Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Mert Irmağı Su Kalitesi’ndeki Mekansal ve Zamansal Değişimlerin Fitoplankton Topluluğu ve Biyolojik İndeksler Yardımıyla Belirlenmesi

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 25 Sayı: Ek Sayı 1, 42 - 53, 30.12.2022

Faruk Maraşlıoğlu , Serdar Bektaş

https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1055761
Cited By: 4

Öz

Mert Irmağı'nın su kalitesini belirlemek için, algal indikatörler ve fitoplankton temelli bazı biyolojik indeksler (TDI, IDG, PTI, Palmer, DAIpo) kullanılmıştır. Fitoplankton örneklemeleri, Temmuz 2011 ile Haziran 2012 arasında bir litrelik su örnekleyici kullanarak altı farklı noktada 0.5 metre derinlikten aylık olarak gerçekleştirildi. Fitoplankton örnekleri 250 mL’lik koyu renkli kaplara konup laboratuvara taşınıncaya kadar Lugol çözeltisi ile fikse edildikten sonra Utermöhl metoduna göre inverted mikroskoba yerletirilen tüpsü plankton sayım çemberlerinde teşhisleri ve sayımları yapıldı. Bacillariophyta üyeleri % 83.3’lük bolluk oranı ve 71 takson ile fitoplanktonun baskın divizyosu olmuştur. Lindavia glomerata, Navicula cryptocephala, Cyclotella planctonica ve Navicula veneta Mert Irmağı’ndaki fitoplanktonik taksonlar arasında en baskın türler olarak belirlenmiştir. Mert Irmağı'nın trofik durumunu belirlemek için planktonik diyatome temelli Trofik diatom indeksi (TDI) ve Genel diatom indeksi (IDG) kullanıldı. Mert Irmağı'nın organik yük temelli sabrobite seviyesini değerlendirmek için ise Kirlilik tolerans indeksi (PTI), Diatom topluluk indeksi (DAIPo) ve Palmer indeksi dahil edildi. Ortalama TDI ve IDG sonuçlarına göre (sırasıyla 55 ve 13), Mert Irmağı trofik durumu, orta düzey besin ve iyi su şeffaflığına sahip mezotrofik bir yapıdır. Ortalama PTI sonucuna göre (2.7), Mert Irmağı orta düzey kirliliğe karşılık gelen β-mezosaprobik sınıftadır. DAIpo indeksi dikkate alındığında, Mert Irmağı’nın saprofikliği α-oligosaprobik düzeyde olup ırmakta organik kaynaklı ciddi bir kirlilik söz konusu değildir. Fakat, Palmer indeksine göre Mert Irmağı’nın 6. istasyon haricinde tüm istasyonları yüksek organik kirlilik tehdidi altındadır. Bu çalışmada, ırmağın istasyon bazlı trofik yapısını en iyi yansıtan biyolojik indeksin IDG, istasyon bazlı organik kirliliği en iyi yansıtan biyolojik indeksin ise PTI olduğu görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Akarsu Fitoplankton Biyolojik İndeks Su kalitesi

Kaynakça

  • Abakumov VA 1992. Guidelines for Hydrobiological Monitoring of Freshwater Ecosystems. Gidrometeoizdat, St. Petersburg, 318 pp.
  • Altuner Z 1988. A Study of the diatom Flora of Aras River, Turkey. Nova Hedwigia 46: 225-263.
  • Altuner Z, Gürbüz H 1989. Karasu (Fırat) Nehri fitoplankton topluluğu üzerinde bir araştırma. İ.Ü. Su Ürünleri Dergisi 3(1-2): 151-176.
  • Amal ME 2012. The use of diatom indices for the assessment of Shatt AL-Arab river water quality. Journal of Basrah Researches (Sciences) 38(1): 114-124.
  • Anonymous 1999. Nutrients in European Ecosystems. Environmental Assessment Report No. 4. Copenhagen: European Environmental Agency, 155 pp.
  • Anonymous 2002. Methods for assessing biological integrity of surface waters in Kentucky. Department for Environmental Protection, Division of Water, Frankfort, KY 40601 USA.
  • Anonymous 2021. AlgaeBase. World-Wide Electronic Publication, National University of Ireland, Galway. http://www.algaebase.org/
  • Anonymous 2022. Turkish algae electronic publication. http://turkiyealgleri.hitit.edu.tr.
  • Atıcı T, Udoh A 2016. Indicator Algae of Adrasan Stream (Antalya) Turkey. Sinop Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi 1: 140-154.
  • Bakan G, Şenel B 2000. Research on Bottom Sediment and Water Quality of Samsun-Mert Stream at the Discharge into the Black Sea. Turkish Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 24(3): 135-142.
  • Barinova SS, Anissimova OV, Nevo E, Jarygin MM, Wasser SP 2004. Diversity and Ecology of Algae from the Nahal Qishon river, northern Israel. Plant Biosystems 138(3): 245-259.
  • Barinova SS, Medvedeva LA, Anissimova OV 2006. Diversity of algal indicators in environmental assessment. Pilies Studio, Tel Aviv, 498 pp.
  • Bektaş S 2016. Investigations on The Algal Flora of Samsun Mert Stream. Ondokuz Mayıs University, Institute of Science, Biology Department, Master’s Thesis, 85 pp.
  • Ben Brahim M, Feki W S, Feki M, Mahfoudhi M, Hamza A 2015. Seasonal and daily fluctuation of diatoms during spring tide periods in Kerkennah Islands. Journal of Coastal Life Medicine 3(6): 446-452.
  • Butcher RW 1947. Studies in the ecology of rivers: VII. The algae of organically enriched waters. Journal of Ecology 35: 186-191.
  • Cho KJ 1996. Fine Morphology of some Cyclotella Species from the Freshwater Zone of the Naktong River. Algae (The Korean Journal of Phycology) 11(1): 9-21.
  • Claps C 1996. Structure and dynamics of epipelic algae from a plain river (Samborombon River, Buenos Aires, Argentina). Archiv für Hydrobiologie 137(2): 251-263.
  • Coste M, Ayphassorho H 1991. A study of water quality in Artois-Picardie bassine with the help of benthic diatomia communities: an application of diatomic index. Report Cemagref Bordeaux, Agence de l’Eau Artois-Picardie, Douai.
  • Cox EJ 1996. Identification of freshwater diatoms from live material. Chapman and Hall, London, 158 pp. Delgado C, Pardo I, García L 2012. Diatom communities as indicators of ecological status in Mediterranean temporary streams (Balearic Islands, Spain). Ecological Indicators 15: 131-139.
  • Della Bella V, Mancini L 2009. Freshwater diatom and macroinvertebrate diversity of coastal permanent ponds along a gradient of human impact in a Mediterranean eco-region. Hydrobiologia 634: 25-41.
  • Dokulil MT 2003. Algae as ecological bioindicators. (Bioindicators and Biomonitors: Principles, Concepts and Applications. Elsevier, Oxford-UK: Ed. Markert BA, Breure AM, Zechmeister HG) 285-327.
  • Fjerdingstad E 1964. Pollution of stream estimated by benthal phytomicro-organisms. I. A saproby system based on communities of organisms and ecological factors. Internationale Revue Gesamten Hydrobiologia 49: 63-131.
  • Gómez N, Licursi M 2001. The Pampean Diatom Index (IDP) for assessment of rivers and streams in Argentina. Aquatic Ecology 35(2): 173-181.
  • Gürbüz H, Kıvrak E 2002. Use of the epilithic diatoms to evaluate water quality in the Karasu River of Turkey. Journal of Environmental Biology 23: 239-246.
  • Hartley B 1996. An Atlas of British Diatoms. England: Biopress Ltd. 601 pp.
  • Heckman CW, Kamieth H, Stöhr M 1990. The usefulness of various numerical methods for assessing the specific effects of pollution on aquatic biota. International Review of Hydrobiology 75: 353-377.
  • Hornstrom E, Ekstrom C, Froberg E, Ek J 1993. Plankton and chemical-physical development in six Swedish west-coast lakes under acidic and limed conditions. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50: 688-702.
  • Hustedt F 1985. The Pennet Diatoms. Koenigstein, Gremany, Koeltz Scientific Books, 905 pp.
  • John DM, Whitton BA, Brook AJ 2002. The Freshwater Algal Flora of the British Isles: An Identification Guide to Freshwater and Terrestial Algae. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 702 pp.
  • Jüttner I, Rothfritz H, Ormerod SJ 1996. Diatoms as indicators of river quality in the Nepalese Middle Hills with consideration of the effects of habitat-specific sampling. Freshwater Biology 36: 475-486.
  • Kelly MG 1998. Use of the diatom trophic index to monitor eutrophication in rivers. Water Research 32(1): 236-242.
  • Kelly MG, Adams C, Graves AC, Jamieson J, Krokowski J, Lycett E, Murray-Bligh J, Pritchard S, Wilkins C 2001. The Trophic Diatom Index: A user’s manual. E2/TR2. (Almondsbury, Bristol: Environmental Agency, England), 135 pp.
  • Kelly MG, Whitton BA 1995. The trophic diatom index: a new index for monitoring eutrophication in rivers. Journal of Applied Phycology 7: 433-333.
  • Kienzl K, Riss A, Vogel W, Hackl J, Götz B 2003. Bioindicators and biomonitors for policy, legislation and administration. (Bioindicators and Biomonitors: Principles, Concepts and Applications. Elsevier, Oxford-UK: Ed. Markert BA, Breure AM, Zechmeister HG) 85-123.
  • Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H 1991a. Sübwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bacillariophyceae, 3. Teil. Centrales, Fragillariaceae, Eunoticeae. Stuttgart, Germany, Gustav Fischer Verlag, 576 pp.
  • Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H 1991b. Sübwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bacillariophyceae, 4. Teil. Achnanthaceae, Kritische Erganzungen zu Navicula (Lineolate) und Gomphonema Gesamtliterat. Stuttgart, Germany, Gustav Fischer Verlag, 437 pp.
  • Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H 1999a. Sübwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bacillariophyceae, 1. Teil. Naviculaceae. Berlin, Germany, Spectrum Acad. Verlag, 876 pp.
  • Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H 1999b. Sübwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bacillariophyceae, 2. Teil. Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae. Berlin, Germany, Spectrum Acad. Verlag, 610 pp.
  • Lange-Bertalot H 1979. Pollution tolerance as a criterion for water quality estimation. Nova Hedwigia 64: 283-304.
  • Le TT, Luong QD, Vo TTH, Nguyen VT 2018. A case study of phytoplankton used as a biological index for water quality assessment of Nhu Y river, Thua Thien-Hue. Vietnam Journal of Science, Technology and Engineering 60(4): 45-51.
  • Lobo EA, Katoh K, Aruga Y 1995. Response of epilithic diatom assemblages to water pollution in rivers located in the Tokyo Metropolitan area, Japan. Freshwater Biology 34(1): 191-204.
  • Maraşlıoğlu F, Bektaş S, Özen A 2020. Comparative Performance of Physicochemical and Diatom-Based Metrics in Assessing the Water Quality of Mert Stream, Turkey. Journal of Ecological Engineering 21(8): 18-31.
  • Maraşlıoğlu F, Gönülol A, Bektaş S 2018. Application of water quality index method for assessing the surface water quality status of Mert Stream in Turkey. Biological Diversity and Conservation 11(3): 115-121.
  • Maraşlıoğlu F, Soylu EN, Altürk-Karaca S 2017. Seasonal and Spatial Variation of Epilithic Algal Community in Batlama Stream (Giresun, Turkey). Hittite Journal of Science and Engineering 4(1): 39-44.
  • Maraşlıoğlu F, Soylu EN, Gönülol A 2005. Seasonal Variation of the Phytoplankton of Lake Ladik Samsun, Turkey. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 20(3): 549-553.
  • Martín G, Toja J, Sala SE, Fernández MR, Reyes I, Casco MA 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.
  • Muscio C 2002. The diatom pollution tolerance index: Assigning tolerance values. Water Protection and Development Review Department. Environmental Resource Management. 17 pp.
  • Newall P, Walsh CJ 2005. Response of epilithic diatom assemblages to urbanization influences. Hydrobiologia 532: 53-67.
  • Ongun-Sevindik T, Küçük F 2016. Benthic Diatoms as Indicators of Water Quality in the Acarlar Floodplain Forest (Northern Turkey). Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 25(10): 4013-4025.
  • Palmer CM 1969. A composite rating of algae tolerating organic pollution. Journal of Phycology 5: 78-82.
  • Utermöhl H 1958. Zur Ver vollkommung der quantitativen phytoplankton-methodik. Mitteilung Internationale Vereinigung Fuer Theoretische unde Amgewandte Limnologie 9: 1-39.
  • Phillips G, Morabito G, Carvalho L, Lyche Solheim A, Skjelbred B, Moe J, Andersen T, Mischke U, de Hoyos C, Borics G 2010. Report of lake phytoplankton composition metrics, including a common metric approach for use in intercalibration by all GIGs. Deliverable D3.1-1. http://www.wiser.eu/results/deliverables/
  • Prygiel J, Coste M 1993. The assessment of water quality in the Artois-Picardie water basin (France) by the use of diatom indices. Hydrobiologia 269(1): 343-349.
  • Round FE, Crawford RM, Mann DG 1990. The Diatoms: Morphology and biology of the genera. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 747 pp.
  • Rumeau A, Coste M 1988. Introduction into the systematics of freshwater diatoms. For a useful generic diatomic index. Bulletin Francais de la Peche et de la Pisciculture (France) 61(309): 1-69.
  • Saros JE, Anderson NJ 2014. The ecology of the planktonic diatom Cyclotella and its implications for global environmental change studies. Biological Reviews 90(2): 522-541.
  • Shaimaa FA, Fikrat MH, Reidh AA 2017. Evaluation of Water Quality by Trophic Diatom Index (TDI) in Tigris River within Wasit Province. Indian Journal of Ecology 44(4): 711-716.
  • Smith GM 1951. Manual of Phycology: An introduction of algae and their biology. The Ronald Press Company, New York, 373 pp.
  • Solak CN. 2011. The application of diatom indices in the Upper Porsuk River, Kütahya-Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 11(1): 31-36.
  • Solari LC, Claps MC 1996. Planctonic and bentic algae of a Pampean River (Argentina): Comporative analysis. International Journal of Limnology 32(2): 89-95.
  • Soylu EN, Gönülol A 2003. Phytoplankton and seasonal variations of the River Yeşilırmak, Amasya, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 3: 17-24.
  • Stein SM, Alig RJ, White EM, Comas SJ, Carr M, Eley M, Elverum K, O’Donnell M, Theobald DM, Cordell K, Haber J, Beauvais TW 2007. National forests on the edge: development pressures on America’s national forests and grasslands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-728. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 26 pp.
  • Tan X, Zhang Q, Burford MA, Sheldon F, Bunn SE 2017. Benthic Diatom Based Indices for Water Quality Assessment in Two Subtropical Streams. Frontiers in Microbiology 8: 601.
  • Temizel B, Soylu EN, Maraşlıoğlu F 2017. Water quality assessment of the Pazarsuyu Stream based on epilithic diatom communities. Fundamental and Applied Limnology 190(3): 189-197.
  • Tokatlı C 2013. Evaluation of Water Quality by Using Trophic Diatom Index: Example of Porsuk Dam Lake. Journal of Applied Biological Sciences 7(1): 1-4.
  • Tokatlı C, Dayıoğlu H 2011. Use of Epilithic Diatoms to Evaluate Water Quality of Murat Stream (Sakarya River Basin, Kütahya): Different Saprobity Levels and pH Status. Journal of Applied Biological Sciences 5(2): 55-60.
  • Tokatlı C, Solak C N, Yılmaz E, Atıcı T, Dayıoğlu H 2020. Research into Epipelic Diatoms of Meriç and Tunca Rivers and the Application of the Biological Diatom Index in Water Quality Assessment. Aquatic Sciences and Engineering 35(1): 19-26.
  • Van Dam H, Mertens A, Sinkeldam J 1994. A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from the Netherlands. Netherland Journal of Aquatic Ecology 28(1): 117-133.
  • Walley WJ, Grbović J, Deroski S 2001. A Reappraisal of Saprobic Values and Indicator Weights Based on Slovenian River Quality Data. Water Quality Research 35(18): 4285-4292.
  • Watanabe T 1981. A new approach to water quality estimation using the specific composition of the benthic diatoms in epilithic forms based on the discuss to several problems on indicator organisms. Journal of Environmental Pollution and Control 17: 13-18.
  • Watanabe T, Asai K, Houki A 1986. Numerical estimation to organic pollution of flowing water by using the epilithic diatom assemblage-Diatom Assemblage Index (DAIpo). Science Total Environment 55: 209-218.
  • Wetzel RG 2001. Limnology, Lake and River Ecosystems. 3rd Edition, Academic Press, San Diego, 1006 pp. Willen E 1991. Planktonic diatoms - An ecological review. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 62: 69-106.
  • Wu HC, Chen PC, Tsay TT 2010. Assessment of nematode community structure as a bioindicator in river monitoring. Environmental Pollution 158(5): 1741-1747.
  • Yıldız K 1985. Investigations on algae communities of Meram Stream, section 3-Algae living on sediment. Journal of Natural Science 9(2): 428-434.
  • Zbikowski R, Szefer P, Latała P 2007. Comparison of green algae Cladophora sp. and Enteromorpha sp. as potential biomonitors of chemical elements in the southern Baltic. Science of The Total Environment 387: 320-332.

Characterization of Spatiotemporal Variations in Mert Stream Water Quality by Phytoplankton Community and Biological Indices

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 25 Sayı: Ek Sayı 1, 42 - 53, 30.12.2022

Faruk Maraşlıoğlu , Serdar Bektaş

https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1055761
Cited By: 4

Öz

In order to determine the water quality of the Mert Stream, algal indicators and some biological indices (TDI, IDG, PTI, Palmer, DAIpo) based on phytoplankton species were used. Phytoplankton samples were performed monthly from six different sites at a depth of 0.5 meter using a one-litre water sampler between July 2011 and June 2012. After phytoplankton samples were placed in 250-mL dark bottles and fixed with Lugol’s solution until processed in the laboratory, they were identified and counted in the tubular plankton counting chambers using an inverted microscope according to Utermöhl method. Bacillariophyta members became the dominant division in the phytoplankton with an abundance rate of 83.3% and 71 taxa. Lindavia glomerata, Navicula cryptocephala, Cyclotella planctonica, and Navicula veneta were determined as the most dominant species among phytoplanktonic taxa of Mert Stream. Trophic diatom index (TDI) and Generic diatom index (IDG) based on planktonic diatoms were used to determine the trophic status of the Mert Stream. Pollution tolerance index (PTI), Diatom assemblage index (DAIPo) and Palmer index were also included to assess the organic load-based sabrobity level of the Mert Stream. According to the results of mean TDI and IDG (55 and 13, respectively), the trophic status of the Mert Stream is a mesotrophic structure with moderate nutrients and good water transparency. According to the average PTI result (2.7), Mert Stream is in the β-mesosaprobic class, which corresponds to moderate pollution. Considering DAIpo indice, the saprobity of Mert stream is α-oligosaprobic level and the stream is not exposed to a serious organic-based pollution. However, according to the Palmer index, all stations of the Mert Stream except the 6th station are under the threat of high organic pollution. In present study, it was seen that the best biological index that reflects the station-based trophic structure of the stream is IDG, and the best biological index that reflects the station-based organic pollution of the stream is PTI.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Stream Phytoplankton Biological index Water Quality

Kaynakça

  • Abakumov VA 1992. Guidelines for Hydrobiological Monitoring of Freshwater Ecosystems. Gidrometeoizdat, St. Petersburg, 318 pp.
  • Altuner Z 1988. A Study of the diatom Flora of Aras River, Turkey. Nova Hedwigia 46: 225-263.
  • Altuner Z, Gürbüz H 1989. Karasu (Fırat) Nehri fitoplankton topluluğu üzerinde bir araştırma. İ.Ü. Su Ürünleri Dergisi 3(1-2): 151-176.
  • Amal ME 2012. The use of diatom indices for the assessment of Shatt AL-Arab river water quality. Journal of Basrah Researches (Sciences) 38(1): 114-124.
  • Anonymous 1999. Nutrients in European Ecosystems. Environmental Assessment Report No. 4. Copenhagen: European Environmental Agency, 155 pp.
  • Anonymous 2002. Methods for assessing biological integrity of surface waters in Kentucky. Department for Environmental Protection, Division of Water, Frankfort, KY 40601 USA.
  • Anonymous 2021. AlgaeBase. World-Wide Electronic Publication, National University of Ireland, Galway. http://www.algaebase.org/
  • Anonymous 2022. Turkish algae electronic publication. http://turkiyealgleri.hitit.edu.tr.
  • Atıcı T, Udoh A 2016. Indicator Algae of Adrasan Stream (Antalya) Turkey. Sinop Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi 1: 140-154.
  • Bakan G, Şenel B 2000. Research on Bottom Sediment and Water Quality of Samsun-Mert Stream at the Discharge into the Black Sea. Turkish Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences 24(3): 135-142.
  • Barinova SS, Anissimova OV, Nevo E, Jarygin MM, Wasser SP 2004. Diversity and Ecology of Algae from the Nahal Qishon river, northern Israel. Plant Biosystems 138(3): 245-259.
  • Barinova SS, Medvedeva LA, Anissimova OV 2006. Diversity of algal indicators in environmental assessment. Pilies Studio, Tel Aviv, 498 pp.
  • Bektaş S 2016. Investigations on The Algal Flora of Samsun Mert Stream. Ondokuz Mayıs University, Institute of Science, Biology Department, Master’s Thesis, 85 pp.
  • Ben Brahim M, Feki W S, Feki M, Mahfoudhi M, Hamza A 2015. Seasonal and daily fluctuation of diatoms during spring tide periods in Kerkennah Islands. Journal of Coastal Life Medicine 3(6): 446-452.
  • Butcher RW 1947. Studies in the ecology of rivers: VII. The algae of organically enriched waters. Journal of Ecology 35: 186-191.
  • Cho KJ 1996. Fine Morphology of some Cyclotella Species from the Freshwater Zone of the Naktong River. Algae (The Korean Journal of Phycology) 11(1): 9-21.
  • Claps C 1996. Structure and dynamics of epipelic algae from a plain river (Samborombon River, Buenos Aires, Argentina). Archiv für Hydrobiologie 137(2): 251-263.
  • Coste M, Ayphassorho H 1991. A study of water quality in Artois-Picardie bassine with the help of benthic diatomia communities: an application of diatomic index. Report Cemagref Bordeaux, Agence de l’Eau Artois-Picardie, Douai.
  • Cox EJ 1996. Identification of freshwater diatoms from live material. Chapman and Hall, London, 158 pp. Delgado C, Pardo I, García L 2012. Diatom communities as indicators of ecological status in Mediterranean temporary streams (Balearic Islands, Spain). Ecological Indicators 15: 131-139.
  • Della Bella V, Mancini L 2009. Freshwater diatom and macroinvertebrate diversity of coastal permanent ponds along a gradient of human impact in a Mediterranean eco-region. Hydrobiologia 634: 25-41.
  • Dokulil MT 2003. Algae as ecological bioindicators. (Bioindicators and Biomonitors: Principles, Concepts and Applications. Elsevier, Oxford-UK: Ed. Markert BA, Breure AM, Zechmeister HG) 285-327.
  • Fjerdingstad E 1964. Pollution of stream estimated by benthal phytomicro-organisms. I. A saproby system based on communities of organisms and ecological factors. Internationale Revue Gesamten Hydrobiologia 49: 63-131.
  • Gómez N, Licursi M 2001. The Pampean Diatom Index (IDP) for assessment of rivers and streams in Argentina. Aquatic Ecology 35(2): 173-181.
  • Gürbüz H, Kıvrak E 2002. Use of the epilithic diatoms to evaluate water quality in the Karasu River of Turkey. Journal of Environmental Biology 23: 239-246.
  • Hartley B 1996. An Atlas of British Diatoms. England: Biopress Ltd. 601 pp.
  • Heckman CW, Kamieth H, Stöhr M 1990. The usefulness of various numerical methods for assessing the specific effects of pollution on aquatic biota. International Review of Hydrobiology 75: 353-377.
  • Hornstrom E, Ekstrom C, Froberg E, Ek J 1993. Plankton and chemical-physical development in six Swedish west-coast lakes under acidic and limed conditions. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50: 688-702.
  • Hustedt F 1985. The Pennet Diatoms. Koenigstein, Gremany, Koeltz Scientific Books, 905 pp.
  • John DM, Whitton BA, Brook AJ 2002. The Freshwater Algal Flora of the British Isles: An Identification Guide to Freshwater and Terrestial Algae. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 702 pp.
  • Jüttner I, Rothfritz H, Ormerod SJ 1996. Diatoms as indicators of river quality in the Nepalese Middle Hills with consideration of the effects of habitat-specific sampling. Freshwater Biology 36: 475-486.
  • Kelly MG 1998. Use of the diatom trophic index to monitor eutrophication in rivers. Water Research 32(1): 236-242.
  • Kelly MG, Adams C, Graves AC, Jamieson J, Krokowski J, Lycett E, Murray-Bligh J, Pritchard S, Wilkins C 2001. The Trophic Diatom Index: A user’s manual. E2/TR2. (Almondsbury, Bristol: Environmental Agency, England), 135 pp.
  • Kelly MG, Whitton BA 1995. The trophic diatom index: a new index for monitoring eutrophication in rivers. Journal of Applied Phycology 7: 433-333.
  • Kienzl K, Riss A, Vogel W, Hackl J, Götz B 2003. Bioindicators and biomonitors for policy, legislation and administration. (Bioindicators and Biomonitors: Principles, Concepts and Applications. Elsevier, Oxford-UK: Ed. Markert BA, Breure AM, Zechmeister HG) 85-123.
  • Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H 1991a. Sübwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bacillariophyceae, 3. Teil. Centrales, Fragillariaceae, Eunoticeae. Stuttgart, Germany, Gustav Fischer Verlag, 576 pp.
  • Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H 1991b. Sübwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bacillariophyceae, 4. Teil. Achnanthaceae, Kritische Erganzungen zu Navicula (Lineolate) und Gomphonema Gesamtliterat. Stuttgart, Germany, Gustav Fischer Verlag, 437 pp.
  • Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H 1999a. Sübwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bacillariophyceae, 1. Teil. Naviculaceae. Berlin, Germany, Spectrum Acad. Verlag, 876 pp.
  • Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H 1999b. Sübwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bacillariophyceae, 2. Teil. Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae. Berlin, Germany, Spectrum Acad. Verlag, 610 pp.
  • Lange-Bertalot H 1979. Pollution tolerance as a criterion for water quality estimation. Nova Hedwigia 64: 283-304.
  • Le TT, Luong QD, Vo TTH, Nguyen VT 2018. A case study of phytoplankton used as a biological index for water quality assessment of Nhu Y river, Thua Thien-Hue. Vietnam Journal of Science, Technology and Engineering 60(4): 45-51.
  • Lobo EA, Katoh K, Aruga Y 1995. Response of epilithic diatom assemblages to water pollution in rivers located in the Tokyo Metropolitan area, Japan. Freshwater Biology 34(1): 191-204.
  • Maraşlıoğlu F, Bektaş S, Özen A 2020. Comparative Performance of Physicochemical and Diatom-Based Metrics in Assessing the Water Quality of Mert Stream, Turkey. Journal of Ecological Engineering 21(8): 18-31.
  • Maraşlıoğlu F, Gönülol A, Bektaş S 2018. Application of water quality index method for assessing the surface water quality status of Mert Stream in Turkey. Biological Diversity and Conservation 11(3): 115-121.
  • Maraşlıoğlu F, Soylu EN, Altürk-Karaca S 2017. Seasonal and Spatial Variation of Epilithic Algal Community in Batlama Stream (Giresun, Turkey). Hittite Journal of Science and Engineering 4(1): 39-44.
  • Maraşlıoğlu F, Soylu EN, Gönülol A 2005. Seasonal Variation of the Phytoplankton of Lake Ladik Samsun, Turkey. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 20(3): 549-553.
  • Martín G, Toja J, Sala SE, Fernández MR, Reyes I, Casco MA 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.
  • Muscio C 2002. The diatom pollution tolerance index: Assigning tolerance values. Water Protection and Development Review Department. Environmental Resource Management. 17 pp.
  • Newall P, Walsh CJ 2005. Response of epilithic diatom assemblages to urbanization influences. Hydrobiologia 532: 53-67.
  • Ongun-Sevindik T, Küçük F 2016. Benthic Diatoms as Indicators of Water Quality in the Acarlar Floodplain Forest (Northern Turkey). Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 25(10): 4013-4025.
  • Palmer CM 1969. A composite rating of algae tolerating organic pollution. Journal of Phycology 5: 78-82.
  • Utermöhl H 1958. Zur Ver vollkommung der quantitativen phytoplankton-methodik. Mitteilung Internationale Vereinigung Fuer Theoretische unde Amgewandte Limnologie 9: 1-39.
  • Phillips G, Morabito G, Carvalho L, Lyche Solheim A, Skjelbred B, Moe J, Andersen T, Mischke U, de Hoyos C, Borics G 2010. Report of lake phytoplankton composition metrics, including a common metric approach for use in intercalibration by all GIGs. Deliverable D3.1-1. http://www.wiser.eu/results/deliverables/
  • Prygiel J, Coste M 1993. The assessment of water quality in the Artois-Picardie water basin (France) by the use of diatom indices. Hydrobiologia 269(1): 343-349.
  • Round FE, Crawford RM, Mann DG 1990. The Diatoms: Morphology and biology of the genera. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 747 pp.
  • Rumeau A, Coste M 1988. Introduction into the systematics of freshwater diatoms. For a useful generic diatomic index. Bulletin Francais de la Peche et de la Pisciculture (France) 61(309): 1-69.
  • Saros JE, Anderson NJ 2014. The ecology of the planktonic diatom Cyclotella and its implications for global environmental change studies. Biological Reviews 90(2): 522-541.
  • Shaimaa FA, Fikrat MH, Reidh AA 2017. Evaluation of Water Quality by Trophic Diatom Index (TDI) in Tigris River within Wasit Province. Indian Journal of Ecology 44(4): 711-716.
  • Smith GM 1951. Manual of Phycology: An introduction of algae and their biology. The Ronald Press Company, New York, 373 pp.
  • Solak CN. 2011. The application of diatom indices in the Upper Porsuk River, Kütahya-Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 11(1): 31-36.
  • Solari LC, Claps MC 1996. Planctonic and bentic algae of a Pampean River (Argentina): Comporative analysis. International Journal of Limnology 32(2): 89-95.
  • Soylu EN, Gönülol A 2003. Phytoplankton and seasonal variations of the River Yeşilırmak, Amasya, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 3: 17-24.
  • Stein SM, Alig RJ, White EM, Comas SJ, Carr M, Eley M, Elverum K, O’Donnell M, Theobald DM, Cordell K, Haber J, Beauvais TW 2007. National forests on the edge: development pressures on America’s national forests and grasslands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-728. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 26 pp.
  • Tan X, Zhang Q, Burford MA, Sheldon F, Bunn SE 2017. Benthic Diatom Based Indices for Water Quality Assessment in Two Subtropical Streams. Frontiers in Microbiology 8: 601.
  • Temizel B, Soylu EN, Maraşlıoğlu F 2017. Water quality assessment of the Pazarsuyu Stream based on epilithic diatom communities. Fundamental and Applied Limnology 190(3): 189-197.
  • Tokatlı C 2013. Evaluation of Water Quality by Using Trophic Diatom Index: Example of Porsuk Dam Lake. Journal of Applied Biological Sciences 7(1): 1-4.
  • Tokatlı C, Dayıoğlu H 2011. Use of Epilithic Diatoms to Evaluate Water Quality of Murat Stream (Sakarya River Basin, Kütahya): Different Saprobity Levels and pH Status. Journal of Applied Biological Sciences 5(2): 55-60.
  • Tokatlı C, Solak C N, Yılmaz E, Atıcı T, Dayıoğlu H 2020. Research into Epipelic Diatoms of Meriç and Tunca Rivers and the Application of the Biological Diatom Index in Water Quality Assessment. Aquatic Sciences and Engineering 35(1): 19-26.
  • Van Dam H, Mertens A, Sinkeldam J 1994. A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from the Netherlands. Netherland Journal of Aquatic Ecology 28(1): 117-133.
  • Walley WJ, Grbović J, Deroski S 2001. A Reappraisal of Saprobic Values and Indicator Weights Based on Slovenian River Quality Data. Water Quality Research 35(18): 4285-4292.
  • Watanabe T 1981. A new approach to water quality estimation using the specific composition of the benthic diatoms in epilithic forms based on the discuss to several problems on indicator organisms. Journal of Environmental Pollution and Control 17: 13-18.
  • Watanabe T, Asai K, Houki A 1986. Numerical estimation to organic pollution of flowing water by using the epilithic diatom assemblage-Diatom Assemblage Index (DAIpo). Science Total Environment 55: 209-218.
  • Wetzel RG 2001. Limnology, Lake and River Ecosystems. 3rd Edition, Academic Press, San Diego, 1006 pp. Willen E 1991. Planktonic diatoms - An ecological review. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 62: 69-106.
  • Wu HC, Chen PC, Tsay TT 2010. Assessment of nematode community structure as a bioindicator in river monitoring. Environmental Pollution 158(5): 1741-1747.
  • Yıldız K 1985. Investigations on algae communities of Meram Stream, section 3-Algae living on sediment. Journal of Natural Science 9(2): 428-434.
  • Zbikowski R, Szefer P, Latała P 2007. Comparison of green algae Cladophora sp. and Enteromorpha sp. as potential biomonitors of chemical elements in the southern Baltic. Science of The Total Environment 387: 320-332.
Toplam 75 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Yapısal Biyoloji
Bölüm ARAŞTIRMA MAKALESİ (Research Article)
Yazarlar

Faruk Maraşlıoğlu 0000-0002-7784-9243

Serdar Bektaş 0000-0001-8208-9130

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Aralık 2022
Gönderilme Tarihi 10 Ocak 2022
Kabul Tarihi 18 Mart 2022
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2022Cilt: 25 Sayı: Ek Sayı 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Maraşlıoğlu, F., & Bektaş, S. (2022). Characterization of Spatiotemporal Variations in Mert Stream Water Quality by Phytoplankton Community and Biological Indices. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım Ve Doğa Dergisi, 25(Ek Sayı 1), 42-53. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1055761

Cited By

Decadal Trends and Predictive Insights into Aquatic Ecosystem Health in the Namhan River, South Korea: Longitudinal Analysis of Hydro-Environmental Factors and Stream Health Indices (2008–2022)
Environmental Pollution
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2024.125184
Comparison of Metabarcoding and Microscopy Methodologies to Analyze Diatom Communities in Five Estuaries Along the Southern Coast of the Korean Peninsula
Microbial Ecology
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-024-02396-x
New Records for the Turkish Freshwater Algal Flora in Twenty Five River Basins of Türkiye, Part I: Bacillariophyta
Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1058856
Aksaz Sulak Alanının Bentik Diyatome Topluluğu ve İndekslerine Göre Ekolojik Değerlendirmesi
Iğdır Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.21597/jist.1208907
 Kapak Resmi İndir

21082



2022-JIF = 0.500

2022-JCI = 0.170

Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi (International Peer Reviewed Journal)

       Dergimiz, herhangi bir başvuru veya yayımlama ücreti almamaktadır. (Free submission and publication)

      Yılda 6 sayı yayınlanır. (Published 6 times a year)


88x31.png 

Bu web sitesi Creative Commons Atıf 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

                 


Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi
e-ISSN: 2619-9149