Abstracts
Résumé
L'Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (IPS) est considéré comme l'un des indices diatomiques les plus performants pour l'évaluation de la qualité des cours d'eau. Son utilisation en réseau de surveillance reste cependant limitée en raison de la nécessité de travailler au niveau spécifique voire infraspécifique et de la systématique en perpétuelle évolution. A l'opposé, l'Indice Diatomique Générique (IDG) est plus accessible dans sa mise en oeuvre mais ne permet pas d'obtenir des résultats très fiables. Un nouvel Indice Diatomique Pratique (IDP) a donc été mis au point sur un bassin versant expérimental à partir d'un jeu de 86 relevés. Dans un premier temps, les inventaires ont été classés en fonction des écarts observés entre IPS et IDG. Dans un second temps, ont été identifiées les espèces responsables de ces écarts en prenant en compte celles présentant une abondance relative supérieure à 5 % et une différence de polluosensibilité avec le genre correspondant supérieure ou égale à 0,4. Plusieurs IDP ont été mis au point et leurs performances, par rapport à l'IPS, étudiées. Il apparaît que la prise en compte des espèces responsables des écarts supérieurs ou égaux à 2 constitue le meilleur compromis entre fiabilité et applicabilité en réseau. Cette méthodologie a été appliquée aux 480 relevés effectués dans le bassin Artois - Picardie et aux 550 espèces inventoriées. Elle permet de proposer un indice diatomique pratique basé sur l'identification de 45 genres et 91 espèces.
Mots-clés:
- Bioindicateurs,
- indice diatomique pratique,
- cours d'eau,
- réseau de surveillance hydrobiologique,
- Artois-Picardie (France)
Abstract
Macroinvertebrates constitute the main biological support for an evaluation of the quality of water courses and are, therefore, widely put to use in monitoring networks. However, for major water courses and canalized waterways the use of other methodologies is imperative. Diatoms and diatom indices are well adapted to the study of these environments. Among these, the Specific Polluosensitivity Index (SPI) established by CEMAGREF seems to be one of the better performing diatom indices. Calculation of this index relies on the Zelinka & Marvan formula derived from the saprobic system: SPI=[Epsilon]A[inf]j v[inf]j i[inf]j / [Epsilon] A[inf]j v[inf]j where A[inf]j is the relative abundance of the species j, v j is its indicative value ( 1 [smaller or equal] v[inf]j [smaller or equal] 3) and i[inf]j its pollution sensitivity (1 [smaller or equal] i[inf]j [smaller or equal] 5). The values initially falling in the range between 1 and 5 are transformed into values comprised between 1 and 20, in order to make comparisons between the various existing indices easier. Five categories of water quality can be distinguished according to the value of the index: SPI [Bigger or equal] 16: zero pollution or low eutrophication; 13.5 [smaller or equal] SPI < 16: moderate eutrophication; 11 [smaller or equal] SPI < 13.5: moderate pollution or heavy eutrophication; 7 [smaller or equal] SPI < 11: high pollution; SPI < 7 : very heavy pollution. However, the SPI index is rarely used because of two main obstacles: it requires data at a specific or even infraspecific level, and it is based on constantly changing systematics. Progress towards increased accessibility and, therefore, larger application was made with the elaboration of the Generic Diatomic Index (IDG) based on the same principle as the SPI. However, this GDI does not yield reliable results, in so far as certain genera, such as Navicula and Nitzschia, contain species with a widely differing ecologies. In order to provide a methodology that can be used as a matter of routine, a protocol for the elaboration of a Practical Diatomic Index (PDI) was established and tested on 86 inventories from the water basin of the river Aa (North of France). These were first classified into four categories according to the variations observed between SPI and GDI: category 1: |SPI-GDI| [bigger or equal] 3 ; category 2: 2 [smaller or equal] |SPI-GDI|; category 3: 1 [smaller or equal] |SPI-DGI| < 2 ; category 4: |SPI-DGI| < 1. For each of the first three categories, the species responsible for the variations were identified, taking into consideration those with a relative abundance of more than 5%, the pollution sensitivity of which showed, compared to the corresponding genus, a variation higher than or equal to 0.4. Thus, three indices corresponding respectively to category 1 (PDI1), 2 (PDI2), and 3 (PDI3) were proposed and tested against the SPI taken as reference index. The results of this comparative study can be summarized as follows:
- GDI=0.57 SPI + 5.47 r=0.801 (242 species),
- PDI1=0.86 SPI + 1.12 r=0.972 ( 27 species),
- PDI2=0.95 SPI + 0.55 r=0.991 ( 39 species),
- PDI3=0.96 SPI + 0.45 r=0.994 ( 42 species).
To test the implications of replacing the presently used SPI by this practical index, a comparative study of the classification of inventories in four categories of hydrobiological quality was also carried out. This study shows that the mean, at - 1.76 ± 2.25 for the GDI, is reduced to 0.14 ± 0.94 for PDI1, to - 0.07 ± 0.51 for PDI2, and to - 0.07 ± 0.45 for PDI3. Given the variability of the index at one and the same site and in one sampling, PDI2 considered to be the best compromise between reliability and network applicability. The methodology corresponding to PDI2 was applied to the 480 samplings carried out in the Artois-Picardie basin and a new Practical Diatom Index is thus proposed for the monitoring of the 200 sites making up the monitoring network of the Artois-Picardie water basin. This PDI, built on a base of more than 550 species and varieties, rests on the joint determination of 45 genera and 91 species of which the pollution sensitivity coefficients and the indicative values are given.
Keywords:
- Bioindicators,
- Practical Diatom Index (PDI),
- water courses,
- hydrobiological network,
- Aa watershed (Artois-Picardie, France)
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download