RESEARCH Vol.

19, 2018
RESEARCH ARTICLE

ISSN
2319–5746
EISSN
2319–5754 Species
Diversity and abundance of Macrobenthos in a
subtropical estuary, Bangladesh
Abdul Matin1, Belal Hossain M1, Mehedi Iqbal2, Md Masum Billah3, Abdulla-
Al-Asif4, Md. Masum Billah5

1. Department of Fisheries and Marine Science, Noakhali Science and Technology University, Sonapur, Noakhali-3802, Bangladesh
2. Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute (AORI), The University of Tokyo, Japan
3. Department of Land Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor Darul Ehsan,
Malaysia
4. Department of Aquaculture, Faculty of Fisheries, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh2202, Bangladesh
5. The United Graduate School of Agriculture Sciences, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, Japan


Corresponding author:
M Mehedi Iqbal, PhD research fellow
Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute (AORI), The University of Tokyo,
5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8564, Japan
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cell: +8108041589278

Authors’ contribution:
AM conceived, designed and performed the experiments. MBH conceived, designed the experiment and supervised the research.
MMI analyzed the data set and revised the manuscript and improved the English language. MMB revised the manuscript and
improved the English language. AAA revised the manuscript. MMB revised the manuscript and improved the English language.

Compliance with Ethical Standards: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency.

Article History
Received: 02 July 2018
Accepted: 18 August 2018
Published: August 2018

Citation
140

Abdul Matin, Belal Hossain M, Mehedi Iqbal, Md Masum Billah, Abdulla-Al-Asif, Md. Masum Billah. Diversity and abundance of
Macrobenthos in a subtropical estuary, Bangladesh. Species, 2018, 19, 140-150
Page

© 2018 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.org OPEN ACCESS

 RESEARCH ARTICLE

Publication License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

General Note
Article is recommended to print as color digital version in recycled paper.

ABSTRACT
Soft bottom macrobenthos are important component of the marine and coastal trophic chain. There has been sparse information
regarding the distribution of soft bottom macrobenthos form the coastal water of Bangladesh. Consequently, the present study was
an effort to reveal the diversity and abundance of macrobenthos in the Feni Estuary in a seasonal pattern together with the
hydrological factors. A total of 17 taxa families of soft-bottom invertebrates were found over the two sampling seasons. The current
study yielded a total number of 34,726 ind./m2 (mean 2480ind./m2) including 18,909ind./m2 in wet season (mean 2682ind./m2) and
15,817 ind./m2 in dry season (2259ind./m2). The highest density of soft-bottom invertebrates was in the wet season while the lowest
number in the dry season. A total of 5 groups of macrobenthos were found over the two sampling seasons. The dominant group
was Polychaeta that contributed 43.60% of the total soft-bottom invertebrates. The values of biodiversity indices were higher in dry
season compare to the wet season in most of the sampling station during the study period.

Key words: Macrobenthos, taxonomic composition, Polychaeta, subtropical estuary.

1. INTRODUCTION
Because of their sessile and sedentary behavior macrobenthos are known to be the common indicators of time integrated
environmental conditions (McLusky and Elliot, 2006). The community of benthic organisms is strongly affected by its environment,
including sediment and water quality, and hydrological factors that influence the physical habitat. Because the macrobenthos are
dependent on its surroundings, it serves as a biological indicator that reflects the overall condition of the aquatic environment
(RAMP, 2017). The variety and abundance of macrobenthos also vary with latitude, depth, water temperature, salinity, locally
determined conditions such as the nature of the substrates, and ecological circumstances such as predation and competition.
Physical, chemical and biological qualities of water are some of the factors that influence species composition, diversity, productivity
and physiological conditions of local populations of a body of water (Boyd, 1979). Macrobenthos are mostly found in the standing
water body where the concentration of organic carbon higher than the others. Environmental condition is mostly responsible for the
variation of benthos in different area those are substratum type, food availability and predation (Dance and Hynes, 1980). Fabry et
al., (2008) reported that one of the causes of global warming and ocean acidification is the rising of atmospheric carbon dioxide
(CO2) which is considered as important drivers of change in biological systems.
Soft-bottom macrobenthos are good sources of food of fish and their availability in a certain area enhances high fish production
(Longhurst, 1957). They are organisms serve as direct food for higher trophic organisms (e.g., fin and shell fishes) and act as
ecological engineer recycling the organic matter and other debris (Assadujjaman et al., 2012). Soft bottom macro-benthos play an
important role in aquatic community which is also involved in mineralization, promotion and mixing of sediments and flux of oxygen
into sediments, cycling of organic matter (Lind, 1979) and in effort to assess the quality of inland water (Milbrink, 1983; Walag and
Canencia, 2016). In addition, a number of benthic invertebrates, particularly clams, are consumed by humans and others, such as
worms, are used for recreational purposes as fishing bait (Tagliapietra et al., 2010).
Macrobenthos communities are considered as a pollution index into the water body where they live and the quantity of macro
invertebrates vary with the change of physiochemical factors and available habitats. Soft-bottom macrobenthos are used as the
tools of bio assessment due to some special characteristics such as limited mobility, comparatively long life cycles and differential
sensitivity to pollution of various types and they reflect the impact of cultural eutrophication on aquatic habitats quite satisfactorily
(Liebmann, 1942; Gordon, 2000).
141

Several research had been conducted using soft-bottom macro-invertebrates as indicators of pollution of invertebrate
community response to changes in physicochemical factors and available habitats globally (Manoharan et al., 2011; Habib and
Page

Yousuf, 2012; Mandal and Harkantra, 2013; Walag and Canencia, 2016). In Bangladesh, in particular, very less is known for the
intertidal macrobenthos (Hossain et al., 2009; Abu Hena et al., 2012; Islam et al., 2013).

© 2018 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.org OPEN ACCESS

 RESEARCH ARTICLE

The study area Feni River Estuary, a typical subtropical estuary is playing a very significant role in the socio-economic
development and progress of the country by providing and ensuring high fish supplies to the local and national markets as well as a
source of livelihood for a large number of peoples especially the local inhabitants. The estuary is also subjected to tourism
activities, high fisheries resources, overexploitation and deterioration. Nevertheless, destruction of natural habitats through
various industrial processes, agricultural waste, and sewage among others. This make the river areas vulnerable to pollution and
cause great harms to the environment. The present study was designed to evaluate the abundance, diversity, distribution,
composition and community structure along the Feni River estuary, Bangladesh.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area
Feni River estuary (also known as Little Feni River estuary; Latitude 22°46′44″ N and Longitude 91°22′42″ E) located in the central
coast of Bangladesh. Feni River originates in the south Tripura district (India) and flows a distance of 116 km through different cities
and municipalities in India and Bangladesh, and finally empties into the Bay of Bengal. The Feni River estuary is heavily used for
irrigation, fishing, agriculture, aquaculture, washing, livestock farming, recreation, dumping domestic waste, sewage disposal and
water based transport (Islam et al., 2018). The present study was conducted in two seasons; wet season (June-September, 2016) and
dry season (October-December, 2016). Seven sampling stations were selected from the mouth to head region of the Feni River
estuary (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Locations of the sampling stations in the Feni River estuary

Sample collection and laboratory treatments

The sediment samples were collected from the sampling sites during the low tide. Sediment sample were taken from the intertidal
zone of the stations using an Ekman Dredge having a mouth opening of 0.0225 m2. From each station, three replicate samples were
collected. The collected sediment samples were sieved through a 500μm mesh screen to get the benthic macro-fauna. The sieved
organisms were immediately preserved with 10% formalin solution in the plastic container with other residues and labeled for
further analysis.
To increase the visibility of benthic macro-fauna, a small amount of “Rose Bengal” was added within the formalin solution of the
plastic container in the laboratory. Benthic fauna were sorted out manually from the other residues on a tray under enough light
availability. Then the sorted organisms were preserved in in 70% ethanol solution in small vials using small forceps. Electronic
Microscope (Model No. XSZ 21-05DN, China) was used to identify the macrobenthic organisms.
142

Physicochemical variables measurement

Water parameter and the sediment samples used for benthic macro-faunal analysis were collected simultaneously. Determination of
Page

in situ water characteristics such as water temperature, salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO) and transparency were carried out using a

© 2018 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.org OPEN ACCESS

 RESEARCH ARTICLE

centigrade thermometer, refractometer (INDEX, Model No. REF201), digital pen pH meter (HANNA Instrument, Model No. H-
196107), DO meter (LUTRON, Model No. DO 5509) and Secchi disc respectively.

Data analysis
On the data, available after total number of macrobenthos counting in a sample, number per square meter occurrence of macro-
benthic organisms were estimated by using the following formula formulated by Welch (1948),

𝑶
N = × 10000
𝒂.𝒔
Where,

N = Number of soft-bottom invertebrates 1 sq. m. of profound bottom

O = Number of soft-bottom invertebrates (actually counted) per sampled area
a = Transverse area of Ekman dredge in sq. cm, and
s = Number of sample taken at one sampling site

The data harvested from seasonal (Wet season and Dry season) samples were blended to provide the value of Shannon-Wiener
index. The Shannon-Wiener index of species diversity (H) (Wilhm and Dorris, 1966) is defined as,

H = -∑𝒔𝒊=𝟏 𝑷𝒊 𝑳𝒏 𝑷𝒊

Where,
S = Total number of species in a sample,
Pi = ni/N = Proportion of individuals of the total sample belonging to the ith species,
N = Total number of individual of all the species,
ni = Number of individual belonging to the ith species.

The Margalef’s Index of Species Richness (D) is simple ratio between total species (S) and total numbers of individual (N). It can
be used to compare one community with another by the following index,

𝒔−𝟏
D=
𝐥𝐧 𝑵
Where,
D = Margalef’s index
S = Number of species in sample
N = Total number of individuals in sample

The Shannon equitability (or evenness) index was obtained from Shannon-Wiener index. Evenness is referred to the absolute
distribution of relative abundance of species at a site, is computed by the following index,

𝑯
J=
𝐥𝐧 𝑺
Where,
J = Evenness index
H = Shannon-Wiener index value
S = Total number of species in sample

Multivariate species analysis

Non-multidimensional Scaling (nMDS) was used to visualize the level of differences of the assemblage’s structures between two dry
and wet season. Macrobenthos assemblages data obtained in the different sampling stations in two seasons were used for this
143

analysis
Page

© 2018 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.org OPEN ACCESS

 RESEARCH ARTICLE

3. RESULTS
Physicochemical variables:
All environmental parameters of the sampling area are shown in Table 1. The water temperature showed a similar fluctuation pattern
among those sampling station, however showed a different fluctuation pattern among sampling season (Table: 1). Temperature
varied from 22.8-24.8○C in the wet season and 30.5-31.4○C in the dry season. The highest water temperature was 31.4○C at station
S1 in the dry season and the lowest temperature was 22.80○C at station S7 in the wet season.
The salinity ranges were 4.9-7.5PSU in the wet season and 4.30-7.5 PSU in the dry season. The maximum water salinity was
7.5PSUat station S1 for both dry and wet season (Table. 1). In general, salinity showed only minor change from wet to dry season
during the two sampling seasons.
The range of pH was 7.8-8.7 in the wet season and 7.0-7.9 in the dry season. The maximum pH was 8.7station S7 recorded in the
wet season and minimum was 7.0 at station S1 in the dry season (Table 1). The range of DO was 5.7-6.8ppm in the wet season and
6.8-9.1ppm in the dry season. The maximum DO was 9.1ppm at station S7 recorded in the wet season and the minimum was 5.7
ppm for both station S1 and S2 in the dry season (Table 1).
The value of transparency was almost alike in the most stations. The range of transparency was 5.0-5.8cm in the wet season and
6.0-6.9cm in the dry season. The maximum value of transparency was 6.9cm at station S4 in the dry season and the minimum value
was 5.0cmat station S3 in the wet season (Table 1).

Table 1 Values of different physicochemical factors recorded in different seasons during the study period (n=3 at each sampling
station and mean of each observation is reported)

Season Wet season Dry season

Station S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7
Temperature (○C) 24.8 24.7 24.7 24.1 23.8 23.2 22.8 31.4 31.3 31.2 30.9 30.8 30.6 30.5
Salinity (PSU) 7.5 7.4 6.8 6.7 6.2 5.6 4.3 7.5 7.4 7.2 6.8 6.2 5.7 4.9
pH 7.8 7.9 8.1 81 8.2 8.6 8.7 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.6 7.7 7.9
DO (ppm) 6.8 6.9 7.1 7.5 7.8 8.2 9.1 5.7 5.7 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.8
Transparency (cm) 6.0 6.2 6.8 6.9 6.5 6.7 6.4 5.8 5.6 5.0 5.2 5.5 5.1 5.3

Table 2 Abundance of macrobanthos family (ind./m2) during the wet season.

Stations

Family S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Total Mean±SD

Ampelisidae 356 756 534 0 1600 0 400 3646 520±548

Anthuroidae 45 89 0 0 0 267 0 401 57±99
Apseudidae 0 89 0 0 0 45 0 134 19±35
Capitellidae 0 0 45 45 0 45 0 135 19±24
Glyceridae 89 45 89 0 0 89 0 312 45±45
Isaeidae 0 45 0 45 267 0 0 357 51±98
Lumbrineridae 178 0 0 0 89 0 0 267 38±70
Megascolecidae 0 89 0 0 45 0 0 134 19±35
Mysidae 178 889 222 889 178 444 533 3333 476±312
Mytilidae 0 45 0 89 45 0 0 268 25±35
Namanereidinae 0 0 45 0 0 45 0 90 13±22
Naticidae 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 45 6±17
Nereididae 578 756 711 579 667 444 356 4091 584±143
Nephthys 223 89 178 45 267 312 356 1470 210±114
144

Nephtyidae 0 89 89 0 133 0 0 311 44±57

Page

Portunidae 90 889 400 311 89 134 267 2180 311±280

Insecta 267 890 0 444 0 134 0 1735 247±328

© 2018 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.org OPEN ACCESS

 RESEARCH ARTICLE

Total 2004 4760 2313 2447 3380 1959 1912 18909 2682±1046

Family taxa 9 13 9 9 10 10 5

Table 3 Abundance of macrobanthosfamily (ind./m2) during the dry season

Stations

Family S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 Total Mean±SD

Ampelisidae 0 45 0 0 89 0 0 134 19±35

Anthuroidae 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 45 6±17
Apseudidae 45 89 0 45 0 45 0 224 32±33
Capitellidae 0 45 0 0 45 0 0 90 12±21
Glyceridae 222 89 0 0 89 45 0 445 63±80
Isaeidae 0 0 45 45 0 89 0 179 25±35
Lumbrineridae 45 178 0 178 222 133 89 845 120±79
Megascolecidae 578 0 178 0 0 0 45 801 114±214
Mysidae 89 45 89 0 267 227 183 900 128±98
Mytilidae 133 267 45 356 89 133 89 1112 158±11
Namanereidinae 0 45 0 89 0 0 0 134 19±35
Naticidae 400 489 178 400 0 0 89 1556 222±205
Nereididae 222 178 89 178 489 444 400 2000 285±156
Nephthys 622 444 756 578 444 507 400 3751 535.86±12
Nephtyidae 400 444 311 0 45 0 0 1200 171±204
Portunidae 311 89 222 178 89 267 312 1468 209±95
Insecta 222 0 311 178 133 0 89 933 133±114
Total 3289 2447 2224 2225 2046 1890 1696 15817 2259±516

Family taxa 12 13 10 10 12 9 9

Biological analysis
A total of 17 taxa (families) of soft-bottom macrobenthos were found over the two sampling seasons. The current study yielded a
total number of 34,726 ind./m2 with a mean of (2480±781) including 18,909 ind./m 2 in wet season with a mean density of
(2682±1046) from all stations and 15,817 ind./m2 in dry season with a mean density of (2259±516) from all stations. The highest
density of macrobenthos were 4760 ind./m2 at station S2 in the wet season while the lowest number 1696 ind./m2 at station S7 in
the dry season (Table 2 & 3).
In wet season, Nereididae, Ampelisidae and Mysidae were obtained the top position with a total of 4,091ind./m2, 3,646 ind./m2
and 3,333 ind./m2 and Naticidae, Namanereidinae, Apseudidae and Megascolecidae were obtained the least position with a total of
45 ind./m2, 90 ind./m2, 134 ind./m2 and 134 ind./m2 respectively. But in dry season, Nephthys, Nereididae and Naticidae were
obtained the top position with a total of 3,751 ind./m2, 2,000 ind./m2 and 1,556 ind./m2 and Anthuridae, Capitellidae and
Ampelisidae were obtained the least position with a total of 45 ind./m2, 90 ind./m2, and 134 ind./m2 (Table 2 & 3).
Nereididae and Nephthys were dominant during the both seasons bearing a mean of 3,046±1478 and 2,611±1612 while
Mysidae, Portunidae and Nephtyidae were also abundant in both of the wet and dry season bearing a mean of 2,117±1720ind./m2,
1,824±503 ind./m2and 756±628 ind./m2 respectively (Table 2 & 3). But in regarding of the rest ten families, their attendance was
scattered at different stations in both sampling seasons. The dominant taxon was Nereididae that contributes 32.28% of the total
soft-bottom invertebrates. Nereididae showed dominance in all stations during each season of the current study.
We also analyzed the major groups of macrobenthos and their contribution. A total of five groups of macrobenthos were found
145

over the two sampling seasons. In the wet season, most dominant group was Crustacea (53%) followed by polychaeta (35%), Insecta
(9%), Bivalvia (2%), and Oligochaeta (1%), (Figure 2a).
Page

© 2018 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.org OPEN ACCESS

 RESEARCH ARTICLE

However, in dry season, most dominant group was polychaeta (53%) followed by Crustacea (19%), Bivalvia (17%), Insecta (6%)
and Oligochaeta (5%), (Figure 2b). In a total, among the five major groups of macrobenthos Polychaeta and Crustacea were
contributed >70% in each sampling seasons.

Figure 2 Total composition of the five major groups of macrobenthos found in the a) wet season b) dry season.

Figure 3 Diversity indices of macrobenthos in two seasons at studied area a) Evenness index (J), b) Margalef richness index (D), and
c) Shannon-Weiner diversity index (H')
146

The value of Shannon-Weiner diversity index (H') ranged from 1.92 to 2.25 during dry season and 1.58 to 2.03 during wet season.
The highest value was 2.25 recorded at station S1 in dry season and the lowest value 1.58 was recorded at station S7 in wet season
Page

during the period of investigation (Figure 3c). The value of Shannon-Weiner diversity index (H') were higher in dry season compare
to the wet season in all sampling station except station S6. The value of Margalef richness index (D) ranged from 1.06 to 1.54 during

© 2018 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.org OPEN ACCESS

 RESEARCH ARTICLE

dry season and 0.53 to 1.42 during wet season. The highest value 1.54 was recorded from the station S2 in dry season and the
lowest value 0.53 was recorded at the station S7 in wet season during the period of observation (Figure 3b). Like Shannon-Weiner
diversity, the value of species richness index (D) were higher in dry season compare to the wet season in all sampling station except
station S6 (Figure 3b).

Figure 4 Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling showing the clustering of the assemblages on dry and wet seasons at different
stations

The value of the Evenness index (J) ranged from 0.71 to 0.79 during dry season and 0.53 to 0.98 during wet season. The highest
value 0.98 was recorded from the station S7 in wet season and also the lowest value 0.53 was recorded at the station S5 in the same
season (Figure 3a). The value of the Evenness index (J) were higher in dry season compare to the wet season in all sampling station
except station S1 and S7 (Figure 3a). Based on the non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (nMDS) plots marked seasonal differences
were observed between the assemblages of the dry and wet season (Figure 4).

4. DISCUSSION
A slightly changes were noticed for water parameters in the present study which with time may certainly affect the assemblage
structure. The diversity, distribution, abundance and composition of macrobenthos in a subtropical estuary are linked with favorable
environmental parameters such as temperature, pH, salinity and dissolved oxygen (Cyrus and Mclean, 1996; Blaber, 2000;
Chowdhury et al., 2011). These differences could be due to seasonal changes in rainfall, salinity and temperature. Generally, most of
the macrobenthos have the tolerance to survive salinity fluctuations (Blaber, 2000). Moreover, changes in salinity may influence the
biological resources of the estuarine waters (Rozengurt and Hedgpeth, 1989; McAllister et al., 2001; Chowdhury et al., 2011). A
slightly change in salinity was noticed during the present study, which may have significant effect on the macrobenthos abundance
and distribution with time. It was also reported changes in species abundance due to a salinity increase according to Maes et al.
(2004), furthermore, McAllister et al. (2001) reported changes in natural recruitment and species abundance in the Caspian Sea due
to an increase in salinity. The water pH in the study area was slightly alkaline with values ranging from 7 to 8.7. The pH value was
aligned with the previous study conducted in subtropical estuary of Bangladesh (Iqbal et al., 2014; Iqbal et al., 2017) and water with
slightly alkaline is suitable for macrobenthos(Gandaseca et al., 2011). Usually, water with a pH lower than 6.5 and higher than 9 are
not suitable for aquatic life (Boyd, 2000).
However, no significant difference in water transparency was observed though, lower transparency was observed in dry
compared to wet season. This may be due to the higher water turbulence downstream at some stations in dry season due to strong
147

tidal fluctuation and anthropogenic causes such as the presence of the fish harbor, jetty, etc., in the mouth of the river. Fluctuations
in water transparency influence the primary productivity which ultimately affects the fish distribution (Arthington and Welcome,
Page

1995; McAllisteret al., 2001). Temperature and dissolved oxygen during the study period were also different among the seasons and
this is in agreement with the findings by Blaber (2000) in other tropical regions. Comparatively lower dissolved oxygen was observed
© 2018 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.org OPEN ACCESS
 RESEARCH ARTICLE

at both stations. Abu Henaand Khan (2009) reported a lower level of DO in the same estuary (1.89-5.37 mg/l), also from another
subtropical estuary (3-5ml/L) in Bangladesh (Iqbal et al., 2014; Iqbal et al., 2017). This may be due to the nearby domestic,
agricultural and industrial waste water discharges which affect the water and sediment quality and lead to a hypoxic condition, as
stated by previous study (Eck van et al., 1991). Dissolved oxygen is one of the most important factors for fish abundance and
distribution. Fish communities are highly affected by temperature within estuaries (Cyrus and Mclean, 1996). A sudden increase or
decrease in water temperature may cause fish mortality (Blaber, 2000). Environmental parameters such as temperature, salinity,
dissolved oxygen, water transparency and pH play an important role for species abundance and diversity (Whitfield, 1999), especially
for the tropical regions where the fluctuation of these parameters are frequently due to seasonal changes (Blaber, 2000) Feni River
Estuary, Bangladesh is no exception.
Despite relatively limited time and shore perimeter covered, Feni River Bangladesh shows a wide heterogeneity in the
composition of soft-bottom invertebrates. This heterogeneity may be lost due to seasonal changes or environmental pollution or
both. A total of 17 taxa of soft-bottom invertebrates were found in the study area during the period from June-September (wet
season) to October-December, (dry season). The current study yielded a total number of 34,726 ind./m 2 from all sampling stations. In
the present study, macrobenthos abundance ranged from 1,696 ind./m2 and 4,760 ind./m2. The highest density of macrobenthos
was found 4,760 ind./m2 in station S2 during the dry season while the lowest number was 1,696 ind./m2 at station S7 during the wet
season. Khan et al. (2007) recorded the average density of benthos of Mouri river, Khulna was 630-1040 ind./m2 and in India, Mishra
(1996) recorded the average density of macro benthic organisms in the polluted portion of Ganga river was 119-4053 ind./m2 which
supported the present investigation. Mavrič et al., (2010) carried out a faunistic, biocoenotic and ecological survey of soft-bottom
macrozoobenthic communities for the southern part of the Gulf of Trieste on the basis of samplings in 2005 and 2006. At 28
sampled stations, a total of 14595 specimens belonging to 306 animal taxa were identified.
Quantitative distribution of macrobenthos of Feni River estuary comprised of 5 major taxa comprising Polychaeta, Crustacea,
Bivalvia, Insecta and Oligochaeta. These have more or less similarity with the findings of Khan et al. (2007), the composition of the
soft-bottom invertebrate groups was recorded: Polychaeta (43.60%), Oligochaeta (2.69%), Crustacea (37.44%), Bivalvia (8.58%), and
Insecta (7.68%). Abu Henaet al., (2012) found five major groups of macro benthos namely Polychaeta (9.966-30.31%), Oligochaeta
(3.68-30.310%), Crustacea (0.02-58.40%), Bivalvia (1.40-82.09%) and Gastropoda (0.08-4.25%) in Bakkhali river of Cox’s Bazar,
Chittagong. This difference was mainly due to the environmental and ecological condition as the sampling stations was an estuarine
area. In the present study, Polychaeta and Crustacea were recorded as major group among the macrobenthos groups (Figure 2).
Previous study also showed Polychaeta and Crustacea were dominant groups of macro benthos in Mouri river, Khulna (Khan et al.,
2007) and Bakkhali channel system, Cox's Bazar (Abu Henaet al., 2012) in Bangladesh. Hossain et al. (2013) reported Polychaeta as
the major macro-fauna from two important islands, Hatiya and Nijum Dweep.
In present study, Polychaeta was dominant among the macrobenthos groups in dry season (Figure 2b). Sivadas et al., (2010)
studied seven stations within the Mormugao harbor area for benthos and environmental variables and found a total of 71 taxa
where polychaeta abundance, biomass and species number was highest during the post-monsoon, mainly due to new recruitment
as the pre-monsoon is the most stable period for community development when the fauna was dominated by opportunistic deposit
feeding polychaeta species.
In the present study, the value of Shannon-Weiner diversity index (H') ranged from 1.92 to 2.25 during dry season and 1.58 to
2.03 during wet season. The highest value was 2.25 recorded at station S1 in dry season and the lowest value 1.58 was recorded at
station S7 in wet season (Figure 3).
Khan et al. (2007) observed the value ranging from minimum of 1.20 to a maximum of 1.49, Montajami et al., (2012) observed
values ranging from minimum of 1.22 to a maximum of 2.70 and Hossain et al., (2013) observed values ranging from minimum of
1.24 to a maximum of 1.97. The present study is supported by all of the above findings. Ransom and Dorris (1972) made a similar
observation in their work on Keystone reservoir in the U.S.A. The somewhat lower values of the index of diversity during the
investigation can be attributed to the residual effect of the pollutants settled at the bottom which come from different domestic
sources, municipal wastes disposal, agricultural wastes and industrial wastes discharge to the river. According to Wilhm and Dorris
(1966), species diversity (S-W) index (H) value ranged from >3 indicates clean water, 1.00 to 3.00 indicates moderately and <1.00
indicates heavily polluted condition of water. Therefore, the maximum impact of pollution in the Feni River Estuary is felt at station
S7 in the wet season due to the domestic discharge and runoff. Although several studies have reported the dominance of the
148

resident species in the estuaries (Thompson, 1966; Hotos and Vlahos, 1998).
Seasonal variation of macrobenthos of the present study was significant (Figure 4). This is may be attributed for the marked
Page

differences of salinity between the season because of rainfall. During the monsoon season, huge amounts of freshwater flow into the
river and create a freshwater-influenced estuarine environment. Most of the researchers reported less abundance of benthos during

© 2018 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.org OPEN ACCESS

 RESEARCH ARTICLE

monsoon was due to monsoon rain and huge water flow from northern state of India. Which are supports the findings of the
presence of a freshwater species in the investigated area.

5. CONCLUSION
In this study, seasonality of the environmental conditions explained the major variations of the macrobenthos. Seasonal variations
occurred not only in total abundance and diversity but also in the structure of the species assemblage of the Feni River, Bangladesh.
A total of 17 families under 5 majo r groups/taxa were identified that yielded a total of 34, 726 ind./m2 from all stations of the
study areas. Besides, the abundance and diversity of soft-bottom macrobenthos of the intertidal zone of the Feni River estuary is
seem to be influenced by estuarine hydrological conditions.

REFERENCE
1. Abu Hena MK, Khan MAA. Coastal and estuarine resources 12. Eck van GTM, de Pauw N, van Langenbergh M, Verreet G.
of Bangladesh: Management and conservation issues. Maejo Emissies, gehalten, gedrageneffecten van (micro)
Int. J. Sci. Tech., 2009,3, 313-342. verontreinigingen in het stroomgebied van de Scheldeen
2. Abu Hena MK, Kohinoor SMS, Siddique MAM, Ismail J, Idris Schelde-estuarium. Water, 1991, 60, 164–181.
MH, Amin MH. Composition of Macrobenthos in the 13. Fabry VJ, Seibel BA, Feely RA, Orr JC. Impacts of ocean
Bakkhali Channel System, Cox’s Bazar with Notes on the Soil acidification on Marine fauna and ecosystem processes. ICES
Parameter. Pakistan J. Biol. Sci., 2012, 15, 641-646. J. Mar. Sci., 2008, 65(3), 414-432.
3. Arthington AH, Welcome RL. The conditions of large river 14. Gandaseca S, Rosli N, Ngayop J, Arianto CI. Status of water
systems of the world. In Conditions of the World’s Aquatic quality based on the physicochemical assessment on river
Habitats, Proceedings of the World Fisheries Congress, water at wildlife sanctuary Sibuti mangrove forest, Miri
Theme 1, Armantrout NB (ed.), Science Publishers: Oregon, Sarawak. Am. J. Environ. Sci., 2011, 7, 269-275.
USA; 1995, 45–75. 15. Gordon C. Hypersaline lagoons as conservation habitats:
4. Asadujjaman M, Hossain MB, Shamsuddin M, Amin MA, macro-invertebrates at Muni Lagoon, Ghana. Biodivers.
Azam AKM. Occurrence and Abundance of Macrobenthos of Conserv., 2000, 9 (4), 465-478.
Hatiya and Nijhum Dweep Islands, Bangladesh. Middle-East 16. Habib S, Yousuf, AR. Benthic macroinverteb rate community
J. Sci. Res., 2012, 11 (2), 184-188. of Yousmarg streams (Doodganga stream and Khanshah
5. Blaber SJM. Tropical Estuarine Fishes: Ecology, Exploitation Mansbah canal) in Kashmir Himalaya, India. J. Ecol. Natur.
and Conservation. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2000, 372 Environ., 2012, 4(11), 280-289.
pages. 17. Harkantra SN, Parulekar AH. Community structure of sand-
6. Boyd CE. Water quality in warm water fish ponds. Auburn dwelling macrofauna of an estuarine beach in Goa, India.
University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Mar. Ecol-Prog. Ser., 198530, 291-294.
Alabama, USA, 1979, 9-44. 18. Harper DAT. (ed.). Numerical Palaeobiology. Computer-
7. Boyd R. Herbicides and herbicide degradates in shallow Based Modelling and Analysis of Fossils and their
groundwater and the Cedar River near a municipal well field, Distributions. x+468 pp. Chichester, New York, Weinheim,
Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Sci. Total Environ., 2000,248 (2-3), 241- Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, 1999.
253. 19. Hossain MB, Amin SMN, Asadujjaman M, Rahman S.
8. Chowdhury MSN, Hossain MS, Das NG, Barua P. Analyses of Macrobenthos of Hatiya and NijhumDweep
Environmental variables and fisheries diversity of the Naaf Islands at higher Taxonomic Resolution. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.,
River Estuary, Bangladesh. J. Coast. Conserv., 2011, 15, 163- 2013, 8 (4), 526-534.
180. 20. Hossain MB, Das NG, Sharmeen R. Seasonal and spatial
9. Cyrus DP, McLean S. Water temperature and the 1987 fish distribution of macrozoobenthos of the Meghna river
Kill at Lakes ST LUCIA on the south-eastern coast of Africa. estuarine bed. Int. J. Sustainable Agric. Tech., 2009, 5, 11-16.
South. Afr. J. Aquat. Sci., 1996, 22(1-2), 105-110. 21. Hossain MB. Polychaete Faunal Biodiversity of the Meghna
10. Dance KW, Hynes HBN. Some effects of agricultural land use River Estuarine Bed. Bangladesh J. Prog. Sci. Tech., 2009, 7 (2),
on stream insect communities. Environm. Pollut. Ser. A, 1980, 275-278.
22, 19–28. 22. Hossain MS, Das NG, Chowdhury MSN. Fisheries
149

11. Devi SK, &Venugopal. Benthos of Cochin backwaters Management of the Naaf River. Coastal and Ocean
receiving industrial effluents. Indian J. Mar. Sci., 1989, 18, Research Group of Bangladesh, Chittagong, 2007.
Page

165-169.

© 2018 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.org OPEN ACCESS

 RESEARCH ARTICLE

23. Hotos GN, Vlahos N. Salinity tolerance of Mugilcephalus and 37. McLusky DS, Elliot D. The Estuarine Ecosystem: Ecology,
Chelonlabrosus (Pisces: Mugilidae) fry in experimental Threats and Management. 3rd edn. Oxford University Press,
conditions. Aquaculture, 1998, 167, 329-338. Oxford. 2006, 214p
24. Iqbal MM, Billah MM, Haider MN, Islam MS, Payel HR, 38. Milbrink G. An improved environmental index based on the
Bhuiyan MKA, Dawood MAO. Seasonal distribution of relative abundance of Oligocheta species. Hydrobiologia,
phytoplankton community in a subtropical estuary of the 1983, 102, 89-97.
south-eastern coast of Bangladesh. Zool. Ecol., 2017, 27, 39. Mishra AK. Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality
304-310. of trust. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.). Trust in
25. Iqbal MM, Islam MS, Haider MN. Heterogeneity of Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research: 261-287.
Zooplankton of the Rezukhal Estuary, Cox’s Bazar, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.
Bangladesh with Seasonal Environmental Effects. Int. J. Fish. 40. Montajami S, Hosseini SA, Ghorbani R, Mehdizadeh M.
Aquat. Stud., 2014, 2 (2), 275-282. Investigation of Some Physicochemical Characteristics of
26. Islam MS, Hossain MB, Matin A, Sarker MSI. Assessment of Farobroman River Water by Using Benthic Macro
heavy metal pollution, distribution and source invertebrates as Biological Indicator. World J. Fish Mar. Sci.,
apportionment in the sediment from Feni River estuary, 2012, 4 (6), 645-650.
Bangladesh. Chemosphere, 2018, 202 (2018), 25-32 41. Ransom JD, Dorris TC. Analysis of Benthic Community
27. Islam MS, Sikder MNA, Al-Imran M, Hossain MB, Mallick D, Structure in a Reservoir by Use of Diversity Indices.” Am.
Morshed MM. Intertidal Macrobenthic Fauna of the Kamafuli Midl. Nat., 1972, 87, 434-447
Estuary: Relations with Environmental Variables. World 42. Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP). Benthos.
Applied Sci. J., 2013, 21(9), 1366-1373. RAMP Online, RAMP Inc., 2017.
28. Khan AN, Kamal D, Mahmud, MM, Rahman MA, Hossain MA. 43. Rozengurt MA, Hedgpeth JW. The impact of altered river
Diversity, Distribution and Abundance of benthos in Mouri flow on the ecosystem of the Caspian Sea. Rev. Aquat. Sci.,
River, Khulna, Bangladesh. Int. J. Sustain. Crop Prod., 2007, 2 1989, 1: 337–362.
(5), 73-87. 44. Sivadas S, Ingole B, Nanajkar M. Benthic polychaetes as
29. Liebmann H. Die Bedeutung der mikroskopfschenun- good indicators of anthropogenic impact. Indian J. Mar. Sci.,
tersuchung fur die biologische Wasseranalyse. Vom Wasser, 2010, 39 (2), 201-211.
1942, 15, 181-188. 45. Tagliapietra, Davide, Sigovini M. Benthic fauna: Collection
30. Lind OT. Handbook of common method in limnology (2 Ed.). and Identification of macrobenthic invertebrates. NEAR
The C.V. Mosby Company, St. Louis, 1979, 136-145. Curriculum Natur. Environ. Sci., 2010, 88, 253-261.
31. Longhurst AR. The Food of the demersal fish of a West 46. Thomson JM. The grey mullets. Oceanography and Marine
African estuary. J. Anim. Ecol., 1957, 26, 369-387. Biology Annual Review (H. Barnes, ed.), London: George
32. Maes C, Picaut J, Kuroda Y, Ando K. Characteristics of the Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1966, 4, 301–335
convergence zone at the eastern edge of the Pacific warm 47. Walag AMP, Canencia MOP. Physico-chemical parameters
pool, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2004, 31, L11304. and macrobenthic invertebrates of the intertidal zone of
33. Mandal S, Harkantra SN. Changes in the soft-bottom Gusa, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines. AES Bioflux, 2016,
macrobenthic diversity and community structure from the 8(1), 71-82.
ports of Mumbai, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 2013, 185(1), 48. Welch PS. Limnology II edition. Mcgraw Hill Company, New
653-672. York, 1948.
34. Manoharan J, Varadharajan D, Thilagavathi B, Priyadharsini S. 49. Whitfield AK. Ichthyofaunal assemblages in estuaries: A
Biodiversity and abundance of benthos along the South-East South African case study. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish., 1999, 9, 151-
Coast of India. Pelagia Res. Library Adv. Applied Sci. Res., 186.
2011, 2 (6), 554-562. 50. Wilhm JL, Dorris TC. Species diversity of benthic macro-
35. Mavrič B, Bonaca O, Bettoso M, Lipej L. Soft-bottom invertebrates in a stream receiving domestic and oil refinery
macrozoobenthos of the southern part of the Gulf of Trieste: effluents. Am. Midland Natur., 1966, 76, 427-449.
faunistic, biocoenotic and ecological survey. ActaAdriatica,
2010, 51, 203-216
36. McAllister DE, Craig JF, Davidson N, Delany S, Seddon M.
150

Biodiversity Impacts of Large Dams Background Paper No. 1

prepared for IUCN/UNEP/WCD International Union for
Page

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and the

United Nations Environmental Programme, 2001.
© 2018 Discovery Publication. All Rights Reserved. www.discoveryjournals.org OPEN ACCESS