Preparation of a biotic index (Yeşilırmak-BMWP) for water quality monitoring of Yeşilırmak River...

Review of Hydrobiology RESEARCH ARTICLEwww.reviewofhydrobiology.com6,1: 1-29 (2013)ISSN 1308-4119

1

Preparation of a biotic index (Yeşilırmak-BMWP) for water quality monitoring of Yeşilırmak River (Turkey)

by using benthic macroinvertebrates

NİLGÜN KAZANCI1*, GENCER TÜRKMEN1, PINAR EKİNGEN1 AND ÖZGE BAŞÖREN1

1Hacettepe University, Science Faculty, Biology Department, Hydrobiology Section, Ankara, Turkey.[*Corresponding author: Prof. Dr. Nilgün Kazancı, [email protected]]

ABSTRACT

1. This study was conducted at 42 sites on the Yeşilırmak River in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Water samples were taken from these sites and NO3, NO2, NH4 and PO4 variables were analyzed. According to the physico-chemical variables, the water qualities of the 42 sites were determined.

2. Benthic macroinvertebrate communities were collected from the sites. 45850 individuals belonging to 72 families were identified.

3. The cluster analysis was applied to the data obtained from the benthic community structure. As a result of the analysis, the sites which have similar benthic macroinvertebrate community were grouped together.

4. BMWP scores of the families were re-arranged by considering the results of the cluster analysis and physico-chemical data together. A new Yeşilırmak river-specific biotic index (Yeşilırmak-BMWP, Y-BMWP) was created.

5. Original-BMWP scores and the new Y-BMWP scores were compared. As a result of this comparison, new families were added to the original BMWP and the scores of some families were changed. Furthermore, Score 9 was added to Y-BMWP.

6. It was determined that the results of the new Y-BMWP index were compatible with the region and applicable for the further studies.

KEY WORDS: Benthic macroinvertebrate, BMWP, cluster analysis, new biotic index, river, Turkey, Yeşilırmak, water quality.

Review of Hydrobiology RESEARCH ARTICLEwww.reviewofhydrobiology.com6,1: 1-29 (2013)ISSN 1308-4119

2

Yeşilırmak Nehri’nin su kalitesinin izlenmesi için Taban büyük omurgasızları kullanılarak

bir biyotik indeks (Yeşilırmak-BMWP) hazırlanması

NİLGÜN KAZANCI1*, GENCER TÜRKMEN1, PINAR EKİNGEN1 VE ÖZGE BAŞÖREN1

1Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Fen Fakültesi, Biyoloji Bölümü, Hidrobiyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye.

[*İletişim: Prof. Dr. Nilgün Kazancı, [email protected]]

ÖZ

1. Bu çalışma, 2008, 2009 ve 2010 yıllarında Yeşilırmak Nehri üzerinde belirlenen 42 istasyonda yürütülmüştür. İstasyonlardan alınan su örneklerinin NO3, NO2, NH4 ve PO4

analizleri yapılmış ve fiziko-kimyasal değişkenlere göre su kaliteleri belirlenmiştir.2. İstasyonlardan taban büyük omurgasız komüniteleri örneklenmiştir ve 72 familyaya

ait 45850 taban büyük omurgasız bireyi teşhis edilmiştir.3. Elde edilen verilere kümeleme analizi uygulanmıştır. Analiz sonucunda taban büyük

omurgasız komünite yapıları benzer olan istasyonlar birlikte kümelenmiştir. 4. Kümeleme analizi sonuçları ile fiziko-kimyasal veriler birlikte değerlendirilerek

familyaların BMWP skorları tekrar düzenlenmiş ve Yeşilırmak Nehri’ne özgü yeni bir biyotik indeks oluşturulmuştur (Yeşilırmak-BMWP, Y-BMWP).

5. Orijinal BWMP skorları ile Y-BMWP skorları karşılaştırılmıştır. Bunun sonucunda orijinal BMWP skor sistemine yeni familyalar eklenmiş ve bazı familyaların skorları değiştirilmiştir. Ayrıca orijinal BMWP skor sisteminde olmayan Skor 9, Y-BMWP’ye dahil edilmiştir.

6. Yapılan çalışmada, Y-BMWP indeks sonuçlarının uyumlu olduğu ve bölgede yapılacak daha sonraki çalışmalarda kullanılabilir olduğu belirlenmiştir.

ANAHTAR KELİMELER: BMWP, taban büyük omurgasızları, kümeleme analizi, nehir, su kalitesi, yeni biyotik indeks, Yeşilırmak, Türkiye.

Preparation of a biotic index (Y-BMWP) for water quality monitoring of Yeşilırmak River by using benthic macroinvertebrates

3

INTRODUCTION

Benthic macroinvertebrates have been used to evaluate habitat quality of aquatic ecosystems for decades (Rosenberg and Resh 1993). Their presence and abundance can show the status of these ecosystems. Score systems are established by using water quality tolerance level of these organisms and are used for biotic indices (Resh and Jackson 1993). There are lots of indices and these indices can be used with chemical and physical properties to understand how ecosystems are disturbed.

Biotic indices are important to assess the status of freshwater ecosystems and also to simplify to understand the results for policy makers (Cota et al. 2002). Qualitative results in benthic macroinvertebrate studies are not comprehensible and applicable for people who do not study with it, hence biotic indices, which transform qualitative data to quantitative data, are also very important to implement Water Framework Directive (WFD). WFD (Council of European Union, 2000) accepted in 2000 aims to achieve “good status” for all European surface waters by 2015. In order to achieve this, status of all surface waters have to be determined and the water bodies which have not good status have to be improved.

Biotic indices, used to determine water body status, are often specific to geographical area (Johnson et al. 1993) because of that they have to be adapted to ecosystem which is required to be studied. Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) score system which is used in Water Framework Directive (WFD) was developed in Great Britain (Armitage et al. 1983) and many countries which are member of European Union adapted this score according to their benthic fauna composition and tolerance level of taxa (e.g. Alba-Tercedor and Sanchez-Ortega, 1988).

Turkey is not a member of European Union, but researchers are trying to implement WFD to determine stream types and benthic macroinvertebrate fauna of running waters in Turkey. Then, these knowledge will be used to compare undisturbed sites (which is called “reference sites” in WFD) and disturbed sites. So the level of disturbance of different sites can be determined.

The first biotic index was applied in Turkey by DSI (Government Water Works) in Sakarya and Seyhan catchment areas in 1992 (DSI 1992). After that, Belgium Biotic Index was used for the first time for streams in Köyceğiz-Dalyan area (Kazancı 1993). Biotic indices, which are prepared for Turkey’s fauna, are necessary to determine freshwater ecosystems more effectively. Even though composition of benthic macroinvertebrate

NİLGÜN KAZANCI, GENCER TÜRKMEN, PINAR EKİNGEN AND ÖZGE BAŞÖREN

4

fauna of running waters in Turkey is similar with Europe -because both of them are included in Palearctic Region-, tolerance values of taxa could be different because of different type of pollution.

The studies on benthic macroinvertebrates and habitat quality of aquatic ecosystems have increased recently in Turkey and these studies have contributed to the knowledge using bioindicator organisms in environmental quality studies (Kazancı et al. 1992, Kazancı 1993, Girgin and Kazancı 1994, Dügel 1995, Girgin and Kazancı 1996, Girgin 1997, Girgin et al. 1997, Kazancı et al. 1997, Kazancı and Girgin 1998, Dügel 2001, Kazancı and Girgin 2001, Girgin et al. 2003, Duran et al. 2003, Kazancı et al. 2003, Dügel and Kazancı 2004, Yılmaz 2005, Balık et al. 2006, Camur-Elipek et al. 2006, Duran 2006, Sukatar et al. 2006, Duran and Suiçmez 2007, Ertunç et al. 2008, Kalyoncu et al. 2008, Kazancı 2008a, 2008b, Kazancı et al. 2008a, 2008b, Kazancı and Ertunç 2008a, 2008b, Kazancı and Girgin 2008, Kazancı and Türkmen 2008, Türkmen and Kazancı 2008, Ertunç and Kazancı 2009a, 2009b, Gültutan and Kazancı 2009, Kalyoncu et al. 2009a, Kalyoncu and Gülboy, 2009b Kazancı 2009a, 2009b, 2009c, Kazancı et al. 2009a, 2009b, Girgin and Kazancı 2010, Kazancı 2010, Kazancı and Dügel 2010, Kazancı and Ertunç 2010, Kazancı et al. 2010a, 2010b, Türkmen and Kazancı 2010, Yıldız et al. 2010, Ertunç Başören and Kazancı 2011, Kalyoncu and Zeybek, 2011, Kazancı et al. 2011, Kazancı 2011a, 2011b, Şahin and Yıldız 2011, Topkara et al. 2011, Türkmen and Kazancı 2011, Türkmen and Özcan 2011, Ekingen and Kazancı 2012).

Benthic macroinvertebrate fauna and physicochemical characteristics of Yeşilırmak River were determined in present study. These results are used to determine habitat quality. The BMWP score, which is used to determine habitat quality of freshwater in Britain, is adapted for Yeşilırmak River (Y-BMWP). Y-BMWP is the first BMWP index adapted to any river ecosystem in Turkey. Researchers studying on benthic macroinvertebrates of Yeşilırmak River can use this score system with chemical and physical properties to determine habitat quality of this river.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Yeşilırmak River is the second longest river in Turkey and it has the third largest catchment area of Turkey. There are 19 dams and hydroelectric power stations on the river (Table 1).


5

Fourty-two (42) sites in Yeşilırmak River and its tributaries were studied in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected from different habitat types in these sites by standard D-frame net. Water samples were also taken from the sites to analyze NO3, NO2, NH4 and PO4. Temperature, dissolved oxygen, electrical conductivity and pH of sites were measured by YSI 556 multi-probe system at the same time during collection of organisms. Physical characteristics (e.g. structure of substratum, riparian vegetation, stream zone etc.) and physical disturbances (if there is any) were recorded. Benthic macroinvertebrates were identified in family level by Leica EZ4. Water samples were analyzed by Hach DR/890.

Biological data were analyzed by using ASTERICS (AQEM/STAR Ecological River Classification System) (AQEM Consortium 2006). Y-BMWP (Yeşilırmak-BMWP), ASPT and BBI values were used to determine habitat quality of sites.

Different methods can be applied to generate a biotic index. In this study, Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Average (UPGMA) method was tried in order to generate Y-BMWP (Yeşilırmak-BMWP).

Adapted BMWP (Y-BMWP) scores were constituted. Cluster analysis was applied to 42 sites (Figure 2) according to absence/presence of benthic macroinvertebrate family and their abundance in order to determine the score of the all families. Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Average (UPGMA) was selected and Euclidean distance was used in this study. The similar sites were grouped together according to their similar benthic macroinvertebrate community structure. The families in the collecting sites with high water quality were assigned to high scores, while the families in the sites with low water quality were assigned to low scores. According to the results of cluster analysis, the scores of families were designated and compared to the original BMWP scores of families. New families and score 9 were added to the original list. Also, the scores of some of the families were changed in new Y-BMWP (Yeşilırmak-BMWP) score system (Table 2, Table 13).

RESULTS

In this study, 45850 benthic macroinvertebrate individuals belonging to 72 families were identified in 42 sites. The most abundant families were Baetidae (12503 ind.), Gammaridae (11374 ind.), Hydropsychidae (5813 ind.), Chironomidae (4162 ind.), Simuliidae (2845 ind.) and Heptageniidae (2020 ind.) (Figure 1).


6

Table 1. Dams and hydroelectric power stations situated on Yeşilırmak River (Kazancı et al. 2010a).

Dam City Purpose Stream HES

Alaca Dam Çorum Irrigation Suludere Str.

Almus Dam Tokat Irrigation + Energy Yeşilırmak R. √

Alpu Dam Tokay Irrigation Alpu Str.

Ataköy Dam Tokat Energy Yeşilırmak √

Belpınar Dam Tokat Irrigation Silisözü Str.

Boztepe Dam Tokat Irrigation Boztepe Str.

Çamlıgöze Dam Sivas Energy Kelkit Str. √

Gölova Dam Sivas Irrigation Kelkit Str.

Güzelce Dam Tokat Irrigation Finize Str.

Hasan Uğurlu Dam Samsun Energy Yeşilırmak R. √

Hatap Dam Çorum Irrigation Hatap Str.

Kılıçkaya Dam Sivas Energy Kelkit Str. √

Koçhisar Dam Çorum Irrigation Büyüköz Str.

Köse Dam Gümüşhane Irrigation Köse Str.

Suat Uğurlu Dam Samsun Irrigation + Energy Yeşilırmak √

Süreyyabey Dam Yozgat Irrigation + Energy Çekerek Str. √

Uluköy Dam Amasya Irrigation Derebey Str.

Yedikır Dam Amasya Irrigation Tersakan Str.

Yenihayat Dam Çorum Irrigation Ilgınözü Str.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Figure 1. The number of individuals of benthic macroinvertebrate families in 42 sites in Yeşilırmak River. (*Others: Leptophlebiidae, Chloroperlidae, Leuctridae, Nemouridae, Polycentropodidae, Philopotamidae, Leptoceridae, Glossosomatidae, Gomphidae, Aeshnidae, Libellulidae, Blephariceridae, Empididae, Tabanidae, Athericidae, Muscidae, Stratiomyidae, Dolicopodidae, Dixidae, Scirtidae, Gyrinidae, Hydroscaphidae, Helodidae, Hydrophilidae, Chrysomelidae, Hydraenidae, Dytiscidae, Bithyniidae, Valvatidae, Hydrobiidae, Neritidae, Unionidae, Potamonidae, Erpobdellidae, Haemopidae, Hirudinidae, Gerridae, Hemiptera, Mesoveliidae, Notonectidae, Corixidae, Pyralidae, Osmylidae, Neuroptera, Planariidae, Gordiidae)


7

Figu

re 2

. Clu

ster

den

drog

ram

of t

he si

tes a

t the

Yeş

ilırm

ak R

iver

.

A B C D

C1 C2 D1 D2 D3B1 B2


8

Table 2. Yeşilırmak-BMWP score system (bold-labeled families were newly added families to original BMWP, grey-labeled families indicated that the scores of these families were changed in comparison to original BMWP).

Table 2. Yeşilrmak-BMWP score system (bold-labeled families were newly added

families to original BMWP, grey-labeled families indicated that the score of

these families were changed in comparison to original BMWP).

Families Score Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae

10 Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Trichoptera Leptoceridae, Polycentropodidae Coleoptera Elmidae Diptera BlephariceridaePlecoptera Leuctridae, Perlidae, Perlodidae 9 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae

8

Trichoptera Glossosomatidae, Philopotamidae, Psychomyiidae, Rhyacophilidae Odonata Aeshnidae, Libellulidae Neuroptera Osmylidae Diptera Athericidae Lepidoptera Pyralidae Decapoda Potamonidae Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae

7 Plecoptera Nemouridae, Taeniopterygidae Odonata Gomphidae, Cordulegasteridae, Platycnemididae, Coenagriidae

6 Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Diptera Empididae Gastropoda Neritidae Bivalvia Unionidae Ephemeroptera Oligoneuriidae

5

Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Coleoptera Scirtidae, Hydraenidae Hemiptera Notonectidae Diptera Simuliidae, Tipulidae, Pediciidae Turbellaria Dugesiidae, Planariidae Amphipoda Gammaridae Ephemeroptera Baetidae, Caenidae

4 Coleoptera Chrysomelidae, Hydroscaphidae Diptera Dixidae, Dolichopodidae, Limoniidae, Stratiomyidae, Tabanidae Coleoptera Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Hydrophilidae

3

Hemiptera Corixidae, Gerridae, Mesoveliidae Gastropoda Bithyniidae, Hydrobiidae, Lymnaeidae, Physidae, Valvatidae Bivalvia Dreissenidae, Sphaeriidae Isopoda Asellidae Annelidae Hirudinidae Diptera Chironomidae, Muscidae

2 Gastropoda Planorbidae Hirudinea Erpobdellidae, Glossiphoniidae, Haemopidae Oligochaeta Oligochaeta

1 Gordioida Gordiidae


9

In Group A (Table 3), there were two sites clustered together (Site 2 and Site 3). Both

of these sites were situated on the main stem of Yeşilırmak River. Benthic macroinvertebrate

families of these two sites were generally common taxa. All families in Site 3 were also

found in Site 2. In Site 2, there were also three different families (Gerridae, Erpobdellidae

and Hirudinidae) compared to the ones found in Site 3. These families were represented

very low abundance in Site 2. Furthermore, Site 2 and Site 3 had the same water quality (IV.

class) determined by both biotic index scores (BMWP and Y-BMWP) and physico-chemical

variables. Therefore, these two sites were grouped together. The common families of Site

2 and Site 3 were Baetidae, Simuliidae, Chironomidae, Physidae, Gammaridae, Asellidae,

Oligochaeta, Glossiphoniidae and Haemopidae. All of these families had low Y-BMWP

scores. The other three families had also low scores.

Table 3. Families and their Y-BMWP scores of the sites in Group A.

Y-BMWP Scores Families Site 2 Site 3

5 Simuliidae * *

5 Gammaridae * *

4 Baetidae * *

3 Asellidae * *

3 Physidae * *

3 Hirudinidae *

3 Gerridae *

2 Chironomidae * *

2 Glossiphoniidae * *

2 Haemopidae * *

2 Erpobdellidae *

1 Oligochaeta * *

There were seven sites clustered together within Group B. The common

feature of the sites in Group B was that they all had the highest water quality classes in

this study. This group was divided into two subgroups (B1 and B2).

Three sites (Site 26, Site 27 and Site 28) were clustered together within

Subgroup B1 (Table 4). All of these sites were situated near the source of Çekerek

Stream, which is the second largest tributary of Yeşilırmak River. These sites (Site 26,


10

Site 27 and Site 28) also had the highest Y-BMWP scores in this study (146, 128 and 129,

respectively). In these sites, presence of high-scoring families, such as Chloroperlidae,

Leptoceridae, Polycetropodidae, Elmidae, Blephariceridae, Perlidae, Heptageniidae,

Psychomyiidae, Rhyacophilidae, Potamonidae, Philopotamidae and Aeschnidae caused

high water quality scores.

Table 4. Families and their Y-BMWP scores of the sites in Subgroup B1.

Y-BMWP Scores Families

Site Site Site Y-BMWP Scores Families

Site Site Site

26 27 28 26 27 27

10 Chloroperlidae * 5 Pediciidae * * *

10 Polycentropodidae * 5 Hydropsychidae * * *

10 Leptoceridae * * 5 Gammaridae * * *

10 Blephariceridae * 5 Scirtidae * *

10 Elmidae * * * 5 Hydraenidae *

9 Perlidae * * * 5 Notonectidae *

8 Heptageniidae * * * 5 Dugesiidae *

8 Psychomyiidae * * * 4 Baetidae * * *

8 Rhyacophilidae * * * 4 Limoniidae *

8 Philopotamidae * * 4 Chrysomelidae *

8 Aeshnidae * 4 Tabanidae *

8 Pyralidae * 4 Stratiomyidae *

8 Potamonidae * * * 4 Dixidae *

7 Nemouridae * 3 Mesoveliidae *

7 Ephemerellidae * * * 2 Chironomidae * * *

6 Empididae * * 1 Oligochaeta * * *

5 Simuliidae * * *

The sites (Site 5, Site 7, Site 8 and Site 35) clustered within Subgroup B2

(Table 5) had the next cleanest sites after the sites in Subgroup B1. These sites, like the

sites in Subgroup B1, had high Y-BMWP scores (118, 92 and 107), except Site 35 (79).

In general, benthic macroinvertebrate fauna of Site 35 was very similar to other three

sites. However, Y-BMWP score of Site 35 was relatively low, due to the absence of high-

scoring indicator families such as Leuctridae, Elmidae, Perlidae and Rhyacophilidae. Site

35 was clustered together with other three sites within the same subgroup due to having

similar faunal structure.


11

Table 5. Families and their Y-BMWP scores of the sites in Subgroup B2.


Site Site Site Site Y-BMWP Scores Families

Site Site Site Site

5 7 8 35 5 7 8 35

10 Leuctridae * * * 5 Hydropsychidae * * * *

10 Elmidae * * * 5 Tipulidae * *

9 Perlidae * * * 5 Gammaridae *

8 Heptageniidae * * * * 5 Pediciidae * *

8 Glossosomatidae * 4 Baetidae * * * *

8 Psychomyiidae * * * 4 Caenidae * * * *

8 Rhyacophilidae * * * 4 Dolicopodidae

8 Athericidae * 4 Limoniidae * * * *

8 Potamonidae * * 4 Tabanidae * * *

8 Osmylidae * 3 Gyrinidae *

7 Ephemerellidae * * 3 Lymnaeidae *

6 Gomphidae * * 3 Asellidae *

6 Empididae * 2 Muscidae *

6 Hydroptilidae * 2 Chironomidae * * * *

5 Simuliidae * * * * 1 Gordiidae *

5 Scirtidae * 1 Oligochaeta * * *

Total of seventeen sites were clustered within Group C. The common feature

of the sites in Group C was that they all were situated at disturbed areas such as densely

populated regions, drainage area of waste water coming from a village located on upstream

of the river and the zones after dams. This group was divided into two subgroups (C1 and

C2).

Within Subgroup C1, twelve sites were clustered together (Table 6). These

sites had low water quality (III and IV class) according to the physico-chemical variables,

except Site 11 (II class). Site 11 was situated at the zone after the Çamlıgöze Dam. There

was an irregular circumstances after the dam. Besides, only Baetidae and Caenidae were

found at Site 11. The other sites in Subgroup C1 were situated at densely populated areas

(Site 12, Site 21, Site 24, Site 25, Site 34, Site 36 and Site 37) and the zones after dams

(Site 19 after Köse Dam and Site 9 after Çamlıgöze Dam, Site 33 after Süreyyabey Dam,

Site 40 after Hasan Uğurlu Dam).


12

Table 6. Families and their Y-BMWP scores of the sites in Subgroup C1.


Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site Site9 11 12 19 21 24 25 33 34 36 37 40

10 Chloroperlidae *

10 Elmidae *

9 Perlidae * * *

8 Heptageniidae * * * * * * *

8 Potamonidae * *

7 Ephemerellidae * *

6 Gomphidae * *

6 Empididae *

6 Unionidae *

5 Oligoneuriidae * * *

5 Hydropsychidae * * * * * *

5 Simuliidae * * *

5 Tipulidae *

5 Pediciidae * *

5 Gammaridae * * * * * * * *

4 Baetidae * * * * * * * * *

4 Caenidae * * * * * * * *

4 Limoniidae * *

4 Tabanidae *

3 Hydrophilidae * *

3 Mesoveliidae *

3 Physidae * *

3 Lymnaeidae *

3 Bithyniidae * * *

3 Sphaeriidae *

3 Dreissenidae * *

3 Valvatidae * *

3 Asellidae * * *

2 Muscidae *

2 Chironomidae * * * * * * * *

2 Planorbidae *

2 Glossiphoniidae *

2 Erpobdellidae * *

1 Oligochaeta * * * * * * *


13

There were five sites (Site 4, Site 18, Site 20, Site 29 and Site 32) clustered together within Subgroup C2 (Table 7). All of these sites, except Site 18, were situated at the zones after dams (Site 4 after Köse Dam, Site 20 and Site 32 after Süreyyabey Dam, Site 29 after Güzelce Dam). Water qualities of the sites after dams were at III. and IV. water classes according to Y-BMWP scores in this study. Releasing water from dams directly affected the natural flow regime of the streams. The alteration of the flow regime affected benthic macroinvertebrate community structure directly (e.g. drift), and moreover, it also affected the benthic communities indirectly by changing the substratum structure of the streams. Furthermore, alteration of flow regime caused an extra stress over these communities by changing the dissolved oxygen content and nutrient status of the streams. Because of these negative effects, indicator families which were very sensitive to these kinds of changes disappeared from aquatic environment and other tolerant families responded these changes by filling the gap left by them in the community. In other words, abundance of tolerant families increased and caused a decrease in the number of species. Site 18, which was different from the sites after dams but clustered together with these sites, had a similar benthic macroinvertebrate fauna. This site, however, had II. class water quality. Presence of high-scoring families, such as Leptophiliidae, Elmidae and Potamonidae increased the water quality of Site 18.

Table 7. Families and their Y-BMWP scores of the sites in Subgroup C2.

Y-BMWP Scores

FamiliesSite Site Site Site Site

Y-BMWP Scores

FamiliesSite Site Site Site Site

4 18 20 29 32 4 18 20 29 32

10 Leptophlebiidae * 5 Simuliidae * * * * *

10 Elmidae * 5 Tipulidae *

9 Perlidae * * 5 Pediciidae * *

8 Heptageniidae * * * * * 5 Gammaridae * * * *

8 Athericidae * 4 Baetidae * * * * *

8 Osmylidae * 4 Caenidae * * * * *

8 Potamonidae * * 4 Limoniidae * * * * *

7 Ephemerellidae * * * * 4 Tabanidae * *

6 Gomphidae * * * 4 Stratiomyidae * *

6 Empididae * 2 Chironomidae * * * * *

5 Oligoneuriidae * * * * 1 Oligochaeta * * * *

5 Hydropsychidae * * * *


14

Fourteen sites were clustered together within Group D. The sites in this group had a similar benthic macroinvertebrate fauna. Group D was divided into three subgroups (D1, D2 and D3).

There were four sites (Site 14, site 15, Site 16 and Site 41) clustered together within Subgroup D1 (Table 8). Site 16 was formed by combining Site 14 and Site 15. These three sites were clustered together because of having both faunal and environmental resemblance. The most abundant families in Site 41 were very similar to the ones in Site 14, Site 15 and Site 16. Therefore, Site 41 was grouped together with these there sites.

Table 8. Families and their Y-BMWP scores of the sites in Subgroup D1.

Y-BMWP Scores Families Site

14Site 15

Site 16

Site 41


14Site 15

Site 16

Site 41

8 Heptageniidae * * * * 4 Caenidae * * * *

8 Aeshnidae * 4 Limoniidae *

8 Libellulidae * * 4 Tabanidae * * *

8 Potamonidae * 4 Dolicopodidae * *

7 Ephemerellidae * * * * 4 Hydroscaphidae *

7 Nemouridae * 3 Lymnaeidae *

6 Gomphidae * * 3 Sphaeriidae *

5 Hydropsychidae * * * * 3 Valvatidae *

5 Simuliidae * * * * 2 Chironomidae * * * *

5 Tipulidae * 2 Planorbidae *

5 Planariidae * 2 Erpobdellidae *

5 Gammaridae * * * * 1 Oligochaeta *

4 Baetidae * * * *

The sites (Site 6, Site 10 and Site 17) clustered together within Subgroup D2 had similar benthic macroinvertebrate fauna (Table 9). Site 6 and Site 10 had II. class water quality, but Site 17 had IV. class water quality. While taking a water sample from the sampling point at Site 17, the drainage water due to the precipitation caused low water quality. But the benthic macroinvertebrate fauna of Site 17 hadn’t been affected by these temporary changes.


15


Y-BMWP Scores Families Site 6 Site

10Site 17

Y-BMWP Scores Families Site 6 Site

10Site 17

10 Elmidae * * * 5 Planariidae * *

9 Leuctridae * * 5 Dugesiidae

8 Heptageniidae * * * 5 Gammaridae * * *

8 Psychomyiidae * 4 Baetidae * * *

8 Rhyacophilidae * * * 4 Caenidae *

8 Athericidae * 4 Tabanidae *

6 Hydroptilidae * 4 Stratiomyidae * *

6 Empididae * * * 3 Bithyniidae *

5 Oligoneuriidae * 3 Dreissenidae *

5 Hydropsychidae * * * 3 Valvatidae *

5 Simuliidae * * 2 Muscidae *

5 Tipulidae * 2 Chironomidae * * *

5 Pediciidae * 1 Oligochaeta * *

There were seven sites clustered together within Subgroup D3 (Table 10). Site 1, Site 22 and Site 23 were situated in a densely populated area. Also, Site 23 was impacted by waste water of a hospital. Site 38 was situated at a lake outlet, Site 30 and Site 31 were situated before Süreyyabey Dam, Site 13 was situated after Köse Dam. The most abundant families of these sites were generally same. Therefore these sites were clustered together within the same subgroup.

Two sites out of all 42 sites couldn’t be included in any groups or subgroups. One of these sites, Site 42, didn’t resemble any of the other sites. Benthic macroinvertebrate fauna of this site was dominated by only three families (Gammaridae, Baetidae and Simuliidae). Although there were fifteen families in Site 42, relative abundance of these three families covered 95.15% of whole benthic fauna. The other site, Site 39, was situated on the main stem of Yeşilırmak River and it was the closest site to the mouth of the river. By getting closer to the mouth, current velocity decreased and the stream was widened and deepened. Also the siltation increased and bottom structure of the stream had changed. All of these changes caused a change over benthic macroinvertebrate fauna. Because of these reasons, Site 39 didn’t cluster together with any sites in this study.


16



1Site 13

Site 22

Site 23

Site 30

Site 31

Site 38

10 Leptoceridae *

10 Blephariceridae *

8 Heptageniidae * * *

8 Psychomyiidae *

8 Potamonidae * *

7 Ephemerellidae * *

6 Hydroptilidae * *

6 Gomphidae * *

6 Empididae * * *

6 Neritidae *

5 Oligoneuriidae *

5 Hydropsychidae * * * * * * *

5 Simuliidae * * * * * * *

5 Tipulidae * * *

5 Pediciidae *

5 Dugesiidae *

5 Gammaridae * * * * * *

4 Baetidae * * * * * * *

4 Caenidae * *

4 Limoniidae * *

4 Tabanidae *

4 Stratiomyidae *

4 Dolicopodidae * * *

3 Gyrinidae *

3 Hydrophilidae *

3 Dytiscidae *

3 Mesoveliidae *

3 Physidae *

3 Lymnaeidae *

3 Sphaeriidae * * * *

3 Valvatidae *

3 Asellidae * *

2 Muscidae *

2 Chironomidae * * * * * * *

2 Planorbidae * *

2 Glossiphoniidae *

2 Erpobdellidae * * * *

1 Oligochaeta * * * * * *


17

Table 11. Y-BMWP and original BMWP scores of sites and water quality classes (WQC) corresponding to their scores.

Sites Y-BMWP Scores

WQC according to Y-BMWP

BMWP Scores

WQC according to BMWP

WQC according to Physico-chemical

variables

Site 1 70 III 58 III IIISite 2 35 IV 38 IV IVSite 3 27 IV 27 IV IVSite 4 54 III 43 III IIISite 5 118 I 95 II IISite 6 80 II 54 III IISite 7 92 II 89 II IISite 8 107 I 91 II IISite 9 44 III 38 IV IV

Site 10 84 II 74 II IISite 11 8 V 11 IV IISite 12 30 IV 34 IV IIISite 13 48 III 35 IV IVSite 14 56 III 62 III IVSite 15 75 II 70 III IVSite 16 62 III 65 III IVSite 17 83 II 68 III IVSite 18 84 II 78 II IVSite 19 28 IV 29 IV IVSite 20 65 III 58 III IVSite 21 26 IV 31 IV IIISite 22 64 III 58 III IVSite 23 27 IV 23 IV IIISite 24 70 III 56 III IIISite 25 29 IV 34 IV IIISite 26 146 I 126 I IIISite 27 128 I 103 I IISite 28 129 I 103 I IVSite 29 58 III 65 III IVSite 30 60 III 61 III IVSite 31 79 II 76 II IVSite 32 85 II 73 II IIISite 33 49 III 51 III IIISite 34 37 IV 46 III IVSite 35 79 II 59 III IVSite 36 48 III 52 III IIISite 37 40 IV 47 III IVSite 38 54 III 57 III IIISite 39 56 III 56 III IVSite 40 27 IV 24 IV IVSite 41 70 II 70 III IIISite 42 70 II 62 III IV


18

Table 12. BMWP score range.

Water Quality Class

Score Category Interpretation

I > 100 Very good Unpolluted / Unimpacted

II 71 - 100 Good Clean but slightly impacted

III 70 - 41 Moderate Moderately impacted

IV 40 - 11 Poor Polluted or impacted

V < 10 Very poor Heavily polluted

DISCUSSION

Benthic macroinvertebrates occur in aquatic habitats with particular characteristics in their zoogeographic areas. The biodiversity and quality of running waters and other type of aquatic ecosystems rapidly decline due to various anthropogenic activities. Eutrophication, organic pollution and physical degradation of aquatic ecosystems are worldwide problems.

The benthic macroinvertebrates has long been used in the assessment of the ecological quality of aquatic ecosystems (Washington 1984, Metcalfe 1989, Rosenberg and Resh 1993, Kazancı et al. 1997, Mandaville 2002, Iliopoulou-Georgudaki et al. 2003, Smith et al. 2005). The use of bioindicator macroinvertebrate taxa for the assessment of ecological quality has more advantages than assessment based on phytoplankton, benthic diatoms, fishes and macrophytes (Rosenberg and Resh 1993, Iliopoulou-Georgudaki et al. 2003).

The EU Water Framework Directive (Council of European Union 2000) requires an intercalibrated and much more sensitive biological assessment system in Europe and in adjacent countries such as Turkey. According to the EU Water Framework Directive, various indices based on benthic macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton, benthic algae, macrophytes and fish must be used in biomonitoring methods. However, the performance of the indices of benthic macroinvertebrates is very high. This is mainly because the response of various benthic macroinvertebrate taxa to environmental stresses is very clear and there are many biotic indices based on them. Therefore they have a particular importance for the multimetric biological indices approach.


19

Various indices based on macroinvertebrate families have been used in Europe for a long time for routine rapid assessment of ecological quality of running waters (Washington 1984, Metcalfe 1989). Biotic indices are constructed by use of numerical expressions according to the presence of bioindicator taxa in different sensitivity level to habitat conditions. Indices which are developed for particular zoogeographical areas have been applied, with success, in other zoogeographical areas. The modification of an index which is developed for a particular zoogeographic region requires many prior applications and pilot studies in the new zoogeographic regions. In many European countries, adaptation of many biotic indices is performed such as BMWP.

The BMWP index was developed for evaluating the ecological quality of running waters in the United Kingdom (Armitage et al. 1983). This index is useful to determine the water quality status of running water ecosystems in various zoogeographic regions and it has been successfully applied in many countries including Spain (Alba-Tercedor and Sanchez-Ortega, 1988), Canada (Barton and Metcalfe-Smith 1992), Italy (Solimini et al. 2000), Argentina (Capitulo et al. 2001), Thailand (Mustow 2002), Poland (Czerniawska- Kusza 2005), Greece (Artemiadou and Lazaridou 2005), Portugal (Faria et al. 2006), Brazil (Silveira et al. 2005) and Malaysia (Azrina et al. 2006).

Various indices based on the benthic macroinvertebrate taxa of European Countries have been implemented in Turkey since 1990. The data obtained from these indices were helpful to interpret the water quality of running waters in Turkey. But these indices were inadequate to supply information about current water quality classes at all times. Hence, a comprehensive index which is adapted to the benthic macroinvertebrate fauna of Turkey is needed. Biotic indices should primarily be prepared compatible with regional benthic macroinvertebrate fauna however the inadequate knowledge on aquatic fauna, the necessity of preparation of an ecoregional index, highly variable geology, high endemism and biodiversity of Turkey are major difficulties for the preparation of an overall index of Turkey.

European researchers developed indices based on the benthic macroinvertebrates such as Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) score, the Average Score Per Taxon (ASPT) by Armitage et al. (19 83). These indices are generally used in conjunction with chemical monitoring to define water quality classifications.

The new biotic index was prepared for Yeşilırmak River (Yeşilırmak-BMWP, Y-BMWP) for a rapid bioassessment of the water quality. The new index based on benthic macroinvertebrate families recorded from the main stem of Yeşilırmak River and its tributaries. Armitage et al. (1983) noted that the BMWP score system has high performance if the environmental factors of the sampling site are taken into consideration.


20

The Y-BMWP index is the first comprehensive index that can be used in different ecoregions in Turkey.

The Y-BMWP index has been modified as follows: 1. The score 9 was included in the Y-BMWP,2. 23 families were added to the original BMWP because these families are

not found in original BMWP and they are important bioindicators for the assessment of running water quality in Turkey (Table 13),

3. 23 families were given new scores (Table 13),

Table 13. Modifications in Y-BMWP.

Newly added score to Y-BMWP Score 9

Family Y-BMWP Score

Newly added families to Y-BMWP

Blephariceridae 10

Glossosomatidae 8

Osmylidae 8

Athericidae 8

Pyralidae 8

Potamonidae 8

Empididae 6

Oligoneuriidae 5

Hydraenidae 5

Pediciidae 5

Dugesiidae 5

Hydroscaphidae 4

Dixidae 4

Dolichopodidae 4

Limoniidae 4

Stratiomyidae 4

Tabanidae 4

Bithyniidae 3

Dreissenidae 3

Hirudinidae 3

Muscidae 2

Haemopidae 2

Gordiidae 1


21

Family Y-BMWP Score BMWP score

The families whose score changed in Y-BMWP

Polycentropodidae 10 7Elmidae 10 5Leuctridae 9 10Perlidae 9 10Perlodidae 9 10Heptageniidae 8 10Rhyacophilidae 8 7Ephemerellidae 7 10Taeniopterygidae 7 10Gomphidae 6 8Cordulegasteridae 6 8Gammaridae 5 6Caenidae 4 7Chrysomelidae 4 5Dytiscidae 3 5Gyrinidae 3 5Hydrophilidae 3 5Corixidae 3 5Gerridae 3 5Mesoveliidae 3 5Planorbidae 2 3Erpobdellidae 2 3Glossiphoniidae 2 3

Y-BMWP was mainly based on families of benthic macroinvertebrates according to their degree of intolerance against organic pollution. The original scores of indicator taxa were changed according to different sensitivity levels to habitat quality conditions in Yeşilırmak River. The reasons for using family level were as follows:

1. The knowledge of taxonomy of various benthic macroinvertebrate taxa in species and genus level and information of faunistic composition of different regions is inadequate or fragmentary,

2. The other problem is the high number of new species and high level endemism of different higher taxa in different geographical regions,

3. The identification of genus and species of benthic macroinvertebrate taxa requires the effort of experts of each taxon. The family level index is easily implemented by persons other than expert,

4. There is a clear correlation between the water quality knowledge obtained from family and the genus-species level indices (Kazancı 2010a, Ekingen and Kazancı 2012). Hilsenhoff (1988) reported that the family indices determine lower water quality than genus-species level indices.


22

On the other hand, there are many scientific gaps in the knowledge of biological indices application in Turkey. So still we need scientific experts for application of various biological monitoring methods.

The BMWP index was suitable to determine the water quality impairment by domestic, industrial and agricultural waste water and also physical habitat deterioration of dams in Yeşilırmak River. Dams disturb river hydrology, water quality and biodiversity. The running water ecosystem below reservoirs has homogenous characteristics and low biodiversity (Taylor et al. 1993, Penczak 2004). Yeşilırmak River is highly regulated by dams, hydroelectric power plants etc. (Table 1).

The high physical habitat deterioration of dams on Yeşilırmak River was detected using Y-BMWP.

The goals of preparation of Y-BMWP index are as follows:- To determine the suitability of benthic macroinvertebrate fauna for water

quality assessment,- To assess the water quality of Yeşilırmak River using a peculiar index on the

fauna of Turkey,- Defining sensitive zones by means of biological standards or standardized methods,- To assess water quality with respect to the ecological, economic and political

conditions,- To include Y-BMWP index in Yeşilırmak River basin management plan,- To combine Y-BMWP index with the ASTERICS software,- To compare the usefulness of the two biotic indices (BMWP and Y-BMWP)

for the fauna of Turkey,- To adapt the most useful index to regional conditions of Turkey,- To determine the stream typology of Yeşilırmak River,- To define the reference sites at Yeşilırmak River,- To specify the reference benthic macroinvertebrate fauna of Yeşilırmak River,- To manage the fishery resources,- To provide an early warning mechanism for the detection of pollution and

physical habitat degradation.


23

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research was supported by Hacettepe University Research Foundation (BAP) (Project leader: Prof. Dr. Nilgün Kazancı, Project title: “Constitution of biotic index for long-term biomonitoring of water quality for Yeşilırmak River by using benthic macroinvertebrates” and Project no: 07 01 601 005).

REFERENCES

Alba-Tercedor, J. and Sánchez-Ortega, A., 1988. Um método rápido y simple para evaluar la calidad biológica de lãs águas corrientes basado em El de Hellawell (1978). Limnética, 4: 51-56.

Armitage, P. D., Moss, D., Wright, J. F. and Furse, M. T., 1983. The performance of a new biological water quality scores system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites. Water Res. 17: 333–347.

Artemiadou, V. and Lazaridou, M., 2005. Evaluation score and interpretation index for the ecological quality of running waters in Central and Northern Hellas. Environ Monit Assess. 110,1-3: 1-40.

Azrina, M. Z., Yap, C. K., Rahim Ismail, A., Ismail, A. and Tan, S. G., 2006. Anthropogenic impacts on the distribution and biodiversity of benthic macroinvertebrates and water quality of the Langat River, Peninsular Malaysia. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 64,3: 337–347.

Barton, D. R. and Metcalfe-Smith, J. L., 1992. A comparison of sampling techniques and summary indices for assessment of water quality in the Yamaska River, Quebec, based on benthic macroinvertebrates. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 21: 225–244.

Başören (Ertunç), Ö. and Kazancı, N., 2011. The distributional data of Simuliidae (Insecta, Diptera) in some streams of Yedigöller National Park (Bolu, Turkey). Review of Hydrobiology 4,2: 73-85.

Balık, S., Ustaoğlu, M. R., Özbek, M., Yıldız, S., Taşdemir, A. and İlhan, A., 2006. Küçük Menderes Nehri’nin (Selçuk - İzmir) Aşağı Havzasındaki Kirliliğin Makro Bentik Omurgasızlar Kullanılarak Saptanması. E. Ü. Su Ürünleri Dergisi 23,1-2: 61-65.

Camur-Elipek, B., Arslan, N., Kırgız, T. and Oterler, B., 2006. Benthic Macrofauna in Tunca River (Turkey) and Their Relationships with Environmental Variables. Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica 34: 360-366.


24

Capitulo, A. R., Tangorra, M. and Ocon, C., 2001. Use of benthic macroinvertebrates to assess the biological status of Pampean streams in Argentina. Aquatic Ecology 35: 109–119.

Cota, L., Goulart, M., Moreno, P. and Callisto, M., 2002, Rapid asssessment of river water quality using an adapted BMWP index: a practical tool to evaluate ecosystem health, Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 28, 1-4.

Council of European Communities, 2000. Water Framework Directive (WFD) 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 L 327, 22.12.2000, 1-72.

Czerniawska-Kusza, I., 2005. Comparing modified biological monitoring working party score system and several biological indices based on macroinvertebrates for water-quality assessment. Limnologica 35: 169–176.

DSI, 1992. Sakarya ve Seyhan Havzalarında kirlenme durumlarının incelenmesi ve bu havzalarda kalite sınırlarının tespiti projesi, DSİ Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları, Ankara.

Duran, M., Tüzen, M. and Kayim, M., 2003. Exploration of biological richness and water quality of stream Kelkit, Tokat-Turkey. Fresenius Envir. Bull., 12,4: 368-375.

Duran, M., 2006. Monitoring Water Quality Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Physicochemical Parameters of The Behzat Stream (Tokat, N TURKEY). Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 15,5:709-717.

Duran, M. and Suiçmez, M., 2007. Utilization of both benthic macroinvertebrates and physicochemical parameters for evaluating water quality of the stream Cekerek (Tokat, Turkey). Journal of Environmental Biology 28,2: 231-236.

Dügel, M., 1995. Köyceğiz Gölü’ne Dökülen Akarsuların Su Kalitesinin Biyolojik ve Ekolojik Yönden Araştırılması. Yüksek lisans tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 88s..

Dügel, M., 2001. Büyük Menderes Nehri’nin su kalitesinin biyolojik ve fizikokimyasal yöntemlerle belirlenmesi. Doktora tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 130p.

Dügel, M. and Kazancı, N., 2004. Assessment of the water Quality of the Büyük Menderes River by using ordination and classification of macroinvertebrates and environmental variables. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 19, 4: 605-611.

Ekingen, P. and Kazancı, N., 2012. Benthic macroinvertebrate fauna of the Aksu Stream (Giresun, Turkey) and habitat quality assessment based on European Union Water Framework Directive criteria. Review of Hydrobiology 5,1: 35-55.


25

Ertunç, Ö. ve Kazancı, N., 2009a. Türkiye’nin batısındaki bazı akarsuların Simuliidae (Insecta, Diptera, Simuliidae) bireylerine ait larva anahtarı. Review of Hydrobiology 2,1: 23-43.

Ertunç, Ö. ve Kazancı, N., 2009b. Türkiye’nin batısındaki bazı akarsuların Simuliidae (Insecta, Diptera) türlerine ait pupa anahtarı. Review of Hydrobiology 2,2: 117-132.

Ertunç, Ö., Türkmen, G. and Kazancı, N., 2008. Yedigöller Milli Parkı (Bolu, Türkiye) Simuliidae (Insecta, Diptera) faunasıüzerine bir araştırma. Review of Hydrobiology 1,2: 81-92.

Faria, M. S., Ré, A., Malcato, J., Silva, P. C., Pestana, J., Agra, A. R., Nogueira, A. J. and Soares, A.M., 2006. Biological and functional responses of in situ bioassays with Chironomus riparius larvae to assess river water quality and contamination Science of the Total Environment 371: 125–137

Girgin, S., 1997, Ankara Çayı’nda taban büyük omurgasızlarının çeşitliliklerinin değişik indisler kullanılarak araştırılması, Turk J Zool., 21: 269-274.

Girgin, S. ve Kazancı, N., 1994. Türkiye İç Suları Araştırma Dizisi I (Ed. N. Kazancı): Anakara Çayı’nda Su Kalitesinin Fiziko-Kimyasal ve Biyolojik Yöntemlerle Belirlenmesi, İmaj Yayıncılık, Ankara, 184s.

Girgin, S. ve Kazancı, N., 1996. Kirmir Çayı’nda Taban Büyük Omurgasızlarının Dağılımı Üzerine Bir Araştırma, XIII. Ulusal Biyoloji Kongresi, Hidrobiyoloji Seksiyonu, 53-62, İstanbul.

Girgin, S. and Kazancı, N., 2010. Biomonitoring of an urban stream (Ova Stream, Ankara, Turkey) using the Belgian Biotic Index. Review of Hydrobiology 3,1: 73-87.

Girgin, S., Kazancı, N. and Doğan, O., 1997. A new approach to the irrigation water quality criteria in Turkey: Ankara Stream. Int. Conf. on “Water management, salinity and pollution control towards sustainable irrigation in the Mediterranean Region”, Bari, 1997, Vol. 2 Water quality and pollution control, p. 43-54.

Girgin, S., Kazancı, N. and Dügel, M., 2003. Ordination and classification of macroinvertebrates and environmental data of a stream in Turkey. Water Science & Technology 47, 7-8: 133-139.

Gültutan, Y. and Kazancı, N., 2009. A Research on Chironomidae (Diptera) Fauna of Eastern Blacksea Region and water quality relationship. Review of Hydrobiology 2,1: 57-79.

Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 7,1:65-68.

Iliopoulou-Georgudaki, J., Kantzaris, V., Katharios, P., Kaspiris, Th. and Montesantou, B., 2003. An application of different bioindicators for assessing water quality: a case study in the rivers Alfeios and Pineios (Peloponnisos, Greece). Ecol. Indic. 2: 345–360.


26

Johnson, R.K., Wiederholm, T., and Rosenberg, D.D.M., 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring Using Individual organisms, Populations, and Species Assemblages of benthic macroinvertebrates. – In Rosenberg, D. M and Resh, V. H. (eds): Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Chapman & Hall, New York, pp. 40-158.

Kalyoncu H. and Gülboy H., 2009b. Benthic Macroinvertebrates from Darıören and Isparta Streams (Isparta-Turkey), Biotic Indices and Multivariate Analysis, Journal of Applied Biological Sciences, 3(1), 100-107.

Kalyoncu, H and Zeybek, M., 2011. An application of different biotic and diversity indices for assessing water quality: A case study in the Rivers Çukurca and Isparta (Turkey). African Journal of Agricultural Research 6,1: 19-27.

Kalyoncu, H., Yorulmaz, B., Barlas, M., Yıldırım, Z. M. ve Zeybek, M., 2008. Aksu Çayı’nın Su Kalitesi ve Fizikokimyasal Parametrelerinin Makroomurgasız Çeşitliliği Üzerine Etkisi, Fırat Üniv. Fen ve Müh. Bil. 20,1: 28-88.

Kalyoncu, H., Çiçek N. L., Akköz C., Yorulmaz B., 2009a. Comparative performance of diatom indices in aquatic pollution assessment, African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4 (10), 1032-1040.

Kazancı, N., 1993. Protection of Environment and Nature in Köyceğiz-Dalyan, Final Report of Hydrobiological Subproject (GTZ) GmbH. Darmstadt, Özel Çevre Koruma Kurumu yayını, 229.

Kazancı, N., 2008a. Contribution to the knowledge of Odonata Fauna of Turkey: Central Anatolia. Review of Hydrobiology 1,2: 119-12

Kazancı, N., 2008b. Plecoptera (Insecta) Fauna of Turkey. İmaj Press, Ankara, pp. 80.Kazancı, N., 2009a. Türkiye Plecoptera (Insecta) Faunası’na katkılar. Review of

Hydrobiology 2,1: 11-22.Kazancı, N., 2009b. Ephemeroptera (Insecta) Fauna of Turkey: Records from Eastern

Anatolia (Turkey). Review of Hydrobiology 2,2: 187-195.Kazancı, N., 2009c. Records of Plecoptera species and affects of episodic acidification

on physico-chemical properties of their habitats in the Eastern Black Sea Region and Yesilırmak River Basin. Review of Hydrobiology 2,2: 197-206.

Kazancı, N., 2010. Contribution to the knowledge of Odonata (Insecta) fauna of Turkey: Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia. Review of Hydrobiology 3,1: 1-11.

Kazancı, N., 2011a. Species records of order Odonata (Insecta) and their habitat quality from Turkey. Review of Hydrobiology 4,1: 47-58.

Kazancı, N., 2011b. Characteristics of Odonata (Insecta) fauna of Köyceğiz-Dalyan Special Environmental Protected Area (SEPA) and its conservation. Review of Hydrobiology 4,2: 87-97.


27

Kazancı, N. and Dügel, M., 2010. Determination of influence of heavy metals on structure of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in low order Mediterranean streams by using canonical correspondence analysis. Review of Hydrobiology 3,1: 13-26.

Kazancı, N. and Ertunç, Ö., 2008a.On the Simuliidae (Insecta, Diptera) Fauna of Turkey. Review of Hydrobiology 1,1: 27-36.

Kazancı, N. and Ertunç, Ö., 2008b.Checklist of the Simuliidae (Insecta, Diptera) of Turkey. Review of Hydrobiology 1,2: 129-144.

Kazancı, N. and Ertunç, Ö., 2010. Use of Simuliidae (Insecta, Diptera) species as indicators of aquatic habitat quality of Yeşilırmak River Basin (Turkey). Review of Hydrobiology 3,1: 27-36.

Kazancı, N. and Türkmen, G., 2008. Yedigöller Milli Parkı (Bolu, Türkiye) Ephemeroptera (Insecta) faunası üzerine bir araştırma: su kalitesi ve referans habitat indikatörleri. Review of Hydrobiology 1,1: 53-71.

Kazancı, N. and Girgin, S. 1998. Distribution of Oligochaeta Species as Bioindicators of organic pollution in Ankara Stream and their use in biomonitoring. Doğa, T. J. of Zoology 22:83-87.

Kazancı, N. and Girgin, S., 2001. Physico-chemical characteristics of thermal springs in Köyceğiz Dalaman basins in south-western Turkey and recommendations for their protection. Water Sci. Technol. 45 (5): 211-221.

Kazancı, N. and Girgin, S., 2008. Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Plecoptera (Insecta) Fauna of Ankara Stream (Turkey). Review of Hydrobiology 1,1: 37-44.

Kazancı, N., İzbırak, A., Çağlar, S. S. and Gökçe, D., 1992. Köyceğiz-Dalyan Özel Çevre Koruma Bölgesi sucul ekosisteminin hidrobiyolojik yönden incelenmesi, Özyurt Press, Ankara.

Kazancı, N., Girgin, S., Dügel, M. and Oğuzkurt, D., 1997. Türkiye iç Suları Araştırma Dizisi II (Ed. N. Kazancı):Akarsuların Çevre Kalitesi Yönünden Değerlendirilmesinde ve izlenmesinde Biyotik indeks Yöntemi, İmaj Press, Ankara.

Kazancı, N., Oğuzkurt, D. and Dügel, M., 2003. Türkiye İç suları Araştırma Dizisi VII: Beyşehir Gölü’nün Limnolojisi, Çevre Kalitesi, Biyolojik Çeşitliliği ve Korunması. (ed. Nilgün Kazancı). İmaj yayınevi 148 s. Ankara.

Kazancı, N., Dügel, M. and Girgin, S., 2008a. Determination of indicator genera of benthic mactoinvertebrate communities in running waters in western Turkey. Review of Hydrobiology 1,1: 1-16.

Kazancı, N., Türkmen, G., Ertunç, Ö., Gültutan, Y., Ekingen, P. and Öz, B., 2008b. Kelkit Çayı’nın su kalitesinin bentik makroomurgasızlar ve fizikokimyasal değişkenler kullanılarak değerlendirilmesi.Review of Hydrobiology 1,2: 145-160.


28

Kazancı, N., Ekingen, P. and Türkmen, G., 2009a. Türkiye Hirudinea Faunası ve türlerin habitat kaliteleri üzerine bir çalışma. Review of Hydrobiology, 2,1: 81-95.

Kazancı, N., Öz, B., Dügel, M., Ertunç, Ö. and Türkmen, G., 2009b. First faunistic survey and canonical correspondance analysis of interstitial aquatic insect assemblages of running waters in Turkey. Review of Hydrobiology, 2,1: 1-10.

Kazancı, N., Ekingen, P., Türkmen, G., Ertunç, Ö., Dügel, M. and Gültutan, Y., 2010a. Assessment of ecological quality of Aksu Stream (Giresun, Turkey) in Eastern Black Sea Region by using Water Framework Directive (WFD) methods based on benthic macroinvertebrates. Review of Hydrobiology3,2: 165-184.

Kazancı, N., Türkmen, G.,Ertunç, Ö., Ekingen, P., Öz, B. and Gültutan, Y., 2010b. Assessment of ecological quality Yeşilırmak River (Turkey) by using macroinvertebrate-based methods in content of Water Framework Directive. Review of Hydrobiology3,2: 89-110.

Kazancı, N., Öz, B., Türkmen, G. and Ertunç Başören, Ö., 2011. Contributions to aquatic fauna of a Biodiversity Hotspot in Eastern Blacksea Region of Turkey with records from runningwater interstitial fauna. Review of Hydrobiology 4,2: 131-138.

Mandaville, S. M., 2002. Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Freshwater-Taxa Tolerance Values, Metrics, and Protocols. Soil and Water Conservation Society of Metro Halifax, Halifax.

Metcalfe, J. L., 1989. Biological water quality assessment of running waters based on macroinvertebrate communities: history and present status in Europe. Environ. Pollut. 60: 101–139.

Mustow, S., 2002. Biological monitoring of rivers in Thailand: use and adaptation of the BMWP score. Hydrobiologia 479:191-229.Resh, V. H. and Johnson, R. K., 1993. Rapid Assessment Approaches to biomonitoring Using Benthic macroinvertebrates – In Rosenberg, D. M and Resh, V. H. (eds): Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Chapman & Hall, New York, pp.195-233.

Penczak, T., 2004. Impact of impoundment (1985–2000) on fish assemblages in large Lowland River – Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 4: 129–138.

Rosenberg, D. M. and Resh, V. H., 1993. Introduction to Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. – Pages 1-9 in Rosenberg, D. M and Resh, V. H. (eds): Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Chapman & Hall, New York.

Rosenberg, D. M. and Resh, V.H., 1993. Fresh Water Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman & Hall.

Smith, J. G., Beauchamp, J. J. and Stewart, A. J., 2005. Alternative approach for establishing acceptable thresholds on macroinvertebrate community metrics. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24,2: 428-440.


29

Solimini, A. G., Gulia, P., Monfrinotti, M. and Carchini, G., 2000. Performance of different biotic indices and sampling methods in assessing water quality in the lowland stretch of the Tiber River. Hydrobiologia 422/423:197-208.

Sukatar, A., Yorulmaz, B., Ayaz, D. ve Barlas, M., 2006. Emiralem Deresi’nin (İzmir-Menemen) Bazı Fiziko-Kimyasal ve Biyolojik (Bentik Makroomurgasızlar) Özelliklerinin İncelenmesi, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 10,3:328-333.

Şahin, S. K. and Yıldız, S., 2011. Species distribution of oligochaetes related to environmental parameters in Lake Sapanca (Marmara Region, Turkey). Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 11,3: 359-366.

Topkara, E., Özbek, M., Taşdemir, A., Yıldız, S., Balık, S., Ustaoğlu, M.R., 2011. Determination of Pollution Level of Yuvarlak Stream (Köyceğiz-Muğla) by Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 10, 9: 1194-1201.

Taylor, C. M., Winston, M. R. and Matthews, W. J., 1993. Fish species-environment and abundance relationships in a Great Plains river system – Ecography 16: 16–23.

Türkmen, G. and Kazancı, N., 2008. Bolu İli’ndeki bazı akarsuların referans istasyonlarının saprobik indeks kullanılarak su kalitelerinin değerlendirilmesi. Review of Hydrobiology 1,2: 93-118.

Türkmen, G. and Kazancı, N., 2010. Applications of Various Diversity Indices to Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages In Streams In A National Park In Turkey. Review of Hydrobiology 3,2: 111-125.

Türkmen, G. and Kazancı, N., 2011. Assessment of benthic macroinvertebrate communities of some sites at Kelkit Stream and its tributaries (Yeşilırmak River Basin) with the application of cluster analysis. Review of Hydrobiology 4,1: 29-45.

Türkmen, G. and Özcan, N., 2011. Larval Ephemeroptera records from Marmara Island and Kapıdağ Peninsula (North-Western Turkey) with new record of Baetis milani Godunko, Prokopov & Soldan 2004. Review of Hydrobiology 4,2: 99-113.

Yıldız, S., Özbek, M., Taşdemir, A. and Balık, S., 2010. Identification Of Predominant Environmental Factors Structuring Benthic Macro Invertebrate Communities: A Case Study In The Küçük Menderes Coastal Wetland (Turkey). Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 19,1: 30-36.

Yılmaz, V., 2005. Species Composition and Seasonal Variations of the Gastropoda in Upper Sakarya River System (Turkey) in Relation to Water Quality. Acta hydrochimica et hydrobiologica 32,6: 393–400.

Washington, H. G., 1984. Diversity, biotic and similarity indices. A review with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Water Res. 18: 653–694.

Preparation of a biotic index (Yeşilırmak-BMWP) for water quality monitoring of Yeşilırmak River...

Documents

Transcript of Preparation of a biotic index (Yeşilırmak-BMWP) for water quality monitoring of Yeşilırmak River...