ISSN 2348 – 7968 Planktonic Abundance and Diversity In Great...

IJISET - International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2 Issue 9, September 2015.

www.ijiset.com

ISSN 2348 – 7968

Planktonic Abundance and Diversity In Great KWA River, Cross River State, Nigeria

Antai, Ekpo Eyo* and Joseph, Akaninyene Paul

Institute of Oceanography, University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria ABSTRACTS Studies on the abundance and diversity of plankton (phytoplankton and zooplankton) in Great

Kwa River, South Eastern Nigeria, was undertaken bi-weekly for 3 months from July to

September 2013. Samples were collected from two stations based on human activities at these

stations. The Objective of the study was to determine the abundance and Distribution of

various planktonic groups across the sampling stations. Samples were collected using the

pour through method. A total of 26 species and 574 phytoplankton individuals belonging to 4

families were observed during the study. The families represented were Bacillariophyceae

49.83%, Chlorophyceae 21.25%, Chrysophyceae 16.55 and Cyanophyceae 12.37. A total of

23 species and 344 Zooplankton individuals belonging to 5 taxonomic groups were also

identified during the study. The groups represented were Rotifera 28.49%, Arthropoda

24.71%, Palaemonidae 16.86%, Ciliophora 15.12% and Annelida 14.82%. This study showed

diversity in plankton distribution in Great Kwa River and their possible impacts on the local

fisheries is discussed

KEY WORDS: Phytoplankton, Zooplankton, Abundance, Diversity, Great Kwa River, Calabar. *Corresponding Author. Email: ekpo.eyoa @yahoo.com INTRODUCTION Plankton is any drifting organisms that inhabit the pelagic zone of aquatic ecosystems

and they serve as the food base that supports aquatic life. The phytoplankton are the

primary producers which serves as food majorly for zooplankton which in turn serves as

an important source of food to crustaceans and fish (Thurman, 1997). They therefore, serve

as a major source of organic carbon in rivers and may represent an important source of

oxygen in low-gradient aquatic ecosystem. An assessment of plankton community and

abundance will enhance our understanding of biological productivity and fish population

dynamics (Williams 1962, Fagade and Olaniyan 1974, Abohweyere 1990 and Onyema

141

http://www.ijiset.com/


www.ijiset.com

ISSN 2348 – 7968

2007)).

Although phytoplankton distribution and abundance are largely influenced by the light and

nutrient, alteration of their natural environment by man can greatly distort this equilibrium.

These may explain why plankters are used as bioindicators to monitor aquatic pollution.

Zooplankton is ecologically an important group of aquatic organisms that occupy a wide

range of habitats. They constitute essential biotic components which influences the efficiency

of an aquatic ecosystem such as energy flow through various trophic interactions (Park and

Shin, 2007). Copepods have been shown to be the major link between phytoplankton

and first level carnivores while arrow worms are the common carnivores in zooplankton

(Tse et al., 2007).

The species composition, diversity, biomass and season of maximum abundance of

zooplanktonic organisms differ in water bodies (FAO, 2006). The study is designed to

estimate the abundance of various planktonic groups as well as to assess the variations in

abundance and distribution of various planktonic groups across the sampling stations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Study Area and Sample Collection

The study was undertaken at 2 locations at the Great kwa River. Great Kwa River is one of

the main tributaries of Cross River Estuary in Cross River State, Nigeria. It discharges into

the estuary at latitude 4.450N and longitude 8.200E South East Nigeria. Substratum here is

covered with sand and clay with an average depth of 0.1m. It is slow flowing and has low to

medium transparency. It is located in the thick forested belt of South-East Nigeria and

transverses through mangrove to fresh water swamp. The fringes of the river are dominated

by the Nypa fruticans that has displaced mangrove plants, elephant grasses (Pennisetun

purpureun), palm trees (Elias guineesis) and fan palm (Hyphaene petersiana) supporting an

incredible array of animal life. The swampy region is greatly influenced by physical

conditions as the tides continually exhibit fluctuations. The climate is governed by two

seasons the wet (April to October) and the dry (November to March)

142



www.ijiset.com

ISSN 2348 – 7968

Samples were collected from 2 stations (Fig. 1) along Great Kwa River, a tributary of Cross

River estuary. The stations are impacted by human activities. Station 1 (Esuk Atu) has low

transparency and the substratum is mainly sandy clay. Station 2 (Idundu) has medium

transparency with substratum of coarse sand and clay.

Samplings were undertaken fortnightly in the mornings from July to September 2013 by pour

through method. Twenty litres of the water sample were collected just beneath the surface

and poured through 55µm mesh size plankton net. These were repeated 5 time to add up to

100 litres. The planktons were immediately fixed with 5% formalin solution in 50 ml

sampling bottle and transported to the laboratory for analysis and identification. The samples

were concentrated to 10mls to enable analysis.

One ml of the preserved sample was taken using a pipette. This was place into Sedgwick-

rafter counting chamber and viewed under different magnifications (x100 and x400) using a

light binocular microscope (Nikon 400 binocular microscope). These were done in

triplicates. The plankton were identified and sorted into different taxonomical groups with

the aid of appropriate identification schemes (Mann 2000, Prasad 2000, Castro and Huber

2005).

Fig 1: Map of Great Kwa River Showing the Sampling Stations

143



www.ijiset.com

ISSN 2348 – 7968

Ecological diversity indices

In this study, three ecological statistics were used to obtain the estimation of species

diversity, species richness and species evenness.

Margalef’s Index (d): is a measure of species richness and is expressed as:

d = (S – 1)/InN

Where;

d = Species richness index

S = Number of species in the sample

N = Number of individuals in the samples (Margalef, 1951)

Shannon and Weiner’s Index (H): is a measure of species abundance and evenness and is

expressed as:

H = ∑ (Ni/N log2 Ni/N)

Where;

N = The total number of individual in the sample.

Ni = The total number of individuals of species ith in the sample (Shannon and Weiner’s,

1949).

Species Equitability or Evenness (E): is determined by the equation:

E =H/In S

Where;

H = Shannon and Weiner’s index.

S = Number of species in samples (Pielou, 1966).

RESULTS AND DISCISSION

Species Abundance, Diversity Index and Composition of Phytoplankton

The species composition and abundance of the various Phytoplankton taxa encountered at the

2 sampling stations is presented in Table 1.

A total of 26 species and 574 phytoplankton individuals belonging to 4 families were

observed during the study. The most abundant Phytoplankton species was Navicula

petersenni (39 individuals), followed by Rhizosolena stiliformis (36 individuals) and then

Cyclotella comta (35 individuals). Also, the least abundant Phytoplankton species was

144



www.ijiset.com

ISSN 2348 – 7968

Micrasterias sp. (8 individuals), followed by Pinnularia borealis (11 individuals) and then

Coelosphaelium sp. (13 individuals) (Fig 2).

The families represented were Bacillariophyceae, Cyanophyceae, Chlorophyceae and

Chrysophyceae. Bacillariophyceae family was the most abundant, having 286 individuals

(49.82%), followed by Chlorophyceae which had 122 individuals (21.25%), Chrysophyceae

with 95 individuals (16.55%) and Cyanophyceae, having only 71 individuals and a relative

abundance of 12.38% (Figs 3 and 4). Diatom dominance of the phytoplankton waters within

the Niger delta region has been reported in other studies (Akpan 1997, Chinda and Braide

2004, Ekwu and Sikoki 2006 and Essien-Ibok 2013). Contrary, the dominance of

Chlorophyta has been reported in Bonny River (Ajuonu et al 2011). Dimowo (2013) reported

the dominance of Cyanophyta and an absesence of diatom in River Ogun. The high number

of diatoms notice in this study may not be unrelated to high concentrations of silicate in the

Cross River water system. Akapn (1997) reported a strong correlation between silicate and

diatom abundance in the waters of Cross River. Commonly, in an aquatic system where there

is no heavy nutrient inputs possibly from run-off or human inputs, Bacillariophyceae are

usually the predominant, but when nutrient levels is high such that eutrophication occurs,

then the Chlorophyceae could become more abundant than Bacillariophyceae (Akin-Oriola,

2003). The high plankton diversity from the study will support fishery in Great kwa River

and the adjoining Cross River Estuary. Phytoplankton community structure gives a good

evaluation of the stability of aquatic ecosystem and provides a veritable tool for the

assessment of biological activities.

Table 1: Species composition and Abundance of Phytoplankton in the Study Area S/N Phytoplankton families/

Species Station 1 Station 2 Total species

No %RO No No %RO Bacillariophyceae 1 Skeletonema costatum 11 3.82 14 4.89 25 4.36 2 Rhizosolena stiliformis 20 6.94 16 5.59 36 6.27 3 Bidulphia sinensis 12 4.17 8 2.79 20 3.48 4 Coscinodiscus radiates 12 4.17 5 1.75 17 2.96 5 Cyclotella comta 21 7.29 14 4.89 35 6.09 6 Melosira granulate 13 4.51 4 1.39 17 2.96

145



www.ijiset.com

ISSN 2348 – 7968

7 Navicula patersenni 18 6.25 21 7.34 39 6.79 8 Tabellaria fenestrate 12 4.17 22 7.34 34 5.92 9 Gyrosigma sp. 7 2.43 9 3.15 16 2.78 10 Cymbella sp. 8 2.78 7 2.45 15 2.61 11 Pinnularia borealis 8 2.78 3 1.05 11 1.92 12 Surrirela ovalis 6 2.08 15 5.24 21 3.66 286 49.8 Cyanophyceae 13 Lyngbya contorta 7 2.43 13 4.55 20 3.48 14 Oscillatoria rubiscens 8 2.78 14 4.89 22 3.83 15 Coelosphaelium sp. 11 3.82 2 0.69 13 2.26 16 Microcystis acrugiriosa 6 2.08 10 3.49 16 2.78 71 12.38 Chlorophyceae 17 Botryococcus boryanum 11 3.82 22 7.69 33 5.75 18 Tetraspora lubrica 7 2.43 10 3.49 17 2.96 19 Thalassomonas minima 8 2.78 8 2.79 16 2.78 20 Closterium sp. 10 3.47 8 3.49 18 3.14 21 Volvox aurus 16 5.55 14 4.89 30 5.23 22 Micrasterias sp. 7 2.43 1 0.35 8 1.39 122 21.25 Chrysophyceae 23 Dinobryon bavaricum 12 4.17 15 5.24 27 4.70 24 Synura sp. 9 3.13 12 4.19 21 3.66 25 Asterionella sp. 9 3.13 12 4.19 21 3.66 26 Crystochrisis sp. 19 6.59 7 2.45 6 4.53 95 16.55 Total Abundance 288 100 286 99.9 574 100 Shannon weinner index

Margalef index Pielou index (Evenness)

4.53 4.41 1.39

4.48 4.42 1.37

In terms of diversity index, Shannon Weinner diversity index were 4.53 and 4.48, Margalef

Index, 4.41 and 4.42 and Pielou diversity index, 1.39 and 1.37 in Stations 1 and 2

respectively (Table 1).

The Great kwa River is rich in phytoplankton based on the assessment of abundance and

146



www.ijiset.com

ISSN 2348 – 7968

diversity. This river should be protected from anthropogenic activities since this will distort

the nutrient balance and not suitable for the growth of plankton thereby impacting on

biological productivity including fish recruitment and other aquatic lives.

Table 2: Species composition and Abundance of Zoooplankton in the Study Area S/N

Zooplankton families/species Station 1 Station 2 Total species

No %Ro No %Ro No %Ro Rotifera 1 Asplancha priodonta 12 7.02 7 4.05 19 5.52 2 Asplancha girodi 3 1.75 7 4.05 10 2.91 3 Euchalarius sp. 9 5.26 9 5.20 18 5.23 4 Squatinella rustrum 4 2.34 4 2.31 8 2.33 5 Phlodina sp. 9 5.26 11 6.36 20 5.81 6 Keratella eochlearis 8 4.68 6 3.47 14 4.07 7 Conochilus unicornis 6 3.51 3 1.73 9 2.62 98 28.49 Arthropoda(Crustacea) 8 Leptodora sp. 9 5.26 5 2.89 14 4.07 9 Calanus calanus 4 2.34 8 4.62 12 3.49 10 Calanus finmarchirus 5 2.92 9 5.20 14 4.07 11 Euchalanus elongates 8 4.68 7 4.05 15 4.36 12 Pseudocalanus elongates 6 3.51 - - 6 1.74 13 Oithona rana 6 3.51 13 7.51 19 5.52 14 Limnocalanus macrurus 2 1.17 3 1.37 5 1.45 85 24.70 Ciliophora (Ciliata) 15 Strambildium strobilus 7 4.09 12 6.94 9 5.52 16 Strambildium conicum 7 4.09 3 1.73 10 2.91 17 Leptotintinnis peliucidus 4 2.34 5 2.89 9 2.62 18 Stensmella nivalis 10 5.85 4 2.31 14 4.07 52 15.12 Annelida (Polychaeta) 19 Neceis deversicolor 12 7.02 11 6.36 23 6.68 20 Autolysis edwardsi 13 7.60 15 8.67 28 8.14 51 14.82 Palaemonidae (Shrimp) 21 Macrobrachium vollenvohenii 12 7.02 12 6.94 24 6.98 22 Macrobrachium Macrobrachion 10 5.85 12 6.94 2 6.39 23 Macrobrachium equidens 5 2.92 7 4.05 12 3.49 58 16.86 Total Abundance

Shannon Weinner index Margalef Index Pielou index (Evenness)

171 3.85 4.28 1.23

100 173 3.90 4.08 1.26

99.9 344 99.9

147



www.ijiset.com

ISSN 2348 – 7968

Fig 2: Phytoplankton species abundance in the study area

Fig 3: Phytoplankton taxonomic abundance in the study area

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Skele

tone

ma

costa

tum

Rhizo

solen

a sti

liform

isBi

dulph

ia sin

ensis

Cosc

inodis

cus r

adiat

usCy

clote

lla co

mta

Melo

sira

gran

ulata

Navic

ula p

eter

senn

iTa

bella

ria fe

nestr

ata

Gyro

sigm

a sp

Cym

brell

a sp

.Pi

nnula

ria b

orea

lisSu

rrire

la ov

alis

Lyng

bya

cont

orta

Oscil

lator

ia ru

bisce

nsCo

elosp

haeli

um sp

.M

icroc

ystis

acr

ugirio

saBo

tryoc

occu

s bor

yanu

mTe

trasp

ora

lubric

aTh

alass

omon

as m

inim

aCl

oste

rium

sp.

Volvo

x aur

usM

icras

teria

s sp.

Dino

bryo

n ba

varic

umSy

nura

sp.

Aste

rione

lla sp

.Cr

ysto

chris

is sp

.

Num

erica

l Abu

ndan

ce

Phytoplankton species

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Bacillariophyceae Cyanophyceae Chlorophyceae Chrysophyceae

Num

erica

l Aab

unda

nce

Phytoplankton families

148



www.ijiset.com

ISSN 2348 – 7968

Fig 4: Relative Abundance of the Phytoplankton Families in the Study area

Fig 5: Zooplankton species abundance in the study area

Bacillariophyceae 50%

Cyanophyceae 12%

Chlorophyceae 21%

Chrysophyceae 17%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Aspla

ncha

prio

dont

aAs

planc

ha g

irodi

Euch

alanu

s sp.

Squa

tinell

a ru

strum

Philo

dina

spKe

rate

lla e

ochle

aris

Cono

chilu

s unic

ornis

Lept

odor

a sp

.Ca

lanus

calan

usCa

lanus

finm

arch

irus

Euch

alam

us e

longa

tus

Pseu

doca

lamus

elon

gatu

sOi

thon

a ra

naLim

noca

lanus

mac

runu

sSt

rom

bilidi

um st

robil

usSt

rom

bilidi

um co

nicum

Lept

otint

innis

peliu

cidus

Sten

smell

a na

valis

Nere

is div

ersic

olor

Auto

lytus

edw

ards

iM

acro

brac

hium

volle

nvoh

enii

Mac

robr

achiu

m m

acro

brac

hion

Mac

robr

achiu

m e

quide

ns

Nu

mer

ical A

bund

ance

Zooplankton species

149



www.ijiset.com

ISSN 2348 – 7968

Fig 6 : Zooplankton taxonomic abundance in the study area

Fig 7: Relative Abundance of the Zooplankton taxonomic groups in the study area

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Rotifera Arthropoda Ciliophora Annelida Palaemonidae

Num

erica

l Aab

unda

nce

Zooplankton family

Rotifera 28%

Arthropoda 25%

Ciliophora 15%

Annelida 15%

Palaemonidae 17%

150



www.ijiset.com

ISSN 2348 – 7968

Species Abundance, Diversity Index and Composition of Zooplankton

Summary of the species composition and abundance of the various Zooplankton taxa

encountered at the different sampling stations is presented in Table 2. A total of 23 species

and 344 Zooplankton individuals belonging to 5 phyla were observed during the study.

Zooplankton species abundance is presented in Fig 5.

The results obtained showed the relative abundance of zooplankton followed a decreasing

sequence of Rotifera 28.49% > Arthropoda 24.70 > Palaemonidae 16.86 > Ciliophora

15.12% > Annelida 14.82%. Rotifera was the most abundant phylum, having 98 individuals

and a relative abundance of 28.49%, followed by Arthropoda which had 85 individuals and a

relative abundance of 24.70%. Palaemonidae had a total numerical abundance of 58

individuals and a relative abundance of 16.86%. Ciliophora had 52 individual and a relative

abundance of 15.12%. The least represented Zooplankton phylum was Annelida, having only

51 individuals and a relative abundance of 14.82% (Figs 6 and 7).

In terms of zooplankton diversity index, Shannon Weinner diversity index was 3.85 and 3.90,

Margalef index of 4.28 and 4.08 and Pielou diversity index of 1.23 and 1.26 at Stations 1 and

2 respectively (Table 2).

The dominance Rotifera in the study is similar to the report of Agouru and Audu (2012),

Ajuonu et al. (2011) reported Copepods as the most abundant Zooplankton in Bonny River.

Kibria et al. (1997), Yakubu et al. (1998) and Dimowo also reported that dominance of

Cladocera. This variation could be due to differences in study area, period, phytoplankton

types and availability, nutrients availability, diversity, biomass and the season of maximum

abundance of zooplanktonic organisms differ in water bodies (FAO, 2006).

Great Kwa River is a rich ecological ecosystem with high plankton diversity that can sustain

fishery development. A study of primary and secondary productivity in this water body will

give a better understanding of the trophodynamic within the system. However this can be

affected by anthropogenic input such as industrial and municipal effluents that may likely be

discharged into this River

151



www.ijiset.com

ISSN 2348 – 7968

REFERENCES Abohweyere, P. O (1990). Study of limnological parameters and potential fish yield in Kigera reservoir (Extensive system) in Kainji, New Bussa, Nigeria. Journal of Aquatic Sciences, 5:

53-58 Agouru, C. U and Audu, G. (2012). Studies on the range of plankton in River Benue, North

\central, Nigeria, West Africa. Greener Journal of Biological Sciences, 2(2): 28-34 Ajuonu, N.; Ukaonu, S.U.; Oluwajoba, E.O.; Mbawuike, B.E.; Williams, A.B. and Myade

E.F. (2011). The abundance and distribution of plankton species in the bonny estuary; Nigeria. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America., 2(6): 1032-1037.

Akin-Oriola, G. A. (2003). Phytoplankton of Awa Reservoir, Ibadan, Nigeria. Review of

tropical Biology, 51:1pp. Akpan, E.R. (1997). Spatial and seasonal distribution of phytoplankton in the Cross River

Estuary, Nigeria. A paper delivered at the 6th annual conference of the Nigerian society for biological conservation 26th – 28th November, pp. 23.

Castro, P. and Huber, M. E. (2005). Marine Biology. McGraw-Hill: New York, pp. 222 Chindah, A. C. and Braide, S. A. (2004). The physiological quality and phytoplankton

community of tropical water: A case of 4 biotopes in the lower Bonny River, Niger delta, Nigeria. Caderno de Pesquisa. Ser Bio 16(2): 7-35

Conde, D., Bonilla, S., Aubriot, L., Deleon, R. and Pintos, W. (2007). Relative contribution

of planktonic and benthic microalgae production in an eutrophic coastal lagoon of South America. Journal of Limnology, 78: 207 – 212.

Davis, C. S., Ashijan, C.J. and Alantalo, P. (1996). Reports on Research from Woods Hole.

Oceanographic Institution, pp.39. Dimowo, B. O. (2013). Monthly spatial occurrence of phytoplankton and zooplankton in

River Ogun, Abeokuta, Ogun State, Southwest Nigeria. Journal of Fisheries and Aquaculture, 3(3):193-203.

Ekwu, A. O. and Sikoki, F. D. (2006). Phytoplankton diversity in the Cross River Estuary of

Nigeria. Journal of Applied Science and Environmental Management, 10(1): 89-95.

Essien-Ibok, M. A. (2013). The phytoplankton community structure of a tropical River in

Niger Delta, Nigeria. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 3(8): 76-81

152



www.ijiset.com

ISSN 2348 – 7968

Ewa, E. E., Iwara, E. A., Alade, A. O. and Adeyemi, J. A. (2013). Spatio-temporal Distribution to Phytoplankton in the Industrial Area of Calabar River, Nigeria. Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(3): 466-470.

Fagade, S. O. and Olaniyan, C. I. O. (1974). Seasonal distribution of fish fauna in Lagos

lagoon. Bull. Inst. Fr. Afri. Noire Series A36: 245-252 Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (2006). Interrelationship between Fish and

Plankton in Inland Water. Retrieved from: http.//w.w.w. fao.org/Doc REP/006/X7580E03.htm106k-coached, (Accessed on: September 29, 2007).

Kibria, G.; Nugeogoda, D.; Fairolough, R.; Lam, P. and Bradly, A. (1997). Zooplankton; its

biochemistry and significance in aquaculutre. Naga (Iclam Quart.), 20: 8-14. Lalli, C. M. and Parson, T.R. (1997). Biological Oceanography: An Introduction.2nd Edition,

Butterworth and Heinemann, Oxford. 39-73pp. Mann, K. H. (2000). Ecology of Coastal Waters with implication for Management. 2nd

Edition, Butterworth and Heinemann, Oxford. 314pp. Margalef, D. I. (1949). Diversidad De Species en Las Comunidales Naturals. Publication

institute biological application (Barcelona). 9, 5-27. Okogwu, I.O. ( 2010). Seasonal Variations of Species Composition and Abundance of

Zooplankton in Eboma Lake, a Floodplain Lake in Nigeria. Review of the Biology of Tropics, 58(1): 171-182.

Okorafor,K.A.,Andem,A.B.,Okete,J.A.,Ettah,S.E(2012).TheComposition,Distribution and

Abundance of Macroinvertebrates in the Shores of Great Kwa River,Cross River State, South-east, Nigeria, European journal of zoological research . 1(2):31-36.

Oku, E. E., Andem, A.B., Eni, E.G., Bassey, E.(2013). Arthropods Community of Mangrove

Swamp of Great Kwa River, Southern Nigeria International. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies . 1(2):15-20.

Okorafor K. A., Andem, A. B., Mowang D. A. and Akpan U. U. (2013). Diversity and Spatial

Distribution of Zooplankton in the Intertidal Regions of Calabar River, Cross River State, Nigeria. Advances in Applied Science Research, 4(4):224-231.

Onyema, I. C. (2007). The Phytoplankton Composition, Abundance and Temporal Variation

of a Polluted Estuarine Creek in Lagos, Nigeria. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 7: 89-96.

Park, K. S. and Shin, H. W. (2007). Studies on Phyto and Zooplankton Composition and its

Primary Productivity in West Coast Fish Pond, India. Journal of Environmental Biology, 28:415-422.

Pielou, E. C. (1966). The Measurement of Diversity in different type of Biological

Collections. Journal of theoretical biology, 13:131-144.

153



www.ijiset.com

ISSN 2348 – 7968

Prasad, S. N. (2000). Marine, Biology. Campus Books International 4831/24. Prahlad Street. New Delhi, India, 467pp.

Shannon, C. E and Weiner, W. (1949). The Mathematical theory of communication.

University of Illinois Press-Urbana, 125pp. Thurman, H. V. (1997). Introductory Oceanography. New Jersey, USA; Prentice Hall

College, 250pp. Tse, P; Hui, S. V and Wong, C. K. (2007). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. Journal of

Biological science, 73(1-2): 290-298. Ugouru, C.U. and Audu, G. (2012). Studies on the Range of Plankton in River Benue, North

Central, Nigeria, Western Africa. Greener journal of Biological Sciences, 2(2):28-34.

Wehr, J. D. and Descy, J. P. (1998). Use of Phytoplankton in Large River Management.

Journal of. Phycology, 34: 741-749. Williams, V. N. (1962). The seasonal distribution of the teleost fish fauna in Lagos harbor,

Creek and lagoon in relation to salt tolerance. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Wales Yakubu, A. F., Sikoki, F. D. and Horsfall, J. R. (1998). An Investigation into the Physico-

Chemical Conditions and Planktonic Organisms of the Lower Reaches of the Nun River, Nigeria. Journal of Applied, Science and Environmental Management, 1(1): 38-42.

154


ISSN 2348 – 7968 Planktonic Abundance and Diversity In Great...

Documents

Transcript of ISSN 2348 – 7968 Planktonic Abundance and Diversity In Great...