Hydrobiologia

, Volume 673, Issue 1, pp 179–192

Applicability of borrowed diatom-based water quality assessment indices in streams around São Carlos-SP, Brazil

Primary Research Paper

Abstract

Diatom-based indices are increasingly becoming important tools for the assessment of ecological conditions in lotic systems. The applicability of regional and foreign diatom-based water quality assessment indices to streams around São Carlos-SP, Brazil, is discussed. The relationship between measured water quality variables and diatom index scores was assessed. The indices, when compared to chemical analyses, proved useful in providing an indication of the quality of the investigated waters. Though all borrowed indices were applicable to the study area because many widely distributed diatom species have similar environmental tolerances to those recorded for these species elsewhere, ecological requirements of some diatom species from Brazil need to be clarified and incorporated in a diatom-based water quality assessment protocol unique to the region.

Keywords

Diatoms Indices Water quality Biomonitoring 

References

  1. APHA, 1988. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water, 20th ed. American Public Health association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Azim, M. E., M. C. J. Verdegem, A. A. Van Dam & M. C. M. Bederidge (eds), 2005. Periphyton Ecology, Exploitation and Management. CABI Publishing, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Bate, G., P. Smailes & J. Adams, 2004. A water quality index for use with diatoms in the assessment. Water SA 30: 493–498.Google Scholar
  4. Bere, T. & J. G. Tundisi, 2010. The effects of substrate type on diatom-based multivariate water quality assessment in a tropical river (Monjolinho), São Carlos-SP, Brazil. Water Air Soil Pollution 216: 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bere, T. & J. G. Tundisi, 2011a. Influence of ionic strength and conductivity on benthic diatom communities in a tropical river (Monjolinho), São Carlos-SP, Brazil. Hydrobiologia 661: 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bere, T. & J. G. Tundisi, 2011b. Influence of land-use patterns on benthic diatom communities and water quality in the tropical Monjolinho hydrological basin, São Carlos-SP, Brazil. Water SA 37: 93–102.Google Scholar
  7. Bicudo, C. E. M. & M. Menezes, 2006. Gêneros de água de águas continentais do Brazil: chave para identificação e descrições. Rima Editora, São Carlos, SP, Brazil: 391–339.Google Scholar
  8. Biggs, B. J. F. & C. Kilroy, 2000. Stream Periphyton Monitoring Manual. NIWA, Christchurch, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  9. Cemagref, 1982. Etude des methods biologiques d’appréciation quantitative de la qualité des eaux. Rapport Q. E. Lyon, Agence de l’eau Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse-Cemagref, Lyon, France.Google Scholar
  10. Coste, M. & H. Ayphassorho, 1991. Étude de la qualité dês eaux du Bassin Artois-Picardie à l’aide des communautés de diatomées benthiques (application des índices diatomiques). Rapport Cemagref. Bordeaux – Agence de l’Eau Artois-Picardie, Douai.Google Scholar
  11. Dell’Uomo, A., 1996. Assessment of water quality of an Apennine river as a pilot study. In Whitton, B. A. & E. Rott (eds), Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers II. Institut für Botanik, Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck: 65–73.Google Scholar
  12. Descy, J. P., 1979. A new approach to water quality estimation using diatoms. Nova Hedwigia 64: 305–323.Google Scholar
  13. Descy, J. P. & M. Coste, 1991. A test of methods for assessing water quality based on diatoms. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 24: 2112–2116.Google Scholar
  14. Dionex Corporation, 2001. Dionex DX-80 Ion Analyzer Operator’s Manual. Dionex Corporation, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Duong, T., Coste, M., Feurtet-mazel, A., Dang, D., Gold, C., Park, Y. et al, 2006. Impact of urban pollution from the Hanoi area on benthic diatom communities collected from the Red, Nhue and Tolich Rivers (Vietnam). Hydrobiologia 563:201–216.Google Scholar
  16. Gómez, N. & M. Licursi, 2001. The Pampean Diatom Index (IDP) for assessment of rivers and streams in Argentina. Aquatic Ecology 35: 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hammer, O., D. A. T. Harper & P. D. Ryan, 2009. PAST – Palaeontological Statistics, Version 1.90. http://folk.uio.no/ohammer/past.
  18. Harding, W. R., C. G. M. Archibald & J. C. Taylor, 2005. The relevance of diatoms for water quality assessment in South Africa: a position paper. Water SA 31: 41–46.Google Scholar
  19. Kelly, M. G. & B. A. Whitton, 1995. The trophic diatom index: a new index for monitoring eutrophication in rivers. Journal of Applied Phycology 7: 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelly, M. G., C. J. Penny & B. A. Whitton, 1995. Comparative performance of benthic diatom indices used to assess river water quality. Hydrobiologia 302: 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kilham, P., S. S. Kilham & R. E. Hecky, 1986. Hypothesized resources relationships among African plankton diatoms. Limnology and Oceanography 31: 1169–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kobayasi, H. & S. Mayama, 1989. Most pollution-tolerant diatoms of severely polluted rivers in the vicinity of Tokyo. Japanese Journal of Phycology 30: 188–196.Google Scholar
  23. Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1986–1991. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Band 2. Bacillariophyceae. Teil 1–4. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
  24. Kwandrans, J., P. Eloranta, B. Kawecka & W. Kryzsysztof, 1998. Use of benthic diatom communities to evaluate water quality in rivers of southern Poland. Journal of Applied Phycology 10: 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lange-Bertalot, H., 1979. Pollution tolerance of diatoms as a criterion for water quality estimation. Nova Hedwigia Beiheft 64: 285–304.Google Scholar
  26. Leclerq, L. & B. Maquet, 1987. Deux nouveaux índices chimique et diatomique de qualité d’eau courante. Application au Samson et à ses affluents (bassin de la Meuse belge). Comparaison avec d’autres índices chimiques, biocé notiques et diatomiques. Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, document de travail 28.Google Scholar
  27. Lecointe, C., M. Coste & J. Prygiel, 1993. “Omnidia”: software for taxonomy, calculation of diatom indices and inventories management. Hydrobiology 269(270): 509–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lenoir, A. & M. Coste, 1996. Development of a practical diatom index of overall water quality applicable to the French National Water Board network. In Whitton, B. A. & E. Rott (eds), Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers II. Institut für Botanik, Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck: 29–43.Google Scholar
  29. Lobo, E. A. & V. L. Callegaro, 2000. Avaliação da qualidade de águas doces continentais com base em algas diatomáceas epilíticas: Enfoque metodológico. In Tucci, C. E. M. & D. M. Marques (eds), Avaliação e Controle da Drenagem Urbana. Ed. Universidade/UFRGS, Porto Alegre: 277–300.Google Scholar
  30. Lobo, E. A. & L. C. Torgan, 1988. Análise da estrutura da comunidade de diatomáceas (Bacillariophyceae) em duas estações do sistema Guaíba, RS, Brasil. Acta Botânica Brasílica 1: 103–119.Google Scholar
  31. Lobo, E. A., M. A. Oliveira, M. T. Neves & S. Schuler, 1991. Caracterização de ambientes de terras úmidas, no Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, onde ocorrem espécies de anatídeos com valor cinegético. Acta Biológica Leopoldensia 13: 19–60.Google Scholar
  32. Lobo, E. A., V. L. M. Callegaro, M. A. Oliveira, S. E. Salomoni, S. Schuler & K. Asai, 1996. Pollution tolerant diatoms from lotic systems in the Jacui Basin, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Iheringia Série Botânica 47: 45–72.Google Scholar
  33. Lobo, E. A., D. A. Bem, A. Costa & A. Kirst, 1999. Avaliação da qualidade da água dos arroios Sampaio, Bonito e Grande, Município de Mato Leitão, RS, Brasil, segundo a resolução do CONAMA 20/86, Vol. 4. Revista Redes, Santa Cruz do Sul: 129–146.Google Scholar
  34. Lobo, E. A., V. L. Callegaro & P. Bender, 2002. Utilização de algas diatomáceas epilíticas como indicadoras da qualidade da água em rios e arroios da Região Hidrográfica do Guaíba, RS. EDUNISC, Santa Cruz do Sul, Brasil.Google Scholar
  35. Lobo, E. A., V. L. Callegaro, G. Hermany, D. Bes, C. E. Wetzel & M. A. Oliveira, 2004. Use of epilithic diatoms as bioindicator from lotic systems in southern Brazil, with special emphasis on eutrophication. Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia 16: 25–40.Google Scholar
  36. McCormick, P. V. & J. J. Cairns, 1994. Algae as indicators of environmental change. Journal of Applied Phycology 6: 509–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Metzeltin, D. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1998. Tropical diatoms of South America I. Iconographia Diatomologica 5: 1–695.Google Scholar
  38. Metzeltin, D. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 2007. Tropical diatoms of South America II. Iconographia Diatomologica 18: 1–877.Google Scholar
  39. Metzeltin, D., H. Lange-Bertalot & F. García-Rodríguez, 2005. Diatoms of Uruguay. Iconographia Diatomologica 15: 1–736.Google Scholar
  40. Moreles, E. A. & A. Jasinski, 2002. Morphological studies in Gomphonema parvulum complex: evidence of cryptic species? In 17th International Diatom Symposium, Ottawa, Canada, 25–31 August, 2002, Book of Abstracts: 90 pp.Google Scholar
  41. Pan, Y., R. J. Stevenson, B. H. Hill, A. T. Herlihy & G. B. Collins, 1996. Using diatoms as indicators of ecological conditions in lotic systems: a regional assessment. Journal of North American Benthological Society 15: 481–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pappas, J. L. & E. F. F. Stoermer, 1996. Quantitative method for determining a representative algal sample count. Journal of Phycology 32: 693–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pipp, E., 2002. A regional diatom-based trophic state indication system for running water sites in Upper Austria and its overregional applicability. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 27: 3376–3380.Google Scholar
  44. Potapova, M. G. & D. F. Charles, 2002. Benthic diatoms in USA Rivers: distributions along speciation and environmental gradients. Journal of Biogeography 29: 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Potapova, M. & D. F. Charles, 2003. Distribution of benthic diatoms in U.S. rivers in relation to conductivity and ionic composition. Freshwater Biology 48: 1311–1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Potapova, M. & D. F. Charles, 2005. Choice of substrate in algae-based water quality assessment. Journal of North American Benthological Society 24: 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Prygiel, J. & M. Coste, 1993. The assessment of water quality in the Artois-Picardie water basin (France) by the use of diatom indices. Hydrobiologia 269(279): 343–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prygiel, J., L. Lévéque & R. Iserentant, 1996. Un nouvel indice diatomique pratique pour l’évaluation de La qualité des eaux en réseau de surveillance. Revue dês Sciences de l’Eau 1: 97–113.Google Scholar
  49. Prygiel, J., B. A. Whitton & J. Bukowska, 1999. Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers III. Agence de L’Eau Artois-Picardie, Douai: 271 pp.Google Scholar
  50. Rimet, F., H. M. Cauchie, L. Hoffmann & L. Ector, 2005. Response of diatom indices to simulated water quality improvements in a river. Journal of Applied Phycology 17: 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rocha, A. A., 1992. Algae as indicators of water pollution. In Cordeiro-Marino, M., M. T. P. Azevedo, C. L. Sant’anna, N. Y. Tomita & E. M. Pastino (eds), Algae and Environment: A General Approach. Sociedade Brasileira de Ficologia, CETESB, São Paulo: 34–55.Google Scholar
  52. Rodrigues, L. M. & E. A. Lobo 2000. Análise da estrutura de comunidades de diatomáceas epilíticas no Arroio Sampaio, Município de Mato Leitão, RS, Brasil, Vol. 2. Caderno de Pesquisa Série Botânica, Santa Cruz do Sul: 5–27.Google Scholar
  53. Rosa, Z. M., L. C. Torgan & L. A. W. Herzog, 1988. Análise da estrutura de comunidades fitoplanctônicas e de alguns fatores abióticos em trecho do Rio Jacuí, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Acta Botanica Brasilica 2: 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rott, E., G. Hofmann, K. Pall, P. Pfister & E. Pipp, 1997. Indikationslisten für Aufwuchsalgen. Teil 1. Saprobielle Indikation. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Wien: 1–73.Google Scholar
  55. Rott, E., E. Pipp, P. Pfister, H. van Dam, K. Ortler, N. Binder & K. Pall, 1999. Indikationslisten für Aufwuchsalgen in ö sterreichischen Fliessgewä ssern. Teil 2: Trophieindikation (sowie geochemische Pra¨ferenzen; taxonomische und toxikologische Anmerkungen). Wasserwirtschaftskataster herasgegeben vom Bundesministerium f. Land- u.Forstwirtschaft, Wien. ISBN 3-85 174-25-4: 248 pp.Google Scholar
  56. Rott, E., E. Pipp & P. Pfister, 2003. Diatom methods developed for river quality assessment in Austria and a cross-check against numerical trophic indication methods used in Europe. Algological Studies 110: 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Round, F. E., 1991. Diatoms in river water-monitoring studies. Journal of Applied Phycology 3: 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Round, F. E., 2004. pH scaling and diatom distribution. Diatom Research 20: 9–12.Google Scholar
  59. Salomoni, S. E., O. Rocha, V. L. Callegaro & E. A. Lobo, 2006. Epilithic diatoms as indicators of water quality in the Gravataí river, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Hydrobiologia 559: 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schiefele, S. & C. Schreiner, 1991. Use of diatoms for monitoring nutrient enrichment acidification and impact salts in Germany and Austria. In Whitton, B. A., E. Rott & G. Friedrich (eds), Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers. Institüt für Botanik, Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck.Google Scholar
  61. Slàdeček, V., 1986. Diatoms as indicators of organic pollution. Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica 14: 555–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Souza, M. G. M., 2002. Variação da comunidade de diatomáceas epiliticas ao longo de um rio impactado no município de São Carlos – SP e sua relação com variáveis fiscas e químicas. Tese (Doutorado e Ciências Biológicas) Ecologia a Recursos Naturais, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brasil.Google Scholar
  63. Stevenson, R. J., M. L. Bothwell & R. L. Lowe, 1996. Algal Ecology—Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems. Academic Press, San Diego: 750 pp.Google Scholar
  64. Taylor, J. C., M. C. Janse Van Vuuren & A. J. H. Pieterse, 2007a. The application and testing of diatom-based indices in the Vaal and Wilge Rivers, South Africa. Water SA 33: 51–59.Google Scholar
  65. Taylor, C. J., A. V. Prygiel, P. A. De La Rey & S. Van Rensburg, 2007b. Can diatom-based pollution indices be used for biological monitoring in SA? A case study of the Crocodile West and Marico water management area. Hydrobiologia 592: 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Trobajo, R., E. Clavero, V. A. Chepurnov, K. Sabbe, D. G. Mann, S. Ishihar & E. J. Cox, 2009. Morphological, genetic and mating diversity within the widespread bioindicator Nitzschia palea (Bacillariophyceae). Phycologia 48: 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Van Dam, H., A. Mertens & J. Sinkeldam, 1994. A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from the Netherlands. Aquatic Ecology 28: 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Watanabe, T., K. Asai & A. Houki, 1986. Numerical estimation of organic pollution of flowing waters by using the epilithic diatom assemblage – Diatom Assemblage Index (DIApo). Science of the Total Environment 55: 209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Watanabe, T., K. Asai & A. Houki, 1988. Numerical water quality monitoring of organic pollution using diatom assemblages. In Round, F. E. (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Diatom Symposium. Koeltz Scientific Books, Koenigstein, Germany: 123–141.Google Scholar
  70. Wehr, J. D. & R. G. Sheath, 2003. Freshwater Algae of North America, Ecology and Classification. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA: 918 pp.Google Scholar
  71. Zelinka, M. & P. Marvan, 1961. Zur prasisiering der biologischen klassifikation der reinheot fliessender gewässer. Archive Hydrobiologia 57: 389–407.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Internacional de EcologiaSão CarlosBrazil
  2. 2.Universidade Federal De São Carlos, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Recursos NaturaisSão CarlosBrazil

Personalised recommendations