Article

Estado actual y perspectivas en el empleo de la comunidad de macroinvertebrados bentónicos como indicadora del estado ecológico de los ecosistemas fluviales españoles

01/2005;
Source: OAI

ABSTRACT Desde siempre los ecosistemas fluviales se encuentran sometidos a numerosas perturbaciones causadas por las actividades humanas. La regulación y rectificación de cauces, la contaminación por materia orgánica, la eutrofización y las actividades mineras, entre otros, producen cambios en la estructura y funcionamiento de las comunidades biológicas que albergan los ríos. Una de las comunidades que responde a estas perturbaciones es la de macroinvertebrados bentónicos, es decir invertebrados que habitan en el lecho fluvial y que son visibles a simple vista. El estudio de esta comunidad permite evaluar el grado de alteración al que está sometido un ecosistema fluvial. En este artículo se hace una revisión de los atributos de esta comunidad que pueden ser utilizados como indicadores de calidad ambiental y mostraremos algunos casos en los que se ha aplicado a ecosistemas fluviales españoles. Además se discuten las necesidades futuras en la biovaloración fluvial utilizando dicha comunidad. Fluvial ecosystems are nowadays affected by several anthropogenic activities. Impounded and channalized rivers, organic matter pollution, eutrophication, and mining activities, among others, cause changes in the structure and function of biological communities inhabiting rivers and streams. Benthic macroinvertebrate communities are sensitive to those environmental impacts. These communities enclose invertebrates that dwell the bottom substrate and that can be detected with the naked eye. The study of those communities permits to assess the health of fluvial ecosystem. In this article we review the main traits of macroinvertebrate communities that are used as environmental indicators, and we show several cases of Spanish fluvial bioassessments. Besides the future necessities in fluvial macroinvertebrate bioassessment are discussed.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
100 Views
  • Source
    Boletín de Malariología y Salud Ambiental 12/2008; 48(2). · 0.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The increased pollution in ecosystems reinforces the importance of both chemical monitoring and biological monitoring of streams and rivers, as an effective water quality-based approach to assess aquatic ecosystem health. In this study, gudgeon (Gobio gobio) and mullet (Mugil cephalus) liver histopathology (biomarker) and some macroinvertebrate community indexes and metrics (bioindicator) were used to evaluate the effect of the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) of Febros (Avintes) in Febros River water quality and ecosystem health. Regarding macroinvertebrate communities, the Belgian Biotic Index (BBI) and Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party (IBMWP) indexes suggested that Febros water was slightly polluted, even though the worst situation was found downstream the WWTP discharge. Concerning community metrics, upstream percent of individuals in five numerically dominant taxa (80%) was slightly more superior than the downstream (78%). The presence of intolerant or sensible individuals, determined by percent of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera individuals and number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera families metrics, was higher upstream WWTP, reflecting a better water quality. The histopathology shows the presence of hepatic lesions in gudgeon and mullet. The statistical analysis of the lesion gradation showed that only necrosis was significantly higher in gudgeon captured downstream the WWTP, while differences were not observed for mullet. The multivariate analysis of data confirmed the existence of differences in hepatic lesions between gudgeon and mullet and between sampling sites. Regarding macroinvertebrate community, this analysis showed that the organic contamination reflected by the BBI and IBMWP indexes values was a determinant factor in the spatial distribution of macroinvertebrates. This work showed that the study of different biological organization levels can be used for a better assessment of ecosystem ecological integrity and can be used as a tool to reveal anthropogenic activity effects in macroinvertebrate diversity and in fish liver pathology from Febros River.
    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 10/2009; 169(1-4):569-85. · 1.68 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The main factors threatening Myotis capaccinii (Bonaparte, 1837) are considered to be foraging habitat degradation and roost loss. Conservation strategies that focus on the protection of roosts are feasible as long as direct threats by human activities are correctly identified. However, before protection of foraging habitat can be implemented more accurate information is required. We review the available information of relevance to foraging habitat management for the species. Three main topics are considered based on the results of a radiotelemetry study on 45 ind. in 3 seasons: habitat dependence, features of foraging habitat, and spatial range. M. capaccinii foraged almost completely over aquatic habitats as in other telemetry studies. We discuss the importance of terrestrial habitats and the dependence of the species on aquatic habitats. It has been proposed that several factors affect habitat selection in this species. The presence of smooth, clutter-free water surfaces seems to be the most important structural factor, but we found that prey richness also affected habitat selection. Effects of features related to riparian vegetation and water quality are thought to vary according to local conditions. Preference for wide water bodies is probably linked to preference for smooth surfaces, where detection and trawling of prey is favoured. As highlighted by recent telemetry studies, we observed M. capaccinii foraging at long distances from the roost. Therefore, the area of application for conservation measures should be large: we suggest a protection radius of 20 km around roosts.
    Endangered Species Research 07/2009; 8:69-78. · 2.26 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Download
5 Downloads
Available from
Oct 16, 2014