Repoblic of Iraq
Ministry of Higher Education
and Scientific Research
Baghdad University
College of Science
Ecological and Taxonomic Study of
Protozoa Community in the East Bank of
River Tigris within
Baghdad City
A Thesis
Submitted To the Council Of The
University Of Baghdad, College Of Science, Biology Department
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Of
Master of Science
In
Zoology
By
Zahraa Yehia Kadhim
B.Sc. in Biology, University of Baghdad
College of Science, Biology Department, 1999
Supervised by
Ass. Prof. Dr. Souhaila H. Mahmood
1434
2013
‫ﺟﻣﻬﻭﺭﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﺍﻕ‬
‫ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺗﻌﻠﻳﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺑﺣﺙ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻣﻲ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﻐﺩﺍﺩ‬
‫ﻛﻠ ﱠﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻭﻡ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺑﻴﺌﻴﺔ ﻭ ﺗﺼﻨﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻤﺠﺎﻣﻴﻊ ﺍﻹﺑﺘﺪﺍﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻀﻔﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ ﻟﻨﻬﺮ ﺩﺟﻠﺔ ﻭﺳﻂ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻁﺮﻭﺣﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺠﻠﺲ ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ‪ /‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺟﺰء ﻣﻦ ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﻧﻴﻞ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺟﺴﺘﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ‪ /‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻗﺪﻣﺖ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ‬
‫ﺯﻫـﺮﺍء ﻳﺤـﻴﻰ ﻛﺎﻅـﻢ‬
‫ﺑﻜﻠﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺎﺓ ‪ /‬ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ‪ -‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ ‪۱۹۹۹‬‬
‫ﺇﺷﺮﺍﻑ‬
‫ﺃ‪.‬ﻡ‪.‬ﺩ‪ .‬ﺳﻬﻴﻠﺔ ﺣﻴﺎﻭﻱ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩ‬
‫‪1434‬ﻫ‬
‫‪20۱۳‬ﻡ‬
‫ﺻﺪق اﷲ اﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻧﺒﻴﺎء )‪(۳۰‬‬
Acknowledgements
At the end of my work I thank God for his
blessings and favors.
Sincere thanks are due to my supervisors Ass.
Prof. Dr. Souhaila H. Mahmood for her support
throughout the preparation of this project and
appreciable opinions which all made my study easy
and executable.
I wish to express my thanks to the staff of the
Ecology (Dept Biology /College of Science /University
of Baghdad) especially Ass. Prof. Dr. Adel M. Rabee &
Ph.D. Mahmood B. Mahmood.
And I will never forget the help and support from
Dr. Ahmed S. Abdul-Wahab.
Finally but not the last, my great thanks to all
those whom give me encouragement, confidence and
advices.
God grant us
Dedication
To my first teachers, the highly respected models in my life …… my dear
parents
To spring of love and sympathy …..my husband Farazdaq
To my precious and Considerate …..Brother Ali
To my lover sisters and brothers … Muna, Assraa, Noor and Ahmed
And to my great hope and happiness….. my children Mohamed,
Sarmed and Roqaya
With love and gratitude
Zahraa Yehia Kadhim
Committee’s Certification
We, the examining committee, certify that we have read this dissertation and
examined the student Zahraa Yehia Kadhim in its contents and that
according to our opinion it is adequate for awarding degree of Master of
Science in Biology.
Signature:
Name: Haifa J. Jaweir
Professor
(Chairman)
Date: \ \2013
Signature:
Name: Kadhim H. Yaseen
Assistant Professor
(Member)
Date: \ \ 2013
Signature:
Name: Adel M. Rabee
Assistant Professor
(Member)
Date: \ \ 2013
Signature:
Name: Dr. Souhaila H. Mahmood
Assistant Professor
(Supervisor)
Date: \ \ 2013
Approved by The Council of The College of Science, University of Baghdad.
Signature:
Name: Prof. Dr. Saleh M. Ali
Dean of College of Science \ University of Baghdad.
Date: \ \ 2013
Certification
We certify that this thesis was prepared under our supervision at the
department of Biology – College of Science, Baghdad University as a partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science in
Biology.
Signature:
Supervisor: Asst. Prof. Dr. Souhaila H. Mahmood
Date:
In review of the available recommendations .I forward this thesis for debate
by the examining committee.
Signature:
Prof. Dr.: Sabah N. Alwachi
Head of Biology Department
Date:
Abstract-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract:
The protozoa community of the water and sediment at Tigris river bank
in Baghdad city was studied from January to October 2012.
A total of 180 samples have been collected at monthly interval of 9
samples from each of the water surface and soil at the east bank of river Tigris
at three sites in Baghdad.
Some physical-chemical properties of water were determined, the
ranges of these properties water temperature (T) from 10 to 30 C ͦ, hydrogen
ion concentration (pH) from 7 to 7.9, electrical conductivity (EC) from 430
790 µs/cm, dissolved oxygen (DO) from 4.9 to 14 mg/L, nitrate (NO3-1) from
1.085 to 8.9 mg/L and phosphate (PO4-3) from 3 to 222.7 µg/L. Among these
factors temperature, NO3-1 and PO4-3 appeared to be the most effective factors
on protozoan community.
During the study period total of 115 protozoan taxa were recorded from
the water and sediment samples through microscopic examination for live
specimens, most of these taxa were considered to be new records to Iraqi
protozoan’s communities. From the water 112 taxa were extracted, (63 of
cilites, 25 of flagellates and 24 of sarcodines).While 22 taxa were extracted
from the sediment, (12 of ciliates and 5 of each flagellates and sarcodines).
The mean population density in the water was 117216.7 ind/L-1, of
these 1601140, 1083760 and 846750 ind /L-1 were counted from sites 1, 2 and
3 respectively.
The mean indices of diversity in the water were ranged from 8.948 at
S2 during October and 0.268 at S1 during January.
The ciliata comprised the main group in the both habitat (water and
sediment). Dominant protozoan species of water were Aspidisca sp.,
Abstract-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cinetochilum sp., Coleps hirtus, Cyclidium sp. of ciliata and Pseudochlamys
patella of sarcodina.
Among the 22 protozoan taxa recorded from the sediment three
protozoan taxa (Pleuronema marinum, Pleuronema setigera, Uronema
marinum) were recorded from the sediment only, while the remaining 19
species were found in the both habitat (water and sediment).
List of Contents
Contents
Page NO.
Abstract
List of contents
I
List of figures
IV
List of table
I
List of plates
I
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction & Literatures Review
1.1 Introduction
1
1.2.1 General view
4
1.2.2Classification
6
1.2.3 Free-living protozoa and ecosystem function
12
1.2.3.1 Physicochemical factors and distribution
12
1.2.3.1.1 Hydrogen-ion concentration(pH)
13
1.2.3.1.2 Temperature
13
1.2.3.1.3 Oxygen
14
1.2.3.1.4 Salinity
14
1.2.3.1.5 Moisture
15
1.2.4 Functional roles of Free-living Protozoa
16
1.2.5 Protozoan diversity and abundance
20
1.2.6 Soil protozoans
22
1.2.7 Methods of determining protozoan diversity
26
CHAPTER TWO: Materials and Methods
I
2.1 Materials
29
2.1.1 Apparatus and equipments
29
2.1.2 Chemicals materials
29
2.2 The study area
30
2.3 Sampling sites
32
2.4 Methods of sampling
34
2.4.1 Sampling of water
34
2.4.1.1 Water temperature
34
2.4.1.2 pH & EC
35
2.4.1.3 Dissolved oxygen (DO)
35
2.4.1.4 Nitrate
35
2.4.1.5 Phosphate
35
2.4.2 Sampling of sediment
35
2.5 Sample processing and investigation
36
2.5.1 Water samples
36
2.5.2 Sediment samples
38
CHAPTER THREE: Results and Discussion
3.1 Chemical and physical variables at the study sites
39
3.2 Water protozoans
43
3.2.1 Species richness and taxa composition
3.2.1.1 Dominancy & Frequency
43
50
3.2.2 Population density and index of diversity
3.2.2.1 Species diversity
52
55
II
3.2.3 Photographs and description of the most frequent and
dominant species obtained during the study period
3.3 Sediment protozoans
56
77
3.3.1 Photographs and description of the species inhabiting the
sediment during the study period
79
Conclusions
81
Recommendations
82
References
83
APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Plates
107
Appendix 2: Tables
117
III
List of Figures
Figures
Page NO.
Figure 1-1: Different type of Protozoa
6
Figure 2-1: The map of Iraq shows the locality of sampling area
at east bank of Tigris river.
Figure 2-2: The sampling area at site (1)
31
32
Figure 2-3: The sampling area at site (2)
33
Figure 2-4: The sampling area at site (3)
33
Figure 3-1: The monthly fluctuations in water temperature (Co)
at S1, S2 & S3 during the study period from (January
to October 2012).
40
Figure 3-2: The monthly fluctuations in pH values at S1, S2 &
S3 during the study period from (January to October
2012).
40
Figure 3-3: The monthly fluctuations in E.C (µS) at S1, S2 & S3
during study period from (January to October 2012).
41
Figure 3-4: The monthly fluctuations in DO concentration
(mg/l) at S1, S2 & S3 during the study period from
(January-October 2012).
41
Figure 3-5: The monthly fluctuations in NO3 (mg/l) at S1, S2 &
S3 during the study period from (January to October
2012).
42
Figure 3-6: The monthly fluctuations in PO4 (µg/l) at S1, S2
&S3 during study period from (January to October
2012).
42
Figure 3-7: The monthly fluctuations in number of species at S1,
S2 &S3 during the study period (from January to
October 2012).
48
Figure 3-8: The monthly fluctuations in abundance (ind. /L-1) at
S1, S2 & S3 during the study period (from January
to October 2012).
53
IV
Figure 3-9: The monthly fluctuations in index of diversity at S1,
S2 &S3 during the study period (from January to
October 2012).
53
Figure 3-10: Aspidisca sp.
56
Figure 3-11: Chilodonella sp.
56
Figure 3-12: Cinetochilum sp.
57
Figure 3-13: Coleps hirtus
57
Figure 3-14: Cyclidium sp.
58
Figure 3-15: Frontonia sp.
58
Figure 3-16: Paramecium aurelia
58
Figure 3-17: Paramecium bursaria
59
Figure 3-18: Paramecium caudatum
59
Figure 3-19: Paramecium multimicronucleatum
60
Figure 3-20: Litonotus sp.
60
Figure 3-21: Stentor coeruleus
61
Figure 3-22: Stentor niger
61
Figure 3-23: Stentor polymorphus
62
Figure 3-24: Spirostomum ambiguum
62
Figure 3-25: Spirostomum minus
63
Figure 3-26: Stylonychia sp.
63
Figure 3-27: Vaginicola sp.
64
Figure 3-28: Vorticella campanula
64
Figure 3-29: Vorticella microstoma
65
Figure 3-30: Vorticella picta
65
Figure 3-31: Anthophysis vegetans
66
V
Figure 3-32: Ceratium hirundinella
66
Figure 3-33: Euglena anabaena
67
Figure 3-34: Euglena pisciformis
67
Figure 3-35: Euglena sociabilis
67
Figure 3-36: Euglena clavata
68
Figure 3-37: Euglena caudate
68
Figure 3-38: Euglena viridis
68
Figure 3-39: Euglena texta
69
Figure 3-40: Euglena ehrenbergii
69
Figure 3-41: Euglena oxyuris
70
Figure 3-42: Euglena acus
70
Figure 3-43: Phacus longicauda
71
Figure 3-44: Phacus torta
71
Figure 3-45: Phacus pleuronectes
71
Figure 3-46: Peranema trichophorum
72
Figure 3-47: Volvox sp.
72
Figure 3-48: Amoeba radiosa
73
Figure 3-49: Pseudochlamys patella
73
Figure 3-50: Actinophrys sol
74
Figure 3-51: Centropyxis ecornis
74
Figure 3-52: Difflugia sp.
75
Figure 3-53: Korotnevella sp.
75
Figure 3-54: Rosculus sp.
76
Figure 3-55: Striamoeba striata
76
VI
Figure 3-56: Composition of protozoan taxa in S1, S2 &S3
during the study period (from January to February
2012) in the sediment.
79
Figure 3-57: Pleuronema setigerum
79
Figure 3-58: Pleuronema marinum
80
Figure 3-59: Uronema marinum
80
VII
List of Tables
Tables
Page No.
Table 1-1: The 14 phyla, including authorships and dates of
their names, comprising the kingdom Protozoa
Gold fuss.
10
Table 2-1: Apparatus and equipments used in this study
29
Table 2-2: Chemicals materials used in this study
29
Table 3-1: The recorded protozoan taxa at three investigated
sites during the study period from January to
October 2012, with their dominancy and
frequency.
44
Table 3-2: Correlation coefficient between No. of species &
water parameters
48
Table 3-3: Number of species and their composition at three
investigated sites during the study period from
(January to October 2012)
49
Table 3-4: Seasonal population density of protozoans at
three investigated sites during the study period
from (January to February 2012)
54
Table 3- 5: List of protozoan taxa found in the sediment at
the investigated sites during study period from
January to October 2012 with their frequency %.
78
Table A-1: Physical-chemical parameters recorded from
investigated sites during the study period (from
January to October 2012).
107
Table A-2: The taxonomy of the species with their
dominancy & frequency recorded from the water
and sediment in Tigris river at three investigated
sites during the study period from January to
October 2012.
117
VIII
List of Plates
Plates
Page No.
Plate A-1: Ciliata in fresh water and sediment, photo by Zahraa
Yehia
109
Plate A-2: Flagellata in fresh water and sediment, photo by
Zahraa Yehia.
115
Plate A-3: Sarcodina in fresh water and sediment, photo by
Zahraa Yehia.
117
IX
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
1.1: Introduction:
The microorganisms called protozoa [s., protozoan; Greek protos, first,
and zoon, animal] are studied in the discipline called protozoology. A
protozoan can be defined as a usually motile eukaryotic unicellular protist
(Jahan et al., 1979). Most protozoa are free living and inhabit freshwater or
marine environments. Many terrestrial protozoa can be found in decaying
organic matter, in soil, and even in beach sand; some are parasitic in plants or
animals (Fenchel, 1987).
A few protozoa are nonmotile. Most, however, can move by one of
three major types of locomotory organelles: pseudopodia, flagella, or cilia
(Jahan et al., 1979).
Many protozoan taxonomists regard the Protozoa as a subkingdom,
which contains seven of the 14 phyla found within the kingdom Protista
(Levine et al., 1980). In 1993 Cavalier-Smith proposed that the protozoa be
elevated to kingdom status with 18 phyla based on the structure of
mitochondrial cristae and other characteristics. The acceptance of this new
classification by protozoologists, however, remains to be determined. In
recent molecular classification schemes, the protozoa do not exist as a discrete
taxon. Protozoan-like eukaryotes are found at all evolutionary levels
(Cavalier-Smith, 1993b).
Protozoans, which usually are considered to include autotrophic and
heterotrophic flagellates, amoebae and ciliates, are important and integral
components of aquatic ecosystems. These organisms play a key role in energy
flow and mineral cycling in aquatic food webs (Cairns & McCormick, 1993).
Because of their small size, rapid generation times, short life cycles, high
species diversity, quick response to environmental changes and cosmopolitan
distribution, protozoa have been increasingly recognized as good indicators of
۱
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
water quality, particularly with regard to organic pollution in lakes, rivers,
reservoirs and oceans (Foissner, 1992; Xu et al., 2002).
Protozoa
are
cosmopolitan
and
tolerate
a
wide
range
of
physicochemical factors, including pH, temperature, oxygen concentration,
and salinity. They are not randomly distributed, but live in microhabitats,
small regions that may be as tiny as a few cubic centimeters, within a body of
water or a moist environment such as soil, vegetation, or the bodies of plants
and animals (Bamforth, 1985).
Much studies available on free-living protozoans of fresh water and
sediment were conducted in different parts of the world, e.g. Mahajan & Nair
(1965), Mukherjee & Das (2000) reported an appreciable number of species
from freshwater wetland ecosystems across India, Poowadon (2003) studied
the diversity of protozoa in Nam-Pong-river (Thailand), Polameesanaporn
(2008) made a study on biodiversity of protozoa in fresh water of the ChaoPraya river (Thailand), Araújo & Godinho (2008) reported the spatial
seasonal variations of protists in a river-Alcustrine system in northeast Brazil,
Ali (2010) carried out a study on seasonal variation in physical-chemical
properties and zooplankton biomass in Greater Zab river (Iraq).
Studies on free-living protozoa of fresh water and sediment have been
scarcely conducted in Iraq.
The present study has been carried out on the free-living protozoan
community of river Tigris at Baghdad city.
۲
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
The aim of this study was to provide biological data base on water and
sediment protozoan’s community of the Tigris river at Baghdad city, with a
consideration on:
- Classification of protozoa taxa in study region.
- Estimation of species richness, abundance and index of diversity of
this community.
- Determination the relationships between the diversity of protozoans
and the physical-chemical parameter (temperature, hydrogen ion
concentration, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, nitrate
NO3-1 and phosphate PO4-3) on the protozoan’s communities.
۳
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
1.2: Literatures review
1.2.1: General view
The taxon PROTOZOA is attributed to Georg August Goldfuss, who
proposed the term in 1818 to embrace the `infusoria', some bryozoans, and
various other small animal-like creatures; but it was not until the mid-19th
century that the term was first used to refer exclusively to single-celled
organisms. In the last 150 years, a wealth of new species has been revealed,
revisions to the classification of Protozoa have hardly kept pace Hausmann &
Hülsmann (1995), and even the term Protozoa has experienced difficulties in
containing the expanding diversity (giving way in recent decades to readoption of Haeckel's `protista', which includes all protozoa, algae and lower
fungi). It has always been difficult to define protozoa. Although they are all
unicellular organisms with certain animal-like features, range in size from 2200 µm, the flagellates are the smallest, many are only 2-4µm (some are even
smaller) and all are ˂ 20µm. Most amoebae are 5-50µm and most ciliates are
15-200µm, exceptionally some amoebae, such as the larger benthic
foraminifera, may reach 2mm or more (Finlay, 2001). Compared to
macroscopic animals protozoa are extremely abundant; 1gm of soil typically
contains around 15,000 naked amoebae (Finlay et al., 2000), and every
milliliter of fresh or seawater on the planet supports anything from aminimum
of about a hundred to around a million heterotrophic flagellates (Berninger et
al., 1991). A key paint here is that smaller species are usually much more
abundant than larger ones (Peters, 1983). The taxon Protozoa also harbors
blood-parasites, digestive tract symbionts, free-living forms such as the
'slipper animalcule' (Paramecium), and the foraminifera whose shells account
for a good fraction of the weight in the Egyptian pyramids (Haynes, 1981).
٤
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
More than 83,000 known species of protozoa that live in water and soil.
They are found in a discrete group - organisms that share the character of
phagotrophy. They may also gain nutrition through some photosynthetic
ability, but all free-living protozoa have a capacity for phagotrophy, and their
diversity has arisen as they have evolved to exploit the diversity of microbial
food sources living in all permanent and temporary aquatic habitats (Finlay,
1990; Corliss, 2000).
Pratt and Cairns (1985) classified the feeding habits of freshwater
protozoa into six groups: photosynthetic autotrophs, bacterivores/detritivores,
saprotrophs, algivores, non-selective-omnivores and predators. All these
trophic groups can be found in soils.
Most protozoa are a sexual and reproduce in one of three ways: fission,
budding, and multiple fisson. Some protists are sexual and exchange genetic
materials from one cell to another through conjugation which is the physical
contact followed by nucleic exchange between two individuals. The main
stage of its life cycle is trophozoite, but they can survive in adverse
environments by encapsulating itself which a protective coating called cyst.
The basic structure of all protozoa include a nucleus, well defined by a
nuclear membrane lying within cytoplasm that is enclosed by a thin outer cell
membrane other specialized structures such as cilia or flagella for locomotion
or a gullet for food intake vary with different types of protozoa (figure 1-1)
(Kudo,1966).
٥
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
Figure 1-1
Different type of Protozoa (www.wonder whizkids.com)
1.2.2: Classification
The classification of eukaryotic microorganisms, usually referred to as
protists, has been influx for over two centuries. During the past 20 years, there
has been an increasing tendency to divide them into several kingdoms rather
than to place them all in a single kingdom, as was proposed by the 19th
century authors Owen (kingdom Protozoa, 1858), Hogg (kingdom
Primigenum, 1860), and Haeckel (kingdom Protista, 1866). These earlier
kingdoms included bacteria, which were first formally removed as a separate
kingdom by Copeland (1938) Earlier attempts to subdivide protists simply
into plants and animals, on the basis of the presence or absence of
chloroplasts or phagotrophy (feeding by phagocytosis), were abandoned
because three well-defined taxa (dinoflagellates, euglenoids, and heterokonts)
٦
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
have some members of each type, and in the case of dinoflagellates and
heterokonts (haptophytes) many species are both photosynthetic and
phagotrophic. Since the early 1970s, new insights into protist ultra structure
arising from electron microscopic studies have been increasingly used to
propose explicit phylogenies for protists (Cavalier Smith, 1978, 1983, 1987a,
1987b, 1989, 1990, 1993a; Taylor, 1976, 1978) and to apply more rigorous
phylogenetic principles to the large scale classification of protists. During the
same period, the increasing availability of molecular sequences has been an
increasingly valuable source of independent phylogenetic information. The
establishment of the predominantly photosynthetic kingdom Chromista
(brown algae and diatoms and their various relatives) (Cavalier-Smith, 1981)
and the primitively a mitochondrial kingdom Archezoa (Cavalier-Smith,
1987a), and an ultra structurally based redefinition of the kingdom Plantae
(Cavalier-Smith, 1981; 1987b), excluded a large residue of mainly
phagotrophic and aerobic protists. Although there might be some merit in
subdividing these protists into several kingdoms along phylogenetic lines.
The categories generally recognized are: (1)the amoeboid forms (the
Sarcodina, in a broad sense); (2) the flagellated forms (the Mastigophora,
including groups of autotrophic – or photosynthetic – as well as heterotrophic
species); (3) the ciliated forms (the Ciliophora, the most stable and perhaps
most circumscribed of all protozoan assemblages); and (4) the various totally
symbiotic or parasitic forms (primarily spore-forming species that are
typically endoparasites, some highly pathogenic to their hosts, once assigned
to a very broad group called the Sporozoa, a high-level taxon that
subsequently became divided into the Sporozoa and the Cnidosporidia).
The protozoa - or protozoan protists - at the level of a kingdom
PROTOZOA may be considered as comprising the majority of those groups
embraced by the classically longfamiliar vernacular names (after Kudo 1966)
of amoebae (rhizopods and the actinopods, many of both groups known only
۷
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
as fossil forms, plus the heliozoa); flagellates (diverse zooflagellates,
including also the choanozoa and the opalinids, plus some so-called
phytoflagellates); sporozoa (all symbiotic or parasitic, embracing the
telosporidians, acnidosporidians, and cnidosporidians: the last composed of
the microsporidians + myxosporidians); and ciliates (holotrichs, spirotrichs,
peritrichs, suctorians, into the most diverse and speciose of all in extant
forms: (Corliss, 1979; Puytorac, 1994; Lynn & Small, 2002). There are
numerous known species of these largely microscopic unicellular forms,
many times the number recognized for bacteria and viruses; and their
populations in nature exceed by several orders of magnitude those of all taxa
of multicellular organisms combined. Originally a taxonomic subcategory of
the animals, as a phylum Protozoa, some former “protozoan” taxa in the
above list appear today in other than just the relatively newly recognized
formal kingdom PROTOZOA refined and reduced in size, less paraphyletic in
composition and thus more meaningful: (Cavalier-Smith, 1993b; Corliss,
1994). For example, some zoosporic protists, a few slime molds, the opalinid
infusorians, and various “phytoflagellates” (but not dinoflagellates and
euglenoids) have been relocated to positions in the CHROMISTA. The
remarkable Volvox (Kirk, 1998) is to be found with the chlorophytes in the
PLANTAE. The microsporidians are in the FUNGI (Canning, 1998; CavalierSmith, 1998) and the myxosporidians in the ANIMALIA (Siddall et al., 1995;
Anderson, 1998; Kent et al., 2001). Yet there are still some 83,000 protists
embraced by the newly defined kingdom PROTOZOA, including extinct
forms (e.g. among foraminiferans and radiolarians) known from fossil
material; and probably many more are awaiting discovery (Corliss, 2000).
Mostly because of the incredible numbers of the chrysophyte diatoms
extant and extinct, the algal protists outnumber by several tens of thousands
of species even the large assemblage of protozoan forms. The groups now
transferred back to the PLANTAE (essentially the greens, the reds, and the
۸
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
stonewarts) contain an additional 21,000 species; and those (the euglenoids
and dinoflagellates) assigned to our PROTOZOA number some 6,000 species
(Cavalier-Smith, 1998; Corliss, 2000).
The grand total of described-to-date protists, no matter how classified,
reaches at least 213,000 species distributed among about three dozen phyla
belonging to the five eukaryotic kingdoms (PROTOZOA, CHROMISTA,
PLANTAE, FUNGI and ANIMALIA) recognized by Cavalier-Smith (1998,
2002) and Corliss (1998, 2000). These kingdoms are not universally accepted,
although their hierarchical ranked structures are convenient for nonprotistologically oriented biologists, for students, and for other scientists, as
well as for indicating their relationships to groups of past conventional
schemes of classification still in wide usage around the world.
It is acceptable to consider the species of protists as distributable
among all five kingdoms of the suprakingdom Eukaryota. The once attractive
idea of an isolated kingdom for the protists alone called PROTISTA or
PROTOCTISTA has been widely abandoned by research workers in
protistology (Whittaker, 1969; Margulis, 1974; Whittaker & Margulis, 1978;
Margulis et al., 1990; Margulis & Schwartz, 1998).
As showed in table 1-1, the refined kingdom protozoa is considerably
more discriminating and more restricted in its boundaries than was the old
phylum protozoa, it was supported by recent molecular (e.g. rRNA
sequencing information) as well as morphological and biochemical findings,
other protists have been placed in one or another of the neighboring kingdoms
Chromista, Fungi, Plantae or Animalia (Corliss, 2000).
۹
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
Table 1-1: The 14 phyla, including authorships and dates of their names,
comprising the kingdom Protozoa Gold fuss, 1818, with an indication of the
kinds and numbers of protists included in each phyletic taxon, based on
abbreviated characterization data from (Corliss, 1994; 1998; 2000)
Description
Phyla
1- Archamoebae
Cavalier-Smith, 1983.
Large,
benthic,
microaerobic
amoebae,
amitochondriate, allegedly primitive forms, with
endosymbiotic bacteria; species few in number,
all free-living in fresh water.
2- Neomonada
Cavalier-Smith, 1997
Often small, free-living, marine heterotrophic
flagellates and amoeboflagellates; small group,
still ill-defined.
3- Rhizopoda
von Siebold, 1845
Typically amoeboid, with differing kinds of
pseudopodia, some flagellated forms;naked or
with tests or thecae; 45,000 species found in soil,
fresh- or saltwater habitats.
4- Mycetozoa
de Bary, 1859
Plasmodial slime moulds (cellular and acellular),
some very large; aerial (stalked) fruiting bodies
produce spores; c. 850 species, mostly in
decaying vegetation; a few symbiotic forms.
5- Foraminifera
d’Orbigny, 1826
Amoeboid forms in tests (usually calcareous),
with alternation of haploid sexual and diploid
asexual generations; shells of extinct species
reach 15 cm in diameter; reticulate pseudopodia
for feeding and locomotion; mostly marine, with
some 45,000 species (largest phylum in the
kingdom)of which c. 90% are fossil forms.
۱۰
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
6- Heliozoa
Haeckel, 1866
Mostly
freshwater
group
of
the
classical
‘actinopod sarcodinids’, with slender radiating
axopodial type of pseudopodia used in food
capture; c. 100 species, many stalked.
7- Radiozoa
Cavalier-Smith, 1987
Marine, spherical forms, typically planktonic,
often with elaborate symmetrical shell pierced by
stiff axopodia; three major subgroups, with total
of nearly 12,000 species (c. 65% fossil forms),
second largest phylum in the kingdom.
8- Percolozoa
Cavalier-Smith, 1991
Small
heterotrophic
flagellates
or
amoeboflagellates, c. 100 species, some poorly
known.
9- Euglenozoa
Cavalier-Smith, 1981
The old ‘Euglenophyta’, mainly free-living,
freshwater ‘phytoflagellates’, 41,000 species,
plus Kinetoplastidea (parasitic trypanosomes plus
free-living bodonids), 4,600 species; commonly
with discoidal mitochondrial cristae and a
paraxial rod in their main flagellum.
10- Dinozoa
Cavalier-Smith, 1981
Dinoflagellates, unique biflagellated protists,
mostly marine planktonic, one-half pigmented
forms; some thecate; a few colonial; cortical
alveoli; about half found as fossils; total species
c. 4,500, with some 100 described as parasites;
many orders.
11- Metamonada
Biflagellated to multiflagellated forms, typically
Grasse´ , 1952
digestive tract parasites (insects to humans); c.
300 species; hydrogenosomes in place of
mitochondria.
۱۱
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
12- Parabasala
Honigberg, 1973
Parasitic multiflagellated forms, amitochondriate
and with prominent parabasal (Golgi) apparatus;
4,400 species, in intestines of woodroaches to
humans.
13- Apicomplexa
Levine, 1970
Essentially the ‘Sporozoa’ of old; unique
complex of apical organelles; all symbiotic, with
many minute species as harmful endoparasites in
birds, livestock, humans: outstandingly, malaria;
cortical alveoli; 45,000 species in three major
classes.
14- Ciliophora
Doflein, 1901
All heterokaryotic (micro- and macronuclei);
usually multiciliate,
phagotrophic, relatively
large protists found mostly free-living in diverse
fresh-saltwater and soil habitats; others symbiotic
or epibiotic, mostly in or on invertebrate hosts;
often complex oral ciliature; cortical alveoli;
many exhibit sexual phenomenon of conjugation;
asexual reproduction by transverse fission; third
largest protozoan phylum: c. 8,000 species in 8–
10 classes, many orders.
1.2.3: Free-living protozoa and ecosystem function
1.2.3.1: Physicochemical factors and distribution
According to Corliss (2002), the protists are cosmopolitan in overall
distribution, and in particular, most protozoa play roles mainly as phagotrophs
(particulate consumers). Free-living species have a very broad distribution as
planktonic or benthic forms.
Some protozoa are tolerate a wide range of physicochemical factors,
including pH, temperature, oxygen concentration, and salinity.
۱۲
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
1.2.3.1.1: Hydrogen-ion concentration (pH): Closely related to the
chemical composition is the hydrogen-ion concentration (pH) of the water.
Some Protozoa appear to tolerate a wide range of pH. The interesting
proteomyxan, Leptomyxa reticulata, occurs in soil ranging in pH 4.3 to 7.8,
and grows very well in non-nutrient agar between pH 4.2 and 8.7, provided a
suitable bacterial strain as food (Singh, 1948).
According to Loefer and Guido (1950), some strain of Euglena gracilis
(var. bacillaris) grows between pH 3.2 and 8.3. However, the majority of
Protozoa seem to prefer a certain range of pH for the maximum metabolic
activity (Kudo, 1966; Kamble, 2013).
1.2.3.1.2: Temperature: The majority of Protozoa are able to live only
within a small range of temperature variation, although in the encysted state
they can withstand a far greater temperature fluctuation. The lower limit of
the temperature is marked by the freezing of the protoplasm, and the upper
limit by the destructive chemical change within the body protoplasm (Kudo,
1966). The temperature toleration seems to vary among different species of
Protozoa, and even in the same species under different conditions. Doudoroff
(1936) found that Paramecium multimicronucleatum, the resistance to raised
temperature was low in the presence of food, but rose to a maximum when the
food was exhausted. The thermal waters of hot springs (34-36°C) have been
known to contain living organisms including Protozoa, while
the low
temperature seems to be less detrimental to Protozoa than the higher one
(Glaser & Coria,1935). Uyemura (1936, 1937) made a series of studies on
protozoa living in various thermal waters of Japan, and reported that many
species lived at unexpectedly high temperatures reach to 56°C. Many
protozoans have been found to live in water under ice, Deschiens (1934)
found the trophozoites of Entamoeba histolytica remained alive, though
immobile, for 56 hours, but were destroyed in a short time when the medium
۱۳
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
froze at - 5°C. When the water in which the organisms are kept freezes, no
survival was noted.
1.2.3.1.3: Oxygen: Many protozoa are micro aerobic; they seek out
habitats with a low O2 tension. This brings them into contact with elevated
abundances of microbial food, and it facilitates the maintenance of nutritional
symbionts such as sulphide-oxidising bacteria (Fenchel & Finlay, 1989) and
endosymbiotic algae, both of which benefit from being located in opposing
gradients O2 and light on the one hand, and CO2, H2S and other reductants on
the other (Finlay, 1997; Finlay et al., 1997).
Many micro-aerobic protozoa can be facultative anaerobes (Bernard &
Fenchel, 1996; Finlay et al., 1996a), but unlike the `true' anaerobes their
metabolism is fundamentally aerobic. Large ciliates in the anoxic benthes of
deeper lakes are less certain. Some species die off or are displaced while
others such as the genus Loxodes, appear to have a surprising tolerance of an
aerobic conditions (Webb, 1961; Goulder, 1974)
A variety of free-living protozoa (ciliates, flagellates and amoebae)
have evolved into true anaerobes, and for these, O2 is toxic. They live
principally in freshwater and marine sediments, there are many species, but
none is ever abundant. Protozoa are probably the only phagotrophic
organisms capable of living permanently in the absence of O2 (Fenchel &
Finlay, 1995).
1.2.3.1.4: Salinity: The chemical nature of the water is another important
factor which influences the very existence of protozoa in a given body of
water (Needham et al., 1937). As a rule, the presence of sodium chloride in
the sea water prevents the occurrence of numerous species of fresh-water
inhabitants. Certain species, however, have been known to live in both fresh
and brackish or salt water (Kudo, 1966).
۱٤
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
1.2.3.1.5: Moisture: Protozoa grow in a wide variety of moist habitats.
Moisture is absolutely necessary for the existence of protozoa because they
are susceptible to desiccation (Fenchel, 1987).
Their great sensitivity to physical and chemical factors can be
explained by the fact that many protozoa have specific demands in relation to
the characteristics of the medium in which they live, such as the quantity of
dissolved organic matter, temperature, pH, electric conductivity and dissolved
oxygen
concentration
(Bick,
1972;
Sleigh,
1988).
Among
these
characteristics, the quantity of organic matter and dissolved oxygen in the
water define pollution zones that are associated with particular species of
protozoan indicators (Foissner & Berger, 1996).
Free-living protozoa in an encysted state are able to withstand the most
adverse conditions for long periods. This fact combined with their
microscopic size and the many avenues of transport which are open to them
ensure that there can be no effective geographical barrier against their
distribution. This is borne out by the numerous species which are found from
the tropics to Greenland and from Europe to the Antarctic. So, when
protozoan species are absent in an area it is usually attributable to unfavorable
habitats (Stout, 1952). Their early appearance as living organism, their
adaptability to various habitats and their capacity to remain viable in the
encysted condition, probably account for the wide distribution of the protozoa
throughout the world (Kudo, 1966).
With several previous studies, of marine and brackish waters in
particular, it has seen rapid expansion in the number of well-described
flagellate species (Patterson & Simpson, 1996; Ekebom et al., 1996; Patterson
& Larsen, 1991; Vørs, 1992). Most of these flagellate species appear for the
most part to be ubiquitous in marine environments: the same species may
occur in both sediments and oceanic water (Fenchel, 1991), and many species
۱٥
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
have been recorded from freshwaters and the sea (Larsen & Patterson, 1990;
Vørs, 1992). Most benthic ciliates in fresh waters make a living only in fresh
waters, where as many smaller freshwater species, notably the heterotrophic
flagellates, may also live in marine environments (Finlay & Esteban, 1998).
1.2.4: Functional roles of Free-living Protozoa
Protozoa, which usually are considered to include autotrophic and
heterotrophic flagellates, amoeba, and ciliates, are important and integral
components of aquatic ecosystems. These organisms play a key role in energy
flow and mineral cycling in aquatic food webs (Pomeray, 1974; Azam et al.,
1983). Because of their small size, rapid generation times, short life cycles,
high species diversity, quick response to environmental changes and
cosmopolitan distribution (Xu et al., 2005).
The small size of protozoa has several implications: most prey items
will be others, usually smaller microbes; they can have high growth rates that
are often similar to those of their microbial prey, so they can rapidly achieve
immense population sizes, and control the microbial populations they graze
(Rønn et al., 2002).
Protozoan grazing on microbes also appears to stimulate the whole
microbial community - possibly by increasing the rate of turnover of essential
nutrients that would otherwise remain `locked up' in bacterial biomass (
Fenchel & Harrison, 1976; Rogerson & Berger, 1983; Biagini et al., 1998).
Thus, grazing by protozoa stimulates the rate of decomposition of organic
matter (Finlay & Esteban, 1998).
There is now general agreement that grazing by protozoa is
quantitatively important. Šimek et al. (1997) reported that flagellates and the
smaller ciliates are the major consumers of picoplankton (bacteria and the
smallest cyanobacteria) in freshwater lakes; flagellates consumed about 80%
of bacterial production in the water, while the remainder was grazed by
۱٦
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
ciliates. It is clear that such protozoa can control bacterial production in the
water column. This conclusion is supported by many of published
information, mainly from temperate lakes such as (Berninger et al., 1991,
1993; Mathes & Arndt, 1995; Weisse, 1997).
Naked amoebae and heterotrophic flagellates play important roles in
aquatic systems in addition to bacteria (Huws et al., 2005; Weitere et al.,
2005), they feed on algae and fungi (Adl & Gupta, 2006) and their respiratory
activity returns CO2 to the atmosphere. Egested residues of heterotrophic
protists, rich in carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur support plant growth
and maintain bacterial densities, they so called “microbial loop” (Coleman
,1994). Naked amoebae and heterotrophic flagellates are fed upon by
metazoans including nematodes and rotifers, and thus provide a key food web
link to higher trophic levels (Biscchoff & Horvath, 2011).
Importance
of
protozoa
as
bioindicators
for
pollution
and
environmental biomonitoring has been recognized since long particularly in
water purification plants and in activated sludge processes (Kolkwitz &
Marsson, 1908). Several field and experimental studies have been carried out
in this regard and results obtained there from support that protozoa may be
conveniently used for environmental biomonitoring, particularly for
ecological monitoring of water quality (Liebmann, 1962; Bick, 1973; Salanki,
1986; Ricci, 1995; Kample, 2013).
The use of ciliated protozoa as bioindicators has advantages over the
use of other organisms. The high sensitivity of these protists to changes in
their surroundings, allied with their short generation time, enables them to
reveal the response to environmental contamination much more quickly.
Besides this, they are widely distributed geographically, being essential
components of nearly all environments and can be easily maintained in the
laboratory (Sparagano & Grolière, 1991; Piccinni & Gutiérrez, 1995;
Fernandez-Leborans & Novillo, 1996).
۱۷
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
As early as 1972 the world health organization brought out a book
entitled ‘Ciliated Protozoa: An illustrated guide to the two species used as
biological indicators in freshwater biology’ written by Hartmut Bick. This
pioneering contribution reveals that each species of ciliate is characterized by
its own physical and chemical valencies and therefore its presence in
abundance may indicate the qualitative state of any water body
(Polameesanaporn, 2008). Based on saprobic valancies and indicator values
of the representative ciliates, degree of pollution of a particular water body
may be determined. It needs mentioning here that ecological resistance and
preference of some species may vary considerably from one population to the
other (Ricci, 1995). Accordingly, saprobic valency and indicator value of a
species may also vary.
The role of protozoa in the bio-oxidation of waste-water was
investigated in detail by Curds (1965) and Xu et al. (2005), their work
demonstrated that ciliated protozoa played an important part in removing
bacteria from wastewater.
The abundance and the ubiquity of protists in aquatic ecosystems have
led to the recognition of this group as an important element in the complex
processes of microbial interactions. They are actively involved in essential
food webs, mineralization of nutrients and control of the bacterial growth,
being able still to be used as bioindicators or biomonitors of pollution
(Wetzel, 2001; Corliss, 2003). Even though more and more studies have
sought to understand the ecological role that protozoans play in the aquatic
environment (Stensdotter-Blomberg, 1998), more gaps are open, generating
the need for more knowledge of the free-living protozoa. Mixotrophic protists
have received more attention in these studies (Jones, 2000; Hitchman &
Jones, 2000; Modenutti & Balseiro, 2002), because they have a series of
adaptative alimentary strategies, combining autotrophy and heterotrophy, that
give them an advantage when competing with other groups. This determines
۱۸
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
the success of the maintenance of their populations in all kind of
environments, throughout the world (Corliss, 2002).
There is still little information about the influence of the trophic state of a
river or a lake on the taxonomic structure and the distribution of protozoa in
natural environments (Auer & Arndt, 2001). Protozoa populations have been
commonly characterized as less abundant in oligotrophic waters and more
abundant in eutrophized environments (Hwang & Heath, 1997). The ciliates
are the most frequent indicators of this relation (Riemann & Christoffersen,
1993; Foissner & Berger, 1996), but there are also studies relating
heterotrophic nanoflagellates (Krstulovic et al., 1997; Zhao et al., 2003) and
phototrophic flagellates (Barone & Nasseli-Flores, 2003) to the environment
trophic degree.
There is much evidence to indicate that each protozoan species thrives
best wherever it finds a specific combination of environmental conditions,
that the same species will be found wherever this combination occurs
worldwide, and that protozoan species appear therefore to be cosmopolitan in
their spatial distributions (Finlay, 1997). The fundamental reason for this is
that each species is represented by an extremely large number of individuals,
and for purely statistical reasons (Fenchel, 1993). In many places, an
individual species will be represented by only a few individuals or perhaps as
cysts, but when appropriate conditions are provided, that species flourishes
and becomes abundant. Finlay et al. (1997) have shown how the nature and
scale of many aquatic ecosystem functions, such as carbon-fixation in a fresh
water pond, appear to be driven by complex reciprocal interactions involving
physical and chemical factors, and the activities of the microbes themselves.
These interactions continuously create new microbial niches, and these are
quickly filled from the locally available diversity of rare and dormant
microbes (Finlay et al., 1996b; Fenchel et al., 1997).
۱۹
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
1.2.5: Protozoan diversity and abundance
Protozoa are the most abundant phagotrophs in biosphere, consists
more than 83,000 global total species, but no scientific strategy has emerged
that might allow accurate definition of the dimensions of protozoan diversity
on a global scale (Finlay et al., 1998). Global species richness of protozoa is
very imprecisely known. Corliss (1991) estimated the number of known nonfossil protozoan species in the world as 40,000. Estimates of how many
species remain to be described in the world are far more insecurely based.
Hawksworth (1992) suggested that a total world number of 100,000 could
well prove to be a gross underestimate. The only synthesis of global number
of fresh water morphospecies of protozoa is that prepared for the ciliates by
Finlay et al. (1996c), and they thought that most ciliate species had probably
already been discovered in the majority of the more frequently studied
habitats, such as rivers and ponds, although they emphasized that many
taxonomic revisions were required and many habitats were unexplored, the
same author in 1998 reported about 732 ciliate species 377 of them from fresh
water (Finlay, 1998). The non-ciliate protozoa are usually much smaller and
more difficult to work with, and taxonomic resolution of these has rarely been
attempted in ecological investigations (Finlay & Esteban, 1998).
Measuring species diversity is critical for ecological research and
biodiversity conservation. In the ecological literature, many measures have
been proposed to assess species diversity based on data on presence or
abundance of species (Magurran, 1988).
The term species richness is used for the number of species in a sample
(Whittake, 1975).
Species diversity: is commonly interchangeably for richness, but at local
scales of analysis, it is often expressed as indices that weigh both the richness
۲۰
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
and equitability (evenness of abundance across species) of sample (Oʹ Brien,
1993; Fraser, 1998).
Species richness is the simplest and the most frequently used diversity
measure. However, species-richness assessments are notoriously sensitive to
scale due to the species-area relationship (Palmer & white, 1994; Veech,
2000) and to the sampling effort, due to the difficulty of obtaining complete
species lists (Palmer, 1995).The two problems are closely related, the number
of the species observed generally increases with the number of individuals
sampled, and the number of individuals increases with the size of sampling
unit ( Lu et al., 2007) thus an important starting point in analysis spatial
patterns in richness is to control the area (Whittaker et al.,2001).
It is widely accepted that species diversity and richness decrease in an
aquatic community under stress conditions (Polameesanaporn, 2008).
Generally low levels of nutrient enrichment in microbial communities are
related to increase in the number of extant protozoan species and oppositely,
sever stress whether caused by heavy metals, extreme organic pollution, or
sharp changes in any environmental factors such as pH or temperature usually
reduces the species richness of the community and increases the individual
abundance of tolerant forms (Xu et al., 2005).
Freshwater protozoa are found in 16 of the 34 protist phyla in the
Corliss (1994) classification. Some phyla are particularly well represented,
including the
ciliates
(Phylum Ciliophora), chrysomonads
(Phylum
Phaeophyta), choano flagellates (Phylum Choanozoa), the naked and testate
amoebae (Phylum Rhizopoda), and the heliozoans (Phylum Heliozoa).
The existence of endemic protists evokes the first main question: why
did they not spread globally, as the majority of species? Likely, the reasons
are manifold: perhaps, many are young species not having sufficient time to
disperse globally; others might have specific ecological demands found only
in a certain habitat or region; many do not produce stable resting cysts for
۲۱
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
long range dispersal, for instance, protists from rainforests and others might
have evolved in regions not favouring wide dispersal (Foissner, 2006). The
second main challenge is of more general nature; develop a species concept
reconciling morphologic, genetic, and ecological features (Weisse, 2007).
Although this is a different task, it should be possible to reach some
agreement for practical purposes, such as biodiversity and conservation issues
(Hey et al., 2003). Further, morphological research has to be intensified
greatly because large parts of the earth never have been investigated for,
especially, heterotrophic protists, suggesting that more than 50% of their
morphological diversity is still under scribed (Foissner, 2006).
1.2.6: Soil protozoans
Soil is a complex, highly structured habitat. Any soil is a system,
which, in addition to the mineral compounds of the soil itself, includes
numerous and diverse organisms - bacteria, protists, fungi, plants and animals,
comprising several functional groups (Coleman, 1976).To all these organisms
moisture is essential for their activity and this is retained in the spaces from
drainage loss partly by capillary action and partly by the absorptive power of
the soil colloids. As the soil dries out the colloids form a thin film around the
particles binding them together (Stout, 1952). Due to their feeding activity,
amoebae play an important role as grazers of bacteria (Coleman et al., 1978;
Anderson et al., 1979), and have been recognized as one of the main
controllers of bacterial populations because of their fast response to increases
in bacterial numbers (Elliot et al., 1979; Clarholm, 1981; Pussard & Rouelle,
1986). Foster & Dormann (1991) demonstrated that soil amoebae produce
pseudopods that can penetrate even into tiny micro pores of soil aggregates in
order to engulf bacteria. They suggest that this partly explains why bacteria
۲۲
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
are generally confined to the interior of soil macro aggregates, where they are
unavailable to amoebae.
Acting together, many a biotic and biotic factors in the soil create
numerous and diverse microhabitats so that soil can harbor virtually any
amoeba species which is tolerant to the relatively low salinity of the soil
capillary water. Perhaps that is why most freshwater species may be found in
soil habitats, while nominal “marine” species are not detected in soil (at least
not in active populations) (Smirnov & Brown, 2004).
The knowledge that soil harbors a diverse and specific ciliate
community is only 20 years old (Foissner, 1987). Foissner (1996a) concluded
that there were between 1600 and 2000 species of soil ciliates in the world
and that 75-80% was under scribed at present. About 400 species of ciliates,
260 species of heterotrophic and autotrophic flagellates, 200 species of testate
amoebae and 60 species of naked amoebae have so far been reported in
terrestrial biotopes (Foissner, 1996b). As many protozoans are likely dormant
(encysted) most of their life, total species numbers are difficult to obtain. The
total number of ciliate species reliably reported from terrestrial habitats
globally presently stands at about 800 species (Foissner 1998; Foissner et al.,
2002). The uncertainties about the species numbers are reflected in the limited
knowledge about protozoan distribution in soils. Most species occur in the
upper 10 cm of soil and fewer species have been found at higher latitudes and
altitudes. Cowling (1994) summarized the published data for protozoan
populations in different soil habitats and geographical regions. Most of the
informations referred to testate amoebae and ciliates. He concluded from the
recent evidence that the distribution of the protozoan species in the soil is
often not as cosmopolitan as previously believed and many protozoa appeared
to be restricted in their distribution. The two world hemispheres represent two
major biogeographically zones for testacea. In spatial terms, diversity can be
considered to range from around the soil aggregates, which represent the
۲۳
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
actual microenvironments of protozoa (Hattori & Hattori, 1993), to the level
of a root, rhizosphere or ecosystem. Any differences in colonization between
different aggregates should increase the diversity of species in the soil sample
investigated. Increase in the sample size can often increase the species
diversity reported and may be partly due to the inclusion of more than one soil
microenvironment rather than any redundancy in functional diversity. It is
difficult to choose what are the most effective dimensions to use when
considering the overall soil metabolism. Instead of considering only the
taxonomic base for diversity where all the species are considered as equal,
other characteristics should be included for functional diversity such as
morphotypes (size, body and shape) or physicotypes (food preference,
microhabitat, life cycle, facility to encyst/excyst (Coûteaux & Darbyshire,
1998).
Many critical processes of major biogeochemical cycles in the
biosphere occur in soils and are facilitated by soil organisms, especially small
and microscopic protozoa even if they are largely ignored and mostly
insignificant in terms of individual biomass (Fontaneto et al., 2007). On
account of their species richness and large biomass, soil protozoa play
important roles in carbon and nitrogen cycles and energy transmission by
regulating both the decomposition rate and specific metabolic pathways in
almost all types of soil, including those under human influence (Bamforth,
1973; Foissner, 1987; Díaz et al., 2006). Accordingly, studies on the
community structure and dynamics of soil protozoa can provide powerful
means for assessing and monitoring changes in natural and human-influenced
environments (Foissner, 1999a). However, because of their small size and
difficulties in identification, ciliated protozoa are less understood in soil
environments compared to other organisms (Bedano et al., 2005; Fontaneto et
al., 2007; Lee et al., 2009).
۲٤
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
Most ciliated protozoa in the soil are naked, fast-growing, and predominantly
bacterivores (Bamforth, 1973). They have specific adaptations to various
terrestrial habitats (e.g., soil and tree bark), and the diversity of ciliates is
higher in terrestrial than aquatic habitats (Foissner, 1999a). On the other hand,
these unicellular soil ciliates are extremely sensitive to external factors and
are accordingly considered to be informative bioindicators of environmental
conditions (Foissner et al., 2005). It was proposed that external factors, such
as vegetation, weathering, podzolization, soil processes, and other
environmental changes can influence the character of the ciliate fauna
(Foissner, 1987). Although many studies on terrestrial protozoa have been
carried out (Cui et al., 1989; Foissner, 1997b; Foissner, 1999b; Foissner, et
al., 2005; Li et al., 2010), there is still little knowledge about relationships
between soil ciliate communities and physicochemical properties.
A large number of soil protozoa are bacteriophagous, others feed on
both bacteria and fungi, while some species are strictly mycophagous. Other
soil protozoa are saprophagous. Protozoa are probably the most important
bacterial consumers in soil, followed by the bacterivorous nematodes (Zwart
& Brussaard, 1991). Protozoan prey selection is usually made either on the
basis of size (Sherr et al., 1992), the structure of the cell colony, or whether
the prey cells are attached, aggregated or unattached (Caron, 1987; Sibbald &
Albright, 1988). Selective predation may have a significant effect on the
microbial community and is thought to maintain the organismal and
metabolic diversity of the microflora (Sherr et al., 1992).
Verhagen & Laanbroek (1992) studied the effect of soil flagellate
grazing on the competition between nitrifying and heterotrophic bacteria for
ammonium. Nitrate production was unchanged in the presence or absence of
flagellates, but flagellates strongly decreased the numbers of nitrifying
bacteria and resulted in a larger nitrifying activity per bacterial cell.
۲٥
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
1.2.7: Methods of determining protozoan diversity
Assessment of the distribution and diversity of free-living protists is
currently hampered by a limited taxonomic resolution of major phyla and by
neglecting the significance of spatial and temporal scaling for speciation.
There is a tremendous physiological and ecological diversity that is hidden at
the morphological level and not apparent at the level of conserved genes.
Aconceptual framework linking the various levels of diversity is lacking
Weisse (2007).
Local diversity in any habitat depends on the size of the reservoir
community (metapopulation) from which new immigrants originate; if this is
large, even physically identical habitats will harbour different communities
(Curtis & Sloan, 2004). The characteristic features of metapopulations
(Hanski, 1999). Metapopulation structure has been demonstrated for protist
species with patchy distributions, which may be caused by physical factors or
pronounced predator–prey cycles (Holyoak & Lawler, 1996; Holyoak, 2000;
Montagnes et al., 2002). It is a fact that there are rare soil and aquatic protist
species which will not be encountered permanently in each suitable habitat
(Foissner et al., 2002; Foissner, 2006; 2007). To some extent, this may reflect
inadequate sampling techniques. With the sampling gear and counting
methods typically applied in taxonomical and ecological studies, it is difficult
to detect species with abundances that are three or more orders of magnitude
lower than those of frequent species. Furthermore, the fixation techniques and
enrichment cultures used for estimating the abundance and species
composition of protists are all more or less selective (Bloem et al., 1986;
Modigh & Castaldo, 2005; Foissner, 2005). However, in spite of these caveats
it remains that some taxa occur in presumed suitable habitats, if at all, only at
very low levels.
Protozoan ecological studies are hampered by the time required to
provide reliable identifications and often this cannot easily be achieved at the
۲٦
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
same time as population estimates. For naked amoebae and flagellates,
nuclear characteristics need to be observed with high magnification light
microscopy or transmission electron microscopy. For ciliates, silver staining
cannot be performed routinely during counting procedures. Only the Testacea
can be identified and counted simultaneously, because their taxonomy is
based on the well-defined structure of the test (Coûteaux & Darbyshire,
1998).
Observation of live protozoans is great taxonomic importance in
classifying genera and species (Tuffran, 1959; Foissner & Berger, 1996;
Araújo & Godinho, 2008).
Many methods have been proposed for estimating species richness of
soil protozoa (Darbyshire et al., 1996). At present, there is no single method
that can be applied to all taxa and all soil types. It is advisable, therefore, to
use several methods rather than relying on one method for all protozoan
groups. The methods can be broadly classified into four groups: namely,
direct observation of soil suspensions, soil extraction, and incubation of
serially diluted soil suspensions with or without nutrient enrichment and
colonisation of glass slides or chambers. Aescht & Foissner (1995) proposed
direct methods for counting active testate amoebae, ciliates and flagellates. In
these methods, dilute soil suspensions are directly observed on a microscope
slide using light microscopy. Testates are identified from aniline blue stained
individuals, but ciliates and flagellates are identified from living specimens.
Such identifications are time consuming and can limit the number of samples
that can be processed in any study. Griffiths & Ritz (1988) fixed small soil
suspensions and attempted to extract protozoa by linear density-gradient
centrifugation. The microbial cells were stained with fluorochromes and
mounted on membrane filters before they were examined under a
fluorescence microscope. Unfortunately, this method is not suitable for the
organic soil. Also, naked amoebae can be obscured by soil particles and
۲۷
Chapter 1 -----------------------------------------------------------------------Introduction & Literatures Review
specific identifications are often not possible. Dilution of soil samples, often
followed by nutrient amendment of the dilution series can encourage some
protozoa to multiply and then become obvious amongst soil particles. Such
techniques have been widely used by the microbiologists to isolate protozoa
and other soil micro-organisms (Singh, 1946; Stout, 1952).
۲۸
Chapter 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Materials & Methods
2.1: Materials
2.1.1: Apparatus and equipments:
The following table 2-1 shows the apparatus and equipments used
in this study:
Table 2-1
Camera (Casio)
Oven
Centrifuge
Plankton net (40 µm)
Electronic balance
Portable Meter
Mercury thermometer
Spectrophotometer
Microscope (Olympus)
Winkler bottle
2.1.2: Chemicals materials:
The following table 2-2 shows the chemical materials used in this
study:
Table 2-2
Ammonium molybdate
Lugols solution
Ascorbic acid
Magnesium sulfate
Deionized water
Methyl cellulose
HCL (1N)
Na-thiosulfate (0.01)
H2SO4 (5N)
Potassium antimony tertrate
Iodide azide
Starch
۲۹
Chapter 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Materials & Methods
2.2: The study area:
The present study has been dealt with free-living protozoa community
of River Tigris in Baghdad city which is located in the Mesopotamia alluvial
plain between latitudes 33o 14o- 33o 25o N and longitudes 44o 31o- 44o 17o E.
River Tigris is one of the two major rivers flow along Iraq from the
north to the south, and sharing with Euphrates River as the main sources for
human use (figure 2-1).
River Tigris flows for 58 km within Baghdad city having many curves
with water flow 9.6 m3/sec. Its speed decreases towards the south of the city
and becomes loaded with large amount of sediments which reaches to
1200m3/year (Al-Sahaf, 1976).Variable species of vegetation (reeds and wild
grasses) grow at both sides of the river while the passing throw Baghdad city
(figure 2-3).The river receives many pollutants according to the water
utilization such as industrial usage, house hold usage, and agricultural usage
(Ferhan, 1992).
۳۰
Chapter 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Materials & Methods
Figure 2-1: The map of Iraq shows the locality of sampling area
at east bank of river Tigris
۳۱
Chapter 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Materials & Methods
2.3: Sampling sites:
For the present study three sites were chosen at the east side of river
Tigris in Baghdad city (figures 2-2, 3, 4):
S1: At Bab Al-Muadham near by the medical city hospital.
S2: At Al-Rosafy area near Al-Qushla tower.
S3: At Al-Jadriyah area near Al –Jadriyah Bridge.
Figure 2-2: The sampling area at site (1)
۳۲
Chapter 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Materials & Methods
Figure 2-3: The sampling area at site (2)
Figure 2-4: The sampling area at site (3)
۳۳
Chapter 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Materials & Methods
2.4: Methods of sampling:
Three samples of each of water and sediment were collected monthly
intervals from each site for a period from January to October 2012.
2.4.1: Sampling of water:
Three monthly samples of water were collected from each study site, for
each sample 60 liters of water were horizontally taken from the water surface
of the river bank with the aid of plankton net, made of bolting cloth with a
fine mesh size (40µm), with a small bottle container of 30 ml capacity
attached to its narrow end (Ibrahim & Abdullahi, 2008).
Thirty milliliters of water were collected from each sample in the
attached container, labeled and transferred to the laboratory with a minimum
delay.
One more sample in the same way was taken for further taxonomic
investigation; the sample was kept for few days before examination, keeping
their lids open for considerable increase in protozoa population occurring in
those samples.
At the time of sampling, water temperature (T), hydrogen ion
concentration (pH), electrical conductivity (EC) were determined in the field,
one sample was taken to determine Nitrate ( NO3-1) and Phosphate PO4-3 in
the laboratory.
2.4.1.1: Water temperature (To): Was measured by using mercury
thermometer (0-100) Co. The water temperature was measured by immersed
the thermometer under water surface about 10-15 cm for 3-5 minutes.
۳٤
Chapter 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Materials & Methods
2.4.1.2: pH and EC: Were measured by using a portable pH and EC
portable meter.
2.4.1.3: Dissolved Oxygen (DO): Water samples for dissolved oxygen (DO)
collected in sterile Winkler bottles 250 ml, sterile by putting in the oven for
4hr at 200 Co after washing. In field oxygen fixation has been done by adding
2ml magnesium sulfate and iodide azide. Winkler method was described by
(APHA, 1998). Azide modification method was used by adding 2ml of H2SO4
to the samples which were fixed in field. Then titrate with Na-thiosulfate
(0.0125N) and using starch as an indicator, for measuring DO. Using the
following equation:
2.4.1.4: Nitrate (NO3-1): Nitrate was measured according to (APHA, 1985)
by using 2ml HCl (1N) added to the diluted sample (5ml of sample to 50ml
by using deionized water) then measured by UV-spectrophotometer at wave
length 220nm. Results were recorded in unit mg/L.
2.4.1.5: Phosphate (PO4-3): Reactive Phosphate was measured by using
Ascorbic acid method by adding 8ml of combined reagents (H2SO4 5N +
Potassium antimony tertrate + ammonium molybdate + ascorbic acid) were
added then shacked and stand for 30min then were measured by
spectrophotometer at wave length 860nm. Blank is zero (APHA, 1985).
2.4.2: Sampling of sediment:
Three sediment samples at each site were taken monthly from the
sediment of the river bank about 50 cm away from the water level.
For each sample 120 g of sediment were collected by dipping a plastic
cup to 10cm depth in the sediment, each sample was covered, labeled and
transferred to the laboratory with the a minimum delay.
۳٥
Chapter 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Materials & Methods
2.5: Sample processing and investigation:
2.5.1: Water samples:
From each collecting water sample one milliliter was investigated
within 5-48 hours (Buitkamp,1979; Foissner,1987; Senler & Yildiz,2004) by
direct observation for counting and identification of protozoans, a 0.1
milliliter water drop was placed on a microscope slide , covered with a cover
glass, and examined with a compound microscope at a magnification of (X10X40). Free living protozoa observed in each examined slide were counted by
direct methods for counting active testate amoebae, ciliates and flagellates
proposed by (Aescht & Foissner, 1995), the shape, structure, measurement
and movement organelles were recorded for classification following (Kudo,
1966; Jahn et al., 1979), each species was photographed using camera
(Casio).
All of the photographs presented here are digitally processed (cropped,
resized, contrast enhanced, white balance corrected, and background
removed).
All specimens were examined alive (Senler & Yildiz, 2004), sometimes
methyl cellulose (2-10%) was used 24hr before examination for slowing
down the movement of fast moving ciliates (Shaikh et al., 2012) and also
Lugol’s solution was added as killing agent and for detecting peripheral
organelle (Müller, 1989).
Ocular micrometer was used for specimens measuring.
The calculation of protozoa was performed by using haemocytometer
chamber slide.
۳٦
Chapter 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Materials & Methods
The dominancy of protozoan's species was calculated by following
(Krogerus, 1932 and Weis-fogh, 1948):
1. Dominant: 5% or more of the total number of individuals.
2. Influent: 5-2% of the total numbers of individuals.
3. Recedent: 2% or less of the total numbers of individuals.
The frequency of protozoan's species was calculated by following
(Krogerus, 1932):
1. Constant: species occurring in more than 50% of the samples.
2. Accessory: species occurring in 25-50% of the samples.
3. Accidental: species occurring in less than 25% of the samples.
The index of diversity for protozoan's species was calculated by following
Margalef (1958), who proposed a simpler index of diversity:
Where:
∝=
𝑆−1
𝐿𝑜𝑔𝑒 𝑁
S is the number of species
N is the number of individual
∝ is the index of diversity
Log e is the base of natural logarithm
Statistical analyses perform following statistical analysis system (SAS, 2012).
۳۷
Chapter 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Materials & Methods
2.5.2: Sediment samples:
Sediment samples were investigated by direct methods for observation
and counting active testate amoebae, ciliates and flagellates in sediment
suspension (Aescht & Foissner, 1995).
Five grams from each sediment sample were weighed out into a small
petridish, and then placed in a small beaker, 10 milliliters of distilled water
was added and mixed well with a spatula. Small suspension was poured into
sterilized test tube and centrifuged at 1500 r.p.m. for 10 minutes (Anderson &
Druger, 1997).
One milliliter of sediment suspension for each sample was examined,
for protozoans counting and pre-identifying following the same procedure as
that mentioned for water samples examination.
۳۸
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
3.1 Chemical and physical variables at the study sites:
The ranges of water chemical and physical parameters at the three
sampling sites for the study period (from January to October 2012) are
summarized in figures from 3-1 to 3-6, appendix table A-1.
Among these variables, temperature (To), hydrogen ion concentration
(pH) and electric conductivity (EC) showed minor differences at all sampling
sites. However, the highest temperature 30 Co was recorded at August &
September from all sampling sites, while the lowest temperature 10 Co
recorded from S2 & S3 during January.
The pH values ranged from 7.0 at site 1 during January to 7.9 at site 1
and site 2 during March and at site 3 during May & June.
Electric conductivity (EC), reached its highest level 790µS/cm at S1
during January, while the lowest level was 430µS/cm at S2 during June.
The range of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations was 4.9- 14mg/L at
the three sites. The highest oxygen concentration was recorded at S3 during
September, and the lowest occurred at S1 during August.
As showed in figure 3-5, S3 displayed higher concentration of NO3-1
which was 8.9 mg/L during May, while the lowest concentration of NO3-1 was
1.085 mg/L at S1 during January.
PO4-3 concentration was much higher 222.7µg/L at S1 during August
than those at S2 and S3 which was (190µg/L during October and 50µg/L
during August respectively.
۳۹
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
35
S1
S2
S3
30
Water temperature Co
25
20
15
10
5
0
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August September October
Months
Figure 3- 1: The monthly fluctuations in water temperature (Co) at S1, S2 &
S3 during the study period (from January to October 2012)
8
S1
S2
S3
7.8
7.6
pH
7.4
7.2
7
6.8
6.6
6.4
January February March
April
May
June
July
August September
Months
Figure 3- 2: The monthly fluctuations in pH values at S1, S2 & S3 during the
study period (from January to October 2012)
٤۰
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
900
S1
S2
S3
800
700
E.C (µS\cm)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August September October
Months
Figure 3-3: The monthly fluctuations in E.C (µS/cm) at S1, S2 & S3 during
study period (from January to October 2012)
16
S1
S2
S3
14
DO (mg/L)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
January February
March
April
May
June
July
August September October
Months
Figure 3-4: The monthly fluctuations in DO concentration (mg/L) at S1, S2
& S3 during the study period (from January-October 2012)
٤۱
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
10
S1
9
S2
8
S3
NO3-1 (mg/L)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August September October
Months
Figure 3-5: The monthly fluctuations in NO3-1 (mg/L) at S1, S2 & S3 during
the study period (from January to October 2012)
250
S1
S2
PO4-3 (µg/L)
200
S3
150
100
50
0
January February
March
April
May
June
July
August September October
Months
Figure 3-6: The monthly fluctuations in PO4-3 (µg/L) at S1, S2 &S3 during
study period (from January to October 2012)
٤۲
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
3.2: Water protozoans:
3.2.1: Species richness and taxa composition in water:
During the study period from January to October 2012 a total of 112
protozoan’s taxa were recorded from the collected samples at the three study
sites. Most of the obtained protozoan taxa considered to be new records for
Iraq (table 3-1, appendix table 2). The monthly trend in number of species
recorded from each site are shown in figure 3-7, the maximum number of
protozoans species at S2 & S3 were 50 and 42 respectively recorded during
October, while the maximum number at S1 was 46 species recorded during
September. The minimum number of protozoan's species was 2 found at S1 &
S2 during January and February; meanwhile there were no protozoans species
were recorded at S3 during these months.
Among the water parameters water temperature, hydrogen ion
concentration, nitrate and phosphate showed significant differences in
correlations with number of species. The correlation with temperature and
phosphate values were highly significant (p˂0.01), while the correlations with
hydrogen ion concentration and nitrate were (p˂0.5) (table 3-2).
With the exception of Chantangsi, 2001 (Thailand); Shaikh et al., 2012
(India) and Kamble, 2013 (India) who reported very low number of protozoan
species 26, 10 and 12 respectively, the number of protozoan species in the
present study were very close to those reported by other authors (e.g.:
Mahajan et al.,1981 (India); Xu et al.,2005(China) and Araújo & Godinho,
2008 (Brazil) who reported high number of protozoan species 117, 102 and
119 respectively.
٤۳
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Table 3-1: The recorded protozoan taxa at three investigated sites during the
study period (from January to October 2012), with their dominancy and
frequency.
Dominancy (*** Dominant species, ** Influent species, *Recedent species);
Frequency (*** Constant species, ** Accessory species, * Accidental species)
Protozoans taxa
S1
S2
S3
D
F
D
F
D
F
*
*
/
/
*
/
*
*
/
/
*
/
/
/
*
*
*
*
/
/
*
*
*
*
*
/
/
/
/
/
*
/
/
/
/
/
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
/
*
*
*
/
*
*
/
*
*
*
/
*
*
*
*
/
/
/
*
*
*
*
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
*
/
*
/
/
/
/
*
/
*
*
*
/
/
/
/
*
*
*
*
/
/
*
*
*
**
/
*
/
**
/
*
/
**
*
*
/
/
*
*
/
*
/
**
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
/
/
*
*
*
*
*
*
Ciliata
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Metopus es Müller,1786
Colpoda maupasi Enriques, 1908
Stentor coeruleus Ehrenberg, 1830
Stentor niger Müller, 1773
Stentor polymorphus Müller, 1773
Spirostomum sp. Ehrenberg, 1833
Spirostomum ambiguum Ehrenberg,
1835
Spirostomum minus Roux, 1901
Blepharisma sp. Perty,1849
Parablepharisma sp. Kahl
Loxodes magnus Stokes, 1887
Acineta sp. Ehrenberg,1834
Homalozoon sp. Stokes,1890
Lacrymaria olar Müller,1786
Trachelophyllum sp.
Claperѐde & Lachmann 1859
Cranotheridium taeniatum
Schewiakoff, 1893
Amphileptus sp. Ehrenberg, 1832
Litonotus sp. Wrzesniowski,1870
Pseudomicrothorax sp. Mermod,
1914
Cyclogramma sp.
Frontonia sp. Ehrenberg, 1838
Paramecium multimicronucleatum
Powers& Mitchell,1910
Paramecium aurelia Ehrenberg,
1838
Paramecium caudatum Ehrenberg,
1833
٤٤
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
Table 3-1 continued
Paramecium bursaria Ehrenberg,
*
*
/
/
/
1831
Cyclidium sp. Müller, 1773
*** *** *** *** ***
Histiobalantium majus
*
*
/
/
*
Cinetochilum sp. Perty,1849
*** ** *** ** **
Cothurnia minutum
/
/
*
*
*
Thuricola sp. Kent, 1881
*
*
/
/
/
Pyxicola affinis Kent, 1882
/
/
*
*
/
Vaginicola sp. Lamarck,1816
*
**
*
*
*
Carchesium sp. Ehrenberg, 1830
*
*
*
*
/
Vortecilla sp. Linnaeus,1767
/
/
/
/
*
Vortecilla campanula Ehrenberg,
/
/
*
*
/
1831
Vortecilla microstoma Ehrenberg,
*
**
*
*
*
1830
Vortecilla picta Ehrenberg,1833
*
*
*
*
/
Orbopercularia sp. Lust,1950
*
*
*
*
/
Propyxidium sp. Corliss,1979
/
/
*
*
/
Ophrydium sp. Vincent,1827
*
*
/
/
/
Ophrydiopsis sp. Penard,1922
/
/
*
*
/
Epistylis sp. Ehrenberg,1830
**
*
/
/
*
Podophrya fixa Müller, 1786
*
*
/
/
/
Sphaerophrya sp.
*
*
*
*
*
Claperѐde & Lachmann 1859
Trichophrya columbiae Wailes
*
*
/
/
/
Chilodonella sp. Strand,1928
*
*** *
**
*
Phascololodon vorticella Stein,
*
*
*
*
/
1859
Phascololodon sp. Stein,1859
*
*
/
/
/
Coleps hirtus Müller,1786
*** ** **
*
*
Prorodon sp. Ehrenberg,1833
/
/
*
*
*
Pseudoprorodon sp. Blochmann,
*
*
/
/
*
1886
Halteria sp. Dujardin,1841
*
*
*
*
*
Strombidium sp.
*
*
/
/
*
Claperѐde & Lachmann 1859
Uroleptus limnetis Stokes, 1885
/
/
*
*
/
Oxytricha sp. Bory,1825
*
*
/
/
*
Steinia sp. Diesing,1866
*
*
*
*
*
Stylonychia sp. Ehrenberg,1830
*
*** *
**
*
Tachysoma sp. Stokes,1887
/
/
*
*
/
٤٥
/
**
*
**
*
/
/
*
/
*
/
*
/
/
/
/
/
*
/
*
/
*
/
/
*
*
*
*
*
/
*
*
**
/
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
Table 3-1 continued
caudatum
*
*
*
*
*
*
/
/
/
*
*
/
/
*** ***
*
*
/
**
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
**
*
**
/
/
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
***
*
*
*
***
**
*
/
*
*
*
/
*
*
*
*
/
*
***
*
/
*
*
**
*
*
/
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
/
**
*
*
*
**
**
*
*
*
/
/
*
*
*
*
***
*
*
*
**
*
*
/
**
/
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
/
/
/
/
*
*
/
/
/
/
*
*
/
/
/
/
*
*
/
/
/
/
*
*
*
*
*
*
/
/
*
**
*
*
*
*
Urosoma
Ehrenberg,1833
Stichotricha intermedia Froud,
/
1949
Spiretella sp. Borror,1972
/
Aspidisca sp. Ehrenberg,1830
**
Euplotes sp. Ehrenberg,1830
*
Flagellata
Ceratum hirundinella
(Müller) Dujardin, 1841
Glenodinium sp. Ehrenberg,1837
Anisonema acinus Dujardin, 1841
Euglena acus Ehrenberg,1830
Euglena anabena Mainx, 1928
Euglena clavata Skuja, 1948
Euglena caudate Hübner, 1886
Euglena ehrinbergii Klebs, 1883
Euglena oxyuris Schmarda, 1846
Euglena pisciformis Klebs, 1883
Euglena sociabilis Dangeard,
1901
Euglena texta Hübner, 1886
Euglena viridis Ehrenberg,1830
Phacus longicauda
(Ehrenberg) Dujardin, 1841
Phacus pleuronectes
(Müller) Dujardin, 1841
Phacus torta
(Lemmermann) Skvortsov, 1928
Peranema trichophorum
Ehrenberg,1838
Heteronema acus
Ehrenberg,1830
Mastigamoeba sp. Schulze,1875
Pyramimonas tetrahynchus
Schmarda,1849
Bodo sp. Ehrenberg,1830
Chilomonas paramecium
Ehrenberg,1838
Anthophysis vagitans Müller
٤٦
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
Table 3-1 continued
Pandorina morum Müller, 1783
*
*
Volvex sp. Linnaeus,1758
*
**
Sarcodina
Actinophrys sol Ehrenberg,1830
Actinosphaerium eichhornii
Ehrenberg,1840
Choanocystis aculata
Hertwig & Lesser, 1874
Heterophrys sp. Archer,1869
Trichomoeba villosa Wallich,
1863
Polychaos sp. Schaeffer,1926
Striamoeba striata Penard, 1890
Discamoeba sp.
Jahn,Bovee & Graffith,1979
Rosculus sp. Hawes,1963
Korotnevella sp. Goodkov,1988
Mayorella sp. Schaeffer,1926
Cochliopodium sp.
Hetwig & Lesser,1874
Arcella sp. Ehrenberg,1832
Difflugia sp. Leclerc,1815
Difflugia bipes
Centropyxis aculata
Ehrenberg,1830
Centropyxis ecornis
Ehrenberg,1841
Nebela sp. Leidy,1874
Nuclearia sp. Cienkowski,1865
Plagiophrys sp.
Claperѐde & Lachmann,1858
Euglypha sp. Dujardin,1841
Pelomyxa sp. Greeff,1874
Pseudochlamys patella
Claperѐde & Lachmann
Amoeba radiosa Ehrenberg
٤۷
/
*
/
*
/
*
/
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
/
/
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
/
*
/
*
*
*
/
/
/
/
*
*
*
**
**
*
*
*
/
**
*
/
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
/
*
**
/
*
*
/
*
**
/
*
*
*
*
/
/
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
/
*
/
*
/
*
/
*
/
/
/
/
*
*
/
/
/
/
*
/
*
/
/
*
/
*
***
*
*** *** *** *** ***
**
*
**
*
**
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
60
S1
S2
S3
No. of species
50
40
30
20
10
0
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August September October
Months
Figure 3-7: The monthly fluctuations in number of species at S1, S2 &S3
during the study period (from January to October 2012)
The maximum number of species recorded was 63 (56.25%) belong to
the group of ciliates followed by flagellates with 25 (22.321%) species and
sarcodines 24 (21.428%) species. However the group of flagellates was
occurred each month over the study period at all sites, meanwhile the group of
ciliates and sarcodines start to appear in March (table 3-3).
Table 3-2: Correlation coefficient between No. of species & water parameters
Water parameters
Correlation coefficient
Level of sig.
Water temp.
0.83
**
PH
- 0.26
*
EC
0.08
NS
DO
0.05
NS
NO3
0.47
*
PO4
0.56
**
* (P<0.05), ** (P<0.01), NS: Non-significant.
٤۸
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Table 3-3: Number of species and their composition at three investigated
sites during the study period (from January to October 2012).
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
Months
Protozoan
group
Ciliates
Flagellates
Sarcodines
Ciliates
Flagellates
Sarcodines
S1
S2
S3
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ciliates
Flagellates
Sarcodines
Ciliates
Flagellates
Sarcodines
Ciliates
Flagellates
Sarcodines
Ciliates
Flagellates
Sarcodines
Ciliates
Flagellates
Sarcodines
Ciliates
Flagellates
Sarcodines
Ciliates
1
2
0
3
3
0
9
5
6
15
10
4
21
11
6
15
8
13
18
2
1
1
5
2
0
2
1
3
13
8
4
12
9
4
11
9
10
15
2
0
0
3
0
0
7
3
2
5
1
3
14
7
5
8
14
7
9
Flagellates
14
8
10
Sarcodines
14
11
9
Ciliates
Flagellates
Sarcodines
16
15
11
27
9
14
17
12
13
٤۹
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
In general our results are in agreement with Martín-Cereceda et al.
(2001) who concluded that the temperature and nutrients were the first
principal component and the most effective factors were significantly related
to the structural parameters of the protozoan communities.
The presence of Epistylis sp. only at S1 and S3 and the greater
frequency of Vorticella sp. during August at these sites as well, probably
attributed to the high levels of nitrate and phosphate since peritrichous ciliates
are strongly related to higher constants of organic matters (Antipa, 1977;
Burbanck & Spoon, 1967; Henebry & Ridgeway, 1979).
Organic matters cause increase in phosphate and other nutrients, altering the
structure of bacteria communities, inducing changes in the ciliates
communities which depend directly on these bacteria as food (Primc, 1988).
All the photographs of the recorded species in present study were showed in
appendix 1 plates.
3.2.1.1: Dominancy and Frequency:
The importance of each species in the water was assessed on the basis
of dominancy and frequency.
Dominance is defined as the percentage of total number of individuals
contributed by a given species.
Frequency is the percentage of the total number of samples in which a
given species occurs.
As shown in table 3-1, the presence of constant protozoa species
(Cyclidium sp., Euglena acus and Pseudochlamys patella), which could be
considered as being characteristic of the S1 and S2 could reflect the fact that,
these sites subjected to anthropic action, constitute favorable environment for
their development, as observed in other studies (Bruno et al., 2005).
٥۰
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
The occurrence of some protozoa species (e.g. Litonotus sp., Frontonia
sp., Vaginicola sp., Euglena oxyuris, Euglena texta, Peranema trichophorum,
Actinophrys sol, Difflugia sp.) in all investigated sites could be reflected a
high ecological valence characterizing these species (Madoni & Bassanini,
1999; Dias et al., 2008). This affirmation is contrary to that of Foissner &
Berger (1996), who showed that these species develops only in normal water
body, and also could be due to the being of these species as true cosmopolitan
or ubiquitous species (Dias et al., 2008)
Most dominant species (Cyclidium sp., Cinetochilum sp., Chilodenella sp.,
Aspidisca sp. and Pseudochlamys sp.) seems to be highly effected with
decrease of temperature and this was judged by their absence during winter
season, this finding was also observed on Paramecium spp. which start to
appear at spring season (April) and was not observed during winter season,
while Euplotus sp. was first time observed in spring season (April) then
disappeared during summer season till autumn season.
Vorticella picta observed only at the beginning of spring season (March)
while Vorticella microstoma observed at the end of spring season (May) and
continued until September then appear again in October, meanwhile
Vorticella campanula was observed in October only.
Some anaerobic ciliates such as Metopus es occurred only at S1 and S3
during July and August when the DO was at lowest value (4.9 and 5.3 mg/L),
this finding is similar to that reported by Madoni & Zangrossi (2005).
٥۱
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
1.2.2 : Population density and index of diversity
A total of 10,587,000 protozoans were extracted from the water
samples during the period from January to October 2012, at a mean density of
1,177,216.7 ind. /L.
The seasonal variation in the abundance and diversity index values of
protozoan communities from water samples at the three sampling sites are
presented in figures 3-8 & 3-9.
Figure 3-8 shows that S1&S3 displayed higher population density
459,620 and 309,610 ind. /L respectively during August, while the maximum
protozoan density at S2 was 299,600 ind. /L appeared in October.
As shows in table 3-4, the ciliates and sarcodines communities
developed higher individual abundance during August at S1 & S3 and during
October at S1 & S2 when temperature, phosphate (PO4-3) and nitrate (NO3-1)
values were at its highest level.
In general high population densities of protozoa at S1&S3 during
August, and at S1&S2 during October seem to be related to the presence of
high population density of ciliates and sarcodines which made up the great
bulk at these sites. Although these groups showed high population densities in
several other occasions during summer and autumn season at all sampling
sites.
Among the sarcodines spp. Pseudochlamys patella comprise the
highest population density which could be the responsible for the high
population density of sarcodines.
٥۲
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
500000
S1
S2
S3
450000
Mean of individual (L-1)
400000
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
January February
March
April
May
June
July
August September October
Months
Figure 3-8: The monthly fluctuation in abundance (ind. /L) at S1, S2 & S3
during the study period (from January to October 2012)
10
S1
S2
S3
9
index of diversity
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August September October
Months
Figure 3-9: The monthly fluctuation in index of diversity at S1, S2 &S3
during the study period (from January to October 2012)
٥۳
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Table 3-4: Seasonal population density (ind. /L) of protozoans at three
investigated sites during the study period (from January to February 2012).
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
Months
Site
ciliata
Flagellata
Sarcodina
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000
2670
3340
8010
14320
1670
30320
7000
12330
70330
45980
1990
144330
35980
17970
300660
7990
4650
225650
5330
1330
0
4660
2000
0
2660
1330
0
1660
660
0
3660
330
1990
20660
5650
1000
7670
3310
2980
7650
7320
44310
17650
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
330
0
0
0
0
2660
1330
10000
112670
95000
5660
93320
85330
186000
151310
165310
260650
97320
S2
164660
8660
121670
S3
100320
3980
74650
S1
S2
S3
135650
216640
20300
29990
7980
5980
126320
74980
86980
٥٤
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Hirose et al. (2003) found positive significant correlations also
occurred between ciliates and sarcodines, implying alimentary relations
between these groups. They may have the same source of nutrients, or one
group is the source of nutrients for the other, both have their population
controlled by same factors (Madina-Sanchez et al., 1999). Similar correlation
was found by Amblard et al. (1996) for a shallow reservoir, also attributed to
the trophic relation between these groups.
3.2.2.1: Species diversity:
As distinct from species richness, species diversity takes into
consideration both the number of species and the number of individual.
As shown in figure 3-9 the higher protozoans diversity values recorded
at S2 and S3 (8.948 and 8.118) respectively during October, while the higher
protozoans diversity at S1 was (8.134) occurred during September. The lower
protozoans diversity (0.268) was found at S1 during January, while the lower
protozoan diversity at S2 was (0.302) occurred during February. The index of
diversity (∝) was low when there are relatively few species was present and
high when the number of species in relation to number of individuals is high.
٥٥
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
3.2.3: Photographs and description of the most frequent and
dominant species obtained during the study period (from
January to October 2012).
Aspidisca Ehrenberg, 1830
Genus: Ovoid, firm; dorsal side convex,
ventral side flattened; dorsal surface ridged;
adoral zone reduced or rudimentary;
macronucleus U-shaped or in two rounded
parts. No marginal or caudal cirri;
common genus, 30-45µm long.
Figure 3-10: Aspidisca sp.
Chilodonella Strand, 1928
Genus: Cell body ovoid, with pre-oral suture
skewed left to a point; ventrally flattened,
dorsally convex .With distinct postoral beak
or unciliated field in ventral body cilia;
preoral kinety bristles; central zone devoid
of cilia, 45µm long.
Figure 3-11: Chilodonella sp.
٥٦
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Cinetochilum Perty, 1849
Genus: Small (45µm diameter) discoid ciliate,
flattened dorso-ventrally. Apical pole rounded,
terminal pole slightly truncate.Oral aperture
displaced to the lower right quadrant Of the
ventral surface. The somatic kineties are
horseshoe-shaped, centered on the oral
aperture and in some cases are borne
Figure 3-12: Cinetochilum sp.
upon distinctive edges which give the
edges of the cell a granulated appearance.
There are several caudal cilia present. Contractile vacuole sub-terminal.
Spherical macronucleus centrally located with an adjacent micronucleus.
Coleps hirtus Müller
Synonym: Cercaria hirta Nitsch, 1817,
Cercaria hirta Müller, 1786
Description: Body form barrel-shaped,
two main groups of plates with 4
meridional rows of "windows" each;
15-20 longitudinal rows of platelets;
mouth at the anterior pole, surround
by special platelets; 3 spinous
processes at the posterior end;
Figure 3-13: Coleps hirtus
uniform ciliation over the whole
body except for 1 long caudal cilium; a spherical macronucleus; contractile
vacuole near the posterior end. Other species of the genus Coleps may show
very similar features; in doubtful cases, make sure of the construction of the
main plates and caudal spines, length (45-90µm).
٥۷
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Cyclidium Müller, 1786
Genus: little ciliate that moves in a jumping
fashion (stops for a few second then jumps).
Ovoid body with flattened anterior cap;
long peristome with large undulatory
membrane extended in feeding. No somatic
cilia at the anterior apex. One of the caudal
Figure 3-14: Cyclidium sp.
cilia is longer than the others; contractile
vacuole posterior, Small, 30-40 μm long.
Frontonia Ehrenberg, 1838
Genus: Post oral kineties usually to left of
oral poykinetids. Left edge is more curved
than right edge; cytopharynx with
numerous strong fibrils; ectoplasm with
numerous fusiform trichocysts;
macronucleus oval; one to several
Figure 3-15: Frontonia sp.
micronuclei, 75-180 µm long.
Paramecium aurelia Ehrenberg, 1838
Synonym:
Paramecium aurelia Dujardin, 1841
Description: Two small micronuclei,
a massive macronucleus; two
contractile vacuoles on aboral surface;
posterior end more rounded than
P. caudatum, in fresh water, 150µm long. Figure 3-16: Paramecium aurelia
٥۸
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Paramecium bursaria Ehrenberg, 1831
Synonym:
Loxodes bursaria Ehrenberg, 1831
Description: Foot-shaped, more or less
flattened. Uniform ciliation except for
a group of long caudal cilia; green with
symbiotic zoochlorellae; a long broad
vestibulum leads to the buccal
Figure 3-17: Paramecium bursaria
cavity, the buccal ciliary
apparatus is characterized by two "peniculi"; numerous prominent trichocysts.
One micronucleus; macronucleus; two contractile vacuoles; freshwater,
105µm long.
Paramecium caudatum Ehrenberg, 1833
Synonym:
Paramecium aurelia Müller, 1786
Description: Cigar-shaped, posterior end
bluntly pointed and with a group of
long cilia, ciliation otherwise uniform;
buccal cavity with one endoral
membrane and two peniculi; one
ellipsoid macronucleus and one
Figure 3-18: Paramecium caudatum
micronucleus; two contractile vacuoles,
each with radial canals, near the aboral surface, numerous trichocysts, which
may discharge explosively, all over the body, in fresh water. The most widely
distributed species, 180µm long.
٥۹
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Paramecium multimicronucleatum Powers & Mitchell, 1910
Description: 3-7 contractile
vacuoles; four or more micronuclei,
a single macronucleus.
The somatic kinetosomes, single
or double, appear as small dark
granules, the largest species,
210-300 µm long; fresh water.
Figure 3-19: Paramecium multimicronucleatum
Litonotus Wrzesniowski, 1870
Synonym: Lionotus
Genus: Flask-shaped; elongate,
flattened; Anterior region
neck-like; cilia only on right side;
without trichocyst-borders;
cytostome with trichocysts;
two macronuclei, 60-240µm long.
Figure 3-20: Litonotus sp.
٦۰
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Stentor coeruleus Ehrenberg, 1830
Synonym: Brachionus stentoreus var. coerulei Pallas, 1766,
Stentor attenuatus Maskell, 1888
Description: Trumpet-shaped when
extended, after contraction more
or less spherical; striking blue color
(due to the pigment "stentorin");
uniform ciliation all over the body,
Figure 3-21: Stentor coeruleus
a small number of sensory bristles; adoral zone of membranelles extends in a
spiral form around the anterior pole of the body; the buccal area itself is
equipped with rows of smaller cilia; macronucleus rosary-shaped; contractile
vacuole in the anterior part left behind the cytopharynx with long canals
directed in posterior and anterior direction. Anterior end greatly expanded;
macronucleus moniliform; length one mm (fully extended), fresh water.
Stentor niger Müller
Synonym:
Stentor pediculatus Fromentel;
Vorticella nigra Müller, 1773
Description: Yellowish or brown;
macronucleus oval, 300 µm long.
Figure 3-22: Stentor niger
٦۱
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Stentor polymorphus Ehrenberg
Synonym:
Vorticella polymorpha Müller, 1773
Description: Shape very similar to
that of S. coeruleus, but colorless
and the body filled with symbiotic
zoochlorellae; macronucleus
Figure 3-23: Stentor polymorphus
rosary-shaped; usually without a lorica. Macronucleus beaded; anterior end
expanded. Elongate macronucleus and spherical contractile vacuole in a
granular cytoplasm with alternate green and colorless longitudinal stripes as
in the trophic stage. Length one mm (fully extended).
Spirostomum ambiguum Ehrenberg
Synonym: Trichoda ambigua Müller, 1786
Description: Elongated, cylindrical body,
brownish in color; very large, easily
distinguished with the unaided eye; highly
contractile on account of longitudinal
myonemes; uniform ciliation in longitudinal
rows; peristome two-thirds of the body
Figure 3-24: Spirostomum ambiguum
٦۲
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
length, a single large contractile vacuole terminally, with 1 long canal close to
the dorsal side. Length 270-360 µm, fresh water.
Spirostomum minus Roux, 1901
Synonym:
Spirostomum ambiguum
var. minor Roux,1901;
Spirostomum intermedium Kahl, 1932
Description: Macronucleus moniliform
tapered tail; 800 µm long, fresh and
salt water.
Figure 3-25: Spirostomum minus
Stylonychia Ehrenberg
Genus : Ovoid to reniform; not flexible;
Ventral surface flat, dorsal surface convex;
eight frontals; five ventrals; five anals;
marginals; three caudals; with short dorsal
bristles; 120µm long, fresh or salt water.
Figure 3-26: Stylonychia sp.
٦۳
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Vaginicola Lamarck
Genus: Lorica without stalk, attached to
substratum directly with its posterior end,
body elongate and cylindrical; lorica
90-480µm long, fresh or salt water.
Figure 3-27: Vaginicola sp.
Vorticella campanula Ehrenberg, 1831
Synonym:
Vorticella aperta Fromentel, 1874
Description: Body is bell-shaped,
very changeable in outline, sometimes
bending back. The central part of cell
is filled with refractile reserve granules,
Figure 3-28: Vorticella campanula
therefore the animals are very conspicuous by their darkish body and they are
easy to recognize; the peristome extends considerably outwards; vestibulum is
very large and equipped with an outer undulating membrane; pellicle faintly
annulated; the stalk may be somewhat invaginated into the basal portion of
the body. Macronucleus is extending more or less along the longitudinal axis
of the cell, micronucleus is one, and contractile vacuole is one near the buccal
cavity. Body size: 90-120 µm long, 45-90 µm wide; peristom 60-120µm.
٦٤
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Vorticella microstoma Ehrenberg, 1830
Synonym:
Vorticella infusionum Dujardin, 1841
Description: Body vase-like,
cytoplasm slightly yellowish;
peristome with buccal ciliation that
winds counterclockwise to the buccal
cavity; anterior region rather narrow
by comparison with other species
of the genus, one long band-form
macronucleus extending more
Figure 3-29: Vorticella microstoma
less along the longitudinal axis
of the cell; a single micronucleus;
a contractile vacuole is located near the buccal cavity.
Mature sessile individuals without body ciliation; the sessile individual may
develop to the free-swimming defined ecological condition. e.g., lack of
oxygen and high carbon dioxide tension.
V. microstoma may vary greatly in size, shape, and stalk-length. Body size:
30µm long, 20µm wide, peristome 15µm.
Vorticella picta Ehrenberg, 1831
Synonym:
Carchesium pictum
Ehrenberg, 1831
Description: Two contractile
vacuoles; with refractile granules
in stalk. Body size: 60µm long,
30µm wide, peristome 45µm,
Figure 3-30: Vorticella picta
fresh water.
٦٥
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Anthophysis vegetans Müller
Description:
The cell may either be free swimming
or attached to the substrate by means
of a stalk which is colored brown and
is often branched. The stalk nearest
the cells is usually narrower and
transparent, becoming thickened
distally, cell club-shaped organized
into radiating colonies,
Colony 30-45µm in diameter.
Figure 3-31: Anthophysis vegetans
Ceratium hirundinella Müller
Description:
One apical and two to three
antapical horns; seasonal and
geographical variations.
The species is so variable in form,
that several forma have been
recorded, 210-240µm long,
Figure 3-32: Ceratium hirundinella
fresh and salt water.
٦٦
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Euglena anabaena Mainx, 1926, (John et al. ed. 2002)
Description:
Cell body spidle in shape, three to six
(Rarely 7) chloroplasts saucer-shaped
with wavy margin, a pyrenoid covered
with paramylon sheath located at the
center, a locomotive flagellum nearly
the same length as the cell body,
nucleus spherical, 30-45μm long.
Figure 3-33: Euglena anabaena
Euglena pisciformis Klebs
Description: Spindle-form with bluntly
pointed anterior and sharply attenuated
posterior end; slightly plastic; a few
chromatophores, 30µm long.
Figure 3-34: Euglena pisciformis
Euglena sociabilis Dangeard
Description: Cylindrical; delicate
pellicle; highly plastic; numerous
elongate chromatophores; paramylum
bodies discoid; flagellum 1- 1.5
body length, 60µm long.
Figure 3-35: Euglena sociabilis
٦۷
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Euglena clavata Skuja, 1948
Description: Cell body hand-mirror in
shape, anterior spherical to elliptical,
posterior tapered into a spiny cauda when
swimming, cell body changes to fusiform
when stopped swimming;9-16 chloroplasts
saucer-shaped, with slightly lobed margin,
each containing a pyrenoid at the center;
nucleus spherial,45-50μm long.
Figure 3-36: Euglena clavata
Euglena caudate K. Hübner, 1886
Description: Cell body fusiform
(spindle-shaped), posterior tapered into
a long cauda, active euglenoid movement;
9-15 chloroplasts saucer-shaped with a slight
wavy margin, each containing a pyrenoid
covered at both sides with paramylon sheath;
a flagellum about 2/3 of body length; nucleus
spherical, 60-80μm long.
Figure 3-37: Euglena caudate
Euglena viridis Ehrenberg 1830
Description: anterior end rounded,
posterior end pointed; fusiform during
locomotion; highly plastic when
stationary; chloroplasts more or less
bandform, radially arranged; nucleus
posterior.45-60μm long, swim rapidly.
Mucous body granular in shape.
Figure 3-38: Euglena viridis
٦۸
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Euglena texta Dujardin (Hübner, 1886)
Description: Cell body ovoidal, both ends
rounded,anterior end slightly depressed,
whereby an opening for a canal located
(near but not at the center of the apical
end). Locomotive flagellum long (about
twice of the body length); a single
paramylon body disc-shaped; pellicle
spirally-striated at right hand; stigma large,
Figure 3-39: Euglena texta
45-60μm long.
Euglena ehrenbergii Klebs 1883
Description: Cylindrical and
flattened; posterior end rounded;
plastic, often twisted; numerous
small discoid chloroplasts; stigma
conspicuous, flagellum about
one-half the body length or less,
one of the larger species,
paramylon (paramylum) as one
or two long rods, 135-210μm long.
Figure 3-40: Euglena ehrenbergii
٦۹
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Euglena oxyuris Schmarda ,1846
Description: cylindrical, almost always
twisted, numerous discoid chloroplasts;
two ovoid paramylon (paramylum) bodies;
stigma large; sluggish.
Body flattened, with longitudinal groove.
Anterior end rounded, posterior end pointed,
180μm long.
Figure 3-41: Euglena oxyuris
Euglena acus Ehrenberg, 1830
Description: body long spindle or
cylinder, with a sharply pointed
posterior end; numerous discoid
chloroplasts; several paramylon
(paramylum) bodies; nucleus central;
stigma distinct, flagellum short, about
one-fourth the body length,
90-120μm long.
Figure 3-42: Euglena acus
۷۰
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Phacus longicauda Ehrenberg
(Dujardin, 1841)
Description: usually slightly twisted;
a long caudal prolongation; flagellum
about 1/2 body length; stigma prominent;
a discoidal paramylon (paramylum) body
central; pellicle longitudinally striated.
135μm long.
Figure 3-43: Phacus longicauda
Phacus torta
Lemmermann (Skvortsov, 1928)
Description: 90μm, similar to
P. longicauda.
Figure 3-44: Phacus torta
Phacus pleuronectes Müller (Dujardin 1841)
Description: short posterior prolongation
slightly curved, a prominent ridge on the
convex side, longitudinally striated; one
circular paramylon (paramylum) body
۷۱
Figure 3-45: Phacus pleuronectes
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
near center; flagellum as long as cell body. Cell body nearly spherical at
dorsal view; anterior end separated into two spherical projections; cauda
strongly curved; dorsal ridge short or absent, 90μm long.
Peranema trichophorum Ehrenberg, 1838
Description: Cell sac-shaped, often slightly twisted
and metabolic. The posterior end of the flagella pocket
slightly curved to the right. Flagella canal with a
slit-like opening that extends from the apex backwards.
A longitudinal groove extends
Figure 3-46: Peranema trichophorum
from the slit to the posterior end,
and the recurrent flagellum lies within this groove. The anterior end of the cell
is pointed, the posterior end is truncated occasionally with an irregularity
marking the posterior termination of the longitudinal groove. The anterior
flagellum has the same length as the cell or it is slightly longer, cell glides in
close contact with the substrate, 60µm long.
Volvox Linnaeus
Genus: Often large spherical or subspherical
colonies, consisting of a large number of cells
which are differentiated into somatic and
Figure 3-47: Volvox sp.
۷۲
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
reproductive cells; somatic cells numerous, embedded in gelatinous matrix,
and contains a chromatophore, one or more pyrenoids, a stigma, two flagella
and several contractile vacuoles. Zygotes are usually yellowish to brownish
red in color and covered by a smooth, ridged or spinous wall, colony 60180µm by 75-180µm in diameter, fresh water.
Amoeba radiosa Ehrenberg, 1830
Description: Small, usually inactive;
globular or oval in outline; with
3-10 radiating slender pseudopodia
which vary in length and degree of
rigidity; when pseudopods are
withdrawn, in general appearance;
pseudopods straight, curved or spirally
coiled, cell diameter 30-45 µm.
Figure 7-48: Amoeba radiosa
Pseudochlamys patella Claparede and Lachmann
Description: Young test hyaline, older
one rigid and brown; often rolled up
like a scroll; a short finger-like
pseudopodium between folds;
40-45 µm in diameter.
Figure 7-49: Pseudochlamys patella
۷۳
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Actinophrys sol Ehrenberg, 1830
Description: Spherical; ectoplasm
vacuolated, endoplasm granulated
with numerous small vacuoles;
a large central nucleus; solitary but
may be colonial when young;
among plants in still fresh water.
Usually with one contractile vacuole
which rises and pushes out the
surface as a rounded globule before
Figure 7-50: Actinophrys sol
bursting. Pseudopodia extending
from all parts of the body, with axial filaments arising from the membrane of
the single nucleus, diameter 30-45µm. Habitat pond water among aquatic
plants, very common.
Centropyxis ecornis Ehrenberg, 1841
Synonym: Arcella ecornis Ehrenberg
Description: discoidal or largely
elliptical, mostly irregular in outline.
The shell is rough, covered with
quartz sand grains, color sometimes
brownish. Aperture circular or
irregularly lobed, not very much
eccentric. In lateral view the aboral
region is spherical and tapers from the
Figure 7-51: Centropyxis ecornis
mid-body position to the apertural lip.
Shell of large size, diameter 200µm.
Habitat only open water,among plants or mosses.
۷٤
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Difflugia LeClerc, 1815
Genus: test variable in shape, but
generally circular in cross-section;
composed of cemented quartz-sand,
diatoms, and other foreign bodies,
aperture terminal; often with
zoochlorellae; cytoplasmic body
almost fills the test; a single nucleus,
many contractile vacuoles;
pseudopodia cylindrical, simple or
branching; end rounded or pointed
Figure 3-52: Difflugia sp.
length of shell 120-240µm, found in fresh water and soil.
Korotnevella Schaeffer, 1926, (Goodkov, 1988)
Description: Body more or less
triangular to spatulate; tapered,
round-tipped pseudopods,
90-240µm long.
Figure 3-53: Korotnevella sp.
۷٥
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Rosculus Hawes, 1963
Genus: Small amoeba with rapidly
changing form, sometimes spatulate
or flabellate; hyaline zone usually
with smoothly irregular edge,
45-120 µm long.
Figure 3-54: Rosculus sp.
Striamoeba striata Penard, 1890
Description: locomotive,
pseudopods rare, uroid none,
nucleus spherical, ectoplasm pale;
3-5 dorsal ridges and clear,
endoplasm finely granular,
60-120μm long.
Figure 3-55: Striamoeba striata
۷٦
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
3.3: Sediment protozoans
During the present study total of 22 protozoan’s taxa, 12 of ciliates, 5
of each flagellates and sarcodines have been found in the sediment samples
collected from three sites at the east bank of the river Tigris at Baghdad city.
In the ciliata community Cyclidium sp. and Uronema marinum were
very constant species in all investigated sites, meanwhile Cinetochilum sp.
and Stylonychia sp. belonged to accessory taxa and the remaining 16 taxa to
accidental ones. Among the sarcodina community Actinophrys sol was the
only species appeared as accessory one (table 3-5).
With regards to the taxa composition at the three investigated sites, two
observations can be pointed out. The first is, the sediment at all sites was
predominately ciliata, and the other is the absence of all flagellata species at
site 2 (figure 3-56).
Many species of ciliata and testate amoebae seem to be unique to the soil
environments, the communities of amoebae are probably best considered as
restricted versions on their aquatic counter parts (Ekelund, 2002).
The lower number of species we found could be referred to the small
size of sample, limited investigated area and also to the type of sediment. The
higher numbers of both individuals and taxa can be expected in water and soil
with higher proportions of organic matter (Wilkinson & Mitchell, 2010).
Rønn et al, (2012) point out most soil protists are fundamentally
aquatic creatures visiting a terrestrial world.
As shown in table 3-5, out of the 22 recorded taxa 19 taxa were found
in both sediment and water but there are only three taxa (Pleuronema
marinum, Pleuronema setigera, Uronema marinum) belonged to the ciliata
were found in the sediment only (figures 3-57, 58, 59).
۷۷
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Table 3-5: List of protozoan taxa found in the sediment at the investigated
sites during study period (from January to October 2012) with their
frequency.
● Species appeared in the sediment samples only.
(***Constant species˃ 50%, **Accessory species 25-50%,*Accidental specie˂ 25%)
Protozoans taxa
Ciliata
● Pleuronema marinum Dujardin,1836
● Pleuronema setigerum Calkins, 1903
Cyclidium sp. Müller, 1773
● Uronema marinum Dujardin,1841
Cinetochilum sp. Perty,1849
Stylonychia sp. Ehrenberg,1830
Aspidisca sp. Ehrenberg,1830
Oxytricha sp. Bory,1825
Strombidium sp. Claperѐde & Lachmann, 1859
Colpoda maupasi Enriques, 1908
Euplotes sp. Ehrenberg,1830
Parablepharisma sp. Kahl
Flagellata
Euglena ehrinbergii Klebs, 1883
Euglena acus Ehrenberg,1830
Euglena sociabilis Dangeard, 1901
Peranema trichophorum Ehrenberg,1838
Bodo sp. Ehrenberg,1830
Sarcodina
Amoeba radiosa Ehrenberg
Actinophrys sol Ehrenberg,1830
Pseudochlamys patella Claperѐde & Lachmann
Difflugia sp. Leclerc,1815
Rosculus sp. Hawes,1963
۷۸
S1
S2
S3
F
+
+
+
+
+
+
̶
̶
̶
̶
+
+
̶
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
̶
̶
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
̶
̶
̶
+
*
*
***
***
**
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
+
+
+
̶
+
̶
̶
+
+
̶
+
+
*
*
*
*
*
+
+
+
̶
̶
+
+
̶
+
+
+
+
̶
̶
̶
*
**
*
*
*
̶
̶
̶
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
9
8
S1
no. of species
7
S2
6
S3
5
4
3
2
1
0
Cilita
flagellata
sarcodina
Figure 3- 56: Composition of protozoan taxa in S1, S2 &S3 during the study
period (from January to February 2012) in the sediment
3.3.1: Photographs and description of the species inhabiting
only the sediment during the study period (from January to
October 2012):
Pleuronema setigerum
Calkins, 1903
Description: Ellipsoid, flattened,
ventral surface slightly concave,
about 25 ciliary rows, in salt
water, About 40 µm long.
Figure 3-57: Pleuronema setigerum
۷۹
Chapter 3------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Results & Discussion
Pleuronema marinum Dujardin,1836
Description: Elongate ovoid,
trichocysts distinct,caudal cilia
medium long, about 50 ciliary
rows,in salt water.
About 50 µm long.
Figure 3-58: Pleuronema marinum
Uronema marinum Dujardin, 1841
Description: Ovoid, pyriform or
elongate, has only one caudal cilium.
Macronucleus spherical; a single
contractile vacuole posterior,
30 μm long.
Figure 3-59: Uronema marinum
Staining with Luglu’s solution
۸۰
Conclusion-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
1. The free-living protozoan’s communities are highly diverse.
2. A total of 115 protozoan’s taxa which were collected from water and
sediment samples, most of them considered to be new records to Iraq.
3. The protozoan’s communities of the water and soil in Tigris river
were predominantly ciliates which comprise the highest number of
species and number of individual within the groups of protozoa.
4. Four taxa of ciliates and one of sarcodines recorded as dominant
species (Aspidisca sp., Cinetochilum sp., Coleps hirtus, Cyclidium sp.
and Pseudochlamys patella).
5. Most of the 19 protozoan’s taxa found in the sediment were recorded
in the water as well and three species recorded in the sediment only.
6. The most effective environmental factors on protozoan community
were temperature and nutrients (phosphate PO4-3 and nitrate NO3-1).
۸۱
Recommendations---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations:
This study is the first conducted on the free-living protozoa at Tigris
river in this part of Baghdad city, we still need further and more studies on
this protozoan’s community from other sites and depth of the river in order to
find out their distribution, real number of species and their population density
in correlation to the biological and physical-chemical status of the river using
more methods for extraction and estimation the number of species of this
community.
It is also important to use the biomolecular methods for species
identification in addition to the classical methods to help in finding out the
new species of protozoans which could be occurred in the water and soil of
Tigris river.
۸۲
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
(A)
· Adl, M. S., V. V. S. R. Gupta. 2006. Protistis in soil ecology and forest
nutrient cycling. Can. J. Forest Res. 36: 1805-1817.
· Aescht, E. and W. Foissner. 1995. Microfauna. In: Schinner, F.,
Ohlinger, R., Kandeler, E., Margesin, R. (Eds.), Methods in Soil
Biology. Springer, Berlin. pp. 316-337.
· Al-Sahaf, M. 1976.The sources of waters in Iraq and its protective from
pollution.The publications of notification ministry, Republic of Iraq. (In
Arabic).
· Ali, L. A. 2010. Seasonal variation in physico-chemical properties and
zooplankton biomass in Greater Zab River-Iraq. Jordan Journal of
Biological Sciences. 3(3): 115-120.
· Amblard, C., G. Bourdier, J. F. Carrias, N. Marine and C. Quiblier.
1996. Évolution saisonnière de la structure des communautés
microbiennes dans un reservoir d`eau potable. Water Res. 30: 613-624.
· Anderson, O. R. (ed). 1997. Explore the world using protozoa. NSTA
press.
· Andersen, R. A. 1998. What to do with protists? Austral. Syst. Bot. 11:
185-201.
· Anderson R. V., E. T. Elliott, J. F. Mcclellan, D. C. Coleman and C.V.
Cole. 1979. Trophic interactions in soils as they affect energy and
nutrient dynamics. III. Biotic interactions of bacteria, amoebae, and
nematodes. Microbial Ecology. 4: 361-371.
· Antipa, G. A. 1977. Use of commensal protozoa as biological
indicators of water quality and pollution. Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 96:
482-489.
۸۳
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· APHA (American Public Health Association). 1985. Standard methods
for the examination of water and waste water.14th Ed. American Public
Health Association, Washington, Dc.
· APHA (American Public Health Association). 1998. Standard methods
for the examination of water and waste water, 20th Ed. American Public
Health Association, Washington, DC.
· Araújo, MFF and MJL. Godinho. 2008. Spatial and seasonal variation
of planktonic protists ( Mastigophora, Sarcodina and Ciliophora) in a
river-lacustrine system in northeast Brazil. Acta. Limnol. Bras. 20 (3):
235-244.
· Auer, B. and H. Arndt. 2001. Taxonomic composition and biomass of
heterotrophic flagellates in relation to lake trophy and season.
Freshwater Biol.46: 959-972.
· Azam, F., T. Fenchel, J. G. Field, J. S. Gray, L. A. Meyer-Reil and F.
Thingstad. 1983. The ecological role of water-column microbes in the
sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 10: 257-263.
(B)
· Bamforth, S. S. 1973. Population dynamics of soil and vegetation
protozoa. Am. Zool. 13: 171-176.
· Bamforth, S. S. 1985. Ecology of protozoa. P8-15 In: J. J. Lee(ed), An
Illustrated guide to the protozoa. Lawrence, Kansas, Society of
Protozoologists.
· Barone, R. and L. Nasseli-Flores. 2003. Distribution and seasonal
dynamics of cryptomonads in Sicilian water bodies. Hydrobiologia.
502: 325-329.
۸٤
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· Bedano, J. C., M. P. Cantú and M. E. Doucet. 2005. Abundance of soil
mites (Arachnida, Acari) in a natural soil of central Argentina. Zool.
Stud. 44: 505-512.
· Bernard, C. and T. Fenchel. 1996. Some microaerobic ciliates are
facultative anaerobes. Europ. J. Protistol. 32: 293-297.
· Berninger, U.-G., B. J. Finlay, and P. Kuuppo-Leinikki, 1991.
Protozoan control of bacterial abundances in fresh water. Limnol.
Oceanogr. 36: 139-147.
· Berninger, U.-G., S. A. Wickham, and B. J. Finlay. 1993. Trophic
coupling within the microbial food web: a study with fine temporal
resolution in a eutrophic freshwater ecosystem. Freshwat. Biol. 30:
419-432.
· Biagini, G.A., B. J. Finlay and D. Lloyd. 1998. Protozoan stimulation
of anaerobic microbial activity: enhancement of the rate of terminal
decomposition of organic matter. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.
· Bick, H. 1972. Ciliated protozoa; an illustrated guide to the species
used as biological indicators in freshwater biology. World Health
Organization, Geneva.
· Bick, H. 1973. Population dynamic of protozoa associated with the
decay of organic materials in freshwater. Amer. Zool., 13: 149-160.
· Bischoff, P. J. and T. G. Horvan. 2011. Aboundance of naked amoeba
and macroflagellates in central New York lakes: possible effects by
Zebra mussels. Acta Protozool. 50: 23-31.
· Bloem, J., M-JB Ba¨r-Gilissen, T. E. Cappenberg. 1986. Fixation,
counting, and manipulation of heterotrophic nanoflagellates. Appl.
Environ Microbiol. 52:1266–1272
· Bruno, B. S. C. Castro, R. P. Antunes, M. V. M. Amadeu, Soares and
G. Fernando. 2005. Rotifer community structure in three lakes:
۸٥
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
seasonal fluctuations and explanatory factors. Hydrobiologia. 543: 221232.
· Buitkamp,
U.
1979.
Vergleichende
Untersuchungen
zur
Temperaturadaptation von Bodenciliaten aus klimatisch verschiedenen
Regionen. Pedobiologia. 19: 221-236.
· Burbanck, W. D. and D. M. Spoon. 1967. The use of sessile ciliates
collected in plastic Petri dishes for rapid assessment of water pollution.
J. Protozool. 14: 739-744.
(C)
· Cairns Jr., J. and P. V. McCormick. 1993. Protists as indicators of
water quality in marine environments, Handbook of Hazardous
Materials. Academic Press. New York. 627–638.
· Canning, E. U. 1998. Evolutionary relationships of microsporidia. In:
Evolutionary Relationships Among Protozoa, (Eds. Coombs, G. H., K.
Vickerman, M. A. Sleigh and A. Warren). Kluwer Academic
Publishers. Dordrecht. The Netherlands, 77-90.
· Caron, D. A., 1987. Grazing of attached bacteria by heterotrophic
microflagellates. Microb. Ecol. 13: 203-218.
· Cavalier-Smith, T. 1978. The evolutionary origin and phylogeny of
microtubules, mitotic spindles and eukaryote flagella. BioSystems
10:93-114.
· Cavalier-Smith, T. 1981. Eukaryote kingdoms: seven or nine?
BioSystems. 14:461-481.
· Cavalier-Smith, T. 1983. A 6-kingdom classification and a unified
phylogeny, P 1027-1034. In: W. Schwemmler and H. E. A. Schenk
(ed.), Endocytobiology II. de Gruyter, Berlin.
۸٦
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· Cavalier-Smith, T. 1987a. The origin of cells: a symbiosis between
genes, catalysts, and membranes. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant.
Biol. 52:805-824.
· Cavalier-Smith, T. 1987b. Glaucophyceae and the origin of plants.
Evol. Trends Plants. 2:75-78.
· Cavalier-Smith, T. 1989. The kingdom Chromista, P 379-405. In: J. C.
Green, B. S. C. Leadbeater, and W. C. Diver (ed.), The chromophyte
algae: problems and perspectives. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
· Cavalier-Smith, T. 1990. Microorganism megaevolution: integrating
the living and fossil evidence. Rev. Micropaleontol. 33:145-154.
· Cavalier-Smith, T. 1993a. Percolozoa and the symbiotic origin of the
metakaryote cell. P 399-406 In: H. Ishikawa, M. Ishida and S.Sato
(eds), Endocytobiology V. Tübingen University Press, Tübingen,
Germany.
· Cavalier-Smith, T.1993b. Kingdom protozoa and its 18 phyla.
Microbiol. Rev. 57(4):953–94.
· Cavalier-Smith, T.1998. A revised six-kingdom system of life. Biol.
Rev. 73: 203-266.
· Cavalier-Smith, T. 2002. The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and
phylogenetic classification of Protozoa. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.
52: 297-354.
· Chantangsi, C. 2001. An investigation on protozoan diversity in ∝ −
Mesosaprobic zone of a man-made canal at Chulalongkorn University.
NAT. HIST. J. Chulalongkorn Univ. 1(1): 83-85.
· Clarholm M. 1981. Protozoan grazing of bacteria in soil-impact and
importance. Microb. Ecol. 7: 343-350.
۸۷
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· Coleman D.C. 1976. A review of root production processes and their
influence on soil biota in terrestrial ecosystems. P417-434 In: J. M.
Anderson The role of terrestrial and aquatic organisms in decomposing
processes (Eds.). Blackwell Sciences, Oxford.
· Coleman D. C., C. V. Cole, H. W. Hunt and D. A. Klein. 1978. Trophic
interactions in soils as thay affect energy and nutrient dynamics. I.
Introduction. Microbial Ecol. 4: 345-349.
· Coleman, D. C. 1994. The microbial loop concept as used in terrestrial
soil ecology studies. Microb. Ecol. 28: 245-250.
· Copeland, H. F. 1938. The kingdoms of organisms. Q. Rev. Biol.
13:383-420.
· Corliss, J. O. 1979. The Ciliated Protozoa: Characterization,
Classification, and Guide to the Literature. 2 ed. Pergamon Press,
Oxford and New York.
· Corliss, J. C. 1991. Protists. In: The new Encyclopedia Britannica, 15
ed, Encyclopedia Britannica. Inc. Chicago. 26: 268-278.
· Corliss, J. O. 1994. An interim utilitarian (‘user-friendly’) hierarchical
classification and characterization of the protists. Acta. Protozoologica,
33: 1-51.
· Corliss, J. O. 1998. Classification of protozoa and protists: the current
status. P 409-447 In: G. H. Coombs (eds), Evolutionary Relationships
Among Protozoa, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
· Corliss, J. O. 2000. Biodiversity, classification, and numbers of species
of protists. P130-155 In: P. Raven (eds) Nature and Human Society: the
Quest for a Sustainable World, Washington DC: National Academy
Press.
۸۸
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· Corliss, J. O. 2002. Biodiversity and biocomplexity of the protistis and
an overview of their significant roles in maintenance of our biosphere.
Acta. Protozoologica, 41: 199-219.
· Corliss, J. O. 2003. Have the Protozoa been overlooked?. Available
from:<www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1042/6_51/77336548/print.jhtml>.
· Coûteaux, M. M., J. F., Darbyshire. 1998. Functional diversity amongst
soil protozoa. Appl. Soil Ecol.10:229-237.
· Cowling, A.J. 1994. Protozoan distribution and adaptation. P5-42 In: J.
F. Darbyshire (Ed.), Soil Protozoa. CAB International, Wallingford.
· Cui, Z. D., Y. B. Pang and Z. R. Zhang. 1989. Soil protozoa. Chin. J.
Zool. 24:43-47.
· Curds C. R. 1965. An ecological study of the ciliated protozoa in
activated sludge. Oikos 15: 282-289.
· Curtis, T. P., W. T. Sloan. 2004. Prokaryotic diversity and its limits:
microbial community structure in nature and implications for microbial
ecology. Curr Opin Microbiol. 7:221–226.
(D)
· Darbyshire, J. F., O. R. Anderson and A. Rogerson. 1996. Protozoa. In:
Hall, G. S.(ed), Methods for the Examination of organismal diversity in
soils and sediments. CAB International, Wall-ingford. p 79-90.
· Deschiens, R. 1934. Influence froid sur les forms vѐgѐtatives de l’amibe
dysenterique. C. R. Soc. Boil. P.115-793.
· Dias, S., A. Martin-González, J. C. Gutiѐrrez. 2006. Evaluation of
heavy metal acute toxicity and bioaccumulation in soil ciliated
protozoa. Environ. Int. 32: 711-717.
۸۹
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· Dias, R. J. P., A. H. Wieloch, M. D’Agosto. 2008. The influence of
environmental characteristics on the distribution of ciliates (Protozoa,
Ciliophora) in an urban stream of southeast Brazil. Brazilian Journal of
Biology, 68(2): 287-295.
· Doudoroff, M. 1936. Studies in thermal death in Paramecium. J. Exper.
Zool. P: 72-369.
(E)
· Ekebom, J., D. J. Patterson and N. Vørs. 1996. Heterotrophic
flagellates from coral reef sediments (Great Barrier Reef, Australia)
Arch. Protistenkd. 146: 251-272.
· Ekelund, F. 2002. Estimation of protozoan diversity in soil. European
Journal of Protistology. 37(4): 361-362.
· Elliott E. T., C. V. Cole, D. C. Coleman, R. V. Anderson, H. W. Hunt
and J. F. McClellan. 1979. Amoebal growth in soil microcosms: a
model system of C, N and P trophic dynamics. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 13:
169-174.
(F)
· Fenchel, T. 1987. Ecology of protozoa. New York: Springer-Verlag.
· Fenchel, T. 1991. Flagellate design and function. In: D. J. Patterson
(ed), The Biology of Free-living Heterotrophic Flagellates. Systematics
Association Special. 45: 7-19. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
· Fenchel, T. 1993. There are more small than large species. Oikos. 68:
375-378.
· Fenchel, T. and P. Harrison. 1976. The significance of bacterial grazing
and mineral cycling for the decomposition of particulate detritus.
P.285-299 In: J. M. Anderson (ed), The Role of Terrestrial and Aquatic
۹۰
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organisms in Biodiversity and ecological function 1181 Decomposition
Processes. Oxford: Blackwell.
· Fenchel, T. and B. J. Finlay. 1989. Kentrophoros: a mouthless ciliate
with a symbiotic kitchen garden. Ophelia. 30: 75-93.
· Fenchel, T. and B. J. Finlay. 1995. Ecology and evolution in anoxic
worlds. Oxford Series In: R. M. May (ed), Ecology and Evolution.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
· Fenchel T., G. F. Esteban and B. J. Finlay. 1997. Local versus global
diversity of microorganisms: cryptic diversity of ciliated protozoa.
Oikos 80: 220-225.
· Ferhan, Y.N. 1992. Hydrochemistry of Tigris River in the city of
Baghdad, M.Sc. Thesis, collage of science, Baghdad University. (In
Arabic).
· Fernandez-Leborans, G. and A. Novillo. 1996. Protozoan communities
and contamination of several fluvial systems. Water Environ. Res. 68
(3): 311-319.
· Finlay, B.J. 1990. Physiological ecology of free-living protozoa. Adv.
Micro. Ecol. 11: 1-34.
· Finlay, B. J. 1997. The diversity and ecological role of protozoa in
fresh waters. P113-125 In: D. W. Sutcliffe (ed), The Microbial Quality
of Water. Ambleside: Freshwater Biological Association.
· Finlay, B. J. 1998. The global diversity of protozoa and other small
species. Int. J. Parasit. 28: 29-48.
· Finlay, B. J. 2001. Protozoa. P 901-915 In: Levin, S. A. (ed),
Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Academic Press, Sanbiego, California.
۹۱
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· Finlay, B. J., S. C. Maberly and G. Esteban. 1996a. Spectacular
abundance of ciliates in anoxic pond water: contribution of symbiont
photosynthesis to host respiratory oxygen requirements. FEMS
Microbiol. Ecol. 20: 229-235.
· Finlay, B. J., J. O. Corliss, G. Esteban, and T. Fenchel. 1996b.
Biodiversity at the microbial level: the number of free-living ciliates in
the biosphere. Quart. Rev. Biol. 71: 221-237.
· Finlay, B. J., G. F. Esteban and T. Fenchel. 1996c. Global diversity and
body size. Nature. 383: 132-133.
· Finlay, B. J., S. C. Maberly and J. I. Cooper. 1997. Microbial diversity
and ecosystem function. Oikos 80: 209-213.
· Finlay, B. J. and G. F. Esteban. 1998. Fresh water protozoa:
biodiversity and ecological function. Biodiversity and Conservation
7:1163-1186.
· Finlay, B. J., H. J. Black, R. M. Hindle, J.L. Olmo, A. Rollet, S. Brown,
K. J. Clarke and G. F. Esteban. 2000. Estimating the growth potential
of the soil protozoan community. Protist. 151: 69-80.
· Foissner, W. 1987. Soil protozoa: fundamental problems, ecological
significance, adaptations in ciliates and testaceans, bioindicators, and
guide to the literature. Progr. Protistol. 2: 69-212.
·
Foissner, W. 1992. in Evaluation water quality using protozoa and
saprobity index, ed. A. R. Gaufin, in Use of aquatic invertebrates in the
assessment of water quality, ed. J. Cairns Jr. and K. L. Dickson, 1992,
American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadephia, PA. 96–116.
· Foissner, W. 1996a. Global soil ciliate (Protozoa, Ciliophora) diversity.
International Senckenberg Conference, Global Biodiversity Research in
Europe, Frankfurt.
۹۲
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· Foissner, W. 1996b. Soil protozoan diversity: the state of art. Mitt.
Deut. Bodenk. Gesell. 81: 219-220.
· Foissner, W. 1997. Global soil ciliate (Protozoa, Ciliophora) diversity:
a probability-based approach using large sample collections from
Africa, Australia and Antarctica. Biodivers. Conserv. 6: 1627-1638.
· Foissner, W. 1998. An updated compilation of world soil ciliates
(Protozoa, Ciliophora), with ecological notes, new records, and
descriptions of new species. Europ. J. Protistol. 34: 195-235.
· Foissner, W. 1999a. Soil protozoa as bioindicators: pros and cons,
methods, diversity, representative examples. Agri Ecosyst Environ
74:95-112.
· Foissner, W. 1999b. Notes on the soil ciliate biota (Protozoa,
Ciliophora) from the Shimba Hills in Kenya (Africa): diversity and
description of three new genera and ten new species. Biodivers.
Conserv. 8: 319- 389.
· Foissner, W. 2005. Protozoa. In: Hillel, D., J. L. Hatfield and C.
Rosezweig (eds), Encyclopedia of soils in the environment. Elsevier, 3:
336-347.
· Foissner, W. 2006. Biogeography and dispersal of micro-organisms: a
rivew emphasizing protists. Acta. Protozool. 45: 111-136.
· Foissner, W. 2007. Dispersal and biogeography of protists: recent
advances. Jpn. J. Protozool. 40: 1-16.
· Foissner, W. and H. Berger. 1996. A user-friendly guide to ciliates
(Protozoa, Ciliophora) commonly used by hydrobiologists as
bioindicators in rivers, lakes and waste water with notes on their
ecology. Fresh water Biol. 35: 375-498.
· Foissner, W., S. Agatha and H. Berger. 2002. Soil ciliates (Protozoa,
Ciliophora) from Namibia (Southwest Africa), with emphasis on two
۹۳
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
contrasting environments, the Etosha region and the Namib Desert.
Denisia, 5: 1-1459.
· Foissner, W., H. Berger, K. Xu and S. Zechmeister-Boltenstern. 2005.
A huge, undecided soil ciliate (Protozoa, Ciliophora) diversity in
natural forest stands of Central Europe Biodivers. Conserv. 14: 617701.
· Fontaneto, D., E. A. Herniou, T. G. Barraclough and C. Ricci. 2007. On
the global distribution of microscopic animals: new world wide data on
bdelloid rotifers. Zool. Stud. 46: 336-346.
· Foster R. C. and J. F. Dormann. 1991. Bacteria grazing amoebae in situ
in the rhizosphere. Biol. Fertil. Soil. 11: 83- 87.
· Fraser, R. H. 1998. Vertebrate species richness at the mesoscale:
relative roles of energy and heterogeneity. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. Lett.
7: 215-220.
(G)
· Glaser, R. W. and N. A. Coria. 1935. The culture and reaction of
purified protozoa. Am. J. Hyg. P.21-111.
· Goulder, R. 1974. The seasonal and spatial distribution of some benthic
ciliated protozoa in Esthwaite water. Freshwater Biology. 4: 127-147.
· Griffiths, B. S.and K. Ritz. 1988. A technique to extract, enumerate and
measure protozoa from mineral soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 20: 163-173.
(H)
· Hanski, I. 1999. Metapopulation ecology. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
· Hattori, R. and T. Hattori. 1993. Soil aggregates as microcosms of
bacteria-protozoa biota. Geoderma. 56: 493-501.
· Hausmann, K. and N. Hülsmann. 1995. Protozoology 2nd ed. Stuttgart:
Georg Thieme.
۹٤
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· Hawksworth, D. L. 1992. The need for a more effective biological
nomenclature for the 21st century. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 109: 543-567.
· Haynes, J.R. 1981. Foraminifera. London: MacMillan.
· Henebry, M. S. And B. T. Ridgeway.1979. Epizoic ciliated protozoa of
planktonic copepods and cladocerans and their possible use as
indicators of organic pollution. Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 98 (4): 495508.
· Hey J, R. S. Waples, M. L. Arnold and et al. 2003. Understanding and
confronting species uncertainty in biology and conservation. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 18: 597–603
· Hirose, M., Y. Nishibe, M. Ueki and N. Shin-Ichi. 2003. Seasonal
changes in the abundance of autotrophic picoplankton and some
environmental factors in hypereutrophic Furuic Pond. Aquatic Ecology.
37: 37-43.
· Hitchman, R. B. and H. L. J. Jones. 2000. The role of mixotrophic
protists in the population dynamics of the microbial food web in a
small artificial pond. Freshwater Biol. 43: 231-241.
· Holyoak, M. 2000. Effects of nutrient enrichment on predator–prey
metapopulation dynamics. J. Anim. Ecol. 69: 985–997.
· Holyoak, M. and S. P. Lawler. 1996. The role of dispersal in predator–
prey metapopulation dynamics. J. Anim. Ecol. 65: 640–652.
· Huws, S. A., A. J. McBain and P. Gilbert. 2005. Protozoan grazing and
its impact upon population dynamics in biofilm communities. J.
Applied Microbiol. 98: 238-244.
· Hwang, S. J. and Heath, R. T. 1997. The distribution of protozoa across
a trophic gradient, factor controlling their abundance and importance in
the plankton food web. J. of Plankton Res. 19: 491-518.
۹٥
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I)
· Ibrahim, S. and B. A. Abdullah. 2008. Effect of lead on zooplankton
dynamics in challawa river, Kano state, Nigeria. Bajops. 1(1): 88-94.
(J)
· Jahn, T. L., E. C. Bovee, and F. F. Jahn.1979. How to know the
protozoa. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown.
· Jones, R. I. 2000. Mixotrophy in planktonic protists: an overview.
Freshwater Biol. 45: 219-226.
(K)
· Kamble, U. 2013. Study of the biodiversity of free living protozoa from
Mumbai region, Maharashtra. Global Research Analysis G. R. A. 2 (3):
178-180.
· Kent, M. L. et al. 2001. Recent advances in our knowledge of the
Myxozoa. J. Euk. Microbiol. 48: 395-413.
· Kirk,
D.
L.
1998.
Volvox:
Molecular-Genetic
Origins
of
Multicellularity and Cellular Differentiation. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. UK.
· Kolkwitz, R. and M. Marsson. 1908. Okologie der pflanzlichen
saprobien. Ber Deut. Bot. Ges. 26: 505- 519.
· Krogerus, R. 1932. Okologie und verbreitung der Arthropoden der
triebsandgebiete an den kusten finnlands. Acta. Zool. Fennica. 12:1308.
· Krstulovic, N., M. Solic, and I. Marasovic. 1997. Relationship between
bacteria, phytoplankton and heterotrophic nanoflagellates along the
trophic gradient. Helgol. Meeres. 51: 433-443.
· Kudo, R. R. 1966. Protozology 5th ed. Springfield III Thomas.
۹٦
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(L)
· Larsen, J. and D. J. Patterson. 1990. Some flagellates (Protista) from
tropical marine sediments. J. Nat. Hist. 24: 801-937.
· Lee, Y. F., Y. M. Kuo, S. S. Lu, D. Y. Chen, H. J. Jean and J. T. Chao.
2009. Trampling, litter removal and variations in the composition and
relative abundance of soil arthropods in a subtropical hardwood forest.
Zool. Stud. 48: 162-173.
· Levine, N. D., et al. 1980. A newly revised classification of the
protozoa. J. Protozool. 27(1): 37–58.
· Li, J., M. G. Li, J. Yang, C. F. Wang, Y. Ai and R. L. Xu. 2010. The
community structure of soil Sarcodina in Baiyunn Moutain,
Guangzhou, China. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 46: 1-5.
· Liebmann, H., Hanbuch der Frischwasserund. 1962. AbwasserBiologie; Biology des Trinkwassers, Badewassers, Fischwassers,
Vorfluters and Abwassers. vol. I. 2nd Edn., Munich, Oldenbourg.
· Loefer, J. B., Guido and M. Virginia. 1950. Growth and survival of
Euglena gracilis, etc. Taxas J. Sc. P.2-225.
· Lu, H-P, H. Wagner and X-Y Chen. 2007. A contribution diversity
approach to evaluate species diversity. Basic Appl. Ecol. 8: 1-12.
· Lynn, D. H. and E. B. Small. 2002. Phylum Ciliophora Doflein, 1901.
In: An Illustrated Guide to the Protozoa. 2 ed., (Eds. Lee, J. J., G. F.
Leedale and P. C. Bradbury). Society of Protozoologists, Lawrence,
KS, 1: 371-656.
(M)
· Madoni, P. and N. Bassanini.1999. Longitudinal changes in the ciliated
protozoa communities along a fluvial ststem polluted by organic
matter. European Journal of Parasitology. 391-402.
۹۷
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· Madoni, P. and S. Zangrossi. 2005. Ciliated protozoa and saprobical
evaluation of water quality in the Taro River (Northern Italy), Italian
Journal of Zoology. (72): 1, 21-25.
· Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement.
Chapman and Hall, London. United Kingdom.
· Mahajan, C. L., N. K. Arora, S. D. Sharma and S. P. Sharma. 1981.
Protozoan fauna of a wetland ecosystem (Bharatpur Bird Sanctuary)
during drought conditions. Int. J. Ecol. Envir. Sci. 7: 131-138.
·
Mahajan, K. K. and K. N. Nair. 1965. On some freshwater ciliates
(Protozoa) from Calcutta and its environs. Rec. zool. Surv. India. 63: 222.
· Margalef, R. 1958. Information theory in ecology, Gen. Syst. 3: 36–71.
· Margulis, L. 1974. Five-kingdom classification and the origin and
evolution of cells. Evol. Biol. 7: 45-78.
· Margulis, L. and K. V. Schwartz. 1998. Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated
Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth. 3 ed. W.H. Freeman, New York.
· Margulis, L., J.O. Corliss, M. Melkonian and D. J. Chapman. (Eds.)
1990. Handbook of Protoctista. Jones and Bartlett, Boston.
· Martín-Cereceda, M., B. Pѐrez-Uz, S.Serrano, et al. 2001. Dynamics of
protozoan and metazoan communities in a full scale wastewater
treatment plant by rotating biological contactors. Microbiol Res.156:
225–38.
· Mathes, J. and H. Arndt. 1995. Annual cycle of protozooplankton
(ciliates, flagellates and sarcodines) in relation to phyto- and
metazooplankton in Lake Neumühler See (Mecklenburg, Germany).
Arch. Hydrobiol. 134: 337-358.
۹۸
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· Medina-Sanchez, JM., M. Villar-Argaiz, P. Sanchez-Castillo, L. CruzPizarro and P. Carrillo. 1999. Structure changes in a planktonic food
web: biotic and abiotic controls. Journal of Limnology. 58: 213-222.
· Modenutti, B. E. and E. G. Balseiro. 2002. Mixotrophic ciliates in an
Andean lake: dependence on light and prey of an Ophrydium.
naumanni population. Freshwater Biol. 47:121- 128.
· Modigh, M. and S. Castaldo. 2005. Effects of fixatives on ciliates as
related to cell size. J. Plankton Res. 27: 845–849.
· Montagnes, D. J. S., D. Wilson, S. J. Brooks and et al. 2002. Cyclical
behaviour of the tide-pool ciliate Strombidium oculatum. Aquat.
Microb. Ecol. 28: 55–68.
· Mukherjee, R. N. and A. K. Das. 2000. Fauna of Renuka wetland,
wetland ecosystem series 2, Zoological Survey of India. 7-9.
· Müller, H. 1989. The importance of different ciliate texta in the pelagic
food web of lake constance. Microb. Ecol. 18: 261-273.
(N)
· Needham, J. G., P. S. Galtsoff, F. E. Lutz and P. S. Welch. 1937.
Culture methods for invertebrate animals. Ithaca, N. Y.
(O)
· ÓBrien, E. M. 1993. Cimatic gradients in woody plant species richness:
towards an explanation based on an analysis of southern Africa’s
woody flora. J. Biogeogr. 20: 181-198.
۹۹
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(P)
· Patterson, D. J. and J. Larsen, 1991. The Biology of Free-living
Heterotrophic Flagellates Systematics Association Special. Oxford
Clarendon Press.
· Palmer, M. W. 1995. How should one count species? Natural Areas
Journ. 15: 124-135.
· Palmer, M. W. and P. S. White. 1994. Scale dependence and the
species–area relationship. Amer. Nat. 144: 717-740.
· Patterson, D.J. and A. G. B. Simpson. 1996. Heterotrophic flagellates
from coastal marine and hypersaline sediments in Western Australia.
Europ. J. Protistol. 32: 423-448.
· Peters, R. H. 1983. The ecological implication of body size. Combridge
University Press. Combridge.
· Piccinni, E. and J. Gutiérrez. 1995. Protists as bioindicators in the
environment. Protistol. Actualities.1: 173-184.
· Primc, B.1988. Trophic relationships of ciliated Protozoa developed
under different saprobic conditions in the periphyton of the Sava River.
Period. Biol. 90 (3): 349-353.
· Polameesanaporn, Y. 2008. Biodiversity of protozoa in freshwater case
study in the Chao-Praya river, Thailand. p 484-489 In: M., Sengupta
(ed), Proceeding of Taal. The 12th World Lake conference.
· Pomeroy, L. R. 1974. The ocean’s food web, achanging paradign,
Bioscience. 24: 499-504.
· Poowadon Kornpan. 2003. The diversity of protozoa in Nam-Pong
river Khon-Khaen. Thesis for Master of Science, Biology. Khon-Khaen
university, Khon-Khaen.
· Pratt, J. R. and J. J. Cairns. 1985. Functional groups in the protozoa:
role in differing ecosystems. J. Protozool. 32: 415-423.
۱۰۰
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· Pussard M. and J. Rouelle. 1986. Predation de la microflore effet des
protozoares sur la dynamique de population bacteriene. Protistologica.
11:105-110.
· Puytorac, P. de (Ed.) 1994. Traité de Zoologie. 2, fasc. 2. Infusoires
Ciliés: Systématique. Masson et Cie, Paris.
(R)
· Ricci, N. 1995. Protozoa; bioindicators of environmental monitoring
and pollution control. In: Pollution and biomonitoring, Tata, Mc GrowHill. New Delhi. pp 240-269.
· Riemann, B. and K. Christoffersen. 1993. Microbial trophodynamics in
temperate lakes. Mar. Microb. Food Webs. 7: 69-100.
· Rogerson, A. and J. Berger, 1983. Enhancement of the microbial
degradation of crude oil by the ciliate Colpidium colpoda. J. Gen. Appl.
Microbiol. 29: 41-50.
· Rønn, R. 2002. Impact of protozoan grazing on bacterial community
structure in soil microcosms. Appl. Environ. Microbial. 68 (12): 60946105.
· Rønn, R., M. Vestergård and F. Ekelund. 2012. Interactions between
bacteria, protozoa and nematodes in soil. Acta Protozool. 51: 223–235.
· Salanki, J. 1986. Biological monitoring of the state of the environment :
Bioindicators. An overview of the IUBS programme on Bioindicators.
IBUS- Monogr. Ser., Vol. I. IRL Press: London.
(S)
· SAS. 2012. Statistical analysis system. User’s guide. Stastical. Version
9.1thed. SAS. Inst. Inc. Cary. N.C. USA.
۱۰۱
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· Senler, N. G. and I. Yildiz. 2004. Faunistic and morphological studies
on ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora) from a small pond, with responses of
ciliate populations to changing environmental conditions. Turk J. Zool.
28: 245-265.
· Shaikh, J.D., T. T. Shaikh, U. P. Kamble, T. J. Jadhhav and M. Kazim.
2012. Studies on some free living protozoan from Salim Ali lake.
Aurangabad. International Multidisciplinary Research Journal. 2(6):
27- 29.
· Sherr, B.F., E.B. Sherr and J. McDaniel, 1992. Effect of protistan
grazing on the frequency of dividing cells in bacterioplankton
assemblages. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58: 2381-2385.
· Sibbald, M.J. and L.J. Albright.1988. Aggregated and free bacteria as
food sources for heterotrophic microflagellates. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 54: 613-616.
· Siddall, M. E., D. S. Martin, D. Bridge, S. S.Desser and D. K.Cone.
1995. The demise of a phylum of protists: phylogeny of Myxozoa and
other parasitic Cnidaria. J. Parasit. 81: 961-967.
· Šimek, K., P. Hartman, J. Nedoma, J. Pernthaler, D. Springmann, J.
Vrba and R. Psenner. 1997. Community structure, picoplankton grazing
and zooplankton control of heterotrophic nanoflagellates in a eutrophic
reservoir during the summer phytoplankton maximum. Aquat. Microb.
Ecol. 12: 49-63.
· Singh, B.N.1946. A method of estimating the numbers of soil protozoa,
especially amoebae, based on their differential feeding on bacteria.
Ann. Appl. Biol. 33: 112-119.
· Singh, B. N. 1948. Studies on againt amoeboid organisms. I. J. Gen.
Microbial. pp 2-7.
۱۰۲
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· Sleigh, M. 1988. Protozoa and other protists. New York: Chapman and
Hall pp 399.
· Smirnov, A. V. and S. Brown. 2004. Guide to the methods of study and
identification of soil gymnamoebae. Protistology 3(3): 148-190.
· Sparagano, O. and C. A. Grolilère. 1991. Evaluation de la qualité des
eaux d’une rivière avec les protozoaires ciliés comme bioindicteurs de
pollution. Comparaison avec la physico-chimie. Hydroecol. Applique.
1: 43-62.
· Stensdotter-Blomberg, U. 1998. Factors controlling pelagic populations
of ciliates and heliozoans – late summer investigations in an acid lake
before and after liming. J. Plankton Res.20: 423-442.
· Stout, J. D. 1952. Protozoa and the soil. Tuatara 4(3): 103-108.
· Stout, J.D. 1962. An estimation of microfaunal populations in soils and
forest litter. J. Soil Sci. 13: 314-320.
(T)
· Taylor, F. J. R. 1976. Flagellate phylogeny: a study in conflicts. J.
Protozool. 23: 28-40.
· Taylor, F. J. R. 1978. Problems in the development of an explicit
phylogeny of the lower eukaryotes. BioSystems. 10: 67- 89.
· Tuffrau, M. 1959. Un dispositive simple pour I όbservation durable in
vivo des microorganisms. Hydrobiologia. 18 (4): 316-318.
(U)
· Uyemura, M. 1936. Biological studies of thermal water in Japan. IV.
Ecolog. St. p.2-171.
· Uyemura, M. 1937. V. Rep. Japan. Sc. A. p.12-264.
۱۰۳
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(V)
· Veech, J. A. 2000. Choice of species-area function affects identification
of hotspots. Conserve. Biol. 14: 140-147.
· Verhagen, F.J.M. and H.J. Laanbroek, 1992. Effects of grazing by
flagellates on competition for ammonium between nitrifying and
heterotrophic bacteria in chemostats. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58:
1962-1969.
· Vørs, N. 1992. Heterotrophic amoebae, flagellates and heliozoa from
the Tvä rminne area, Gulf of Finland, in 1988-1990. Ophelia 36: 1-109.
(W)
· Webb, M. G. 1961. The effects of thermal stratification on the
distribution of benthic protozoa in Esthwaite water. Journal of Animal
Ecology. 30: 137-151.
· Weis-fogh, T. 1948. Ecological investigation on mites and collemboles
in the soil. Nat. Jutland. 1: 135-270.
· Weisse,
T.
1997.
Growth
and
production
of
heterotrophic
nanoflagellates in a meso-eutrophic lake. J. Plank. Res. 19: 703-722.
· Weisse, T. 2007. Distribution and diversity of aquatic protists: an
evolutionary. 17 (2): 243-259.
· Weitere M., T. Bergfeld, S. A., C. Matz and S. Kjelleberg. 2005.
Grazing resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in biofilms depends on
type of protective mechanism, developmental stage and protozoan
feeding mode. Environ. Microbiol. 7: 1593-1601.
· Wetzel, R. G. 2001. Protists: key ecosystem regulators. BioscScienc.
51:997.
۱۰٤
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
· Whittaker, R. H. 1969. New concepts of kingdoms of organisms.
Science. 163: 150-160.
· Whittaker, R. H.1975. Communities and ecosystems. 2nd edn.
Macmillan, NY.
· Whittaker, R. H. and L. Margulis. 1978. Protist classification and the
kingdoms of organisms. BioSystems. 10: 3-18.
· Whittaker, R. H., K.J. Willis and R. Field. 2001. Scale and species
richness: towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity. J.
Biogeogr. 28: 453-470.
· Wilkinson, D. M. and E. A. D. Mitchell. 2010. Testate amoebae
and nutrient cycling with particular reference to soils. Geomicrobiol. J.
27: 520–533.
· www.wonder whizkids.com.
(X)
· Xu, K., J. K. Choi, E. J. Yang, K. C. Lee and Y. Lei, 2002.
Biomonitoring of coastal pollution status using protozoan communities
with a modified PFU method, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44: 877–886.
· Xu, M., H. Cao, P. Xie, D. Deng, W. Feng and J. Xu. 2005. Use of PFU
protozoan community structural and functional characteristics in
assessment of water quality in a large, highly polluted freshwater lake
in China. J. Environ. Mont. 7: 670-674.
۱۰٥
References-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Z)
· Zhao, Y., Y. YU, W. Feng, and Y. Shen. 2003. Growth and production
of free-living heterotrophic nanoflagellates in a eutrophic lake – Lake
Donghu, Wuhan, China. Hydrobiologia. 498: 85-95.
· Zwart, K.B. and L. Brussaard, 1991. Soil fauna and cereal crops. In:
Firbank, L.G., Carter, N., Darbyshire, J.F., Potts, G.R. (Eds.), the
Ecology of Temperate Cereal Fields. Blackwell scientific publications,
Oxford, pp. 139-168.
۱۰٦
Appendix---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix 1: Plates
Acineta sp. (40X)
90 µm long
In fresh water
Amphileptus sp. (10X)
450 µm long
In fresh water
Aspidisca sp. (40X)
30-45 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Blepharisma sp. (10X)
120-150 µm long.
In fresh water
Carchesium sp. (10X)
Body 90 µm long.
In fresh water
Chilodonella sp. (40X)
45 µm long
In fresh water
Chilodonella sp. (side view) (40X)
45 µm long
In fresh water
Cinetochilum sp. (40X)
45 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Coleps hirtus (40X)
45-90 µm long
In fresh water
Colpoda maupasi (40X)
40-60 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Cothurnia minutum (40X)
Lorica 45-90 µm long
In fresh water
Cranotheridium taeniatum (10X)
165 µm long
In fresh water
Plate A-1: Ciliata in fresh water and sediment, photo by Zahraa Yehia
۱۰۷
Appendix---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cyclograma sp. (40X)
35-40 µm long
In fresh water
Cyclidium sp. (40X)
30-40 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Staining with Luglu’s solution
Cyclidium sp. (40X)
30-40 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Epistylis sp. (40X)
Body 120 µm long
In fresh water
Euplotes sp. (40X)
135 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Frontonia sp. (10X)
75-180 µm long
In fresh water
Halteria sp. (40X)
45 µm long
In fresh water
Histiobalantium majus (10X)
90-105 µm long
In fresh water
Homalozoon sp. (40X)
90-150 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Lacrymaria sp. (10X)
Extended form 400 µm
In fresh water
Lacrymaria sp. (10X)
Extended form 400 µm
In fresh water
Lacrymaria sp. (10X)
Extended form 400 µm
In fresh water
Litonotus sp. (10X)
60-240 µm long
In fresh water
Litonotus sp. (10X)
60-240 µm long
In fresh water
Loxodes magnus (10X)
210 µm long
In fresh water
Plate A-1 Continued
۱۰۸
Appendix---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metopus es (10X)
120 µm long
In fresh water
Ophrydiopsis sp. (40X)
60 µm long
In fresh water
Ophrydium sp. (10X)
200 µm long
In fresh water
Orbopercularia sp. (40X)
Body 60-75 µm long
In fresh water
Orbopercularia sp. (40X)
Body 60-75 µm long
In fresh water
Oxyticha sp. (10X)
60-75 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Parablepharisma sp. (10X)
180-210 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Parablepharisma sp. (10X)
180-210 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Staining with Luglu’s solution
Paramecium aurelia (10X)
150 µm long
In fresh water
Paramecium bursaria (10X)
105 µm long
In fresh water
Paramecium caudatum (10X)
180 µm long
In fresh water
Paramecium multimicronucleatum
(10X)
210-300 µm long
In fresh water
Plate A-1 Continued
۱۰۹
Appendix---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phascolodon sp. (10X)
105-165 µm long
In fresh water
Phascolodon vorticella (40X)
90 µm long
In fresh water
Pleuronema marinum (40X)
About 50 µm long
In the sediment
Pleuronema setigerum (40X)
About 40 µm long
In the sediment
Podophrya fixa (40X)
40 µm long
In fresh water
Propyxidium sp. (40X)
Body 75 µm long
In fresh water
Prorodon sp. (10X)
90 µm long
In fresh water
Pseudomicrothorax sp. (10X)
100-120 µm long
In fresh water
Pseudomicrothorax sp. (10X)
100-120 µm long
In fresh water
Pseudoprorodon sp. (10X)
390 µm long
In fresh water
Pyxicola affinis (10X)
Lorica about 85 µm long
In fresh water
Sphaerophrya sp. (40X)
Cell diameter 30-60 µm
In fresh water
Plate A-1 Continued
۱۱۰
Appendix---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spirostomum sp. (10X)
270 µm long
In fresh water
Spirostomum ambiguum (10X)
270-360 µm long
In fresh water
Spirostomum minus (10X)
800 µm long
In fresh water
Spiretella sp. (40X)
About 70 µm long
In fresh water
Steinia sp. (40X)
75 µm long
In fresh water
Stentor coeruleus (10X)
1 mm long
In fresh water
Stentor niger (10X)
300 µm long
In fresh water
Stentor polymorphus (10X)
1 mm long
In fresh water
Stichotricha intermedia (10X)
135-150 µm long
In fresh water
Stichotricha intermedia (10X)
135-150 µm long
In fresh water
Strombidium sp. (40X)
About 50 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Stylonychia sp. (10X)
120 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Plate A-1 Continued
۱۱۱
Appendix---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tachysoma sp. (10X)
60 µm long
In fresh water
Thuricola sp. (40X)
Lorica 135 µm long
In fresh water
Trachelophyllum sp. (10X)
About 200 µm long
In fresh water
Trichophrya columbiae (40X)
60 by 40 µm
In fresh water
Uroleptus limnetis (10X)
150 µm long
In fresh water
Uronema marinum (40X)
30 µm long
In the sediment
Staining with Luglu’s solution
Urosoma caudata (10X)
210-330 µm lohg
In fresh water
Vaginicola sp. (40X)
Lorica 90-480 µm long
In fresh water
Vorticella sp. (40X)
Body size 45µm by 30µm, peristom 45µm
In fresh water
Vorticella picta (40X)
Body size 60µm by 60µm, peristom
45µm
In fresh water
Vorticella microstoma (10X)
Body size 30-45µm by 20µm,
peristom 15µm
In fresh water
Vorticella campanula (10X)
Body size 90-120µm by 45-90µm,
peristom 60-120 µm
In fresh water
Plate A.1 Continued
۱۱۲
Appendix---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anisonema sp. (40X)
40 µm long
In fresh water
Anthophysis vagitans (40X)
Colony 30-45 µm in diameter
In fresh water
Bodo sp. (40X)
30 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Ceratium hirundinella (10X)
210-240 µm long
In fresh water
Euglina acus (10X)
90-120 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Euglina anabena (40X)
30-45 µm long
In fresh water
Euglina clavata (40X)
45-50 µm long
In fresh water
Euglina caudata (40X)
60-80 µm long
In fresh water
Euglina ehrinbergii (10X)
135-240 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Euglina oxyuris (10X)
180 µm long
In fresh water
Euglina pisciformis (40X)
30 µm long
In fresh water
Euglina sociabilis (40X)
60 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Plate A-2: Flagellata in fresh water and sediment, photo by Zahraa Yehia
۱۱۳
Appendix---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Euglina texta (40X)
45-60 µm long
In fresh water
Euglina viridis (40X)
45-60 µm long
In fresh water
Glenodinium sp. (40X)
45 µm long
In fresh water
Heteronema acus (40X)
30-90 µm long
In fresh water
Mastigamoeba sp. (40X)
15 µm long
In fresh water
Peranema trichophorum (10X)
60 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Phacus longicauda (10X)
135 µm long
In fresh water
Phacus pleuronectes (10X)
90 µm long
In fresh water
Phacus torta (10X)
90 µm long
In fresh water
Pyramimonas tetrahynchus (40X)
About 10 µm long
In fresh water
Staining with Luglu’s solution
Pandorina morum (40X)
Colony 60 µm in diameter
In fresh water
Volvex sp. (10X)
Colony 60-180 µm by 75-180 µm in diameter
In fresh water
Plate A-2: Continued
۱۱٤
Appendix---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actinosphaerium eichhornii (40X)
Cell diameter 30-45 µm
In fresh water
Actinosphaerium eichhornii (40X)
Cell diameter 30-45 µm
In fresh water
Actinophrys sol (40X)
Cell diameter 30-45 µm
In fresh water and sediment
Amoeba radiosa (active) (40X)
Cell diameter 30-45 µm
In fresh water and sediment
Amoeba radiosa (inactive) (10X)
Cell diameter 30-45 µm
In fresh water and sediment
Arcella sp. (40X)
Test 50-60 in diameter
In fresh water
Arcella sp. (40X)
Test 50-60 in diameter
In fresh water
Centropyxis aculeata (10X)
Diameter about 100 µm
In fresh water
Centropyxis ecornis (10X)
Diameter about 200 µm
In fresh water
Choanocystis aculata (40X)
Cell diameter 75 µm
In fresh water
Cochliopodium sp. (10X)
20-120 µm long
In fresh water
Difflugia sp. (10X)
Length of shell 120-240 µm
In fresh water and sediment
Difflugia bipes (10X)
Length of shell 150 µm
In fresh water
Discamoeba sp. (40X)
About 40 µm in diameter
In fresh water
Euglypha sp. (10X)
Length of shell 90 µm
In fresh water
Plate A-3: Sarcodina in fresh water and sediment, photo by Zahraa Yehia
۱۱٥
Appendix---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heterophrys sp. (40X)
Cell diameter 45-60 µm
In fresh water
Korotnevella sp. (10X)
90-240 µm long
In fresh water
Korotnevella sp. (10X)
90-240 µm long
In fresh water
Mayorella sp. (40X)
90-360 µm long
In fresh water
Nebela sp. (10X)
Length of shell 120 µm
In fresh water
Nuclearia sp. (40X)
60 µm long.
In fresh water
pseudopodia
Pelomyxa sp. (10X)
210 µm long
In fresh water
Pseudochlamus pattela (40X)
45 µm in diameter
In fresh water and sediment
Plagiophrys sp. (10X)
Length of shell 120 µm
In fresh water
Rosculus sp. (40X)
45-120 µm long
In fresh water and sediment
Striamoeba striata (10X)
60-120 µm long
In fresh water
Trichomoeba villosa (10X)
120-180 µm long
In fresh water
Plate A-3 Continued
۱۱٦
Appendix---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix 2: Tables
Site
Air T.
Co
Water T
Co
pH
EC
µs/cm
DO
mg/L
NO3-1
mg/L
PO4-3
µg/L
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
S2
S3
S1
14
13
13
18
18
18
20
21
23
28
28
27
30
30
32
40
40
38
41
40
41
40
40
40
38
12
10
10
12
12
12
14
14
16
22
21
20
22
21
24
28
28
26
29
28
29
30
30
30
30
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.5
7.5
7.9
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.9
7.3
7.3
7.9
7.2
7.5
7.5
7.1
7.2
7.5
7.3
790
760
760
660
650
660
500
520
500
460
460
440
460
470
440
480
430
440
660
650
660
710
690
610
600
7.1
7.3
12
7.676
7.6
13.4
6.5
6
13.2
7.5
7
10.5
7.5
6.89
14
5.6
6.5
8.5
5.8
6.5
5.3
4.9
7.4
5.97
11.29
1.085
1.144
2.2
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.23
2.09
2.63
3
3.9
2.7
2.43
2.66
8.9
2.69
2.34
2.02
2.876
2.76
2.877
5.39
3.271
3.44
1.54
141.666
21.5
10
10.8
30.1
10.2
5.31
36.8
72.581
10.08
40.5
12.1
15.71
5.03
20.02
42.442
19.355
3
54.839
10.02
42.442
222.7
40.116
50
104.54
S2
38
30
7.3
590
11.8
4.44
109.09
S3
36
30
7.3
580
8.37
3.5
45.45
S1
S2
S3
35
34
33
26
24
26
7.2
7.3
7.5
610
620
620
7.27
7.13
10.76
4.4
4.6
3.28
54.54
190
40.9
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
Months
January
Table A-1: Physical-chemical parameters recorded from investigated
sites during the study period (from January to October 2012).
۱۱۷
Table A-2: The taxonomy of the species with their dominancy & frequency recorded from the water and sediment in
Tigris river at three investigated sites during the study period from January to October 2012
Note: * found in the sediment only.
No.
Class
Order
Family
Protozoa taxa
S1
S2
S3
D%
F%
D%
F%
D%
F%
0.187
3.333
/
/
0.038
3.333
0.832
3.333
/
/
/
/
/
/
0.03
6.666
/
/
Ciliata
۱۱۸
1.
Armophorea
armophorida
Metopidae
2.
Colpodea
Colpodida
Colpodidae
3.
Heterotrichea
Heterotrichida
Stentoridae
Metopus es Müller,1786
Colpoda maupasi Enriques, 1908
Stentor coeruleus Ehrenberg, 1830
4.
Stentor niger Müller, 1773
/
/
0.06
13.333
/
/
5.
Stentor polymorphus Müller, 1773
0.041
16.666
0.03
6.666
/
/
Spirostomum sp. Ehrenberg, 1833
/
/
0.03
6.666
/
/
7.
Spirostomum ambiguum
Ehrenberg, 1835
0.416
23.333
0.061
6.666
0.038
3.333
8.
Spirostomum minus Roux, 1901
0.02
6.666
0.03
6.666
/
/
Blepharisma sp. Perty,1849
0.041
3.333
0.06
13.333
/
/
Parablepharisma sp.Kahl
/
/
0.03
3.333
/
/
6.
9.
10.
Spirostomidae
Blepharismidae
Table A-1 Continued
11.
Karyorelictea
Loxodida
Loxodidae
Loxodes magnus Stokes, 1887
12.
Litostomatea
Haptorida
Homalzoonidae
Homalozoon sp. Stokes,1890
13.
Lacrymariidae
14.
15.
10
0.092
13.333
/
/
0.02
6.666
/
/
/
/
Lacrymaria olar Müller,1786
/
/
/
/
0.038
6.666
Trachelophyllidae
Trachelophyllum sp.
Claperѐde & Lachmann 1859
0.02
6.666
/
/
/
/
Spathidiidae
Cranotheridium taeniatum
Schewiakoff, 1893
0.02
3.333
0.03
6.666
/
/
Amphileptidae
Amphileptus sp. Ehrenberg, 1832
0.02
6.666
/
/
/
/
Litonotidae
Litonotus sp. Wrzesniowski,1870
1.748
30
1.845
33.333
0.786
33.333
Microthoracida
Pseudomicrothoracidae
Pseudomicrothorax sp. Mermod,1914
0.27
10
/
/
0.196
10
Nassulida
Cyclogrammidae
Cyclogramma sp.
/
/
0.061
3.333
1.023
3.333
Peniculida
Frontoniidae
Frontonia sp. Ehrenberg, 1838
0.166
30
0.584
40
0.312
33.333
Urocentrida
Parameciidae
Paramecium multimicronucleatum
Powers& Mitchell,1910
1.207
23.333
0.645
13.333
0.077
16.666
22.
Paramecium aurelia Ehrenberg,1838
0.645
16.666
1.291
33.333
/
/
23.
Paramecium caudatum
Ehrenberg,1833
0.229
6.666
0.154
16.666
0.038
3.333
24.
Paramecium bursaria
Ehrenberg, 1831
0.02
3.333
/
/
/
/
16.
Pleurostomatida
17.
۱۱۹
18.
Nassophorea
19.
20.
21.
25.
Oligohymenophorea
Pleuronematida
Pleuronematidae
*Pleuronema marinum
Dujardin,1841
0.041
Table A-1 Continued
26.
*Pleuronema setigerum Calkins, 1903
27.
Cyclidiidae
Cyclidium sp. Müller, 1773
28.105
66.666
18.823
63.333
9.41
30
28.
Histiobalantiidae
Histiobalantium majus Stokes,1886
0.02
6.666
/
/
0.038
3.333
Cinetochilidae
Cinetochilum sp. Perty,1849
5.183
36.666
7.074
36.666
2.834
40
Uronematidae
*Uronema marinum Dujardin,1841
Vaginicolidae
Cothurnia minutum
/
/
0.03
6.666
0.038
6.666
32.
Thuricola sp. Kent, 1881
0.041
/
/
/
/
33.
Pyxicola affinis Kent, 1882
/
0.03
6.666
/
/
34.
Vaginicola sp. Lamarck,1816
0.145
26.666
0.183
Carchesium sp. Ehrenberg,1830
0.104
3.333
0.03
3.333
/
/
36.
Vortecilla sp. Linnaeus,1767
/
/
/
/
0.038
6.666
37.
Vortecilla campanula
Ehrenberg,1831
/
/
0.061
10
/
/
38.
Vortecilla microstoma
Ehrenberg,1830
0.187
33.333
0.245
0.079
6.666
39.
Vortecilla picta Ehrenberg,1833
0.145
16.666
0.061
10
/
/
Orbopercularia sp. Lust,1950
0.541
6.666
0.03
3.333
/
/
29.
Philasterida
30.
31.
۱۲۰
35.
40.
Sessilida
Vorticellidae
Operculariidae
3.333
/
20
0.118
20
13.333
Table A-1 Continued
41.
Propyxidium sp. Corliss,1979
/
/
0.122
6.666
/
/
42.
Ophrydiidae
Ophrydium sp. Vincent,1827
0.02
3.333
/
/
/
/
43.
Scyphiidae
Ophrydiopsis sp. Penard,1922
/
/
0.061
10
/
/
44.
Epistylididae
Epistylis sp. Ehrenberg,1830
3.747
10
/
/
0.038
6.666
Podophryidae
Podophrya fixa Müller, 1786
0.02
6.666
/
/
/
/
Sphaerophrya sp.
Claperѐde & Lachmann 1859
0.041
3.333
0.03
6.666
0.038
3.333
Acinetidae
Acineta sp. Ehrenberg,1834
0.02
3.333
/
/
0.077
6.666
Trichophryidae
Trichophrya columbiae Wailes
0.02
6.666
/
/
/
/
Chilodonellidae
Chilodonella sp. Strand,1928
1.686
50
1.106
46.666
0.551
16.666
50.
Phascololodon vorticella Stein, 1859
0.02
3.333
0.03
6.666
/
/
51.
Phascololodon sp. Stein,1859
0.416
3.333
/
/
/
/
Colepidae
Coleps hirtus Müller,1786
5.829
30
2.06
23.333
0.157
16.666
Prorodontidae
Prorodon sp. Ehrenberg,1833
/
/
0.03
6.666
0.038
6.666
0.02
6.666
0.03
6.666
0.077
13.333
0.041
3.333
0.03
3.333
0.038
3.333
45.
Phyllopharyngea
Exogenida
46.
47.
Endogenida
۱۲۱
48.
49.
52.
Chlamydodontida
Prostomataea
Prorodontida
53.
54.
55.
Pseudoprorodon sp. Blochmann,1886
Spirotrichea
Halteriida
Halteriidae
Halteria sp. Dujardin,1841
Table A-1 Continued
۱۲۲
56.
Strombidiida
Strombidiidae
Strombidium sp.
Claperѐde & Lachmann 1859
0.02
3.333
57.
Urostylida
Urostylidae
Uroleptus limnetis Stokes, 1885
/
/
58.
Sporadotrichida
Oxytrichidae
Oxytricha sp. Bory,1825
0.02
6.666
59.
Steinia sp. Diesing,1866
0,041
16.666
60.
Stylonychia sp. Ehrenberg,1830
0.811
50
61.
Tachysoma sp. Stokes,1887
/
/
62.
Urosoma caudatum Ehrenberg,1833
0.207
20
Stichotricha intermedia Froud, 1949
/
/
Spiretella sp. Borror,1972
/
Aspidiscidae
Aspidisca sp. Ehrenberg,1830
Euplotidae
Euplotes sp. Ehrenberg,1830
63.
Stichotrichida
Spirofilidae
64.
65.
Euplotida
66.
/
/
0.079
3.333
6.666
/
/
/
0.038
10
0.092
13.333
0.77
10
0.275
36.666
1.18
46.666
0.03
10
/
/
16.666
0.038
6.666
/
/
0.038
6.666
/
/
/
0.038
6.666
2.519
50
9.195
33.333
1.534
36.666
0.145
16.666
0.276
10
0.038
3.333
0.03
/
1.229
Flagellata
67.
Zoomastigophora
68.
69.
Chlorophyceae
Kinetoplastida
Bodonidae
Bodo sp. Ehrenberg,1830
/
/
/
/
0.118
16.666
Rhizomastigida
Mastigamoebidae
Mastigamoeba sp. Schulze,1875
/
/
/
/
0.038
10
Chlamydomonadales
Volvocaceae
Pandorina morum Müller, 1783
0.02
6.666
/
/
/
/
Table A-1 Continued
70.
71.
Volvex sp. Linnaeus,1758
0.103
30
0.091
20
0.118
10
Pyramimonadales
Halosphaeraceae
Pyramimonas tetrahynchus
Smith,1933
/
/
/
/
0.038
6.666
72.
Chrysophyceae
Ochromonadales
Ochromonadaceae
Anthophysis vagitans Müller
0.582
26.666
0.06
16.666
0.511
16.666
73.
Cryptophyceae
Cryptomonadales
Chryptomonadaceae
Chilomonas paramecium
Ehrenberg,1838
0.02
3.333
0.03
6.666
/
/
74.
Dinophyceae
Gonyaulacales
Ceratiaceae
Ceratum hirundinella Müller
(Dujardin, 1841)
0.27
33.333
0.337
36.666
/
/
Peridiniales
Glenodiniaceae
Glenodinium sp. Ehrenberg,1837
0.02
6.666
/
/
0.118
10
Euglenales
Euglenaceae
Euglena acus Ehrenberg,1830
1.352
73.333
0.368
70
0.312
36.666
77.
Euglena anabena Mainx, 1928
0.041
10
0.06
10
0.038
6.666
78.
Euglena clavata Skuja, 1948
0.041
13.333
/
/
0.038
6.666
79.
Euglena caudate Hübner, 1886
0.083
23.333
0.092
6.666
0.197
10
80.
Euglena ehrinbergii Klebs, 1883
0.77
56.666
0.214
23.333
0.273
30
81.
Euglena oxyuris Schmarda, 1846
0.291
40
0.275
33.333
0.155
26.666
82.
Euglena pisciformis Klebs, 1883
0.374
23.333
0.368
16.666
3.936
13.333
83.
Euglena sociabilis Dangeard, 1901
0.124
13.333
/
/
0.235
20
84.
Euglena texta Hübner, 1886
0.998
50
1.384
33.333
0.472
33.333
75.
76.
Euglenophyceae
۱۲۳
Table A-1 Continued
85.
Euglena viridis Ehrenberg,1830
0.103
13.333
0.122
6.666
/
/
86.
Phacus longicauda Ehrenberg
(Dujardin, 1841)
0.166
30
0.183
30
0.236
26.666
87.
Phacus pleuronectes Müller
(Dujardin, 1841)
0.103
30
0.091
20
0.038
6.666
88.
Phacus torta Lemmermann
(Skvortsov, 1928)
0.124
26.666
0.06
16.666
0.157
23.333
89.
Sphenomonadales
Sphenomonaceae
Anisonema acinus Dujardin, 1841
0.041
13.333
0.43
6.666
/
/
90.
Heteronematales
Paranemataceae
Heteronema acus Ehrenberg,1830
/
/
/
/
0.077
16.666
Peranema trichophorum
Ehrenberg,1838
0.687
46.666
0.491
36.666
0.077
13.333
Choanocytidae
Choanocystis aculata
Hertwig & Lesser, 1874
0.02
6.666
/
/
0.118
10
Hetrophridae
Heterophrys sp. Archer,1869
0.041
10
0.06
16.666
0.038
3.333
Euglyphidae
Euglypha sp. Dujardin,1841
/
/
0.03
6.666
/
/
Vampyrellidae
Nuclearia sp. Cienkowski,1865
0.02
6.666
0.03
6.666
0.038
3.333
91.
۱۲٤
Sarcodina
92.
Centrohelea
Centrohelida
93.
94.
Filosia
Aconchulinida
95.
96.
Flabellinea
Himatismenida
Cochliopodidae
Cochliopodium sp.
Hetwig & Lesser,1874
0.645
20
0.214
23.333
0.038
6.666
97.
Heliozoea
Actinophryida
Actinophyridae
Actinophrys sol Ehrenberg,1830
0.582
13.333
0.398
36.666
0.077
10
Actinosphaerium eichhornii
Ehrenberg,1840
0.437
23.333
0.338
16.666
0.629
20
98.
Table A-1 Continued
99.
Lobosa
Amoebida
Amoebidae
Amoeba radiosa Ehrenberg,1830
1.019
46.666
0.337
40
0.472
33.333
100.
Trichomoeba villosa Wallich, 1863
0.354
10
0.276
13.333
0.038
6.666
101.
Polychaos sp. Schaeffer,1926
0.02
3.333
0.092
13.333
/
/
۱۲٥
102.
Striamoebidae
Striamoeba striata Penard, 1890
0.77
30
0.03
6.666
0.038
6.666
103.
Discamoebidae
Discamoeba sp.
Jahn,Bovee & Graffith,1979
0.041
10
/
/
/
/
104.
Flabellulidae
Rosculus sp. Hawes,1963
1.894
46.666
0.214
33.333
0.157
23.333
105.
Paramoebidae
Korotnevella sp. Goodkov,1988
0.457
26.666
0.184
20
0.157
10
106.
Mayorellidae
Mayorella sp. Schaeffer,1926
0.915
23.333
/
/
0.118
3.333
107.
Pelomyxidae
Pelomyxa sp. Greeff,1874
/
/
/
/
0.038
3.333
Arcellidae
Arcella sp. Ehrenberg,1832
0.041
13.333
0.03
6.666
0.077
16.666
Pseudochlamys patella
Claperѐde & Lachmann
28.416
53.333
46.197
50
69.874
50
Difflugia sp. Leclerc,1815
0.249
33.333
0.137
36.666
1.26
33.333
Difflugia bipes
0.02
6.666
/
/
/
/
Centropyxis aculata Ehrenberg,1830
0.27
16.666
0.06
13.333
/
/
Centropyxis ecornis Ehrenberg,1841
0.228
20
0.554
30
0.471
23.333
108.
Arcellinida
109.
110.
Difflugiidae
111.
112.
113.
Centropyxidae
Table A-1 Continued
114.
Nebelidae
Nebela sp. Leidy,1874
0.02
6.666
/
/
/
/
115.
Pseudodifflugiidae
Plagiophrys sp.
Claperѐde & Lachmann,1858
/
/
/
/
0.038
6.666
۱۲٦
‫ﺍﻟﺨﻼﺻﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻤﺖ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻣﺠﺎﻣﻴﻊ ﺍﻹﺑﺘﺪﺍﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻴﺎﻩ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺍﺳﺐ ﻧﻬﺮ ﺩﺟﻠﺔ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﻣﻦ )ﻛﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ‪.( ۲۰۱۲‬‬
‫ﺗﻢ ﺟﻤﻊ ‪۱۸۰‬ﻋﻴﻨﺔ ﺷﻬﺮﻳﺄ ﻭ ﺑﻤﻌﺪﻝ ‪ ۱۸‬ﻋﻴﻨﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺷﻬﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺭﻭﺍﺳﺐ ﻭﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﻴﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﻀﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺸﺮﻗﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻨﻬﺮ ﺩﺟﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺛﻼﺙ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻊ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺪﻳﻨﺔ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺣﺪﺩﺕ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺨﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﺍﻟﻔﻴﺰﻳﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻜﻴﻤﻴﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺎء ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻌﺪﻻﺗﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻮ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ‪-:‬‬
‫ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﺍﺭﺓ ﺗﺮﺍﻭﺣﺖ ﻣﻦ )‪ْ ۳۰-۱۰‬ﻡ ( ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﺃﻳﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻬﺎﻳﺪﺭﻭﺟﻴﻦ ﺗﺮﺍﻭﺡ ﻣﻦ )‪ ، (۷.۹ – ۷‬ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻬﺮﺑﺎﺋﻲ ﺗﺮﺍﻭﺡ ﻣﻦ )‪ ۷۹۰-٤۳۰‬ﻣﻴﻜﺮﻭﺳﻤﻨﺰ‪ /‬ﺳﻢ( ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻄﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﻮﻱ ﻟﻸﻭﻛﺴﺠﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﺍﺏ‬
‫)‪۱٤ -٤.۹‬ﻣﻠﻐﻢ ‪ /‬ﻟﺘﺮ( ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺮﺍﺕ ﻣﻦ )‪ ۸.۹ – ۱.۰۸٥‬ﻣﻠﻐﻢ ‪ /‬ﻟﺘﺮ( ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻮﺳﻔﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ )‪ ۲۲۲.۷ -۳‬ﻣﻴﻜﺮﻭﻏﺮﺍﻡ‬
‫‪ /‬ﻟﺘﺮ( ‪،‬ﻭ ﻅﻬﺮﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺮﺍﺭﺓ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺮﺍﺕ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻔﻮﺳﻔﺎﺕ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻻﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﺎﺛﻴﺮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺠﺎﻣﻴﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺑﺘﺪﺍﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻗﻴﻢ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﺠﻠﺖ ‪ ۱۱٥‬ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﺗﺼﻨﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء ﻭ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﺳﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﺒﺮﺕ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻈﻤﻬﺎ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻞ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻟﻤﺠﺎﻣﻴﻊ ﺍﻻﺑﺘﺪﺍﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺍﻕ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺨﻠﺼﺖ ‪ ۱۱۲‬ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﺗﺼﻨﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء‬
‫)‪٦۳‬ﻫﺪﺑﻴﺎﺕ ‪ ۲٥ ،‬ﺳﻮﻁﻴﺎﺕ ‪ ۲٤ ،‬ﻟﺤﻤﻴﺎﺕ( ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﻠﺼﺖ ‪ ۲۲‬ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺔ ﺗﺼﻨﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﺳﺐ‬
‫)‪ ۱۲‬ﻫﺪﺑﻴﺎﺕ ‪ ٥ ،‬ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻮﻁﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﻠﺤﻤﻴﺎﺕ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩﻳﺔ ﻟﻼﺑﺘﺪﺍﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء )‪ ۱۱۷۲۱٦.۷‬ﻓﺮﺩ ‪ /‬ﻟﺘﺮ(‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺯﻋﺖ ﺃﻋﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎ‬
‫)‪ ۸٤٦۷٥۰ ،۱۰۸۳۷٦۰ ،۱٦۰۱۱٤۰‬ﻓﺮﺩ‪ /‬ﻟﺘﺮ( ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻊ ‪ ۳ ، ۲ ، ۱‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﻟﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺮﺍﻭﺡ ﻣﻌﺪﻝ ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻮﻉ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء )‪ (۸.۹٤۸‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ ‪ ۲‬ﺧﻼﻝ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺗﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻭ )‪(۰.۲٦‬‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻊ‪ ۱‬ﺧﻼﻝ ﺷﻬﺮ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﺪﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﺑﺘﺪﺍﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮﺍﻁﻦ ﺗﻮﺍﺟﺪﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء‬
‫ﻭ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﺳﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺍﻷﺑﺘﺪﺍﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺋﺪﺓ ) ‪Aspidisca sp., Cinetochilum sp., Coleps‬‬
‫‪ (hirtus, Cyclidium sp.‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻬﺪﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻭ ‪ Pseudochlamys patella‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻠﺤﻤﻴﺎﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺟﺪ ‪ ۳‬ﺃﻧﻮﺍﻉ ) ‪Pleuronema marinum, Pleuronema setigera, Uronema‬‬
‫‪ (marinum‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ ‪ ۲۲‬ﻧﻮﻉ ﻅﻬﺮﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﺳﺐ ﻓﻘﻂ ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻭﺟﺪﺕ ﺍﻝ‪ ۱۹‬ﻧﻮﻋﺄ ﺍﻻﺧﺮﻯ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻼ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻁﻨﻴﻦ )ﺍﻟﻤﺎء ﻭ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺍﺳﺐ(‪.‬‬