Advertisement

Russian Journal of Ecology

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 185–190 | Cite as

Macrozoobenthos as an indicator of the ecological state of mountain watercourses

  • L. V. Yanygina
Article
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

Structural characteristics of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in mountain watercourses of different sizes have been studied in the Upper Ob basin. It has been found that species richness, diversity of zoobenthos, and most biotic indices in the background areas increase in the series from the smallest watercourses to large rivers. On the contrary, the values of the above parameters in areas polluted with mercury has proved to decrease, thereby indicating a significant transformation of the benthic communities. Approaches are proposed to select reference indices for assessing the ecological state of watercourses in the basin with regard to the size of the river, the structure of benthic communities, and variability of biotic indices along the background cross sections.

Keywords

macroinvertebrates ecological state estimation reference cross sections heavy metals mercury 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    European Commission, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, Official J. Eur. Commun., 2000, vol. L327, pp. 1–72.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Typology and Ecological Classification of Lakes and Rivers, Ruoppa, M. and Karttunen, K., Eds., Helsinki: TemaNord, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hering, D., Buffagni, A., Moog, O., et al., The development of a system to assess the ecological quality of streams based on macroinvertebrates: Design of the sampling programme within the AQEM Project, Int. Rev. Hydrobiol., 2003, vol. 88, pp. 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Verdonschot, P.F.M. and Nijboer, R.C, Testing the European stream typology of the water framework directive for macroinvertebrates, Hydrobiologia, 2004, vol. 516, pp. 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Semenchenko, V.P. and Razlutskii, V.I., Ekologicheskoe kachestvo poverkhnostnykh vod (The Ecological Quality of Surface Waters), Minsk: Belarus. Navuka, 2010.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Touron-Poncet, H. Desrosiers, C., et al., Invertebrate distribution patterns and river typology for the implementation of the water framework directive in Martinique, French Lesser Antilles, Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst., 2013, vol. 408, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yanygina, L.V, Aspects of spatial organization of benthic communities in rivers of the Upper and Middle Ob basin, Mir Nauki Kul’tury Obraz., 2013, no. 3, pp. 536–539.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Korytnyi, L.M., Basseinovaya kontseptsiya v prirodopol’zovanii (The Basin Concept in Nature Management), Irkutsk: Inst. Geogr. Sib. Otd. Ross. Akad. Nauk, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vudiviss, F.S., The biotic index of the Trent River. Macroinvertebrates and biological assessment, in Nauchnye osnovy kontrolya kachestva poverkhnostnykh vod po gidrobiologicheskim pokazatelyam (Scientific Bases of Quality Control of Surface Waters by Hydrobiological Parameters), Leningrad: Gidrometeoizdat, 1977, pp. 132–161.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zimmerman, M.C., The use of the biotic index as an indication of water quality, in Tested Studies for Laboratory Teaching: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop/Conference of the Association for Biology Laboratory Education (ABLE), 1993, pp. 85–98.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Water Quality Monitoring: A Practical Guide to the Design and Implementation of Fresh Water Quality Studies and Monitoring Programmes, Bartram, J. and Balance, R., Eds., London: Chapman & Hall, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abel, P.D., Water Pollution Biology, London: Taylor & Francis, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suleiman, K. and Abdullahi, I.L, Biological assessment of water quality: A study of Challawa River water, Kano, Nigeria, Bayero J. Pure Appl. Sci., 2011, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 121–127.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vannote, R.L., Minshall, G.W., Cummins, K.W., et al., The river continuum concept, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 1980, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 370–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graca, M.A.S., Pinto, P., Cortes, R., et al., Factors affecting macroinvertebrate richness and diversity in Portuguese streams: A two-scale analysis, Int. Rev. Hydrobiol., 2004, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grant, E.H.C., Lowe, W.H., and Fagan, W.F, Living in the branches: Population dynamics and ecological processes in dendritic networks, Ecol. Lett., 2007, vol. 10, pp. 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clarke, A., Macnally, R., Bond, N., and Lake, P.S, Macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams: A review, Freshw. Biol., 2008, vol. 53, pp. 1707–1721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Savichev, O.G., Paromov, V.V., Kopylova, Yu.G., et al., Ecogeochemical state of surface water in the Katun River basin, Mountain Altai, Vestn. Tomsk. Gos. Univ., 2013, no. 366, pp. 157–161.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bol’bukh, T.V, Distribution and natural/anthropogenic transformation of the chemical composition of surface waters in the Katun River basin, Mountain Altai, Extended Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Geogr.) Dissertation, Kaluga, 2005.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaye, A, The effects of mine drainage water from Carrock Mine on the water quality and benthic macroinvertebrate communities of Grainsgill Beck, Earth Environ., 2005, no. 1, pp. 120–154.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Papina, T.S., Artem’eva, S.S., and Temerev, S.V, Specific features of mercury migration in the Katun River basin, Vodn. Resursy, 1995, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 60–66.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Water and Environmental Problems, Siberian BranchRussian Academy of SciencesBarnaulRussia

Personalised recommendations