1
International Conference on Water, Environment and Sustainable Development, September, 2016
University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran
Use of Biological Diatom Index (BDI) for the assessment of water quality in the Balikhli River (Ardabil, Iran)
Jamileh Panahy Mirzahasanlou1, Taher Nejadsattari2, Zohreh Ramezanpour3, Javid Imanpour Namin4, Younes Asri5.
1Assistant Prof., Department of Biology, Faculty of Basic Science, Gonbad Kavous University, Gonbad Kavous, Golestan, Iran.
2 Associate Prof., Department of Biology, College of Science, Tehran Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran.
3 Assistant Prof., International Sturgeon Research Institute, Rasht, Iran.
4 Associate Prof., Department of Fishery, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Guilan, Some Sara, Guilan, Iran.
5 Associate Prof., Botany Division, Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Tehran, Iran.
Corresponding Authorʼ E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Diatoms are one of the most commonly used organisms in water quality assessment studies and several diatom based indices have been developed to assess water pollution and trophic status of aquatic ecosystems. Biological Diatom Index (BDI) provides valuable data about the trophic status of the aquatic environment. In this study epilithic diatoms were collected from 6 stations from October 2013 through September 2014 along the Balikhli River. Total of 77 species were identified form which 47 species were used to calculate BDI to assess the trophic status and water quality of Balikhli River. According to results obtained in this study the sampling station 2 showed low water quality and classified in Meso- Eutrophic state, while all other stations maintained Moderate water quality with Mesotrophic state.
Keywords: Algae, Water quality, Biological Diatom Index, Balikhli River.
2 1. Introduction
Until recently the water quality assessment was carried out on the basis of physicochemical analyzes, which determined the water quality only at the time of measurement. Such assessment was incomplete, because water quality may change over a short period of time, for example at the moment of uncontrolled sewage inflow.
Therefore, the biological assessment is considered to be most important in the assessment of the ecological status of waters and is used together with physicochemical analyzes. The biological assessment of water ecosystems is the most objective way of gaining the knowledge of the conditions that occur in a given ecosystem. The assessment is carried out using aquatic organisms, which supply the precise information on the conditions occurring in the environment, since they are under continuous impact of physicochemical drivers resulting from the type and the degree of pollution [1].
The ecological assessment of surface waters is based on the analysis of four groups of aquatic organisms: diatoms, aquatic invertebrates, fish and macrophytes. Diatoms are good indicators of water quality in lotic systems with worldwide application. As primary producers, diatoms are key organisms in the river ecosystem and have long been used as biological indicators [2,3,4, 5,6]. A variety of diatom indices are used in the assessment of water quality: France[7,8], Great Britain [9,10,11], Finland [12], Poland [13,14], Africa [15,16,17].
The Biological Diatom Index (BDI) is a standardized method routinely used in France for the surveillance of watercourse quality [18] and has been included in the biological part of the Quality Evaluation System of French watercourses (SEQ Bio) [19, 20]. Others have been examined the usefulness of this index for the estimation of water quality in other countries: Poland [21], Turkey [22]. This index is based on a list of 209 key species showing different pollution sensitivities. The pollution sensitivity, or „„ecological profile‟‟, is determined through the species presence probability values along a seven quality classes gradient. In a sample, the presence and abundance of species from this list are used to calculate the BDI score [18].
The aim of this study was to assess the quality of Blikhli River as the main source of drinking water in Ardabil City, using the Biological Diatom Index (BDI).
2. Material and Methods
Balikhli River is a permanent river in Ardabil Province northwest of Iran. It originates from Bozgoosh and Sabalan elevations in northwest Iran.The water catchment area of the Balikhli Chay is over 1600 km2. The River has a transitional character between upland and lowland. Most of the river lies in the mountainous region.
In 25 km far from southwest of Ardabil city, Yamchi Dam was constructes on the river and the Yamchi Reservoir supplies water for drinking and irrigation purposes. Several important tributaries including Borjlou Chay, Saghghezchi Chay, Aghlaghan Chay, Jurab Chay … in their way downhill join the Balikhcli Chay and increase its water volume. It also receives huge amount of various waste material with domestic, industrial and agricultural origins.
The present study was carried out in the Balikhli River, 6 stations were selected, 3 in the upstream and 3 in the downstream of the dam (Table 1).
3
Table 1. Description of the sampling stations on Balikhli River, Ardabil.
No. of
Station Location Substrate Vegetation
1
Ilanjigh region: Entry of the Balikhli Chay to the Ardabil province near a
small village of Ilanjigh.
small cobbles, clay and silt
Batrachium trichophyllum (Chaix) Bosch., Epilobium hirsutum L., Lemna minor L., Lythrum salicaria L., Nasturtium officinale (L.) R. Br., Typha sp., Veronica
anagalis aquatic L.
2
Borjlou bridge: downstream of waste water infow of Borjlou village and hot
mineral water springs.
large cobbles
and sand Scirpus sp., little vegetation on banksides.
3
Sagharlou bridge: downstream of the confluence of Aghlaghan Chay and
Balikhli Chay.
clay and silt
Batrachium trichophyllum (Chaix) Bosch., Lemna minor L., Lythrum salicaria L., Myriophyllum sp.,
Typha sp.
4 Downstream of the Yamchi Dam, with periodic fluctuations in water volume.
large cobble,
gravel Myriophyllum sp.
5 Almas bridge. gravel and clay. Batrachium trichophyllum (Chaix) Bosch., Scirpus sp., Myriophyllum sp., Potamogeton crispus L.
6 Entry of Ardabil city. large cobble,
gravel
Scirpus sp., Myriophyllum sp., Sparganium erectum L.
The epilithic (EPL) diatom samples were collected monthly from October 2013 through September 2014. Due to the bad weather conditions, sampling was not performed in winter months. Diatoms were collected from stone surfaces using a toothbrushand distilled water .Samples were preserved by adding 44 formalin [23]. They were cleaned using hot HNO3. The acid-cleaned samples were suspended in water and mounted on slides with Canada Balsam. Three slides were prepared for each site and examined under a light microscope at 1000× magnification using immersion oil and 400 valves were counted [8]. Taxonomic identification was performed according to Diatom flora [24,25,26,27, 28,29]. The BDI index was used for the biological assessment of water quality. Values of the BDI range from 0-20 and the higher values of the index represent better ecological status of the water (Table 2). The BDI is based on Zelinka and Marvan‟s equation and 209 diatom taxa [30]. BDI values of sampling stations were calculated automatically by using "Calculate BDI with Excel" program [22], the trophic status and water quality classes belonging to the BDI values are given in Table 2 [31].
Table 2. Values of the BDI
Index Value Water Quality Class Ecological Status Trophic Status
>17 I high quality oligotrophic
15-17 II fine quality oligo-Mesotrophic
12-15 III moderate quality mesotrophic
9-12 IV low quality meso-eutrophic
<9 V poor quality eutrophic
4 3. Results
In the present study, total of 77 epilithic diatom taxa were identified, from which 47 taxa were used to calculate BDI values. All the diatom taxa used in calculating BDI with their respective index codes of species are given in Table 3. On the basis of the identified material, values of the BDI were calculated each month for each of the sampling sites (Table 4). The highest value of the BDI (20) was observed in November at sampling station 5 (S5), while the lowest value (9996) was noted in July at sampling station 2 (S2). According to the mean values of the BDI, the S2 Sampling station showed the lowest value (11972) and was categorized in the Class IV, while all other sampling stations were in the Class III.
4. Discussion
According to the data obtained in the present study, S2 station of Balikhli River had “low water Quality” and was in the “ Meso- Eutrophic” state, while all other 5 Stations had “ Moderate water Quality” and were in the “ Mesotrophic state”. Station 2 was located downstream of the Borjlou village and received waste water inflow from the village and also hot mineral water springs. Szulc and Szulc [21] used BDI for the assessment of water quality in Pilica River in Poland and. They showed that the Pilica River was in moderate ecological state which corresponded with physico- chemical analysis of water. Tokatli and Dayioglu [22] used BDI to evaluate water quality of Murat stream (Turkey) and the results showed that the upstream stations of the investigated ecosystem maintained fine water quality with oligo- mesotrophic state; while the downstream stations of the investigated ecosystem showed moderate water quality with mesotrophic state.
Table 3. Diatom species used to calculate IBD in Balikhli River with their index Codes.
NO. Index Codes Ditaom species
1 AOVA Amphora ovalis (Kutzing) Kutzing 2 APED Amphora pediculus (Kutzing) Grunow 3 BPAR Bacillaria paradoxa Gmelin
4 CAMP Caloneis amphisbaena (Bory de Saint Vincent) Cleve 5 CPED Cocconeis pediculus Ehrenberg
6 CPLA Cocconeis placentula Ehrenberg
7 CTPU Ctenophora pulchella (Ralfs ex Kutzing) D.M.Williams & Round 8 CMEN Cyclotella meneghiniana Kutzing
9 CCIS Cymbella cistula (Ehrenberg) O. Kirchner 10 CTUM Cymbella tumida (Brebisson) Van Heurck 11 DMES Diatoma mesodon (Ehrenberg) Kutzing 12 DMON Diatoma moniliformis Kutzing 13 DITE Diatoma tenuis Agardh
14 DVUL Diatoma vulgaris Bory de Saint Vincent
5
15 ELSE Encyonema silesiaca (Bleisch) D.G.Mann 16 ESOR Epithemia sorex Kutzing
17 FPYG Fallacia pygmaea (Kutzing) A.J.Stickle 18 FCAP Fragilaria capucina Desmazieres 19 GGRA Gomphonema gracile Ehrenberg
20 GOOC Gomphonema olivaceum (Hornemann) Brebisson 21 GPAR Gomphonema parvulum (Kutzing) Kutzing 22 GTRU Gomphonema truncatum Ehrenberg 23 MVAR Melosira varians (Dillwyn) Agardh 24 NCPR Navicula capitatoradiata Germain 25 NERI Navicula erifuga Lange-Bertalot 26 NGRE Navicula gregaria Donkin 27 NMEN Navicula menisculus Schumann
28 NRCS Navicula recens (Lange-Bertalot) Lange-Bertalot 29 NRCH Navicula reichardtiana Lange- Bertalot
30 NTPT Navicula tripunctata (O.F. Muller) Bory 31 NTRV Navicula trivialis Lange-Bertalot 32 NCPL Nitzschia capitellata Hustedt.
33 NDIS Nitzschia dissipata (Kützing) Rabenhorst 34 NFON Nitzschia fonticola (Grunow) Grunow 35 NINC Nitzschia inconspicua Grunow 36 NLBT Nitzschia liebetruthii Rebenhorst 37 NPAL Nitzschia palea (Kutzing) W. Smith 38 NSIO Nitzschia sigmoidea (Nitzsch) W. smith
39 PTLA Planothidium lanceolatum (Brebisson ex Kutzing) Bukhtiyarova 40 PSAT Psammothidium subatomoides (Hustedt) L.Bukhtiyarova & Round 41 RABB Rhoicosphenia abbreviata (C. Agardh) Lange-Bertalot
42 SNEO Stephanodiscus neoastraea Hakansson & Hickel 43 SANG Surirella angusta Kutzing
44 SBRE Surirella brebissonii Krammer and Lange-Bertalot 45 SOVI Surirella ovalis Brebisson
46 TAPI Tryblionella apiculata Gregory 47 UULN Ulnaria ulna (Nitzsch) P. Compere
Table 4. Values of the BDI at the selected sampling sites.
Date
Station S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
October 12915 10998 12998 1096 1696 11947
November 14918 15916 16955 12937 20 14935
6
December 18977 11943 1499 12972 12945 15939
May 13985 13978 14913 12979 11965 13965
June 12981 1196 12993 16939 1495 13988
July 13907 9996 14963 1395 11934 12926
August 14902 10924 13983 11965 13965 11943
September 11929 10965 13947 12945 10992 12962
Min. 11929 9996 12993 1096 10992 11943
Mean 13976 11972 14917 1298 13988 13913
Max. 18977 15916 16955 16945 20 15939
Trophic status Mesotrophic Meso-eutrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic Mesotrophic
Ecological status Moderate Low Moderat Moderate Moderate Moderate
5. Conclusions
Due to the fact that surface water pollution negatively affects aquatic organisms, interest in biological methods that could improve the monitoring of aquatic ecosystems has increased.
Biological methods for the assessment of water quality are based on the conviction that the life condition of organisms is inherently linked to the prevailing condition in a given ecosystem. Therefore, if we recognize the organisms present in an aquatic system, it will be possible to specify the conditions that prevail in the aquatic ecosystem. According to the BDI of the Balikhli River, all sampling stations except S2, achieved moderate ecological status, however further studies should be carried out using multimetric diatom indices to precisely classify the ecological status of the Balikhli River.
References
1. Szczepocka, E. Szulc, B. Szulc, K. Rakowska, B. Żelazna-Wieczorek, J. 2014. Diatom indices in the biological assessment of the water quality based on the example of a small lowland river. International Journal of Oceanography and Hydrobiology, 43(3): 265-273. 2. Archibald, R.E.M., 1972. Diversity in some South-African diatom associations and its relation to water quality. Water Res. 6, 1229–1238.
3. McCormick, P., Cairns Jr., J., 1994. Algae as indicators of environmental change. J. Appl.
Phycol. 6, 509–526.
7
4. Hill, B., Herlihy, A., Kauffman, P., DeCelles, S., Vander Borgh, M., 2003. Assessment of streams of the eastern United States using a periphyton index of biotic integrity. Ecol. Ind. 2, 325–338.
5. Potapova, M.G., Charles, D.F., 2002. Benthic diatoms in USA rivers: distributions along spatial and environmental gradients. J. Biogeogr. 29, 167–187.
6. Yallop, M.L., Kelly, M.G., 2006. From pattern to process: understanding stream phytobenthic assemblages and implications for determining „„ecological status‟‟. Nova Hedwigia 130, 357–372.
7. Prygiel, J. & Coste M. (1999). Progress in the use of diatoms for monitoring rivers in France. In J. Prygiel, B. A. Whitton & J.Bukowska (Eds.), Use of algae for monitoring rivers III (pp. 165-179) Agence de l'Eau Artois-Picardie.
8. Prygiel, J. 2002. Mangement of the diatom monitoring network in France. J. Appl. Phycol.
14: 19-26.
9. Kelly, M. G. & Whitton B. A. (1995). The trophic Diatom Index: a new index for monitoring eutrophication in rivers. J. Appl. Phycol. 7: 433-444.
10. Kelly, M. G. (2003). Short term dynamics of diatoms in an upland stream and implications for monitoring eutrophication. Environ. Pollut.. 125: 117-122.
11. Kelly, M. G., Juggins, S., Guthrie, R., Pritchard, S., Jamieson, J., Rippey, B., Hirst, H. &
Yallop M. (2008). Assessment of ecological status in U. K. rivers using diatoms. Freshwater Biology. 53: 403-422.
12. Eloranta, P. & Soininen J. (2002). Ecological status of some Finnish rivers evaluated using benthic diatoms communities. J. Appl. Phycol. 14: 1-7.
13. Szczepocka, E. & Szulc B. (2009). The use of benthic diatoms in estimating water quality of variously polluted rivers. Oceanol. Hydrobiol. Studies. 38(1): 17-26.
14. Rakowska, B. & Szczepocka E. (2011). Demonstration of the Bzura River restoration using diatom indices. Biologia 66(3): 411-417.
15. Harding, W. R., Archibald, C. G. M. & Taylor J. C. (2005). The relevance of diatoms for water quality assessment in South Africa: A position paper. Water S.A. 31: 41-46.
8
16. Rey, P. A., Taylor, J. C., Laas, A., Rensburg, L. & Vosloo A. (2004). Determing the possible application value of diatoms as indicators of general water quality: A comparison with SASS 5. Water S.A. 30: 325-332.
17. Taylor, J. C., Vuuren, M. S. & Pieterse A. J. H. (2007). The application and testing of diatom-based indices in the Vall and Wilge Rivers, South Africa. Water S.A. 33: 51-59.
18. Coste, M. Boutry, S. Tison-Rosebery, J. and Delmas, F. 2009. Improvements of the Biological Diatom Index (BDI): Description and efficiency of the new version (BDI-2006).
Ecological Indicators, 9: 621-650.
19. Agences de l‟Eau 2000. Le Système d‟Evaluation de la Qualité biologique des cours d‟eau.
SEQ Biologie. Principes généraux de l‟outil d‟évaluation (version “0”). Rapport de présentation, Les études des Agences de l‟eau 77., 27 pp.
20. Solacroup F. 2001. Le système d‟évaluation de la qualité biologique (SEQ-Bio) des cours d‟eau. Revue de l‟Agence de l‟Eau Adour-Garonne 81: 16–18.
21. Szulc, B. and Szulc, K. 2013. The use of the Biological Diatom Index (BDI) for the assessment of water quality in the Pilica River, Poland. International Journal of Oceanography and Hydrobiology, 42(2):188–194.
22. Tokatli, C. and Dayioglu, H. 2014. Use of Biological Diatom Index to Evaluate the Water Quality of Lotic Ecosystems: A Case Study of Murat Stream (Kütahya, Turkey). 2014 4th International Conference on Environment Science and Engineering. IPCBEE vol.694.
23. Bellinger, E.G. and Sigee, D.C. 2010. Freshwater Algae, Identification and Use as Bioindicators. Wiley-Blackwell.
24. Krammer, K. and Lange-Bertalot, H. 1986. Bacillariophyceae, 1. Naviculaceae. In: Etti, H.
Gerloff, J. Heyning, H. Mollenhauer, D. (eds), Susswasserflora von Mitteleuropa, Gustav Fischer Verlag. Jena. Vol. 1, 876 pp.
25. Krammer, K. and Lange-Bertalot, H. 1988. Bacillariophyceae, 2. Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae. In: Etti, H. Gerloff, J. Heyning, H. Mollenhauer, D. (eds), Susswasserflora von Mitteleuropa, Gustav Fischer Verlag. Stuttgart. Vol. 2. 596 pp.
26. Krammer, K. and Lange-Bertalot, H. 1991 a. Bacillariophyceae, 3. Centrales, Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae. In: Etti, H. Gerloff, J. Heyning, H. Mollenhauer, D. (eds), Susswasserflora von Mitteleuropa, Gustav Fischer Verlag. Stuttgart. Vol. 3, 576 pp.
9
27. Krammer, K. and Lange-Bertalot, H. 1991 b. Bacillariophyceae, 4. Achnanthaceae.
Kritische Erganzungen zu Navicula (Lineolatae) und Gomphonema. In: Etti, H. Gerloff, J.
Heyning, H. Mollenhauer, D. (eds), Susswasserflora von Mitteleuropa, Gustav Fischer Verlag.
Stuttgart. Vol. 4, 437 pp.
28. Patrick, R.R. and Reimer C.W., 1975. The Diatoms of the United States. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Vol. 1.
29. Spaulding, S.A., Lubinski, D.J. and Potapova, M. 2010. Diatoms of the United States. http://westerndiatoms.colorado.edu Accessed on 04 July, 2016.
30. Zelinka, M. and Marvan, P. 1961. Zur Präzisierung der biologischen klassifikation der Reinheit flieβender Gewässer.-Arch. Hydrobiol., 57:389-407.
31. Lenoir, A. and 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, Innsbruck:
29-43.
32. Starmach, K. Wrobel, S. Pasternak, K. 1976. Hydrobiologia, Limnologia. Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa. Pp. 621.
