汾河太原段浮游藻类及水质评价
|
摘要
2009年3月至2009年12月对汾河太原段进行了4次采样。共设6个采样点,分别位于上蓝桥、汾河铁桥、胜利桥、迎泽桥、南内环桥和小店桥。利用浮游藻类种类组成、数量生物量、优势种、Shannon-Wiener多样性指数、Margalef多样性指数和Pielou均匀度指数等生物指标对汾河太原段浮游藻类群落结构组成和季节变化等方面进行监测和研究,同时对汾河太原段进行了理化指标监测,包括水温、电导率、流速、化学需氧量、总硬度、总磷、氨氮、溶氧量、pH、镉、铬、锌、铅,并结合生物指标和理化指标对汾河太原段水质进行了综合评价,为水质监测、评价及今后的环境综合治理提供一定的理论依据。
汾河太原段浮游藻类共计有224种,隶属于8门89属。其中蓝藻门(Cyanophyta)有23属103种,占浮游藻类种类总数的46%；绿藻门(Chlorophyta)有37属75种,占浮游藻类藻类总数的34%；硅藻门(Bacillariophyta)有19属36种,占浮游藻类种类总数的16%；其它各门种类数较少。浮游藻类从数量生物量来看以蓝藻门为主,其次是绿藻门和硅藻门。蓝藻门的月平均数量为29776.8万个／L,绿藻门和硅藻门的月平均数量分别为890.71万个／L和868.69万个／L,其它各门浮游藻类的数量较低。浮游藻类的数量以9月份为最高,平均达到115070.60万个／L,6月份次之,为20028.00万个／L。汾河太原段的优势种主要有蓝藻门的小席藻(Phormidium tenue)、银灰平裂藻(Merismopedia glance)、细小隐球藻(Aphanocapsa elachista)、窝形席藻(Phormidium faveolarum)、两栖颤藻(Oscillatoria amphibia)、浮丝藻(Planktothrix sp.)、平裂藻(Planktothrix sp.)、螺旋鞘丝藻(Lyngbya contarta)、小颤藻(Oscillatoria tenuis)、大螺旋藻(Spirulina major);绿藻门的小球藻(Chlorella vulgari);硅藻门的尖针杆藻(Synedra. acus)。Shannon-Wiener多样性指数、Margalef多样性指数和Pielou多样性指数的变动范围分别为0.38-2.48,0.30-5.43和0.25-2.48。
根据汾河太原段浮游藻类数量生物量与各理化指标的相关性分析,结果表明：2009年3月份生物量与氨氮呈显著性相关；6月份与电导率相关性最大；9月份与溶氧量呈显著性相关；12月份与总硬度相关性最大。理化指标PCA聚类将六个样点分为三组。第一组：上蓝桥、汾河铁桥；第二组：胜利桥、迎泽桥、南内环桥；第三组：小店桥。
This paper studied on the planktonic algae of Fenhe River of Taiyuan from May 2009 to Dec.2009, has 6 samplings, they are Shanglan Bridge, Fenhe Iron Bridge, Shengli Bridge,Yingze Bridge, Nanneihuan Bridge and Xiaodian Bridge. Monitored and researched the planktonic algae community composition and seasonal variation in Fenhe River of Taiyuan by planktonic algae species composition, biomass, dominant species, Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index, Margalef Diversity Index and Pielou Evenness Index. At the same time, physical and chemical indicators were monitored, including water temperature, conductivity, flow rate, chemical oxygen demand, total hardness, total phosphorus, ammonia nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, pH, Cd, Cr, Zn and Pb. This article provides aquatic biological information in Fenhe River of Taiyuan, and evaluate the water quality comprehensively by combining with biological, physical and chemical indicators. A theoretical basis is provided for water quality monitoring, evaluation and comprehensive management in the future.
There are 224 planktonic algae species in Fenhe River of Taiyuan, which belonged to 89 genus 8 phyla. The planktonic algae species of Cyanophyta are 23 genus 103 species, accounting for 46% of the total number of planktonic algae species; Chlorophyta are 37 genus 75 species, accounting for 34%; Bacillariophyta are 19 genus 36 species, accounting for 16%; the species of other phyla are few. Planktonic algae biomass of Cyanophyta is the most. Monthly average number of Cyanophyta, Chlorophyta and Bacillariophyta is 29776.8×104 cell/L,890.71×104 cell/L and 868.69×104 cell/L respectively, the number of the other phyla is low. The average number of planktonic algae in Sep. was the highest, which is 115070.60×104 cell/L, and the number is lower in Jun. for 20028.00×104 cell/L. There are 15 dominant species, they are Phormidium tenue, Merismopedia glance, Aphanocapsa elachista, Phormidium faveolarum, Oscillatoria amphibian, Planktothrix sp., Planktothrix sp., Lyngbya contarta, Oscillatoria tenuis, Spirulina major, Chlorella vulgari and Synedra. Acus. The range of Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index, Margalef Diversity Index and Pielou Diversity Indices is 0.38 -2.48,0.30 -0.25 and 0.25 -2.48 respectively.
Based on the correlation analysis of planktonic algae biomass and the physical and chemical indicators, the results shows that biomass and nitrogen were significantly related in Mar.2009, conductivity associated with the biomass most in Jun.; in Sep. the dissolved oxygen level was significantly related to biomass; in Dec. total hardness associated with the biomass most. The six samplings are divided into three groups by PCA cluster of physical and chemical indicators. The first group is Shanglan Bridge and Fenhe Iron Bridge; the seconed group is Shengli Bridge, Yingze Bridge and Nanneihuan Bridge; the third group is Xiaodian Bridge.
汾河太原段浮游藻类共计有224种,隶属于8门89属。其中蓝藻门(Cyanophyta)有23属103种,占浮游藻类种类总数的46%；绿藻门(Chlorophyta)有37属75种,占浮游藻类藻类总数的34%；硅藻门(Bacillariophyta)有19属36种,占浮游藻类种类总数的16%；其它各门种类数较少。浮游藻类从数量生物量来看以蓝藻门为主,其次是绿藻门和硅藻门。蓝藻门的月平均数量为29776.8万个／L,绿藻门和硅藻门的月平均数量分别为890.71万个／L和868.69万个／L,其它各门浮游藻类的数量较低。浮游藻类的数量以9月份为最高,平均达到115070.60万个／L,6月份次之,为20028.00万个／L。汾河太原段的优势种主要有蓝藻门的小席藻(Phormidium tenue)、银灰平裂藻(Merismopedia glance)、细小隐球藻(Aphanocapsa elachista)、窝形席藻(Phormidium faveolarum)、两栖颤藻(Oscillatoria amphibia)、浮丝藻(Planktothrix sp.)、平裂藻(Planktothrix sp.)、螺旋鞘丝藻(Lyngbya contarta)、小颤藻(Oscillatoria tenuis)、大螺旋藻(Spirulina major);绿藻门的小球藻(Chlorella vulgari);硅藻门的尖针杆藻(Synedra. acus)。Shannon-Wiener多样性指数、Margalef多样性指数和Pielou多样性指数的变动范围分别为0.38-2.48,0.30-5.43和0.25-2.48。
根据汾河太原段浮游藻类数量生物量与各理化指标的相关性分析,结果表明：2009年3月份生物量与氨氮呈显著性相关；6月份与电导率相关性最大；9月份与溶氧量呈显著性相关；12月份与总硬度相关性最大。理化指标PCA聚类将六个样点分为三组。第一组：上蓝桥、汾河铁桥；第二组：胜利桥、迎泽桥、南内环桥；第三组：小店桥。
This paper studied on the planktonic algae of Fenhe River of Taiyuan from May 2009 to Dec.2009, has 6 samplings, they are Shanglan Bridge, Fenhe Iron Bridge, Shengli Bridge,Yingze Bridge, Nanneihuan Bridge and Xiaodian Bridge. Monitored and researched the planktonic algae community composition and seasonal variation in Fenhe River of Taiyuan by planktonic algae species composition, biomass, dominant species, Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index, Margalef Diversity Index and Pielou Evenness Index. At the same time, physical and chemical indicators were monitored, including water temperature, conductivity, flow rate, chemical oxygen demand, total hardness, total phosphorus, ammonia nitrogen, dissolved oxygen, pH, Cd, Cr, Zn and Pb. This article provides aquatic biological information in Fenhe River of Taiyuan, and evaluate the water quality comprehensively by combining with biological, physical and chemical indicators. A theoretical basis is provided for water quality monitoring, evaluation and comprehensive management in the future.
There are 224 planktonic algae species in Fenhe River of Taiyuan, which belonged to 89 genus 8 phyla. The planktonic algae species of Cyanophyta are 23 genus 103 species, accounting for 46% of the total number of planktonic algae species; Chlorophyta are 37 genus 75 species, accounting for 34%; Bacillariophyta are 19 genus 36 species, accounting for 16%; the species of other phyla are few. Planktonic algae biomass of Cyanophyta is the most. Monthly average number of Cyanophyta, Chlorophyta and Bacillariophyta is 29776.8×104 cell/L,890.71×104 cell/L and 868.69×104 cell/L respectively, the number of the other phyla is low. The average number of planktonic algae in Sep. was the highest, which is 115070.60×104 cell/L, and the number is lower in Jun. for 20028.00×104 cell/L. There are 15 dominant species, they are Phormidium tenue, Merismopedia glance, Aphanocapsa elachista, Phormidium faveolarum, Oscillatoria amphibian, Planktothrix sp., Planktothrix sp., Lyngbya contarta, Oscillatoria tenuis, Spirulina major, Chlorella vulgari and Synedra. Acus. The range of Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index, Margalef Diversity Index and Pielou Diversity Indices is 0.38 -2.48,0.30 -0.25 and 0.25 -2.48 respectively.
Based on the correlation analysis of planktonic algae biomass and the physical and chemical indicators, the results shows that biomass and nitrogen were significantly related in Mar.2009, conductivity associated with the biomass most in Jun.; in Sep. the dissolved oxygen level was significantly related to biomass; in Dec. total hardness associated with the biomass most. The six samplings are divided into three groups by PCA cluster of physical and chemical indicators. The first group is Shanglan Bridge and Fenhe Iron Bridge; the seconed group is Shengli Bridge, Yingze Bridge and Nanneihuan Bridge; the third group is Xiaodian Bridge.
引文
[1]刘建康.高级水生生物学.北京,科学出版社,2002,11-13.
[2]边归国.湖泊和水库中藻类去除方法的研究进展.福建环境,2003,20(5)：62-65.
[3]陈桂珠.茂名市梅江水环境污染对浮游藻类的影响.中山大学学报(自然科学论文),1990,11(2)：43-44.
[4]刘静,杜桂森,刘晓端,宋福,刘靖,华振玲.密云水库的浮游生物群落.西北植物学报,2004,24(8),1485-1488.
[5]洪松,陈静生.中国河流水生生物群落结构特征探讨.水生生物学报,2002,26(3),295-305.
[6]高玉荣.京密运河与北京污染河浮游藻类的群落演替与水质污染的关系.环境科学学报,1990,10(4),434-444.
[7]高玉荣.京津地区主要河流浮游植物群落结构特征与河流质量的研究.中国环境科学,1992,12(3),203-208.
[8]曾丽璇,陈桂珠,余日清,李耀初,卢杰.水体重金属污染生物监测的研究进展.环境监测管理与技术,2003,15(3),12-15.
[9]陈桂珠等.水生生物系统对矿山废水净化效应及其机理研究.国家自然科学基金资助项目鉴定材料.1992.
[10]张海波.浅谈水污染的生物监测.丹东师专学报,1998,20(2),11.
[11]张土乔,吴小刚,应向华.水质生物监测体系建设的若干问题探讨.水资源保护,2004,1,25-27.
[12]高玉荣.北京四海浮游藻类叶绿素含量与水体营养水平的研究.水生生物学报,1992,16(3),237-244.
[13]王炜.中国环境科学.1985,5(3),31-36.
[14]祝玉坷,谢淑琦.从浮游藻类的种群看汾河水系太原河段的污染等.环境科学,1981,2(5),51-55.
[15]祝玉珂,谢淑琦.从浮游藻类的种群看汾河水洗太原河段的水质污染.环境科学,1981,2(5),1-5.
[16]王强.汾河太原段水质现状及变化情况的分析.科技情报开发与经济,2008,18(29),100.
[17]张志红,赵五红,宋丽红,樊婷,杨小林,武旭彪.汾河太原段枯水期水体富营养化调查.中国公共卫生,2008,24(6),715.
[18]赵正宣.浅议汾河太原段污染治理措施.山西水利,2001,2,38-39.
[19]韩银文.汾河太原段河道治理及管理对策探讨.山西水利,2005,5,39-40.
[20]王翠红,张金屯.汾河太原段水体浮游藻类群落DCCA研究.农业环境科学学报,2006,25(6),1588-1593.
[21]王翠红,梁晓霞,辛晓芸.汾河太原段硅藻种间关联和相关分析.农业环境科学学报,2007,6,2162-2166.
[22]车越,杨凯,范群杰.黄浦江上游水源地水环境演变规律及其影响因素研究.自然资源学报,2005,20(2),163-164.
[23]蔡京兰,熊源新.贵州水体常见污染指示藻类.贵州科学,1999,14(2),45-49.
[24]戴树桂等.河口水及藻类对三丁基锡的降解作用.中国环境科学,1997,2,47-49.
[25]陈伟,徐左正,叶舜涛.苏州河支流综合整治工程.给水排水,2002,28(2),31-34.
[26]陈桂珠.茂名市梅江水环境污染对浮游藻类的影响.中山大学学报(自然科学论文),1990.11(2),43-44.
[27]高玉荣.京密运河与北京排污河浮游藻类的群落演替与水质污染的关系.环境科学学报,1990,10(4),434-444.
[28]高玉荣.北京四海藻类群落结构特征与水体营养水平的研究.生态学报,1992,12(2),173-180.
[29]田家怡.山东小清河的浮游植物.海洋湖沼通报,1995,1,38-46.
[30]章宗涉等.水生生物学集刊,1983,8,197-104.
[31]况琪军等.太平湖水库的浮游藻类与营养型评价.应用生态学报,1992,3(2),165-108.
[32]高玉荣.京密运河与北京排污河浮游藻类的群落演替与水质污染的关系.环境科学学报,1990,10(4),434-444.
[33]王新华,纪炳纯等.引滦工程上游浮游植物及其水质评价.环境科学研究,2004,17(4),18-24.
[34]李宝林等.以浮游植物评价达贵湖水质污染及营养水平.水生生物学报,1999,317(1),27-34.
[35]时红,孙新忠,范建华,张永波.水质分析方法与技术.北京,地震出版社,2001, 140-207.
[36]胡鸿均,李尧英,魏印心等.中国淡水藻类.上海,上海科学技术出版社,1980.
[37]朱浩然.中国淡水藻志(第二卷).北京,科学出版社,1991.
[38]黎尚豪,毕列爵等.中国淡水藻志(第五卷).北京,科学出版社,1998.
[39]齐雨藻,李家英等.中国淡水藻志(第十卷).北京,科学出版社,2004.
[40]朱蕙忠,陈嘉佑.中国西藏硅藻.北京,科学出版社,2000.
[41]饶钦止.中国鞘藻目专志.北京,科学出版社,1979.
[42]刘国祥,胡征宇.淡水刚毛藻目三个中国新记录种.水生生物学报,1999,23(1),93-96.
[43]刘东艳,孙军等.2001年夏季胶州湾浮游植物群落结构的特征,青岛海洋大学学报,2003,33(3),366-374.
[44]SHANNON C E, WEAVER W. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana IL, University of Illinois Press,1949.
[45]MARGAL EF R. Information theory in ecology. International Journal of General Systems,1958,3,36-71.
[46]沈蕴芬,章宗涉等编.微型生物检测新技术.北京,中国建筑工业出版社,1994,14-15.
[47]韩博平,李铁,林旭钿等编.广东省大中型水库富营养化现状与防治对策研究.北京,科学出版社,2003,36-45.
[48]PIELOU E C. An introduction to Mathematical Ecology. New York, Wiley-Interscience,1969.
[49]孙嘉龙,董泽琴,瞿丽雅等.贵州万峰湖浮游植物的调查及其指数评价.安徽农业科学,2008,36(23),10096-10097.
[50]张良璞.巢湖藻类群落多样性分析.生物学杂志,2007,24(6),53-72.
[51]祝玉珂,谢淑琦.从浮游藻类的种群看汾河水洗太原河段的水质污染.环境科学,1981,2(5),51-55.
[52]张志红,赵五红,宋丽红,樊婷,杨小林,武旭彪.汾河太原段枯水期水体富营养化调查.中国公共卫生,2008,24(6),715-716.
[53]韩菲,陈永灿,刘昭伟.湖泊及水库富营养化模型研究综述.水科学进展,2003,14(6),785-791.
[54]王强.汾河太原段水质现状及变化情况的分析.科技情报开发与经济,2008,18(29),100-102.
[2]边归国.湖泊和水库中藻类去除方法的研究进展.福建环境,2003,20(5)：62-65.
[3]陈桂珠.茂名市梅江水环境污染对浮游藻类的影响.中山大学学报(自然科学论文),1990,11(2)：43-44.
[4]刘静,杜桂森,刘晓端,宋福,刘靖,华振玲.密云水库的浮游生物群落.西北植物学报,2004,24(8),1485-1488.
[5]洪松,陈静生.中国河流水生生物群落结构特征探讨.水生生物学报,2002,26(3),295-305.
[6]高玉荣.京密运河与北京污染河浮游藻类的群落演替与水质污染的关系.环境科学学报,1990,10(4),434-444.
[7]高玉荣.京津地区主要河流浮游植物群落结构特征与河流质量的研究.中国环境科学,1992,12(3),203-208.
[8]曾丽璇,陈桂珠,余日清,李耀初,卢杰.水体重金属污染生物监测的研究进展.环境监测管理与技术,2003,15(3),12-15.
[9]陈桂珠等.水生生物系统对矿山废水净化效应及其机理研究.国家自然科学基金资助项目鉴定材料.1992.
[10]张海波.浅谈水污染的生物监测.丹东师专学报,1998,20(2),11.
[11]张土乔,吴小刚,应向华.水质生物监测体系建设的若干问题探讨.水资源保护,2004,1,25-27.
[12]高玉荣.北京四海浮游藻类叶绿素含量与水体营养水平的研究.水生生物学报,1992,16(3),237-244.
[13]王炜.中国环境科学.1985,5(3),31-36.
[14]祝玉坷,谢淑琦.从浮游藻类的种群看汾河水系太原河段的污染等.环境科学,1981,2(5),51-55.
[15]祝玉珂,谢淑琦.从浮游藻类的种群看汾河水洗太原河段的水质污染.环境科学,1981,2(5),1-5.
[16]王强.汾河太原段水质现状及变化情况的分析.科技情报开发与经济,2008,18(29),100.
[17]张志红,赵五红,宋丽红,樊婷,杨小林,武旭彪.汾河太原段枯水期水体富营养化调查.中国公共卫生,2008,24(6),715.
[18]赵正宣.浅议汾河太原段污染治理措施.山西水利,2001,2,38-39.
[19]韩银文.汾河太原段河道治理及管理对策探讨.山西水利,2005,5,39-40.
[20]王翠红,张金屯.汾河太原段水体浮游藻类群落DCCA研究.农业环境科学学报,2006,25(6),1588-1593.
[21]王翠红,梁晓霞,辛晓芸.汾河太原段硅藻种间关联和相关分析.农业环境科学学报,2007,6,2162-2166.
[22]车越,杨凯,范群杰.黄浦江上游水源地水环境演变规律及其影响因素研究.自然资源学报,2005,20(2),163-164.
[23]蔡京兰,熊源新.贵州水体常见污染指示藻类.贵州科学,1999,14(2),45-49.
[24]戴树桂等.河口水及藻类对三丁基锡的降解作用.中国环境科学,1997,2,47-49.
[25]陈伟,徐左正,叶舜涛.苏州河支流综合整治工程.给水排水,2002,28(2),31-34.
[26]陈桂珠.茂名市梅江水环境污染对浮游藻类的影响.中山大学学报(自然科学论文),1990.11(2),43-44.
[27]高玉荣.京密运河与北京排污河浮游藻类的群落演替与水质污染的关系.环境科学学报,1990,10(4),434-444.
[28]高玉荣.北京四海藻类群落结构特征与水体营养水平的研究.生态学报,1992,12(2),173-180.
[29]田家怡.山东小清河的浮游植物.海洋湖沼通报,1995,1,38-46.
[30]章宗涉等.水生生物学集刊,1983,8,197-104.
[31]况琪军等.太平湖水库的浮游藻类与营养型评价.应用生态学报,1992,3(2),165-108.
[32]高玉荣.京密运河与北京排污河浮游藻类的群落演替与水质污染的关系.环境科学学报,1990,10(4),434-444.
[33]王新华,纪炳纯等.引滦工程上游浮游植物及其水质评价.环境科学研究,2004,17(4),18-24.
[34]李宝林等.以浮游植物评价达贵湖水质污染及营养水平.水生生物学报,1999,317(1),27-34.
[35]时红,孙新忠,范建华,张永波.水质分析方法与技术.北京,地震出版社,2001, 140-207.
[36]胡鸿均,李尧英,魏印心等.中国淡水藻类.上海,上海科学技术出版社,1980.
[37]朱浩然.中国淡水藻志(第二卷).北京,科学出版社,1991.
[38]黎尚豪,毕列爵等.中国淡水藻志(第五卷).北京,科学出版社,1998.
[39]齐雨藻,李家英等.中国淡水藻志(第十卷).北京,科学出版社,2004.
[40]朱蕙忠,陈嘉佑.中国西藏硅藻.北京,科学出版社,2000.
[41]饶钦止.中国鞘藻目专志.北京,科学出版社,1979.
[42]刘国祥,胡征宇.淡水刚毛藻目三个中国新记录种.水生生物学报,1999,23(1),93-96.
[43]刘东艳,孙军等.2001年夏季胶州湾浮游植物群落结构的特征,青岛海洋大学学报,2003,33(3),366-374.
[44]SHANNON C E, WEAVER W. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana IL, University of Illinois Press,1949.
[45]MARGAL EF R. Information theory in ecology. International Journal of General Systems,1958,3,36-71.
[46]沈蕴芬,章宗涉等编.微型生物检测新技术.北京,中国建筑工业出版社,1994,14-15.
[47]韩博平,李铁,林旭钿等编.广东省大中型水库富营养化现状与防治对策研究.北京,科学出版社,2003,36-45.
[48]PIELOU E C. An introduction to Mathematical Ecology. New York, Wiley-Interscience,1969.
[49]孙嘉龙,董泽琴,瞿丽雅等.贵州万峰湖浮游植物的调查及其指数评价.安徽农业科学,2008,36(23),10096-10097.
[50]张良璞.巢湖藻类群落多样性分析.生物学杂志,2007,24(6),53-72.
[51]祝玉珂,谢淑琦.从浮游藻类的种群看汾河水洗太原河段的水质污染.环境科学,1981,2(5),51-55.
[52]张志红,赵五红,宋丽红,樊婷,杨小林,武旭彪.汾河太原段枯水期水体富营养化调查.中国公共卫生,2008,24(6),715-716.
[53]韩菲,陈永灿,刘昭伟.湖泊及水库富营养化模型研究综述.水科学进展,2003,14(6),785-791.
[54]王强.汾河太原段水质现状及变化情况的分析.科技情报开发与经济,2008,18(29),100-102.