AQUATIC INSECTS BIOINDICATORS: INFLUENCE OF FISH FARM IN A STREAM OF BRAZILIAN PAMPA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X14845Keywords:
Stream. Diversity. Biological indices. Pollution. Water quality.Abstract
http://dx.doi.org/10.5902/2179460X14845
Anthropic activities can cause alterations in physical, chemical and biological characteristics of aquatic ecosystems. Therefore, this work shows an assessment of water quality of a stream that receives fish farming effluents, using insects as bioindicators. Aquatic insects were sampled in summer and winter of 2012, in three sites (upstream – P01; in the effluent discharge site – P02; downstream – P03) of Felizardo Stream, Uruguaiana, Brazil. Network lock, drift nets and dip nets were used for insect capture, and aquatic physical-chemical parameters (temperature, dissolved oxygen, ammonia nitrogen, electric conductivity, and pH) were analyzed. In the summer, differences about family richness, abundance and density of specimens were observed, with the P02 site values lower than P01 and P03, and higher degree of dominance than P01 and P03. The physical-chemical parameters were in accordance with allowed values, according with legislation. However the biotic indices suggest the occurrence of direct influence of fish farming effluents in insect fauna in P02. Therefore, there is evidence of moderate effects of water pollution, or some organic pollution, according with these biotic indices. With these results, the waters of Felizardo Stream remain in the class II, even suffering influence of fish farming effluents.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
