Zoological Water Quality Indicators for Assessment of Organic Pollution and Trophic Status of Continental Water Bodies

Sophia Barinova; Vasiliy Dyadichko

doi:10.2478/trser-2022-0021

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Zoological Water Quality Indicators for Assessment of Organic Pollution and Trophic Status of Continental Water Bodies

Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research

Volume 24 (2022): Issue 3 (December 2022)

By: Sophia Barinova and Vasiliy Dyadichko

Open Access

|Feb 2023

Abstract

This paper presents data compilation for invertebrates and protists indicator taxa of organic pollution and trophic state of continental waters. Information was collected from research papers, monographs, electronic resources, and our own research. Altogether 1732 indicator taxa of Kingdoms Protista, Protozoa, Chromista, and Animalia from 19 taxonomical Phyla are represented with ecological preferences for saprobity with saprobity index (S) and trophic state. This comprehensive data can be used for the purpose of aquatic ecosystem assessment and monitoring of water quality based on bioindication methods.

References

1. Abukenova V. S., Blyalova J. Z. and Shaibek A. Z., 2016 – Determination of the degree of saprobity of the Bukpa river section by indicator species of ciliates, Bulletin of Karaganda University, Biology, Medicine, Geography, KarSU, 3, 83, 49-57. (in Russian) [9]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. Alyabina G. A. and Sorokin I. N., 1983 – The stock of substances in the watershed, the conditions for their implementation and entry into lakes. Changes in the “catchment-lake” system under the influence of the anthropogenic factor, L.: Nauka, 62-68. (in Russian) [2]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Barinova S., 2017a – Essential and practical bioindication methods and systems for the water quality assessment, International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, 2, 3, 555588, DOI: 10.19080/IJESNR.2017.02.555588.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. Barinova S., 2017b – On the classification of water quality from an ecological point of view, International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, 2, 2, 1-8, DOI: 10.19080/IJESNR.2017.02.555581.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Barinova S., 2021 – Plants, mosses, charophytes, protozoan, and bacteria water quality indicators for assessment of organic pollution and trophic status of continental water bodies, Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, “The Wetlands Diversity”, 10, 17-36, DOI: 10.2478/trser-2021-0018.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. Barinova S. and Fahima T., 2017 – The development of the World Database of Freshwater Algae-Indicators, Journal of Environment and Ecology, 8, 1, 1-7, http://www.macrothink.org/journal/index.php/jee/article/view/11228/8981.10.5296/jee.v8i1.11228
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Barinova S. S., Bilous O. P. and Tsarenko P. M., 2019 – Algal indication of water bodies in Ukraine: methods and prospects, Haifa, Kyiv, Publishing House of Haifa University, Israel, 367, https://www.academia.edu/38842519/Algal_indication_of_water_bodies_in_Ukraine_methodsandperspectives. (in Russian)
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Barinova S. S., Medvedeva L. A. and Anissimova O. V., 2006 – Diversity of algal indicators in environmental assessment, Tel Aviv, Pilies Studio Publisher, Israel, 498, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265251122_Diversity_of_Algal_Indicators_in_Environmental_Assessment. (in Russian)
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Bănăduc D., Simić V., Cianfaglione K., Barinova S., Afanasyev S., Öktener A., McCall G., Simić S. and Curtean-Bănăduc A., 2022 ‒ Freshwater as a sustainable resource and generator of secondary resources in the 21st century: stressors, threats, risks, management and protection strategies, and conservation approaches, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 16570, 1-30, 10.3390/ijerph192416570.10.3390/ijerph192416570977954336554449
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Bănăduc D., Barinova S., Cianfaglione K. and Curtean-Bănăduc A., 2023 ‒ Editorial: Multiple freshwater stressors ‒ key drivers for the future of freshwater environments, Frontiers in Environmental Science, Freshwater Science, 11, Multiple Freshwater Stressors ‒ Key Drivers for the Future of Freshwater Environments, DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2023.1143706.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. Beyene A., Addis T., Kifle D., Legesse W., Kloos H. and Triest L., 2009 – Comparative study of diatoms and macroinvertebrates as indicators of severe water pollution: Case study of the Kebena and Akaki rivers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Ecological Indicators, 9, 2, 381-392, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.05.001.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. Bezmaternykh D. M., 2007 – Zoobenthos as an indicator of the ecological state of aquatic ecosystems in Western Siberia, Ecology, A series of analytical reviews of world literature, 85, 1-86. (in Russian) [10]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
13. Burger J., 2006 – Bioindicators: types, development, and use in ecological assessment and research, Environmental Bioindicators, 1, 1, 22-39, DOI: 10.1080/15555270590966483.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
14. Cairns J. and Pratt J. R., 1993 – A history of biological monitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates, in Rosenberg D. M. and Resh V. H. (eds), Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates, New York, Chapman and Hall, New York, U.S.A., 10-27.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
15. Chertoprud M. V., 2007 – Modification of the Pantle-Buck saprobity index for water bodies of European Russia, Proceedings of the International conference “Bioindication in the monitoring of freshwater ecosystems”, SPb.: Lema, 298-302, DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4638.2086. (in Russian)
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
16. Cuffney T. F., Kennen J. G. and Waite I. R., 2014 – Aquatic ecosystems as indicators of status and trends in water quality, in Ahuja S. (ed.), Comprehensive water quality and purification, Elsevier, U.S.A., 1, 122-156.10.1016/B978-0-12-382182-9.00008-6
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
17. Cummins K. W. and Merritt R. W., 2001 – Application of invertebrate functional groups to wetland ecosystem function and biomonitoring, in Rader R. B., Batzer D. P. and Wissinger S. A., (eds.), Bioassessment and management of North American freshwater wetlands, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, U.S.A., 85-111.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
18. Derevenskaya O. Y. (ed.), 2015 – Methods for assessing water quality by hydrobiological indicators: educational and methodological development for the course “Hydrobiology”, Kazan, KFU, 44. (in Russian) [4]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
19. Ermolaeva N. I. and Dvurechenskaya S. Y., 2013 – Regional indices of the indicator significance of zooplankton organisms in water bodies in the south of Western Siberia, Ecology, 6, 476-480. (in Russian) [8]10.1134/S1067413613060064
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
20. European Parliament, 2000 ‒ Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy, Official Journal of the European Communities, L, 327, 1-72.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
21. Fennessy S., Gernes M., Mack J. and Waldrop D. H., 2001 – Methods for evaluating wetland condition: using vegetation to assess environmental conditions in wetlands, EPA 822-R-01-007j, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
22. Frey J. W., Bell A. H., Hambrook Berkman J. A. and Lorenz D. L., 2011 – Assessment of nutrient enrichment by use of algal-, invertebrate-, and fish-community attributes in wadeable streams in ecoregions surrounding the Great Lakes: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5009, 49.10.3133/sir20115009
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
23. Friedrich G., Chapman D. and Beim A. 1996 – Chapter 5, The use of biological material, in Chapman D. (ed.), Water Quality Assessments – A guide to use of biota, sediments and water in environmental monitoring, 2nd Edition, UNESCO/WHO/UNEP, London E. and Spon F. N., 626, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/41850 (assessed on 15 July 2021).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
24. GBIF, 2021 ‒, Global Biodiversity Information Facility, https://www.gbif.org/ (assessed on 15 July 2021).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
25. Golubkov S. M., Litvinchuk L. F., Golubkov M. S., Petukhov V. A. and Belyakov V. P., 2017 – Invertebrate animals and self-cleaning processes in the reservoir Sestroretsky Spill., St. Petersburg Environment, 28.08.2017. (in Russian) [6]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
26. Guidance for the analysis of pressures and impacts in accordance with the Water Framework Directive, http://forum.europa.eu.int/Members/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive&vm=detailed&sb=Title&cookie=1.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
27. Hegab M. H. and Khalifa N., 2021 – Applicability of using biological indices to assess water quality of the Nile branches, Egypt, Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 24, 383-393, DOI: 10.3923/pjbs.2021.383.393.34486324
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
28. Hering D., Johnson R. K., Kramm S., Schmutz S., Szoszkiewicz K. and Verdonscot P. F. M., 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, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01610.x.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
29. Jersabek C. D. and Leitner M. F., 2013 – The Rotifer World Catalog, World Wide Web electronic publication, http://www.rotifera.hausdernatur.at/, (assessed on 24 June 2022).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
30. Lasukov R. Y. 2018 – Inhabitants of reservoirs, Pocket field guide-identifier, Moscow: Ecosystem, 5th Ed., modified, 128, ISBN 978-5-4246-0268-9, Series Field guidesdeterminants, The middle zone of the European part of Russia, Scientific editor of the series Ph.D. Bogolyubov A. S. (in Russian) [7]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
31. Lenat D. R. 1993 – A biotic index for the southeastern United States: derivations and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water-quality ratings, Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 12, 3, 279-290.10.2307/1467463
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
32. Marvan P., Maršálek B., Heteša J., Sukačova K., Maršálková E., Geriš R. and Kozáková M., 2005 – Comments on the revised tables of algal (and other botanical) water quality indicators listed in CSN 75 7716 – discussion material for assessment of trophic status of water bodies, Association Flos Aquae, www.cyanobacteria.net assessed on 6th May 2005. [1]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
33. Mohamad Saad Abdelkarim, 2020 – Biomonitoring and bioassessment of running water quality in developing countries: A case study from Egypt, The Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Research, 46, 4, 313-324.10.1016/j.ejar.2020.11.003
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
34. Naberezhny A. I., 2007 – Species composition and distribution of rotifers in water bodies of Moldova, Herald Hydrobiology. (in Russian) [17]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
35. Oleksiv I. T., 1992 – Indicators of the quality of natural waters from an ecological point of view, Lvov, Light, 234. (in Russian) [11]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
36. Oliveira A. and Callisto M., 2010 – Benthic macroinvertebrates as bioindicators of water quality in an Atlantic forest fragment, Iheringia Série Zoologia, 100, 4, 291-300, DOI: 10.1590/S0073-47212010000400003.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
37. Pešić V., Paunović M. and Kostianoy A. G. (eds), 2020 – The rivers of Montenegro, The handbook of environmental chemistry, Springer, Cham., 300, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-55712-6.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
38. Petrakis P. V., Patang F., Soegianto A. and Hariyanto S. 2018 – Benthic macroinvertebrates diversity as bioindicator of water quality of some rivers in East Kalimantan, Indonesia, International Journal of Ecology, 5129421, DOI: 10.1155/2018/5129421.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
39. Poikane S., Kelly M. and Cantonati M., 2016 ‒ Benthic algal assessment of ecological status in European lakes and rivers: Challenges and opportunities, Science of the Total Environment, 568, 603-613, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.027.10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.02726936662
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
40. Ponti M., Vadrucci M. R., Orfanidis S. and Pinna M., 2009 – Biotic indices for ecological status of transitional water ecosystems, Transitional Waters Bulletin, 3, 3, 32-90, DOI: 10.1285/i1825229Xv3n3p32.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
41. Romanenko V. D., Oksijuk O. P., Zhukinsky V. N., Stolberg F. V. and Lavrik V. I. 1990 – Ecological impact assessment of hydrotechnical constructions on water bodies, Kijev, Naukova Dumka, 291. (in Russian)
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
42. Schmidt-Kloiber A. and Hering D., 2015 – www.freshwaterecology.info ‒ an online tool that unifies, standardises and codifies more than 20,000 European freshwater organisms and their ecological preferences, Ecological Indicators, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.02.007, freshwaterecology.info (assessed on 15 July 2021) [14].
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
43. Segers H., 2007 – Annotated checklist of the rotifers (Phylum Rotifera), with notes on nomenclature, taxonomy and distribution. Auckland, New Zealand, Magnolia Press, 104.10.11646/zootaxa.1564.1.1
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
44. SEQ-water quality, 2022 – https://hmf.enseeiht.fr/travaux/CD0506/bei/bei_ere/5/html/b2/avt_proj/seq.htm (assessed on 25 June 2022).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
45. Shevchenko L. B., Zelenskaya M. B. and Bezmaternykh D. M. 2007 – Zoobenthos as an indicator of the ecological state of aquatic ecosystems in Western Siberia: an analytical review, State public scientific and technical library of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Water Resources and Ecological Problems, Novosibirsk, Ecology, 85, 87, ISBN 978-5-94560-142-0. (in Russian) [5]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
46. Sládeček V., 1973 – System of water quality from the biological point of view, Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 7, 1-218.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
47. Sládeček V., 1983 – Rotifers as indicators of water quality, Hydrobiologia, 100, 169-201. [18]10.1007/BF00027429
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
48. Abdel Gawad S. S., 2019 – Using benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators for assessment the water quality in River Nile, Egypt, Egyptian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6, 1, 206-219, DOI: 10.1080/2314808X.2019.1700340.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
49. Tachet H., Bournaud M., Richoux P. and Usseglio-Polatera P., 2010 – Invertébrés d᾿eau douce ‒ systématique, biologie, écologie, Paris, CNRS Editions, 600.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
50. Unified methods for the study of water quality: part 3, 1977 – Methods of biological analysis of waters, Moscow: SEV, 1976, 168, Appendix 1, Indicators of saprobity, Moscow: Union for Mutual Economic Assistance, CMEA, 124, Appendix 2, Atlas of saprobic organisms, Moscow: Union for Mutual Economic Assistance, CMEA, 1977, 228. (in Russian) [12]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
51. USEPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2003 ‒ Biological Indicators of Watershed Health, http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators (assessed on 2003-2004).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
52. Uzunov I., Kosel V. and Sládeček V., 1988 – Indicator value of freshwater Oligochaeta, Acta hydrochimica et hydrobiologica, 16, 2, 173-186. [13]10.1002/aheh.19880160207
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
53. Van Dam H., Mertens A. and Sinkeldam J., 1994 – A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from the Netherlands, Netherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology, 28, 1, 117-133, DOI: 10.1007/BF02334251.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
54. Water quality, 2021 ‒ Operative evaluation of small streams biological quality by saprobity index of macroinvertebrates, http://www.eu-star.at (assessed on 15 July 2021). [16]
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
55. White D. S. and Brigham W. U. 1996 – Aquatic Coleoptera, in Merritt R. W. and Cummins K. W., (eds), An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, 3rd edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa, U.S.A., 399-473.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
56. WoRMS, World Register of Marine Species, http://www.marinespecies.org/about.php (assessed on 15 July 2021).
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
57. Yermolaeva N. and Dvurechenskaya S., 2016 – Developing the Regional Indicator Indexes of Zooplankton for Water Quality Class Determination of Water Bodies in Siberia, in Novel Methods for Monitoring and Managing Land and Water Resources in Siberia, 157-183, Springer, Cham. (in Russian). [3]10.1007/978-3-319-24409-9_5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
58. Zaghloul A., Saber M., Gadow S. and Awad F., 2020 – Biological indicators for pollution detection in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, Bulletin of the National Research Centre, 44, 127, DOI: 10.1186/s42269-020-00385-x.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/trser-2022-0021 | Journal eISSN: 2344-3219 | Journal ISSN: 1841-7051

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 65 - 106

Published on: Feb 8, 2023

Published by: Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 3 issues per year

Keywords:

aquatic invertebrates,

non-photosynthetic protists,

ecological preferences,

Related subjects:

© 2023 Sophia Barinova, Vasiliy Dyadichko, published by Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 24 (2022): Issue 3 (December 2022)