)
Where;
N = The total number of individual in the sample.
Ni = The total number of individuals of species ith in the sample (Shannon and Weiner’s,
1949).
Species Equitability or Evenness (E): is determined by the equation:
E =H/In S
Where;
H = Shannon and Weiner’s index.
S = Number of species in samples (Pielou, 1966).
RESULTS AND DISCISSION
Species Abundance, Diversity Index and Composition of Phytoplankton
The species composition and abundance of the various Phytoplankton taxa encountered at the
2 sampling stations is presented in Table 1.
A total of 26 species and 574 phytoplankton individuals belonging to 4 families were
observed during the study. The most abundant Phytoplankton species was Navicula
petersenni (39 individuals), followed by Rhizosolena stiliformis (36 individuals) and then
Cyclotella comta (35 individuals). Also, the least abundant Phytoplankton species was
144
IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 9, September 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
Micrasterias sp. (8 individuals), followed by Pinnularia borealis (11 individuals) and then
Coelosphaelium sp. (13 individuals) (Fig 2).
The families represented were Bacillariophyceae, Cyanophyceae, Chlorophyceae and
Chrysophyceae. Bacillariophyceae family was the most abundant, having 286 individuals
(49.82%), followed by Chlorophyceae which had 122 individuals (21.25%), Chrysophyceae
with 95 individuals (16.55%) and Cyanophyceae, having only 71 individuals and a relative
abundance of 12.38% (Figs 3 and 4). Diatom dominance of the phytoplankton waters within
the Niger delta region has been reported in other studies (Akpan 1997, Chinda and Braide
2004, Ekwu and Sikoki 2006 and Essien-Ibok 2013). Contrary, the dominance of
Chlorophyta has been reported in Bonny River (Ajuonu et al 2011). Dimowo (2013) reported
the dominance of Cyanophyta and an absesence of diatom in River Ogun. The high number
of diatoms notice in this study may not be unrelated to high concentrations of silicate in the
Cross River water system. Akapn (1997) reported a strong correlation between silicate and
diatom abundance in the waters of Cross River. Commonly, in an aquatic system where there
is no heavy nutrient inputs possibly from run-off or human inputs, Bacillariophyceae are
usually the predominant, but when nutrient levels is high such that eutrophication occurs,
then the Chlorophyceae could become more abundant than Bacillariophyceae (Akin-Oriola,
2003). The high plankton diversity from the study will support fishery in Great kwa River
and the adjoining Cross River Estuary. Phytoplankton community structure gives a good
evaluation of the stability of aquatic ecosystem and provides a veritable tool for the
assessment of biological activities.
Table 1: Species composition and Abundance of Phytoplankton in the Study Area S/N Phytoplankton families/
Species Station 1 Station 2 Total species
No %RO No No %RO Bacillariophyceae 1 Skeletonema costatum 11 3.82 14 4.89 25 4.36 2 Rhizosolena stiliformis 20 6.94 16 5.59 36 6.27 3 Bidulphia sinensis 12 4.17 8 2.79 20 3.48 4 Coscinodiscus radiates 12 4.17 5 1.75 17 2.96 5 Cyclotella comta 21 7.29 14 4.89 35 6.09 6 Melosira granulate 13 4.51 4 1.39 17 2.96
145
IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 9, September 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
7 Navicula patersenni 18 6.25 21 7.34 39 6.79 8 Tabellaria fenestrate 12 4.17 22 7.34 34 5.92 9 Gyrosigma sp. 7 2.43 9 3.15 16 2.78 10 Cymbella sp. 8 2.78 7 2.45 15 2.61 11 Pinnularia borealis 8 2.78 3 1.05 11 1.92 12 Surrirela ovalis 6 2.08 15 5.24 21 3.66 286 49.8 Cyanophyceae 13 Lyngbya contorta 7 2.43 13 4.55 20 3.48 14 Oscillatoria rubiscens 8 2.78 14 4.89 22 3.83 15 Coelosphaelium sp. 11 3.82 2 0.69 13 2.26 16 Microcystis acrugiriosa 6 2.08 10 3.49 16 2.78 71 12.38 Chlorophyceae 17 Botryococcus boryanum 11 3.82 22 7.69 33 5.75 18 Tetraspora lubrica 7 2.43 10 3.49 17 2.96 19 Thalassomonas minima 8 2.78 8 2.79 16 2.78 20 Closterium sp. 10 3.47 8 3.49 18 3.14 21 Volvox aurus 16 5.55 14 4.89 30 5.23 22 Micrasterias sp. 7 2.43 1 0.35 8 1.39 122 21.25 Chrysophyceae 23 Dinobryon bavaricum 12 4.17 15 5.24 27 4.70 24 Synura sp. 9 3.13 12 4.19 21 3.66 25 Asterionella sp. 9 3.13 12 4.19 21 3.66 26 Crystochrisis sp. 19 6.59 7 2.45 6 4.53 95 16.55 Total Abundance 288 100 286 99.9 574 100 Shannon weinner index
Margalef index Pielou index (Evenness)
4.53 4.41 1.39
4.48 4.42 1.37
In terms of diversity index, Shannon Weinner diversity index were 4.53 and 4.48, Margalef
Index, 4.41 and 4.42 and Pielou diversity index, 1.39 and 1.37 in Stations 1 and 2
respectively (Table 1).
The Great kwa River is rich in phytoplankton based on the assessment of abundance and
146
IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 9, September 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
diversity. This river should be protected from anthropogenic activities since this will distort
the nutrient balance and not suitable for the growth of plankton thereby impacting on
biological productivity including fish recruitment and other aquatic lives.
Table 2: Species composition and Abundance of Zoooplankton in the Study Area S/N
Zooplankton families/species Station 1 Station 2 Total species
No %Ro No %Ro No %Ro Rotifera 1 Asplancha priodonta 12 7.02 7 4.05 19 5.52 2 Asplancha girodi 3 1.75 7 4.05 10 2.91 3 Euchalarius sp. 9 5.26 9 5.20 18 5.23 4 Squatinella rustrum 4 2.34 4 2.31 8 2.33 5 Phlodina sp. 9 5.26 11 6.36 20 5.81 6 Keratella eochlearis 8 4.68 6 3.47 14 4.07 7 Conochilus unicornis 6 3.51 3 1.73 9 2.62 98 28.49 Arthropoda(Crustacea) 8 Leptodora sp. 9 5.26 5 2.89 14 4.07 9 Calanus calanus 4 2.34 8 4.62 12 3.49 10 Calanus finmarchirus 5 2.92 9 5.20 14 4.07 11 Euchalanus elongates 8 4.68 7 4.05 15 4.36 12 Pseudocalanus elongates 6 3.51 - - 6 1.74 13 Oithona rana 6 3.51 13 7.51 19 5.52 14 Limnocalanus macrurus 2 1.17 3 1.37 5 1.45 85 24.70 Ciliophora (Ciliata) 15 Strambildium strobilus 7 4.09 12 6.94 9 5.52 16 Strambildium conicum 7 4.09 3 1.73 10 2.91 17 Leptotintinnis peliucidus 4 2.34 5 2.89 9 2.62 18 Stensmella nivalis 10 5.85 4 2.31 14 4.07 52 15.12 Annelida (Polychaeta) 19 Neceis deversicolor 12 7.02 11 6.36 23 6.68 20 Autolysis edwardsi 13 7.60 15 8.67 28 8.14 51 14.82 Palaemonidae (Shrimp) 21 Macrobrachium vollenvohenii 12 7.02 12 6.94 24 6.98 22 Macrobrachium Macrobrachion 10 5.85 12 6.94 2 6.39 23 Macrobrachium equidens 5 2.92 7 4.05 12 3.49 58 16.86 Total Abundance
Shannon Weinner index Margalef Index Pielou index (Evenness)
171 3.85 4.28 1.23
100 173 3.90 4.08 1.26
99.9 344 99.9
147
IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 9, September 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
Fig 2: Phytoplankton species abundance in the study area
Fig 3: Phytoplankton taxonomic abundance in the study area
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Skele
tone
ma
costa
tum
Rhizo
solen
a sti
liform
isBi
dulph
ia sin
ensis
Cosc
inodis
cus r
adiat
usCy
clote
lla co
mta
Melo
sira
gran
ulata
Navic
ula p
eter
senn
iTa
bella
ria fe
nestr
ata
Gyro
sigm
a sp
Cym
brell
a sp
.Pi
nnula
ria b
orea
lisSu
rrire
la ov
alis
Lyng
bya
cont
orta
Oscil
lator
ia ru
bisce
nsCo
elosp
haeli
um sp
.M
icroc
ystis
acr
ugirio
saBo
tryoc
occu
s bor
yanu
mTe
trasp
ora
lubric
aTh
alass
omon
as m
inim
aCl
oste
rium
sp.
Volvo
x aur
usM
icras
teria
s sp.
Dino
bryo
n ba
varic
umSy
nura
sp.
Aste
rione
lla sp
.Cr
ysto
chris
is sp
.
Num
erica
l Abu
ndan
ce
Phytoplankton species
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Bacillariophyceae Cyanophyceae Chlorophyceae Chrysophyceae
Num
erica
l Aab
unda
nce
Phytoplankton families
148
IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 9, September 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
Fig 4: Relative Abundance of the Phytoplankton Families in the Study area
Fig 5: Zooplankton species abundance in the study area
Bacillariophyceae 50%
Cyanophyceae 12%
Chlorophyceae 21%
Chrysophyceae 17%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Aspla
ncha
prio
dont
aAs
planc
ha g
irodi
Euch
alanu
s sp.
Squa
tinell
a ru
strum
Philo
dina
spKe
rate
lla e
ochle
aris
Cono
chilu
s unic
ornis
Lept
odor
a sp
.Ca
lanus
calan
usCa
lanus
finm
arch
irus
Euch
alam
us e
longa
tus
Pseu
doca
lamus
elon
gatu
sOi
thon
a ra
naLim
noca
lanus
mac
runu
sSt
rom
bilidi
um st
robil
usSt
rom
bilidi
um co
nicum
Lept
otint
innis
peliu
cidus
Sten
smell
a na
valis
Nere
is div
ersic
olor
Auto
lytus
edw
ards
iM
acro
brac
hium
volle
nvoh
enii
Mac
robr
achiu
m m
acro
brac
hion
Mac
robr
achiu
m e
quide
ns
Nu
mer
ical A
bund
ance
Zooplankton species
149
IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 9, September 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
Fig 6 : Zooplankton taxonomic abundance in the study area
Fig 7: Relative Abundance of the Zooplankton taxonomic groups in the study area
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Rotifera Arthropoda Ciliophora Annelida Palaemonidae
Num
erica
l Aab
unda
nce
Zooplankton family
Rotifera 28%
Arthropoda 25%
Ciliophora 15%
Annelida 15%
Palaemonidae 17%
150
IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 9, September 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
Species Abundance, Diversity Index and Composition of Zooplankton
Summary of the species composition and abundance of the various Zooplankton taxa
encountered at the different sampling stations is presented in Table 2. A total of 23 species
and 344 Zooplankton individuals belonging to 5 phyla were observed during the study.
Zooplankton species abundance is presented in Fig 5.
The results obtained showed the relative abundance of zooplankton followed a decreasing
sequence of Rotifera 28.49% > Arthropoda 24.70 > Palaemonidae 16.86 > Ciliophora
15.12% > Annelida 14.82%. Rotifera was the most abundant phylum, having 98 individuals
and a relative abundance of 28.49%, followed by Arthropoda which had 85 individuals and a
relative abundance of 24.70%. Palaemonidae had a total numerical abundance of 58
individuals and a relative abundance of 16.86%. Ciliophora had 52 individual and a relative
abundance of 15.12%. The least represented Zooplankton phylum was Annelida, having only
51 individuals and a relative abundance of 14.82% (Figs 6 and 7).
In terms of zooplankton diversity index, Shannon Weinner diversity index was 3.85 and 3.90,
Margalef index of 4.28 and 4.08 and Pielou diversity index of 1.23 and 1.26 at Stations 1 and
2 respectively (Table 2).
The dominance Rotifera in the study is similar to the report of Agouru and Audu (2012),
Ajuonu et al. (2011) reported Copepods as the most abundant Zooplankton in Bonny River.
Kibria et al. (1997), Yakubu et al. (1998) and Dimowo also reported that dominance of
Cladocera. This variation could be due to differences in study area, period, phytoplankton
types and availability, nutrients availability, diversity, biomass and the season of maximum
abundance of zooplanktonic organisms differ in water bodies (FAO, 2006).
Great Kwa River is a rich ecological ecosystem with high plankton diversity that can sustain
fishery development. A study of primary and secondary productivity in this water body will
give a better understanding of the trophodynamic within the system. However this can be
affected by anthropogenic input such as industrial and municipal effluents that may likely be
discharged into this River
151
IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 9, September 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
REFERENCES Abohweyere, P. O (1990). Study of limnological parameters and potential fish yield in Kigera reservoir (Extensive system) in Kainji, New Bussa, Nigeria. Journal of Aquatic Sciences, 5:
53-58 Agouru, C. U and Audu, G. (2012). Studies on the range of plankton in River Benue, North
\central, Nigeria, West Africa. Greener Journal of Biological Sciences, 2(2): 28-34 Ajuonu, N.; Ukaonu, S.U.; Oluwajoba, E.O.; Mbawuike, B.E.; Williams, A.B. and Myade
E.F. (2011). The abundance and distribution of plankton species in the bonny estuary; Nigeria. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America., 2(6): 1032-1037.
Akin-Oriola, G. A. (2003). Phytoplankton of Awa Reservoir, Ibadan, Nigeria. Review of
tropical Biology, 51:1pp. Akpan, E.R. (1997). Spatial and seasonal distribution of phytoplankton in the Cross River
Estuary, Nigeria. A paper delivered at the 6th annual conference of the Nigerian society for biological conservation 26th – 28th November, pp. 23.
Castro, P. and Huber, M. E. (2005). Marine Biology. McGraw-Hill: New York, pp. 222 Chindah, A. C. and Braide, S. A. (2004). The physiological quality and phytoplankton
community of tropical water: A case of 4 biotopes in the lower Bonny River, Niger delta, Nigeria. Caderno de Pesquisa. Ser Bio 16(2): 7-35
Conde, D., Bonilla, S., Aubriot, L., Deleon, R. and Pintos, W. (2007). Relative contribution
of planktonic and benthic microalgae production in an eutrophic coastal lagoon of South America. Journal of Limnology, 78: 207 – 212.
Davis, C. S., Ashijan, C.J. and Alantalo, P. (1996). Reports on Research from Woods Hole.
Oceanographic Institution, pp.39. Dimowo, B. O. (2013). Monthly spatial occurrence of phytoplankton and zooplankton in
River Ogun, Abeokuta, Ogun State, Southwest Nigeria. Journal of Fisheries and Aquaculture, 3(3):193-203.
Ekwu, A. O. and Sikoki, F. D. (2006). Phytoplankton diversity in the Cross River Estuary of
Nigeria. Journal of Applied Science and Environmental Management, 10(1): 89-95.
Essien-Ibok, M. A. (2013). The phytoplankton community structure of a tropical River in
Niger Delta, Nigeria. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 3(8): 76-81
152
IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 9, September 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
Ewa, E. E., Iwara, E. A., Alade, A. O. and Adeyemi, J. A. (2013). Spatio-temporal Distribution to Phytoplankton in the Industrial Area of Calabar River, Nigeria. Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(3): 466-470.
Fagade, S. O. and Olaniyan, C. I. O. (1974). Seasonal distribution of fish fauna in Lagos
lagoon. Bull. Inst. Fr. Afri. Noire Series A36: 245-252 Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (2006). Interrelationship between Fish and
Plankton in Inland Water. Retrieved from: http.//w.w.w. fao.org/Doc REP/006/X7580E03.htm106k-coached, (Accessed on: September 29, 2007).
Kibria, G.; Nugeogoda, D.; Fairolough, R.; Lam, P. and Bradly, A. (1997). Zooplankton; its
biochemistry and significance in aquaculutre. Naga (Iclam Quart.), 20: 8-14. Lalli, C. M. and Parson, T.R. (1997). Biological Oceanography: An Introduction.2nd Edition,
Butterworth and Heinemann, Oxford. 39-73pp. Mann, K. H. (2000). Ecology of Coastal Waters with implication for Management. 2nd
Edition, Butterworth and Heinemann, Oxford. 314pp. Margalef, D. I. (1949). Diversidad De Species en Las Comunidales Naturals. Publication
institute biological application (Barcelona). 9, 5-27. Okogwu, I.O. ( 2010). Seasonal Variations of Species Composition and Abundance of
Zooplankton in Eboma Lake, a Floodplain Lake in Nigeria. Review of the Biology of Tropics, 58(1): 171-182.
Okorafor,K.A.,Andem,A.B.,Okete,J.A.,Ettah,S.E(2012).TheComposition,Distribution and
Abundance of Macroinvertebrates in the Shores of Great Kwa River,Cross River State, South-east, Nigeria, European journal of zoological research . 1(2):31-36.
Oku, E. E., Andem, A.B., Eni, E.G., Bassey, E.(2013). Arthropods Community of Mangrove
Swamp of Great Kwa River, Southern Nigeria International. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies . 1(2):15-20.
Okorafor K. A., Andem, A. B., Mowang D. A. and Akpan U. U. (2013). Diversity and Spatial
Distribution of Zooplankton in the Intertidal Regions of Calabar River, Cross River State, Nigeria. Advances in Applied Science Research, 4(4):224-231.
Onyema, I. C. (2007). The Phytoplankton Composition, Abundance and Temporal Variation
of a Polluted Estuarine Creek in Lagos, Nigeria. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 7: 89-96.
Park, K. S. and Shin, H. W. (2007). Studies on Phyto and Zooplankton Composition and its
Primary Productivity in West Coast Fish Pond, India. Journal of Environmental Biology, 28:415-422.
Pielou, E. C. (1966). The Measurement of Diversity in different type of Biological
Collections. Journal of theoretical biology, 13:131-144.
153
IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 9, September 2015.
www.ijiset.com
ISSN 2348 – 7968
Prasad, S. N. (2000). Marine, Biology. Campus Books International 4831/24. Prahlad Street. New Delhi, India, 467pp.
Shannon, C. E and Weiner, W. (1949). The Mathematical theory of communication.
University of Illinois Press-Urbana, 125pp. Thurman, H. V. (1997). Introductory Oceanography. New Jersey, USA; Prentice Hall
College, 250pp. Tse, P; Hui, S. V and Wong, C. K. (2007). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. Journal of
Biological science, 73(1-2): 290-298. Ugouru, C.U. and Audu, G. (2012). Studies on the Range of Plankton in River Benue, North
Central, Nigeria, Western Africa. Greener journal of Biological Sciences, 2(2):28-34.
Wehr, J. D. and Descy, J. P. (1998). Use of Phytoplankton in Large River Management.
Journal of. Phycology, 34: 741-749. Williams, V. N. (1962). The seasonal distribution of the teleost fish fauna in Lagos harbor,
Creek and lagoon in relation to salt tolerance. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Wales Yakubu, A. F., Sikoki, F. D. and Horsfall, J. R. (1998). An Investigation into the Physico-
Chemical Conditions and Planktonic Organisms of the Lower Reaches of the Nun River, Nigeria. Journal of Applied, Science and Environmental Management, 1(1): 38-42.
154