Open Access
Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst.
Number 422, 2021
Article Number 21
Number of page(s) 12
Published online 28 May 2021
  • APHA. 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Washington DC: American Public Health Association. [Google Scholar]
  • Bennion H, Sayer CD, Tibby J, Carrick HJ. 2010. Diatoms as indicators of environmental change in shallow lakes. In Smol PJ, Stoermer FE, eds. The diatoms: applications for the environmental and earth sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 152–168. [Google Scholar]
  • Bennion H, Kelly MG, Juggins S, Yallop ML, Burgess A, Reddihough G, Jamieson J, Krokowski J. 2014. Assessment of ecological status in UK lakes using benthic diatoms. Freshw Sci 33: 639–654. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bere T, Tundisi JG. 2011. The effects of substrate type on diatom-based multivariate water quality assessment in a tropical river (Monjolinho), São Carlos, SP, Brazil. Water Air Soil Pollut 216: 391–409. [Google Scholar]
  • Berthon V, Bouchez A, Rimet F. 2011. Using diatom life-forms and ecological guilds to assess organic pollution and trophic level in rivers: a case study of rivers in south-eastern France. Hydrobiologia 673: 259–271. [Google Scholar]
  • European Union. 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L327: 1–73. [Google Scholar]
  • Fidlerová D, Hlúbiková D. 2016. Relationships between benthic diatom assemblages' structure and selected environmental parameters in Slovak water reservoirs (Slovakia, Europe). Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 417: 27. [Google Scholar]
  • Fisher J, Dunbar MJ. 2007. Towards a representative periphytic diatom sample. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11: 399–407. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hofmann G, Werum M, Lange-Bertalot H. 2013. Diatomeen im Süßwasser − Benthos von Mitteleuropa: Bestimmungsflora Kieselalgen für die ökologische Praxis, Koeltz Scientific Books, Königstein, p. 908. [Google Scholar]
  • Jovanović J, Trbojević I, Subakov Simić G, Popović S, Predojević D, Blagojević A, Karadžić V. 2017. The effect of meteorological and chemical parameters on summer phytoplankton assemblages in an urban recreational lake. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 418: 48. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kelly MG, Cazaubon A, Coring E, Dell'Uomo A, Ector L, Goldsmith B, Guasch H, Hürlimann J, Jarlman A, Kawecka B, Kwandrans J, Laugaste R, Lindstrøm EA, Leitao M, Marvan P, Padisák J, Pipp E, Prygiel J, Rott E, Sabater S, van Dam H, Vizinet J. 1998. Recommendations for the routine sampling of diatoms for water quality assessments in Europe. J Appl Phycol 10: 215–224. [Google Scholar]
  • Kelly MG, Juggins S, Bennion H, Burgess A, Yallop M, Hirst H, King L, Jamieson J, Guthrie R, Rippey B. 2007. Use of diatoms for evaluating ecological status in UK freshwaters, Environment Agency Science Report No. SC030103, Environment Agency, Bristol. [Google Scholar]
  • Lange-Bertalot H, Hofmann G, Werum M, Cantonati M. 2017. Freshwater Benthic Diatoms of Central Europe: Over 800 Common Species Used in Ecological Assessment. English edition with updated taxonomy and added species, Koeltz Botanical Books, Schmitten-Oberreifenberg, pp. 942. [Google Scholar]
  • Lecointe C, Coste M, Prygiel J. 1993. “Omnidia”: software for taxonomy, calculation of diatom indices and inventories management. Hydrobiologia 269–270: 509–513. [Google Scholar]
  • MacDonald LA, Balasubramaniam AM, Hall RI, Wolfe BB. 2012. Developing biomonitoring protocols for shallow Arctic lakes using diatoms and artificial substrate samplers. Hydrobiologia 683: 231–248. [Google Scholar]
  • Official Gazette of the RS 96/2010: Regulation on establishment of surface and groundwater bodies. [Google Scholar]
  • Official Gazette of the RS 74/2011: Regulation on parameters of ecological and chemical status of surface waters, and parameters of chemical and quantitative status of ground waters. [Google Scholar]
  • Passy SI. 2007. Diatom ecological guilds display distinct and predictable behavior along nutrient and disturbance gradients in running waters. Aquat Bot 86: 171–178. [Google Scholar]
  • Prygiel J, Coste M. 2000. Guide méthodologique pour la mise en œuvre de l'Indice Biologique Diatomées NF T 90-354, Agence de l'eau Artois Picardie, Douai, p. 340. [Google Scholar]
  • Richards J, Tibby J, Barr C, Goonan P. 2020. Effect of substrate type on diatom-based water quality assessments in the Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australia. Hydrobiologia 847: 3077–3090. [Google Scholar]
  • Rimet F, Bouchez A. 2012. Life-forms, cell-sizes and ecological guilds of diatoms in European rivers. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 406: 01. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Rimet F, Bouchez A, Tapolczai K. 2016. Spatial heterogeneity of littoral benthic diatoms in a large lake: monitoring implications. Hydrobiologia 771: 179–193. [Google Scholar]
  • Sabater S, Gregory SV, Sedell JR. 1998. Community dynamics and metabolism of benthic algae colonizing wood and rock substrata in a forest stream. J Phycol 34: 561–567. [Google Scholar]
  • Schaumburg J, Schranz C, Hofmann G, Stelzer D, Schneider S, Schmedtje U. 2004. Macrophytes and phytobenthos as indicators of ecological status in German lakes − a contribution to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. Limnologica 34: 302–314. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Schaumburg J, Schranz C, Stelzer D, Hofmann G. 2007. Action instructions for the ecological evaluation of lakes for implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive: Macrophytes and Phytobenthos, Bavarian Environment Agency, Augsburg. [Google Scholar]
  • Stenger-Kovács C, Buczko K, Hajnal E, Padisák J. 2007. Epiphytic, littoral diatoms as bioindicators of shallow lake trophic status: Trophic Diatom Index for Lakes (TDIL) developed in Hungary. Hydrobiologia 589: 141–154. [Google Scholar]
  • Stevenson JR, Pan Y, Van Dam H. 2010. Assessing environmental conditions in rivers and streams with diatoms. In Smol JP, Stoermer EF, eds. The diatoms: applications for the environmental and earth sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 11–40. [Google Scholar]
  • Tan X, Zhang Q, Burford MA, Sheldon F, Bunn SE. 2017. Benthic diatom based indices for water quality assessment in two subtropical streams. Front Microbiol 8: 601. [Google Scholar]
  • Taylor JC, de la Rey PA, van Rensburg L. 2005. Recommendations for the collection, preparation and enumeration of diatoms from riverine habitats for water quality monitoring in South Africa. Afr J Aquat Sci 30: 65–75. [Google Scholar]
  • Trábert Z, Tihamér Kiss K, Várbíró G, Dobosy P, Grigorszky I, Ács É. 2017. Comparison of the utility of a frequently used diatom index (IPS) and the diatom ecological guilds in the ecological status assessment of large rivers. Fundam Appl Limnol/Archiv Für Hydrobiologie 189: 87–103. [Google Scholar]
  • Trbojević I, Jovanović J, Kostić D, Popović S, Krizmanić J, Karadžić V, Simić GS. 2017. Structure and succession of periphyton in an urban reservoir: artificial substrate specificity. Oceanol Hydrobiol Stud 46: 379. [Google Scholar]
  • Trbojević I. 2018. Analysis of periphyton developed on artificial substrates in the Sava Lake and the Vrutci Lake. Doctoral dissertation, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. Available at: (In Serbian). [Google Scholar]
  • Trbojević IS, Predojević DD, Subakov-Simić GV, Krizmanić JŽ. 2019. Periphytic diatoms in the presence of a cyanobacterial bloom: A case study of the Vrutci Reservoir in Serbia. Arch Biol Sci 71: 215–223. [Google Scholar]
  • Zhang N, Li H, Jeppesen E, Li W. 2013. Influence of substrate type on periphyton biomass and nutrient state at contrasting high nutrient levels in a subtropical shallow lake. Hydrobiologia 710: 129–141. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.