Departamento de Biologia da Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto (FCUP), Rua do Campo Alegre s/n, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal; Centro Interdisciplinar de Investigação Marinha e Ambiental (CIIMAR/CIMAR), Terminal de Cruzeiros do Porto de Leixões, Avenida General Norton de Matos S/N, 4450-208 Matosinhos, Portugal.
Departamento de Biologia da Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto (FCUP), Rua do Campo Alegre s/n, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal; Centro Interdisciplinar de Investigação Marinha e Ambiental (CIIMAR/CIMAR), Terminal de Cruzeiros do Porto de Leixões, Avenida General Norton de Matos S/N, 4450-208 Matosinhos, Portugal.
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2021 Jan 15;208:111583. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111583. Epub 2020 Nov 5.
To assess the ecological potential (EP), the Water Framework Directive (WFD) uses specific parameters but ignores ecosystem functioning and individual/subindividual biological responses. The heavily modified water bodies (reservoirs) are strongly influenced by human activities that promote their imbalance, with a loss or compromise the biodiversity and the functioning of these ecosystems. This work aims to determinate the EP according physical, chemical and biological parameters of WFD and evaluate the functionality and sensitivity of ecotoxicological tools in the evaluation of water quality of Aguieira reservoir. Four sampling sites were defined in Aguieira reservoir and sampling was conducted in autumn 2018, spring and autumn 2019. WFD showed overall that Aguieira reservoir presented moderate EP. The autumn samples and the two reservoir upstream sites had the worst classification. These results were complemented by a set of ecotoxicological assays (growth inhibition of Raphidocelis subcapitata and Spirodela polyrhiza, and feeding rate of Daphnia longispina) using three natural water treatments. R. subcapitata was the most sensitive species, indicating the presence of a risk that is not detected by chemical analysis, nor by organisms of different trophic levels. D. longispina only showed sensitivity in A3 and A4 in autumn, however this results was difficult to interpret since no reason can be observed to respond the F1 lower feeding rate observed in almost sites. S. polyrhiza, as well as the total chlorophyll, lipid peroxidation, and proline content did not show sensitivity, since no discrimination among the water treatments were recorded. The relevance of bioassays is associated with the fact that an integrated response to a complex mixture can be obtained, which can contain more substances than the measured ones. Thus, we may conclude that WFD are insufficient to draw conclusions about water quality, and the growth inhibition of Raphidocelis subcapitata assay is an important parameter to complement the WFD. In addition, species of different trophic levels are recommended for ecotoxicological analyses due to differences in species sensitivities.
为了评估生态潜力（EP），《水框架指令》（WFD）使用了特定的参数，但忽略了生态系统功能和个体/亚个体生物反应。经过大量改造的水体（水库）受到人类活动的强烈影响，这些活动促进了它们的失衡，导致生物多样性的丧失或损害，以及这些生态系统的功能丧失。本研究旨在根据 WFD 的物理、化学和生物参数来确定 EP，并评估生态毒理学工具在评估 Aguieira 水库水质方面的功能和敏感性。在 Aguieira 水库中定义了四个采样点，并于 2018 年秋季、2019 年春季和秋季进行了采样。WFD 总体显示 Aguieira 水库的 EP 为中等水平。秋季样本和两个水库上游站点的分类最差。这些结果通过一系列生态毒理学测定（莱茵衣藻和紫萍的生长抑制以及大型溞的摄食率）得到了补充，这些测定使用了三种天然水进行处理。莱茵衣藻是最敏感的物种，表明存在一种风险，这种风险既不能通过化学分析，也不能通过不同营养级别的生物来检测。只有在秋季的 A3 和 A4 中，大型溞才表现出敏感性，但由于几乎所有站点的 F1 摄食率较低，因此无法解释这一结果。紫萍以及总叶绿素、脂质过氧化和脯氨酸含量均未表现出敏感性，因为在水的处理之间没有记录到区分。生物测定的相关性在于可以获得对复杂混合物的综合反应，其中可能包含比测量到的更多的物质。因此，我们可以得出结论，WFD 不足以得出关于水质的结论，并且莱茵衣藻的生长抑制测定是补充 WFD 的重要参数。此外，由于物种敏感性的差异，建议使用不同营养级别的物种进行生态毒理学分析。
