Hydrobiologia

, Volume 695, Issue 1, pp 137–151 | Cite as

Developing a diatom monitoring network in an urban river-basin: initial assessment and site selection

  • Ingrid Jüttner
  • P. James Chimonides
  • Steve J. Ormerod
ALGAE FOR MONITORING RIVERS

Abstract

There is increasing interest in the restoration of urban river systems because they are affected by multiple point- and diffuse-source impairments. In South Wales, these issues are exemplified by the rivers Taff and Ely, which have a well-documented history of pollution. We developed a network of river-monitoring sites to capture as many sources of impairment as possible and to provide an integrated assessment of basin-wide conditions using established, recently revised and new methods to assess ecological status as required by the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Most of the 34 river sites, except those in upstream areas, had moderate or poor ecological status and low species richness. There were significant correlations between the UK Trophic Diatom Index (TDI), phosphate and nitrate concentrations, but the strongest correlation was with sodium concentrations. Sodium also differentiated best between ecological status classes. The UK TDI, Ecological Quality Ratios and the Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (IPS) correlated strongly, but the IPS reflected chemical conditions less well. There were also possible metal impacts including some upstream sites despite apparently good or high ecological status. These data reveal strong capacity in diatoms for reflecting stressors that affect urban river networks. We recommend (i) further assessments including geographically comprehensive and repeated surveys to underpin local decision-making and (ii) further refinement of the tools currently in use for WFD purposes through the development of specific diagnostic indices or multi-metric methods for a comprehensive assessment of complex catchments affected by multiple impairments.

Keywords

Diatoms Streams Water Framework Directive Water chemistry Monitoring Pollution 

References

  1. Alberti, M., 2010. Maintaining ecological integrity and sustaining ecosystem function in urban areas. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2: 178–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrén, C. & A. Jarlman, 2008. Benthic diatoms as indicators of acidity in streams. Fundamental and Applied Limnology/Archiv für Hydrobiologie 173: 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bere, T. & J. G. Tundisi, 2011. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanco, S., E. Bécares, H.-M. Cauchie, L. Hoffmann & L. Ector, 2007. Comparison of biotic indices for water quality diagnosis in the Duero Basin (Spain). Archiv für Hydrobiologie Supplement 161, Large Rivers 17: 267–286.Google Scholar
  5. Carvalho, L., R. Cortes & A. A. Bordalo, 2011. Evaluation of the ecological status of an impaired watershed by using a multi-index approach. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 174: 493–508.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cemagref, 1982. Etude des Méthodes Biologiques d’Appréciation Quantitative de la Qualité des Eaux. Rapport Division Qualité des Eaux Lyon – Agence financière de Bassin Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse, Pierre Bénite. Cemagref, Lyon: 218 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Chessman, B. C., N. Bate, P. A. Gell & P. Newall, 2007. A diatom species index for bioassessment of Australian rivers. Marine and Freshwater Research 58: 542–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Council of the European Communities, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L327: 1–72.Google Scholar
  9. Crompton, D., 2002. Cardiff Bay Barrage. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Water & Maritime Engineering 154: 81–88.Google Scholar
  10. Daenport, A. J., A. M. Gurnell & P. D. Armitage, 2001. Classifying urban rivers. Water Science & Technology 43: 147–155.Google Scholar
  11. Dickman, M. D., M. R. Peart & W. W.-S. Yim, 2005. Benthic diatoms as indicators of stream sediment concentration in Hong Kong. International Review of Hydrobiology 90: 412–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duh, J.-D., V. Skandas, H. Chang & L. A. George, 2008. Rates of urbanisation and the resiliency of air and water quality. Science of the Total Environment 400: 238–256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duigan, C., T. Hatton-Ellis, J. Latham, S. Campbell & B. Mathews, 2009. River conservation in Wales: a synthesis. In Williams, D. D. & C. A. Duigan (eds), The Rivers of Wales. A Natural Resource of International and Historical Significance. Backhuys Publishers/Leiden & Margraf Publishers, Weikersheim: 235–268.Google Scholar
  14. Ellis, J. & V. Adriaenssens, 2006. Uncertainty estimation for monitoring results by the WFD biological classification tools. WFD Report GEHO1006BLOR_E_P. Environment Agency, Bristol. http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/GEHO1006BLOR-E-E.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2011.
  15. Environment Agency, 2008. A consultation on the Draft River Basin Management Plan, Severn River Basin District. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/06_Severn_RBMP_Consultation_main_document.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr 2011.
  16. Falasco, E., F. Bona, G. Badino, L. Hoffmann & L. Ector, 2009. Diatom teratological forms and environmental alterations: a review. Hydrobiologia 623: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fore, L. S. & C. Grafe, 2002. Using diatoms to assess the biological condition of large rivers in Idaho (U.S.A.). Freshwater Biology 47: 2015–2037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gómez, N., 1998. Use of epipelic diatoms for evaluation of water quality in the Matanza-Riachuelo (Argentina), a Pampean plain river. Water Research 32: 2029–2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gómez, N., 1999. Epipelic diatoms from the Matanza-Riachuelo river (Argentina), a highly polluted basin from the pampean plain: biotic indices and multivariate analysis. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 2: 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffith, M. B., B. H. Hill, F. H. McCormick, P. R. Kaufmann, A. T. Herlihy & A. R. Selle, 2005. Comparative application of indices of biotic integrity based on periphyton, macroinvertebrates, and fish to southern Rocky Mountain streams. Ecological Indicators 5: 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, R. I. & J. P. Smol, 1999. Diatoms as indicators of lake eutrophication. In Stoermer, E. F. & J. P. Smol (eds), The Diatoms: Applications for the Environmental and Earth Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 128–168.Google Scholar
  22. Hamsher, S. E., R. G. Verb & M. L. Vis, 2004. Analysis of acid mine drainage impacted streams using a periphyton index. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 19: 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heino, J., J. Ilmonen, J. Kotanen, H. Mykrä, L. Paasivirta, J. Soininen & R. Virtanen, 2009. Surveying biodiversity in protected and managed areas: algae, macrophytes and macroinvertebrates in boreal forest streams. Ecological Indicators 9: 1179–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hering, D., R. K. Johnson, S. Kramm, S. Schmutz, K. Szoszkiewicz & P. F. M. Verdonschot, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hill, B. H., A. T. Herlihy, P. R. Kaufmann, R. J. Stevenson, F. H. McCormick & C. B. Johnson, 2000. Use of periphyton assemblage data as an index of biotic integrity. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hirst, H., I. Jüttner & S. J. Ormerod, 2002. Comparing the responses of diatoms and macro-invertebrates to metals in upland streams of Wales and Cornwall. Freshwater Biology 47: 1752–1765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hirst, H., F. Chaud, C. Delabie, I. Jüttner & S. J. Ormerod, 2004. Assessing the short-term response of stream diatoms to acidity using inter-basin transplantations and chemical diffusing substrates. Freshwater Biology 49: 1072–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hürlimann, J. & F. Straub, 1991. Morphologische und ökologische Charakterisierung von Sippen um den Fragilaria capucina-Komplex sensu Lange-Bertalot 1980. Diatom Research 6: 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Iserentant, R. & D. Blancke, 1986. Sensibilité des peuplements de diatomées aux changements de qualité de l’eau. Un essai de transplantation en eau courante [A transplantation experiment in running water to measure the response rate of diatoms to changes in water quality]. In Ricard, M. (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Diatom Symposium, Paris, August 27–September 1, 1984. Koeltz Scientific Books, Koenigstein: 347–354.Google Scholar
  30. Jenkins, A., W. T. Sloan & B. J. Cosby, 1995. Stream chemistry in the middle hills and high mountains of the Himalayas, Nepal. Journal of Hydrology 166: 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. John, A. H. & G. Williams (eds), 1980. Glamorgan County History. Volume 5. Industrial Glamorgan from 1700 to 1970. Glamorgan County History Trust, Cardiff.Google Scholar
  32. Jüttner, I., S. Sharma, B. M. Dahal, S. J. Ormerod, P. J. Chimonides & E. J. Cox, 2003. Diatoms as indicators of stream quality in the Kathmandu Valley and Middle Hills of Nepal and India. Freshwater Biology 48: 2065–2084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jüttner, I., P. J. Chimonides & S. J. Ormerod, 2010. Using diatoms as quality indicators for a newly-formed urban lake and its catchment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 162: 47–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaushal, S. S., G. E. Likens, N. A. Jaworski, M. L. Pace, A. M. Sides, D. Seekell, K. T. Belt, D. H. Secor & R. L. Wingate, 2010. Rising stream and river temperatures in the United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 461–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kelly, M. G., 2002. Role of benthic diatoms in the implementation of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive in the River Wear, North-East England. Journal of Applied Phycology 14: 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kelly, M. G., A. Cazaubon, E. Coring, A. Dell’Uomo, L. Ector, B. Goldsmith, H. Guasch, J. Hürlimann, A. Jarlman, B. Kawecka, J. Kwandrans, R. Laugaste, E.-A. Lindstrøm, M. Leitao, P. Marvan, J. Padisák, E. Pipp, J. Prygiel, E. Rott, S. Sabater, H. van Dam & J. Vizinet, 1998. Recommendations for the routine sampling of diatoms for water quality assessments in Europe. Journal of Applied Phycology 10: 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kelly, M. G., S. Juggins, H. Bennion, A. Burgess, M. Yallop, H. Hirst, L. King, B. J. Jamieson, R. Guthrie & B. Rippey, 2007. Use of diatoms for evaluating ecological status in UK freshwaters. Science Report: SC030103. Environment Agency, Bristol. http://www.wfduk.org/LibraryPublicDocs/diatoms_sc030103. Accessed 28 Mar 2011.
  38. Kelly, M., S. Juggins, R. Guthrie, S. Pritchard, J. Jamieson, B. Rippey, H. Hirst & M. Yallop, 2008. Assessment of ecological status in U.K. rivers using diatoms. Freshwater Biology 53: 403–422.Google Scholar
  39. Kelly, M., H. Bennion, A. Burgess, J. Ellis, S. Juggins, R. Guthrie, J. Jamieson, V. Adriaenssens & M. Yallop, 2009a. Uncertainty in ecological status assessments of lakes and rivers using diatoms. Hydrobiologia 633: 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kelly, M. G., A. Haigh, J. Colette & A. Zgrundo, 2009b. Effect of environmental improvements on the diatoms of the River Axe, southern England. Fottea 9: 343–349.Google Scholar
  41. Kim, Y. S., J. S. Choi, J. H. Kim, S. C. Kim, J. W. Park & H. S. Kim, 2008. The effects of effluent from a closed mine and treated sewage on epilithic diatom communities in a Korean stream. Nova Hedwigia 86: 507–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krammer, K., 1997a. Die cymbelloiden Diatomeen. Eine Monographie der weltweit bekannten Taxa. Teil 1. Allgemeines und Encyonema Part. Bibliotheca Diatomologica 36: 1–382.Google Scholar
  43. Krammer, K., 1997b. Die cymbelloiden Diatomeen. Eine Monographie der weltweit bekannten Taxa. Teil 2. Encyonema part., Encyonopsis and Cymbellopsis. Bibliotheca Diatomologica 37: 1–469.Google Scholar
  44. Krammer, K., 2002. Cymbella. In Lange-Bertalot, H. (ed.), Diatoms of Europe. Diatoms of the European Inland Waters and Comparable Habitats, Vol. 3. A.R.G. Gantner Verlag K.G., Ruggell.Google Scholar
  45. Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1986–1991. Bacillariophyceae 1. Teil: Naviculaceae, 876 pp.; 2. Teil: Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae, 596 pp.; 3. Teil: Centrales, Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae, 576 pp.; 4. Teil: Achnanthaceae. Kritische Ergänzungen zu Navicula (Lineolatae) und Gomphonema, 437 pp. In Ettl, H., J. Gerloff, H. Heynig & D. Mollenhauer (eds), Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa Band 2/1–4. G. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  46. Lange-Bertalot, H., 2001. Navicula sensu stricto. 10 genera separated from Navicula sensu lato. Frustulia. In Lange-Bertalot, H. (ed.), Diatoms of Europe. Diatoms of the European Inland Waters and Comparable Habitats, Vol. 2. A.R.G. Gantner Verlag K.G., Ruggell.Google Scholar
  47. Lavoie, I., S. Campeau, M. Grenier & P. J. Dillon, 2006. A diatom-based index for the biological assessment of eastern Canadian rivers: an application of correspondence analysis (CA). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63: 1793–1811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lewis, B. R., I. Jüttner, B. Reynolds & S. J. Ormerod, 2007. Comparative assessment of stream acidity using diatoms and macroinvertebrates: implications for river management and conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 17: 502–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lobo, E. A., K. Katoh & Y. Aruga, 1995. Response of epilithic diatom assemblages to water pollution in rivers in the Tokyo Metropolitan area, Japan. Freshwater Biology 34: 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mallin, M. A., V. L. Johnson & S. H. Ensign, 2009. Comparative impacts of stormwater runoff on water quality of an urban, a suburban, and a rural stream. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 159: 475–491.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Martín, G., J. Toja, S. E. Sala, M. de los Reyes Fernández, I. Reyes & M. A. Casco, 2010. Application of diatom biotic indices in the Guadalquivir River Basin, a Mediterranean basin. Which one is the most appropriated? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 170: 519–534.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nather Khan, I. S. A., 1991. Effects of urban and industrial wastes on species diversity of the diatom community in a tropical river, Malaysia. Hydrobiologia 224: 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ormerod, S. J. & I. Jüttner, 2009. Pollution effects on Welsh rivers: a damaged past, an uncertain future? In Williams, D. D. & C. A. Duigan (eds), The Rivers of Wales. A Natural Resource of International and Historical Significance. Backhuys Publishers/Leiden & Margraf Publishers, Weikersheim: 181–203.Google Scholar
  54. Ormerod, S. J., M. Dobson, A. G. Hildrew & C. R. Townsend, 2010. Multiple stressors in freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 55(Suppl. 1): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Passy, S. I., 2006. Diatom community dynamics in streams of chronic and episodic acidification: the roles of environment and time. Journal of Phycology 42: 312–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Paul, M. J. & J. L. Meyer, 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Platt, R. H., R. A. Rowntree & P. C. Muick (eds), 1994. The Ecological City: Preserving and Restoring Urban Biodiversity. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.Google Scholar
  58. Potapova, M. & P. B. Hamilton, 2007. Morphological and ecological variation within the Achnanthidium minutissimum (Bacillariophyceae) species complex. Journal of Phycology 43: 561–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Poulíčková, A., M. Duchoslav & M. Dokulil, 2004. Littoral diatom assemblages as bioindicators of lake trophic status: a case study from perialpine lakes in Austria. European Journal of Phycology 39: 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Prygiel, J. & M. Coste, 1993. The assessment of water quality in the Artois-Picardie water basin (France) by the use of diatom indices. Hydrobiologia 269–270: 343–349.Google Scholar
  61. Prygiel, J., M. Coste & J. Bukowska, 1999. Review of the major diatom-based techniques for the quality assessment of rivers – state of the art in Europe. In Prygiel, J., B. A. Whitton & J. Bukowska (eds), Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers III. Agence de l’Eau Artois-Picardie, Douai: 224–238.Google Scholar
  62. Reichardt, E., 1999. Zur Revision der Gattung Gomphonema. Die Arten um G. affine/insigne, G. angustatum/micropus, G. acuminatum sowie gomphonemoide Diatomeen aus dem Oberoligozän in Böhmen. Iconographia Diatomologica 8: 1–203.Google Scholar
  63. Rimet, F., L. Ector, H.-M. Cauchie & L. Hoffmann, 2009. Changes in diatom-dominated biofilms during simulated improvements in water quality: implications for diatom-based monitoring in rivers. European Journal of Phycology 44: 567–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Scullion, J. & R. W. Edwards, 1980. The effects of coal industry pollutants on the macroinvertebrate fauna of a small river in the South Wales coalfield. Freshwater Biology 10: 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Soininen, J. & K. Könönen, 2004. Comparative study of monitoring South-Finnish rivers and streams using macroinvertebrate and benthic diatom community structure. Aquatic Ecology 38: 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Torrisi, M., S. Scuri, A. Dell’Uomo & M. Cocchioni, 2010. Comparative monitoring by means of diatoms, macroinvertebrates and chemical parameters of an Apennine watercourse of central Italy: the river Tenna. Ecological Indicators 10: 910–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Walsh, G. & V. Wepener, 2009. The influence of land use on water quality and diatom community structures in urban and agriculturally stressed rivers. Water SA 35: 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wang, Y.-K., R. J. Stevenson & L. Metzmeier, 2005. Development and evaluation of a diatom-based Index of Biotic Integrity for the Interior Plateau Ecoregion, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24: 990–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Watanabe, T., T. Ohtsuka, A. Tuji & A. Houki, 2005. Picture Book and Ecology of the Freshwater Diatoms. Uchida Rokakuho Publishing, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  70. Ziemann, H., 1982. Indikatoren für den Salzgehalt der Binnengewässer – Halobiensystem. In Breitig, G. & W. von Tümpling (eds), Ausgewählte Methoden der Wasseruntersuchung. Band II. Biologische, mikrobiologische und toxikologische Methoden. VEB G. Fischer Verlag, Jena: 89–95.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingrid Jüttner
    • 1
  • P. James Chimonides
    • 2
  • Steve J. Ormerod
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biodiversity and Systematic BiologyNational Museum of WalesCardiffUK
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyNatural History MuseumLondonUK
  3. 3.Catchment Research Group, School of BiosciencesCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations