See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326319152

Phytoplankton Reservoir Trophic Index (PRTI): New tool for ecological quality
studies

Article  in  Inland Waters · May 2019

DOI: 10.1080/20442041.2018.1494984

CITATIONS READS

0 66

4 authors:

Juan M. Soria Daniel Montagud

University of Valencia Spanish Research Council (CSIC), Center for Advanced Studies of Blanes (CEAB)
110 PUBLICATIONS   442 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Xavi Soria Maria D. Sendra Cabrera

University of Valencia University of Valencia
22 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Remote sensing Landsat MSS chlorophyll View project

TRANSFER View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Montagud on 17 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1 Phytoplankton Reservoir Trophic Index (PRTI): New tool for ecological quality studies.

2 Juan M. Soria*, Daniel Montagud*, Javier Soria**, María Dolores Sendra**, Eduardo
3 Vicente**

4 * Departament of Microbiology and Ecology. Faculty of Biological Sciences. Universitat de

5 Valencia. 46100-Burjassot, Spain

6 ** Instituto Cavanilles de Biodiversidad y Biología Evolutiva (ICBIBE). Universitat de

7 Valencia. 46980-Paterna, Spain.

8 Email address for representative: juan.soria@uv.es

9 Abstract

10 This following paper aims at studying the functionality of a trophic index based on the
11 relative abundance of phytoplankton in reservoris. This is the PRTI index
12 (Phytoplankton Reservoir Trophic Index), which, in order to determine its functionality,
13 has been applied to 62 reservoirs of heterogeneous characteristics, all of them belonging
14 to the territorial division of the Ebro River Basin, to compare the results obtained with
15 the subsequent application as a reference to the trophic index, Carlson’s TSI (Trophic
16 State Index), (Carlson 1977), based on the existing quantity of chlorophyll a in an
17 integrated sample of photic water column, the functionality of which is internationally
18 accepted. With the comparison and validation of the PRTI with the TSI, we verify that
19 the PRTI is a valid index to determine the trophic status of reservoirs. The PRTI allows
20 to classify the different reservoirs in five categories according to two parameters.
21 Firstly, their ecological status based on the amount of phytoplankton, and secondly
22 based on the tolerance of this algal species to the eutrophication, obtained from a
23 canonical correspondence analysis. These results show the accuracy of this index, which
24 allows us to know the trophic status of different reservoirs based on a quantitative
25 sample of phytoplankton. This, simplifies the sampling process if compared with the
26 process based on quantitative samples. According to the good results obtained in this
27 study, the PRTI applies to the annual ecological quality reports of reservoirs that Ebro
28 River Basin Authority has continuously done since 2006 to present.

1
29 Keywords: phytoplankton, trophic state, bioindicators, ecological quality, reservoir
30 water quality

31 Introduction

32 Phytoplankton can be defined as the set of primary producing microorganisms that are
33 dispersed in the pelagic environment of aquatic systems (Reynolds et al. 1997), with an
34 enormous diversification of groups and species, fuel for food webs and drivers of
35 biogeochemical cycles (Salmaso et al. 2015). The factors that most influence their growth and
36 development are light (photosynthetically active light, 400-700 nm), temperature, acidity and
37 alkalinity, inorganic nutrients (mainly phosphorus and nitrogen) and the possible presence of
38 other herbivorous and parasite organisms. Therefore, through the study of phytoplankton,
39 information can be obtained indirectly on the physicochemical parameters previously
40 mentioned, mainly on the levels of inorganic contamination (phosphorus and nitrogen) in
41 water, since these constitute the main nutrients for the growth of phytoplankton, which in the
42 presence of these nutrients will show an almost exponential growth that will contemplate,
43 among others, several negative effects on the environment such as the decrease in
44 biodiversity, changes in the composition and dominance of the species and toxic effects (De
45 Jonge et al. 2002). For all these reasons, the study of phytoplankton provides us with
46 information on water pollution and eutrophication, making it one of the main biological
47 indicators of ecological status and water quality.

48 Traditionally, quality assessment or monitoring in lakes and reservoirs has focused on

49 physico-chemical parameters (nutrients, oxygen profiles, etc.) and phytoplankton biomass
50 expressed in terms of chlorophyll-a, for which there are numerous classification schemes
51 (OECD 1982, Carlson 1977). Only recently and following the new WFD requirements for
52 assessing ecological potential-state, European countries have included some other quality
53 elements in their routine monitoring programmes, such as phytoplankton, macrophytes,
54 phytobents, invertebrates or fish.

55 The implementation and study of these biological indices based on these biological variables
56 helps to understand and give a more integrative approach to the quality and ecological
57 potential of a given water body. In this sense, several indices have been elaborated in recent
58 years based on phytoplankton abundance, the most well known being the Algal Group Index
59 (IGA) (Catalan et al. 2003), the Planctonique Index (Barbe 2003), the Phytoplankton

2
60 Assemblage Index (Q) (Padisak et al. 2006), the Phytoplankton Trophic Index (PTI) (Salmaso
61 et al. 2006) or the Trophic Index (TI) (Ptacnik et al. 2009). These indices are based on the
62 relative abundance of the different phytoplanktonic species existing, grouping them in
63 different algal groups, taking into account their physiological and biological characteristics,
64 and assigning to each of these groups a different punctuation that by means of a mathematical
65 algorithm will provide us an indicative value of the trophic status and therefore of the
66 ecological potential and the quality of the waters of the environment to study.

67 This study aims to study the functionality of a trophic state index in reservoirs based on the
68 relative abundance of phytoplankton. It was originally formulated in 2009 for the Ebro basin,
69 using multivariate techniques that relate phytoplankton values to trophic status indicator
70 variables by canonical correspondence analysis (CCA). The name of this index was
71 designated as the Phytoplankton Reservoir trophic Index (PRTI).

72 In addition, in the present study, a comparison of the results obtained in the application of the
73 new PRTI index with the results obtained in the application of the Carlson IST index (Carlson
74 1977) in the same reservoirs, by means of a linear regression, obtaining very positive results
75 that show the validity of this index. Also, to check their suitability with respect to other
76 indices based on biovolume and more expensive techniques in time and resources, the results
77 obtained were compared with the PTI index (Salmaso et al. 2006), obtaining significant
78 values.

79 Materials and Methods

80 Data from the Ebro river basin, the second largest after the Duero basin and located in the
81 northeastern quadrant of the Iberian Peninsula, have been used for this study. In application of
82 the legislation transposing the Water Framework Directive, the study of the water quality of
83 the 66 main reservoirs has been carried out uninterruptedly since 2006, from the enviromental
84 and biological point of views.

85 During the summer period from 2010 to 2015, a total of 62 reservoirs were sampled to
86 establish the ecological quality of the reservoir monitoring network under the Water
87 Framework Directive (Parliament and European Council 2000) in the Ebro river basin [Figure
88 1 near here]. The integrated sample of the photic zone is used for the study, as specified in the
89 Methodology (Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro CHE 2005).

3
 90 In each of the sampled reservoirs, a single sampling station was set at the deepest part
91 inside reservoir at a distance of 100-300 m from the dam. The depth reaching the photic
92 zone was determined by measuring the penetration of light with a PAR quantometer for
93 the subsequent taking of the integrated sample. A sample bottle is collected for the
94 identification and counting of the phytoplankton according to EN 15204: 2006, and
95 other samples for the determination of various physicochemical parameters whose
96 results will become part of the CCA. Only one, the most recent sample of each
97 reservoir, was considerate for statistical analysis.

98 Environmental variables
99 The physicochemical parameters taken into account for the CCA were the depth of the
100 sample, the pH, the transparency, the photic zone depth, the thickness of the anoxic zone,
101 turbidity, alkalinity, nitrate, ammonium, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and chlorophyll a.
102 The depth of collection of the sample was obtained by means of a conventional tape
103 measure, measuring vertically from the epilimnion to the collection point of the sample.
104 The pH was measured in situ by a conventional pH meter.
105 The water transparency was obtained by the Secchi disc technique.
106 The turbidity was obtained following the nephelometric methodology, using filtered miliQ
107 type distilled water as the blank measure, the calibration line being calibrated using the 400
108 NTU commercial standard at different dilutions and the absorbance of the sample has been
109 measured at 580 nm, the color absorbance being subtracted of the sample once this is filtered.
110 Alkalinity was obtained using the method described by Wattenber (Morcos 1970).
111 For the determination of the ammonium the indophenol method was followed (Verdow et al.
112 1978). For the determination of the nitrate, a quantitative reduction to nitrite was carried out
113 by passing the sample in a buffered alkaline solution (pH = 8) by a cadmium reducing
114 column. The resulting nitrite has been estimated by absorption spectrophotometry (Goterman
115 et al. 1978). The detection limit of the method is 0.0003 mg N/L and the limit of
116 quantification was 0.01 mg N/L.
117 Total nitrogen was determined by oxidizing nitrogen to nitrate by digestion with persulfate
118 under alkaline conditions. After digestion, two measurement methods are used depending on
119 the nitrogen concentration present. The UV method is faster but its use is less standardized. If
120 it is below 0.14-0.25 mg N / L, the colorimetric method must be followed before reduction by
121 column: nitrate is reduced quantitatively to nitrite by passing the sample in a buffered alkaline
122 solution (pH = 8) by a cadmium reducing column, the resulting nitrite being estimated by

4
123 absorption spectrophotometry (Golterman et al. 1978). The limit of quantification was 0.01
124 mg N / L.
125 For the determination of total phosphorus, the phosphates compounds were first digested by
126 taking 20 ml of the sample without filtration and adding 0.3 ml of 1:1 sulfuric acid and 0.25 g
127 of sodium persulfate. Mix well and incubate at 120 ° C for two hours. The samples were
128 allowed to temper and neutralize using phenolphthalein as indicator. Once this was done, the
129 procedure followed was the same that was used for the determination of soluble phosphate
130 (Strickland and Parsons 1968).
131 Finally, chlorophyll a was obtained following Standard Methods 10200 H (American Public
132 Health Associaton, 1998), and both the depth of the photic zone and the thickness of the
133 anoxic zone were determined as previously described, by measuring the penetration of light
134 with a PAR quantometer.

135 Obtaining the trophic status of the reservoirs through Carlson's TSI
136 From the data process we obtain the calculation of the trophic state index based on the amount
137 of chlorophyll a present in the medium according to Carlson (Carlson 1977) as the reference
138 value for the validation of PRTI. This index follows the following formula:
139 TSI of Carlson (Chlorophyll a) = 9,81 x ln (Chl-a) + 30,6
140 where Chl-a is the concentration in μg/L.

141 Obtaining the trophic status of the reservoirs through PTI

142 In order to observe the suitability of the PRTI compared to other indexes that use other more
143 expensive methodologies based on the algal biovolume.
144 PTI was applied for such an end. The PTI (Phytoplankton Trophic Index), is a phytoplankton-
145 based biotic index for the assessment of trophic status in deep subalpine lakes (Salmaso et al.
146 2006). It is based on the relative biovolume of 39 predominant taxa. For the calculation of this
147 index, each taxon (species, or genus in many cases) is assigned a "trophic value" or trophic
148 weight (wi) of 1 to 5 calculated on the basis of a trophic gradient established by multivariate
149 methods (CCA).
150 The PTI index is calculated according to the mathematical expression:
151 PTI = Ʃwi x Ʃbi
152 Being: bi the biovolume of the species i and wi the trophic value of the species.

153 Standardization and statistical treatment of data

5
154 It should be mentioned that only those algal species that were shown on more than three
155 occasions in the total of the samples collected in the reservoirs were taken into account, and
156 that in addition, the sum of them in all samples was greater or equal to 30 cells/ml. In this way
157 we have only used in the analysis the most common species, subtracting importance to those
158 that can appear by random and sporadic circumstances.
159 All data have been transformed to a neperian logarithmic scale to be normalized, except pH.
160 After the normalization of data obtained, the CCA was performed with environmental and
161 phytoplankton matrices. The values of the correlation coefficient of each of the variables and
162 taxa considered with the first Cartesian axis we obtain, on the one hand, the ordering of
163 variables and on the other tolerance value of the species (ti).
164 To obtain the statistical significance, a linear correlation was made by applying the correlation
165 coefficient of the r Pearson using the Excel 2010 software package.

166 Index PRTI (Phytoplankton Reservoir Trophic Index)

167 For the calculation of the PRTI, each taxon is assigned a tolerance value eutrophy ti ranging
168 from 1 (minimum tolerance) to 15 (maximum tolerance), calculated from its relative position
169 in the trophic state gradient defined by first axis of ordering and according to the procedure
170 established:
171 -The most negative value of the weight obtained in the analysis of canonical correspondences
172 is divided into 7.5 parts.
173 -The result of the division will be the threshold value for each category (from 1 to 7).
174 -The most positive value, of the weight obtained in the analysis of canonical correspondences,
175 is divided into 7.5 parts.
176 -The numeric range of category 8 (intermediate point) will be comprised of the last number of
177 the threshold of category 7 for the most negative part, and the last number of the threshold of
178 category 9 for the most positive part.
179 The index is calculated as the weighted sum (with the relative density of each species di as a
180 weighting factor) of the tolerance values of the species present in each reservoir:
181 PRTI = Ʃ di x ti
182 Where di is the relative density of considered species (read the previous section) and ti the
183 value of the tolerance of species i.
184

6
185 The PRTI index ranges from 1 to 15, with ecological classes being calculated by equitably
186 dividing this range into 5 equitable quality classes. The quality ranges are shown in Table 1
187 [Table 1 near here].
188 More graphically, you can see the steps followed in the figure 2 [figure 2 near here]
189 Results
190 From the values obtained in the total of the 62 reservoirs studied, which have included data of
191 166 taxa belonging to phytoplankton, the mean, maximum and minimum results of the
192 variables considered in the study are shown in Table 2 [Table 2 near here].
193 As for the 166 different algal taxa found in the total of the samples, species belonging to nine
194 different algal taxonomic groups are determined, with a clear dominance of the species
195 belonging to the taxonomic class Cianobacteria, followed by the species belonging to the
196 taxonomic classes Cloroficeae, Bacillarioficeae, Chrisoficeae and Criptoficeae with less
197 number of individuals as shown in Table 3 [Table 3 near here].
198 Following the methodology described for the application of Carlson TSI (Trophic State
199 Index) based on the present concentration of chlorophyll (Carlson 1977) in the total of the 62
200 reservoirs studied, there is a clear dominance of the reservoirs with a medium-low trophic
201 status (moderate and good status) followed by reservoirs with a high degree of eutrophic
202 (deficient status), as shown graphically in Figure 3 [Figure 3 near here].
203 It is performed according to the methodology an CCA of physicochemical variables and the
204 phytoplankton species considered, to obtain the statistical weight or correlation coefficient of
205 each one of them. The results obtained in applying the CCA analysis in this study were a
206 cumulative percentage for axis 1 (CCA1) of about 18% and about 29% for axis 2 (CCA2). In
207 addition the different physicochemical variables can be observed, ordered on the CCA1 axis
208 (only the CCA1 is used to calculate the PRTI index) according to the associated value
209 obtained from the CCA, in figure 4 [Figure 4 near here].
210 The variables that are shown in the positive part of the figure are those that provoke and or
211 reflect an increase of the eutrophic of the masses of water, being the most influential the
212 amount of total phosphorus, followed by the total nitrogen and the concentration of
213 chlorophyll a. On the other hand, the variables related with transparency, and therefore to the
214 good water quality, are in the negative part of the axis.
215 Sorting the phytoplankton species, grouped by taxonomic classes, according to the weight
216 obtained in the CCA on the CCA1 axis, Figure 5 is obtained [Figure 5 near here], observing
217 how the species of Chrysophyceae and the majority of diatoms are located in the negative

7
218 values (good quality) while the majority of cyanobacteria are in positive zone (poor quality)
219 and chlorophytes are distributed mainly in the central zone, but with extremes in both the bad
220 zone and good quality, presenting a class of wide ecological distribution.
221 PRTI enforcement
222 After obtaining the values of algal density and canonical weights of each of the variables
223 considered, the PRTI (Phytoplankton Trophic Index) was calculated, following the steps
224 described in the methodology. Most of the reservoirs studied, had a medium-low degree of
225 eutrophic (moderate and good status). Reservoirs with very low eutrophic (very good status)
226 and reservoirs with high eutrophic (deficient status) are more infrequent. This is shown
227 graphically in Figure 3 [Figure 3 near here].
228 As a validation of the PRTI, the results obtained in the application of the Carlson TSI
229 (Carlson 1977) were compared by calculating the correlation coefficient of the r Pearson with
230 the results obtained in the application of the PRTI in the same cases, obtaining a very high
231 coefficient of correlation, a Pearson r less than 0.005 (Dunnet 1964). The most dispersed
232 values in the area of poor quality. However, the distribution in PRTI quality ranges show
233 more reservoirs in optimal state than TSI, which is based only on the concentration of
234 chlorophyll a.
235 In addition, for greater reliability of the conclusions, an additional validation of the PRTI with
236 Carlson's TSI, calculated only with data from the year 2017, was performed. The critical
237 value in the Pearson r of this validation was found to be less than 0.05, more specifically of
238 0.03 [Figure 6 near here].
239 The comparison of the PRTI with the PTI (Salmaso et al. 2006) also showed a linear
240 regression with data from the year 2017, obtaining very significant values in this case as well,
241 more specifically, the critical value in the Pearson r was found to be less than 0.005.
242 Conclusions
243 This paper shows the relationships existing in the physicochemical state of the waters and the
244 phytoplankton communities present through an analysis of canonical correspondences are
245 shown, which reflects that the physicochemical variables and the existing phytoplankton are
246 totally related, allowing an integrative vision of the state of the aquatic ecosystem based
247 solely on this biological variable. This statement is in line with the various authors (e.g.
248 Cobelas MA et al. 1995; Dasí MJ et al. 1998; Marchetto A et al. 2009).
249 In the present work, it has been possible to validate the correct functionality of the new
250 Phytoplankton Reservoir Trophic Index (PRTI) trophic status index. This index has shown

8
251 very significant statistical results in its relationship with Carlson's TSI index (Carlson 1977),
252 specifically a critical value in the Pearson r (Dunnett, 1964) of less than 0.005.
253 It should be added that one of the possible limitations of this study is that this index was
254 designed exclusively for application in reservoirs, not for other types of aquatic reservoirs.
255 Even so, the positive results in its application and validation show the suitability of this index
256 for this type of aquatic reservoir, so that, based on the results that have previously been
257 commented on and that have been shown in this work, the regulatory use of this index for
258 obtaining the trophic state of the reservoirs can be validated in the various reports on the
259 monitoring of water quality that the Ebro Hydrographic Confederation has been carrying out
260 uninterruptedly since 2009. Validation of the methodology and results in other river basins, as
261 well as its application to other lagoon ecosystems, would also be of interest.
262 In addition, a phytoplankton density based index (PRTI index) has been compared with a
263 phytoplankton biovolume based index. The results obtained in this section show a high
264 correlation in both indices, which shows the goodness in the use of PRTI for the calculation
265 of the ecological potential in reservoirs, since the calculation of biomass is much more
266 expensive in time and resources than the calculation of density, so the use of the PRTI index
267 can be advantageous in this regard.

268 Acknowledgements

269 We acknowledge to the Ebro Basin Authority (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
270 Environment of the Government of Spain) for supporting the continuous sampling campaigns
271 from 2006 to present, without which it would not have been possible to obtain the necessary
272 data to carry out this study.

273 References:
274 [APHA] American Public Health Association. 1998. Standard methods for the examination of
275 water and wastewater. 20.
276 Barbe 2003. Protocole actualise de la diagnose rapide des plans d'eau. Cemagref. 25pp.
277 Carlson RE. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography. 22(2):361-
278 369.
279 Catalan J, Ventura M, Munné A, and Godé L. 2003. Desenvolupament d’un index integral de
280 qualitat ecològica i regionalització ambiental dels sistemes lacustres de Catalunya. Agencia
281 Catalana del Aigua. Generalitat de Catalunya, 75.

9
282 [CHE] Confederación Hidrográfica del Ebro. 2005. Methodology for the establishment of
283 ecological status according to the Water Framework Directive in the Ebro River Basin
284 Authority [in spanish: Metodología para el establecimiento del Estado Ecológico según la
285 Directiva Marco del Agua. Protocolos de Muestreo y Análisis para Fitobentos (Microalgas
286 bentónicas)].
287 Cobelas MA, Verdugo M & Rojo C. 1995. Time series of multivariate data in aquatic
288 ecology. Aquatic sciences. 57(3): 185-198.
289 Dasí MJ, Miracle MR, Camacho A, Soria JM & Vicente E. 1998. Summer phytoplankton
290 assemblages across trophic gradients in hard-water reservoirs. In Phytoplankton and Trophic
291 Gradients. Springer Dordrecht.
292 De Jonge VN, Elliott M & Orive E, 2002. Causes, historical development, effects and future
293 challenges of a common environmental problem: eutrophication. In Nutrients and
294 Eutrophication in Estuaries and Coastal Water. Springer Netherlands
295 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000
296 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal
297 of the European Communities.
298 Dunnet CW, 1964. New tables for multiple comparisons with a control. Biometrics. 20: 482-
299 491.
300 EN 15204: 2006. Water quality - Guidance standard for the routine analysis of phytoplankton
301 abundance and composition using inverted microscopy (Utermöhl technique).
302 Golterman HL, Clymo R, Ohstad M. 1978. Methods for Physical and Chemical Analysis of
303 Freshwater. IBP Handbook, 8. Blackwell. London, UK.
304 Liou YT, Lo SL. 2005. A fuzzy index model for trophic status evaluation of reservoir waters.
305 Water Research. 39(7):1415-1423.
306 Marchetto A, Padedda BM, Mariani MA, Luglie A & Sechi N. 2009. A numerical index for
307 evaluating phytoplankton response to changes in nutrient levels in deep Mediterranean
308 reservoirs. Journal of Limnology. 68(1): 106-121.
309 Morcos SA. 1970. Chemical Composition of Seawater and the Variation of Calcium and
310 Alkalinity. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 33(2):126–133. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/33.2.126
311 OCDE 1982. Eutrophication of water: monitoring, assessment and control. Organization of
312 Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

10
313 Padisák J, Borics G, Grigorszky I, and Soróczki-Pintér É. 2006. Use of phytoplankton
314 assemblages for monitoring ecological status of lakes within the Water Framework Directive:
315 the assemblage index. Hydrobiologia, 553(1), 1-14.
316 Ptacnik R, Solimini AG, and Brettum P. 2009. Performance of a new phytoplankton
317 composition metric along a eutrophication gradient in Nordic lakes. Hydrobiologia, 633(1),
318 75-82.
319 Reynolds CS, Irish AE, 1997. Modelling phytoplankton Dynamics in lakes and
320 reservoris: the problema of in-situ growth rates. Hydrobiologia, 349: 5-17.
321 Salmaso N, Morabito G, Buzzi F, Garibaldi L, Simona M. and Mosello R. 2006.
322 Phytoplankton as an indicator of the water quality of the deep lakes south of the Alps.
323 Hydrobiologia, 563: 167-187.
324 Salmaso N, Naselli-Flores L, Padisák J, 2015. Functional classifications and their
325 application in phytoplankton ecology. Freshwater Biology, 60: 603-619.

326 Strickland J, Parsons TR. 1968. A practical handbook of seawater analysis. Bull. Fish. Res.
327 Board Can. 167:1-310
328 Verdow H, Vanechted CJA, Dekkers EMJ. 1978. Ammonia determination based on
329 indophenol with sodium salicylate. Water Research. 12: 399-402.

11
330
331 Figure 1. Sampling area. The reservoirs are indicated by a three letter code concerning its
332 name.

333
334 Figure 2. Descriptive fluxogram of the steps to follow to obtain the PRTI index.

12
335
336 Figure 3. Trophic state of the reservoirs according to the TSI and PRTI.

337
338 Figure 4. Representation in the CCA1 axis of the physicochemical variables according to the
339 weight obtained in the canonical correspondence analysis.

13
340

341 Figure 5. Representation on the CCA1 axis of the biological variables (phytoplankton),
342 grouped by taxonomic group and sorted by weight obtained in the canonical correspondence
343 analysis.

14
344
345 Figure 6. Graph of linear regression with the values obtained in the application of the PRTI
346 and TSI Carlson in the studied reservoirs with 2017 data.

15
 347 Table 1. Ecological potential classes. PRTI Index.
Ecological potential classes Ultraoligotrophic Oligotrophic Mesotrophic Eutrophic Hypertrophic
PRTI range <3,8 3,8 – 6,6 6,6 – 9,4 9,4 – 12,2 >12,2

348 Table 2. Results average, maximum and minimum of the variables considered in the study.
Variable Maximum Minimum Average
Depth (m) 30,00 2,00 10,83
pH 8,64 6,98 8,11
Transparency (Secchi Disk) (m) 17,20 0,65 4,12
Depth of photic zone (m) 43,00 1,80 11,34
Thickness of photic zone (m) 35,60 0,00 2,87
Turbidity (NTU) 15,16 0,21 3,26
Alkalinity (Mm) 3,95 0,24 2,16
Nitrate (µM) 209,00 0,00 33,12
Ammonium (µM) 6,83 0,00 1,51
Total nitrogen (µM) 306,78 8,48 51,48
Total phosphorus (µM) 4,50 0,03 0,46
Chlorophyll-a (µM) 90,97 0,01 4,57
Algae density (ind/mL) 60305,48 78,21 6593,90

349 Table 3. Average values of algae density by taxonomic class.

Algae clases Average algae density (Cell/mL)
Bacyllariophyceae 195
Chlorophyceae 218
Chrysophyceae 150
Chryptophyceae 135
Cyanobacteria 2647
Dynophyceae 5
Euglenophyceae 7
Synurophyceae 32
Zygnematophyceae 24

16

View publication stats