Relationships between epipelic diatoms, aquatic macrophytes, and water quality in Akarçay Stream, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey

• Autorzy: Kargioglu M. , Serteser A. , Kivrak E. , Içaga Y. , Konuk M.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The Akarçay is the most important stream in the Afyonkarahisar region in central Turkey. In this study, the relationships between epipelic diatoms, macrophytes, and the water quality of Akarçay Stream are presented. According to Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA), BOD5, COD, TDS, NH4-N, NO2-N, and PO4-P had the most significant effects on the diatom and macrophyte community structures of the stream. According to CCA and Correspondence Analysis (CA), dominant diatom species and macrophytes constituted two groups, eutrophic and polluted. While eutraphentic taxa were abundant among upstream diatoms, hypereutraphentic taxa were found downstream in the Akarçay. The diatom assemblages in the sites upstream were generally characterized by an abundance of ß-mesosaprobous and .-mesosaprobous species, while the diatom assemblages downstream had a very high abundance of polisaprobous species. Eutrophic and hypertrophic macrophyte taxa (such as Lemna trisulca, Potamogeton nodosus, and Ranunculus sp.) covered a high percentage of the stream bottom. Both diatom indices and macrophyte indices with the exception of the Biological Macrophyte Index of Rivers (IBMR) were correlated with BOD5, COD, TDS, NH4-N, NO2-N, PO4-P, and EC. Physicochemical variables, diatom and macrophyte taxa and the results of diatom and macrophyte indices indicated that the Akarçay stream basin is eutrophic and organically polluted.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

water quality parameters; epipelic diatoms; macrophytes; ecological state; Akarçay Stream

• Wydawca: Institute of Oceanography University of Gdańsk
• Czasopismo: Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: Vol. 41, No. 1
• Strony: 74--84
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 66 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Kargioglu M.

autor

Serteser A.

autor

Kivrak E.

autor

Içaga Y.

autor

Konuk M.

• Afyon Kocatepe University, Faculty of Science and Literature, 03200 Afyonkarahisar, Turkey,

Bibliografia

• 1.Ali, M.M., Murphy, K.J. & Aberneth, V.J. (1999). Macrophyte functional variables v. species assemblages as predictors of trophic status in flowing waters. Hydrobiologia, 415, 131-138.
• 2.Anonymous (2002). Akarçay basin hydrogeology and underwater flow model (pp. 339). Ankara: Republic of Turkey Ministry Energy and Natural Resources General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works.
• 3.APHA (American Public Health Association). (1995). Standard methods for examination of water and waste water, 19th ed. (pp 1268). Washington, DC.
• 4.Barendregt, A. & Bio, A.M.F. (2003). Relevant variables to predict macrophyte communities in running waters. Ecol. Model., 160, 205-217.
• 5.Bellinger, B.J., Cocquyt, C.O. & Reilly, C.M. (2006). Benthic diatoms as indicators of eutrophication in tropical streams. Hydrobiologia, 573,75-87.
• 6.Caffrey, J. (1986). Macrophytes as biological indicators of organic pollution in Irish rivers. In D.H.S. Richardson (Ed.), Biological Indicators of Pollution (pp. 77-87). Royal Irish Academy.
• 7.Carbiener, R., Trémoliéres, M. & Muller, S. (1995). Vegetation of running waters and water quality : thesis, debates and prospects. Acta Botanica Gallica, 142 (6), 489-531.
• 8.Chatenet, P., Froissard, D., Cook-Moreau, J., Hourdin, P., Ghestem, A., Botineau, M. & Haury, J. (2006). Populations of Myriophyllum alterniflorum L. as bioindicators of pollution in acidic to neutral rivers in the Limousin region. Hydrobiologia, 570, 61-65.
• 9.Cox, E.J. (1996). Identification of Freshwater Diatoms From Live Material (pp.158). London: Chapman & Hall.
• 10.Daniel, H. & Haury, J. (1995). Effects of fish farm pollution on phytocenoses in an acidic river (the River Scorff, South Brittany, France). Acta Botanica Gallica, 142, 639-650.
• 11.Daniel, H., Bernez, I. & Haury, J. (2006). Relationships between macrophytic vegetation and physical features of river habitats: the need for a morphological approach. Hydrobiologia, 570, 11-17.
• 12.Davis, P.H. (Ed.) (1965-1985). Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. v: 1-9. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• 13.Davis, P.H., Mill, R.R. & Tan, K. (1988). Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. v: 10. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
• 14.Dawson, F.H. (2002). Guidance for the field assessment of macrophytes of rivers within the STAR Project, from: http://www.eu-star.at/frameset.htm.
• 15.Dere, Ş., Dalkıran, N., Karacaoglu, D., Elmacı, A., Dülger, B. & Sentürk, E. (2006). Relationships among epipelic diatom taxa, bacterial abundances and water quality in a highly polluted stream catchment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 112 (1-3), 1-22.
• 16.European Union (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 327, 1-72.
• 17.Gómez, N. & Licursi, M. (2001). The Pampean Diatom Index (IDP) for assessment of rivers and streams in Argentina. Aquatic Ecology, 35 (2), 173-181.
• 18.Güner, A., Özhatay, N., Ekim, T. & Başer, K.H.C. (Eds.) (2000). Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, v: 11. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• 19.Gürbüz, H. & Kivrak, E. (2002). Use of epilithic diatoms to evaluate water quality in the Karasu River of Turkey. Journal of Environmental Biology, 23 (3), 239-246.
• 20.Guiry, M. D. & Guiry, G. M. (2007). AlgaeBase version 4.2. Worldwide Electronic Publishing. Galway, National University of Ireland. Retrieved 6 August 2009, from: http://www.algaebase.org.
• 21.Harding, J. P. C. (1981). Macrophytes as monitors of river quality in the Southern N. W. W. A. area. North West Water Authority, Rivers Division (Ref. No. TS-BS-81-2, 1-54).
• 22.Haslam, S.M.(1982). A proposed method for monitoring river pollution using macrophytes. Environmental Technology Letters, 3, 19-34.
• 23.Haslam, S.M. (1987). River Plants of Western Europe ( pp. 512). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• 24.Hasle, G.R. (1978). Some specific preparations: diatoms. In A. Sournia (Ed.), Phytoplankton Manual. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).
• 25.Haury, J., Peltre, M. C., Tremolieres, M., Barbe, J. & Thiebaut, G. (2002). A method involving macrophytes to assess water trophy and organic pollution: the Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers (IBMR) - application to different types of rivers and pollutions. In Dutartre, A. & Montel, M. H. (Eds.), Proc. 11th EWRS International Symposium on Aquatic Weeds (pp. 247-250). Moliets Et Maa, France.
• 26.Haury, J.C., Peltre, M., Trémolières, M., Barbe, J., Thiébaut, et al. (2006). A new method to assess water trophy and organic pollution - the Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers (IBMR): its application to different types of river and pollution. Hydrobiologia, 570, 153-158.
• 27.Hering, D., , K.F., Moog, O. & Ofenböck, T. (2006). Cook book for the development of a Multimetric Index for biological condition of aquatic ecosystems: Experiences from the European AQEM and STAR projects and related initiatives. Hydrobiologia, 566, 311-324.
• 28.Holmes, N.T.H., Boon, P.J. & Rowell, T.A. (1998). A revised classification system for British rivers based on their aquatic plant communities. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshwater Ecosyst., 8, 555-578.
• 29.Holmes, N. T. H., Newman, J. R., Chadd, J. R., Rouen, K. J., Saint, L. & Dawson, F.H. (1999). Mean Trophic Rank: a user's manual. Research & Development, Technical Report E38 (pp. 134). Bristol: Environment Agency.
• 30.Husák, S., Sládecek, V. & Sládecková, A. (1989). Freshwater macrophytes as indicators of organic pollution. Acta. Hydrochim. Hydrobiol., 17, 693-701.
• 31.Hustedt, F. (1930). Die Susswasserflora Mitteleuropas. Heft 10. 2nd Edition. Bacillariophyta (Diatomeae). Pascher, A. (Ed.) (pp. 466). Germany: Verlag von Gustav Fischer.
• 32.Janauer, G.A. & Dokulil, M (2006). Macrophytes and algae in running waters. In G. Ziglio, Siligardi M. & Flaim G. (Eds.), Biological Monitoring of Rivers. Application and Perspectives (pp. 89-109). Chichester, England: Wiley.
• 33.Kalyoncu, H., Çiçek, N. L., Akköz, C. & Yorulmaz, B. (2009). Comparative performance of ditom indices in aquatic pollution assessment. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4/10, 1032-1040.
• 34.Kargıoğlu, M. (2001). Flora and vegetation of Afyonkarahisar environs. In M. Uyan et al. (Ed), Afyonkarahisar register 1 (pp. 49-60). Afyonkarahisar.
• 35.Kelly, M.G. (1998). Use of the trophic diatom index to monitor eutrophication in rivers. Water Research., 32 ( 1), 236-242.
• 36.Kelly, M.G., Cazaubon, A., Coring, E., Dell'uomo, A., Ector, et al. (1998). Recommendations for the routine sampling of diatoms for water quality assessments in Europe. J. Appl. Phycol., 10, 215- 224.
• 37.Kolher, A. (1971). Ecology of submerged macrophytes in freshwater. Berichte Der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft Bd, 84, 713-720.
• 38.Krammer, K. & Lange-Bertalot, H. (1986). Freshwater Flora of Central Europe, Bacillariophyceae, Band 2/1, 1. Teil: Naviculaceae (pp. 876). Berlin.
• 39.Krammer, K. & Lange-Bertalot, H. (1991). Freshwater Flora of Central Europe, Bacillariophyceae, Band 2/3, 3. Teil: Centrales, Fragillariaceae, Eunoticeae (pp. 576). Stuttgart.
• 40.Krammer, K. & Lange-Bertalot, H. (1991). Freshwater Flora of Central Europe, Bacillariophyceae, Band 2/4, 4. Teil: Achnanthaceae, Navicula (Lineolatae) und Gomphonema (pp. 436). Stuttgart.
• 41.Krammer, K. & Lange-Bertalot, H. (1999). Freshwater Flora of Central Europe, Bacillariophyceae, Band 2/2, 2. Teil: Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae (pp. 610). Berlin.
• 42.Kwandrans, J., Eloranta, P., Kawecka, B. & Wojtan, K. (1998). Use of benthic diatom communities to evaluate water quality in rivers of southern Poland. J. Appl. Phycol., 10, 193-201.
• 43.Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA). (1980). The water quality map of the Federal Republic of Germany (pp. 16). Stuttgart.
• 44.Lumberas, A., Olives, A., Quintana, J.R., Pardo, C. & Molina J.A. (2009). Ecology of aquatic Ranunculus communities under the Mediterranean climate. Aquatic Botany, 90, 59-66.
• 45.Murtaugh, P.A. (1996). The statistical evaluation of ecological indicators. Ecological Applications, 6, 132-139.
• 46.Nather Khan I.S.A. (1990). Assessment of water pollution using diatom community structure and species distribution - a case study in a tropical river basin. Internationale Revue der Gesamten Hydrobiologie, 75, 317-338.
• 47.Palmer, C. M. (1969). A composite rating of algae tolerating organic pollution. Journal of Phycology, 5, 78-82.
• 48.Patrick, R. & Reimer, C.W. (1966). The Diatoms of the United States. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., Monogr., 13 (1), 1-688.
• 49.Patrick, R. & Reimer, C.W. (1975). The Diatoms of the United States. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., Monogr., 13 (2), Part 1, 1-213.
• 50.Penning, W.E., Mjelde, M., Dudley, B., Hellsten, S., Hanganu, J., Kolada, A., Berg, M., Poikane, S., Phillips, G., Willby, N. & Ecke, F. (2008). Classifying aquatic macrophytes as indicators of eutrophication in European lakes. Aquatic Ecology, 42 (2), 237-251.
• 51.Resende, P.C., Resende, P., Pardal, M., Almeida,P. & Azeiteiro, U. (2010). Use of biological indicators to assess water quality of the UI River (Portugal). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 110, 535-544.
• 52.Riis, T., Sand-Jensen, K. & Vestergaard, O. (2000). Plant communities in lowland Danish streams: species composition and environmental factors. Aquatic Botany, 66, 255-272.
• 53.Robach, F., Thiébaut, G., Tremolieres, M. & Muller, S. (1996). A reference system for continental running waters: plant communities as bioindicators of increasing eutrophication in alkaline and acidic waters in north-east France. Hydrobiologia, 340, 67-76.
• 54.Serteser, A., Kargioğlu, M., İçağa, Y. & Konuk, M. (2008). Vegetation as an indicator of soil properties and water quality in the Akarçay Stream (Turkey). Environ. Manag., 42, 764-770.
• 55.Soininen, J. (2002). Responses of epilithic diatom communities to environmental gradients in some finnish rivers. Internat. Rev. Hydrobiol., 87 (1), 11-24.
• 56.Soininen, J. & Könönen, K. (2004). Comparative study of monitoring South-Finnish rivers and streams using macroinvertebrate and benthic diatom community structure. Aquatic Ecology, 38, 63-75.
• 57.Solak, C.N. (2011). The Application of Diatom Indices in the Upper Porsuk Creek Kütahya-Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 11, 31-36.
• 58.Soylu, E.N. & Gönülol, A. (2005). Epipelic algal flora and seasonal variations of the river Yeşilirmak, Amasya, Turkey, Cryptogamie. Algologie, 26 (4), 373-385.
• 59.Soyupak, S., Çilesiz, A.F., Yücel, N., Torunoğlu, T., Şentürk, E. & Kaya, J. (1993). Keban Baraj Gölünde (Palu-Elazığ Arası) su kirlenmesi problem. Turk. J. Environ. Sci., 17, 301-304.
• 60.SPSS Inc.: (2001). SPSS Advanced Models 11.0 (pp.123). Chicago: SPSS Inc.
• 61.Szczepocka, E. & Szulc, B. (2009). The use of benthic diatoms in estimating water quality of variously polluted rivers. Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies, 38(1), 17-26.
• 62.Tang, T., Cai, Q. & Lıu, J. (2006). Using epilithic diatom communities to assess ecological condition of Xiangxi River system. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 112, 347-361.
• 63.Ter Braak, C.J.F. & Šmilauer, P. (2002). CANOCO Reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows User's guide: Software for Canoinical Community Ordination (version 4.5) (pp.500). Ithaca, NY, USA: Microcomputer Power.
• 64.Thiébaut, G. & Muller, S. (1999). A macrophyte communities sequence as an indicator of eutrophication and acidification levels in weakly mineralised streams in north-eastern France. Hydrobiologia, 410, 17-24.
• 65.Triest, L. (2006). A comparison of macrophyte indices in headwaters of rivers in Flanders (Belgium). Hydrobiologia, 570, 153-158.
• 66.Van Dam, H., Mertens, A. & Sinkeldam, J. (1994). A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from the Netherlands. N. J. Aquat. Ecol., 28, 117-133.