ISSN 1067�4136, Russian Journal of Ecology, 2013, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp. 527–531. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2013.Original Russian Text © N.I. Ermolaeva, S.Ya. Dvurechenskaya, 2013, published in Ekologiya, 2013, No. 6, pp. 476–480.

527

Saprobiological analysis holds a prominent placeamong methods of biological analysis of fresh waters.To estimate the degree of organic water pollution, spe�cialists widely use Pantle–Buck’s (1955) saprobityindex modified by Slade ek (1973), which takes intoaccount the relative occurrence frequency of hydro�bionts (h) and their indicator significance (s). To dis�tinguish the roles of individual species in indicating thedegree of water pollution, Zelinka and Marvan (1961)introduced the scale of their indicator weights (J). As arule, the indicator significance and indicator weight ofa given zooplanktonic organism are determined frompublished tables (Unifitsirovannye metody…, 1977;Makrushin, 1974a, 1974b). However, the possibility ofusing this method on a wide scale is limited becausethe above parameters may vary between differentregions (Rukovodstvo…, 1992). Thus, significant dif�ferences between the faunas of central European andWestern Siberian water bodies may be responsible fordifficulties in using the table values of s and J. The pur�pose of this study was to calculate the indices of indi�cator significance of zooplanktonic organisms forwater bodies of southern Western Siberia.

Calculations were made on the basis of data on132 lakes in Novosibirsk and Altai regions, 10 transects inthe Novosibirsk reservoir, and several small rivers inthe south of Western Siberia, which were collectedbetween 1990 and 2010. The results of processing1236 zooplankton samples were included in analysis,and water bodies with a total water mineralization(TDS) of no more than 1.0 g/dm3 were selected forcalculating the indices of interest.

Samples for hydrochemical analysis were takensimultaneously with hydrobiological samples, at thesame sites, to be assayed for BOD5, COD, dissolveoxygen, pH, and the contents of ammonium, nitrite,nitrate, and phosphate ions (GOST…, 1977). On thebasis of these hydrochemical parameters, the class ofwater quality was estimated on a six�grade scale(Oksiyuk et al., 1993), and each class was assigned to a

c

ˆ

certain category of water saprobity according to thevalue of the Pantle–Buck index (S).

Indices of saprobic valence of zooplanktonicorganisms were calculated by the equation proposedby Shitikov et al. (2003) for benthic organisms. Thisequation takes into account the proportions (relativeabundance) of species, rather than simply the fact oftheir presence or absence, which improves the sensi�tivity of the calculated saprobity index.

The sample formed as described above was used tocalculate the values of aik, the saprobic valence of spe�cies i in class k. The saprobic valence of a speciesaccording to Zelinka and Marvan (1961) indicates towhat extent it is characteristic of waters with a certainlevel of saprobity. In the simplest case, this parametermay be considered proportional to the relative abun�dance of species i in samples from biotopes of class k:

where L is the number of water quality classes (in ourcase, L = 6), and mk is the number of measurement ofkth type. The resultant matrix with dimensionality 6n(with n being the total number of species per sample)makes it possible to estimate the role of each speciesand its occurrence frequency in a water body of certaintype. The sum of valences calculated for each speciesin all six zones of water saprobity is 10 grades. We tookxik to be equal to the proportion (%) of individuals ofthe ith species from the total number of organisms inthe sample. If the number of individuals (N) was usedinstead of the proportion (xik = Nik), the equationacquired the form proposed by Tsimdin’ (1979). In ourcase, such a form of the equation was not suitable,because water objects included in the study markedlydiffered in quantitative parameters of zooplankton.

1

1 1

10

,

k

k

m

ijk

jik L m

ijk

k j

x

a

x

=

= =

=

∑

∑∑

Regional Indices of the Indicator Significance of Zooplanktonic Organisms in Water Bodies of Southern Western Siberia

N. I. Ermolaeva and S. Ya. DvurechenskayaInstitute of Water and Ecological Problems, Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences,

Morskoi pr. 2, Novosibirsk, 630090 Russiae�mail: hope@iwep.nsc.ruReceived October 23, 2012

Keywords: zooplankton species, bioindication, saprobic valence, Western Siberia

DOI: 10.1134/S1067413613060064

BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS

528

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY Vol. 44 No. 6 2013

ERMOLAEVA, DVURECHENSKAYA

Indices of indicator significance (s) and indicator weight (J) of some zooplankton species in water bodies of southern West�ern Siberia

Indicator species

Index of indicator significance (s) Indicator weight (J)

Sou

ther

n W

este

rn S

iber

ia

Eur

opea

n R

F a

nd

bord

erin

g st

ates

1

Eur

opea

n R

F a

nd

bor

deri

ng

stat

es2

Sm

all r

iver

s of

Lat

via3

Mol

dova

4

Cen

tral

Eur

opea

n

Rus

sia5

Sou

ther

n W

este

rn S

iber

ia

Eur

opea

n R

F a

nd

bord

erin

g st

ates

2

Sm

all r

iver

s of

Lat

via3

Asplanchna priodonta Gosse 1.50 – o�β – 1.5 1.5 2 1 –As. herricki Guerne 1.61 – – – 1.0 – 3 – –Brachionus angularis Gosse 1.74 2.5 β�α – 2.5 2.5 3 3 –Br. calyciflorus Pallas 1.70 – β�α 2.6 2.5 2.5 3 3 3Br. diversicornis (Daday) 1.69 – – – 2.0 – 4 – –Br. leydigiii Cohn 1.64 – – – 2.2 – 4 – –Br. quadridentatus Hermann 1.85 – – 2.0 2.0 – 2 – 5Br. q. melheni Barrois et Daday 1.38 – – – 2.0 – 3 – –Br. q. cluniorbicularis Skorikov 1.83 2.0 – – 2.0 – 4 – –Br. plicatilis Müller 1.50 – – – 2.0 – 4 – –Br. urceus Linnaeus 2.00 – β 2.5 2.2 – 4 4 3Br. variabilis Hempel 1.86 – – – 2.0 – 4 – –Cephalodella gibba (Ehrenberg) 1.83 1.35 – 1.6 2.0 – 2 – 3Colurella obtusa (Gosse) 1.65 – – 1.4 0.8 – 3 – 3Euchlanis deflexa Gosse 1.65 – – – 1.5 – 3 – –E. dilatata Ehrenberg 1.61 – – 1.5 1.5 – 3 – 3E. lyra lyra Hudson 1.42 – – – 1.5 – 3 – –E. lyra larga Kutikova 1.50 – – – 1.5 – 4 – –Filinia longiseta (Ehrenberg) 1.25 2.35 β�α 1.2 2.5 2.3 4 2 4F. terminalis Plate 1.69 – – – 1.5 – 4 – –F. major (Golditz) 1.70 – – – 2.0 – 3 – –Hexarthra mira (Hudson) 2.00 1.8 β – 1.8 1.8 4 4 –Keratella cochlearis (Gosse) 1.55 – β�o – 1.5 1.3 2 2 –K. cochlearis tecta (Gosse) 1.50 – – – 1.2 – 2 – –K. hiemalis Carlin 1.92 – – – 1.15 – 3 – –K. quadrata (Müller) 1.65 – β�o 1.8 1.5 1.3 3 2 3K. q. longispina (Thiebaud) 1.77 – – – – – 4 – –Lecane luna luna (Müller) 1.48 1.55 – – 1.5 – 2 – –L. ungulata (Gosse) 1.50 – – – 1.5 – 4 – –Lepadella obtusa Wang 1.67 – – – – 3 – –L. ovalis (Müller) 1.70 – – 1.0 1.5 – 3 – 5Lophocharis oxysternon Gosse 1.71 – – – 1.2 – 5 – –Mytilina mucronata (Müller) 1.67 – – 2.0 1.7 – 5 – 5M. m. spinigera (Ehrenberg) 1.25 1.85 – – 1.85 – 5 – –M. ventralis (Ehrenberg) 1.81 – – 2.0 1.0 – 4 – 5M. videns (Levander) 1.17 – – – 1.5 – 4 – –Notholca acuminata (Ehrenberg) 1.42 – – – 1.2 – 4 – –Platyias quadricornis (Ehrenberg) 1.44 – – – 1.8 – 3 – –Plationus polyacanthus (Ehrenberg) 1.33 1.8 – – – – 4 – –Polyarthra dolichoptera Idelson 1.63 – – – 1.5 – 3 – –P. euryptera Wierzejski 1.67 – – – 1.2 – 3 – –P. major Burckhardt 1.36 – – – 1.2 – 3 – –P. minor Voigt 1.50 – – – 0.5 – 3 – –

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY Vol. 44 No. 6 2013

REGIONAL INDICES OF THE INDICATOR SIGNIFICANCE 529

Table. (Contd.)

Indicator species

Index of indicator significance (s) Indicator weight (J)

Sou

ther

n W

este

rn S

iber

ia

Eur

opea

n R

F a

nd

bord

erin

g st

ates

1

Eur

opea

n R

F a

nd

bor

deri

ng

stat

es2

Sm

all r

iver

s of

Lat

via3

Mol

dova

4

Cen

tral

Eur

opea

n

Rus

sia5

Sou

ther

n W

este

rn S

iber

ia

Eur

opea

n R

F a

nd

bord

erin

g st

ates

2

Sm

all r

iver

s of

Lat

via3

P. remata Skorikov 1.64 1.0 – – 1.0 – 4 – –P. vulgaris Carlin 1.60 – β – 1.85 1.9 2 2 –Proales similis de Beauchamp 1.38 – – – – – 3 – –Synchaeta oblonga Ehrenberg 1.83 – – – 1.75 – 3 – –S. stylata Wierzejski 1.50 – – 1.6 1.0 – 3 – 3Testudinella patina (Hermann) 1.50 1.85 – 1.7 1.85 – 3 – 4

Trichocerca cylindrica (Imhof) 1.50 – – 2.7 1.0 – 3 – 4Tr. capucina (Wierzejski et Zacharias) 1.33 – – – 1.0 – 4 – –Tr. elongata (Gosse) 1.60 – – – 1.5 – 2 – –Trichotria truncata (Whitelegge) 1.58 – – – 1.2 – 4 – –Acroperus harpae (Baird) 1.17 1.4 – – – – 4 – –

Alona affinis (Leydig) 1.44 1.1 – – – – 2 – –

A. guttata Sars 1.60 1.5 – – – – 2 – –

A. quadrangularis (O.F. Müller) 1.25 1.4 – – – – 3 – –

A. rectangula Sars 1.00 1.3 – – – – 5 – –

Alonella excisa (Fischer) 1.00 1.2 – – – – 5 – –

A. nana (Baird) 2.13 1.4 – – – – 3 – –

Bosmina longirostris (O.F. Müller) 1.53 1.55 o�β – – 1.5 1 1 –

Bythotrephes cederströmii Schöedler 1.88 – – – – – 3 – –B. longimanus Leydig 1.10 1.0 o – – 1.0 4 – –Ceriodaphnia affinis Lilljeborg 1.68 1.5 – – – – 3 – –

C. quadrangula (O.F. Müller) 1.48 1.15 o – – 1.1 2 2 –

C. reticulata Jurine 1.69 1.7 – – – 4 – –

Chydorus ovalis Kurz 1.63 1.2 – – – – 2 – –

Ch. sphaericus (O.F. Müller) 1.28 1.75 β�o – – 1.7 2 1 –

Ctenodaphnia magna Straus 1.58 3.4 α�p – – 3.4 4 3 –

Ct. similes Claus 1.88 – – – – – 4 – –Daphnia cucullata Sars 1.88 1.75 β – – 1.7 1 2 –

D. longispina O.F. Müller 1.58 2.05 β – – 1.9 2 1 –

D. pulex (De Geer) 1.72 2.5 α – – 2.8 3 4 –

Diaphanosoma brachyurum (Lievin) 1.52 1.4 o�β – – 1.4 4 3 –

Disparalona (Phrixura) rostrata (Koch) 1.13 1.3 – – – – 4 – –

Eubosmina longispina Leydig. 1.50 – – – – – 2 – –Eu. coregoni Baird 1.54 – o – – 0.9 3 3 –Eurycercus lamellatus (O.F. Müller) 1.62 1.2 – – – – 4 – –

Graptoleberis testudinaria (Fischer) 1.21 1.5 – – – – 4 – –

Iliocryptus acutifrons Sars 1.89 – – – – – 5 –Leptodora kindtii (Focke) 1.75 1.65 β�o – – 1.7 2 2 –Macrotrix hirsuticornis Norman &Brady 1.64 – – – – – 4 – –Moina brachiata (Jurine) 2.28 3.4 α�p – – 3.4 3 3 –M. macrocopa (Straus) 2.15 2.75 – – – – 3 – –

530

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY Vol. 44 No. 6 2013

ERMOLAEVA, DVURECHENSKAYA

Table. (Contd.)

Indicator species

Index of indicator significance (s) Indicator weight (J)

Sou

ther

n W

este

rn S

iber

ia

Eur

opea

n R

F a

nd

bord

erin

g st

ates

1

Eur

opea

n R

F a

nd

bor

deri

ng

stat

es2

Sm

all r

iver

s of

Lat

via3

Mol

dova

4

Cen

tral

Eur

opea

n

Rus

sia5

Sou

ther

n W

este

rn S

iber

ia

Eur

opea

n R

F a

nd

bord

erin

g st

ates

2

Sm

all r

iver

s of

Lat

via3

Oxyurella tenuicaudis (Sars) 1.50 – – – – – 3 – –

Peracantha truncata (O.F. Müller) 1.54 1.3 – – – – 3 – –

Picripleuroxus striatus Schoedler 1.64 1.5 – – – – 2 – –

Pleuroxus aduncus (Jurine) 1.52 – – – – – 4 – –

Polyphemus pediculus (Linnaeus) 1.63 1.3 o – – 1.3 4 4 –

Pseudochydorus globosus (Baird) 1.77 1.2 – – – – 4 – –

Sida crystallina (O.F. Müller) 1.50 1.8 o – – 1.3 4 – –

Simocephalus vetulus (O.F. Müller) 1.80 1.5 o�β – – 1.5 4 – –

Scapholeberis mucronata (O.F. Müller) 1.79 2.0 – – – – 3 – –

Cyclops furcifer Claus 1.50 – – – – – 4 – –

C. s. strenuus Fischer 1.14 2.25 β�α – – 2.2 2 2 –

C. v. vicinus Uljanin 1.38 – β – – 2.1 3 3 –

Eucyclops serrulatus Fischer 1.65 1.85 – – – – 4 – –

Macrocyclops albidus (Jurine) 1.93 – – – – – 3 – –

M. fuscus (Jurine) 2.00 – – – – – 5 – –

Megacyclops gigas (Claus) 1.88 – – – – – 4 – –

M. viridis (Jurine) 1.69 – – – – – 2 – –

Mesocyclops leuckarti (Claus) 1.74 – o – – 1.2 2 3 –

Paracyclops f. fimbriatus (Fischer) 1.65 – – – – – 3 – –

Thermocyclops oithonoides (Sars) 2.33 – – – – – 4 – –

Acanthodiaptomus denticornis Wierzejski 2.50 – – – – – 4 – –

Eudiaptomus gracilis Sars 1.50 – o – – 1.2 3 3 –

E. graciloides Lilljeborg 1.66 – – – – – 3 – –

E. vulgaris (Schmeil) 1.55 – – – – – 4 – –

Heterocope appendiculata Sars 1.67 – – – – – 4 – –

Mixodiaptomus theeli (Lilljeborg) 1.94 – – – – – 3 – –

Neutrodiaptomus incongruens (Poppe) 1.73 – – – – – 3 – –

1 Unifitsirovannye metody..., 1977.2 Makrushin, 1974b.3 Tsimdin’, 1979.4 Naberezhnyi, 1984.5 Chertoprud and Chertoprud, 2010.

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY Vol. 44 No. 6 2013

REGIONAL INDICES OF THE INDICATOR SIGNIFICANCE 531

Proceeding from the distribution of saprobicvalences in the above zones, we then calculated thevalues of indicator significance s and indicator weight J(Tsimdin’, 1979) for 111 species and forms of zoop�lanktonic organisms (table).

Comparison of these indices with those from thetables for European water bodies showed that, in somespecies (e.g., Alonella nana, Keratella hiemalis, andCyclops strenuus), they not only differ in value but alsoindicate a different class of water quality. This leads toserious errors in calculated regional values of the Pan�tle–Buck index, which may widely vary depending onthe species composition of a given zooplankton ceno�sis and the proportion of indicator species in it. Inmost cases, the saprobity index for Western Siberianwater bodies proves to be overestimated.

Since water bodies included in analysis are practi�cally undisturbed, the calculated values of the indices(table) can be regarded as background values.

REFERENCES

Chertoprud, M.V. and Chertoprud, E.S., Kratkii opredelitel’bespozvonochnykh presnykh vod tsentra Evropeiskoi Rossii(A Brief Identification Key to Freshwater Invertebrates ofCentral European Russia), Moscow: KMK, 2010.GOST (State Standard) 2874–82: Potable Water, 1982.GOST (State Standard) 17.1.2.04�77: Nature Conservation.Hydrosphere. Indicators of Status and Rules for Taxation ofFishery Water Bodies, 1977.Makrushin, A.V., Biologicheskii analiz kachestva vod (Bio�logical Analysis of Water Quality), Vinberg, G.G., Ed.,Leningrad: Zool. Inst. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1974a.Makrushin, A.V., Bibliograficheskii ukazatel' po teme “Bio�logicheskii analiz kachestva vod” s prilozheniem spiska orga�nizmov�indikatorov zagryazneniya (Bibliographic Index forBiological Analysis of Water Quality, with a List of Indicator

Organisms of Water Pollution), Leningrad: Zool. Inst.Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1974b.Naberezhnyi, A.I., Ecological passports of rotifers inhabit�ing water bodies of Moldova, Herald Hydrobiol., 2010.http://hydrobiologist.wordpress.com/Oksiyuk, O.P., Zhukinskii, V.N., and Braginskii, L.P.,A complex ecological classification of the quality of land sur�face waters, Gidrobiol. Zh., 1993, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 42–76.Pantle, R. and Buck, H., Die biologische Uberwachung derGewässer und die Darstellung der Ergebnisse, Gas–undWasserfach., 1955, vol. 96, no. 18, pp. 604–618.Rukovodstvo po gidrobiologicheskomu monitoringu presno�vodnykh ekosistem (Guidelines for Hydrobiological Moni�toring in Freshwater Ecosystems) Abakumov, V.A., Ed.,St. Petersburg: Gidrometeoizdat, 1992.Shitikov, V.K., Zinchenko, T.D., and Golovatyuk, L.V.,A method for assessing the quality of surface waters by mac�robenthos based on species indicator valences, in Ozernyeekosistemy: biologicheskie protsessy, antropogennaya trans�formatsiya, kachestvo vody: Mat�ly. II mezhdun. konf., (LakeEcosystems: Biological Processes Anthropogenic Transfor�mation, and Water Quality. Proc. II int. Conf.), Minsk:Naroch’, 2003, pp. 537–540.Slade ek, V., System of water quality from the biologicalpoint of view, Arch. Hydrobiol. Ergeb. Limnol., 1973, no. 3.Tsimdin’, P.A., Rotifers as indicators of saprobity, Gidrobiol.Zh., 1979, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 63–67.Unifitsirovannye metody issledovaniya kachestva vod (Uni�fied Methods for Water Quality Assessment), part 3: Metodybiologicheskogo analiza vod (Methods for Biological Analy�sis of Waters), Appendix 2: Atlas saprobnykh organizmov (AnAtlas of Saprobic Organisms), Moscow: SEV, 1977.Zelinka, M. and Marvan, P., Zur Präzisierung der biologis�chen Klassifikation der Reinheit flieβender Gewässer, Arch.Hydrobiol., 1961, vol. 57, pp. 389–407.

Translated by N. Gorgolyuk

c

ˆ