Freshwater ostracods as environmental tracers

  • F. Ruiz
  • M. Abad
  • A. M. Bodergat
  • P. Carbonel
  • J. Rodríguez-Lázaro
  • M. L. González-Regalado
  • A. Toscano
  • E. X. García
  • J. Prenda
Open Access
Review

Abstract

This paper revises the response of freshwater ostracods to different environmental conditions and anthropogenic impacts, with a worldwide overview of the potential use of these microcrustaceans as bioindicators and several examples of applications in different scenarios. The development of either a single species or an ostracod assemblage is influenced by physical–chemical properties of waters (salinity, temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen), hydraulic conditions, bottom grain sizes or sedimentation rates. In addition to population and community changes, morphological and geochemical changes can also be detected in the ostracod carapace, which serves as a tracer of the water quality. All these features permit to delimit the spatial effects of urban sewages, mining effluents, agricultural wastes, watershed deforestation or road building. These data are the basis for the palaeoenvironmental reconstruction of cores, with an interesting application to archaeology. In addition, favourable results of recently developed bioassays, coupled with an important variability of local assemblages under changing conditions in both waters and sediments, suggest that these microcrustaceans may included between the most promising sentinels groups in freshwater areas. These microcrustaceans show high sensitivity to pesticides, herbicides, heavy metal pollution and oil inputs.

Keywords

Anthropogenic impact Biotechnology Environmental parameters Ostracods 

Introduction

Numerous papers have analyzed the importance of freshwater ecosystems as an essential part of human cultures. Although they occupy only about 1 % of the Earth’s surface, both lotic and lentic environments are central to the society. Nevertheless, they are being subjected to unprecedented levels of human disturbance with variable incidence on waters, sediments and biota (Saunders et al. 2002).

Different groups of organisms have been proposed as bioindicators and/or biomonitors (see Rinderhagen et al. 2000 for distinction) to test these changes. Among the macrofaunal organisms, fishes (Lu et al. 2009), mussels (Angelo et al. 2007), gastropods (Piyatiratitivorakul and Boonchamoi 2008) or plants (Akguc et al. 2010) are usually used for this purpose. In addition, several meiofaunal groups are also included as sentinels of human-induced changes in these freshwater environments, such as diatoms (Rimet and Bouchez 2011) or nematodes (Zhu et al. 2001).

In this last category, different studies have demonstrated the importance of some microcrustaceans (e.g. ostracods) as keystone species on production and community metabolism of micro- or mesocosm freshwater beds, playing an interesting role in determining the structure of these systems (Lawrence et al. 2002). In these microenvironments, ostracods compete with oligochaetes and amphipods for food sources (Modig et al. 2000) and all these groups are predated by fishes or gastropods.

This review attempts to analyse the potential of ostracods as environmental tracers in recent freshwater ecosystems. As ostracods occur in every aquatic environment, they can be applied as bioindicators when other groups cannot be used (e.g., groundwaters, stagnant and temporary waters). Results can be applied to both evaluations of biotic changes produced by anthropogenic activities or palaeoecological/archaeological interpretations using sediment cores.

Freshwater ostracods and environmental parameters

Correlation between different environmental variables and ostracod species has been demonstrated in numerous field investigations. A brief review is given below.

Water and ostracods

Salinity

Salinity is considered a major factor regulating aquatic community structure in freshwater environments, especially in hydrologically closed lakes and wetlands, although there are no simple relationships between ostracod faunas and this variable. Some euryhaline species are found in limnic waters but they can inhabit even hypersaline environments, whereas others (Ilyocypris bradyii, Candona candida, Fabaeformiscandona levanderi, F. protzi, Herpetocypris reptans) are limited to salinities down to 6 ‰ (see Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Life physico-chemical conditions of twenty selected freshwater species (>100 papers revised from 1969 to 2011)

Temperature

Seasonal or depth-water differences of temperature may explain important changes on both ostracod density and diversity. Low temperatures seem to favour the development of some species, e.g., Candona neglecta or Darwinula stevensoni (Martens and Tudorancea 1991; Külköylüoglu and Yilmaz 2006), while other species (Isocypris beauchampi, Cyprideis torosa, Cyclocypris ovum) increase their abundances with higher temperatures (Rieradevall and Roca 1995). A third group (e.g., Cytherissa lacustris, Heterocypris incongruens) presents a relatively broad tolerance to temperature changes (Danielopol et al. 1990; Külköylüoglu 2004).

Oxygen-dissolved concentrations

Some species (e.g., Darwinula stevensoni) are very sensitive to oxygen depletion, whereas others that live in shallow muddy ponds may tolerate low oxygen concentrations for short time periods (e.g. Candona candida, Paracyprideis fennica, Cypria opthalmica or Heterocypris incongruens) and a third group (e.g., Heterocypris sorbyana, Candona neglecta) is tolerant to hypoxic conditions (e.g., Dole-Olivier et al. 2000; Meisch 2000; Altinsacli and Griffiths 2001).

Temporal anoxic conditions cause usually marked falls in ostracod assemblage diversity levels (Rieradevall and Roca 1995). The time delay in responding to these low oxygen levels has been estimated at less than 1 month (Martin-Rubio et al. 2005).

pH

Most freshwater ostracods prefer alkaline or slightly acidic waters, although some species can tolerate a wide range of pH from 4.6 to 13 (Fig. 1) and others were found even in highly acidic waters (e.g. Fryer 1993). In general, ostracod species are absent at a pH <5, because calcium uptake for carapace calcification is difficult in acid waters (Griffiths and Holmes 2000; Boomer et al. 2006).

Nutrient levels

Some ostracod species are very sensitive to high concentrations of several pollutants. Phosphates cause high disturbances in some species of Herpetocypris, whereas the amount of nitrates affect remarkably to Candona neglecta (Milhau et al. 1997). Some species (e.g. Ilyocypris inermis) are absent in disturbed sites with high nutrient levels (Pieri et al. 2012).

Depth water

Although it is very difficult to obtain a statistical correlation between depth and either ostracod diversity or the abundance of individual species, some general patterns have been established in stable freshwater environments (e.g., Fig. 2). Some species (Limnocythere inopinata, Darwinula stevensoni, Ilyocypris echinata) are typical of the benthos of shallow areas, whereas Candona angulata, C. candida, Cryptocandona reducta, Cypria ophthalmica, Cyclocypris ovum, Cytherissa lacustris, Potamocypris smaragdina or Limnocythere sancti-patricii can be also present in the deeper benthos (>40 m deep) (Griffiths et al. 2002; Li et al. 2010).
Fig. 2

Distribution of the main groups of species of ostracods related to water depth and sediment type in Lake Huinaymarca, Bolivia (modified from Mourguiart et al. 1986)

Depth water is clearly linked to climatic changes in some areas. In temporal lakes, swimming species are dominant during wet, deep-water periods, whereas burrowing species characterize the dry, shallow-water periods and scarce individuals are found if lakes dry out completely (Curry 2003).

Hydraulic conditions

Ostracods avoid generally high water velocities by moving inside sediments or vegetation, although they may be abundant in interstitial habitats of rapidly flowing streams (Creuzé des Chatelliers and Marmonier 1993). Moreover, some species present significant positive correlation with water turbidity (Yilmaz and Külköylüoglu 2006).

In addition, the thanatocoenosis distribution may be indicative of the seasonal hydrodynamic conditions. Isolated valves of freshwater species (e.g. Cytherissa lacustris, Lineocypris sp.) are transported even 2 km seaward during high flows, whereas only marine species were found during low flows in the same area (Ruiz et al. 1998).

Species traits and habitat utilization

Long life spans, late maturity, low fecundity and low migratory ability, medium size and geometric carapace shape are species traits of ostracods living in interstitial and hypogean habitats. In permanent flowing and standing surface waters, the abundant epigean species have long life spans, various body forms, large size and some of them give parental care. On the contrary, in temporary ponds and stagnant waters, most of the species have short life spans, high migratory ability, high tolerance desiccation and are spherical or cylindrical shape in temporary ponds and stagnant waters (Marmonier et al. 1994).

The outline of ostracods carapace can provide valuable information on the stability/instability of the environment. Species of Candoninae have triangular, trapezoidal or elongate valves with accurate posterior margin in stable environments, whereas Cypria species with a sub-circular outline characterizes unstable environments (Pipik and Bodergat 2005).

Sediments and ostracods

Grain size

The influence of this factor is variable on the ostracod assemblages. In some lakes, the ostracod survival rates decreased with decreasing particle size (Donahue and Irvine 2003), whereas the effect of grain size distribution is likely to be insignificant on ostracod populations of some freshwater ponds and river biofacies (Ikeya and Hanai 1982). Some species (e.g., Limnocythere inopinata, L. sanctipatricii, Leucocythere mirabilis, Ilyocypris bradyii) usually occurs in fine-grained sediments (Lambert 1997), in contrast with the high abundances of these microcrustaceans found in coarse facies of some karstic lakes and alpine streams (e.g. Suren 1992). In addition, both this parameter and salinity changes may have a remarkable effect on the ornamentation pattern of selected species in other areas (Fig. 3: Cyprideis torosa).
Fig. 3

Influence of the granulometry (edaphic support) on the ornamentation of Cyprideis torosa. Specimens have been collected from the South of Spain (Alicante province), Southwest of France (Camargue, Bouches-du Rhône) and Northwest of France (Noirmoutier Island) (modified from Bodergat 1983)

Sedimentation rates

In some lakes subjected to a increasing deforestation around them, these crustaceans are very sensitive to high sedimentation ratios derived from the rapid erosion, with reduction in species richness up to 40 % in the shallowest areas. In these lakes, ostracods are more affected than diatoms by sedimentation (Cohen et al. 1993). This decrease has been also observed on estuarine environments, coinciding with increased sedimentation rates as a result of land modifications (Hayward et al. 2004).

The ostracod carapace as environmental tracer

Ornamentation

Surface external ornamentation has been also applied in environmental studies. Cytherissa lacustris, Limnocythere inopinata or Cyprideis torosa show smooth, punctuated, reticulated or noded carapaces (Fig. 4) depending on salinity range (Vesper 1975; Zhai et al. 2010) and have rounded pores in freshwater environments, whereas irregular pores are present mainly in oligohaline to hypersaline waters. Rosenfeld and Vesper (1977) proposed a graphic diagram to calculate palaeosalinities based on percentages of round, elongate and irregular sieve pores of this species, which have been used in the palaeoenvironmental reconstruction of sediment cores (Gliozzi and Mazzini 1998). Nevertheless, Keyser (2005) thinks the noding problem in C. torosa is mainly an osmotic control one, because the noded specimens are found in low salinity waters but also in low calcium content. According to this author, ecophenotypism in ostracod species is probably the result of a multifactorial system.
Fig. 4

Different types of ecophenotypic ornamentation on Cyprideis torosa (modified from Bodergat 1983)

Influence of temperature cannot be omitted. The most reticulated carapaces are also the richest in Mg (Fig. 3; Carbonel and Tölderer-Farmer 1988).

Geochemistry

Trace elements and stable isotope geochemistry of fossil carapaces can provide very useful palaeoenvironmental informations (e.g. Jin et al. 2011). In a freshwater species, the phosphorus content (in % or ppm) of the carapace may be similar in the same environment and can change between different geographical localities, being indicative of changing geochemical conditions (e.g. Bodergat 1979).

In addition, it is important to indicate the position of the analysis in the ostracod carapace, because the percentages of an element change between internal or external zones of the same carapace (Carbonel and Tölderer-Farmer 1988). According to Rio et al. (1997), antero-posterior differences are evident and variations between inner and outer parts of the shell are less frequent. If the elements associated with mineral inclusions have a rather homogeneous distribution, those involved in biological pathway (P, Na, S, Mg, Ca) have a heterogeneous distribution.

Environmental applications

Industrial/mining wastes and urban effluents

Wastes derived from different pollution sources provoke important changes on both ostracod density and diversity. In heavily organic-polluted waters close to urban or industrial concentrations, ostracods are usually very scarce and can even disappear (Poquet et al. 2008). These effects diminish generally downstream in some rivers, with the presence of different ostracod assemblages along a gradient from high pollution towards the final “recovery” zone (Fig. 5; Mezquita et al. 1999a, b).
Fig. 5

Impact of industrial effluents on the ostracod populations of Magre River (Eastern Spain), with transformed average density values calculated for seven monthly field samplings (January 1995–July 1995). The scales of abundance indicate 10 ln(x + 1), where x is the mean number of individuals per m2 (modified from Mezquita et al. Mezquita et al. 1999a, b)

Mining activities produce similar effects on the ostracod assemblages, with a rapid decline of species found near the point of treated polluted underground waters (Van der Merwe 2003). Nevertheless, a part of this pollution may be eliminated by some ostracod species, such as Herpetocypris chevreuxi (Onderikova 1993).

Agricultural wastes

The widespread and massive use of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides causes a decrease in ostracod richness (Rossi et al. 2003), although some species are resistant to pesticides or organic pollution (Lim and Wong 1986). Tolerant taxa are dominant in lowland springs with high nitric nitrogen contents (>800 μM) derived from a diffuse pollution of agricultural origin (Rosetti et al. 2004), whereas important increase of phosphate contents has been related to the absence of living specimens in the upper sediments of some lakes (Wünnemann et al. 2006).

Influence of other human activities

Other anthropogenic activities have also an important influence on the ostracod species richness. Watershed deforestation and road building, together with municipal and industrial discharges, result in sediment inundation of lacustrine habitats and decreasing ostracod diversities (up to 30 %) at the high-disturbance sites (Alin et al. 1999).

The impact of catchment land uses is also detected. In several small streams, few individuals and taxa occupied the hyporheic zones of streams draining hill-country catchments under pasture, which leads to hill-slope slumping, channel narrowing, an increasing erosive forces in the stream channel and reduces the habitable hyporheic zone (Boulton et al. 1997).

Palaeoenvironmental applications

Palaeoenvironmental trends

Numerous studies have been focused on palaeoenvironmental reconstructions based on a multivariate analysis (stratigraphic units, mineralogical data, macro- and microfaunal assemblages, isotopic trends) of cores collected in freshwater environments, including the ostracod analysis (De Deccker and Forester 1988; Lord et al. 2011). Autoecological stratigraphic analysis of ostracod assemblages is especially interesting in lakes where the persistence of local populations is often threatened by disturbance and changes in both water availability and quality. In sub-recent studies carried out on sediment cores (e.g. Ramdani et al. 2001), changes in the ostracod assemblages or population age structure have been related to the introduction of new predators (Fig. 6a), construction of a freshwater drainage channel (Fig. 6b), or increase of the water management for agriculture (Fig. 6c).
Fig. 6

CASSARINA Project. Evolution of ostracod assemblages and palaeoenvironmental reconstructions of three cores collected in three North African wetland lakes (modified from Ramdani et al. 2001). Bars represent the number of individuals in 10 cm3 sediment

On the other hand, alternances of both brackish/marine or freshwater associations allowed the recognition of salinity variations that could be related to Pleistocene sea-level changes (Gliozzi and Mazzini 1998), salinity and lake-level variations (Holmes et al. 2007) or palaeogeographical reconstructions (Ruiz et al. 2004). These assemblage changes, together with isotopic studies applied to ostracod carapaces, are very useful to reconstruct climatic changes (warm/cold phases), depth-water variations or hydrological/hydrochemical conditions (e.g. Anadón and Gabàs 2009).

Some morphological features (size, shape) of ostracod species have been used to reconstruct palaeoenvironmental conditions. Occurrence of large sized and geometric ostracod carapaces indicates a stable environment and the presence of different morphologies permits to attest rift activities, without any variations of the sedimentology (Hugueney et al. 1999).

Nevertheless, Holmes (1996) indicated a number of problems related to: (1) methods used for extraction of ostracod shells from sediment and their subsequent cleaning; (2) post-mortem diagenesis and alteration of the shell; (3) complications with the calcification mechanism; (4) spatial and temporal variability in shell composition; (5) the ecological tolerances of individual species; and (6) the relationships between shell chemistry and palaeohydrology.

Palaeoclimatic reconstructions

Lacustrine ostracods can be used as palaeoclimatic tracer (mainly for Quaternary). Isotopic analyses (18O and 13C) of ostracod carapaces can help to the understanding of regional events (Bahr et al. 2006; Mischke 2010) or possible exchanges between lakes and seas (Roy et al. 2011). These studies can be used in combination with protein dating by amino-acid racemization to provide valuable information on palaeotemperatures.

Environmental archaeology

These previous applications are very useful in archaeology, with a usual collection of ostracods together with plant remains, fragments of molluscs, foraminifera, bones, pollen and/or spores (Centre for Archaeology Guidelines 2002; Bates et al. 2008). Griffiths et al. (1993) provide a useful summary of sampling, preparation and identification techniques.

The shell chemistry and isotopic composition can be used even to reconstruct the climatic variations related to different periods of old cultures (e.g. Maya; Escobar et al. 2010). Changes from marine to freshwater ostracod assemblages permit to infer the end of activity in old harbour channels (Mazzini et al. 2011), whereas some ratios (Mg/Ca, Sr/Ca) have been utilised for understanding the evolution of prehistoric civilizations (Fig. 7: Hohokam culture, Arizona; Palacios Fest, 1997).
Fig. 7

Trace element palaeoenvironmental reconstruction of Hohokam canals history (Phoenix Basin Hohokam Canals, Arizona) based on ostracod shell chemistry of Limnocythere staplini (modified from Palacios-Fest 1997)

Laboratory studies: an additional promising approach

In numerous laboratory studies, freshwater ostracods present hopeful perspectives as biomonitors of stress conditions, giving information about the environmental state by means of the correlation between the presence/disappearance of some species, the total abundance or the population dynamics and the pollutant levels.

Herbicides and pesticides

Several experiments have analyzed the effects of variable doses of either herbicides or pesticides on different ostracod species (Fig. 8). These short studies (24–96 h of exposure time to toxins, in most cases) indicate that these microcrustaceans are excellent bioindicators, with a sensibility higher or similar to copepods, amphipods, cladocerans, crayfishes or prawns (Australian and New Zealand Environmental and Conservation Council 2000). Low doses of herbicides (e.g., dioxin) or pesticides (e.g., DDT, mexacarbate) cause an initial accumulation in the soft parts (Matsumura 1977), whereas increasing concentrations of other pesticides provoke intoxication, immobilisation or even mortality in the populations of Heterocypris incongruens, Cypretta spp., Eucypris sp. or Cypridopsis spp. (see Table 1 for a review).
Fig. 8

Impact of the organochlorine pesticide Endosulfan (a, b), the broad-spectrum insecticide Rotenone (c) and two combined insecticides (d: Chlorphyrifos/Lindane) on the ostracod populations. a, b Effect of endosulfan on total numbers + SE of ostracods in microcosms of Eucypris sp. and Cypretta sp. 10 weeks after initial application in southwestern Victoria, Australia (modified from Barry and Logan 1998). c Mean relative abundances (%) of zooplankton collected in sweep-nets at five treatment levels in 18 orchard ponds in the Motueka region, New Zealand (modified from Blakely et al. 2005). d Changes in number of ostracod taxa expressed as the geometric means of the numbers counted by treatment level of Ostracoda (modified from Cuppen et al. 2002)

Table 1

Effects of pesticides (P) and herbicides (H) on the ostracod populations

Name

Formula

Type

Ostracod species

Time study (h)

Toxic dose (µg/l)

Effect

Reference

Cadmium chloride

CdCl2

P

Cypridopsis sp.

96

190

Mortality

Fennikoh et al. (1978)

DDT

C14H9Cl5

P

Heterocypris incongruens

24

0.04–1.74

Accumulation

Matsumura (1977)

Heterocypris incongruens

24–48

100–5,000

Mortality

Khudairi and Ruber (1974)

Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)

C12H4Cl4O2

P

Heterocypris incongruens

24

0.002–0.2

Accumulation

Matsumura (1977)

Diquat

C12H12N2

H

N.d.

48

19–46,600

Two copepods were the most sensitive and an ostracod and a cyclopoid copepod the least

Australian and New Zealand Environmental and Conservation Council (2000)

Endosulfan

C12H4Cl4O2

P

N.d.

48–96

0.9

Most sensitive were copepods and ostracods

Australian and New Zealand Environmental and Conservation Council (2000)

Cypretta sp.; Eucypris sp.

1680

0–50

Elimination of the total population at high concentrations (10–50 µg/l)

Barry and Logan (1998)

Endrin

C12H8Cl6O

P

N.d.

48–96

0.5–74

Ostracods and prawns as the most sensitive groups

Australian and New Zealand Environmental and Conservation Council (2000)

Formaldehyde

CH2O

P

Cypridopsis sp.

1–96

236–4,760

Intoxication

Bills et al. (1977a)

Lindane

C6H6Cl6

P

Heterocypris incongruens

24

2.07–6.9

Accumulation

Matsumura (1977)

N.d.

48–96

3.2–1,100

High to moderate toxicity. Ostracods were the most sensitive group.

Australian and New Zealand Environmental and Conservation Council (2000)

Malachite green

C23H5N2

P

Cypridopsis sp.

6–96

2,490–8,570

Mortality

Bills et al. (1977b)

Malathion

C10H19O6PS2

P

N.d.

48–96

1.4–6.2

Inmobilisation. The most sensitive groups were cladocerans, ostracods and copepods

Mayer and Ellersieck (1986)

Mexacarbate

C12H18N2O2

P

Heterocypris incongruens

24

3.71–5.4

Accumulation

Matsumura (1977)

Molinate

C9H17NOS

H

N.d.

48–96

180–33,200

Ostracods and cladocerans were more sensitive than crayfishes and praws

Australian and New Zealand Environmental and Conservation Council (2000)

Trifluralin

C13H16F3N3O4

H

N.d.

48–96

37–2,200

Inmobilisation

Australian and New Zealand Environmental and Conservation Council (2000)

3-Trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol

C7H4F3NO3

P

Cypridopsis sp.

1–96

19,000–117,000

Inmobilisation

Hansen and Kawatski (1976)

Triflumuron

C15H10ClF3N2O3

P

Cypridopsis sp.

336–504

6

Lower abundance

Ali and Lord (1980)

Heavy metals

A “culture/maintenance-free” microbiotest (6-day Ostracodtoxkit F™; Chial and Persoone 2002a) has utilized the freshwater species Heterocypris incongruens (Table 2), indicating that the ostracod mortality in Zn-polluted soils was a result of the (non-soluble) toxicants bound to the solid-phase particles, rather than of those that had dissolved in the water phase (Chial and Persoone 2003). More recently, this test is used as part of a battery of bioassays to characterize the toxicity of fluvial sediments (e.g., Wang et al. 2009).
Table 2

Contrasts of the Ostracodtox kit™ miocrobiotest with other well-known microbiotests under different experimentally induced pollution

Test

Contrast

Effects

Reference

Hatching time, size of the cups of the multiwell test plates, feeding of the rest organisms prior to the test, amount of supplemental algal food, volume of sediment and duration of the test

Hyalella azteca (amphipod) solid-phase test

Test protocol for a 6-day assay in 12-cup multiwell plates with ten organisms per cup and three replicates. Calibrated sand as reference sediment. Mortality and growth of the ostracods determined after 6 days incubation at 25 °C in darkness

Chial and Persoone (2002a)

Oil pollution

Statistical confidence intervals (95 %)

Development of new procedures: selection of a validity threshold for amount of substrate (300 μL), number of replicates (6), mortality (20 %) and good health of the test organisms (600 μm)

Chial and Persoone (2002b)

“Culture/maintenance-free” direct contact

Hyalella azteca (amphipod)-Thamnocephalus platyurus (crustacean)-Raphidocelis subcapitata (microalgae)

Complementary (nonredundant) information provided by the four tests

Chial and Persoone (2002c)

“Direct contact” toxicity determination

Springtail Folsomia candida

Ostracod test species sensitive as or, in several samples, even more sensitive than the springtails. Ostracod mortality as result of the (non-soluble) toxicants bound to the solid-phase particles

Chial and Persoone (2003)

“Culture/maintenance-free” direct contact

Hyalella azteca (amphipod)-Midge larva Chrironomus riparius

Sensitivity quite similar between the three organisms

Chial et al. (2003a)

Oil pollution

Hyalella azteca (amphipod) solid-phase test

Six weeks: Higher mortality of Ostracods. Fifteen weeks: sediments still toxic to ostracods but not to Hyalella. Lower variation coefficients between replicas of the ostracod results

Chial et al. (2003b)

An additional bioassay test applied to Cypris subglobosa to measure the toxicity of 36 metals and 12 reference toxicants reveals that osmium was found to be the most toxic in the test while boron, the least toxic (Khangarot and Das 2009). Increasing concentrations of Cu and higher acidity in waters increase the mortality on populations of this species (Khangarot and Ray 1987). This metal and Cd were included between the most toxical to Stenocypris major in other toxicological studies (Shuhaimi-Othman et al. 2011).

In these polluted waters, some freshwater species (i.e. Chrissia halyi) may survive, being the excretion a tolerance mechanisms for survival (Prasuna 1994). The efficiency of this mechanism decreases if the nominal concentration of lead in water increases (Prasuna et al. 1996). Consequently, it is necessary to analyse the relation between the metal contents of both waters and sediments and the ostracod abundance and diversity.

Oil contamination

The application of this 6-day Ostracodtoxkit™ microbiotest to oil-contaminated sediments shows that Heterocypris incongruens is more sensitive than the amphipod Hyalella azteca to contaminated sediments collected 6 and 21 weeks after oil was applied to the experimental plot. In addition, the precision of this ostracod test becomes higher or similar to that of the Hyatella test (Blaise et al. 2000; Chial et al. 2003a). In these time-related experiments, it is interesting to contrast the ostracod–amphipod results with other solid-phase bioassays such a Microtox® or ASPA, which use the luminescent marine bacterium Vibrio fischeri and the unicellular freshwater chlorophyte Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata as test organisms, respectively (Blaise and Ménard 1998).

More recently, other species (e.g. Stenocypris hislopi, Cypretta seurati; Tamura et al. 2011) have been used in acute lethality tests of biodegradable lubricants. The longevity of C. seurati, physically more active, was strongly affected by water pollution, with increasing adverse effects if the oleic acid used contains Cu.

Conclusion

Freshwater ostracods are excellent bioindicators of the surrounding physical–chemical conditions, with a remarkable response to variable salinities, water depth, temperature ranges, or pH. The ostracod carapace reflects faithfully these variations, with an interesting correlation between the water properties and both the external ornamentation and geochemical composition. Moreover, oxygen depletion, high sedimentation ratios or vigorous bottom current velocities are unfavourable factors for the development of these microcrustaceans.

The application of this dataset is very useful in palaeoclimatic reconstructions and archaeology, where the ostracod contributions are used together with additional sedimentological, geochemical or dating analyses.

Finally, in recently developed microcosm experiments, these microcrustaceans showed similar or higher sensibility to herbicides, pesticides, oil spills or heavy metal pollution than other traditional groups (like copepods, amphipods, bacteria), which are used to test anthropogenic impacts.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was partially funded by three Spanish DGYCIT Projects (CTM2006-06722, CGL-2006-1412 and CGL-2010-15810), a Portuguese Project (PTDC/CTE-GIX/110205/2009), an Excellence Project of the Andalusia Board (SEJ-4770) and a Group (RNM-238) of the PAIDI. This paper is a contribution to the COLASU Project (ICA3-CT-2002-10012: Sustainability of Mediterranean Coastal Lagoon Ecosystems under semi-arid climate).

References

  1. Akguc N, Ozvigit II, Yasar U, Leblebici Z, Yarci C (2010) Use of Pyracantha coccinea Roem. as a possible biomonitor for the selected heavy metals. Int J Environ Sci Tech 7:427–434Google Scholar
  2. Ali A, Lord J (1980) Impact of experimental insect growth regulators on some nontarget aquatic invertebrates. Mosq News 40:564–571Google Scholar
  3. Alin S, Cohen AS, Bills R, Mukwaya M, Michel M, Tiercelin K, Coveliers P, Keita S, West K, Soreghan M, Kimbadi S, Ntakimazi G (1999) Effects of landscape disturbance on animal communities in Lake Tanganika, East Africa. Conserv Biol 13:1017–1033. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.96476.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Altinsacli S, Griffiths HI (2001) Ostracoda (Crustacea) of Lake Uluabat (Apolyont Gölü) (Bursa Province, Turkey). Limnologica 31:109–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anadón P, Gabàs M (2009) Paleoenvironmental evolution of the Early Pleistocene lacustrine sequence at Barranco Leo′n archeological site (Orce, Baza Basin, Southern Spain) from stable isotopes and Sr and Mg chemistry of ostracod shells. J Paleolimnol 42:261–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Angelo RT, Cringan MS, Chamberlain DL, Stahl AJ, Haslouer SG, Goorich CA (2007) Residual effects of lead and zinc mining on freshwater mussels in the Spring River Basin (Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, USA). Sci Tot Environ 384:467–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fres and marine water quality (2000) Aquatic ecosystems-rationale and background information. National Water quality management strategy. Australian Government, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  8. Bahr A, Arz HW, Lamy F, Wefer G (2006) Late glacial to Holocene paleoenvironmental evolution of the Black Sea, reconstructed with stable oxygen isotope records obtained on ostracod shells. Earth Planet Sci Lett 241:863–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barry MJ, Logan DC (1998) The use of temporary pond microcosms for aquatic toxicity testing: direct and indirect effects of endosulfan on community structure. Aquat Toxicol 41:101–124Google Scholar
  10. Bates MR, Barham AJ, Jones S, Parfitt K, Pedley M, Preece RC, Walker MJC, Whittaker JE (2008) Holocene sequences and archaeology from the Crabble Paper Mill site, Dover, UK and their regional significance. Proc Geol Assoc 119:299–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bills TD, Marking LL, Chandler JH Jr (1977a) Formalin: its toxicity to nontarget aquatic organisms, persistence and counteraction. U. S. D. I., Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Bills TD, Marking LL, Chandler JH Jr (1977b) Malachite green: its toxicity to aquatic organisms, persistence, and removal with activate coal. U. S. D. I., Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Blaise C, Ménard L (1998) A micro-algal solid phase test to assess the toxic potential of freshwater sediments. Water Qual Res J Can 33:133–151Google Scholar
  14. Blaise C, Gagné F, Chèvre N, Harwood M, Lee J, Lappalainen J, Chial B, Persoone G, Doe K (2000) Toxicity assessment of oil-contaminated freshwater sediments. Environ Toxicol 19:267–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Blakely TJ, Chadderton L, Hardinng JS (2005) The effect of rotenone on orchard-pond invertebrate communities in the Motueka area, South Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Department of Conservation, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. Bodergat AM (1979) Teneurs relative en phosphore, potassium et aluminium dans des carapaces d’ostracodes actuels. Interêt écologique. (Analyse à la microsonde électronique). In: Proceedings of the VII international symposium on ostracodes. Taxonomy, biostratigraphy and distribution of ostracodes, Beograd, Yugoslavia, pp 261–264Google Scholar
  17. Bodergat AM (1983) Les ostracodes, témoins of leur environment: approache chimique et écologie en miliey lagunaire et océanique. Doc Lab Géol Lyon 88:1–246Google Scholar
  18. Boomer I, Horne DJ, Smith RJ (2006) Freshwater Ostracoda (Crustacea) from the Assynt region, NW Scotland: new Scottish records and a checklist of Scottish freshwater species. Bull Inst R Sci Belgique Biologie 76:111–123Google Scholar
  19. Boulton AJ, Scarsbrook MR, Quinn JM, Burrell GP (1997) Land-use effects on the hyporheic ecology of five small streams near Hamilton, New Zealand. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 31:609–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carbonel P, Tölderer-Farmer M (1988) The ostracod carapace as a hydrochemical source of information at water/sediment interface. In: Hanai T, Ikeya N, Ishizaki K (eds) Evolutionary biology of Ostracoda. Kodansha Ltd., TokyoGoogle Scholar
  21. Centre for archaeology guidelines (2002) Environmental archaeology: a guide to the theory and practice of methods, for sampling and recovery to post-excavation. English Heritage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Chial B, Persoone G (2002a) Cyst-based toxicity test XII—development of a short chronic sediment toxicity test with the ostracod crustacean Heterocypris incongruens: selection of test parameters. Environ Toxicol 17:520–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chial B, Persoone G (2002b) Cyst-based toxicity test XIII-development of a short chronic sediment toxicity with the ostracod crustacean Heterocypris incongruens: methodology and precision. Environ Toxicol 17:528–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chial B, Persoone G (2002c) Cyst-based toxicity test XIV—application of the ostracod solid-phase microbiotest for toxicity monitoring of river sediments in Flanders (Belgium). Environ Toxicol 17:533–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chial B, Persoone G (2003) Cyst-based toxicity test XV—application of ostracod solid-phase microbiotest for toxicity monitoring of contaminated soils. Environ Toxicol 18:347–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chial B, Persoone G, Blaise C (2003a) Cyst-based toxicity tests XVI-sensitivity comparison of the solid phase Heterocypris incongruens microbiotest with the Hyalella azteca and Chironomus riparius contact assays on freshwater sediments from Peninsula Harbour (Ontario, Canada). Chemosphere 52:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Chial BZ, Persoone G, Blaise C (2003b) Cyst-based toxicity tests. XVIII. Application of ostracodtoxkit microbiotest in a bioremediation project of oil-contaminated sediments: sensitivity comparison with Hyalella azteca solid-phase assay. Environ Toxicol 18:279–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cohen AS, Bills R, Cocquyt CZ, Calion AG (1993) The impact of sediment pollution on biodiversity in Lake Tanganyka. Conserv Biol 7:667–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Creuzé des Chatelliers M, Marmonier P (1993) Ecology of benthic and intersticial ostracods of the Rhone River, France. J Crustacean Biol 13:269–279Google Scholar
  30. Cuppen JGM, Crum SHJ, Van den Heuvel HH, Smidth RA, Van den Brink PJ (2002) Effects of a mixture of two insecticides in freshwater microcosms: I. Fate of chlorpyrifos and lindane and responses of macroinvertebrates. Ecotoxicology 11:165–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Curry BB (2003) Linking ostracodes to climate and landscapes. In: Park L, Smith AJ (eds) Bridging the gap: trends in the ostracode biological and geological sciences. The Paleontological Society, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  32. Danielopol DL, Casale L, Rogulj B, Strobl J, Maier K (1990) Spatial distribution of Cytherissa lacustris in Mondsee. Bull Inst Géol Bassin d’Aquitaine 47:139–165Google Scholar
  33. De Deccker P, Forester RM (1988) The use of ostracod to reconstruct continental palaeoenvironmental records. In: De Deccker P, Colin JP, Peypouquet JP (eds) Ostracoda in the earth sciences. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  34. Dole-Olivier MJ, Galassi DMP, Marmonier P, Creuzé des Chatelliers M (2000) The biology and ecology of lotic microcrustaceans. Freshw Biol 44:63–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Donahue I, Irvine K (2003) Effects of sediment particle size composition on survivorship of benthic invertebrates from Lake Tanganika, Africa. Arch Hydrobiol 157:131–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Escobar J, Curtis JH, Brenner M, Hodell DA, Holmes JA (2010) Isotope measurements of single ostracod valves and gastropod shells for climate reconstruction: evaluation of within-sample variability and determination of optimum sample size. J Paleolimnol 43:921–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fennikoh KB, Hirshfield HI, Kueip TJ (1978) Cadmium toxicity in planktonic organisms of a freshwater food web. Environ Res 15:357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fryer G (1993) Variation in acid tolerance of certain freshwater crustaceans in different natural waters. Hydrobiologia 250:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gliozzi E, Mazzini I (1998) Palaeoenvironmental analysis of Early Pleistocene brackish marshes in the Rieti and Tiberino intrapenninic basins (Latium and Umbria, Italy) using ostracods (Crustacea). Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 140:325–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Griffiths HI, Holmes JA (2000) Non-marine ostracods and quaternary palaeoenvironments. Quaternary Research Association, technical guide 8, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. Griffiths HI, Rouse A, Evans JG (1993) Processing freshwater ostracods from archaeological deposits, with a key to the valves of the major British genera. Circaea 10:53–62Google Scholar
  42. Griffiths HI, Griffiths HI, Altinsacli S, Tzedakis C (2002) Interpreting the Tyrrhenocythere (Ostracoda) signal from Palaeolake Kopais, Central Greece. Boreas 31:250–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hansen CR, Kawatski JA (1976) Application of 24‐hour postexposure observation to acute toxicity studies with invertebrates. J Fisher Res Boar 33:1198–1201Google Scholar
  44. Hayward BW, Grenfell HR, Nicholson K, Parker R, Willmhurst J, Horrocks M, Swales A, Sabaa AT (2004) Foraminiferal record of human impact on intertidal estuarine environments in New Zealand’s largest city. Mar Micropal 53:37–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Holmes JA (1996) Trace-element and stable-isotope geochemistry of non-marine ostracod shells in Quaternary palaeoenvironmental reconstruction. J Paleolimnol 15:223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Holmes J, Jones R, Nicolas Haas J, McDermott F, Mohillo J, O’Connell M (2007) Multi-proxy evidence for Holocene lake-level and salinity changes at An Loch Mór, a coastal lagoon on the Aran Islands, Western Ireland. Quat Sci Rev 26:2438–2462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hugueney M, Poidevin JL, Bodergat AM, Caron JB, Guérin C (1999) Des mammifères de l’Aqutanien inférieur à La Roche–Blanche–Gergovie (Puy-de-Dôme, France), révélateurs de l’activité post-oligocène du rift en Limagne de Clermont. Comptes Rend Acad Sci 328:847–852Google Scholar
  48. Ikeya N, Hanai T (1982) Ecology of recent ostracods in the Hamana-Ko region, the Pacific Coast of Japan. In: Hanai T (ed) Studies on Japanese Ostracoda. University of Tokyo, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  49. Jin Z, Bickle MJ, Chapman HJ, Yu J, An Z, Wang S, Greaves MJ (2011) Ostracod Mg/Sr/Ca and 87Sr/86Sr geochemistry from Tibetan lake sediments: implications for early to mid-Pleistocene Indian monsoon and catchment weathering. Boreas 40:320–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Keyser D (2005) Histological peculiarities of the noding process in Cyprideis torosa (Jones) (Crustacea, Ostracoda). Hydrobiologia 538:95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Khangarot BS, Das S (2009) Acute toxicity of metals and reference toxicants to a freshwater ostracod, Cypris subglobosa, and correlation to EC50 values of other test models. J Hazard Mat 172:641–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Khangarot BS, Ray PK (1987) The response to a fresh-water ostracod (Cypris subglobosa Sowerby) exposed to copper at different pH levels. Acta Hydrochim Hydrobiol 15:553–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Külköylüoglu O (2004) On the usage of ostracods (Crustacea) as bioindicator species in different aquatic habitats in the Bolu region, Turkey. Ecol Indic 4:139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Külköylüoglu O, Yilmaz F (2006) Ecological requirements of Ostracoda (Crustacea) in three types of spring in Turkey. Limnologica 36:172–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lambert P (1997) La sedimentation dans le Lac de Neuchâtel (Suisse): processus actuels et reconstitution paléoenvironmentale de 1500 BP à nos jours. Ph.D. thesis, Neuchâtel University, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  56. Lawrence JR, Packroff G, Neu TR (2002) Microscale evaluation of the effects of grazing by invertebrates with contrasting feeding modes on river biofilm architecture and composition. Microb Ecol 44:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Li X, Liu W, Zhang L, Sun Z (2010) Distribution of recent ostracod species in the Lake Qinghai are in northwestern China and its ecological significance. Ecol Indic 10:880–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lim RP, Wong MC (1986) The effects of pesticides on the population dynamics and production of Stenocypris major Baird (Ostracoda) in ricefields. Archiv Hydrobiol 106:421–427Google Scholar
  59. Lord A, Cabral MC, Dambeck R, Kunst M (2011) Ostracod evidence for the neolithic environment of Rioz Sizandro, Portugal. Palaeobiodiv Palaeoenviron 91:215–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lu XW, Yang C, Dang Z (2009) Preliminary investigation of chloramphenicol in fish, water and sediment from freshwater aquaculture pond. Int J Environ Sci Tech 6:597–604Google Scholar
  61. Marmonier P, Bodergat AM, Doledec S (1994) Theoretical habitat templets, species traits, and species richness: ostracods (crustacea) in the Upper Rhône River and its floodplain. Freshw Biol 31:341–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Martens K, Tudorancea C (1991) Seasonally and spatial distribution of the ostracods of Lake Zwai, Ethiopia (Crustacea: Ostracoda). Freshw Biol 25:233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Martin-Rubio M, Rodríguez-Lázaro J, Anadón P, Robles F, Utrilla R, Vázquez A (2005) Factors affecting the distribution of recent lacustrine ostracoda from the Caicedo de Yuso-Arreo Lake (Western Ebro Basin, Spain). Palaeogeog Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 225:118–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Matsumura F (1977) Adsorption, accumulation, and elimination of pesticides by aquatic organisms. In: Khan MAA (ed) Pesticides in aquatic environments. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Mayer FLJ, Ellersieck MR (1986) Manual of Acute toxicity: interpretation and data base for 410 chemicals and 66 species of freshwater animals. Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  66. Mazzini I, Faranda C, Giardini M, Giraudi C, Sadori L (2011) Late Holocene palaeoenvironmental evolution of the Roman harbour of Portus, Italy. J Paleolimnol 46:243–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Meisch CK (2000) Freshwater Ostracoda of Western and Central Europe. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  68. Mezquita F, Hernández R, Rueda J (1999a) Ecology and distribution of ostracods in a polluted Mediterranean river. Palaeogeog Palaeoclimat Palaeoecol 148:87–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mezquita F, Griffiths HI, Sanza S, Soria JM, Pinon A (1999b) Ecology and distribution of ostracods associated with flowing waters in the Eastern Iberian. J Crustacean Biol 19:344–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Milhau B, Dekens N, Wouters K (1997) Evaluation de l’utilisation des ostracodes comme bio-indicateurs potentiels de pollution. Application aux eaux de la Slack (Boulonais, France). Ecologie 28:3–12Google Scholar
  71. Mischke S (2010) Ostracods and stable isotopes of a late glacial and Holocene lake record from the NE Tibetan Plateau. Chem Geol 276:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Modig H, Van den Bund WJ, Olafsson E (2000) Uptake of phytodetritus by three ostracod species from the Baltic Sea: effects of amphipod disturbance and ostracod density. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 202:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mourguiat P, Carbonel P, Peypouquet JP, Wirrmann D, Vargas C (1986) Late quaternary palaeohydrology of Lake Huinaymarca (Bolivia). Hydrobiologia 143:191–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Onderikova V (1993) Herpetocypris chevreuxi G. O. Sars, 1896 (Crustacea, Ostracoda)-un éliminateur important de la pollution organique des eaux usées. Bull Soc Nat Luxembourg 94:233–240Google Scholar
  75. Palacios-Fest MR (1997) Paleoenvironmental reconstruction of human activity in Central Arizona using shell chemistry of Hohokam Canal Ostracodes. Geoarchaeology 12:211–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pieri V, Vandekerkhove J, Goi D (2012) Ostracoda (Crustacea) as indicators for surface water quality: a case study from the Ledra River basin (NE Italy). Hydrobiologia 688:25–35Google Scholar
  77. Pipik R, Bodergat AM (2005) Espèces du groupe de Candona candida, Candona neglecta et quelques Candona à l’aspect morphologique problématique (Candonidae, ostracoda) du bassin de Turiec (Miocène supérieur, Slovaquie). Ann Paléont 91:279–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Piyatiratitivorakul P, Boonchamoi P (2008) Comparative toxicity of mercury and cadmium to the juvenile freshwater snail, Filopaludina martensi martensi. Sci Asia 34:367–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Poquet JM, Mezquita F, Rueda J, Miracle AR (2008) Loss of Ostracoda biodiversity in Western Mediterranean wetlands. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 18:280–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Prasuna G (1994) Ecological adaptations of Chrissia halyi and their role in bioaccumulation and biomagnification of lead. Ph.D. Thesis, Osmania University, HyderabadGoogle Scholar
  81. Prasuna G, Zeba M, Khan MA (1996) Excretion of Lead as a Mechanism for Survival in Chrissia halyi (Ferguson, 1969). Bull Environm Contam Toxicol 57:849–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Ramdani M, Flower RJ, Elkhiati N, Birks N, Kraiem MM, Fathi AA (2001) Zooplankton (Cladocera, Ostracoda), Chironomidae and other benthic faunal remains in sediment cores from nine North African wetland lakes: the CASSARINA Project. Aquat Ecol 35:389–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rieradevall M, Roca JR (1995) Distribution and population dynamics of ostracodes (Crustacea, Ostracoda) in a karstic lake: Lake Banyoles (Catalonia, Spain). Hydrobiologia 310:189–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rimet F, Bouchez A (2011) Use of diatom life-forms and ecological guilds to assess pesticide contamination in rivers: Lotic mesocosm approaches. Ecol Indic 11:489–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rinderhagen M, Ritterhoff J, Zauke GP (2000) Crustaceans as bioindicators. In: Gerhart A (ed) Biomonitoring of polluted water-reviews on actual topics. Trans Tech Publications-Scitech Publications, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  86. Rio M, Bodergat AM, Carbonnel G, Keyser D (1997) Anisotropie chimique de la carapace des ostracodes. Exemple de Leptocythere psammophila. Compt Rend Académ Sci 324:827–834Google Scholar
  87. Rosenfeld A, Vesper B (1977) The variability of the sieve-pores in recent and fossil species of Cyprideis torosa (Jones, 1850) as an indicator for salinity and paleosalinity. In: Löffler H Danielopol DL (eds) Aspects of ecology and zoogeography of recent and fossil Ostracoda. Dr. W. Junk publishers, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  88. Rosetti G, Bartoli M, Martens K (2004) Limnological characteristics and recent ostracods (Crustacea, Ostracoda) of freshwater wetlands in the Parco Oglio Sud (Northern Italy). Int J Limnol 40:329–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rossi V, Benassi V, Veneri M, Bellavere C, Menozzi P, Moroni A, Mckenzie KG (2003) Ostracoda of the Italian ricefields thirty years on: new synthesis and hypothesis. J Limnol 62:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Roy M, Dell’Oste F, Veillette JJ, de Vemal A, Hélie JF, Parent M (2011) Insights on the events surrounding the final drainage of Lake Ojibway based on James Bay stratigraphic sequences. Quat Sci Rev 30:682–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Ruiz F, González-Regalado ML, Menegazzo-Vitturi L, Pistolato M (1998) Los ostrácodos de los sedimentos litorales del NE de Italia. I: El río Adige. Stvd Geol Salmanticen 34:3–13Google Scholar
  92. Ruiz F, Rodríguez Ramírez A, Cáceres LM, Rodríguez Vidal J, Carretero MI, Clemente L, Muñoz JM, Yáñez C, Abad M (2004) Late Holocene evolution of the southwestern Doñana National Park (Guadalquivir Estuary, SW Spain): a multivariate approach. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 204:47–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Saunders DL, Meewig DL, Vincent CJ (2002) Freshwater protected areas: strategies for conservation. Conserv Biol 16:30–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Shuhaimi-Othman M, Yakub N, Ramle N, Abad A (2011) Toxicity of metal to a freshwater ostracod: stenocypris major. J Toxicol 2011:136104Google Scholar
  95. Suren AM (1992) Meiofaunal communities associated with bryophytes and gravels in shaded and unshaded alpine streams in New Zealand. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 26:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Tamura S, Ezoe S, Sasaki C (2011) Bioassay technique using seed shrimps for comparative studies regarding the aquatic acute lethality of biodegradable lubricants. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 74:1578–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Van der Merwe C (2003) The assessment of the influence of treated underground mine water on the benthic fauna in a portion of the Blesbokspruit Ramsar Site. Mini-thesis for Magister Artium in Environmental Management. Rand Afrikaans University, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  98. Vesper B (1975) To the problem of noding on Cyprideis torosa (Jones, 1850). Bull Am Paleont 65:205–215Google Scholar
  99. Wang F, Leung AOW, Wu SC, Yang MS, Wong M (2009) Chemical and ecotoxicological analyses of sediments and elutriates of contaminated rivers due to e-waste recycling activities using a diverse battery of bioassays. Environ Pollut 157:2082–2090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wünnemann B, Mischke S, Chen F (2006) A holocene sedimentary record from Bosten Lake, China. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 234:223–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Yilmaz F, Külköylüoglu O (2006) Tolerance, optimum ranges, and ecological requirements of freshwater Ostracoda (Crustacea) in Lake Aladağ (Bolu, Turkey). Ecol Res 21:165–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zhai D, Xiao J, Zhou L, Wen R, Chang Z, Pang Q (2010) Similar distribution pattern of different phenotypes of Limnocythere inopinata (Baird) in a brackish-water lake in Inner Mongolia. Hydrobiologia 651:185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Zhu X, Venosa A, Suidan MT, Lee K (2001) Guidelines for the remediation of marine shorelines and freshwater wetlands. US Environmental Protection Agency, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Ruiz
    • 1
  • M. Abad
    • 1
  • A. M. Bodergat
    • 2
  • P. Carbonel
    • 3
  • J. Rodríguez-Lázaro
    • 4
  • M. L. González-Regalado
    • 1
  • A. Toscano
    • 1
  • E. X. García
    • 5
  • J. Prenda
    • 6
  1. 1.Departamento de Geodinámica y Paleontología, Facultad de Ciencias ExperimentalesUniversidad de HuelvaHuelvaSpain
  2. 2.Départment Sciences de la terre, Centre de Paléontologie Stratigraphique et PaléoécologieUniversité Claude BernardVilleurbanneFrance
  3. 3.Départment de Géologie et OcéanographieUniversité de Bordeaux ITalence CédexFrance
  4. 4.Departamento de Estratigrafía y Paleontología, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad del País VascoBilbaoSpain
  5. 5.Departamento de Botánica y Zoología, Centro Universitario de Ciencias Biológicas y AgropecuariasUniversidad de GuadalajaraJaliscoMexico
  6. 6.Departamento de Biología Ambiental y Salud Pública, Facultad de Ciencias ExperimentalesUniversidad de HuelvaHuelvaSpain

Personalised recommendations