Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 October 2023 | 15(10): 24043–24053

 

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print) 

https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8514.15.10.24043-24053

#8514 | Received 08 May 2023 | Final received 26 July 2023 | Finally accepted 08 September 2023

 

 

Sacred river of Pune: boon or bane for the diversity of aquatic beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera)

 

Rita Deb 1, Pallavi Takawane 2 & K.A Subramanian 3

 

1 Department of Zoology,  University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600005, India.

2 Department of Zoology, Prof. Ramakrishna More Arts, Commerce and Science College, Akurdi, Pune, Maharashtra 411044, India.

1,3 Zoological Survey of India, 130, Southern Regional Centre, Santhome High road, Mandavelipakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600028, India.

1 rita.deb24@zsi.gov.in, 2 pallavip8788@gmail.com (corresponding author), 3 subbu.ka@zsi.gov.in

 

 

Editor: Anonymity requested.          Date of publication: 26 October 2023 (online & print)

 

Citation: Deb, R., P. Takawane & K.A Subramanian (2023). Sacred river of Pune: boon or bane for the diversity of aquatic beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera). Journal of Threatened Taxa 15(10): 24043–24053. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8514.15.10.24043-24053

  

Copyright: © Deb et al. 2023. 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: Pallavi Takawane is thankful to Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Research, Training and Human Development Institute (SARTHI), Pune for the financial support.

 

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

 

Author details: RD is a taxonomist working on aquatic beetles currently affiliated with the Zoological Survey of India and pursuing PhD from the University of Madras (part-time). PT is a research scholar from Prof. Ramakrishna More College and pursuing PhD on aquatic beetles of Maharashtra. KAS is a scientist working on aquatic insects and freshwater biodiversity conservation, currently affiliated with the Zoological Survey of India.

 

Author contributions: All authors contributed equally to the paper.

 

Acknowledgements: Authors are grateful to Department of Zoology, Prof. Ramakrishna More Arts, Commerce and Science College, Akurdi, Pune, for providing all the required facilities. Authors are also thankful to Dr. Basudev Tripathy, scientist-e & officer-in-charge of WRC, Pune for his constant support. Thanks are also due to the director, Zoological Survey of India, for providing necessary facilities and encouragement.

 

 

Abstract: Aquatic beetles are potential indicators of freshwater ecosystem and play an important role in food web and nutrient cycling. Parameters like pH, temperature, conductivity, total dissolved solids, salinity, and dissolved oxygen, are important water quality parameters. The present study is focused on the diversity of aquatic beetles and assessing water quality parameters of the sacred Indrayani River from various sites namely Valvan, Kamshet, Warangwadi, Begadewadi, Moshigaon, Alandi, Dhanore, and Tulapur. A total of 94 examples of aquatic beetles belonging to 31 species under 19 genera and four families from Indrayani River were recorded along with water quality parameters.

 

Keywords: Abiotic factors, checklist, Dytiscidae, fauna, Gyrinidae, habitat, Hydrophilidae, Maharashtra, Noteridae.

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Aquatic insects are integral part of aquatic ecosystems, representing essential components of biodiversity and play a profoundly significant role in recycling nutrients and form a crucial part of the natural food web in these environments (Subramanian & Shivaramakrishnan 2007). Among aquatic insects, there are 13,000 described species of aquatic beetles in the world (Short 2017), of which 776 species are known from India (Chandraf et al. 2017). The Indrayani River originates in the scenic northern Western Ghats of India, specifically at Kurwande Village (18.7310°N & 73.3820°E) near Lonavala, Pune, Maharashtra. It flows eastwards from Pune, passing through the revered Hindu pilgrimage centres of Dehu and Alandi, before eventually merging with the Bhima River at Tulapur, Pune. The Indrayani River is a significant tributary of the Bhima River and it is also called as sacred river. The Valvan dam, situated on the river, serves the dual purpose of irrigation and generating hydroelectric power. Flowing along the northern border of Pune City, the river’s catchment area encompasses numerous villages, housing complexes, several cities, educational institutes, and various industrial areas, including Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) and over the past three decades, industrialization has been rapidly expanding in this area. The deterioration of river water quality of rivers Pawana, Mula, Mutha, and Indrayani of Pune Metropolitan area resulted from the growth of industrial activities and associated unplanned concentration of people in the suburban areas (Hui & Wescoat 2019; Bhagwat et al. 2021). There is no proper sewage collection and treatment provided for thousands of people who assemble twice a year and for the local residents. These activities are taking toll on river’s health thereby affecting its faunal status as well as human health (Dahanukar et al. 2012). There are also many news reports on formation of toxic foam on the banks of the Indrayani River from factories and sewage. Therefore, the present study is focused on the aquatic beetle’s diversity and to assess water quality, including water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids and salinity from Indrayani River.

 

 

MATERIAL AND METHODS

 

Collections from the Indrayani River were conducted monthly throughout the year 2022, encompassing all seasons. The beetle samples were collected from eight different sites (Image 1) of Indrayani River (Image 2) such as Valvan (site A), Kamshet (site B), Warangwadi (site C), Begadewadi (site D), Moshigaon (site E), Alandi (site F), Dhanore (site G), and Tulapur (site H). The beetles were collected using the line transects method, using a pond net with a square frame (mesh size 0.5 mm). The net was systematically swept back and forth at 100 m intervals in the water bodies. Once collected, the beetles were preserved in 70% ethanol and appropriately labelled with corresponding information about the sample sites, date, and time of collection. Collected beetles were studied and photographed under Leica EZ4 HD microscope. Identification was done using standard literature mainly by Sharp (1882), Vazirani (1968, 1984), Pederzani (1995), Toledo (2008), Nasserzadeh & Komarek (2017), Sheth et al. (2018, 2021), and Girón & Short (2021). All the identified specimens are deposited in the Zoological Survey of India, Pune with registration numbers from ENT-1/4220 to ENT-1/4267.

During the beetle collection, water samples were also collected from each sampling site. At the location of sampling, three replicates of selected physicochemical water quality parameters were recorded. The water quality parameters, such as pH, salinity, conductivity, total dissolved solids, and temperature, were measured directly on-site using a multiparameter probe Eutech PCS Tester 35. However, dissolved oxygen measurements were recorded in the laboratory, utilizing the digital bench top DO meter (Aquasol AB-DO-01). The geographic coordinates were obtained using Google Earth. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to assess the statistical differences between the means of the water quality parameters of the Indrayani River using R-Software- version R 4.3.1 [Package R studio - (1) library (dplyr), (2) library (gplots)].

 

 

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

 

A total of 94 individuals of aquatic beetles were collected from six eight sites in 36 sampling efforts during the year. There were all belonging to 31 species (Image 3–6) under 19 genera and four families from Indrayani River (Table 1). The family Dytiscidae was the most abundant with 15 species followed by Hydrophilidae with 11 species, Gyrinidae with three species, and Noteridae with two species (Figure 1). Among the family Dytiscidae, the genus Laccophilus was found in five out of eight sites which makes it more prevalent.

Family Hydrophilidae was found to be the second most abundant and the genus Sternolophus was collected more than any other hydrophilid genus from all the six localities. Two sites namely Alandi and Tulapur did not show any aquatic beetles.

The collected data of water quality for the Indrayani River from January to December 2022 is presented in Table 2. The investigation of physicochemical parameters in this study revealed that the minimum pH value was recorded at Begadewadi (pH 6.8 ± 0.14), while the maximum was observed at Alandi (pH 7.72 ± 0.46). Furthermore, the minimum water temperature was measured at Begadewadi (27.61 ± 1.90°C), and maximum temperature recorded at Alandi (28.4 ± 1.93°C). The dissolved oxygen concentration exhibited higher values at Tulapur (5.72 ± 0.30 mg/l) and the lowest values at Moshigaon (3.69 ± 0.45 mg/l). The minimum salinity recorded was 43.41 ± 16.25 ppt at Valvan, whereas the maximum salinity was observed at Dhonore, with a value of 397.41 ± 24.25 ppt. The total dissolved solids were found to be least at Warangwadi, with a measurement of 177.16 ± 32.17 ppm, and highest at Dhanore, reaching 575 ± 40.53 ppm. Furthermore, the lowest conductivity was observed at Kamshet, with a reading of 196 ± 11.15 μS/cm, while the highest conductivity value was recorded at Dhanore, measuring 784.16 ± 37.01 μS/cm. The pH, dissolved oxygen, salinity, total dissolved solids, and conductivity exhibited significant variations (p <0.05) among the different sampling sites, as determined by the analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Figure 2). However, temperature did not show any significant difference. The odour of the water was unpleasant at site 5–8 and the colour of the water was slightly greenish-black to brownish-black with enormous growth of

 aquatic plants like water hyacinth Pontederia crassipes, Hydrilla sp., Pistia sp. and algal blooms of Chlorophyta and Bacillariophyta on surface. Suspended sediments were also observed.

Water beetles are an important part of the biotic component of any aquatic habitat or wetlands and they are considered as indicators of ecological diversity and habitat characteristics (Foster 1987; Eyre & Foster 1989; Sánchez-Fernández et al. 2004) as they meet most of the criteria usually accepted in the selection of indicator taxa (Holt & Miller 2011). The distribution of aquatic beetles in upper basin namely Valvan, Kamshet, Warangwadi, and Begdewadi was seen more due to the quality of water and less anthropogenic disturbance as compared to the aquatic beetle’s availability in lower basin namely Moshigaon, Alandi, Dhanore, and Tulapur. The river is polluted due to industrial effluents, sewage, constructions and various recreational activities in the river basin (Dahanukar 2011). If the present activities continue, the harmful effect may lead to loss of aquatic fauna in Indrayani River. This study can be a baseline data for future research on aquatic beetles from the river as it is the first data on aquatic beetles throughout the stretch of Indrayani River.

 

 Table 1. Distribution of aquatic beetles in collection sites of Indrayani River.

 

Family

Species

Valvan

Kamshet

Warangwadi

Begadewadi

Moshigaon

Alandi

Dhanore

Tulapur

1

Gyrinidae

Dineutus (Cyclous) indicus Aube, 1838

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

Gyrinidae

Patrus punctulatus (Regimbart, 1886)

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

Gyrinidae

Patrus limbatus (Regimbart, 1883)

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

Dytiscidae

Laccophilus ceylonicus Zimmermann, 1919

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5

Dytiscidae

Laccophilus flexuosus Aube, 1938

+

-

-

-

+

-

+

-

6

Dytiscidae

Laccophilus inefficiens Walker, 1859

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

7

Dytiscidae

Laccophilus parvulus Aube, 1838

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

8

Dytiscidae

Hydaticus fabricii M'Leay,1833

+

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

9

Dytiscidae

Hydaticus incertus Regimbart, 1888

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10

Dytiscidae

Hydaticus luczonicus Aube, 1838

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

11

Dytiscidae

Copelatus neelumae Vazirani, 1973

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

12

Dytiscidae

Copelatus schuhi Hendrich & Balke,1998

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

13

Dytiscidae

Copelatus deccanensis Sheth, Ghate & Hajek, 2018

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

14

Dytiscidae

Cybister sugillatus Erichson, 1834

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

15

Dytiscidae

Hydroglyphus inconstans (Regimbart, 1892)

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

16

Dytiscidae

Hyphydrus renardi Severin, 1890

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

17

Dytiscidae

Peschetius nilssoni Sheth, Ghate,  Dahanukar & Hajek, 2021

-

-

+

+

-

-

-

-

18

Dytiscidae

Peschetius toxophorus Guignot, 1942

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

19

Hydrophilidae

Sternolophus rufipes (Fabricius, 1792)

+

-

-

+

-

-

+

-

20

Hydrophilidae

Regimbartia attenuata (Fabricius, 1801)

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

21

Hydrophilidae

Hydrophilus olivaceous (Fabricius,1781)

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

22

Hydrophilidae

Helochares anchoralis Sharp, 1890

-

-

-

+

+

-

-

-

23

Hydrophilidae

Helochares crenatus Regimbart, 1903

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

24

Hydrophilidae

Enochrus esuriens Walker, 1858

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

25

Hydrophilidae

Coelostoma vitalisi Orchymont, 1936

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

26

Hydrophilidae

Coelostoma fallaciosum Orchymont, 1936

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27

Hydrophilidae

Berosus (Berosus) pulchellus M’Leay, 1825

+

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

28

Hydrophilidae

Amphiops mater Sharp, 1873

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

29

Hydrophilidae

Agraphydrus obscuratus Komerak, 2018

+

-

+

+

-

-

-

-

30

Noteridae

Canthydrus laetabilis Walker, 1858

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

-

31

Noteridae

Canthydrus angularis Sharp, 1882

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

+—Presence of species in the site | -—absence of species in the site .

 

 

Table 2. Physicochemical parameters of Indrayani River (January–December 2022).

 

Locations

Physicochemical parameters of Indrayani River (January–December 2022)

 

PH

Temp (°C)

DO (mg/l)

Salinity(ppt)

TDS (ppm)

Conductivity (μS/cm)

 

Mean ± SD

Mean ± SD

Mean ± SD

Mean ± SD

Mean ± SD

Mean ± SD

Valvan

7.27 ± 0.4

28.15 ± 1.42

5.08 ± 0.39

43.41 ± 16.25

500 ± 46.66

696 ± 30.37

Kamshet

7.33 ± 0.51

27.9 ± 1.71

4.89 ± 0.16

119.4 ± 28.94

193 ± 30.14

196 ± 11.15

Warangwadi

6.9 ± 0.14

27.83 ± 2.10

3.9 ± 0.36

114.83 ± 26.62

177.16 ± 32.17

202.25 ± 33.39

Begadewadi

6.8 ± 0.14

27.61 ± 1.90

4.39 ± 0.45

190.08 ± 29.30

267.33 ±32.20

289 ± 44.36

Moshigaon

7.65 ± 0.433

28.02 ± 2.12

3.69 ± 0.45

389.10 ± 24.28

547.91 ± 30.83

773 ± 35.36

Alandi

7.72 ± 0.46

28.4 ± 1.93

3.98 ± 0.58

394.25 ± 26.38

541 ± 16.23

739 ± 15.16

Dhanore

6.82 ± 0.44

28.27 ± 2.03

4.67 ± 0.33

397.41 ± 24.25

575 ± 40.53

784.16 ± 37.01

Tulapur

7.52 ± 0.34

28 ± 1.83

5.72 ± 0.30

282.75± 29.83

378.5 ± 27.10

481.41 ± 35.45

SD—Standard deviation | Temp—Temperature | DO—Dissolved oxygen | TDS—Total dissolved solids.

 

 

For figures & images - - click here for full PDF

 

References

 

Bhagwat, J.M., V. Devadas & B.V. Mahajan (2021). Water Lettuce for the Improvement of River Water Quality in Pune Metropolitan Area, pp. 919–938. In: Pathak, K.K., J.M.S.J Bandara, & R. Agarwal (eds.). Recent Trends in Civil Engineering: Select Proceedings of Internatioanl Conference of Recent Trends in Civil Engineering (ICRTICE) 2019. Springer Singapore, 1106 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15- 5195-6_67

Chandra, K., D. Jaiswal & D. Gupta (2017). Insecta: Coleoptera (Aquatic Beetles), pp. 379–400. In: Chandra, K., K.C. Gopi, D.V. Rao, K. Valarmathi & J.R.B. Alfred (eds.). Current Status of Freshwater Faunal Diversity in India. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 624 pp.

Dahanukar, N., M. Diwekar & M. Paingankar (2011). Rediscovery of the threatened Western Ghats endemic Sisorid Catfish Glyptothorax poonaensis (Teleostei: Siluriformes: Sisoridae). Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(7): 1885–1898. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2663.1885-98

Dahanukar, N., M. Paingankar, R.N. Raut & S.S. Kharat (2012). Fish fauna of Indrayani River, northern Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(1): 2310–2317. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2771.2310-7

Eyre, M.D. & G.N. Foster (1989). A comparison of aquatic Hemiptera and Coleoptera communities as a basis for environmental and conservation assessments in static water sides. Journal of Applied Entomology 108(1–5): 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1989.tb00468.x

Foster, G.N. (1987). The use of Coleoptera records in assessing the conservation status of wetlands. Agricultural Environment Research Group, Proceedings—The Use of Invertebrates in Site Assessment for Conservation. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Girón, J.C. & A.E.Z. Short (2021). The Acidocerinae (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae): taxonomy, classification, and catalog of species. ZooKeys 1045: 1–136. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1045.63810

Holt, E.A. & S.W. Miller (2011). Bioindicators: using organisms to measure environmental impacts. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10): 8–13.

Hui, R. & J.L. Wescoat Jr (2019). Visualizing peri-urban and rurban water conditions in Pune district, Maharashtra,          India. Geoforum 102: 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.01.008

Nasserzadeh, H. & A. Komarek (2017). Taxonomic revision of the water scavenger beetle genus Sternolophus Solier, 1834 (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Zootaxa 4282(2): 201–254. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4282.2.1

Pederzani, F. (1995). Keys to the identification of the genera and subgenera of adult Dytiscidae (sensu lato) of the world (Coleoptera Dytiscidae). Atti dell’Accademia Roveretana degli Agiati, Contributi della Classe di Scienze Matematiche, Fisichee Naturali (7: 4B) 244: 5– 83.

Sánchez-Fernández, D., P. Abellán, J. Velasco & A. Millán (2004). Selecting areas to protect the biodiversity of aquatic ecosystems in a semiarid Mediterranean region using water beetles. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14(5): 465–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.633

Subramanian, K.A. & K.G. Sivaramakrishnan (2007). Aquatic Insects for biomonitoring freshwater ecosystems- A methodology manual. Ashoka Trust for ecology and Environment (ATREE), Bangalore, India, 31 pp.

Sharp, D. (1882). On aquatic carnivorous Coleoptera or Dytiscidae. Royal Dublin Society, 1003 pp.

Sheth, S.D., H.V. Ghate & J. Hájek (2018). Copelatus Erichson, 1832 from Maharashtra, India, with description of three new species and notes on other taxa of the genus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Copelatinae). Zootaxa 4459(2): 235–260. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4459.2.2

Sheth, S.D., H.V. Ghate, N. Dahanukar & J. Hájek (2021). Integrative taxonomic review of the genus Peschetius (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae, Hydroporinae) from India with description of two new species. Arthropod Systematics & Phylogeny 79: 535–553. https://doi.org/10.3897/asp.79.e68203

Short, A.E.Z. (2017). Systematics of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera): current state and future directions. Systematic Entomology 43(1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/syen.12270

Toledo, M. (2008). Taxonomic notes on Asian species of Canthydrus SHARP I. Revision of Canthydrus angularis Sharp, description of a new species and 12 lectotype designations (Coleoptera: Noteridae). Koleopterologische Rundschau 78: 55–68

Vazirani, T.G. (1968). Contributions to the study of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera). 2. A review of the subfamilies Noterinae, Laccophilinae, Dytiscinae and Hydroporinae (in part) from India. Oriental Insects 2(3–4): 221–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/00305316.1968.10433885

Vazirani, T.G. (1984). The Fauna of India. Coleoptera. Family Gyrinidae and Family Haliplidae. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta, 140 pp.