Analysis of the aquatic life quality on the western shore of Lagoa São Simão, Rio Grande do Sul
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2236130811071Keywords:
Quality, Aquatic life, Water resource, HydrodynamicsAbstract
Through a survey of documentary nature, the present study aimed to analyze in general the quality of the aquatic life of the western shore of Lagoa São Simão, the coastal region of Rio Grande do Sul, during the first twelve years of the century, against the parameters: ammonia, hydrogen potential and dissolved oxygen found in the water resource. Its development model was based on methodologies documentary character, as well as the use of qualitative and quantitative methodological techniques that promoted reach the proposed objective. The analysis revealed that the pond had rates of ammonia nitrogen above the recommended nine years out during the period in case, and their causes can be explained by the average rainfall of the coast of Rio Grande do Sul, as well as materials and organic elements and inorganic different regions of the water resource. The hydrogen potential is presented within the standard allowed in nine of the twelve years examined, and dissolved oxygen was within the standard throughout the period. The positive oxygenation twelve years can be explained by the low depth of the western shore of Lagoa São Simão, besides the high hydrodynamics of aquatic systems and the strong winds of the coastal region, where provided to establish that it had, in the period, conditions great for maintaining aquatic life at the locus.
Downloads
References
CARMOUZE, J.P. O metabolismo dos ecossistemas aquáticos. 1. ed. São Paulo: Edgard Blücher/Fapesp, 1994.
CETESB – Companhia Ambiental do Estado de São Paulo. Alterações físico químicas. Disponível em: http://www.cetesb.sp.gov.br/mortandade/causas_oxigenio.php. Acesso em: 19 de out. 2013.
COMPANHIA DE TECNOLOGIA DE SANEAMENTO AMBIENTAL. 1987. Guia de coleta e preservação de amostras de água. CETESB, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
CONAMA – Conselho Nacional de Meio Ambiente, 1986. Decreto 88351 de junho de 1983. Resolução 20, de 18 de junho de 1986.
CONAMA – Conselho Nacional de Meio Ambiente, 2005. Decreto 99274, de 6 de junho de 1990. Resolução 357, de 17 de março de 2005.
FEPAM – Fundação Estadual de Proteção Ambiental – RS. Qualidade Ambiental: Região Hidrográfica das Bacias Litorâneas. Disponível em: http://www.fepam.rs.gov.br/qualidade/monitor_agua_litoral.asp. Acesso em: 19 de out. 2013.
FEPAM – Fundação Estadual de Proteção Ambiental – RS. Região Hidrográfica das Bacias Litorâneas, 2006. Disponível em: http://www.fepam.rs.gov.br/qualidade/Imagens/litoral_geral.png. Acesso em: 19 de out. 2013.
FEPAM, 2000. Diretrizes ambientais para o desenvolvimento dos municípios do Litoral Norte – Zoneamento Ecológico-Econômico e Proposta de Enquadramento dos Recursos Hídricos. Fundação Estadual de Proteção Ambiental - FEPAM e Programa de Gerenciamento Costeiro - GERCO. Cadernos de Planejamento e Gestão Ambiental, N.º 1. Porto Alegre/RS.
FREITAS, V. P. S.; BRÍGIDO, B. M.; BADOLATO, M. I. C.; ALABURDA, J. Padrão físico-químico da água de abastecimento público da região de Campinas. Rev. Inst. Adolfo Lutz, 61 (1): 51-58, 2002.
GIL, Antonio Carlos. Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa. 4ª edição. São Paulo: Atlas, 2002.
KOCHBA, M.; DIAB, S.; AVNIMELECH, Y. Modeling of nitrogen transformation in intensively aerated fish ponds. Aquaculture, 120: 95-104, 1994.
KUBITZA, F. 1999 Qualidade da água na produção de peixes. 3. ed. Jundiaí: Degaspari. 97p.
PEREIRA, L. P. F.; MERCANTE, C. T. J. B. A amônia nos sistemas de criação de peixes e
seus efeitos sobre a qualidade da água. Uma revisão. Inst. Pesca, São Paulo, 31(1): 81 - 88,
PROGRAMA ÁGUA AZUL. Nitrogênio Amoniacal Total. Disponível em: http://www.programaaguaazul.rn.gov.br/indicadores_12.php. Acesso em: 11 ago. 2013.
SANTOS, Antonio Raimundo dos. Metodologia Científica: a construção do conhecimento, Rio de Janeiro, DP&A editora, 1999.
SIPAÚBA-TAVARES, L.H. Limnologia aplicada à aqüicultura. Boletim Técnico FUNEP, São Paulo, 1: 1-72, 1998.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Ethical guidelines for journal publication
The REMOA 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. Reviews 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 referee 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.
