Advances in Environmental Biology Pongpan Leelahakriengkrai and

Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 248-254
AENSI Journals
Advances in Environmental Biology
Journal home page: http://www.aensiweb.com/aeb.html
Evaluation of the Trophic Benthic Diatom Index in some Main Rivers of Thailand
1
Pongpan Leelahakriengkrai and 2Yuwadee Peerapornpisal
1
Biology Section, Department of Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, Chiang Mai Rajabhat University, Chiang Mai 50300,
Thailand
2
Microbiology Section, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received 15 December 2013
Received in revised form 14
February 2014
Accepted 20 February 2014
Available online 1 March 2014
Key words:
Thailand Diatoms Index, indicator
values, water quality
ABSTRACT
The evaluation of the trophic benthic diatom index in 6 rivers of Thailand. Samples
were collected from 6 regions in Thailand: Ping River (northern regions), Tha Chin
River (central regions), Chi River (northeast regions), Chanthaburi River (eastern
regions), Kwai River (western regions) and Tapee River (southern regions). Samples
were taken from the upper, middle and lower parts during March 2008, August 2008
and January 2009. A total of 214 species of benthic diatoms were found and 104
species of benthic diatoms with high relative abundance (>1%) in each site were
selected to establish the Thailand Diatoms Index. The estimation of indicator values
were classified into seven classes that were based on a weighted averages approach
(WAs) and these were calculated based on the major environmental factors of BOD5,
nitrate nitrogen ammonia nitrogen and SRP with an abundance of benthic diatoms from
each site. In this investigation, the ranges of indicator values were 2.3-4.8. The
comparison of indicator values of the Thailand Diatoms Index with other Thailand
indexes showed no more difference in indicator value but showed a high difference of
indicator value when compared with other the indexes of other foreign countries thus,
the Thailand Diatoms Index is considered appropriate to indicate the trophic status for
rivers of Thailand.
© 2014 AENSI Publisher All rights reserved.
To Cite This Article: Pongpan Leelahakriengkrai and Yuwadee Peerapornpisal., Evaluation of the Trophic Benthic Diatom Index in some
Main Rivers of Thailand. Adv. Environ. Biol., 8(1), 248-254, 2014
INTRODUCTION
The classification of river health based on the diatom index has been developed and widely used in many
countries. Currently the array of indices used include the Specific Polluosensitivity Index (SPI) [2], the
Saprobity Index (SI) [35], the Diatom Assemblage Index for organic pollution (DAIpo) [47], Generic Diatom
Index (GDI) [33], the European Economic Community index (EEC) [3], the Trophic Index of van Dam [44], the
Trophic Diatom Index (TDI) [13], the Saprobic Index of Rott [32] and the standardized Biological Diatom Index
(BDI) [23]. Nevertheless, all of these indices have only been used in European countries.
In Asia, a few studies have focused on the benthic diatom index. Jüttner et al. [10] used diatoms as
indicators of stream quality assessment in the Kathmandu Valley and the Middle Hills of Nepal and India. Tang
et al. [41] investigated the use of epilithic diatom communities to assess the ecological conditions of the Xiangxi
River and developed the River Diatom Index (RDI) in the rivers of China. In Thailand there only three diatom
indexes have been recorded, for the first index, twenty-five species of diatoms were scored and listed in the Mae
Sa Diatom Index by Pekthong [28]. The second index, Kunpradid [20] proposed the use of 25 selected species
of diatoms for the index establishment in the Ping and Nan Rivers. Regarding the third index, 29 species were
the most abundant sources of benthic diatoms and were listed in the Mekong Diatom Index and the index by
Suphan [40].
The results of this study showed the preparation of benthic diatoms index which was used to assess the
trophic staus in rivers of Thailand.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The samples were collected from the main rivers in 6 regions of Thailand. The Ping River (northern
region), the Tha Chin River (central region), the Chi River (northeastern region), the Kwai River (western
region), the Chanthaburi River (eastern region) and the Tapee River (southern region) were selected under the
Corresponding Author: Pongpan Leelahakriengkrai, Biology Section, Department of Science, Faculty of Science and
Technology, Chiang Mai Rajabhat University, Chiang Mai 50300, Thailand.
E-mail: [email protected]
249
Pongpan Leelahakriengkrai and Yuwadee Peerapornpisal et al, 2014
Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 248-254
criteria of geological and land use differences (Fig. 1). The water and the benthic diatoms samples were
collected from the upper, middle and lower parts of each river, some physical and chemical parameters were
studied in the summer, rainy and cool dry seasons from March 2008–January 2009. Benthic diatom samples
were cleaned by the concentrated acid digestion method and were prepared on the permanent slides [14, 22,31].
The samples were identified and counted according to Krammer and Lange-Bertalot [16, 17,18, 19], LangeBertalot [21], and Kelly and Haworth [15].
Fig. 1: Map of Thailand showing the Ping, Tha Chin, Chi, Kwai, Tapee and Chanthaburi Rivers and sampling
sites (•).
The methods used to prepare the Thailand Index were applied Kelly and Whitton [13] and Kelly [12]. The
estimation of indicator values was based on a weighted averages approach (WAs). Was were calculated based
on water quality variables and abundance of organisms from each site. The major environment factors including
BOD5, nitrate nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen and SRP were classified to seven classes (Table 1) according to
Lorraine and Vollenweider [24], Wetzel [48], Peerapornpisal et al. [27], Jones and Medrano [8] and Pollution
Control Department [29]. Indicator values were averaged from 4 major environment factors and compared with
the trophic status in table 1. WAs were calculated from the formula (1) below:
n
∑(X
WA jk =
i =1
ij
(1)
n
∑X
i =1
Where WA jk
·Yik )
ij
= the weighted average of taxon j for water quality factor k
= the the persent relative of taxon j at site i
X ij
= the kth water quality factor at site i
Y ik
n
= the number of sites at which the jth taxon was present
Calculate the sample index from the formula (2) below:
Sample index =
∑ Relative Abundant X Average Indicator values
∑ Relative Abundant
(2)
250
Pongpan Leelahakriengkrai and Yuwadee Peerapornpisal et al, 2014
Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 248-254
Table 1: The seven classes include BOD, ammonium nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, SRP and the scores for calculating the Thailand Index.
Scores
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
BOD
<0.5
0.5-1.0
1.0-2.0
2.0-4.0
4.0-10.0
10.0-20.0
>20
(mg.l-1)
Nitrate -N
<0.01
0.01-0.19
0.20-0.39
0.40-0.79
0.80-1.90
2.0-10.0
>10.0
(mg.l-1)
Ammonium-N
<0.01
0.01-0.19
0.20-0.39
0.40-0.59
0.60-0.99
1.0-5.0
>5.0
(mg.l-1)
SRP
<0.01
0.02-0.04
0.05-0.06
0.07-0.19
0.20-0.99
1.0-3.0
>3.0
(mg.l-1)
Trophic
hyperoligooligomesomesoeutrophic
hyperStatus
oligo
trophic
meso
trophic
eutrophic
eutrophic
trophic
trophic
Source: Modified from Lorraine and Vollenweider [24], Wetzel [48], Peerapornpisal et al. [27], Jones and Medrano [8] and Pollution
Control Department [29].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A total of 214 species of benthic diatoms were found [22] and total of 104 species of benthic diatoms were
selected to establish a benthic diatoms Index which was more than other indexes of Thailand [20, 28, 40] (Table
2). This was because this study selected species with a high relative abundance (>1%) in each site which
followed the reports of Kelly and Whitton [13] and Kelly [12]. In that study, 23 species were found in the other
Thailand index with no more difference found in indicator value. The ranges of indicator values were between
2.3-4.8. Aulacoseira granulata, Cyclotella meneghiniana, Diadesmis confervacea, Diploneis elliptica,
Gomphosphenia tenerrima, Luticola permuticoides, Navicula cryptocephaloides, Navicula recens, Navicula
subminuscula, Navicula viridula, Nitzschia palea, Pinnularia microstauron, Pinnularia sp.3 and Pleurosigma
salinarum were shown in high values which was similar to that which was reported by Palmer [26], Whitmore
[49], Gomez [6], Güttinger and Straub [7], Jüttner et al. [10], Stenger-Kovács et al. [38], Duong et al. [4] and
García et al. [5]. They all reported the finding of these species indicated that they were tolerant to organic
pollution. Cymbella amphicephala, Cymbella subaequalis, Cymbella japonica, Fallacia insociabilis and
Synedra acus were found at low values which was similarly to that which was reported by Chen and Wu [1],
Wan Maznah and Mansor [45], Lobo et al. [23], Sahun [34], Stenger-Kovács et al. [38], Wang et al. [46] and
Jüttner et al. [11]. They reported that these species could be the oligo-mesotrophic indicator species.
Table 2: Benthic diatoms taxa showed wighted averages (WA) and indicator values (IV) used for calculating the trophic status in the rivers
of Thailand.
Taxa
WA
WA
WA
WA
IV
IV
IV
IV
Average
(BOD)
(NO3-N)
(NH4-N)
(SRP)
(BOD) (NO3-N) (NH4-N) (SRP)
Achnanthes exigua
3.2
0.3
0.36
0.21
4
3
4
5
4
Achnanthes oblongella
2.7
0.43
0.18
0.09
4
4
3
4
3.8
Achnanthidium jackii
2.3
0.47
0.15
0.31
4
4
3
5
4
Achnanthidium minutissimum
3
0.09
0.66
0.63
4
2
5
5
4
Achnanthidium saprophilum
2.5
0.11
0.96
0.53
4
2
5
5
4
Adlafia sp.1
2
0.33
0.13
0.04
3
3
3
2
2.8
Amphora montana
2.2
0.38
0.22
0.14
4
3
4
4
3.8
Aulacoseira granulata
4.4
0.34
0.41
0.4
5
3
5
5
4.5
Brachysira neoexilis
3.9
0.15
0.14
0.11
4
2
3
4
3.3
Brachysira vitrea
3.3
0.27
0.17
0.09
4
3
3
4
3.5
Cocconeis placentula
2.8
0.29
0.15
0.09
4
3
3
4
3.5
Craticula molestiformis
3.4
0.22
0.22
0.29
4
3
4
5
4
Cyclotella pseudostelligera
3.6
0.11
0.46
0.95
4
2
5
5
4
Cyclotella meneghiniana
4.5
0.37
0.57
0.49
5
3
5
5
4.5
Cymbella affinis
3
0.16
0.15
0.12
4
2
3
4
3.3
Cymbella amphicephala
0.3
0.27
0.05
0.12
1
3
2
4
2.5
Cymbella helvetica
2
0.75
0.46
0.14
3
4
5
4
4
Cymbella japonica
0.48
0.33
0.09
0.06
1
3
2
3
2.3
Cymbella leptoceros
2.8
0.18
0.13
0.19
4
2
3
4
3.3
Cymbella minuta
1.9
0.29
0.1
0.12
3
3
3
4
3.3
Cymbella subaequalis
3.8
0.23
0.09
0.04
4
3
2
2
2.8
Cymbella tumida
1.6
0.33
0.26
0.06
3
3
4
3
3.3
Cymbella turgidula
3.3
0.2
0.26
0.12
4
3
4
4
3.8
Diadesmis confervacea
5.6
0.51
0.71
0.44
5
4
5
5
4.8
Diadesmis contenta
2.4
0.33
0.12
0.15
4
3
3
4
3.5
Diploneis elliptica
5.2
0.29
0.61
0.52
5
3
5
5
4.5
Encyonema gracile
1.8
0.17
0.13
0.29
3
2
3
5
3.3
251
Pongpan Leelahakriengkrai and Yuwadee Peerapornpisal et al, 2014
Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 248-254
Table 2: (continue)
Taxa
Encyonema mesianum
Encyonema minutum
Encyonopsis krammeri
Encyonopsis microcephala
Encyonopsis minuta
Eunotia bilunaris
Eunotia camelus
Eunotia naegelii
Fallacia insociabilis
Fragilaria capucina
Fragilaria crotonensis
Fragilaria fasciculata
Frustulia rhomboides
Gomphonema affine
Gomphonema clavatum
Gomphonema clevei
Gomphonema gracile
Gomphonema hebridense
Gomphonema helveticum
Gomphonema lagenula
Gomphonema parvulum
Gomphonema pumilum
Gomphonema sp.1
Gomphosphenia tenerrima
Hippodonta
lueneburgensis
Luticola goeppertiana
Luticola mutica
Luticola permuticoides
Mayamaea atomus
Navicula angusta
Navicula capitatoradiata
Navicula
cryptocephaloides
Navicula cinctaeformis
Navicula cryptocephala
Navicula cryptotenella
Navicula erifuga
Navicula germainii
Navicula minima
Navicula novaesiberica
Navicula phyllepta
Navicula radiosa
Navicula radiosafallax
Navicula recens
Navicula rhynchocephala
Navicula rostellata
Navicula subminuscula
Navicula symmetrica
Navicula viridula
Navicula sp.01
Navicula sp.02
Naviculadicta
nanogomphonema
Nitzschia amphibia
Nitzschia clausii
Nitzschia dissipata
Nitzschia draveillensis
Nitzschia intermedia
WA
(BOD)
WA
(NO3-N)
WA
(NH4-N)
WA
(SRP)
IV
(NO3-N)
IV
(NH4-N)
IV
(SRP)
Average
0.22
0.2
0.1
0.06
0.04
0.21
0.24
0.3
0.13
0.26
0.28
0.08
0.25
0.11
0.16
0.05
0.14
0.2
0.17
0.19
0.05
0.07
0.15
0.48
0.14
IV
(BOD
)
4
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
2
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
2
4
5
4
2.6
1.8
2.6
3
2.73
1.9
2
2.1
0.5
3.5
2.5
3.9
2
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.2
1.9
1.4
2.6
2.1
0.7
2.6
4.2
3.4
0.4
0.3
0.13
0.26
0.32
0.37
0.22
0.19
0.27
0.46
0.48
0.18
0.29
0.59
0.38
0.25
0.26
0.22
0.36
0.33
0.38
0.68
0.38
0.26
0.17
0.19
0.17
0.23
0.18
0.2
0.21
0.15
0.18
0.07
0.34
0.2
0.12
0.12
0.16
0.4
0.06
0.17
0.16
0.12
0.33
0.26
0.32
0.34
0.38
0.41
4
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
4
2
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
2
4
4
3
3
3
5
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
5
5
5
5
4
3
2
5
5
5
4
5
5
4
5
4
4
3
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
5
4
4
3.5
3.5
3.3
3.3
3.8
3.5
3.5
2.8
4.3
4.3
3.3
3.5
3.8
4
3
3.5
3.5
3.3
3.8
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
3.8
3.2
2.7
4.7
1.4
2.8
4.1
5.2
0.25
0.33
0.39
0.19
0.35
0.22
0.26
0.27
0.2
0.56
0.49
0.12
0.16
0.56
0.18
0.04
0.25
0.07
0.18
0.12
0.48
4
4
5
3
4
5
5
3
3
4
2
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
3
3
5
4
2
5
4
4
4
5
3.8
3.3
4.8
3.5
3.5
3.8
4.5
2.5
2.9
3.9
3.2
3
1.8
3.6
2.6
1.6
0.6
5.3
2.8
3.4
3.2
2.6
5.4
5.1
2.4
2.4
0.4
0.49
0.23
0.21
0.47
0.29
0.26
0.32
0.23
0.8
0.27
0.45
0.35
0.65
0.32
0.44
0.24
0.29
0.47
0.4
0.15
0.14
0.36
0.32
0.22
0.18
0.29
0.17
0.37
0.44
0.13
0.35
0.69
0.26
0.65
0.15
0.1
0.28
0.16
0.13
0.09
0.26
0.19
0.12
0.13
0.16
0.2
0.06
0.57
0.17
0.21
0.26
0.12
0.31
0.13
0.1
0.14
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
2
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
5
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
5
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
5
3
4
5
4
5
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
5
3
5
4
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
4.3
3.8
3.5
4
3.8
3.5
3.5
3.8
3.5
3.5
4.5
3.8
4
4.5
3.8
4.8
3.8
3.5
4
3.3
2.4
1.8
3.5
1.4
0.2
0.32
0.34
0.32
0.26
0.1
0.27
0.27
0.22
0.19
0.1
0.12
0.09
0.08
0.11
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
3.5
3.8
3.5
3.8
3.3
252
Pongpan Leelahakriengkrai and Yuwadee Peerapornpisal et al, 2014
Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 248-254
Table 2: (continue)
Taxa
Nitzschia palea
Nitzschia scalpelliformis
Nitzschia sinuata var. tabellaria
Nitzschia subcohaerens
Nitzschia sp.1
Nitzschia sp.2
Pinnularia microstauron
Pinnularia mesolepta
Pinnularia sp.3
Planothidium lanceolatum
Pleurosigma salinarum
Rhopalodia gibba
Rhopalodia gibberula
Sellaphora pupula
Sellaphora seminulum
Seminavis strigosa
Surirella angusta
Synedra acus
Synedra ulna
Synedra ulna var. aequalis
Thalassiosira weissflogii
WA
(BOD)
3.3
3.7
3.8
3.5
2.5
2.1
5.5
1.8
5.1
2.5
4.6
2.9
3.1
3.4
2.7
3.7
1
2.1
1.4
2.3
2.3
WA
(NO3-N)
0.4
0.36
0.24
0.37
0.32
0.26
0.34
0.12
0.41
0.42
0.39
0.08
0.06
0.39
0.3
0.38
0.61
0.16
0.34
0.26
0.2
WA
(NH4-N)
0.51
0.48
0.17
0.24
0.19
0.56
0.72
0.11
0.48
0.42
0.46
0.22
0.22
0.67
0.25
0.38
0.33
0.16
0.11
0.13
0.14
WA
(SRP)
0.27
0.15
0.1
0.21
0.08
0.2
0.55
0.32
0.28
0.17
0.46
0.05
0.04
0.43
0.24
0.28
0.05
0.04
0.09
0.04
0.11
IV
(BOD)
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
3
5
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
3
4
4
IV
(NO3-N)
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
4
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
3
IV
(NH4-N)
5
5
3
4
3
4
5
3
5
5
5
4
4
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
IV
(SRP)
5
4
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
3
2
5
5
5
3
2
4
2
4
Average
4.5
4
3.5
4
3.5
4
4.5
3.3
4.8
4.3
4.5
3.3
3
4.3
4
4
3.3
2.8
3.3
3
3.5
Twenty-nine species were found in other international indexes [32, 44] and some species have no more
difference in indicator value such as Cymbella amphicephala, Gomphonema parvulum, Navicula symmetrica,
Nitzschia dissipata, Nitzschia palea, Sellaphora pupula. Moreover, Achnanthes oblongella, Eunotia bilunaris
and Navicula cryptotenella showed a high difference of indicator value which was similar to Stoermer and Smol
[39], Soininen et al. [37], Soininen and Könönen [36], Townsend and Gell [42] and Poulíčková et al. [30] who
reported that these species seem to be tolerant of a wide range of stream water qualities and are common,
cosmopolitan freshwater pennate diatoms. However, these species showed no more difference in indicator
value, which differs from many reports published out of Asia [9, 10, 20, 25, 28, 40, 43, 50].
The comparison of indicator values of the Thailand Diatoms Index with other Thailand indexes [20, 28, 40]
showed no more difference in indicator value but showed a high difference of indicator value when compared
with other the indexes of other foreign countries [32, 44] thus, the Thailand Diatoms Index is considered
appropriate to indicate the trophic status for rivers of Thailand.
Conclusion:
A total of 104 species of benthic diatoms from the 6 main rivers of Thailand were scored and listed in the
Thailand diatom index. This could be used to indicate the trophic status for other rivers of Thailand and differs
from other indexes in Thailand. The Thailand diatom index is appropriate for specific rivers and regions and this
conclusion is similar to that found in the previous reports of Yusano et al. [51], who suggested that the
usefulness of the index should be developed from the organisms in that area. However, this index was calculated
from data covering a year and produced a model of the Thailand diatom index. Thus, the process of producing
the Thailand diatom index should be considered a long-term investigation and more intensive research would be
necessary for both its development and accuracy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank the Biodiversity Research and Training Program (BRT), the Center of
Excellence on Environmental Health, Toxicology and Management of Chemicals (ETM) and the Graduate
School, Chiang Mai University for providing financial support.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
Chen, S.H. and J.T. Wu, 1999. Paleolimnological environment indicated by the diatom and pollen
assemblages in an alpine lake in Taiwan. Journal of Paleolimnology, 22: 149-158.
Coste, M., 1986. Les Methodes Microfloristiques d’evaluation de la qualite des euux. Cemagref,
Bordeaux, 15 pp + 46 annexes.
Descy, J.P. and M. Coste, 1991. A test of methods for assessing water quality based on diatoms.
Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie, 24: 2112-2116.
253
Pongpan Leelahakriengkrai and Yuwadee Peerapornpisal et al, 2014
Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 248-254
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
Duong, T., A. Mazel, M. Coste, D. Dang, and A. Boudou, 2007. Dynamics of diatom colonization process
in some rivers influenced by urban pollution (Hanoi, Vietnam). Ecological indicators, 7: 839-851.
García, L., C. Delgado and I. Pardo, 2008. Seasonal changes of benthic communities in a temporary
stream of Ibiza (Balearic Islands). Limnetica, 27(2): 259-272.
Gómez, N., 1998. Use of epipelic diatoms for evaluation of water quality in the Matanza-Riachuelo
(Argentina), a Pampean Plain River. Water Research, 32: 2029-2034.
Güttinger, W. and F. Straub, 1998. Diatoms of Lake Cadagno. Istituto Italiano di Idrobiologia, 63: 57-64.
Jones, W. and S. Medrano, 2006. Indiana Lake Water Quality Assessment Report for 1999-2003. School
of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Indiana.
Jüttner, I., H. Rothfritz and S.J. Ormerod, 1996. Diatoms as indicators of river quality in the Nepalese
Middle Hills with consideration of the effects of habitat-specific sampling. Freshwater Biology, 36(2):
475-486.
Jüttner, I., S. Sharma, B.M. Dahal, S.J. Ormerod, P.J. Chimonides and E.J. Cox, 2003. Diatoms as
indicators of stream quality in the Kathmandu Valley and middle hills of Nepal and India. Freshwater
Biology, 48: 2065-2084.
Jüttner, I., K. Krammer, B.V. Vijver, A. Tuji, B. Simkhada, S. Gurung, S. Sharma, C. Sharma and J.C.
Eileen, 2010. Oricymba (Cymbellales, Bacillariophyceae), a new cymbelloid genus and three new species
from the Nepalese Himalaya. Phycologia, 49(5): 407-423.
Kelly, M.G., 2000. Identification of common benthic diatoms in Rivers. Journal Field studies, 9: 583-700.
Kelly, M.G. and B.A. Whitton, 1995. The trophic diatom index: a new index for monitoring eutrophication
in rivers. Journal of Applied Phycology, 7: 333-433.
Kelly, M.G., A. Cazaubon, E. Coring, A. Dell’uomo, L. Ector, B. Goldsmith, H. Guasch, J. Hurlimann,
A. Jarlman, B. Kawecka, J. Kwadrans, R. Laugaste, E.A. Lindstrom, M. Leitao, P. Marvan, J. Padisak, E.
Pipp, J. Prygiel, E. Rott, S. Sabater, H. Van Dam and J. Vizinet, 1998. Recommendations for the routine
sampling of diatoms for water quality assessments in Europe. Journal of Applied Phycology, 10: 215-224.
Kelly, M.G. and E.Y. Haworth, 2002. Phylum Bacillariophyta. In: John D.M., B.A. Whitton and A.J.
Brook, (eds). The Fresh Water Algae Flora of the British Isles: An Identfication Guide to Freshwater and
Terrestrial Algae. Cambridge University Press.
Krammer, K. and H. Lange-Bertalot, 1986. Bacillariophyceae.1. Teil: Naviculaceae. In: Ettl, H., Gerloff,
J. Heynig, H. and Mollenhauer, D. (eds.). Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Band 2/1. Gustav Fisher
Verlag.
Krammer, K. and H. Lange-Bertalot, 1988. Bacillariophyceae. 2. Teil: Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae and
Surirellaceae. In: Ettl, H., Gerloff, J. Heynig, H. and Mollenhauer, D. (eds.). Süsswasserflora von
Mitteleuropa. Band 2/2. Gustav Fisher Verlag.
Krammer, K. and H. Lange-Bertalot, 1991a. Bacillariophyceae. 3. Teil: Centrales, Fragilariaceae and
Eunotiaceae. In: Ettl, H., Gerloff, J. Heynig, H. and Mollenhauer, D. (eds.). Süsswasserflora von
Mitteleuropa. Band 2/3. Gustav Fisher Verlag.
Krammer, K. and H. Lange-Bertalot, 1991b. Bacillariophyceae. 4. Teil: Achnanthaceae. In: Ettl, H.,
Gerloff, J. Heynig, H.and Mollenhauer, D. (eds.). Süsswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Band 2/4. Gustav
Fisher Verlag.
Kunpradid, T., 2005. Diversity of Macroalgae and Benthic Diatoms and Their Relationships with Nutrient
Compounds in the Ping and Nan Rivers. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chiang
Mai University. Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Lange-Bertalot, H., 2001. Diatoms of Europe. Koeltz Scientific Books.
Leelahakriengkrai, P. and Y. Peerapornpisal, 2011. Diversity of benthic diatoms in six main rivers of
Thailand. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 13: 309-316.
Lenoir, A. and M. Coste, 1996. Development of a Practical Diatom Index of Overall Water Quality
Applicable to the French National Water Board Network. In: Whitton, B.A., Rott, E. (eds.). Use of Algae
for Monitoring Rivers II. Studia Student G.m.b.H, Innsbruck, Austria.
Lobo, E.A., V.L.M. Callegaro, B.G.D. Hermany, C.A. Wetzel and M.A. Oliveira, 2004. Use of epilithic
diatoms as bioindicators from lotic systems in southern Brazil with special emphasis on eutrophication.
Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia, 16(1): 25-40.
Lorraine L.J. and R.A. Vollenweider, 1981. Summary report, the OECD cooperative programme on
eutrophication, National Water Research Institute, Burlington.
Moonsyn, P., Y. Peerapornpisal, N. Swasdipan and A. Pimmongkol, 2009. Benthic diatom diversity and
water quality in the Mekong river in the vicinity of Ubon Ratchathani province. Journal of Microscopy
Society of Thailand, 23(1): 47-51.
Palmer, M.C., 1970. Algae and Water Pollution. London Press.
Peerapornpisal, Y., C. Chaiubol, J. Pekkoh, H. Kraibut, M. Chorum, P. Wannathon, N. Ngernpat, K.
Jusakul, A. Thammathiwat, J. Chuananta, and T. Inthasotti, 2004. The monitoring of water quality in Ang
254
Pongpan Leelahakriengkrai and Yuwadee Peerapornpisal et al, 2014
Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(1) January 2014, Pages: 248-254
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
Kaew Reservior of Chaing Mai University by using phytoplankton as bioindicator from 1995-2002.
Chiang Mai Journal of Science, 31(1): 85- 94.
Pekthong, T., 2002. Biodiversity of Benthic Diatoms and their Application in Monitoring Water Quality of
Mae Sa Stream, Doi Suthep- Pui National Park Chiang Mai. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Biology, Faculty
of Science, Chiang Mai University. Chiang Mai.
Pollution Control Department, 2010. Final report, Vol. 2, Survey, Collection and Analysis of Water
Samples and Living Organisms in the Standing Water. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.
Bangkok.
Poulíčková, A., J. Veselá, J. Neustupa and P. Škaloud, 2010. Pseudocryptic Diversity versus
Cosmopolitanism in Diatoms: a Case Study on Navicula cryptocephala Kütz. (Bacillariophyceae) and
Morphologically Similar Taxa. Protist, 161(3): 353-369.
Renberg, I., 1990. A procedure for preparing large sets of diatom slides from sediment cores. Journal of
Paleolimnology, 4: 87-90.
Rott, E., P. Pfister and E. Pipp, 1997. Use of Diatoms for Environmental Monitoring. Institut für Batanik
der Universität Innsbruck.
Rumeau, A. and M. Coste, 1988. Initiation à la systématique des diatomées d'eau douce. Bulletin Francais
de la Peche et de la Pisciculture, 309: 1-69.
Sahün, B., 2004. Species Composition and Diversity of Epipelic Algae in Catal Lake (SebinkarahisarGiresun, Turkey). Journal of Biology, 28: 103-109.
Sládecek, V., 1986. Diatoms as indicators of organic pollution. Arch. Hydrochim. Hydrobiologia, 14: 555566.
Soininen, J. and K. Könönen, 2004. Comparative study of monitoring South-Finnish rivers and streams
using macroinvertebrate and benthic diatom community structure. Aquatic Ecology, 38: 63-75.
Soininen, J., R. Paavola, and T. Muotka, 2004. Benthic diatom communities in boreal streams: community
structure in relation to environmental and spatial gradients. Ecography, 27: 330-342.
Stenger-Kovács, C., K. Buczkó, E. Hajnal and J. Padisák, 2007. Epiphytic, littoral diatoms as bioindicators
of shallow lake trophic status: Trophic Diatom Index for Lakes (TDIL) developed in Hungary.
Hydrobiologia, 589: 141-154.
Stoermer, E.F. and J.P. Smol, 1999. The Diatoms: Applications for the Environmental and Earth Sciences.
Cambridge University Press.
Suphan, S., 2009. Benthic diatoms and their application in water quality monitoring of Mekong River in
the part of Thailand. Ph.D.Thesis, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University.
Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Tang, T., Q. Cai and J. Liu, 2006. Using Epilithic Diatom Communities to Assess Ecological Condition of
Xiangxi River System. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 112: 347-361.
Townsend, S.A. and P.A. Gell, 2005. The role of substrate type on benthic diatom assemblages in the Daly
and Roper Rivers of the Australian wet/dry tropics. Hydrobiologia, 548: 101-115.
UNESCO. 2006. Integrated ecosystem management– pursuing a quality economy in biosphere reserves,
with thematic discussion on biosphere reserve application in large wetland areas in Asia. Proceedings of
the 2nd Workshop of MAB-Ecotone Phase II and 4th Meeting of SeaBRnet. p. 255.
Van Dam, H., A. Mertens and J. Sinkledam, 1994. A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of
freshwater diatoms from the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology, 28(1): 117-133.
Wan Maznah, W.O. and M. Mansor, 2002. Aquatic pollution assessment based on attached diatom
communities in the Pinang River Basin, Malaysia. Hydrobiologia, 487: 229-241.
Wang, L., T. Lee, S. Chen and J. Wu, 2010. Diatoms in Liyu Lake, Eastern Taiwan. Taiwania, 55(3): 228242.
Watanabe, T., K. Asai and A. Houki, 1986. Numerical estimation to organic pollution of flowing water by
using the epilithic diatom assemblage-diatom assemblage index (DAIpo). Science. Total Environmental,
55: 209-218.
Wetzel, R.G., 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems. Academic Press.
Whitmore, T.J., 1989. Florida diatom assemblages as indicators of trophic state and pH. Limnology and
Oceanography, 34(5): 882-895.
Yana, E. and Y. Peerapornpisal, 2009. Diversity of benthic algae and water quality in tributaries of the
Mekong River Passing Thailand and some parts of Lao PDR. KKU Science Journal, 37: 30-41.
Yasuno, M., S. Fukushima and Y. Sugaya, 1994. Monitoring of Benthic Flora and Fauna in Channels
Draining a Sewage Plant. In: Jeffrey, D.W. and Madden, B. (eds.). Bioindicators and Environmental
Management. Academic Press.