, Volume 663, Issue 1, pp 155–166 | Cite as

Using long-term monitoring to investigate the changes in species composition in the harbour of Ghent (Belgium)

  • Pieter BoetsEmail author
  • Koen Lock
  • Peter L. M. Goethals
Primary research paper


The macroinvertebrate community of the harbour of Ghent was studied by analysing 135 samples taken at different sampling locations from 1990 until 2008. The results showed that the current Crustacea and Mollusca communities are mainly represented, in terms of abundances, by alien species. In total, seven alien and four indigenous crustacean species were found. Mollusc diversity was higher, with a total of 14 species, four of which were alien. Macroinvertebrate diversity was very low at the beginning of the 1990s, but increased due to the improvement of the chemical water quality achieved by sanitation and stricter environmental laws. This is reflected by the dissolved oxygen concentration, which increased from an average of 2 mg/l to an average of 9 mg/l, allowing more sensitive species to establish. Since 1993, the number of alien taxa has augmented, whereas the number of native taxa has remained stable. The improvement of the chemical water quality and the simultaneous increase in total number of species were also reflected in an increase of the Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index Flanders, which is used to assess the ecological water quality in Flanders. Due to intensive international boat traffic and the low species diversity, the harbour of Ghent is highly vulnerable for invasions. Stronger regulations and a better understanding about the contribution of shipping, shortcuts via artificial water ways, habitat degradation and environmental pollution are required to reduce the further spread of alien species.


Alien species Macrocrustaceans Molluscs Water quality 



We would like to thank the Flemish Environment Agency (VMM) for the opportunity to provide data, and Joost Mertens from the Flemish Environment Agency for providing information about the sampling sites. We would also like to thank Rose Sablon of the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences for the assistance during the study of the collection. Koen Lock is currently supported by a post-doctoral fellowship from the Fund for Scientific Research (FWO-Vlaanderen, Belgium).


  1. Ashelby, C. W., T. M. Worsfold & C. H. J. M. Fransen, 2004. First records of the oriental prawn Palaemon macrodactylus (Decapoda: Caridea), an alien species in European waters, with a revised key to British Palaemonidae. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 84: 1041–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernauer, D. & W. Jansen, 2006. Recent invasions of alien macroinvertebrates and loss of native species in the upper Rhine River, Germany. Journal of Aquatic Invasions 1: 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bij de Vaate, A., K. Jazdzewski, H. A. M. Ketelaars, S. Gollasch & G. Van der Velde, 2002. Geographical patterns in range extension of Ponto-Caspian macroinvertebrate species in Europe. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 1159–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boets, P., K. Lock & P. L. M. Goethals, 2010. Combining datadriven methods and lab studies to analyse the ecology of Dikerogammarus villosus. Ecological Informatics 5: 133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bollache, L., S. Devin, R. Wattier, M. Chovet, J. N. Beisel, J. C. Moreteau & T. Rigaud, 2004. Rapid range extension of the Ponto-Caspian amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus in France: potential consequences. Archiv für Hydrobiolgie 160: 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruijs, M. C. M., B. Kelleher, G. Van der Velde & A. de Bij Vaate, 2001. Oxygen consumption, temperature and salinity tolerance of the invasive amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus: indicators of further dispersal via ballast water transport. Archiv für Hydrobiolgie 152: 633–646.Google Scholar
  7. Conover, W. J., 1980. Practical Non-Parametric Statistics. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Cuesta, J. A., E. González-Ortegón, P. Drake & A. Rodríguez, 2004. First record of Palaemon macrodactylus Rathbun, 1902 (Decapoda, Caridea, Palaemonidae) from European waters. Crustaceana 77: 377–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dedecker, A., P. L. M. Goethals, T. D’Heygere & N. De Pauw, 2006. Development of an in-stream migration model for Gammarus pulex L. (Crustacea, Amphipoda) as a tool in river restoration management. Aquatic Ecology 40: 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Den Hartog, C., F. W. B. Van den Brink & G. Van der Velde, 1992. Why was the invasion of the River Rhine by Corophium curvispinum and Corbicula species so successful? Journal of Natural History 26: 1121–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Devin, S., L. Bollache, P.-Y. Noël & J. N. Beisel, 2005. Patterns of biological invasions in French freshwater systems by non-indigenous macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 551: 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dhur, G. & J. A. Massard, 1995. Etude historique et faunistique des Invertébrés immigrés ou introduites dans la Moselle Luxembourgeoise et ses affluents. Bulletin de la Société des Naturalistes Luxembourgeois 96: 127–156.Google Scholar
  13. Dick, J. T. A., 1996. Post-invasion amphipod communities of Lough Neagh, northern Ireland: influences of habitat selection and mutual predation. Journal of Animal Ecology 65: 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dick, J. T. A. & D. Platvoet, 2000. Invading predatory crustacean Dikerogammarus villosus eliminates both native and exotic species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 267: 977–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dick, J. T. A., D. Platvoet & D. W. Kelly, 2002. Predatory impact of the freshwater invader Dikerogammarus villosus (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 1078–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. d’Udekem d’Acoz, C., M. Faasse, E. Dumoulin & H. De Blauwe, 2005. Occurrence of the Asian shrimp Palaemon macrodactylus in the southern bight of the North Sea with a key to the Palaemonidae of North-western Europe. Nederlandse Faunistische Mededelingen 22: 95–112.Google Scholar
  17. Eggers, Th. O. & A. Martens, 2001. Bestimmungsschlüssel der Süßwasser-Amphipoda (Crustacea) Deutschlands. Lauterbornia 42: 1–68.Google Scholar
  18. Elton, C. S., 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  19. Fahnenstiel, G. L., T. L. Lang, G. A. Bridgeman, M. J. McCormick & T. F. Nalepa, 1995. Phytoplankton productivity in Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron: effects of zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) colonization. Journal of Great Lakes Research 21: 465–475.Google Scholar
  20. Gabriels, W., P. L. M. Goethals & N. De Pauw, 2005. Implications of taxonomic modifications and alien species on biological water quality assessment as exemplified by the Belgian Biotic Index method. Hydrobiologia 542: 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gabriels, W., P. L. M. Goethals, A. Dedecker, S. Lek & N. De Pauw, 2007. Analysis of macrobenthic communities in Flanders, Belgium, using a stepwise input variable selection procedure with artificial neural networks. Aquatic Ecology 41: 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gabriels, W., K. Lock, N. De Pauw & P. L. M. Goethals, 2010. Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index Flanders (MMIF) for biological assessment of rivers and lakes in Flanders (Belgium). Limnologica 40: 199–207.Google Scholar
  23. Grabowski, M., K. Bacela & A. Konopacka, 2007. How to be an invasive gammarid (Amphipoda: Gammaroidea)—comparison of life history traits. Hydrobiologia 590: 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hulme, P. E., S. Bacher, M. Kenis, S. Klotz, I. Kuehn, D. Minchin, W. Nentwig, S. Olenin, V. Panov, J. Pergl, P. Pysek, A. Roques, D. Sol, W. Solarz & M. Vila, 2008. Grasping at the routes of biological invasions: a framework for integrating pathways into policy. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 403–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Josens, G., A. de Bij Vaate, P. Usseglio-Polatera, R. Cammaerts, F. Cherot, F. Grisez, P. Verboonen & J. P. Vanden Bossche, 2005. Native and exotic Amphipoda and other Peracarida in the River Meuse: new assemblages emerge from a fast changing fauna. Hydrobiologia 542: 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karatayev, A. Y., S. E. Mastitsky, L. E. Burlakova & S. Olenin, 2008. Past, current, and future of the central European corridor for aquatic invasions in Belarus. Biological Invasions 10: 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolar, C. S. & D. M. Lodge, 2001. Progress in invasion biology: predicting invaders. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16: 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacMahon, R. F., 1983. Ecology of the invasive pest bivalve Corbicula. In Russel-Hunter, W. D. (ed.), The Mollusca, Vol. 6. Academic press, New York: 505–561.Google Scholar
  29. MacNeil, C., J. T. A. Dick & R. W. Elwood, 1997. The trophic ecology of freshwater Gammarus spp. (Crustacea: Amphipoda): problems and perspectives concerning the functional feeding group concept. Biological Reviews 72: 349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MacNeil, C., J. T. A. Dick & R. W. Elwood, 2000. Differential physico-chemical tolerances of amphipod species revealed by field transplantations. Oecologia 124: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. MacNeil, C., J. T. A. Dick, F. R. Gell, R. Selman, P. Lenartowicz & H. B. N. Hynes, 2009. A long-term study (1949–2005) of experimental introductions to an island; freshwater amphipods (Crustacea) in the Isle of Man (British Isles). Diversity and Distributions 15: 232–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Messiaen, M., K. Lock, W. Gabriels, T. Vercauteren, K. Wouters, P. Boets & P. L. M. Goethals, 2010. Alien macrocrustaceans in freshwater ecosystems in the eastern part of Flanders (Belgium). Belgian Journal of Zoology 140: 30–39.Google Scholar
  33. MIRA-T, 2008. Milieurapport Vlaanderen, MIRA Achtergrondddocument 2008, Kwaliteit oppervlaktewater. Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij, Aalst, Belgium. (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  34. Platvoet, D., J. T. A. Dick, N. Konijnendijk & G. Van der Velde, 2006. Feeding on micro-algae in the invasive Ponto-Caspian amphipod Dikerogammarus villosus (Sowinsky, 1894). Aquatic Ecology 40: 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ricciardi, A. & J. B. Rasmussen, 1998. Predicting the identity and impact of future biological invaders: a priority for aquatic resource management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 1759–1765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ricciardi, A., F. G. Whoriskey & J. B. Rasmussen, 1997. The role of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in structuring macroinvertebrate communities on hard substrata. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 2596–2608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seys, J., N. Deregge, P. Meire & T. Ysebaert, 1990. Studie naar het voorkomen van macrozoöbenthos in het kanaal Gent-Terneuzen. Rapport WWE 21: 39 (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  38. Simberloff, D. & B. Von Holle, 1999. Positive interactions of nonindigenous species: invasional meltdown? Biological Invasions 1: 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Soors, J., M. Faasse, M. Stevens, I. Verbessem, N. De Regge & E. Van den Bergh, 2010. New crustacean invaders in the Schelde estuary (Belgium). Belgian Journal of Zoology 140: 3–10.Google Scholar
  40. StatSoft, Inc., 2004. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 7 [available on internet at].
  41. Van der Velde, G., S. Rajagopal, B. Kelleher, I. B. Musko & A. de Bij Vaate, 2000. Ecological impact of crustacean invaders: general considerations and examples from the Rhine River. Crustacean Issues 12: 3–33.Google Scholar
  42. Van der Velde, G., I. Nagelkerken, S. Rajagopal & A. de Bij Vaate, 2002. Invasions by alien species in inland freshwater bodies in Western Europe: the Rhine Delta. In Leppäkoski, E., S. Gollasch & S. Olenin (eds), Invasive Species of Europe: Distribution, Impacts and Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: 360–372.Google Scholar
  43. Van Riel, M. C., G. Van der Velde, S. Rajagopal, S. Marguillier, F. Dehairs & A. de Bij Vaate, 2006. Trophic relationships in the Rhine food web during invasion and after establishment of the Ponto-Caspian invader Dikerogammarus villosus. Hydrobiologia 565: 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vitousek, P. M., C. M. D’Antonio, L. L. Loope & R. Westbrooks, 1996. Biological invasions as global environmental change. American Scientist 84: 468–478.Google Scholar
  45. Wittenberg, R. & M. J. W. Cock, 2001. Invasive Alien Species. How to Address One of the Greatest Threats to Biodiversity: A Toolkit of Best Prevention and Management Practices. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK: 228.Google Scholar
  46. Worsfold, T. M., C. W. Ashelby, 2006. Additional UK records of the non-native prawn Palaemon macrodactylus (Crustacea: Decapoda). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2—Biodiversity Records [available on internet at].
  47. Zajac, A. & Y. Deckmyn, 2008. Ghent: water as a structuring element of urbanity. In Feyen, J., K. Shannon & M. Neville (eds), Water and Urban Development Paradigms: Towards an Integration of Engineering, Design and Management Approaches. CRC Press, London: 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zettler, M. L. & D. Daunys, 2007. Long-term macrozoobenthos changes in a shallow boreal lagoon: comparison of a recent biodiversity inventory with historical data. Limnologica 37: 170–185.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter Boets
    • 1
    Email author
  • Koen Lock
    • 1
  • Peter L. M. Goethals
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Environmental Toxicology and Aquatic EcologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations