Polsko-Norweski Fundusz Badań Naukowych / Polish-Norwegian Research Fund DIATOM PHYTOBENTHOS IN RIVERS OF WEL BASIN – PRELIMINARY RESULTS Joanna Picińska-Fałtynowicz

Polsko-Norweski Fundusz Badań Naukowych / Polish-Norwegian Research Fund

DIATOM PHYTOBENTHOS IN RIVERS OF WEL BASIN

– PRELIMINARY RESULTS

Joanna Picińska-Fałtynowicz

INSTITUTE OF METEOROLOGY AND WATER MANAGEMENTWROCŁAW BRANCH, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY


Diatom phytobenthos river typesI – Mountain streams1. Siliceous stream of Tatry Mts.2. Calcareous stream of Tatry Mts.3. Stream of Sudety Mts.

III – Mid-altitude siliceous streams4. Mid-altitude siliceous stream with coarse substratum5. Mid-altitude siliceous stream with fine substratum

IV – Mid-altitude calcareous rivers9. Small mid-altitude calcareous river14. Small flysch river15. Medium mid-altitude eastern river

II – Mid-altitude calcareous streams6. Mid-altitude calcareous stream with fine substratum 7. Mid-altitude calcareous stream with coarse substratum12. Flysch stream

V – Mid-altitude siliceous rivers 8. Small mid-altitude siliceous river10. Medium mid-altitude siliceous river

VI – Lowland streams and small rivers16. Lowland clayey or loess stream 17. Lowland sandy stream18. Lowland gravely stream23. Organic stream26. River in a valley of large lowland river

VII – Lowland rivers19. Lowland sandy-clayey river20. Lowland gravely river24. River in a peat valley25. River connecting lakes


MICROSCOPIC EVALUATION - in light microscope with 1000 magnification using immersion objective 100x

TAXONOMIC IDENTIFICATION – at least to a species level using standard literature (Krammer & lange-Bertalot 1986-1997) and other recent monographs

COUNTING – 300-500 diatom valves should be counted in a permanent slifrom a sample

RELATIVE ABUNDANCE of i-taxon in a sample:

PRETREATMENT AND MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS

Li = Number of valves of taxoni / Number of all valves counted [300-500]


The TI and SI indices are calculated using a weighted formula of Zelinka & Marvan (1961):

INDEX = S(LiAiWi)/S(LiWi)where:Li – relative abundance of i-taxon in a sample

(within 300-500 valves counted ),Ai – value of sensitivity (optimum) of i-taxon,Wi – value of weight (tolerance) of i-taxon


The Trophic Index [TI]: Trophic values of indicator taxa: 0.3 – 3.9; Weight values of taxa: 1 – 5 The trophic status of a river according to TI:

TI Trophic status

< 1,0 Ultraoligotrophy

1,1-1,3 Oligotrophy

1,4-1,5 Oligo- mesotrophy

1,6-1,8 Mesotrophy

1,9-2,2 Meso- eutrophy

2,3-2,6 Eutrophy

2,7-3,1 Eu- politrophy

3,2-3,4 Politrophy

> 3,4 Poli- hypertrophy


The Saprobic Index SI: Saprobic values of indicator taxa: 1.0 – 3.8

Weight values: 1 – 5

The saprobic status of a river according to SI:

Community consists of taxa: SI Saprobic level

Sensitive to organic pollution < 1,3 Oligosaprobic

Weakly tolerant to organic pollution 1,4-1,7 Oligo- -mesosaprobic

Moderately tolerant to organic pollution

1,8-2,1 -mesosaprobic

Resistant to organic pollution

Saprophiles

2,2-2,5 -meso- -mesosaprobic

Resistant to organic pollution

Saprobionts

2,6-3,0 -mesosaprobic

3,1-3,4 -meso- polisaprobic

> 3,5 polisaprobic


For overall assessment, a module reflecting deviation of species composition in comparison with reference community has been added.

The module of reference species [GR]:

GR = tRi

where:tRi – relative abundance of i-reference taxonThe GR values vary between 1 (all species in a sample are of reference character) and 0 (none species is a reference one)

Groups of reference species:– for siliceous waters,– for calcareous waters,– for both siliceous and calcareous waters,– type-specific taxa for river groups I–VII


The diatom multimetric index IO is an arithmetic average of three modules: TI, SI and GR.As the TI and SI indices have different ranges, they were transformed according to Schaumburg et al. 2005 as follows: ZTI = 1–(TI*0.25) ZSI = 1–[(SI-1)*0.33]The values of ZTI and ZSI vary between 1 (the best quality) and 0 (the worst quality) and IO = (ZTI + ZSI + GR)/3The IO values change from 1 (the best status) to 0 (the worst status).


CLASS BOUNDARIES

Ecological status

1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,

12, 14, 15

16, 17, 18, 23, 26

19, 20, 24, 25

High > 0.75 > 0.70 > 0.70 > 0.65

Good 0.55 0.50 0.50 0.50

Moderate 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.30

Poor 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

Bad < 0.15 < 0.15 < 0.15 < 0.15

for Polish river types


MATERIAL

Two sampling campaignes:

27-29 April 2009 and 22-24 September 2009

Community sampled: epilithon

A total of 38 samples collected


Physical and chemical variables of rivers water in 27-29. 04. 2009

SiteCode

Conduct25oC

pH TOC DOC Ptot SRP N-NO3 NO2+NO3 N-NO2 SiO2 HardnChlorid

es

S/cm pH mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l PO4 mg/l N mg/l N mg/l N mg/l mgCaCO3/l mg/l

WEL_01 465 8,17 3,98 3,36 0,138 0,225 2,03 2,05 0,016 10,9 236 10

WEL_02 448 7,97 6,71 5,30 0,174 0,202 1,15 1,19 0,037 11,0 238 7,9

WEL_04 363 8,02 5,54 5,44 0,113 0,128 0,15 0,16 0,012 5,75 183 9,9

WEL_05 361 7,98 4,89 4,12 0,184 0,105 0,29 0,31 0,017 6,30 177 7,4

WEL_06 371 8,08 5,20 4,38 0,116 0,059 0,04 0,04 0,003 10,8 200 9,3

WEL_07 363 7,75 6,94 6,66 0,190 0,076 0,06 0,08 0,020 8,30 180 8,8

WEL_08 476 7,85 9,97 8,23 0,195 0,174 2,23 2,28 0,054 6,35 249 13WEL_09 386 7,80 6,54 5,86 0,205 0,117 5,19 5,23 0,040 7,62 185 11

WEL_10 386 8,21 6,25 5,94 0,106 0,099 0,36 0,38 0,020 7,45 190 9,8

WEL_11 401 7,72 6,58 6,28 0,142 0,160 0,48 0,51 0,032 7,90 201 12

WEL_12 459 8,09 3,25 3,22 0,084 0,038 0,77 0,78 0,007 16,0 244 6,6

WEL_13 436 8,07 2,71 2,35 0,172 0,190 0,99 1,00 0,012 15,4 249 6,8

WEL_14 410 8,26 4,56 4,52 0,162 0,183 0,33 0,35 0,019 11,1 216 9,1

WEL_15 403 8,02 1,57 0,80 0,174 0,169 0,73 0,77 0,037 8,15 224 11WEL_16 469 8,13 6,74 1,16 0,156 0,131 1,68 1,70 0,018 7,75 247 13WEL_17 451 8,35 1,46 0,79 0,168 0,207 1,99 2,01 0,017 9,67 235 10WEL_18 529 8,32 7,93 4,41 0,114 0,104 1,49 1,52 0,027 9,57 263 12WEL_19 505 8,47 6,53 4,73 0,096 0,140 3,59 3,61 0,025 8,22 248 13WEL_20 412 8,29 5,50 4,16 0,136 0,122 0,66 0,68 0,018 5,47 222 10


Physical and chemical variables of rivers water in 22-24. 09. 2009

SiteCode

Conduct 25oC

pH TOC DOC Ptot SRP N-NO3 NO2+NO3 N-NO2 SiO2 Hardn Ca Chlorids

mS/cm pH mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l PO4 mg/l N mg/l N mg/l N mg/l mgCaCO3/l mg/l mg/l

WEL_01 473 7,99 4,81 2,41 0,116 0,258 2,10 2,11 0,012 13,5 254 92 9,6

WEL_02 458 7,95 4,07 3,03 0,109 0,179 1,39 1,41 0,019 13,6 238 86 8,7

WEL_04 388 8,15 5,84 5,83 0,101 0,193 0,45 0,46 0,015 9,90 193 64 10

WEL_05 418 8,00 3,61 3,26 0,122 0,219 0,87 0,90 0,034 12,4 212 72 7,8

WEL_06 340 8,08 7,34 5,20 0,161 0,220 0,02 0,02 0,005 11,1 164 58 9,5

WEL_07 309 7,83 9,03 5,95 0,125 0,040 0,01 0,02 0,007 9,10 147 50 9,5

WEL_08 447 8,04 9,53 6,46 0,156 0,256 1,89 1,91 0,022 7,24 219 77 15WEL_09 342 7,79 8,36 6,15 0,120 0,122 0,63 0,66 0,032 8,72 165 54 11WEL_10 337 8,04 7,65 6,41 0,091 0,037 0,04 0,05 0,007 8,10 160 56 10WEL_11 335 7,95 8,96 5,85 0,122 0,193 0,46 0,49 0,032 8,86 166 56 10

WEL_12 459 7,99 2,91 2,54 0,112 0,202 1,07 1,08 0,010 16,9 245 85 6,0

WEL_13 339 8,13 4,43 2,78 0,123 0,256 0,25 0,25 0,004 6,32 169 56 5,4

WEL_14 396 8,05 6,14 4,17 0,132 0,219 0,35 0,36 0,009 10,9 193 65 8,9

WEL_15 366 7,96 7,04 5,81 0,109 0,190 0,44 0,45 0,008 9,66 173 59 11WEL_16 538 8,12 5,21 3,30 0,153 0,330 3,74 3,78 0,036 12,9 262 93 16

WEL_17 448 8,13 3,61 2,94 0,140 0,230 1,82 1,85 0,034 14,8 226 80 8,4

WEL_18 545 8,43 3,16 2,03 0,130 0,258 4,73 4,77 0,038 14,7 279 95 13WEL_19 523 8,17 4,42 2,69 0,162 0,242 3,75 3,78 0,032 13,8 262 87 13

WEL_20 385 8,08 6,29 4,23 0,118 0,219 0,66 0,67 0,010 8,80 198 61 9,9


Amphorapediculus

Achnanthidiumminutissimum

Naviculacryptotenella

Pseudo-staurosirabrevistriata

Staurosiraconstruens

PRELIMIARY RESULTSApril 2009

Dominant and sub-dominant diatom species

Naviculatripunctata

Meridioncirculare

Diatomavulgaris

Cymellacompacta

Naviculalanceolata

Naviculareichardtiana

Staurosirapinnata

Gomphonemaolivaceum

Nitzschiadissipata

Nitzschiafonticola

GomphonemamicropusGomphonema

parvulum



RIVER CODE SITERIVER TYPE TI SI GR IO Status

WEL WEL 01 FIUGAJKI 18 2,11 1,87 0,60 0,60 Good

MAŁA WKRA WEL 02Above Dąbrowa Mała Lake 18 2,53 1,58 0,82 0,66 Good

RUMIENICA WEL 05Above Rumian Lake 18 1,85 1,94 0,73 0,65 Good

PŁOŚNICZANKA WEL 08 Inflow to Wel 17 2,56 2,00 0,68 0,57 GoodTributary fom MROCZNO WEL 12 Inflow to Wel 17 1,86 1,74 0,94 0,74 High

OUTFLOW from KIEŁPIŃSKIE LAKE WEL 13 Inflow to Wel 17 2,27 1,98 0,44 0,52 Good

KATLEWKA WEL 16 Inflow to Wel 17 2,51 1,94 0,59 0,55 Good

STRUGA WEL 17 Świniarc 18 2,84 1,78 0,55 0,53 Good

PRĄTNICA WEL 18 Tuszewo 18 2,88 1,94 0,41 0,46 Moderate

PRĄTNICA WEL 19 Linowiec 18 2,91 2,06 0,55 0,49 Moderate



River CODE SITERIVER TYPE TI SI GR IO Status

WEL WEL 04 SZCZUPLINY 25 1,82 1,92 0,99 0,74 High

WEL WEL 06 PRUSY 25 2,04 1,72 0,87 0,71 High

WEL WEL 07 KOSZELEWKI 25 1,56 1,72 0,97 0,78 High

WEL WEL 09 LIDZBARK a 25 2,34 1,79 0,99 0,71 High

WEL WEL 10 LIDZBARK b 20 2,31 2,02 0,87 0,65 Good

WEL WEL 11 PIEKIEŁKO 20 2,23 2,01 0,92 0,68 High

WEL WEL 14 STARE KORYTO 20 2,71 1,90 0,52 0,51 Good

WEL WEL 15 BAŁWANKA 20 2,44 1,90 0,65 0,58 Good

WEL WEL 20 JAKUBKOWO 20 2,72 1,98 0,86 0,62 Good


Assesement bydiatomphytobenthos

HIGH

GOOD

MODERATE

POOR

BAD


Thank you for attention !!!

Documents

Polsko-Norweski Fundusz Badań Naukowych / Polish-Norwegian Research Fund DIATOM PHYTOBENTHOS IN RIVERS OF WEL BASIN – PRELIMINARY RESULTS Joanna Picińska-Fałtynowicz