| Literature DB >> 35684241 |
Pajtim Bytyçi1, Albona Shala-Abazi2, Ferdije Zhushi-Etemi3, Giuseppe Bonifazi4, Mimoza Hyseni-Spahiu2, Osman Fetoshi5, Hazir Çadraku1, Fidan Feka1, Fadil Millaku3.
Abstract
Macrophytes are important elements of aquatic ecosystems that grow in or near water. Their taxonomic composition, species diversity, depth, and density are indicators of environmental health; as such, Macrophytes are used to assess the ecological status of water bodies. Under the aim of assessing the ecological status of the Klina River in Kosovo, a survey was conducted at eight sampling sites along the river course to analyze macrophyte composition, diversity, density, and cover. Three samples were collected at each sampling site from early June to late September. The following macrophyte indices were used to assess the ecological status of the river: Macrophyte Index for Rivers (MIR), River Macrophyte Nutrient Index (RMNI), and River Macrophyte Hydraulic Index (RMHI). Our sampling area included the upper reaches of the river where no organic pollution was detected (oligotrophic), the middle reaches where polluted water from farms is discharged into the river, and the lower reaches characterized by heavy organic pollution from settlements and various industrial activities. There is a positive correlation (p < 0.05) between water temperature, turbidity, electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS), orthophosphates (PO43-), ammonia (NH4+), nitrites (NO2-), calcium (Ca2+), and potassium (K+) with plant density, RMNI, RMHI, EQR-RMNI, EQR-RMHI, and MIR. Sodium (Na+) has stronger positive correlation (p < 0.01) with RMNI and RMHI indices and negative correlation with EQR-RMNI and EQR-RMHI. Our results show that ecological status along the river varies from high and good upstream to poor, bad, and moderate running downstream.Entities:
Keywords: ecological status; macrophyte; macrophyte indices; pollution
Year: 2022 PMID: 35684241 PMCID: PMC9183134 DOI: 10.3390/plants11111469
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Location of investigated area.
The sampling sites with geographic coordinates, hydro morphology and Riparian vegetation.
| Sampling Stations | Latitude (N) | Hydro Morphology | Riparian Vegetation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SP1 | The mountain spring of Klina river in village Kuçicë. | 42°37′8″ N | Natural river bed. | Well-developed on both sides of the riverbank, dominated by deciduous trees Salicaceae, Betulaceae, and Fagaceae. |
| SP2 | Llaushë | 42°43′21″ N | Located 1 km from the city of Skenderaj, where the river receives discharges from municipal wastewaters, agriculture and industry. Water flow l.5 m/s, water color is dark with bad odor. | Well-developed on both sides of the riverbank, dominated by deciduous trees Salicaceae. |
| SP3 | Tushilë | 44°42′43″ N | The river receives discharges from agriculture and industry. Water flow l m/s, water with bad odor. | Well-developed on both sides of the riverbank, dominated by deciduous trees Betulaceae. |
| SP4 | Açarevë | 42°39′6″ N | Riverbed with waste and agricultural runoff due to the land use. Flow velocity 2 m/s. | Deciduous trees and ground vegetation on both sides of the riverbank, dominated by Salicaceae and Betulaceae trees. |
| SP5 | Pogragjë | 42°38′1″ N | The river receives discharges from village houses, agriculture, and other sources. | Deciduous trees and ground vegetation on both sides of the riverbank dominated by Salicaceae and Betulaceae. |
| SP6 | Klinë–Center | 42°61′52.56″ N | Inside the city of Klina, concrete river channel on both sides. Municipal wastewaters and agricultural, industrial runoff discharge in the river. | The riverbank is concreted on both sides. |
| SP7 | Klinë–lower part of the city | 42°35′48″ N | Lower part of the city of Klina. Municipal wastewaters and agricultural, industrial runoff discharge in the river. | The riverbank is dominated by Salicaceae trees. |
| SP8 | Klinë | 42°36′41″ N20°34′05″ E | Municipal wastewaters and agricultural, industrial runoff discharge in the river. | The riverbank is dominated by Salicaceae and Betulaceae. |
The classification of water quality based on Macrophyte Index for Rivers for sandy type of a river [16,53,59].
| No. | Ecological Status Class | Lowland River Sandy and Organic | Quality Class of Water |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Very good | ≥44.5 | I |
| 2 | Good | 44.5–35.0> | II |
| 3 | Moderate | 35.0–25.4> | III |
| 4 | Poor | 25.4–15.8> | IV |
| 5 | Bad | ≤15.8 | V |
Biological Status Boundary Values [16,56].
| Status | EQR Values |
|---|---|
| High | 0.8 |
| Good | 0.6 |
| Moderate | 0.4 |
| Poor | 0.2 |
| Bad | <0.2 |
The colors present the ecological status of water bodies: Blue-High, Green-Good, Yellow- Moderate, Orange-Poor, Red-Bad.
Summary statistics of environmental variables for the eight sampling sites, showing the mean and the standard deviation for each physicochemical parameters and their ecological status according to standard (GD161).
| Variable | Units | SP1 | SP2 | SP3 | SP4 | SP5 | SP6 | SP7 | SP8 | Minimum and Maximum | M ± SD | Variance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water temperature | °C | 12.1 | 15.6 | 17.0 | 19.1 | 18.5 | 17.1 | 18.1 | 12.7 | 12.1–19.1 | 16.2 ± 2.6 | 6.8 | ||
| Air temperature | 16.8 | 17.4 | 17.9 | 20.9 | 21.3 | 23 | 21.1 | 21.1 | 16.8–23 | 19.9 ± 2.24 | 5.04 | |||
| Turbidity | NTU | 2.8 | 23.5 | 28.4 | 30.6 | 26.9 | 25.5 | 18.6 | 6.8 | 2.8–30.6 | 20.3 ± 10.3 | 106.2 | ||
| Electrical conductivity Ec | µS/cm | 459 | 856 | 829 | 766 | 797 | 762 | 753 | 376 | 376–856 | 699.7 ± 179.0 | 32,064 | ||
| Total dissolved solids (TDS) | mg/L | 229 | 428 | 415 | 333 | 398 | 377 | 373 | 186 | 186–428 | 342.3 ± 88.8 | 7890.2 | ||
| Total suspended solids (TSS) | mg/L | 14 | 46 | 85 | 39 | 28 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 1.1 | 1.1–85 | 27.5 ± 28.7 | 826.9 | ||
| pH | 0–14 | 7.93 | 7.46 | 7.60 | 8.26 | 7.70 | 7.08 | 7.62 | 8.11 | 7.08–8.26 | 7.72 ± 0.37 | 0.141 | ||
| Dissolved oxygen (DO) | mg/L | 5.33 | 3.15 | 0.03 | 5.97 | 4.73 | 7.2 | 4.5 | 10.9 | 0.03–10.9 | 5.22 ± 3.13 | 9.8 | ||
| Quality class according to GD161 standard | III | V | V | III | IV | II | IV | I | III | |||||
| Dissolved oxygen saturation (DOS) | % | 70.5 | 44.9 | 0.3 | 89.4 | 70 | 82 | 53 | 117 | 0.3–117 | 65.8 ± 34.5 | 1195.9 | ||
| Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) | mg/L | 1.5 | 22.6 | 42.2 | 33.5 | 25.8 | 9.0 | 9.5 | 3.9 | 1.5–42.2 | 18.5 ± 14.7 | 218.6 | ||
| Quality class according to GD161 standard | I | V | V | V | V | III | III | III | III | |||||
| Chemical oxygen demand (COD) | mg/L | 4.2 | 49.6 | 87.1 | 63.5 | 58.0 | 18 | 19 | 6.8 | 4.2–87.1 | 38.2 ± 30.4 | 924.5 | ||
| Quality class according to GD161 standard | I | III | V | V | V | III | III | II | III | |||||
| Total organic carbon (TOC) | mg/L | 1.1 | 17.0 | 28.8 | 19.7 | 18.3 | 6.3 | 6.5 | 1.9 | 1.1–28.8 | 12.4 ± 9.9 | 98.3 | ||
| Nitrates (NO3−) | mg/L | 2.5 | 8.1 | 0.7 | 26.2 | 17.2 | 6.9 | 5.6 | 4.8 | 0.7–26.2 | 9.0 ± 8.5 | 72.6 | ||
| Quality class according to GD161 standard | I | III | I | V | V | III | III | II | III | |||||
| n,n-diethyltryptamine (DET) | mg/L | <0.1 | <0.1 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | <0.1 | |||||
| Orthophosphates (PO43−) | mg/L | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.32 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.18 | 0.06 | 0.01–0.32 | 0.13 ± 0.09 | 0.010 | ||
| Quality class according to GD161 standard | I | I | V | V | V | V | V | I | V | |||||
| Total phosphorus (PT) | mg/L | 0.04 | 0.64 | 1.28 | 0.99 | 0.77 | 0.28 | 0.32 | 0.13 | 0.04–1.28 | 0.56 ± 0.43 | 0.193 | ||
| Quality class according to GD161 standard | I | II | V | III | III | I | I | I | II | |||||
| Ammonia (NH4+) | mg/L | 0.03 | 0.32 | 1.65 | 0.88 | 0.77 | 0.84 | 1.02 | 0.041 | 0.03–1.65 | 0.69 ± 0.54 | 0.299 | ||
| Quality class according to GD161 standard | I | I | III | II | I | II | II | I | I | |||||
| Nitrites (NO2−) | mg/L | 0.02 | 0.22 | 1.10 | 0.84 | 0.63 | 1.14 | 3.75 | 0.26 | 0.02–3.75 | 0.99 ± 1.18 | 1.4 | ||
| Quality class according to GD161 standard | I | II | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | |||||
| Sulphate (SO42−) | mg/L | 19.5 | 28.9 | 16.5 | 38.3 | 18.3 | 15.9 | 14.8 | 7.9 | 7.9–38.3 | 20.01 ± 9.4 | 88.5 | ||
| Quality class according to GD161 standard | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | |||||
| Calcium (Ca2+) | mg/L | 70.87 | 130.1 | 134.1 | 112.1 | 121.3 | 123.3 | 127.3 | 70.8 | 70.87–134.1 | 111.2 ± 25.7 | 663.9 | ||
| Quality class according to GD161 standard | I | II | II | II | II | II | II | I | II | |||||
| Magnesium (Mg2+) | mg/L | 15.1 | 26.7 | 18.7 | 27.2 | 20.7 | 22.4 | 28.2 | 15.1 | 15.1–28.2 | 21.76 ± 5.2 | 27.8 | ||
| Quality class according to GD161 standard | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | |||||
| Sodium (Na+) | mg/L | 6.55 | 8.20 | 10.5 | 7.58 | 8.01 | 8.64 | 8.89 | 6.55 | 6.55–10.5 | 8.12 ± 1.30 | 1.7 | ||
| Quality class according to GD161 standard | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | I | |||||
| Potassium (K+) | mg/L | 2.21 | 2.66 | 2.68 | 3.00 | 3.22 | 3.11 | 3.51 | 2.21 | 2.21–3.51 | 2.83 ± 0.46 | 0.220 | ||
| Chloride (Cl−) | mg/L | 7.1 | 35.5 | 65.3 | 54.6 | 46.1 | 19.8 | 23.4 | 4.26 | 4.26–65.3 | 32.0 ± 22.1 | 492.3 | ||
The colors present the ecological status of water bodies: Blue-High, Green-Good, Yellow-Moderate, Orange-Poor, Red-Bad.
List of plants and index values.
| Taxon | Family | SP1 | SP2 | SP3 | SP4 | SP5 | SP6 | SP7 | SP8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adoxaceae | + | ||||||||
| Poaceae | + | ||||||||
| Amblystegiaceae | + | ||||||||
| Apiaceae | + | + | |||||||
| Asteraceae | + | + | |||||||
| Plantaginaceae | + | ||||||||
| Plantaginaceae | + | ||||||||
| Brassicaceae | + | ||||||||
| Brassicaceae | + | ||||||||
| Ceratophyllaceae | + | ||||||||
| Pottiaceae | + | ||||||||
| Cinclidotaceae | + | ||||||||
| Cinclidotaceae | + | ||||||||
| Amblystegiaceae | + | ||||||||
| Onagraceae | + | + | + | ||||||
| + | |||||||||
| Onagraceae | + | + | |||||||
| Rubiaceae | + | ||||||||
| Poaceae | + | + | + | + | |||||
| Apiaceae | + | ||||||||
| Juncaceae | + | + | + | ||||||
| Juncaceae | + | ||||||||
| Poaceae | + | ||||||||
| Araceae | + | + | + | + | + | + | |||
| Lamiaceae | + | + | |||||||
| Primulaceae | + | ||||||||
| Primulaceae | + | + | |||||||
| Lythraceae | + | ||||||||
|
| Marchantiaceae | + | |||||||
| Lamiaceae | + | + | + | + | + | ||||
| Lamiaceae | + | ||||||||
| Haloragaceae | + | ||||||||
| Brassicaceae | + | ||||||||
| Brassicaceae | + | + | + | ||||||
| Polygonaceae | + | ||||||||
| Asteraceae | + | ||||||||
| Poaceae | + | + | |||||||
| Plantaginaceae | + | ||||||||
| Polygonaceae | + | + | + | ||||||
| Polygonaceae | |||||||||
| Polygonaceae | + | + | + | ||||||
| Polygonaceae | + | ||||||||
| Potamogetonaceae | + | + | + | + | |||||
| Potamogetonaceae | + | ||||||||
| Potamogetonaceae | + | ||||||||
| Potamogetonaceae | + | + | + | ||||||
| Potamogetonaceae | + | ||||||||
| Ranunculaceae | + | + | + | + | |||||
| Ranunculaceaea | + | ||||||||
| Brassicaceae | + | + | + | ||||||
| Brassicaceae | + | + | |||||||
| Polygonaceae | + | + | |||||||
| Polygonaceae | + | + | + | ||||||
| Polygonaceae | + | ||||||||
| Polygonaceae | + | ||||||||
| Cyperaceae | + | + | |||||||
| Scrophulariaceae | + | + | |||||||
| Scrophulariaceae | + | ||||||||
| Scrophulariaceae | + | ||||||||
| Typhaceae | + | + | + | + | |||||
| Hydrocharitaceae | + | ||||||||
| Potamogetonaceae | + | ||||||||
| Cyperaceae | + | + | |||||||
| Typhaceae | + | + | + | + | + | ||||
| Typhaceae | + | + | + | ||||||
| Plantaginaceae | + | + | + | ||||||
| Plantaginaceae | + | + | + | ||||||
| MIR (Macrophyte Index for Rivers) | 45 | 44 | 25 | 40 | 76 | 57 | 20 | 23 | |
| Quality class of water | I | II | IV | II | I | I | IV | IV | |
| RMNI (River Macrophyte Nutrient Index) | 3.44 | 5.95 | 8.56 | 4.77 | 5.81 | 5.62 | 7.49 | 5.85 | |
| The ecological quality ratio for the parameter RMNI | 1 | 0.61 | 0.21 | 0.80 | 0.63 | 0.68 | 0.38 | 0.63 | |
| RMHI (River Macrophyte Hydraulic Index) | 3.57 | 6.27 | 8.42 | 5.96 | 5.77 | 5.61 | 8.5 | 5.20 | |
| The ecological quality ratio for the parameter RMHI | 1 | 0.57 | 0.24 | 0.92 | 0.65 | 0.68 | 0.23 | 0.74 | |
+ present.
The species density in each sampling point based on Kohler’s 5-point scale.
| SP1 | SP2 | SP3 | SP4 | SP5 | SP6 | SP7 | SP8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water depth | 20–40 cm | 60–100 cm | 50–100 cm | 40–60 cm | 40–60 cm | 60 cm | 1.5 m | 25 cm |
| Submersed plant density (0–5) | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 1 |
| Plant density (0–5) | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 1 |
| Cover (0–5) | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| Substrate | Gravel and rock | Silt and clay | Gravel and rock | Gravel and rock | Gravel and rock | Silt and clay | Silt and clay | Gravel and rock |
| Detritus | Present | Present | Present | Present | Present | Present | Present | Absent |
| Habitate | Terrestrial | Aquatic | Terrestrial | Terrestrial | Aquatic | Aquatic | Aquatic | Aquatic |
| S | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||
| F | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||
| E | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
E—Emergent, F—Floating, S—Submerged.
Figure 2Hierarchical cluster dendrogram for elements and value indices at eight monitoring stations.
Pearson’s correlation between macrophyte indices and physicochemical parameters of water.
| Plant Density | RMNI | RMHI | EQR-RMNI | EQR-RMHI | MIR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water temperature | 0.714 * | 0.406 | 0.606 | −0.400 | −0.389 | 0.241 |
| Turbidity | 0.726 * | 0.436 | 0.555 | −0.431 | −0.358 | 0.286 |
| Electrical conductivity Ec | 0.780 * | 0.483 | 0.626 | −0.482 | −0.516 | 0.272 |
| Total dissolved solids (TDS) | 0.765 * | 0.545 | 0.639 | −0.545 | −0.600 | 0.281 |
| Total suspended solids (TSS) | 0.003 | 0.459 | 0.446 | −0.469 | −0.349 | −0.082 |
| pH | −0.652 | −0.355 | −0.279 | 0.344 | 0.470 | −0.288 |
| Dissolved oxygen (DO) | −0.202 | −0.496 | −0.569 | 0.505 | 0.554 | 0.009 |
| Dissolved oxygen saturation (DOS) | −0.112 | −0.640 | −0.649 | 0.646 | 0.692 | 0.160 |
| Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) | 0.245 | 0.474 | 0.534 | −0.481 | −0.336 | 0.054 |
| Chemical oxygen demand (COD) | 0.268 | 0.484 | 0.527 | −0.492 | −0.358 | 0.106 |
| Total organic carbon (CTO) | 0.283 | 0.515 | 0.552 | −0.523 | −0.396 | 0.091 |
| Nitrates (NO3−) | 0.424 | −0.332 | −0.117 | 0.332 | 0.408 | 0.430 |
| Orthophosphates (PO43−) | 0.098 | 0.762 * | 0.805 * | −0.760 * | −0.649 | −0.268 |
| Total phosphorous (PT) | 0.238 | 0.503 | 0.562 | −0.509 | −0.364 | 0.031 |
| Ammonia (NH4+) | 0.330 | 0.746 * | 0.812 * | −0.740 * | −0.686 | −0.127 |
| Nitrites (NO2−) | 0.222 | 0.557 | 0.730 * | −0.548 | −0.678 | −0.398 |
| Suphates (SO42−) | 0.340 | −0.338 | −0.064 | 0.335 | 0.350 | 0.211 |
| Calcium (Ca2+) | 0.741 * | 0.652 | 0.760 * | −0.649 | −0.688 | 0.135 |
| Magnezium (Mg2+) | 0.670 | 0.223 | 0.518 | −0.217 | −0.317 | −0.015 |
| Sodium (Na+) | 0.368 | 0.847 ** | 0.850 ** | −0.842 ** | −0.834 * | −0.160 |
| Potassium (K+) | 0.745 * | 0.374 | 0.574 | −0.365 | −0.465 | 0.227 |
| Chloride (Cl−) | 0.333 | 0.472 | 0.564 | −0.478 | −0.362 | 0.114 |
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), * correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Figure 3CCA (canonical correspondence analysis) plot showing the relationships between plant density, value indices, and physicochemical parameters.