Macrobenthic Community Structure In The

Vicinity Of Restaurants Near Dodarya At

Clifton Beach

Ayman Fatima
Rafiya Maqsood
Sania Shaikh

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillments of the requirements for

the degree of Masters Of Science under the guidance of Assistant
Professor Dr. Nazia Arshad.

Institute of Marine Science, University of Karachi-75270, 2019.

i
 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

This thesis is submitted by AYMAN FATIMA, RAFIYA MAQSOOD and

SANIA SHAIKH is accepted in its present form by the Institute of Marine
Science, University of Karachi as satisfying the thesis requirements for the
degree of M.sc. in Marine Science.

Internal Examiner :__________________.

External Examiner : __________________.

Director : __________________.

ii
 ACKNOWLWDGEMENTS
 All praise and thanks to ALLAH, the most gracious and the most merciful

 First of all we would like to thank our teacher Dr. Nazia Arshad, for being
such a supportive supervisor and consultant, guiding us all the way for
producing such polished work and for being patient with our blunders. . Her
unflinching encouragement, guidance and help give us extraordinary
experiences throughout the work.

 We are grateful to Dr. Tasneem Adam, The Chairperson of Institute of

Marine Science for providing us facilities during this study.

 The authors of this research are also grateful to our assistant teachers Miss
Rana, Miss Saima and Miss Sobia for helping us in our lab work and giving
useful advises .

 We would also like to thank our class mates Taha, Quratulain, Muzamil,
Nabeel ,Saad Bilal for such delicious food for us on trips and carrying our
apparatus basket. Thanks guys!

Ayman Fatima Rafiya Maqsood

B.sc. (H) B.sc.
Institute of Marine Science Institute of Marine Science
University of Karachi-75270,
University of Karachi-75270, 2019. 2019.

And,

Sania Shaikh
B.sc.(H)
Institute of Marine Science
University of Karachi-75270,
2019.

iii
 CONTENTS
No Titles Pg.no
Abstract
1 INTRODUCTION 1-3
1.1. Aims and objectives 04

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS 5-9

2.1. Study Area 05
2.1.1. Study Stations

2.2. Physicochemical Parameters 06

2.3. Nutrient analysis 06
2.4. Sediment Sampling 07
2.4.1. Moisture Content 07
2.4.2. Organic Content 07
2.4.3. Granulometry 07

2.5. Faunal Sampling 08

2.6. Statistical Analysis 09

3 RESULTS 10-21

3.1. Physicochemical Parameters 10

3.2. Nutrients 11
3.3. Sediment Analysis 13
3.3.1. Organic Content. 13
3.3.2. Moisture Content 14
3.3.3. Grain Size Analysis 14

3.4. Faunal diversity and abundance 15

3.4.1 Macrobenthic abundance 15
17
3.4.2 Macrobenthic diversity
4 DISCUSSION 22-25
5 REFERENCES 27-29

iv
 NO LIST OF TABLE Pg. no

Table 1 Physicochemical parameters recorded at studied Stations 10

(C1, C2 and C3) during LSMS ( Late Southwest Monsoon Season)

Table 2 Physicochemical parameters recorded at studied Stations 11

(C1, C2 and C3) during POMS (Post Monsoon Season)

Table 3 Physicochemical parameters recorded at studied Stations 11

(C1, C2 and C3) during NEMS (North East Monsoon Season)

Table 4 Sediment analysis at studied stations during 13

LSMS, POMS, NEMS

Table 5 Moisture content of sediment sample collected from studied stations 14

Table 6 Abundance of faunal samples from studied stations (C1, C2, C3) 17

Table 7 Seasonal variations in diversity indices (DI) recorded at studied stations 17

Table 8 Macrobenthic diversity from studied stations during LSMS 19

Table 9 Macrobenthic diversity from studied stations during POMS 20

Table10 Macrobenthic diversity from studied stations during NEMS 21

v
 No. LIST OF FIGURES Pg. no.

Figure.1 Map of study area showing studied stations(C1, C2 and C3) 06

extracted from google earth pro 2009
Figure.2 Digging of sediment and sieveing mesh for faunal samples 08

Excavation of sediment from quadrate for macro fauna

Figure.3 collection 08

Figure.4 Ammonia concentration from studied stations 12

Figure.5 Nitrate concentration from studies stations 12

Figure.6 Phosphate concentration from studied concentration 13

Figure.7 Grain size ananlysis during LSMS(Late Southwest Monsoon 14

Season)

Figure.8 Grain size analysis during POMS (Post Monsoon Season) 15

Figure.9 Grain size analysis during NEMS (North East Monsoon 15

Season)
Figure.10 Total seasonal abundance of macrobenthic fauna duing 16
studied period (2018)
Figure.11 Plates shown common species during this study 26

vi
 DEDICATIONS

We would like to dedicate our work to our parents for supporting us, tolerating our
late returns from university and compliancing with our busy schedules, enabling us
to do our best. We would also dedicate this thesis to ourselves for being stubborn
and dedicated to get this work done in such short period of time.

vii
viii
ix
ABSTRACT
The exposed sandy beaches are physically dynamic benthic environment and one of
the most extended intertidal systems in the world. Sandy beaches dominate the
world’s coastlines in temperate and tropical zones, are important sites for human
recreation maintaining many coastal economies around the world and provide
habitat for a diversity of terrestrial and marine life. This study was conducted at
three stations (C1, C2 and C3) of most commonly visited beach i.e. Clifton of
thickly populated Karachi city to record changes in macrobenthic communities near
busiest restaurants.

A total of 18 sediment and 9 water samples were collected during LSMS, POMS
and NEMS which were further analyzed for moisture content, organic content,
granulometry, physicochemical parameters and nutrients analysis in the laboratory.
A total of 18 faunal samples were collected along a vertical transect at High Tide
Mark (HT) and Low Tide Mark (LT). At each station 2 replicate quadrates of 0.25
m2 were excavated up to a depth of 10 cm and the collected sand was immediately
sieved and preserved in 4% formalin.

A total of 965 organisms/0.25m2 belonged to 25 species recorded during this

study. The highest abundance was shown by bivalves, crustaceans and polycheates
respectively. Among bivalvia the highest abundance was exhibited by Donax
cuneatus from C2 and C3 which are disturbed sites. The macrobenthic community
structure of Clifton beach controlled by multiple factors where human activities
and monsoon season greatly affect benthic populations.

Keywords: Macrobenthic fauna, Anthropogenic activities, Bivalve

x
1. INTRODUCTION
Sandy beaches occupy three quarters of world’s shoreline (Bascom, 1980) and are
dynamic ecosystems physically structured by sediment particle size, waves and tidal
energy. They are at the transition between continents and oceans and have societal
and ecological importance. Sandy beaches dominate the world’s coastlines in
temperate and tropical zones, are important sites for human recreation maintaining
many coastal economies around the world and provide habitat for a diversity of
terrestrial and marine life (Mclachlan, 1983; Alongi, 1998 ; Brown, 2006; Schlacher
et al., 2007; McLachlan, 2013).

The exposed sandy beaches are physically dynamic benthic environment and one
of the most extended intertidal systems in the world (Lecari and Defeo, 2003).
Faunal communities of sandy beach are primarily structured by the physical
conditions they endure. Sand and silt is the most abundant kind of sediment in the
bed of sandy beaches where organic detritus is found with minerals, serves as food
and hence strongly influence the benthic life in relation to sediment. Diversity and
abundance is generally known to increase with substrate stability and the presence
of organic detritus (Allan, 1995; Jenderedjian, 2007). Exposed sandy beaches are
harsh environments strongly stressed by physical variables where macro fauna
distribution has been typically related to beach morph dynamic factors, such as
slope and sediment characteristics (Defeo and McLachlan, 2005). Global diversity
patterns in sandy shores highlight the role of beach morpho-dynamics and tide
range as the main explanatory variables of species richness, which increases
towards wide beaches with gentle slopes and fine grains (Barboza and Defeo, 2015;
Defeo and McLachlan, 2013).

Beach fauna plays a major role in the functioning of beach ecosystems (McLachlan
and Brown, 2006). Benthos are involved in nutrient regeneration (Cisneros et al.,
2011), they are trophic links between marine and terrestrial systems (Dugan, 1999;
Lercari et al., 2010) and are stranded material decomposers (Dugan et al., 2003;
Lastra et al., 2008).

1
The benthic fauna is subjected to environmental factors that fluctuate in an
unpredictable manner, and as many species are not able to tolerate unpredictable
fluctuations, the species composition is low. Generally the euphotic coastal marine
environments are less stable and have low diversity when compared to oligotrophic
deep sea environment. Medium and fine sands usually have an abundant macro
fauna. But because fine compact sediment has more organic matter per unit area
faunal densities are therefore frequently higher (Gray, 1981).

Sandy beaches constitute a dynamic interface between marine and terrestrial

ecosystems where inflows of organic matter occur mainly in the form of beach-cast
wrack, i.e., primarily, macro algae and sea grasses (Rossi and Underwood 2002).
The degree to which this trophic subsidy influences the distribution and abundance
of macro and meiofauna depends on both the amount and species composition of
the beach-cast wrack (Gonçalves and Marques 2011).

Physical and biological processes examine this review which moves marine
intertidal and sub tidal sediment and considers access information on outcome of
physical disturbance for benthic communities (Stephen et al., 1994). Due to
different ecological processes, benthic communities can vary greatly at a range of
temporal and spatial scales that operate at each side. The organism has been
characterized by the natural history, such as mobility and behavior, can influence
their distribution mainly at small scale (Tanaka et al., 2003).

The species composition and abundance of macro fauna are considered as the very
important tool to monitor the environmental effect (Varshney et al., 1984), and
hence they are considered as good indicator of pollution (Dauvin, 2006; Dauvin
2009; Kennedy and Jacoby, 1999; Clarke and Warwick, 1994). Benthic
communities from sandy beaches have been studied by several scientists e.g. Eliot,
1981; Chou & Khou, 1990. Macrobenthos are considered as ideal measures to
environmental disturbances and is an effective indicator of extent and magnitude of
pollution (Perus et al., 2007).

2
Among the biological entities, macrobenthos play a significant role in the aquatic
community considering its involvement in mineralization, mixing of sediments, flux
of oxygen into sediments and cycling of organic matter (Snelgrove, 1998). Due to
their reduced mobility and short life cycles, benthic communities are often used as
indicators in bio monitoring studies, and they perform a crucial role in the food web,
either as feeder of detritus or at tertiary level, as food for demersal economically
important fishes (Gray and Elliot 2010).Given the high level of pollution,
macrobenthic fauna within harbors is disturbed and impoverished, and is generally
dominated by stress tolerant opportunistic species (Estacio et al. 1997; Ingole et al.
2009).

Variations in biotic and abiotic characteristics promote various types of niches and
habitats for macro fauna within the intertidal zone. . The macro organisms are able
to inhabit in both sandy and sandy-loamy substrates with or without vegetation.
Composition of macro fauna distribution changes according to different tidal levels
and varying micro habitats within an ecosystem (Chapman, 2006; Vazirezadeh et al.,
2011), thus, distribution of macro fauna is affected by the environmental
propertiesties too (Lee, 2008b). The benthic communities vary in structure and
function regularly in a definite pattern because they continuously interacting with
environmental factors such as temperature or salinity (Day et al., 1989; Veloso et al.,
1997).

In Pakistan, the coastal areas of Karachi accommodate well over 60% of the
country’s industries. Sandy beaches of Karachi, particularly Clifton and Korangi
Creek are getting a lot of pollutants (Abbas and Qari, 2010). The abundance and
distribution of benthic macro fauna in near shore waters off Karachi was reported
by (Niaz et al., 2007). Very little information on the abundance and species
composition of macro fauna from the sandy beaches of Pakistan is available
(Ahmed and Hameed, 1999; Kazmi and Naushaba, 2000, Arshad and Farooq, 2018).

3
1.1. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The core objectives of this research are;

i. To evaluate the impacts of anthropogenic activities on benthic macro
fauna collected from three different sites of Clifton beach. Stations vary
on the basis of anthropogenic activities.
ii. To evaluate impacts of trampling on macro faunal communities and their
responses to trampling intensities.

4
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
2.1. STUDY AREA
Coastline of Pakistan extends approximately 990 km, 200 km comes under the
province of Sindh whereas and 790 km falls in the province of Balochistan. North
East Coast of the Arabian Sea is an upwelling zone. Tides at Pakistan coastline are
intermediate at about 10-11 ft approx.Coastline consist of mostly under developed
areas. Such a long coastline is very suitable for aquaculture practices. Coastal line
of Balochistan is mostly rugged, consisting of bays, headlands and uplifted terraces
whereas, coastline of Sindh consists of reflective beaches, and mostly they are
sandy or muddy. Coastline of Karachi is 167m long. On the south of Karachi lies
Clifton beach, which is a long, reflective beach (Arshad et al., 2017) backed by
sand dunes . Sediment of the beach consists of very fine grey colored sand.

2.1.1. STUDY STATIONS

Three stations were selected for this study on Clifton beach according to variations
in anthropogenic activities named C1, C2 and C3 respectively
(Fig. 1).

C1: Long : 24°45’30.38” N

Lat. : 67°04’01.15” E
It is located on the opposite side on Khayaban-e- sahil st.31 near Dodarya. It is
relatively less affected by anthropogenic activities and no trampling observed.
C2: Long : 24°46’43.95” N
Lat : 67°03’07.65” E
It is located at main sea view near Bruno restaurant. Anthropogenic activities as
well as trampling observed. It is relatively an intermediate site.
C3: Long: 24°48’02.67” N
Lat 67°01’32.23” E
It is located on the opposite of Dolmen Mall, Clifton. It is the most disturbed side
due to presence of mall and park near it.

5
Fig. 1 Map of study area showing studied stations (C1, C2 and C3) extracted from
Google Earth Pro 2009.

2.2. PHYSICOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS

Temperature of seawater was measured at site by thermometer (Hanna). Salinity
was measured with the help of refractometer (Atago, Japan) and pH with the help of
pH meter (Hanna). For dissolved oxygen, water samples were collected in dark
bottles from every station, fixed at site and determined through Winkler’s method in
the laboratory (Winkler, 1998) .Water samples for the nutrient analysis were stored
at -20 oC and were analyzed within a day to test the concentration of ammonia,
phosphate and nitrate.

2.3. Nutrient Analysis

Ammonia concentration was determined by the alkali phenol-hypochlorite reaction
(Indophenol-blue method) detected photo metrically at 640 nm (APHA, 2005). The
nitrate in the samples was determined by cadmium-reduction method and phosphate
by ascorbic acid method as described in Strickland and Parson, 1972. Respective
absorbance for each nutrient was noted with the help of UV-visible
spectrophotometer (Shimadzu, Japan).

2.4. SEDIMENT SAMPLING

A total of 18 sediment samples were collected from high tide and low tide mark
with the help of hand corer (3 cm diameter) up to a depth of 10cm from all studied
6
stations. These samples were further sliced into 0-2 cm and 3-4 cm to be analyzed
in the laboratory for moisture content, organic content and grain size analysis.

2.4.1. Moisture content

Each core of sediment sample was layered into 0-1cm, 2-3 cm and 5-6 cm. For the
determination of moisture, sediment sample from each layer were weighed at
electric balance (Ohaus, Japan) and dried at 80ºC in electric oven for 24 hours. The
loss in weight was used to calculate percentage of moisture content in sediments.

2.4.2. Organic content

For determination of organic content in sediment samples, oven dried samples from
each layer were heated in electric furnace at 450 oC for 4 hours. The Loss in weight
was used to calculate percentage of organic content in sediment.

2.4.3. Granulometry

For grain size analysis sediment were air-dried, homogenized and passed through
series of sieves. The samples contained on each sieve were weighed and used to
calculate the percentage of the sediment size using Udden-Wentworth scale.
Sediments were classified into coarse sand, fine sand, very fine sand, and silt
(Buchanan, 1984).

7
2.5. FAUNAL SAMPLING

A total of 18 samples were collected during Late Southwest (LSMS), Post monsoon
(POMS) and Northeast monsoon (NEMS) seasons (2018) for this study. The
sampling was done along a vertical transect at High Tide Mark (HT) and Low Tide
Mark (LT). At each station 2 replicate quadrates of 0.25 m2 were excavated up to a
depth of 10 cm and the collected sand was immediately sieved by using 0.5 mm
mesh sieve (Fig. 2 and 3). All fauna retained on sieve except polycheates were
preserved in 4% formalin. Polycheates worms were collected in separate plastic
bottles, narcotized and preserved in 70% alcohol.

In the laboratory, macrobenthic samples were analyzed using a binocular

microscope. Those organisms, which cannot be identified up to species level, were
classified at the generic level or up to the possible highest taxonomic level with the
help of relevant keys and literature. Polychaetes were identified by Fauval, 1957.
Brachyurans were identified by Tirmizi and Kazmi, 1986; Tirmizi and Ghani, 1996;
and Chhapgar, 1956. Mollusks were identified by Dance, 1982. Recent names of
species and genera were crossed checked at World register of Marine Species
online data base (http://www.marinespecies.org/).

Fig.2. Digging of sediment and sieving mesh for faunal samples.

Fig 3. Excavation of sediment from quadrate for macro fauna collection.

8
2.6. Statistical analysis

The data obtained was subjected to univariate statistical analysis. The diversity
indices were calculated by using PAST 3 package to visualize distribution of
macrobenthos at studied stations.
Following diversity indices were calculated:

1- Species richness (d): Species richness of individuals at these sites was

calculated by using Margalef’s index using formula:
d = (S-1) / log N
Where,
S= Total number of species
N= Total number of individuals of organisms.

2- Pielou's evenness index: Evenness index was calculated with the help of
following formula:
J' = H′/log (S)

3- Shannon-Wiener diversity (H'): Shannon diversity were calculated by using

the formula:

H' = -Σ i Pi log (Pi)

Where,
H' = Shannon-Wiener diversity index
Pi = Proportion of the total count arising from the ith species.

9
3. RESULTS
3.1. PHYSICO CHEMICAL PARAMETERS

The highest air temperature was recorded (32°C) during NEMS from C1 and C2
and the 20°C from C1 in the same month (Table 1).The highest sediment
temperature recorded is 33°C from CH1 during POMS , whereas lowest sediment
temperature recorded is 27.2°C during NEMS from CHI (Table 1) . The highest
water temperature recorded is 32°C from C2 during POMS, whereas, the lowest
water temperature recorded is 25.8° C during NEMS from C1 (Table 1). Highest
salinity recorded is 48‰ during NEMS from C2. Whereas lowest one is 39‰
during LSMS from C1, C2 and C3 during POMS and fromC3 during POMS (Table
1). Highest pH measured is 8.5 from C1 during POMS, lowest pH recorded is 8.28
from C1 and C3 during LSMS (Table 1). Highest concentration of dissolved oxygen
recorded is 11.54 mg/l from C2 during NEMS and the lowest recorded is 2.08 from
C2 during LSMS (Table 1).

Table 1 Physicochemical parameters recorded at studied Stations (C1, C2and

C3) during LSMS ( Late Southwest Monsoon Season).
PhysicoChemical
S.No. CH1 CL1 CH2 CL2 CH3 CL3
Parameters
1 Air Temperature (°C) 28 28 28.5 28.5 29.1 29.1
2 Sediment Temperature (°C) 28.8 27.7 31.3 28.1 31.1 28.2
3 Water Temperature (°C) 27.1 27.1 26.8
4 Salinity (‰) 39.0 39.0 39.0
5 pH 8.28 8.29 8.28
6 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 4.17 2.08 3.95

10
Table 2 Physicochemical parameters recorded at studied Stations (C1, C2 and
C3) during POMS (Post Monsoon Season).
PhysicoChemical
S.No. CH1 CL1 CH2 CL2 CH3 CL3
Parameters
1 Air Temperature (°C) 31.1 30.5 31.4 31.4 30.5 30.5
2 Sediment Temperature (°C) 33.00 29.7 31.2 29.5 30.1 29.5
3 Water Temperature (°C) 31.00 32.00 29.00
4 Salinity (‰) 40.00 45.00 39.00
5 pH 8.5 8.4 8.4
6 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 9.46 6.24 6.26

Table.3. Physicochemical parameters recorded at studied Stations (C1, C2

and C3) during NEMS ( North East monsoon season).
PhysicoChemical
S.No. CH1 CL1 CH2 CL2 CH3 CL3
Parameters
1 Air Temperature (°C) 32.2 32.20 31.6 31.60 30.5 30.50
Sediment
2 27.2 26.40 27.4 26.30 26.6 25.50
Temperature(°C)
3 Water Temperature(°C) 25.8 27.2 26.2
4 Salinity (‰) 47.00 48.00 47.00
5 pH 8.37 8.3 8.4
6 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 10.6 11.54 6.84

3.2 NUTRIENTS
Highest concentration of ammonia (1.243mg/L) was recorded from C3 during
NEMS and lowest during LSMS from C1 (Fig 4). Highest concentration of nitrite
(0.64 mg/l) was recorded from C2 during POMS and the lowest (0.09 mg/l) from
C3 during NEMS (Fig 5). Highest phosphorus content recorded from (0.46 mg/l)
from C1 during POMS (Fig. 6).

11
 Concentration of Ammonia (mg/L) at Studied Staions
1.6

1.2
mg/L

0.8

0.4

0
C1 C2 C3
STATIONS
LSMS POMS NEMS
Fig.4. Ammonia concentration from studied stations.

Concentration of Nitrate (mg/L) at Studied Staions

0.81

0.61
mg/L

0.41

0.21

0.01
C1 C2 C3
STATIONS
LSMS POMS NEMS

Fig. 5. Nitrate concentration from studied stations.

12
 Concentration of Phosphate (mg/L) at Studied Staions
0.8

0.4
mg/L

0
C1 C2 C3

STATIONS
LSMS POMS NEMS

Fig. 6. Phosphate concentration from studied stations.

3.3. SEDIMENT ANALYSIS

3.3.1. Organic Content

The highest organic content recorded is 0.78% in 4-6 cm from CL2 during POMS,
whereas lowest concentration is recorded is 0.073% in 0-2cm of CH1 during NEMS.

Table .4. Sediment analysis at studied stations during LSMS, POMS and NEMS
S.No. Studied LSW POMS NEMS
Stations 0-2 cm 4-6 cm 0-2 cm 4-6 cm 0-2 cm 4-6 cm
1 CH1 0.151 0.251 0.55 0.28 0.073 0.137
2 CL1 0.293 0.441 0.187 0.342 0.565 0.65
3 CH2 0.271 0.361 0.112 0.177 0.277 0.172
4 CL2 0.29 0.521 0.652 0.783 0.482 0.375
5 CH3 0.291 0.312 0.395 0.402 0.481 0.164
6 CL3 0.28 0.74 0.377 0.355 0.471 0.487

13
3.3.2. Moisture Content

Highest moisture content 0.65% was recorded in 0-2 cm layer from CL2 during
POMS, whereas, lowest 0.0028% in 0-2 cm from CH2 during POMS.

Table.5. Moisture content of sediment sample collected from studied stations

S.NO. Studied LSMS POMS NEMS
Stations 0-2 cm 4-6 cm 0-2cm 4-6 cm 0-2 cm 4-6 cm
1 CH1 0.1406 0.2793 0.0577 0.088 0.114 0.137
2 CL1 0.2404 0.2904 0.1215 0.136 0.146 0.047
3 CH2 0.1109 0.1804 0.0028 0.109 0.12 0.017
4 CL2 0.2016 0.2686 0.652 0.131 0.282 0.076
5 CH3 0.1404 0.2301 0.235 0.036 0.669 0.181
6 CL3 0.13 0.6503 0.059 0.158 0.198 0.1

3.3.3. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENT

The overall highest fraction of sand recorded during this study consists of fine
sand from all stations with little variations. The highest weight retained by sediment
sample was of fine sand (90%) from CL3 during LSMS and CH3 during POMS
whereas the lowest was course sand( 0.017%) from CH2 during POMS (Fig 7,8 9).

Grain size analysis from C1

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
CH1 CL1 CH2 CL2 CH3 CL3

Coarse Sand Fine Sand Very Fine Sand Silt and Clay

Fig. 7. Grain size analysis during LSMS (Late Southwest Monsoon

Season)

14
 Grain size analysis from C2
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
CH1 CL1 CH2 CL2 CH3 CL3

Coarse Sand Fine Sand Very Fine Sand Silt and Clay

Fig. 8. Grain size analysis during POMS (Post Monsoon Season).

Grain size analysis from C3

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
CH1 CL1 CH2 CL2 CH3 CL3
Coarse sand Fine Sand Vey fine Sand Silt and Clay

Fig.9. Grain size analysis during NEMS (North East Monsoon

Season).

3.4. FAUNAL DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE

3.4.1. Macro benthic Abundance

A total of 965 organisms/0.25m2 were recorded during this study. The highest
abundance was recorded during NEMS followed by POMS and the lowest has been
recorded during LSMS.

15
 Total seasonal abundance of macrobenthic fauna
during studied period.

5%

41%

54%

LSMS NEMS POMS

Fig. 10.Total seasonal abundance of macrobenthic fauna during studied

Period (2018)

The highest abundance was exhibited by Bivalvia (912) organisms/0.25 m2 during

this study.

A total of 48 organisms/0.25 m2 were recorded during LSMS from all three stations.
In which no organism has been recorded from C1 while 47 organisms/0.25 m2 were
recorded from C2 whereas 1 organism/0.25 m2 from C3 station.

A total 399 organisms/0.25 m2 were recorded during POMS from all three stations.
About 146 organisms/0.25 m2 were reported from C1 whereas 237 organisms/0.25
m2 were reported from C2 and 16 organisms/0.25 m2 were reported from C3 station.

A total 518 organisms/0.25 m2 were recorded during NEMS from all three stations.
About 320 organisms/0.25 m2 were reported from C1 whereas 161 organism/0.25
m2 were reported from C2 and 37 organisms/0.25 m2 were reported from C3 station.
See (Table.6)

16
Table.6 Abundance of faunal samples from studied stations (C1, C2, C3)
LSMS POMS NEMS Total
S.No. Phyla/class
C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3 C1 C2 C3
1 Cnidaria 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
2 Polycheata 0 0 1 1 0 0 7 3 2 14
3 Crustacea 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 9 5 18
4 Gastropoda 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 12 14
5 Bivalvia 0 46 0 140 235 14 310 149 18 912
6 Echinodermata 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 6
Total 0 47 1 146 237 16 320 161 37 965

3.4.2. Macrobenthic Diversiy

A total of 25 species were recorded during this study. The highest species richness
(d= 2.362) was recorded from C2 and highest Shannon diversity index (H’ = 1.728)
from C3 during NEMS (Table 7).

Table 7: Seasonal variations in diversity indices (DI) recorded at studied stations.

d=Species richness; H′=Shannon diversity index; J′ = Evenness index.

Seasons
S.No. Stations DI
LSMS POMS NEMS
1 D 0.259 1.405 1.387
2 C1 J' 0.554 0.3149 0.221
3 H' 0.103 0.924 0.691

4 D 0 0.9137 2.362
5 C2 J' 1 0.516 0.281
6 H' 0 1.131 1.296

7 D 0 1.412 1.662
8 C3 J' 1 0.836 0.804
9 H' 0 1.43 1.728

17
A total of 48 organisms/0.25 m2 were recorded during LSMS from all three stations.
In which no organism has been recorded from C1 while 47 Bivalves were recorded
from C2 whereas 1 Cnidarian from C3 (Table 7).

A total of 399 organisms/0.25 m2 specimens were recorded during POMS from all
three stations. About 146 organisms/0.25 m2 were reported from C1 which included
1 Polychaete, 140 Gastropods and 3 Echinoderms; whereas 237 organisms/0.25 m2
were reported from C2 which included 2 Gastropods and 235 Bivalves. 16
organisms/0.25 m2 were reported from C3 which included 2 Crustaceans and 14
Bivalves (Table 8).

A total 518 organisms/0.25 m2 were recorded during NEMS from all three stations.
About 320 organisms/0.25 m2 were reported from C1 which included 7 Polychaets,
310 Bivalves in which the most common specie Donax cuneatus was recorded and
3 Echinoderms whereas 161 organism/0.25 m2 were reported from C2 which
included 3 Polychaets,(Glycera alba, Diopatra neopolitana and chaetognath sp.) 9
Crustaceans and 149 Bivalves. 37 organisms/0.25 m2 were reported from C3 station
which included 5 Crustacean, 12 Gastropods and 18 Bivalves (Table 9).

18
Table. 8. Macrobenthic diversity from studied stations during LSMS.
LSMS
Phyla/class Genus/species CH1 CL1 CH2 CL2 CH3 CL3 TOTAL
Cnideria Physalia physalis 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Polychaeta Chaetognath sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diopatra neopolitana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eunicid sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Glycera alba 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Polychaete worms 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Crustacea Barnacles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dotilla blandfordi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diogene sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gammarus sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Lepas sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Matuta lunaris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Phylra corallicola 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mollusca
Gastropoda Bullia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dentalium octangulatum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nevidita didyma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bivalvia Anadara inequivalis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Anadara denticulatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Anadara granosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chione imbricate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Donax cuneatus 0 45 0 0 0 0 45
Donax townsandii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Donax scalpellum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Merceneria merceneria 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Echinodermata Star fish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 46 1 1 48

19
Table 9. Macrobenthic diversity from studied staions during POMS.

POMS
Phyla/class Genus/species CH1 CL1 CH2 CL2 CH3 CL3 TOTAL
Cnidaria Physalia physalis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Polychaeta Chaetognath sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diopatra neopolitana 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Eunicid sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Glycera alba 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Polychaete worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Crustacea Barnacles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dotilla blandifordi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diogene sp. 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Gammarus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lepas sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Matuta lunaris 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Phylra corallicola 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mollusca
Gastropoda Bullia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dentalium octangulatum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nevidita didyma 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Bivalvia *Anadara inequivalis 108 0 89 0 0 7 204
Anadara denticulatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Anadara granosa 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Chione imbricate 0 0 0 108 0 3 112
Donax scalpellum 4 0 28 5 0 0 37
Donax cuneatus 7 16 0 0 0 4 27
Donax townsandii 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
Merceneria merceneria 2 0 4 0 0 0 4
Echinodermata Star fish 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
TOTAL 146 238 16 399

*Anadara inequivalis(alive+shells)

20
Table 10. Macrobenthic diversity from studied stations during NEMS.

NEMS
Phyla/class Genus/species Total
CH1 CL1 CH2 CL2 CH3 CL3
Cnideria Physalia physalis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Polychaeta Chaetognath sp. 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Diopatra neopolitana 0 4 0 2 0 0 6
Eunicid sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Glycera alba 0 3 1 0 0 0 4
Polychaete worms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Crustacea Barnacles 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
Dotilla blandifordi 0 0 0 0 3 2 5
Diogene sp. 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
Gammarus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lepas sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Matuta lunaris 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Phylra corallicola 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Mollusca
Gastropoda Bullia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 10 10
Dentalium octangulatum 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Nevidita didyma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bivalvia *Anadara inequivalis 20 10 5 0 5 0 304
Anadara denticulatus 10 0 1 0 1 1 13
Anadara granosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chione imbricate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Donax scalpellum 7 5 5 5 0 0 22
Donax cuneatus 0 6 4 100 3 8 121
Donax townsandii 0 4 0 7 0 0 11
Merceneria merceneria 4 0 0 2 0 0 6
Echinodermata Star fish 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
TOTAL 320 161 37 518

* Anadara inequivalis(alive+shells)

21
4. DISCUSSION
The macro benthic community structure is determined by several ecological factors
(McLachlan et al., 1996; Brazeiro, 2001). Physiochemical conditions of the
environment (Bilyard, 1987; Clarke& Warwick, 1994) particularly temperature,
salinity, light and sediment characteristics (Kennish, 2001) and water content of the
sediment (Bally, 1983;Wendt and McLachlan, 1985; Defeo et al., 1992) greatly
influence benthic communities. Coastal development around the world is
profoundly altering the beach ecosystems. Besides physical factors of the
environment and pollution, the sandy beach of Clifton is subject to great degree of
anthropogenic disturbances.

4.1. Hydrographical parameters

The community structure is affected by hydrographical and physical variables in all
aquatic ecosystems. Salinity and temperature are primary factors shaping variability
(Apple et al., 2008). The highest salinity was recorded during NEMS. The decrease
in salinity within coastal waters reflects the influx of fresh water supplied by rivers
(Defeo and Mclachlan, 2005) or by rain fall. The low salinity during LSWS may be
due to storms which build up during SW Monsoon season each year and input of
fresh water through rivers. Salinity levels also fluctuate with tidal flows by wind
action and currents.

Dissolved oxygen is one of the best indicator of the health of water body. Oxygen
enters the water by diffusion from air, agitation and mixing through wave action,
photosynthesis by marine plants and depleted with increase in temperature,
chemical oxidation, biological oxidation & plant and animal respiration. The mean
highest concentration of dissolved oxygen was recorded at C1. The comparative
lower values of dissolved oxygen at C2 and C3 was probably due to relatively
higher magnitude of pollution and higher organic load due to the increase input of
anthropogenic nutrients to coastal ecosystems which is reported to be the main
factor for lower oxygen values (Diaz, 2001). The warming of sea water in response
22
to seasonal variations also reduces its ability to carry dissolved oxygen. Low
concentration of dissolved oxygen during LSWS monsoon season due to up sloping
of oxygen poor water was reported by Panhwar, 2001.

More than 60% of collected sediment consist of fine sand fraction at all stations.
The presence of higher coarse sand fraction at Clifton reported only from Station
C1 at LT during LSWS which is due to the presence of shell fragments. The highest
moisture content at Clifton from HT except at Station C1 during pre-monsoon
season has been recorded which is most probably due to the chemical properties of
sediment because the size fraction is more or less same which indicate of that it not
the only controlling factor for the water holding capacity of the sediment at these
station. The fluctuations in water temperature of sediments were mainly in response
to variable air temperature as a consequence of seasonal variations.

4.2. Species richness and macrobenthos abundance

Macro benthos provide ideal measures to environmental disturbances and is an

effective indicator of the extent and magnitude of pollution impact in the local
environment (Perus et al., 2007) and considered as good indicator of pollution
(Dauvin, 2006; Dauvin et el., 2009; Kennedy et.al., 1999; Kennish, 1997; Magni,
2003; Ray et al., 1990). The most diversified and dominating macrobenthic groups
were mollusks and polycheates which were reported to be the most abundant
macrobenthic taxa on sandy beaches worldwide (Mclachlan, 1983), while
nematodes, harpacticoides, platyhelminthes characterized as the important
meiofauna groups on sandy beaches (McLachlan, et al 1996). Abrupt changes are
observed in the community, diversity and other physical and biological changes
when a benthic community is disturbed from their natural ecosystem conditions
(Pearson & Rosenberg 1978).

Macrobenthic communities including bivalves are widely used as bio indicators for
organic health of coastal areas as their distribution helps to study time integrated
ecological contamination (Hussain et al., 2009), because most of them are sessile,
sedentary, and stationary. Temperature has an important influence on the
physiological and biochemical attributes of bivalves (Newell and Branch,
23
1980). This influence, in relation to food availability (Toro et al., 1999)
influences tolerance to high (Ansell et al., 1991; Wilson and Elkaim, 1991) and
low (Beukema, 1979; Dekker and Beukema, 1993) temperatures.

Bivalves of the family Donacidae occupy the exposed intertidal sandy beaches and
considered the major group existing in such extremely dynamic environments
(Ansell, 1983). They are commonly found in the soft bottom communities where
they are the main primary consumers and predated by extensive variety of
invertebrates, fish, birds, and mammals (Luzzatto et al.,2001; Peterson et al., 2000;
Salas et al., 2001). Henceforth, they establish a significant trophic link in surf zone
food webs (McLachlan et al., 1996).

The relationship between eneregy budgets, habitat structure, physiological

parameters and population diversity has been investigated most extensively marine
bivaHoarding, 1949; Kuenzler, 1961; Hancock, 1965; Dame, 1972; Dare, 1976;
Rodhouse, 1979; Bayne et al., 1983; Lee, 1985; Huang et al., 1985; Cheung, 1991;
1993). Besides the dominance of these species over other inter tidal bivalves
reported in these localities, can possibly be attributed to a higher tolerance to
environmental stress like atmospheric exposure, fluctuation in salinity due to influx
of water, pressure induced by pollution, etc. and particularly near Clifton do darya
where more resturants are located create pollutant effects like sewage and land
drain.
The maximum species diversity were recorded during the month of November and
mininmum during September,which suggested that the recruitment and settlement
of fauna are maximum during the post monsoon to winter.

Due to habitat loss, over exploitation of various anthropogenic pressures, the

macrobenthic invertebrates are under continuous threats which may be impact on
higher group of animals

In Pakistan, among the mollusks, numerous species of gastropods and bivalves are
usually caught for food and shell, predominantly in littoral zones. Organic
enrichment is a widely studied impact on marinebenthic communities (Halcrow et

24
al., 1973;Pearson, 1975; Hall, 1996; Amaral et al., 1998; Tayloret et al., 1998;
Frouin, 2000; ICES, 2000).

This study showed that largest number of species have been discovered during
NEMS and the least during LSMS while their numbers during POMS have been
middle in comparison of both months. During NEMS air temperature, salinity and
dissolved oxygen were highest and water temperature was low, when the sea is
backward. The study showed that the mean highest number of organisms were
present in low tide zone. This research is same to the ones carried out by Arshad
and Farooq (2017) and Ahmed and Hameed (1999) for Clifton. From these
researches it has been concluded that macro benthic species are abundant in the
winter season, it can be either observed in April which is a pre monsoon season
(N.Arshad and S. Farooq, 2017) or in November which is a post monsoon season.
The reason of their abundance is due to the availability of abundant dissolved
oxygen in sediment. Hence, it can be concluded that temperature of surrounding,
and presence of dissolved oxygen have direct impact of on the presence of macro
benthic fauna. It is also observed that low temperature and dissolved are inter linked
with each other i.e. the lower the temperature of atmosphere higher will be the rate
of dissolved oxygen in water (Dobriya et al. 1999; Pande and Mishra, 2000).
Therefore, high concentration of benthic species were available during NEMS.

The most abundant specie recorded during this study is Donax sp. Their abundance
was recorded during NEMS. Abundance of all the three species of Donax are
considered indicator of pollution and anthropogenic activities. Donax cuneatus
during LSWS were reported in high abundance by Arshad et al., 2017.

25
 CONCLUSION

On the basis of present study maximum abundance of macro benthic species was
reported from C1 during NEMS which included Donax sp. in highest quantity due
to favorable conditions for its growth. Hence, it has been concluded that presence of
Donax sp. at C1 is due to concentration of pollutants and monsoon season rather
than composition of sediment or physicochemical parameters.

Fig.11a Gammarus sp

Fig.11b Diopatra neopolitana

Fig.11c Glycera alba

Fig.11d Donax sp.

Fig.11. Plate shown common species during this study.

26
5. REFERENCE

AbdAllah, A. T. (2017). Efficiency of invertebrate animals for risk assessment and

biomonitoring of hazardous contaminants in aquatic ecosystem, a
review and status report. Environmental Risk Assessment and
Remediation, 1(1), 13-18.

Abele, L.G. (1974). Species diversity of decapod crustaceans in marine habitats.

Ecology 55: 156-161.

Ahmad, M. (1997).Animal and plant communities of the present and former Indus
Delta. In: The Indus River: biodiversity, resources, humankind (Eds. A.
Meadows and P.S. Meadows). Pp. 12-30OxfordUniversity Press,
Pakistan.

Ahmad, M. and S. Hameed (1999b).Animal communities of the exposed sandy

beach at Clifton in Karachi (Pakistan). Pak. J. Zool. 31: 211-218.

Ahmad, M. and S. Hameed. (1999a).Species diversity and biomass of marine

animal Communities of Buleji rocky ledge, Karachi, Pakistan. Pak. J.
Zool. 31: 81-91.

Ahmed, M. and Hameed, S., (1999). Animal communities of exposed sandy beach
at Clifton in Karachi (Pakistan). Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 31, 211-
217.

Ahmed, M. and Mustaquim, J. (1974). Population structure of four species of

porcellanid crabs (Decapoda: Anomura) occurring on the coast of
Karachi. Mar. Biol., 26: 173-182.

Ansell, A. D., (1983). The Biology of the Genus Donax. In A. McLachlan, T.

Erasmus, & W. Junk (Eds.), Developments in hydrobiology, sandy
beaches as ecosystems, 607–635.

27
Arshad, N., & Farooq, S. (2018). Evaluation of Clifton beach by using
macrobenthic assemblages for beach management. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 163, 30-36.

Aziz, N., & Sultana, R. 2000. Distribution and abundance of meiobenthos in

Sandspit backwater mangrove area Karachi. In: Ahmed V.U., (Ed).
Arabian Sea as a resource of biological diversity. Proceedings of
National ONR Symposium. HEJ Research Institute of Chemistry,
University of Karachi, pp 90-103.

Boyero, L. and J. Bosch, 2004. The effect of riffle-scale environmental

variability on macro invertebrate assemblages in a tropical stream.
Hydrobiologia, 524: 125-132.

Charlotte Mangum, WEBSTER VAN WINKLE American Zoologist 13 (2), 529-

541, 1973.

Clarke, J. R., & Warwick, R. M. 1994. Change in marine communities: an approach

to statistical Analysis and interpretation (144 pp.). Plymouth, UK:
Natural Environmental Research Council.

Department of Zoology, University of Jammu-180006, Jammu and Kashmir india

Email: prof.ksharma@gmail.com, c.samita30@gmail.com

Eaton, A. D., Clesceri, L. S., Greenberg, A. E., & Franson, M. A. H. (2005).

Standard methods for the examination of water and
wastewater. American public health association, 1015, 49-51.

Filipa Bessa, David Cunha, Sílvia Correia Gonçalves, João Carlos Marques
Ecologica indicators 30, 196-204, 2013 Jean-Claude Dauvin Marine
Pollution Bulletin 57 (1-5), 160-169, 2008.

28
Kazmi, Q. B., & Naushaba, R. 2000. A survey of coastal marine interstitial
arthropods from sand area of Karachi. In: Ahmed V.U., (Ed). Arabian
Sea as a resource of biological diversity. Proceedings of National ONR
Symposium. HEJ Research Institute of Chemistry, University of Karachi,
pp 129-143.

Kennedy, A. D., C.A. Jacoby, (1999). Biological indication of marine

environmental health: Meiofauna, A neglected benthic component.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 54: 68.

Levin, David W James, Christopher M Martin, Anthony E Rathburn, Leslie H

Harris, Robert H Michener Marine Ecology Progress Series 208, 21-39.

Levin, L. A., 2000. Polychaetes as environmental indicators: re-sponse to low

oxygen and organic Macroalgae in marine soft-sediment communities:
effects on benthic faunal assemblages RA EverettJournal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 175 (2), 253-274, 1994

Maanan, M., (2007). Biomonitoring of heavy metals using Mytilus

galloprovincialis in Safi coastal waters, Morocco; First published: 14
August 2007.

MA Kendall, S Widdicombe (2003). Macrofaunal assemblages of shallow soft

sediments Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 237 (1),
127-140, 1999.

McLachlan, A., 1983. Sandy beach ecology a review. In: McLachlan, A., and
Erasmus, T. (Eds.), Sandy Beaches as Ecosystems Junk, The Hague, The
Netherlands, pp. 321-380.

McLachlan, A., de Ruyck, A., Hacking, N. 1996. Community structure on sandy

beaches: patterns of richness and zonation in relation to tide range and
latitude. Revista Chilena d Historia Natural 69: 451-467.

29
Perus, J., Bonsdorff, E., Back, S., Lax, H. G., Villnas, A., & Westberg, V. 2007.
Zoobenthos as indicators of Ecological status in coastal brackish waters:
A comparative study from Baltic Sea. Ambio, 36(2–3): 252-256.

Hall, S. J. (1994). Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities:

life in unconsolidated sediments. Oceanography and Marine
Biology: an annual review.
Sharma, K. K., & Chowdhary, S. (2011). Macroinvertebrate assemblages as
biological indicators of pollution in a Central Himalayan River, Tawi
(JK). International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation, 3(5), 167-
174.

Tanaka, M. O., & Leite, F. P. (2003). Spatial scaling in the distribution of

macrofauna associated with Sargassum stenophyllum (Mertens) Martius:
analyses of faunal groups, gammarid life habits, and assemblage
structure. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 293(1),
1-22.

Yennawar, P.,Tudu, P. (2014). Study of macro-benthic (Invertebrate) fauna around

Digha coast. Rec.zool. surv. India, 114, 341-356

30