| Literature DB >> 30505166 |
Hamed A El-Serehy1,2, Hala S Abdallah3,4, Fahad A Al-Misned1, Saleh A Al-Farraj1, Khaled A Al-Rasheid1.
Abstract
Lake Timsah is considered as the biggest water body at Ismailia City with a surface area of 14 km2. It is aEntities:
Keywords: Algal blooms; Eutrophication; Lake Timsah; Phytoplankton; Suez Canal; Trophic status; Water quality assessment
Year: 2018 PMID: 30505166 PMCID: PMC6252019 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2018.05.022
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 2213-7106 Impact factor: 4.219
Fig. 1A map of the Lake Timsah showing the location of the four sampling stations in the Lake Timsah. The inset shows the position of the Lake Timsah on the Suez Canal.
Limnological variables for the Lake Timsah.
| Parameters | Lake Timsah |
|---|---|
| Location | Ismailia City on the Suez Canal |
| Origin | Natural |
| Latitude | 30o35′46.55′'N |
| Longitude | 32o19′30.54′'E |
| Surface area (km2) | 14 |
| Water volume (m3) | 80 × 106 |
| Average depth (m) | 2–28 |
| Catchment area (km) | 4.5 |
Locations and descriptive features of anthropogenic activities of the four sampling stations of the Lake Timsah.
| Sampling sites | Coordinates of sampling sites | General features of anthropogenic activities |
|---|---|---|
| (Station I) | 30°33′18″N-32°17′69″E | -Recreational beach along the lake shore |
| -Sediment texture are dominated by median sand | ||
| -Vegetation: | ||
| Few seaweeds | ||
| -Macrofaunal abundance: | ||
| High abundance | ||
| (Station II) | 30°34′45′'N-32°16′87″E | -Freshwater intrusion |
| -Wastewater discharge | ||
| -The floor of the lake is covered with sand and rocks | ||
| -Vegetation: | ||
| Filamentous and thalloid algae | ||
| Blue green algal mats | ||
| -Macrofaunal abundance: | ||
| High abundance of copepod and amphipod crustaceans | ||
| (Station III) | 30° 35′ 46″N-32° 18′ 25″E | -Recreational beach along the lake shore |
| -Domestic outfall areas | ||
| -Oil contamination | ||
| -Vegetation: | ||
| Filamentous and thalloid algae | ||
| Blue green algal mats | ||
| -Macrofaunal abundance: | ||
| High abundance of polycheate, acidians and barnacles | ||
| (Station IV) | 30°35′64″N-32°19′30″E | -Recreational beach along the Suez Canal shore |
Minimum (Min), Maximum (Max), average, and standard deviation (SD) of physico- chemical parameters measured during the present study and used to evaluate: trophic state index (TSI); trophic level index (TLI) and water quality index (WQI) of the Lake Timsah.
| Parameter | Min | Max | Average | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Secchi disc transparency (m) | 0.5 | 2 | 1 | ±0.30 |
| Temperature (°C) | 16 | 30 | 22 | ±2.40 |
| Salinity (‰) | 17 | 40 | 36 | ±4.80 |
| pHc | 7.8 | 8.4 | 8.2 | ±0.01 |
| Total Phosphorus | 24 | 96 | 48 | ±7.00 |
| Total Nitrogen | 430 | 780 | 720 | ±76.8 |
| Chlorophyll | 6.5 | 56 | 20 | ±5.70 |
| TN/TP ratio | 15.5 | 16.7 | 16 | ±4.30 |
| Phosphate | 63.6 | 85.2 | 81.4 | ±6.20 |
| Nitrate | 6.7 | 17.8 | 9.75 | ±5.40 |
| Silicate | 1.4 | 4.1 | 3.4 | ±0.70 |
| Ammonia | 0.2 | 1.2 | 0.8 | ±0.10 |
| Dissolved oxygen | 6.5 | 12.2 | 9.4 | ±3.00 |
| Nitrite | 0.08 | 0.8 | 0.6 | ±0.03 |
| TSI | 50 | 70 | 60 | ±9.30 |
| TLI | 4.1 | 6.3 | 5.2 | ±0.87 |
| WQI | 27 | 67 | 49 | ±8.83 |
Measured parameters used for calculating TSI.
Measured parameters used for calculating TLI.
Measured parameters used for calculating WQI.
List of phytoplankton taxa and species collected from the coastal water of the Lake Timsah during the present study.
| 70. | |
| 1. | 71. |
| 2. | 72. |
| 3. | 73. |
| 4. | 74. |
| 5. | 75. |
| 6. | 76. |
| 7. | 77. |
| 8. | 78. |
| 9. | 79. |
| 10. | 80. |
| 11. | 81. |
| 12. | 82. |
| 13. | 83. |
| 14. | 84. |
| 15. | 85. |
| 16. | |
| 17. | 87. |
| 18. | 88 |
| 19. | 89. |
| 20. | 90. |
| 21. | 91. |
| 22 | 92 |
| 23. | 93. |
| 24. | 94 |
| 25. | 95. |
| 26. | |
| 27. | 1. |
| 28. | 2. |
| 29. | 3. |
| 30. | 4. Ceratium falcatum (Kofoid) Jørgensen |
| 31. | 5. |
| 32. | 6. |
| 33. | 7. |
| 34. | |
| 35. | 9. |
| 36. | 10. |
| 37 | 11. |
| 38. | 12. |
| 39. | 13. |
| 40. | 14. |
| 41. | 15 |
| 42 | 16 |
| 43. | 17. |
| 44. | 18. |
| 45. | 19. |
| 46. | 20. |
| 47. | 21. |
| 48. | 22. |
| 49 | 23. |
| 50. | 24. |
| 51. | 25. |
| 52. | 26. |
| 53. | 27 |
| 54. | 28 |
| 55. | 29. |
| 56. | 30. |
| 57. | 31. |
| 58. | |
| 59. | 1. |
| 60. | 2. |
| 61. | 3. |
| 62. | 4. |
| 63. | 5. |
| 64. | 6. |
| 65. | 7. |
| 66. | 8. |
| 67. | 9. |
| 68. | 10 |
| 69. | 11 |
| 1. | 1. |
| 2. | 2. |
| 3. | 3. |
| 4. | 4. |
| 5. | 5. |
| 6. | 6. |
| 7. | 7. |
| 8. | 8. |
| 9. | 9. |
| 10. | 10. |
| 11 | 11. |
| 12 | 12. |
| 13. | 13. |
| 14. |
Characteristic phytoplankton groups and algal indicator species for the trophic status classification of the Lake Timsah.
| Criteria | Lake Timsah |
|---|---|
| Population Density | Rich (20986 cell l−1) |
| Variety | Considerable number (164 species) |
| Distribution | To little depth (<3 m) |
| Algal blooms | Frequent |
| Diatom quotient (Centrales/Pennales) | 1.2 |
| Characteristic groups and algal indicator species | |
Internationally accepted criteria for trophic status classification of the water bodies with comparison applied to the Lake Timsah.
| Chlorophyll | (µg l−1) | Transparency | (m) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trophic status | TP (µg l−1) | Mean | Maximum | Mean | Maximum |
| Ultra-oligotrophic | <4 | <1 | <2.5 | >6 | >12 |
| Oligotrophic | <10 | <2.5 | <8 | >3 | >6 |
| Mesotrophic | 10–35 | 2.5–8 | 8–25 | 1.5–3 | 3–6 |
| Eutrophic | 35–100 | 8–25 | 25–75 | 0.7–1.5 | 1.5–3 |
| Hypereutrophic | >100 | >25 | >75 | <0.7 | <1.5 |
| Ultra-oligotrophic | <4 | <1 | <2.5 | >6 | >12 |
| Oligotrophic | 4–10 | <2.5 | <8 | >3 | >6 |
| Mesotrophic | 10–20 | 2.5–8 | 8–25 | 1.5–3 | 3–6 |
| Meso-eutrophic | 20–35 | – | – | – | – |
| Eutrophic | 35–100 | 8–25 | 25–75 | 0.7–1.5 | 1.5–3 |
| Hypereutrophic | >100 | >25 | >75 | <0.7 | <1.5 |
| Oligotrophic | 4–10 | 1–3 | – | 5–12 | – |
| Mesotrophic | 10–30 | 3–8 | – | 2.5–5 | – |
| Eutrophic | 30–100 | 8–25 | – | 1–2.5 | – |
| Hypereutrophic | – | – | – | – | – |
| Oligotrophic | <10 | <3.5 | – | – | – |
| Mesotrophic | 10–30 | 3.5–9 | – | – | – |
| Eutrophic | 31–100 | 9.1–25 | – | – | – |
| Hypereutrophic | – | – | – | – | – |
| Oligotrophic | <15 | <3 | – | >3.96 | – |
| Mesotrophic | 15–25 | 3–7 | – | 2.43–3.96 | – |
| Eutrophic | 25–100 | 7–40 | – | 0.91–2.43 | – |
| Hypereutrophic | >100 | >40 | – | <0.91 | – |
| Ultra-oligotrophic | – | – | – | – | – |
| Oligotrophic | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mesotrophic | – | – | – | – | – |
| Eutrophic | 24–96 | 20 | 56 | 1 | 2 |
| Hypereutrophic | – | – | – | – | – |
Transparency by Secchi disk depth.
Ryding and Rast (1994).
Environment Canada (2004).
MDDEP (2007).
Nürnberg (2001).
University of Florida (1983).
Present study.
Descriptions corresponding to the use of water quality index (WQI) [modified from Smith, 1990], trophic level index (TLI) [modified from Burns et al., 2005] and trophic state index (TSI) [modified from Carlson, 1977] applied for the Lake Timsah.
| Excellent | 91–100 | Eminently usable for all purposes | 2–3 | Oligotrophic | <40 Oligotrophic | |
| Good | 71–90 | Suitable for all uses | 3–4 | Mesotrophic | 40–50 Mesotrophic | |
| Intermediate | 51–70 | Main use and/or some uses may be jeopardized | 4–5 | Meso-eutrophic | 50–60 Eutrophic | |
| Bad | 25–50 | Unsuitable for main and/or several uses | 5–6 | Eutrophic | 60–80 Eutrophic | |
| Very Bad | 0–25 | Totally unsuitable for main and/or many uses | 6–7 | Hyper-eutrophic | >80 Eutrophic | |