Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies

4 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 0.461
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.604

CiteScore 2017: 0.64

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.249
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.463

Online
ISSN
1897-3191
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 47, Issue 3

Issues

Diatom biomonitoring – scientific foundations, commonly discussed issues and frequently made errors

Ewelina Szczepocka
  • Corresponding author
  • Laboratory of Algology and Mycology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Łódź, ul.Banacha 12/16, 90-237 Łódź, Poland
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Joanna Żelazna-Wieczorek
  • Laboratory of Algology and Mycology, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Łódź, ul.Banacha 12/16, 90-237 Łódź, Poland
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-09-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ohs-2018-0030

Abstract

Contemporary assessment of the ecological status of aquatic ecosystems is based on various groups of organisms, including diatoms. Biological assessment, implemented by the Water Framework Directive, has been applied worldwide for more than 15 years. Currently, the most basic “tool” used in biomonitoring are diatom indices, which are routinely applied in Europe and other countries around the world. In Poland, the diatom indices have been used for over 5 years, which is a period of time allowing to summarize and evaluate the effectiveness of these methods in the assessment of aquatic ecosystems. The purpose of this work was to analyse the use of diatom indices in the biomonitoring of surface water by collecting data on the possibilities and limitations of using diatom indices for the objective assessment of water quality. Attention was paid to mistakes made in the course of biological assessment performed with the use of diatom phytobenthos, which have a significant impact on the obtained results. The paper also contains suggestions for introducing several important changes in biological monitoring, which will improve its quality and efficiency in assessing the ecological status of various aquatic ecosystems.

Key words: diatoms; diatom indices; indicator values; Water Framework Directive

References

  • Allan, J.D. (1998). Ekologia wód płynących [Ecology of flowing waters]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Warszawa, 450 pp. (In Polish).Google Scholar

  • Bąk, M., Witkowski, A., Żelazna-Wieczorek, J., Wojtal, A.Z., Szczepocka, E. et al. (2012). Klucz do oznaczania okrzemek w fitobentosie na potrzeby oceny stanu ekologicznego wód powierzchniowych w Polsce [The key to the identification of phytobenthic diatoms for assessing the ecological status of surface waters in Poland]. Biblioteka monitoringu środowiska. GIOŚ Warszawa, 452 pp. (In Polish).Google Scholar

  • Bere, T., Mangadze, T. & Mwedzi, T. (2014). The application and testing of diatom-based indices of stream water quality in Chinhoyi Town, Zimbabwe. Water S.A. 40(3): 503–512. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Blanco, S., Ector, L. & Becares, E. (2004). Epiphytic diatoms as water indicators in Spanish shallow lakes. Vie Milieu 54(2–3): 71–79.Google Scholar

  • Blanco, S., Ector, L., Huck, V., Monnier, O., Cauchie, H.M. et al. (2008). Diatom assemblages and water quality assessment in The Duero Basin (NW Spain). Belg. J. Bot. 141(1): 1–39.Google Scholar

  • Blanco, S., Cejudo-Figueiras, C., Tudesque, L., Bécares, E., Hoffmann, L. et al. (2012). Are diatom diversity indices reliable monitoring metries? Hydrobiol. 695: 199–206. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bogaczewicz-Adamczak, B. & Koźlarska, I. (1999). The evaluation of water quality in the Swelina Stream on the basis of diatom analysis. Oceanol. St. 28(1–2): 59–71.Google Scholar

  • Bogaczewicz-Adamczak, B., Kłosińska, D. & Zgrundo, A. (2001). Diatoms as indicators of water pollution in the coastal zone of the Gulf of Gdańsk (southern Baltic Sea). Oceanol. St. 30(3–4): 59–75.Google Scholar

  • Bogaczewicz-Adamczak, B. & Dziengo, M. (2003). Using benthic diatom communities and diatom indices to assess water pollution in the Pucka Bay (Southern Baltic Sea) littoral zone. Oceanol. St. 32(4): 131–157.Google Scholar

  • Cantonati, M. (1998). Diatom communities of springs in the Southern Alps. Diatom Res. 13(2): 201–220.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cantonati, M., Corradini, G., Jüttner, I. & Cox, J. (2001). Diatom assemblages in high mountain streams of the Apls and the Himalaya. Proceedings of the International Symposium. Algae and extreme environments. Trebon (Czech Republic), 11–16 September 2000. Nova Hedwigia 123: 37–62.Google Scholar

  • Cantonati, M., Gerecke, R. & Bertuzzi, E. (2006). Springs of the Apls – sensitive ecosystems to environmental change: from biodiversity assessments to long-term studies. Hydrobiol. 562: 59–96.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cantonati, M., Bertuzzi, E. & Spitale, D. (2007). The spring habitat: biota and sampling methods. Monografie del Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali, 4, Trento.Google Scholar

  • Coste, M. (1976). Contribution à ľécologie des diatomées benthiques et périphytiques de la Seine [Distribution and ecology of benthic and peryphitic diatoms in the Sekwana river]. Hydrotechnical Society of France III, 9: 1–7. (In French).Google Scholar

  • Coste, M. & Ayphassorho, H. (1991). Etude de la qualité des eaux du bassin Artois Picardie à ľaide des communautés de diatomées benthiques [Application des indices diatomiques]. Rapport Cemagref Bordeaux – Agence de ľEau Artois Picardie, 277 pp. (In French).Google Scholar

  • Dell’ Uomo, A. (1996). Assessment of water quality of an Apennine river as a pilot study for diatom-based monitoring of Italian watercourses. In B.A. Whitton & E. Rott (Eds.), Use of Algae for Monitoring River II (pp. 65–72). Institut für Botanik, Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar

  • Descy, J.P. (1979). A new approach to water quality estimation using diatoms. Nova Hedwigia 64: 305–323.Google Scholar

  • Dumnicka, E., Jelonek, M., Kwandrans, J., Wojtal, A. & Żurek R. (2006). Ichtiofauna i status ekologiczny wód Wisły, Raby, Dunajca i Wisłoki. [Ichthyofauna and ecological status of the waters of the Vistula, Raba, Dunajec and Wisłoka]. Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, 220 pp. (In Polish).Google Scholar

  • Eloranta, P. & Soininen, J. (2002). Ecological status of some Finnish rivers evaluated using benthic diatoms communities. J. App. Phycol. 14: 1–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • European Union (2000). Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L327: 1–73.Google Scholar

  • Fore, L.S. & Grafe, C. (2002). Using diatoms to assess the biological condition of large rivers in Idaho (U.S.A.). Freshw. Biol. 47: 2015–2037.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gomez, N. & Licursi, M. (2001). The Pampean Diatom Index (IDP) for assessment of rivers and stream in Argentina. Aquat. Ecol. 35: 173–181.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Juggins, S., Kelly, M.G., Allott, T., Kelly-Quinn, M. & Monteith, D. (2016). A Water Framework Directive-compatible metric for assessing acidifcation in UK and Irish rivers using diatoms. Sci. Total Environ. 568: 671–678. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jüttner, I., Rothfritz, H. & Ormerod, S. (1996). Diatoms as indicators of river quality in the Nepalese Middle Hills with consideration of effects by habitat – specific sampling. Freshw. Biol. 36(2): 475–486.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Harding, W.R., Archibald, C.G.M. & Taylor, J.C. (2005). The relevance of diatoms for water quality assessment in South Africa: A position paper. Water S.A. 31: 41–46.Google Scholar

  • Harding, W.R., & Taylor, J.C. (2011). The South African Diatom Index (SADI) – a preliminary index for indicating water quality in rivers and streams in Southern Africa. WRC Report No. 1707/1/11, Water Research Commission, Pretoria.Google Scholar

  • Harding, W.R. & Taylor, J.C. (2014). Diatoms as indicators of historical water quality: A comparison of samples taken in the Wemmershoek catchment (Western Province, South Africa) in 1960 and 2008. Water S.A. 40(4): 601–606.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hofmann, G. (1994). Aufwuchs – Diatomeen in Seen und ihre Eignung als Indikatoren der Trophie [Proceedings – diatoms in lakes and their use as indicators of trophic state]. Biblioth. Diatomol. 30: 1–241. (In German).Google Scholar

  • Hofmann, G., Werum, M. & Lange-Bertalot, H. (2011). Diatomeen im Süβwasser-Benthos von Mitteleuropa. A.R.G. Gantner Verlag K.G., Rugell, 908 pp. (In German).Google Scholar

  • Hofmann, G., Werum, M. & Lange-Bertalot H. (2013). Diatomeen im Süßwasser-Benthos von Mitteleuropa. Bestimmungsflora Kieselalgen für die ökologische Praxis. Über 700 der häufigsten Arten und ihre Ökologie. In H. Lange-Bertalot, (Ed.), Koeltz Scientific Books, 908 pp. (In German).Google Scholar

  • Holmes, M. & Taylor, J.C. (2015). Diatoms as water quality indicators in the upper reaches oft he Great Fish River, Estern Cape, South Africa. Afr. J. Aquat. Sci. 1–17. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kadłubowska, J.Z. (1964). Okrzemki rzeki Pilicy i ich znaczenie w ocenie czystości wody [Diatoms of the Pilica River and their signifcance in aater quality assessment]. Tow. Nauk. Łódź 97: 1–61. (In Polish).Google Scholar

  • Kahlert, M., Ács, E., Almeida, S.F.P., Blanco, S., Dreßler, M. et al. (2016). Quality assurance of diatom counts in Europe: towards harmonized datasets. Hydrobiol. 772: 1–14. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kawecka, B. (2012). Diatom diversity in streams of the Tatra National Park (Polnad) as indicator of environmental conditions. W. Szafer Institute of Botany, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, 213 pp.Google Scholar

  • Kawecka, B. & Eloranta, P. (1994). Zarys ekologii glonów wód słodkich i środowisk lądowych [Outline ecology of freshwater algae and terrestrial environments]. PWN. Warszawa, 251 pp. (In Polish).Google Scholar

  • Kawecka, B. & Galas, J. (2003). Diversity of epilithic diatoms in high mountain lakes under the stress of acidification (Tatra Mts, Poland). Ann. Limnol. – Int. J. Lim. 39: 239–253. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kelly, M.G. (2003). Short term dynamics of diatoms in an upland stream and implications for monitoring eutrophication. Environ. Pollut. 125: 117–122.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kelly, M.G. & Whitton, B.A. (1995). The trophic Diatom Index: a new index for monitoring eutrophication in rivers. J. Appl. Phycol. 7: 433–444.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kelly, M.G., Juggins, S., Guthrie, R., Pritchard, S., Jamieson, J. et al. (2008). Assessment of ecological status in UK rivers using diatoms. Freshw. Biol. 53(2): 403–422.Google Scholar

  • Kelly, M.G., Gómez-Rodriguez, C., Kahlert, M., Almeida, S.F.P., Bennett, M.B. et al. (2012). Establishing expectations for pan-European diatom based ecological status assessments. Ecol. Indic. 20: 177–186. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Krammer, K. (2000). The genus Pinnularia. In H. Lange-Bertalot (Ed.), Diatoms of Europe 1. (pp. 703). Ruggell: A.R.G. Ganther Verlag K.G.Google Scholar

  • Krammer, K. (2002). Cymbella. In H. Lange-Bertalot (Ed.), Diatoms of Europe 3. (pp. 584). Ruggell: A.R.G. Ganther Verlag K.G.Google Scholar

  • Krammer, K. (2003). Cymbopleura, Delicata, Navicymbula, Gomphocymbellopsis, Afrocymbella. In H. Lange-Bertalot (Ed.), Diatoms of Europe 4 (pp. 878). Ruggell: A.R.G. Ganther Verlag K.G.Google Scholar

  • Krammer, K. & Lange-Bertalot, H. (1991a). Süsswaserfiora von Mitteleuropa. Bacillariophyceae 3. Centrales Fragilariaceae Eunotiaceae. Gustav Fischer Verlag. Jena, 598 pp.Google Scholar

  • Krammer, K. & Lange-Bertalot, H. (1991b). Süsswaserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bacillariophyceae 4. Achnanthaceae. Kritische Bemerkungen zu Navicula (Lanceolatae) und Gomphonema. Gustav Fischer Verlag. Jena, 468 pp.Google Scholar

  • Krammer, K. & Lange-Bertalot, H. (1997a). Süsswaserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bacillariophyceae 2. Bacillariaceae Epithemiaceae Surirellaceae. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena, 611 pp.Google Scholar

  • Krammer, K. & Lange-Bertalot, H. (1997b). Süsswaserflora von Mitteleuropa. Bacillariophyceae 1. Naviculaceae. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena, 876 pp.Google Scholar

  • Kwandrans, J. (2007). Diversity and ecology of the benthic diatom communities in relation to acidity, acidification and recovery of lakes and rivers. A.R.G. Gantner Verlag K.G. 9: 1–169.Google Scholar

  • Kwandrans, J., Eloranta, P., Kawecka, B. & Wojtan, K. (1998). Use of benthic diatom communities to evaluate water quality in rivers of southern Poland. J. App. Phycol. 10: 193–201.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kwandrans, J., Eloranta, P., Kawecka, B. & Wojtan, K. (1999). Use of benthic diatom communities to evaluate water quality in rivers of southern Poland. In J. Prygiel, B.A. Whitton & J. Bukowska (Eds.), Use of algae for monitoring rivers III (pp. 154–156). Agence de ľEau Artois-Picardie.Google Scholar

  • Lange-Bertalot, H. (1979). Pollution tolerance of diatoms as a criterion for water quality estimation. Nova Hedwiga 64: 285–304.Google Scholar

  • Lange-Bertalot, H. (2001). Navicula sensu stricto, 10 Genera Separated from Navicula sensu lato, Frustulia. In H. Lange-Bertalot (Ed.), Diatoms of Europe 2. (pp. 526). Ruggell: A.R.G. Ganther Verlag K.G.Google Scholar

  • Lange-Bertalot, H. & Metzeltin, D. (1996). Indicators of oligotrophy, 800 Taxa representive of three ecologically district lake types. Iconographia Diatomologica 2. Koeltz Scientific Books, Germany, Königstein, 390 pp.Google Scholar

  • Lange-Bertalot, H. & Genkal, S.I. (1999). Diatoms from Siberia I. Islands in the Arctic Ocean (Yugorsky-Shar Strait). Iconographia Diatomologica 6. A.R.G. Ganther Verlag K.G., Ruggell, 271 pp.Google Scholar

  • Lange-Bertalot, H., Bąk, M. & Witkowski, A. (2011). Eunotia and some related genera. In H. Lange-Bertalot (Ed.), Diatoms of Europe 6. (pp. 747). Ruggell: A.R.G. Ganther Verlag K.G.Google Scholar

  • Lange-Bertalot, H., Hofmann, G., Werum, M. & Cantonati M. (2017). Freshwater Benthic Diatoms of Central Europe: Over 800 Common Species Used in Ecological Assessment. In M. Cantonati, M.G. Kelly & H. Lange-Bertalot (Eds.), Koeltz Botanical Books, 942 pp.Google Scholar

  • Lavoie, I., Campeau, S., Grenier, M. & Dillon, P. J. (2006). A diatom-based Index fort he biological assessment of eastern Canadian rivers: an application of correspondence analysis (CA). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 8: 1793–1811.Google Scholar

  • Lavoie, I., Campeau, S., Zugic-Drakulic, N., Winter, J. & Fortin, C. (2014). Using diatoms to monitor stream biological integrity in Eastern Canada: An overview of 10 years of index development and ongoing challenges. Sci. Total Environ. 475: 187–200.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Leclercq, L. & Maquet, B. (1987). Deux nouveaux indices chimique et diatomique de qualité ďeau courante. Application au Samson et à ses affluents (Bassin de la Meuse Belge). Comparaison avec ďautres indices chimiques biocénotiques et diatomiques [Two new chemical and diatomic indices of water quality. Application to assessment of water quality the Samson river and its tributaries (Bassin de la Meuse Belge). Comparison with other diatomic and chemical indices]. Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique Documents de Travail 38: 1–113. (In French).Google Scholar

  • Lecointe, C., Coste, M. & Prygiel, J. (1993). “Omnidia”: a software for taxonomy, calculation of diatom indices and inventories management. Hydrobiol. 269/270: 509–513.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lenoir, A. & Coste, M. (1996). Development of a practical diatom index of overall water quality applicable to the French National Water Board network. In B.A. Whitton & E. Rott (Eds.), Use of Algae for Monitoring River II (pp. 29–45). Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar

  • Levkov, Z. (2009). Amphora sensu lato. In H. Lange-Bertalot (Ed.), Diatoms of Europe 5 (pp. 916). Ruggell-Liechtenstein: A.R.G. Ganther Verlag K.G.Google Scholar

  • Levkov, Z., Metzeltin, D. & Pavlov, A. (2013). Luticola and Luticolopsis. In H. Lange-Bertalot (Ed.), Diatoms of Europe 7 (pp. 697). Koeltz Scientific Books.Google Scholar

  • Levkov, Z., Mitić-Kopanja, D. & Reichardt, E. (2016). The diatom genus Gomphonema from the Republic of Macedonia. In H. Lange-Bertalot (Ed.), Diatoms of Europe 8 (pp. 552). Koeltz Scientific Books.Google Scholar

  • Noga, T., Stanek-Tarkowska, J., Kochman, N., Peszek, Ł., Pajączek, A. et al. (2013). Application of diatoms to assess the quality of waters of the Baryczka stream, left-side tributary of the River San. J. Ecol. Eng. 14(3): 8–23.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pantle, R. & Buck, H. (1955). Die biologische Überwachung der Gewässer und die Darstellung der Ergebnisse [The biological monitoring of the waters quality and the presentation of the results]. Gas und Wasserfach, 96: 604–605. (In German).Google Scholar

  • PN-EN 14407. (2007). Jakość wody. Wytyczne dotyczące identyfikacji, oznaczania ilościowego i interpretacji wyników badania próbek okrzemek bentosowych z wód płynących [Quality of water. Guidance for the identification, enumeration and interpretation of results in the research of benthic diatom samples from fiowing water]. (In Polish).Google Scholar

  • Picińska-Fałtynowicz, J., Błachuta, J., Kotowicz, J., Mazurek, M. & Rawa, W. (2006). Wybór typów jednolitych części wód rzecznych i jeziornych do oceny stanu ekologicznego na podstawie fitobentosu wraz z rekomendacją metodyki poboru i analizy prób [Select the types of water bodies river and lake to assess the ecological status based on phytobenthos with the recommendation of the methodology of collection and analysis of samples]. Główny Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska. Wrocław, 34 pp. (In Polish).Google Scholar

  • Picińska-Fałtynowicz, J. & Błachuta, J. (2010). Przewodnik Metodyczny:Zasady poboru i opracowanie prób fitobentosu okrzemkowego z rzek i jezior [A Practical Guide: Sampling, Preparation and Processing of Diatom Phytobenthos Residing in Rivers and Lakes]. Zakład Ekologii, Instytut Meteorologii i Gospodarki Wodnej, Wrocław, 79 pp. (In Polish).Google Scholar

  • Pliński, M. & Witkowski, A. (2009). OkrzemkiBacillariophyta (Diatoms) 4/1. Flora Zatoki Gdańskiej i wód przyległych. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego Gdańsk, 223 pp. (In Polish).Google Scholar

  • Potapova, M. & Charles, D.F. (2007). Diatom metrics for monitoring eutrophication in river of the United States. Ecol. Indic. 7: 48–70.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Prygiel, J. (2002). Management of the diatom monitoring network in France. J. App. Phycol. 14: 19–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Prygiel, J., Lévêque, L. & Iserentant, R. (1996). Un nouvel indice diatomique pratique pour ľévaluation de la qualité des eauxen réseau de surveillance [A new practical diatom index for assessment of water quality in the monitoring network]. Revue des Sciences de ľEau 1: 97–113. (In French).Google Scholar

  • Prygiel, J., Coste, M. & Bukowska, J. (1999). Review of the major diatom-based techniques for the quality assessment of rivers – State of the art in Europe. In J. Prygiel, B.A. Whitton & J. Bukowska (Eds.), Use of algae for monitoring rivers III (pp. 224–238). Douai: Agence de ľEau Artois-Picardie.Google Scholar

  • Rakowska, B. (2001). Studium różnorodności okrzemek ekosystemów wodnych Polski niżowej [Study of diatom diversity in water ecosystems of Poland’s lowlands]. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego Łódź, 75 pp. (In Polish).Google Scholar

  • Rakowska, B. & Szczepocka, E. (2011). Demonstration of the Bzura River restoration using diatom indices. Biologia 66(3): 411–417.Google Scholar

  • Rakowska, B. & Szczepocka, E. (2015). Occurrence and ecology of Geissleria declivis. Biologia 70(1): 39–44.Google Scholar

  • Rakowska, B., Szczepocka, E., Żelazna-Wieczorek, J. & Olszyński, R.M. (2017). First record of Prestauroneis tumida Levkov and accompanying species in Poland. Oceanol. Hydrobiol. St. 46(1): 30–37. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Regulation of the Minister of the Environment (OJ item 1545 from 2011).Google Scholar

  • Regulation of the Minister of the Environment (OJ item 1482 from 2014).Google Scholar

  • Regulation of the Minister of the Environment (OJ item 1187 from 2016).Google Scholar

  • Rey, P.A., Taylor, J.C., Laas, A., Rensburg, L. & Vosloo, A. (2004). Determing the possible application value of diatoms as indicators of general water quality: A comparison with SASS 5. Water S.A. 30: 325–332.Google Scholar

  • Rimet, F. & Bouchez, A. (2012). Life-forms, cell-sizes and ecological quilds of diatoms in European rivers. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 406: 1–14. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rott, E., Hofmann, G., Pall, K., Pfister, P. & Pipp, E. (1997). Indikationslisten für Aufwuchsalgen. Teil 1: Saprobielle Indikation. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft. Wien, 73 pp. (In German).Google Scholar

  • Rott, E., Pfister, P., van Dam, H., Pipp, E., Pall, K. et al. (1999). Indikationslisten für Aufwuchsalgen in österreichischen Fließgewässern. Teil 2: Trophiendikation sowie geochemische Präferenz, taxonomische und toxikologische Anmerkungen. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft. Wien, 248 pp. (In German).Google Scholar

  • Round, F.E. (1981). The ecology of algae. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, London, New York, New Rochele, Melbourne, Sydney, 664 pp.Google Scholar

  • Round, F.E., Crawford, R. & Mann, D. (1990). The Diatoms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney, 747 pp.Google Scholar

  • Schoemann, F.R. (1976). Diatom indicator groups in the assessment of water quality in the Juksei-Crocodile River system (Transvaal, Republic of South Africa). J. Limnol. Soc. S. Africa 2(1): 21–24.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sáadeček, V. (1986). Diatoms as indicators of organic pollution. Acta. Hydrochim. Hydrobiol. 14(5): 555–566.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Szczepocka, E. & Szulc, B. (2009). The use of benthic diatoms in estimating water quality of variously polluted rivers. Oceanol. Hydrobiol. St. 38(1): 17–26.Google Scholar

  • Szczepocka, E. & Rakowska, B. (2015). Diatoms in the biological assessment of the ecological state of waters using the Czarna Staszowska River as an example. Oceanol. Hydrobiol. St. 44(2): 254–266. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Szczepocka, E., Nowicka-Krawczyk, P, Knysak, P & Żelazna-Wieczorek, J. (2016). Long term urban impacts on the ecological status of a lowland river as determined by diatom indices. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health 19(1): 19–28. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Szczepocka, E., Szulc, B., Szulc, K., Rakowska, B. & Żelazna-Wieczorek, J. (2014). Diatom indices in the biological assessment of the water quality based on the example of a small lowland river. Oceanol. Hydrobiol. St. 43(3): 265–273. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Szulc, B. & Szulc, K. (2013). The use of the Biological Diatom Index (BDI) for the assessment of water quality in the Pilica River, Poland. Oceanol. Hydrobiol. St. 42(2): 188–194. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Taylor, J.C., Vuuren, M.S. & Pieterse, A.J.H. (2007). The application and testing of diatom-based indices in the Vall and Wilge Rivers, South Africa. Water S.A. 33: 51–59.Google Scholar

  • Torrisi, M. & Dell’Uomo, A. (2006). Biological monitoring of some Apennine rivers (Central Italy) using the diatom-based eutrophication/pollution index (EPI-D) compared to other European diatom indices. Diatom Res. 21(1): 159–174.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Torrisi, M., Scuri, S., Dell’Uomo, A. & Cocchioni, M. (2010). Comparative monitoring by means of diatoms, macroinvertebrates and chemical parameters of an Apennine watercourse of central Italy: The River Tenna. Ecol. Indic. 10: 910–913. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wojtal, A.Z. (2013). Species composition and distribution of diatom assemblages in spring water from various geological formations in southern Poland. J. Cramer, Gebrüder Borntraeger Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart, Biblioth. Diatomol. 59: 1–436.Google Scholar

  • Wojtal, A.Z. & Sobczyk, Ł. (2006). Composition and structure of epilithic diatom assemblages in a hard water stream (S Poland). Algol. Stud. 119: 105–125.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Van Dam, H., Mertens, A. & Sinkeldam, J. (1994). A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from the Nertherlands. Neth. J. Aquatic Ecol. 28(1): 117–133.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Venkatachalapathy, R., Nadhakumar, G. & Karthikeyan, P. (2013). Diatom community structure in relation to physico-chemical factors in Yercaud Lake, Salem District, Tamil Nadu, India. I.J.I.T.E.E. 2(4): 220–222.Google Scholar

  • Vilmi, A., Karjalainen, S.M., Landeiro, V.L. & Heino, J. (2015). Freshwater diatoms as environmental indicators: evaluating the effects of eutrophication using species morphology and biological indices. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187: 243. .CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Zelinka, M. & Marvan, P. (1961). Zur Präzisierung der biologischen Klassifikation der Reinheit fliessender Gewässer [Clarification the biological classification of the purity of flowing waters]. Arch. Hydrobiol. 57(3): 389–407. (In German).Google Scholar

  • Zgrundo, A. & Bogaczewicz-Adamczak, B. (2004). Applicability of diatom indices for monitoring water quality in coastal streams in the Gulf of Gdańsk region, Northern Poland. Oceanol. St. 33(3): 31–46.Google Scholar

  • Żelazna-Wieczorek, J. (2011). Diatom flora in springs of Lodz Hills (Central Poland). Biodiversity, taxonomy, and temporal changes of epipsammic diatom assemblages in springs affected by human impact. In A. Witkowski (Ed.), Diatom Monographs 13 (pp. 419). Ruggell: Gantner Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Żelazna-Wieczorek, J. & Knysak, P. (2017). Diatoms (Bacillariophyta) at the Goprowska Pass spring (Bieszczady National Park) in assessing the impact of tourist traffic. Rocz. Bieszcz. 25: 321–338.Google Scholar

  • Żelazna-Wieczorek, J. & Nowicka-Krawczyk, P. (2015). The cascade construction of artificial ponds as a tool for urban stream restoration – The use of benthic diatoms to assess the effects of restoration practices. Sci. Total Environ. 538: 591–599. .CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Żelazna-Wieczorek, J. & Olszyński, R.M. (2016). Taxonomic revision of Chamaepinnularia krookiformis Lange-Bertalot et Krammer with a description of Chamaepinnularia plinski sp. nov. Fottea 16(1): 112–121. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Żelazna-Wieczorek, J. & Ziułkiewicz, M. (2009). Using benthic diatoms in the assessment of spring water quality in suburban areas. Oceanol. Hydrobiol. St. 38(2): 121–131.Google Scholar

  • Żelazna-Wieczorek, J., Olszyński, M.R. & Nowicka-Krawczyk, P. (2015). Half a century of research on diatoms in athalassic habitats in central Poland. Oceanol. Hydrobiol. St. 44(1): 51–67. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Żelazna-Wieczorek, J., Nowak, K. & Nowicka, P. (2010). First record of Amphora ohridana (Bacillariophyceae) in Poland. Pol. Bot. J. 55(1): 127–133.Google Scholar

  • Żelazowskl, E., Magiera M., Kawecka, B., Kwandrans, J. & Kotowicz, J. (2004). Use of algae for monitoring rivers in Poland – in the light of a new law for environmental protection. Oceanol. St. 33(4): 27–39.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-01-15

Accepted: 2018-03-05

Published Online: 2018-09-21

Published in Print: 2018-09-25


Citation Information: Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies, Volume 47, Issue 3, Pages 313–325, ISSN (Online) 1897-3191, ISSN (Print) 1730-413X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ohs-2018-0030.

Export Citation

© 2018 Faculty of Oceanography and Geography, University of Gdańsk, Poland.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in