Content uploaded by Valentina Slavevska-Stamenković
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Valentina Slavevska-Stamenković on Jan 13, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=trbm20
International Journal of River Basin Management
ISSN: 1571-5124 (Print) 1814-2060 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trbm20
Applicability of the ‘Watershed Habitat Evaluation
and Stream Integrity Protocol’ (WHEBIP) in
assessment of the stream integrity in Bregalnica
River Basin
Daniela Jovanovska, Valentina Slavevska-Stamenković, Vasko Avukatov,
Slavcho Hristovski & Ljupcho Melovski
To cite this article: Daniela Jovanovska, Valentina Slavevska-Stamenković, Vasko Avukatov,
Slavcho Hristovski & Ljupcho Melovski (2018): Applicability of the ‘Watershed Habitat Evaluation
and Stream Integrity Protocol’ (WHEBIP) in assessment of the stream integrity in Bregalnica River
Basin, International Journal of River Basin Management, DOI: 10.1080/15715124.2018.1533558
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2018.1533558
View supplementary material
Accepted author version posted online: 10
Oct 2018.
Published online: 22 Oct 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 46
View Crossmark data
RESEARCH PAPER
Applicability of the ‘Watershed Habitat Evaluation and Stream Integrity Protocol’
(WHEBIP) in assessment of the stream integrity in Bregalnica River Basin
Daniela Jovanovska
a,b
, Valentina Slavevska-Stamenković
a,b
, Vasko Avukatov
b
, Slavcho Hristovski
a,b
and
Ljupcho Melovski
a,b
a
Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics –Institute of Biology, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia;
b
Macedonian Ecological Society, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
ABSTRACT
This paper reports the assessment of the ecological integrity of streams in Bregalnica River Basin with
emphasis on river Bregalnica as the biggest and most important watercourse in Eastern Macedonia.
The results have principally been derived from remote sensing data and set up in a model build up
on Watershed Habitat Evaluation and Stream Integrity Protocol (WHEBIP). WHEBIP effectiveness in
predicting ecological integrity of streams has been assessed by correlation analyses derived upon
data on macroinvertebrate biotic indices and physico-chemical parameters on 35 localities
throughout the basin. The statistical analyses confirmed the capacity of WHEBIP to predict stream
site-specific features with great accuracy in the case of Bregalnica.
The results obtained in this study contribute towards the improvement of the WHEBIP protocol and
in general, promotes applicability of stream integrity assessment tools in setting priorities for
integrated watershed management.
KEYWORDS
Landscape; riverine; GIS;
management
Introduction
Healthy riverine ecosystems are essential in supporting
human societal existence. The urge to mitigate the intensive
anthropogenic pressure that riverine ecosystems have faced
in the past decades has prompted worldwide initiatives and
actions for their preservation and management (Bernhardt
et al.2005, Palmer et al.2007, Bernhardt and Palmer 2011).
In response to the need of integral and hierarchical approach
in river conservation and management (Tockner et al.2010,
Törnblom et al.2011, Leal et al.2016), conservationists and
policymakers have broadened their scope from riverine eco-
system to a river basin-based management. Consequently,
assessment tools that allow practical approximation of the
ecological integrity of streams on a large scale have been con-
tinuously developed and reviewed (Resh et al.1995, Bain et al.
2000, Fernández et al.2011).
Freshwater ecologists have recognized that riverine ecosys-
tems are strongly influenced by the land use/cover properties
at both reach and catchment scale (Roth et al.1996, Riseng
et al.2011, Clapcott et al.2012, Valle Junior et al.2015).
Still, the conclusions on the relative importance of land use
in determining stream integrity vary depending on the spatial
scale, the interactive nature of the disturbances and the
responding indicators (Allan 2004, Bruno et al.2014, Tanaka
et al.2016, Segurado et al.2018). The results of these studies
are particularly applicable for defining the underlying mech-
anisms that regulate correlations between landscape indi-
cators and riverine ecosystems (Gergel et al.2002, Burcher
et al.2007). Growing interest in exploring the complex inter-
actions between riverine ecosystems and their basins contrib-
utes to the complementation and validation of the existing
and conceptual definition of new stream integrity assessment
methods. In this regard, Goforth and Bain (2010) have put
forward a stream integrity protocol –WHEBIP, that relies
on ‘interpretations of remotely sensed land-cover patterns
of riparian and sub-basin areas adjacent to and upstream
from reaches of interest’, primarily for the purpose of guiding
watershed restoration priorities.
Freshwater ecologists have given a prodigious consider-
ation to the causal effect of watershed properties and land-
scape indicators on stream integrity. Even so, regional
studies aimed at determining the ecological status of streams
are restricted on a specific stream lot and mainly based on
physico-chemical parameters and biotic indicators. In Mace-
donia, stream integrity assessment based on an interpretation
of remotely sensed land-cover patterns of riparian and sub-
basin areas with respect to the applicability of WHEBIP has
been considered by Jovanovska et al.(2013). Due to lack of
adequate comparative field data, Jovanovska et al.(2013)
give only general discussion of the relevance of the results
obtained by the stream integrity assessment, unable to con-
tribute towards validation of the effectiveness of the protocol.
Recent continuous interest of international donors and
agencies for Bregalnica River Basin (Basler and Partner
2016, NCP-SDC 2016) allowed freshwater ecologists to
carry out detailed research on the ecological status of rivers
in Bregalnica River Basin (Hristovski and Brajanoska 2015,
Krstićet al.2016). Thus, the existing data on the ecological
status of the carrying watercourse –Bregalnica derived
from biotic indices, i.e. macroinvertebrates (Slavevska-Sta-
menković2013), fish populations (Kostov et al.2010) and
cytological biomarkers in fish (Rebok et al.2010) were com-
plemented and revised. The availability of these field-specific
data gives a solid basis for constructing a comparative analysis
in order to review and determine the effectiveness of WHE-
BIP stream integrity assessment protocol.
© 2018 International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research
CONTACT Daniela Jovanovska danielajovanovska9@gmail.com
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2018.1533558.
INTL. J. RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2018.1533558
Even though the applicability of the abound of rapid
stream integrity protocols has been previously reviewed
(Resh et al.1995, Fernández et al.2011) and trialed by
many (Hawkins et al.2000, Barquín et al.2011, del Tánago
and de Jalón Lastra 2011, Feld et al.2016b), their success in
predicting the stream integrity still varies with the environ-
mental specifics and differs across ecoregions. Therefore,
the goal of this study is to assess the applicability of a multi-
meric assessment tool –Watershed Habitat Evaluation and
Stream Integrity Protocol (WHEBIP) (Goforth and Bain
2010) by using available field specific data on the ecological
status of streams derived from biotic indices and physico-
chemical parameters in Bregalnica River Basin.
Methodology
Study area
River Bregalnica is the largest river in Eastern Macedonia
with a length of 225 km and is also the longest tributary of
the river Vardar. Bregalnica River Basin covers an area of
∼4300 km
2
(Gaševski 1979, Hristovski and Brajanoska
2015). The mean longitudinal slope of the river Bregalnica’s
riverbed is 7‰, while its largest tributaries Kriva Lakavica
and Svetnikolska Reka have the lowest relative longitudinal
slope of 7.6‰and 11.6‰, respectively. In the headwater,
the bottom of the river Bregalnica is mainly composed by
boulders, cobbles and gravel, and the river has a river width
and depth of up to 5 and 0.5 m, respectively. In its middle
part, the riverbed is mainly represented by cobbles, gravel
and sand, and the river is up to 10 m wide and around 1 m
deep. In its lower end, the riverbed is mainly represented by
fine sand and silt, and the river is up to 20 m wide and its
depth reaches up to 1.5 m. The area drained by river Bregal-
nica and its tributaries is characterized by high geomorpholo-
gical diversity throughout broad altitudinal gradient (see
Figure S1 in the supplementary material). These attributes
of Bregalnica River Basin, complemented by the complexity
of several variances of climate types’, ultimately enabled a
great diversity of habitats of different distribution and distinc-
tive organization (Lazarevski 1993, Zikov 1995, Filipovski
et al.1996).
In its largest, Bregalnica River Basin is covered by decid-
uous forests (45%) ranging zonally from oak to beech and
even mixed (3%) and coniferous forests (2%) at a higher alti-
tude (Filipovski et al.1996, Hristovski and Brajanoska 2015).
A significant part of the forested area up to ∼1000 m a.s.l. in
Bregalnica basin is represented by secondary vegetation –
hilly dry grasslands (9%) or secondary mountain grasslands
at the high altitudes (1%), and where abandoned, successional
vegetation of scrubland or heathlands (4%) prevail.
The riparian vegetation in river Bregalnica basin is rep-
resented by riverine willow scrub and willow and poplar gal-
leries (Hristovski and Brajanoska 2015). In the upper parts of
the river flows, the willow and poplar galleries are often mixed
with alder and fuse with the surrounding forests. In the upper
part of river Bregalnica, riparian forests dominate over ripar-
ian scrub and usually do not exceed 30 m in width. The ripar-
ian vegetation along the middle part of river Bregalnica is
dominated by riverine willow scrub and willow and poplar
belts, while a large part of the riparian belt is significantly
altered (habitat conversion, hydromorphological alterations).
Riparian forests in the lower part of river Bregalnica have no
significant breaks in canopy continuity, while the width of
riparian forests in most part exceed 50 m in width and in
some parts extend 150 m in width.
About one-third of the land in river Bregalnica basin
(33%) is used as agricultural land. Most of the wetland
areas in Bregalnica River Basin have been drained for the pur-
pose of irrigation as many streams including river Bregalnica
have been hydromorphologicaly altered (irrigation channels
and hydro-accumulations) (Gaševski 1979, Filipovski et al.
1985, Zikov 1988).
According to the State Statistical Office (2012a), Bregalnica
River Basin administratively encompasses 19 municipalities
and sustains a population of about 180.000 (State statistical
office 2002). The region is characterized by poor economic
growth, considerable rural-urban migration and high rate of
emigration (State statistical office 2012a,2012b). Human
presence is most prominent along the rivers as about 40%
of the settlements and villages situated in the area are adjacent
to rivers and streams. The main economic activity, especially
in the lowland areas is agriculture (State statistical office
2012a).
Materials and methods
Stream integrity was interpreted from available remotely
sensed data sources (land cover/use maps (CLC 2012), Goo-
gle Earth satellite imagery and ASTER GDEM) and digitized
vector data coupled by topography maps, scale 1:25,000
(Agency for Real Estate Cadastre of the Republic of Macedo-
nia). Computer processing has been performed with the Arc-
GIS 10.2.2 software.
For calculation of the stream integrity, we followed the
concept presented in Jovanovska et al.(2013) based on the
multimetric assessment tool –the Watershed Habitat Evalu-
ation and Biotic Integrity Protocol (WHEBIP), first elabo-
rated in detail by Goforth and Bain (2010).
All streams were categorized by order of stream (following
the Strahler (1952) hierarchy of streams) and consistency of
flow (continuous or intermittent). Following Goforth and
Bain (2010), a stream segment is considered to be a length
of stream bounded by an upstream source or confluence
and a downstream confluence or terminal water body (lake,
water reservoir). A sub-basin is the land area drained by a
stream segment as separated topographically from adjacent
basins by a drainage divide. Finally, upstream stream seg-
ments are those that converge to form the stream segment
that is being evaluated.
The following streams have been taken into consideration
as relevant for the analysis: streams with continuous flow,
intermittent streams with noticeable basins and intermittent
streams that delineate considerable change in land use
along the mainstream basin. Segmentation has been avoided
on minor streams or those streams that delineate basins
characterized by consistent land use. Each segment’s integrity
has been calculated separately. All stream segments and
basins have been marked with a unique code containing the
information about its hierarchical link to the main recipient.
The model includes 12 category metrics (Figure 1, also
Table S2 in supplementary material), comprising four groups
of riparian and sub-basin properties, which, according to
Goforth and Bain (2010), significantly influence stream eco-
logical processes and functions: riparian structure, sub-
basin land-use composition, watershed slope gradient,
2D. JOVANOVSKA ET AL.
populated places and conservation enhancements. In order to
improve the accuracy of WHEBIP, we made few alterations to
the approach applied in Jovanovska et al.(2013) in regard of
WHEBIP categories 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11. The width of the
buffer that is created for calculating WHEBIP scores of cat-
egories 1, 3, 4, 7, 10 and 11 can be adapted and should be
determined on the basis of the expert assessment. The
width of the buffer depends on the character of the features
subjected to the analysis, the accuracy of the available vector
files and the specifics of the area of interest.
Specifically, for calculating the WHEBIP scores of cat-
egories 1, 4 and 7 (Figure 1 upper left for categories 1 & 7;
middle right for category 4), the buffer width ranged from
30, 50 and 100 m depending on whether the analysed stream
segment is a portion of the upper, middle or the lower reaches
of the watercourse. For calculating the score of WHEBIP cat-
egory 3 (Figure 1 middle right) the buffer of the riparian land
cover has been increased from 5 m in Jovanovska et al.(2013)
up to 15 m in the case of Bregalnica in order to enable inter-
section with the line vector of the stream segment.
WHEBIP category 10 metric (Figure 1 lower left) has been
calculated as the presence or absence of intersection between
the union of populated places/settlements vector and point
sources pollution vector (digitized polygon-vectors) with (a)
stream segments (for differentiation between the low and
middle score) and (b) stream segments’sub-basin (for differ-
entiation between middle and high score). The buffer width
on populated places/settlements varied from 30, 50 to
100 m depending on the settlement type and impact. The
buffer width of other single identifiable sources of pollution
ranged from 250 m for industrial centres, factories, disposal
sites and dumps going up to 500 m for mines depending on
the character and the degree of impact of the pollution source.
In order to improve the accuracy of WHEBIP for calculat-
ing stream integrity, we added another sub-category that
complements the basic 12 WHEBIP categories originally
given in Goforth and Bain (2010) and is closely related to
WHEBIP category 10. WHEBIP sub-category 10a assesses
(Figure 1 lower left) the impact of point source pollution
upstream of the analysed stream segment, including tribu-
taries. If there is a presence of a point source pollution adja-
cent to the stream segment upstream of the analysed stream
segment (including point source pollution presence adjacent
to its tributaries) 20 points are deducted from the overall
WHEBIP score (−20); presence of a point source pollution
within the drainage area of the stream segment upstream of
the analysed stream segment (including point source pol-
lution presence within the drainage area of its tributaries)
(−10); no presence of point source pollution upstream (0).
The valuation principles follow-up on those applied in WHE-
BIP category 10.
The score for WHEBIP category 11 (Figure 1 middle left)
has been calculated as the presence or absence of intersection
between (a) the stream and the buffer of a vector comprising
hydromorphological disturbances and alterations (determin-
ing the lowest score) and (b) intersection between 30 m buffer
of the stream segment and the vector comprising hydromor-
phological disturbances and alterations (for differentiation
between the middle and high score). The width of the
buffer for the vector comprising hydromorphological
Figure 1. Graphical presentation of the methodological approach used in stream integrity assessment in Bregalnica River Basin following Watershed Habitat Evalu-
ation and Biotic Integrity Protocol (WHEBIP) first elaborated in detail by Goforth and Bain (2010).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 3
disturbances and alterations (5, 10 and 50 m) depends of the
character and the degree of impact of the hydromorphologi-
cal disturbance. Roads, bridges, sand quarries, canals, river
barrages, reservoirs and accumulations have been taken as
relevant input data on hydromorphological disturbances.
Additionally, if the upstream stream segment riverbed has
been hydromorphologicaly altered by dam construction or
an accumulation reservoir then WHEBIP categories 7 and 8
are assigned with the lowest score (1). Standing waters such
as accumulations, reservoirs and lakes have not been assessed.
A detailed overview of the applied alterations to the orig-
inal WHEBIP protocol first elaborated by Goforth and Bain
(2010) are presented in Table S2 (supplementary material).
The table also provides a comparative overview of all WHE-
BIP category metrics, their descriptive characteristics and cal-
culation specifics applied in the case of Bregalnica River Basin
with reference to supporting literature.
In order to assess the effectiveness of WHEBIP in predict-
ing stream integrity, WHEBIP stream integrity scores and
associated integrity ratings were compared with biotic and
saprobic indices and associated integrity ratings derived
from site-specific survey data. The biotic indices used to
determine stream ecological status are macroinvertebrate-
based indices and include: BMWP (Biological Monitoring
Working Party), ASPT (Average Score per Taxon) in sense
of (Armitage et al.1983) and EPT richness (number of taxa
in Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera taxon) in
sense of (Bode et al.1997). In addition, the study includes
correlation analysis between WHEBIP scores and associated
integrity ratings with saprobic index in sense of Zelinka and
Marvan (1961) indicating the ecological status of the stream
in terms of organic pollution. Macroinvertebrate-based indi-
ces (BMWP, ASPT, EPT) and saprobic index final score
ranges and associated ratings were adapted in order to
respond to ecoregion specifics (Table 1). Sampling of macro-
invertebrates was carried out in accordance with international
standard specified criteria (ISO 10870: 2012). ASTERICS
software, version 3.0 (www.aqem.de) was used to calculate
above-mentioned indices.
Site survey data was obtained from 35 localities through-
out Bregalnica River Basin, with 16 localities positioned
along river Bregalnica (from the source to its inflow in river
Vardar) and 19 localities along the larger tributaries of the
river Bregalnica (Figure 2). Survey scores for both biotic
and saprobic indices were compared for associations with
WHEBIP scores using Statgraph Centurion XVI by applying
simple regression analyses. The relations between the associ-
ated integrity ratings were determined using Spearman rank
correlation coefficient.
Results
A total of 1421 stream segments of more than 250 rivers and
streams have been identified and assessed in Bregalnica River
Basin. All analysed stream segments are encompassed in 84
basins covering a total area of 3513 km
2
that combined
with the immediate drainage area of river Bregalnica
(790 km
2
) form river Bregalnica River Basin with a total
area of 4303 km
2
. The integrity of near 12% of analysed
stream segments has been rated as excellent, 23% have been
rated as streams segments with very good integrity, 35% as
good, 22% as fair and the integrity of 8% of analysed stream
segments has been rated as poor. River Bregalnica has been
divided into 73 stream segments out of which the integrity
of 5 has been rated as excellent, 10 as very good, 28 as good
and 22 as fair, whilst 8 of Bregalnica stream segments have
been rated as poor. The stream segments of 37 out of 75 ana-
lysed tributaries of river Bregalnica, immediately prior their
confluence with Bregalnica are rated as streams with fair or
poor integrity. The methodology turned to be inapplicable
when determining the integrity of mountain streams (26
stream segments out of 1421). Assessed stream segments
and their associated integrity ratings are presented on Figure
2. Detailed overview of stream integrity scores and associated
integrity ratings category metrics on the 35 stream segments
along Bregalnica used in comparison with the site-specific
sites are presented in Table S3 (supplementary material).
The comparison of WHEBIP stream integrity ratings with
macroinvertebrate-based stream site scores showed that
WHEBIP integrity ratings were equal to or within ± 1 rating
class in: 33 cases for BMWP; 23 cases for ASPT and in all
35 cases for EPT. For the saprobic index WHEBIP integrity
ratings were equal to or within ± 1 rating class in 22 cases
(Table 1). Spearman Rank correlation coefficients (r) for
associations between WHEBIP ratings and site-based integ-
rity ratings varied from 0.63 for the saprobic index, 0.74 for
BMWP, 0.64 for ASPT to 0.76 for EPT (p< .05 in all cases).
The correlation coefficients (r) for WHEBIP scores and
site survey scores for both biotic and saprobic indices varied
from 0.62 to 0.81 with p< .05 in all cases (Figure 3). All
models describing the relationship between WHEBIP scores
and site survey indices scores are linear.
Discussion
Results indicate that Watershed Habitat Evaluation and Bio-
tic Integrity Protocol (WHEBIP) provides a sufficient insight
into Bregalnica River Basin streams integrity. In general, as
assessed with WHEBIP category metrics, the integrity of
streams in Bregalnica River Basin gradually declines as the
anthropogenic impact increases. This pattern is principally
notable along middle and lower part of river Bregalnica and
its major tributaries along which the anthropogenic pressure
is most evident (Figure 2). The pattern of a general decline in
community richness and ecological conditions as a response
to the increasing intensity of human pressures, from head-
waters to lowlands, was also observed by Bruno et al.
(2014). Most often referred anthropogenic pressures are
changes in natural cover (Valle Junior et al.2015), increase
of land use intensity and impervious surfaces (Miserendino
et al.2011, dos Santos and Esteves 2015, Leal et al.2016,
Segurado et al.2018) and hydromorphological disturbances
(Belmar et al.2013, Aguiar et al.2016). The increase of
human pressures impairs water quality and physical habitat
quality and ultimately leads to change in stream communities
(Burcher et al.2007, Riseng et al.2011). In the case of Bregal-
nica River Basin, the changes in stream integrity are reflected
by the changes in the applied macroinvertebrate indices and
follow on the WHEBIP results (Table 1,Figure 3, also Figure
S1 in the supplementary material).
Statistically, EPT and BMWP biotic indices were found to
be most closely related to WHEBIP. Namely, WHEBIP
stream integrity increases with the naturalness of the land
cover and with the decrease in disturbances. Its final score
is strongly influenced by the properties of the riparian (WHE-
BIP 1, 2, 3 and 7) and basin (WHEBIP 5; 6 and 8) land use.
4D. JOVANOVSKA ET AL.
The macroinvertebrate biotic indices are generally found to
be strong respondents to the increase in land use intensity.
The changes in the macroinvertebrate community are par-
ticularly evident with an increase of agricultural land use
(Doll et al.2016, Segurado et al.2018) and percent of imper-
vious surfaces (Wang and Kanehl 2003, Wilkins et al.2015).
This is also because intense agricultural activities are often
related to hydromorphological alterations, fragmentation of
riparian zones and high nutrient loading (Riseng et al.
2011). The effects of these disturbances on the stream integ-
rity are better reflected by the EPT communities. The Ephe-
meroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera orders have high
habitat requirements and the EPT biotic index tends to
decline with the decline of natural cover (Miserendino et al.
2011, Valle Junior et al.2015).
BMWP index reflects the differential tolerance of aquatic
macroinvertebrate families to organic pollution (Blanco
et al.2007). Though WHEBIP does not directly address the
organic pollution, its final score is strongly influenced by
the properties of the riparian (WHEBIP 1, 2, 3 and 7) veg-
etation, thus its resulting correlation with BMWP. In the
case of BMWP, higher values related to macroinvertebrates
communities are determined by the riparian width and
canopy structure of the riparian vegetation even in water-
sheds dominated by intense agriculture (Tanaka et al.
2016). The buffering effect of riparian areas and its mitigation
effect of human pressures (agricultural land-use in the basin)
were also observed by Riseng et al.(2011) and Bruno et al.
(2014). Miserendino et al.(2011) found that even areas
dominated by pastures can still support rich communities
of invertebrates if the functions of the riparian belt are pre-
served. The importance of riparian vegetation for the EPT
community structure mostly lies in its role as a trophic
resource and source of shading (Vimos-Lojano et al.2017)
whilst for BMWP riparian vegetation acts as a buffer for dis-
turbances (Riseng et al.2011).
When analysed closely, both EPT and BMWP tend to
differ in their response (Table 1, also Figure S1 in supplemen-
tary material). Generally, WHEBIP integrity ratings tend to
overestimate stream integrity when compared to EPT and
underestimate stream integrity in case of BMWP (1 rating
class deviations).
In the case of EPT, deviations are mostly observed in the
middle and lower parts of the river courses. This trend may
be associated with the longitudinal change of microhabitat
properties (river substrate, temperature and trophic
resources) that are not assessed with WHEBIP. According
to Slavevska-Stamenkovićet al.(2011)theeffectiveness of
the EPT index decreases along the river continuum and in
the case of typical lowland rivers, the metric is not a good
indicator of environmental stress. This is because the EPT
taxa within lowland river habitats naturally occur with a
lower number of species and lower population densities. Fur-
thermore, Vimos-Lojano et al.(2017) found that taxonomic
changes of EPT are closely associated with the change in
microhabitat factors. In their case, EPT specific taxa exhibited
a decrease in density with raising water temperature, decrease
in cobble substrate and an increase of velocity (with the
Table 1. Detailed overview of BMWP, ASPT, EPT richness, Zelinka and Marvan saprobic index and WHEBIP scores and integrity ratings.
Site survey locality
code
SI Z&M
score
SI Z&M
rating
BMWP
score
BMWP
rating
ASPT
score
ASPT
rating
EPT
score
EPT
rating
WHEBIP
score
WHEBIP
rating
1 1.7 1.5 81 2 6.3 1 8 3 189 3
2 3 3 35 4 3.9 4 7 3 174 3
3 2.6 2.5 52 3 5.3 2 5 4 222 3
4 2.5 2.5 37 4 5.3 2 2 5 130 4
5 2.6 2.5 27 4 3.9 4 2 5 120 4
6 3 3 38 4 4.8 3 3 4 97 4
7 2.5 2.5 40 4 5.7 2 6 4 30 5
8 3.4 4 50 3 5 3 5 4 77 5
9 3.3 4 31 4 3.9 4 5 4 169 3
10 3.2 4 56 3 4.25 3 6 4 218 3
11 1.2 1 52 3 6.5 1 4 4 103 4
12 1.9 2 48 4 5.3 2 5 4 106 4
13 2.5 2.5 30 4 6 2 4 4 87 4
14 2.7 3 32 4 4 4 4 4 30 5
15 3.1 3 31 4 4.2 3 5 4 190 3
16 1.3 1 139 1 7.3 1 8 3 160 3
17 2.4 2.5 41 4 5.9 2 5 4 25 5
18 3.6 5 3 5 1.5 5 0 5 15 5
19 2.7 3 40 4 4.4 3 2 5 93 4
20 3.6 5 5 5 2.5 5 0 5 91 4
21 4 5 2 5 2 5 0 5 101 4
22 3.6 5 3 5 1.5 5 0 5 69 5
23 1.3 1 112 1 7.2 1 13 2 297 2
24 1.5 1.5 105 1 6.9 1 11 2 291 2
25 1.2 1 56 3 7.3 1 7 3 307 2
26 1.2 1 133 1 7 1 14 2 331 1
27 1.6 1.5 128 1 6.9 1 13 2 331 1
28 2.5 2.5 47 4 5.2 2 5 4 149 4
29 1.4 1 111 1 6.9 1 12 2 321 1
30 1.4 1 105 1 7 1 13 2 272 2
31 1.34 1 136.4 1 6.96 1 19.25 1 331 1
32 2.71 3 35.2 4 3.98 4 4.00 4 119 4
33 2.20 2 55.3 3 5.10 2 6.67 3 92 4
34 2.17 2 55.4 3 5.47 2 6.67 3 165 3
35 2.54 2.5 60.4 3 5.66 2 6.25 3 87 4
Notes: Indices ratings in the table are encoded as: excellent (1); very good (2); good (3);fair (4); poor (5). The scores ranges and associated ratings for used indices are:
BMWP: >100 (1); 80–100 (2); 50–79 (3); 25–49 (4); <25 (5); for ASPT: ≥6.01 (1); 5.01–6.0 (2); 4.01–5.0 (3); 3.01–4.0 (4); <3 (5); for EPT: >15 (1); 10–14 (2); 6–9 (3); 2-5
(4); <2 (5) and for Zelinka and Marvan saprobic index: <1.5 (1); 1.5 ≤SI < 1.8 (1.5); 1.8 ≤SI < 2.3 (2); 2.3 ≤SI < 2.7 (2.5); 2.7 ≤SI < 3.2 (3); 3.2 ≤SI < 3.5 (3.5 i.e. 4)
and 3.5 ≤SI 4 (4 i.e 5).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 5
Figure 2. Overview of stream integrity in river Bregalnica watershed including sampling sites layout.
Figure 3. Overview of the correlation results (simple linear regression) between WHEBIP stream integrity scores and macroinvertebrate-based indices: BMWP (Bio-
logical Monitoring Working Party), ASPT (Average Score per Taxon) and EPT richness (number of taxa in Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera taxon) as with
Zelinka and Marvan saprobic index scores derived from site-specific survey data.
6D. JOVANOVSKA ET AL.
exemption of Plecoptera). As expected under the river conti-
nuum concept (Vannote et al.1980), another significant
determinant of the EPT (that also strongly affects microhabi-
tat factors) is the size of the river (Vimos-Lojano et al.2017).
Due to its remote assessment character, WHEBIP does not
directly reflect the changes in river substrate (that in the
case of Bregalnica gradate from stony with gravel (in the
headwaters) to sandy with a slit (downstream)). Still, when
considering the findings of Barquín et al.(2011), WHEBIP
scores for categories that reflect the riparian properties
(WHEBIP 1, 2 and 3) could be seen as indicative to river habi-
tat heterogeneity.
In the case of BMWP, the underestimating trend (mainly
observable in the lower parts of river course) may be a result
of the buffering properties of the riparian vegetation in predo-
minantly agricultural basins. Again, considering the remote
character of WHEBIP, it cannot assess the full range of ripar-
ian natural characteristics (del Tánago and de Jalón Lastra
2011). WHEBIP capacity to assess riparian properties
(given its linear character) depends on the scale of input
layer and using a small scale datasets (like CORINE land
cover) reduces its precision.
Most significant deviations are noticeable when WHEBIP
integrity ratings are compared with those derived by calcu-
lation of ASPT index. When compared to ASPT index WHE-
BIP underestimates stream integrity and deviates of more
than 2 ratings in even 12 cases. The higher discrepancies
between ASPT and WHEBIP scores may be the result of
the index specifics, as ASPT represents the average tolerance
score of all taxa within the community. Generally, ASPT is
not frequently used as an indicator of streams biotic integrity
(Resh et al.1995). Roche et al.(2010) found that ASPT is less
indicative than BMWP of the decreases in environmental
quality in the wet season, though ASPT could be advan-
tageous when comparing environmental quality between sea-
sons (Álvarez-Cabria et al.2010).
An additional factor that could contribute to the deviations
in ratings among WHEBIP and biotic indices is ‘coarse’seg-
mentation. Namely, ‘coarse’segmentation and large sub-
basin areas relativize the scores of category WHEBIP 5, 6
and 8 metrics which have a significant share in the stream
integrity final score. In this regard, in some cases, there is an
abrupt transition of stream integrity rating between two bor-
dering stream segments. In this case, biotic indices and sapro-
bic index results should be interpreted while considering the
actual stream integrity scores and also while considering the
stream integrity scores and ratings upstream (including tribu-
taries) and downstream. After all, rivers are continuous by
their nature and lines and boundaries are set only to enable
us humans to rationalize and calculate.
There are also observable deviations amongst the macroin-
vertebrate indices. This suggest that when assessing the
stream integrity in a vast watershed, as in the case of Bregal-
nica, shifts in abiotic and biotic patterns and processes occur-
ring naturally along the river continuum (Vannote et al.1980,
Ward 1998)and the dynamics of the river floodplain (Ward
and Stanford 1995) are not evenly recognized even by applied
macroinvertebrate indices. The Multiple Variable analysis
(correlations) coefficient between the macroinvertebrate-
based indices varies from 0.76 to 0.91 for BMWP, ASPT
and EPT as the biotic indices ratings deviate amongst by ±
1 rank (Table 1, also Figure S1 in supplementary material).
Such deviations may also result in the fact that the ASTERICS
software is originally developed for calculation of biotic indi-
ces in Eastern European countries and lacks data for 50.88%
of the total abundance of macroinvertebrate fauna from river
Bregalnica (Slavevska-Stamenković2013). This has resulted
with a slight shift in the integrity ratings of the biotic indices,
especially with relevance to the upper sections of the river
flows and with reference to categories 1 and 2 (Excellent
and Very Good). Aptly, used biotic indices were adapted in
accordance with the general natural features of macroinverte-
brate fauna present in Bregalnica River Basin. The scores and
the integrity ratings of the biotic indices were modified to
respond to the Bregalnica River Basin specifics. Still, there
is a possibility that the lack of software performance, with
regards to Bregalnica River Basin, may have reflected on
the final results of the comparative correlation analysis.
Thus, future trials of integrity assessment should consider
modifying indicator lists for the saprobic system and
BMWP/ASPT for the wider area, as for example for Western
Balkan area. In this regard, freshwater ecologists in the region
should follow with further calibration for EPT, BMWP and
ASPT biotic indices integrity ratings considering the ecore-
gion specifics and the specifics of the macroinvertebrate
fauna of upper, middle and lower section of the river flows.
Regarding the saprobic index, WHEBIP integrity ratings
were equal to or within ± 1 rating class in 22 cases (where
needed ratings are subtracted to whole numbers). Its corre-
lation coefficient (−0.64) with WHEBIP scores is weaker
than in the case of biotic indices (−0.76 to −0.91). This var-
iance is due to the complex ecosystem interactions that pre-
conditions the characteristics of the substrate and organic
matter intake in the immediate drainage area and on a catch-
ment scale (Allan et al.1997, Riseng et al.2011, Clapcott et al.
2012, Segurado et al.2018). According to many researchers
(Allan 2004, Miserendino et al.2011, Riseng et al.2011,
Nõges et al.2016) the naturalness of the riparian and basin
land use is very closely related to the organic matter content
and its deposition as with the ecosystem processes in the riv-
erine ecosystems. In this regard, the observed correspondence
between WHEBIP and the saprobic index could result from
WHEBIP metrics tendency to assess the naturalness of the
riparian and basin land use.
What further contributes to this correlating trend is the
modification made on original WHEBIP metrics by comple-
menting the point source pollution metric by including settle-
ments, industrial centres, factories, disposal sites and dumps.
Various studies have confirmed that settlements (Paul and
Meyer 2001, Wang and Kanehl 2003, Miltner et al.2004),
mines (Alderton et al.2005, Ramani et al.2014) and indus-
trial centres (Imoobe and Koye 2011, Walakira and Okot-
Okumu 2011) impact the stream biotic integrity. The negative
impact of the urban settlements on biotic integrity of rivers is
noticeable when only 7% of urban cover is in the immediate
drainage basin (Snyder et al.2003). In that context, WHEBIP
metric 10 –point source pollution has been complemented by
sub-category 10a-point source pollution upstream (including
tributaries) that allows consideration of the impact that point
source pollution along and in the basin of upstream segment
and its tributaries has on the downstream stream segment.
The amendment of WHEBIP metric 10 in the case of Bregal-
nica River Basin is further imposed by the characteristics of
the area and it follows on the indications of several authors
including: Stavreva-Veselinovska and Živanović(2006,
2011), Stafilov et al.(2014), Ramani et al.(2014).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 7
Even if WHEBIP provides an insight into the saprobity of
the riverine system, the indicative results should be inter-
preted with caution. Being assessed remotely, WHEBIP
does not allow full consideration of the effects of potential
non-point sources of nutrients or contaminants that are not
necessarily related or can be derived from land cover types.
Also, WHEBIP does not provide adequate insight of the pol-
lution effect to which the river as a continuum is exposed
more than one stream segment upstream. Even if the river
ability for auto-purification is taken into account, if the
river is under a significant impact of a pollution sources inter-
acting upstream the effects linger in the lower sections of flow.
More important, the type of pollution is not assessed in this
way. Pollution of toxic chemicals may have a greater impact
than pollution by an equal number of point pollution sources
of a different type, e.g. heavy metals from mines. The protocol
limitations in this regard potentially distorts the final result of
the stream integrity score and thus strongly reflects on the
WHEBIP correlation with the saprobic index and might
potentially affect its correlation with the macroinvertebrate
indices too. For this reason, and following the prospective
technological advance in pollution monitoring and control,
future applications of the WHEBIP protocol should trial to
consider and integrate the effect of the integrative non-
point pollution on stream integrity.
In the case of Bregalnica River Basin, WHEBIP fails to
provide adequate insight of the stream integrity of mountain
brooks flowing throughout mountain pastures (mountain
grasslands). As a result, 26 stream segments out of total
1241 were excluded from the overall results. This is mainly
due to the fact that 2 out of 12 WHEBIP category metrics
(WHEBIP 6 and 8) assess the forest cover along the stream
segment and in its sub-basin, five WHEBIP metrics (WHE-
BIP 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7) rate riparian cover properties or pres-
ence/absence of wetlands. Also, originally WHEBIP
category metric 5 estimates percentage of land cover beyond
riparian zone as cropland or pasture treats the two land cover
categories as equal (Goforth and Bain 2010), while pastures
(grasslands) in the mountainous region are natural vegetation
and has more or less equal significance for the stream integ-
rity as forests in the lower altitudinal belts. Thus, an adap-
tation of WHEBIP protocol should be considered when
assessing streams and brooks that flow throughout mountain
grasslands or extensively managed mountain pastures.
This is specifically relevant for the territory of Macedonia
as in the countries of South-East Europe where even though
mountain pastures have a secondary origin, these are charac-
terized by high degree of naturalness, as are the brooks that
‘feed’them. Namely, mountain pastures in this region
would have been potentially distributed over 2200 m a.s.l.
but the millennia-long-lasting tradition of extensive grazing
(herds of sheep and cattle during summer period) has artifi-
cially lowered the forest line by about 300–500 m (Melovski
et al.2015). Considering this, when assessing WHEBIP
metrics 6 and 8 the vegetation cover that is considered to
be climax or typical for the vegetation zone in question
should be granted with the highest score for each metric
accordingly. Also, assessing the properties of riparian habitats
and peat bogs (WHEBIP metrics 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7) would
inquire additional data processing and/or combined appli-
cation of high-resolution raster imagery. Today, there is a
wide array of available free source raster datasets to use e.g.
see datasets available from European Space Agency (ESA)
and USGS Global Visualization Viewer (GloVis) (see also
overview of remote sensing instruments provided by (Mertes
2002)). Still, considering the significant share that these
WHEBIP category metrics have in the final WHEBIP score,
the WHEBIP protocol could still face limitations when deter-
mining the riparian properties of high-mountain streams.
This suggestion should be supported by additional research.
Overall, WHEBIP protocol allows adjustment and if ecor-
egion specifics are considered, WHEBIP protocol provides a
sufficient insight into stream integrity. The confirmed paral-
lels between the WHEBIP stream integrity ratings and those
obtained from calculation of macroinvertebrate-based indices
in Bregalnica River Basin case is confronting Goforth and
Bain (2010) indications that WHEBIP is ‘not as successful
in predicting specific measures of stream integrity at local
sites (i.e. benthic invertebrate community measures)’which
again may be ecoregion-specific. Still, this study does not pro-
vide comparative results on correlations of WHEBIP stream
integrity ratings and scores with fish index of biotic integrity.
Fish biotic index for Bregalnica River Basin, though calcu-
lated as part of ‘Bregalnica River Watershed Management
Plan’project, was not included in this study. The results
were considered as inadequate since EFI biotic index used
is specified to be inappropriate for Mediterranean rivers
and South-East Europe (Fame Consortium 2005, Krstić
et al.2016). Nonetheless, it is noteworthy to add that the
results provided by application of WHEBIP protocol are gen-
erally in accordance with changes registered in qualitative and
quantitative characteristics of fish community along Bregal-
nica presented in Kostov et al.(2010).
When assessing stream integrity in all manner, one must
consider a number of indicative site-specific features in
relation with landscape indicators in order to respond to
the complex interactions in riverine ecosystems (Burcher
et al.2007, Tockner et al.2010, Feld et al.2016a, Segurado
et al.2018). The correlations in responses also vary in depen-
dence of the scale against which all these features are inter-
preted (Roth et al.1996, Allan et al.1997, Allan 2004,
Gieswein et al.2017) and are species-specific (Cheimonopou-
lou et al.2011,Miserendino et al.2011, Clapcott et al.2012,
Tanaka et al.2016). Thus, the applicability of stream integrity
assessment methods as their relevance in setting priorities for
conservation and management is still being reviewed across
regions. Given that this ‘reviews’rely on comparisons with
biotic indices derived for ‘few’localities as calculation of bio-
tic indices is time consuming and site-specific, affirmative
studies of stream integrity assessment methods across water-
sheds are still scarce.
In this regard, results presented in this study can be inter-
preted as an assertive reference of Watershed Habitat Evalu-
ation and Biotic Integrity Protocol (WHEBIP). Furthermore,
the possibility of a separate evaluation and interpretation of
the landscape indicators allows distinction of those environ-
mental features that have greatest impact on stream integrity.
Moreover, the results obtained by using WHEBIP stream
integrity assessment in Bregalnica River Basin can also
guide the selection of areas for conservation and management
in the watershed or be used as a reference to guide site-
specific research.
However, there is an imminent need for profound and
more constructive studies that will determine the particulari-
ties in the underlying mechanisms that regulate correlations
between landscape indicators and riverine ecosystems on
8D. JOVANOVSKA ET AL.
different scales. Even today, we still have a lot to learn about
the pathways of stressors interaction and floodplain ecology
(Gergel et al.2002, Tockner et al.2010, Segurado et al.
2018). But, as freshwater ecologists continuously contribute
towards better understanding of the patterns of dynamic eco-
logical processes, it is expected that new insights in the appli-
cability of stream integrity assessments are yet to be provided.
In that regard, the results of this study are an important con-
tribution towards the confirmation of the applicability of
stream integrity assessment methods that according to Swee-
ney et al.(2013) in the near future will have a significant con-
tribution in setting priorities for river conservation and
management in vast watersheds.
Acknowledgements
Part of the macroinvertebrate data were obtained within the project
‘Ecological Data Gap Analysis and Ecological Sensitivity Map Develop-
ment for the Bregalnica River Watershed’, Contract No., 0205-145/10 of
16.06.2014, implemented within the Nature Conservation Programme in
Macedonia, project of Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
(SDC), coordinated by Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation and Farmahem.
The authors thank the Macedonian Ecological Society for the technical
support in the preparation of this study and Lj. Stefanov for the graphical
design of the contents of Figure 1. The authors also thank all reviewers
for their valuable input on an earlier version of the manuscript.
References
Aguiar, F.C., et al., 2016. Riverscapes downstream of hydropower dams:
effects of altered flows and historical land-use change. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 153, 83–98.
Alderton, D.H.M., et al., 2005. The chemistry of waters associated with
metal mining in Macedonia. Mine Water and the Environment,24
(3), 139–149.
Allan, J.D, 2004. Landscapes and Riverscapes: the Influence of Land Use
on Stream Ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
Systematics, 35 (1), 257–284.
Allan, D., Erickson, D., and Fay, J, 1997. The influence of catchment land
use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater
Biology, 37 (1), 149–161.
Álvarez-Cabria, M., Barquín, J., and Antonio Juanes, J, 2010. Spatial and
seasonal variability of macroinvertebrate metrics: do macroinverte-
brate communities track river health? Ecological Indicators, 10 (2),
370–379.
Armitage, P., et al., 1983. The performance of a new biological water
quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range
of unpolluted running-water sites. Water Research, 17 (3), 333–347.
Bain, M.B., et al., 2000. Aquatic ecosystem protection and restoration:
advances in methods for assessment and evaluation. Environmental
Science & Policy, 3 (Supplement 1), 89–98.
Barquín, P., et al., 2011. Riparian quality and habitat heterogeneity
assessment in Cantabrian rivers. Limnetica, 30 (2), 329–346.
Basler, E. and Partner, A, 2016.Bregalnica River Basin Management
Project: River Basin Management Plan. Zollikon: Ministry of
Environment and Physical Planning, Macedonia State & Secretariat
for Economic Affairs, Switzerland.
Belmar, O., et al., 2013.Effects of flow regime alteration on fluvial habi-
tats and riparian quality in a semiarid Mediterranean basin. Ecological
Indicators, 30, 52–64.
Bernhardt, E.S. and Palmer, M.A, 2011. River restoration: the fuzzy logic
of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation.
Ecological applications, 21 (6), 1926–1931.
Bernhardt, E.S., et al., 2005. Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts.
Science, 308, 636–637.
Blanco, S., et al., 2007. Comparison of biotic indices tor water quality
diagnosis in the Duero Basin (Spain). Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl, 161,
3–4.
Bode, R.W., Novak, M.A., and Abele, L.A, 1997.Biological stream testing.
Albany, NY: NYS Department of Environmental Protection; Division
of Water; Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment; Stream
Biomonitoring Unit.
Bruno, D., et al., 2014. Responses of Mediterranean aquatic and riparian
communities to human pressures at different spatial scales. Ecological
Indicators, 45, 456–464.
Burcher, C.L., Valett, H.M., and Benfield, E.F, 2007. The land-cover cas-
cade: relationships coupling land and water. Ecology, 88 (1), 228–242.
Cheimonopoulou, M.T., et al., 2011. Assessing ecological water quality
with macroinvertebrates and fish: a case study from a small
Mediterranean river. Environmental Management, 47 (2), 279–290.
Clapcott, J.E., et al., 2012. Quantifying relationships between land-use
gradients and structural and functional indicators of stream ecologi-
cal integrity: Stream integrity along land-use gradients. Freshwater
Biology, 57 (1), 74–90.
Doll, B., et al., 2016.Can Rapid Assessments Predict the Biotic Condition
of Restored Streams? Water, 8 (4), 143–164.
Fame Consortium, 2005.Manual for the application of the European Fish
Index - EFI. A fish-based method to assess the ecological status of
European rivers in support of the Water Framework Directive. No.
Version 1.1.
Feld, C.K., et al., 2016a. Disentangling the effects of land use and geo-cli-
matic factors on diversity in European freshwater ecosystems.
Ecological Indicators, 60, 71–83.
Feld, C.K., Segurado, P., and Gutiérrez-Cánovas, C, 2016b. Analysing the
impact of multiple stressors in aquatic biomonitoring data: A ‘cook-
book’with applications in R. Science of The Total Environment, 573,
1320–1339.
Fernández, D., Barquín, J., and Raven, P.J, 2011. A review of river habitat
characterisation methods: indices vs. characterisation protocols.
Limnetica, 30 (2), 217–234.
Filipovski, G., Mitrikjeski, J., and Petkovski, D, 1985.Malesh and Pijanec
VI. Soils. Terms of formation, genesis, evolution, classification, proper-
ties and distribution of soils in Malesh and Pijanec. Skopje: MASA.
Filipovski, G., Rizovski, R., and Ristevski, P, 1996.The characteristics of
the climate-vegetation-soil zones (regions) in the Republic of
Macedonia. Skopje: MASA.
Gaševski, M, 1979. Basic hydrographic features of the main tributaries of
river Vardar in FYR of Macedonia. Société géographique de la R.S. de
Macédoine, 17, 1–53.
Gergel, S.E., et al., 2002. Landscape indicators of human impacts to riv-
erine systems. Aquatic Sciences, 64 (2), 118–128.
Gieswein, A., Hering, D., and Feld, C.K, 2017. Additive effects prevail:
The response of biota to multiple stressors in an intensively moni-
tored watershed. Science of The Total Environment, 593–594, 27–35.
Goforth, R.R. and Bain, M.B, 2010. Assessing stream integrity based on
interpretations of map-based riparian and subbasin properties.
Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 8 (1), 33–43.
Hawkins, C.P., et al., 2000. Development and evaluation of predictive
models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecological
Applications, 10 (5), 1456–1477.
Hristovski, S. and Brajanoska, R. eds. 2015.Biodiversity of the Bregalnica
River Watershed. Final project report “Ecological Data Gap Analysis
and Ecological Sensitivity Map Development for the Bregalnica River
Watershed”. Book 2. Skopje.
Imoobe, T. and Koye, P, 2011. Assessment of the impact of effluent from
a soft drink processing factory on the physico-chemical parameters of
Eruvbi stream Benin City, Nigeria. Bayero Journal of Pure and
Applied Sciences, 4 (1), 126–134.
ISO 10870:, 2012.ISO 10870:2012(en), Water quality —Guidelines for
the selection of sampling methods and devices for benthic macroinver-
tebrates in fresh waters [online]. Available from: https://www.iso.org/
obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:10870:ed-1:v1:en [Accessed 20 September 2016].
Jovanovska, D., et al., 2013. Rapid assessment of stream integrity on
stream segments in the upper Vardar watershed in Skopje region.
Macedonian Journal of Ecology and Environment, 15 (1), 33–48.
Kostov, V., et al., 2010. Fish Fauna of River Bregalnica (R. Macedonia)–
Composition, Abundance and Longitudinal Distribution. In:
Proceedings of Conference on water observation and information sys-
tem for decision support (BELWOIS). Presented at the BELWOIS,
Ohrid.
Krstić, S., et al., 2016. Problems associated with not properly conducted
WFD based monitoring during preparation of river Basin manage-
ment plans –Bregalnica river case study. Water Research and
Management, 6 (2), 35–43.
Lazarevski, A, 1993.Climate in Macedonia. Skopje: Kultura.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 9
Leal, C.G., et al., 2016. Multi-scale assessment of human-induced changes
to Amazonian instream habitats. Landscape Ecology,31(8),1725–1745.
Melovski, L., Jovanovska, D., and Avukatov, V, 2015.Landscape diversity
in Bregalnica watershed. Final report of the project “Ecological Data
Gap Analysis and Ecological Sensitivity Map Development for the
Bregalnica River Watershed”. Book 4. Skopje.
Mertes, L.A, 2002. Remote sensing of riverine landscapes. Freshwater
Biology, 47 (4), 799–816.
Miltner, R.J., White, D., and Yoder, C, 2004. The biotic integrity of
streams in urban and suburbanizing landscapes. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 69 (1), 87–100.
Miserendino, M.L., et al., 2011. Assessing land-use effects on water qual-
ity, in-stream habitat, riparian ecosystems and biodiversity in
Patagonian northwest streams. Science of The Total Environment,
409 (3), 612–624.
NCP-SDC, 2016. Nature Conservation Programme in Macedonia of
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC).
Nõges, P., et al., 2016. Quantified biotic and abiotic responses to multiple
stress in freshwater, marine and ground waters. Science of The Total
Environment, 540, 43–52.
Palmer, M., et al., 2007. River restoration in the twenty-first century: data
and experiential knowledge to inform future efforts. Restoration
Ecology, 15 (3), 472–481.
Paul, M.J. and Meyer, J.L, 2001. Streams in the Urban Landscape.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 32, 333–365.
Ramani, S., et al., 2014. Surface water characterization of three rivers
in the lead/zinc mining region of northeastern Macedonia.
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology,66
(4), 514–528.
Rebok, K., et al., 2010. Can Rodlet Cells Changes in Barbell (Barbus pelo-
ponnesius) From the River Bregalnica Be Used as Biomarkers of
Environmental Contamination? In: Proceedings of Conference on
water observation and information system for decision support.
Presented at the BELWOIS, Ohrid.
Resh, V.H., Norris, R.H., and Barbour, M.T., 1995. Design and
implementation of rapid assessment approaches for water resource
monitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. Austral Ecology,20
(1), 108–121.
Riseng, C.M., et al., 2011. Impacts of agricultural land use on biological
integrity: a causal analysis. Ecological Applications, 21 (8), 3128–3146.
Roche, K.F., et al., 2010. Use of the BMWP and ASPT indexes for moni-
toring environmental quality in a neotropical stream. Acta
Limnologica Brasiliensia, 22 (01), 105–108.
Roth, N.E., Allan, J.D., and Erickson, D.L, 1996. Landscape influences on
stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape
ecology, 11 (3), 141–156.
dos Santos, F.B. and Esteves, K.E., 2015.Afish-based Index of biotic
integrity for the assessment of streams located in a sugarcane-domi-
nated landscape in Southeastern Brazil. Environmental Management,
56 (2), 532–548.
Segurado, P., et al., 2018. Understanding multiple stressors in a
Mediterranean basin: combined effects of land use, water scarcity and
nutrient enrichment. Science of The Total Environment,624,1221–1233.
Slavevska-Stamenković,V,2013.Macroinvertebrates of the Bregalnica
river –community structure and assessment of the ecological status
of the ecosystem. Skopje: Ss. Cyril and Methodius University.
Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics. Institute of Biology.
Slavevska-Stamenković, V., et al., 2011. Water quality assessment based
on the macroinvertebrate Fauna –the Pcinja River case study. Water
Research and Management, 1 (2), 63–69.
Snyder, C.D., et al., 2003.Influences of upland and riparian land use pat-
terns on stream biotic integrity. Landscape Ecology, 18, 647–664.
Stafilov, T., Balabanova, B., and Šajn, R., 2014.Geochemical atlas of the
region of the Bregalnica river basin. Skopje: Faculty of Natural
Sciences and Mathematics-Skopjes.
State statistical office of the Republic of Macedonia, 2002.Census of
population, households and dwellings in the Republic of Macedonia.
Skopje: State Statistical Office of the Republic of Macedonia.
State statistical office of the Republic of Macedonia, 2012a.Regions in the
Republic of Macedonia, 2012. Skopje: State Statistical Office of the
Republic of Macedonia.
State statistical office of the Republic of Macedonia, 2012b.Statistical
Review: Population and Social Statistics. Migrations, 2011. Skopje:
State Statistical Office of the Republic of Macedonia.
Stavreva-Veselinovska, S. and Živanović, J., 2006. Content of heavy
metals in the waters of the river Bregalnica and its tributaries. 455-
462. In: Pešić, V. & HadžiabIahović, S. (Eds.) Proceedings of the
Symposium, II International Symposium of Ecologists of
Montenegro. Kotor, 20-25.09.The Republic Institution for the
Protection of Nature; Natural History Museum of Montenegro;
University of Montenegro, Institute for Marine Biology; Centre for
Biodiversity of Montenegro —Podgorica, 496.
Stavreva-Veselinovska, S. and Živanović, J., 2011. Distribution of lead in
the waters, sediment, rice and vegetable crops in the basin of the river
Bregalnica. 269–277. In: H. Tosun, E. Turhan, and E. Aytaç E. eds.
Proceedings of the 1st National Agriculture Congress and Exposition
on behalf of Ali Numan Kıraç with International Participation April
27–30, 2011. Eskişehir,I.
Strahler, A.N, 1952. Hypsometric (area-altitude) analysis of erosional
topography. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 63 (11), 1117.
Sweeney, E., Womble, P., and Kihslinger, R, 2013. Prioritizing wetland
and stream restoration and protection using landscape analysis
tools. National Wetlands Newsletter, 35 (6), 21–27.
del Tánago, M.G. and de Jalón Lastra, D.G, 2011. Riparian Quality Index
(RQI): a methodology for characterising and assessing the environ-
mental conditions of riparian zones. Limnetica, 30 (2), 235–254.
Tanaka, M.O., et al., 2016.Influence of watershed land use and riparian
characteristics on biological indicators of stream water quality in
southeastern Brazil. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 216,
333–339.
Tockner, K., et al., 2010. Multiple stressors in coupled river-floodplain
ecosystems. Freshwater Biology, 55, 135–151.
Törnblom, J., et al., 2011. Catchment land cover as a proxy for macro-
invertebrate assemblage structure in Carpathian Mountain streams.
Hydrobiologia, 673 (1), 153–168.
Valle Junior, R.F., et al., 2015. Impacts of land use conflicts on riverine
ecosystems. Land Use Policy, 43, 48–62.
Vannote, R.L., et al., 1980. The river continuum concept. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 37, 130–137.
Vimos-Lojano, D. J., Martínez-Capel, F., and Hampel, H., 2017. Riparian
and microhabitat factors determine the structure of the EPT commu-
nity in Andean headwater rivers of Ecuador. Ecohydrology, 10 (8),
e1894.
Walakira, P. and Okot-Okumu, J, 2011.Impact of Industrial Effluents on
Water Quality of Streams in Nakawa-Ntinda. Uganda. Journal of
Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 15 (2), 289–296.
Wang, L. and Kanehl, P, 2003.Influences of watershed urbanization and
instream habitat on macroinvertebrates in cold water streams.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 39 (5), 1181–
1196.
Ward, J.V, 1998. Riverine landscapes: biodiversity patterns, disturbance
regimes, and aquatic conservation. Biological conservation, 83 (3),
269–278.
Ward, J.V. and Stanford, J.A, 1995. The serial discontinuity concept:
extending the model to floodplain rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research
& Management, 10, 159–168.
Wilkins, P.M., et al., 2015.Influence of a forest preserve on aquatic
macroinvertebrates, habitat quality, and water quality in an urban
stream. Urban Ecosystems, 18 (3), 989–1006.
Zelinka, M. and Marvan, P, 1961. Zur Präzisierung der biologischen
Klassifikation der Reinheit fliessender Gewässer. Archiv für
Hydrobiologie, 57 (3), 389–407.
Zikov, M, 1988.The components of the natural complex in spatial plan-
ning. Skopje: Studentski zbor.
Zikov, M, 1995. Climate and climate regionalization in Republic of
Macedonia. Geographical reviews, 30, 13–21.
10 D. JOVANOVSKA ET AL.