Macrophytes as biological indicators of organic pollution in the Lepenci River Basin in Kosovo

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location of investigated area.

Table 1. List of species, calculated indexes and EQR value of macrophytes in the Lepenci river basin.

Taxon		Components						STATION
	Family	River macrophyte nutrient index score (R)	River macrophyte hydraulic index score (R)	Taxa listed in column 1 which are note helophytes (x)	L	W	Pi	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S6	S7	S8
Callitriche stagnalis L. (1753)	Plantaginaceae	6.47	7.17	X	5	2	2	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	+
Catabrosa aquatica P. Beauv. (1812)	Poaceae	8.7	7.57		5	2	3	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	+
Mentha aquatica L. (1753)	Lamiaceae	6.27	6.71		5	2	4	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	+
Myriophyllum spicatum L. (1753)	Haloragaceae	8.26	7.91	X	3	2	2	–	–	–	+	–	–	–	+
Phragmites australis Adans. (1763)	Poaceae	7.70	8.94		4	1	3	–	–	–	+	–	+	–	–
Polygonum amphibium L. Gray (1766)	Polygonaceae	–	–		4	1	2	–	–	–	+	–	–	+	+
Potamageton pusillus L. (1753)	Potamogetonaceae	7.47	8.45	X	5	2	3	–	–	–	+	–	+	+	+
Potamogeton crispus L. (1753)	Potamogetonaceae	8.02	7.86	X	4	2	3	–	–	–	+	–	–	+	+
Potamogeton fluitans L. (1753)	Potamogetonaceae	6.51	5.51	X	4	2	2	–	–	–	–	–	–	+	+
Potamogeton gramineus L. (1753)	Potamogetonaceae	4.24	5.69	X	6	3	3	–	–	–	–	–	–	+	+
Rumex hydrolapathum Huds. (1762)	Polygonaceae	8.65	8.11		4	2	3	–	–	–	+	+	–	+	+
Sparaganium erectum L. (1753)	Typhaceae	8.34	8.26		3	1	2	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	+
Typha angustifolia L. (1753)	Typhaceae	7.57	9.05		3	2	4	–	–	–	+	–	+	–	–
Result river macrophyte nutrient index (RMNI)								–	–	–	2.87	8.65	7.56	6.46	7.00
Result river macrophyte hydraulic index (RMHI)								–	–	–	3.11	8.11	8.74	6.90	7.15
Number of macrophyte taxa which are not helophytes (NTAXA)								–	–	–	3	0	1	4	6
The ecological quality ratio for the parameter RMNI								–	–	–	1	0.37	0.66	0.97	0.82
The ecological quality ratio for the parameter RMHI								–	–	–	2.18	0.6	0.39	0.98	0.90
Based on the adjustment of the ecological quality ratio RMNI								–	–	–	1	0.16	0.54	0.96	0.6
Based on the adjustment of the ecological quality ratio RMHI								–	–	–	2.57	0.46	0.18	0.97	0.86
Macrophyte index for rivers (MIR)								–	–	–	27	4	12	27	48
Quality class of water											IV	V	V	IV	I

Table 2. Biological status boundary values (WFD-UKTAG, 2008).

Status	EQR values
High	0.8
Good	0.6
Moderate	0.4
Poor	0.2
Bad	<0.2

Table 3. Macrophyte index for rivers values for sandy type of river (Szoszkiewicz et al. 2010).

No.	Ecological status class	Lowland river sandy and organic	Quality class of water
1	Very good	≥44.5	I
2	Good	44.5–35.0>	II
3	Moderate	35.0–25.4>	III
4	Poor	25.4–15.8>	IV
5	Bad	≤15.8	V

Table 4. The values of nutrients river basin Lepenci.

			Prevallë	Jezerc	Brod	Runjevë	Nikë	Gërlicë	Kaçanik	Hani I Elezit
Total Phosphorus	PT	mg/L	<0.01	0.018	0.019	1.845	1.087	3.487	1.661	1.457
Total Nitrogen	NT	mg/L	2	5	5	16	8	27	18	12
Ammonium ion	NH4^+	mg/L	<0.01	<0.01	0.046	0.369	0.051	0.273	0.522	0.302
Nitrites ion	NO2^−	mg/L	0.51	0.41	1.05	3.16	2.24	4.56	3.27	3.85
Nitrates	NO3^−	mg/L	2.2	1.3	4.2	1.0	3.8	< 0.1	2.5	7.1
Phosphates ion	PO4^3−	mg/L	<0.02	< 0.02	< 0.02	1.195	0.450	1.519	1.086	0.884

Table 5. The Spearmen’s Correlation between the nutrients, Macrophyte indices and EQR.

		Ptotal	Ntot	NH4^+	NO2^-	NO3^--	PO4^-
RMNI	Correlation coefficient	−.400	−.300	−.900*	.000	.200	−.400
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.505	.624	.037	1.000	.747	.505
	N	5	5	5	5	5	5
RMHI	Correlation coefficient	.000	.100	−.800	.400	−.100	.000
	Sig. (2-tailed)	1.000	.873	.104	.505	.873	1.000
	N	5	5	5	5	5	5
MIR	Correlation coefficient	.051	.051	.667	.359	.359	.051
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.935	.935	.219	.553	.553	.935
	N	5	5	5	5	5	5
^EQRRMNI	Correlation coefficient	.400	.300	.900*	.000	−.200	.400
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.505	.624	.037	1.000	.747	.505
	N	5	5	5	5	5	5
^EQRRMHI	Correlation coefficient	.000	−.100	.800	−.400	.100	.000
	Sig. (2-tailed)	1.000	.873	.104	.505	.873	1.000
	N	5	5	5	5	5	5
^AEQRRMNI	Correlation coefficient	.400	.300	.900*	.000	−.200	.400
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.505	.624	.037	1.000	.747	.505
	N	5	5	5	5	5	5
^AEQRRMHI	Correlation coefficient	1.000**	.900*	.300	.600	−.900*	1.000**
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.	.037	.624	.285	.037	.
	N	5	5	5	5	5	5

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 6. Analysis of variance and mean averages at monitoring stations.

Station	Ptotal	Ntot	NH4^+	NO2^-	NO3^-	PO4^-	RMNI	RMHI	NTAXA	^EQRRMNI	^EQRRMHI	^AEQRRMNI	^AEQRRMHI	MIR
Runjevë	1.85	16	0.36	3.16	1	1.19	2.87	3.11	3	1	2.18	1	2.57	27
Nikë	1.08	8	0.051	2.24	3.8	0.45	8.65	8.11	0	0.37	0.6	0.16	0.46	4
Gërlicë	3.48	27	0.27	4.56	0.1	1.51	7.56	8.74	1	0.66	0.39	0.54	27	12
Kaçanik	1.66	18	0.55	3.27	2.5	1.08	6.46	6.9	4	0.97	0.98	0.96	0.97	27
Hani i Elezit	1.45	12	0.302	3.85	7.1	0.88	7	7.15	6	0.82	0.9	0.76	0.86	48
Average	1.904	16.2	0.31	3.42	2.9	1.02	6.51	6.80	2.8	0.764	1.01	0.68	6.37	23.6
Sample variance
VAR	0.86	51.20	0.03	0.74	7.52	0.15	4.79	4.81	5.70	0.07	0.48	0.12	133.62	284.30

WFD-UKTAG. 2008. UKTAG river assessment methods macrophytes and phytobenthos macrophytes (River leafpacs). Scotland: Water Framework Directive - United Kingdom Advisody Group (WFD-UKTAG).

 Google Scholar

Szoszkiewicz K, Jusik S, Lawniczak AE, Zgola T. 2010. Macrophyte development in unimpacted lowland rivers in Poland. Hydrobiologia. 656(1):117–131.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar