UDC

581.526.325.2

DOI

10.3897/issn2541-8416.2019.19.1.43

Authors

NG Otchenash¹, GA Dvoryankin^2,3, EN Imant^2
1 Northern Branch of the Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography (Arkhangelsk, Russia)
² N. Laverov Federal Centre for Integrated Arctic Research (Arkhangelsk, Russia)
³ Kenozersky National Park (Arkhangelsk, Russia)
Corresponding author: Natalia Otchenash (otchenasch@pinro.ru)

Abstract

Phytoplankton constitutes a key part of all aquatic ecosystems. It produces organic matter, thus forming the first level of food chains in water bodies. In addition, phytoplankton plays a major role in the water quality formation. The studies of algocoenosis always remain relevant, since the obtained data provides important information on the ecological status of water bodies. This information can subsequently be used for planning and implementing environmental measures, which are particularly significant for water bodies located in specially protected areas. National parks existing for the purposes of nature preservation, education and research are also designed for tourism, which makes their ecosystems more vulnerable. Population residing in such territories and its economic activity may also carry some environmental risks, which necessitates regular complex observations. This paper covers the state of spring phytoplankton community of Lake Kenozero in 2018, its qualitative and quantitative characteristics (species composition, abundance and biomass). In the course of research, we identified 70 phytoplankton taxa belonging to seven divisions: Bacillariophyta, Dinophyta, Chlorophyta, Cyanophyta, Chrysophyta, Xanthophyta and Euglenophyta. The dominant species complex included diatoms (Asterionella formosa, Melosira granulata, Tabellaria fenestrata), representatives of Dinophyta (Gymnodinium sp.), as well as small euglenoids. Species diversity was estimated using the Shannon-Weaver index. Aquatic environment contamination was assessed, i.e. the saprobity index was calculated and the class of surface water quality was determined. According to the water quality classification of water bodies and watercourses by hydrobiological indicators, Lake Kenozero was assigned the second class of water quality (moderately polluted).
Citation: Otchenash NG, Dvoryankin GA, Imant EN (2019) State of spring phytoplankton and quality of the Kenozero waters in 2018. Arctic Environmental Research 19(1): 43–48. https://doi.org/10.3897/issn2541-8416.2019.19.1.43

Keywords

Lake Kenozero, phytoplankton, abundance, biomass, surface water quality, saprobity index

References

1. Abakumov VA (1992) Guidelines for Hydrobiological Monitoring of Freshwater Ecosystems. Gidrometeoizdat, St. Petersburg, 318 pp.
2. Barinova SS, Medvedeva LA, Anisimova OV (2006) Biodiversity of Algal Indicators in Environmental Assessment. 498 pp.
3. Dvoryankin GA (2016) Fishes of the Kenozersky National Park. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation, Kenozersky National Park, Arkhangelsk, 100 pp.
4. Frank NA (1988) Study of the Phytoplankton Distribution Using Optical Methods. Nauka (Siberian Branch), Novosibirsk, 108 pp.
5. Gollerbakh MM, Polyansky VI (1953) Identification Guide for Freshwater Algae of the USSR. Vol. 2. Sov. Science Publ., Moscow, 652 pp.
6. Komarenko LE, Vasilyeva II (1975) Freshwater Diatoms and Blue-green Algae of the Water Bodies of Yakutia. Nauka, Moscow, 423 pp.
7. Komulaynen SF, Chekryzheva TA, Vislyanskaya IG (2006) Algal Flora of Lakes and Rivers of Karelia – Taxonomic Composition and Ecology. Karelian Research Centre of RAS, Petrozavodsk, 81 pp.
8. Krishtovich AN (1949a) Diatom Analysis. Vol. 2, Geol. lit. Publ., Moscow, 435 pp.
9. Krishtovich AN (1949b) Diatom Analysis. Vol. 3, Geol. lit. Publ., Moscow, 594 pp.
10. Kursanov LI (1953) Identification Guide for Lower Plants. Vol. 2, Sov. Science Publ., Moscow, 312 pp.
11. Mikheeva TM (1999) Algal Flora of Belarus: A Taxonomic Catalogue. Minsk, 304–343.
12. RD 52.24.309-2016 (2016) Regulatory Document. Organisation and implementation of monitoring observations of the state and pollution of surface waters.
13. Shitikov VK, Rosenberg GS, Zinchenko TD (2003) Quantitative Hydroecology: Methods for System Identification. Institute of Ecology of the Volga River Basin, RAS, Tolyatti, 463 pp.
14. Unified methods for the study of water quality (1977a) Methods for Biological Analysis of Water. Annex 1 Saprobity indicators. Moscow, 91 pp.
15. Unified methods for the study of water quality (1977b) Methods for Biological Analysis of Water. Annex 2. Atlas of saprobes. Moscow, 227 pp.
16. Zmetnaya MI, Novikova YuV (2015) Current state of the phytoplankton community and surface water quality in the delta of Northern Dvina. Vestnik of Northern (Arctic) Federal University, Arkhangelsk, 44–55. https://doi.org/10.17238/ issn2227-6572.2015.4.44