, Volume 506, Issue 1–3, pp 519–524 | Cite as

Littoral diatoms as indicators for the eutrophication of shallow lakes

  • Miloslav Kitner
  • Aloisie Poulícková


The littoral zone of shallow water bodies in the Czech Republic has been studied quite consistently at several fishponds. The use of algae, especially diatoms, for the monitoring of the state of lotic freshwater also has a long tradition. The main objective of the presented paper is to validate the feasibility of the use of littoral periphyton comunities for the biomonitoring of standing waters. At the investigated sites, littoral periphytic diatoms were studied together with selected enviromental variables (pH, conductivity, nutrients – especially total phosphorus) on three types of natural substrates (epilithon, epiphyton, epipelon). The evaluation of the diatom community was performed on the basis of the checklists of algal indicator species published by authors from the Czech Republic, Austria and the Netherlands. The data were subjected to statistical software NCCS 2000 (GLM Anova and ``Ward's minimum'' variance cluster analysis). Littoral periphytic diatoms appear to be good indicators of the fishpond water quality. The selected substrates show non-significant differences therefore the average values from all substrates were used. The best indicatory system for evaluation of Czech fishponds was van Dam's index.

diatoms eutrophication epilithon epiphyton epipelon fishponds bioindication 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ács, É, A. K. Borsodi, J. Makk, P. Molndr, A. Mózes, A. Rusznyák, M. N. Reskóné & K. T. Kiss, 2003. Algological and bacteriological investigations on reed periphyton in Lake Velencei, Hungary. Hydrobiologia 506–509: 549–557.Google Scholar
  2. Albay, M. & R. Akcaalan, 2003. Comparative study of periphyton colonisation on common reed (Phragmites australis) and artifi-cial substrate in a shallow lake, Manyas, Turkey. Hydrobiologia 506–509: 531–540Google Scholar
  3. Buczkó, K. & É., Ács, 1994. Algological studies on the periphyton in the branch-system of the Danube at Cikolasziget (Hungary). Verh. int. Ver. theor. angew. Limnol. 25: 1680–1683.Google Scholar
  4. Cattaneo, A., 1987. Periphyton in lakes of different trophy. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44: 296–303.Google Scholar
  5. Eminson, D. & B. Moss, 1980. The composition and ecology of periphyton communities in freshwaters. 1. The influence of host type and external environment on community composition. Br. Phycol. J. 15: 429–446.Google Scholar
  6. Hindák, F. (ed.), 1978. Sladkovodné riasy [Freshwater Algae]. Státní pedagogické nakladatelství, Bratislava: 724 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Kitner, M. & A. Poulí?ková, 2000.?asy n?kolika rybníkù v okolí Protivanova [Algae of several fishponds near Protivanov (Moravia, Czech Republic)]. P?írodov?dné studie Muzea Prost?jovska 3: 45–53.Google Scholar
  8. Kitner, M., A. Poulí?ková, R. Novotnè, P. Válová, & Hašler, 2003. First record of Dicranochaete reniformis Hieronymus in Moravia (Czech Republic). Biologia 58(4): 529–536.Google Scholar
  9. Kiss, M. K., G. Lakatos, G. Borics, Z. Gidó & C. Deák, 2003. Littoral macrophyte-periphyton complexes in two Hungarian shallow waters. Hydrobiologia 506–509: 541–548.Google Scholar
  10. Kolkwitz, R. & M. Marsson, 1908. Ökologie der pflanzliche Saprobien. Berichte der Deutsche Botanische Gesellschaften 26: 505–519.Google Scholar
  11. Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1986. Bacillariophyceae. 1. Teil. In Süsswasserflora von Mitteleropa 2/1. In Ettl, H., J. Gerloff, H. Heynig & D. Mollenhauer (eds), G. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart: 876 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1988. Bacillariophyceae. 2. Teil. In Süsswasserflora von Mitteleropa 2/2. In Ettl, H., J. Gerloff, H. Heynig & D. Mollenhauer (eds), G. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart: 596 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1991a. Bacillariophyceae. 3. Teil. In Süsswasserflora von Mitteleropa 2/3. In Ettl, H., J. Ger524 loff, H. Heynig & D. Mollenhauer (eds), G. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart: 576 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Krammer, K. & H. Lange-Bertalot, 1991b. Bacillariophyceae. 4. Teil. In Süsswasserflora von Mitteleropa 2/4. In Ettl, H., J. Gerloff, H. Heynig & D. Mollenhauer (eds), G. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart: 437 pp.Google Scholar
  15. OECD, 1982. Eutrophication of waters. Monitoring, assessment and control. Paris: 155 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Rott, E., (ed.), 1999. Indikationslisten für Aufwuchsalgen in österreichischen Fliessgewässern. Teil 2: Trophieindikation sowie geochemische Präferenz; taxonomische und toxikologische Anmerkungen, Wien: 247 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Round, F. E., 1991. Use of diatoms for monitoring rivers. In: Whitton, B. A., E. Rott & G. Friedrich (eds), Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers Düsseldorf: 25–32.Google Scholar
  18. Sláde?ek, V. & A. Sláde?ková, 1996. Atlas vodních organismù se zretelem na vodárenství, povrchové vody a ?cistírny odpadních vod. 1. díl: Destruenti a producenti. [Atlas of feshwater organisms]. Česká v?deckotechnická vodohospodá?ská spolecnost. Praha: 351 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Sláde?ková, A., 1962. Limnological investigation methods for the periphyton ('Aufwuchs') community. Bot. Rev. 28: 286–350.Google Scholar
  20. Stoermer, E. F. & J. P. Smol (eds), 1999. The Diatoms: Applications for the Environmental and Earth Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 469 p.Google Scholar
  21. van Dam, H., 1982. On the use of measures of structure and diversity in applied diatom ecology. Nova Hedwigia 73: 97–115.Google Scholar
  22. van Dam, H., A. Mertens & J. Sinkeldam, 1994. A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from the Netherlands. Neth. J. Aquat. Ecol. 28: 117–133.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miloslav Kitner
    • 1
  • Aloisie Poulícková
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Botany, Faculty of SciencesPalacký UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations