Ahmed et al., J Mar Biol Oceanogr 2015, 4:2 http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2324-8661.1000146 Journal of Marine Biology & Oceanography Research Article Correlation between Physical and Chemical Parameters and Marine Macro Zooplankton Community around Port Sudan Area Amjed G Ahmed1, Zuheir N Mahmoud2, Dirar H. Nasr1, Sheikheldin M Elamin3* a SciTechnol journal Materials and Methods Sampling sites Monthly water and plankton samples were collected from six stations around Port Sudan from November 2009 up to October 2010. The stations and the code of each are given in Figure 1. Collection of samples Qualitative samples of macro zooplankton were collected horizontally with No. 335 µm plankton net operating at a towing speed of 1m/sec. All samples were preserved in 5% formalin following Parsons et al., [17] and Goswami [18]. Physical and chemical measurements Abstract The present study was conducted at six stations around Port Sudan Harbour to correlate total macro zooplankton with the physical and chemical parameters in samples from the Sudanese Red Sea. Oxygen, transparency and NO3 showed positive correlation with total numbers of zooplankton. The impact of other parameters varies from one station to the other with highest frequency for oxygen followed by NO3 and pH. Calanoida Copepods and Cyclopoida Copepods were the dominant groups and Cladocerans were the least recorded from 15 identified group of zooplankton. Keywords Zooplankton; Physicochemical; Port Sudan; Red Sea Introduction Marine zooplankton communities have wide geographic ranges, population sizes and high gene flow [1]. Their communities are usually structured by the water masses they occupy [2,3]; light intensity and primary production [4]; species reproductive cycles, temperature and food availability [2,5]. Studies on plankton in the Red Sea have dealt mainly with species composition [6]. In the Sudanese coast related studies included the plankton populations in Port Sudan area [7], coastal plankton fauna [8] and thermal impact of temperature on some species of copepods [9]. Space-time variations in physical forces and hydro chemical parameters influence plankton communities [10-13]. Studies in the Red Sea suggested a relatively higher production in the summer months [14] and recorded a secondary peak in primary production in winter in the southern Red Sea [15]. Zooplankton populations are influenced by intermingling of water masses in harbours, the open sea, coastal terrain, and freshwater runoff [16]. The aim of this study is to generate base-line data on physicochemical characters and zooplankton and their correlation in order to find out indicators in any future study. *Corresponding author: Sheikheldin M. Elamin, Department of Fisheries, Faculty of Marine Science and Fisheries, Red Sea University, Sudan, E-mail: sheikhelamin@hotmail.com Salinity was measured by a refractometer; water temperature by an ordinary thermometer and pH by a pH-meter. Dissolved oxygen was determined following Winkler’s Method, Lead, nitrite and nitrates content in unfixed samples were determined in situ using electronic spectrophotometer electrodes. Zooplankton studies A Hydro-Bios sedimentation plankton chambers was used to count and identify the zooplankton groups under a phase contrast inverted microscope of the type OLYMPUS CKX 41 – MODEL CKX 41 SF. The total zooplankton volume was determined by the displacement volume method described by Dhargalkar and Verlecar [19]. Sea Land Cornish S1 Faculty of Marine Sciences and Fisheries Tires Plant S6 S3 S5 S2 Fish Market Open Sea Harbour Entrance S4 Figure 1: The sampling stations (Modified from Google earth, 2010). Received: August 02, 2014 Accepted: July 22, 2015 Published: July 27, 2015 International Publisher of Science, Technology and Medicine All articles published in Journal of Marine Biology & Oceanography are the property of SciTechnol, and is protected by copyright laws. Copyright © 2015, SciTechnol, All Rights Reserved. Citation: Ahmed AG, Mahmoud ZN, Nasr DH, Elamin SM (2015) Correlation between Physical and Chemical Parameters and Marine Macro Zooplankton Community around Port Sudan Area. J Mar Biol Oceanogr 4:2. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2324-8661.1000146 Identification Identification of Cyclopoid Copepods, Calanoid Copepods, brachyuran zoea, fish eggs, cladocerans, Oikopleura, shrimp larvae, Sagitta, cumaceans, tintinnids, gastropod larvae, radiolarians, Nauplii, Medusae, and polychaete larvae followed Taylor [20]. Preparation of permanent slides Preparation of permanent zooplankton slides followed Gray [21]. Statistical Analysis Analysis of variance was used to compare the total zooplankton between the sampling stations using Microsoft Excel statistical programme (2003). Duncan test and LSD test were used to show the significant differences between the six stations and twelve months in zooplankton using SPSS. Also p-value was calculated to determine the significance of the relationship between total plankton and physical and chemical parameters. Quantification of the relation between total zooplankton and physical and chemical parameters was done by multiple regression analysis of the type: Y= b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + b6X6 + b7X7 + b8X8 Where: Y= Total Zooplankton, X1= Water temperature (°C), X2= Transparency, X3= Salinity (%), X4 = pH, X5 = P (mg/L), X6= NO2, X7= NO3, X8= O2. Results This section displays the findings regarding (a) physical and chemical characteristics of water, and (b) zooplankton and ends up by quantifying the correlation between a and b (given above). Physical and chemical characteristics of water The mean monthly reading of each parameter at each station was given in Table 1 from which the followings were apparent: 1. Water temperature was comparable in all stations. 2. The highest transparency records were obtained from station 3 and the least from station 6. 3. Salinity was slightly higher at station 6. 4. The mean pH, PO4, NO2, NO3 and dissolved oxygen concentration readings were comparable in all stations. Zooplankton The monthly readings of each zooplankton taxa at each station were given in Table 2 showed that: 1- The recorded number of zooplankton was 15 groups. These were Calanoid Copepods, Cyclopoid Copepods, brachyuran zoea, fish eggs, cladocerans, Oikopleura, shrimp larvae, Sagitta, cumaceans, tintinnids, Gastropod larvae, radiolarians, Nauplii, Medusae and, polychaete larvae. Table 1: The mean of monthly readings of physical and chemical parameters at each station. Parameter Stations 1 2 3 4 5 6 Air Temp. ○C 30.33 30.17 30.58 30.25 30.25 30.25 27.83 Water Temp. ○C 27.92 27.83 27.83 27.5 27.83 Transparency (m) 4.75 8 14.61 11.88 7.33 2.42 Salinity % 39.88 39.88 39.88 39.88 39.88 42.17 pH 8.33 8.317 8.317 8.316 8.317 8.316 P mg/l 0.334 0.334 0.334 0.334 0.334 0.334 NO2- mg/l 0.818 0.818 0.818 0.818 0.818 0.818 NO3- mg/l 0.294 0.294 0.294 0.294 0.294 0.294 Oxygen mg/l 5.54 5.63 5.52 5.76 5.49 5.56 Table 2: Mean number of zooplankton taxonomy individuals in each station. Species Calanoida Copepods Stations 1 2 3 4 5 6 722 372 213 415 412 79 122 Cyclopoida Copepods 155 134 150 202 96 Brachyuran Zoea 178 111 27 47 106 6 Fish eggs 78 124 122 115 40 24 Cladocerans 9 5 7 9 8 8 Oikopleura 23 30 51 60 45 24 Shrimp Larvae 174 83 37 58 66 0 Sagitta 13 17 54 58 18 4 Cumaceans 100 69 43 67 58 0 Tintinnids 15 21 13 11 28 0 Gastropod Larvae 37 28 53 28 32 68 Radiolarians 8 33 168 9 30 0 Nauplii 29 30 32 48 56 105 Medusae 32 18 32 23 23 10 Polychaete Larvae 11 22 8 7 5 8 The mean of the total monthly zooplankton readings from each station was given in Table 3. The table revealed that the highest mean number of zooplankton for all stations was in May (13430 ind/m3) and the least mean number for all stations was in January (4262 ind/ m3); the highest total number of individuals /station was 18998 ind/ m3 in station 1 and the least was 5519 ind/m3 in station 6. The LSD test was calculated for total zooplankton for all months and found that the total zooplankton in May significantly different from the other rest months (p>0.05); the same test was conducted for zooplankton / station and it was found that station 6 differ significantly from other five stations (p>0.05). Correlation between physical and chemical characteristics of water and mean total zooplankton The total zooplankton was correlated with the physical and chemical parameters at each station by multiple regression analysis (Table 4). The results revealed that the multiple correlation coefficient was highest in station 3 and lowest in station 5. The equation for station 1 showed a high significant value (p<0.01), while for other five stations it showed no significant value (p>0.05). The table in general revealed the following: 2- Calanoid Copepods and Cyclopoid Copepods were the dominant groups and Cladocerans were the least recorded. 1. Transparency, salinity, NO3 and Dissolved oxygen are positively correlated with total numbers of zooplankton. 3- In Station 6 (highly saline) Cyclopoida Copepods and Nauplii were encountered in large numbers compared with other groups. 2. Water temperature, pH and PO4 are negatively correlated with total numbers of zooplankton. Volume 4 • Issue 2 • 1000146 • Page 2 of 7 • Citation: Ahmed AG, Mahmoud ZN, Nasr DH, Elamin SM (2015) Correlation between Physical and Chemical Parameters and Marine Macro Zooplankton Community around Port Sudan Area. J Mar Biol Oceanogr 4:2. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2324-8661.1000146 The equations in Table 4 were applied to obtain the calculated mean of monthly zooplankton numbers for all stations (Figures 2-7). The differences in the mean number of zooplankton between the 6 stations was highly significant (p<0.01) as the calculated F at DF 5, 66= 4.152 is higher than the tabulated F at DF5, 66= 3.339. The differences between the stations in mean number of zooplankton was assessed by Duncan test which indicated as shown in Table 5 that the readings in a row with different manuscripts are significantly different (p<0.05) and those with similar superscript showed no statistically significant differences (p>0.05). The mean salinity is similar in stations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, whereas at station 6 it reached 46‰ leading to 250% drop in mean total zooplankton. Discussion The extent of interaction between physical and chemical parameters and plankton communities results in quantitative changes, e.g. increases or decreases of size of the population [22]. The monthly water temperature (27.79°C) were in accordance with Morcos [23] who stated that the climate over the Red Sea is harmonious with aridity and hotness of the surrounding landmasses. Edwards et al. [24] stated that surface temperature increases gradually to reach a maximum value of 32°C in September. The present study recorded maximum air temperature of 38°C during June and July. Salinity recorded 40‰ in most stations throughout of most of the year; only station 6 recorded readings up to 46‰ due to influx from the desalination plant. In January salinity dropped to less than 6‰ due to influx of rainfall, the consequence of this is marked drop in the average number of zooplankton in station 6. Discrepancy in transparency between the stations is linked Table 3: The mean of monthly zooplankton numbers from each station. Month Stations Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 November 2009 1091 December 2009 793 1015 840 1673 120 130 820 1370 1140 732 770 January 2010 1044 5625 402 926 1193 408 289 4262 February 2010 1310 382 824 1120 420 850 4906 March 2010 1700 1340 1600 1390 1860 330 8220 April 2010 1860 2720 1030 1580 1120 470 8780 May 2010 4160 1970 1350 1500 3010 1440 13430 June 2010 1780 1690 560 1260 810 460 6560 July 2010 1280 660 870 1010 480 170 4470 August 2010 1300 630 1150 730 860 200 4870 4869 September 2010 1510 670 900 700 1140 220 5140 October 2010 1170 840 670 570 1310 190 4750 75882 Total 18998 13139 12090 13866 12270 5519 Mean 1583 1095 1008 1156 1023 460 SD 470 501 230 355 784. 387 to rainfall, associated floods, and concentrations of organic elements, suspended matter and nutrients. High transparency and anthropogenic based land activities were inversely related in the region and/or the effect of human activities on the coastal area. Most of the Red Sea water is oligotrophic with the exception of small areas off the Sinai Peninsula and the southern transition area between the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean [25]. Nutrients affect the zooplankton indirectly as they are influencing the phytoplankton, which significantly affect the zooplankton. Phosphate, nitrite and nitrate concentrations were higher in the rainy and flood season, which is in an agreement with the fact that nutrient input to the sea may occur anthropogenically or naturally through physical, chemical and biological processes. Anthropogenic sources include groundwater and river input, sewage discharge and industrial runoff, both terrestrial and sea-based [26-28]. Morcos [23] discussed dissolved oxygen in the Red Sea, and attributed its highest record (6.68 mg/L) in January due to an increase in the dissolved oxygen concentration. Dissolved oxygen concentration in the surface water of the Red Sea, which is near to saturation values of 4.8 to 6.5 ml O2 / L depends on temperature and salinity values [29]. The mean dissolved oxygen recorded during this study (5.52-5.76 mg/L) is well within the ranges given by Nasr [8] and by Quadfasel and Baudner [29]. The present study showed that Calanoid copepods recorded the largest number; this is in conformity with Chiffings’ [30] findings in the southern Red Sea. The highest number of zooplankton in Station 4 is attributed to an increase in nutrients in the month of November driven by the North East wind. Hallegraeff [31] attributed such increase to ballast water. Increased zooplankton number is also affected by diverse environmental factors, including food availability [32] and hydrodynamics performances including currents and waves [33]. According to Weikert [15] changes in standing stock and the biomass of zooplankton generally coincide with the seasonal variation in phytoplankton. In January, zooplankton numbers especially cladocerans, shrimp larvae, Sagitta and Nauplii were very low especially in Stations 2, 5, 6, which are closer to the sea coast probably due to excess turbidity, and lower salinity. Low zooplankton numbers were attributed to differences in reproductive cycles [2,5] and movement patterns [34]. The present study showed that after freshwater influx which enriches seawater with nutrients zooplankton numbers increase. This is in agreement with Marsh [26], D’Elia et al. [27] and Lewis [28]. Hamza [9] recorded in February low zooplankton numbers at Station 1 and higher number in Station 2. The opposite holds true in this study. This discrepancy is attributed to the fact that the Tires Factory *Y= Total Zooplankton, X1= Water temperature (°C), X2= Transparency, X3= Salinity (%), X4 = pH, X5 = P (mg/L), X6= NO2, X7= NO3, X8= O2 *p>0.05= insignificant, p<0.05= significant and p<0.01= highly significant Table 4: Multiple regression analysis between total zooplankton (Y*) and the physical and chemical parameters by station. r r2 p- value 1 Y=-25469.53+49.21 X1+700.69 X2 +757.37 X3 -586.80 X4 -1117.74 X5 -1329.10 X6-5495.65 X7+650.20 X8 0.909 0.826 <0.01 2 Y= -12983.24-86.69 X1+115.15 X2 +487.51 X3 - 446.17 X4 -2494.29 X5 -1253.49 X6+4331.07 X7+75.13 X8 0.779 0.607 >0.05 3 Y= 41473.20-99.30 X1-70.11 X2 -354.19 X3 -2506.65 X4 -6679.63 X5 +1320.01 X6+8.86 X7-147.42 X8 0.945 0.893 >0.05 4 Y= -8350.14+8.84 X1+56.93 X2 +427.94 X3 -620.46 X4 -2573.56 X5 -1471.96 X6+136.33 X7-185.46 X8 0.905 0.819 >0.05 5 Y= 28519.93-9.63 X1+173.25 X2 -324.79 X3 -2058.71 X4-3578.83 X5 +0.01X6+5009.90 X7+235.14 X8 0.522 0.272 >0.05 6 Y=5564.57-106.00X1-68.37X2+29.70X3-1170.32 X4 +1321.27X5 +4680.53X6+1467.82 X7+321.61 X8 0.773 0.598 >0.05 Station Multiple regression equation Volume 4 • Issue 2 • 1000146 • Page 3 of 7 • Citation: Ahmed AG, Mahmoud ZN, Nasr DH, Elamin SM (2015) Correlation between Physical and Chemical Parameters and Marine Macro Zooplankton Community around Port Sudan Area. J Mar Biol Oceanogr 4:2. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2324-8661.1000146 Figure 2. Observed and calculated mean of monthly zooplankton numbers from station 1 4500 4000 3500 zooplankton numbers Observed Plankton Calculated Plankton 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Months Figure 2: Observed and calculated mean of monthly zooplankton numbers from station 1. Figure 3. Observed and calculated mean of monthly zooplankton numbers from station 2 3000 2500 zooplankton numbers Observed Plankton Calculated Plankton 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Months Figure 3: Observed and calculated mean of monthly zooplankton numbers from station 2. 3000 Figure 3. Observed and calculated mean of monthly zooplankton numbers from station 2 zooplankton numbers 2500 Observed Plankton Calculated Plankton 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Months Figure 4: Observed and calculated mean of monthly zooplankton numbers from station 3. Volume 4 • Issue 2 • 1000146 • Page 4 of 7 • Citation: Ahmed AG, Mahmoud ZN, Nasr DH, Elamin SM (2015) Correlation between Physical and Chemical Parameters and Marine Macro Zooplankton Community around Port Sudan Area. J Mar Biol Oceanogr 4:2. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2324-8661.1000146 1800 Figure 5. Observed and calculated mean of monthly zooplankton numbers from station 4 1600 zooplankton numbers 1400 Observed Plankton Calculated Plankton 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Months Figure 5: Observed and calculated mean of monthly zooplankton numbers from station 4. 3500 Figure 6. Observed and calculated mean of monthly zooplankton numbers from station 5 zooplankton numbers 3000 Observed Plankton 2500 Calculated Plankton 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Months Figure 6: Observed and calculated mean of monthly zooplankton numbers from station 5. 1600 Figure 7. Observed and calculated mean of monthly zooplankton numbers from station 6 zooplankton numbers 1400 1200 Observed Plankton Calculated Plankton 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Months Figure 7: Observed and calculated mean of monthly zooplankton numbers from station 6. Volume 4 • Issue 2 • 1000146 • Page 5 of 7 • Citation: Ahmed AG, Mahmoud ZN, Nasr DH, Elamin SM (2015) Correlation between Physical and Chemical Parameters and Marine Macro Zooplankton Community around Port Sudan Area. J Mar Biol Oceanogr 4:2. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2324-8661.1000146 Table 5: The relationship between the means number of zooplankton and salinity in each station. Stations 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean 1583 a 1095 b 1008 b 1156 b 1023 b 460 c Salinity% 40 a 40 a 40 a 40 a 40 a 46 b at station 1 is no longer operating and station 2 is currently receiving influx of nutrients from the fish market. The decline in zooplankton numbers was more prominent at Station 5 and Station 6; the former suffers from human pressure by the Port Dock yard including oil seepage and remains of paints; while the latter is under pressure of the desalination plant resulting in high salinity values, which affects the zooplankton community. Plankton communities integrate various human and environmental inputs, thereby providing a benchmark for monitoring the synergistic effects of urbanization and climate change [35]. From August to October, a gradual increased numbers of zooplankton was observed possibly because of a gradual increase in nutrients as mentioned by Zekeria [36] that most substantial import of phosphate into the Red Sea occurs by subsurface inflow of Gulf of Aden water from July to September. Seasonal differences in the taxonomic composition of cyclopoids and poecilostomatoids occurred in the central Red Sea [37]. In the Red Sea, low to moderate primary production occurs [38,39] which decreases northward Halim [38]. References 1. Angel MV (1993) Biodiversity in the pelagic ocean. Conservation Biology 7: 760-772. 2. Falk-Petersen S, Pedersen G, Kwasniewski S, Hegseth, EN, Hop H (1999) Spatial distribution and life cycle timing of zooplankton in the marginal ice zone of the Barents Sea during the summer melt season in 1995. J Plankton Res 21: 1249-1264. 3. Clark DR., Aazem KV, Hays GC (2001) Zooplankton abundance and community structure over a 4000 km transect in the north−east Atlantic. J Plankton Res 23: 365-372. 4. Eilertsen HC, Tande KS, Taasen JP (1989) Vertical Distributions of Primary Production and Grazing by Calanus glacialis Jaschnov and C. hyperboreus Kroyer in Arctic Waters (Barents Sea). Polar Biol 9: 253-260. 5. Conover RJ, Huntley M (1991) Copepods in ice−covered seas- Distribution, adaptations to seasonally limited food, metabolism, growth patterns and life cycle strategies in polar seas. J Mar Syst 2: 1-41. 6. Halim Y (1969) Plankton of the Red Sea. Oceanogr Mar Biol A Rev 7: 231-275. 7. El Hag AGD, Nasr DH (1989) Studies in planktonic populations in Port Sudan coastal area. Sudan J Sci 4: 12-26. 8. Nasr DH (1980) Coastal plankton fauna of the Sudanese Red Sea. Proceedings of the symposium on the Coastal and marine environment of the Red Sea Gulf of Aden and tropical western Indian Ocean, Khartoum 1: 561-581. 9. Hamza ME (1989) Impact of thermal pollution on the marine life in Port Sudan Area. 10. Cloern JE, Powell TM, Huzzley LM (1989) Spatial and temporal variability in San Francisco Bay (USA). II Temporal changes in salinity, suspended sediments, phytoplankton biomass and productivity over tidal time scales. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 28: 599-613. 11. Bianchi F, Acri F, Aubry FB, Berton A, Boldrin A et al. (2003) Can plankton communities be considered as bioindicators of water quality in the lagoon of Venice? Marine Pollut. Bull. 46: 964-971. 12. Waniek JJ (2003) The role of physical forcing in initiation of spring blooms in the northeast Atlantic. J Mar Syst 39: 57-82. 13. Sridhar R, Thangaradjou T, Kumar SS, Kannan L (2006) Water quality and Volume 4 • Issue 2 • 1000146 phytoplankton characteristics in the Palk Bay, southeast coast of India. J Environ Biol 27: 561-566. 14. Ponomareva LA (1968) Quantitative distribution of zooplankton in the Red Sea as observed in the period May-June 1966. Oceanology 8: 240-242. 15. Weikert H (1980) On the plankton of the central Red Sea. A first synopsis of results obtained from Proceedings of the symposium on the Coastal and marine environment of the Red Sea Gulf of Aden and tropical western Indian Ocean, Khartoum 3: 135-167. 16. Farmer DM, Freeland HJ (1983) The Physical Oceanography of Fjords. Progress in Oceanography 12: 147-219. 17. Parsons RT, Maita Y, Lalli CM (1984) A manual of chemical and biological methods for seawater analysis. Pergamon Press, Toronto. 18. Goswami SC (2004) Zooplankton Methodology, Collection & Identification- a field Manual. (1st edtn), National Institute of Oceanography, Goa, India. 19. +Dhargalkar VK, Verlecar XN (2004) Zooplankton Methodology, Collection & Identification - a field manual. National Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula, Goa. 20. Taylor FJR (1993) The species problem and its impact on harmful phytoplankton studies. In Toxic phytoplankton blooms of the sea. Elsevier, New York, 81-86. 21. Gray P (1952) Handbook of basic microtechnique. (3rd Edtn), the McGrawHill Book Company, New York. 22. Welch PS (1952) Limnology. (2nd edtn), McGraw- Hill Book Company, New York. 23. Morcos SA (1970) Physical and chemical oceanography of the Red Sea. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 8: 73-202. 24. Edwards AJ, Head SM (1987) Red Sea- Key environments. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 45-69. 25. Thiel H, Karbe L, Weikert H (1986) Risk assessment of mining metalliferous muds in the deep Red Sea. Ambio 15: 34-41. 26. Marsh JA (1977) Terrestrial inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus on fringing reefs of Guam. 3rd Int. Coral Reef 1: 331-336. 27. D’Elia CF, Webb KL, Porter JW (1981) Nitrate-rich groundwater input to Discovery Bay, Jamaica: A significant source of N to local coral reefs? Bull. Mar Sci 31: 903-910. 28. Lewis JB (1985) Groundwater discharge onto coral reefs, Barbados (West Indies). Proc 5th Int. Coral Reef Symp 6: 477-481. 29. Quadfasel D, Baudner H (1993) Gyre-scale circulation cells in the Red Sea. Oceanologica Acta 16: 221-229. 30. Chiffings T (2003) Marine Region 11: Arabia Seas. A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas. 31. Hallegraeff GM (1998) Transport of toxic dinoflagellates via ship’s ballast water: bioeconomic risk assessment and efficacy of possible ballast water management strategies. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 168: 297-309. 32. James DW (2000) Diet, movement, and covering behaviour of the sea urchin Toxopneutes roseus in hydrolith beds in the Gulf of California, México. Mar Biol 137: 913-923. 33. Arsenault DJ, Himmelman JH (1996) Size-related changes in vulnerability to predators and spatial refuge use by juvenile Iceland scallops (Chlamys islandica). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 140: 115-122. 34. Palmer MA, Allan JD, Butman CA (1996) Dispersal as a regional process affecting the local dynamics of marine and stream benthic invertebrates. Trends Ecol Evol 11: 322-326. 35. Hobday AJ, Okey TA, Poloczanska ES, Kunz TJ, Richardson AJ (2006) Impacts of climate change on Australian marine life: part C, literature review’. Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra. 36. Zekeria AZ (2003) Butterflyfishes of the Southern Red Sea: Ecology and Population Dynamics, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Asmara, Eritrea. 37. Bottger-Schnack R (1990) Community structure and vertical distribution of cyclopoid copepods in the Red Sea.11. Aspects of seasonal and regional differences. Mar Biol 106: 473-485. • Page 6 of 7 • Citation: Ahmed AG, Mahmoud ZN, Nasr DH, Elamin SM (2015) Correlation between Physical and Chemical Parameters and Marine Macro Zooplankton Community around Port Sudan Area. J Mar Biol Oceanogr 4:2. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2324-8661.1000146 38. Halim Y (1984) Plankton of the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf. Deep-Sea Res 31: 969-982. 39. Weikert H (1987) Plankton and the pelagic environment. Key Environments, Red Sea, Pergamon Press, Oxford. Author Affiliations Top 1 Department of Biological Oceanography, Faculty of Marine Science and Fisheries, Red Sea University 2 Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Khartoum 3 Department of Fisheries, Faculty of Marine Science and Fisheries, Red Sea University Submit your next manuscript and get advantages of SciTechnol submissions ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ ™ 50 Journals 21 Day rapid review process 1000 Editorial team 2 Million readers More than 5000 Publication immediately after acceptance Quality and quick editorial, review processing Submit your next manuscript at ● www.scitechnol.com/submission Volume 4 • Issue 2 • 1000146 • Page 7 of 7 •