• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

DO Dissolved Oxygen

Joe Fletcher

No Longer a Member
I thought this might be of interest to some of you guys . Its from the Barbel Society face book page .... I assume they must know what they are talking about ?

I’ve read some ridiculous comments on DO recently so felt it only right that RC&C of the BS should put something definitive out on it.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) refers to microscopic bubbles of gaseous oxygen (O2) that are mixed in water and available to aquatic organisms for respiration - a critical process for almost all organisms.
Primary sources include the atmosphere and aquatic plants. Surface waters, which are in contact with the atmosphere, absorb oxygen from the air. Aquatic plants release oxygen into the water as a by-product of photosynthesis.
Oysters and other aquatic life are just as dependent on gaseous oxygen dissolved in the water as people are dependent on gaseous oxygen in the air. Aquatic organisms can only function properly within a certain range of DO concentrations.

1
DO concentrations that are too low may prevent organisms from growing, feeding, or reproducing properly, and lead to unhealthy and less biologically diverse communities.
Dissolved oxygen can be affected by both human and natural influences. Natural influences include: temperature and season, time of the day, salinity, suspended sediments and water turbulence. Human influences include nutrient pollution, thermal pollution and sediment pollution.

2
DO concentrations decrease as water temperature increases. This is because oxygen is less soluble in warm water than in cool water. A serious issue at this time.
Although DO concentration decreases as water temperatures increase, DO concentration is actually higher during the day than at night. During the day, aquatic plants release oxygen into the water through photosynthesis. During the night, photosynthetic activity ceases and oxygen continues to be consumed through respiration by aquatic plants and animals.
3
DO concentration decreases as salinity increases. Salinity refers to the amount of salts dissolved in water. Dissolved salts such as sodium chloride, occupy space in water that would otherwise be available for oxygen molecules to dissolve in. Thus, as the amount of salts dissolved in water increases, DO decreases (tidal Trent boys note!).
4
DO concentration can decrease as the concentration of suspended sediments in water increases. Suspended sediment refers to the amount of loose particles of clay, silt, and sand floating in the water.
This will be an issue when the rains come with the soil being so dry).
Suspended sediments make oxygen less soluble in water by absorbing heat and raising water temperature. They limit oxygen production in plants by interfering with sunlight needed for photosynthesis.

Water turbulence ( For those heading for weirs ) can affect DO concentration. Turbulence refers to water that is moving rapidly and irregularly due to physical forces caused by wind, tides, wave action and currents. Water turbulence may lead to an increase in DO concentration but can also increase the mixing with bottom waters which typically have low DO concentrations.
Water turbulence may also lead to a decrease in DO concentration by stirring up bottom sediments, increasing the concentration of suspended sediments. Increased bank erosion has the same effect.
5
DO concentrations are higher during the day when plants produce oxygen as a by-product of photosynthesis. At night, photosynthetic activity ceases, and oxygen continues to be consumed through respiration by aquatic plants and animals.
Nutrient pollution by man may lead to a decrease in DO concentration, particularly nitrogen and phosphorous which cause increases in growth of phytoplankton (tiny microscopic plants) and cause algal blooms.
Algal blooms are dense floating masses of phytoplankton that discolour the waters surface. When phytoplankton die, they are decomposed by bacteria that consume DO during the process.
Nutrient pollution can be classified into two types, point source and non-point source.
Point sources of nutrient include sewage treatment and industrial treatment plants. Non-point sources include nutrient pollution carried by storm water runoff and include fertilised agricultural lands, residential lawns and golf courses. Also livestock farms through animal waste.
Thermal pollution (man) cause DO concentrations to decrease. Thermal pollution increases water temperature. As water temperature increases, DO concentration decreases. Power plants routinely discharge heated wastewater into natural waters.
Sediment pollution can also be increases by humans through boating (erosion), dredging and development of land - removal of vegetation increases stormwater runoff and soil erosion.
Each of these (human influenced) pollution types has a unique way of lowering DO concentration.
So there you have it guys. Hopefully you all now have a better understanding of DO and the serious increased risks to our barbel during this period of extremely high temperatures. Add to this the human influences and you can see why the risks may be higher to some rivers than others.
The request from the BS to its members, indeed all barbel anglers, at this time is do not fish at all for the foreseeable month or so for barbel. If you need to go out, remember there are other species and venues. We also thank, and respect, those Clubs and Associations that are now closing their waters.
BS RC&C Sub-panel
 
No mention of organic matter and the impact on DO levels, e.g. dead plants, leaves, grass clippings, silage effluent, food waste etc. Using biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) as a measure of the amount of oxygen required by micro-organisms to break down the organic matter present, the potential threat from pollutants can be viewed in context:

Milk: 140,000*
Silage effluent: 80,000
Pig slurry: 20,000
Cattle slurry: 10,000
Raw domestic sewage: 300-400
Effluent from septic tank: <100
Treated domestic sewage from works: <20

*Think about that when you consider tipping your half full flask on the bank at the end of a session!

I wonder what impact weed cutting might have on the DO levels of some of the chalk streams? The weed drifting downstream must start to break down and strip some oxygen from the water before it leaves the river, but I guess some weed cutting will be suspended due to the low flows?
 
So in theory,the white water directly below the weir sill is potentially worse than the stagnant slow stuff?

Mark I assume they know what they are talking about and the science behind what they say is a correct .... Then yes I would assume that it could be worse than the slow stuff . Due to the fact that turbulent water can stir up all sorts of things of the bottom and wash it down stream and have a impact on the DO levels in water .
 
Not at all what I have read, and dare I say expereinced . Yes you could argue that debris washing around would deplete oxygen, but that theory seems like a shoe horn argument to suit a certain recent discussion. Gravel runs are the norm in weir run offs, as it was the other day. The is getting rather obsessional , are we really to accept the BS blurb over common sense?
 
So in theory,the white water directly below the weir sill is potentially worse than the stagnant slow stuff?

Not in normal or low summer flows as sediment, as you know, only really accumulates above the weir, not below the sill as its constantly being scoured and moved downstream. It could be a problem when there is an extraordinary volume of sediment in the water e.g. in extreme flood conditions when there is lots of soil wash / erosion of fields etc, or extreme events like landslips etc.
 
I have just checked a science paper on the subject, and yes increase flow increases water bubble and therefore improves DO levels..phew.
 
Neil I was trying to start a debate on some thing I seen on the Barbel Society face book page .... Which you dismiss as blurb Neil like the rest of us you are your opinion and seem to think that in some way this is all about you ? You suggest I have shoe horned this from another argument ..... Neil I have left you alone .... Can I suggest that you leave me alone as well please
 
Last edited:
The BS's intentions here are obviously very good, but unfortunately a mistake in the science (conflating the hugely positive effects on DO of weir aeration with the more mixed benefits of turbulence) and their obvious manipulation of the science (with the patronising little bits that they have added in their brackets) do significantly undermine the message of this particular article.
 
The BS's intentions here are obviously very good, but unfortunately a mistake in the science (conflating the hugely positive effects on DO of weir aeration with the more mixed benefits of turbulence) and their obvious manipulation of the science (with the patronising little bits that they have added in their brackets) do significantly undermine the message of this particular article.

Neil I was trying to start a debate on some thing I seen on the Barbel Society face book page .... Which you dismiss as blurb Neil like the rest of us you are your opinion and seem to think that in some way this is all about you ? You suggest I have shoe horned this from another argument ..... Neil I have left you alone .... Can I suggest that you leave me alone as well please

No you have it wrong again Joe, the shoehorn comment was reference to what Graham alluded to. I wish not to fan the flames and won't, but I am afraid the science you have used to condemn my actions is flawed. You just cannot actually apply any such 'science' to all situations, there are variables as with most things, for instance a weir basin that narrows to a channel that is just 30 ft or so across is going to be oxygen rich as it was with also a good depth.
Now I appreciate you are committed to the welfare of Barbel as I am, perhaps we should draw a line under this whole sorry affair? I don't want to fall out with you, especially you, but perhaps you might want to perhaps see my side of events without quoting silly science? Of course I will leave you alone, after all that is all I ever wanted, to be left alone.
So what do you say, shall we go fishing?
 
Last edited:
Every weir is as different as every river is different, with many thousands of scholarly papers examining the comparative benefits of drop distance, best ratio of drop distance to depth at bottom of weir, angle, type of nappe, nature of the bottom and banks, etc .... but the more of those scholarly articles you will read the more you will be reassured that they all agree, and you have not lost your marbles.... weirs, as common sense has always told us, DO increase D.O. content vastly.

You will then find it very difficult to find scholarly articles which claim that the effects of turbulence caused by weirs, on the extreme occasions when some side-effects of turbulence by weirs may "de-aerate", can even be measured on the same scale as the benefits of air entrapment at those weirs. And I challenge you to find ANY such scholarly publications which say that such "de-aeration" will occur in low flow conditions, as opposed to flood conditions.

I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt here that this was a mistake rather than a deliberate distortion of the science (but the very odd "bad science" implications in this article - that a small amount of milk is a worse pollutant than a pile of pig slurry or that the tidal Trent barbel waters are significantly brackish - do not help me to feel so generous). Ben Goldacre ( "Bad Science" author - a must-read if you have ever made the mistake of believing a popular newspaper) would have a field day.
 
Last edited:
37340525_884740858398729_8902746599290044416_o.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 37621885_884740755065406_7985143921879547904_o.jpg
    37621885_884740755065406_7985143921879547904_o.jpg
    50.3 KB · Views: 334
these are D/O readings from the river severn, you can see D/O levels are okish below 19c but above it starts decline, the severn had regular readings of over 25c as did the trent and wye, nene and one or 2 others, its not rapids or weirs that effect the D/O but the water temp, the higher the temp the lower the D/0
 
Many factors affect D/O, as per the original B.S. post (no please don't misunderstand what I mean by B.S. there).

Let's see some reliable readings from above and below the same weir. Or read any scientific paper on the subject.
 
these are D/O readings from the river severn, you can see D/O levels are okish below 19c but above it starts decline, the severn had regular readings of over 25c as did the trent and wye, nene and one or 2 others, its not rapids or weirs that effect the D/O but the water temp, the higher the temp the lower the D/0
Temperature is just one factor. I can assure you that surface adgitation is the key component of oxygen levels. Water can be as cold as clean as you please but without distription of the surface layer is will be low in DO.
If you get the same reading of oxygen content in PPM above and below the weir this is because the water was already at peak saturation before the weir due to other limiting factors, temperature could of corse be one.
 

Every weir is as different as every river is different, with many thousands of scholarly papers examining the comparative benefits of drop distance, best ratio of drop distance to depth at bottom of weir, angle, type of nappe, nature of the bottom and banks, etc .... but the more of those scholarly articles you will read the more you will be reassured that they all agree, and you have not lost your marbles.... weirs, as common sense has always told us, DO increase D.O. content vastly.

You will then find it very difficult to find scholarly articles which claim that the effects of turbulence caused by weirs, on the extreme occasions when some side-effects of turbulence by weirs may "de-aerate", can even be measured on the same scale as the benefits of air entrapment at those weirs. And I challenge you to find ANY such scholarly publications which say that such "de-aeration" will occur in low flow conditions, as opposed to flood conditions.

I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt here that this was a mistake rather than a deliberate distortion of the science (but the very odd "bad science" implications in this article - that a small amount of milk is a worse pollutant than a pile of pig slurry or that the tidal Trent barbel waters are significantly brackish - do not help me to feel so generous). Ben Goldacre ( "Bad Science" author - a must-read if you have ever made the mistake of believing a popular newspaper) would have a field day.

To be fair Graham, the B.S article made no reference to milk or pig slurry, I did when pointing out I thought it odd that an article on DO made reference to point source and diffuse sources of nutrients, but no reference to high BOD pollutants.

The reference to emptying a flask was a flippant tongue-in-cheek comment as I’m sure you must know! But for the record it’s a more serious pollutant than perhaps many realise, many dairy farms have to dispose of quite large amounts of the stuff at times. Only back in March this year, 100,000’s of thousands of gallons had to be disposed of on-farm across the UK due to problems with collection. I dread to think where some of it ended up as most livestock farms had full lagoons at that time of year and it doesn’t have the degree of restrictions placed upon storage and spreading that livestock manures have.
 
Why is the BS's view taken as gospel? Aren't they just fellow barbel anglers that decided to join a club?

Every river needs to be judged on its own merits and I'd imagine all the rivers have dropped significantly in temp over the weekend and with it DO levels will have increased. What this past month has shown is just how many experts there are involved in barbel fishing. :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top