Research into the Epipelic Diatoms of the Meriç and Tunca Rivers and the Application of the Biological Diatom Index in Water Quality Assessment

Abstract

The Meriç River is one of the longest rivers of the Balkans and the Tunca River is the most significant tributary of the Meriç River. In the present study, the epipelic diatoms of the Meriç and Tunca Rivers were investigated and the water quality was evaluated from a physicochemical and biological perspective. Epipelic (EPP) diatoms were collected from the middlestream of the Meriç River (Edirne Province of Turkey) and from the downstream of the Tunca River (before emptying into the Meriç River) and certain physicochemical parameters including dissolved oxygen (DO), oxygen saturation (OS), pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS), salinity, turbidity, nitrate (NO3), nitrite (NO2), ammonium (NH4), phosphate (PO4), sulphate (SO4), chemical oxygen demand (COD) and oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) were measured during the field studies. The Biological Diatom Index (IBD) was used to determine the trophic status of the Meriç and Tunca Rivers in terms of EPP diatoms, and Cluster Analysis (CA) was applied to the detected biological data in order to classify the identified diatom taxa in terms of their dominance in the system. According to the results of the physicochemical analysis, the Meriç and Tunca Rivers have I. – II. Class water quality in terms of dissolved oxygen, oxygen saturation, pH, EC, TDS, NO3, NH4, SO4 and COD parameters; and have III. – IV. Class water quality in terms of NO2 and PO4 parameters. 24 diatom species were recorded in the Meriç River by counting a total of 403 valves and a total of 19 diatom species were identified by counting a total of 409 diatom valves in the Tunca River. Cyclotella atomus Hustedt, Navicula gregaria Donkin, Nitzschia palea (Kützing) W.Smith and Nitzschia subacicularis Hustedt, were determined as the most dominant species in the Meriç River and Navicula erifuga Lange-Bertalot, Navicula gregaria Donkin and Navicula rostellata Kützing were recorded as the most dominant taxa in the Tunca River. According to the result of the IBD, the investigated rivers were found to be in a meso-eutrophic state and according to the results of CA, three statistical clusters were formed for both rivers, and were named as “dominant taxa”, “frequent taxa” and “rare taxa”.

Keywords

• Meriç River,Bentic diatoms,Biological Diatom Index,Cluster Analysis

References

1. Ács, É., Szabó, K., Tóth, B., Kiss, K. T. (2004). Investıgatıon of benthıc algal communıtıes, especıally dıatoms of some Hungarian streams ın connectıon wıth reference condıtıons of the water framework dırectıves. Acta Botanica Hungarica, 46(3–4), 255–277. [CrossRef]
2. Atici, T., Ahiska, S. (2005). Pollution and Algae of Ankara Stream. Gazi University Journal of Science, 18.
3. Atici, T., Obali, O. (2006). Seasonal Variation of Phytoplankton and Value of Chlorophyll a in the Sarıyar Dam Reservoir (Ankara, Turkey). Turkish Journal of Botany, 30, 349–357.
4. Atici, T., Obali, O. (2010). The diatoms of Asartepe Dam Lake (Ankara), with environmental and some physicochemical properties. Turkish Journal of Botany, 34, 541–548.
5. Atıcı, T., Tokatlı, C., Çiçek, A. (2018). Diatoms of Seydisuyu Stream Basin (Turkey) and Assessment of Water Quality by Statistical and Biological Approaches. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 36(1), 271–288.
6. Atici, T., Udoh, A. (2016). Indicator Algae of Adrasan Stream (Antalya) Turkey. Sinop Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 1, 140-154.
7. Aydın, G. Ş., Büyükışık, B. (2014). Effects on The Species Specific Variables Nutrient Pulses: Thalassiosira allenii (Takano). Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 11(3), 82–90.
8. Coste, M., Boutry, S., Tison-Rosebery, J., Delmas, F. (2009). Improvements of the Biological Diatom Index (BDI): Description and efficiency of the new version (BDI-2006). Ecological Indicators, 9, 621–650. [CrossRef]

9. Cox, E. J. (1996). Identification of Freswater Diatoms from Live Material. Chapman & Hall. First Edition, 158 pp.
10. Çiçek, A., Bakiş, R., Uğurluoğlu, A., Köse, E., Tokatlı, C. (2013). The Effects of Large Borate Deposits on Groundwater Quality of Seydisuyu Basin (Turkey). Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 22(4), 1031–1037.
11. Delgado, C., Pardo, I., García, L. (2012). Diatom communities as indicators of ecological status in Mediterranean temporary streams (Balearic Islands, Spain). Ecological Indicators, 15, 131–139. [CrossRef]
12. EC (European Communities) (2006). EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 6 September 2006 on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life. Directive 2006/44.
13. EC (European Communities) (2007). European Communities (drinking water) (no. 2), Regulatıons 2007, S.I. No. 278 of 2007.
14. Erkmen, B., Kolankaya, D. (2006). Determination of organochlorine pesticide residues in water, sediment, and fish samples from the Meriç Delta, Turkey. International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, 86(1-2), 161–169. [CrossRef]
15. Gomà,J., Ortiz, R., Cambra, J., Ector, L. (2004). Water quality evaluation in Catalonian Mediterranean Rivers using epilithic diatoms as bioindicators. Vie Milieu, 54, 81–90.
16. 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.
17. Kalyoncu, H., Çiçek, N. L., Akköz, C., Yorulmaz, B. (2009). Comparative performance of diatom indices in aquatic pollution assessment. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(10), 1032–1040.
18. Kazi, T. G., Arain, M. B., Jamali, M. K., Jalbani, N., Afridi, H. I., Sarfraz, R. A., Baig, J. A., Shah, A. Q. (2009). Assessment of water quality of polluted lake using multivariate statistical techniques: A case study. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 72, 301–309. [CrossRef]
19. Kendirli, B., Çakmak, B., Gökalp, Z. (2005). Assessment of Water Quality Management in Turkey, Water International, 30(4), 446–455. [CrossRef]
20. Köse, E., Tokatlı, C., Çiçek, A. (2014). Monitoring Stream Water Quality: A Statistical Evaluation. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 23(5), 1637–1647.
21. Krammer, K., Lange-Bertalot, H. (1986). Bacillariophyceae. 1. Teil: Naviculaceae. Süßwasser von mitteleuropa, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Band 2-1, Stuttgart.
22. Krammer, K., Lange-Bertalot, H. (1988). Bacillariophyceae. 2. Teil: Bacillariophyceae, Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae. Süßwasser von mitteleuropa, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Band 2-2, Stuttgart.
23. Krammer, K., Lange-Bertalot, H. (1991a). Bacillariophyceae. 3. Teil: Centrales, Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae. Süßwasser von mitteleuropa, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Band 2-3, Stuttgart.
24. Krammer, K., Lange-Bertalot, H. (1991b). Bacillariophyceae. 4. Teil: Achnantheceae, Kritische Ergänzungen zu Navicula (Lincolatae) und Gomphonema, Cesamptliteraturverzeichnis. Süßwasser von mitteleuropa. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Band 2-4, Stuttgart.
25. Lenoir, A., Coste, M. (1996). Development of a practical diatom index of overall water quality applicable to the French national water board network. In: B.A. Whitton and E. Rott (Eds.), Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers II. Institut fur Botanik. Univ. Innsbruck 29–43.
26. Manahan, S. E. (2011). Water Chemistry: Green Science and Technology of Nature’s Most Renewable Resource. Taylor & Francis Group, CRC Press, 398 pages. [CrossRef]
27. Martín, G., Toja, J., Sala, S. E., Fernández, M. R., Reyes, I., Casco, M. A. (2010). Application of diatom biotic indices in the Guadalquivir River Basin, a Mediterranean basin. Which one is the most appropriated? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 170, 519–534. [CrossRef]
28. Nunes, M. L., Ferreira Da Silva, E., De Almeida, S. F. P. (2003). Assessment of water quality in the Caima and Mau River Basins (Portugal) using geochemical and biological indices. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 149, 227–250. [CrossRef]
29. Ozkan, N., Camur-Elipek, B. (2006). The dynamics of Chironomidae larvae (Diptera) and the water quality in Meric River (Edirne/Turkey). Tiscia, 35, 49-54.
30. Papazova, P., Simeonova, P. (2013). Environmetric data interpretation to assess the water quality of Maritsa River catchment. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, 48(8), 963–972. [CrossRef]
31. Pham, T.L. (2017). Comparison between Water Quality Index (WQI) and biological indices, based on planktonic diatom for water quality assessment in the Dong Nai River, Vietnam. Pollution, 3(2), 311–323.
32. Round, F. E. (1993). A Reviev and Methods for The Use of Epilithic Diatoms for Detecting and Monitorin Changes in River Water Quality, HMSO, London.
33. Shrestha, S., Kazama, F. (2007). Assessment of surface water quality using multivariate statistical techniques: A case study of the Fuji river basin; Japan. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22, 464–475. [CrossRef]
34. Sladeckova, A. (1962). Limnological investigation methods for periphyton (Aufwusch) community. Botanical Review, 28, 286–350. [CrossRef]
35. Solak, C. N. (2011). The application of diatom indices in the Upper Porsuk River, Kütahya – Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 11(1), 31-36. [CrossRef]
36. Solak, C. N., Fehér, G., Barlas, M., Pabuçcu, K. (2007). Use of epilithic diatoms to evaluate water quality of Akçay Stream (Büyük Menderes River) in Mugla/Turkey. Large Rivers, 17, 327–338. [CrossRef]
37. Solak, C. N., Acs, E. (2011). Water Quality Monitoring in European and Turkish Rivers Using Diatoms. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 11, 329–337. [CrossRef]
38. Szulc, B., Szulc, K. (2013). The use of the Biological Diatom Index (BDI) for the assessment of water quality in the Pilica River, Poland. Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies, 42(2), 188–194. [CrossRef]
39. Tan, X., Zhang, Q., Burford, M. A., Sheldon, F., Bunn, S. E. (2017). Benthic Diatom Based Indices for Water Quality Assessment in Two Subtropical Streams. Frontiers in Microbiology, 8, 601. [CrossRef]
40. Taylor, J. C., Harding, W. R., Archibald, C. G. M. (2007). An illustrated guide to some common diatom species from South Africa. Report to the water research commission.
41. Tokatlı, C. (2012). Sucul Sistemlerin İzlenmesinde Bazı Diyatome İndekslerinin Kullanılması: Gürleyik Çayı Örneği (Eskişehir). Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 29, 19–26.
42. Tokatlı, C. (2013). Evaulation of Water Quality by Using Trophic Diatom Index: Exaple of Porsuk Dam Lake. Journal of Applied Biological Sciences, 7, 1–4.
43. Tokatlı, C. (2015). Assessment of the Water Quality in the Meriç River: As an Element of the Ecosystem in the Thrace Region of Turkey. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 24(5), 2205–2211. [CrossRef]
44. Tokatlı, C. (2019). Water and Sediment quality assessment of the lifeblood of Thrace Region (Turkey): Meriç River Basin. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 28(5), 4131–4140.
45. Tokatlı, C., Baştatlı, Y. (2016). Trace and Toxic Element Levels in River Sediments. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 25(4), 1715– 1720. [CrossRef]
46. Tokatlı, C., Dayıoğlu, H. (2011). Use of Epilithic Diatoms to Evaluate Water Quality of Murat Stream (Sakarya River Basin, Kütahya): Different Saprobity Levels and pH Status. Journal of Applied Biological Sciences, 5(2), 55–60.
47. Tokatlı, C., Köse, E., Çiçek, A. (2014). Assessment of the Effects of Large Borate Deposits on Surface Water Quality by Multi Statistical Approaches: A Case Study of the Seydisuyu Stream (Turkey). Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 23(5), 1741–1751.
48. Tokatlı, C., Köse, E., Arslan, N., Çiçek, A., Emiroğlu, Ö., Dayıoğlu, H. (2016). Ecosystem Quality Assessment of an Aquatic Habitat in a Globally Important Boron Reserve: Emet Stream Basin (Turkey). International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 59(2/3/4):116–141. [CrossRef]
49. Tokatlı, C. (2017). Bio – Ecological and Statistical Risk Assessment of Toxic Metals in Sediments of a Worldwide Important Wetland: Gala Lake National Park (Turkey). Archives of Environmental Protection, 43(1), 34–47. [CrossRef]
50. Torrisi, M., Dell’uomo, A. (2006). Biological monitoring of some Apennine rivers (Central Italy) using the diatom-based Eutrophication/Pollution Index (EPI-D) compared to other European diatom indices. Diatom Research, 21, 159–174. [CrossRef]
51. TS 266 (2005). Sular-İnsani tüketim amaçlı sular. Türk Standartları Enstitüsü, ICS 13.060.20.
52. Turkish Regulations, 2015. Yüzeysel Su Kalitesi Yönetimi Yönetmeliği, 15 Nisan 2015 tarihli Resmi Gazete, Sayı: 29327.
53. Uslu, O., Türkman, A. (1987). Su Kirliliği ve Kontrolü. T.C. Başbakanlık Çevre Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, Eğitim Dizisi I, Ankara.
54. Wetzel, R. G. (2001). Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems. Elsevier Academic Press, 1006 pages.
55. WHO (World Health Organization) (2011). Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. World Health Organization Library Cataloguing-inPublication Data, NLM classification: WA 675.
56. Zelinka, M., Marvan, P. (1961). Zur Präzisierung der biologischen klassifikation der Reinheit fließender Gewässer. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 57, 389–407.