Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The influence of land use on freshwater macroinvertebrates in a regulated and temporary Mediterranean river network

  • Primary Research Paper
  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Freshwater macroinvertebrates face numerous stressors at different spatial scales, challenging river managers to identify the most appropriate, to initiate a successful river restoration. To address this, 45 samples from 13 sites located in a regulated and temporary Mediterranean river network were analyzed. Sites were separated according to hydrology and classified into four zones based on land use. Chemical analysis was undertaken prior to macroinvertebrate sampling, and a chemo-biological classification was performed. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) and analysis of similarities were used to identify statistical differences between the various groups. Unacceptable quality according to the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC was revealed for 60% of samples. Significant correlations were detected between land use and biological indices. Agriculture was the major factor influencing macroinvertebrate distribution, and significant taxonomic differences were identified between natural and agriculturally impacted sites. Flow regime alterations from water regulation and desiccation resulted in significant reduction in macroinvertebrate density. The small difference between explained/unexplained variance (45%/55%, CCA) suggests that land use and local in-stream factors together influence macroinvertebrate assemblages. We conclude that in regulated/temporary rivers, land use and flow-related pressures exert strong influence on freshwater invertebrates and should be given equal importance as local in-stream factors, for sustainable river restoration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allan, J. D., 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Reviews on Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35: 257–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allan, J. D. & M. M. Castillo, 2007. Stream Ecology – Structure and Function of Running Waters. Springer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • AQEM Consortium. 2002. Manual for the application of the AQEM method. A comprehensive method to assess European streams using macroinvertebrates, developed for the purpose of the Water Framework Directive. Version 1.0 [available on internet at http://www.aqem.de/mains/products.php].

  • Artemiadou, V. & M. Lazaridou, 2005. Evaluation score and interpretation index for the ecological quality of running waters in central and northern Hellas. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 110: 1–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchette, M. L. & R. G. Pearson, 2012. Macroinvertebrate assemblages in rivers of the Australian dry tropics are highly variable. Freshwater Science 31: 865–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonada, N., M. Rieradevall & N. Prat, 2007. Macroinvertebrate community structure and biological traits related to flow permanence in a Mediterranean river network. Hydrobiologia 589: 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bredenhand, E. & M. J. Samways, 2009. Impact of a dam on benthic macroinvertebrates in a small river in a biodiversity hotspot: Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Journal of Insect Conservation 13: 297–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulton, A. J. & P. S. Lake, 1992. The ecology of two intermittent streams in Victoria, Australia. II. Comparisons of faunal composition between habitats, rivers and years. Freshwater Biology 27: 99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulton, A. J., F. Sheldon, M. C. Thoms & E. H. Stanley, 2000. Problems and constraints in managing rivers with variable flow regimes. In Boon, P. J., B. R. Davies & G. E. Petts (eds), Global Perspectives on River Conservation: Science, Policy and Practice. Wiley, London: 411–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunn, S. E. & A. H. Arthington, 2002. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management 30: 492–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, C. A., L. R. Brown & K. Belitz, 2005. Assessing water source and channel type as factors affecting benthic macroinvertebrate and periphyton assemblages in the highly urbanized Santa Ana River basin, California. In Brown, L. R., R. H. Gray, R. H. Hughes & M. R. Meador (eds), Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Symposium 47, Bethesda: 239–262.

  • Campaioli, S., P. F. Ghetti & A. Minelli, 1994. Manuale per il riconoscimento dei macroinvertebrati delle acque dolci italiane. Provincia Autonoma di Trento.

  • Carter, J. L., S. V. Fend & S. S. Kennelly, 1996. The relationships among three habitat scales and stream benthic invertebrate community structure. Freshwater Biology 35: 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, K. R. & R. M. Warwick, 2001. Change in marine communities: An approach to statistical analysis and interpretation (PRIMER-E). Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth.

  • Clarke, K. R. & R. N. Gorley, 2006. PRIMER v6: User Manual/Tutorial. PRIMER-E, Plymouth.

  • Cooper, S. D., P. S. Lake, S. Sabater, J. M. Melack & J. L. Sabo, 2012. The effects of land use changes on streams and rivers in mediterranean climates. Hydrobiologia 719: 383–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Rosario, R. B. & V. H. Resh, 2000. Invertebrates in intermittent and perennial streams: is the hyporheic zone a refuge from drying? Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 680–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entrekin, S. A., J. L. Tank, E. J. Rosi-Marshall, T. J. Hoellein & G. A. Lamberti, 2008. Responses in organic matter accumulation and processing to an experimental wood addition in three headwater streams. Freshwater Biology 53: 1642–1657.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency. 2012. European waters – assessment of status and pressures. EEA Report No 8/2012.

  • European Union Council, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L327: 1–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feld, C. K., S. Birk, D. C. Bradley, D. Hering, J. Kail, A. Marzin, A., A. Melcher, D. Nemitz, M. L. Pedersen, F. Pletterbauer, D. Pont, P. F. M. Vendorschot & N. Friberg, 2011. Chapter three – from natural to degraded rivers and back again: a test of restoration ecology theory and practice. Advances in Ecological Research 44: 119–209.

  • Feminella, J. W., 1996. Comparison of benthic macroinvertebrates assemblages in small streams along a gradient of flow permanence. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: 651–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furse, M., D. Hering, O. Moog, P. Verdonschot, R. K. Johnson, K. Brabec, K. Gritzalis, A. Buffagni, P. Pinto, N. Friberg, J. Murray-Bligh, J. Kokes, R. Alber, P. Usseglio-Polatera, P. Haase, R. Sweeting, B. Bis, K. Szoszkiewicz, H. Soszka, G. Springe, F. Sporka & I. Krno, 2006. The STAR project: context, objectives and approaches. Hydrobiologia 566: 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gombeer, S. C., D. Knapen & L. Bervoets, 2011. The influence of different spatial-scale variables on caddisfly assemblages in Flemish lowland streams. Ecological Entomology 36: 355–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, E. A. & T. B. Mihuc, 2008. Composition and abundance of stream macroinvertebrates as a determinant of water quality up and down stream of the Imperial Dam, Saranac River, New York. Scientia Discipulorum 3: 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvie, B., 2004. The mechanisms and processes of vegetation dynamics on oil-shale spoil bings in West Lothian, Scotland. Ph.D. thesis, University of Ethinburgh.

  • Hering, D., O. Moog, L. Sandin & P. F. M. Verdonschot, 2004. Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia 516: 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kappes, H., A. Sundermann & P. Haase, 2011. Distant land use affects terrestrial and aquatic habitats of high naturalness. Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 2297–2309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karaouzas, I., K. C. Gritzalis & N. Skoulikidis, 2007. Land use effects on macroinvertebrate assemblages and stream quality along an agricultural river basin. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 16: 645–653.

  • Klose, K., S. D. Cooper & A. D. Leydecker, 2009. An assessment of numeric algal and nutrient targets for Ventura River watershed total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). Report to the Los Angeles regional water quality control board. Los Angeles.

  • Legier, P. & J. Talin, 1973. Comparaison de ruisseaux permanents et temporaries de la Provence calcarie. Annales de Limnologie 9: 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leps, J. & P. Smilauer, 2003. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using CANOCO. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucadamo, L., A. De Filippis, A. Mezzotero, S. Vizza & L. Gallo, 2008. Biological and chemical monitoring of some major Calabrian (Italy) Rivers. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 146: 453–471.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matthaei, C. D., J. J. Piggott & C. R. Townsend, 2010. Multiple stressors in agricultural streams: interactions among sediment addition, nutrient enrichment and water abstraction. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 639–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazor, R. D., D. J. Gillett, K. Schiff, K. Ritter & E. D. Stein, 2011. Ecological condition of watersheds in coastal southern California: summary of the storm water monitoring coalition’s stream monitoring program first year (2009). Southern California coastal research project, California, USA, Technical Report 639.

  • Moog, O., 1993. Quantification of daily peak hydropower effects on aquatic fauna and management to minimize environmental impacts. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 8: 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. P., R. E. Jacobsen, S. B. Weisberg, L. A. McDowell & H. T. Wilson, 1991. Effects of flow alteration on benthic macroinvertebrate communities below the Brighton Hydroelectric Dam. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 6: 419–429.

  • Morley, S. A. & J. R. Karr, 2002. Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the Puget Sound basin. Conservation Biology 16: 1498–1509.

  • Okland, R. H., 1999. On the variation explained by ordination and constrained ordination axes. Journal of Vegetation Science 10: 131–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patsia, A. & M. Lazaridou, 2011. Water quality through the Directive 2000/60 E.C.: Guide for benthic invertebrates of running waters of Greece. ION, Athens.

  • Paul, J. W. & B. J. Zebarth, 1997. Denitrification and nitrate leaching during the fall and winter following dairy cattle slurry application. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 77: 231–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penczak, T., 1995. Effects of removal and regeneration of bankside vegetation on fish population dynamics in the Warta River, Poland. Hydrobiologia 303: 207–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretty, J. L., S. S. C. Harrison, D. J. Shepherd, C. Smith, A. G. Hildrew & R. D. Hey, 2003. River rehabilitation and fish populations: assessing the benefit of instream structures. Journal of Applied Ecology 40: 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RefCond Working Group 2.3, 2003. Guidance on establishing reference conditions and ecological status class boundaries for inland surface waters, Guidance Document No 7.0, Publications of European Communities, Luxemburg.

  • Roni, P., K. Hanson & T. Beechie, 2008. Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: 856–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, A. H., A. D. Rosemond, M. J. Paul, D. S. Leigh & J. B. Wallace, 2003. Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanisation (Georgia, USA). Freshwater Biology 48: 329–346.

  • Rutherford, J. C., N. A. Marsh, P. M. Davies & S. E. Bunn, 2004. Effects of patchy shade on stream water temperatures; how quickly do small streams heat and cool? Marine & Freshwater Research 55: 737–748.

  • Samways, M. J., N. J. Sharratt & J. P. Simaika, 2011. Effect of alien riparian vegetation and its removal on a highly endemic river macroinvertebrate community. Biological Invasions 13: 1305–1324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez Navarro, R. & G. Schmidt, 2012. Environmental flows as a tool to achieve the WFD Objectives. Discussion paper (in the framework of Service contract for the support to the follow-up of the Communication on Water scarcity and Droughts). Version: Draft 2.0.

  • Sandin, L., 2009. The effects of catchment land-use, near-stream vegetation, and river hydromorphology on benthic macro invertebrate communities in a south-Swedish catchment. Fundamental Applied Limnology 174: 75–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, C. M., S. Sharma, R. Borgstrom & I. Bryceson, 2005. Impacts of a small dam on macroinvertebrates: a case study in the Tinau River. Nepal. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 8: 267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skoulikidis, N., Y. Amaxidis, I. Bertahas, S. Laschou & K. Gritzalis, 2006. Analysis of factors driving stream water composition and synthesis of management tools – a case study on small/medium Greek catchments. Science of the Total Environment 362: 205–241.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, J. M. & A. Morin, 2009. Covariation of stream community structure and biomass of algae invertebrates and fish with forest cover at multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology 54: 2139–2154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundermann, A., M. Gerhardt, H. Kappes & P. Haase, 2013. Stressor prioritisation in riverine ecosystems: which environmental factors shape benthic invertebrate assemblage metrics? Ecological Indicators 27: 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tachet, H., P. Richoux, M. Bournaud & P. Usseglio-Polatera, 2010. Invertebres d’Eau Douche: Systematique, Biologie, Ecologie, 2nd ed. CNRS, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • ter Braak, C. J. F., 1986. Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67: 1167–1179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ter Braak, C. J. F., 1995. Ordination. In Jongman, R., C. ter Braak & O. van Tongeren (eds), Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Pudoc, Wageningen: 91–173.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • ter Braak, C. J. F. & P. Smilauer, 1998. CANOCO reference manual and user’s guide to Canoco for Windows – software for canonical community ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY.

  • Theodoropoulos, C. & J. Iliopoulou-Georgudaki, 2010. Response of biota to pollution and water quality degradation along two medium-sized river basins in southwestern Greece. Ecological Indicators 10: 1231–1238.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tockner, K., M. Pusch, D. Borchardt & M. S. Lorang, 2010. Multiple stressors in coupled river-floodplain ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 55: 135–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, C. R., 2000. A Contribution to the Study of the Table Mountain Water Beetles (Coleoptera) with Special Reference to the Environmental Impact of Reservoirs. City Engineers Department, Cape Town.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Bund, W., A. C. Cardoso, A. S. Heiskanen & P. Noges, 2004. Overview of common intercalibration types and guidelines for the selection of intercalibration sites. Ecostat WG 2.A, Version 5.1.

  • Wagenhoff, A., C. R. Townsend, N. Phillips & C. D. Matthaei, 2011. Subsidy-stress and multiple-stressor effects along gradients of deposited fine sediment and dissolved nutrients in a regional set of streams and rivers. Freshwater Biology 56: 1916–1936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahl, C., A. Neils & D. Hooper, 2013. Impacts of land use at the catchment scale constrain the habitat benefits of stream riparian buffers. Freshwater Biology 58: 2310–2324.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J. V., 1992. Aquatic Insect Ecology – Biology and Habitat. Willey and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weijters, M. J., J. H. Janse, R. Alkemade & J. T. A. Verhoeven, 2009. Quantifying the effect of catchment land use and water nutrient concentrations on freshwater river and stream biodiversity. Aquatic Conservation 19: 104–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christos Theodoropoulos.

Additional information

Handling editor: Sonja Stendera

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Theodoropoulos, C., Aspridis, D. & Iliopoulou-Georgudaki, J. The influence of land use on freshwater macroinvertebrates in a regulated and temporary Mediterranean river network. Hydrobiologia 751, 201–213 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2187-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2187-3

Keywords

Navigation