| Literature DB >> 28439264 |
Xiang Tan1,2, Quanfa Zhang1, Michele A Burford2, Fran Sheldon2, Stuart E Bunn2.
Abstract
Benthic diatoms have been universally used as indicators to assess water quality in lotic ecosystems. However, most diatom-based indices developed in Europe have not been widely used or tested in other continents such as Asia or Oceania. This study compared the performance of 14 widely-applied diatom indices in assessing ecological conditions in subtropical streams in South East Queensland (SEQ) in Australia and in the upper Han River in China. Most water quality variables in the upper Han River including dissolved organic carbon (DOC), total nitrogen (TN), and soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) had strong relationships with at least one diatom index, with the exception of IDAP (Index Diatom Artois-Picardie), and TDI (Trophic Diatom Index). However, in SEQ, most of the environmental variables including DOC, ammonia nitrogen (NH4-N), TN, SRP, and electrical conductivity (EC) showed no significant relationships with diatom indices, and the DI-CH (Swiss Diatom Index) and WAT (Watanabe's Index) were unrelated to any of the variables examined. Only pH and nitrite or nitrate nitrogen (NOX-N) were significant predictors of several diatom indices in SEQ, especially TID (Rott trophic index). In the upper Han River, much of the spatial variation in most diatom indices was explained by proximate determinants alone, including EC, DOC, dissolved oxygen (DO) or SRP, or a combination of ultimate (canopy, forest) and proximate factors (R2 in most models> 0.75). Most diatom indices performed as predicted in the upper Han River where nutrient and organic matter pollution was relatively high, and variation in pH low. However, the indices performed poorly in SEQ where the water quality gradient was low and instead most responded to spatial variation in pH. This finding serves as a caution to the application of diatom indices in river basins that fall outside of the range of water quality values of the systems in which they originally developed.Entities:
Keywords: benthic algae; biological monitoring; community; diatom index; microbial; periphyton
Year: 2017 PMID: 28439264 PMCID: PMC5383657 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00601
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Figure 1The location of sampling sites in streams in South East Queensland (A) and in the upper Han River basin (B).
Diatom based indices and the acronyms used in this study (from Tan et al., .
| CEE | Commission for Economical Community metric (Descy and Coste, |
| DESCY(or ID) | Descy's pollution metric (Descy, |
| DI-CH | Swiss Diatom index (Lecointe et al., |
| EPID | Diatom-based eutrophication/pollution index (Dell'Uomo, |
| IBD | Biological Diatom index (Prygiel and Coste, |
| IDAP | Index |
| IDP | Pampean diatom index (Gómez and Licursi, |
| IPS | Specific pollution sensitivity Index (CEMAGREF, |
| SHE | Schiefele and Schreiner's Index (Schiefele and Schreiner, |
| SID | ROTT saprobic index (Rott et al., |
| SLAD | Sládeček's index (Sládeček, |
| TDI | Trophic Diatom index (Kelly et al., |
| TID | ROTT trophic index (Rott, |
| WAT | Watanabe's Index (Watanabe et al., |
The dominant species and their relative abundance (RA) in South East Queensland (SEQ) and the upper Han River (uHR) (relative abundance refers only to the Bacillariophyta; site number is 34 in .
| 15.60 | 17.10 | ||
| 12.50 | 12.50 | ||
| 9.60 | 6.40 | ||
| 7.00 | 5.90 | ||
| 6.20 | 5.80 | ||
Pearson correlation coefficients between measured environmental variables and diatom indices in South East Queensland (.
| CEE | 0.368 | −0.377 | − | |||||||||||
| DESCY | −0.379 | |||||||||||||
| DI-CH | ||||||||||||||
| EPI-D | −0.409 | 0.403 | ||||||||||||
| IBD | 0.352 | −0.371 | 0.362 | |||||||||||
| IDAP | 0.434 | |||||||||||||
| IDP | −0.433 | |||||||||||||
| IPS | −0.420 | 0.387 | ||||||||||||
| SHE | 0.363 | |||||||||||||
| SID | 0.410 | − | ||||||||||||
| SLAD | − | |||||||||||||
| TDI | ||||||||||||||
| TID | 0.366 | 0.355 | − | 0.439 | ||||||||||
| WAT | ||||||||||||||
| CEE | −0.449 | − | −0.532 | − | 0.483 | |||||||||
| DESCY | 0.446 | −0.470 | −0.541 | |||||||||||
| DI-CH | − | 0.538 | 0.538 | − | −0.524 | −0.552 | −0.552 | |||||||
| EPID | 0.455 | −0.524 | −0.492 | −0.473 | − | −0.446 | ||||||||
| IBD | −0.447 | −0.475 | −0.500 | −0.507 | ||||||||||
| IDAP | −0.461 | |||||||||||||
| IDP | −0.474 | −0.456 | ||||||||||||
| IPS | 0.469 | 0.534 | − | − | − | −0.468 | − | |||||||
| SHE | − | 0.537 | 0.556 | − | −0.510 | −0.540 | ||||||||
| SID | − | − | −0.512 | −0.512 | ||||||||||
| SLAD | −0.551 | |||||||||||||
| TDI | −0.522 | |||||||||||||
| TID | 0.582 | 0.470 | −0.547 | −0.445 | −0.465 | −0.444 | ||||||||
| WAT | − | 0.460 | 0.506 | −0.551 | −0.510 | |||||||||
p < 0.01; significance at the probability level marked in italics and assumed significant after Bonferroni correction (Blank means no significant correlation).
Predictive models with diatom indices as dependent variables using stepwise multiple regression.
| CEE | pH, NOX-N | 26.5-2.2 pH+11.0 NOX-N | 0.45 | 12.19 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.004 | |
| DESCY | Canopy, NH4-N, pH | 18.1+0.03 Canopy+16.9 NH4-N-0.9 pH | 0.45 | 7.84 | 0.004 | 0.000 | 0.005 | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| DI-CH | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| EPI-D | pH, Turbidity | 20.8-1.4 pH +0.1 Turbidity− | 0.29 | 6.16 | 0.006 | 0.000 | 0.026 | 0.030 | |
| IBD | pH, NOX-N,Urban | 22.2-1.9 pH+16.9 NOX-N+0.2 Urban | 0.37 | 5.70 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.042 | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| IDAP | Turbidity, Forest | 7.7+0.2 Turbidity+0.05 Forest | 0.39 | 9.63 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.003 | |
| IDP | 15.7-0.2 | 0.17 | 6.17 | 0.019 | 0.000 | 0.019 | |||
| IPS | pH, NOX-N | 25.0-2.1 pH+12.3 NOX-N | 0.29 | 6.23 | 0.005 | 0.000 | 0.009 | 0.030 | |
| SHE | Turbidity | 11.5+0.06 Turbidity | 0.13 | 4.77 | 0.037 | 0.000 | 0.037 | ||
| SID | pH, NOX-N | 20.9-1.1 pH+4.6 NOX-N | 0.37 | 8.68 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.047 | |
| SLAD | pH | 45.0-1.5 pH | 0.29 | 12.35 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.001 | ||
| TDI | pH | −16.4+4.1 pH | 0.45 | 25.69 | 0.000 | 0.008 | 0.000 | ||
| TID | pH, NOX-N | 22.9-2.2 pH+10.2 NOX-N | 0.70 | 15.47 | 0.000 | 0.022 | 0.000 | 0.005 | |
| WAT | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | ||
| CEE | SRP, TN, Forest | 13.74-110.04 SRP-0.29 TN+ 0.06 Forest | 0.77 | 23.2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.005 | 0.038 |
| DESCY | DOC | 16.60-8.63 DOC | 0.46 | 8.81 | 0.024 | 0.000 | 0.004 | ||
| DI-CH | DOC, Canopy | 12.52-14.56 DOC+0.35 Canopy | 0.83 | 25.90 | 0.002 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.005 | |
| EPI-D | Canopy, DOC | 11.39+0.55 Canopy-8.40 DOC | 0.67 | 15.89 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.025 | |
| IBD | Canopy, Velocity | 13.3+0.4 Canopy+ 3.9 Velocity | 0.62 | 10.90 | 0.004 | 0.000 | 0.012 | 0.026 | |
| IDAP | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | |
| IDP | NO3-N | 12.9-0.2 NO3-N | 0.27 | 5.80 | 0.005 | 0.000 | 0.038 | ||
| IPS | EC, SRP, Urban | 22.8-0.02 EC-85.6SRP-0.8 Urban | 0.82 | 20.83 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| SHE | Urban, SRP, | 15.2-1.4 Urban-77.5 SRP | 0.75 | 22.45 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 | |
| SID | DOC, Forest | 9.9-11.1 DOC+0.1 Forest | 0.80 | 13.21 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.003 | |
| SLAD | pH, SRP | −28.1+5.3 pH-61.4 SRP | 0.80 | 13.13 | 0.000 | 0.004 | 0.000 | 0.003 | |
| TDI | Canopy | 12.0-0.6 Canopy | 0.26 | 5.70 | 0.030 | 0.000 | 0.004 | 0.039 | |
| TID | Canopy, NH4-N | 7.8+0.4 Canopy-1.0 NH4-N | 0.68 | 16.12 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.004 | |
| WAT | Urban, SRP | 17.0-2.2 Urban-67.5 SRP | 0.79 | 27.52 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.030 | |
Summary of the nutrient and pH range where the diatom indices perform well in the world.
| Nutrient range-small (TN: range ≤ 0.1 mg L−1; TP or SRP: range ≤ 0.02 mg L−1) | IBD in the River Loup in Alpes Maritimes, France (Prygiel et al., | 14 diatom indices in SEQ (this study). | |
| Nutrient range-medium (TN:0.1 mg L−1 < range <5 mg L−1; TP or SRP: 0.02 mg L−1 < range <0.2 mg L−1) | EPI-D, IDAP, IPS in coastal streams in the Gulf of Gdansk Region (Zgrundo and Bogaczewicz-Adamczak, | EPI-D, TDI and IPS in waters in wetlands of central Italy (Bella et al., | |
| Nutrient range-large (TN: range ≥5 mg L−1; TP or SRP: range > 0.2 mg L−1) | IPS and TDI in England and Scotland (Kelly et al., | EPI-D, TDI and IPS in waters in wetlands of central Italy (Bella et al., | IDP inrivers and streams in Argentina (Gómez and Licursi, |