Freshwater Algae: Identification and Use as Bioindicators

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 3.14 Comparability of Diatom Indices in the Assessment of River Water QualitySite Descy, 1979 CEE GDI IDAP IPS L&M SHE TDI SLAD Comments ReferenceRivers Alfeios andPineios in GreeceRivers in southernPolandEnglish andScottish rivers+ + + Indices gave exactlysimilar qualityassessments (bad tovery good.)+ + + + + + + + Most diatom indices(except SLAD)correlated with eachother & water quality+ + + Good correlation betweenindicesFinnish rivers + + + Good correlation betweenindices: rivers rangingfrom poor to highqualityMetalcontaminatedBelgian rivers+ + + + + + + Good correlation with Znconcentrations, but onlyIPS gave goodindication of generalwater qualityIliopoulou-Georgudakiet al., 2003Kwandranset al., 1998Kelly et al.,1995Eloranta andSoininen,2002De Jonge et al.,2008Shaded area: OMNIDIA database software (Lecointe et al., 1993) containing a range of diatom indices.1 CEE (Descy and Coste, 1991), GDI (Coste and Ayphassorho, 1991), IDAP (Prygiel and Coste, 1996), IPS (Coste, in CEMAGREF, 1982), L & M (Leclercq and Maquet, 1987),SHE (Schiefele and Schreiner, 1991), TDI (Kelly and Whitton, 1995), SLAD (Sladacek, 1986).
3.4 RIVERS 131Case study 3.3Comparisons of diatom indices with other bioindices1. Use of different bioindicators for assessing water quality in Greek Rivers. Iliopoulou-Georgudaki et al.(2003). This study was carried out on river sites with water quality ranging from very poor to very goodand used bioindices based on diatoms (see previously) plus four other groups of organisms. Sampling offish and macrophyte vegetation gave only limited environmental assessment, with macrophytes in particularbeing incapable of a graded response to varying degrees and kinds of stress. Macroinvertebrates and diatomsrecorded the full range of pollution conditions, but indices based on macroinvertebrates were consideredto be the most sensitive – responding more readily than diatoms to transient changes to environmentalstate.2. Selected rivers in England and Scotland. Kelly et al. (1995) found that their diatom indices were significantlycorrelated with two benthic macroinvertebrate indices – BMWP (Biological Monitoring Working Partyscores) and ASPT (Average Score Per Taxon), both used routinely for water quality monitoring in theUnited Kingdom.3. Metal pollution in lowland river. Comparison of macroinvertebrates and diatoms as bioindicators by DeJonge et al. (2008) showed that diatom communities most closely reflected changes in metal concentration,with distinct taxa being associated with low (e.g. Tabellaria flocculosa) moderate (Nitzschia palea) andhigh (Eolimna minima) zinc levels. In contrast to diatoms, macroinvertebrate communities most closelyfollowed physical-chemical variables and the effects of metal pollution. The combined use of both groupsfor biomonitoring was considered to be more appropriate than separate use of either.Comparison to other bioindicator organismsAlthough routine monitoring of all but the deepestrivers has been based for many years on macroinvertebrates(e.g. De Pauw and Hawkes, 1993), a rangeof other bioindicator organisms is available. Theseinclude diatoms, other algae, fish, aquatic and riparianmacrophytes. Various authors have made simultaneouscomparisons of some or all of these toassess the relative usefulness of particular groupsof organisms – with particular emphasis on diatomsand macroinvertebrates. In the examples below (continuedfrom the previous section), diatom communitiesshowed comparable changes to macroinvertebratesin relation to water quality, but (with theexception of the IPS index) were generally lesssensitive.Response to changes in water qualityOne important aspect of algal bioindicators is thatthey are able to detect a rapid change in water quality.Because of their shorter generation time, diatomcommunities are potentially able to respond morerapidly than other bioindicator groups (e.g. macroinvertebrates,fish), which integrate water quality overlonger time frames.The time sequence of diatom change can be investigatedby transferring diatom biofilms from pollutedto non-polluted waters, and record: how different diatom indices compare over fixedtime periods the time needed for different indices to indicate asignificant change in water quality.
Page 1 and 2: 3Algae as BioindicatorsBiological i
Page 3 and 4: 3.1 BIOINDICATORS AND WATER QUALITY
Page 5 and 6: Table 3.3 Lake Trophic Status: Phyt
Page 8 and 9: 106 3 ALGAE AS BIOINDICATORSDirecti
Page 11 and 12: 3.2 LAKES 109sites (Fig. 3.3 A, B,
Page 13 and 14: 3.2 LAKES 111Phytoplankton net prod
Page 15 and 16: 3.2 LAKES 113and hypertrophic (Pedi
Page 17 and 18: 3.2 LAKES 115Table 3.5 Organic Poll
Page 19 and 20: 3.2 LAKES 117Table 3.7 Bioindicator
Page 21 and 22: 3.3 WETLANDS 119therefore directly
Page 23 and 24: 3.4 RIVERS 1213.4 RiversUntil recen
Page 25 and 26: 3.4 RIVERS 123Gomphonema parvulum t
Page 27 and 28: 3.4 RIVERS 125Table 3.10 Benthic Di
Page 29 and 30: 3.4 RIVERS 127Palmer’s Index (Pal
Page 31: 3.4 RIVERS 129any irregular conclus
Page 35 and 36: individual analysts can be measured
Page 37 and 38: 3.5 ESTUARIES 135potential role of

Freshwater Algae: Identification and Use as Bioindicators

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?