Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Macrophytes as a tool for assessing the trophic status of a river: a case study of the upper Oum Er Rbia Basin (Morocco) Cover

Macrophytes as a tool for assessing the trophic status of a river: a case study of the upper Oum Er Rbia Basin (Morocco)

Open Access
|Mar 2021

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Location of surveyed sites

Table 1

The IBMR ranges with the corresponding trophic status (AFNOR 2003)

IBMR> 1412 < X ≤ 1410 < X ≤ 128 < X ≤ 10≤ 8
trophic statusvery low low moderate high very high 
Table 2

List of macrophyte contributive species that were recorded in the upper Oum Erbia basin

Scientific NameFamilyAmg01Amg02Amg03Amg04Orb01Orb02Orb03Orb04Orb05Orb06Sru01Sru02
Vascular plants
Myriophyllum spicatumHaloragaceaexxxxx
Ranunculus aquatilisRanunculaceaexx
Groenlandia densaPotamogetonaceaexxxx
Potamogeton pectinatusxxxx
Nasturtium officinaleBrassicaceaexxxxxxxxx
Zannichellia palustrisZannichelliaceaexxxxxxxx
Persicaria amphibiaPolygonaceaex
Typha angustifoliaTyphaceaex
Typha longifoliax
Agrostis stoloniferaPoaceaex
Algae
Cladophora sp.Cladophoraceaexxxxxxxxxx
Spirogyra sp.Zygnemataceaexxxxxxx
Vaucheria sp.Vaucheriaceaexxxxxxxxxxx
Nostoc sp.Nostocaceaexx
Diatoma sp.Tabellariaceaexxxxxxxx
Ulva sp.Ulvaceaexxxxxxx
Bryophytes
Brachythecium rivulareBrachytheciaceaexxxxxxxx
Total number of species in each site6986681158665
Table 3

Descriptive statistics of the physicochemical parameters of the surveyed sites in the upper Oum Erbia basin

pHWT (°C)EC (μS cm−1)DO (mgO2 l−1)COD (Mn) (mgO2 l−1)NH3-N (μg l−1)NO2-N (μg l−1)NO3-N (mg l1)PO4-P (μg l−1)
Amg01Mean8.1212.50283.5010.533.6810574.025.98330
Range6.3–9.987.1–17.9259–3088.53–12.530.32–7.0460–15072.38–75.673.63–8.32130–530
SD0.757.6434.652.824.7563.642.333.31282.84
Amg02Mean7.9212.98380.509.655.0412.569.197.51430
Range7.41–8.728.0–16.8321–4217.16–13.560.00–11.520.00–3055.93–82.643.73–12.470.00–1460
SD0.603.6544.252.744.861513.563.80696.32
Amg03Mean7.9115.15404.758.235.5262.50126.769.97485
Range7.51–8.5910.3–19.6323–4596.30–10.540.00–10.880.00–23085.93–1716.24–14.64140–870
SD0.483.8058.641.754.49112.0635.233.47301.16
Amg04Mean7.8617.30772.757.956.0020117.127.23415
Range7.47–8.2410.3–23.0516–13486.09–10.140.32–10.560.00–8072.38–154.63.16–15.60160–850
SD0.335.24390.631.674.284041.115.74319.84
Orb01Mean7.7014.981781.508.873.600.0025.506.6450
Range7.45–8.1013.2–15.71587–19747.72–10.671.92–5.120.000.00–62.513.33–10.500.00–140
SD0.281.19162.491.311.600.0026.913.0666.33
Orb02Mean7.7815.231961.508.775.920.00110.865.88280
Range7.46–8.2212.8–16.41646–23088.0–10.320.96–9.600.0052.64–175.73.31–10.02170–510
SD0.321.65292.731,074,230.0053.502.99157.06
Orb03Mean7.8916.452188.258.526.4032.50124.096.33162.50
Range7.40–8.5813.4–19.21695–25976.71–10.830.96–11.520.00–7039.48–239.54.95–8.9660–290
SD0.512.44371.511.714.4737.7584.651.8596.40
Orb04Mean7.8817.582225.257.467.6010156.724.49395
Range7.68–8.2613.5–22.21687–26516.75–8.811.92–10.880.00–40123.03–198.63.85–4.9740–630
SD0.263.70400.760.924.162031.650.51264.90
Orb05Mean7.8018.132286.677.566.823.33161.634.56280
Range7.58–8.1513.2–21.11989–27636.50–9.023.20–10.240.00–10129.6–178.94.24–4.7320–640
SD0.304.30416.791.313.525.7727.760.27321.87
Orb06Mean7.919.972339.337.216.29451137.55487.50
Range7.77 – 8.1212.4 – 24.41829–29596.50–7.981.92–10.8810–9019.74–175.72.36–11.23150 –1100
SD0.196.59572.880.744.4834.1672.374.62419.07
Sru01Mean7.8919.031695.677.396.9322.5054.282.39190
Range7.61–8.4410.6–23.8695–27086.68–8.334.16–11.520.00–500.00–82.251.89–2.9220–490
SD0.487.321006.550.854.0020.6237.070.51223.16
Sru02Mean8.1122.974100.007.7710.35200213.854.90520
Range7.71–8.6312.3–29.22340–65046.30–9.985.12–13.76160–27062.51–417.80.18–9.17350–860
SD0.479.282090.281.954.5960.83183.414.50294.45
Figure 2

Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) diagram showing the correlation between Macrophytes distribution and physicochemical parameters. AgroStoAgrostis stolonifera, PersAmphPersicaria amphibia, GroDenGroenlandia densa, MyrSpicMyriophyllum spicatum, NastOffcNasturtium officinale, RanAquaRanunculus aquatilis, SpirSpSpirogyra sp., DiatSpDiatoma sp., CladSpCladophora sp., UlvaSpUlva sp., StuPectStuckenia pectinata, TyphAngTypha angustifolia, TyphLngTypha latifolia, ZanPalZannichelia palustris, NostcSpNostoc sp., VauchSpVaucheria sp., BrachyRvBrachythecium rivulare

Figure 3

Graph showing the IBMR values for each site and the trophic level thresholds

Table 4

Pearson's correlation coefficients between IBMR values and physico-chemical parameters of water (n = 36)

IBMR
rp
NO2-N−0.696*0.012
PO4-P−0.2300.472
NO3-N0.696*0.012
WT−0.844**0.001
DO0.694*0.012
pH0.3720.234
EC−0.806**0.002
CODMn−0.854**0.000
NH3-N−0.3300.295
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/oandhs-2021-0008 | Journal eISSN: 1897-3191 | Journal ISSN: 1730-413X
Language: English
Page range: 77 - 86
Submitted on: Jun 23, 2020
Accepted on: Sep 22, 2020
Published on: Mar 21, 2021
Published by: University of Gdańsk
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2021 Ayoub Nouri, Hammada Soumaya, Chillasse Lahcen, Haddioui Abdelmajid, published by University of Gdańsk
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.