Crimson Publishers Publish With Us Reprints e-Books Video articles

Full Text

Examines in Marine Biology & Oceanography

Relevance of Meiobenthic Research: Indian Perspectives

Susanta Kumar Chakraborty*and Tridip Kumar Datta

Department of Zoology, Vidyasagar University, India

*Corresponding author: Susanta Kumar Chakraborty, Department of Zoology, Vidyasagar University, Midnapore (West)-721102, India

Submission: September 14, 2017;Published: May 08, 2018

DOI: 10.31031/EIMBO.2018.01.000523

ISSN 2578-031X
Volume2 Issue1


Coastal and marine biodiversity play a crucial role in economy by virtue of their resources, productive habitats and rich biodiversity. Within sixty kilometres of the shoreline more than half the world’s population lives, and this could rise to three quarters by the year 2020 [1,2]. The population surge along the narrow coastal strip is the ultimate driver for escalating pressures on the world’s coastal area, which are dominated by sandy beaches [1]. Thus, much of today’s and near future anthropogenic pressure on global ecosystem is directed at coastal wetlands. India has a coastline of about more than 7500km of which the mainland accounts for 5422km, Lakshadweep coast extends up to 132km and Andaman and Nicobar Islands have coastline of 1962km. More than two hundred fifty million people live within a distance of fifty kilometres from the coast. The dissimilarities between the west and east coasts are remarkable. The west coast is generally exposed with heavy surf and rocky shores and headlands whereas the east coast is generally shelving with beaches, lagoons, deltas and marshes [3].

The benthic system comprehends a highly diverse community, composed of bacteria, micro- meio- and macrobenthos, with the classification of benthic organisms generally relying on the organism size. The term “meiofauna” is actually derived from the Greek word meio meaning “smaller”. Research on meiobenthic fauna have been known since the 18th century. The study of meiofauna was probably initiated during the eighteenth century and was carried out by Loven [4] who described the worm under new genus. The term “meiobenthos” was introduced and defined by Mare in her account of the benthos of muddy substrates off Plymouth, England [5]. The term ‘interstitial fauna’ introduced by Nicholls (1935) was used to denote that the animals living in the interstitial spaces between all types of sediment particles. During the year 1940, Remane [6] proposed the equivalent term “Mesopsammon”. The other eminent pioneer meiofaunal researchers are Moore & Neil [7] and Moore [8].

The term “meiobenthos” was introduced and defined in 1942 by Mare [5] in her account of the benthos of muddy substrates off Plymouth, England [5,9] to indicate those benthic metazoans smaller than the ‘macrobenthos’, but larger than ‘microbenthos’. In practice, meiobenthic organisms consist of animals with size ranging from 63μ to 500μ [10] and are also named as maiofauna. The meiofauna are by no means a homogenous ecological group of meiobenthos. Meiofauna inhabits in an array of diversified habitats and niche of freshwater and marine water bodies. Sediments of all kinds from the softest of muds to the coarsest shell gravels and all those in between harbour meiofauna. Meiofauna plays an important role in maintaining ecological balance by predating within their community.

According to Higgins & Thiel [9], at least twenty two phyla out of thirty three metazoans phyla include meiofauna which remain distributed worldwide [9]. The taxa belonging to meiobenthic faunal groups are Sarcomastigophora, Ciliophora, Cnidaria, Turbellaria, Nemartina, Nematoda, Gastrotricha, Rotifera, Loricifera, Priapulida, Kinoryncha, Polychaeta, Oligichaeta, Sipuncula, Tardigrada, Cladocera, Ostracoda, Mystacocarida, Copepoda, Syncarida, Thermosbaenacea, Isopoda, Tanaidacea, Amphipoda, Cumacea, Halacarida, Pycnogonida, Palpigradida, Insecta, Bryozoa, Entoprocta, Brachiopoda, Aplacophora, Gastropoda and Bivalvia, Holothuroidea and Tunicata. A complicating factor in the taxonomy of meiofauna is not only of their small size, often associated with structural simplification, but also high percentage of morphologically similar or even identical species within related groups [11,12].

Meiofauna, or more generally, the interstitial benthic invertebrates distinguished from macro benthos by their smaller sizes, shares tremendous amount of total benthic biomass in marine habitats. These are exclusively important within any estuarine and marine systems since they facilitate biomineralization, support various higher trophic levels and show a high sensitivity to anthropogenic actions, making them excellent organisms for pollution bio-monitoring. However, their large abundance attracts a considerable number of fin-fishes and shell fishes which used to visit the coastal belts in order to gain energy from the benthic habitats, mostly in the intertidal and sub tidal zones.

The response of ecosystem to environmental impacts are typically complex and diverse. It has been recognized that chemical and physical measurements are unable to properly assess impacts. The use of faunal diversity as indicator of environmental health, is the most effective, advantageous and cost-effective approach. Benthic infaunal monitoring is widely accepted as the fundamental step to most recent interdisciplinary studies of contaminant effects on ecosystems. Responses of the infauna are representative of overall ecosystem status, because the infauna generally depends upon and interact with biological process in the water column. The Phylum, Nematoda was used as an indicator for assessing the ecological quality of marine ecosystems by the European Water Framework Directive (WFD), Directive 2000/60/EC [13,14].

Not only in pollution monitoring, meiofauna also plays important roles in benthic community processes such as bioturbation (organic decomposition, nutrient cycling, redistribution of organic material, oxygenation of the sediment) and an effective link in food web [15]. These organisms are also being used as indicator for global climate change. Meiofauna stimulate bacterial growth by mechanically breaking down the detrital particles, excrete nutrients or by producing slime trails through the secretion of mucus. The significant top-down control of meiofauna in microbial mineralization of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon such as naphthalene has already been proved using molecular tools like RFLP etc. High concentration of Sodium Channel Blockers (SCB), a group of neurotoxin such as tetradotoxin (TTX) and saxitoxin (STX), in free-living marine nematodes were already confirmed using a tissue culture bioassay and their role in accumulation and transfer in marine environment has been proved significant. The analysis of mitochondrial Cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 (COI) gene, nuclear rDNA, rRNA etc. are used generally to reveal the cryptic diversity, intra-genomic variation as well as identification of the meiofaunal groups and new procedures are still waiting to add the accuracy in phylogenetic anlysis. Different laboratory cultural procedures were developed for meiofauna, depending on their feeding and behavioural ecology [16-18]. Therefore, smaller marine meiofaunal organisms like free-living nematoda, gastrotricha, ostracoda, foraminifera, oligochaeta, nemaertea etc. can be effectively utilized in translational and regenerative biological research.

Dhivya & Mohan [19] gave beautiful picture of meiofaunal study of India. In this present article we have tried to provide only some recent and previous works on meiofaunal study from India. According to the published reports, Dr. Nathan Annandale was the pioneer in benthic study of Indian subcontinent and the scientific exploration on benthos of the Indian subcontinent was initiated at the southern part of the Bengal delta [20]. Post Annandale scientific exploration of the benthos was initiated by Panikkar and Aiyar (1937), who studied the brackish water fauna of the Madras coast. Seshappa [21], Ganapati & Rao [22] worked along Malabar Coast and north east coast of India respectively for benthic research.

Kurien [23-25] also undertook some informational works on meiofauna from India. The meiobenthic fauna of south-east coast of India along the Andhra coast was primarily studied by Ganapati & Rao [26]. Studies on the interstitial fauna of the Southwest coast of India were attempted by Govindan Kutty & Nair [27], Desai & Kutty [28-30], Rajan [31]. Mclntyre [32], Thiel [33] and Sanders [34] did important quantitative studies of meiofauna from the East and West coasts of India; and Central Indian Ocean was explored mainly by Ingole [35]. Kure in (1972) in his study on the ecology of benthos of the Cochin backwaters showed that meiofauna are more numerous in the finer sediments and their abundance is not affected by the tidal changes. Ansari & Parulekar [36], Ansari [37], Rao & Murthy [38], Vijayakumar [39,40] did some studies on meiofauna from different coastal areas and backwaters of east coast of India.

Damodaran [41,42], Ansari [43,44], Abdul Aziz & Nair [45], Reddy & Hariharan [46,47], Ingole [48], Ansari & Parulekar [49] did some effective works at the western coast of India. Some knowledge on meiofaunal diversity in India was limited to the other works previously done by Krishnaswami [50], Rao & Ganpati [51], Rao & Nagabhushanam [52], Rao [53], Rao [54-58], Sarma & Rao [59], Sarma [60], Murty & Kondalarao [61], Wells & Rao [62], Ansari & Gauns [63], Ansari & Parulekar [64], Ingole & Parulekar [65] etc. Sen et al. [66] worked on benthic foraminifera of Sunderbans. Sivaleela & Venkataraman [67-74] worked on different groups of meiofauna in Tamil Nadu coast. Ansari et al. [75] published some meiobenthic works on lagoonal ecosystem.

Free-living marine nematodes represent the major faunal group in respect of their density and divsity in any meiobenthic fanal assemblage. In a recent report, Ghosh and Mandal (2016) published a huge compilation list of free-living nematodes (288 species) recorded from India but need a through revision. Some interesting works on meiobenthos including nematodes were provided by Sinha & Choudhury [76], Sinha et al. [77]. The occurrence of stylet bearing nematodes from Gangetic delta reported by Sinha & Choudhury [78] from Sagar island, West Bengal were not actually free-living forms. Sinha et al. [77] discovered free-living marine nematode Anoplostoma macrospiculum from Indian coast after independence. Some research studies undertaken by Datta et al. [79], Datta et al. [80-82], Jacob et al. [83-85] have been able to describe some free-living marine nematodes in recent time from North-East coast, West coast and around Andaman sea of India respectively.

Most of the meiobenthic researches from several coastal sites of Indian coastal tract have been concentrated basically on ecological work. Free-living nematofaunal taxonomy relative to ecological work was largely neglected for long time. Some new records and checklists of free-living nematode were published in different journals, but clear taxonomic identity was neither given nor clear taxonomic description provided [86]. Therefore the true taxonomic information of marine nematodes at the northern part of east coast of India as well as from whole Indian coast is still very scant.

Ecological articles cannot be proper one if are not based on correct prove the taxonomic identification. A huge number of literatures published on meiofaunal account from India based only on ecology. But in reality, most of the times, it is difficult to get same organisms from those study sites because of the improper taxonomic validation [87]. When a good portion of the recorded data falls into uncertain and incorrect confirmation then the subsequent checklist and the distributional record becomes irrelevant. Museum collection and subsequent registration of the specimens cannot be achieved for the living organisms. For the higher faunal groups, this process cannot be supported sometimes because of conservational purpose. But, for the very delicate meiobenthic fauna, the morphological study without preservation is difficult.

Therefore, the organisms must be euthanized prior to taxonomic work. From this point of view, the demand of the time is to stop the improper way of biodiversity recording and at the same time, it is imperative to develop and adopt better parallel scientific procedures to record the taxonomic diversity by which the scientific community of the world can be benefitted. For such, the proper way of biodiversity recording by comparative morphology can be achieved by detail morphological description as best as possible, clear and unimaginable illustration with photographic support, ecological data and proper registration for museum collection [87].


Authors are thankful to the authority of Vidyasagar University, Midnapore-721102, West Bengal, India for facilities.


  1. Schlacher TA, Schoeman DS, Dugan J, Lastra M, Jones A, Scapini F, Mc- Lachlan A (2008) Sandy beach ecosystems: key features, sampling issues, management challenges and climate change impacts. Marine Ecology 29(Suppl 1): 70-90.
  2. McGinnis MV (2016) Science and Sensibility: Negotiating an Ecology of Place. Journal Society & Natural Resources pp. 1421-1422.
  3. Venkataraman K (2008) Coastal and Marine wetlands in India. Proceedings of Taal 2007. The 12th World Lake Conference, pp. 392-400.
  4. Loven S (1844) Chaetoderma, a new mask blanket Ofvers Kungl. Science Akad Forh 1: 112-116.
  5. Mare MF (1942) A study of a marine benthic community with special reference to the microorganisms. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 25(3): 517-554.
  6. Remane A (1940) Introduction to the zoological ecology of the North and Baltic Seas 1: 1-238.
  7. Moore HB, Neill RG (1930) An instrument for sampling marine muds. Journal of Marine biological Association of United Kingdom 16(2): 589- 594.
  8. Moore HB (1931) The muds of the Clyde Sea area. III. Chemical and physiological conditions, rate and nature of sedimentation, and fauna. Journal of Marine biological Association of the United Kingdom 17(2): 325-358.
  9. Higgins RP, Thiel H (1988) Introduction to the study of meiofauna. Smithsonian Institution Press, USA, p. 486.
  10. Coull BC (1973) Estuarine meiofauna - A review, trophic relationships and microbial interactions. In: Stevenson LH, Colwell RR (Eds.), Estuarine Microbial Ecology. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, USA, pp. 499-511.
  11. Westheide W (1991) The meiofauna of Galápagos. A review. In: James MJ (Ed), Galápagos Marine Invertebrates. Taxonomy, Biogeography and Evolution in Darwin’s Islands. Plenum Press, New York, USA, pp. 37-73.
  12. Giere O (1993) Meiobenthology-the microscopic fauna in aquatic sediments. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, p. 328.
  13. Moreno M, Semprucci F, Vezzulli L, Balsamo M, Fabiano M, et al. (2011) The use of nematodes is assessing ecologicsal quality status in Mediterranean coastal ecosystems. Ecological Indicators 11(2): 328-336.
  14. Semprucci F, Colantoni P, Sbrocca C, Baldelli G, Balsamo M (2014) Spatial patterns of distribution of meiofaunal and nematode assemblages in the Huvadhoo lagoon (Maldives, Indian Ocean). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 94 (7): 1377-1385.
  15. Tenore KR, Tietjen JH, Lee JJ (1977) Effect of Meiofauna incorporation of Aged Eelgrass, Zostera marina, detritus by the Polychaete Nephthys incise. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 34(4): 563-567.
  16. Kogure K, Do HK, Kim DS, Shirayama Y (1996) High concentrations of neurotoxin in free-living marine nematodes. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 136: 147-151.
  17. Derycke S, Vanaverbeke J, Rigaux A, BackeljauT, Moens T (2010) Exploring the Use of Cytochrome Oxidase c Subunit 1 (COI) for DNA Barcoding of Free-Living Marine Nematodes. PLoS One 5(10): e13716.
  18. Datta TK, Choudhury A, Chakraborty SK (2016) Never say small: scopes of Meiofaunal Taxonomy in Translational and Regenerative Research. Abstract published at One Day International Symposium on Frontiers in Translational & Regenerative Biology (FTRB 2016). Organized by Immunology & Regenerative Medicine Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Calcutta.
  19. Dhivya P, Mohan PM (2013) A review on meiofaunal study in India. Journal of the Andman Science Association 18(1): 1-24.
  20. Annandale N (1907) The fauna of the Brackish Ponds at Port Canning, Lower Bengal, 1. Introduction and Preliminary account of the fauna. Records of the Indian Museum 1(1): 35-43.
  21. Seshappa G (1953) Observations on the Physical and biological features of the inshore sea bottom along the Malabar Coast. Proceedings of the National Institute Sciences of India 19: 257-279.
  22. Ganapati PN, Rao LMV (1959) Preliminary observations on the bottom fauna of the continental shelf of the northeast coast of India. Proceedings of the First AI/India Congress of Zoology, Part Ill: pp. 8-
  23. Kurien CV (1953) A preliminary survey of the bottom fauna and bottom deposits of the Trancobar coast within 15 fathom line. Proceedings in National Institute of Sciences of India, 19: 746-775.
  24. Kurien CV (1967) Studies of the benthos of the south west coast of India. Bulletin National Institute of Sciences of India 38: 649-656.
  25. Kurien CV (1972) Ecology of benthos in a tropical estuary. Proceedings in the Indian National Science Academy, Section B 38 (3-4): 156-163.
  26. Ganapati PN, Rao GC (1968) Ecology of the interstitial fauna inhabiting the sandy beaches of Waltair Coast. Journal of Marine Biological Association of India 4 (1): 44-57.
  27. Govindankutty AG, Nair NB (1966) Preliminary observations on the interstitial fauna of the south-west coast of India. Hydrobiologia 28(1): 101-122.
  28. Desai BN, Kutty MK (1967a) Studies on the benthic Fauna of Cochin Backwater. Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Science-Section B 66(4): 123-142
  29. Desai BN, Kutty MK (1967b) A Comaprison of the marine and Estuarine Benthic Fauna of the Nearshore regions of the Arabian Sea. Proceedings of the National Institute of Science of India 38: 677-683.
  30. Desai BN, Kutty MK (1969) A comparison of the marine and estuarine benthic fauna of the nearshore regions of the Arabian Sea. Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India 38: 677 -683.
  31. Rajan KC (1972) Studies on the interstitial fauna of the south west coast of India. PhD thesis University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
  32. McIntyre AD (1968) The meiofauna and macrofauna of some tropical beaches. Journal of Ecology, London, 156(3): 377-392.
  33. Thiel VH (1966) Quantitative investigations of deep sea meiofauna. Veroff. Inst. Meeresforsch, Bremerhaven, Germany, 2: 131-147.
  34. Sanders HL (1968) Marine benthic diversity: a comparative study. American Naturalist 102(925): 243-282.
  35. Ingole BS, Ansari ZA, Rathod V, Rodrigues N (2000) Response of meiofauna to immediate benthic disturbance in the Central Indian Ocean Basin. Marine Georesource & Geotechnology 18(3): 263-272.
  36. Ansari ZA, Parulekar AH (1981) Meiofauna of the Andaman Sea. Indian Journal of Marine Science 10(3): 285-288.
  37. Ansari ZA, Rodrigues CL, Chatterji A, Parulekar AH (1982) Distribution of meiobenthos and macrobenthos at the mouth of some rivers of the East Coast of India. Indian Journal of Marine Science 11(4): 341-343.
  38. Rao BK, Murthy KVR (1988) Ecology of intertidal meiofauna of the Kakinada Bay (Gautami-Godavari Estuarine System), east coast of India. Indian Journal of Marine Science 17(1): 40-47.
  39. Vijayakumar R, Ansari ZA, Parulekar AH (1991) Benthic fauna of Kakinada Bay and backwaters East Coast of India. Indian Journal of Marine Science 20(3): 195-199.
  40. Vijayakumar R, Chatterji A, Das S (1997) The role of meiofauna on the shallow coastal areas of Balaramgari, Orissa, East Coast of India. National Symposium on Oceanography and Coastal Zone Management 23-24, April 1997, Souvenir p. 83.
  41. Damodaran R (1972) Meiobenthos of the mud banks of the Kerala coast. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy 38: 288-297.
  42. Damodaran R (1973) Studies on the benthos of the mud banks of the Kerala Coast. Bulletin of Department of Marine Science, Univeristy of Cochin, Kerala, India 6: 1-126.
  43. Ansari ZA, Parulekar AH, Harkantra SN, Ayyappan Naif (1977) Shallow water macrobenthos along the central west coast of India. Mahasagar 10(3-4): 123-127.
  44. Ansari ZA, Parulekar AH, Jagtap TG (1980) Distribution of sub littoral meiobenthos off Goa Coast, India. Hydrobiologia 74(3): 209-214.
  45. Abdul Aziz PK, Nair NB (1983) Meiofauna of the Edava- Nadayara Paravur backwater system, south west coast of India. Mahasagar 16(1): 55- 65.
  46. Reddy HRV, Hariharan V (1985) Meiofauna of Netravathi-Gurpur Estuary (Mangalore), west coast of India. Indian Journal of Marine Science 14(3): 163-164.
  47. Reddy HRV, Hariharan V (1986) Observations on meiobenthos from the Mangalore region (west coast of India). Current Science 55(5): 262-264.
  48. Ingole BS, Ansari ZA, Parulekar AH (1992) Benthic fauna around Mauritius Island, Southwest Indian Ocean. Journal of Marine Science 21(4): 268-273.
  49. Ansari ZA, Parulekar AH (1993) Distribution, abundance and ecology of the meiofauna in a tropical estuary along the west coast of India. Hydrobiologia 262(2): 115-126.
  50. Krishnaswami S (1957) Studies on the copepod of Madras. University of Madras, Tamil Nadu, India, p. 168.
  51. Rao GC, Ganapati PN (1968) On some archiannelids from the beach sands of Waltair coast. Proceeding of Indian Academy of Sciences-Section B 67(1): 24-30.
  52. Rao GC, Nagabhushanam AK (1969) Preliminary observations on a collection of shore - fauna of the Orissa coast, India. Proceedings of the Zoological Society 22: 67-82.
  53. Rao DG (1987) Ecology of meiobenthos of Rambha Bay in Chilka lagoon, Bey of Bengal. Journal of Marine Biological Association of India 29(1-2): 74-85.
  54. Rao GC (1969) The marine interstitial fauna inhabiting the beach sands of Orissa Coast. Journal of Zoological Society of India 21(1): 89-104.
  55. Rao GC (1978) On a new species Hesionides from Orissa coast, India. Bulletin Zoological Survey of India 1: 171-174.
  56. Rao GC (1981) Three new Gastrotrichs from Orissa coast, India. Bulletin Zoological Survey of India 3(3): 137-143.
  57. Rao GC (1989) Intertidal Meiofauna. State Fauna Ser. 1: Fauna of Orissa: Zoological Survey of India, Part-2, pp. 277-318.
  58. Rao GC (1991) Meiofauna. State Fauna Ser. 2: Fauna of Lakshadweep: Zoological Survey of India, pp. 41-135.
  59. Sarma ALN, Rao DG (1980) The meiofauna of Chilka Lake (Brackish water lagoon). Current Science 49(22): 870-872.
  60. Sarma ALN, Satpathy S, Rao DG (1981) Phytal macro and meiofauna of Chilka Lake. Indian Journal Marine Science 10(1): 61-65.
  61. Murty KVR, Kondalarao B (1987) Survey of meiofauna in the Gautami- Godavari estuary. Journal of Marine Biological Association of India 29(1-2): 37-44.
  62. Wells JBJ, Rao GC (1987) Littoral Harpacticoida (Crustacea: Coprpoda) from Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Memoirs of the Zoological Survey of India 16(4): 1-385.
  63. Ansari ZA, Gauns MU (1996) A quantitative analysis of fine scale distribution of intertidal meiofauna in response to food resources. Indian Journal of Marine Science 25(3): 259-263.
  64. Ansari ZA, Parulekar AH (1998) Community structure of meiobenthos from a tropical estuary. Indian Journal of Marine Science 27: 362-366.
  65. Ingole BS, Parulekar AH (1998) Role of salinity in structuring the intertidal meiofauna of a tropical estuarine beach: Field evidence. Indian Journal of Marine Science 27(3-4): 356-361.
  66. Sen A, Ghosh M, Khanderao P, Das SK, Roy Chowdhury D et al. (2015) Modern benthic foraminiferal assemblages from the world’s largest deltaic mangrove ecosystem, the Sundarbans. Marine Biodiversity 46(2): 421-431.
  67. Sivaleela G, Venkataraman K (2012b) Density and distribution of meiofauna of Tamil Nadu Coast. Records Zoological Survey of India 112(4): 89-111.
  68. Sivaleela G, Venkataraman K (2012c) Distribution of marine polychaetes of India. Records Zoological Survey of India 112(4): 113-126.
  69. Sivaleela G, Venkataraman K (2012d) Statistical Studies and Ecology of benthic foraminifera from Tamil Nadu Coast, India, Records Zoological Survey of India 112(3): 1-8.
  70. Sivaleela G, Venkataraman K (2012e) Variation of meiofauna during day time following full moon and new moon. Records Zoological Survey of India 112(3): 9-11.
  71. Sivaleela G, Venkataraman K (2013a) Free-living Marine Nematodes of Tamil Nadu Coast, India Records Zoological Survey of India, Occasional Paper no. 336: 1-45.
  72. Sivaleela G, Venkataraman K (2013b) Diversity and distribution of benthic foraminifera from Tamil Nadu Coast, India, Records Zoological Survey of India 113(4): 1-12.
  73. Sivaleela G, Venkataraman K (2014a) Diversity and distribution of harpacticoid copepods from Tamil Nadu Coast, India, Records Zoological Survey of India 114(1): 1-11.
  74. Sivaleela G, Venkataraman K (2014b) Protozoans and other fauna associated with sea grass ecosystems of Palk Bay. Records Zoological Survey of India 114(2): 191-210.
  75. Ansari KGMT, Pattanaik AK, Rastogi G, Bhadury P (2017) Characterization of bethic habitat settings in a lagoonal ecosystem using free-living nematodes as proxy. Wetlands Ecology and Managent, pp. 1-20.
  76. Sinha B, Choudhury A (1987) Observations on the ecology of nematodes inhabiting littoral sands of the Hugli Estuary. Journal of Marine Biological Association of India 29(1-2): 124-133.
  77. Sinha B, Choudhury A, Baqri QH (1987) Studies on the nematodes from mangrove swamps of deltaic Sundarbans, West Bengal, India (III). Anoplostoma macrospiculum n. sp. (Anoplostomatidae: Nematoda). Current Science 56(11): 539-540.
  78. Sinha B, Choudhury A (1988) On the occurrence of stylet-bearing nematodes associated with mangroves of Gangetic Estuary, West Bengal, India. Current Science 57(23): 1301-1302.
  79. Datta TK, Sivaleela G, Mohapatra A (2014) First report on the occurrence of free-living marine Nematode Oncholaimellus brevicauda Timm 1969 (Oncholaimidae: Enoplida) from India. Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences 43(10): 1922-192.
  80. Datta TK, Navarrete ADJ, Mohapatra A (2015) Rhynchonema dighaensis sp. nov. (Monhysterida: Xyalidae): a marine nematode from the Indian coast with an illustrated guide and modified key for species of Rhynchonema Cobb, 1920. Zootaxa 3905(3): 365-380.
  81. Datta TK, Miljutin DM, Chakraborty SK, Mohapatra A (2016a) Cyatholshiva amaleshi gen. n. sp. n. (Nematoda: Cyatholaimidae) from the coast of India. Zootaxa 4126(4): 577-586.
  82. Datta TK, Navarrete ADJ, Chakraborty SK, Mohapatra A (2016b) First report of Megodontolaimus coxbazari Timm, 1969 (Nematoda: Chromadorida) from Indian coast. Marine Biodiversity 47(1): 247-253.
  83. Jacob J, Abdul Jaleel KU, Vijayan AK (2015a) A new species of the rare nematode genus Paramicrolaimus Wieser, 1954 (Chromadorida: Paramicrolaimidae) from the south eastern Arabian Sea. Zootaxa 3904(4): 563-571.
  84. Jacob J, Abdul Jaleel KU, Philip R, Damodaran R (2015b) A new species of Scaptrella (Nematoda: Monhysterida) from the continental margin of the southeastern Arabian Sea. Marine Biology Research 11(6): 671-676.
  85. Jacob J, Anilkumar PR, Philip R, Damodaran R (2015c) Psammonema kuriani (Nematoda: Desmodoroidea), a novel species from the margin of the north-eastern Arabian Sea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK 96(7): 1469-1473.
  86. Rao GC, Nagabhushanam AK (1969) Preliminary observations on a collection of shore-fauna of the Orissa coast. India Proceeding of Zoological Society of Calcutta 22: 67-82.
  87. Weisberg SB, Frithsen JB, Holland AF, Paul JF, Scott KJ et al. (1993) Virginian Province Demonstration Report. EMAP-Estuaries: 1990. EPA 620/R-93/006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI.

© 2018 Susanta Kumar Chakraborty. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.