Advertisement

Biologia

, Volume 62, Issue 4, pp 446–457 | Cite as

Impact of human activities on stonefly (Insecta, Plecoptera) ecological metrics in the Hron River (Slovakia)

  • Il’ja Krno
Article

Abstract

A total of 57 stonefly species have been recorded in the Hron River. The natural gradient (slope and stream width) and pollution gradient of the river were defined using CCA based on physical, chemical and stonefly data. Stonefly metrics (abundance, richness/diversity, sensitivy/tolerance and functional metrics) were used to estimate the quality of the Hron River and the degree of proximity to its natural state. Similar results were obtained using two different methods. The first method was based on the homogeneity of variance and the interquartile range of different groups of stretches of the Hron River and the second was based on deviations from the expected values of biological metrics in a given stretch of the river. These values continuously decreased with increasing distance from the spring area, with the exception of the saprobic index, which increased in a downstream direction, and the stonefly average score, which did not change significantly along the whole river flow. The Stonefly Average Score (SAS) metric is universal for a variety of habitats such as the Hron River upstream and downstream, and is a reliable indicator of water quality and the natural course of a stream.

Key words

running waters water quality stonefly metrics abundance diversity tolerance the Carpathians 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AFNOR 2004. Essai des eaux: Détermination de l’indice biologique global normalisé (IBGN). NF T90-350. AFNOR, Association Française de Normalisation. 11, avenue Francis de Pressensé. F-93571 St Denis la Plaine Cedex, France, Mars 2004, 16 pp.Google Scholar
  2. Ambruš B. & Bulánková E. 2005. Vplyv hydromorfológie toku Hrona na populáciu rybárika riečneho Alcedo atthis ispida (Coraciiformes: Alcedinidae). Acta Fac. Ecol. 13: 53–60.Google Scholar
  3. Barbour M.T., Gerritsen J., Snyder B.D. & Stribling J.B. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. Second Edition. EPA/841-B-98-010. U.S. EPA. Office of Water, Washington D.C., 339 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Baumann R.W. 1979. Nearctic stonefly genera as indicators of ecological parameters (Plecoptera: Insecta). Great Basin Nat. 39: 241–244.Google Scholar
  5. Bitušík P., Svitok M. & Dragúňová M. 2006. The actual longitudinal zonation of the river Hron (Slovakia) based on chironomid assemblages (Diptera, Chironomidae). Acta Univ. Carol. Biol. 50(1–2): 5–17.Google Scholar
  6. Bottoroff R.L. & Knight A.W. 1989. Stonefly (Plecoptera) feeding modes: Variation along a California river continuum. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW 110: 235–241.Google Scholar
  7. Brabec K., Zahrádková S., Němejcová D., Pařil P., Kokeš J. & Jarkovský J. 2004. Assessment of organic pollution effect considering differences between lotic and lentic stream habitats. Hydrobiologia 516: 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buffagni A. 1997. Mayfly community composition and biological qualitz of streams, pp. 235–246. In: Lanoldt P. & Sartori M. (eds), Ephemeroptera & Plecoptera: Biology-Ecology-Systematic, MTL, Fribourg, Schwitzerland.Google Scholar
  9. Bulánková E. 2006. Hodnotenie riečnej morfológie Hrona pomocou metódy River Habitat Survey. Acta Fac. Ecol. 14: 39–45.Google Scholar
  10. Bulánková E., Krno I. & Halgoš J. 2000. Makrozoobentos ako indikátor povodia Hrona v regióne Žiarskej kotliny. Správy Slov. Zool. Spol. 18: 55–68.Google Scholar
  11. Cummins K.W. & Klug M.J. 1979. Feeding ecology of stream invertebrates. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10: 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dohet A. 2002. Are caddisflies an ideal group for the biological assessment of water quality in streams. Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Trichoptera, Nova Suppl. Entomol., Keltern 15: 507–520.Google Scholar
  13. EU 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html (accessed 14.7.2006)
  14. Friedrich J.M., Chapman D. & Beim A. 1992. The use of biological material. Water Quality Assessment — A guide to use of biota, sediments and water in environmental monitoring. UNESCO/WHO/UNEP. http://www.who.int/docstore/watersanitation_health/wqassess/begin.hmt#Contents (accessed 1.11.2003)
  15. Furse M., Hering D., Moog O., Verdonschot P., Sandin L., Brabec K., Gritzalis K., Buffagni A., Pinto, P., Friberg N., Murray-Bligh J., Kokeš J., Alber R., Usseglio-Polatera P., Haase P., Sweeting R., Bis B., Szoszkiewicz K., Soszka H., Springe G., Šporka F. & Krno I. 2006. The STAR project: context, objectives and approaches. Hydrobiologia 566: 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gordon N.D., McMahon T.A., Finlayson B.L., Gippel C. & Nathan R.J. 2004. Stream Hydrology: An Introductiom for Ecologist. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons Ldt, Chichester, England, 429 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Gray B. 2003. Mapping AusRivAS Scores, Inland Waters, National River Health Program. Environment Australia. Department of the Envirinment and Heritage. Cambera, Australian Capital Territory. http:///www.deh.gov.au/water/rivers/nrhp/pubs/ausrivas-scores.pdf (accessed 1.11. 2003)
  18. Hawkes H.A. 1977. River zonation and classification, pp. 312–374. In: Whitton B.A. (ed.), River Ecology, Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
  19. Hering D., Buffagni A., Moog O., Sandin L., Sommerhäuser M., Stubauer I., Feld C., Johnson R., Pinto P., Skoulikidis N., Verdonschot P. & Zahrádková S. 2003. 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. 88: 345–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hering D., Moog O., Sandin L. & Verdonschot P. 2004. Overview and aplication of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia 516: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huet M. 1949. Appréciation de la valeur piscicole des eaux douces. Rev. Suisse Hydrol. 11: 333–351.Google Scholar
  22. Illéšová D. & Halgoš J. 2006. Blackfly communities (Diptera, Simuliidae) of the Hron River (Slovakia). Acta Univ. Carol. Biol. 50(1–2): 43–52.Google Scholar
  23. Kis B. 1974. Plecoptera. Fauna Republicii Socialiste Románia, Bucuresti, Insecta, 8, 271 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Kokeš J., Zahrádková S., Hodovský J. & Nemějcová D. 2003. Predikční systém PERLA. Acta Fac. Ecol. 10,Suppl. 1: 239–242.Google Scholar
  25. Krno I. 1994. Bioindikačné vlastnosti pošvatiek (Plecoptera), pp. 97–102. In: Zborník referátov 10. konferencie Slovenskej a Českej Limnologickej Spoločnosti, Stará Turá.Google Scholar
  26. Krno I. 1996. Stoneflies, pp. 42–57. In: Krno I. (ed.), Limnology of the Turiec river basin (West Carpathians). Biologia 51,Suppl. 2.Google Scholar
  27. Krno I. 2001. Stonefly (Plecoptera) community composition and the biological quality of streams, pp. 300–306. In: Palmaiová E. (ed.), Proceedings International Conference “Water is life take care of it”, WRI Bratislava, ASCO Bratislava.Google Scholar
  28. Krno I. 2003. Stoneflies (Plecoptera) in the Gidra River Basin (Little Carpathians, Slovakia). Acta Zool. Univ. Comenianae 25: 53–67.Google Scholar
  29. Krno I. 2004. Nemouridae (Plecoptera) of Slovakia: Autecology and distribution, morphology of nymphs. Entomol. Probl. 34(1–2): 125–138.Google Scholar
  30. Krno I. 2005. Podenky (Ephemeroptera) a pošvatky (Plecoptera) dolného toku Hrona. Acta Fac. Ecol. 13: 35–39.Google Scholar
  31. Krno I. 2006. Dlhodobé zmeny biodiverzity pošvatiek a ich ekologické metriky signalizujúce antropogénne vplyvy v rieke Hron, pp. 112–114. In: Sacherová E. (ed.), Sborník příspěvků 14. konference České limnologické společnosti a Slovenské limnologické spoločnosti, Nečtiny 26.–30.6.2006.Google Scholar
  32. Krno I. 2007. Stoneflies (Plecoptera) of the Hron River (the West Carpathians). Acta Univ. Carol. Environ. (In press).Google Scholar
  33. Krno I., Šporka F., Derka T., Pastuchová Z., Zaťovičová Z., Bulánková E., Hamerlík L. & Illéšová D. 2007. Assessment of organic pollution of streams in two Carpathian subregions. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. (In press).Google Scholar
  34. MacArthur R. 1955. Fluctuations of animal populations and a measure of community stability. Ecology 35: 533–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Minshall G.W., Cummins K.W., Petersen R.C., Cushing C.E., Bruns D.A., Sedell J.R., Vannote R.L. 1985. Development in stream ecosystem theory. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 1045–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moog O., Schmidt-Kloiber A., Ofenböck T. & Gerritsen J. 2004. Does the ecoregion approach support the typological demands of the EU ‘Water Framework Directive’? Hydrobiologia 516: 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ofenböck T., Moog O., Gerritsen J. & Barbour M.T. 2004. A stressor specific multimetric approach for monitoring running waters in Austria using benthic macro-invertebrates. Hydrobiologia 516: 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Raušer J. 1980. Řád pošvatky — Plecoptera, pp. 86–132. In: Rozkošný R. (ed.), Klíč vodních larev hmyzu, ČSAV Academia, Praha.Google Scholar
  39. Resh V.H., Norris R.H. & Barbour M.T. 1995. Design and implementation of rapid assessment approaches for water resource monitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 14: 451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rolauffs P., Hering D., Sommerhäuser M., Rödiger S. & Jähning S. 2003. Entwicklung eines leitbildorientieren Saprobienindexes für die biologische Fließgewässerbewertung. Umweltforschungsplan des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschtutz und Reaktorsicherheit 200 24 227 UBA-FB 000366. http://www.umweltbundesamt.org/fpdf-k/2253.pdf (accessed 1.11.2003)
  41. Rolauffs P., Stubauer I., Zahrádková S., Brabec K. & Moog O. 2004. Integration of the saprobic system into the European Union Water Framework Directive: Case studies in Austria, Germany and Czech Republic. Hydrobiologia 516: 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rossenberg D.M. & Resh V.H. 1993. Introduction to Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York, 335 pp.Google Scholar
  43. Sedlár J., Stráňai I. & Makara A. 1983. Súčasný stav zarybnenia povodia Hrona. Pol’nohospodárstvo 29: 515–524.Google Scholar
  44. Shannon C.B. & Wiener W. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication, Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana, 117 pp.Google Scholar
  45. SHMÚ 2005. Kvalita povrchových vôd na Slovensku, 2003–2004. Slovenský hydrometeorologický ústav, Bratislava http://www.shmu.sk. (accessed 1.11.2005)Google Scholar
  46. Sládeček V., Zelinka M., Rothschein J. & Moravcová V. 1981. Biologický rozbor povrchové vody. Komentář k CSN 83 0532 — části 6. Stanovení saprobního indexu. Úřad pro normalizaci a měření, Praha, 186 pp.Google Scholar
  47. Sládečková A., Sládeček V., Fremlová A. & Čermák O. 1998. Jakost vod. Biologický rozbor. ČSN 75 77 16. Český normalizační institut, Praha, 194 pp.Google Scholar
  48. Soldán T., Zahrádková S., Helešic J., Dušek L. & Landa V. 1998. Distributional and quantitative patterns of Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera in the Czech Republic: A possibility of detection of long-term environmental changes of aquatic biotopes. Folia Fac. Sci. Nat. Univ. Masaryk. Brun. Biol. 98: 1–305.Google Scholar
  49. Šporka F. (ed.) 2003. Vodné bezstavovce (makroinvertebráta) Slovenska, súpis druhov a autekologické charakteristiky. II. Diel. Slovenský hydrometeorologický ústav, Bratislava, 590 pp.Google Scholar
  50. Ter Braak C.J.F. & Šmilauer P. 1998. CANOCO reference Manual and User’s Guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power Ithaca, NY, USA), 352 pp.Google Scholar
  51. Vannote R.L., Minshall G.W., Cummins K.W., Sedell J.R. & Cushing C.E. 1980. The River Continuum Concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Verneaux J., Schmitt A., Verneaux V. & Prouteau C. 2003. Benthic insects and fish of the Doubs River system: typological traits and the development of a species continuum in a theoretically extrapolated watercource. Hydrobiology 490: 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wallace J.B., Grubaugh J.W. & Whiles M.R. 1996. Biotic indices and stream ecosystem processes; Results from an experimental study. Ecol. Appl. 6: 140–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zelinka M. & Marvan P. 1961. Zur Präzisierung der biologischen Klassifikation der Reinheit fließender Gewässer. Arch. Hydrobiol. 57: 389–407.Google Scholar
  55. Zwick P. 1992. Stream habitat fragmentation a threat to biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 1: 80–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zwick P. 2004. Key to the West Palaearctic genera of stoneflies (Plecoptera) in the larval stage. Limnology 34: 315–348.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Il’ja Krno
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EcologyComenius University, Faculty of Natural SciencesBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations