Plants, Mosses, Charophytes, Protozoan, and Bacteria Water Quality Indicators for Assessment of Organic Pollution and Trophic Status of Continental Water Bodies

Barinova, Sophia

doi:10.2478/trser-2021-0018

Abstract

This paper presents data compilation for indicator species of organic pollution and trophic state of continental waters. Information was collected from research papers, monographs, electronic resources, and our research. Altogether 316 species of higher plants, plants, mosses, charophytes, protozoan, and bacteria from 11 taxonomical phyla are represented with ecological preferences for saprobity indicators with saprobity index (S) and indicators of trophic state. This comprehensive data can be used for the purpose of aquatic ecosystem assessment and monitoring of water quality based on bioindication methods.

References

1. Barinova S., 2017a – Essential and practical bioindication methods and systems for the water quality assessment, International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, 2, 3, 555588, doi: 10.19080/IJESNR.2017.02.555588.10.19080/IJESNR.2017.02.555588
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. Barinova S., 2017b – On the classification of water quality from an ecological point of view, International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, 2, 2, 1-8, doi:10.19080/IJESNR.2017.02.555581.10.19080/IJESNR.2017.02.555581
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Barinova S. and Fahima T., 2017 – The development of the a world database of freshwater algae-indicators, Journal of Environment and Ecology, 8, 1, 1-7. http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/jee/article/view/11228/8981.10.5296/jee.v8i1.11228
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. Barinova S. S., Bilous O. P. and Tsarenko P. M., 2019 – Algal indication of water bodies in Ukraine: methods and prospects, Haifa, Kyiv, Publishing House of Haifa University, Israel, 367, https://www.academia.edu/38842519/Algal_indication_of_water_bodies_in_Ukraine_methods_and_perspectives. (in Russian)
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Barinova S. S., Medvedeva L. A. and Anissimova O. V., 2006 – Diversity of algal indicators in environmental assessment, Tel Aviv, Pilies Studio Publisher, Israel, 498, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265251122_Diversity_of_Algal_Indicators_in_Environmental_Assessment. (in Russian)
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. Becker R., Doege A., Schubert H. and van de Weyer K., 2016 – Bioindikation mit Characeen, in Arbeitsgruppe Characeen Deutschlands Lehrstuhl für Ökologie der Universität, Edit. Armleuchteralgen, Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer Spektrum, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47797-7_8. (in German) [3]10.1007/978-3-662-47797-7_8
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Cavalier-Smith T., 1998 – A revised six-kingdom system of life, Biological Review, 73, 3, 203-66, doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.1998.tb00030.10.1017/S0006323198005167
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Cavalier-Smith T. and Chao E. E.-Y., 2006 – Phylogeny and megasystematics of phagotrophic heterokonts (kingdom Chromista), Journal of Molecular Evolution, 62, 388-420, http://www.springerlink.com/content/t5w324231345611g/.10.1007/s00239-004-0353-816557340
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Jäger D., 2010 – Exemplare des Formenkreises Chara denudata A. Braun 1847 und Chara dissoluta A. Braun ex Leonhardi 1864 aus dem Bodensee, Rostock, Meeresbiolog, Beitr., 23, 29-39. (in German) [7]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. European Parliament, 2000 ‒ Directive 2000/60/EC of European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy, OJL, 327, 1-72.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. Fennessy S., Gernes M., Mack J. and Waldrop D. H., 2001 – Methods for evaluating wetland condition: using vegetation to assess environmental conditions in wetlands, EPA 822-R-01-007j, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D. C., USA.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. Friedrich G., Chapman D. and Beim A. 1996 – The use of biological material, Chapter 5, in Chapman D. (ed.), Water Quality Assessments – A guide to use of biota, sediments and water in environmental monitoring, 2nd edition, UNESCO/WHO/UNEP, London E. and Spon F. N., 626, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/41850.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
13. GBIF, Global Biodiversity Information Facility, https://www.gbif.org/.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
14. Guiry M. D. and Guiry G. M., 2021 – AlgaeBase, World-wide electronic publication, National University of Ireland, Galway, http://www.algaebase.org (assessed on 15 July 2021).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
15. Haury J., Peltre M.-C., Trémolières M., Barbe J., Thiébaut G., Bernez I., Daniel H., Chatenet P., Haan-Archipof G., Muller S., Dutartre A., Laplace-Treyture C., Cazaubon A. and Lambert- Servien E., 2006 – A new method to assess water trophy and organic pollution – the Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers (IBMR): its application to different types of river and pollution, Hydrobiologia, 570, 153-158, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0175-3. [8]10.1007/s10750-006-0175-3
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
16. Hering D., Johnson R. K., Kramm S., Schmutz S., Szoszkiewicz K. and Verdonscot P. F. M., 2006 – Assessment of European streams with diatoms, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish: a comparative metric-based analysis of organism response to stress, Freshwater Biology 51, 1757-1785, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01610.x.10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01610.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
17. Kent D. M., 2000 – Evaluating wetland functions and values, Chapter 3, in Applied wetlands science and technology, Kent D. M., (ed.), Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, U.S.A., 55-80.10.1201/9781420032956.ch3
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
18. Marvan P., Maršálek B., Heteša J., Sukačova K., Maršálková E., Geriš R. and Kozáková M., 2005 – Comments on the revised tables of algal (and other botanical) water quality indicators listed in CSN 75 7716 – discussion material for assessment of trophic status of water bodies, Association Flos Aquae, www.cyanobacteria.net assessed on 6th May 2005. [2]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
19. Nagengast B. and Kuczyńska-Kippen N., 2015 – Macrophyte biometric features as an indicator of the trophic status of small water bodies, Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies, 44, 1, 38-50, doi:10.1515/ohs-2015-0005. [5]10.1515/ohs-2015-0005
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
20. Nevo E. and Wasser S. P. (eds), 2000 – Biodiversity of cyanoprocaryotes, algae and fungi of Israel, Cyanoprocaryotes and algae of continental Israel, Leichtenstein: A. R. G. Gantner Verlag, Ruggell, 560. [1]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
21. Pešić V., Paunović M. and Kostianoy A. G. (eds), 2020 – The rivers of Montenegro, The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Springer, Cham., 300.10.1007/978-3-030-55712-6
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
22. Poikane S., Portielje R., Denys L., Elferts D., Kelly M., Kolada A., Mäemets H., Phillips G., Søndergaard M., Willby N. and van den Berg M. S., 2018 – Macrophyte assessment in European lakes: Diverse approaches but convergent views of ‘good’ ecological status, Ecological Indicators, 94, 1, 185-197, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.056.10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.06.056612582430393465
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
23. Ponti M., Vadrucci M. R., Orfanidis S. and Pinna M., 2009 – Biotic indices for ecological status of transitional water ecosystems, Transitional Waters Bulletin, 3, 3, 32-90, doi:10.1285/i1825229Xv3n3p32.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
24. Porter S. D., 2008 – Algal attributes: an autecological classification of algal taxa collected by the National Water-Quality Assessment Program, Reston, V. A., U. S. Geological Survey, http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/ds329/. [4]10.3133/ds329
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
25. Reiss K. C. and Brown M. T., 2005 – The Florida Wetland Condition Index (FWCI): developing biological indicators for isolated depressional forested wetlands, Report submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Under Contract #WM-683, Howard T. Odum Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, U. S. A. 168.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
26. Romanenko V. D., Oksijuk O. P., Zhukinsky V. N., Stolberg F. V. and Lavrik V. I. 1990 – Ecological impact assessment of hydrotechnical constructions on water bodies, Kijev, Naukova Dumka, 291. (in Russian)
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
27. Savitskaya K. L. 2017 – Macrophytes as indicators of the ecological state of small rivers in Minsk Region, Water Resources, 44, 840-848, https://doi.org/10.1134/S0097807817060070.10.1134/S0097807817060070
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
28. Schindler D. W. 1987 – Detecting ecosystem responses to anthropogenic stress, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 44, 6-25.10.1139/f87-276
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
29. Schneider S. and Melzer A., 2003 – The Trophic Index of Macrophytes (TIM) – a new tool for indicating the trophic state of running waters, International Review of Hydrobiology, 88, 1, 49-67, https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.200390005. [9]10.1002/iroh.200390005
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
30. Sládeček V., 1973 – System of water quality from the biological point of view, Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 7, 1-218.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
31. Trbojević I., Milovanović V. and Simić G. S., 2020 – The discovery of the rare Chara baueri (Charophyceae) in Serbia, Plants, 9, 1, 1606, https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9111606. [6]10.3390/plants9111606769917233227900
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
32. USEPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2003 ‒ Biological Indicators of Watershed Health, http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators (accessed 2003-2004).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
33. Van Dam H., Mertens A. and Sinkeldam J., 1994 – A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from the Netherlands, Netherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology, 28, 1, 117-133, doi.org/10.1007/BF02334251.10.1007/BF02334251
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
34. WoRMS, World Register of Marine Species, http://www.marinespecies.org/about.php.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
35. Zueva N. V. and Bobrov A. A., 2018 – Use of macrophytes in assessing the ecological status of small river (by the Example of the Okhta River, St. Petersburg), Inland Water Biology, 11, 34-41, https://doi.org/10.1134/S1995082917040137.10.1134/S1995082917040137
Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Plants, Mosses, Charophytes, Protozoan, and Bacteria Water Quality Indicators for Assessment of Organic Pollution and Trophic Status of Continental Water Bodies

Abstract

Paradigm

My account