Evaluation of the Trophic Status of Karasu River (Erzincan, Türkiye) by Biodiversity Indices

Öz

Proje Numarası

Project No. FBA-2019-634

Evaluation of the Trophic Status of Karasu River (Erzincan, Türkiye) by Biodiversity Indices

Öz

Bu çalışma, Karasu Nehri'ndeki fitoplankton kompozisyonunun ve biyolojik çeşitliliğinin mevsimsel ve zamansal değişimlerine odaklanmıştır. Fitoplankton ve su örnekleri Ocak 2019-Temmuz 2019 döneminde iki ayda bir 0,5-8 m derinlikten beş istasyondan toplanmıştır. Dört çeşitlilik indeksi (Shannon-Wiener, Simpson, Margalef ve Menhinick) incelenmiştir. Endeksler arasındaki ilişkiyi yorumlamak için MINITAB 15 yazılımı kullanılmıştır. Ortalama su sıcaklığı, çözünmüş oksijen, pH ve iletkenlik değerleri sırasıyla 19,43 °C, 7,9 mg/l, 8,3 ve 465 mS/cm olarak ölçülmüştür. Bu çalışmada toplam 123 fitoplankton türü tespit edilmiştir. Bu türlerden Bacillariophyta grubuna ait 106 tür, Chlorophyta grubuna ait 10 tür, Cyanobacteri grubuna ait 6 tür ve Euglenophyta grubuna ait 1 tür teşhis edilmiştir. Çalışma boyunca Shannon-Wiener, Simpson Margalef ve Menhinick çeşitlilik indeksleri sırasıyla 1,89 H´, 11,53, 5,12, 0,83 ve 1,44 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Bu çalışma sonucunda fitoplankton çeşitlilik indeks değerleri ile Karasu Nehri’nin su kalitesine bağlı ekolojik durum değerlendirilmesi bir biri ile uyumlu olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Ancak farklı şehirler için referans koşulların geliştrilmesi endekslerin kullanılabilirliğini artırabilir. Bu nedenle bu çalışmaların devam etmesini ve yaygınlaşmasını öneriyoruz.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Shannon-Wiener
• biodiversity indices
• phytoplankton
• Karasu River
• Shannon-Wiener, biodiversity indices, phytoplankton, Karasu River

Destekleyen Kurum

This study was supported by the Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit

Proje Numarası

Project No. FBA-2019-634

Teşekkür

We would like to thank Erzincan Binali Yıldırım University, Scientific Research Projects Unit for their financial support

Kaynakça

1. Allan JD (1995). Stream Ecology. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2. Anonymous (1995). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Washington: American Public Health Association (APHA).
3. Anonymous (2004). Water Pollution Control Regulation. Ministry of Environment and Forestry, p. 1-55. Ankara (in Turkish)
4. Anonymous (2012). Water Quality Criteria According to Classes of Inland Water Resources according to Turkish Environmental Legislation. Regulation on Surface Water Quality Management, Part One. Ministry of Forestry and Water Management. Issue: 28483 Official Gazette. 26s. (in Turkish)
5. Baykal T, Açıkgöz İ, Udoh AU, Yıldız K (2011). Seasonal variations in phytoplankton Composition and biomass in a small lowland river – lake system (Melen River, Turkey), Turk J. Biol., 35; 485 – 501.
6. Bobori DC, Salvarina I (2010). Seasonal variation of fish abundance and biomass in gillnet catches of an East Mediterranean lake: Lake Doirani. Journal of Environmental Biology, 31, 995– 1000.
7. Cetin T (2014). Biological quality elements according to the water framework directive: phytoplankton and phytobenthos. –Unpublished expertise dissertation. T.C. Ministry of Forestry and Water Affairs, 144 p. Ankara. (in Turkish)
8. Cetinkaya O (2006). Exotic and Native Fish Species Inoculated or Stocked in Turkish Waters, Their Effects on Aquaculture, Fisheries, Natural Populations and Aquatic Ecosystems: A Preliminary Study for a Database. I. Fishing and Reservoir Management Symposium, 7-9 February (205-235), Antalya. (in Turkish)

9. Cox EJ (1996). Identification of Freshwater Diatoms from Live Material. London: Chapman and Hall.
10. Ding Y, Pan B, Zhao G, Sun C, Han X, Li M. (2021). Geo-climatic factors weaken the effectiveness of phytoplankton diversity as a water quality indicator in a large sediment-laden river. Science of The Total Environment, 792, 148346.
11. Eren Z, Kaya F (2020). Biodiversity as a rising value at the international level. Hacet Uni. Education Faculty Journal. 27:1-10. (in Turkish)
12. Erten S (2004). Biodiversity as a rising value at the international level. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal 27:1-10.
13. Gülsoy S, Özkan K (2008). Ecological importance of species diversity and some used indices. Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Forestry Journal. Ser. A(1):168-178
14. Gürbüz H (1990). A Research on the Algae Flora of the Karasu (Euphrates) River. Atatürk University Institute of Science and Technology (Unpublished Master's Thesis dissertation). p. 82
15. Gurbuz H, Ertugrul M (2003). Determination of medium elements in algae of Karasu (Fırat) River by EDXRF using an 241Am excitation source. Instrumentation Science & Technology, 31(2), 189-196.
16. Hill MO (1973). Diversity ve Evenness: A Unifying Notation and Its Consequences. Ecology. pp. 427-432.
17. Hilton J O'Hare M, Bowes MJ, Jones JI (2006). How green is my river: a new paradigm in eutrophication in rivers. Sci. Total Environ 365: 66–83.
18. Huber-Pestalozzi G (1942). “Das Phytoplankton des Süsswassers, 2 Teil. Diatomeen. In: A. Thıenemann (Ed), Die Binnengewasser,” Stuttgart, E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
19. Huber-Pestalozzi G (1950). “Das Phytoplankton des Süsswassers, 3 Teil. Cryoptophyceen.
20. Hustedt F (1930). “Bacillariophyta (Diatomeae). Heft 10. In: A. Pascher (Ed),” Die Süsswasser –Flora
21. James BK, Adejare LI (2010). Nutrients and Phytoplankton Production Dynamics of a Tropical Harbor in Relation to Water Quality Indices. J. Am. Sci. pp. 261-275.
22. John PM., Whitton BA, Brook AJ (2002). The Freshwater algal flora of the British Isles..Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
23. Jorgensen SE, Costanse R, Xu Fu-Liu (2005). Handbook of ecological indicators for assessment of ecosystem health. London,Taylor and Francis Group Eddition.
24. Krebs CJ (1998). Ecological methodology, 2nd edition. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, California.
25. Kwak TJ, Peterson JT (2007). Community indices, parameters, and comparisons. in C.S. Guy and M.L. Brown, Editors. pp. 677-763. Analysis and interpretation of freshwater fisheries data. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. ISBN-13: 978-1-888569-77-3.
26. Lind ME, Brook AJ (1980). A key to the Commoner Desmids of the English Lake District. Freswater Biol. Assoc. Publ., 123, Cumbria
27. Manier JT, Haro RJ, Houser JN, Strauss EA (2021). Spatial and temporal dynamics of phytoplankton assemblages in the upper Mississippi River. River Research and Applications, 37(10), 1451-1462.
28. Margalef R (1958). Information theory in biology. General Systems Yearbook, 3, 36-71.
29. Menhinick EF (1964). A Comparison of Some Species-Individuals Diversity Indices Applied to Samples of Field Insects. Ecology, pp. 859-861.
30. Odum EP, Barrett GW (2005). Basic principles of ecology. In: Işık K, translation editor. Ankara: Palme Publishing, 598 p. (in Turkish)
31. Round FD (1953). An Investigation of two Benthic Algal Communities in Malham Tarn, Yorkshire. J.Ecol., 41; 174-197.
32. Saler S, Bulut H, Birici N, Tepe R, Alpaslan K (2015). Zooplankton of the Karasu River (Erzincan). Egirdir Faculty of Fisheries Journal. 11(1): 10-16.
33. Shannon CE (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system technical journal, 27(3), 379-423.
34. Sönmez AY, Hisar O, Karataş M, Arslan G, Aras MS (2008). Waters Information. Nobel Publication No: 1258, Science: 64, 1st Edition.
35. Tanyolaç J (2000). Limnology (Freshwater Science). Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Biology, Hatipoğlu Publishing House, Ankara (in Turkish)
36. Türkmen G, Kazancı N (2010). Applications of various biodiversity indices to benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in streams of a national park in Turkey. Review of Hydrobiology. pp. 111-125.
37. Utermöhl H (1958). Zur Vervolkommnung deer quantitativen Phytoplankton-Methodik. Mitteilungen der Internationale Vereinigung der theoretretische und Angewandte. Limnologie, 5; 567-596.
38. Wetzel RG (2001). Limnology. W.B. Saunders Company, London.