Advertisement

Journal of Applied Phycology

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 433–444 | Cite as

The Trophic Diatom Index: a new index for monitoring eutrophication in rivers

  • M. G. Kelly
  • B. A. Whitton
Article

Abstract

A index for monitoring the trophic status of rivers based on diatom composition (‚trophic diatom index’, TDI) has been developed, in response to the National Rivers Authority (England & Wales)'s needs under the terms of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive of the European Community. The index is based on a suite of 86 taxa selected both for their indicator value and ease of identification. When tested on a dataset from 70 sites free of significant organic pollution, this index was more highly correlated with aqueous P concentrations than previous diatom indices. However, where there was heavy organic pollution, it was difficult to separate the effects of eutrophication from other effects. For this reason, the value of TDI is supplemented by an indication of the proportion of the sample that is composed of taxa tolerant to organic pollution.

The index was tested on the R. Browney, N-E. England, above and below a major sewage discharge. TDI values indicated that the effect of inorganic nutrients on the river downstream of the discharge was slight as the river was already nutrient-rich, but there was a large increase in the proportion of organic pollution-tolerant taxa. This indicates that the river was already so eutrophic upstream of the discharge that tertiary treatment to remove P would not be effective unless other aspects of the discharge were also improved.

Key words

diatoms periphyton monitoring phosphate eutrophication rivers Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antoine SE, Benson-Evans K (1982) The effect of current velocity on the rate of growth of benthic algal communities. Int. Rev. ges. Hydrobiol. 67: 575–583.Google Scholar
  2. Armitage PD, Moss D, Wright JF, Furse MT (1983) The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites. Wat. Res. 17: 333–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barber HG, Haworth EY (1978) A Guide to the Morphology of the Diatom Frustule. Sci. Publs Freshwat. Biol. Ass. U.K. 44, 112 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Battarbee RJ (1984) Diatom analysis and the acidification of lakes. Phil. Trans. r. Soc. Lond. B 305: 451–477.Google Scholar
  5. Birch SP, Kelly MG, Whitton BA (1989) Macrophytes of the River Wear: 1966, 1976, 1986. Trans. bot. Soc. Edinb. 45: 203–212.Google Scholar
  6. Carter JR, Bailey-Watts AE (1981) A taxonomic study of diatoms from standing waters in Shetland. Nova Hedwigia 33: 513–630.Google Scholar
  7. CEMAGREF (1982) Etude de Méthodes Biologiques Quantitatives d'Appreciation de la Qualité des Eaux. Rapport Q.E. Lyon-A.F.B. Rhône-Mediterrannée-Coste.Google Scholar
  8. Chesters RK (1980) Biological Monitoring Working Party. The 1978 National Testing Exercise. Department of the Environment, Water Data Unit, Technical Memorandum 19: 1–37.Google Scholar
  9. Eisenreich SJ, Bannerman RT, Armstrong DE (1975) A simplified phosphorus analysis technique. Envir. Letters 9: 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Community (1991) Council directive of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (91/271/EEC). Official Journal of the European Community Series L 135/40–52.Google Scholar
  11. Hellebust JA, Lewin J (1977) Heterotrophic nutrition. In Werner D (ed.), The Biology of Diatoms. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford: 169–197.Google Scholar
  12. Holmes NTH, Whitton BA (1977) Macrophytes of the River Wear: 1966–1976. Naturalist, Hull 102: 53–73.Google Scholar
  13. Hustedt F (1930) Die Süsswasserflora Deutschlands, Österreichs und der Schweiz 10: Bacillariophyta (Diatoms): Fischer, Jena, 466 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Kelly MG, Penny CJ, Whitton BA (1995) Comparative performance of benthic diatom indices used to assess river water quality. Hydrobiologia 302: 179–188.Google Scholar
  15. Kelly MG, Whitton BA (1994) Survey Methodology for Algae and Other Phototrophs in Small Rivers. R&D Note 278. National Rivers Authority, Bristol, 135 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Kelly MG, Whitton BA (1995) Plants for Monitoring Rivers. R&D Note 366. National Rivers Authority, Bristol, 34 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Kilham P, Kilham SS, Hecky RE (1986) Hypothesized resource relationships among African planktonic diatoms. Limnol. Oceanogr. 31: 1169–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H (1986) Die Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa 2: Bacillariophyceae. 1 Teil: Naviculaceae. Gustav Fischer-Verlag, Stuttgart, 876 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H (1988) Die Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa 2: Bacillariophyceae. 2 Teil: Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae. Gustav Fischer-Verlag, Stuttgart, 596 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H (1991) Die Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa 2: Bacillariophyceae. 3 Teil: Centrales, Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae. Gustav Fischer-Vedag, Stuttgart, 576 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Krammer, K, Lange-Betalot H (1991) Die Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa 2: Bacillariophyceae. 4. Teil: Achnanthaceae, Kritische Ergänzungen zu Navicula (Lineolatae) und Gomphonema. Gesamtliteraturverzeichnis Teil 1–4. Gustav Fischer-Verlag, Stuttgart, 437 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Lange-Bertalot H (1979) Pollution tolerance as a criterion for water quality estimation. Nova Hedwigia 64: 285–304.Google Scholar
  23. Lund JWG (1964) Primary production and periodicity of phytoplankton. Verb. int. Ver. Limnol. 15: 37–56.Google Scholar
  24. Moss B, Balls H, Irvine K, Stansfield J (1986) Restoration of two lowland lakes by isolation from nutrient-rich water sources with and without removal of sediment. J. appl. Ecol. 23: 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. National Rivers Authority (1991) The Quality of Rivers, Canals and Estuaries in England and Wales: Report of the 1991 Survey. National Rivers Authority, Bristol, 63 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Patrick R (1977) Ecology of freshwater diatoms and diatom communities. In Werner D (ed.), The Biology of Diatoms. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford: 284–332.Google Scholar
  27. Patrick R, Reimer CW (1966) The Diatoms of the United States. Vol. I. Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia, 688 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Patrick R, Reimer CW (1975) The Diatoms of the United States. Vol. II, part I. Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia, 213 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Prygiel J, Coste M (1993) The assessment of water quality in the Artois-Picardie water basin (France) by the use of diatom indices. Hydrobiologia 269/270 (Dev. Hydrobiol. 90): 343–349.Google Scholar
  30. Reynolds CS (1984) The Ecology of Freshwater Phytoplankton. Cambridge U.P, Cambridge, 384 pp.Google Scholar
  31. Round FE (1993) A Review and Methods for the Use of Epilithic Diatoms for Detecting and Monitoring Changes in River Water Quality 1993. Methods for the Examination of Waters and Associated Materials. HMSO, London, 65 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Round FE, Crawford RM, Mann DG (1990) The Diatoms: Biology and Morphology of the Genera. Cambridge U.P, Cambridge, 747 pp.Google Scholar
  33. Rumeau A, Coste M (1988) Initiation a la systématique des Diatomées d'eau douce pour l'utilisation pratique d'un indice diatomique générique. Bulletin Français de la Peche et de la Pisciculture 309: 1–69.Google Scholar
  34. Schiefele S, Kohmann F (1993) Bioindikation tier Trophie in Fliessgewässern. Umweltforschungsplan ties Bundesministers für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Realctorsicherheit. Wasserwirtschaft. Forschungsbericht 102 01504. München: Bayerisches Landesamt für Wasserwirtschaft, Germany, 211 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Standing Committee of Analysts (1981) Phosphorus in Waters, Effluents and Sewages, 1980. Methods for the Examination of Waters and Associated Materials. H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
  36. Steinberg C, Schiefele S (1988) Biological indication of trophy and pollution of running waters. Z. Wasser-Abwasser Forsch. 21: 227–234.Google Scholar
  37. Talling JF (1987) The phytoplankton of Lake Victoria (East Africa). Arch. Hydrobiol. Ergbn. Limnol. 25: 229–256.Google Scholar
  38. Whitton BA, Kelly MG (1995) Use of algae and other plants for monitoring rivers. Aust. J. Ecol. 20: 45–56.Google Scholar
  39. Woodiwiss FS (1964) The biological system of stream classification used by the Trent River Board. Chemistry & Industry 11: 443–447.Google Scholar
  40. Wright JF, Moss D, Armitage PD, Furse MT (1984) A preliminary classification of running-water sites in Great Britain based on macro-invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data. Freshwat. Biol. 14: 221–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wright JF, Armitage PD, Furse MT, Moss D (1989) Prediction of invertebrate communities using stream measurements. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 4: 147–155.Google Scholar
  42. Zelinka M, Marvan P (1961) Zur Prazisierung tier biologischen Klassifikation ties Reinheit fliessender Gewässer. Arch. Hydrobiol. 57: 389–407.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. G. Kelly
    • 1
  • B. A. Whitton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of DurhamDurhamUK

Personalised recommendations