apresentação do powerpointcrustacea ephemeroptera odonata coleoptera trichoptera diptera 0 10 20...
TRANSCRIPT
17/09/2019
1
Teresa Jesus , Álvaro Monteiro, Isabel Abreu, Maria João Guerreiro
Estudo do efeito da descarga de duas ETAR’s na estrutura da comunidade de macroinvertebrados bentónicos do rio
Tinto (Portugal)
Study of the effect of two WWTP’s discharges on benthicmacroinvertebrate communities structure of the river
Tinto (Portugal)
The Project:
Study of the ecological status of the Tinto river
➢ is a project proposed by LIPOR, an inter municipal company and developed by the Fernando Pessoa
University with the support of:
✓ the four municipalities which integrates the river basin;
✓ three water companies;
✓ and the Portuguese Environmental Agency;
➢The study is carried out taking account the stablished by the WFD.
1 Km
Valongo
Maia
Gondomar
Porto
Main objectives:
➢ Characterization of the Tinto river ecological state;
➢ Detection of the main sources of environmental disturbance;
➢ Preparation of proposals for measures to improve the
ecological status of the river.
1
2
17/09/2019
2
Tinto river
Is a small urban watercourse in the north of Portugal belonging to the Douro river basin with about
11 km long;
Has many sources of environmental disturbance such as: channelization, waste disposal, effluent
reception of wastewater treatment plants and of untreated urban and industrial effluents.
Main objectives
Study of some parameters related to the ecological state of Tinto river;
Study the effect of two wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs)
discharges on the structure of the benthic macroinvertebrate
communities of the Tinto River;
Relate the composition of the macroinvertebrate communities and the
environmental conditions.
3
4
17/09/2019
3
(1)
(2)
(3) (4)(5)
(7)
(8) (9)
(10) (11)
(13)(12)
(14)
(6)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 5,5 6 6,5 7 7,5 8 8,5 9 9,5 10 10,5 11 11,5 12
Hig
hn
ess
(m)
Distance to the source (Km)
Tipology (DQA): Small Northern (N1; <= 100)
N
0,5 Km
The sampling sites
B
B
H
H
K
K
L
L
M
M
N
N
Meiral WWTP
Granja
creek
Freixo WWTP
Methodology
Environmental parameters
➢Hydro-morphological parameters (every six
months, between oct’15 and jul’17):
✓substrate composition, habitat quality,
macrophytes (%), canopy (%) and flow
➢Physical and chemical parameters (every months
between oct’15 and jul’17):
✓pH, conductivity, oxygen saturation,
BOD5, NH4+, NO3
- , NO2- , Ptotal
Benthic macroinvertebrates
➢ Sampling:
✓ With a hand net
✓ Every 3 months between december’15
and july’17 (dec’15, mar’16, jun’16, sep’16,
dec’16, mar’17 and jun’17)
Index and metrics:➢Hydromorphological parameters:
✓ Habitat quality (AVH and QBR)
➢Macroinvertebrate communities:✓Some metrics✓Biotic indexes: RQE and IBMWP ✓Shannon´s diversity index and Pielou evenness
index✓Classification of organisms into their functional
and ecological groups
➢Spatial variation of all parameters
➢N-MDS analysis of macroinvertebrates
grouped according a CLUSTER analysis into
functional groups and taxa and with the validation
of the number of clusters by ANOSIM analysis
➢Ordination of the sampling sites made by a PCA
attending the mean values of the environmental
parameters and the metrics calculated with the
macroinvertebrate data
Data analysis
Parameters
5
6
17/09/2019
4
Hydro morphological parameters
Substrate composition
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
oct
'15
apr'
16
oct
'16
apr'
17
oct
'15
apr'
16
oct
'16
apr'
17
oct
'15
apr'
16
oct
'16
apr'
17
oct
'15
apr'
16
oct
'16
apr'
17
oct
'15
apr'
16
oct
'16
apr'
17
oct
'15
apr'
16
oct
'16
apr'
17
Site B Site H Site K Site L Site M Site N
Sampling sites/dates
mud silt gravel pebble cobble small blocks blocks
Dominance of material with larger diameter
Hydro morphological parameters
Macrophytes and canopy
High canopy → low urbanized areasHigh percentage of macrophytes
Flow
%
Sampling sitesB H K L M N
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
% macrophytes
% canopy
Median
25%-75%
Min-Max
B H K L M N
Sampling sites
0,0
0,4
0,8
1,2
1,6
2,0
2,4
2,8
Flo
w(m
3 /s)
Median
25%-75%
Min-Max
7
8
17/09/2019
5
Habitat Quality
Very Good Good Medium Bad Very bad
B H K L M N
AVH
oct'15 101 130 115 129 138 128
apr'16 103 132 117 131 136 124
oct'16 78 138 115 150 155 123
apr'17 84 115 91 136 147 108
QBR
oct'15 5 20 15 30 40 45
apr'16 5 20 15 30 40 45
oct'16 0 15 0 40 45 45
apr'17 0 20 0 35 60 60
Bad and very bad quality → urban character of watercourse
Some potencial to suport aquatic life, even with some disturbance of
natural features
Hydro morphological parameters
↑ Macrophytes
↓Flow
More urbanized
areas
B
H
K
L
M
N
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Factor 1: 78,83%
-1,5
-1,0
-0,5
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
Fac
tor
2: 1
7,77
%
% Macrophyte
% Cannopy
QBR
AVH
Flow
-1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0
Factor 1 : 78,83%
-1,0
-0,5
0,0
0,5
1,0
Fac
tor
2 :
17,7
7%
↑ QBR
↑ Flow
9
10
17/09/2019
6
WFD: % O2 between 60% and 120%;
Chemical parameters
Oxygen saturation and BOD5pH and Condutivity
pHCondutivity
B H K L M NSampling sites
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
pH
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Co
nd
uti
vity
(µS
/cm
)
WFD: pH: between 6 and 9 (The limits can be overcome by natural situations)
B H K L M NSampling sites
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
% O
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
BO
D5
(mg
O2/
L)
% O2
BOD5
Median
25%-75%
Min-Max
BOD5 <= 6 mg O2/L
WFD: NO3- <=25 mg NO3
-/L;
Median
25%-75%
Min-Max
Chemical parameters
Nitrates, Nitrites and Ammonium Total phosphorous
B H K L M N
Sampling sites
0
1
2
3
4
5
Tota
l Ph
osp
ho
rou
s(m
g/L
)
WFD: Total phosphorous: <= 0,1mg P/L
Am
mo
niu
man
dN
itri
tes
(mg
/L)
B H K L M N
Sampling sites
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Nit
rate
s (m
g/L
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
NitratesNitrites
Ammonium
NH4+ <= 1 mg NH4
+/L
11
12
17/09/2019
7
Chemical parameters
B
HK
L MN
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4Factor 1: 76,41%
-1,5
-1,0
-0,5
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
Fac
tor
2: 1
2,66
%
pH
% O2BOD5
NitratesNitrites
Ammonium
P total
-1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0Factor 1 : 76,41%
-1,0
-0,5
0,0
0,5
1,0
Condutivity
Fac
tor
2 :
12,6
6%
Lower degree of pollution:
↓Condutivity
↑ O2
↓BOD 5↓Nutrients
Some organic
pollution
(upstream the
wwtp’s)
High polluted sites
(downstream the wwtp’s):
↑ Condutivity
↓ O2
↑ BOD 5↑ Nutrients
Macroinvertebrates: richness and abundance
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
B H K L M N
Nu
mb
ero
fo
rgan
ism
s
Sampling sites
Richness
Abundance
0
10
20
30
40
B H K L M N
Nu
mb
ero
ffa
mili
es
Sampling sites
Median
25%-75%
Min-Max
B H K L M N
Sampling sites
0
2
4
6
8
10
Nu
mb
ero
fta
xa (S
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Nn
mb
ero
fo
rgan
ism
s(n
)
S
n
13
14
17/09/2019
8
Macroinvertebrates: diversity and equitability
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
B H K L M N
Shan
non’s
div
ersi
ty
Sampling sites
0,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
1,00
B H K L M N
Pie
lou
equ
itab
iliy
Sampling sites
Equitability
Diversity
B H K L M N
Sampling sites
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
Sh
ann
on
div
ersi
ty(H
')
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Pie
lou
equ
itab
ility
(E)
Median
25%-75%
Min-Max
H’
P
Macroinvertebrates: EPT and Diptera taxa
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
B H K L M N
Nu
mb
ero
ffa
mili
es
Sampling sites
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
B H K L M N
Nu
mb
ero
ffa
mili
es
Sampling sites
Diptera families
EPT families
Median
25%-75%
Min-Max
B H K L M N
Sampling sites
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Nu
mb
ero
ffa
mili
es
EPT
Diptera
15
16
17/09/2019
9
Macroinvertebrates: % CHIRONOMIDAE & % Trichoptera
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
B H K L M N
% o
fo
rgan
ism
s
Sampling sites
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
B H K L M N
% o
fo
rgan
ism
s
Sampling sites
% Trichoptera
% CHIRONOMIDAE
Median
25%-75%
Min-Max
B H K L M N
Sampling sites
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
% o
fo
rgan
ism
s
% Trichoptera
% Diptera
Macroinvertebrates: metrics
B
H
KL
M
N
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4Factor 1: 59,02%
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Fac
tor
2: 2
2,23
%
abundance
number of taxa
Diversity
Equitability
EPT
Diptera
% CHIRONOMIDAE
% Trichoptera
% clingers% reophiles
% branchial and cutaneous
-1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0
Factor 1 : 59,02%
-1,0
-0,5
0,0
0,5
1,0
Fac
tor
2 :
22,2
3%
High polluted sites
(downstream the wwtp’s):
↑ %CHIRONOMIDAE
↓EPT and Trichoptera
↓Branchial and cutaneous
breathers
Lower degree of pollution:
↑ % of Trichoptera
↑ number of organisms
↑ number of taxa
Some organic pollution (upstream the wwtp’s):
↑% of CHIRONOMIDAE
↑% of clingers
↑% of reophiles
17
19
17/09/2019
10
Macroinvertebrates: taxa Composition
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
Site B Site H Site K Site L Site M Site N
Samples (sites/dates)
Annelida e plathylelminthes Mollusca Crustacea Ephemeroptera Odonata Coleoptera Trichoptera Diptera
• Communities constituted by a great amount of Annelida and Diptera with presence of
some Ephemeroptera (Baetis) and Mollusca
• Downstream the WWTP there are a decrease of the Ephemeroptera and of diversitity
Macroinvertebrates: taxa Composition
ANOSIM test: Rglobal = 0,96
Taxa
Mean of each taxa in each cluster
Annelida & plathylelminthes
MolluscaCrustacea
Ephemeroptera
Odonata
Coleoptera
TrichopteraDiptera
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
%
Cluster 1Cluster 2Cluster 3
Stress: 0,07
● dec’15 ● dec’16 ● mar’16 ● mar’17 ● jun’16 ● jun’17 ● sep’16
B
H
KL
MN
B
H
K
L
MN
HKL
M
N
B
H
K
LM
B
HK
LMN
B
HK
LM
B
H
K
LMN
N
B
N
Cluster 2
Cluster 1
Cluster 3
Cluster 1:
• Dominance of Annelida and presence of some
Ephemeroptera and Diptera
• Most of samples collected downstream the WWTP
Cluster 3:
• Dominance of Diptera and presence of some
Annelida and Ephemeroptera
• Include all samples collected at sites H and M
(upstream each WWTP)
Cluster 2:
• Dominance of Mollusca and presence of some
Ephemeroptera and Diptera
• Only samples collected at sites B and K (upstream
the WWTP)
20
21
17/09/2019
11
Macroinvertebrates: breathing groups
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
Site B Site H Site K Site L Site M Site N
Samples (sites/dates)
aerial branchial aerial & branchial branchial & cutaneous cutaneous pulmonar special
Communities constituted by organisms with branchial, branchial & cutaneous and special type of breathing
• Dominance of special type of breathing at sites L, M and N → sites with low concentration of dissolved
oxygen
Macroinvertebrates: breathing groups
ANOSIM test: Rglobal = 0,959
B H
K
B
H
K
L
N
B
H
K
L
M
N
B
H
KL
B
HK
M
N
B
H
K
M
N
BH
K
L
M
N
L
N
M
M
M
LN
Stress: 0,07
● dec’15 ● dec’16 ● mar’16 ● mar’17 ● jun’16 ● jun’17 ● sep’16
Mean of each breathing group in each cluster
aerial
branchial
aerial & branchial
branchial & cutaneous
cutaneous
pulmonar
special
Breathing groups
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Cluster 1Cluster 2Cluster 3
0
%
Cluster 3
Cluster 2
Cluster 1
Cluster 1:
• organisms that can survive under conditions of low oxygen
concentration such as some Oligochaeta and CHIRONOMIDAE
• Most of samples of sites L and N (downstream the WWTP)
Cluster 2:
• Dominance of organisms with branchial and
cutaneous breathing (CHIRONOMIDAE)
• Samples collected at all sites
Cluster 3:
• Dominance of organisms with pulmonar
breathing (some Mollusca)
• Samples collected only at sites B and K
22
23
17/09/2019
12
Macroinvertebrates: feeding groups
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
Site B Site H Site K Site L Site M Site N
Samples (sites/dates)
collectors limnivorous predators scrappers shredder
No great difference between the sampling sites:
• Downstream the WWTP discharges (sites L and N) there are an increase of limnivorous →
increase of organic matter on the river bed
Macroinvertebrates: feeding groups
ANOSIM test: Rglobal = 0,8
B
H
K
M
N
BH
KL
M
N
BH
K
MNB
H
K
L
MN
B
H
K
L M
BH
KL
M
N
B
H
K
L
M
N
L
L
N
K
Stress: 0,13
Mean of each feeding group in each cluster
colletorslimnivorous
predadorsscrappers
shredders
Feeding groups
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
%
Cluster 1Cluster 2Cluster 3
● dec’15 ● dec’16 ● mar’16 ● mar’17 ● jun’16 ● jun’17 ● sep’16
Cluster 3
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Cluster 1:
• Dominance of collectors and the major diversity of feeding types
• Most of samples collected at sites B, H and K (upstream the
WWTP’s)
Cluster 2:
• Dominance of shredders
• Presence of collectors and limnivorous
• Sites H, M and L (at the area influenced by the WWTP)
Cluster 3:
• Dominance of limnivorous
• Most of samples collected downstream the
WWTP (sites L and N)
24
25
17/09/2019
13
Macroinvertebrates: habitat/locomotion preferences
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
Site B Site H Site K Site L Site M Site N
Samples (sites/dates)
clingers burrowers divers swimmers sprawlers climbers
• Sites L and M (downstream the WWTP) → predominance of organisms living buried in the
substrate
• Other samples: clingers, swimmers and climbers
Macroinvertebrates: habitat/locomotion preferences
ANOSIM test: Rglobal = 0,879B
HK
L
M
N
B
H
K
L
M
N
K M
N
B
H
K
L
M
NB
H
K
L
M
N
B
HK
L
M
N
B
H
K
L
MNB
LH
Mean of each habitat/locomotion group in each cluster
clingersburrowers
diversswimmers
sprawlersclimbers
Habitat/locomotion preferences
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
%
Cluster 1Cluster 2Cluster 3
Stress: 0,08
● dec’15 ● dec’16 ● mar’16 ● mar’17 ● jun’16 ● jun’17 ● sep’16
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Cluster 3
Cluster 1:
• Dominance of burrowers
• Most of samples collected at sites L and N
(downstream of WWTP)
Cluster 2:
• Dominance of climbers and presence of some
burrowers and swimmers
• Samples of all sampling sites
Cluster 3:
• The greatest diversity of organisms
• Most of samples collected at sites B, H and K
(upstream of WWTP’s)
26
27
17/09/2019
14
Macroinvertebrates: flow preferences
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
Site B Site H Site K Site L Site M Site N
Samples (sites/dates)
limnophiles most limnophiles reophiles most reophiles
Communities adapted to running water with presence of organisms that can survive in
conditions of low flow:
• According with the variability of the hydrological conditions
Macroinvertebrates: flow preferences
ANOSIM test: Rglobal = 0,857
B
H
K
L
M
N
B
H
K
L
M
N
BH
L
M
N
B
HK
M
N
B
H
K
L
M
N
B
K
M
B
H
K
L
M
N
K
HL
L
N
Stress: 0,01
Mean of each flow preference group in each cluster
limnophilesmost limnophiles
reophilesmost reophiles
Flow preferences
0
20
40
60
80
%
Cluster 1Cluster 2Cluster 3
● dec’15 ● dec’16 ● mar’16 ● mar’17 ● jun’16 ● jun’17 ● sep’16
Cluster 2
Cluster 3
Cluster 1
Cluster 1:
• Dominance of most limnophiles
• Most of samples of sites K, L and N
Cluster 2:
• Dominance of reophiles
• Samples of sites B and H (upper part of the river)
Cluster 3:
• Most limnophiles and most reophiles
• Samples of sites M and N
28
29
17/09/2019
15
Macroinvertebrates: IBMWP score
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
dec
'15
mar
'16
jun
'16
sep
'16
dec
'16
mar
'17
jun
'17
Site B Site H Site K Site L Site M Site N
Samples (sites/dates)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Communities constituted by organisms with low sensitive to pollution (score 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5)
• Predominance of Oligochaeta and Diptera (CHIRONOMIDAE and SIMULIIDAE)
• Presence of some BAETIDAE and Mollusca
Macroinvertebrates: IBMWP score
ANOSIM test: Rglobal = 0,831
B
H
KL
M
N
B
H
KL
M N
B
K L
M
N
BL
M
N
B
H
K
LMN
B
H
KL
M NB
K
L
M N
HH
K
H
Stress: 0,11
IBMWP scores
● dec’15 ● dec’16 ● mar’16 ● mar’17 ● jun’16 ● jun’17 ● sep’16
Mean of each IBMWP score in each cluster
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
%
Cluster 1Cluster 2Cluster 3
Cluster 3
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Cluster 1:
• Presence of organisms with a lower tolerance to pollution
• Only samples of sites B, H and K (upstream the WWTP’s)
Cluster 2:
• Dominance of organisms with score 2
(CHIRONOMIDAE)
• Samples collected at site M, L and K
Cluster 3:
• Dominance of organisms with score 1 (Oligochaeta)
• All samples collected at site N
30
31
17/09/2019
16
Macroinvertebrates: biological quality
Very Good Good Medium Bad Very bad
B H K L M N
IBMWP
dec'15 36 29 20 11 7 12
mar'16 7 24 19 12 16 21
jun'16 16 33 19 16 15 12
sep'16 20 32 17 12 21 11
dec'16 28 15 30 23 12 7
mar'17 36 21 25 19 12 12
jun'17 27 15 21 9 8 11
EQN
dec'15 0,32 0,27 0,22 0,19 0,14 0,21
mar'16 0,17 0,24 0,22 0,22 0,24 0,23
jun'16 0,23 0,28 0,35 0,23 0,21 0,18
sep'16 0,25 0,27 0,22 0,23 0,23 0,20
dec'16 0,26 0,22 0,29 0,21 0,21 0,09
mar'17 0,34 0,22 0,25 0,25 0,20 0,20
jun'17 0,27 0,22 0,22 0,10 0,13 0,30
Conclusions
➢ After analyzing the data collected it turns out that the ecological status along the Tinto river varies
between insufficient and bad due to:
▪ Problems on the water quality level as seems to indicate the analysis of physical-chemical
parameters and benthic macroinvertebrate communities;
▪ Sectors of the Tinto river in which the ”natural” hydro-morphological characteristics are quite
changed (channelization, urban occupation of the banks);
▪ The communities of macroinvertebrates are:
✓ Poor of the taxonomic point of view and presents relatively low values of diversity;
✓ Are dominated by organisms belonging to Annelida and Diptera with some presence of other faunal groups
such as Ephemeroptera and Mollusca that are organisms that:
✓ are adaptated the all levels of dissolved oxygen in the water;
o Collectors, shredders and limnivorous;
o prefer living buried in the substrate or in the water column (swimmer organisms)
32
33
17/09/2019
17
Conclusions
➢ The last 4 Km’s of the river are those that present a worse quality which is due to the
presence of discharges of two wastewater treatment plants that seems to increase the
pollution level of the river where it is possible to observe some features
✓ A decrease of the oxygen concentration and an increase of organic matter in the river:
o Higher values of nitrates, phosphorous, and fine sediments;
o Higher values of BOD5 and conductivity.
✓ Communities of benthic macroinvertebrates dominated by the Oligochaeta:
o That can survive under low oxygen conditions;
o That live burrowed in the substrate where they can find their food and habitat.
• Flow (m3/s)Hydro
morphological
Conditions
(average values)
Macroinvertebrate
Communities
(average values
and
characterization)
Physico Chemical
Conditions
(average values)
• Canopy
• Macrophytes
• 0,05
• 4%
• 35%
• 0,3 - 0,5
• 0% - 2%
• 13% - 15%
• 0,6 – 1,2
• 11% - 43%
• 5% - 7%
•Conductivity (µS/cm)
•BOD5 (mg O2/L)
•NH4+ (mg/L)
• 166
• 7,5
• 0,03
• 292 - 310
• 6,4 -9,3
• 0,95 - 1,25
• 396 - 460
• 15,4 – 17,1
• 1,3 - 2,2
•NO3-(mg/L) • 0,06 • 0,93 – 1,81 • 3,4 – 6,4
•Organisms (number)
Characterisation
• 13 • 10 - 11 • 6 - 7•Taxa (number)
•90
Greater diversity of taxa:
• Diptera≿Oligochaeta
≿Ephemeroptera
• Some times it is possible
to find some Odonata,
Coleoptera and
Trichoptera
•790 - 1400
Communities
constituted mainly
by Diptera,
Oligochaeta and
Ephemeroptera
•520 - 970
There are a
dominance by
Annelida but
sometimes it is
possible observe
some Ephemroptera
Resume
Site B Sites H, K Sites L, M, N
34
35
17/09/2019
18
The future
➢ In order to solve the main problems founded the following works are being performed:
✓ repair of one lifting station that causes discharges of effluents in one of the first tributaries of the
Tinto river amd which is a responsible for the decrease of qulity between sites B and H
✓ Construction of an interceptor that will receive the effluents from the WWTP’s and that will take
them after treatment to a river with a much higher flow rate (the Douro River)
➢ These discharges are the responsible for the great decrease of quality of rio Tinto
✓ rehabilitation of the banks and the creation of a green corridor along most of the course of the
river
Thank you!!!
36
37