Water Quality in Slovenia - Agencija RS za okolje
Water Quality in Slovenia - Agencija RS za okolje
Water Quality in Slovenia - Agencija RS za okolje
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
22<br />
2.1.2<br />
W A T E R Q U A L I T Y I N S L O V E N I A<br />
River <strong>Quality</strong> Assessment Us<strong>in</strong>g Saprobic Index and Beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>gs of Ecological<br />
Status Evaluation<br />
In <strong>Slovenia</strong>, as well as <strong>in</strong> other European countries, the methodology for the assessment of the<br />
ecological status of the rivers accord<strong>in</strong>g to the <strong>Water</strong> Framework Directive is currently <strong>in</strong> preparation.<br />
Until 2005, the biological quality of rivers was evaluated us<strong>in</strong>g the saprobic <strong>in</strong>dex, which primarily<br />
shows the organic pollution. The Pantle and Buck method was used, with a modification accord<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to the Zel<strong>in</strong>ka and Marvan method (25, 26) us<strong>in</strong>g calculation of the saprobic <strong>in</strong>dex (SI) value of the<br />
biocenoses of benthic <strong>in</strong>vertebrates and phytobenthos. The saprobic <strong>in</strong>dex (SI) value <strong>in</strong>creases from<br />
one to four with the deterioration of liv<strong>in</strong>g conditions. For every analysed sample, the saprobic <strong>in</strong>dex<br />
(SI) is calculated us<strong>in</strong>g the saprobic value, frequency and <strong>in</strong>dicative weight of taxon.<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to the <strong>in</strong>dex value, each monitor<strong>in</strong>g site is classified <strong>in</strong>to an appropriate quality class (Table 4).<br />
Table 4: <strong>Quality</strong> classes accord<strong>in</strong>g to the saprobic <strong>in</strong>dex value<br />
<strong>Quality</strong> class SI value Saprobic level River quality description<br />
1 1.0 - 1.5 oligosaprobic uncharged to very little charged<br />
1-2 1.51- 1.8<br />
oligosaprobic to<br />
betamesosaprobic<br />
little charged<br />
2 1.81- 2.3 betamesosaprobic moderately charged<br />
2-3 2.31- 2.7<br />
betamesosaprobic to<br />
alfamesosaprobic<br />
critically charged<br />
3 2.71- 3.2 alfamesosaprobic heavily polluted<br />
3-4 3.21- 3.5<br />
alfamesosaprobic to<br />
polysaprobic<br />
very heavily polluted<br />
4 3.51- 4.0 polysaprobic excessively polluted<br />
The saprobic quality evaluation at selected monitor<strong>in</strong>g sites <strong>in</strong> 2005 is shown <strong>in</strong> Map 2.<br />
In comparison with 2004, the saprobic quality of rivers was improved <strong>in</strong> 2005. Based on the results of<br />
saprobic analyses conducted <strong>in</strong> 42 rivers and at 69 different monitor<strong>in</strong>g sites, most of the monitor<strong>in</strong>g<br />
sites are classified as uncharged to very little charged, and only one monitor<strong>in</strong>g site is classified as<br />
heavily polluted (the R<strong>in</strong>ža <strong>in</strong> Kočevje). There were neither very heavily polluted nor excessively<br />
polluted rivers <strong>in</strong> 2005.<br />
Sampl<strong>in</strong>g<br />
A dragonfly