Netherland Journal of Aquatic Ecology

, Volume 26, Issue 2–4, pp 513–520 | Cite as

Chironomids and regional water types

  • Verdonschot
  • Piet F. M. 
  • Montserrat Real
  • Joke A. Schot
Functional Ecology and Interactions


The distribution pattern of 115 chironomid taxa at 664 sites, distributed over all kinds of water, was analyzed and related to 42 water types, based on the complete macrofauna composition. The distinction of chironomid groups was not useful to recognize water types. The use of individual chironomid taxa was more sensitive, though also too limited to recognize water types clearly. Chironomids are distributed along a continuum which is directed by master factors and detailed by habitat factors.


chironomids water types multivariate analysis water assessment community 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AAGAARD, K., 1986. The chironomid fauna of Norwegian lakes, with a discussion on methods of community classification. Holarct. Ecol., 9: 1–12.Google Scholar
  2. BRUNDIN, L., 1958. The bottom faunistical lake type and its application to the southern hemisphere. Moreover a theory of glacial erosion as a factor of productivity in lakes and oceans. Verh. Int. Ver. Limnol., 13: 288–297.Google Scholar
  3. HILL, M.O., 1979. TWINSPAN-A FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way table by classification of the individuals and attributes. Ecol. Syst., Cornell Univ., New York. 90 pp.Google Scholar
  4. JOHNSON, R.K. and T. WIEDERHOLM, 1989. Classification and ordination of profundal macroinvertebrate communities in nutrient poor, oligomesohumic lakes in relation to environmental data. Freshwat. Biol., 21: 375–386.Google Scholar
  5. MINSHALL, G.W., K.W. CUMMINS, R.C. PETERSEN, C.E. CUSHING, D.A. BRUNS, J.R. SEDELL and R.L. VANNOTE, 1985. Development in stream ecosystem theory. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 42:1045–1055.Google Scholar
  6. OMEROD, S.J., 1987. The influences of habitat and seasonal sampling regimes on the ordination and classification of macroinvertebrate assemblages in the catchment of the river Wye, Wales. Hydrobiologia, 150: 143–151.Google Scholar
  7. PEET, R.K. 1980. Ordination as a tool for analyzing complex data sets. Vegetatio, 42: 171–174.Google Scholar
  8. PRESTON, F.W., 1962. The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity. Ecology, 43: 185–215.Google Scholar
  9. RAE, J.G., 1985. A multivariate study of resource partitioning in soft bottom lotic Chironomidae. Hydrobiologia, 126: 275–285.Google Scholar
  10. TER BRAAK, C.J.F., 1987. CANOCO-A FORTRAN program for canonical community ordination by [partial] [detrended] [canonical] corre spondence analysis, principal component analysis and redundancy analysis (version 2.1). TNO Institute of Applied Computer Science, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  11. VAN TONGEREN, O., 1986. FLEXCLUS, an interactive flexible cluster program. Acta Bot. Neerl., 35: 137–142.Google Scholar
  12. VERDONSCHOT, P.F.M., 1990. Ecological characterization of surface waters in the province of Overijssel (The Netherlands). Thesis, Agricultural University, Wageningen. 255 p.Google Scholar
  13. WRIGHT, J.F., D. MOSS P.D. ARMITAGE and M. T. FURSE, 1984. A preliminary classification of running-water sites in Great-Brittain based on macro-invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data. Freshwat. Biol., 14: 221–256.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Netherlands Hydrobiological Society 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Verdonschot
    • 1
  • Piet F. M. 
    • 1
  • Montserrat Real
    • 2
  • Joke A. Schot
    • 1
  1. 1.Department Aquatic EcosystemsInstitute for Forestry and Nature Research (RIN-DLO)LeersumThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department d'Ecologia, Facultat de BiologiaUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations