Environmental Management

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 279–290 | Cite as

Assessing Ecological Water Quality with Macroinvertebrates and Fish: A Case Study from a Small Mediterranean River

  • Maria Th. Cheimonopoulou
  • Dimitra C. Bobori
  • Ioannis Theocharopoulos
  • Maria Lazaridou
Article

Abstract

Biological elements, such as benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, have been used in assessing the ecological quality of rivers according to the requirements of the Water Framework Directive. However, the concurrent use of multiple organism groups provides a broader perspective for such evaluations, since each biological element may respond differently to certain environmental variables. In the present study, we assessed the ecological quality of a Greek river (RM4 type), during autumn 2003 and spring 2004 at 10 sites, with benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. Hydromorphological and physicochemical parameters, habitat structure, and riparian vegetation were also considered. Pollution sensitive macroinvertebrate taxa were more abundant at headwaters, which had good/excellent water quality according to the Hellenic Evaluation System (HES). The main river reaches possessed moderate water quality, while downstream sites were mainly characterised as having bad or poor water quality, dominated by pollution-tolerant macroinvertebrate taxa. Macroinvertebrates related strongly to local stressors as chemical degradation (ordination analysis CCA) and riparian quality impairment (bivariate analysis) while fish did not. Fish were absent from the severely impacted lower river reaches. Furthermore, external pathological signs were observed in fish caught at certain sites. A combined use of both macroinvertebrates and fish in biomonitoring programs is proposed for providing a safer assessment of local and regional habitat impairment.

Keywords

Fish Invertebrates Physicochemical parameters WFD Ecological assessment R.H.S. 

References

  1. Adams S, Ryon M, Smith J (2005) Recovery in diversity of fish and invertebrate communities following remediation of a polluted stream: investigating causal relationships. Hydrobiologia 542:77–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alam JB, Hossain A, Khan SK, Banik BK, Islam RM, Muyen Z, Habibur Rahman M (2007) Deterioration of water quality of Surma river. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 134:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:257–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. APHA (1985) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 16th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Argyroudi A, Chatzinikolaou Y, Poirazidis K, Lazaridou M (2008) Do intermittent and ephemeral Mediterranean rivers belong to the same river type? Aquatic Ecology 43:465–476Google Scholar
  6. Armitage PD, Moss D, Wright JF, Furse MT (1983) The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites. Water Research 17:333–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Artemiadou V, Lazaridou M (2005) Evaluation Score and Interpretation Index for the ecological quality of running waters in Central and Northern Hellas. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 110:1–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Artemiadou V, Statiri X, Brouziotis Th, Lazaridou M (2008) Ecological quality of small Mediterranean streams (river type R-M4) and performance of the European Intercalibration metrics. Hydrobiologia 605:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Avtalion RR, Clem LW (1981) Environmental control of the immune response in fish. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 11:163–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berkman H, Rabeni C, Boyle T (2005) Biomonitoring of stream quality in agricultural areas: fish versus invertebrates. Environmental Management 10:413–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowser PR, Wolfe MJ, Forney JL, Wooster GA (1988) Seasonal prevalence of skin tumors from walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) from Oneida Lake, New York. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 24(2):292–298Google Scholar
  12. Buffagni A, Erba S, Birk S, Cazzola M, Feld C, Ofenbock T, Murray-Bligh J, Furse MT, Clarke R, Herring D, Soszka H, Van de Bund W (2005) Towards European inter-calibration for the water framework directive: procedures and examples for different river types from the E.C. Project STAR. Instituto di Ricerca Sulle Acque, RomeGoogle Scholar
  13. Casas J, Gessner M, Langton P, Calle D, Descals E, Salinas M (2006) Diversity of patterns and processes in rivers of eastern Andalusia. Limnetica 25:155–170Google Scholar
  14. CEN/TC 230/WG 2/TG 4N 27 (2002) Work Item 230116, Water Analysis-Sampling of fish with electricityGoogle Scholar
  15. Center of Hydrological Information (2005) Geographical Information System of National Data Bank of Hydrological and Meteorological Information (NDBHMI). Accessed online March 20, 2009: http://titan.chi.civil.ntua.gr/website/greece/viewer.htm
  16. Chatzinikolaou Y, Dakos V, Lazaridou M (2006) Longitudinal impacts of anthropogenic pressures on benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in a large transboundary Mediterranean river during the low flow period. Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica 34:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2006) PRIMER v6: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E, Plymouth, U.K., 190 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Correl L-D (2005) Principals of planning and establishment of buffer zones. Ecological Engineering 24:433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Damásio BJ, Barata C, Munné A, Ginebreda A, Guasch H, Sabater S, Caixach J, Porte C (2007) Comparing the response of biochemical indicators (biomarkers) and biological indices to diagnose the ecological impact of an oil spillage in a Mediterranean river (NE Catalunya, Spain). Chemosphere 66:1206–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Degerman E, Beier U, Breine J, Melcher A, Quataert P, Rogers C, Roset N, Simoens I (2007) Classification and assessment of degradation in European running waters. Fisheries Management and Ecology 14:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Del Tanago MG, De Jalon DG (2006) Attributes for assessing the environmental quality of riparian zones. Limnetica 25:389–402Google Scholar
  22. Economidis P (2003) Barbus peloponnesius Valenciennes, 1842. In: Banarescu M, Bogutskaya N (eds) The freshwater fishes of Europe, Cyprinidae 2 Part II: Barbus. Aula-Verlang, Germany, pp 301–337Google Scholar
  23. Economou AN, Zogaris S, Chatzinikolaou Y, Tachos V, Giakoumi S, Kommatas D, Koutsicos N,Vardakas L, Blaser K, Dussling U (2007) Development of an ichthyological multimetric index for ecological status assessment of Greek mountain streams and rivers. Hellenic Center for Marine Research—Institute of Inland Waters, Hellenic Ministry for Development, Main Document, 116 pp Appendices: 189 pp (in Greek)Google Scholar
  24. European Commission (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the council 23rd October establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L327:1–72Google Scholar
  25. Fausch KD, Torgersen CE, Baxter CV, Li HW (2002) Landscapes to riverscapes: bridging the gap between research and concervation of stream fishes. BioScience 52:483–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferreira T, Caiola N, Casals F, Oliveira JM, De Sostoa A (2007) Assessing perturbation of river fish communities in the Iberian Ecoregion. Fisheries Management and Ecology 14:519–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Freund JG (2004) Local and regional impairment of fish assemblages in a mined Appalachian watershed. Ph.D. thesis, West Virginia UniversityGoogle Scholar
  28. Freund GJ, Petty JT (2007) Response of fish and macroinvertebrate bioassessment indices to water chemistry in a mined Appalachian Watershed. Environmental Management 39:707–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Giller PS (2005) River restoration: seeking ecological standards. Editor’s introduction. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Globevnik L, Kaligaric M (2005) Hydrological changes of the Mura River in Slovenia, accompanied with habitat deterioration in riverine space. Materials and Geoenvironment 52:45–49Google Scholar
  31. Halasz G, Szlepak E, Szilagyi E, Zagyva A, Fekete I (2007) Application of EU Water Framework Directive for monitoring of small water catchment areas in Hungary, II. Preliminary study for establishment of surveillance monitoring system for moderately loaded (rural) and heavily loaded (urban) catchment areas. Microchemical Journal 85:72–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harris J, Silveira R (1999) Large-scale assessments of river health using an Index of Biotic Integrity with low-diversity fish communities. Freshwater Biology 41:235–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heatherly T, Whiles M, Royer T, David M (2007) Relationships between water quality, habitat quality, and macroinvertebrate assemblages in Illinois streams. Journal of Environmental Quality 36:1653–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hering D, Johnson RK, Kramm S, Schmutz S, Szoszkiewicz K, Verdonschot P (2006) Assessment of European streams with diatoms, macrophytes, macroinvertebrtaes and fish: a comparative metric-based analysis of organism response to stress. Freshwater Biology 51:1757–1785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hughes SJ, Santos JM, Ferreira MT, Carac R, Mendes AM (2009) Ecological assessment of an intermittent Mediterranean river using community structure and function: evaluating the role of different organism groups. Freshwater Biology 54:2383–2400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Iliopoulou-Georgoudaki J, Kantzaris V, Katharios P, Kaspiris P, Georgiadis Th, Montesantou B (2003) An application of different bioindicators for assessing water quality: a case study in the rivers Alfeios and Pineios (Peloponnisos, Greece). Ecological Indicators 2:345–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Infante MD, Allan JD, Linke S, Norris HR (2009) Relationship of fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages to environmental factors: implications for community concordance. Hydrobiologia 623:87–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. ISO 7828; 1985, EN 27828 (1994) Water quality-methods of biological sampling: Guidance on hand-net sampling of aquatic benthic macroinvertebratesGoogle Scholar
  39. Ivkovic M, Matonickin Kepcija R, Mihaljevic Z, Horvat B (2007) Assemblage composition and ecological features of aquatic dance flies (Diptera, Empididae) in the Cetina River system, Croatia. Fundamental and applied Limnology 170:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson RK, Hering D, Furse M, Clarke RT (2006) Detection of ecological change using multiple organism groups: metrics and uncertainty. Hydrobiologia 566:115–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kampa E, Artemiadou V, Lazaridou-Dimitriadou M (2000) Ecological quality of the river Axios (N. Greece) during spring and summer, 1997. Belgian Journal of Zoology 130:21–27Google Scholar
  42. Karr JR (1981) Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kottelat M, Freyhof J (2007) Handbook of European freshwater fish. Kottelat, Cornol and Freyhof, Berlin, p 646Google Scholar
  44. Kotti EM, Vlessidis GA, Thanasoulias CN, Evmiridis PN (2005) Assessment of River Water Quality in Northwestern Greece. Water Resources Management 19:77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lazaridou-Dimitriadou M (2002) Seasonal variation of the water quality of rivers and streams of eastern Mediterranean. Web Ecology 3:20–32Google Scholar
  46. Lazaridou-Dimitriadou M, Artemiadou V, Yfantis G, Mourelatos S, Mylopoulos Y (2000) Contribution to the ecological quality of Aliakmon river (Macedonia, Greece): a multivariate approach. Hydrobiologia 410:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lazaridou-Dimitriadou M, Koukoumides C, Lekka E, Gaidagis G (2004) Integrative evaluation of the ecological quality of metalliferous streams (Chalkidiki, Macedonia, Hellas). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 91:59–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lovell ST, Sallivan WC (2006) Environmental benefits of conservation buffers in the United States: evidence, promise, and open questions. Agriculture, Ecosystems and the Environment 112:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Metcalfe JL (1989) Biological quality assessment of running waters based on macroinvertebrate communities: history and present status in Europe. Environmental Pollution 60:101–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Molnar P, Burlando P, Wolfgang R (2002) Integrated catchment assessment of riverine landscape dynamics. Aquatic Sciences 64:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moore M, Lefkovitz L, Hall M, Hillman R, Mitchell D, Burnett J (2005) Reduction in organic contaminant exposure and resultant hepatic hydropic vacuolation in winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) following improved effluent quality and relocation of the Boston sewage outfall into Massachusetts Bay, USA: 1987–2003. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50:156–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Munne A, Prat N, Sola N, Bonada N, Rierradevall M (2003) A simple field method for assessing the ecological quality of riparian habitat in rivers and streams: QBR index. Aquatic conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13:147–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Navarro RS, Stewardson M, Breil P, De Jalon DG, Eisele M (2007) Hydrological impacts affecting endangered fish species: a Spanish case study. River Research and Applications 23:123–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ormerod SJ (2003) Current issues with fish and fisheries: editor’s overview and introduction. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:204–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Paavola R, Muotka T, Virtanen R, Heino J, Jackson D, Maki-Petays A (2006) Spatial scale affects community concordance among fishes, benthic macroinvertebrates, and bryophytes in streams. Ecological Applications 16:368–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pont D, Hugueny B, Rogers C (2007) Development of a fish-based index for the assessment of river health in Europe: the European Fish Index. Fisheries Management and Ecology 14:427–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pritchard G (1983) Biology of Tipulidae. Annual Review of Entomology 28:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Raven PJ, Holmes NTH, Dawson FH, Everard M (1998) Quality assessment using River Habitat Survey data. Aquatic conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8:477–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roy A, Rosemond A, Paul M, Leigh D, Wallace J (2003) Stream macroinvertebrates response to catchment urbanization (Georgia, USA). Freshwater Biology 48:329–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schiemer F (2000) Fish as indicators for the assessment of the ecological integrity of large rivers. Hydrobiologia 422–423:271–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schmutz S, Jungwirth M (1999) Fish as indicators of large river connectivity: the Danube and its tributaries. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie (Suppl Large Rivers) 115:329–348Google Scholar
  62. Skoulikidis N, Karaouzas I, Gritzalis K (2009) Identifying key environmental variables structuring benthic fauna for establishing a biotic typology for Greek running waters. Limnologica 39:56–66Google Scholar
  63. Spence A, Smith M, Nairn R (1999) Ecological assessment of several Oklahoma streams through evaluation of fish communities and habitat in a drought year. Proceedings of Oklahoma Academy of Sciences 79:61–72Google Scholar
  64. Stone M, Whiles M, Webber J, Willard K, Reeve J (2005) Macroinvertebrate communities in agriculturally impacted Southern Illinois streams: Patterns with Riparian Vegetation, Water Quality and In-stream Habitat Quality. Journal of Environmental Quality 34:907–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tabachi E, Corell D, Hauer R, Pinay G, Planty-Tabachi A (1998) Development, maintenance and role of riparian vegetation in the river landscape. Freshwater Biology 40:497–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (1998) CANOCO reference manual and user’s guide to CANOCO for Windows. Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4). Centre for Biometry, Wageningen, 353 ppGoogle Scholar
  67. Townsend CR, Doledec S, Norris R, Peacock K, Arbuckle C (2003) The influence of scale and geography on relationships between stream community composition and landscape variables: description and prediction. Freshwater Biology 48:768–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Van de Bund W, Cardoso AC, Heiskanen AS, Noges P (2004) Common implementation strategy for the water framework directive (2000/60/EC). Overview of common intercalibration types. Final Version 5.1. Ecological Status Working Group 2.A., 38 ppGoogle Scholar
  69. Vila-Gispert A, Garcia-Berthou E, Moreno-Amich R (2002) Fish zonation in a Mediterranean stream: effects of human disturbances. Aquatic Science 64:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Voshell J, Reese J (2002) A guide to common freshwater invertebrates of North America. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA, p 454Google Scholar
  71. Wagner R, Gathmann O (1996) Long-term studies on aquatic Dance Flies (Diptera, Empididae 1983–1993: distribution and size patterns along the stream, abundance changes between years and the influence of environmental factors on the community. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 137:385–410Google Scholar
  72. Wentworth C (1922) A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. Journal of Geology 30:377–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. West WD, Ling N, Hicks JB, Treblay AL, Kim DN, Van Den Heuvel MR (2006) Cumulative impacts assessment along a large river using brown bullhead catfish (Ameiurus nebulosus) populations. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25:1868–1880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p 718Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Th. Cheimonopoulou
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dimitra C. Bobori
    • 2
  • Ioannis Theocharopoulos
    • 3
  • Maria Lazaridou
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Zoology, School of BiologyAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Laboratory of Ichthyology, School of BiologyAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  3. 3.Veria, ImathiaGreece

Personalised recommendations