Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Plants, Mosses, Charophytes, Protozoan, and Bacteria Water Quality Indicators for Assessment of Organic Pollution and Trophic Status of Continental Water Bodies Cover

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

By: Sophia Barinova  
Open Access
|Dec 2021

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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)
  5. 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)
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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]
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 13. GBIF, Global Biodiversity Information Facility, https://www.gbif.org/.
  14. 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).
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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]
  19. 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
  20. 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]
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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.
  26. 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)
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 30. Sládeček V., 1973 – System of water quality from the biological point of view, Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 7, 1-218.
  31. 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
  32. 32. USEPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2003 ‒ Biological Indicators of Watershed Health, http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators (accessed 2003-2004).
  33. 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
  34. 34. WoRMS, World Register of Marine Species, http://www.marinespecies.org/about.php.
  35. 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/trser-2021-0018 | Journal eISSN: 2344-3219 | Journal ISSN: 1841-7051
Language: English
Page range: 17 - 36
Published on: Dec 26, 2021
Published by: Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 3 issues per year
Related subjects:

© 2021 Sophia Barinova, published by Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.