Assessment of aquatic macro-invertebrates communities and water quality parameters of River Zhob, Balochistan, Pakistan

Avaliação das comunidades de macroinvertebrados aquáticos e parâmetros de qualidade da água do rio Zhob, Baluchistão, Paquistão

Abstract

Environmental stress caused by pollution is often assessed by diversity of macro-invertebrate species in specific aquatic habitat. To find out seasonal fluctuations in various macro-invertebrates communities and different water quality parameters of River Zhob, a research trial was conducted on River Zhob, Balochistan. Samples of macro-invertebrates and water were taken from four different stations of River Zhob. A total 18 taxa of various macro-invertebrates were identified from the area. Phylum Arthropoda constitute 94.8% of the total population followed by Mollusca (3.6%) and Annelida (1.4%). A large number of arthropods were belonged to order Diptera (1148), while the order Trichoptera was stood second with respect to macro-invertebrate´s number (441). The maximum numbers of macro-invertebrates were observed in the month of January. All physico-chemical parameters of River Zhob such as air temperature, water temp, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO) and total dissolved solids (TDS) were within the range, suitable for the healthy growth of macro-invertebrates. Diversified populations of various macro-invertebrates confirm good ecological condition of environment and water in the studied site especially ample concentration of DO in River. The documented data on macro-invertebrates in studied site will provide a baseline for future research.

Keywords:
macro-invertebrates; physico-chemical parameters; River Zhob; Balochistan

Resumo

O estresse ambiental causado pela poluição é frequentemente avaliado pela diversidade de espécies de macroinvertebrados em habitats aquáticos específicos. Para descobrir as flutuações sazonais em várias comunidades de macroinvertebrados e diferentes parâmetros de qualidade da água do rio Zhob, foi realizado um teste de pesquisa no rio Zhob, Baluchistão. Amostras de macroinvertebrados e água foram retiradas de quatro estações diferentes do rio Zhob. Um total de 18 táxons de vários macroinvertebrados foram identificados na área. O filo Arthropoda constitui 94,8% da população total, seguido por Mollusca (3,6%) e Annelida (1,4%). Um grande número de artrópodes pertencia à ordem Diptera (1148), enquanto a ordem Trichoptera ocupava o segundo lugar em número de macroinvertebrados (441). Os números máximos de macroinvertebrados foram observados no mês de janeiro. Todos os parâmetros físico-químicos do rio Zhob, como temperatura do ar, temperatura da água, pH, oxigênio dissolvido (OD) e sólidos dissolvidos totais (TDS), estavam dentro da faixa, adequada para o crescimento saudável de macroinvertebrados. Populações diversificadas de vários macroinvertebrados confirmam boas condições ecológicas do ambiente e da água no local estudado, especialmente a ampla concentração de DO no rio. Os dados documentados sobre macroinvertebrados no local estudado fornecerão uma linha de base para pesquisas futuras.

Palavras-chave:
macroinvertebrados; parâmetros físico-químicos; Rio Zhob; Baluchistão

1. Introduction

Aquatic arthropods, mollusks, annelids and their aquatic larval stages comprise a group of organisms which are called Macro-invertebrates. Macro-invertebrates are very sensitive group of organisms which supposed to be bio-indicators of pollution of aquatic ecosystem caused by anthropogenic activities (Barbour et al., 1996). Bio-indicators are considered to be strong markers of environmental conditions throughout the world (Karr and Chu, 1999; Duran, 2006) and in particular they are assessed to become attentive about the habitat stability (Freund and Petty, 2007).

The largest numbers of macro-invertebrates are found at the bottom of the rivers and streams because of the availability and abundance of food but at the mouth, their presence is very rare. The presence of waste discharge at rivers mouth in affected areas is one of the major reasons (Idowu and Ugwumba, 2005; Begum et al., 2014). In aquatic communities, macro-invertebrates do mineralization, and re-cycling of nutrients as their crucial functions (George et al., 2009).

In aquatic habitat, distribution of macro-invertebrates is greatly affected by a large number of a-biotic and biotic factors (Infante et al., 2009). Many physical and biological factors can alter abundance and distribution of macro-invertebrates (Sharma et al., 2013). Their existence in any environment mainly depends on the quantity of dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature. Quality and quantity of food is also a key factor.

Species diversity, distribution and productivity are greatly affected by physical and chemical parameters of water body (Boyd, 1982). Urbanization and other anthropogenic activities also alter chemical, physical and biological processes by placing ecosystem under great stress (Allan, 1995). To conserve water quality of a specific water body, it is necessary to evaluate the impact of changes on water by regular monitoring (Barbour et al., 1996; Shrestha, 1990; Jha et al., 2010).

Researchers used macro-invertebrates as a tool to monitor different levels of contaminations in water i.e. Vermeulen, (1995),Kasangaki et al. (2006), Ogbeibu, (2001), Hart and Zabbey (2005), Arimoro et al. (2007), George et al. (2009), Esenowo and Ugwumba (2010). Biological sampling in streams can be performed for both fish and benthic macro-invertebrate, but benthic macro-invertebrates are most common (Voshell Junior et al., 1997).

Macro-invertebrate diversity can be sampled quantitatively as well as the known species can be used for bio-assessment by transforming them into a valuable diagnostic and regulatory instrument (Adakole et al., 2003). Species tolerance varies, but under toxic circumstances, a loss in species diversity is the most likely outcome impact that is evident (Edokpayi et al., 2000; Emere, 2000; Olomukoro and Egborge, 2003).

To find out seasonal fluctuations in various macro-invertebrates communities and different water quality parameters in River Zhob, a research trial was conducted on River Zhob, Balochistan. The documented data on macro-invertebrates in studied site will provide a baseline for future research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample site

River Zhob has been selected for this study which flows between Qila Saifullah and Muslim Bagh to the northeast of Balochistan. An area of almost 140 kilometers from District Sherani to Muslim Bagh is covered by river Zhob. Four stations (I, II, III and IV) were selected from District Sherani to Muslim Bagh in accessible areas of the river bank. Each selected station covered an area of almost 15 kilometers.

2.2. Animal sampling and handling

All the samples were collected within an area of one square meter (Individual/m²) on monthly basis. Sampling of the macro-invertebrates was done by using Kick net method. This method involves placement of the net in the direction of flow of the water and by kicking the feet into bottom of the river sweeps organisms into the net. The net was thoroughly rinsed several times in the water to remove excessive sediments. After the removal of excess sediments, the filtrate was then shifted into the bucket half filled with water. Immediate sorting was done after the sample collection. The bucket with sample was stir for even distribution of the organisms and some of the sample was shifted into a plastic tray filled with clean water up to 2 cm. Tray was left for some time so that sample could settled down. The movement in the water was then observed and the moving organisms were carefully removed from the tray. Same organisms were kept in one compartment.

2.3. Water sampling

Water sample was also collected along with macro-invertebrates on monthly basis for analysis of dissolved oxygen (DO) (ppm), water pH, air temperature (°C), water temperature (°C) and total dissolved solids (TDS) (ppm).

2.4. Sample analysis

After the collection and sorting, all the samples were stored in the plastic bottles with 30% ethanol for further analysis. The macro-invertebrates were counted and identified up to the possible taxonomic level. All the collected organisms were identified microscopically and macroscopically with the help of published research papers and keys including, Walker (1995), Kalkmam et al. (1999) and Nesemann et al. (2011). Mostly organisms were identified to the generic level. Statistical analysis of the data was done by using Software Minitab 17.

3. Results

Density of macro-invertebrates (Individual/m²) at each sampling station is presented in Tables 1a-1b from the month of October to March. Eighteen taxa of macro-invertebrates were identified from the study area. Our observation shows that station IV was highly abundant with respect to species density. Fluctuations were observed in total number of macro-invertebrates collected from each sampling station in each month. Highest number of macro-invertebrates was observed in the month of January at all stations of the study site (Table 2).

Table 1a
Population density of macro-invertebrates (individual/m²) at each sampling station in River Zhob.

Phylum	Class/Sub-classes/Order	Sub-order/ Family/Sub-family	Oct					Nov					Dec
			Stations				Total	Stations				Total	Stations				Total
			1	2	3	4		1	2	3	4		1	2	3	4
Arthropoda	Diptera	Blephariceridae	15	8	12	0	35	0	6	5	20	31	5	17	0	0	22
		Chironomidae	0	49	8	17	74	19	0	0	3	22	23	28	18	40	109
		Simulidae	12	19	0	0	31	0	3	0	0	3	0	8	0	0	8
	Trichoptera	Limnephilidae	12	57	0	1	70	60	3	12	0	75	0	0	80	0	80
		Philopotamidae	1	0	12	1	14	5	0	12	40	57	0	0	1	1	2
	Odonta	Aniosptera	0	1	0	6	7	0	1	0	0	1	2	1	18	0	21
	Plecoptera	Nemoridae	0	1	2	5	8	0	1	0	1	2	0	1	6	0	7
		capniidae	2	1	1	6	10	1	0	0	2	3	0	0	0	0	0
		Perilidae	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2	1	0	0	2	3
		Perilodidae	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Epemeroptera	Heptageniidae	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Coleoptera	Halipilidae	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	2	2	0	1	1	4
	Hemiptera	Belostomatidae	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Arachnida	pionidae	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	1
	Total		43	136	36	36	251	86	16	30	67	199	34	55	124	44	257
Mollusca	Gastropoda	Viviparadae	5	2	0	2	9	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1
	Bivalvia	Unionidae	1	6	0	0	7	0	3	0	0	3	5	4	1	1	11
	Total		6	8	0	2	16	0	3	0	0	3	6	4	1	1	12
Annelida	Oligochaeta	Monoligastridae	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	1
	Hirudinae	Hirudidae	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Total		0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	1

Table 1b
Population density of macro-invertebrates (individual/m²) at each sampling station in River Zhob.

Phylum	Class/Sub-classes/Order	Sub-order/Family/Sub-family	Jan					Feb					Mar
			Stations				Total	Stations				Total	Stations				Total
			1	2	3	4		1	2	3	4		1	2	3	4
Arthropoda	Diptera	Blephariceridae	30	28	48	18	124	17	0	0	80	97	3	0	0	40	43
		Chironomidae	55	40	50	60	205	0	29	45	13	87	2	22	25	0	49
		Simulidae	18	2	0	103	123	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	40	44	84
	Trichoptera	Limnephilidae	0	19	2	0	21	0	0	1	48	49	18	0	1	1	20
		Philopotamidae	0	0	1	0	1	2	18	1	0	21	25	6	0	0	31
	Odonta	Aniosptera	55	17	3	15	90	1	1	1	5	8	0	5	1	15	21
	Plecoptera	Nemoridae	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	1
		capniidae	0	7	0	2	9	5	6	0	0	11	1	2	0	0	3
		Perilidae	6	3	8	2	19	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
		Perilodidae	0	0	3	0	3	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
	Epemeroptera	Heptageniidae	2	0	0	6	8	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Coleoptera	Halipilidae	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Hemiptera	Belostomatidae	1	0	1	1	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Arachnida	pionidae	0	0	0	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Total		167	116	116	210	609	25	56	48	147	276	50	35	67	101	253
Mollusca	Gastropoda	Viviparadae	3	0	0	28	31	4	0	0	1	5	0	0	0	0	0
	Bivalvia	Unionidae	0	0	1	0	1	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	2	2
	Total		3	0	1	28	32	6	0	0	1	7	0	0	0	2	2
Annelida	Oligochaeta	Monoligastridae	1	6	2	5	14	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	1
	Hirudinae	Hirudidae	1	0	5	0	6	0	0	0	4	4	0	0	0	0	0
	Total		2	6	7	5	20	1	0	0	4	5	0	0	1	0	1

Table 2
Monthly individual contribution of each station with reference to number of macro-invertebrates per m²sum at River Zhob.

Month	Station				Total
	1	2	3	4
Oct	49	144	37	38	268
Nov	86	19	31	67	203
Dec	41	59	125	45	270
Jan	172	122	123	243	661
Feb	32	56	48	152	288
Mar	50	35	68	103	256
Total	430	435	432	648	1946

Present study recorded a total of 1946 macro-invertebrates during the study period (Table 3), out of which the Phylum Arthropoda (n=1845 from 24 species) represented maximum number of species, followed by Mollusca (n=72) and Annelida (n=29) from all the sampling stations. Phylum Arthropoda represented 94.8% being the highest amongst the total population while Mollusca represented 3.6%. The lowest number of species was recorded from phylum Annelida that represented 1.4% of the total population.

Table 3
Percentage of all classes/sub-classes/orders observed at four different stations of River Zhob.

Phylum	Class/Sub-class /Order	Number	Total Numbers	Percentage (%)	Phylum Percentage (%)
Arthropoda	Diptera	1148	1845	58.9	94.8
	Trichoptera	441		22.6
	Odonta	148		7.6
	Plecoptera	86		4.4
	Emeroptera	8		0.4
	Coleopteran	7		0.3
	Hemiptera	3		0.1
	Arachnida	4		0.2
Mollusca	Gastropoda	46	72	2.3	3.6
	Bivalvia	26		1.3
Annelida	Oligocheata	19	29	0.9	1.4
	Hirudinae	10		0.5
	Total	1946	1946	100	100

According to identification results, most of the arthropods were belonged to the order Diptera (1148), followed by order Trichoptera (441), while order Hemipteran (3) represented lowest number of macro-organisms. Moreover, the molluscs represented the highest number of organisms from class Gastropoda (46), while class Bivalvia comprised second highest score according to number of identified species (26) in this study. However, in annelids highest numbers of organisms belong to sub-class Oligocheata (19).

Monthly distributions of all classes/sub-classes/orders observed at studied sites of River Zhob are presented in Tables 4-5. In Arthropods, order Dipetera constituted 39.3% (452) of its population in the month of Jan. This study suggested that January was the most favourable month for arthropods because orders like Odonata, Plecoptera, Emeroptera, Hemiptera and class Arachnida contributed 60.8% (90), 37.2% (32), 100% (8), 50% (2), and 100% (3) respectively to the total population in this month.

Table 4
Monthly distribution of all observed classes/sub-classes/ordersfrom all four stations.

Phylum	Class/Sub-class/Order	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Total
Arthropoda	Dipetera	140	56	139	452	185	176	1148
	Trichoptera	84	132	82	22	70	51	441
	Odonata	7	1	21	90	8	21	148
	Plecoptera	19	7	10	32	13	5	86
	Emeroptera	0	0	0	8	0	0	8
	Coleoptera	1	2	4	0	0	0	7
	Hemiptera	0	0	0	3	0	0	3
	Arachnida	0	1	1	2	0	0	4
	Total	251	199	257	609	276	253	1845
Mollusca	Gastropoda	9	0	1	31	5	0	46
	Bivalvia	7	3	11	1	2	2	26
	Total	16	3	12	32	7	2	72
Annelida	Oligocheata	1	1	1	14	1	1	19
	Hirudinae	0	0	0	6	4	0	10
	Total	1	1	1	20	5	1	29

Table 5
Monthly percentage (%) ofall observed classes/sub-classes/ordersfrom all four stations.

Phylum	Class/Sub-class/Order	Months						Total Percentage (%)
		Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar
Arthropoda	Dipetera	12.4	4.8	12.1	39.3	16.1	15.3	100
	Trichoptera	19.9	29.9	18.5	4.9	15.8	11.5	100
	Odonta	4.7	0.6	14.1	60.8	5.4	14.1	100
	Plecoptera	22.1	8.1	11.6	37.2	15.1	5.81	100
	Emeroptera	0	0	0	100	0	0	100
	Coleoptera	14.2	28.5	57.1	0	0	0	100
	Hemiptera	0	0	0	100	0	0	100
	Arachnida	0	25	25	50	0	0	100
Mollusca	Gastropoda	19.5	0	2.1	67.3	10.8	0	100
	Bivalvia	26.9	11.5	42.3	3.8	7.6	7.6	100
Annelida	Oligocheata	5.2	5.2	5.2	73.6	5.2	5.2	100
	Hirudinea	0	0	0	60	40	0	100

Similar results were observed in molluscs and annelids as highest number of organisms were observed from class Gastropoda 31 (67.3%) and in sub-class oligocheata 14 (73.6%) respectively during the month of January. Figures 1, 2-3 represents individual contribution of the organisms belonged to each class/sub-class/order of phylum Arthropoda, Mollusca and Annelida.

Figure 1
Contribution of each class/order of Phylum Arthropoda at River Zhob.

Figure 2
Contribution of each class of Phylum Mollusca at River Zhob.

Figure 3
Contribution of each sub-class of phylum Annelida at River Zhob.

Monthly variations in pH, air temperature (°C), water temperature (°C), TDS and DO at four stations of River Zhob during the study period is presented in Figures 4, 5, 6, 7-8. It was observed, station I has the highest value of pH in the month of February i.e. 8.3, while the lowest pH value was observed at station lV during the month of March (7.6). Station III represented the highest value of TDS (390.9ppm) in the month of December, while the lowest value of TDS (178.9ppm) was observed at the station I during the month of January. Moreover, maximum DO (9.0 ppm) was observed in January at station I and the minimum DO (6.5 ppm) was observed in the month of October at station III.

Figure 4
Monthly variations in air temperature (°C) at four stations of River Zhob during whole study period.

Figure 5
Monthly variations in pH at four stations of River Zhob during whole study period.

Figure 6
Monthly variations in TDS (ppm) at four stations of River Zhob during whole study period.

Figure 7
Monthly variations in water temperature (°C) at four stations of River Zhob during whole study period.

Figure 8
Monthly variations in DO at four stations of River Zhob during whole study period.

Table 6 presents summarized monthly mean values of water quality parameters from all the four stations during study period. Monthly mean values of different water quality parameters were compared by Fisher’s least significant different test (LSD) that proved significant dissimilarities in all the water quality parameters like air temperature, water temperature, TDS and DO except pH (Table 7). Results of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) between different water quality parameters and months also showed significant P value (P = 0.000) except in the case of pH (Table 8).

Table 6
Monthly mean values of water quality parameters from all four stations during study period.

Month	Air Temperature (°C) ± SE*	Water Temperature (°C) ± SE	pH ± SE	DO (ppm) ± SE	TDS (ppm) ± SE
Oct	23.6 ±0.30	20.7 ±0.3	7.8 ±o.17	6.8 ±0.2	322.7 ±10.7
Nov	18.3 ±0.37	16.2 ±0.5	8.1 ±0.15	7.3 ±0.1	341.4 ±8.8
Dec	13.7 ±0.77	11.1 ±1.0	8.0 ±0.12	7.8 ±0.1	385.1 ±7.0
Jan	12.4 ±0.62	9.7 ±0.8	7.9 ±0.06	8.6 ±0.4	183.6 ±4.4
Feb	17.3 ±0.72	14.4 ±0.8	8.0 ±0.18	7.2 ±0.3	222.6 ±4.7
Mar	18.4 ±0.61	15.4 ±0.6	7.8 ±0.21	7.2 ±0.2	270.9 ±3.1

• ^*
  SE = Standard Error.

Table 7
Comparision of means among water quality parameters by Fisher’s least significant different test (LSD).

Water quality parameters	October	November	December	January	February	March
Air Temperature	23.6 A*	18.3 B	13.7 C	12.4 C	17.3 B	18.4 B
pH	7.8 A	8.1 A	8.0 A	7.9 A	8.0 A	7.8 A
TDS	322.7 C	341.4 B	385.1 A	183.6 F	222.6 E	270.9 D
Water Temperature	20.7 A	16.2 B	11.1 D	9.7 E	14.4 C	15.4 BC
DO	6.8 D	7.3 C	7.8 B	8.6 A	7.2 C	7.2 C

• ^*
  The different alphabets in a row denote significant values.

Table 8
One-way analysis of means (ANOVA) between water quality parameters and months.

Water quality parameters	r (%)	r2 (%)	F**	P***
Air Temp X Months	81.15	80.10	77.49	*0.000
pH X Months	6.60	1.41	1.27	0.283
TDS X Months	99.20	99.15	2228.47	*0.000
Water Temp X Months	80.50	79.41	74.30	*0.000
DO X Months	52.03	49.37	19.52	*0.000

• ^*
  Significant.
• ^**
  F; ANOVA coefficient.
• ^***
  P; Probability.

Strong correlation between different variables of water quality such as water temperature and air temperature, DO and air temperature and water temperature was observed by the help of Pearson’s correlation (Table 9).

Table 9
Pearson correlation among different variables of water quality.

Variables	Air Temp	pH	TDS	Water Temp
pH	-0.08 (0.432)
TDS	0.23 (*0.019)	0.06 (0.534)
Water Temp	0.98 (*0.000)	-0.06 (0.541)	0.277 (*0.006)
DO	-0.70 (*0.000)	0.07 (0.474)	-0.30 (*0.003)	-0.69 (*0.000)

• The values under bracket show P- value.
• ^*
  Significant.

4. Discussion

The Macro-invertebrates are considered as important factor in determining chemical, physical and biological suitability of any ecosystem (Barbour et al., 1996; El-Wakeil and Al-Thomail, 2015). Macro-invertebrate’s absence from a particular site is considered as an alarming sign which leads to the indication of pollutant in that area. Variety in populations of different macro-invertebrates confirms favourable ecological condition of water and environment in the present studied site especially abundant concentration of DO in the water body.

Our study suggested that order dipetera was the most abundant order (58.9%) amongst arthropods. The dipterans dominancy has also been acknowledged by many other researchers in tropical ecosystem. Dipterans were recorded highest in number by Ogbeibu, (2001) and Hutchinson, (1993) in their studies. Moreover, trichoptera were recorded in moderate number as compared to dipetera. Trichoptera are usually intolerable to pollutants hence considered as biological indicator of water quality (Holzenthal et al., 2015).Similarly, the Ephemeroptera were recorded in lower numbers as Ephemeroptera also have a tendency to live in uncontaminated water, and their lower numbers in this study may be an indication of pollutants present in River Zhob.

The recorded benthic macro-invertebrates of this study were the common inhabitants of freshwater ecosystem. Many studies suggested variation in availability such as, Ajao and Fagade, (2002) reported over sixty species of macro-invertebrates, while, Ganie et al., (2014) recorded only 26 species of macro-invertebrates in a study on Lar Stream, Kashmir.

There are several factors involve in diversity of community composition. As reported by Neckles et al., (1990), Castella et al., (1995) and Growns and Growns (2001) that the community composition is usually altered by any change in movement regimes in the river. These finding are in line with the studies of Ogbeibu and Victor, (1989), Egborge, (1991) and Ogbeibu and Oribhabor, (2002), that reported influence of road construction, river impoundment, and industrial effluents on the macro-invertebrates and plankton communities of Nigerian water bodies.

Occurrence of a large number of limited specific species and reduction in diversity is a common community response against any environmental problem (Fowler, 2002). Decline diversity portrays environmental stress at studied site. Moreover, McIntosh, (2000) observed that the community structure strongly influenced by the relationship amongst biotic factors with the lack of disturbance. Many reported species (oligocheates) are resident of contaminated water (Millbrink, 1994). Occurrence of these species at the studied site may be the consequence of bacterial decomposition of organic matter that requires DO in large quantities, which ultimately affects the volume of oxygen in water as well as the abundance and distribution of macro-invertebrates.

Station IV was found to be the highly abundant and diversified of all the stations that could be a result of minimum anthropogenic interference at the site. This may play an important role in sustaining the ecology of the site with the reduction of pollution load causing material unsuitable for the growth of macro-invertebrates. Subsequently, for sensitive group of macro-invertebrates, highly impacted sites cannot provide suitable habitat.

Physico-chemical parameters of River Zhob like air temperature, water temperature, pH, total dissolved solids (TDS) and dissolved oxygen (DO) were within the suitable range for the healthy growth and development of macro-invertebrates. The highest numbers of macro-invertebrates were reported in the month of January. Hence, it is suggested that the physio-chemical parameters have influence the abundance of these macro-invertebrates at the study site.

Anthropogenic activities has a huge impact on aquatic habitat of an ecosystem consequently, disturbs biodiversity of the macro-invertebrates. Iyagbaye et al. (2017) reported extreme change in species abundance of the benthic fauna in Ovia River of the Nigeria.

Absence of environmental policies, management and conservation strategies of renewable resources at the study site could be the basic reason of this reduced Macro-invertebrates fauna. Formation and implementation of strategies for an effective water resource management is a key to cease depletion and pollution of river ecosystem.

References

• ADAKOLE, J.A., MBAH, C.E. and DALLA, M.A., 2003. Physicochemical limnology of Lake Kubanni, Zaria-Nigeria. In: 29th WEDC International Conference: Towards the Millennium Development Goals, 22-26 Sepetember 2003, Abuja, Nigeria. Loughborough, United Kingdom: WEDC-Loughborough University, pp. 165-168.
• AJAO, E.A. and FAGADE, S.O., 2002. The benthic macrofauna of Lagos Lagoon. The Zoologist, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1-15.
• ALLAN, J.D., 1995. Stream ecology: structure and function of running waters New York: Chapman and Hall. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0729-7
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0729-7
• ARIMORO, F.O., IKOMI, R.B. and IWEGBUE, C.M., 2007. Water quality changes in relation to Diptera community patterns and diversity measured at an organic effluent impacted stream in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. Ecological Indicators, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 541-552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.06.002
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.06.002
• BARBOUR, M.T., GERRITSEN, J., GRIFFITH, G.E., FRYDENBORG, R., MCCARRON, E., WHITE, J.S. and BASTIAN, M.L., 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 185-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1467948
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1467948
• BEGUM, F., RUBINA, K.A., KHAN, A., HUSSAIN, I., ISHAQ, S. and ALI, S., 2014. Water quality assessment using macroinvertebrates as indicator in sultanabad stream (Nallah), Gilgit, Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences, vol. 5, pp. 564-572.
• BOYD, C.E., 1982. Water quality management for pond fish culture Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• CASTELLA, E., BICKERTON, M., ARMITAGE, P.D. and PETTS, G.E., 1995. The effects of water abstractions on invertebrate communities in UK streams. Hydrobiologia, vol. 308, no. 3, pp. 167-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00006869
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00006869
• DURAN, E., 2006. Healing the soul wound: counseling with American Indians and other native peoples New York: Teachers College Press.
• EDOKPAYI, C.A., OKENYI, J.C., OGBEIBU, A.E. and OSIMEN, E.C., 2000. The effect of human activities on the macrobenthic invertebrates of Ibiekuma stream, Ekpoma, Nigeria. Bioscience Research Communications, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 79-87.
• EGBORGE, A.B.M., 1991. Industrialization and heavy metal pollution in Warri River Benin City: University of Benin. 32nd inaugural lecture.
• EL-WAKEIL, K.F.A. and AL-THOMAIL, M.M., 2015. A comparision of fresh water macroinvertebrates communities Wadi Al-Arj, Taif, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Research, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 2477-2484.
• EMERE, M.C., 2000. Parasitic Infection of the Nile Perch Latesniloticus (L) in River Kaduna. Journal of Aquatic Sciences, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 51-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jas.v15i1.19988
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jas.v15i1.19988
• ESENOWO, I.K. and UGWUMBA, A.A.A., 2010. Composition and abundance of macrobenthos in Majidun River, Ikorordu Lagos state, Nigeria. Research Journal of Biological Sciences, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 556-560. http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/rjbsci.2010.556.560
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/rjbsci.2010.556.560
• IYAGBAYE, L.A., IYAGBAYE, R.O. and OMOIGBERALE, M.O., 2017. Assessment of benthic macro-invertebrates of freshwater ecosystem: a case study of Ovia River (Iguoriakhi), Edo State, Nigeria.European Scientific Journal, vol. 13, no. 26, 405-422.
• FOWLER, R.T., 2002. Relative importance of surface and subsurface movement on benthic community recovery in the Makaretu River, North Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 459-469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2002.9517101
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00288330.2002.9517101
• FREUND, J.G. and PETTY, J.T., 2007. Response of fish and macroinvertebrate bioassessment indices to water chemistry in a mined Appalachian watershed. Environmental Management, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 707-720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0116-3 PMid:17387548.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0116-3
• GANIE, M.A., PAL, A.K. and PANDIT, A.K., 2014. Water quality assessment of Lar Stream, Kashmir using macroinvertebrates as variable tolerants to diverse levels of pollution. Pakistan Entomologist, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 73-78.
• GEORGE, J.S., LAVE, K.A., WIEDENBECK, M.E., BINNS, W.R., CUMMINGS, A.C., DAVIS, A.J., NOLFO, G.A., HINK, P.L., ISRAEL, M.H., LESKE, R.A., MEWALDT, R.A., SCOTT, L.M., STONE, E.C., VON ROSENVINGE, T.T. and YANASAK, N.E., 2009. Elemental composition and energy spectra of galactic cosmic rays during solar cycle 23. The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 698, no. 2, pp. 1666-1681. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1666
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/698/2/1666
• GROWNS, I.O. and GROWNS, J.E., 2001. Ecological effects of flow regulation on macroinvertebrate and periphytic diatom assemblages in the Hawkesbury–Nepean River, Australia. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 275-293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rrr.622
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rrr.622
• HART, A.I. and ZABBEY, N., 2005. Physico-chemistry and benthic fauna of Woji Creek in the Lower Niger Delta, Nigeria. Environment and Ecology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 361-368.
• HOLZENTHAL, R.W., THOMSON, R.E. and RÍOS-TOUMA, B., 2015. Order Trichoptera. In: J.H. THORP and D.C. ROGERS, eds. Thorp and Covich’s freshwater invertebrates: ecology and general biology Amsterdam: Academic Press, pp. 965-1002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385026-3.00038-3.
• HUTCHINSON, G.E., 1993. A treatise on limnology New York: John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4.
• IDOWU, E.O. and UGWUMBA, A.A.A., 2005. Physical, chemical and benthic faunal characteristics of a southern Nigeria reservoir. The Zoologist, vol. 3, pp. 15-25.
• INFANTE, C., SOSA‐RUBI, S.G. and CUADRA, S.M., 2009. Sex work in Mexico: vulnerability of male, travesti, transgender and transsexual sex workers. Culture, Health & Sexuality, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 125-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691050802431314 PMid:19140056.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691050802431314
• JHA, A.P., STANLEY, E.A., KIYONAGA, A., WONG, L. and GELFAND, L., 2010. Examining the protective effects of mindfulness training on working memory capacity and affective experience. Emotion, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 54-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018438 PMid:20141302.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018438
• KALKMAN, A.J., VERBRUGGEN, A.H., JANSSEN, G.C.A.M. and GROEN, F.H., 1999. A novel bulge-testing setup for rectangular free-standing thin films. The Review of Scientific Instruments, vol. 70, no. 10, pp. 4026-4031. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1150029
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1150029
• KARR, J.R. and CHU, E.W., 1999. Restoring life in running waters: better biological monitoring Washington: Island Press.
• KASANGAKI, A., BABAASA, D., EFITRE, J., MCNEILAGE, A. and BITARIHO, R., 2006. Links between anthropogenic perturbations and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in Afromontane forest streams in Uganda. Hydrobiologia, vol. 563, no. 1, pp. 231-245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-0009-8
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10750-005-0009-8
• MCINTOSH, A.B., 2000. Aquatic predator–prey interactions. In: K.J. COLLIER and M.J. WINTERBOURN, eds. New Zealand stream invertebrates: ecology and implications for management Christchurch: New Zealand Limnological Society, pp. 125-156.
• MILBRINK, G., 1994. Oligochaetes and water pollution in two deep Norwegian lakes. In: T.B. REYNOLDSON and K.A. COATES, eds. Aquatic oligochaete biology V Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 213-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0842-3_24
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0842-3_24
• NECKLES, H.A., MURKIN, H.R. and COOPER, J.A., 1990. Influences of seasonal flooding on macro-invertebrate abundance in wetlands habitats. Freshwater Biology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 311-322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1990.tb00274.x
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1990.tb00274.x
• NESEMANN, H., SHARMA, G. and SINHA, R., 2011. Benthic macro-invertebrate fauna and” marine elements” sensu Annandale (1922) highlight the valuable dolphin habitat of river Ganga in Bihar-India. Taprobanica, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 18-30.
• OGBEIBU, A.E. and ORIBHABOR, B.J., 2002. Ecological impact of river impoundment using benthic macro-invertebrates as indicators. Water Research, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 2427-2436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00489-4 PMid:12153008.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(01)00489-4
• OGBEIBU, A.E. and VICTOR, R., 1989. The effects of road and bridge construction on the bank-root macrobenthic invertebrates of a southern Nigerian stream. Environmental Pollution, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 85-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0269-7491(89)90168-1 PMid:15092480.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0269-7491(89)90168-1
• OGBEIBU, A.E., 2001. Distribution, density and diversity of dipterans in a temporary pond in Okomu forest reserve, southern Nigeria. Journal of Aquatic Sciences, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 43-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jas.v16i1.20002
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jas.v16i1.20002
• OLOMUKORO, J.O. and EGBORGE, A.B.M., 2003. Hydrobiological studies on Warri River Nigeria. Part II: seasonal trend in the physico-chemical limnology. Tropical Freshwater Biology, vol. 12, pp. 9-23.
• SHARMA, S., SUDHA, D. and DAVE, V., 2013. Macroinvertebrate community diversity in relation to water quality status of Kunda River (MP), India. Discovery Publication, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 40-46.
• SHRESTHA, S.M., 1990. Seroepidemiology of hepatitis B in Nepal. The Journal of Communicable Diseases, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 27-32. PMid:2230016.
• VERMEULEN, A., 1995. Dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate and aging. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 774, no. 1, pp. 121-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1995.tb17376.x PMid:8597452.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1995.tb17376.x
• VOSHELL JUNIOR, J.R., SMITH, E.P., EVANS, S.K. and HUDY, M., 1997. Effective and scientifically sound bioassessment: opinions and corroboration from academe. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 941-954. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807039709383738
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807039709383738
• WALKER, J.L., 1995. Service encounter satisfaction: conceptualized. Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 5-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876049510079844
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876049510079844

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  12 Sept 2022
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  21 May 2022
• Accepted
  29 July 2022