Antonio Torralba-Burrial

Biología de Organismos y Sistemas Universidad de Oviedo

Ecological status, benthic macroinvertebrate and odonate

communities of the fluvial network of Aragon

Introduction

• Rivers play a fundamental role in the global hydrological cycle, and provide important services to humans and biodiversity. However, rivers have suffered water pollution and other anthropic aggressions for ages.

• Sustainable development involves that a review of the impact of human activity on rivers is necessary. This way, the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), establishes a framework for the protection of inland surface waters and promotes sustainable water use.

• According to the Directive, the aims of this work are:

1. to evaluate the ecological status of fluvial network of Aragon (NE Spain) 2. macroinvertebrate communities classification

Survey methods

• WFD establishes that methods used shall conform to the international standards

• For macroinvertebrate communities in shallow waters of rivers, WFD remits to Surber and handnet

• These methods were compared in 15 sites

• Similar results, high correlation coefficients and slopes near at 1

• Surber presented greater average efficiency in taxa number

Taxa EPT IBMWP IASPT IBMWP taxa Class

> 11 9 10 7 10 0

Surber < Handnet 2 4 4 7 2 3

= 2 2 1 1 3 12

Sign test p * 0.267 0.180 1.000 * 0.250

Wilcoxon’s test Z -2.667 -1.732 -2.264 -0.282 -2.407 -1.732

p ** 0.083 * 0.778 * 0.083

• And Surber allows quantitative samplings (individual/m2)

The number of stations in which taxa number, EPT groups, IBMWP and IASPT indexes, IBMWP taxa

number and ecological state class with Surber are higher, lower or equal than with handnet are

showed (n = 15). * = p <0,05; ** = p<0,01.

Ecological status

• In 2001 and 2002, 140 points were surveyed with Surber net to assess their ecological status according to macroinvertebrate communities

Macroinvertebrate taxa Tolerance Sensibility

Siphlonuridae, Heptageniidae, Leptophlebiidae, Pota-

manthidae, Ephemeridae, Taeniopterygidae, Leuctridae,

Capniidae, Perlodidae, Perlidae, Chloroperlidae, Aphe-

locheiridae, Phryganeidae, Beraeidae, Odontoceridae,

Leptoceridae, Goeridae, Lepidostomatidae, Brachycen-

tridae, Sericostomatidae, Athericidae, Blephariceridae.

Lestidae, Calopterygidae, Gomphidae, Cordulegastridae,

Aeshnidae, Corduliidae, Libellulidae, Psychomyiidae,

Philopotamidae, Glossosomatidae, Astacidae.

Ephemerellidae, Nemouridae, Rhyacophilidae,

Polycentropodidae, Limnephilidae, Ecnomidae

Platycnemididae, Coenagrionidae, Hydroptilidae,

Gammaridae, Atyidae, Corophiidae, Neritidae,

Viviparidae, Ancylidae, Thiaridae, Unionidae.

Oligoneuriidae, Polymitarcidae, Hydropsychidae,

Dryopidae, Elmidae, Helophoridae, Hydrochidae,

Hydraenidae, Clambidae, Tipulidae, Simuliidae,

Planariidae, Dendrocoelidae, Dugesiidae.

Baetidae, Caenidae, Haliplidae, Cucurlionidae,

Crysomelidae, Tabanidae, Stratiomyidae, Empididae,

Dolichopodidae, Dixidae, Ceratopogonidae,

Anthomyidae, Limoniidae, Psychodidae, Sciomyzidae,

Rhagionidae, Hidracarina, Sialidae, Piscicolidae.

Mesoveliidae, Veliidae, Hydrometridae, Gerridae, Nepi-

dae, Naucoridae, Pleidae, Notonectidae, Corixidae, Helo-

didae, Hydrophilidae, Hygrobiidae, Dytiscidae, Gyrini-

dae, Asellidae, Ostracoda, Valvatidae, Hydrobiidae,

Lymnaeidae, Physidae, Planorbidae, Bithyniidae,

Sphaeriidae, Glossiphonidae, Hirudidae, Erpobdellidae.

Chaoboridae, Chironomidae, Culicidae, Ephydridae,

Muscidae, Thaumaleidae.

Oligochaeta, Syrphidae.

Ecological status

• In 2001 and 2002, 140 points were surveyed with Surber net to assess their ecological status according to macroinvertebrate communities

• IBMWP index was used

• Subsequently, taxa densities and invasive alien species presence changed slightly the ecological status class assigned

(+) (-)

(-) (+)

Most of the reaches had high (54%) or good (31%) ecological status. However, 16% of them presented lower level (moderate, poor or bad), unacceptable by WFD.

Ecological status

Macroinvertebrate communities

• Reaches with high ecological status (72) were used to categorize communities’ types

Macroinvertebrate communities

• Reaches with high ecological status (72) were used to categorize communities’ types

• 106 taxa (families mainly) were identified

Macroinvertebrate communities

• Reaches with high ecological status (72) were used to categorize communities’ types

• 106 taxa (families mainly) were identified

• Taxa with wide regional distribution showed high average local densities

• Hierarchical cluster analysis of communities similarity, shows three types: Pyrenean, Prepyrenean Mediterranean and Iberian Mediterranean rivers.

• More powerfull, non-metric multidimensional scaling (MDS), used with taxa presence or taxa densities transformed (fourth root) shows similar patterns.

• ANOSIM test showed significant differences among these rivers types (p<0.05)

Indicative taxa

• SIMPER analysis showed the taxa which similarity was owed.

• IndVal show the taxa indicative of each river type.

Indicative taxa

• SIMPER analysis showed the taxa which similarity was owed.

• IndVal show the taxa indicative of each river type.

Indicative taxa

• SIMPER analysis showed the taxa which similarity was owed.

• IndVal show the taxa indicative of each river type.

Extension to the whole fluvial network

• Communities types were applied to the whole fluvial network of Aragon.

• Besides the previous types, great rivers and depression rivers types were added.

• ANOSIM test showed significant differences among all rivers types

• MDS analysis showed the station of the same river type more nearby each other, with some stations with more distance.

• Besides river type, ecological status is necessary to understand similarities and differences among macroinvertebrate communities.

Conclusions

1. Surber and handnet shown highly correlated results to macroinvertebrate samplings, although Surber enhanced community assessment (greater average efficiency and allows quantitative samplings).

2. There are four communities types: Pyrenean, Prepyrenean Mediterranean, Iberian Mediterranean and Great rivers. Ebro Depression rivers shown differences, but their ecological status don’t allow characterize them.

3. Pyrenean, Prepyrenean Mediterranean and some Iberian Mediterranean rivers shown high or good ecological status.

4. Aragonian Great rivers (especially Ebro River) and Depression rivers are poor water quality.

Acknowledgments• Francisco J. Ocharan supervised my doctoral works.• Special thanks to Paloma Barrachina, of Environmental Department of Aragon Government, for her support and efforts).

• Juan Antonio Torralba, María Guzmán, Sergio Pérez & Chesus Ferrer collaborated in some field works, JoséAlberto Martínez & Vanessa Prol in laboratory works.

• Economic support of the works:

Some published works

• Torralba-Burrial A 2009 Estado ecológico, comunidades de macroinvertebrados y de odonatos de la red fluvial de Aragón. Zaragoza: Consejo Económico y Social de Aragón. 224 pp

• Torralba-Burrial A & FJ Ocharan 2007 Comparación del muestreo de macroinvertebrados bentónicos fluviales con muestreador Surber y con red manual en ríos de Aragón (NE Península Ibérica). Limnetica 26: 13-24

• Torralba-Burrial A & FJ Ocharan 2007 Protocolo para la evaluación del estado ecológico de la red fluvial de Aragón (NE de España) según sus comunidades de macroinvertebrados bentónicos. Limnetica 26: 149-162

• Torralba-Burrial A & FJ Ocharan 2009 Temporalidad y perturbaciones antrópicas en las comunidades de macroinvertebrados bentónicos de la subcuenca del río Arba (Zaragoza, NE España). Boletín de la Real Sociedad Española de Historia Natural (Sección Biológica) 103: 131-144

Thanks for your

attention

Antonio TORRALBA BURRIAL