Advertisement

Diatom Indices and Water Quality Index of the Cauvery River, India: Implications on the Suitability of Bio-Indicators for Environmental Impact Assessment

  • R. Venkatachalapathy
  • P. KarthikeyanEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Springer Earth System Sciences book series (SPRINGEREARTH)

Abstract

Physico-chemical properties of water are routinely utilized for understanding environmental quality. Diatoms are used as bio-indicators to assess the water quality of surface waters. Independent assessments of environmental quality of the surface waters from the Cauvery River were made and the resultant quality-indicators were assessed in the light of national river water quality standards. Occurrences of sixty (60) species belonging to 21 genera are recorded from the Cauvery River. Water samples were analyzed for various physico-chemical parameters, viz., pH, Electrical Conductivity (μS/cm), Dissolved solid (mg/l), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) (mg/l), Calcium (Ca) (mg/l), Magnesium (Mg) (mg/l), Sodium (Na) (mg/l), Potassium (K) (mg/l), Chloride (Cl) (mg/l), Bicarbonate (HCO3) (mg/l) and Sulphate (SO4) (mg/l). These physico-chemical parameters formed the basis of computing the Water Quality Index. The results of the present study on diatom assemblages in the Cauvery River revealed moderate pollution at Siluvampalayam and Koneripatti and high levels of pollution at Peramachipalayam, Kottampatty, Sanyasipatti and Bhavani. The Water Quality Index revealed pristine nature of the Cauvery River water in upstream regions that became unsuitable for human consumption downstream of Bhavani Town. The values of DO and BOD levels indicated absence of major organic pollution. Comparative validation of the physico-chemistry and bio-indicators suggested sensitive nature of the Diatom indices to environmental variables and thus the diatom indices can be a reliable tool for environmental impact assessment.

Keywords

Cauvery river Diatom indices Diatom assemblages Water quality index 

References

  1. Berger WH, Parker FL (1970) Diversity of planktonic foraminifera in deep-sea sediments, Science 168:1345–1347Google Scholar
  2. Bhargave DS (1983) Use of water quality index for river classification and zoning of Ganga River. Environ Poll Serv B Chem Phys 6:51–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolton PW, Currie JC, Tervet DJ, Welch WT (1978) An index to improve water quality classification. Water Pollut Control 77:271–284Google Scholar
  4. Cemagref (1982) Etude des methods biologiques d’appré- ciation quantitative de la qualitédes eaux. Rapport Q. E. Lyon, Agence de l’eau Rhöne-Me´diterrane´e- Corse-Cemagref. Lyon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  5. Coste M, Ayphassorho H (1991) Étude de la qualité deseaux du Bassin Artois-Picardie àl’aide des communautés de diatomées benthiques (application des indices diatomiques). Rapport Cemagref. Bordeaux-Agence de l’Eau Artois- Picardie, DouaiGoogle Scholar
  6. Cude C (2001) Oregon water quality index: a tool for evaluating water quality management effectiveness. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37(1):125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DellUomo A (1996) Assessment of water quality of an Apennine river as a pilot study. In: Whitton BA, Rott E (eds), Use of algae for monitoring rivers II. Institut fu¨ r Botanik, Universität Innsbruck, pp 65–73Google Scholar
  8. Descy JP, Coste M (1991) A test of methods for assessing water quality based on diatoms. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Lim 24:2112–2116Google Scholar
  9. Eloranta P, Soininen J (2002) Ecological status of some Finnish rivers evaluated using benthic diatom communities. J Appl Phycol 14:177Google Scholar
  10. Gandhi HP (1957) A contribution to our knowledge of the diatom genus Pinnularia. Nat Soc J 54:845–853Google Scholar
  11. Gandhi HP (1959) Fresh-water Diatoms from Sagar in the Mysore State. J Ind Bot 38:305–331Google Scholar
  12. Gandhi HP (1998) Freshwater Diatoms of central Gujarat. Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra DunGoogle Scholar
  13. Gandhi HP (1961) Notes on the Diatomaceae of Ahmedabad and its environs. Hydrobiologia 17:218–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gandhi HP (1962) Notes on the Diatomaceae from Ahmedabad and its environs- IV—The diatom communities of some freshwater pools and ditches along Sarkhej Road. Phykos 1:115–127Google Scholar
  15. Gandhi HP (1967) Notes on Diatomaceae from Ahmedabad and its environs. VI. On some diatoms from fountain reservoirs of Seth Sarabhai’s Garden. Hydrobiologia 30:248–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gomez N, Licursi M (2001) The Pampean Diatom Index (IDP) for assessment of rivers and streams in Argentina. Aquat Ecol 35:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. House MA (1989) A Water quality index for river management. J Inst Water Environ Manage. 3:336–344. doi: 10.1007/s10653-005-9001-5
  18. House MA, Ellis JB (1987) The development of water quality indices for operational management, Water Sci Technol 19:145–154Google Scholar
  19. Karthick B, Krithika H, Alakananda B (2008) Short guide to common freshwater Diatom Genera (Poster). Energy and Wetlands Research Group, CES, IISc, BangaloreGoogle Scholar
  20. Karthick B, Alakananda B, Ramachandra TV (2009) Diatom based pollution monitoring in urban wetlands of Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, Envis Technical Report—560012, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  21. Karthick B, Taylor JC, Mahesh MK, Ramachandra TV (2010) Protocols for collection, preservation and enumeration of Diatoms from aquatic habitats for water quality monitoring in India. IUP J Soil Wat 3(1):25–60Google Scholar
  22. Kelly MG, Whitton BA (1995) The Trophic Diatom index: a new index for monitoring Eutrophication in rivers. J Phy 7:433–444Google Scholar
  23. Kell MG, Cazaubon A, Coring E, Dell’Uomo A, Ector L, Goldsmith B, Guasch H, Hürlimann J, Jarlman A, Kawecka B, Kwandrans J, Laugaste R, Lindstrom EA, Leitao M, Marvan P, Padisak J, Pipp E, Prygiel J, Rott E, Sabater S, Dam VH, Vizinet J (1998) Recommendations for the routine sampling of diatoms for water quality assessments in Europe. J Phy 10:215–224Google Scholar
  24. Kelly M, Juggins S, Guthrie R et al (2008). Assessment of ecological status in U.K. rivers using diatoms. Freshwater Biol 53:403–422Google Scholar
  25. Leclerq L, Maquet B (1987) Deux nouveaux indices chimique et diatomique de qualite´ d’eau courante. Application au Samson et àses affluents (bassin de la Meuse belge). Comparaison avec d’autres indices chimiques, bioce´notiques et diatomiques. Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, documented travail 28Google Scholar
  26. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology. 2nd English edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  27. Lenoir A, Coste M (1996) Development of a practical diatom index of overall water quality applicable to the French National Water Board network. In: Whitton BA, Rott E (eds) Use of algae for monitoring rivers II. Institut für Botanik, Universität Innsbruck, pp 29–43Google Scholar
  28. Liou S, Lo S, Wang S (2004) A generalized water quality index for Taiwan. Environ Monitor Assess 96:35–52Google Scholar
  29. Ludwig JA, Reynolds JF (1988) Statistical ecology: a primer of methods and computing. John Wiley and Sons, xviii, pp 337Google Scholar
  30. Miller WW, Joung HM, Mahannah CN, Garrett JR (1986) Identification of water quality differences Nevada through index application. J Environ Qual 15:265–272Google Scholar
  31. Mitchell MK, Stapp WB (1996) Field manual for water quality monitoring: an environmental educational program for schools. Thomson-Shore Inc, Dextor, p 277Google Scholar
  32. Nasiri F, Maqsiid I, Haunf G, Fuller N (2007) Water quality index: a fuzzy river pollution decision support expert system. J Water Resour Plann Manage 133:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pesce SF, Wunderlin DA (2000) Use of water quality indices to verify the impact of Cordoba City (Argentina) on Suquira river. Water Res 34:2915–2926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prygiel J, Leveque L, Iserentant R (1996) Un nouvel indice diatomique pratique pour l’évaluation de la qualité des eaux en réseau de surveillance. Rev Sci Eau 1:97–113Google Scholar
  35. Rott E (1991) Methodological aspects and perspectives in the use of periphyton for monitoring and protecting rivers. In: Whitton, BA, Rott, E, Friedrich G (eds), Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers. Institut fur Botanik, Univ. Innsbruck, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  36. Said A, Stevens D, Selke G (2004) An innovative index for water quality in streams. Environ Manage 34:406–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schiefele S, Schreiner C (1991) Use of diatoms for monitoring nutrient enrichment acidification and impact salts in Germany and Austria. In: Whitton BA, Rott E, Friedrich G (eds) Use of algae for monitoring rivers. Institüt für Botanik, Univ. InnsbrukGoogle Scholar
  38. Shrestha S, Kazama F (2007) Assessment of surface water quality using multivariate statistical techniques: a case study of the Fuji river Basin, Japan. Environ Model Softw 22(4):464–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sladecek V (1986) Diatoms as indicators of organic pollution. Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol 14:555–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stoermer EF, Smol JP (eds) (1999) The diatoms: applications for the environmental and earth sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  41. Stoermer EF, Pilskaln CH, Schelske CL (1995) Siliceous microfossil distribution in the surficial sediments of Lake Baikal. J Pal 14:69–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taylor JC, Harding WR, Archibald CGM (2007) An illustrated guide to some common diatom species from South Africa. WRC Report TT 282/07. Water Research Commission, PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  43. Trivedy RK, Goe PK (1986) Chemical and biological methods for water pollution studies. Environmental Publications, Karad, p 7Google Scholar
  44. Vega M, Pardo R, Barrado E, Deban L (1998) Assessment of seasonal and polluting effects on the quality of river water byex ploratory data analysis. Water Res 32(12):3581–3592. doi: 10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00138-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Venkatachalapathy R, Karthikeyan P (2012) Environmental impact assessment of Cauvery river with Diatoms at Bhavani, Tamil Nadu, India. Int J Geol Earth Environ Sci 2(3):36–42Google Scholar
  46. Venkatachalapathy R, Karthikeyan P (2013a) Physical, chemical and environmental studies on Cauvery river in parts of Tamil Nadu (Mettur and Bhavani). Univ J Environ Res 3(3):415–422Google Scholar
  47. Venkatachalapathy R, Karthikeyan P (2013b) Diatoms assemblages distribution in Cauvery Bhavani rivers, Tamil Nadu in relation to chemical and physiographical factors. Res J Chem Sci 3(11):55–59Google Scholar
  48. Venkatachalapathy R, Karthikeyan P (2013c) A taxonomic and morphological study of fresh water Diatom species Synedra ulna (Nitzsch) Ehrenberg in Cauvery river at Bhavani region, Tamil Nadu, India. Int Res J Environ Sci 2(11):18–22Google Scholar
  49. Venkatachalapathy R, Karthikeyan P (2013d) Benthic Diatoms in river influenced by urban pollution, Bhavani region, Cauvery river, South India. Int J Innovative Technol Exploring Eng 2(3):206–210Google Scholar
  50. Venkatachalapathy R, Karthikeyan P (2014) Diatom indices for water quality assessment in Cauvery river, Tamil Nadu, India. Gondwana Geol Mag 15(2014):109–116Google Scholar
  51. Watanabe T, Asai K, Houki A (1986) Numerical estimation of organic pollution of flowing waters by using the epilithic diatom assemblage-Diatom Assemblage Index (DIApo). Sci Total Environ 55:209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zelinka M, Marvan P (1961) Zur Präzisierung der biologischen Klassifikation der Reinheit fliessender Gewässer. Arch Hydrobiol 57:389–407Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeologyPeriyar UniversitySalemIndia

Personalised recommendations