Apresentação do PowerPointCrustacea Ephemeroptera Odonata Coleoptera Trichoptera Diptera 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 % Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Stress: 0,07

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


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


↑ 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


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



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


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


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


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



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


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 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



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

%


Stress: 0,08


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



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


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 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


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


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


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 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

Documents

Apresentação do PowerPointCrustacea Ephemeroptera Odonata Coleoptera Trichoptera Diptera 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 % Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Stress: 0,07