Biological Assessment of Water Quality: Ecological Status of Three Aegean Reservoirs Based on Phytoplankton Metrics

Abstract

Assessing freshwater quality is getting more important since the implementation of the European Union Water Framework Directive. In the present study, the water quality of three reservoirs of the North Aegean basin of Turkey was assessed using Mediterranean Phytoplankton Trophic Index and Phytoplankton Trophic Index. Data were collected seasonally between summer 2014 and summer 2015 from three reservoirs. The reservoirs showed alkaline waters. The highest nutrients values of TP (203.5 µg L-1) at Bayramiç Reservoir and TN (1012.0 µg L-1) at Sevişler Reservoir were recorded. A total of 120 species were recorded and mostly represented by Bacillariophyta. The relationship between phytoplankton species and environmental variables was examined using multivariate analyses. The phytoplankton composition and distribution were governed by environmental variables. The most important structuring factors were total phosphorus, orthophosphate, total kjeldahl nitrogen, biological oxygen demand, total organic carbon, and temperature. The first two CCA axes explained 31% of cumulative percentage variance of species data with 97.7% between species-environment correlations, the situation which was also confirmed the Monte Carlo test (p= 0.002, F = 1.157). Med-PTI indicated good quality waters for Ayvacık and Bayramiç Reservoirs, while Sevişler Reservoir had a moderate water quality. Based on the PTI, the waters of the Bayramiç and Sevişler Reservoirs were classified as or moderate ecological status, while Ayvacık Reservoir indicated a good water quality. From these results, the Med-PTI and the PTI seem to be appropriate metrics for assessing the water quality of the reservoirs in the North Aegean River Basin.

The effect of salinity and altitude on diatom assemblages and ecological status assessment based on diatom indices in the lentic systems of the Western Mediterranean Basin (Türkiye)

“…For IPS, EPI‐D, IBD and TDIL, the class boundaries of Eloranta and Soininen (2002) and Dumnicka et al (2006) were used for the ecological status assessment of the lentic systems. Class boundaries of TIT and EPI‐L were used according to Çelekli et al (2017) and Marchetto et al (2013), respectively, for the quality assessment of studied lentic systems.…”

Using diatom indices to estimate the ecological status of minimally disturbed rivers of the Sakarya River Basin (Türkiye)

“…Trophic Index Türkiye (TIT) was calculated according to Toudjani et al (2017), Çelekli et al (2017) and Çelekli, Toudjani, et al (2019). ‘OMNIDIA’ program (Lecointe et al, 1993) was used to calculate different diatom indices such as Artois‐Picardie Diatom Index (IDAP) (Prygiel et al, 1996), Eutrophication/Pollution Index (EPI‐D) (Dell'Uomo, 2004), Biological Diatom Index (IBD) (Coste et al, 2009), Steinberg and Schiefele's Index (SHE) (Steinberg & Schiefele, 1988), Swiss Diatom Index (DICH) (Hürlimann & Niederhauser, 2002), Watanabe Index (WAT) (Watanabe et al, 1990), Specific Pollution Sensitivity Index (IPS) (Cemagref, 1982), Sládeček's Index (SLA) (Sládeček, 1986), Descy's Index (DES) (Descy, 1979), Leclercq and Maquet Diatomic Index (IDSE) (Leclercq & Maquet, 1987), Generic Diatom Index (IDG) (Rumeau & Coste, 1988), Metric‐European Index (CEE) (Descy & Coste, 1991), Trophic Diatom Index (TDI) (Kelly & Whitton, 1995), Trophic‐Saprobic Index (LOBO) (Lobo et al, 2004), Pampean Diatom Index (IDP) (Gómez & Licursi, 2001), Rott's Saprobic Index (ROTTs) (Rott et al, 1997) and Rott's Trophic Index (ROTTt) (Rott et al, 1999).…”

“…However, recent studies have shown that diatom composition and abundance vary by geographic region (Soininen et al, 2019) and that regional factors such as climate, geology and land use are important for the diatom community (Pajunen et al, 2016; Soininen, 2007). In recent years, like many other countries, the Trophic Index Türkiye (TIT) was developed because of the need to use a region‐specific diatom index and the increasing number of water quality studies in Türkiye (Çelekli et al, 2017; Çelekli, Toudjani, et al, 2019).…”

“…Numerous studies have been conducted using diatoms in Sakarya Basin rivers (e.g., Solak et al, 2012; Solak & Wojtal, 2012; Tokatlı & Dayıoğlu, 2011), and in recent years, the use of diatom indices to assess the ecological status of rivers in the Sakarya Basin has increased (e.g., Çetin & Demir, 2019; Sevindik & Kucuk, 2016). In addition to these various indices, TIT (Çelekli et al, 2017; Çelekli, Toudjani, et al, 2019) has also been used in studies of rivers in this basin (e.g., Sevindik et al, 2021; Solak et al, 2020). Although many studies have been conducted to determine river water quality using diatoms, the minimally disturbed rivers in the basin have not been studied before.…”

Common Diatoms of Phytobenthos in Gediz River Basin

“…Phytoplankton, macrophyte and phytobenthos, benthic invertebrates and fish are the biological quality elements for the classification of ecological status (Anonymous, 2000). There are some studies (Demir et al, 2017;Çelekli et al, 2018;Solak et al, 2018a) for identifying the ecological status of water bodies in Turkey within the scope of the river basin based monitoring studies.…”