![Evaluation of water quality using FBI [8]](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Catur-Retnaningdyah/publication/362956703/figure/tbl1/AS:11431281081142709@1661525138301/Evaluation-of-water-quality-using-FBI-8_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Catur Retnaningdyah
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Catur Retnaningdyah on Dec 21, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
E-ISSN 2549-8703 I P-ISSN 2302-7282
BIOTROPIKA Journal of Tropical Biology
https://biotropika.ub.ac.id/
Vol. 10 | No. 2 | 2022 | DOI: 10.21776/ub.biotropika.2022.010.02.05
Izzati & Retnaningdyah 117
EVALUATION OF RIVER WATER QUALITY BASED ON BIOTIC INDEX OF
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE AS BIOINDICATOR (CASE STUDY IN
GENJONG RIVER, EAST JAVA, INDONESIA)
EVALUASI KUALITAS AIR BERDASARKAN INDEKS BIOTIK DARI
MAKROINVERTEBRATA BENTOS SEBAGAI BIOINDIKATOR (STUDI KASUS DI
SUNGAI GENJONG WLINGI BLITAR JAWA TIMUR, INDONESIA)
Fadhila Nuril Izzati1)*, Catur Retnaningdyah1)
ABSTRACT
This research aims to determine the water quality profile of Genjong River based on
physicochemical parameters of water and benthic macroinvertebrates as bioindicators.
Sampling was carried out at four different locations based on difference of human activity
in surrounding. The sampling was done in triple repetition for each station. The activity of
Station 1 is ecotourism (as a reference site or positive control in this study), Station 2
(livestock I), Station 3 (livestock II), and Station 4 (plantation). The physicochemical
water parameters were measured, including water and air temperature, water current
velocity and discharge, conductivity, pH, DO, BOD, TSS, nitrate, and orthophosphate.
The result from the identification and calculation of the benthic macroinvertebrates
density was used to determine some diversity and biotic indices. The difference in the
value of each water quality parameter was tested by One-way ANOVA. Based on the
abiotic water quality profile, Genjong River water was categorized as the Class IV
category based on Indonesia Government Regulation No. 22 of 2021 with a BOD value of
3.61 – 7.22 mg.L-1. Human activities along the Genjong River greatly impact decreasing
water quality as indicated by increasing nitrate levels from 0.52 ± 0.07 mg.L-1 at Station 1
up to 0.85 ± 0.07 mg.L-1 at Station 4. Also, orthophosphate levels from 0.02 ± 0.01 mg.L-1
at Station 1 to 0.18 ± 0.02 mg.L-1 at Station 4. Meanwhile, based on benthic
macroinvertebrates as bioindicators, Genjong River was classified as lightly (S1, H =
1.74) to moderately polluted (S4, H = 1.24) with toxic materials and slightly
contaminated with organic matter (S4 with FBI value = 5.38). The decline in water
quality was also shown by the decreasing ASPT value from 4.20 at Station 1 to 3.68 at
Station 4.
Keywords: benthic macroinvertebrate, Genjong River, water quality
ABSTRAK
Tujuan penelitian ini adalah menentukan profil kualitas air Sungai Genjong berdasarkan
parameter fisika kimia air dan makroinvertebrata bentos sebagai bioindikator.
Pengambilan sampel dilakukan secara triplo pada 4 titik aliran sungai yaitu Stasiun 1
(aktivitas ekowisata untuk reference site), Stasiun 2 (peternakan I), Stasiun 3 (peternakan
II), dan Stasiun 4 (perkebunan). Parameter fisika kimia air yang diukur meliputi suhu air,
suhu udara, kecepatan arus, debit, konduktivitas, pH, DO, BOD, TSS, nitrat dan
ortofosfat. Hasil identifikasi dan penghitungan kerapatan makroinvertebrata bentos
digunakan untuk menentukan beberapa indeks diversitas dan indeks biotik. Perbedaan
nilai tiap parameter kualitas air diuji dengan One Way ANOVA. Hasil penelitian
menunjukkan bahwa berdasarkan profil kualitas abiotik air, Sungai Genjong termasuk
dalam kategori Kelas IV berdasarkan PP No 22 tahun 2021 dengan nilai BOD 3,61 –
7,22 mg/L. Aktivitas manusia di sepanjang Sungai Genjong telah berdampak pada
penurunan kualitas air yang ditunjukkan oleh peningkatan kadar nitrat dari 0,52 ± 0,07
mg/L di Stasiun 1 menjadi 0,85 ± 0,07 mg/L di Stasiun 4, dan juga kadar ortofosfat dari
0,02 ± 0,01 mg/L di Stasiun 1 menjadi 0,18 ± 0,02 mg/L di Stasiun 4. Sedangkan
berdasarkan makroinvertebrata bentos sebagai bioindikator, Sungai Genjong termasuk
dalam kategori tercemar bahan toksik ringan (stasiun 1, H = 1,74) hingga sedang
(stasiun 4, H = 1,24) dan tercemar bahan organik sedikit (di stasiun 1 dengan FBI =
4,31) sampai agak banyak (di stasiun 4 dengan nilai FBI = 5,38). Penurunan kualitas air
juga ditunjukkan oleh menurunnya nilai ASPT dari 4,20 di Stasiun 1 menjadi 3,68 di
Stasiun 4.
Kata kunci: kualitas air, makroinvertebrata bentos, Sungai Genjong
Received : July, 17 2022
Accepted : August, 12 2022
Authors affiliation:
1)Department of Biology, Faculty
of Mathematics and Natural
Sciences, Universitas
Brawijaya, Indonesia.
Correspondence email:
*fadhilanurilizzati@gmail.com
How to cite:
Izzati, FN, C Retnaningdyah.
2022. Evaluation of river water
quality based on biotic index of
benthic macroinvertebrate as
bioindicator (case study in
Genjong River, East Java,
Indonesia). Journal of Tropical
Biology 10 (2): xx-xx.
https://biotropika.ub.ac.id/
118 Biotropika: Journal of Tropical Biology | Vol. 10 No. 2 | 2022
INTRODUCTION
Rivers are freshwater ecosystems that are
important for living things to maintain their lives
[1]. Genjong River is a river that crosses some
villages in Wlingi District. Genjong River is the
main river that used by the surrounding
community for several purposes, including
tourism, animal husbandry, and irrigation sources
for rice fields. Based on the visibility
characteristics of the Genjong River, there are
indications of a decrease in water quality which is
indicated by a change in the color of the water to
become cloudy.
Water quality evaluation can be determined by
some parameters, including physics, chemical,
and biological [2]. One of the biological
parameters that can be used as a bioindicator is
benthic macroinvertebrate because it can show the
specific conditions of the waters and complete
information on the physicochemical parameters of
water using several biotic indices such as the
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), Family Biotic
Index (FBI) and Average Score Per Taxa (ASPT)
[2, 3, 4].
This study aims to evaluate the water quality
of the Genjong River based on physics, chemical
parameters, and benthic macroinvertebrates as
bioindicators. The evaluation results can be used
as a basis for determining the management of the
Genjong River ecosystem.
METHODS
Site. The study was conducted from July to
December 2021. A sampling of benthic
macroinvertebrates was carried out at four points
(Figure 1) in the Genjong River channel, district
of Wlingi, Blitar, East Java, Indonesia, based on
human activities around the river. Station one is a
stream with human activities in the form of Sirah
Kencong Tea Plantation. Station two is a stream
after Telogosari Village and a dairy farm. Station
three is the stream after Genjong Village with
residents’ farms. Station four is a stream after
human activities like coffee plantations, sengon
plantations, and coffee processing factories. The
identification of benthic macroinvertebrates and
data analysis were carried out at the Laboratory of
Ecology and Tropical Ecosystem Restoration,
Department of Biology, Faculty of Mathematics
and Natural Sciences, Universitas Brawijaya.
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling. The
benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was
conducted by using a Surber net. The frame root
of the net was put in the opposing directions. The
substrate contained in the root frame was stirred
carefully by hand so benthic organisms attached
to any substrate, like rocks, could be rinsed,
washed away, and collected in a Surber net. The
obtained samples were sorted and preserved with
formalin 4%. The identification of benthic
macroinvertebrates was assisted by a stereo
microscope.
Water physicochemical parameter
measurement. The physicochemical water
parameters measured included water temperature,
air temperature, flow velocity, water discharge,
conductivity, pH, dissolved oxygen (DO),
biological oxygen demand (BOD), total
suspended solids (TSS), nitrate level,
orthophosphate level, and substrate composition.
Water and air temperature were measured with a
digital thermometer in Celsius. The river current
(flow) was measured by buoy and stopwatch with
units of m.s-1.
Figure 1. Water and benthic macroinvertebrates sampling location
https://biotropika.ub.ac.id/
Izzati & Retnaningdyah 119
The water discharge was calculated based on
the depth and width of the river with units of
dm3.s-1. Conductivity was measured by a
conductivity meter with units of mS.m-1. pH was
measured with a pH meter. DO and BOD were
measured by DO meter, TSS was measured by
TSS meter, nitrate and orthophosphate levels were
measured by spectrophotometry with units of
mg.L-1. Substrate composition was measured by
assessing the ratio (%) between rock, sand, and
mud of the riverbed.
Data analysis. Descriptive analysis was held
for the water physicochemical parameters. The
difference in the value of each location was tested
with One-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey
HSD test if the variance value was homogeneous
and the Brown Forsythe and Games Howell test if
the variance value was heterogeneous with Sig.
0.05. Water quality groupings and interactions
between parameters were tested by Principal
Component Analysis (PCA)/biplot analysis using
the PAST program.
The benthic macroinvertebrates community
structure was analyzed by some indices. There
was abundance, important value index (IVI),
Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H’), Simpson
diversity index (D), Margalef diversity index
(dMg), Evenness index (E), Simpson dominance
index (Id), Family Biotic Index (FBI), Hilsenhoff
Biotic Index (HBI) also Average Score Per Taxa
(ASPT) [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. The benthic
macroinvertebrate abundance (ind.m-2) was
calculated by the following formula [4].
Where N was the number of benthic
macroinvertebrates per m2, O was the number of
benthic macroinvertebrates counted per sample,
and S was the transverse area of Surber Net in m2.
Important value index (IVI) was calculated by
the following formula [4].
Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H’) and
Simpson diversity index (D) were calculated by
the following formula [6].
Where Pi was the proportion of species-i to the
total number, s was the total number of the
community. The H’ and D values indicated toxic
pollution. The H’ was classified into four
categories, 2 was no apparent pollution, 2–1.6 was
slightly polluted, 1.5–1 was fairly polluted, and
<1 was severely polluted. D value was also
classified into three categories, >0.8 was slightly
contaminated, 0.6–0.8 was moderately
contaminated, and <0.6 was severely
contaminated.
Margalef diversity index (dMg) was calculated
by the following formula [5].
Where S was the total number of identified
species, N was the total number of individuals
recorded. The dMg value was categorized into
three classes, <3.5 was low diversity, 3.6–4.9 was
moderate diversity, and >5 was high diversity.
The Evenness index (E) and The Simpson
dominance index (Id) were calculated by the
following formula [6].
Where Ni was the total number of species-i, N
was the total number of individuals. The E value
was classified into three categories, <0.4 was low
evenness, 0.4–0.6 moderate evenness, and>0.6
high evenness. The Id was also classified into
three categories <0.4 was low domination, 0.4–0.6
moderate domination, and >0.6 high domination.
Family Biotic Index (FBI) and Hilsenhoff
Biotic Index (HBI) were calculated by the
following formula [8].
Where xi was the total number of species-i, ti
was the tolerance score for every species, and n
was the total number of individuals. The index
values of FBI and HBI were classified into seven
categories with different values.
Table 1. Evaluation of water quality using FBI [8]
FBI values
Water
Quality
Degree in Organic Pollution
0.00–3.75
Excellent
Organic pollution unlikely
3.76–4.25
Very good
Possible slight organic
pollution
4.26–5.00
Good
Some organic pollution
probables
5.01–5.75
Fair
Fairly substantial pollution
likely
5.76–6.50
Fairly poor
Substantial pollution likely
6.51–7.25
Poor
Very substantial pollution
likely
7.26–10.00
Very poor
Severe organic pollution
likely
https://biotropika.ub.ac.id/
120 Biotropika: Journal of Tropical Biology | Vol. 10 No. 2 | 2022
Table 2. Evaluation of water quality using HBI
[8]
Biotic Index
Water
Quality
Degree in Organic Pollution
0.00–3.50
Excellent
No apparent pollution
3.51–4.50
Very good
Possible slight organic
pollution
4.51–5.50
Good
Some organic pollution
5.51–6.50
Fair
Fairly significant organic
pollution
6.51–7.50
Fairly poor
Significant organic pollution
7.51–8.50
Poor
Very significant organic
pollution
8.51–10.00
Very poor
Severe organic pollution
The Average Score Per Taxa (ASPT) index
was calculated by the following formula [8].
Where BMWP score was the Biological
Monitoring Working Party, n was the total
number of individuals. The index values for
ASPT were classified into four categories, (>6:
clean water, 5–6 doubtful water, 4–5 probable
moderate pollution, <4 probable severe
pollutions) [4].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Based on the measurement of physicochemical
parameters (water temperature, pH, DO, TSS,
nitrate, and orthophosphate levels) from Genjong
River, the water quality was categorized as the
third class of water quality standards based on
Indonesian government regulation (Table 3).
However, the BOD of Genjong River water meets
the fourth-class water quality standard. Overall,
Genjong River is included in the fourth-class/
fourth category according to Indonesia
government regulation No. 22 Year 2021. The
physicochemical quality of water from upstream
to downstream was getting worse, as indicated by
the decreasing value of DO and BOD as well as
increasing TSS, nitrate and orthophosphate levels
which could still be used for crop irrigation.
The substrate composition of each station
(Figure 2) consisted of rock, sand, and mud. The
first station has the highest percentage of rock.
The second station has the highest percentage of
sand. While the mud at the third and fourth
stations. The highest percentage of mud is at the
last station. The substrate will affect the presence
of macroinvertebrates species. The substrate was
associated with changes in water temperature and
flow conditions [9].
The cooler streams were generally dominated
by sand and rock and had more variable flow and
occasional high flow, which could remove the
fine sediment from the stream. The warmer
stream has stable to moderate flow conditions that
allow sedimentation of fine particle accumulation.
It was also dominated by mud or other fine
substrates [9]. The rocky substrate was mostly
inhabited by arthropods, while the sand and mud
were mostly inhabited by annelids and mollusks
[10].
Figure 2. Substrate composition of each station
Table 3. Water physicochemical profile of Genjong River
Physicochemical
factors
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Station 4
Quality
standard**
3rd class
4th class
Water
temperature (°C)
17.67 ± 0.46a
22.07 ± 0.42a
21.67 ± 0.58a
23.67 ± 0.58a
Dev 3
Dev 3
Air temperature
(°C)*
19.13 ± 1.53a
25.20 ± 0.87b
25.33 ± 3.21b
24.67 ± 0.58c
-
-
Flow velocity
(m.s-1)
0.75 ± 0.16a
0.59 ± 0.07a
0.72 ± 0.11a
0.61 ± 0.26a
-
-
Water discharge
(dm3. s-1)
496.75 ± 82.29ab
928.40 ± 240.35b
958.66 ± 274.02b
343.84 ± 179.97a
-
-
Conductivity
(mS.m-1)
8.34 ± 3.15a
9.54 ± 3.89a
9.19 ± 3.19a
10.89 ± 3.67a
-
-
pH*
7.60 ± 0.23a
7.86 ± 0.09a
7.81 ± 0.02a
7.72 ± 0.06a
6 – 9
6 – 9
DO (mg.L-1)
4.96 ± 0.18bc
5.29 ± 0.12c
4.79 ± 0.15ab
4.49 ± 0.06a
min. 4
min. 3
BOD (mg.L-1)
3.61 ± 0.77a
6.19 ± 0.51b
5.61 ± 1.51ab
7.72 ± 0.52b
6
12
TSS (mg.L-1)
1.95 ± 0.22a
2.51± 0.12bc
2.19 ± 0.10ab
2.82 ± 0.00c
100
400
Nitrate (mg.L-1)
0.52 ± 0.07a
0.71 ± 0.09ab
0.74 ± 0.09b
0.85 ± 0.07b
20
20
Orthophosphate
(mg.L-1)*
0.02 ± 0.01a
0.04 ± 0.01a
0.09 ± 0.01b
0.18 ± 0.02c
-
-
0
20
40
60
80
100
S1 S2 S3 S4
Substrate composition (%)
Station
Rock Sand Mud
https://biotropika.ub.ac.id/
Izzati & Retnaningdyah 121
Desc: Different notations for each parameter indicated a significant difference between locations based on the One-way ANOVA test
followed by Tukey HSD with Sig. 0.05, *difference test based on Brown Forsythe followed by Howell Games with Sig. 0.05, **
based on Indonesia government regulation No. 22 Year 2021.
Based on benthic macroinvertebrates found in
Genjong River (Figure 3), the fourth station had
the least abundance and taxa richness (family). It
was caused by the fourth station located
downstream of the river, where a place of the
pollutants accumulated. It was also indicated by a
low DO value, and it was related to organic
pollution [11]. Low dissolved oxygen levels
affected benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages as
it depended on oxygen availability. Also, the high
concentrations of nitrate and orthophosphate
might indicate eutrophication of the water body
[12].
The first station also had low abundance and
taxa richness due to the low levels of nutrient
input. It was indicated by the lowest levels of
nitrate and orthophosphate among all stations. The
low level of nitrate and orthophosphate also
indicated low primary productivity and biomass
(Figure 3). The increasing value of DO was
influenced by increasing water depth, which
caused decreasing in water temperature [13]. The
first station was also located near the spring, so
based on the information provided, the first
station was classified as oligotrophic waters [13,
14].
Figure 3. The abundance and taxa richness of
benthic macroinvertebrate each station
A total of 18 benthic families were found in all
stations. Based on the IVI calculation (Figure 4),
all stations were dominated by Hydropsychidae.
Hydropsychidae have a wide range of tolerance to
organic contamination based on their species.
However, the tolerance range usually varies based
on the longitudinal distribution due to the
combined effect of several abiotic, biotic, and
geographical factors. The crucial role that formed
the wide range of Hydropsychidae distribution is
the annual temperature range, flow velocity, and
the size of suspended food material. Based on the
habits of each species, the upstream
Hydropsychidae had a shorter tolerance range
than downstream Hydropsychidae [15].
Based on the calculation of the Shannon-
Wiener diversity index (H') (Figure 5), it indicated
a change in water quality from station 1 to station
4 due to toxic pollution. Station 1 was lightly
polluted with toxic materials because it was close
to tourist attractions. Stations 2, 3, and 4 were
moderately polluted with toxic materials because
there were residential areas and plantations along
the river.
Figure 4. The Importance Value Index (IVI) of
each benthic macroinvertebrate family found in
each station
Figure 5. Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H’)
for each station.
Description: classification of H’
Tourism activities led to an increase in garbage
which increased water pollution [16]. The
residential areas and plantations allowed the entry
of pollutants such as detergents and pesticides into
water body [17]. Also, a big-scale farm located
between stations 2 and 3 could make different
pollution levels.
Based on the analyses of Simpson diversity
index (D) (Figure 6), stations 1 and 4 indicated
moderate pollution, while stations 2 and 3 were
waters with severe pollution. The calculation of D
showed little value to rare taxa. Stations 2 and 3
had more taxa that did not show up at stations 1
and 4. That was why the D value at Stations 2 and
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
S1 S2 S3 S4
Taxa Richness
Abundance (ind.m-2)
Station
Abundance Taxa richness
67.05 83.44 84.06 74.16
0
50
100
150
200
S1 S2 S3 S4
IVI (%)
Station
Hydropsychidae
Baetidae
Chironomidae
Caenidae
Limnephilidae
Noteridae
Euphaeidae
Haliplidae
Tubificidae
Hirudinidae
Planariidae
Brachycentridae
Aeschinidae
Pteronarcyidae
Coenagriidae
Lymnaeidae
Hydrophilidae
Sisyridae
1.74 1.16 1.21 1.24
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
S1 S2 S3 S4
Shannon Wiener Index (H')
Station
Slightly
polluted
Moderately
polluted
https://biotropika.ub.ac.id/
122 Biotropika: Journal of Tropical Biology | Vol. 10 No. 2 | 2022
3 was higher than others [18]. Based on the
calculation of Margalef diversity index (dMg)
(Figure 6), all of the stations had low dMg values
(<3.5). Margalef diversity index was measured
taxa richness and highly sensitive to the sample.
The value of dMg was influenced by the taxa
richness found, in which the greater sampling
effort, the more diverse benthic got, so the higher
the Margalef index value [19, 20].
Figure 6. Simpson diversity index (D) and
Margalef diversity index (dMg) of benthic
macroinvertebrates in each station. Description:
classification of D, classification of dMg
Based on the calculation of evenness (E)
(Figure 7), Stations 1 and 4 were stations with
moderate uniformity (0.4 – 0.6). Stations 2 and 3
were stations with low uniformity (<0.4). The
value of E was related to taxa richness. If the
value was high, the benthic macroinvertebrates
were evenly distributed in the waters [20].
The calculation of the Simpson dominance
index (Id) (Figure 7) showed that partial
dominance occurred at Stations 1 and 4. While
Stations 2 and 3 had moderate partial dominance.
The value of Id was influenced by the diversity of
benthic macroinvertebrates, where the low
diversity indicated the high dominance that
occurred [21].
Figure 7. Evenness (E) and Simpson dominance
index (Id) of benthic macroinvertebrates in each
station.
Description: classification of E;
classification of Id
Based on the calculation of the HBI value
(Figure 8) showed the level of organic matter
pollution. Stations 1 and 2 were classified as very
good water with some organic pollution probable.
While stations 3 and 4 were classified as good
water with some organic pollution based on HBI
and indicated the presence of Tubificidae.
Tubificidae had high pollutant tolerance values
(8–10) [14]. The low HBI value was obtained
from the low tolerance score of dominated benthic
macroinvertebrates, which were intolerant to
organic matter contamination at stations 1 and 2.
Figure 8. The HBI value and classification of
water quality in each station
Description: classification of water quality
based on HBI values.
Based on the calculation of FBI values,
stations 1, 2, and 3 were classified as good quality
waters (4.26–5.00) with probable organic
pollution (Figure 9). Station 4 was classified as
fair waters with substantial organic pollution
likely. This was influenced by more families that
were tolerant of organic pollutants. In addition,
Station 4 was downstream of the river, so it was
affected by pollution along the stream, such as
domestic waste and livestock waste directly
discharged into the river from settlements around
the river [14].
Figure 9. The FBI value and classification water
quality of each station.
Description: classification of water quality
based on FBI values.
0.61 0.48 0.51 0.61 0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
S1 S2 S3 S4
Margalef Diversity Index (dMg)
Simpson Diversity Index (D)
Station
D dMg
Severe
contaminated
Moderate
contaminated Low divers ity
0.55 0.32 0.36 0.41 0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
S1 S2 S3 S4
Simpson Diversity Index (Id)
Evenness (E)
Station
EId
Moderate
Evenness
Low
Evenness
Moderate
Domination
Low
Domination
4.31 4.34 4.99 5.38
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
S1 S2 S3 S4
HBI value
Station
Very good
Good
4.31 4.34 4.99 5.38
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
S1 S2 S3 S4
FBI value
Station
Very good
Good
Fair
https://biotropika.ub.ac.id/
Izzati & Retnaningdyah 123
Based on the calculation of ASPT, it could be
seen that there was a degradation in water quality
(Figure 10). Stations 1, 2, and 3 were classified as
waters with probable moderate pollution by
organic matter. Station 4 was classified as
probable severe polluted waters. This was
indicated by the presence of several benthic
macroinvertebrate families found with low
BMWP values (Figure 6) [8], such as Tubificidae,
Hirudinidae, and Lymnaeidae. The low BMWP
value indicated a high level of tolerance to
pollutants [8].
Figure 10. The ASPT value and classification of
water quality in each station.
Description: classification of water quality
based on ASPT values
The result of the biplot analysis showed that
there was a water quality shift at each station
(Figure 11). Station 1 was characterized by a high
abundance of Limnephilidae. Stations 2 and 3
were characterized by high ASPT values and an
abundance of Hydropsychidae. While Station 4
was characterized by high BOD, nitrate levels,
orthophosphate levels, and a high abundance of
Hirudinidae.
The three families had the potential to be
specific bioindicators for the water quality of the
Genjong River. Limnephilidae was Trichoptera
which indicates good water quality.
Hydropsychidae also indicates good water quality
with a wide distribution. Both of them were
sensitive to metal pollution and insecticides [22].
While Hirudinidae could live in different trophic
levels, they usually prefer a polluted organic
environment [17].
According to the correlation test using biplot
analysis through PCA, Hydropsychidae correlated
significantly with almost all the families found
because it had a wide tolerance range [21].
Hirudinidae did not correlate with Limbephilidae
and Planariidae because Hirudinidae was quite
tolerant of organic pollution. Limnephilidae and
Planariidae were bioindicators of clean waters,
although their abundance was still influenced by
abiotic environmental factors [17, 22, 23, 24].
Several biotic indices had different
classification bases. The water evaluation results
showed water quality degradation from stations 1
to 4 (Table 4). Based on several physicochemical
parameters and biotic indices, it was found that
Station 1 was a station with poor nutrition, lightly
polluted by toxic materials, and moderately
polluted by organic matter. Stations 2 and 3 were
stations with moderate pollution by toxic and
organic materials. Station 4 was a station with
moderate toxic contamination and heavy pollution
by organic matter.
Figure 11. The correlation between water quality and benthic macroinvertebrates community structure at
each station was based on biplot analysis using PCA
4.20 4.61 4.06 3.68
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
S1 S2 S3 S4
ASPT value
Station
Proba ble moderate pol lution
Proba ble severe poll ution
https://biotropika.ub.ac.id/
124 Biotropika: Journal of Tropical Biology | Vol. 10 No. 2 | 2022
Table 4. Resume of Genjong River water quality based on physicochemical parameters and biotic index
Biotic indices
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Station 4
Shannon Wiener
diversity index (H’)
Contaminated with
light toxic materials
Moderately polluted
with toxic materials
Moderately polluted
with toxic materials
Moderately polluted
with toxic materials
HBI
Very good (possible
slight organic
pollution)
Very good (possible
slight organic
pollution)
Good (some organic
pollution)
Good (some organic
pollution)
FBI
Good (some organic
pollution probable)
Good (some organic
pollution probable)
Good (some organic
pollution probable)
Fair (substantial
pollution likely)
ASPT
Probable moderate
pollution
Probable moderate
pollution
Probable moderate
pollution
Probable severe
pollution
Conclusion
Contaminated with
light toxic materials
and slight organic
pollution
Moderately pollutes
with toxic material
and organic pollution
Moderately pollutes
with toxic material
and organic pollution
Moderately pollutes
with toxic material
and probable severe
organic pollution
CONCLUSION
Based on the study results, it was concluded
that the physicochemical quality profile of the
Genjong River water showed degradation of water
quality in the downstream area, which was
indicated by an increase in nitrate,
orthophosphate, BOD, TSS, and conductivity
levels. The results of benthic macroinvertebrates
identification showed the degradation of water
quality in downstream parts reflected by the
increasing abundance of Lymnephilidae,
Hydropsychidae, and Hirudinidae. Calculation of
the biotic index showed that station 1 was
contaminated with light toxic materials and slight
organic pollution. Stations 2 and 3 were
moderately polluted by toxic and organic
pollutants. Station 4 was moderately polluted by
toxic material and probable severe contaminated
by organic pollution.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank all Ecology
and Tropical Ecosystem Restoration Laboratory
members for data collection and interpretation.
REFERENCES
[1] Alvaro JdAP, Vanessa BdCT, Samara CCP,
Marcelo dOL, Daiane A, Aline MMdL
(2021) Benthic macroinvertebrates as
bioindicators of environmental quality of
Pará River estuary, a wetland of Eastern
Amazon. Brazilian Journal of Environmental
Sciences 56 (1): 111-127. doi:
10.5327/Z2176-947820200760.
[2] Iyiola AO, Asiedu B (2020) Benthic macro-
invertebrates as indicators of water quality in
Ogunpa River, South-Western Nigeria. West
African Journal of Applied Ecology 28 (1):
85-95. doi: 10.1007/s41207-017-0035-8.
[3] Agusto O, Marcos C (2010) Benthic
macroinvertebrates as bioindicators of water
quality in an Atlantic Forest fragment.
Iheringia, Série Zoologia 100 (4): 291-300.
doi: 10.1590/S0073-47212010000400003.
[4] James EB, Jerrod HZ, Carl NVE (1990) Field
and Laboratory Methods for General Ecology
Third Edition. Boston. McGraw-Hill
Education.
[5] Ramon M (1958) Information theory in
ecology. General Systems 3:36-71.
[6] Eugene PO, Gary WB (1971) Fundamentals
of Ecology. Fifth Edition. London. Saunder
Company
[7] Charles JK (1978) Ecology: The
experimental analysis of distribution and
abundance. Second Edition. New York.
Harper and Row.
[8] SM Mandaville (2002) Benthic
macroinvertebrates in freshwaters: Taxa
tolerance values, metrics, and protocols. 128.
Nova Scotia: Soil & Water Conservation
Society of Metro Halifax.
[9] Ian CD, Ian KGB, David AS (2007) Factors
affecting the distribution of stream
macroinvertebrates in geothermal areas:
Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand.
Hydrobiologia 592:235-247. doi:
10.1007/s10750-007-0748-9.
[10] Grasideo VE, Roni K, Regina RB (2018)
Kelimpahan dan Diversitas Makrozoobentos
di Sungai Air Terjun Tunan, Talawaan,
Minahasa Utara, Sulawesi Utara. Jurnal
Ilmiah Sains 18(2):97-102. doi:
10.35799/jis.18.2.2018.21158.
[11] Simon POL, Emmanuel M, Hans FZP, Luky
S (2017) Makroavertebrata Bentos sebagai
Bioindikator Kualitas Air Sungai Nimbai
https://biotropika.ub.ac.id/
Izzati & Retnaningdyah 125
Manokwari, Papua Barat. Jurnal Ilmu
Pertanian Indonesia 22(1):25-33. doi:
10.18343/jipi.22.1.25.
[12] Unique NK, Francis OA, Yohanna IA,
Adesola VA (2017) Temporal and spatial
variability in macroinvertebrate community
structure in relation to environmental
variables in Gbako River, Niger State,
Nigeria. Tropical Ecology 58 (2): 229-240.
[13] Hefni E (2003) Telaah Kualitas Air bagi
Pengelolaan Sumberdaya dan Lingkungan
Perairan. Yogyakarta, Kanisius.
[14] Lina M, Catur R (2014) Perubahan struktur
komunitas makroinvertebrata bentos akibat
aktivitas manusia di saluran Mata Air
Sumber Awan Kecamatan Singosari
Kabupaten Malang. Biotropika: Journal of
Tropical Biology 2 (5): 254-259.
[15] Mark F, Zoltan C (2021) Longitudinal
zonation of larval Hydropsyche (Trichoptera:
Hydropsychidae): abiotic environmental
factors and biotic interactions behind the
downstream sequence of Central European
species. Hydrobiologia 848:3371-3388. doi:
10.1007/s10750-021-04602-0.
[16] Qiong S, Zheng L (2020) Impact of tourism
activities on water pollution in the West Lake
Basin (Hangzhou, China). Open Geosciences
12 (1): 1302-1308. doi: 10.1515/geo-2020-
0119.
[17] Desi K, Catur R, Endang A (2013)
Application of water quality and ecology
indices of benthic macroinvertebrate to
evaluate water quality of tertiary irrigation in
Malang District. Journal of Tropical Life
Science 3 (3): 193-201.
[18] Hamed Y, Neematollah J, Banafsheh Z
(2014) Relationship between benthic
macroinvertebrate bio-indices and
physicochemical parameters of water: a tool
for water resources managers. Journal of
Environmental Health Science and
Engineering 12 (1): 1-9. doi: 10.1186/2052-
336X-12-30.
[19] Gencer T, Nilgun K (2010) Applications of
various diversity indices to benthic
macroinvertebrate assemblages in streams of
a natural park in Turkey. Science Faculty of
Biology Department Hydrobiology Section 3
(2): 111-125.
[20] Amelia N, Martina FH, Hendriawan N, RC
Hidayat S (2017) Macroinvertebrate diversity
role in water quality assessment of Winongo
and Gajah Wong rivers, Yogyakarta,
Indonesia. International Journal of Bonorowo
Wetlands 7 (1): 31-37. doi:
10.13057/bonorowo/w070107.
[21] Kurnianto AS, Baiti RN, Purnomo H (2021)
Macroinvertebrates reveal water quality
differences in various agricultural
management. Journal of Tropical
Biodiversity and Biotechnology 6 (2): 61507.
doi: 10.22146/jtbb.61507.
[22] Hertien K S, Ulfah B (2013) Studi tentang
ekologi dan habitat Planaria sp. di Subang:
Kelimpahan dan Biomassa Merupakan
Indikator Kualitas Air Bersih. Majalah Ilmiah
Biologi BIOSFERA: A Scientific Journal 30
(2): 66-72. doi:
10.20884/1.mib.2013.30.2.128.
[23] Agustina C, Bettina SG, Maria VS, Rosana
EC, Claudia BM, Alberto RC, Igor B (2018)
Assessing the sensitivity of leeches as
indicators of water quality. Science of the
total environment 624:1244-1249. doi:
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.236.
[24] Kazancı N, Ekingen PINAR, Dügel M,
Türkmen GENCER (2015) Hirudinea
(Annelida) species and their ecological
preferences in some running waters and
lakes. International Journal of Environmental
Science and Technology 12 (3): 1087-1096.
