Document 6522892

Environmental Monitoring:
Aquatic Insects Research Unit:
Biology Department
Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University
Biological Monitoring or Biomonitoring
: การติดตามตรวจสอบคุณภาพน้ําโดยใชสิ่งมีชีวิตในน้ํา
- Concept? What, Why!
Water Quality ?
Pollution
Community change
ขั้นตอน “Monitoring” ที่เกี่ยวของกับการจัดการ (Management)
3 steps of the management
1. Survey - defines a pattern of variation of a
parameter in a space
inform the situation at one point in time
2. Surveillance - repeated measurement of variable
Trend may be detected
3. Research - pollution processes in more detail
using experimental&analytical techniques
1
From these 3 steps
policy for management
e.g. level of Zn in the effluent might be reduced
by 75% by installing a treatment plant in the
factory
Monitoring
observation of performance
in relation to standard
Monitoring pollution
For the effective management of the
environment receiving pollutant
Information needed concerning
1. Quantities, source, distribution of
substances entering environment
2. Effects of these substances within the
environment
3. Trends in concentration and effect, cause
of these changes
4. How far these input, concentration effect &
trends can be modified, and by what mean,
what cost.
2
Examples of various sources of different types of Water Quality Standards.
Surface Water Quality Standards
Surface Water Resources Classification And Standards
Parameters
Units
1. Temperature
2. pH value
3. Dissolved oxygen
4. BOD (5 days,
20oC)
5. Coliform Bacteria
- Total coliform
- Fecal coliform
6. NO3 - N
7. NH3 - N
8. Phenols
9. Cu
10. Ni
11. Mn
12. Zn
13. Cd
14. Cr (Hexavalent)
15. Pb
o
C
mg/l
mg/l
Standard Values for Class
1
n'
n
n
-
2
n'
5. - 9
6
1.5
3
n'
5. - 9
4
2.0
4
n'
5. - 9
2
4.0
5
-
-
50,000
20,000
-
-
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
1,000
-
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
4,000
5.0
0.5
0.005
0.1
0.1
1.0
1.0
0.003*0.05**
0.05
0.05
"
"
"
n
n
n
=
=
=
0.002
0.01
0.005
=
=
=
-
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
0.1
1.0
0.05
1
0.02
0.1
0.1
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
-
"
"
n
n
=
0.2
none
=
-
20%ile
80%ile
MPN/100
"
ml
"
"
mg/l
Max. allowance
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
16. Hg (total)
"
17. As
"
18. CN
"
19. Radioactivity
- Gross x
Becqurel/l
- Gross B
"
20. Pesticides (Total)
mg/l
- DDT
μg/l
- xBHC
"
- Dieldrin
"
- Aldrin
"
- Heptachlor
&
Heptachlor epoxide
"
- Endrin
"
Note
Statistic
-
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
n = naturally
n’ = naturally but changing not more than 3 oC
* = when water hardness not more than 100 mg/l as CaCO3
** = when water hardness more than 100 mg/l as CaCO3
ตารางมาตรฐานคุณภาพน้าํ ผิวดินจากกระทรวงวิทยาศาสตร เทคโนโลยีและสิง่ แวดลอม (ป พ.ศ. 2528)
Water Classification
Classifications
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5
Condition & Beneficial usages
Extra clean fresh surface water resources using for:
(1) conservation, not necessary pass through water
treatment processes require only ordinary process
for pathogenic destruction
(2) ecosystem conservation which basic living organisms
can spread breeding naturally
Very clean fresh surface water resources using for:
(1) consumption which require the ordinary water
treatment process before uses
(2) aquatic organism conservation for living and
assisting for fishery
(3) fishery
(4) recreation
Medium clean fresh surface water resources using for:
(1) consumption but have to pass through as ordinary
treatment process before uses
(2) agriculture
Fairly clean fresh surface water resources using for:
(1) consumption but require special water treatment
process before uses
(2) industry
(3) other activities
The resources which are not classified in class 1-4 and
using for:
(1) navigation
Sources: Notification of The Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (B.E. 2528 (1985)).
Printed in the Royal Government Gazette, vol. 103, No. 60, Dated April 15, B.E. 2529(1986).
3
Table 3 : Various standard values for drinking water and surface water.
Classification
Conpounds
affecting the
palatability of
water
Components
hazardous to
health
Parameters
TDS
Total hardness
II
500
-
III
1,000
315
IV
500
-
V
500
-
VI
-
pH
(mg/l)
-
7.0-8.5
-
-
6.5-8.5
5.0-9.0
Fe
Mn
Cu
Zn
Ca
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
50
5
1.5
1.5
-
0.3
0.1
1.0
5.0
75.0
1.0
3.0
15.0
-
0.3
0.05
1.0
5.0
-
0.5
0.3
1.0
5.0
75.0
1.0
0.1
1.0
M g plus Na 2 SO 4
(mg/l) 1,000
-
-
500
-
-
Mg
(mg/l) 1,000
50.0
250.0
-
50.0
Cl -
(mg/l)
-
20.0
250.0
250.0
250.0
-
SO 4 2-
(mg/l)
-
200.0
250.0
250.0
200
-
-
AB S surfactant
(mg/l)
0.5
-
-
-
-
-
NO 3 -
(mg/l)
45.0
45.0
-
45.0
45.0
45.0
(mg/l)
1.5
1.5
F
Toxic
substances
Standard values
I
(mg/l) 1,500
(mg/l)
-
-
1.0
0.8-1.7
0.7
1.0
NO 2 - N
(mg/l)
-
-
4.0
-
-
-
NO 3 - N
(mg/l)
-
-
0.002
-
-
-
Phenolic substances
As
Ba
Cd
(mg/l) 0.002
(mg/l) 0.05
(mg/l)
(mg/l) 0.01
0.001
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05
-
0.001
0.01
-
-
0.005
0.01
0.005-0.05
Table 3 : Various standard values for drinking water and surface water. (continued)
Classification
C h em ic al
in d icator of
p ollution
Standard values
Parameters
Cr
CNPb
Se
Hg
( m g / l)
( m g / l)
( m g / l)
( m g / l)
( m g / l)
R a d ion uc lid e s
- G ross x
(B e cq ure l/l)
- G ross B
(B e cq ure l/l)
Pe sticides (T ota l)
(m g/l)
- DDT
(ug/l)
- XB H C
(ug/l)
- D ield rin
(ug/l)
- A ldrin
(ug/l)
- H ep tach lor an d
(ug/l)
pe p tac hlor e p oxide
- E nd rin
(ug/l)
C h e m ical oxyge n
(m g/l)
dem an d (C O D )
B ioc h em ica l oxyg en
(m g/l)
dem an d (B O D )
T otal n itrogen
(m g/l)
exclusive of N O 3 A m m oni u m (N H 3 ) as
(m g/l)
N
C a rb on ch loroform
e xtr act (C C E
(m g/l)
organ ic
pollutan ts)
G rease
(m g/l)
D issolved o xyge n
(m g/l)
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
0 .5
0 .2
0 .0 5
0 .0 1
-
0 .2
0 .0 5
0 .0 1
-
0 .0 1
-
0 .0 1
-
none
0 .0 5
0 .0 0 1
0 .0 5
0 .0 0 2
-
-
-
-
non e
non e
ac ute
-
0.1
1.0
0.0 5
1.0
0.0 2
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
-
-
-
N on e
10.0
-
-
-
-
6.0
-
-
-
-
1.0
-
0.06
-
-
-
0.5
-
0.06
-
-
-
0.5
-
0.20
-
-
-
1.0
-
-
-
N on e
1.5 - 4.0
10.77 – 6 .6*
(I)
(II)
(III)
(IV)
(V)
(VI)
WHO natural water standard
International standard for drinking water
Thai public health service drinking water standard
US public health service drinking water standard
M inistry of industry drinking water standard (Thailand)
Surface water quality standard (The M inistry of Science, Technology
and Environment)
*
No data or details
The standard values for DO quoted here are for the temperature range
in Chiang M ai (12 – 38 o C)
4
ตารางแสดงมาตรฐานน้ําดื่มจากประเทศอินโดนีเซีย
Table 4 Drinking water standard of INDONESIA
mg/l
TCU
JTU
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Standard Value
Highest Desirable
Max. Permissible
500
1500
5
50
2
10
unobjectionable
unobjectionable
unobjectionable
unobjectionable
0.1
1
0.05
0.5
0.05
1.5
1
15
75
200
30
150
200
400
200
600
7.0 - 8.5
6.5 - 9.2
0.001
0.002
Unit
Standard Value
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
group/ml
N/100 ml
180
0.1
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.01
2
20
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
Parameters
Unit
Total Solids
Color (Platinum Cobalt)
Turbidity
Taste
Odor
Iron (Fe)
Manganese (Mn)
Copper (Cu)
Zinc (Zn)
Calcium (Ca)
Magnesium (Mg)
Sulphate (SO4)
Chloride (Cl)
pH
Phenolic Substances
Parameters
Total Hardness (as CaCO3)
Lead (Pb)
Arsenic (As)
Selenium (Se)
Chromium (hexavalent) (Cr)
Cyanide (CN)
Cadmium (Cd)
Barium (Ba)
Mercury (Hg)
Fluoride (F)
Nitrate Nitrogen (NO3 - N)
Ammonium
Organic Matter
Total Colonies
Pathogenic Germs
Coliform Group
Source : ประพิษฐ วัลยเสวี
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR FRESHWATER FISH AND AQUATIC LIFE
BASED ON EPA(USA) AND EIFAC
Substance
Criteria for protection
of fish
EPA
0.003
25
(20).
EIFAC
Aldrin/Dieldrin
Ammonia (un-ionised)
Arsenic
Cadmium
hardwater
1.5a
1.2
softwater
0.9a
0.4
4
4
0.01
2
(100).
0.01
10
400
hardwater
112a
0.1 96 hr LC50 (c. 10)
0.1 96 hr LC50
softwater
22a
0.1 96 hr LC50 (c. 2)
0.1 96 hr LC50
5
0.001
0.003
0.004
0.001
5
0.001
0.003
0.004
0.001
Chlordane
Chlorine
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
DDT
Endosulphan
Endrin
Heptachlor
Criteria for protection
of aquatic life
EPA
0.003
20
100
12
5
Substance
Criteria for protection
of fish
EPA
EIFAC
Lead
Criteria for protection
of aquatic life
EPA
hardwater
0.01 96 hr LC50(c. 500)
0.01 96 hr LC50
softwater
0.01 96 hr LC50(c. 5)
0.01 96 hr LC50
0.01
0.1
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.1
0.05
0.03
Nickel
0.01 96 hr LC50(c. 100)
0.01 96 hr LC50
Oil
0.01 96 hr LC50(c. 100)
0.01 96 hr LC50
0.04
0.001
0.04
0.001
Lindane (HCH)
Malathion
Mercury
Methoxychlor
Parathion
PCBs
Phenols
1000
Phthalate esters
1b
3
3
Selenium
0.01 96 hr LC50(c. 20)
0.01 96 hr LC50
Silver
Sulphide
(undissociated H2S)
0.01 96 hr LC50(c. 01)
0.01 96 hr LC50
Zinc
2
2
hardwater
50a
0.01 96 hr LC50(c. 25)
0.01 96 hr LC50
softwater
20a
0.01 96 hr LC50(c. 3)
0.01 96 hr LC50
a
95 percentile values.
Value are in μg litre-1. Where application factors of the 96 hr LC50 are specified
approximate values are given in brackets.
b
Is the single measurement of O2 reliable to use as the
criteria to assess water quality class?
คา O2 เพียงคาเดียวที่วัดไดมีความนาเชื่อถือมากนอยแค
ไหน ในการนํามาเปนหลักในการแยกชั้นคุณภาพน้ํา?
เหตุผลวาทําไมตองใช “Biomonitoring”
Why Biomonitoring?
Chemical sampling, even at frequent intervals (arrows) can
miss biologically - significant peak concentrations.
After Abel, 1989
6
Spatial & Temporal Changes
Diurnal variation in oxygen concentration at four stations along a river receiving
an organic discharge at point X between station A and B. The oxygen sag curve
at 12.00 h is shown.
Ecological Effects of Changes in Water Quality
รูปเปรียบเทียบการเปลี่ยนแปลง O2 จากสถานที่สองแหงที่คุณภาพน้ําตางกันชัดเจน
“ Biological Monitoring”
vs.
“Physico-chemical Monitoring”
Biological Monitoring
– the systematic use of biological responses to
evaluate the change in environment
7
Biological Monitoring can provide
1. an integrated assessment of water
quality covering a period of long time
2. summative estimate of the effects of all
deterious water quality changes
3. short-term early warning of accidental
discharge upstream
4. early warning system of ecosystem and food
chain disruption
Change in sp. diversity and abundance
combine with the use of toxicity “bioassays”
bioassays
“biomarker”
biomarker
5. evidence of food chain bioaccumulation and
biomagnification (e.g. heavy metal, pesticides)
6. assessment of damage based on changes in
biosphere activity
Risk assessment
7. cheap initial screening of Freshwater
ecosystem to identify the stress which require
more intensive monitoring
8
- Biomass
- Community structure
Possible responses of a community to environmental change.
(From Hellawell, 1987) After Abel, 1989
Fate of Organic Pollutant
Self purification
Pollution of a stream with untreated sewage and the subsequent recovery as reflected in the
biotic community. As the oxygen dissolved in the water decreases (curve to the left), fishes
disappear and only organisms able to obtain oxygen from the surface (as in Culex mosqu. to
larvae) or those which are tolerant of low oxygen concentration are found in zone of maximum
organic decomposition. When bacteria have reduced all of the discharged material the stream
returns to normal. (After Eliassen, Scientific American, Vol. 186, No. 3, March, 1952.)
Spatial variation of physical, chemical and biological consequences of the
continuous discharge of a severe organic load into flowing water.
After Bartsche (1948).
9
Recommendations for the use of different taxonomic groups as
biological indicators. Percentage distribution of literature
citations up to 1970. From Hellowell (1977b)
Bioindicator Organisms
- protozoa
- fish
- algae
- macrophyte
- bacteria
- benthic macroinvertebrates
ทําไมจึงนิยมใชกลุมสัตวไมมีกระดูกสันหลังขนาดใหญที่เปนสัตวหนาดิน
Why Benthic Macroinvertebrates ?
Benthic macroinvertebrates are particularly suitable for
biological monitoring studies as:
(a) they live in all types of aquatic habitat
(b) they show a range of tolerances to pollutants and
therefore environmental pollution will be accompanied
by a change in community structure.
(c) their sedentary nature allows spatial variation in
water quality to be studied.
10
(d) Their long life – cycles allow intermittent pollution to be
detected and temporal trends in water quality to be studied.
(e) Techniques for their sampling and analysis are well –
developed and can be achieved with simple equipment.
(f) Tropical communities of benthic macroinvertebrates are similar
(with many of the same families) to temperate communities, which
have been well described and widely used for biological monitoring
Qualitative macroinvertebrate samplers :
Dredge sampler
After Abel, 1989
11
a) hand net
b) shovel
c) dredge
d) drift net
After Abel, 1989
Quantitative macroinvertebrate samplers :
Surbur sampler
After Abel, 1989
Cylinder sampler
(a) Surber sampler
(b) rectangular box
sampler
(c) cylindersampler
After Abel, 1989
12
For Benthos
in deep water
(a) cable operate
Ekman grab
(b) Peterson grab
(c) Van Veen grab
(d) pole operated
Ekman grab
After Abel, 1989
Air lift samplers
(a) Design of
Pearson et al.
(1973)
( c) Design of
MacKey (1972)
(b) FBA design,
Drake et al.
(1983)
After Abel, 1989
Core sampler. After Kajak (1971)
13
TABLE 6
RECOMMENDED METHODS FOR SAMPLING MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES
(After Hellawell, 1978)
Water depth Current velocity
Substrate type
Shallow
Swift
(less than 1 m)
Hand net - lifting stones
by hand
Moderate
Gravel
Slow
Gravel - sand
Hand net - kicking to
disturb substrate
Shovel sampler
Very slow or static Sand - mud
Moderate
( 1 - 3 m)
Deep
(more than 3
m)
Qualitative surveys
Boulders,
large stones
Shovel sampler
Slow
Gravel - sand
Static
Very slow
Sand - mud
Sand - mud
Compacted substrate
Static
Sand - mud
Compacted substrate
Quatitative surveys
Surber - type sampler,
where this can be located
properly
Colonization
Surber - type sampler
Air - lift if depth is adequate
Cylinder sampler
Air - lift if depth is adequate
Core sampler (hand operated)
Air - lift if depth is adequate
Ekman grab Pole - mounted
corer
Pole - mounted Ekman grab
Ekman or Ponar grab
Ponar grab
Air - lift sampler (diver
operated)
Ponar grab
Quantitative methods can also be used in qualitative surveys. Compacted substrates sometimes occur in large rivers, especially
if dredged.
Substrate Components
- องคประกอบของพื้นทองน้ํา มีชื่อเรียกตามประเภท และขนาดของวัตถุที่
ปรากฏตามธรรมชาติ
Inorganic
Bedrock
Boulder
Cobble
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
Organic
Detritus
Muck – mud
Mari
Diameter
>256 mm (10 in.)
64-256 mm (2.5 – 10 in.)
2 – 64 mm (0.1 – 2.5 in.0
0.06 – 2 mm (gritty)
0.004 – 0.06 mm
< 0.004 mm (slick)
Characteristic
Stick, wood, Mont Material (CPOM)
Black, very fine organic (FPOM)
Grey, shell fragments
14
Bedrock
Examples of various aquatic habitats
Silt/Clay
CPOM
Boulder
Gravel
Sand
Table 7 - Efficiencies of seven grabs at recovering animals from the surface and
below the surface of two different substrata. Data from Elliot & Drake (1981a)
ตารางแสดงประสิทธิภาพของตัวอยางเครื่องมือที่ใชตามความลึกของพื้นทองน้ํา
Grab
% Efficiency
substratum 2 – 4 mm
Substratum 8 – 16 mm
Surface
3 cm below Surface
3 cm below
surface
surface
Ponar
100
70
88
50
Weighted Ponar
100
70
100
50
Van - Veen
87
56
50
50
Birge - Ekman
73
37
30
7
Allan
51
36
25
7
Friedinger
59
7
30
7
Dietz - La Fond
22
26
25
20
รูปแสดงที่เก็บตัวอยางจําลองแบบตาง ๆ ที่สรางขึ้น (artificial substrate sampler)
(a) Wire tray of
basket filled with
stones
(b) Slag bag
(c) Multiplate sampler
(d) SAUFU (standard
aufwuchs unit)
After Abel, 1989
15
Artificial substrates that had
been used in our research
work in Chiang Mai.
Advantages of Artificial substrate
ขอดีของการใชที่เก็บตัวอยางจําลอง
- allow for sample collection from deep
rivers/place-difficult to sample effectively
- present standard habitat for colonization
- require less experienced operators
Disadvantages
ขอดอยของการใชที่เก็บตัวอยางจําลอง
- require sufficient time for colonization
- do not sample the fauna which would naturally
occur at a site
Where to place ? – in water column
on river bed
clogged problem
need standard procedure
16
Various ways of representing the results of study
Gravel river bed
Muddy river bed
Colonisation of
artificial substrate
samplers exposed
on a gravel river
bed (upper graph)
and a muddy
river bed (lower
graph) (From
Hellawell, 1978,
based on data
given by
Pearson&Jones,
1975)
After Abel, 1989
A taxon accretion curve
After Abel, 1989
17
การเก็บตัวอยางเชิงปริมาณ แสดงจํานวนตัวอยางที่ตองเก็บจํานวนถึง 100
ตัวอยางขณะที่ index of precision = 0.1
Quantitative sample :
N=
N=
[ st ] 2
DX
[ 5x2 ] 2
0.1x10
N = Number of Samples required
X = mean
S = Standard deviation
D = index of precision (0.1 +10%)
t = Value of Student’s t for the required
level of confidence
=
100 samples
Inputs of pollution
Number of invertebrate species and Chandler Biotic Score at
stations along the length of a polluted river.. Adapted from
Hellawell (1978). After Abel, 1989
The use of ‘kite’ diagrams
to represent the
abundance of species at
different sites. The width
of ‘kite’ represents the
abundance of each species.
After Abel, 1989
18
Diversity indices which are widely used in aquatic
ecosystem studies, arranged in eight group according
to their derivation. After Washington (1984)
19
Table 8 – The Trent Biotic Index (Woodiwiss, 1964).
Key indicator groups
Diversity of fauna
Column No: 1
2
Plecoptera nymphs
present
More than one species
One species only
Ephemeroptera nymphs More than one speciesa
present
One species onlya
Trichoptera larvae
More than one speciesb
present
One species onlyb
All above species absent
Gammarus present
All above species absent
Asellus present
Tubificid worms and/or All above species
Red Chironomid larvae
present
All above types absent Some organisms such as
Eristalis tenax not
requiring dissolved
oxygen may be present
Total number of groups (see Part 2)
present
0-1
2-5. 6-10. 11-15. 16+
3
4
5
6
7
Biotic Index
VII VIII
IX
X
-
VI
VI
VII
VII
VII
VIII
IX
IX
-
V
V
VI
VI
VII
VII
VIII
VIII
IV
III
III
I
IV
IV
III
III
V
V
IV
III
VI
VI
V
IV
VII
VII
VI
-
0
I
II
-
-
Different Key indicator groups
20
จากกรณีศึกษาของผลกระทบ
จากการทําเหมืองแรใน
สหราชอาณาจักร (แมน้ําเอเลน)
Map of the Rivers East and
West Allen, showing sampling
stations, derelict mines and
workings, and remaining spoil
heaps. After Green (1984)
ตารางแสดงตัวอยางของสัตวไมมีกระดูกสันหลังที่พบจากการ
เก็บตัวอยางแบบ kick sampling จากกรณีศึกษาของผลกระทบ
จากการทําเหมืองแรในสหราชอาณาจักร (แมน้ําเอเลน) จุด
เก็บตัวอยาง 4 จุด ในลําธารที่มีการปนเปอ นจาก Z n
เปรียบเทียบกับลําธารปกติ โดยมีคา ระดับ Zn, Trent Biotic
Index และ Chandler Biotic Score แสดงอยูด วย
Site
Dissolved Zn, mg1-1
Invertebrate taxa:
7
1.28
6a
0.04
6+
0.76
4
0.38
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
3
3
3
1
2
0
16
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
5
3
8
24
2
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
9
67
7
7
7
5
3
131
13
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
5
0
Plecoptera
Protonemoura meneri
Isoperla grammatica
Amphinemoura sulciollis
Leuctra fusca
Taeniopteryx nebulosa
Chloroperla tripunctata
Perla bipunctata
Perlodes microcephala
Brachyptera risi
Ephemeroptera
Baetis rhodani
Ecdyonurus venosus
Rhithrogena semicolorata
Trichoptera
Polycentropus flavomaculatus
Agapetus sp.
Rhyacophila dorsalis
Hydropsyche sp.
Philopotamus sp.
21
Site
Dissolved Zn, mg1-1
Invertebrate taxa:
7
1.28
6a
0.04
6+
0.76
4
0.38
1
0
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
10
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
11
0
0
1
0
0
0
11
15
IX
588
35
0
0
0
16
174
X
1001
0
0
0
0
10
46
VIII
618
2
1
1
1
17
204
X
998
Coleoptera
Limnius volckmari
Elmis aenea
Diptera
Chironomidae
Simulidae
Dicranota
Tipula
Neuroptera
Sialis lutaria
Mollusca
Ancylastrum fluviatilis
Other taxa
Gammarus pulex
Hydracarina
Hirudinea
Oligochaeta
Total no. of taxa
Total no. of individuals
Trent Biotic Index value
Chandler Biotic Score value
The extended version of the Trent Biotic Index. Groups are defined
defined as shown in Table 3.3
Biogeographical region: Midlands, England
Total number of groups present
0-1
2-5.
More than one species
-
7
8
9
One species only
-
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
More than one speciesa
-
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
One species onlya
-
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
More than one speciesb
-
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
One species onlyb
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Gammarus present
All above species absent
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Asellus present
All above species absent
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Tubificid worms and
/or Red Chironomid
larvae present
All above species absent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Some organisms such as
0
1
2
Eristalis tenax not requiring
dissolved oxygen may be
present
a
Baetis rhodani excluded.
b
Baetis rhodani (Ephem.) is counted in this section for the purpose of classification.
-
-
Plecoptera nymphs
present
Ephemeroptera
nymphs present
Trichoptera larvae
present
6-10. 11-15. 16-20 21-25 26-30 30-35 36-40
Biotic indicies
10
11
12
All above types
absent
13
14
The Chandler Biotic Score System (Chandler, 1970)
Abundance in Standard Sample
Groups present in sample
Planaria alpina
Each species of Taenopterygidae,
Perlidae, Perididae,
Isoperlidae,
Chloroperidae
Each species of Leuctridae, Capniidae,
Nemouridae
(excluding
Amphinemoura)
Each species of Ephemeroptera
(excluding Baetis)
Each species of Cased caddis,
Megaloptera
Each species of Anchlus
Rhyacophilia
(Trichoptera)
Dicranota, Limnophora
Genera
Simulium
Genus
Present Few Common Abundant
11-15.
51-100
Points scored
Very
abundan
100+
1-2.
3-10.
90
94
98
99
100
84
89
94
97
98
79
84
90
94
97
75
80
86
91
94
70
65
75
70
82
77
87
83
91
88
60
56
65
61
72
67
78
73
84
75
22
A bundance in Standard Sample
P resent
Groups present in sample
Genera of
Each species of
Each species of
Genera of
Each species of
Each species of
Each species of
Each species of
Each species of
Coleoptera, Nematoda
Amphinemoura
(Plecoptera)
Baetis (Ephemeroptera)
Gammarus
Uncased caddis (exc.
Rhyacophila)
Tricladida
(excluding P. alpina)
Hydracarina
Mollusca
(excluding Ancylus)
Chironomids
(excluding C. riparius)
Glossiphonia
Asellus
Leech (excluding
Glossiphonia, Haemopsis)
Haemopsis
Tubifex sp.
Chironomus riparius
Nais
air breathing species
No animal life
Few C om m on A bundant
11-15.
51-100
Points scored
V ery
abundan
100+
1-2.
3-10.
51
47
55
50
61
54
66
58
72
63
44
40
38
46
40
36
48
40
35
50
40
33
52
40
31
35
33
31
29
25
32
30
30
28
28
25
25
22
21
18
28
25
21
18
15
26
25
24
23
22
20
20
18
16
16
14
12
13
10
8
23
22
21
20
19
19
18
17
16
15
15
13
12
10
9
0
10
12
7
6
5
7
9
4
2
1
The BMWP score system
Allocation of biological scores
Families
S ip h lo n u ri d a e H ep ta g en iid a e L ep t o p hlebiidae Ephermere llidae
Potamanthidae Ephemeridae
Taeniopterygidae Leuctridae Capniidae Perlodidae Perlidae Chloroperlidae
Aphelocheiridae
Phryganeidae Molannidae Baraeidae Odontoceridae Leptoceridae Goeridae
Lepidostomatidae Brachycentridae Sericostomatidae
Astacidae
Lestidae Agriidae Gomphidae Cordulegasteridae Aeshnidae Corduliidae
Libellulidae
Psychomyiidae Philopotamidae
Score
10
8
Caenidae
Nemouridae
Rhyacophilidae Polycentropodidae Limnephilidae
7
Neritidae Viviparidae Ancylidae
Hydroptilidae
Unionidae
Corophiidae Gammaridae
Platycnemididae Coenagriidae
6
The BMWP score system (con.)
Allocation of biological scores
Families
Mesovelidae Hydrometridae Gerridae Nepidae Naucoridae Notonectidae
Pleidae Corixidae
Haliplidae Hygrobiidae Dytiscidae Gyrinidae Hydrophilidae Clambidae
Helodidae
Dryopisae Elminthidae Chrysomelidae Curculionidae
Hydropsychidae
Tipulidae Simliidae
Planariidae Dendrocoelidae
Score
5
Baetidae
Sialidae
Piscicolidae
4
Valvatidae Hydrobiidae Lymnaeidae Physidae Planorbidae Dphaeriidae
Glossiphoniidae Hirudidae Erpobdellidae
Asellidae
3
Chironomidae
2
Oligochaeta (whole class)
1
23
Matrix of Raabe’s similarity coefficients for nine alternating pool
and riffle stretches on the River West AllenAfter. Abel, 1989
Dendrogram derived by average - linkage cluster analysis of the matrix
shown in previous Fig.
SI = a 2c
+b
a = total no. of species in Com. A
b = total no. of species in Com. B
c = no. of species shared by Com. A and Com. B
Dendrogram derived by average - linkage cluster analysis of a matrix of Sorensen’s
similarity coefficients, based on the same raw data used to derive previous Fig.
24
Number of individuals of various taxa recovered from artificial
substrate sample at two sites on the River East Allen.
Allen.
Taxon
Oligochaeta
Chironomidae
Limoniinae
Empididae
Limnius volckmari
Esolus parallelepipedus
Elmis aenea
Anchlastrum fluviatilis
Pisisium sp.
Polycentropus flavomaculatus
Baetis rhodani
Nos. of individuals
Site A
6
36
32
1
1
1
1
6
2
8
-
Site G
51
20
4
1
1
1
3
a = 10
b=7
c=6
Matrix of Kerdali’s rank correlation coefficients for pairs of sites on the East
and West Allen (Green, 1984). In this matrix, open squares indicate pairs of
sites which are significantly different from each other. After Abel, 1989
Dendrogram derived by average - linkage cluster analysis of the matrix shown in
previous Fig .(Green, 1984).
25
ตัวอยางจากการศึกษาของธัญลักษณ เหลียวรุงเรือง
“การใชกลุมสัตวหนาดินในการตัดสินคุณภาพน้ําจาก
ลําธารในบริเวณมหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม”
2541
หวยแกว
มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม
หวยกูขาว
หวยแมระงอง
หวยธารชมภู
หวยฝายหิน
ผลการสํารวจวงศ (Family) ของกลุมสัตวหนาดินที่พบในลําธารน้ําภายใน
มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม เดือนกันยายน
26
ผลการสํารวจวงศ (Family) ของกลุมสัตวหนาดินที่พบในลําธารน้ําภายใน
มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม เดือนกันยายน (ตอ.)
คา ASPT (Average Score Per Taxa) ของแตละจุดเก็บตัวอยางเดือนพฤศจิกายน
โดยเปรียบเทียบระหวาง BMWP Score ของอังกฤษ อินเดียและแมน้ําปง
คา Similarity index โดยใชกลุมสัตวหนาดินในเดือนกันยายน
27
คา Similarity index โดยใชกลุมสัตวหนาดินในเดือนพฤศจิกายน
Sorensen’s similarity index = A2C+ B
A = จํานวนวงศที่จดุ A
B = จํานวนวงศที่จุด B
C = จํานวนวงศที่จดุ A และ B
คา Similarity Index ซึ่งแสดงเปนแผนภาพ Dendrogram โดยใชกลุม
สัตวหนาดินเปนตัวชี้วัดในเดือนกันยายน
28
คา BMWP Score ในแบบเดิมของอินเดีย (ค.ศ. 1995)
TAXONOMICAL
CLASS/ORDER
TAXONOMICAL FAMILIES
Ephemeroptera
Heptogeniidae. Leptophlebiidae. Ephemerellidae.
Ephemeridae. Potaminthidae. Siphonuridae.
Leuctridae. Capniidae. Perlodidae. Perlidae.
Taeniopterygidae.
Ahpelocheiridae
Leptoceridae. Goeridae. Lepisostomatidae.
Brachycentridae. Sericostomatidae.
Lestidae. Gomphidae. Cordulegasteridae. Aeschnidae.
Corduliidae. Libellulifae. Plathycnemididae
Psychomyiidae. Philopotamidae
Caenidae
Numouridae
Rhyacophilidae. Polycentropodidae. Limnephilidae
Ancylidae. Hydrobiidae. Neritidae. Viviparidae.
Thiaridae. Bithynidae. Unionidae
Hydroptilidae
Plecoptera
Hemiptera
Trichoptera
Odonata
Trichoptera
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Mollusca
Trichoptera
BMWP
SCORE
10
8
7
6
คา BMWP Score ในแบบเดิมของอินเดีย (ค.ศ. 1995) ตอ.
TAXONOMICAL
CLASS/ORDER
TAXONOMICAL FAMILIES
Crustacea
Polychaeta
Odonata
Hemiptera
Palaemonidae. Atydae. Gammaridae
Nereidae, Nephthyidae
Coenagriidae. Agriidae
Mesovelidae. Hydrometridae. Gerridae. Nepidae.
Naucoridae. Notonectidae. Pleidae. Corixidae. Veliidae.
Hebridae. Belestomatidae
Haliplidae. Hygrobidae. Dytiscidae. Gyrinidae.
Hydrophilidae. Noteridae. Helodidae. Dryopidae.
Elmidae. Psephenidae
Hydropsychidae
Tipulidae. Culicidae. Blepharoceridae. Simulidae
Planariidae. Dendroceolidae
Baetidae
Sialidae
Piscicodidae
Lymnaeidae. Planorbidae. Sphaeridae
Glossiphonidae. Hirudidae. Erpobdellidae
Dugesiidae
Coleoptera
Trichoptera
Diptera
Planaria
Ephemeroptera
Megaloptera
Kiredinea
Mollusca
Hirudinea
Planaria
BMWP
SCORE
6
5
4
3
คุณภาพน้ําทางกายภาพและเคมีในจุดที่ศกึ ษาทั้ง 10 แหง เดือนกันยายน
Parameter
Site
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
1. อุ ณ หภู มิ น้ํา (oC)
2. อุ ณ หภู มิ อ ากาศ (oC)
29.00 29.00 30.00 27.00 30.00 30.00 31.50 28.50 32.30 30.00
29.50 32.20 32.00 33.00
7.00 29.50 30.00 31.00 34.00 33.00
3. pH
6.90
7.14
4. TDS (mg/l)
5. Conductivity
(us/cm)
6. Velocity (m/s)
79.50 136.0 82.50 138.0 165.0
159.4 266.0 164.8 321.0 329.0 159.4 314.0 157.4 225.0 239.0
0.14
0.33
0.20
0.18
0.29
0.14
0.40
0.30
0.33
0.33
7. DO
6.00
9.00
6.20
2.60
2.80
5.00
6.00
7.60
4.40
8.20
8. BOD 5 (mg/l)
3.00
2.00
2.50
8.00 14.00
3.20
2.80
1.20 20.00 14.00
9. Ammonia (mg/l)
0.52
0.34
0.09
0.56
1.73
2.50
1.99
0.01
2.35
2.26
10. Nitrate (mg/l)
11. Phosphate
(mg/l)
1.10
1.10
0.90
1.70
1.00
1.10
1.50
0.90
1.20
1.20
0.28
0.11
0.18
0.25
0.24
0.16
0.20
0.14
0.48
0.74
8.38
7.94
6.84
6.90
7.50
7.85
7.50
8.30
79.5 157.0 78.50 113.0 119.0
29
คา Similarity Index ซึ่งแสดงเปนแผนภาพ Dendrogram โดยใชคา
คุณภาพน้ําทางกายภาพ และเคมีเปนตัวชีว้ ัดในเดือนกันยายน
Multivariate Analysis การวิเคราะหหลายตัวแปร
-Pattern analysis involves searching for ecological
meaningful pattern in data
-Help to generate hypothesis & seek to improve
communication of the results
Clustering
-serve to reduce a set of many objects to group of
objects based on their degree of similarity
-can be hierarchical (showing relationship between
the group similar to a family tree or dendrogram
- or non-hierarchical, natural grouping
Ordination
-A method which seek to condense the information
associate with a set of attribute (measured variable,
species etc.) to a smaller number (2 or 3) of new
attribute with minimum loss o f information
-Results can be displayed in a bipot: the distance
between the objects (e.g. sampling sites) represent the
degree of similarity of difference between objects as
measured by a full set attribution
-May detect natural cluster, and highlight trends and
gradients
30
‘Pollution’ distances between sites
Changes in water
quality and abundance
of selected organisms
typically found in a river
below the discharge of
an organic effluent, after
Hynes (1960).
Fig. 2.2 (E) shows the
zones described by
Kolkwitz&Marsson
(1909). Other descriptive
systems have been used
(see Hellawell (1983) for
a summary) but are not
significantly different.
After Abel, 1989
Comparative chart of several early systems for classifying the stages
of recovery from the effects of an organic effluent in flowing water.
After Warren (1971)
Kolkwitz&Ma
rsson
Forbes &
Richardoson
Organic 1908,1909
1913
effluent Oligosaprobic Clean water
Suter & Moore Sihmpple &
1922
Whipple 1927
Clean water
Clean water
Clean water
Septic
Recent
Pollution
Septic
Degradation
Septic
αMesosaprobic
Polluted
Pollutional
or
Unusually
Tolerant
βMesosaprobic
Contaminated
Sub –
pollutional
or Tolerant
Oligosaprobic
Clean water
Clean water
Polysaprobic
Flow
Richardson
1921,1925
Active
Decomposition
Recovery
Recovery
Clean water
Clean water
Organic
effluent
Flow
Toxic condition
31
Water quality and dissolved oxygen (DO) content in parts per million (ppm)
at 20 oC (68 oF). Only a few fish species can survive in water with less than 4
ppm of dissolved oxygen at this temperature
Water Quality Maps of River Danube before and after
the operation of water treatment plants.
1967
1986
Dilution and decay of degradable oxygen demanding waste and heat,
showing the oxygen sag curve (orange
orange) and the curve of oxygen demand
(blue
blue). Depending on flow rates and the amount of pollutants streams
recover from oxygen-demanding wastes and heat if they are given enough
time and are not overloaded.
32
Clean - water (sensitive) forms
Clean - water (sensitive) forms
Mild - pollution (less sensitive) forms
33
moderate - pollution (relative tolerant) forms
severe - pollution (tolerant) forms
Characteristic Features of the Four Water
Quality Classes (I-IV) (Values between are
coordinated to the intermediate classes I-II,
II-III, III-IV)
34
Characteristic Features of the Four Water Quality Classes (I(I-IV)
(Values between are coordinated to the intermediate classes I-I-II, IIII-III, IIIIII-IV)
Biological – Ecological Assessment of Water Quality
4 Classes of Water Quality
Class I - no or only slight pollution
II - moderate pollution
III - heavy – pollution
IV - very heavy pollution
Oligosaprobic (O)
β -Mesosaprobic (bmes)
bmes)
α- Mesosaprobic (ames)
ames)
Polysaprobic (p)
Frequency levels :
1. Single find
2. Seldom
3. Few
4. Medium
5. Medium to frequent
6. Frequent
7. Abundant
35
e.g. Sampling place X
Indicator organisms
Saprobity
Frequency
sum
Tubfex
Herpobdella (Ephem)
Lmectra (Plecop)
Baetis rhodani
(Ephem)
Rhyacophila
(Trichop)
Chironomidae not red
Chironomidae red
p
a mes
0 – b mes
b mes
7
2
1
1
Frequency in the
saprobity level
0
b
a
p
mes mes
7
2
0.5
0.5
1
0 – b mes
1
0.5
b mes - a mes
a mes - p
7
3
Σ
0.5
3.5
1.0
5.5
3.5
1
6.5
2
9
∴ (O + b mes + a mes + p) = 22
Saprobic Index (SI)
SI
= 4xp+3x a mes + 2 xb mes + 1 x 0
(p + a mes + b mes + 0)
e.g.
= 4x9 +3x6.5 + 2x5.5 + 1x1
9+6.5+5.5+1
= 3.06
SI
1 – 1.5
1.8 – 2.3
2.7 – 3.2
3.5 – 4
Saprobity
0ligosaprobic
β - M esosaprobic
α - M e sosap ro b ic
Polysaprobic
Limitation of the Methods used
ขอจํากัดของการใชวิธกี ารตาง ๆ ในการประเมินคุณภาพน้ํา
-Saprobic index
-Biotic Index
-BMWP score
ASPT (average score per Taxa)
empirical data
Taxonomic keys to species level
not available
Diversity Indices – nos of species
Nos of Individual in each species
Similarity Indices
36
Protozoa ที่พบตามชั้นคุณภาพน้ําตาง ๆ กัน ตามระบบ Saprobiensystem
(a) Polysaprobic
Protozoa ที่พบตามชั้นคุณภาพน้ําตาง ๆ กัน ตามระบบ Saprobiensystem
(b) alphaalpha-Mesosaprobic
Protozoa ที่พบตามชั้นคุณภาพน้ําตาง ๆ กัน ตามระบบ Saprobiensystem
(c) betabeta-Mesosaprobic
37
สาหรายบางชนิดที่พบในน้ําที่มีการปนเปอ นของสารอินทรียสูง
LIST OF COMMON CILIATES WHICH ARE INDICATIVE OF
DIFFERENT DEGREES OF ORGANIC POLLUTION
1. Polysaprobic – grossly pollutes
Colpidium campylum (Stokes)
Colpidium colpoda Stein
Colpoda steinii Maupas
Glaucama scintillans Ehrenberg
Trimyema compressum Lackcy
2. AlphaAlpha- mesosaprobic – polluted
Chilodonella cucullulus (Muller)
Chilodonella uncinata Ehrenberg
Colpoda cuculus Muller
Cyclidium citullus Cohn
Spirostomum ambiguum Muller - Ehrenberg
3. Beta - mesoprobic – mildly polluted
Aspidisca costata (Dujardin)
Cinetochilum margaritaceum Perty
Coleps hirtus Nitzsch
Euplotes affinis Dujardin
Euplotes patella (Muller)
Halteria grandinella (Muller)
Paramecium caudatum Ehrenberg
Paramecium putrinum Clap and Lachmann
Paramecium trichium Stokes
Vorticella microstoma Ehrenberg
Urocentrum turbo (Muller)
Urotricha farcara Clap and Lachmann
Stylonychia mytilus Ehrenberg
Stylonychia putrina Stokes
Carchesium polypinum Linnaeus
Litonotus lamella Schewiakoff
Paramecium bursaria (Ehrenberg)
Spirostomum teres Clap and Lachmann
Biotic indices for BMWP Score
(after National Water Council 1981)
FAMILIES
Sipolonuridae Heptageniidae Leptophlebiidae Ephemerellidae
Potamanthidae Ephemeridae
Taeniopterygidae Leuctridae Capniidae Perlodidae Perlidae
Chloroperlidae Aphelocheiridae
Phryganeidae Molannidae Beraeidae Odontoceridae
Leptoceridae Goeridae Lepidostonatidae Brachycentridae
Sericostomatidae
Astacidae
Lestidae Agriidae Gomphidae Cordulegasteridae Aeshnidae
Corduliidae Libellulidae
Psychomyiidae Philopotamidae
Caenidae
Nemouridae
Rhyacophilidae Polycentropodidae Limnephilidae
Neritidae Viviparidae Ancylidae
Hydroptilidae
Unionidae Corophiidae Gammaridae
Platycriemididae Coenagriidae
SCORE
10
8
7
6
38
Biotic indices for BMWP Score
(after National Water Council 1981) con.
FAMILIES
SCORE
Mesovelidae Hydrometridae Gerridae Nepidae Naucoridae
Notonectidae Pleidae Corixidae
Haliplidae Hygrobiidae Dytiscidae Gyrinidae Hydropoilidae
Chlambidae Helodidae Dryopidae Elminthidae Chrysomelidae
Curculionidae
Hydropsychidae
Tipulidae Simuliidae
Planariidae Dendrocoelidae
Baetidae
Sialidae
Piscicolidae
Valvatidae Hydrobiidae Lymnaeidae Physidae Planorbidae
Sphaeriidae
Glossiphoniidae Hirudidae Erpobdellidae
Asellidae
Chironomidae
Oligochaeta (whole class)
5
4
3
2
1
Families available in Yamuna River
Families available in Yamuna River. con.
39
BIOTIC INDEX OF THAI FRESHWATER
INVERTEBRATES
จากผลงานวิจัยลุมน้าํ แมปปง ของ Steve Mustow และ
กชกร แสนนาม กรกฏาคม
กรกฏาคม 2540
40
คะแนนรวม (BMWP)
จํานวนวงศ (No. of family)
คะแนนเฉลี่ย (ASPT)
ผลงานวิจัยกรณีศกึ ษาจากแมน้ําตาง ๆ ในภาคเหนือของประเทศไทย
Average Score Per Taxa (ASPT)
น้ําปง
41
Average Score Per Taxa (ASPT)
ลําธารบนดอยอินทนนท
น้ําแมกวง
Mae Sa
42
Total No. of macroinvertebrates families and % of families refer to
reference point (5a)
Mae Sa
ตัวอยางการใชวิธี Rapid Bioassessment เพื่อการประเมินคุณภาพน้ําในพื้นที่เชียงใหม
Rapid Bioassessment
(EPA Protocols for use in Streams and Rivers)
The metrics evaluated were:
1. Taxa or family richness = total number of distinct taxa or family
2. Family biotic index (modified) FBI = (Xi ti/ n) *
3. Ratio of EPT and Chironomidea Abundances
4. Percent contribution of dominant family
5. EPT index = total number of distinct Taxa with in E, P, T
6. Community similarity/ loss indices :
-Jaccard Coefficient of Community Similarity
-Community Loss Index (d – a )/ e
= a/ (a + b + c)
a = number of families common to both samples
b = number of families present in Sample B but not A
c = number of families present in Sample A but not B
d = total number of families in Sample A
e = total number of families in Sample B
Note
* For FBI –
Xi = number of individual with in a family
ti = tolerance value of a family (from total)
n = total number of organisms in the sample
43
List of families and number of individuals
found at each site.
44
Tolerance values (0 – 10) for a family biotic index
Orders
Ephemeroptera
Odonata
Plecoptera
Megaloptera
Trichoptera
MODIFIED FROM HILSENHOFF (1988)
Families
Caenidae, Siphonuridae
Baetidae, Ephemeridae, Heptageniidae,
Potamanthidae
Baetiscidae
Leptophelbiidae, Isonychiidae, Meteropodidae,
Polymitarcyidae, Ephemerellidae
Coenagrionidae, Lestidae, Libellulidae
Calopterygidae, Corduliidae
Aeshnidae, Macromidae
Gomphidae
Nemouridae, Perlodidae, Taeniopterygidae
Capniidae, Cloroperlidae, Perlidae
Pteronarcyidae, Leutridae
Sialidae
Corydalidae
Hydropsychidae, Polycentropodidae
Molannidae, Hydrotilidae, Leptoceridae,
Limnephilidae, Phryganeidae
Trichoptera
Helicopsychedae, Philopotamidae, Sericostomatidae
Psychomyiidae
Brachycentridae, Lepidostomatidae
Glossosomatidae, Odontoceridae, Rhyacophilidae
Lepidoptera
Pyralidae
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Elmidae, Psephenidae
Diptera
Psychodidae, Syrphidae
Blood – red Chironomidae
Pink Chironomidae, Ceratopogonidae, Empididae,
Simuliiidae, Muscidae, Tabanidae
Dolichopodidae
Tipulidae
Athericidae
Blepharicidae
Amphipoda
Talitridae
Gammaridae
Isopoda
Aeshllidae
Oligochaeta
Tubificidae
Naididae, Lumbriculidae
Source: Morse et al. 1984
Tolerance
values
7
4
3
2
9
5
3
1
2
1
0
4
0
6
4
3
2
1
0
4
5
4
10
8
6
4
3
2
0
8
4
8
10
8
Note:
Note Hemiptera and Coleoptera are not assigned tolerance values because of
their mobility and their air-breathing ability, which make their presence in a
waterway somewhat independent of the presence of pollutants.
Ranges of index scores associated with quality point scores
Quality Point
1. Taxa richness
2. Hilsenhoff’s FBI
3. EPT: Chironomids
4. EPT Index
5. Community Loss Index
6. % Dominant Taxon
Source: Plafkin et al. (1989)
6
>80%
>85%
>75%
>90%
<0.5
<20%
4
61-80%
71-85%
51-75%
81-90%
0.5-1.5
20-30%
2
40-60%
50-70%
25-50%
70-80%
1.6-4.0
31-40%
0
<40%
<50%
<25%
<70%
>4.0
>40%
45
Quality point ranges for the final classification of sites.
% of
Biological
Reference Condition Category
Score
>83%
Nonimpaired
Attributes
54-79%
Slightly impaired
Loss of some sensitive taxa/families.
Contribution of tolerance forms increased.
21-50%
Moderately
impaired
Fewer families/taxa due to loss of most of sensitive
groups, notably EPT.
<17%
Severely impaired
Few families/taxa. Community dominated by one
or two groups.
Comparable to the condition at the reference site,
with good community structure.
Source: Plafkin et al. (1989)
Water quality scores of the dry season sampling trip
Trip 1
S1
Taxa richness 6
FBI
6
EPT/Chiro
6
EPT idx
6
Com. Loss
6
% dom. fam. 4
TOTAL
34
100
%
Water
N
quality
Note:
S2
4
6
6
6
4
6
32
94
%
N
S3
4
6
6
0
4
0
20
59
%
S
P1 P2
4
4
6
4
6
4
0
0
4
4
2
2
22 18
65 53
% %
S S-M
P3 IC1 IC2
4
0
0
4
4
6
6
2
0
0
0
0
4
2
2
4
0
0
22
8
8
65 24 24
% % %
S
M M
IC3 SC1 SC2 SC3
2
0
0
0
4
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
2
0
4
0
2
0
14
4
6
2
41 12 18 6 %
% % %
M SV M- SV
SV
N = Non – impaired
S = Slightly impaired
M = Moderately impaired
SV= Severely impaired
Dendrogram of the Dry season sampling trip
46
การเปรียบเทียบวิเคราะหการใชรูปแบบการประเมินคุณภาพน้ําโดยใชสัตวหนาดิน
วิธีการแบบตาง ๆ กับประโยชนของการนํามาใช (แหลงขอมูล Schafer, 1997)
Zoogeographic regions of the world
* Less knowledge on biodiversity study in the tropic
Need more further intensive study
AT = Afrotropical
OL = Oriental
NA = Nearctic
NT = Neotropical
EP = East Palearctic
AU = Australasian
WC = West Palearctic
http://entweb.clemson.edu/database/trichopt/
Speciescape in which the size of individual organisms is
approximately proportional to the number of described
species in the higher taxon that it response.
(After Wheeler, 1990)
source: Gullen, J.F. and P. Cranston, 2000
47
1. Monera
2. Fungi
3. Algae
4. Plantae
5. Protozoa
6. Porifera
7. Cnidanaria
8. Platyhelminthes
9. Nematoda
10. Annelida
11. Mollusca
12. Echinodermata
13. Insecta
17. Reptilia
14. Non-insect Arthropoda 18. Aves
15. Pissces
19. Mammalia
16.Amphibia
Species – definition
a group of actually of potentially interbreeding
natural populations reproductively isolated
from other such groups.
Information of species attributes on
-Development
-External + Internal Anatomy
-Coloration
-Cytology
-Physiology
-Biochemistry
-Serology
-Behaviour
-Ecology
Characters
of Species
48
Speciation - process of distinguishing species
based on Phylogenetic tree
a b1 b2 b3
TIME
B
c1 c2
C
d1 d2 d3 d4
d5
D
A
Dissimilarity
A Hypothetical phylogenetic tree
Generic limit by phenetic taxonomist
Generic limit by phylogenetic taxonomist
( A, B, C, D Evolutionary lines)
49
50
51
Trichoptera แมลงหนอนปลอกน้ํา
เปนกลุมสิ่งมีชีวติ ทีพ่ บทั่วไปในระบบนิเวศแหลงน้ําทุก
ประเภท จากการศึกษาของหองปฏิบัตกิ ารวิจยั แมลงน้ํา ภาควิชาชีววิทยา คณะวิทยาศาสตร มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม สามารถทําการจําแนก
ไดถึงระดับชนิด ทัง้ หมดประมาณ 713 ชนิด เปนชนิดใหมที่ตงั้ ชื่อจาก
ตัวอยางในประเทศไทยกวา 78 % และยังมีชนิดใหมทยี่ ังไมไดรับการ
ตั้งชื่ออีกจํานวนหนึง่
เนื่องจากเปนสิ่งมีชีวติ ที่มีการศึกษาทางดาน
อนุกรมวิธานมาแลวเปนอยางดี ประกอบกับคุณสมบัตทิ ี่มีความไวใน
การตอบสนองตอการรบกวนถิ่นที่อยู
จึงไดมีการศึกษาเพื่อใชเปน
b i o i n d i c a t o r ของคุณภาพน้ํา
52
ตัวอยางการศึกษาเรื่องการใชแมลงหนอนปลอกน้ํา
(Order Trichoptera) ในการตรวจสอบคุณภาพสิ่งแวดลอม
Prachaub chaibu, 2000. POTENTIAL USE OF TRICHOPTERA AS WATER
POUULATION BIOMONITORING IN PING RIVER CHIANG MAI.
Sampling sites along the Ping River
PO1 : Ping Khong
PO2 : Chiang Doa
PO3 : Taeng Doa elephant camp
PO4 : Tha Dua village
53
PO5 : Ton Kham
PO6 : Mae Rim
PO7 : Pa Tan
PO8 : Meng Rai Bridge
PO9 : Pa Dad
PO10 : Wang Sing Kham
PO11 : Hnong Tong
PO12 : Mae Ka Bridge
Physical and Chemical Parameters <-------> Biological communities
54
Heavy metals concentration
Percentage of species richness in each family
Caddisflies diversity
- male caddisflies : 13 families, 25 genera, 58 species
Dominant species
Ecnomus puro
18.7 % Setodes argentiguttatus
Paduniella semarangensis 13.0 %
11.8 %
55
HMDS ordination based
on caddisflies individuals
Site ordination
Caddisflies
indicator species
ordination
Water quality variables
ordination
Ordination of reference sites based on caddisflies indicator
species and Water quality variables
Correlation coefficients of 11 sensitive(no. 1-11) and 7 tolerant (no.12-18) caddisflies
species and environmental variables by Spearman correlation coefficients test.
56
11 Sensitive species
5 Hydropsychidae - Amphipsyche gratiosa
Cheumatopsyche globosa
Hydropsyche dolosa
Macrostemum midas
Potamyia phaidra
5 Leptoceridae - Leptocerus dirghachuka
Oecetis empusa
Setodes endymion
Setodes fluvialis
Setodes argentiguttatus
1 Odontoceridae - Marilia sumatrana
Conclusions
Indicator species
Sensitive species
Hydropsychidae
Leptoceridae
Odontoceridae
18 sp.
11 sp.
5 sp.
5 sp.
1 sp.
Tolerant species
Hydropsychidae
Leptoceridae
Ecnomidae
Psychomyiidae
7 sp.
4 sp.
1 sp.
1 sp.
1 sp.
Can be used to assess water quality of the Ping River :
Conductivity, TDS, Alkalinity, Suspended solids, DO, BOD5,
NH3, NO3
Acknowledgement
These presentation were produced under the teaching media
production program from Biology Department, Faculty of Science,
Chiang Mai University
57
References
1. Abel P.D. 1989. Water Pollution Biology. John Wiley & Sons. New York.
2. Caduto M.J. 1990. Pond and Brook: A Guild to Nature in Freshwater
Environments.University Press of New England, Hanover.
3. Hellawell J.M. 1986. Biological Indicators of Freshwater Pollution and Environmental
Management. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London.
4. Gullen J.F. and Cranston P.,2000. The Insects: an outline of entomology(2nd Ed). Blackwell
S c i e n c e
L t d . ,
O x f o r d .
5. Landis W.G. and Yu M.H. 1999. Introduction to Environmental Toxicology: Impact of
Chemicals Upon Ecological System (2nd Ed). Lewis Publishers, London
6. Mason C.F. 1998. Biology of Freshwater Pollution (3rd Ed). Blackwell Science Ltd.,
O
x
f
o
r
d
.
7. Moss C.F. 1995. Ecology of Fresh Waters: Man and Medium (2nd Ed). Blackwell Science
L
t
d
.
O
x
f
o
r
d
.
8. Muirhead-Thomson R.C. 1989. Pesticide Impact on Stream Fauna with Special Reference
t o M a c ro i n v e r t eb r a t e s . C a m b r id g e Un i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Ca m b r i dg e .
9. Rosenberg, D.M.and Resh V.H.( Eds.). 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring
a nd b en t h ic macro inver tebra tes. Cha pman and Hall, New York.
10. Sch ä fer A. 1997. Biogeographic der Binnengewässer. Teubner Stuttgart.
11. Tapp J.F., Hunt S.M. and Wharfe J.R. 1996. Toxic Impact of Wastes on the Aquatic
Environment. The Royal Society of Chemistry. Hartnolls Ltd., Cornwall.
58