Assesment of ecological quality of man-made Koko lake (Korhogo, Côte d’Ivoire) using biotics indices based on aquatic insects.

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2627948/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Assesment of ecological quality of man-made Koko lake (Korhogo, Côte d’Ivoire) using biotics indices based on aquatic insects.

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2627948/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Assessment and monitoring of surface water quality using biological methods has been popularized in recent years. It is within this framework that the present study attempts to use biological indices to determine the quality of Koko Lake in order to propose solutions for obtaining acceptable water for human consumption. Aquatic insects were sampled in four habitats, using a hand net and a van Veen grab, from March to August 2018. The study reported 10 families and 5 orders of aquatic insects collected. Diptera and Heteroptera were the most diverse and abundant order, respectively. The family Notonectidae was found to be abundant, however Chironomidae was the most diverse family. The ASPT score suggests very good lake quality, however the BMWP index indicates moderate water quality for sites S1, S2 and S4 and good quality for site S3. The FBI score indicates average water quality for some sites and fairly poor water quality for others. Since the water in Lake Koko is reserved for consumption, monitoring measures must be taken by the Korhogo city authorities.

Biological indices

Monitoring

Specie richness

Water quality

The development of agricultural activities around the koko dam poses a number of challenges for food security and the water resource quality of this infrastructure. The use of chemical and biological inputs as well as cleaning products (Pesticides) in this type of agricultural practice greatly pollutes surface water (Wade, 2003). Urban water quality degradation through, wastewater discharges and agricultural runoff threatens people and the environment (ONU, 2017). The development of urban agriculture may jeopardize the long-term availability of drinking water (FAO, CME, 2015). The causes of water sources pollution are agricultural intensification, industrial development and expanding cities (FAO, CME, 2015). Urbanization is one of the major sources of the degradation of the aquatic environment (Nwajei et al., 2012). Intensified agricultural and industrial activities are causing the contamination of surface water and groundwater (Patil et al., 2012). Pollution and the loss of wetlands impact negatively wildlife and biodiversity (Hashemi et al., 2012). Aquatic insects are part of the material for environmental impact assessment and are important for water quality monitoring (Bonada et al., 2005). The environmental conditions of streams, lakes and ponds affect aquatic insects that are subject to them. Also some insects tolerate organic pollution of environments which is not the case for others. All these characters make these invertebrates as good bioindicator of aquatic habitat water quality. The use of biological methods in assessment and monitoring of surface water quality has been popularized in recent years (Bhuvaneswari et al., 2013). Several researchers have advocated the use of aquatic insect community structure as bio indicators of aquatic habitats (Arimoro et al., 2007 ; Arimoro and Ikomi, 2008 ; Gupta et al., 2013). Typically, the quality of streams is assessment using biotic indices such as Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP), the Average Per Taxa Score (ASPT) and the Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (FBI) (Kazanci et al., 2013 ; Zeybek et al., 2014 ; Ojija et al., 2017). Recently these indices have been used for the assessment of stagnant environments such as ponds in India (Purkayastha and Gupta, 2013) and in Côte d’Ivoire (Yapo et al., 2017) and lake in Benin (Odountan and Abou, 2015) and lake in Algeria too (Djamai, 2020) and dams in Nigeria (Bawa et al., 2018). The purpose of this study is to assessment the man-made koko lake quality using Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP), Average Score Per Taxa (ASPT) and Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (FBI).

Study site

The study was conducted in Koko lake (Fig. 1) in Korhogo, in the northern part of Côte d’Ivoire. Korhogo is characterized by a Sudanese climate including two great seasons: a dry season and a rainy season. The dry season runs from November to April while the rainy season extends from May to October. The annual average of rainfall varies from 1100 to 1600 mm (Boko-Koiadia et al., 2016).

Sampling procedures and environmental variables

For sampling, 4 zones were chosen on the study site according to their accessibility (Fig. 1). In each site, during sampling environmental variables such as water transparency, temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen and electrical conductivity were measured in situ between 8 am and 10 am. The sampling of aquatic insect communities was carried out monthly from March to August 2018. Water column and sediment samples in each site were collected with a 350 µm mesh hand net and a van Veen grab respectively. Organisms collected were took in some pill and fixed with formalin at 10% concentration in the field. In the laboratory, they were sorted and kept in 70% alcohol. Aquatic insects were identified to the lowest taxonomic level using systematic keys of Déjoux et al. (1981). and Tachet et al. (2003).

Data analyses

The number of species and the number of individuals were used to calculate species richness, Shannon diversity index, Simpson dominance index, Margalef species richness index and evenness index to assess the distribution and diversity of the insects between study sites (Magurran, 1988). For the assessment of Koko Lake quality, we used biotic indices such as Biological Monitoring Working Party score (BMWP) (Mustow, 2002), Average Score Per Taxa (ASPT) and Family Biotic Index (FBI) (Hilsenhoff, 1988). The BMWP system considers the sensitivity of invertebrates to pollution. In this system, a score ranging from 1 to 10 was assigned to each family based on their sensitivity to pollution. The BMWP score of a sample is the result of the scores of all the families in this sample. For each type of organism we add the scores. To obtain the total score of an organism, first the number of species of this organism is multiplied by its score. Take for example Mayfly. If we have three different types of Mayfly, their score becomes 3 x 10 = 30. Then the scores of all organisms in the sample are summed to obtain the total BMWP score of the sample (Aquascience activity, 2019). The water quality depends on the value of the BMWP score. When BMWP score values is greater than 100 it indicates that the stream is clean, while a value less than 10 reflects a heavily polluted stream (Mason, 2002). The Average Score Per Taxon (ASPT) was determined by dividing the BMWP score by the number of taxa present in the sample. When an ASPT score is high this indicates that the site is clean and contains a large number of high score taxa When an ASPT score is high this indicates that the site is clean and contains a large number of high score taxa (Armitage et al., 1983). The Average Score Per Taxa (ASPT) was obtained according to the following formula:

$$\text{A}\text{S}\text{P}\text{T}=\frac{\text{B}\text{M}\text{W}\text{P} \text{s}\text{c}\text{o}\text{r}\text{e}}{\text{T}\text{o}\text{t}\text{a}\text{l} \text{n}\text{u}\text{m}\text{b}\text{e}\text{r} \text{o}\text{f} \text{f}\text{a}\text{m}\text{i}\text{l}\text{i}\text{e}\text{s}}$$

FBI score of the different sampling sites of the lake were calculated using the tolerance value of aquatic insects families recorded. Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (FBI) tolerance values range from 0 to 10 for families (Kripa et al., 2013). FBI was calculated with the following formula:

$\text{F}\text{B}\text{I}=\sum \frac{{\text{x}}_{\text{i}}{\text{t}}_{\text{i}}}{\text{N}}$ with xi the number of individuals in the ith taxon, ti the tolerance value of the ith taxon, and N the total number of specimens in the sample (Hilsenhoff, 1988).

To determine the status of Koko lake quality, we refer to the threshold values of the biotic indices and to the interpretation of these values which are contained in Table 1 for BMWP and ASPT as well as in Table 2 for FBI.

Table 1

The BMWP and ASPT threshold values and assessment interpretation used

(Adapted from Aquilina (2013).
BMWP score	ASPT score	Quality or diversity interpretation
> 150	> 6	Very good
101–150	> 5	Good
51–100	> 4	Moderate
16–50	< 4	Poor
0–15		Very poor

Table 2

Evaluation of water quality using the family-level biotic index (Hilsenhoff, 1988).
Family Biotic Index	Water Quality	Degree of Organic Pollution
0.00-3.75	Excellent	Organic pollution unlikely
3.76–4.25	Very good	Possible slight organic pollution
4.26-5.00	Good	Some organic pollution probable
5.01–5.75	Fair	Fairly substantial pollution likely
5.76–6.50	Fairly poor	Substantial pollution likely
6.51–7.25	Poor	Very substantial pollution likely
7.26-10.00	Very poor	Severe organic pollution likely

Environmental variables of Koko lake are shown in Table 3. A total of 1306 individuals belonging to 10 families and 5 orders were collected in this study (Table 4). Species richness ranged from 18 (S4) to 25 (S3). All the 5 orders of insects were harvested at 4 sites. It is the same for all the 10 families with the exception of site S1 where the family nepidae was not represented. Heteroptera recorded the highest number of families (4), followed by Odonata (2) and Diptera (2). Order Coleoptera and Ephemeroptera were less diversified with one family. Order Diptera recorded the greatest species richness with 9 species. It was followed by Heteroptera (6 species). Chironomidae was the most diverse family with 8 representatives. Heteroptera was the most abundant order while Ephemeroptera was the least abundant. Similar studies have shown that Heteroptera was the most abundant group (Barman et al., 2014 ; Dalal and Gupta, 2014). Notonectidae recorded the highest relative abundance (40%) and was followed by Gerridae (17%) and by Chironomidae (15%) as presented in Fig. 2. The backswimmers Notonectidae most commonly occur along vegetated margins of lakes and ponds and in marshes (Bouchard, 2004). They are definitely aggressive, size-limited predators, which kill small animals beyond their food needs (Papáček, 2001). Their abundance would be due to the wide availability of food resources. Anisops sardea, Herrich-Schaffer, 1849 was found abundant in all the sites. This species constitutes 40% of total abundance of aquatic insect collected. It was followed by Eurymetra sp., Esaki, 1926 (12%) (Fig. 3). Anisops sardea’s abundance was very remarkable in sites S2 and S3 unlike other sites. This is justified by the fact that in these sites, the aquatic vegetation was abundant. Indeed, this species is subservient to aquatic vegetation (Bouchard, 2004). The community indices are presented in Table 5. The highest Shannon-Wiener index (2.41) was recorded in site S1 and the lowest in S4 (2.20), this result indicates the presence of higher diversity of aquatic insect in the lake. The high diversity of insects shows that Koko lake had a greater microhabitats diversity and better water quality conditions (Abhijna et al., 2013). Pielou evenness value was high in almost all the sites. This result indicates even distribution of species in the lake. The dominance ranged between 0.15 (site S1) and 0.21 (site S3). Simpson index value oscillated between 0.79 (S3) and 0.85 (S1). Species richness index was always greater than three. The species richness index varied from 3.30 (S4) to 3.84 (S3). BWMP score, ASPT score and FBI score for the lake are shown in Table 6. The BMWP value oscillated between 71 (S4) and 112 (S3). These score of site S1, S2 and S4 reflect moderate quality of water while those of S3 was characterized by good water quality (Bartram and Balance, 1996). ASPT value obtained varie from 7.89 (S4) to 12.44 (S3). These score were greater than 6, indicating very good ecological potential (VGEP) of the water body (AWBs. Waterways Ireland, 2008). ASPT indicated that the different sites had clean water. FBI score ranged from 5.50 (S2) to 6.19 (S1). FBI score of sites S1 and S4 reveal the substantial pollution likely of these sites, however S2 and S3 FBI score reflect fairly substantial pollution likely. Koko lake water quality varied according to the indices used. Similar results were observed by Purkayastha and Gupta (2013). In all sites, based on BMWP and FBI scores, the quality of water obtained in some sites was moderate on the one hand and likely polluted on the other hand. Moderate pollution or likely pollution of these sites could be due to the practice of agricultural activities around the lake (Wade, 2003 ; Senior water teacher guide, Autralian government, 2010). The dominance of Notonectidae could justify this moderate character of the state of pollution of Koko lake. Indeed, Notonectidae is one of the most tolerant families. It reflects the moderately polluted nature of aquatic system (Ellis and Meredith, 2004).

Table 3

Summury of mean value of environmental variables in the different sites
Parameters	Sites
	S1	S2	S3	S4
Trans (cm)	26.12	24.35	24.12	26.55
T°C	25.78	26.13	26.12	26.45
pH	6.87	6.86	6.95	6.94
EC (µS/cm)	49.97	53.97	42.95	44.28
DO (mg/L)	6.07	5.92	5.95	6.13

Table 4

Abundance, list of orders and families of aquatic insects collected from Koko lake.
Orders	Families	Sites				Total
		S1	S2	S3	S4
Coleoptera	Dytiscidae	16	31	21	13	81
Odonata	Libellulidae	8	27	50	9	94
	Coenagrionidae	14	19	22	4	59
Ephemeroptera	Baetidae	2	2	6	4	14
Heteroptera	Corixidae	15	19	17	13	64
	Notonectidae	69	167	218	66	520
	Gerridae	24	79	98	22	223
	Nepidae	0	20	18	1	39
Diptera	Chironomidae	51	43	59	40	193
	Ceratopogonidae	5	5	8	1	19
Total = 5	10	204	412	517	173	1306

Table 5

Number of taxa and species diversity indices of insects of Koko lake.
	Sites
	S1	S2	S3	S4
Taxa_S	21	22	25	18
Dominance_D	0.15	0.20	0.21	0.19
Simpson_1-D	0.85	0.80	0.79	0.81
Shannon_H	2.41	2.24	2.30	2.20
Margalef	3.76	3.49	3.84	3.30
Equitability_J	0.79	0.72	0.71	0.76

Table 6

Biological scores (BMWP), Average Score Per Taxa (ASPT) values and Family Biotic Index (FBI) values obtained.
Biotic indices	Sites
	S1	S2	S3	S4
BMWP score	92	100	112	71
ASPT score	11.50	11.11	12.44	7.89
FBI score	6.19	5.50	5.51	5.83

This study reveals a greater specie richness and an abundance of insects in site S3 compared with other sites. Through the results of the study a greater diversity and an index of species richness of aquatic insects were recorded in Koko lake with a pollution likely. This study suggest biomonitoring programmes with the banning of all people practicing agricultural activities around the lake.

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Abhijna UG, Ratheesh R, Biju KA (2013) Distribution and diversity of aquatic insects of Vellayani lake in Kerala. J Environ Biol : 605-612
Aquascience activity. Using aquatic organisms for pollution monitoring. Teacher’s manual (2019) http://www.supi.manchester.ac.uk/media/services/supi/Aquascience-.pdf, consulted on 02/09/2019
Aquilina R (2013) Pre-restoration assessment of the Hogsmill and River Wandle. Report prepared for Wandle River Trust
Arimoro FO, Ikomi RB (2008) Response of macroinvertebrate communities to abattoir wastes and other anthropogenic activities in a municipal stream in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. Environ 28 : 85-98
Arimoro FO, Ikomi RB, Erebe E (2007) Macroinvertebrate community diversity in relation to water quality status of River Ase, Niger Delta. Nigeria. J Fish Aquat Sci 2(5): 337-344
Armitage PD, Moss D, Wright JF, Furse MT (1983) The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running water sites. Water Res 17: 333-347
AWBs (2008) Waterways Ireland, Central Fisheries Board and the South East River Basin District For The Surface Water Status Group, Ireland
Barman B, Gupta P, Choudhury D, Dalal A, Gupta S (2014) Biomonitoring in lentic ecosystems of Irongmara, District Cachar, Assam, India, with special reference to aquatic insect community. Int Res J Environ Sci 3: 26-35
Bartram J, Balance R (1996) World Health Organization & United Nations Environment Programme. Water quality monitoring : a practical guide to the design and implementation of freshwater quality studies and monitoring programs / edited by Jamie Bartram and Richard Ballance. London : E & FN Spon, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/41851
Bawa U, Muhammad IA and Ibrahim H (2018) Assessment of water quality using Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) and Average Score Per Taxon (ASPT) score at Kanye and Magaga dams, Kano. Bayero J. pure Appl. Sci 11(2): 210- 218
Bouchard RWJr (2004) Guide to aquatic macroinvertebrate of the Upper Midwest, Watter Resources Center, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 208.
Boko-Koiadia AN, Guéladio N, Koné B, Séri D (2016) Variabilité Climatique Et Changements Dans L’environnement A Korhogo En Côte D’ivoire : Mythes Ou Réalité ? "Eur Sci J 12(5) : 158-176
Bonada N, Prat N, Resh HV, Bernhard S (2005) In aquatic insect biomonitiring: A comparative analysis of recent approaches. A.P.N.Y.
Bhuvaneswari S, Murugesan S, Subha TS, Dhamotharan R, Shettu N (2013) In vitro antioxidant activity of marine red algae. Chondrococcus hornemanni and Spyridia fusiformis. J Chem Pharm Sci 5(3): 82-85
Dalal A, Gupta S (2014) Aquatic insect diversity in two temple ponds of Silchar, Assam, N.E. India and their conservation values. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 415: 9
Dejoux C, Elouard JM, Forge P, Malsin J (1981) Catalogue iconographique des insectes aquatiques de Côte d’Ivoire. Rapport ORSTOM.
Djamai S (2020) Variations Spatiales des Macro-invertébrés benthiques dans le lac Tonga (El-Kala – Wilaya El- Tarf). Thèse de Doctorat 3ème cycle (LMD) de l’Université Mohamed Boudiaf - M’sila, Algérie, 142.
Ellis I, Meredith S (2004) An independent review of the February 2004 lower Darling River fish deaths: Guidelines for future release effects on lower Darling River fish populations, Murray-Darling Freshwater Research Centre, Report No. 7/2004.
FAO, CME (2015) En 2050, la disponibilité en eau diminuera dans certaines parties du Monde, viewed on 01/09/2019 http://www.fao.org/news/story/fr/item/283271/icode/
Hashemi SAR., Eskandary G, Ansary H (2012) Biomass of Fish Species in the Shadegan Wetland, IRAN, Res J Recent Sci 1(1) : 66-68
Hilsenhoff WL (1988) Rapid Field Assessment of Organic Pollution with a Family-Level Biotic Index. J North Am Benthol Soc 7:65-68
Gupta S, Dey S, Purkayastha P (2013) Use of aquatic insects in water quality assessment of ponds around two cement factories of Assam, India. Int Res J Environ Sci 2(7): 15-19.
Kazanci N, Turkmen G, Ekingen P, Başoren O (2013) Preparation of a biotic index (Yeşilırmak-BMWP) for water quality monitoring of Yeşilırmak River (Turkey) by using Benthic macroinvertebrates. Rev Hydrobiol 6: 1-29
Kripa PK, Prasanth KM, Sreejesh KK, Thomas TP (2013) Aquatic macroinvertebrates as bioindicators of stream water quality. A case study in Koratty, Kerala, India. Res J Recent Sci 2: 217-222
Magurran AE (1988) Ecological Diversity and its Management. Croom Helm Ltd., London, 179
Mason CF (2002) Biology of Freshwater Pollution. 4th ed. New York, USA: Prentice Hall.
Mustow SE (2002) Biological monitoring of rivers in Thailand: use and adaptation of the BMWP score. Hydrobiologia 479: 191-229
Nwajei GE, Obi–Iyeke GE, Okwagi P (2012) Distribution of Selected Trace Metal in Fish Parts River Nigeria, Res J Recent Sci : 81-84
Odountan H, Abou Y (2015). Can Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Changes Be Used as Biological Indicator of Water Quality of the Nokoue Lake (Benin)? J Environ Prot 6: 1402- 1416
Ojija F, Gebrehiwot M, Kilimba N (2017) Assessing Ecosystem Integrity And Macroinvertebrates Community Structure: Towards Conservation Of Small Streams In Tanzania. Int J Sci Technol Res 6(2): 148-155
ONU (2017) Les eaux usées une ressource inexploitée. Rapport mondial des Nations Unies sur la mise en valeur des ressources en eau, 203. viewed on 01/09/2019 https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247551
Papáček M (2001) Small aquatic and ripicolous bugs (Heteroptera: Nepomorpha) as predators and prey: The question of economic importance. Eur J Entomol 98: 1-12
Patil SG, Chonde SG, Jadhav AS, Raut PD (2012) Impact of Physico Shivaji University lakes on Phytoplankton Communities, Kolhapur, India, Res J Recent Sci 1: 56-60
Purkayastha P, Gupta S (2013) Estimating ecosystem health of shallow water pond in lower Irongmara, Barak Valley, Assam, India using ASPT, SPI and BWMP Score.Int Res J Biol Sci 2(8):1-4
Senior water teacher guide, Autralian government, (2010) (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/ water watch/SnrTeachGuide/20090500SeniorTeachersGuide.pdf)
Tachet H, Richoux P, Bournaud M, Usseglio-Polatera P (2003) Invertébrés d’eau douce: systématique, biologie, écologie: CNRS Editions, Paris
Wade CS (2003) L’Utilisation des pesticides dans l’agriculture périurbaine et son impact sur l’environnement. Thèse de Doctorat, No 66. Département de Pharmacie. Université Cheikh Anta Diop de Dakar, 59
Yapo ML, Tuo Y, Koné M, Atsé BC, Kouassi P (2017) Can use the Biotic Index as an indication of fish farm pond water quality?. J Adv Botany Zool V4I4. DOI: 10.15297/JALS.V4I4.01
Zeybek M, Kalyoncu H, Karakaş B, Özgül S (2014) The use of BMWP and ASPT indices for evaluation of water quality according to macroinvertebrates in Değirmendere Stream (Isparta, Turkey). Turk J Zool 38: 603-613

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Major revisions
07 Mar, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
31 Aug, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
26 Aug, 2023
Editor invited by journal
06 Aug, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
27 Feb, 2023
First submitted to journal
25 Feb, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Assesment of ecological quality of man-made Koko lake (Korhogo, Côte d’Ivoire) using biotics indices based on aquatic insects.

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Material and methods

Study site

Sampling procedures and environmental variables

Data analyses

Results and Discussions

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1