Figure 1
Location of the lakes in the Wielkopolska National Park and its buffer zone Explanations: 1 – Tomickie, 2 – Trzcielińskie, 3 – Wielkowiejskie, 4 – Dębno, 5 – Bochenek, 6 – Lipno, 7 – Witobelskie, 8 – Łódzko-Dymaczewskie, 9 – Skrzynka, 10 – Góreckie, 11 – Kociołek, 12 – Budzyńskie, 13 – Konarzewskie, 14 – Chmęcicko-Rosnowskie, 15 – Małe, 16 – Jarosławieckie lakes
Table 1
Morphometric parameters of the studied lakes
| Lake | Area (ha) | Volume (thou. m3) | Coastline length (m) | Maximum depth (m) | Mean depth (m) | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Górecko-Budzyňska trough | ||||||
| Góreckie1 | 99.8 | 8872.8 | 8190 | 16.8 | 8.8 | WPN |
| Skrzynka1 | 1.7 | 33.5 | 575 | 3.3 | 2 | WPN |
| Kociołek1 | 4.2 | 156.8 | 784 | 7.4 | 3.7 | WPN |
| Budzyńskie1 | 13.5 | 224.7 | 2896 | 3.5 | 1.7 | WPN |
| Witobelsko-Dymaczewska trough | ||||||
| Tomickie2 | 38.7 | 429.5 | 3340 | 1.7 | 1.1 | buffer zone |
| Wielkowiejskie1 | 15.4 | 260.3 | 8190 | 4.5 | 1.7 | WPN |
| Witobelskie1 | 97.5 | 3550.6 | 5178 | 5.3 | 3.6 | WPN |
| Łódzko-Dymaczewskie1 | 127 | 7473 | 9263 | 12.7 | 5.9 | WPN |
| Rosnowsko-Jarosławiecka trough | ||||||
| Konarzewskie3 | 2.5 | 88.5 | 988 | 6.8 | 3.5 | buffer zone |
| Chomęcicko-Rosnowskie1 | 41.2 | 1902.8 | 7193 | 11.2 | 4.6 | WPN |
| Małe3 | 6.6 | 116 | 1685 | 4.7 | 1.8 | WPN |
| Jarosławieckie1 | 12.7 | 464.4 | 2327 | 6.2 | 3.6 | WPN |
| trough of lakes Dębno-Lipno | ||||||
| Dębno3 | 19 | 1470 | 2630 | 12.7 | 7.7 | buffer zone |
| Bochenek3 | 3 | 139 | 825 | 7.6 | 4.6 | buffer zone |
| Lipno3 | 7.8 | 321 | 1450 | 10.1 | 4.1 | buffer zone |
Figure 2
Distribution of the analyzed lakes in the Wielkopolska National Park and its buffer zone in the system of the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) based on surface water parameters
Figure 3
Correlations between the first two principal components PCA1 and PCA2 of physicochemical parameters of the studied lakes. Explanations: 1 – pH, 2 – oxygen conc., 3 – temp., 4 – hardness, 5 – conductivity, 6 – alkalinity, 7 – soluble reactive phosphorus, 8 – total phosphorus, 9 – nitrite, 10 – nitrate, 11 – ammonium, 12 – Kjeldahl nitrogen, 13 – total nitrogen, 14 – sulfates, 15 – chlorides, 16 – calcium, 17 – magnesium, 18 – COD
Table 2
Results of two-way ANOVA testing the differences in water physicochemical parameters measured in 2012 among the studied lakes and sampling layers (surface and bottom)
| Parameters | Type of transformation | Lake | Sampling layer | Lake*Sampling layer | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| dF = 14 | dF = 1 | dF = 14 | |||||
| Phosphates (mg PO43−–P dm−3) | square root | 5.67 | *** | 16.73 | *** | 2.91 | * |
| Total phosphorus (mg PO43−–P dm−3) | 3.75 | ** | 16.23 | *** | 1.86 | ns | |
| Nitrites (mg NO2−–N dm−3) | 0.29 | ns | 0.58 | ns | 0.22 | ns | |
| Nitrates (mg NO3−–N dm−3) | 1.27 | ns | 0.13 | ns | 1.14 | ns | |
| Ammonium (mg NH4+–N dm−3) | 2.90 | * | 33.23 | *** | 2.67 | * | |
| Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg N dm−3) | 1.33 | ns | 0.55 | ns | 0.70 | ns | |
| Total nitrogen (mg N dm−3) | 1.28 | ns | 4.42 | * | 1.14 | ns | |
| Sulfates (mg SO42− dm−3) | - | 4.35 | * | 0.54 | ns | 0.56 | ns |
| Magnesium (mg Mg2+ dm−3) | ln | 3.80 | ** | 0.26 | ns | 0.58 | ns |
| COD (mg O2 dm−3) | - | 9.38 | *** | 41.07 | *** | 6.28 | *** |
| Chlorides (mg Cl− dm−3) | 25.89 | *** | 16.18 | *** | 3.35 | ** | |
| Calcium (mg Ca2+ dm−3) | 17.91 | *** | 0.00 | ns | 0.76 | ns | |
| Oxygen (mg O2 dm−3) | 0.93 | ns | 48.86 | *** | 0.90 | ns | |
Data are F ratios and significance levels given as
Figure 4
Variations of the soluble reactive phosphates in the studied lakes in 2012 Explanations: midpoint – mean; whiskers – standard error
Figure 5
Variations of the total phosphorus in the studied lakes in 2012 Explanations: midpoint – mean; whiskers – standard error
Figure 6
Variations of the ammonium in the studied lakes in 2012 Explanations: midpoint – mean; whiskers – standard error
Figure 7
Variations of the nitrate in the studied lakes in 2012 Explanations: midpoint – mean; whiskers – standard error
Table 3
Ecological status of the lakes located in the Wielkopolska National Park and its buffer zone
| Lake | Chlorophyll a (µg dm−3) | ESMI | SE | Ecological status based on | Ecological status of the lake | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| biological parameter | hydro-morphological parameters | physico-chemical parameters1 | |||||
| Góreckie | 9.62 | 0.298 | III | moderate | I | <II | moderate |
| Kociołek | 5.2 | 0.573 | II | good | I | =II | good |
| Skrzynka | 8.81 | 0.347 | III | moderate | I | <II | moderate |
| Budzyńskie | 2.06 | 0.845 | I | very good | I | <II | good |
| Konarzewskie | 13.26 | 0.242** | V | bad | <I | <II | bad |
| Chomęcicko-Rosnowskie | 15.00 | 0.462 | III | moderate | <I | <II | moderate |
| Małe | 3.85 | 0.503**** | III | moderate | <I | <II | moderate |
| Jarosławieckie | 2.41 | 0.554 | II | good | <I | <II | moderate |
| Tomickie | 21.23 | 0.092 | IV | poor | <I | <II | poor |
| Wielkowiejskie | 8.37 | 0.489*** | I | very good | I | <II | good |
| Witobelskie | 28.07 | 0.268* | V | bad | <I | <II | bad |
| Łódzko-Dymaczewskie | 35.70 | 0.464* | V | bad | I | <II | bad |
| Dębno | 5.37 | 0.731** | II | good | <I | <II | moderate |
| Bochenek | 25.43 | 0.284 | III | moderate | I | <II | poor |
| Lipno | 26.90 | 0.52* | V | bad | <I | <II | bad |
Explanations: SE – ecological status: I – very good, II – good, III – moderate, IV – poor, V – bad;
Figure 8
Changes in water quality presented as Carlson TSI index in four periods