| Literature DB >> 25949817 |
Jaber Aazami1, Abbas Esmaili-Sari1, Asghar Abdoli2, Hormoz Sohrabi3, Paul J Van den Brink4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nowadays, aquatic organisms are used as bio-indicators to assess ecologicalEntities:
Keywords: Bio-indicators; Physicochemical parameters; Tajan; Water health quality
Year: 2015 PMID: 25949817 PMCID: PMC4422490 DOI: 10.1186/s40201-015-0186-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Health Sci Eng
Figure 1Sites sampled in this case study.
Indices used to classify water and habitat quality
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Quality | Very Polluted | Polluted | Enough Polluted | Moderate | Enough Good | Good | Excellent |
| Colour | Violet | Red | Orange | Yellow | Olive-green | Green | Blue | |
|
| Range | 0-25 | 25-50 | 50-70 | 70-90 | 90-100 | ||
| Quality | Very bad | Bad | Medium | Good | Excellent | |||
|
| Range | 0.00–0.29 | 0.30–0.49 | 0.50–0.69 | 0.70–0.89 | 0.90–1.00 | ||
| Quality | Bad | Poor | Moderate | Good | Excellent | |||
|
| % Index | <40 | 40-59 | 60-74 | 75-87 | 88-100 | ||
| Quality | Very poor | Poor | Fair | Good | Excellent | |||
| Colour | Red | Orange | Yellow | Green | Blue | |||
|
| % Index | <60 | 74-60 | 89-75 | ≥90 | |||
| Quality | Poor | Marginal | Good | Excellent | ||||
|
| Range | 4 > | 4-5 | 5-6 | 6 < | |||
| Quality | Polluted | Moderate | Doubtful | Excellent | ||||
| Colour | Red | Yellow | Green | Blue | ||||
The value of the calculated indices for each station
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 712608 | 4004824 | 99 | 8.9 | 0.95 | 81.49 | 87.99 | 100 |
|
| 712059 | 4005260 | 75.03 | 7.5 | 0.95 | 70.91 | 74.06 | 95 |
|
| 709238 | 4006751 | 76.28 | 6.6 | 0.95 | 66.97 | 68.39 | 88.5 |
|
| 708189 | 4001145 | 81.48 | 8.2 | 0.95 | 81.74 | 81.26 | 100 |
|
| 707769 | 4006595 | 69.24 | 6.7 | 0.95 | 61.62 | 62.57 | 82 |
|
| 706166 | 4010260 | 75.94 | 5.7 | 0.85 | 59.6 | 54.84 | 79 |
|
| 726606 | 4007091 | 100 | 7.8 | 1 | 69.37 | 89.39 | 97 |
|
| 707556 | 4013824 | 70.95 | 5.8 | 0.85 | 63.59 | 72.06 | 73 |
|
| 700152 | 4014338 | 49.05 | 7.8 | 0.8 | 67.95 | 80.29 | 61 |
|
| 699857 | 4015151 | 52.03 | 5.2 | 0.8 | 59.67 | 62.2 | 58.5 |
|
| 695882 | 4025071 | 56.21 | 5.3 | 0.75 | 59.72 | 64.38 | 57.5 |
|
| 695429 | 4026319 | 51.96 | 5.5 | 0.7 | 52.02 | 52.36 | 44.5 |
|
| 689155 | 4037624 | 60.86 | 4.2 | 0.7 | 52.47 | 50.9 | 46.5 |
|
| 688694 | 4038040 | 52.08 | 4.2 | 0.65 | 53 | 46.82 | 38 |
|
| 686889 | 4039978 | 56.61 | 3.6 | 0.55 | 44.51 | 39.16 | 34.5 |
|
| 685112 | 4033640 | 90.53 | 7.6 | 0.95 | 67.84 | 86.57 | 96 |
|
| 689592 | 4023526 | 83.46 | 8.2 | 0.95 | 66.14 | 88.64 | 97 |
Figure 2Water quality classification of the Tajan River by different indices and GIS.
Figure 3Classification of stations on based biotic indices.
Figure 4Classification of stations on based abiotic indices.
Figure 5The correlations between abiotic parameters and macroinvertebrates sensitivity groups (PCA, Canoco 5). Of the variation in group abundances 75% is displayed on the horizontal axis and another 17% on the vertical one.
Figure 6The relationship between abiotic parameters and fish species (PCA, Canoco 5). Of the variation in group abundances 31% is displayed on the horizontal axis and another 23% on the vertical one.