The Role of Benthic Algae in Estuarine Pollution Assessment

  • Martin Wilkinson
  • David A. Rendall
Chapter

Abstract

Benthic algae might be considered suitable for estuarine pollution assessment for two reasons. Firstly they can be more abundant in the upper reaches of some estuaries than are the more commonly used macrofauna (but not necessarily the meiofauna). Secondly they present a more economic approach being quickly and cheaply sampled compared wth meiofauna and macrofauna. Although they are believed by some to be a notorious example of taxonomic confusion this is largely a reflection of their lack of study. Relatively few species are involved and their identification can be learnt without too much difficulty.

Keywords

Biochemical Oxygen Demand Rocky Shore Brown Seaweed Benthic Alga Pollution Indicator 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cairns, J., Albaugh, D.W.,Busey, F. and Chanay, M.D. 1968. The Sequential Comparison Index-a simplified method for non-biologists to estimate relative differences in biological diversity in stream pollution studies. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 40, 1607–1613.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Cotton, A.D. 1912. Marine Algae. In A Biological Survey of Clare Island in the County of Mayo, Ireland, and of the Adjoining District (Praeger, R.L. (Ed)) Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 31, (15), 1–178.Google Scholar
  3. Fjerdingstad, E. 1964. Pollution of streams estimated by benthal phytomicro-organisms. I. A saprobic system based on communities of organisms and ecological factors. Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie 49, 63–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gray, J.S. 1979. Pollution-induced changes in populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B286, 545–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Grenager, B. 1957. Algological observations from the polluted area of the Oslo fjord. Nytt. Magazin for Botanik 5, 41–60.Google Scholar
  6. den Hartog, C. 1967. Brackish water as an environment for algae. Blumea 15, 31–43.Google Scholar
  7. Hayren, E. 1923. Fororenigen och Strandvegetationen i Helsingfors Ham-nomrade. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift 17, 62–668.Google Scholar
  8. Lewis, J.R. 1977. Rocky foreshores. In The Coastline (Barnes, R.S.K. (Ed)). John Wiley & Sons, London pp. 147–158.Google Scholar
  9. Luoma, S.N., Bryan, G.W. and Langston, W.J. 1982. Scavenging of heavy metals from particulates by brown seaweed. Marine Pollution Bulletin 13, 394–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nelson-Smith, A. 1979. Monitoring the effect of oil pollution on rocky seashores. In Monitoring the Marine Environment (Nichols, D. (Ed)). Institute of Biology, London, pp. 25–53.Google Scholar
  11. Patrick, R. 1964. A discussion of natural and abnormal diatom communities. In Algae and Man. (Jackson, D.F. (Ed)). Plenum Press, New York. pp. 185–204.Google Scholar
  12. Phillips, D.J.H. 1980. Quantitative Aquatic Biological Indicators. Applied Science Publishers, Barking, England.Google Scholar
  13. Rendall, D.A. 1982. Factors affecting the distribution of Melosira nummuloides in the polluted Clyde estuary. Ph.D. Thesis. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  14. Thorpe, M.W. and Williams, I.L. 1980. A guide to the use of algae for the biological surveillance or rivers. Technical Memorandum No. 20, Department of the Environment, Water Data Unit, Reading, England.Google Scholar
  15. Tittley, I. and Price, J.H. 1977. The marine algae of the tidal Thames. London Naturalist 56, 10–17.Google Scholar
  16. Wallentinus, I. 1979. Environmental influences on benthic macrovegeta-tion in the Trosa-Asko area, northern Baltic proper. II. The ecology of macroalgae and submersed phanerogams. Contributions from the Asko Laboratory No. 25, 1–210.Google Scholar
  17. Wilkinson, M. 1980. Estuarine benthic algae and their environment — a review. In The Shore Environment Vol. 2. (Price, J.H., Irvine, D.E.G., and Farnham W.F. (Eds)). Academic Press, London. pp. 425–486.Google Scholar
  18. Wilkinson, M., Henderson, A.R. and Wilkinson, C.1976. Distribution of attached algae in estuaries. Marine Pollution Bulletin 7, 183–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wilkinson, M., Macleod, L. and Fuller, I. 1980. A first account of estuarine algae under combined conditions of very low pH and metal enrichment. Botanica marina 23, 457–477.Google Scholar
  20. Wilkinson, M., Fuller, I., Penny, J.W., Scanlan, C.W., May, R.L. and Roe, F. 1981. Vertical zonation of intertidal algae in some small stratified estuaries. Phycologia 20, 116–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wulff, B.L. and McIntire, C.D. 1972. Laboratory studies of assemblages of attached estuarine diatoms. Limnology and Oceanography 17, 200–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Wilkinson
    • 1
  • David A. Rendall
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Brewing and Biological SciencesHeriot-Watt UniversityEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations