Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 12(09), 68-79
68
Journal Homepage: - www.journalijar.com
Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/19429
DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/19429
RESEARCH ARTICLE
LIMNOLOGY OF RIVER JHELUM WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ENTOMOFAUNAL DIVERSITY
AND PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Sumiya Sarwar1, Purnima Shrivastava2 and Mohammad Farooq Mir3
1. Department of Zoology, Bhagwant University, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
2. Dean Research, Bhagwant University, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. Hydrobiology Research Laboratory, S. P College, Cluster University, Srinagar.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………....
Manuscript Info Abstract
……………………. ………………………………………………………………
Manuscript History
Received: 05 July 2024
Final Accepted: 09 August 2024
Published: September 2024
Key words:-
Entomofauna, Diversity, Water Quality,
Pollution
The current study was undertaken to investigate the Entomofaunal
diversity and physico-chemical features of River Jhelum in Kashmir
valley. Entomofauna was collected by using a handmade D-frame net,
while as physico-chemical analysis of water was conducted according
the standardmethods of the APHA (2004). A total of 17 insect taxa
were recorded, whichbelong to 7 orders and 13 families. The average
population density of entomofauna was estimated 457 ind./m2 with
order Diptera as most dominant group. Physico-chemical analysis of
River waters revealed alkaline, and had hard water nature of River
waters. The upper courses of River Jhelum witnessed higher
Entomofaunal diversity due to less anthropogenic stress as compared to
middle courses, which face higher anthropogenic stress.
Copyright, IJAR, 2024,. All rights reserved.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………....
Introduction:-
Aquatic insects are amongst the most abundant animals on planet Earth and constitute the essential constituents of
an aquatic ecosystem. They constitute around 60%of aquatic fauna inhabiting freshwater habitats and represent the
most diverse group of animals (Balian et al., 2008). It has been found that about, 76,000 known species of aquatic
insects are adapted to all kinds of fresh water aquatic ecosystems including ponds, rivers,lakes, reservoirs, streams,
ground water and wetlands. These insects spend their life stages, mostly eggs and larvae in the water while adults
are typically terrestrial. Majority of the aquatic insects inhabit shallow waters of littoral zone, where the light
penetrate the bottom zone, while as few aquatic insects inhabit limnetic and profundal zones (McCafferty, 1981).
Insects are cosmopolitan in distribution and grouped in 13 taxonomic orders, of which Odonata,Trichoptera,
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Megaloptera are completely restricted to fresh water with aquatic larval stages,
whilethe remaining eight orders (Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Collembola, Diptera, Lepidoptera, Hymenoptera,
Neuroptera and Orthoptera) are represented by terrestrial as well as aquatic or semi-aquatic species with order
Diptera being the largest group, comprising nearly half of all aquatic insects(Barman, 2014).
Aquatic insects play an ecologically significant role in proper functioning of freshwater ecosystem. They contribute
in decomposition and nutrient recycling, thus enhance the productivity of aquatic ecosystems. They are used as diet
by most fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and small mammals. Thus, they are important link in food chains and
food webs (Wilson, 1923).High diversity and density of aquatic insects in any water body ensure theavailability of
food to other animals during specific period of time (Dudgeon, 1999). Aquatic insect fauna is known to process
nutrients from coarse particulate organic matter and fine particulate organic matter that are plentiful in freshwater
Corresponding Author:-Sumiya Sarwar
Address:-Department of Zoology, Bhagwant University, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 12(09), 68-79
69
aquatic ecosystems but are not freelyaccessible for other animals as they are either too large or too small for
consumption. Aquatic insect fauna may be consumed by other freshwater and terrestrial predators and thus
contribute towards energy flow in the community (Nair et al., 2015). Since pre-historic times many aquatic insects
are consumed by humans as a source of nutrients. The eggs, larvae, pupae and adults of over 250 species of aquatic
insect fauna have been used as food in different countries around the world including Central and South America,
Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand. These aquatic insects are an excellent source of nutrients like proteins,
fats, carbohydrates, minerals (Iron, Zinc etc), vitamins and essential amino-acids (Macadam and Stockan, 2017).
The practice of employing aquatic insects as bio control agents has resulted in the control of several species of
exotic aquatic weeds that have out-competed numerous native species and have become problematic in several parts
of the world. Apart from weed control, few aquatic insects are known to prey upon many harmful insects like
mosquito larvae, which act as vector of various diseases (Lee, 1967; Aditya et al., 2006). Aquatic insects also play
role as biological indicators water quality. They respond to specific fluctuations in water parameters and thus, their
presence or absence indicates the degree of pollution in aquatic ecosystem. From the past few decades there has
been an increasing concerns regarding environmental problems caused by undesirable anthropogenic activities.
Efforts are being made globally to keep a regular check on water quality that mainly focuses on physico-chemical
analysis. Monitoring abiotic components of a water body is not satisfactory enough to fully depict its status or
reliably identify adverse impacts of pollution, which greatly impactsaquatic biota. Thus, now-a-days biological
monitoring is gaining reputation wherein living organisms are used to determine the well-being of an aquatic
ecosystem (Gudooet al, 2020). However, it must be noted that standard physicochemical analysis cannot be
completely be replaced by biomonitoring procedures alone, both can be employed in conjunction for a
comprehensive assessment of water quality of freshwater ecosystems. In developed countries scientists have been
using aquatic insects forbio assessment or biomonitoring, but less attention has been given in the Asian countries
using aquatic insects as bio indicators(Morse et al. 2007).
Fresh water insects are model organismsevaluating the quality of an aquatic ecosystem because of their high
richness and diversity in most of water bodies, community consisting of both pollution tolerant and pollution
sensitive species, longer life cycles, ability to respond to multiple stresses and slight fluctuations in their
environmental conditions, their easy identification and collection methods (Gudooet al, 2020). Keeping in view the
above highlighted facts about aquatic insects, the current study was undertaken for a period of one years extended
from March, 2019 to February, 2020 to study the diversity of aquatic insects in River Jhelum in Kashmir valley.
Materials and Methods:-
Study site:
River Jhelum is a major tributary among the five major tributaries namely Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Satluj of
Panjab region. The Jhelum River is commonly known as “Vyeth” in Kashmiri, “Vetesta” in Sanskrit and
“Hydaspes” in Greek. It is situated in a longitudinal depression in great Northwestern complex of Himalayan ranges.
River Jhelum originates from a famous spring of Kashmir known as “ChashmaVerinag”, which is located at the foot
of PirPanjalin South Eastern part of Kahmir valley(Anantnag). It is the main water gateway, which drains the entire
valley of Kashmir and finally merges with the River Indus in Pakistan. The total geographical area of Jhelum upto
Indo-Pakistan border is about 34775sq.kms. with a total length of 402kms. The length of River Jhelum in India upto
ceasefire line is about 165 kms. with a catchment area of approximately 17622 sq. kms and lie within the
geographical coordinates of 320 – 58lto 350- 38lNorthLatitude and 73 – 23l to 75o– 35lEast longitude and is mainly
confined to valley of Kashmir in India (Singh and Rashid, 2020; Javaid and Gowhar, 2022). The Jhelum River is
encircled by mountain ranges covered with snow from the month of October to May. River Jhelum has 24
tributaries, some draining from PirPanjal ranges and join the river from left flank and some flowing from Himalayan
range and join the river from right flank. During its courseuptothe town of Anantnag three major tributaries
including SandranRiver, BrinjiRiver and Arapath joins its right flank. LidderRiverfed by multiple glaciers joins its
right flank at 2km downstream of Khannabal town. River Vishowand Rambiara merge with Jhelum on its left flank
at 4.82kms. upstream from Sangam town. In between Srinagar and Sangam, river Jhelum receives watlara and
Arapal streams on the right flank and Rambiara, Sasara and Romuhistreams on its left flank. Just before river
Jhelum enter the main city of Srinagar, it is joined by a stream from Dal Lake near Shergari. Below the city of
Srinagar, the water flow of Dudh Ganga merges with the river and down below Sind nallah combines with it near
Shadipora on its right bank. At Bonyari 20km downstream, the waters of Jhelum leads to WularLake, which controls
its flow. Emerging from the lake, Jhelum river runs westward and cross PirPanjal in a george some 7000 feet deep,
which ends at Khadanyar, Baramulla.. The Jhelum River divides into two channels in Khadanyar. The river then
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 12(09), 68-79
70
flows through Uri town to Muzaffarbad before leading to Pakistan. (Khalida Hassan et al., 2014; ShakilRomshoo,
2016; CWC, 2011-2023).
Fig. 1:- Map of River Jhelum with Sampling stations.
Table 1:-Description of study sites.
Collection and analysis of water samples:
Sampling was performed on seasonal basis for a period of one years stretched from March 2019 to February 2020.
Water samples were collected in iodine treated polyethylene plastic bottles from each sampling station. Physico-
chemical analysis was performed according to standard methods of APHA, 2004. Water temperature, depth,
dissolved oxygen (DO), pH and free carbon dioxide were measured in the field during water sample collection,
while electrical conductivity, total alkalinity,total hardness, chlorides, nitrate, and total phosphorous, were analyzed
at the hydrobiology research laboratory in S.P. College, Srinagar.
Study Sites
Latitude
Longitude
Characteristics
Verinag
33°32,128,,N
75°15,036,,E
Fast current, bottom with boulders, pebbles, cobbles,
gravel, sand and silt
Kokernag
33°35,.202,,N
75°17,926,,E
Fast current, bottom with boulders, pebbles, cobbles,
gravel, sand, silt, leaf litter etc.
Sangam
33°55,25,,N
74° 0,494,,E
Gravel, sand Mud and organic debris
Srinagar
32°35,870,,N
75°21´120,, E
Gravel, sand Mud and organic debris
Asham
33°54,3,,N
75°0,45,,E
Gravel, sand Mud and organic debris
Baramulla
33°57,5,,N
74°58,57,,E
Gravel, sand Mud and organic debris
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 12(09), 68-79
71
Collection, preservation and identification of aquatic insects:
Aquatic insects were collected by passing a D-frame net through the vegetation present along the margins of water
body. In case of flowing water body, the net was held downstream. The gravel and sand at the bottom were
disturbed, so that the benthos or insects hidden under the stones move out and get trapped into the net. The insects
trapped in net were then put into a white pan containing some water and were collected using forceps or brush. The
insects crawling around the vegetation and pebbles were also collected by hand-picking method and forceps. Most
of the surface swimming insects like water striders and wriggling beetles were collected by sweeping the net through
the water surface (Hassan et al, 2014, Gudooet al, 2020, Radika Singh, 2022). At each site three samples were
obtained monthly
The insect samples collected were preserved in well labelled plastic vials containing 70% alcohol with few drops of
glycerine (Gudooet al, 2020, Radika Singh, 2022).Preserved samples of insect taxa were identified to the lowest
possible taxonomic level according to standard taxonomic works of Edmondson (1959), Pennak (1978), Tonapi
(1980) and Adoni (1985).
The density (no. of individuals/m2) was calculated by using formula:
No. of individuals/m2 = N×10000/A × S
Where,
N = no. of individuals in sampler.
A = area of sampler
S = no. of samples taken at each site.
Diversity indices
For calculating species diversity, Shannon-Wiener diversity index Simpson’sdiversity index was used.
Shannon-wiener diversity index (H)
It takes into account both the abundance and evenness of the species present in the given sample and it increases with
increase in diversity (Gudooet al, 2020, Radika Singh, 2022).
S
H= -∑pi×logpi
I =1
Where,
H = Shannon-Wiener index
Pi = Proportion of total species belonging to ith species
S= number of species
∑= sum from species i to species s
Simpson’s diversity index (D)
It gives more weightage to dominant species in the sample and it decreases with increase in diversity. (Gudooet al,
2020, Radika Singh, 2022).
S
D= -∑(pi)2
I =1
Where
D = Simpson’s index
pi = Proportion of total number of individuals of each species.
S = Total number of individuals in the community
Margalef’s richness index
Margalef’s richness index was calculated by the formula given below:
D = (S-1) ÷ Ln (N)
Where,
D = Margalef’s richness index
S = total number of species
N = total number of individuals in a sample
ln = log normal
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 12(09), 68-79
72
Results and Discussion:-
Physicochemical report of River Jhelum in given in table-2
The alterations in physico-chemical parameters of water provides valuable information about the quality of water.
Water Temperature:
In an aquatic ecosystem temperature is of ecological significance as it regulates its various biotic and abiotic features
(Katariaet al, 1995, Gudooet al, 2020, Radikasingh, 2022).During the present study, well-marked variations were
observed in water temperature at different sampling stations. The average water temperature fluctuated from a
minimum of 10.1± 3.44 C0at Verinagsampling stationto a maximum of 11.7 ± 5.41°C at Srinagar sampling station.
Water Temperature is known to be influenced directly by the temperature of air and follows same trend of alteration
by exhibiting higher values in summers and a fall in winters.
Depth
The depth of water body plays a significant role in shaping the quality of water. Any variation in depth or water
level in an aquatic ecosystem is mainly controlled by climatic factors including rate of evaporation, precipitation etc.
The heating of water due in shallow nature ofwater bodies influence the interactions between various living and non-
living components of an aquatic ecosystem (Sawhney, 2008). During current study, average depth varied from
maximum of 450 cm ±120.85 at Srinagar sampling stationto minimum of 39 cm at Kokernag sampling station.
pH:
pH is the measure of hydrogen ion concentration in an aquatic ecosystem (Wetzel, 2001). It is an important
physicochemical parameter affecting overall changes in hydrobiological characters (Shastree et al., 1991).pH
changes are influenced by carbonates, bicarbonates and carbon complexes in water (Singh, 2022). During present
survey, mean pH value of varied from minimum 7.22 ± 0.22 at Verinag sampling station to maximum of 8.1± 0.12
at Sangam sampling station.The higher pH values indicated the alkaliphilous nature of water, attributed to sewage
influx from immediate catchments into the water body (Umerfaruq and Solanki 2015, Gudooet al, 2020).
Electrical conductivity:
Electrical Conductivity is the capacity of a substance or solution to conduct electrical current. During current study,
conductivity ranged from maximum of 309±35.34μS cm−1 at Srinagar sampling station to minimum of 210.10 ±
21.71μS cm−1 at Verinag sampling station. High electrical conductivity particularly in Sangam, Asham, Srinagar and
Baramulla is attributed to and increasing organic and inorganic loading in lakes from immediate catchments (Gudoo
et al, 2018; Gudoo et al, 2020).
Dissolved oxygen (DO):
Dissolved oxygen helps in evaluating any change in quality of water and regulate the metabolic processes of all
living forms in water. DO concentration of an aquatic ecosystem varies with temperature, turbulence, photosynthetic
activity etc. (Gudoo et al, 2018). During current study, DO content varied from a maximum of 11.1 ± 2.67mg L−1 at
Verinag sampling station to minimum of7.9 ± 0.31mg L−1 at Asham sampling station. The decrease in DO content
of sampling stations except Verinag and Kokernag is due to input of organic matter into the river from catchment
areas.
Free carbon dioxide:
In a water bodies carbon dioxide reacts with water and lead to formation of carbonic acid which on decomposition
form carbonates and bicarbonates and thus cause alteration pH of water.During current study, mean free carbon
dioxide content varied from a maximum of 11.3±1.49mg L−1 at Asham sampling station to minimum
of8.80±1.87mg L−1 at Verinag sampling station. Lowervaluesoffree carbon dioxide concentration was recorded
particularly in spring and summer at Verinag and Kokernag sampling station, possibly due to increased algal
photosynthesis and less organic matter loading (Aura et al. 2011, Gudoo et al, 2020)
Chloride content:
Chloride content in water is an excellent indicator of organic matter load.The high chloride concentration reflect the
organically polluted nature of water body. (Venkatasubramani and Meenambal., 2007, Gudoo et al, 2018). During
present study, chloride content in River Jhelum ranged from maximum 13.2 ± 6.55 mg L−1 at Sangam sampling
station to minimum 4.3 ± 2.33 mg L−1 . The increase in chloridecontent of sampling stations except Verinag and
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 12(09), 68-79
73
Kokernag is due to higher input of organic matter into the river from catchment areas (Ahangar, 2014, Gudoo et al,
2020.)
Nitrate-nitrogen:
Nitrates are common form of inorganic nitrogen in aquatic ecosystem produced by the action of nitrifying bacteria
on nitrogen rich agricultural and domestic wastes (Dar et al., 2013). During present study, Nitrate-nitrogen content
ranged from maximum 312±58.33μg L−1at Srinagar sampling station to minimum 31.82 ± 4.89μg L−1 at Verinag
sampling station. Higher concentration of nitrate was found during summer seasonand minimum during winter and
spring. The summer maxima may be attributed to increased rate of decomposition of organic matter (Naik 2015).
Total Phosphorous:
Phosphorus is primary cause eutrophication in aquatic ecosystem. Main sources of Phosphorous are domestic
sewage and agricultural run-off containing fertilizers. During present study, total phosphorus concentration ranged
from a minimum 132.32 ± 49.20 mg L−1 at Verinag sampling station to maximum 151 ± 62mg L−1 at Sangam
sampling station.
Total hardness:
Hardness reflects concentration of metallic cations like Calcium, magnesium, carbonates, bicarbonates, sulphates,
chlorides, nitrates, soap, detergent and organic matter in water. During the study period, total hardness of River
Jhelum ranged from a minimum 166.34 ± 19.71mg L−1 at Verinag sampling station to maximum 233.5±25.84mg L−1
at Srinagar sampling station. The hardness of Jhelum water indicate its hard water nature with total hardness values
greater than 150mg/l. The higher total hardness values in sampling stations exceptVerinag and Kokernag is
attributed to more agricultural runoff and sewage input (Bashir et al, 2017; Gudoo et al, 2018).
Table2:-Physico-chemical report (Mean values) of River Jhelum.
Parameters (unit)
Verinag
Kokernag
Sangam
Srinagar
Asham
Baramulla
Water temperature
(0C)
10.10± 3.44
10.0. ± 3.47
11.50 ± 4.11
11.70±5.45
11.30 ± 3.12
11.60±3.14
Depth (cm)
1500
39
310 ± 123..30
450±120.85
327±131..30
344±113.34
pH
7.22 ± 0.22
7.934 ± 0.69
8.1± 0.12
7.8±0.11
8± 0.13
7.7±0.13
Conductivity (μS
cm−1)
210.10 ±
21.71
232.70± 22.69
299 ± 28.59
309±35.34
287 ± 23.44
292±25.49
Dissolved Oxygen
(mg/l)
11.1 ± 2.67
9.9 ± 1.97
8.0 ± 0.44
8.2±0.75
7.9 ± 0.31
8.1±0.,33
Carbon dioxide
(mg/l)
8.80±1.87
8.89±.1.91
10.3±1.66
9±1.88
11.3±1.49
9.1±1.87
Alkalinity (mg L−1)
112.13±19.23
118.12±21.32
161±14.73
158±12.36
169±15.83
159±1.45
Chloride (mg/l)
4.3 ± 2.33
5.6.58± 4.35
13.2 ± 6.55
12.9±3.11
11.2 ± 5.55
11.9±5.83
Nitrate-Nitrogen
(μg/l)
31.82 ± 4.89
48.70 ± 7.81
272 ±41.81
312±58.33
284 ±45.89
297±51.77
Total phosphorous
(mg/l
132.32 ±
49.20
137.62 ± 98.1
151 ± 62
145±59
142 ± 44
143±51
Total Hardness
(mg/l)
166.34 ±
19.71
178.32 ±
20.88
205± 27.76
233.5±25.84
225± 37.66
230±23.11
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 12(09), 68-79
74
Insect fauna of River Jhelum:
During the survey extending from March, 2019 to February, 2020 a total of 17 insect taxa were recorded from 6
sampling stations of River Jhelum, representing 7 orders and 13 families. The systematic list of insects in given in
table-3.
Table3:- Systematic list of Insect fauna in River Jhelum.
S.No.
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Taxa
1
Arthropoda
Insecta
Diptera
Chironomidae
Chironomussp
2
Diamesinae sp.
3
Tabanidae
Tabanus sp.
4
Simuliidae
Simulium sp.
5
Ceratopgonidae
Bezzia sp.
6
Odonata
Gomphidae
Gomphus sp.
7
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Baetis sp.
8
Caenidae
Caenis sp.
9
Plecoptera
Perlidae
Perlidaesp
10
Coleoptera
Dytisicidae
Coptotomussp
11
Dytiscus sp.
12
Trichoptera
Limniphilidae
Limnephilus sp.
13
Ryacophilidae
Ryacophilaobscura
14
Ryacophila basalis
15
Hemiptera
Corixidae
Corixa sp.
16
Sigara sp.
17
Gerridae
Gerris sp.
The average population density of entomofauna was estimated 457ind./m2. Order Diptera (5 species) was dominant
group with mean population density of 148ind/m2 followed by Hemiptera (3 species) with 80ind/m2 , Coleoptera (2
species) with 68ind/m2, Trichoptera (3 species)with 52ind/m2, Ephemeroptera (2 species) with 51ind/m2, Odonata (1
species)with32ind/m2, and Plecoptera (1 species)with 27ind/m2 (Table-3). The percent contribution by each insect
order is given in fig. 2.
The total population density ofentomofauna at Verinag sampling station was estimated 333ind/m2with Trichoptera
as most dominant group with 102ind/m2 followed by Ephemeroptera with 79ind/m2, Dipterawith 50ind/m2,
Plecoptera each with 36ind/m2, Hemiptera with 34ind/m2,Coleoptera with 20ind/m2and Odonata 12ind/m2. (Table-
3). A total of 17 species (5 Dipterans, 1 Odonata, 2 Ephemeropterans, 1 Plecopteran, 3Trichopterans, 2
Coleopterans and 3 Hemipterans) were recorded at this sampling stationincludingChironomous sp. (10ind/m2),
Diamesinae sp. (12ind/m2), Tabanus sp. (12ind/m2), Simulium sp. (8ind/m2), Bezzia sp. (8ind/m2), Gomphus sp.
(12ind/m2), Baetis sp. (34ind/m2), Caenis sp. (45ind/m2), Perlidae sp. (36ind/m2), Limnephilus sp. (40ind/m2),
Ryacophilaobscura (30ind/m2), Ryacophilabasalis ((12ind/m2),Coptotomus sp. (12ind/m2), Dytiscus sp. (8ind/m2),
Corixa sp. (12 ind/m2), Sigara sp. (10ind/m2) and Gerris sp. with 12ind/m2.(Fig. 3).
At Verinag sampling station, Shannon wiener index, Simpson’s index and Margalef’s index were computed as 2.69,
0.8 and 2.75 respectively.
The total population density ofentomofauna at Kokernag sampling station was estimated 332ind/m2withTrichoptera
as most dominant group with 88ind/m2followed by Ephemeroptera with 72ind/m2, Diptera with 66ind/m2,
Hemiptera with 42ind/m2, Coleoptera with 18ind/m2,Plecopter with 32ind/m2and Odonata with 14ind/m2(Table-3).
A total of 17 species (5 Dipterans, 1 Odonata, 2 Ephemeropterans, 1 Plecopteran, 3Trichopterans, 2 Coleopterans
and 3 Hemipterans) were recorded at this sampling stationincluding Chironomous sp. (14ind/m2), Diamesinae sp.
(16ind/m2), Tabanus sp. (14ind/m2), Simulium sp. (12ind/m2), Bezzia sp. (10ind/m2),Gomphus sp. (14ind/m2),
Baetis sp. (36ind/m2), Caenis sp. (36ind/m2), Perlidae sp. (32ind/m2), Limnephilus sp. (34ind/m2),
Ryacophilaobscura. (28ind/m2), Ryacophila basalis (26ind/m2), Coptotomus sp. (8ind/m2), Dytiscus sp. (10ind/m2),
Corixa sp. (14ind/m2), Sigara sp. (14ind/m2) and Gerris sp. with 14ind/m2. (Fig. 3).
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 12(09), 68-79
75
At Kokernag sampling station, Shannon wiener index, Simpson’s index and Margalef’sindex were computed as
2.71, 0.7 and 2.75 respectively.
The total population density ofentomofauna at Sangam sampling station was estimated 545 ind/m2with Diptera as
most dominant group with 206 ind/m2 followed by Coleoptera with 120ind/m2, Hemiptera with 94ind/m2, Odonata
with 45ind/m2, Plecopters with 32ind/m2, Tricoptera with 26ind/m2and Hemiptera with 22ind/m2(Table-3). A total
of 16 species (5 Dipterans, 1 Odonata, 2 Ephemeropterans, 1 Plecopteran, 2 Trichopterans, 2 Coleopterans and 3
Hemipterans) were recorded at this sampling stationincluding Chironomous sp. (76ind/m2), Diamesinae sp.
(54ind/m2), Tabanus sp. (36ind/m2), Simulium sp. (18ind/m2), Bezzia sp. (22ind/m2), Gomphus sp. (45ind/m2),
Baetis sp. (14ind/m2), Caenis sp. (18ind/m2), Perlidae sp. (26ind/m2), Limnephilus sp. (18ind/m2), Ryacophila sp.
(4ind/m2), Coptotomus sp. (45ind/m2), Dytiscus sp. (75ind/m2), Corixa sp. (34ind/m2), Sigara sp. (28ind/m2) and
Gerris sp. with 32ind/m2. (Fig. 3).
At Sangam sampling station, Shannon wiener index, Simpson’s index and Margalef’s index were computed as 2.6,
0.8 and 2.38 respectively.
The total population density ofentomofauna at Srinagar sampling station was estimated 517 ind/m2with Diptera as
most dominant group with 180 ind/m2 followed by Hemiptera with 106ind/m2, Coleoptera with 82ind/m2,
Ephemeroptera with 46ind/m2, Odonata with 44ind/m2, , Tricoptera with 35ind/m2and Plecoptera with
4ind/m2(Table-3). A total of 16 species (5 Dipterans, 1 Odonata, 2 Ephemeropterans, 1 Plecopteran, 2 Trichopterans,
2 Coleopterans and 3 Hemipterans) were recorded at this sampling stationincluding Chironomous sp. (76ind/m2),
Diamesinae sp. (36ind/m2), Tabanus sp. (26ind/m2), Simulium sp. (20ind/m2), Bezzia sp. (22ind/m2), Gomphus sp.
(44ind/m2), Baetis sp. (24ind/m2), Caenis sp. (22 ind/m2), Perlidae sp. (24ind/m2), Limnephilus sp. (22ind/m2),
Ryacophila sp. (13ind/m2), Coptotomus sp. (42 ind/m2), Dytiscus sp. (40ind/m2), Corixa sp. (34ind/m2), Sigara sp.
(34ind/m2) and Gerris sp. with 38ind/m2. (Fig. 3).
At Srinagar sampling station, Shannon wiener index, Simpson’s index and Margalef’s index were computed as 2.68,
0.7 and 2.4 respectively.
The total population density ofentomofauna at Asham sampling station was estimated 505 ind/m2with Diptera as
most dominant group with 200 ind/m2 followed by Hemiptera with 91ind/m2, Coleoptera with 86ind/m2,
Ephemeroptera with 38ind/m2, Odonata with 34ind/m2, , Tricoptera with 34ind/m2and Plecoptera with
22ind/m2(Table-3). A total of 16 species (5 Dipterans, 1 Odonata, 2 Ephemeropterans, 1 Plecopteran, 2
Trichopterans, 2 Coleopterans and 3 Hemipterans) were recorded at this sampling stationincluding Chironomous sp.
(80ind/m2), Diamesinae sp. (44ind/m2), Tabanus sp. (28ind/m2), Simulium sp. (22ind/m2), Bezzia sp. (26ind/m2),
Gomphus sp. (34ind/m2), Baetis sp. (18ind/m2), Caenis sp. (20ind/m2), Perlidae sp. (22ind/m2), Limnephilus sp.
(22ind/m2), Ryacophila sp. (12ind/m2), Coptotomus sp. (44ind/m2), Dytiscus sp. (42ind/m2), Corixa sp. (35ind/m2),
Sigara sp. (22ind/m2) and Gerris sp. with 34ind/m2. (Fig. 3).
At Asham sampling station, Shannon wiener index, Simpson’s index and Margalef’s index were computed as 2.65,
0.7 and 2.4 respectively.
The total population density ofentomofauna at Barmula sampling station was estimated 509 ind/m2with Diptera as
most dominant group with 184 ind/m2 followed by Hemiptera with 110ind/m2, Coleoptera with 82ind/m2,
Ephemeroptera with 41ind/m2, Odonata with 40ind/m2, , Tricoptera with 30ind/m2and Plecoptera with
22ind/m2(Table-3). A total of 16 species (5 Dipterans, 1 Odonata, 2 Ephemeropterans, 1 Plecopteran, 2
Trichopterans, 2 Coleopterans and 3 Hemipterans) were recorded at this sampling stationincluding Chironomous sp.
(72ind/m2), Diamesinae sp. (32ind/m2), Tabanus sp. (32ind/m2), Simulium sp. (24ind/m2), Bezzia sp. (24ind/m2),
Gomphus sp. (40ind/m2), Baetis sp. (22ind/m2), Caenis sp. (19 ind/m2), Perlidae sp. (22ind/m2), Limnephilus sp.
(20ind/m2), Ryacophila sp. (10ind/m2), Coptotomus sp. (36 ind/m2), Dytiscus sp. (46ind/m2), Corixa sp. (38ind/m2),
Sigara sp. (32ind/m2) and Gerris sp. with 40ind/m2. (Fig. 3).
At Barmulla sampling station, Shannon wiener index, Simpson’s index and Margalef’s index were computed as
2.68, 0.7 and 2.4 respectively.
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 12(09), 68-79
76
According to Danzetal., (2005), biological indicator species are ecologically very significant tools for the valuation
andmonitoring of water quality and the impact of anthropogenic activities on the aquatic ecosystems. During the
current, following pollution indicator species including both pollution sensitive and pollution tolerant species have
been recorded.
Pollution sensitive species recorded in present study belong to order Ephemeroptera (Baetis sp. and Caenis sp.),
Plecoptera (Perlidae sp.) and Trichoptera (Limnephilussp, Ryacophoraobscura and Ryacophila basalis), while as other
species particularly Chironomous sp. is considered as pollution tolerant species.These observations draw support from
the research of earlier workers who havealso reported these species from the non-polluted and polluted water in their
studies. Jindal and Sharma 2011;Sharm andSaini, 2016, Gudoo et al, 2020). The present study shown that the EPT
group was more noticeable and comparatively more abundant at Verinag and Kokernag sampling stations, which
clearly indicate that they thrive better in clean water conditions with less anthropogenic stress like input of domestic
sewage, agricultural wastes etc. at these sites. Similarly high abundance of pollution tolerant species particularly
Chironomous species at Sangam, Asham, Baramulla and Srinagar sampling stations indicate the organically polluted
conditions at the study sites, which may be attributed to input of domestic sewage , agricultural wastes into the water
body from immediate catchment areas. Similar kind of findings were reported by Timm et al. 2001; Khan et al. 2007.
And Gudooet al.2020 in their studies.
Entomofaunal abundance was found minimum at Verinag (333 ind./m2) and Kokernag (332 ind./m2) sampling
stations and maximum at Sangam (545 ind./m2), Asham (505 ind./m2), Barmulla (509 ind./m2) and Srinagar (517
ind./m2) sampling stations, but opposite was witnessed with respect to Shannon’s diversity index,Margalef’s diversity
indices shows a declining trend from Verinag to Srinagar sampling stations, which indicate that entomofaunaldiversity
decrease with increase in water pollution. Conversely, population density of pollution resistant species increase with
increasing anthropogenic pressure, which can be attributed to the fact that the anthropogenic pressure declines the
species diversity and increase the dominance of pollution tolerant species due to abundant organic matter loading in
water body from catchment areas. The fact is also supported by high DO content in head waters and low DO content
in river with increasing distance from head waters. These observations coincide with the findings of Hassan et al.
2018 and Gudoo et al. 2020.
Table 3:- Population density (ind./m2) of insect fauna at various sampling stations in River Jhelum.
Sites
Diptera
Odonata
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Coleoptera
Hemiptera
Total
ind/m2
Verinag
50
12
79
36
102
20
34
333
Kokernag
66
14
72
32
88
18
42
332
Sangam
206
45
32
26
22
120
94
545
Srinagar
180
44
46
4
35
82
106
517
Asham
200
34
38
22
34
86
91
505
Baramulla
184
40
41
22
30
82
110
509
Mean
148
32
51
27
52
68
80
457
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 12(09), 68-79
77
Fig. 2:-Percent contribution by insect order at various sampling stations of River Jhelum.
Fig. 3:- Population density (ind./m2) of Entomofauna at various sampling stations of River Jhelum.
Conclusion:-
Based on the current study, it was witnessed that River Jhelum is capable of supporting high Entomofaunaldiversity.
Order Diptera was found most diverse group with maximum number of individuals, and thus their presence can be
employed as biological indicator of organically polluted waters. Similarly presence and abundance of EPT can be
employed as biological indicators of clean water conditions with less anthropogenic stress.Further, anthropogenic
pressure in the immediate catchment area of River water was observed as potential force behind the current
32%
7%
11%
6%
11%
15%
18%
Diptera
Odonata
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Coleoptera
Hemiptera
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Verinag
Kokernag
Sangam
Srinagar
Asham
Barmula
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 12(09), 68-79
78
ecological conditions of river. The current work is hoped to furnish valuable information that would offer
ecologically significant help in future for ecological assessment of aquatic ecosystems and ecorestoration of water
bodies. Further, the response of entomofauna to changes in physico-chemical changes in water label them as
excellent biological indicators of water quality.
References:-
1. Wilson CB (1923). Water beetles in relation to pondfish culture, with life histories of those found in fishponds
at Fairport, Iowa. Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, 39: 231-345.
2. Edmonson, W.T. (1959). Freshwater Biology. John Wily and Sons, New York, London
3. Lee FC (1967). Laboratory observations on certain mosquito larval predators. Mosquito News, 27(3): 332-338.
4. Pennak RW (1978). Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States. 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, New
York. 803 pp.
5. Tonapi GT (1980). Freshwater animals of India. An Ecological Approach. Oxford and IBH publishing co.,
New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta. 341pp.
6. McCaffertyWP (1981). Aquatic entomology: the fishermen’s and ecologists’ illustrated guide to insects and
their relatives. Science Books International, Boston. 448 pp.
7. Adoni AD. (1985). Work Book of Limnology. Pratibha Publication, Sagar
8. Kataria HC, Iqbal SA and Sandilya AK (1995). Limnochemical studies of Tawa Reservoir. International
Journal of Environment and Pollution. 16(11): 841-846
9. Dudgeon D (1999). Tropical Asian streams: Zoobenthos. Ecology and Conservation. Hong Kong University
Press: Hong Kong.
10. Wetzel RG (2001). Limnology: lake and river ecosystems. Academic Press. San Diego. 1006 pp.
11. Timm H., Mols T. (2001).Macrozoobenthos of Lake Vervi. Hydrobiologia547: 185–195.
12. APHA. (2004). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water. 20th Ed. American Public
Health Association, Washington.
13. Danz NP, Regal RR, Niemi GJ, Brady VJ, Hollenhorst T, Johnson LB, Host GE, Hanowski JM, Johnston
CA, Brown T, Kingtson JC and Kelly JR (2005). Environmentally stratified sampling design for the
development of Great Lakes environmental indicators. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 102: 41-65.
14. Aditya G, PramanikMK and Saha GK (2006). Larval habitats and species composition of mosquitoes in
Darjeeling Himalayas, India. Journal of Vector Borne Diseases, 43(1): 7-15.
15. VenkatasubramaniR and Meenambal T. (2007). Study of sub-surface water quality in Mattupalayam Taluk
of Coimbatore district Tamil Nadu. Natural Environmental Pollution Technology, 6:307- 310.
16. Khan AN, Kamal D, Mahmud MM, Rahman MA, Hossain MA. (2007). Diversity, distribution and
abundance of benthos in Mouri River, Khulna, Bangladesh. J. Sust. Crop Prod. 2: 19–23.
17. Balian EV, Segers HH, Lévêque C and Martens K (2008). An introduction to the Freshwater Animal
Diversity Assessment (FADA) project. Hydrobiologia, 595(1): 3-8.
18. Morse JC, Bae YJ, Munkhjagral G, Sangpradub N, Tanida K, VshivkovaTS, Wang. B, Yang L and Yule
CM (2007). Freshwater biomonitoring with macro-invertebrates in East Asia. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 5: 33-42.
19. Sawhney N. (2008). Biomonitoring of River Tawi in the vicinity of Jammu City. Ph.D. Thesis. University of
Jammu, Jammu.
20. Jindal R and Sharma C (2011). Biomonitoring of pollution in river Sutlej. International Journal of
Environmental Sciences. 2(2): 863-872.
21. Aura CM., Raburu PO., Hermann J. (2011).Macroinvertebrate community structure in rivers Kipkaren and
Sosiani, River Nzoia basin, Kenya. J. Ecol. Nat. Environ. 3: 39–46.
22. Barman. B (2014). The importance of aquatic insects as biomonitors of freshwater ecosystem. International
Journal of Environment and Natural Sciences, 1: 82-85.
23. Ahangar IA. (2014).Physico-chemical characteristics of Anchar Lake Srinagar with reference to plankton,
primary productivity and fisheries. Thesis, Jiwaji University, Gwalior.
24. Khalida H, Yousuf AR, Zargar U, Jamila I and Rehman M. (2014). Distribution Pattern of Macro
invertebrates across River Jhelum in Kashmir valley. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies,
1(6): 113-120.
25. Naik G, Rashid M, Balkhi MH(2015). Changes in physico-chemical parameters at different sites of Manasbal
Lake of Kashmir, India. Fisher. Aquacult. J. 6: 1–4.
26. Umerfaruq QM., Solanki HA. (2015).Physico-chemical parameters of water in Bibi Lake, Ahmedabad,
Gujrat, India. J. Pollut. Effects Contr. 3: 134.
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 12(09), 68-79
79
27. Nair GA, Morse JC and Marshall SA (2015). Aquatic insects and their societal benefits and risks. Journal of
Entomology and Zoology Studies, 3(3): 171-177.
28. Shakil R (2016). State of India’s Rivers for India Rivers week. India Rivers week-Jhelum, 1-109.
29. Sharma KK and Saini M (2016). Macrobenthic invertebrate assemblage along gradients of the river Basantar
(Jammu, J&K) in response to industrial wastewater. International Journal of Environmental and Agriculture
Research. 2(5): 127-140.
30. Macadam CR and Stockan JA (2017). The diversity of aquatic insects used as human food. Journal of Insects
as Food and Feed, 3(3): 203-209.
31. Bashir M, Chauhan R, Khan S, Mir FM, Ashraf M, Amin N(2017). Impact of anthropogenic pressure on the
water quality of Anchar Lake in Kashmir. J. Chem. Biol. Phys. Sci. 7: 91–96.
32. Gudoo MY, Mir MF and Gupta A. (2018).A study on physico chemical parametersto determine the pollution
status of a warm monomictic lake of Kashmir, J & K, India. International Journal of Advance Research in
Science and Engineering, 7(4):630-640
33. Gudoo MY, Mir MF and Gupta A. (2020).Limnological profile of a semi-urban lentic ecosystem of Kashmir
with special reference to the macroinvertebratecommunityofAnchar lake. Environmental and Experimental
Biology, 18:207-219.
34. Rashid G and Singh R (2020). Present status of fish diversity and their copnservational measures for
sustainable fish production in the Vaishav stream of Kashmir Himalaya, India. Journal of Critical Reviews,
7(16):3654-3663.
35. Javaid H and Gowhar R (2022). Impact of some anthropogenic activities on the morphology of River Jheklum
, Kashmir Himalaya, India. Journal of Critical Reviews, 9(3):162-168.
36. Singh. R (2022). Diversity of aquatic insects and their in biomonitoring pollution status of some water bodies
of Jammu division. University of Jammu.
37. Central Water Commission (CWC), Government of India, ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of water
resources(2011-2023). Hydrometerological water year book. https://cwc.gov.in.
