Journals / Turkish Journal of Zoology / 2017 / Cilt: 41 - Sayı: 3

Macroinvertebrate-based biotic indices for evaluating the water quality of Kargı Stream (Antalya, Turkey)

Pages
476–486
Publication Date
2022-11-03
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is thought that the reason for these deviations was not taking into accountthe geomorphological and ecological characteristics of Turkey in the biotic indices used in the current study.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to determine the water quality of Kargı Stream, Antalya, Turkey, in terms of physical and chemicalparameters and biotic indices.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, macrozoobenthic invertebrates and water samples were taken from each of theselected seven stations seasonally.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is thought that the reason for these deviations was not taking into accountthe geomorphological and ecological characteristics of Turkey in the biotic indices used in the current study.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the water quality of Kargı Stream, Antalya, Turkey, in terms of physical and chemicalparameters and biotic indices. For this purpose, macrozoobenthic invertebrates and water samples were taken from each of theselected seven stations seasonally. The Belgian Biotic Index, BMWP and ASPT indices, and species diversity indices were applied fordetermining the water quality by using the ASTERICS software program. With the identification of the collected organisms, a total of126 taxa including 4 taxa from Gastropoda, 5 taxa from Oligochaeta, 1 taxon from Malacostraca, 84 taxa from Insecta, and 32 taxa fromArachnida were detected. Stations were clustered by using UPGMA, based on organisms. Station 7 in the estuarine zone was the mostdifferent one for the macrozoobenthic invertebrates. The lowest species diversity values were also found at this station. The water qualityof Kargı Stream was unpolluted/slightly polluted. Considering the physical and chemical parameters, biotic indices revealed changes inthe pollution load of the study area with some deviations. It is thought that the reason for these deviations was not taking into accountthe geomorphological and ecological characteristics of Turkey in the biotic indices used in the current study.

🔖

Cite This Article

ZEYBEK, M. (2022). Macroinvertebrate-based biotic indices for evaluating the water quality of Kargı Stream (Antalya, Turkey). Turkish Journal of Zoology, Cilt: 41 - Sayı: 3, 476–486. https://ajindex.com/articles/616165

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Alba-Tercedor J, Sanchez-Ortega A (1988). A quick and simple method to evaluate biological quality of running fresh water based on Hellawell (1978). Limnetica 4: 51-56.
  2. APHA (1998). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th ed. Washington, DC, USA: American Public Health Association. AQEM Consortium (2002). Manual for the Application of the AQEM System. A Comprehensive Method to Assess European Streams Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Developed for the Purpose of the Water Framework Directive. Duisburg, Germany: AQEM Consortium. Armitage PD, Moss D, Wright JF, Furse MT (1983). The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running- water sites. Water Res 17: 333-347.
  3. Balderas ECS, Grac C, Berti-Equille L, Hernandez MAA (2016). Potential application of macroinvertebrates indices in bioassessment of Mexican streams. Ecol Indic 61: 558-567.
  4. Barlas M (1995). Akarsu kirlenmesinin biyolojik ve kimyasal YÖNDEN değerlendirilmesi ve kriterleri. In: Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi I. ve II. Su Ürünleri Sempozyumu; 14–16 June 1995;
  5. Erzurum, Turkey. pp. 465-479 (in Turkish). Bedoya D, Novotny V, Manolakos ES (2009). Instream and offstream environmental conditions and stream biotic integrity: importance of scale and site similarities for learning and prediction. Ecol Model 220: 2393-2406.
  6. Bonada N, Prat N, Resh VH, Statzner B (2006). Developments in aquatic insect biomonitoring: a comparative analysis of recent approaches. Annu Rev Entomol 51: 495-523.
  7. Boyle TP, Fraleigh HD (2003). Natural and anthropogenic factors affecting the structure of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in an effluent-dominated reach of the Santa Cruz River AZ. Ecol Indic 3: 93-117. Capítulo AR, Tangorra M, Ocon C (2001). Use of benthic macroinvertebrates to assess the ecological status in Pampean rivers. Aquat Ecol 35: 109-119.
  8. Carter JL, Resh VH, Rosenberg DM, Reynoldson TB (2006). Biomonitoring in North American rivers: a comparison of methods used for benthic macroinvertebrates in Canada and the United States. In: Ziglio G, Siligardi M, Flaim G, editors. Biological Monitoring of Rivers: Applications and Perspectives. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 203-228.
  9. Czerniawska-Kusza I (2005). Comparing modified biological monitoring working party score system and several biological monitoring working party score system and several biological indices based on macroinvertebrates for water quality