, Volume 651, Issue 1, pp 59–76 | Cite as

Assessing river ecological quality using benthic macroinvertebrates in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region

  • Thomas KorteEmail author
  • Abul Basar Mohammad Baki
  • Thomas Ofenböck
  • Otto Moog
  • Subodh Sharma
  • Daniel Hering


We developed a system for the assessment of ecological condition for rivers in the lower mountains and lowlands of the Hindu Kush-Himalayan region (Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh). We used benthic invertebrates collected from 198 rivers, located in five different ecoregions and covering degradation gradients; samples were taken twice (pre-monsoon and post-monsoon) applying a multi-habitat sampling procedure. Out of 38 environmental parameters, we constructed complex principal component analysis (PCA) gradients, separately for the stressors organic pollution, eutrophication, floodplain land use, and hydromorphological degradation. Correlation analysis between invertebrate metrics and environmental parameters revealed those biological metrics that are most responsive to river deterioration. Redundant metrics were deleted, and the most robust metrics were selected. The range of the index values under reference conditions was defined, and a five-class river quality system was generated.


Bioassessment Multimetric Metric Ecoregion ASSESS-HKH Stressor 



This study was supported by the European Commission (contract number: INCO-CT-2005_003659 ASSESS-HKH project). We thank all ASSESS-HKH partners for their contribution to the development of the multimetric index.


  1. AQEM Consortium, 2002. Manual for the application of the AQEM method. A comprehensive method to assess European streams using benthic macroinvertebrates, developed for the purpose of the Water Framework Directive. Last update 10/10/2006. Retrieved 09/07/2008 from
  2. Armitage, P. D., D. Moss, J. F. Wright & M. T. Furse, 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 16: 1465–1477.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, R. C., R. H. Norris & T. B. Reynoldson, 2004. Bioassessment of Freshwater Ecosystems: Using the Reference Condition Approach. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Baptista, D. F., D. F. Buss, M. Egler, A. Giovanelli, M. P. Silveira & J. L. Nessimian, 2007. A multimetric index based on benthic macroinvertebrates for evaluation of Atlantic Forest streams at Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. Hydrobiologia 575: 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, G. E. Griffith, R. Frydenborg, E. Mc Carron, J. S. White & M. L. Bastian, 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbour, M. T., B. D. Gerritsen, B. D. Synder & J. B. Stribling, 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, 2nd edn. EPA 841-b-99-002. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. Barbour, M. T., S. B. Norton, K. W. Thornton & H. R. Preston (eds), 2004. Ecological Assessment of Aquatic Resources: Linking Science to Decision-Making. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL.Google Scholar
  8. Brewin, P. A., T. M. L. Newman & S. J. Ormerod, 1996. Patterns of macroinvertebrate distribution in relation to altitude, habitat structure and land use in streams of the Nepalese Himalaya. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 135: 79–100.Google Scholar
  9. Brewin, P. A., S. T. Buckton & S. J. Ormerod, 2000. The seasonal dynamics and persistence of stream macroinvertebrates in Nepal: do monsoon floods represent disturbance? Freshwater Biology 44: 581–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buss, D. F. & F. F. Salles, 2007. Using Baetidae species as biological indicators of environmental degradation in a Brazilian river basin. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 130: 365–372.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Buss, D. F., D. F. Baptista, M. P. Silveira, J. L. Nessimian & L. F. Dorvillé, 2002. Influence of water chemistry and environmental degradation on macroinvertebrate assemblages in a river basin in south-east Brazil. Hydrobiologia 481: 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) (ed.), 1999. Bio-mapping of rivers. Parivesh. Ministry of Environment & Forest, Delhi.Google Scholar
  13. Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) (ed.), 2006. Report on survey of the river Yamuna and its pollution sources – a 245 km stretch between Hathnikund - Delhi. Interim draft report. Parivesh. Ministry of Environment & Forest. Delhi.Google Scholar
  14. Dudgeon, D., 2003. The contribution of scientific information to the conservation and management of freshwater biodiversity in tropical Asia. Hydrobiologia 500: 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hering, D., O. Moog, L. Sandin & P. F. M. Verdonschot, 2004. Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia 516: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hering, D., C. K. Feld, O. Moog & T. Ofenböck, 2006a. Cook book for the development of a multimetric index for biological condition of aquatic ecosystems: experiences from the European AQEM and STAR projects and related initiatives. Hydrobiologia 566: 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hering, D., R. K. Johnson, S. Kramm, S. Schmutz, K. Szoszkiewicz & P. F. M. Verdonschot, 2006b. Assessment of European streams with diatoms, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish: a comparative metric-based analysis of organism response to stress. Freshwater Biology 51: 1757–1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kerans, B. L. & J. R. Karr, 1994. A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee valley. Ecological Applications 4: 768–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Korte, T., D. Hering & O. Moog, 2008. Untersuchungen zu Habitatpräferenzen ausgewählter Makroinvertebraten der Hindu Kush-Himalayan region. Jahrestagung Deutsche Gesellschaft Limnologie (DGL). Erweiterte Zusammenfassungen der Jahrestagung 2007. Eigenverlag der DGL, Münster: 146–150.Google Scholar
  20. Lorenz, A., D. Hering, C. K. Feld & P. Rolauffs, 2004. A new method for assessing the impact of hydromorphological degradation on the macroinvertebrate fauna of five German stream types. Hydrobiologia 516: 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maxted, J. R., M. T. Barbour, J. Gerritsen, J. Poretti, N. Primrose, A. Silvia, D. Penrose & R. Renfro, 2000. Assessment framework for mid-Atlantic coastal plain streams using benthic invertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 128–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meschkowski, H., 1968. Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. Bibliogr. Inst., Wien, Zürich.Google Scholar
  23. Messerli, B. & J. D. Ives, 1997. Mountains of the World: A Global Priority. Parthenin, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Moog, O. & S. Sharma, 2005. Guidance for pre-classifying the ecological status of HKH rivers. Working paper within ASSESS-HKH. Retrieved 09/09/2008 from
  25. Moya, N., S. Tomanova & T. Oberdorff, 2007. Initial development of a multi-metric index based on aquatic macroinvertebrates to assess streams condition in the Upper Isiboro-Sécure Basin, Bolivian Amazon. Hydrobiologia 589: 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nesemann, H., S. Sharma, G. Sharma, S. N. Khanal, B. Pradhan, D. N. Shah & R. D. Tachamo, 2007. Aquatic Invertebrates of the Ganga River System. Mollusca, Annelida, Crustacea (in part). H. Nesemann, Kathmandu.Google Scholar
  27. Ofenböck, T., O. Moog, J. Gerritsen & M. T. Barbour, 2004. A stressor specific multimetric approach for monitoring running waters in Austria using benthic macro-invertebrates. Hydrobiologia 516: 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ollis, D. J., H. F. Dallas, K. J. Esler & C. Boucher, 2006. Bioassessment of the ecological integrity of river ecosystems using aquatic macroinvertebrates: an overview with a focus on South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science 31: 205–227.Google Scholar
  29. Olson, D. M., E. Dinerstein, E. D. Wikramanaya, N. D. Burgess, G. V. N. Powell, E. C. Underwood, J. A. D’amico, I. I. Hollye, S. J. C. Morrison, C. J. Loucks, T. F. Allnutt, T. H. Ricketts, Y. Kura, J. F. Lamoreux, W. W. Wettengel, P. Hedao & K. R. Kassem, 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth. BioScience 51: 933–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ormerod, S. J., S. D. Rundle, S. M. Wilkinson, G. P. Daly, K. M. Dale & I. Juttner, 1994. Altitudinal trends in diatoms, bryophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish of a Nepalese river system. Freshwater Biology 31: 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rawer-Jost, C., J. Böhmer, J. Blank & H. Rahmann, 2000. Macroinvertebrate functional feeding group methods in ecological assessment. Hydrobiologia 422–423: 225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Resh, V. H., 1995. Freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates and rapid assessment procedures for water quality monitoring in developing and newly industrialized countries. In Davis, S. D. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria. Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, London, Tokyo: 167–180.Google Scholar
  33. Rundle, S., A. Jenkins & S. J. Ormerod, 1993. Macroinvertebrate communities in streams in the Himalaya, Nepal. Freshwater Biology 30: 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sandin, L. & D. Hering, 2004. Comparing macroinvertebrate indices to detect organic pollution across Europe: a contribution to the EC Water Framework Directive intercalibration. Hydrobiologia 516: 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shannon, C. E. & W. Weaver, 1976. Mathemathische Grundlagen der Informationstheorie. Oldenbourg, München, Wien.Google Scholar
  36. Sharma, S. & O. Moog, 2005. A reference based Nepalese biotic score and its application in the midland hills and lowland plains for river water quality assessment and management. In Tripathi, R. D., K. Kulshrestha, M. Agrawal, K. J. Ahmed, C. K. Varsehen, F. Sagar & P. Pushpangadan (eds), Proceedings of the Conference Plant Response to Environmental Stress. IBD and CO Publisher, Lucknow.Google Scholar
  37. Sharma, S., R. M. Bajracharya, B. K. Sitaula & J. Merz, 2005. Water quality in the central Himalaya. Current Science 89: 774–786.Google Scholar
  38. Silveira, M. P., P. F. Baptista, J. L. Nessimian & M. Egler, 2005. Application of biological measures for stream integrity assessment in south-east Brazil. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 101: 117–128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sponseller, R. A., E. F. Benfield & H. M. Valett, 2001. Relationships between land use, spatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwater Biology 46: 1409–1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Suren, A. M., 1994. Macroinvertebrate communities of streams in western Nepal: effects of altitude and land use. Freshwater Biology 32: 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vlek, H. E., P. F. M. Verdonschot & R. C. Nijboer, 2004. Towards a multimetric index for the assessment of Dutch streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 516: 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weigel, B. M., L. J. Henne & L. M. Martinez-Rivera, 2002. Macroinvertebrate-based index of biotic integrity for protection of streams in west-central Mexico. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21: 686–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Korte
    • 1
    Email author
  • Abul Basar Mohammad Baki
    • 2
  • Thomas Ofenböck
    • 3
  • Otto Moog
    • 3
  • Subodh Sharma
    • 4
  • Daniel Hering
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied Zoology/Hydrobiology, Institute of BiologyUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Water Resources EngineeringBangladesh University of Engineering & TechnologyDhakaBangladesh
  3. 3.Department of Water, Atmosphere & Environment, Institute for Hydrobiology & Water ManagementUniversity of Natural Resources and Applied Life SciencesViennaAustria
  4. 4. Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Aquatic Ecology Centre, Research Development & ConsultancyKathmandu UniversityKathmanduNepal

Personalised recommendations