Epilithic Diatom Assemblages and Indicators for the Assessment of Water Quality of Munzur Stream, Turkey

Abstract

The epilithic diatoms of Munzur Stream, together with the chemistry and physical variables of the water, were examined in the samples taken annually from 3 stations on the creek between October 2016 and September 2017. A total of 69 diatom taxa were identified benthic habitat. Cocconeis placentula, Cymbella affinis, Cymbella excisiformis , Didymosphenia geminata, Gomphonema olivaceum, and Hannaea arcus became diatoms at all that reached significant relative abundance. Shannon-diversity (H’), species evenness (J’), species richness (S) in each station varied between stations and months. Regarding diversity (H), values ranged from 1.54 (in December, at S3) to 2.99 (in October, at S3). Evenness ranged from 0.09 to 0.22 at station S3 in September (at S1, in September). Evenness ranged from 0.09 at site S3 in September, to 0.22 at S1, in September. All stations and species were close to 1 value. Canonical correspondence analysis indicated that three environmental variables (TN,TP, PO4-3) significantly affected the distribution of epilithic diatom. The studied part of stream was characterized by the species susceptible to nutrients such as Didymosphenia geminata, Cymbella excisiformis and Hannaea arcus which are found in the regions located in high lands having advanced ecological status. The results of the present study highlighted the importance of diatoms as a bio-indicator for health condition of a stream.

Keywords

• Epilithic diatoms
• Streams
• Bioindicators
• Diversity

References

1. Adrian, S. (2011). Study of the epilithic diyatome communities from the Cerna River. Ph.D. Thesis, Cluj-Napoca.
2. APHA (American Public Health Association) (2012). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water. 22. Ed., American Public Health Association, Water Environment Federation.
3. Bahls, L. (1993). Periphyton bioassessment methods for Montana streams. Water Quality Bureau, Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Helena, Montana.
4. Bere, T., & Tundisi, J. G. (2011). Influence of land-use patterns on benthic diatom communities and water quality in the tropical Monjolinho hydrological basin, Sao Carlos-SP, Brazil. Water SA, 37, 93-102. https://doi.org/ 10.4314/wsa.v37i1.64112
5. Benhassane, L., Oubraim, S., & Mounjid, J., Fadlaoui, S., & Loudiki, M. (2020). Monitoring impacts of human activities on Bouskoura stream (Periurban of Casablanca, Morocco): 3. Bio-ecology of epilithic diatoms (first results). Nature Environment and Pollution Technology, 19, (5), 1913-1930.
6. Biggs, B. J., & Smith, A. R. (2002). Taxonomic richness of stream benthic algae: Effects of flood disturbance and nutrients. Limnology and Oceanography, 47 (4), 1175-1186.
7. Butcher, R. W. (1946). The algal growth in certain highly calcareous streams. Journal of Ecology, 33, 268-283.
8. Chena, X., Zhoua, W., Pickett, S., Li, W., Hana, L., & Ren, Y. (2016). Diatoms are better indicators of urban stream conditions: A case study in Beijing, China. Ecological Indicators, 60, 265-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.039

9. Christie, C. E., & Smol, J. P. (1993). Diatomas assemblages as indicators of lake trophic status in Southeastern Ontario lakes. Journal of Phycology, 29 (5), 575-586.
10. Çelekli, A., Toudjani, A. A., Lekesiz, H. Ö., & Çetin, T. (2018). Ecological quality assessment of running waters in the North Aegean catchment with diatom metrics and multivariate approach. Limnologica, 73, 20-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2018.09.001
11. Çelekli, A., Toudjani, A. A., Gümüş, E. Y., Kayhan, S., Lekesiz, H. Ö., & Çetin, T. (2019). Determination of trophic weight and indicator values of diatoms in Turkish running waters for water quality assessment. Turkish Journal of Botany, 43, 90-101. https://doi.org/10.3906/bot-1704-40
12. Dere, Ş., Dalkıran, N., Karacaoğlu, D., Elmacı, A., Dülger, B., & Şentürk, E. (2006). Relationships among epipelic diatom taxa, bacterial abundances and water quality in a highly polluted stream catchment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 112, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-006-0213-7
13. Directive. (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. Official Journal of the European Communities, 327, 1-72.
14. ECS (European Committee for Standardization). (2017). Water quality guidance for the Routine Sampling and Preparation of Benthic Diatoms From Rivers and Lakes. European Standard EN 13946, Brussels, pp. 17.
15. Camburn, K. E. & Charles, D. F. (2000). Diatoms of Low-Alkalinity Lakes in the Northeastern United States Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Special Publication.
16. Gómez, N. (1998). Use of epipelic diatoms for evaluation of water quality in the Matanza-Riachuelo (Argentina), a pampean plain river. Water Research, 32 (7), 2029-2034.
17. Gómez, N., & Licursi, M. (2001) The Pampean Diatome Index (PDI) for assessment of rivers and streams in Argentina. Aquatic Ecology, 35, 173-181 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011415209445
18. Hoagland, K. D., Roemer, S. C., & Rosowski, J. R. (1982). Colonization and community structure of two periphyton assemblages, with emphasis on the diatoms (Bacillariophyceae). American Journal of Botany, 69, 188–213. https://doi.org/10.2307/2443006
19. Kelly, M. G., Penny, C. J., & Whitton, B. A. (1995). Comparative performance of benthic diatom indices used to assess river water quality. Hidrobiologia, 302, 179-188.
20. Kelly, M. G. (1998). Use of the trophic diatom index to monitor eutrophication in rivers. Water Research, 32, 1, 236-242.
21. 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 und Hydrographie, 75, 317-338.
22. Klee, O. (1991). Angewandte Hydrobiologie. Trinkwasser, Abwasser, Gewässerschutz. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart.
23. Krammer, K., & Lange-Bertalot, H. (1991a). Bacillariophyceae. 3 Teil: Centrales. Fragilariaceae. Eunotiaceae. In: Ettl. H. J. Gerloff. H. Heynig, & D. Mollenhauer (Eds.). Süß-wasser- flora von Mitteleuropa. Band 2. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, p. 1-576.
24. Krammer, K. (2000). The Genus Pinnularia. Lange-Bertalot H. (Ed.), Diatoms of Europe—Diatoms of the European Inland Waters and Comparable Habitats. Gantner Verlag, Ruggel 1, 1-703.
25. Krammer, K. (2002). The Genus Cymbella. Lange-Bertalot H. (Ed.), Diatoms of Europe—Diatoms of the European Inland Waters and Comparable Habitats. Gantner Verlag, Ruggel, 3, 1-584.
26. Lange-Bertalot, H. (1978). Diatomeen-Differentialarten anstelle von Leitformen: ein geeigneteres Kriterium der Gewässerbelastung. Archiv für Hydrobiologie – Supplements, 51, 393–427.
27. Lange-Bertalot, H. (2001). Navicula sensu stricto 10 genera separated from Navicula sensu lato Frustulia, Lange-Bertalot, H. (Ed.), diatoms of Europe—diatoms of the European inland waters and comparable habitats. Gantner Verlag, Ruggel 2, 1-526.
28. Lange-Bertalot H, Hofmann, G., Werum, M., Cantonati, M., Kelly, M. G. (2017) Freshwater benthic diatoms of Central Europe: Over 800 common species used in ecological assessment, Vol. 942,. M. G. Kelly (Ed.). Schmitten-Oberreifenberg: Koeltz Botanical Books.
29. Leland H. V., & Porter, S. D. (2000). Distribution of benthic algae in the upper Illinois River basin in relation to geology and land use. Freshwater Biology 44, 279-301. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2000.00536.x
30. Mahmoud, K., Sayed S. S. M., & Habib, M. R. (2018). Ecological assessment of the River Nile around Gizert El-Warrak by Phytoplankton and macroinvertebrates assemblages. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Biology & Fisheries, 22, 13-24.
31. Mirzahasanlou, J. P., Ramezanpour, Z., Nejadsattari, T., Namin, J., & Asri, Y. (2020). Temporal and spatial distribution of diatom assemblages and their relationship with environmental factors in Balikhli River (NW Iran) Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology, 20, 102-111 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2020.05.002
32. Omar, W. M. (2010). Perspectives on the use of algae as biological indicators for monitoring and protecting aquatic environments, with special reference to Malaysian freshwater ecosystems. Tropical Life Sciences Research, 21 (2), 51-67.
33. Palmer, C. M. (1969). A composite rating of algae tolerating organic pollution. Journal of Phycology, 5, 78-82.
34. Patrick, R. (1973). Use of Algae, Especially Diatoms, in the Assessment of Water Quality. In: Cairns, J. Jr. & K. L. Dickson (Eds), Biological Methods for the Assessment of Water Quality. Special Technical Publication 528. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 76–95.
35. Pielou, E. C. (1966). The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 13, 131-144.
36. Rimet, F., Cauchie, H. M., Hoffmann, L., & Ector, L. (2005). Response of diatom indices to simulated water quality improvements in a river. Journal of Applay Phycology, 17, 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-005-4801-7
37. Round, F.E. (1984). The Ecology of Algae. U.S.A.: Cambridge University Press. p. 653.
38. Schönfelder, I., Gelbrecht, J., Schönfelder, J., & Christian, S. (2002) Relationships between littoral diatoms and their chemical environment in Northeastern German Lakes and Rivers. Phycology, 38, 66-82. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2002.01056.x
39. Shannon , C., Weaver W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University Press. p. 177.
40. Sienkiewicz, E. (2013). Limnological record inferred from diatoms in sediments of Lake Skaliska (north-eastern Poland). Acta Palaeobotanica, 53 (1), 99-104. https://doi.org/10.2478/acpa2013-0007
41. Soininen, J. (2002). Responses of epilithic diatom communities to environmental gradients in some Finnish Rivers. International Review of Hydrobiology, 87, 11-24.
42. Štefková, E. (2006). Epilithic diatoms of mountain lakes of the Tatra Mountains (Slovakia) Biologia. Bratislava, 61, Suppl. 18, 101-108. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-006-0123-8
43. Stenina, A. S., & Sterljagova, I. N. (2019). Diversity of diatoms in phytobenthos communities of the Shchugor River in the Urals (The Komi Republic, Russia). Botanica, 25 (2), 167-175. https://doi.org/10.2478/botlit-2019-0018
44. Stevenson, R. J., Pan, Y., & Van Dam, H. (2010). Assessing environmental conditions in rivers and streams with diatoms. In: Smol, J. P., Stoermer, E. F. (Eds.), The Diatoms: Applications for the Environmental and Earth Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57-85.
45. 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. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10009-009-0012-x
46. Ter Braak, C. J. F., & Smilauer, P. (2002). CANCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw for Windows User’s Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY, USA.
47. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0269249X.2006.9705657
48. Van Dam, H., Mertens, A., & Sinkeldam, J. (1994). A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology, 26, 117-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02334251
49. Virtanen, L., & Soininen, J. (2012). The roles of environmental and space in shaping stream diatom communities. European Journal of Phycology, 47, 160-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670262.2012.682610
50. Whitton, B. A., Ellwood, N. T. W., & Kawecka, B. (2009). Biology of the freshwater diatom Didymosphenia: a review. Hydrobiologia, 630, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-009-9753-5