Evaluation of the Water Quality of Karabal Stream (Gediz River, Turkey) and Comparative Performance of the Used Indices

Year 2021, Volume: 17 Issue: 3, 334 - 349, 01.09.2021

Alperen Ertaş , Merve Yaşartürk Tuğba Boz , İnci Tüney Kızılkaya

https://doi.org/10.22392/actaquatr.819579

Cited By: 7

Abstract

We used seven biotic indices to determine the water quality of Karabal Stream (Gediz River) in West Anatolia, Turkey. The indices were based on benthic macroinvertebrate and physicochemical parameters: Saprobi Index (SI), Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP), Average Score per Taxon (ASPT), Family Biotic Index (FBI), Belgian Biotic Index (BBI), EPT-Taxa [%] were used as biotic indices and Shannon-Weaver index (SWDI), Simpsons index (SDI) and Margalef index (MDI) for diversity. Ten taxonomic groups were found in Karabal Stream consisting of Crustacea, Oligochaeta, Gastrapoda, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Odonata, Coleoptera, Diptera, and Hemiptera. The water quality along the stream varied from good class in the upstream stations, to moderate in downstream stations according to the most suitable indices. According to canonic correspondence analysis (CCA), the distributions of Diptera, Oligochaeta, and Hemiptera species are positively correlated to EC, Cl, Turbidity, Temperature, NH4-N, NO2-N, and NO3-N while they are negatively correlated to DO, DOS and pH. The distributions of EPT species are positively correlated to DO, DOS and pH. According to Pearson’s correlation, the BBI, BMWP (Original), BMWP (Spanish), and EPT-Taxa [%] metrics were sufficient in the estimation of water quality in the examined watercourse. Considering studies in surface waters of Turkey, the BMWP and EPT-Taxa [%] indices reflect the water quality as correctly in all studies we examined, however, BBI did not always show reliable results. Therefore there is a need for the establishment of a Turkish Biotic Index which takes into account country-specific macroinvertebrates, their abundance, biology, and ecology.

Keywords

Karabal Stream, Water Quality, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Physicochemical Parameters, Biotic and Diversity Index

Thanks

The authors are thankful for the support and experience to Prof Dr. Hasan KALYONCU.

Karabal Çayı’nın (Gediz Nehri, Türkiye) Su Kalitesinin Değerlendirilmesi ve Kullanılan Endeks Performanslarının Karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Türkiye'nin Batı Anadolu Bölgesi'ndeki Karabal Çayı'nın (Gediz nehri kolu) su kalitesini belirlemek için yedi biyotik indeks kullanılmıştır. Kullanılan indeksler bentik makroomurgasızlar ve fizikokimyasal parametreler temellidir. Biyotik indeks olarak; Saprobi İndeks (SI), Biyolojik Çalışma Grubu İndeksi (BMWP), Takson Başına Ortalama Puan (ASPT), Familya Biyotik İndeksi (FBI) ve Belçika Biyotik İndeksi (BBI), çeşitlilik indeksi olarak; Shannon-Weaver indeksi (SWDI), Simpsons indeksi (SDI) ve Margalef indeksi (MDI) kullanılmıştır. Karabal Çayı'nda Crustacea, Oligochaeta, Gastrapoda, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Odonata, Coleoptera, Diptera ve Hemiptera'dan oluşan 10 taksonomik grup saptanmıştır. Akarsu boyunca su kalitesi, indekslere göre akarsuyun memba kesimlerinde iyi sınıftan akarsuyun aşağı mansap kesimlerinde orta seviyeye kadar değişmektedir. Kanonik korelasyon analizi (CCA)'ne göre, Diptera, Oligochaeta ve Hemiptera türlerinin dağılımları, ÇO, ÇOS ve pH ile negatif korelasyon gösterirken EC, Cl, Turbidite, Sıcalık, NH4-N, NO2-N ve NO3-N ile pozitif korelasyon göstermektedir. EPT türlerinin dağılımları ÇO, ÇOS ve pH ile pozitif korelasyon göstermiştir. Pearson korelasyon analizine göre BBI, BMWP (Orijinal), BMWP (İspanyol) ve EPT-Taksa [%] indeksleri incelenen akarsu üzerindeki su kalitesi tahmini için yeterli bulunmuştur. Türkiye yüzey sularında yapılan diğer çalışmalar da dikkate alındığında BMWP ve EPT-Taxa [%] indeksleri su kalitesi belirlemeye yönelik yapılan tüm çalışmalarda olduğu gibi bu çalışmada da su kalitesi açısından yeterli doğruluk yansıtmaktadır, ancak BBI her zaman güvenilir sonuçlar vermemiştir. Bu nedenle, ülkeye özgü makroomurgasız gruplarının bolluklarını, biyolojilerini ve ekolojilerini dikkate alan bir Türkiye Biyotik İndeksi’nin oluşturulmasına ihtiyaç vardır.

Keywords

Karabal Çayı, Su Kalitesi, Bentik Makroomurgasızlar, Fizikokimyasal Parametreler, Biyotik ve Çeşitlilik İndeksleri

References

• APHA (American Public Health Association) (2005). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 21st edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
• Arslan, N., Salur, A., Kalyoncu, H., Mercan, D., Barışık, B., & Odabaşı, D.A. (2016). The use of BMWP and ASPT indices for evaluation of water quality according to macroinvertebrates in Küçük Menderes River (Turkey). Biologia, 71(1), 49-57.
• AQEM Consortium (2002). The AQEM sampling method to be applied in STAR. Chapters 7-8. http://www.eu-star.at/pdf/AqemMacroinvertebrateSamplingProtocol.pdf.
• Balık, S., Ustaoğlu, M.R., Özbek, M., Yıldız, S., Taşdemir, A., & İlhan, A. (2006). Küçük Menderes Nehri’nin (Selçuk, İzmir) aşağı havzasındaki kirliliğin makro bentik omurgasızlar kullanılarak saptanması. E.Ü. Su Ürünleri Dergisi, 23(1-2), 61-65.
• Barbour, M., Gerritsen, J., Griffith, G., Frydenborg, R., McCarron, E., White, J., & Bastian, M. (1996). A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15(2), 185–211.
• Barlas, M., Yılmaz, F., İmamoğlu, Ö., & Akboyun, Ö. (2000). Yuvarlakçay (Köyceğiz- Muğla)’ın Fiziko-Kimyasal ve Biyolojik Yönden İncelenmesi, Su Ürünleri Sempozyumu Kitabı, Eylül 2000, Sinop, 249-265.
• Brinkhurst, R., & Kennedy, C. (1965). Studies on the biology of theTubificidae (Annelida, Oligochaeta) in a polluted stream. Journal of Animal Ecology, 34(2), 429-443.
• De Pauw, N., & Hawkes, H.A. (1993). Biological monitoring of river water quality. in: Walley, W.J., Judd, S. (Eds.), River Water Quality Monitoring and Control. Aston University, Birmingham, 87–112.
• De Pauw, N., & Heylen, S. (2001). Biotic index for sediment quality assessment of watercourses in Flanders, Belgium. Aquatic Ecology ,35, 121-133.
• Dügel, M. (1995). Köyceğiz Gölüne Dökülen Akarsuların Su Kalitesinin Fiziko-kimyasal ve Biyolojik Parametrelerle Belirlenmesi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 87 s.
• Egemen, Ö., & Sunlu, U. (1996). Water quality (Second Edition) (in Turkish). İzmir: Ege University Press. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1979). A review of the EPA red book quality criteria for water. Environmental Protection Agency, USA. 311s.
• Falkenmark, M. (1989). The massive water scarcity now threatening Africa – why isn't it being addressed? Ambio, 18(2), 112–118.
• Hilsenhoff, W.L. (1988). Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 7(1), 65-68.
• Horrigan, N., Choy, S., Marshall, J., & Recknagel, F. (2005). Response of stream macroinvertebrates to changes in salinity and the development of a salinity index. Marine and Freshwater Research, 56(6), 825-833.
• Hynes, H. (1994). Historical perspective and future direction of biological monitoring of aquatic systems. In: Biological monitoring of aquatic systems; Loeb, S. L., Spacie, A., Eds.; Lewis Publishers: Boca Raton, p. 11–22.
• Johnson, N., Revenga, C., & Echeverria, J. (2001). Managing water for people and nature. Science,, 292, 1071–1072.
• Kalyoncu, H., Barlas, M., Ertan, Ö. O., & Çavuşoğlu, K. (2005). Aksu Çayı’nın Su Kalitesi değişimi Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(1), 37-45.
• Kalyoncu, H., Yorulmaz, B., Barlas, M., Yıldırım, M.Z., & Zeybek, M. (2008). Aksu Çayı’nın su kalitesi ve fizikokimyasal parametrelerin makroomurgasız çeşitliliği üzerine etkisi. Fırat Üni. Fen ve Müh. Bil. Dergisi, 20(1), 23-33.
• Kalyoncu, H., & Zeybek, M. (2009). Benthic fauna of Ağlasun and Isparta streams and determination of water quality according to physicochemıcal parameters and Belgium Biotic Index. Biyoloji Bilimleri Araştırma Dergisi, 2 (1), 41-48.
• Kalyoncu, H., & Zeybek, M. (2010). An application of different biotic and diversity indices for assessing water quality: A case study in the Rivers Çukurca and Isparta (Turkey). African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(1), 19-27.
• Kantzaris, V., Iliopoulou- Georgudaki, J., Katharios, P., & Kaspiris, P. (2002). A comparison of several biotic indices used for water quality assessment at the Greek Rivers. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 11(11), 1000-1007.
• Kara, C., & Çömlekcioğlu, U. (2004). Karaçay (Kahramanmaraş)’ın Kirliliğinin Biyolojik ve Fiziko-kimyasal Parametrelerle İncelenmesi, KSU Fen ve Müh. Dergisi, 7(1), 1-7.
• Kazancı, N., & Dügel, M. (2000). An evulation of water quality of Yuvarlakçay stream in the Köycegiz - Dalyan protected area South- Western Turkey. Turkish Journal of Zoology, 24, 69-80.
• Kazancı, N., Ekingen, P., Türkmen, G., Ertunç, Ö., Dügel, M., & Gültutan, Y. (2010). Assessment of ecological quality of Aksu Stream (Giresun, Turkey) in Eastern Black Sea region by using Water Framework Directive (WFD) methods based on benthic macroinvertebrates. Review of Hydrobiology 3(2), 165-184.
• Kolkwitz, R., & Marsson, M. (1902). Grundsätze für die biologische Beurteilung des Wassers nach seiner Flora und Fauna. Mitt. Prüfungsanst. Wasserversorgung. Abwasserreing 1, 33-72.
• Korycińska, M., & Królak, E. (2006). The use of various biotic indices for evaluation of water quality in the Lowland Rivers of Poland (Exemplified by the Liwiec River). Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 15(3), 419-428. Kundzewicz, Z.W. (1997). Water resources for sustainable development. Hydrological Sciences – Journal des Sciences Hydrologiques, 42(4), 467–480.
• Lenat, D. (1993). Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 12, 220–222.
• Merritt, R., Cummins, K., & Berg, M. (1978). An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, 1st ed.; Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company: Dubuque, Iowa, U.S.A.
• Meyer, D. (1987). Makroskopisch- Biologische Feldmethoden zur Wassergütebeurteilung von Fliegewässern, 3. Auflage, A.L.G., 6, 3000, Hannover, 140p.
• Moisan, J., & Pelletier, L. (2008). Guide de surveillance biologique basée sur les macroinvertébrés benthiques d’eau douce du Québec-cours d’eau peu profonde à substrat grossier. Direction de Suivi de l’Etat de l’Environnement, Ministère du Développement Durable de l’Environnement et des Parcs.
• Moss, D., Furse, M.T., Wright, J.F., & Armitage, P.D. (1987). The prediction of the macro-invertebrate fauna of unpol- luted running-water sites in Great Britain using environ- mental data. Freshwater Biology, 17, 41-52.
• Ode, P.R., Rehn, A.C., & May, J.T. (2005). A quantitative tool for assessing the integrity of southern coastal California streams. Environmental Management, 35, 493–504.
• Ogleni, N., & Topal, B. (2011). Water quality assessment of the Mudurnu River (Turkey), using biotic indices. Water Resources Managemant, 25, 2487–2508.
• Öz, N., & Sengörür, B. (2004). The determining of water quality with biotic indices in the Melen River and its tributaries. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 13(1), 69–70.
• Rashid, R., & Pandit, A.K. (2014). Macroinvertebrates (oligochaetes) as indicators of pollution: A review. Journal of Ecology and the Natural Environment, 6(4), 140-144.
• Skriver, J., Friberg, N., & Kirkegaard, J. (2001). Biological assessment of watercourse quality in Denmark: Introduction of the Danish Stream Fauna Index (DSFI) as the official biomonitoring method. Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie, 27, 1822-1830.
• Solanki, V., Hussain, M.M., & Raja, S.S. (2010). Water quality assessment of Lake Pandu Bodhan, Andhra Pradesh State, India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 163(1-4), 411–419.
• Somerfield, P.J. (2008). Identification of the Bray-Curtis similarity index: Comment on Yoshioka (2008). Marine Ecology Progress Series, 372, 303-306.
• Tanyolac, J. (2004). Limnology (3rd edition) (in Turkish), Ankara: Hatipoğlu Press.
• Ter Braak, C.J.F. (1995). Ordination. In: Jongman RHG, ter Braak CJF, Van Tongeren OFR, editors. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91-173.
• Uyanık, S., Yılmaz, G., Yesilnacar, M. I., Aslan, M., & Demir, Ö. (2005). Rapid Assesment of River Water Quality in Turkey using Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 14 (4) 268–272.
• Wetzel, R.G. (2001). Limnology lake and reservoir ecosystems. Academic Press, San Diego.
• WHO (World Heath Organization) (2011). Guidelines for drinking-water quality. World Heath Organization Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data, NLM classification: WA 675.
• Vorosmarty, C.J., Green, P., Salisbury, J., & Lammers, R.B. (2000). Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science, 238, 284–288.
• Yorulmaz, B., Sukatar, A., & Barlas, M. (2015). Comparative analysis of biotic indices for evaluation of water quality of Esen River in South-West Anatolia, TURKEY. Fresenius Enviromental Bulletin, Vol. 24, No.1a.
• Yoshioka, P.M. (2008). Misidentification of the Bray-Curtis similarity index. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 368, 309-310.
• Zeybek, M., Kalyoncu, H., Karakuş, B., & Özgül, S. (2014). The use of BMWP and ASPT indices for evaluation of water quality according to macroinvertebrates in Değirmendere Stream (Isparta, Turkey). Turkish Journal of Zoology, 38, 603-613.
• Zeybek, M. (2017). Macroinvertebrate-based biotic indices for evaluating the water quality of Kargı Stream (Antalya, Turkey). Turkish Journal of Zoology, 41, 476-48.
• Zimmerman, M. (1993). The use of the biotic index as an indication of water quality. In tested studies for laboratory teaching. Proceedings of the 5th Workshop/Conference of the Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Parta 757 Association for Biology Laboratory Education (ABLE); Goldman, C.A., Hauta P.L., O’Donnell, M.A., Andrews S.E., & van der Heiden R., Vol. 5, pp.85–98.