Advertisement

Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 105–115 | Cite as

The river before damming: distribution and ecological notes on the endemic species Echinogammarus cari (Amphipoda: Gammaridae) in the Dobra River and its tributaries, Croatia

  • Krešimir Žganec
  • Sanja Gottstein
Article

Abstract

The endemic species Echinogammarus cari (Karaman 1931) is the only species of this genus present in the Black Sea drainage basin of Croatia. The species is known only from its type locality, the Bistrac spring. Since little is known about the distribution and ecology of this amphipod species, research was conducted to determine the extent of its distribution in the Dobra River and its tributaries, part of which will be flooded on the completion of a 52.5 m high dam in 2009. Sampling was conducted at 10 study sites in the drainage area of the sinking Gornja Dobra and at 19 study sites in the Gojačka Dobra, including measurement of physicochemical parameters. To examine microdistribution of this species, samples were collected on moss and on stony substrate. The species is confined to first 15 km of the Gojačka Dobra, its tributary streams Bistrica and Ribnjak, while it is absent in the drainage area of the Gornja Dobra. At all sites where it was recorded, it coexists with Gammarus fossarum, and its relative abundance was significantly higher on moss microhabitats, while G. fossarum was more abundant on a stony substrate. The downstream decrease in the relative abundance of E. cari could be related to the longitudinal decrease in conductivity and the increase of water temperature fluctuations. After the completion of the dam, 60% of the presently known distribution area of E. cari will be flooded. Consequently, the species is likely to become endangered.

Keywords

Conservation Fecundity Habitat loss Hydropower plant Large dam Microdistribution 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Nina Jeran and Ana Slavikovski during the field work. We also thank people from the Croatian Meteorological and Hydrological Service and Croatian Waters who made temperature and flow data available for our study. Also, Sandra Hudina and three unknown referees are thanked for their critical remarks on earlier versions of the manuscript.

References

  1. Allan JD (1996) Stream ecology. Structure and function of running waters. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bahun S (1968) Geološka osnova hidrogeoloških odnosa krškog područja između Slunja i Vrbovskog (Geologic basis of hydrogeologic relations of the karst area between Slunj and Vrbovsko). Geol Vjesnik 21:19–82Google Scholar
  3. Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manage 30:492–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cline LD, Ward JV (1984) Biological and physicochemical changes downstream from construction of a subalpine reservoir, Colorado, USA. In: Lillehammer A, Saltveit SJ (eds) Proceedings of the second international symposium on regulated streams, Oslo, August 1982, Regulated Rivers, Universitetsforlaget AS, Oslo, p 233Google Scholar
  5. Dahl J, Greenberg L (1996) Effects of habitat structure on habitat use by Gammarus pulex in artificial streams. Freshw Biol 36:487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dick JTA, Faloon SE, Elwood RW (1998) Active brood care in an amphipod: influence of embryonic development, temperature and oxygen. Anim Behav 56:663–672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glazier DS, Horne MT, Lehman ME (1992) Abundance, body composition and reproductive output of Gammarus minus (Crustacea: Amphipoda) in ten cold springs differing in pH and ionic content. Freshw Biol 28:149–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goedmakers A (1981) Population dynamics of three gammarid species (Crustacea, Amphipoda) in a French chalk stream. Part II. Standing crop. Bijdr Dierk 51:31–69Google Scholar
  9. Goedmakers A, Pinkster S (1981) Population dynamics of three gammarid species (Crustacea, Amphipoda) in a French chalk stream. Part III. Migration. Bijdr Dierk 51: 145–180Google Scholar
  10. Gregg WW, Rose FL (1982) The effects of aquatic macrophytes on the stream microenvironment. Aquat Bot 14:309–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hynes HBN (1954) The ecology of Gammarus duebeni Lilljeborg and its occurrence in fresh water in Western Britain. J Anim Ecol 23:38–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ikonen E (1984) Migratory fish stocks and fishery management in regulated Finnish rivers flowing into the Baltic Sea. In: Lillehammer A, Saltveit SJ (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Regulated Streams, Oslo, August 1982, Regulated Rivers, Universitetsforlaget AS, Oslo, p 437Google Scholar
  13. Karaman SL (1931) Gammarus cari n. sp. aus Westjugoslawien. Zool Anz 94:265–268Google Scholar
  14. Karaman GS (1973) 51.Contribution to the knowledge of the amphipoda. Two members of Echinogammarus simoni group from southern Europe, E. cari (S. Kar. 1931) and E. roco, n. sp. (fam. Gammaridae). Poljoprivreda i šumarstvo 19:1–21Google Scholar
  15. Karaman GS, Pinkster S (1977) Freshwater Gammarus species from Europe, North Africa and adjacent regions of Asia (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Part I. Gammarus pulex-group and related species. Bijdr Dierk 47:1–97Google Scholar
  16. MacNeil C, Platvoet D (2005) The predatory impact of the freshwater invader Dikerogammarus villosus on native Gammarus pulex (Crustacea: Amphipoda); influences of differential microdistribution and food resources. J Zool, Lond 267:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Malmqvist B, Rundle S (2002) Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world. Environ Conserv 29:134–153Google Scholar
  18. McAllister DE, Craig JF, Davidson N, Delany S, Seddon M (2001) Biodiversity impacts of large dams. Background Paper Nr. 1 Prepared for IUCN/UNEP/WCDGoogle Scholar
  19. Minckley WL (1964) Upstream movements of Gammarus (Amphipoda) in Doe Run, Meade County, Kentucky. Ecology 45:195–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nilsson C, Reidy CA, Dynesius M, Revenga C (2005) Fragmentation and flow regulation of the world’s large river systems. Science 308:405–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pinkster S (1993) A revision of the genus Echinogammarus Stebbing, 1899 with some notes on related genera (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Mem Mus Civ Stor Nat Verona 10:1–185Google Scholar
  22. Pöckl M (1993) Reproductive potential and lifetime potential fecundity of the freshwater amphipods Gammarus fossarum and G. roeseli in Austrian streams and rivers. Freshw Biol 30:73–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pöckl M, Humpesch UH (1990) Intra- and inter-specific variations in egg survival and brood development time for Austrian populations of Gammarus fossarum and G. roeseli (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Freshw Biol 23:441–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rukke NA (2002) Effects of low calcium concentrations on two common freshwater crustaceans, Gammarus lacustris and Astacus astacus. Funct Ecol 16:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schrimpff E, Foecker F (1985) Gammarids in streams of Northeastern Bavaria, F. R. G., Part I: prediction of their general occurrence by selected hydrochemical variables. Arch Hydrobiol 103:479–495Google Scholar
  26. Sheldon F, Walker KF (1997) Changes in biofilms induced by flow regulation could explain extinctions of aquatic snails in the lower River Murray, Australia. Hydrobiol 347:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Söderström O (1987) Upstream movements of invertebrates in running waters – a review. Arch Hydrobiol 111:197–208Google Scholar
  28. Stanford JA, Ward JV (1984) The effects of regulation on the limnology of the Gunnison River: A North American case history. In: Lillehammer A, Saltveit SJ (eds) Proceedings of the second international symposium on regulated streams, Oslo, August 1982, Regulated Rivers, Universitetsforlaget AS, Oslo, p 467Google Scholar
  29. Strayer DL (2006) Challenges for freshwater invertebrate conservation. J N Am Benthol Soc 25:271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Overdijk CDA, Grigorovich IA, Mabee T, Ray WJ, Ciborowski JJH, MacIsaac HJ (2003) Microhabitat selection by the invasive amphipod Echinogammarus ischnus and native Gammarus fasciatus in laboratory experiments and in Lake Erie. Freshw Biol 48:567–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vaughn CC, Taylor CM (1999) Impoundments and the decline of freshwater mussels: a case study of an extinction gradient. Conserv Biol 13:912–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zehmer JK, Mahon SA, Capelli GM (2002) Calcium as a limiting factor in the distribution of the amphipod Gammarus pseudolimnaeus. Am Midl Nat 148:350–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations