Freshwater Macrophytes as Indicators of Organic Pollution

Abstract

St Acorus calamus L. Aliemu gramineum LEJEUNE Al. lanceolatum WITHERING Al. plantago-aquatica L. Batrachium aqwctile L. B. buudotii GODRON B. circinatum SIBTHORP B. fluitans LAMARCH B. penicillatum (DUMORTIER) BABINGTON B. pseudofluitans NEWB. B. rionii LAGGER B. trichophyllum CHAIX in VILLARS Berulu erecta (HUDSON) COVILLE Bolboschoenus maritimus (L.) PALLA in KOCH Butomus uinbellntusEichhornia crassipes (MARTIUS) SOLXS-LAUBACH Elatine hydropiper L. em. OEDER Eleochnris ncicularis (L.) ROEMER e t SCEULTES El. austriaca (HAYEK) STRANDHEGE El. mamillata (LIKDB. f i l . ) LIXDB. fil ex DORFLER El. palustris (L.) ROEBIER e t SCHULTES El. palustris subsp. palustris El. palustris subsp. vulgaris 6. 11. WALTERS El. quinqueflora (F. X. HXRTNANX) 0. SCHWARZ El. uniglumnis (LINK) SCEULTES Elodea canadensis L.C. RICHARD in MICHAUX fil. Equisetum fluciatile L. em. EHRJURT Eq. palustre L. Glyceriu dedinata BRBBISSOW GI. fluitans (L.) R. BROWN Gl. plimta (FRIES) FRIES G1. maxima (HARTMANN) HOLMBERG Groenlandia densa (L.) FOURREAU Hippuris vulgaris L. Hotbnia yalustris L. Hydrocharis niorsus-ranae L. El. ovata (ROTE) ROEMER et SCWLTES

A new method to assess water trophy and organic pollution – the Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers (IBMR): its application to different types of river and pollution

“…Such reference phytocoenoses and degradation sequences still remain to be assessed in most French regions -as indeed the differences between expected and observed vegetation. Intercalibration with the MTR, Austro-German methods (Kohler & Janauer, 1995;TIM: Schneider, 2000) and the Saprobic Index (Husa`k et al, 1989) ought to be the next step in implementing the WFD using macrophytes. …”

A comparison of macrophyte indices in headwaters of rivers in Flanders (Belgium)

“…Indices were calculated as weighted means after Ellenberg et al (1992) using N-values and derived British modified N-values, British modified R-values (Hill et al, 1999); after Husa´k et al (1989) and Haury et al (1996). Correlations (Spearman rank order) between different macrophyte scores and environmental variables (chemical variables of water and substrates; habitat descriptions) were done with STATISTICA and multivariate analysis with CANOCO.…”

“…A macrophyte index scheme comparable to the concept of a macroinvertebrate biotic index was adopted for the Irish waters (Caffrey, 1986) using the relative abundance of four different sensitivity groupings. A more profound use of macrophytes as indicators of organic pollution can be based on the 10-point scale of saprobic valency for more than 100 taxa of Czechoslovakia (Husa´k et al, 1989). The advantage is that every taxon has a maximum of 10 points in each of the considered five classes of limnosaprobity (xeno-, oligo-, betameso-, alpha-meso-and polysaprobity) and that this follows a Gaussian distribution curve.…”

Diversity of aquatic macrophytes in relation to environmental factors in the Slatina river (Slovakia)

“…The indices were calculated for river types MRS (fast flowing rivers and brooks of mountainous area with soft water) and MP (lowland river in mountainous areas), which are typologically the most similar to our studied area. Husák et al (1989) published saprobic index (Si) of selected macrophytes (only vascular plants) as an indicator of organic pollution. The most frequent species in the SPR, Myriophyllum spicatum and Batrachium aquatile belong to species with higher Si values (2.3 and 2.2, respectively).…”