4.6 Article

Neo- and Paleo-Limnological Studies on Diatom and Cladoceran Communities of Subsidence Ponds Affected by Mine Waters (S. Poland)

期刊

WATER
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w12061581

关键词

Zn-Pb mine; subsidence ponds; physico-chemical water variables; subfossil; Cladocera; diatoms; heavy metals; CCA analyses; anthropogenic impact

资金

  1. National Science Center [2014/15/B/ST10/03862]
  2. Institute of Nature Conversation, Polish Academy of Sciences subvention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plankton assemblages can be altered to different degrees by mining. Here, we test how diatoms and cladocerans in ponds along a river in southern Poland respond to the cessation of the long-term Pb-Zn mining. There are two groups of subsidence ponds in the river valley. One of them (DOWN) was contaminated over a period of mining, which ceased in 2009, whereas the other (UP) appeared after the mining had stopped. We used diatoms and cladocerans (complete organisms in plankton and their remains in sediments) to reveal the influence of environmental change on the structure and density of organisms. The water of UP pond was more contaminated by major ions (SO42-, Cl-) and nutrients (NO3-, PO43-) than the DOWN ponds. Inversely, concentrations of Zn, Cd, Cu and Pb were significantly higher in sediment cores of DOWN ponds in comparison to those in the UP pond. Ponds during mining had higher diversity of diatoms and cladocerans than the pond formed after the mining had stopped. CCA showed that diatom and cladoceran communities related most significantly to concentrations of Pb in sediment cores. Comparison of diatom and cladoceran communities in plankton and sediment suggests significant recovery of assemblages in recent years and reduction of the harmful effect of mine-originating heavy metals. Some features of ponds such as the rate of water exchange by river flow and the presence of water plants influenced plankton communities more than the content of dissolved heavy metals.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据