Macroinvertebrates
Macroinvertebrate taxa of the tailrace of Dikhow River with their relative densities and percentage composition are presented in Table 3. Bival
via were recorded in maximum number as compared to others followed by gastropoda,
Fenneropeneus indicus. It is to be mentioned that these three are pollution tolerant species as compared with the standard tolerance values .Tolerance and Family biotic index values are summarized in the Table 4 and Table 5 respectively. Tolerance values of recorded macroinvertebrates ranged between 4 and 10. Among the taxa the highest community was contributed by pollution tolerant Gastropods, Bival
via, Decapoda (prawns)and Diptera (midges) with tolerance level 8.
Biological water quality criteria (BWQC)
The result of biological water quality criteria in the studied stations are summarized in Table 6. Based on the range of saprobic and diversity values of the benthic macro invertebrate families were displayed for the five sampling sectors. In sector I, lower saprobic value was seen during pre-monsoon season (5.38), followed by winter (5.39) and post-monsoon (5.42) as compared to that of monsoon. Diversity score also comparatively lower in post-monsoon season (0.35). In sector II, lower saprobic values were seen during pre-monsoon, post-monsoon and winter seasons (5.5 in each) as compared to monsoon (6). Diversity score also decreased from post monsoon (0.42) and pre-monsoon(0.40). In sector III, saprobic score was found to be lower in pre-monsoon (3.96) followed by winter (4) and post-monsoon (4.55). Diversity score also comparatively higher in monsoon (0.42) and lower in pre-monsoon (0.32). In sector IV, lower saprobic score was recorded during pre-monsoon and winter (5), followed by post-monsoon season (5.32). Diversity score also higher during monsoon (0.51) and lower during winter (0.45). In sector V, saprobic score was comparatively lower winter (6.4) and higher in monsoon (6.8). Diversity score was also lower in winter (0.56) and higher in monsoon (6.8). Thus it has been noticed that in all the sectors, the trend of water quality was same, that is only slight improvement during monsoon seasons and back to same condition at post monsoon which may be due to a higher flow rate and flooding nature of the river during monsoon, as all were seen to be flood prone areas.
The highest population of macroinvertebrates is contributed by Physidae family of class Gastropoda of Phylum Mollusca followed by family Pannidae of class crustacea. Pannidae is followed by family Anomidae of class Bival
via, followed by population of family Hirudinidae of class Hirudinea (Fig 2). Family chaoboridae of class Insecta followed Hirudinidae. Chaoboridae is followed by family chironomidae of class insect (Fig 2). Family Gomphidae,Belostometidae and caennidae of class insect contributed with very low population compared to above mentioned families (Fig 2). Family gammaridae of class Crustacea, nepidae and isotomidae of class insecta showed lowest population during the study period (Fig 2).
The Biotic Index was originally developed by
Hilsenhoff (1982) to provide a single ‘tolerance value’ which is the average of the tolerance values of all species within the benthic arthropod community. The Biotic Index was subsequently modified to the family-level with tolerance values ranging from 0 (very intolerant) to 10 (highly tolerant) based on their tolerance to organic pollution creating the Family Biotic Index (FBI). FBI was further developed by the State of New York to include other macroinvertebrates for the use of the U.S. EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol II
(Plafkin et al., 1989; Bode et al., 1991). The FBI was thus used to evaluate the water quality of each Sector. Although the BI may be applicable for other types of pollutants, it has only been evaluated for organic pollutants (
Hilsenhoff, 1987). In the present study, it was found that in sector II,IV and V, the FBI values were found within 5.51-6.50 that is 6.38, 6.28 and 6.31 respectively, the water quality can be considered as fair. Thus, there may be fairly significant organic pollution (
Hilsenhoff, 1987). But in sector I and III, as the values were (6.52 and 7.47 respectively), between the range of 6.71-7.50, the water quality can be considered as fairly poor and significant organic pollution (
Hilsenhoff, 1987). The reason behind the organic pollution can be described as various anthropogenic factors including disposal of organic wastes, solid waste, animal and human excreta, fly ash, insecticides, bathing, mixing of detergents, soap with water continuously
(Xu et al., 2020; Surendra et al., 2023). The influence of anthropogenic factors were found to be greater in these two sectors.
The FBI score was complemented by BWQC which has been developed by
Central pollution Control Board (CPCB) in 1999. In the present study it was reported that in sector V, the saprobic scores were found to be comparatively higher than the rest sectors. The diversity scores were also comparatively higher in this sector. The water quality in all the seasons in this sector was found to be slightly polluted: but in other four sectors, the water quality was moderately polluted. However, slight pollution was seen during monsoon in sector IIand IV. The range of pollution in sector I and III was found tobe higher as compared to other sectors. This may be as a result of various anthropogenic factors and local land uses. Besides, these sectors can be influenced by the discharge of domestic effluent and by community bathing. Interestingly during pre-monsoon. From the study, it can be said that sectorII, IV and V are less influenced by the human activities when compared to sector I and III. Due to the increase in flow of the stream during monsoon, pollution level seems to decrease slightly and water quality improved and impact of monsoon pilgrimage became evident only during post monsoon where water again became moderately polluted
(Sreejith et al., 2008, As and Biswas, 2023). Abundance of pollution tolerant species of benthic fauna is a clear indication of organic contamination and the enrichment of organic matter in the river (
Mason, 2002;
Sreejith et al., 2008).