Monitoring of Pollution Using Density, Biomass and Diversity Indices of Macrobenthos from Mangrove Ecosystem of Uran, Navi Mumbai, West Coast of India

Prabhakar R. Pawar^*

Veer Wajekar Arts, Science and Commerce College, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Abstract

In this study, density, biomass and diversity indices of selected macrobenthos were assessed from substations along Sheva creek and Dharamtar creek mangrove ecosystems of Uran (Raigad), Navi Mumbai, west coast of India from April 2009 to March 2011. A total of 86 species of macrobenthos representing 61 genera and 45 families were identified comprising of gastropods, pelecypods, cephalopods, polychaetes, sponges, crabs, prawns and shrimps. Higher values of density, biomass and diversity indices were recorded during pre-monsoon and post-monsoon than the monsoon. Diversity values in the study area ranged from 0.203 to 0.332 indicating heavy pollution and the macro benthic fauna is under stress due to discharge of domestic wastes and sewage, effluents from industries, oil tanking depots and also from maritime activities of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT), hectic activities of Container Freight Stations (CFS), and other port wastes. This study reveals that macro-benthic fauna from mangrove ecosystems of Uran is facing the threat due to anthropogenic stress.

Keywords

Biomass, Community Structure, Diversity Indices, Species Composition, Uran

Received: June 13, 2015
Accepted: July 1, 2015
Published online: July 13, 2015

@ 2015 The Authors. Published by American Institute of Science. This Open Access article is under the CC BY-NC license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

1. Introduction

Plants ecosystems are a habitat for a wide variety of species, some occurring in high densities and provide food and shelter for a large number of commercially valuable finfish and shellfishes (Thilagavathi et al., 2013; Manson et al., 2005).Mangroves are one of the biologically diverse ecosystems in the world, rich in organic matter and nutrients and support very large biomass of flora and fauna (Robin and Bazelevic, 1966).

In India, 0.14% of the country’s total geographic area is under mangroves and it account for about 5% of world’s mangrove vegetation(Jagtap et al., 2002). The Indian mangroves cover about4827 km², with about 57% of them along the east coast, 23% along the west coast, and 20% in Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Venkataraman and Wafar, 2005). Anthropogenic activities involving development projects have resulted in depletion of coastal resources, destruction of mangrove habitats, disruption of ecosystem processes, and loss of biodiversity (Vijay et al., 2005).

Mumbai, a major metropolis and generates 0.85 millions m³/d of liquid effluent and 14.600 t/d of solid waste, which without any treatment are discharged in the coastal region in and around Mumbai (Zingde, 1999). Estimates of area of mangroves in Mumbai varied from 248.7 km² (Queshi, 1957) to 200 km² (Blasco et al., 1975) to 92.94 km² (Inamdar et al., 2000) to 26.97 km² (Mukherji, 2002). Zingde (2002) reported that Mumbai has lost 40% of all its mangroves in the past decade because of overexploitation and unsustainable demand for housing, slums, sewage treatment, and garbage dumps.

Mangroves are inhabited by a variety of macrobenthic invertebrates, which have a profound effect on sediment structure and their biochemical processes by enhancing the porosity and water flow through the sediments (Pravinkumar et al., 2013). Macrobenthic fauna have been studied more widely than others because of their high commercial value (Hu et al., 2009). They play an important role in the cycling of matter and energy in mangrove ecosystems (Koch and Wolff, 2002; Colpo et al., 2011). Benthic communities are highly affected by all the environmental parameters governing the distribution and diversity variation of the macrofaunal community in Pondicherry mangroves (Kumar and Khan, 2013).

Investigation of the population density and biomass of the organisms in creeks and estuaries is useful for the environmentalists to get enough information about the life span of important resource fauna (Pawar and Kulkarni, 2009). It gives a lot of information about the inflow of the young ones, the fry, total biomass, maturity, spawning, breeding and fecundity of the organisms of that region (Thakur et al., 2012).Understanding the structure of the benthic faunal communities in relation to the impacts of pollution is an important part of monitoring changes in mangrove ecosystems in India (Samidurai et al., 2012). Pearson and Rosenberg (1978) have demonstrated that diversity indices provide important insights into faunal communities at different stages in succession. In biodiversity investigations, assessment of diversity indices is essential to determine the community structure of a particular ecosystem (Dash, 2002; Khan and Murugesan, 2005).

The coastal environment of Uran (Navi Mumbai) has been under considerable stress since the onset of industries like Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC),Liquid Petroleum Gas Distillation Plant, Grindwell Norton Ltd., Gas Turbine Power Station, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Gas Bottling Plant, Jawaharlal Nehru Port (JNP, an international port), Nhava-Seva International Container Terminal (NSICT), Container Freight Stations (CFS), etc. These activities affect the quality of mangrove ecosystems (Pawar, 2013).Although many studies have been undertaken to evaluate the macrobenthos of mangrove ecosystems in India, no scientific studies have been carried out on community structure of macrobenthos from mangroves of Uran, Navi Mumbai; hence, the present study is undertaken. Objective of the present study is to evaluate the community structure of macrobenthos in relation to the impacts of pollution from mangrove ecosystems of Uran, Navi Mumbai with respect to population density, biomass and diversity indices.

Fig. 1. Location map of study area representing various sampling stations along Sheva creek and Dharamtar creek.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Geographically, Uran (Lat. 18^o 50' 5'' to 18^o 50' 20'' N and Long. 72^o57' 5'' to 72^o57' 15'' E) with the population of 23,254 is located along the eastern shore of Mumbai harbor opposite to Coloba. Uran is bounded by Mumbai harbor to the northwest, Thane creek to the north, Dharamtar creek and Karanja creek to the south, and the Arabian Sea to the west. Uran is included in the planned metropolis of Navi Mumbai and its port, the Jawaharlal Nehru Port (JNPT) (see Fig. 1).

2.2. Sampling Procedures

The present study was carried out for a period of two years, i.e., from April 2009 to March 2011. Two study sites, namely Sheva creek, site I (Lat. 18^o50'20'' N and Long. 72^o57'50''E) and Dharamtar creek, site II (Lat.18^o50'50'' N and Long. 72^o57'10'' E) separated approximately by 10 km, were selected along the coast. At each site, three sampling stations separated approximately by 1 km were established for assessment of density, biomass and diversity indices of selected macrobenthos.

The selected sites were visited fortnightly at spring low tide from April 2009 to March 2011. The intertidal area was divided into 3 zones i.e. high water zone, mid water zone and low water zone following Bhatt (1959) and Parulekar (1973). From selected sites, macrobenthos were collected and processed as per the recommendations of Holme and McIntyre (1984). Identification of macro benthos was done following the work of Hornell (1949), Menon et al.(1951), Subrahmanyam et al., (1949, 1951, 1952), Chhapgar (1957, 1958), Apte (1988) and Khan and Murugesan (2005).

2.3. Population Study of Selected Macro Fauna

The abundantly recorded macrobenthic fauna from mangrove ecosystem is considered for population studies and their density, biomass and diversity indices were assessed following standard methods (Parulekar et al., 1976; Eleftheriou and Holme, 1984).

• Population density:

Number of selected macrobenthos present in one m² area was considered for assessment of population density. The macro benthos collected from fixed transects of one m² area, each from upper, middle and lower littoral zones were counted and average number of each species was recorded. Density of each species was expressed as average No/m² (Parulekar et al., 1976).

• Biomass:

Macrobenthos of different species collected from one m² area were shelled and average wet weight was measured (Mehta, 1994). Biomass of each species was obtained by multiplication of average wet weight with average density and was expressed as g/m².

• Diversity Indices:

Following indices were calculated for the quantification of biodiversity and comparison of species diversity.

Index of Frequency (F) or Importance Probability (Pi) (Smith and Smith, 1988)

Where,

ni = Number of individuals of each species in the community

N = Total number of all individuals of all species in the community

Index of Dominance (c) (Simpson, 1949)

Where,

ni = Number of individuals of each species in the community

N = Total number of all individuals of all species in the community

Rarity Index (R) (Ludwig and Reynolds, 1988)

Where, F = Index of frequency

Shannon’s Index of General Diversity(Η')(Shannon and Weaver, 1949)

Where, Pi= Importance Probability

log e = ln ( -log natural) or= log10 X 2.303

3. Results

3.1. Mangrove Ecosystem of Uran

The mangrove ecosystem of Uran is a tide-dominated and the tides are semidiurnal. The average tide amplitude is 2.28 m. The flood period lasts for about 6–7 h and the ebb period lasts for about 5 h. The average annual precipitation is about 3884 mm of which about 80% is received during July to September. The temperature range is 12–36 ⁰C, whereas the relative humidity remains between 61% and 86% and is highest in the month of August. Four species of true mangroves representing three genera and three families were recorded during present study. The dominant species are Avicennia marina, Avicennia officinalis, Acanthus ilicifolius, and Ceriops tagal. The average tree height is 2.4 m and the canopy coverage is greater than 90%.

Fig. 2. Percentage representation of species of macrobenthos in mangroves of Uran (Raigad).

3.2. Species Composition of Macrobenthos

A total of 86 species of macrobenthos representing 61 genera and 45 families were recorded from the mangroves of Uran coast. Varied diversity of macrobenthos belonging to gastropods, pelecypods, cephalopods, polychaetes, sponges, crabs, prawns and shrimps is recorded from both sites. Of the recorded species, 44.19 % belonged to gastropods, 15.12 % each to pelecypods, crabs and prawns and shrimps, 4.65 % each to cephalopods and polychaetes and 1.16 % to sponges (Fig. 2).

3.3. Population Studies of Selected Macrobenthos

Among the recorded macrobenthos, abundantly recorded species like Thais carinifera, Perinereis cultrifera and Uca annulipes were selected for assessment of density, biomass and diversity indices following standard methods (Parulekar et al., 1976; Eleftheriou and Holme, 1984).

3.4. Population Density

Population density of macrobenthos in mangroves of Uran is high during pre-monsoon and post-monsoon than the monsoon (Fig. 3 and Table -1). Maximum density of P. cultrifera in the range of 164 ± 8 to222 ± 25 no/m² was recorded at site I and 188 ± 5 to 270 ± 17 no/m² at site II. Minimum density was noted for T. carinifera in the range of 24 ± 4 to 33 ± 2 at site I and 34 ± 4 to 50 ± 4 at site II. U. annulipes has moderate density in the range of 37 ± 4 to 55 ± 6 at site I and 46 ± 2 to 66 ± 3 at site II.

Fig. 3. Monthly variation of density of selected macrobenthos from mangroves of Uran.

Table 1. Seasonal variation of density of selected macrobenthos from mangroves of Uran.

3.5. Biomass

The biomass follows the trend of population density with lowest value in monsoon and highest values in pre-monsoon and post-monsoon (Fig. 4 and Table 2). Biomass of T. cariniferawas highest in the range of 36.60 ± 5.81 to 48.47 ± 2.24 g/m²at site I and 54.90 ± 6.97 to 81.25 ± 8.08 g/m²at site II. P. cultrifera shows moderate biomass in the range of 30.80 ± 1.48 to 49.20 ± 5.19 g/m²at site I and 44.58 ± 3.74 to 70.39 ± 2.75 g/m²at site II. Lowest biomass in the range of 14.33 ± 1.58 to 26.96 ± 5.63 g/m²at site I and 22.13 ± 3.82 to 39.48 ± 1.66 g/m²at site II was recorded for U. annulipes. The degree of biomass can be put as T. carinifera >P. cultrifera >U. annulipes.

Fig. 4. Monthly variation of biomass of selected macrobenthos from mangroves of Uran.

Table 2. Seasonal variation of biomass of selected macrobenthos from mangroves of Uran.

3.6. Diversity Indices

The index of frequency (F) or importance probability (Pi) shows seasonal variation and the values were high in pre-monsoon and post-monsoon than the monsoon. Highest F was recorded for P. cultrifera during pre-monsoon (0.767 at Site I and 0.725 at Site II, Dec 2009) followed by U. annulipes during pre-monsoon (0.198 at Site I, May 2010 and 0.218 at Site II, Apr 2009). The lowest values were recorded for T. carinifera (0.084 at Site I, Jan 2010 and 0.112 at Site II, Aug 2010). The index of frequency can be placed in order of P. cultrifera>U. annulipes>T. carinifera (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5. Monthly variation of index of frequency (F) or importance probability (Pi) of selected macrobenthos from mangroves of Uran.

Fig. 6. Monthly variation of index of dominance of selected macrobenthos from mangroves of Uran.

The index of dominance was uniform at both sites where the dominance of the species can be placed in order as P. cultrifera >U. annulipes>T. carinifera. The data on index of dominance shows that the gastropod species T. cariniferais dominated over by other species (Fig. 6).

The rarity index was according to the index of dominance. In this case, T. carinifera shows highest rarity index and found to be rare with respect to population density and biomass. Rarity index of P. cultrifera, found to be very common at both sites. Lower Rarity index of polychaetes marks the higher density of it. Among other species, U. annulipes found to be dominant over T. carinifera species assessed. The pattern of Rarity index was not significantly varied throughout the period of investigation, although, slight seasonal variation of rarity index was recorded for all macro benthos (Fig.7).

The Shannon’s Index of General Diversity (Η^'), was found to be uniform during the period of investigation. Maximum Η^'was observed for U. annulipes, which was followed by T. carinifera and P. cultrifera. The Η^'of all the species studied was uniform throughout the period of investigation. The data on Η^' shows that species richness of P. cultrifera, U. annulipes and T. carinifera was more or less same. These results of Η^' are in agreement with index of frequency, index of dominance and rarity index and did not varied significantly (Fig. 8).

Fig. 7. Monthly variation of rarity index of selected macrobenthos from mangroves of Uran.

Fig. 8. Monthly variation of Shannon’s Index of General Diversity (Η^') of selected macrobenthos from mangroves of Uran.

4. Discussion

Benthic macro fauna of the gastropods is dominant in Uran mangroves and is followed by pelecypods, crabs, prawns & shrimps, cephalopods, polychaetes and sponges. Similar results on species composition of macrobenthos in mangrove ecosystems were reported by Ngo-Massou et al. (2012), Thilagavathi et al. (2013), Pravinkumar et al. (2013) and Kumar and Khan (2013).

Higher density of macrobenthos recorded during pre-monsoon and post-monsoon is attributed to higher total organic carbon coupled with a stable environment (Thilagavathi et al., 2013). The results of the study are in agreement with Kurian (1984), Saravanakumar et al. (2007) and Pravinkumar et al. (2013). Results of dominance of gastropods, pelecypods, crustaceans and polychaetes in mangrove environment were also reported by Zhou (2001) and Huang et al. (2002). Low species diversity recorded during monsoon is attributed to the influx of freshwater, low temperature and lowered salinity. This is in conformity with Parulekar et al. (1976), Chandran (1987), Devi (1994) and Pravinkumar et al. (2013).

Density and biomass of P. cultrifera and T. carinifera shows an inverse relationship. In comparison of P. cultrifera, low density of T. carinifera was observed throughout the investigation period. However, the biomass of T. carinifera was higher than that of P. cultrifera. A size variation of these organisms can be correlated to their inverse relationship in between density and biomass (Pawar and Kulkarni, 2009). As compared to P. cultrifera, well-developed body organs and thick coverings of U. annulipes can be correlated to their differential density and biomass (Ingole et al., 2002; Quadros and Athalye, 2002).

Low biomass and high density of macrobenthos could be due to the recruitment process. Harkantra and Rodrigaes (2004) have reported that salinity is the main significant factor influencing the species diversity, population density and biomass of macrobenthos in the estuarine system of Goa, west coast of India. Results of the study are in agreement with earlier reports of Kumar (2001), Edgar and Barret (2002), Liang et al., (2005), Tang and Yu (2007) and Mahapatro et al. (2009).

The diversity indices calculated for two sites are given in Fig. 5 to Fig. 8. The salinity acts as a limiting factor in the distribution of living organisms, and its variation was due to dilution and evaporation (Pravinkumar et al., 2013). Maximum values of diversity indices recorded during pre-monsoon and post-monsoon are in agreement with the earlier reports (Murugesan, 2002; Ajmal et al., 2005).

The low species richness recorded during monsoon might be due to the low temperature, tidal fluctuation, freshwater runoff containing sewage and low salinity which in turn affected the distribution of benthos. Pawar and Kulkarni (2007) have reported that the diversity indices can be used as a good measure for studying the effect of industrial pollution because industrial wastes and sewage almost always reduce the diversity of natural systems into which they are discharged.

Wilhm and Dorris (1966) and Kumar and Khan (2013) have stated that values less than 1.0 for diversity index (H) in estuarine waters indicate heavy pollution, values between 1.0 and 3.0 indicate moderate pollution, and values exceeding 3.0 indicate non-polluted water. Diversity values in the study area ranged from 0.203 to 0.321 at site I and 0.233 to 0.332 at site II. These values suggest that the mangrove ecosystem studied is heavily polluted and the macro benthic fauna is under stress due to anthropogenic factors.

5. Conclusion

Present study shows that the mangrove ecosystem of Uran, Navi Mumbaihave heavy pollution from the sewage, industrial wastes, effluents, maritime activities of Jawaharlal Nehru Port (JNPT), Container Freight Stations, and other port wastes. This deteriorates the mangrove ecosystem affecting the community structure of macrobenthos with respect to population density, biomass and diversity indices. The macro benthic fauna from mangrove ecosystems of Uran is facing the threat due to anthropogenic stress.Present information on community structure of macrobenthos from mangrove ecosystem of Uran, Navi Mumbai would be helpfulas a baseline data for further monitoring of anthropogenic inputs on mangrove ecosystem of Uran.

Acknowledgements

I thank Principal, Veer Wajekar Arts, Science and Commerce College, Mahalan Vibhag, Phunde (Uran), Navi Mumbai - 400 702 for providing necessary facilities for the present study. This work was supported by University Grants Commission, Western Regional Office, Pune [File No: 47-599/08 (WRO) dated 2nd Feb 2009].The author is thankful to the anonymous reviewers for valuable suggestions in the manuscript.

References

1. Ajmal, K. S., Raffi, S. M. & Lyla, P. S. (2005) Brachyuran crab diversity in natural (Pichavaram) and artificially developed mangroves (Vellar estuary). Current Science, 88(8), 1316-1324.
2. Apte, D. A. (1988) The book of Indian shells, Bombay Natural History Society; Oxford University Press, India.
3. Bhatt, Y. M. (1959) A study of intertidal organisms of Bombay M. Sc. Thesis University of Mumbai.
4. Blasco, F., Caratini, C., Chanda, S. & Thanikaimoni, G. (1975) Main characteristics of Indian mangroves. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Biology and Management of Mangroves. (ed. by G. E. Walsh, S. G. Snedkar and H. J. Reas), pp. 71–87.
5. Chandran, R. (1987) Hydrobiological Studies in the Gradient Zone of the Vellar estuary. IV. Benthic Fauna. Mahasagar Bulletin of National Institute of Oceanography, 20, 1-13.
6. Chhapgar, B. F. (1957) On the marine crabs (Decapoda – Brachyura) of Bombay State. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 54, 399–439.
7. Chhapgar, B. F. (1958) More additions to the crab fauna of Bombay State. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 65(3), 608–617.
8. Colpo, K. D., Chacur, M. M. Guimaraes, F. J. & Negreiros-Fransozo, M. L. (2011) Subtropical Brazilian mangroves as a refuge of crab (Decapoda: Brachyura) diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20(13), 3239–3250.
9. Dash, M. C. (2002) Systems concept in Ecology. Fundamentals of Ecology (ed. by M. C. Dash), pp. 35-144. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi.
10. Devi, Prabha L. (1994) Ecology of Coleroon estuary, Studies on Benthic Fauna. Journal of Marine Biological Association of India, 36, 260-266.
11. Edgar, Graham. J. & Barrett, Neville. S. (2002) Benthic macrofauna in Tasmanian estuaries: scales of distribution and relationships with environmental variables. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 270(1), 1-24.
12. Eleftheriou, A. & Holme, N. A. (1984) Macrofauna techniques. Methods for the study of marine benthos. (ed. by N. A. Holme & A. D. McIntyre), pp. 1–344. IBP Handbook No. 16. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, U. K.
13. Harkantra, Sadanand. N. & Rodrigaes, Nimi. R. (2004) Environmental influences on the species diversity, biomass and population density of soft bottom macrofauna in the estuarine system of Goa, west coast of India. Indian Journal of Marine Sciences, 33(2), 187-193.
14. Holme, N. A. & McIntyre, A. D. (ed.)(1984) Methods of the study of marine benthos. IBP Hand Book No. 16. Oxford and Edinburgh. Blackwell Scientific Publication pp. 387.
15. Hornell, J. (1949) The study of Indian Mollusca. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 48(2), 2-34.
16. Hu, Z. Y., Bao, Y. X., Cheng, H. Y. Zhang, L. L. & Ge, B. M. (2009) Research progress on ecology of natural wetlands zoobenthos in China. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 28(5), 959–968.
17. Huang, B., Zhang, B., Lu, J., Ou, Z. & Xing, Z. (2002) Studies of macrobenthic ecology and beach aquaculture holding capacity in Dongzhai Bay mangrove areas. Marine Science, Haiyang-Kexue 26(3), 65-68.
18. Inamdar, A. B., Surendrakumar, R. K., Behera, M. C., Chauhan, H. B. and Nayak, S. (2000) Land use mapping of Maharashtra Coastal Regulatory Zone. SAC/RESA/MWRD/CRZ/SN/02/00 Indian Space Research Organization, Ahmadabad, India, pp. 42.
19. Ingole, B. N., Rodrigues, N. R. & Ansari, Z. A. (2002) Macrobenthic communities of the coastal waters of Dabhol, West coast of India. Indian Journal of Marine Sciences, 31(2), 100–107.
20. Jagtap, T.G., Murthy, P. & Komarpant, D. (2002) Mangrove ecosystems of India: major biotic constituents, conservation and management. Wetland Conservation and Management. (ed. by B. B. Hosetti), Pointer Publishers, Jaipur, India, pp. 34–64.
21. Khan, S. A. & Murgesan, P. (2005) Polychaetes diversity in Indian estuaries. Indian Journal of Marine Sciences, 34(1), 114–119.
22. Koch, V. & Wolff, M. (2002) Energy budget and ecological role of mangrove epibenthos in the Caet´e estuary, North Brazil. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 228(3), 119–130.
23. Kumar, Palanisamy. Satheesh. & Khan, Anisa. Basheer. (2013) The distribution and diversity of benthic macro-invertebrate fauna in Pondicherry mangroves, India. Aquatic Biosystems, 9:15,http://www.aquaticbiosystems.org/content/9/1/15.
24. Kumar, R. S. (2001) Intertidal zonation and seasonality of benthos in a tropical mangrove.International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences,27, 199–208.
25. Kurian, C. V. (1984) Fauna of the mangrove swamps in Cochin estuary. Proceedings of the Asian Symposium on Mangrove Environment Research and Management. (ed. byE. A. Soepadmo, N. Rao and D. J. Macintosh), pp. 226-230.
26. Liang, C. Y., Zhang, H. H., Xie, X. Y. & Zou, F. S. (2005) Study on biodiversity of mangrove benthos in Leizhou Peninsula. Marine Sciences, 2, 18–25, 31.
27. Ludwig, J. A. & Reynolds, J. F. (1988) Statistical Ecology: A Primer on Methods and Computing. pp. 377. John Wiley & Sons New York.
28. Mahapatro,Debasish., Panigrahy, R. C., Panda, Sudarsan., & Mishra, Rajani.K.(2009)Influence of monsoon on macrobenthic assemblage in outer channel area of Chilika lagoon, east coast of India.Journal of Wetlands Ecology, 3, 56-67.
29. Manson, F. J., Loneragan, N. R., Skilleter, G. A. & Phinn, S. R. (2005) An Evaluation of the Evidence for Linkages between Mangroves and Fisheries: A Synthesis of the Literature and Identification of Research Directions. Oceanography and Marine Biology - An Annual Review,43, 485-515.
30. Mehta, P. (1994) Bio-ecology of benthic organisms with reference to changing environment. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Bombay.
31. Menon, P. K., Datta, A. K. & Das Gupta, D. (1951) On the marine fauna of Gulf of Part II – Gastropoda. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society, 8(2), 475–494.
32. Mukherji, M. (2002) Degradation of creeks and mangroves and its impact on urban environment – a case study of Mumbai. Proceedings of the National Seminar on Creeks, Estuaries and Mangroves – Pollution and Conservation, pp. 331–333.
33. Murugesan, P. (2002) Benthic biodiversity in the marine zone of Vellar estuary. Ph.D., Thesis, Annamalai University, India. pp. 330.
34. Ngo-Massou, V. M., Essome-Koum, G. L., Ngollo-Dina, E. & Din, N. (2012) Composition of macrobenthos in the Wouri River estuary mangrove, Douala, Cameroon, African Journal of Marine Science, 34(3), 349-360http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2012.725288
35. Parulekar, A. H. (1973) Studies on intertidal ecology of Anjidiv Island. Abstracts of the Indian National Science Academy, 39 (B), 611–631.
36. Parulekar, A. H., Nair, S. A., Harkantra, S. N. & Ansari, Z. A.(1976) Some quantitative studies on the benthos off Bombay. Mahasagar, 9, 51–56.
37. Pawar, Prabhakar. R. & Kulkarni, Balasaheb. G. (2007) Diversity indices of selected macrobenthos in Karanja creek (District –Raigad), Maharashtra, West coast of India. Journal of Indian fisheries Association, 34, 1–9.
38. Pawar, Prabhakar. R. & Kulkarni, Balasaheb. G. (2009) Population Density and Biomass of Selected Macrobenthos in Karanja Creek, (Dist. – Raigad), Maharashtra, West Coast of India. The Ecologia, 9(1–2), 79–86.
39. Pawar, Prabhakar. R. (2013) Monitoring of impact of anthropogenic inputs on water quality of mangrove ecosystem of Uran, Navi Mumbai, west coast of India.Marine Pollution Bulletin, 75, 291–300.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.06.045
40. Pearson, T. H. & Rosenberg, R. (1978) Macrobenthos secession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment.Oceanography and Marine Biology - An Annual Review,16, 229-234.
41. Pravinkumar, M., Murugesan, P., Krishna Prakash, R., Elumalai, V., Viswanathan C. & Raffi, S. M. (2013) Benthic biodiversity in the Pichavaram mangroves, Southeast Coast of India. Journal of Oceanography and Marine Science 4(1), 1-11.
42. Quadros, G. & Athalye, R. P. (2002) Intertidal macrobenthos from Ulhas river estuary and Thane creek. Proceedings of the National Seminar on Creeks, Estuaries and Mangroves – Pollution and Conservation. pp. 216 – 222.
43. Queshi, I. M. (1957) Botanical silviculture features of mangrove forest of Bombay State. Proceedings of Mangrove Symposium. Government of India Press, Calcutta, pp. 20–26.
44. Robin, L. E. & Bazelevic, N. I. (1966) The biological production of main vegetation types in the Northern Hemisphere of the Old World. Forestry Abstracts, 27, 369–372.
45. Samidurai, K., Saravanakumar, A. and Kathiresan, K. (2012) Spatial and temporal distribution of macrobenthos in different mangrove ecosystems of Tamil Nadu Coast, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184(7), 4079–4096.
46. Saravanakumar, A., Sesh Serebiah, J., Thivakaran, G. A. & Rajkumar, M. (2007) Benthic macrofaunal assemblage in the arid zone mangroves of Gulf of Kachchh, Gujarat.Journal of Ocean University of China,IV 6, 303-309.
47. Shannon C. E. & Weaver W. (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. pp. 117. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
48. Simpson, E. H. (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 681 – 688.
49. Smith, R. L. & Smith, T. M. (1988) Elements of Ecology. Wesley Longman Inc. C. A.
50. Subrahmanyam, T. V., Karandikar, K. R. & Murti, N. N. (1949) The marine Pelecypoda of Bombay. Journal of University of Bombay, 17, 50–81.
51. Subrahmanyam, T. V., Karandikar, K. R. & Murti, N. N. (1951) Marine Gastropods of Bombay, Part I. Journal of University of Bombay, 20(1), 21–34.
52. Subrahmanyam, T. V., Karandikar, K. R. & Murti, N. N. (1952) Marine Gastropods of Bombay, Part II. Journal of University of Bombay, 21(3), 26–73 New Series.
53. Tang, Y. J. & Yu, S. X. (2007) Spatial zonation of macrobenthic fauna in Zhanjiang Mangrove Nature Reserve, Guangdong, China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 27(5), 1703–1714.
54. Thakur, Sandhya., Yeragi S. G. & Yeragi, S. S. (2012) Population density and biomass of organisms in the mangrove region of Akshi creek, Alibaug taluka, Raigad district, Maharashtra. Marine biodiversity: Utter Pradesh State Biodiversity Board, pp. 135-140.
55. Thilagavathi, B., Varadharajan, D., Babu, A., Manoharan, J., Vijayalakshmi, S. & Balasubramanian, T. (2013) Distribution and Diversity of Macrobenthos in Different Mangrove Ecosystems of Tamil Nadu Coast, India. Journal of Aquaculture Research Development 4:199 doi:10.4172/2155-9546.1000199.
56. Venkataraman, K. & Wafar, M. (2005) Coastal and marine biodiversity of India. Indian Journal of Marine Sciences. 34 (1), 57–75.
57. Vijay, V., Birader, R. S., Inamdar, A. B., Deshmukh, G., Baji, S. & Pikle, M. (2005) Mangrove mapping and change detection around Mumbai (Bombay) using remotely sensed data. Indian Journal of Marine Sciences. 34 (3), 310–315.
58. Wilhm, J. L. & Dorris, T. C. (1966) Species diversity of benthic macro invertebrates in a stream receiving domestic and oil refinery effluents.The American Midland Naturalist Journal,76, 427–449.
59. Zhou, H. (2001) Effects of leaf litter addition on meiofaunal colonization of azoic sediments in a subtropical mangrove in Hong Kong. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 256, 99-121.
60. Zingde, M. D. (1999) Marine environmental status and coastal zone management issues in India. South Asia Regional Workshop on Estuarine modelling and Coastal Zone Management. A Joint START/LOICZ/IGBP-SL Workshop, 28^th–30^th April 1999, Colombo, Sri Lanka. pp. 153-164.
61. Zingde, M. D. (2002) Degradation of Marine habitats and Coastal management framework. Proceedings of the National Seminar on Creeks, Estuaries and Mangroves – Pollution and Conservation. pp. 3–7.