Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 May 2024 | 16(5): 25157–25165
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8258.16.5.25157-25165
#8258 | Received 04
November 2022 | Final received 18 April 2024 | Finally accepted 03 May 2023
Diversity and abundance of
mayflies (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) in Achenkovil River, southern Western Ghats, Kerala, India
S. Sujitha 1,
R. Sreejai 2 & C. Selvakumar
3
1,2 PG & Research Department of
Zoology, St. Stephen’s College, Maloor College P.O.,
University of Kerala,
Thiruvananthapuram 689695, India
3 Department of Zoology, The Madura
College (Autonomous), Madurai, Tamil Nadu 625011, India.
1 sujithashylesh7020@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 sreejaiksbb@gmail.com, 3 selvaaa06@gmail.com
Editor: Asheesh Shivam Mishra, Nehru Gram Bharati (Deemed to be
University), Prayagraj, India. Date of publication: 26 May 2024 (online
& print)
Citation: Sujitha, S., R. Sreejai
& C. Selvakumar (2024). Diversity and
abundance of mayflies (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) in Achenkovil River, southern Western Ghats, Kerala. Journal of Threatened Taxa 16(5):
25157–25165. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8258.16.5.25157-25165
Copyright: © Sujitha et al. 2024. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use,
reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium by providing
adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: UGC
JRF Fellowship : Grand No. 365892 UGC circular No. and date No. F.16-6 (Dec. 2016/2017 (NET) UGC. Ref. No.957/(OBC) (CSIR-
UGC NET DEC. 2016).
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: S. Sujitha is a research scholar. R. Sreejai is an assistant professor. His research interests are biodiversity and ecology. C. Selvakumar, is assistant professor. He has described 25 new species and two new genera of mayflies. He also established a DNA barcode for 40 species of mayflies. Currently, he is studying the phylogeny and phylogeography of mayflies in India.
Author contributions: SS carried out fieldwork and drafted the manuscript, SR carried out fieldwork with the first author and reviewed the manuscript, CS helped in the identification of mayflies and reviewed the manuscript.
Acknowledgements: We are thankful to the
Department of Zoology, St. Stephen’s College, Pathanapuram
for providing the requisite facilities. S. Sujitha is
thankful to UGC, New Delhi, for providing financial support in the form of SRF
to conduct this research work. C. Selvakumar is
grateful to the Science and Engineering Research Board, Government of India,
New Delhi for financial support under the Empowerment and Equity Opportunities
for Excellence in Science (F. N. EEQ/2022/000317).
Abstract: Freshwater insects like
Ephemeroptera are more comprehensive and direct indicators of the biological
impacts of pollution. During the study period (2018–2020), a total of 4,374
individuals of mayflies were collected and categorized under nine families, 27
genera, and 36 species. The family Leptophlebiidae
was found dominant with 13 species. In the post-monsoon season, a higher
species diversity of Ephemeroptera was noticed in the river’s upstream section
with a Shannon-Wiener index value of H’ = 1.814. ANOVA revealed a significant
difference (p <0.05) except for Ephemeridae (p
>0.05). Protecting rivers requires a holistic approach and collaboration
among stakeholders is essential for successful implementation.
Keywords: ANOVA, biodiversity indices,
D-frame nets, ecosystem, exotic species, environmental parameters, freshwater, hemimetabolous, species richness, van veen
grab.
INTRODUCTION
Freshwater ecosystems and their
valuable resources are inevitable for the existence of human life (Surachita et al. 2022). Environmental parameters like the
geography of the river bed (Wallace et al. 1996), heavy rain, oxygen
concentration, nutrients, water velocity, land use patterns, substrate type,
and water temperature (Popielarz et al. 2007; Mishra
& Nautiyal 2011, 2016) play a major role in
structuring the diversity and distribution of freshwater ecosystems. However,
freshwaters also face severe biodiversity depletion and extinction of species
which makes them much more imperilled than
terrestrial and marine species (Farooq et al. 2021). When environmental quality
degrades, the species composition, richness, and abundance of specialist
species decreases, and generalist species occupy the area, thereby decreasing
biodiversity. This adversely affects the distribution pattern of highly
sensitive, riverine species (Axelsson et al. 2011)
which finally results in the elimination of numerous species before they are
brought to the knowledge of science. The catchment-wide conservation of
freshwater ecosystems, maintenance of historic river dynamics, biological
control of invasive water plants, removal of exotic species, and conservation
of location-specific factors such as river network connectivity can conserve
species diversity. Moreover, the maintenance of the natural dynamics of
freshwater systems is very important for improved vegetation and insect
heterogeneity (Samways et al. 2020).
Ephemeroptera includes a small
order of hemimetabolous insects with approximately
3,500 species, 450 genera, and 42 families distributed globally (Hamada et al.
2018). The Ephemeroptera of the Oriental region was represented by 390 species,
84 genera, and 20 families out of which four suborders, 15 families, 60 genera,
and 204 species occur in the Indian subregion (Sivaramakrishnan et al. 2009). According to Vasanth
et al. (2023), the Ephemeroptera of Indian Himalaya includes 10 families, 34
genera, and 89 species. The Ephemeroptera of India was represented by four
suborders, 15 families, 59 genera, and 172 species (Sivaramakrishnan
et al. 2020) and the Western Ghats of India alone comprises 13 families, 42
genera and 82 species (Sivaramakrishnan et al. 2020).
After 2020, more than 60 new species of mayflies were described in India by
various researchers (Balasubramanian & Muthukatturaja
2021; Martynov et al. 2021; Srinivasan et al. 2022;
Kluge et al. 2022; Muthukatturaja &
Balasubramanian 2022; Sivaruban et al. 2022; Vasanth
et al. 2023).
Research hasn’t explored the
variety and spread of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) along the Achenkovil
River basin’s latitudinal and longitudinal gradients. Because mayflies are
crucial for benthic community structure, understanding their ecology,
distribution, and diversity in remote freshwater ecosystems would significantly
improve our grasp of their functions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area
The Achenkovil
River is created towards the southern tip of the peninsula by the confluence of
the Rishimala, Pasukidamettu,
and Ramakkalteri rivers originating from Devarmalai of Western Ghats (10.4147 N, 77.0136 E). It enriches
the Pathanamthitta District of Kerala State. The
length of this river is 128 km; the basin size is 1,484 km2 and the average water flow is
2,287 MCM. The river drains through highly varied geological formulations and
covers the highland, midland, and lowland physiographic provinces of the state.
The study area experiences a tropical climate with three distinct seasons –
pre-monsoon (February–May), monsoon (June–September.), and post-monsoon
(October–January.).
Sampling Methods
Study sites
A reconnaissance survey was
conducted in the Achenkovil River basin to identify
sampling sites (refer to Figure 1). Samples were collected bimonthly and
seasonally, specifically in the early morning hours (0600–1130 h) throughout
the study duration (2018–2020). The river was divided into three
segments—upstream, midstream, and downstream—each with three stations, totaling
nine sampling sites along the entire river stretch. In the Upstream region,
dense forest covers approximately 60% of the area, while 5% is occupied by
degraded forest, and agricultural land accounts for 10%. Moving to the
midstream region, double-crop paddy farming occupies 40% of the land. The
downstream region is occupied by 80% agricultural land and 10% under double
crop paddy cultivation.
The research region experiences a
tropical and semi-arid climate, with an annual rainfall between 2,000 and 5,000
mm. It is affected by two distinct monsoon seasons: the south-west monsoon
(June–September) and the north-west monsoon (October–December) (Prasad & Ramanathan
2005).
Mayflies, were collected using Van Veen
grab (0.025 m2) (used
during rainy or flood months), D-frame nets 500 µm (used when water flow is
slow), and handpicking methods (mostly in upstream stations), within a depth
ranged 0.65–4.39 m (Abdelsalam et al. 2013). To
ensure accuracy, triplicate samples were collected. The grab samples were
sieved through a 0.5 mm sieve and sorted for mayflies in a white plastic tray.
Similarly, samples collected with a D-frame net were carefully sorted in a white
plastic tray. All mayfly larvae were preserved in 80%
ethanol for later analysis. In the laboratory, preserved samples were examined
and identified using a stereomicroscope (Magnus MSZ- BI LED) and standard
taxonomic literature, including works by Merrit &
Cummins (1996), Dudgeon (1999), Yule & Sen (2004), Thorp & Covich (2015), and Selvakumar et
al. (2019).
The water samples for
physicochemical analysis were collected in clean polyethylene bottles. The
temperature was recorded immediately after collection at the field itself with
a mercury thermometer (with ± 0.1°C accuracies). The samples for Dissolved
Oxygen (DO) & Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) were fixed with alkaline
potassium iodide and manganous sulphate
at the site itself. The water samples were then carried immediately to the
laboratory for further analysis. DO (mg/l), BOD (mg/l) were analyzed using
Winkler’s method, pH (pH meter), turbidity (NTU) by Nephelometric method,
conductivity (µS/cm) using Systronics water analyzer
371, TDS (mg/l) by gravimetric method, and nitrate (mg/l) by spectrophotometric
method (APHA 2012).
Data analysis
ANOVA was carried out to study
the significant variations between the water quality parameters. Diversity was
estimated using Shannon-Wiener, Evenness, and Margalef’s
indices. The commonness or the rarity of species was calculated using relative
abundance. The diversity indices were calculated using PAST software (Version
4.09), (Hammer et al. 2001). The relative abundance was calculated using Excel
2011 and ANOVA using SPSS (Version 22).
RESULTS
Physico-chemical Parameters
The atmospheric and water temperatures
ranged 23.1–34.9 °C and 22.9–30.9 °C, respectively, with the highest
temperature recorded during pre-monsoon and lowest during post-monsoon season
(Table 1). The pH ranged from 6.42–7.42. A good value of DO indicates a good
and healthy ecosystem. The DO ranged 3.91–8.69 with the highest value (7.54 ±
0.72) recorded during monsoon, and the least during pre-monsoon season (5.67 ±
0.86). BOD is a measure of organic pollution in the water body and it ranges
0.44–3.91 mg/l with the highest value noticed during the post-monsoon (2.71 ±
0.65) season.
The turbidity ranged 0.74–12.62
NTU with the highest value in monsoon (8.58 ± 2.43), and the least in
post-monsoon season (4.31 ± 1.74). The conductivity of water depends mainly on
the concentration of ions, and it ranged from 44.2–358.7 µS/cm with the highest
value (112.6 ± 107.7) recorded during pre-monsoon, and the least value (103.2 ±
33.94) recorded during monsoon season. Natural sources are the contributors to
TDS in the water body. The amount of TDS ranged 32.2–342.6 mg/l with the
highest value (112.6 ± 107.7) recorded during pre-monsoon season. The value of
nitrate varied 0.38–1.56 mg/l with the highest value (1.08 ± 0.20) noticed
during monsoon and the lowest during pre-monsoon season (0.76 ± 0.14).
All the studied physicochemical
parameters showed variations between seasons that are statistically significant
(p <0.05) (Table 2).
Species Richness
During the study period, a total
of 36 species of mayflies under 27 genera belonging to nine families were
identified (Table 2); out of which the major family Leptophlebidae
constitutes 13 species with 1,279 Individuals(ind.)/m2
in the upstream, 591 ind./m2 in the
midstream, and 80 ind./m2 in the
downstream. Family Caenidae was represented by Caenis sp. and Clypeo
caenis bisectosa
with maximum individuals (274 ind./m2) in
the upstream, 192 ind./m2 in the
midstream, and 34 ind./m2 in the
downstream segment. Leptophlebiidae, Caenidae, Baetidae, and Ephemeridae were present in all three segments of the
river. The family Baetidae and Ephemeridae
were represented by eight and two species, respectively. Teloganodidae
(339 ind./m2) and Tricorythidae
(99 ind./m2) were present only in the
upstream stations. Heptageniidae (377 ind./m2), Ephemerellidae
(195 ind./m2), and Prosopistomatidae
(52 ind./m2) were present in the upstream
and also in the midstream with 98, 4, and 18 ind./m2
respectively, but absent in the downstream stations. The seasonal variation in
the distribution of major families except Ephemeridae
shows maximum richness during post-monsoon followed by pre-monsoon and monsoon
season.
The relative abundance of all
species across different seasons at the three segments of the river is
presented in Table 3. In the upstream segment, Notophlebia
sp. exhibited the highest relative abundance (15.91%) during the monsoon,
while Teloganella indica
(0.07%) was the least abundant (0.07%) during the post-monsoon season. In
the midstream segment, Notophlebia ganeshi dominated (19.55%) during the monsoon, with Petersula courtallensis
and Epeorus petersi
being the least dominant species, both reported during the
pre-monsoon season. Similarly, in the downstream segment, Caenis
sp. contributed the most (31.25%) during the monsoon, while Tenuibaetis frequentus was
the least abundant (1.92%), reported during the pre-monsoon season.
In the Upstream segment (S1) of
the river, higher species diversity of Ephemeroptera was observed during the
post-monsoon season, with a Shannon-Wiener index value of H’ = 1.814 (Figure
2). Maximum species richness and evenness were noted in the post-monsoon,
followed by the pre-monsoon and monsoon seasons. ANOVA analysis revealed a
highly significant difference (p <0.001) for Leptophlebiidae,
and Baetidae, and a significant difference (p <0.05)
for Caenidae, Teloganodidae,
Tricorythidae, Heptageniidae,
Ephemerillidae, and Prosopistomatidae,
while no significant difference was found for Ephemeridae
(p >0.05) (Table 4). Spatial abundance was highest in the upstream segments,
followed by the midstream and downstream segments. The ANOVA of abundance
indicated significant differences both spatially and temporally (p <0.05)
(Table 4).
DISCUSSION
Physico-chemical parameters play an important role in
determining water quality and the distribution of biotic communities. The mean
pH values of all seasons fall within the limits (6.5–8.5) as prescribed by BIS.
The benthic macroinvertebrate including aquatic insects have a tolerance
range to pH and most organisms can develop between 6.4–8.6 (Yorulmaz
et al. 2021). Higher temperature during the pre-monsoon season fastens
microbial degradation of water contaminants and reduces oxygen saturation which
may be a reason for low DO (Liu et al. 2016). Heavy rainfall and cloudy sky in
the monsoon season decrease the atmospheric temperature and thereby the water
temperature, and increase the turbulence, oxygenation, and DO level in the
water body (Alam et al. 2007). BIS standard value for
BOD is 2mg/l, which is exceeded up to 2.71±0.65 in the present investigation
during the post-monsoon season. The biodegradation of organic matter and the
impact of anthropogenic activities may contribute to a rise in BOD (Virha et al.2011). The permissive limit of turbidity is 5
NTU, which is exceeded to a small extent in the present study during the
monsoon season. The turbid waters tend to fasten the growth of pathogenic
microorganisms (Farahbaksh & Smith 2002) and thus
hamper the quality of the drinking water. A sudden increase in conductivity
indicates pollution in the water body (Gupta et al. 2009). The value of
conductivity falls within the limits as prescribed by BIS (400µS/cm2).
An increase in both TDS (BIS limit, 500mg/l) and conductivity is toxic and a
stressor to the mayfly community (Barathy et al.
2020). The main source of nitrate (BIS limit, 45mg/l) in the monsoon season is
due to surface runoff carrying agricultural waste, fertilizers, domestic waste,
etc. Rainwater itself contributes substantially to the supply of nitrates.
The record
of 36 species of mayflies coming under 27 genera and 9 families in the present
study from the Achenkovil River basin is the first
report of the diversity and abundance of mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera). In the
present study, the diversity indices differ between seasons probably due to
different seasonal changes and uneven geomorphological features of the river
basin, as geomorphological heterogeneity plays a major role in determining
species richness (Nichols et al. 1998). Habitat diversity influences the
structure and composition of macro-benthic invertebrates. The different
microhabitats present in the rocky substratum of the upstream segment of the
river are home to diverse biotic communities. Studies reveal that thick canopy
cover regulates water temperature and overall quality of water in the river and
promotes the occurrence of macro-benthic invertebrates and provides favourable habitat (Bose et al. 2021).
The
midstream and the downstream segments are facing severe anthropogenic
pressures, such as the destruction of riparian forests, river regulation, and
bank deterioration for agricultural purposes, which adversely affect the mayfly
community structure (Ramulifho et al. 2020). During
pre-monsoon season, the water level in the river falls and flow gets
obstructed, as a result, saltwater intrusion from Kayamkulam
Lake occurs in the downstream segment of the river. This adversely creates a
lot of problems for salt-sensitive organisms. Protecting rivers requires a
holistic approach, including watershed management, riparian buffer zones, water
quality monitoring, restoration projects, and community engagement. Enforce
regulations on pollution and unsustainable practices, manage floodplains, and
integrate river protection into planning. Collaboration among stakeholders is
essential for successful implementation.
CONCLUSION
Mayflies
serve as water quality indicators, so monitoring their diversity and abundance
provides insights into the river’s ecological health. This work acts as a model
ecosystem for biomonitoring studies and offers consistent data on the current
state of the water quality and temporal variations in relation to the mayfly
community structure in the Achenkovil River basin.
Table 1.
Mean seasonal variation of the physico-chemical
parameters in Achenkovil River Basin, Kerala.
|
Parameters |
Range |
Seasons (Mean ± SD) |
F value |
P-value |
|||
|
Minimum |
Maximum |
Pre-monsoon |
Monsoon |
Post-monsoon |
|||
|
Atm. temp. (°C) |
23.1 |
34.9 |
31.08 ±1.92 |
29.11 ± 1.78 |
28.55 ± 2.57 |
14.013 |
0.000 P <0.001 |
|
Water temp. (°C) |
22.9 |
30.9 |
28.93 ±0.99 |
27.38 ± 1.26 |
27.18 ± 1.96 |
15.418 |
0.000 P <0.001 |
|
pH |
6.42 |
7.42 |
6.98 ±0.18 |
6.85 ± 0.16 |
6.65 ± 0.17 |
31.741 |
0.000 P <0.001 |
|
DO (mg/l) |
3.91 |
8.69 |
5.67 ±0.86 |
7.54 ± 0.72 |
5.87 ± 0.64 |
67.313 |
0.000 P <0.001 |
|
BOD (mg/l) |
0.44 |
3.91 |
2.38 ±0.58 |
1.59 ± 0.46 |
2.71 ± 0.65 |
36.6 |
0.000 P <0.001 |
|
Turbidity (NTU) |
0.74 |
12.62 |
4.99 ±1.29 |
8.58 ± 2.43 |
4.31 ± 1.74 |
53.511 |
0.000 P <0.001 |
|
Conductivity (µS/cm) |
44.2 |
358.7 |
127.3 ±109.1 |
103.2 ± 33.94 |
108.4 ± 79.08 |
0.896 |
0.411 P >0.05 |
|
TDS (mg/l) |
32.2 |
342.6 |
112.6 ±107.7 |
87.9 ± 34.19 |
87.49 ± 78.29 |
1.187 |
0.309 P >0.05 |
|
Nitrate (mg/l) |
0.38 |
1.56 |
0.76 ±0.14 |
1.08 ± 0.20 |
0.87 ± 0.14 |
34.244 |
0.000 P <0.001 |
Table 2.
Checklist of mayflies in the Achenkovil River Basin.
|
Superfamily |
Family |
Genus and species |
|
Prosopistomatoidea |
Prosopistomatidae |
Prosopistoma indicum Peters, 1967 |
|
Leptophlebioidea |
Leptophlebiidae |
Choroterpes (Euthraulus) nambiyarensis
Selvakumar & Sivaramakrishnan,
2013 |
|
Choroterpes (Euthraulus) kalladaensis
Rekha, Anbalagan, Dinakaran,
Balachandran & Krishnan, 2019. |
||
|
Choroterpes (Euthraulus) nandini Selvakumar & Sivaramakrishnan,
2015. |
||
|
Choroterpes petersi Tong & Dudgeon 2003 |
||
|
Edmundsula lotica Sivaramakrishnan, 1985 |
||
|
Indialis badia Peters & Edmunds, 1970 |
||
|
Nathanella indica Sivaramakrishnan, Venkataraman &
Balasubramanian, 1996 |
||
|
Notophlebia ganeshi Kluge, 2014 |
||
|
Notophlebia jobi Sivaramakrishnan & Peters, 1984 |
||
|
Notophlebia sp. |
||
|
Petersula courtallensis Sivaramakrishnan,
1984 |
||
|
Thraulus gopalani Grant & Sivaramakrishnan,
1985 |
||
|
Caenoidea |
Caenidae |
Caenis sp. |
|
Clypeocaenis bisetosa Soldan, 1978 |
||
|
Ephemerelloidea |
Ephemerellidae |
Torleya nepalica Allen and Edmunds, 1963 |
|
Teloganodidae |
Derlethina tamiraparaniae Selvakumar,
Sivaramakrishnan & Jacobus, 2014 |
|
|
Dudgeodes palnius Selvakumar, Sivaramakrishnan
& Jacobus, 2014 |
||
|
Ephemerelloidea |
Teloganodidae |
Dudgeodes bharathidasani Anbalagan, 2015 |
|
Dudgeodes sp. Sartori & Peters &
Hubbard, 2008 |
||
|
Teloganodes kodai Sartori, 2008 |
||
|
Teloganella indica (Selvakumar, Sivaramakrishnan
& Jacobus, 2014) |
||
|
Tricorythidae |
Sparsorythus gracilis Sroka & Soldan, 2008 |
|
|
Ephemeroidea |
Ephemeridae |
Ephemera (Aethephemera) nadinae
McCafferty and Edmunds, 1973 |
|
Eatonigenia trirama McCafferty, 1973 |
||
|
|
Heptageniidae |
Afronurus kumbakkaraiensis Venkataraman & Sivaramakrishnan, 1989
|
|
Epeorus petersi Sivaruban & Venkataraman & Sivaramakrishnan, 2013 |
||
|
Thalerosphyrus flowersi Venkataraman and Sivaramakrishnan,
1987 |
||
|
|
Baetidae |
Acentrella (Liebebiella)
vera Muller-Liebenau,
1982 |
|
Indobaetis michaelohubbardi (Selvakumar,
Sundar & Sivaramakrishnan,
2012) |
||
|
Baetis sp. |
||
|
Centroptella ornatipes Kluge 2021 |
||
|
Centroptella (Chopralla)
ceylonensis Müller-Liebenau
1983 |
||
|
Cleon bicolor Kimmins, 1947 |
||
|
Nigrobaetis paramakalyani Kubendran &
Balasubramanian, 2015 |
||
|
Tenuibaetis frequentus (Müller-Liebenau &
Hubbard 1985) |
Table 3.
Relative abundance of mayfly larvae at three segments in different seasons of
the Achenkovil River Basin, Kerala.
|
|
Family/Genus/Species |
Upstream |
Midstream |
Downstream |
||||||
|
PreM |
Mons |
PosM |
PreM |
Mons |
PosM |
PreM |
Mons |
PosM |
||
|
A |
Leptophlebiidae |
|||||||||
|
1 |
Indialis badia |
0.28 |
1.26 |
0.26 |
4.13 |
6.77 |
2.86 |
5.77 |
8.33 |
7.14 |
|
2 |
Choroterpes kalladensis |
6.83 |
5.78 |
3.30 |
10.00 |
8.27 |
9.54 |
9.62 |
4.17 |
14.29 |
|
3 |
Choroterpes nambiyarensis |
3.51 |
7.23 |
2.64 |
10.87 |
6.77 |
6.68 |
- |
- |
- |
|
4 |
Choroterpes nandini |
4.17 |
6.51 |
2.31 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
5 |
Choroterpes petersi |
2.27 |
1.63 |
3.04 |
- |
- |
0.95 |
- |
- |
- |
|
6 |
Edmundsula lotica |
7.88 |
9.58 |
1.78 |
13.26 |
7.52 |
8.78 |
5.77 |
2.08 |
7.14 |
|
7 |
Nathanella indica |
0.09 |
- |
0.13 |
3.04 |
6.02 |
3.63 |
9.62 |
10.42 |
4.76 |
|
8 |
Notophlebia ganeshi |
3.22 |
5.06 |
4.49 |
6.09 |
19.55 |
7.63 |
5.77 |
12.50 |
2.38 |
|
9 |
Notophlebia jobi |
4.27 |
5.24 |
5.61 |
3.26 |
4.51 |
4.58 |
17.31 |
2.08 |
9.52 |
|
10 |
Notophlebia sp. |
7.59 |
15.91 |
6.86 |
3.48 |
4.51 |
2.48 |
11.54 |
12.50 |
4.76 |
|
11 |
Petersula courtallensis |
1.71 |
1.63 |
2.51 |
0.22 |
- |
0.38 |
- |
- |
- |
|
12 |
Thraulus gopalani |
0.19 |
- |
0.40 |
0.43 |
1.50 |
0.57 |
- |
- |
- |
|
B |
Caenidae |
|||||||||
|
13 |
Clypeocaenis bisetosa |
0.57 |
- |
0.20 |
1.09 |
- |
0.95 |
- |
- |
- |
|
14 |
Caenis sp. |
9.31 |
13.20 |
6.20 |
15.87 |
10.53 |
18.13 |
13.46 |
31.25 |
28.57 |
|
C |
Teloganodidae |
|||||||||
|
15 |
Teloganella indica |
0.38 |
- |
0.07 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
16 |
Teloganodes kodai |
5.60 |
1.63 |
9.70 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
17 |
Dudgeodes bharathadasini |
0.28 |
- |
0.53 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
18 |
Dudgeodes sp. |
1.14 |
2.35 |
2.05 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
19 |
Dudgeodes palnius |
0.47 |
0.36 |
0.59 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
20 |
Derlethina tamiraparaniae |
0.38 |
3.61 |
0.79 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
D |
Baetidae |
|||||||||
|
21 |
Centroptella ceylonensis |
0.66 |
0.36 |
0.99 |
0.65 |
2.26 |
2.10 |
- |
- |
- |
|
22 |
Cloeon bicolor |
3.70 |
1.98 |
3.43 |
1.30 |
0.75 |
4.01 |
- |
- |
- |
|
23 |
Centroptella ornatipes |
1.04 |
1.63 |
0.86 |
0.87 |
1.50 |
1.34 |
- |
- |
- |
|
24 |
Indoaetis michaelohubbardi |
1.71 |
1.27 |
1.19 |
4.57 |
6.02 |
4.77 |
11.54 |
2.08 |
11.90 |
|
25 |
Tenuibaetis frequentus |
3.70 |
0.90 |
3.10 |
4.13 |
3.76 |
3.44 |
1.92 |
4.17 |
- |
|
26 |
Baetis sp. |
1.90 |
1.45 |
0.79 |
0.43 |
0.75 |
0.57 |
- |
- |
- |
|
27 |
Acentrella vera |
0.76 |
0.54 |
0.13 |
1.09 |
- |
1.53 |
3.85 |
- |
- |
|
28 |
Nigrobaetis paramakalyani |
2.18 |
2.89 |
4.95 |
1.52 |
0.75 |
2.10 |
- |
- |
- |
|
E |
Tricorythidae |
|||||||||
|
29 |
Sparsorythus gracilis |
7.12 |
0.90 |
4.69 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
F |
Heptageniidae |
|||||||||
|
30 |
Afronurus kumbakkaraiensis |
7.14 |
3.25 |
9.57 |
8.04 |
7.52 |
8.40 |
- |
- |
- |
|
31 |
Thalerosphyrus flowersi |
4.08 |
- |
2.84 |
0.65 |
- |
0.19 |
- |
- |
- |
|
32 |
Epeorus petersi |
1.04 |
0.36 |
2.64 |
0.22 |
- |
0.38 |
- |
- |
- |
|
G |
Ephemerellidae |
|||||||||
|
33 |
Torleya nepalica |
5.31 |
1.27 |
8.71 |
0.43 |
- |
0.38 |
- |
- |
- |
|
H |
Ephemeridae |
|||||||||
|
34 |
Ephemera (Aethephemera nadinae) |
1.42 |
1.27 |
0.66 |
2.61 |
0.75 |
1.72 |
3.85 |
10.42 |
9.52 |
|
35 |
Eatoningenia trirama |
0.19 |
- |
0.20 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
I |
Prosopistomatidae |
|||||||||
|
36 |
Prosopistoma indica |
1.90 |
0.90 |
1.78 |
1.74 |
- |
1.91 |
- |
- |
- |
PreM—Premonsoon
| Mons—Monsoon | PosM—Post-monsoon.
Table 4.
Spatial and seasonal abundance (Mean ± SD) in the number of species per family
of mayflies in the Achenkovil River Basin.
|
Family |
Upstream (Mean ± SD) |
Midstream (Mean ± SD) |
Downstream (Mean ± SD) |
F value |
p-value |
||||||
|
PreM |
Mons |
PosM |
PreM |
Mons |
PosM |
PreM |
Mons |
PosM |
|||
|
Leptophlebiidae |
221.5 ± 70.0 |
165.5 ± 109.6 |
252.5 ± 19.09 |
126.0 ± 59.39 |
43.50 ± 14.84 |
126.0 ± 26.87 |
17.00 ± 0.00 |
12.50 ± 10.60 |
10.50 ± 6.36 |
28.128 |
0.000 P <0.001 |
|
Caenidae |
52.0 ± 24.04 |
36.5 ± 20.5 |
48.5 ± 2.12 |
39.0 ± 14.14 |
7.0 ± 1.41 |
50.0 ± 4.24 |
3.50 ± 2.12 |
7.50 ± 7.77 |
6.00 ± 4.24 |
12.877 |
0.001 P <0.05 |
|
Teloganodidae |
43.50 ± 28.99 |
22.0 ± 7.07 |
104.0 ± 26.87 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
12.902 |
0.001 P <0.05 |
|
Baetidae |
87.0 ± 29.69 |
30.5 ± 12.02 |
117.0 ± 4.24 |
33.50 ± 7.77 |
10.50 ± 2.12 |
52.0 ± 1.41 |
4.50 ± 2.12 |
1.50 ± 0.70 |
2.50 ± 3.53 |
23.002 |
0.000 P <0.001 |
|
Tricorythidae |
11.50 ± 3.53 |
2.50 ± 2.12 |
35.50 ± 13.43 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
7.271 |
0.008 P <0.05 |
|
Heptageniidae |
64.50 ± 12.02 |
10.0 ± 1.41 |
114.0 ± 32.52 |
20.50 ± 0.70 |
5.00 ± 1.41 |
23.50 ± 6.36 |
- |
- |
- |
11.158 |
0.002 P <0.05 |
|
Ephemerellidae |
28.0 ± 21.21 |
3.50 ± 4.94 |
66.0 ± 57.98 |
1.0 0 ± 00 |
- |
1.0 ± 1.41 |
- |
- |
- |
4.175 |
0.040 P <0.05 |
|
Ephemeridae |
8.50 ± 3.53 |
3.50 ± 2.12 |
6.50 ± 6.36 |
6.0 ± 2.82 |
0.50 ± 0.70 |
4.50 ± 0.70 |
1.0 ± 1.41 |
2.50 ± 3.53 |
2.0 ± 2.82 |
3.07 |
0.081 P >0.05 |
|
Prosopistomatidae |
10.0 ± 5.65 |
2.50 ± 3.53 |
13.50 ± 3.53 |
4.0 ± 2.82 |
- |
5.0 ± 2.82 |
- |
- |
- |
11.064 |
0.002 P <0.05 |
PreM—Premonsoon
| Mons—Monsoon | PosM—Post-monsoon.
For
figures - - click here for full PDF
REFERENCES
Abdelsalam, K.M. &
K. Tanida (2013). Diversity and Spatio-temporal
distribution of macro-invertebrates’ communities in
spring flows of Tsuya Stream, Gifu Prefecture,
central Japan. The Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research 39(1):
39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejar.2013.03.003
Alam, M.J., M.R. Islam, Z. Muyen, M. Mamun & S. Islam (2007). Water quality parameters along rivers. International
Journal of Environmental Science & Technology 4(1): 159–167.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03325974
APHA (2012). Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater. 20th edition. American Public Health
Association, Washington, D.C., 1,220 pp. https://www.standardmethods.org/
Axelsson, E.P., J. Hjältén, C.J. LeRoy, T.G. Whitham, R. Julkunen-Tiitto &
A. Wennström (2011). Leaf litter from
insect-resistant transgenic
trees causes changes in aquatic
insect community
composition. Journal of Applied Ecology 48(6): 1472–1479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02046
Balasubramanian, C. & M. Muthukatturaja (2021). Two additional new species of Clypeocaenis Soldán, 1978 (Ephemeroptera: Caenidae) from
the Western Ghats of Peninsular India.
Zootaxa 4915 (3):
377–388. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4915.3.6
Barathy, S., T. Sivaruban, M. Arunachalam &
P. Srinivasan (2020). Community structure of mayflies (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) in tropical streams of Western Ghats of Southern
India. Aquatic
Research 4(1):
21–37. https://doi.org/10.3153/AR21003
BIS (1991). Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS 2012). Specifications for drinking
water, IS 10500:2012 (Second revision).
New Delhi, India.
Dudgeon, D. (1999). Tropical Asian Streams: Zoobenthos, Ecology and Conservation. Hong Kong University Press. https://doi.org/10.1076/aqin.23.2.167.4919.
Farahbakhsh, K. & D.
W. Smith (2002). Performance comparison and pretreatment
evaluation of three water treatment membrane pilot plants treating
low turbidity water. Journal
of Environmental Engineering and Science 1(2): 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1139/s02-006
Farooq, M., X. Li, L.
Tan, D. Fornacca, Y. Li, N. Cili
& W. Xiao (2021). Ephemeroptera (Mayflies) Assemblages and Environmental
Variation along Three Streams Located in the Dry-Hot Valleys of Baima Snow Mountain, Yunnan, Southwest
China. Insects 12(9):
775. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12090775
Gupta, P., M. Vishwakarma & P.M. Rawtani (2009). Assessment
of water quality parameters
of Kerwa Dam for drinking suitability. International Journal of Theoretical & Applied
Sciences 1(2): 53–55.
Hamada, N., J.H. Thorp & D.C. Rogers (2018). Thorp and Covich’s freshwater invertebrates. Volume 3: Keys to neotropical Hexapoda. Academic Press.
Hammer, Ø., D. A. Harper & P. D. Ryan (2001). PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education
and data analysis. Palaeontologia
Electronica 4(1): 9.
Kluge, N. J., P. Srinivasan, M. Vasanth, T. Sivaruban, S. Barathy & R. Isack (2022). Review of
the subgenus Euthraulus
(Ephemeroptera, Leptophlebiidae,
genus Choroterpes) from the Western Ghats (India). Zootaxa 5181(1): 001–085. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5181.1.1
Liu, J., X. Zhang, J. Xia, S. Wu, D. She & L. Zou (2016). Characterizing and explaining Spatio-temporal variation of water quality
in a highly disturbed river
by multi-statistical techniques. SpringerPlus 5(1):
1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2815-z
Martynov, A.V., C. Selvakumar, K.A Subramanian, K.
G. Sivaramakrishnan, M. Vasanth,
B. Sinha & L.M. Jacobus (2021). Overview
of Indian Hyrtanellini (Ephemeroptera:
Ephemerellidae), with new species and records from related regions. Zootaxa 4975(3): 451–482. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4975.3.2
Merritt, R.W. & K.W. Cummins (1996). An
introduction to the aquatic insects
of North America. Kendall
Hunt. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385024-9.00017-4
Mishra, A.S. & P.
Nautiyal (2011). Factors governing longitudinal
variation in benthic macroinvertebrate
fauna of a small Vindhyan river in Central Highlands ecoregion
(central India). Tropical Ecology
52(1): 103–112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031140
Mishra, A.S. & P.
Nautiyal (2016). Substratum as
determining factor for the distribution of benthic macroinvertebrate fauna in a river ecosystem. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, India
Section B: Biological
Sciences 86: 735–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-015-0520-2
Muthukatturaja, M. & C. Balasubramanian (2022). Description of
four new mayfly species of Indialis Peters & Edmunds,
1970 (Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae) from Peninsular India. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology
25(1): 101850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aspen.2021.101850
Nichols, W.F., K.T. Killingbeck & P.V. August
(1998). The influence of geomorphological heterogeneity on biodiversity II.
A landscape perspective. Conservation Biology 12(2): 371–379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.96237
Popielarz, P.A. &
Z.P. Neal (2007). The niche as a theoretical tool.
Annual Review of Sociology 33: 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123118
Prasad, M.B.K. & A.L. Ramanathan (2005). Solute sources and processes in
the Achankovil River Basin, Western Ghats, southern India/Sources de Solutés
et Processus Associés Dans le Bassin du Fleuve Achankovil,
Ghats Occidentaux, Inde du Sud. Hydrological
Sciences Journal 50(2). https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.50.2.341.61798
Ramulifho, P.A., S.H Foord & N.A. Rivers-Moore (2020). The role of hydro-environmental factors in Mayfly (Ephemeroptera, Insecta) community structure: Identifying threshold responses. Ecology and Evolution 10(14): 6919– 6928.
Samways, M.J., P.S.
Barton, K. Birkhofer, F. Chichorro,
C. Deacon, T. Fartmann & P. Cardoso (2020). Solutions for humanity on how to conserve insects. Biological Conservation 242: 108427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108427
Selvakumar, C., K.A. Subramanian & K.G. Sivaramakrishnan
(2019). Mayflies (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) of India, pp. 7–28. In: Ramani, S., P. Mohanraj & H.
M. Yeshwanth (eds.). Indian Insects. CRC
Press, 472 pp.
Sivaruban, T., P.
Srinivasan, S. Barathy & R. Isack
(2022). A new species of Nigrobaetis
Novikova & Kluge, 1987 (Ephemeroptera,
Baetidae) from Tamil Nadu, India. Zootaxa 5091(1): 182–190. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5091.1.8
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G., C. Selvakumar &
K.A. Subramanian (2020). Insecta: Ephemeroptera. In: Faunal Diversity of Biogeographic Zones of India:
Western Ghats, pp. 211–225. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata.
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G., K.A. Subramanian & V.V. Ramamurthy
(2009). Annotated checklist of Ephemeroptera
of the Indian subregion. Oriental
Insects 43(1): 315–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/00305316.2009.10417592
Srinivasan, P., T. Sivaruban, S. Barathy, R. Isack & L.M. Jacobus (2022). A new species of Clypeocaenis Soldán, 1978 (Ephemeroptera: Caenidae) from
Tamil Nadu, India. Zootaxa
5091(3): 467–476. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5091.3.6
Surachita, S. & S.K.
Palita (2022). Freshwater fish diversity in hill streams of Saberi River in Eastern Ghats of Odisha, India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 14(4):
20828–20839. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7341.14.4.20828-20839
Thorp, J.H. &
D.C. Rogers (2015). Introduction to the phylum Arthropoda.
In: Thorp and
Covich’s Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385024-9.01002-9
Vadas, R.L. Jr, R.M.
Hughes, Y.J. Bae, M.J. Baek, O.C.B. Gonzáles, M. Callisto & C.O. Yoder
(2022). Assemblage-based biomonitoring
of freshwater ecosystem health via multimetric indices: a critical review and suggestions for improving
their applicability. Water
Biology and Security 1(3):
100054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watbs.2022.100054
Vasanth, M., K.A. Subramanian, C. Selvakumar & T. Kubendran
(2023). Mayflies (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) of the Indian Himalaya and future challenges. Zoosymposia
24: 94– 101.
Virha, R., A.K. Biswas, V.K. Kakaria, T.A.
Qureshi, K. Borana & N. Malik (2011). Seasonal variation in physicochemical
parameters and heavy metals in water of Upper Lake of
Bhopal. Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Toxicology 86(2): 168–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-010-0172-0
Wallace, J.B. & J.R. Webster (1996). The role of macroinvertebrates in stream ecosystem function. Annual Review of Entomology
41(1): 115–139. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.41.010196.000555
Yorulmaz, B. & A. Ertaş (2021). Water quality
assessment of Selendi
Stream and comparative performance of the indices based
on benthic macroinvertebrates
and physicochemical parameters. Biologia 76(9):
2599–2607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11756-021-00756-3
Yule, C.M. &
Y.H. Sen (2004). Freshwater invertebrates
of the Malaysian region.
Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, vii + 861
pp.