Content uploaded by Maria Petridou
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Maria Petridou on Jun 29, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
CONTRIBUTION TO
BIODIVERSITY
KNOWLEDGE OF THE
AOOS RIVER BASIN
October 2019
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 1
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 2
Research team:
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Kati Vasiliki, Biologist/MSc, PhD
Theodoropoulos Yiannis, Field researcher, Environmental Scientist/ MSc
Petridou Maria, Agronomist/MSc Environmental Biology
Bukas Nikolaos, Biologist/MSc
Commissioned by:
Pindos Perivallontiki
Nonprofit Organization for the protection
of the natural and man-made environment
Metsovou 12, 45221, Ioannina, Greece
Contact Person: Tonia Galani
With contributions of:
EuroNatur
European Nature Heritage Foundation
Westendstraße 3
78315 Radolfzell, Germany
Contact person: Annee Spangenberg
and
Riverwatch
Society for the Protection of Rivers
Neustiftgasse 36, 1070 Vienna, Austria
Contact person: DI Ulrich Eichelmann
Cover photo:
Cover Photo:
Map of the study area laying between the Northern Pindos NP and the Greek – Albanian borders, in
relaon to the three main fauna groups that this study focuses upon: large mammals, oer and Odonata.
Suggestion for citation:
Ka Vassiliki, Petridou Maria, Theodoropoulos Yiannis, Bukas Nikolaos 2019. Contribuon to biodiversity
knowledge of the Aoos River Basin / Greece, Pindos Perivallonki, 65pp.
This publicaon is a part of the "Save the Blue Heart of
Europe" campaign organized by EuroNatur – European
Nature Heritage Foundaon (www.euronatur.org),
Riverwatch-Society for the Protecon of Rivers
(hps://riverwatch.eu/) and Pindos Perivallonki – a
nonprot organizaon for the protecon of the natural and
man-made environment (www.pindosperivallonki.org/).
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 3
CONTENTS
PREFACE .............................................................................................................................. 1
............................................................................................................................................. 1
ASSESSING THE DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF LARGE MAMMALS USING CAMERA
TRAPS IN THE AOOS RIVER BASIN, GREECE ......................................................................... 2
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introducon .............................................................................................................................................. 2
Materials and Methods .......................................................................................................................... 5
Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 8
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 15
Acknowledgment .................................................................................................................................. 17
References .............................................................................................................................................. 17
A STUDY ON THE PRESENCE AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF THE OTTER (LUTRA LUTRA) IN A
SELECTED SECTION OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN ................................................................. 20
Introducon ........................................................................................................................................... 20
Study area .............................................................................................................................................. 21
Previous oer surveys in the Aoos river basin ............................................................................... 23
Materials and Methods ....................................................................................................................... 25
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 27
Small hydro dams: current situaon and brief evaluaon .......................................................... 31
References .............................................................................................................................................. 36
Annex I – Survey sites .......................................................................................................................... 38
Annex II – Further photographic documentaon .......................................................................... 44
CONTRIBUTION TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF ODONATA FAUNA FROM AOOS CATCHMENT .. 49
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 49
Introducon ........................................................................................................................................... 49
Materials and methods ....................................................................................................................... 50
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 51
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 56
Acknowledgment .................................................................................................................................. 56
References .............................................................................................................................................. 56
Annex I – Photographic documentaon of Odonata Species ..................................................... 58
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER
BASIN
Preface
The Vjosa/Aoos river still flows freely from the Pindus mountains in Greece, to the river mouth in Albania
largely without artificial obstacles. The river stretches for 270km in total and 70km are flowing within the
Greek area. Downstream of the Pigai dam in Greece (10km from the springs of Aoos), the river is near
natural, representing all types of river ecosystems, including canyon sections, braided parts and
meandering stretches.
In Greece the protected area, that partly includes river Aoos, belongs to the Northern Pindos National
Park. The existing National Park is already protecting 50kms of Aoos’ river stretch, leaving nearly 20km of
the river unprotected, towards the GR-AL borders (see Map 1). At the same time one of the major
tributaries, Voidomatis (15km long) is included in the existing National Park, leaving 6km of the tributary
unprotected, towards the GR-AL borders. Another major tributary, river Sarantaporos (50km long),
stretches under no protection zone, from its springs until its confluence with Aoos, right upon the GR-AL
borders. Voidomatis and Sarandaporos rivers are the main tributaries of Aoos. Voidomatis meets up with
Aoos in the plain of Konitsa, and Sarandaporos joins them right on the Greek-Albanian border.
Through this year’s biodiversity research, we aim to increase the biodiversity knowledge for the
unprotected area of the Aoos river basin, in order to further support the efforts of the campaign for the
expansion of the Aoos’ protected area towards the GR-AL borders, in a way that will include the
unprotected stretches of Aoos and its major tributaries (Voidomatis, Sarantaporos).
The present study is focusing on insect species related to water (Odonata), as well as on large mammals,
either directly related to the riverine ecosystems (otter) or indirectly (carnivores and ungulates).
The present biodiversity research sets four distinct objectives:
• To provide a georeferenced database of species distribution in the study area, with special focus
on the part of the area that is under no protection status.
• To assess different microhabitats of Aoos’ catchment in terms of their ecological value for the
target species.
• To assess potential pressures and threats for the species.
• To crystalize research findings into concrete conservation objectives.
Map 1. Study area (purple) laying between the Northern
Pindos NP (green) and the Greek – Albanian border.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 2
Assessing the distribuon and relave abundance of large mammals
using camera traps in the Aoos river basin, Greece
Maria PETRIDOU1,2, Anastasios PAPPAS3, Haritakis PAPAIOANNOU3 and Vassiliki KATI1,2
1. University of Ioannina, Department of Biological Applications & Technology, 45110, Ioannina, Greece, petridoulc@gmail.com
2. Pindos Perivallontiki, Non Profit Organization, Metsovou 12, 45221, Ioannina, Greece, pinper@otenet.gr
3. Balkan Chamois Society, Papigo Zagori Ioannina, 44006, agriodigo@hotmail.com
Abstract
Information on the status and distribution of species within a geographical region is vital for designing
effective conservation plans. We assessed the distribution and relative abundance of four large
mammalian species in the Aoos river basin and its main tributaries with a focus on the unprotected parts
of the area, by using remotely triggered camera traps from July to October 2019. A total of 878 camera
trap days at 16 camera trap 5x5 km2 grid cells were deployed. We recorded 334 independent
photographs of the focal species. Based on the photographic rate of the large carnivore species, the
brown bear and the grey wolf both exhibited high relative abundance indices (RAIbear=6.49 and
RAIwolf=5.69). Among the large herbivores, wild boar showed higher relative abundance (RAIboar=16.29)
than roe deer (RAIroe=9.23). The presence of Balkan chamois was recorded as well. Furthermore,
reproduction success was confirmed in three grids for the bear, in three grids for the wolf, in seven grids
for the roe deer and in eleven grids for the wild boar. Our study showed that the areas surrounding the
Aoos river and its main tributaries are of great importance for large carnivores, and that the nonprotected
parts of the study area are of similar importance as the protected ones. We suggest the establishment of
a Greek-Albanian transnational park in the non-protected part of Aoos basin, in order to protect large
carnivores from harmful development projects in the basin.
Keywords: Aoos river, brown bear, conservation, camera trapping, large mammals, relative abundance
index, roe deer, wild boar, wolf
Introduction
Large carnivores, such as brown bears (Ursus arctos) and grey wolves (Canis lupus), are some of the
world’s most admired and iconic mammalian species. However, habitat loss and degradation, depletion
of prey, poaching, and other human-wildlife conflicts have driven many populations to decline and local
extinction (Ripple et al. 2014). Large carnivores can serve both as essential functional component of the
ecosystem as well as “umbrella species” across a wide range of habitats, and therefore their conservation
should be a global priority (Sergio et al. 2008, Fernández et al. 2017).
At the European level, large carnivores have suffered severe population declines in the past, mainly
because of human persecution and habitat degradation (Chapron et al. 2014). Still, Chapron et al. (2014)
highlighted that during the 21st century, large carnivore populations have been recovering in many
European areas mainly due to protective legislation, supportive public opinion, and conservation actions.
However, their long-term survival can be only guaranteed if all present and potential future threats are
carefully considered (Boitani et al. 2015).
Brown bears in Greece reach the southernmost range of the species in Europe, making them an important
component of the European biodiversity. In Greece, they have managed to survive past demographic and
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 3
habitat pressures and their population appears to be stable at around >450 individuals (Karamanlidis et
al. 2015). Since 1986 the species is strictly protected by greek national law, according to which killing,
capture, and exhibition to public view are strictly prohibited. According to European Community
legislation (Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC), the brown bear in Greece is strictly protected (Annex II and IV,
Table 1). Moreover, bears in Greece are fully protected under the Bern Convention (Annex II). These
provisions prohibit deliberate disturbance of individuals, particularly during the period of breeding,
rearing and hibernation and moreover, require authorities to explicitly prohibit damages to breeding,
resting and hibernating sites. Nonetheless, the species is still considered as endangered in Greece, mainly
because of human-related threats such as poaching and traffic fatalities, or habitat fragmentation due to
large infrastructure development, which continues to affect the potential for survival (Mertzanis et al.
2009).
Grey wolves in Greece have experienced decades of persecution, bounties and legal use of poison baits
(Iliopoulos 2010). After 1993, a stricter legal status reversed the wolf population decline and its
distribution has been expanded mainly in south-central Greece, Boetia and Attica. The most recent
population census estimated the wolf population of Greece to 795-1020 individuals (Iliopoulos et al.
2015). Αccording to the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC the wolf in Greece south of 39o longitude is listed
in Appendix II and IV, while wolf populations north of 39o are listed in Appendix V. Moreover, wolves
throughout their range in Greece are fully protected under the Bern Convention (Annex II). According to
the convention wolf killing, capture and trade are forbidden. The treaty requires the authorities to
explicitly prohibit the damage to breeding sites, as well as the disturbance of individuals at those places
(Sazatornil et al. 2019). Nevertheless, illegal human-caused mortality still remains high throughout the
species range and can lead to local population declines or even temporary extinctions [e.g. Prespes
National Park, (Iliopoulos and Petridou 2017)]. The main threats for the long-term survival of the species
in Greece include poaching and illegal poisoning, prey depletion, habitat fragmentation, and hybridization
(Iliopoulos et al. 2015).
Large-bodied herbivores are similarly important in maintaining the natural dynamics in ecosystems,
regulating the vegetation structure and succession, nutrient cycling, and the fire regime (Fernández et al.
2017). In the vicinity of Aoos River stretches three large herbivores are present: the roe deer (Capreolus
capreolus), the wild boar (Sus scrofa), and the chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica).
The roe deer populations of Greece are amongst the most vulnerable in Europe. They display low
densities and a fragmented distribution pattern, being present mainly in mountainous woodland areas
with low levels of human disturbance (Tsaparis et al. 2019). They have suffered significant population
reductions and local extinctions in the previous century mainly due to intense hunting and deforestation
(Tsaparis 2011). Roe deer hunting has been banned since the late 1960s which has caused local
population increases, but poaching and human-caused habitat degradation still constitute considerable
threats for the long-term survival of the species in Greece (Tsaparis et al. 2019).
Balkan chamois is the southernmost subspecies within the distribution of the genus in Europe. In Greece,
which is its marginal area of distribution, the population presents a fragmented pattern (Papaioannou et
al. 2019). In Greece, after a decreasing trend that lasted until the year 2000 with 477–750 individuals
across the whole Greek mainland, the total population of chamois is now increasing and counts around
1500 individuals, mainly because of the implementation of conservation measures (Papaioannou et al.
2019). Its hunting has been officially forbidden since 1969. The major threat to chamois survival in Greece
is considered to be poaching, enhanced by the dense mountain road network constructed either for
livestock breeding activities or logging (Papaioannou and Kati 2007).
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 4
The wild boar is an animal that has received far less scientific attention than the rest of the large wild
herbivores in Greece. The populations of the species in Greece seem to have spectacularly increased in
numbers, at least locally. This numerical increase follows similar trends that have been observed in all of
Europe a few decades ago (Saez-Royuela and Telleria 1986, Massei et al. 2015). The increase in the
numbers of the wild boar in Greece is probably due to more than one single cause and related to certain
local conditions. These could include the following: socio-economic changes (drift from the rural areas)
which improve the environmental conditions necessary for the species, reintroductions, hybridization,
lack of predators and limited hunting, compensatory population responses of wild boar to hunting
pressure, variations in the type of dominant crops. However, this dramatic growth in wild boar’s numbers
has increased conflicts with humans, which in turn resulted in recent changes in hunting quota and
grounds, something that could have a long-term impact on the other more vulnerable large mammalian
species of Greece.
Table 1: Protection status of large mammals in the study area
Species
92/43 Habitats
Directive
Bern
Convention
Status
Red data book
GR
Ursus
arctos
II and IV
II
U1+ (inadequate with
improving trend)
Endangered
Canis
lupus
V (north of 39o)
II
U1+ (inadequate with
improving trend)
Vulnerable
Rupicapra
rupicapra
balcanica
II and IV
ΙΙΙ
U2+ (bad with
improving trend)
Near Threatened
Roe deer
No
No
-
Vulnerable
Sus scrofa
No
No
-
Not Evaluated
Objectives
The current study aims at: (a) assess the ecological value of the study area, in terms of large mammals
conservation, (b) increase basic knowledge on the distribution patterns and reproduction success
patterns for the targeted large mammal species in the study area, (c) record the main current and
forthcoming pressures and threats for the targeted species, and finally (d) investigate the potential of the
non-protected part of Aoos basin with its tributaries (Voidomatis, Sarantaporos) to support a
transnational Greek-Albania protected area.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 5
Materials and Methods
Study area
The study area extends over an area of 400 km2, covering the catchment of Aoos, Voidomatis and
Sarantaporos rivers, along with their streams (Figure 1). It was defined by setting a buffer zone of 3 km
around the river stretches (142.8 km river length). A great part of the study area (48.5%) falls within the
sites of the Natura 2000 network and the Northern Pindos National Park (Figure 1). Hydropower
investments are planned for the lower basin of Aoos, including the river stretches of Voidomatis and
Sarantaporos, which is not protected as a site of Natura 2000 network, as well as for the Aoos river head.
Site selection
We used the 5km×5km European Environment Agency ( https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/data/eea-reference-grids-2 ) grid system to define our sampling units, considering the large home-
ranges of large carnivores, as well as EU recommendations for standardized data collection. All the grid
cells that overlapped >30% with the 3 km buffer zone were considered as candidate sampling units,
resulting in 41 candidate grid cells (overall area 400 km2) [Figure 1].
We selected sampling grids, so as to cover both, the unprotected river stretches of Aoos and its main
tributaries, and the Aoos River head (Figure 1). We considered previous knowledge on the distribution,
ecological requirements and movement ecology of the two targeted large carnivores (Mertzanis 1999,
Iliopoulos 2008), for site selection (camera trapping) within each grid. Sampling sites were first selected
using satellite maps (Google Earth Pro) by carefully examining the topographic features of the area. We
chose sites with the highest probability of focal species detection along forest roads and trails (Sanderson
and Trolle 2005, Tobler et al. 2008). We initially positioned 1 camera trap per grid cell, under the scope
to maximize the capture probability of the targeted species in the field.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 6
Fig. 1: Survey area for large
mammals in Aoos River and its
main tributaries by camera
trapping, as defined by a
buffer distance of 3km around
the river stretches and the
5km X 5km EEA grid,
pinpointing the protection
status of the river stretches.
Our goal was to well cover the
unprotected river stretches
and the Aoos River head.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Data collection
We carried out the study for three consecutive months, between July and October 2019 by using
automatically triggered camera traps.
Camera traps have become an invaluable and widely used tool for surveying populations of large
mammals, since a) they are non-invasive b) they are independent of activity patterns and shyness of
species and c) they provide objective observations with photographic evidence (Kays and Slauson 2008,
O'Connell et al. 2010). Working day and night, camera traps are ideally suited for detecting rare and
cryptic species an observer may rarely, if ever, encounter. They are an ideal tool for remote areas since
they do not need to be accessed daily. Moreover, they work independently of weather conditions,
substrate conditions, and human and livestock presence. For the abovementioned reasons, camera
trapping was considered ideal to study wolf and bear (highly cryptic species with large home-ranges), in
the remote mountainous regions of our interest.
We used one type of camera traps, the Browning Dark Ops HD Pro X 2019 (USA), which uses a no-glow
infrared flash technology that is undetectable by people, thus reducing the likelihood of camera detection
and theft.
We installed the camera traps by strapping them on trees, 60-300 cm above the ground (Figure 2). Higher
positions were often chosen to reduce the likelihood of detection and theft by vandals. Camera traps
were set to operate 24 hours per day and programmed to record 3 photos per detection, with intervals
of 1 sec between successive triggers. The trigger speed of the cameras is 0.2 sec. We did not use any lures
or attractants at camera trap stations.
Fig. 2: Camera trap installment. We used the Browning Dark Ops HD Pro X 2019 (USA). Site selection was
supplemented by locating large carnivores’ bio-indices.
In total, we covered 16 out of 40 gird cells (16 camera traps in 18 camera trap stations), in the period
from 14 July 2019 to 6 October 2019 (Figure 1).
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 8
Data analysis
After retrieving all the camera traps we carefully observed all the photographs and identified the animals
up to species level. We recorded details of camera trap data, such as date and time of photos, only for
the focal species. Following O’Brien et al. 2003, we defined an independent event as consecutive
photographs of individuals of the same species taken more than 30 minutes apart. Photos with more than
one individual of the same species in the frame were counted as a single detection for that species.
We used the number of events for a species as an index of species abundance and estimated the relative
abundance index (RAI). RAI for each species was calculated as :
𝑅𝐴𝐼 = 𝐴
𝑁×100
Where A is the total number of events for a species and N is the total number of camera trap days
(Carbone et al. 2001, Rovero et al. 2014). Our focus was on comparing photo rates between areas. For
this reason, RAI for each large mammalian species was calculated separately for each camera trap cell.
Our data were presented, analyzed and computed in the GIS platform ArcGIS 10.7 (ESRI) as raster data.
Results
The overall camera trap effort was 878 trap days. We detected 12 different wild mammal species: brown
bear, wolf, roe deer, wild boar, Balkan chamois (Figure 3), wild cat (Felis silvestris), badger (Meles meles),
red fox (Vulpes vulpes), European hare (Lepus europaeus), marten (Martes sp.), red squirrel (Sciurus
vulgaris) and hedgehog (Erinaceus sp.).
Fig. 3: A male Balkan chamois in grid 13 and a female wild cat with its young in grid 8.
Large Mammals
Camera trapping resulted in a total of 334 events of the focal species (range: 3 to 143 detections per
species). Wild boar (143 events) and roe deer (81 events) were the two most common large mammal
species recorded. The brown bear was detected 57 times and the wolf 50 times. Chamois was detected
only 3 times in one camera trap grid (13), but mostly because the study design was inappropriate for the
species, which inhabits the most inaccessible and high parts of the area. The number of large mammalian
species captured per grid cell ranged from 2 to 4 (mean=3.25, SD=0.66, Figure 4). Results for each camera
trap grid are presented in Table 2.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 9
Fig.4: Number of large mammalian species (bear, chamois, roe deer, wild boar, wolf) in the sampled grids
as revealed with camera trapping.
Based on the photographic rate of the large carnivore species, the brown bear and the grey wolf both
exhibited high relative abundances (RAIbear=6.49 and RAIwolf=5.69). Among the large herbivores, wild boar
showed higher relative abundance (RAIboar=16.29) than roe deer (RAIroe=9.23). In the following sub-
chapters, we present detailed camera trap results for the bear, wolf, roe deer, and wild boar.
Table 2: Independent events and reproduction success for large mammals in each sampled grid, as
recorded by camera traps. We highlighted the occurrence of reproduction for the bear and wolf. Two
major types of anthropogenic disturbance were recorded, livestock grazing (L) and hunting activity (H).
Grid ID
Bear
Wolf
Roe deer
Wild boar
Human activity
1
2
2
2 *
23 *
L, H
2
0
7 *
26 *
30 *
H
3
4 *
1
6 *
4 *
L, H
4
0
0
6 *
7
L
5
4
8
3 *
14 *
L
6
19
0
6
7 *
7
4
2 *
0
10 *
8
0
0
2
2
L
9
6
7
5 *
12 *
H, BP
10
3
0
7
2 *
L
11
3
14 *
1
10 *
H, L
12
6 *
7
1
4 *
H, L
13
0
0
1
2
14
0
1
10 *
1
H, L
15
2 *
0
4 *
14 *
H, L
16
4
0
1
1
H, L
(*) Reproduction, (L) Livestock presence, (H) Hunting activity, (BP) Bear poaching
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 10
Brown bear
Fig. 5: Gradient of Relative Abundance Index (RAI) for brown bear in Aoos basin (878 camera trap days,
2019), pinpointing the grids with reproduction success.
Camera trapping resulted in 57 brown bear events (mean=3.56, SD=4.47) at the 11 of the 16 camera trap
grids (Figure 5). RAI ranged from 3.02 to 44.19. Recordings of bears were examined visually for
identification purposes. Based on body shape and color, we identified 1-3 individuals per grid, excluding
cubs (mean=1.13, SD=0.93). Furthermore, we detected reproduction in three different grids: 3, 12 and
15. The number of cubs recorded with a female bear was one, two and three (in cells 15, 12 and 3
respectively, Figure 6).
Wolf
Fig. 6: Examples of brown bears photos and females with cubs in four different camera traps.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 11
Wolf
Fig. 7: Gradient of Relative Abundance Index (RAI) for the grey wolf in the Aoos basin (878 camera trap
days, 2019), pinpointing the grids with pack presence (≥2 individuals) and reproduction success.
Data collection resulted in 50 wolf events (mean=3.06, SD=4.08) at 9 of the 16 camera trap grids (Figure
7). RAI ranged from 2.38 to 22.95. We detected wolf pack presence (≥2 individuals) in 6 different grids.
We identified 1-8 different individuals per grid (mean=2.89, SD=2.51). Based on the linear distance
between camera traps, as well as body characteristics in one case, we can safely conclude that at least
four different wolf packs are occupying the study area. We did not record any pups, although there was
evidence of reproduction in three cases (females with swollen nipples, wolf carrying food to pups) in grids
2, 7 and 11 (Figure 8).
Fig. 8: Examples of wolf camera trap photos and reproduction success.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 12
Roe deer
Fig. 9: Gradient of Relative Abundance Index (RAI) for the roe deer in the Aoos basin (878 camera trap
days, 2019), pinpointing the grids with reproduction success.
Camera trapping resulted in 81 roe deer events (mean=5.06, SD=6.05) at the 15 of the 16 camera trap
grids (Figure 9). RAI ranged from 1.56 to 61.90. Reproduction was detected in eight different grids. The
number of fawns recorded with a female roe deer ranged from one to three (Figure 10).
Fig. 10: Examples of roe deer camera trap photos and reproduction success.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 13
Wild boar
Fig. 11: Gradient of Relative Abundance Index (RAI) for the wild boar in the Aoos basin (878 camera trap
days, 2019), pinpointing the grids with reproduction success.
Camera trapping resulted in 143 wild boar events (mean=8.94, SD=8.03) in all 16 camera trap grids (Figure
11). RAI ranged from 2.38 to 71.43. We identified 1-28 different individuals per grid cell (mean=7.11,
SD=2.51). Reproduction was detected in 11 different grids (Figure 12).
Fig. 12: Examples of wild boar photos and reproduction success in four different camera trap grids
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 14
Threats identified
The main threats identified for the survival of the focal species in the study area during our survey were
poaching and vehicle collision.
Free-ranging livestock presence was recorded by camera traps in 11 grids and hunting activity was
recorded in 9 grids (Table 2, Figure 13). Poaching was identified as a major threat during the study period
in the unprotected part of the study area, in grid 9. This grid was greatly used by two different bears
during July and August 2019 but we did not capture any bear photos in September-October. Information
from a trusted local source indicated that at least one bear was killed in the area because it was causing
damages to corn crops. Moreover, the presence of a wolf pack was not confirmed in the grid, despite the
good quality of the habitat and the frequent presence of a lone wolf. This is a non-confirmed indication
that wolves may be heavily poached in this area.
Fig. 13: Left- shepherd carrying a riffle. Right- a hunter in grid cell 9.
In July 2019 one brown bear was fatally injured during a car collision in grid cell 8, on the unfenced
National Road EO20, close to the town of Konitsa. The bear killing was verified. The research team was
informed about the incident several weeks later and only a few bear remains were found close to the
accident spot (Figure 14).
Fig. 14: Remains of a brown bear fatally injured during a car collision in July 2019 on the National Road
EO20, close to Konitsa.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 15
Protected vs non-protected areas
We defined as grids inside protected areas (n=4) all the grids that are overlapped by >70% with Natura
2000 areas. Although sampling design does not allow to safely compare protected and non-protected
grids, we present a comparative overview of the results (Table 3). Results show that non-protected areas
host important populations of large mammals and are of similar importance as protected areas.
Table 3: Number of grid cells with recorded presence and reproduction in the sampled grids (5km X
5km) in the protected (4) and unprotected (12) part of the Aoos basin. In parenthesis the respective
percentages (%).
Species/type
Protected
(n=4)
Non-protected
(n=12)
Presence in
sampled grids
Bear
3 (75%)
8 (67%)
Wolf
3 (75%)
6 (50%)
Wolf pack
3 (75%)
4 (33%)
Roe deer
3 (75%)
12 (100%)
Wild boar
4 (100%)
12 (100%)
Reproduction in
sampled grids
Bear
1 (25%)
2 (17%)
Wolf
2 (50%)
1 (8%)
Roe deer
0 (0%)
8 (67%)
Wild boar
3 (75%)
9 (75%)
Threats
Livestock
2 (50%)
9 (75%)
Hunting
2 (50%)
7 (58%)
Discussion
The present study assesses the presence, relative abundance and reproduction success of large terrestrial
mammals through the Aoos river basin and its major tributaries, with a focus on the unprotected parts of
the area, by using camera trapping. Northern Pindos has always been a stronghold for large carnivores in
Greece, where they have survived, even in times where their populations reached their minimum in the
country (e.g. Mertzanis 1994). Results of the present study confirmed that the area is still particularly
important for large mammalian species, and especially for the brown bear and wolf, two species of
European concern, which are particularly sensitive to human activities.
Large mammals are particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic impacts, such as habitat loss and
degradation (i.e increase of artificial land and infrastructure development), overharvesting, persecution,
human disturbance and accidental mortality (i.e vehicle collisions) (Temple and Terry 2007). From the
above threats, we recorded in the study area an important hunting activity and free-ranging livestock
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 16
presence. A major threat to the conservation of large carnivores is their intentional killing in retaliation
for conflicts - such as livestock depredation, other damages to properties, competition for game species,
or threat to humans (Treves and Karanth 2003, Boitani et al. 2015, Petridou et al. 2019). In the study area,
large carnivores still cause notable damages on livestock, beehives, and crops (unpublished data from the
Hellenic Farmers Insurance Organization–ELGA, and information from locals). Another issue of concern
in the study area is the frequent occurrence of hunting dog depredation by wolves (Iliopoulos and
Petridou, unpublished data), which can cause especially high levels of retaliatory killing (e.g. Prespes
National Park, Petridou and Iliopoulos 2017).
Moreover, we recorded vehicle collision mortality on the unfenced national road that traverses the
unprotected part of our study area. For large carnivores with their huge spatial requirements direct
mortality due to carnivore-vehicle collision has been a major concern (Kaczensky et al. 2003, Mertzanis
et al. 2011).
In the future, there are 62 small hydropower plants planned to be constructed in the study area. Although
impacts of human infrastructure development such as road and railway network and oil and gas pipelines,
as well as wind farms on large mammals have been acknowledged, this is not the case for river dams and
bibliography is very limited. The construction and operation of river dams can have similar to above-
mentioned infrastructure impacts on large mammals: 1) increase accessibility and human presence in
areas with a priori low disturbance; 2) increase access for traffic related to recreation, forestry, agriculture
and hunting; 3) increase direct mortality due to traffic collisions; 4) destruction and modification of the
habitat, including road development, habitat fragmentation and barriers to gene flow; 5) changes in land
use to the surrounding area (Santos et al. 2008, Gibson et al. 2017).
These consequences can be even more prominent in remote areas and are expected to be particularly
severe for large carnivores – with their low-density occurrences, huge home ranges, and long-distance
dispersal. Wolves and bears tend to avoid areas that are regularly used by humans, and show a preference
for rugged, undisturbed areas away from forest roads and villages, especially for breeding and/or
hibernating (Linnell et al. 2000, Sazatornil et al. 2016), which are often chosen for river dam development.
As a result, dam construction could cause changes in the breeding site/hibernating locations of large
carnivores as well as their reproduction success. This raises conservation concerns, particularly where
availability of suitable breeding/hibernating sites is a limiting factor and cumulative effects of other
threats (e.g. additional infrastructure, human-related wolf and bear mortality) may affect the local wolf
and bear population (Iliopoulos et al. 2014, Costa et al. 2018).
The need for a transnational protected area
Our results also support the great importance of the non-protected part of Aoos basin for the
conservation of large mammals, and particularly for large carnivores. The Aoos/Vjosa catchment in
Albania shelters a high diversity of mammalian species, including the brown bear, grey wolf, roe deer,
Balkan chamois, and wild boar, which contribute to the rich biodiversity of the whole catchment (Shumka
et al. 2018). For the adjacent populations of large carnivores in Greece and Albania, there is geographic
continuity that is characterized by migration phenomena along the borderline (Mertzanis 1994). The long-
term conservation of large carnivores depends on large protected areas and, thus, it is highly
recommended to prioritize measures that target to maximize reserve size (Woodroffe and Ginsberg
1998). Therefore, it is of crucial importance to expand the protected area in Greece towards the Greek-
Albanian borders and, even more, to establish a Transboundary Wild River National Park – Vjosa/Aoos.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 17
Acknowledgment
The study was conducted within the framework of the project: Saving Europe’s Last free flowing wild
river – Aoos/Vjosa: Contribution to biodiversity knowledge of Aoos catchment, supported by Pindos
Perivallontiki.
The equipment used (16 camera traps) was acquired using Pindos Perivallontiki’s assigned equipment
budget for 2019, within the frame of implementing activity 4.1.3 Undertake a biodiversity assessment at
Vjosa-Aoos catchment. The data analysis was conducted in the laboratory of Biodiversity Conservation in
department of Biological Applications and Technology, University of Ioannina.
References
Boitani, L., F. Alvarez, O. Anders, H. Andren, E. Avanzinelli, V. Balys, J. Blanco, U. Breitenmoser, G.
Chapron, and P. Ciucci. 2015. Key actions for large carnivore populations in Europe. A Large
Carnivore Initiative for Europe report prepared for the European Commission (contract
070307/2013/654446/SER/B3).
Carbone, C., S. Christie, K. Conforti, T. Coulson, N. Franklin, J. R. Ginsberg, M. Griffiths, J. Holden, K.
Kawanishi, M. Kinnaird, R. Laidlaw, A. Lynam, D. W. Macdonald, D. Martyr, C. McDougal, L. Nath,
T. O'Brien, J. Seidensticker, D. J. L. Smith, M. Sunquist, R. Tilson, and W. N. Wan Shahruddin. 2001.
The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals. Animal
Conservation 4:75-79.
Chapron, G., P. Kaczensky, J. D. C. Linnell, M. von Arx, D. Huber, H. Andrén, J. V. López-Bao, M. Adamec,
F. Álvares, O. Anders, L. Balčiauskas, V. Balys, P. Bedő, F. Bego, J. C. Blanco, U. Breitenmoser, H.
Brøseth, L. Bufka, R. Bunikyte, P. Ciucci, A. Dutsov, T. Engleder, C. Fuxjäger, C. Groff, K. Holmala,
B. Hoxha, Y. Iliopoulos, O. Ionescu, J. Jeremić, K. Jerina, G. Kluth, F. Knauer, I. Kojola, I. Kos, M.
Krofel, J. Kubala, S. Kunovac, J. Kusak, M. Kutal, O. Liberg, A. Majić, P. Männil, R. Manz, E.
Marboutin, F. Marucco, D. Melovski, K. Mersini, Y. Mertzanis, R. W. Mysłajek, S. Nowak, J. Odden,
J. Ozolins, G. Palomero, M. Paunović, J. Persson, H. Potočnik, P.-Y. Quenette, G. Rauer, I.
Reinhardt, R. Rigg, A. Ryser, V. Salvatori, T. Skrbinšek, A. Stojanov, J. E. Swenson, L. Szemethy, A.
Trajçe, E. Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, M. Váňa, R. Veeroja, P. Wabakken, M. Wölfl, S. Wölfl, F.
Zimmermann, D. Zlatanova, and L. Boitani. 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern
human-dominated landscapes. Science 346:1517-1519.
Costa, G., J. J. Salvado Paula, F. Petrucci-Fonseca, and F. Álvares. 2018. The Indirect Impacts of Wind Farms
on Terrestrial Mammals: Insights from the Disturbance and Exclusion Effects on Wolves (Canis
lupus).
Fernández, N., L. M. Navarro, and H. M. Pereira. 2017. Rewilding: A Call for Boosting Ecological Complexity
in Conservation. Conservation Letters 10:276-278.
Gibson, L., E. N. Wilman, and W. F. Laurance. 2017. How Green is ‘Green’ Energy? Trends in Ecology &
Evolution 32:922-935.
Iliopoulos, Y. 2008. Distribution, population estimates, conservation problems and management of wolf,
in Northern Pindus National Park. In: Special Environmental study (monitoring) of the Northern
Pindus National Park., Callisto NGO, Management authority of Northern Pindus National Park.
Iliopoulos, Y. 2010. Wolf (Canis lupus) packs territory selection in Central Greece. Habitat selection,
movement patterns and effects on livestock. PhD Thesis. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
Thessaloniki, Greece.
Iliopoulos, Y., and M. Petridou. 2017. Preliminary study for addressing the conflict with large carnivores
in Prespes National Park. Final report, Management Body of Prespes National Park.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 18
Iliopoulos, Y., M. Petridou, C. Astaras, and E. Sideri. 2015. Total deliverables for wolf monitoring.in C.
Papamichail, T. Arapis, and K. Petkidis, editors. Monitoring and assessment of the conservation
status of species of mammals of Community interest in Greece. YPEKA, Athens, Greece.
Iliopoulos, Y., D. Youlatos, and S. Sgardelis. 2014. Wolf pack rendezvous site selection in Greece is mainly
affected by anthropogenic landscape features. European Journal of Wildlife Research 60:23-34.
Kaczensky, P., F. Knauer, B. Krze, M. Jonozovic, M. Adamic, and H. Gossow. 2003. The impact of high
speed, high volume traffic axes on brown bears in Slovenia. Biological Conservation 111:191-204.
Karamanlidis, A. A., M. d. G. Hernando, L. Krambokoukis, and O. Gimenez. 2015. Evidence of a large
carnivore population recovery: Counting bears in Greece. Journal for Nature Conservation 27:10-
17.
Kays, R. W., and K. M. Slauson. 2008. Remote cameras. Pages 110-140 in R. A. Long, P. McKay, J. C. Ray,
and W. J. Zielinski, editors. Noninvasive survey methods for carnivores. Island Press.
Linnell, J., D. C., J. E. Swenson, R. Andersen, and B. Barnes. 2000. How Vulnerable Are Denning Bears to
Disturbance? Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006) 28:400-413.
Massei, G., J. Kindberg, A. Licoppe, D. Gačić, N. Šprem, J. Kamler, E. Baubet, U. Hohmann, A. Monaco, J.
Ozoliņš, S. Cellina, T. Podgórski, C. Fonseca, N. Markov, B. Pokorny, C. Rosell, and A. Náhlik. 2015.
Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for
Europe. Pest Management Science 71:492-500.
Mertzanis, G. A. 1994. Brown Bear in Greece: Distribution, Present Status: Ecology of a Northern Pindus
Subpopulation. Bears: Their Biology and Management 9:187-197.
Mertzanis, G. A., A. Giannakopoulos, and C. Pilides. 2009. Status of the brown bear Ursus arctos (Linnaeus,
1758) in Greece. Pages 385-387 in A. Legakis and P. Maraggou, editors. Red data book of
threatened vertebrates of Greece. Hellenic Zoological Society, Athens.
Mertzanis, Y. 1999. Brown bear: biology, ecology. Special Environmental Study for Grammos -NW Voios
Mountains. LIFE96NAT/GR/003222 - LIFE ARCTOS. Arcturos. 310 pp.
Mertzanis, Y., I. Aravidis, A. Giannakopoulos, C. Godes, A. Mazaris, A. Riegler, S. Riegler, S. Sgardelis, and
A. Tragos. 2011. Telemetry as a Tool to Study Spatial Behaviour and Patterns of Brown Bears as
Affected by the Newly Constructed Egnatia Highway-N. Pindos-Greece.in O. Krejcar, editor.
Modern telemetry. INTECH Open Access Publisher.
O'Connell, A. F., J. D. Nichols, and K. U. Karanth. 2010. Camera traps in animal ecology: methods and
analyses. Springer Science & Business Media.
Papaioannou, H., M. Fernández, T. Pérez, and A. Domínguez. 2019. Genetic variability and population
structure of chamois in Greece (Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica). Conservation Genetics 20:939.
Papaioannou, H., and V. Kati. 2007. Current status of the Balkan chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra balcanica)
in Greece : Implications for conservation. Belgian Journal of Zoology 137:33-39.
Petridou, M., D. Youlatos, Y. Lazarou, K. Selinides, C. Pylidis, A. Giannakopoulos, V. Kati, and Y. Iliopoulos.
2019. Wolf diet and livestock selection in central Greece. Mammalia 83:530.
Ripple, W. J., J. A. Estes, R. L. Beschta, C. C. Wilmers, E. G. Ritchie, M. Hebblewhite, J. Berger, B. Elmhagen,
M. Letnic, M. P. Nelson, O. J. Schmitz, D. W. Smith, A. D. Wallach, and A. J. Wirsing. 2014. Status
and Ecological Effects of the World’s Largest Carnivores. Science 343:1241484.
Rovero, F., E. Martin, M. Rosa, J. A. Ahumada, and D. Spitale. 2014. Estimating Species Richness and
Modelling Habitat Preferences of Tropical Forest Mammals from Camera Trap Data. PLOS ONE
9:e103300.
Saez-Royuela, C., and J. L. Telleria. 1986. The increased population of the Wild Boar (Sus scrofa L.) in
Europe. Mammal Review 16:97-101.
Sanderson, J. G., and M. Trolle. 2005. Monitoring Elusive Mammals: Unattended cameras reveal secrets
of some of the world's wildest places. American Scientist 93:148-155.
Santos, M. J., N. M. Pedroso, J. P. Ferreira, H. M. Matos, T. Sales-Luís, Í. Pereira, C. Baltazar, C. Grilo, A. T.
Cândido, I. Sousa, and M. Santos-Reis. 2008. Assessing dam implementation impact on threatened
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 19
carnivores: the case of Alqueva in SE Portugal. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 142:47-
64.
Sazatornil, V., A. Rodríguez, M. Klaczek, M. Ahmadi, F. Álvares, S. Arthur, J. C. Blanco, B. L. Borg, D. Cluff,
Y. Cortés, E. J. García, E. Geffen, B. Habib, Y. Iliopoulos, M. Kaboli, M. Krofel, L. Llaneza, F. Marucco,
J. K. Oakleaf, D. K. Person, H. Potočnik, N. Ražen, H. Rio-Maior, H. Sand, D. Unger, P. Wabakken,
and J. V. López-Bao. 2016. The role of human-related risk in breeding site selection by wolves.
Biological Conservation 201:103-110.
Sazatornil, V., A. Trouwborst, G. Chapron, A. Rodríguez, and J. V. López-Bao. 2019. Top-down dilution of
conservation commitments in Europe: An example using breeding site protection for wolves.
Biological Conservation 237:185-190.
Sergio, F., T. Caro, D. Brown, B. Clucas, J. Hunter, J. Ketchum, K. McHugh, and F. Hiraldo. 2008. Top
predators as conservation tools: ecological rationale, assumptions, and efficacy. Annual Review
of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39:1-19.
Shumka, S., F. Bego, S. Beqiraj, A. Paparisto, L. Kashta, A. Miho, O. Nika, J. Marka, and L. Shuka. 2018. The
Vjosa catchment–a natural heritage. Acta ZooBot Austria 155:349-376.
Tobler, M. W., S. E. Carrillo-Percastegui, R. Leite Pitman, R. Mares, and G. Powell. 2008. An evaluation of
camera traps for inventorying large- and medium-sized terrestrial rainforest mammals. Animal
Conservation 11:169-178.
Treves, A., and K. U. Karanth. 2003. Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management
worldwide. Conservation Biology 17:1491-1499.
Tsaparis, D. 2011. Genetic diversity and aspects of ecology of roe deer (Capreolus Capreolus) populations
in Greece. Doctoral dissertation. School of Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Section of Zoology &
Marine Biology, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Tsaparis, D., K. Sotiropoulos, A. Legakis, G. Kotoulas, and P. Kasapidis. 2019. New phylogeographic insights
support the distinctiveness and conservation value of the little-known Greek roe deer
populations. Mammalian Biology 96:23-27.
Woodroffe, R., and J. R. Ginsberg. 1998. Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected
areas. Science 280:2126-2128.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 20
A study on the presence and conservaon status of the oer (Lutra lutra)
in a selected secon of the Aoos river basin
Yiannis THEODOROPOULOS1
1. Pindos Perivallontiki, Non Profit Organization, Metsovou 12, 45221, Ioannina, Greece, itheodoropoulos@gmail.com
Introduction
The Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra (L., 1758))1 is a carnivorous mammal, member of the family Mustelidae. It
is a flagship species, being the top predator of Europe’s freshwater ecosystems (Remonti et al., 2009).
Otters are remarkably well-adapted to their semi-aquatic existence and are nearly always found beside
water; they mainly live along rivers, but are also found in and around canals, marshes, ponds, lakes,
streams and estuaries, even along rocky shores. They are opportunistic predators and they exploit prey
in proportion to its availability in the environment. Their diet consists mainly of fish, amphibians and
crustaceans but they also regularly feed on waterbirds, water snakes or even small mammals (Krawczyk
et al., 2016).
Its suitable habitat has been well described (Kruuk et al., 1998; Chanin, 2003a). Being large mammalian
predators, otters are tolerant of a wide range of
habitat conditions. In order to determine whether
their habitat is favourable, the main factors that need
to be considered are food supply, pollutants and
availability of secure breeding sites. In general, where
aquatic prey is abundant, water quality is acceptable
and adjacent habitats offer plenty of cover, healthy
otter populations can be expected. In fact, in studies
on habitat selection it has been shown that the main
limiting factor for the otter is the availability of prey,
which in Mediterranean areas is conditioned by the
availability of water (López-Martín et al., 1998).
Although otters travel large distances, most adults stay
in a well-defined territory in which they feed, rest, and
reproduce (Kruuk, 2006). Otter territories are measured as length of riverbanks or coasts. The sizes of
individual territories depend on the quality of habitat and amount of food. Male otters have much larger
territories than female ones; one male otter’s territory generally overlaps with those of several females.
Significant lengths of this territory range may be covered in one night’s travelling (Chanin, 2013). Otters
mark their territories with their unmistakable faeces (called spraints) which they deposit on often
conspicuous, predictable sites (sprainting sites) for the purpose of scent communication (Calzada et al.,
2010).
Otters usually maintain numerous underground holts within their territories. Holts can take many forms
– among falls of rocks, in caves, within root systems of mature bank-side trees (Kruuk, 1995). Natal dens
tend to be especially well hidden, usually far from other otter traffic to avoid potential intra-specific
aggression (Kruuk, 1995).
Picture 1. The Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra).
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 21
Although the otter’s global distribution ranges
from Ireland in the west to Japan in the east and
from the Arctic to North Africa (Mason, 1990),
otters have suffered a severe decline during the
20th century in most European countries
(Chanin, 2013) because of a reduction of food
supplies, increases in water pollution,
persecution by humans and the destruction of
their habitat (Kruuk, 2006).
However, environmental improvements and
focused conservation efforts have helped to re-
establish widespread healthy populations in
many European countries, and the species was
downgraded from “Vulnerable” to “Near
threatened” in the IUCN red list (Roos et al.,
2015).
The otter is a European Protected Species under the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife
and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) - Appendix II (special protection for listed animal species and their
habitats). The species is also included in the Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild
Fauna and Flora (Habitats Directive) Annex IIa and IVa (designation of protected areas for animal and
plant species listed), which requires statutory protection and the maintenance of “favourable condition”
for the species and its habitats.
With its relatively undisturbed and unpolluted freshwater systems, Greece is considered to host one of
the healthiest otter populations in the European Union and therefore bears an increased responsibility
for the species conservation. Although our understanding of essential aspects of the otter’s ecology in
Greece still leaves much to be desired, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the species enjoys a
broad distribution throughout most of the mainland, as well as on some of the islands. Due mainly to
uncertainties concerning its population densities though, otters are listed in the Greek Red Data Book as
Endangered (Galanaki & Gaethlich, 2009). Main threats to the species wellbeing in Greece include habitat
degradation, drainage of wetlands, destruction of riparian cover and intensification in the use of
chemicals.
The biggest threat, though, for the survival and wellbeing of the otter in Greece is probably the looming
construction of a great amount of small hydro power plants along much of its riverine habitat. In this
study, a search for otter signs and holts has been conducted in order to shed light on the distribution and
breeding site preferences of the species in a selected section of the Aoos river basin. Its findings were
correlated with proposed plans for an expansion of small hydro power production in the same area. This
was made to estimate the threat level that such a prospect poses to the species.
Study area
The Aoos river rises near Metsovo, and after flowing through Greece for 67 km it enters Albanian territory,
15 km west of the town of Konitsa. It then enters into Albania and after crossing 170 km it flows into the
Adriatic Sea. Voidomatis and Sarandaporos rivers are the main tributaries of Aoos. Voidomatis meets up
with Aoos in the plain of Konitsa, and Sarandaporos joins them right on the Greek-Albanian border. The
highest altitude in the basin is the peak of Mt Smolikas, at 2,637 m, and the lowest is at 371 m, at the
point where Aoos flows into Albania.
Picture 2. Potenal oer holt located as part of this
study.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 22
The three aforementioned rivers divide the Greek part of the Aoos river basin into the following three
sub-basins: the Aoos (827 km2), the Sarandaporos (922 km2) and the Voidomatis (392 km2) sub-basins.
The whole watershed is one of the most mountainous in Greece and is considered to be among the
wildest and naturally most important both at the national and the European level, as it holds a remarkable
diversity of plants and animals, including a large number of endemic and rare species. A large part of the
Aoos river basin lies within the borders of the largest mainland protected area of Greece, the Northern
Pindos National Park (appr. 2000 km2). However, squeezed between the National park and the Greek-
Albanian border, the northern part of the river basin currently remains largely unprotected.
This (largely) unprotected section forms our study area and it covers almost all of the Sarandaporos sub-
basin, as well as the lowest sections of Aoos and Voidomatis rivers. It is a predominantly mountainous,
forested and wild region, with small villages and a low (and dwindling) human population. Sarandaporos
collects a large number of streams from the two highest mountains of the Pindos range, Grammos and
Smolikas, and their offshoots. Most notable among them are the Zouzouliotiko stream (flowing down
from the village of Zouzouli), the Pistiliapis stream (flowing from the village of Aetomilitsa), the
Vourbianitiko stream (flowing from the village of Plikati), and the Vourkopotamos stream (flowing from
the village of Agia Paraskevi). Sarandaporos flows gently between the two mountains until their slopes
fade off and almost meet each other, forming two small canyons. After that the river actually marks the
border between Greece and Albania for a while, before it eventually joins Aoos.
Map 1. The Aoos river basin with its three disnct sub-basins.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 23
Previous otter surveys in the Aoos river basin
Based on a series of otter sign surveys, the species’ distribution throughout the Aoos river basin is already
well established and documented. The majority of the aforementioned surveys specifically concerned the
area within the confines of the Northern Pindos National Park, with only one survey (2009) focusing on
the area under current study (namely the Sarandaporos sub-basin and the lowland sections of Aoos and
Voidomatis rivers).
The first survey on the species distribution in the Aoos river basin was carried out by Gaetlich, M. (1988)
as part of an otter distribution survey that covered the whole of western Greece. The species was found
to be present along the main course of Sarandaporos, Aoos and Voidomatis rivers.
As part of an MSc thesis, the author of this report surveyed the whole length of both Aoos and Voidomatis
rivers (main river courses only – 30 stations surveyed). The otter was found to be present along the whole
length of both rivers, with the notable exception of the Vikos gorge, where the river flow is intermittent.
The density of otter signs was found to be significantly lower in the lowland areas of Aoos river
(downstream of Konitsa), but it was not clear if this was due to a lower population density in this stretch,
or (rather) due to habitat and behavior-related factors (Theodoropoulos Y., 2006).
As part of a Monitoring Programme on the fauna of the Northern Pindos National Park (Mertzanis G. (ed.),
2008), Y. Theodoropoulos recorded the presence of the otter in both Aoos and Voidomatis rivers, as well
as in all the main tributary streams (20 stations surveyed).
Map 2. Our study area (purple) squeezed between the Northern Pindos NP (green) and
the Greek – Albanian border. The whole of the Aoos basin is depicted.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 24
As part of a Special Environmental Study (Epirus S.A., 2009) for a number of Natura 2000 sites in the wider
region, an otter survey was carried out by Y. Theodoropoulos throughout the whole of Sarandaporos sub-
basin, as well as along the lowland stretches of Aoos and Voidomatis rivers (32 stations surveyed). The
presence of the species was confirmed all along the main river courses, as well as in some of the tributary
streams, with otter signs absent only in certain mountainous streams.
For the purposes of the 3rd National Six-Year Report on the Implementation of Directive IIa/ΕEC, Y.
Theodoropoulos carried out the most detailed survey thus far on the presence and conservation status
of the otter within the Northern Pindos National Park, thoroughly covering the area’s hydrological
network (51 stations surveyed within the Aoos river basin section of the National Park alone). Otters were
found to be present not only all along the main river courses and the major streams, but even in streams
with minimal or intermittent flow, with the species’ distribution remarkably stretching up to an altitude
of almost 1500m, including the “Aoos Springs” Reservoir. Otters were only absent in the Vikos gorge (with
its intermittent flow) and some of the most upstream stretches of certain minor tributary streams. The
Degree of Conservation for the otter and for the whole of the Northern Pindos was reported as Excellent
(A). The combined results from all mentioned surveys underline that otters are widespread throughout
the whole of the Aoos river basin, with practically all suitable habitat occupied by otters and yielding a
variety of otter signs.
Map 3. Recorded oer presence within the Aoos basin (2008 – 2018)
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 25
Materials and Methods
Otters are elusive and nocturnal animals and so direct observation in the wild is extremely challenging.
Therefore, monitoring uses species incidence data derived indirectly from field signs. The method that
has prevailed in otter surveillance during the last decades has come to be known as “Standard Method”.
Developed in Britain by Lenton et al. (1980) and described in detail by Reuther et al. (2000), the method
was considered to be the most appropriate for the purposes of our study.
The Standard Method is a systematic sampling survey for field signs of otters. The study area is covered
by a network of sample points (“sites”). Selection of these sites is not strictly statistically random as they
have to follow watercourses. The sites are then surveyed for reliable signs of otter presence, notably
faeces (spraints) and/ or tracks. The survey sites consist of 600m of river bank, a length demonstrated to
yield a reliable assessment on the presence or absence of otters. As soon as otter signs are found, the
search stops and the site is confirmed as positive. If no otter signs are found then the site is recorded as
negative. The relation of positive sites to the total number of sites surveyed is given as “percentage of
positive sites”. Using the same methodology, this procedure allows comparisons of distribution
development in the same area over time.
According to the ‘Standard Method”, survey sites are required to be at least 5km away from each other,
with that distance measured not in a straight line but along the river corridor. For the purposes of our
study, sites were set at (or very close to) this minimum 5km distance, with almost all sites more or less
equidistant from each other. This approach provides us with the maximum possible number of sites,
allowing for an in-depth understanding of the use of the area’s hydrological network by otters.
In total, 50 survey sites were selected. 44 sites were set within the Sarandaporos sub-basin, with further
six covering the lower stretches of Aoos and Voidomatis rivers (between the Northern Pindos N.P. and
the borders with Albania). This is very close to the standard of 60 survey sites suggested by Chanin (2003b)
as a sufficiently large sample size for analyzing distribution development over time.
Map 4. The 50 survey sites selected along the hydrological network of our study area.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 26
In addition to the sign survey, special efforts were made in order to investigate certain river stretches and
streams suspected to be used as breeding sites by otters. It is important here to make a distinction
between the breeding site and the natal den. The term breeding site is used here to describe a stretch of
river large enough to provide a breeding otter with:
• Security from disturbance.
• One or more potential natal den sites.
• No risk of flooding.
• Access to good food supply.
The natal den is taken to be the small space occupied by the female when she gives birth and where the
cubs stay for up to three months. (Liles, 2003).
It was clear from very early on that such an undertaking would have to be subject to severe limitations.
Almost the whole of the Sarandaporos sub-basin, characterized as it is by kilometers on end of
undisturbed rivers in near perfect conservation status, seemingly provides near-ideal conditions for
otters’ selection of breeding sites, in a way that would meet all the above criteria. In such a respect,
attempting to survey all such areas for potential breeding sites, would prove outright impossible and
beyond the scope of this study. However, two considerations weighed in favour of selecting a limited
number of locations for such an investigation.
Picture 3. The “Sarandaporos’ straights”, one of the locaons considered for the
construcon of a small hydro power plant. It was conrmed as an oer breeding site.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 27
Picture 4. Typical oer spraint. Oers use spraints to mark and defend
their territories. Prey remains (in this case, craysh) are clearly visible.
i. The main course of the Sarandaporos river is characterized by a narrow river channel surrounded
by a very wide gravel floodplain, almost completely devoid of vegetation or any other cover.
Although Sarandaporos is used by otters all along its length, such an absence of cover means that
any female otter looking for a suitable natal den would have to resort to either one of the two
existing canyons, or one of the nearby tributary streams.
ii. One of the canyons, as well as some of the nearby tributary streams mentioned above, find
themselves under threat from the impending construction of small hydropower dams.
Therefore, both Sarandaporos’ canyons and three tributary streams were thoroughly investigated for
otter resting places and potential natal dens. All suitable hollows, caves and cavities detected along the
banks, were checked for signs of frequent otter visits. Furthermore, the banks were searched for tracks
of otter cubs.
The first part of the survey took place between 26/9 and 04/10. Following a prolonged period of drought,
severe rainfall fell between 4-6/10, resulting in an abrupt cessation of the fieldwork. Heavy rainfall and
the subsequent flooding resulted in spraints and tracks being washed off. Consequently, sufficient time
should be allowed after that for new spraints to be deposited. The survey resumed for two more days
between 25-26/10. For the purposes of this study, 1213km and 72km were covered in total by car and on
foot respectively within our study area.
Results
Out of the 50 survey sites originally set, three sites proved to be unsuitable for survey since the forbidding
terrain made access there precarious. Out of the remaining 47 sites that were thoroughly surveyed, 37
produced reliable otter signs (spraints and/ or tracks). Only 10 sites showed no signs and were assessed
as “negative” (Map 5). Therefore, the percentage of “positive” sites came out to be 79%, a percentage
deemed to be very high.
Signs of otters were recorded all along the main courses of Sarandaporos, Aoos and Voidomatis rivers. In
addition, the survey confirmed that otters also use almost all of the second and third order small
mountain streams. Otters were found present in a large variety of riverine habitats, including gentle
braided rivers and fast flowing mountain streams, stretches with bare and gravelly banks as well as
stretches with dense riparian vegetation, perennial streams with consistently strong flow and
intermittent streams with minimal flow.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 28
Otters were recorded as absent mainly at highly erosional headwater streams, where gradients are steep
and stream beds are completely bare and heavily exposed to the full force of flush floods. A typical
example was the largest part of the Gorgopotamos stream drainage basin, that contained 4 negative sites.
Three more negative sites were associated with small and steep first order streams that, at the time of
the survey, were found either with minimal (in the case of Megas Lakkos and Drosopigi streams) or even
nonexistent (in the case of Lygeri stream) surface flow. Finally, the survey site upstream the
Vourkopotamos small hydro power plant (the only one currently in operation within our study area) also
came out negative (see Chapter 6).
It is important to note that the survey took place after an uncommonly prolonged and severe drought
period, even for Mediterranean standards. All streams and rivers throughout the study area were under
intense water stress, experiencing losses of some (or even, in some cases, all) surface water, thus creating
extreme challenges for all water related species, including the otter. It would be fair to assume that any
river corridor stretch yielding otter signs under such conditions, is most probably used by otters on a year-
round basis.
Map 5. Results of the oer sign survey.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 29
The investigation for otter breeding sites resulted in the detection of definite signs of reproduction at
both of the Sarandaporos’ canyons, as well as at two out of the three streams (Amarandos stream and
Vathylakkos stream) that were examined. The recording of unmistakable otter cub tracks in all cases, left
no room for doubt (see Picture 5). Furthermore, suitable potential holts were located in all the confirmed
breeding sites mentioned above. It is, however, important to note that distinguishing between a resting
place and a natal den or confirming that an otter holt is used for breeding, is not straightforward without
the aid of radio-tracking data (Liles, 2003)..
The results of this otter study (positive sites of 79%) are in general agreement with previous studies in
the area: otters seem to occupy practically all
suitable available habitats within the study area.
Chanin (2003b) suggested that a percentage of
over 70% positive sites, should be regarded as an
indicator of a healthy otter population. This is more
realistic than expecting a 100% positive result, as
not all spraint sites will be used all the time.
The high percentage of positive sites in the area
should not come as a surprise. The hydrological
network of the study area evidently meets all of the
species habitat requirements: abundant
aquatic prey, excellent water quality and adjacent
areas offering ample cover and secure locations for
breeding. Toxic pollutants, that can potentially
have an extremely severe impact on otters, are
Map 6. Distribuon of oer (Lutra lutra) within our study area.
Picture 5. Oer cub and adult oer tracks: clear
evidence of the use of a river stretch for reproducon.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 30
virtually non-existent here. Finally, human-induced mortality is at a minimum since direct persecution is
practically non-existent.
However, this almost optimal picture is under threat by the impending construction of a series of small
hydro dams.
Picture. 6. First order stream near the village of Plikati. Such highly erosional headwater
streams were among the few stretches of the area’s hydrological network that were not
used by otters.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 31
Small hydro dams: current situation and brief evaluation
As part of the ongoing effort to break the dependency on fossil fuels, small-hydro power plants
(henceforth referred to as SHPs) came into the spotlight in Greece during the last few years. Since the
State adopted a financial incentive for the production of such projects, applications for constructions have
skyrocketed. According to Greek law, the power capacity of any single SHP cannot exceed 15MW.
In a typical installation, a weir is used to form a headpond
for diversion of inlet water through a pipe and into a
turbine. As a hydroelectric facility, it requires a
dependable flow of water and a reasonable difference in
relative height for the water to fall, called the head. To
achieve the required head, customarily the water is
being transported between the weir (at the top) and the
power-house (at the bottom) for a distance of a few
hundred to a few thousand meters (see Figure 1). The
water is being transported either at a small distance from
the river or following the river corridor itself (at least
partially). According to the relevant legislation, water
abstraction should be designed in such a way as to allow
a designated percentage of water – defined as
“ecological flow” – to simply flow over the weir and
return to the natural watercourse, in order to allow
viable conditions to the aquatic environment. Also,
where necessary, the construction of a fish ladder is
required to allow the ascending and descending
movement of fish along the river.
SHPs usually have fast environmental and licensing procedures, and since the equipment is usually in
serial production, standardized and simplified, and as the civil works construction is also reduced, the
projects may be developed rapidly. In Greece there are four licensing stages: all projects must start with
an evaluation phase, move through a production permit and an installation permit, before getting an
operation permit.
Currently, there is only one (1) SHP in operation within our study area. However, an immoderate number
of further 16 are under consideration and at different licensing stages: 2 in evaluation phase, 13 with a
production permit and 1 with an installation permit.
Figure 1. Depiction of typical SHPs
configurations.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 32
SHPs are often portrayed as eco-friendly and described as nothing more than modern water-mills.
Nevertheless, such projects can have a very serious impact on the environment, both at the local (impact
on habitats and species) and at the landscape level. Such a claim is not only supported by relevant
literature (Kelly- Richards et al., 2017; Pinho et al., 2007), but also from lessons drawn from similar
projects elsewhere in Greece. Even though an in-depth impact assessment analysis of SHPs is beyond the
scope of this study, some key impacts are summarized here:
- Reduction of flow along the affected riverbed stretches
Either by absence of adequate flow data, misguided assumptions or flawed design/engineering, natural
watercourses are often left with insufficient (or even no) surface flow. This affects the health of the
stream/ river and its ability to sustain aquatic life (including otters).
- Obstruction of fish and other aquatic organism movements
Fish ladders often prove to be a poor substitute that does not adequately restore the river’s continuity.
Fish ladders in Greece are often poorly designed/ maintained or even absent altogether. Such barriers
can result in the loss of fish and other aquatic species from entire river stretches, severely affecting the
trophic network they support (including otters).
- Disturbance of the natural watercourse/ riparian vegetation
Penstocks are typically dug underground; often parts of them cross or even follow the natural
watercourses. The associated large-scale earthworks directly degrade natural river corridors and/ or
riparian vegetation. This can both affect rivers’ trophic networks as well as disrupt/ destroy potential
otter resting places/ holts.
Map 7. SHPs (in operation and under consideration) within our study area.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 33
- Deforestation, erosion etc. due to related infrastructure
Construction and operation of roads (for access to the weir and the power house, also roads for penstock
installation)/ power lines result in direct habitat degradation.
- Interruption of bedload transport
Reduction of sediment load resulting in water course modification and erosion downstream.
Even if through careful design and planning some of the above mentioned concerns could be mitigated,
there are additional considerations when the affected area in question is of high natural (and aesthetic)
value with no prior encroachment, as is the case in our study area.
- Fragmentation of habitats/ increased accessibility/ disturbance
The impact zone from opening a road and allowing access to previously secluded areas is not limited to
the actual width of roads; such an encroachment can affect an area that can vary from a few hundred to
a few thousand meters. Previously untouched rivers, even the most striking and valuable river stretches,
often critical for the survival of many protected species (including otters), are being affected.
- Landscape impact
SHPs can dramatically change the character of a landscape. For a place such as our study area, a land of
previously untouched rivers and crystal-clear wild streams, surrounded by wild mountains and extensive
forests, such projects can quickly turn a landscape of outstanding wilderness, to an almost industrial-
looking one.
As part of our investigation the SHP at the
Vourkopotamos stream (the only currently operational
within our study area) was inspected. The plant is using
the “Tyrolean intake” method and at the time of
inspection the water abstraction from the stream was
total; after the weir no water was allowed to run along
the natural watercourse, which was simply left dry. Also,
no fish ladder has been constructed and it is perhaps not
surprising that otters were found to be absent upstream
the dam. There are plans for another three SHPs in
Vourkopotamos stream alone.
Picture 7. The only currently in operation SHP within
our study area (Vourkopotamos stream). No water is
allowed to run after the weir; no fish ladder present.
No otters upstream the SHP.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 34
Furthermore, at least two of the proposed SHPs are designed in localities that were proven to be otter
breeding sites (see Table 1). It is highly probable that a more comprehensive study would confirm many
other proposed SHP sites to be associated with breeding sites. What is, perhaps, most alarming is that
many of the proposed SHPs are designed in streams that were found to be almost dry at the time of the
investigation (Picture 8). This is emblematic of the highly flawed subsidy arrangement that often results
in contractors profiting mainly from the construction of the SHP itself, with viable energy production
being a secondary consideration.
The following Table (Table 1) summarises some of the impacts on the otter estimated to be caused by
the SHPs under consideration. It should be clear that this approach concerns only specific otter related
impacts and was produced taking into account only the general characteristics and the location of
proposed SHPs. It therefore does not in any way attempt to emulate the Environmental Impact
Assessment, which is an essential requirement for every SHP.
Conclusion:
The area under investigation was assessed as high value for the otter as it combines optimal foraging
habitat with low disturbance and suitable riparian habitat for cover and breeding sites. This assessment
is reflected by the identification of otter signs and their breeding sites along many of the watercourses
within the study area. The existing favourable conservation status is currently under serious threat due
to the impending construction of a large number of small hydro-power plants (SHPs). In order to
safeguard the sustainability of the area’s otter population, it is imperative that a thorough, complete and
from the ground up re-evaluation of all planned SHPs take place, specifically taking into account the
aggregate impact of SHPs, at least on a river basin level.
Picture 7. Marditsa stream, with only minimal surface ow (29/09/2019). A SHP is also
designed here!! SHPs are being considered for many other streams with similar
characteriscs (minimal ow for a large part of the year).
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 35
Table 1. Impacts on the oer esmated to be caused by the SHPs under consideraon. SHP site
numbers correspond with those in Map 7.
a/a SHP site
Otter
presence
Otter
breeding
site
Large-scale
earthworks
required
(deforestation,
watercourse
disturbance)
Large-scale
additional
infrastracture
required (roads,
power lines)
Previous
encroachment
Assessment
of overall
impact on the
otter
1
Vourkopotamos
str. / Karamousi
bridge
2Vourkopotamos
str. Yes ? No No Low Medium
3
Sarandaporos
springs
Yes ? Yes No Medium Medium
4
Sarandaporos r.
(Chrisi)
Yes ? No No Medium Medium
5 Marditsa Yes ? No Yes Medium Medium
6
Lygeri str.
(Kefalohori)
No No No No Medium Medium
7 Mavro potami No No Yes No Medium Medium
8 Pitsiliapis str. Yes ? Yes Yes Non exis tent High
9 Gorgopotamos str. No No No No Medium Medium
10 Vourbia nitiko Yes ? Yes Yes Low High
11 Vathylakkos Yes Yes Yes Yes Non existent Extreme
12 Ellinikou str. No No No No Medium Medium
13 Agios Minas Yes ? Yes Yes Low High
14 Sarandaporos r. Yes Yes Yes Yes Non existent Extreme
15
Aidonohori -
Bourazani springs
? ? No No High Low
16 Manouras str. No No Yes No Medium Medium
17 Mesopotamos str. No No Yes No Medium Medium
Operation permit
Already in operation
Installation permit
Production permit
Evaluation phase
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 36
References
Calzada, J., Delibes-Mateos, M., Clavero, M. & Delibes, M. 2010. If drink coffee at the coffee-shop is the
answer, what is the question? Some comments on the use of the sprainting index to monitor
otters. Ecological Indicators 10: 560–561.
Chanin P. 2003a. Ecology of the European Otter. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers Ecology Series No. 10.
English Nature, Peterborough.
Chanin P. 2003b. Monitoring the Otter Lutra lutra. Conserving Natura2000 Rivers Monitoring Series No.
10, English Nature, Peterborough.
Chanin, P. 2013. Otters. Whittet Books Ltd, Stansted.
Epirus S.A. 2009 (Editor-in-Chief: Haritakis Papaioannou). Special Environmental Study (SES) of Grammos-
Konitsa-Pogoni (precise title: "Update and Completion of the SES of the NATURA 2000 Network
Areas: "Koryfes Orous Grammos" (GR 1320002) and preparation of SES for the area: "Oros
Douskon, Oraiokastro, Dasos Meropis, Koilada Gormou, Limni Delvinaki" (GR 2130010). Region of
Epirus (Directorate of Environment and Spatial Planning).
Gaethlich, M. 1988. Otters in Western Greece and Corfu. IUCN Otter Spec. Group Bull. 3: 17 - 23
Galanaki, A. and Gaethlich, M. 2009. Lutra lutra (Linnaeus, 1758). In: Red data book of the threatened
animal species of Greece. Legakis, A. & Maragou, P. (eds.), pp. 380-382, Hellenic Zoological
Society, Athens.
Kelly-Richards, S., Silber-Coats, N., Crootof, A., Tecklin, D., & Bauer, C. 2017. Governing the transition to
renewable energy: A review of impacts and policy issues in the small hydropower boom. Energy
Policy, 101, 251–264.
Krawczyk, A.J., Bogdziewicz, M., Majkowska, K. & Glazaczow, A. 2016. Diet composition of the Eurasian
otter Lutra lutra in different freshwater habitats of temperate Europe: a review and meta-
analysis. Mammal Review 46 (2): 106-113.
Kruuk, H. 1995. Wild Otters: Predation and populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kruuk, H. 2006. Otters: Ecology, behaviour and conservation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kruuk, H., Carss, D.N., Conroy, J.W.H. & Gaywood, M.J. 1998. Habitat use and conservation of otters (Lutra
lutra) in Britain: a review. In: Behaviour and ecology of riparian mammals. Dunstone N. & Gorman
M. (eds.), pp. 119-134, Cambridge University Press, U.K.
Lenton E.J., Chanin P.R.F. & Jefferies D.J. 1980. Otter survey of England 1977-79. Nature Conservancy
Council, London: 1-75.
Liles, G. 2003. Otter Breeding Sites. Conservation and Management. Conserving Natura 2000 Rivers,
Conservation Techniques Series No. 5. English Nature, Peterborough.
López-Martín, J.M., Jiménez, J. & Ruiz-Olmo, J. 1998. Caracterización y uso del hábitat de la Nutria Lutra
lutra (Linné, 1758) en un río de carácter mediterráneo. Galemys 10 (N.E.): 175-190.
Mason, C. 1990. An introduction to the otters. In: Otters an Action Plan for their Conservation. Foster-
Turley P., Macdonald S. & Mason C. (eds.), pp. 4-7, IUCN/SSC Otter Specialist Group. Gland,
Switzerland.
Mertzanis, G. (ed.) 2008. Monitoring programme on the fauna of the Northern Pindos National Park. Final
report, Callisto, p. 808 + maps.
Pinho, P., Maia, R. & Monterroso, A. 2007. The Quality of Portuguese Environmental Impact Studies: The
Case of Small Hydropower Projects. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 27. 189-205.
Remonti, L., Balestrieri, A. & Prigioni, C. 2009. Altitudinal gradient of Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra) food
niche in Mediterranean habitats. Can. J. Zool. 87: 285–291.
Reuther, C., Dolch, D., Green, R., Jahrl, J., Jefferies, D., Krekemeyer, A., Kucerova, M., Madsen, A.B.,
Romanowski, J., Roche, K., Ruiz-Olmo, J., Teubner, J., Trindade, A. 2000. Surveying and Monitoring
Distribution and Population Trends of the Eurasian Otter (Lutra lutra). Habitat 12, 152pp.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 37
Roos, A., Loy, A., de Silva, P., Hajkova, P. & Zemanová, B. Lutra lutra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2015: e.T12419A21935287. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-
2.RLTS.T12419A21935287.en. Downloaded on 23 November 2019.
Theodoropoulos, Y. 2006. The otter (Lutra lutra) in the river system of Aoos - Voidomatis (Northern Pindos
National Park). MSc thesis. University of Ioannina.
3rd National Six-Year Report on the Implementation of Directive 92/43/ΕEC. 2014.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 38
Annex I – Survey sites
Site No Otter sign Coordinates Assesment
N: 40.060710 Positive
E: 20.588610
N: 40.050850 Positive
E: 20.633310
N: 40.015900 Positive
E: 20.644740
N: 39.973020 Positive
E: 20.658760
N: 40.021140 Positive
E: 20.686220
N: 40.036680 Positive
E: 20.744780
N: 40.069000 Negative
E: 20.673310
N: 40.088100 Positive
E: 20.624630
7
8
4
5
6
1
2
3
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 39
Site No Otter sign Coordinates Assesment
N: 40.095530 Positive
E: 20.677020
N: 40.110220 Positive
E: 20.721270
N: 40.149200 Positive
E: 20.751170
N: 40.160655 Negative
E: 20.712053
N: 40.134370 Positive
E: 20.778620
N: 40.143561 Positive
E: 20.826303
N: 40.142698 Positive
E: 20.877022
N: 40.133217 Negative
E: 20.919268
N: 40.166498 Positive
E: 20.805429
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 40
Site No Otter sign Coordinates Assesment
N: 40.190495 Positive
E: 20.778263
N: 40.204443
Unsuitable for
survey
E: 20.786543
N: 40.214063 Positive
E: 20.820514
N: 40.243250 Positive
E: 20.796810
N: 40.265218 Negative
E: 20.749174
N: 40.283080 Negative
E: 20.768065
N: 40.323385 Negative
E: 20.778731
N: 40.317508 Negative
E: 20.799018
N: 40.215901 Positive
E: 20.853264
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 41
Site No Otter sign Coordinates Assesment
N: 40.253750 Positive
E: 20.856488
N: 40.284660 Positive
E: 20.855291
N: 40.314620 Negative
E: 20.848160
N: 40.265981 Negative
E: 20.892306
N: 40.235380 Positive
E: 20.895310
N: 40.207026 Negative
E: 20.917199
N: 40.219620 Positive
E: 20.945590
N: 40.175590 Positive
E: 20.982040
N: 40.229340 Positive
E: 20.987410
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 42
Site No Otter sign Coordinates Assesment
N: 40.202900 Positive
E: 21.016720
N: 40.171990 Positive
E: 21.042640
N: 40.150830 Positive
E: 21.083010
N: 40.222820 Positive
E: 21.031270
N: 40.258187 Positive
E: 21.007334
N: 40.285670 Positive
E: 21.024040
N: 40.298390 Positive
E: 21.054430
N: 40.274750 Positive
E: 21.003940
N: 40.306505
Unsuitable for
survey
E: 20.975063
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 43
Site No Otter sign Coordinates Assesment
N: 40.317100 Positive
E: 21.003890
N: 40.271760 Positive
E: 20.983900
N: 40.299840 Positive
E: 20.957790
N: 40.326160 Positive
E: 20.934690
N: 40.340180
Unsuitable for
survey
E: 20.895320
N: 40.360840 Positive
E: 20.905270
45
46
47
48
49
50
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 44
Annex II – Further photographic documentation
Picture 8. Zouzoulioko stream.
Picture 9. Vourbianiko stream. A SHP is considered here.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 45
Picture 10. View of the Sarandaporos river valley at the point of conuence with the
Pisliapis stream. SHPs are under consideraon for both the main course of the
Sarandaporos river and the Pisliapis stream.
Picture 11. The wide gravel oodplain of the Sarandaporos river.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 46
Picture 13. Lash riparian vegetaon along the Amarandos stream.
Picture 12. Vourkopotamos stream. The construcon of three addional SHPs is considered
here.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 47
Picture 14. The Aoos river just aer exing its gorge, next to the town of Konitsa (seen in the
background). This area is under pressure from large-scale gravel extracon.
Picture 15. The conuence of Aoos and Voidomas rivers. The only signicant area of arable
land within our study area. Important riparian forests sll stretch for much of the distance
between here and Bourazani bridge.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 48
Picture 17. Vathylakkos stream, an oer breeding site. A SHP is considered here.
Picture 16. Potenal oer holt at Vathylakkos stream.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 49
Contribuon to the knowledge of Odonata fauna from Aoos catchment
Nikolaos BUKAS1, Vassiliki KATI1,2
1.Pindos Perivallontiki, Non Profit Organization, Metsovou 12, 45221, Ioannina, Greece, bionickbukas@hotmail.com
2.University of Ioannina, Department of Biological Applications & Technology, 45110, Ioannina, Greece, vkati@uoi.gr
Abstract
Aoos/Vjosa is one of the last intact river systems in Europe of significant biodiversity value. Odonata fauna
is a key element of wetland habitats, as an insect group dependent on aquatic environments. At the same
time, Odonata is one of the less studied orders in Greece and the aim of our study is to highlight the
importance of Aoos’ catchment area for Odonata species and to investigate their most important
habitats. A number of 22 stations and the most representing habitats including ponds, streams, gravel
riversides, rich riparian vegetation riversides and banks of reservoir were surveyed, following the
methodology of time constrain visits of 15 minutes and line transects. A total number of 29 Odonata
species were reported (37,7% of the Greek Odonata fauna known). Species like Lestes dryas, Lestes
parvidens, Ischnura pumilio, Enallagma cyathigerum, Coenagrion scitulum, Aeshna cyanea, Cordulia
aenea and Sympetrum pedemontanum are newly reported for the area, while the reported species
Caliaeschna microstigma and Cordulegaster bidentata have a conservation concern as their global
population trend is decreasing. Ponds and streams hosted the highest number of species and abundances,
while gravel riversides and reservoirs’ banks hosted the lowest number of species. Additionally,
reservoir’s banks were the only habitat without Odonata species observed in the majority of stations.
Keywords: Odonata, Dragonflies, Greece, catchment area, biodiversity, species richness, species
composition
Introduction
The insect order Odonata is consisted of species dependent on aquatic environments and mainly on
freshwater habitats at all stages of their life cycle. Both larvae and adults are predators. Many previous
studies suggest the importance of this group of insects as bioindicators of water quality in many different
aquatic habitats (Corbet 1999; Catling 2005). Many studies conclude that the composition and richness
of Odonata species may be changed due to different water quality (Catling 2005; Villanueva 2010), but
also due to small hydroelectric power plants (Klein et al. 2018) or the construction of a reservoir (Fulan
et al. 2010).
The order is relatively well studied, with at least 5860 different species globally (Kalkman et al. 2008). In
Greece, a number of 77 species have been reported (Kalkman et al. 2010) but very few studies have been
conducted in the majority of Greek wetlands that can pose new scientific data on distribution and status
of the different species of Odonata. Respectively, the Aoos/Vjosa catchment area is a poorly studied area
in European level with reference to this insect order.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 50
Materials and methods
The study area is the greek part of river Aoos and its main tributaries, Voidomatis and Sarantaporos. The
river Aoos is located in northwestern Greece in the region of Epirus. Its total length is about 272 Km, of
which the first 80 Km are in Greece and the remaining 192 Km in Albania. Its sources lays in the Pindus
mountain range, where a big dam for hydroelectric power production has been constructed, creating an
artificial lake (or reservoir). The river flows through the North Pindos National Park, the valley of Konitsa,
enters Albania near the village of Molivdoskepastos and flows into the Adriatic sea, north of the Narte
lagoon. In Greece a significant area of the river is protected by a network of protected areas (Natura
2000). During the field survey, a total number of 22 Sampling stations were surveyed. The stations were
set including the main different habitats of Odonata species within the catchment area of Aoos. 4 stations
(5,6,7,16) were set in small ponds with stagnant water, 4 stations (2,3,14,20) in streams, 5 stations
(1,4,8,11,22) in riversides with rich riparian vegetation, 5 stations (9,10,12,13,21) in riversides with gravel,
without vegetation and 4 stations (15,17,18,19) in the banks of the artificial lake in the springs of the river
(Fig.2). The minimum distance between the stations was 1 Km. Stations were surveyed monthly during
the period June-September 2019. A total number of 12 field days were conducted and 4 repetitions for
each station. The method that was followed in each station was the time constraint visits of 15 minutes
duration. Odonata species and their numbers were recorded using the method of Line transects for a
distance of 150m. Equipment that was used for the recording of specimens was a Nikon D-slr camera
equipped with a macro lens 105mm and binoculars (Pentax 8,5Χ21). For the identification of each species
that appeared identical by using field characteristics (like genus Pyrrhosoma), specimens were collected
using entomological aerial nets, placed in entomological envelopes labeled with date, station of capture
and analyzed in Stereo-Microscope Bresser researcher ICD/WF 10X in the laboratory.
Fig 1: Typical habitats of Aoos catchment area, riverside with rich riparian vegetation (top left), stream
(top right), riverside with gravels (bottom left) and ponds (bottom right).
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 51
Fig.2: Sampling stations in the catchment area of Aoos. Stations of small ponds are indicated with red
coloured circle, stations of streams are indicated with yellow, stations of rich riparian vegetation with
green, stations of gravel riversides with white and stations of artificial lake’s banks with blue.
Results
During the present study a number of 27 Odonata species were reported in all stations and 2 more species
outside the stations, summing up to a total number of 29 different Odonata species for the catchment
area of Aoos, which covers a share of 37,7% of all known species inhabiting Greece. Of these, 14 species
belong to the suborder of Zygoptera and 15 species belong to the suborder of Anisoptera. The observed
species inventory is listed below:
Suborder Zygoptera
Family Calopterygidae: Calopteryx splendens, Calopteryx virgo
Family Euphaeidae: Epallage fatime
Family Lestidae: Lestes dryas, Lestes virens, Lestes parvidens
Family Coenagrionidae: Ischnura elegans, Ischnura pumilio, Enallagma cyathigerum, Coenagrion puella,
Coenagrion scitulum, Erythromma lindenii, Pyrrhosoma nymphula
Family Platycnemididae: Platycnemis pennipes
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 52
Suborder Anisoptera
Family Aeshnidae: Aeshna cyanea, Anax imperator, Caliaeschna microstigma
Family Gomphidae: Gomphus vulgatissimus, Onychogomphus forcipatus
Family Cordulegastridae: Cordulegaster bidentata, Cordulia aenea, Somatochlora meridionalis
Family Libellulidae: Libellula depressa, Orthetrum cancellatum, Orthetrum brunneum, Sympetrum
pedemontanum, Sympetrum fonscolombii, Sympetrum striolatum, Crocothemis erythraea
Concerning the selection of habitats from the species it was found that stations of small ponds with
stagnant waters (‘’Ponds’’) hosted the highest species number, a total of 22 species and on the opposite,
stations at riversides with gravels, without vegetation (‘’Gravel’’) and stations on the banks of the artificial
lake (‘’Reservoir’’) hosted the lowest numbers, a total of 2 and 5 species, respectively as shown in table
1. Species like Calopteryx splendens, Calopteryx virgo, Onychogomphus forcipatus were present in a wide
variety of habitats and species like Lestes dryas, Lestes virens, Caliaeschna microstigma, Erythromma
lindenii were restricted only to a single type of habitat.
Table 1: Presence of Odonata species in the different types of habitats. The species Cordulia aenea and
Sympetrum pedemontanum are not included as they were observed outside the stations.
Species
Ponds
Gravels
Riparian
Streams
Reservoir
Calopteryx splendens
+
+
+
+
-
Calopteryx virgo
+
-
+
+
-
Epallage fatime
-
-
+
+
-
Lestes dryas
-
-
-
+
-
Lestes virens
-
-
-
+
-
Lestes parvidens
+
-
-
-
-
Ischnura elegans
+
-
-
+
-
Ischnura pumilio
+
-
-
-
-
Coenagrion puella
+
-
-
+
+
Coenagrion scitulum
+
-
-
-
-
Erythromma lindenii
+
-
-
-
-
Pyrrhosoma nymphula
+
-
+
+
-
Enallagma cyathigerum
+
-
-
-
-
Platycnemis pennipes
+
-
-
+
+
Aeshna cyanea
+
-
-
+
-
Anax imperator
+
-
-
-
+
Caliaeschna microstigma
-
-
-
+
-
Gomphus vulgatissimus
-
-
-
+
+
Onychogomphus forcipatus
+
+
+
+
-
Cordulegaster bidentata
+
-
+
+
-
Somatochlora meridionalis
+
-
-
-
-
Libellula depressa
+
-
-
+
-
Orthetrum cancellatum
+
-
-
-
+
Orthetrum brunneum
+
-
-
+
-
Sympetrum fonscolombii
+
-
-
-
-
Sympetrum striolatum
+
-
-
+
-
Crocothemis erythraea
+
-
-
-
-
Total
22
2
6
17
5
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 53
Fig. 3: 1. Aeshna cyanea in flight (left); 2. Side view of male’s appendages of Pyrrhosoma nymphula (right).
Platycnemis pennipes was the most abundant Odonata species at the majority of stations at small ponds
during the period June-August, while Sympetrum striolatum was the most abundant species during
September (Fig. 4). Additionally, Calopteryx virgo, Coenagrion puella and Orthetrum brunneum were also
abundant species in this type of habitat. Species like Lestes parvidens, Ischnura pumilio, Coenagrion
scitulum, Erythromma lindenii, Enallagma cyathigerum, Somatochlora meridionalis, Sympetrum
fonscolombii and Crocothemis erythraea were present only in this type of habitat.
Fig. 4: Number of individuals of different species that were observed in stations of ponds with stagnant
water (‘’Ponds’’) during the surveys of June, July, August and September.
Calopteryx virgo, Caliaeschna microstigma, Platycnemis pennipes were the most abundant species in
stream habitats especially during the period June-August, while Lestes virens was the most abundant
during September. Lestes dryas, Lestes virens and Caliaeschna microstigma were restricted only to this
type of habitat (Fig 5).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
5 6 7 16 5 6 7 16 5 6 7 16 5 6 7 16
Individuals
Station
L. parvidens S. striolatum O. cancellatum
A. cyanea C.erythraea S. meridionalis
C. scitulum E. lindenii E. cyathigerum
I. pumilio S. fonscolombii O.brunneum
L. depressa C. bidentata O. forcipatus
A.imperator P. pennipes P.nymphula
C. puella I. elegans C. virgo
C. splendens
June
July
Aug Sept
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 54
Fig. 5: Number of individuals of different species that were observed in stations of streams (‘’Streams’’)
during the surveys of June, July, August and September.
A lower number of species was present riverside habitats with rich riparian vegetation and at riverside
habitats with gravel. Calopteryx virgo was the most abundant species in all 5 ‘’Riparian’’ stations especially
during June (Fig. 6), and Onychogomphus forcipatus was present and abundant in all 5 ‘’Gravel’’ stations
(Fig. 7).
Fig. 6: Number of individuals of different species that were observed in stations of riversides dominated
with rich riparian vegetation (‘’Riparian’’) during the surveys of June, July, August and September.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2 3 14 20 2 3 14 20 2 3 14 20 2 3 14 20
Individuals
Station
S. striolatum L. virens L. dryas
A. cyanea E. fatime G. vulgatissimus
O. brunneum L. depressa C. bidentata
O. forcipatus C. microstigma P. pennipes
P. nymphula C. puella I. elegans
C. virgo C. splendens
June July Aug Sept
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 4 8 11 22 1 4 8 11 22 1 4 8 11 22 1 4 8 11 22
Individuals
Station
E. fatime
C. bidentata
O. forcipatus
P. nymphula
C. virgo
C. splendens
June July Aug Sept
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 55
Fig. 7: Number of individuals of different species that were observed in stations of riversides with gravels
and without vegetation (‘’Gravels’’) during the surveys of June, July, August and September.
At most stations on the banks of the artificial lake there wasn’t any Odonata species observed and only
one station (station 18) hosted a significant number of species during June. Coenagrion puella was the
most abundant species in this type of habitat only for a short period, during June (Fig 8).
Fig. 8: Number of individuals of different species that were observed in stations on the banks of the
artificial lake (‘’Reservoir’’) during the surveys of June, July, August and September.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
910 12 13 21 910 12 13 21 910 12 13 21 910 12 13 21
Individuals
Station
O. forcipatus
C. splendens
June July Aug Sept
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
15 17 18 19 15 17 18 19 15 17 18 19 15 17 18 19
Individuals
Station
O. cancellatum
G. vulgatissimus
A. imperator
P. pennipes
C. puella
June July Aug Sept
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 56
Discussion
Based on the results of this study, a total number of 29 Odonata species was recorded in the Greek part
of the Aoos/Vjosa catchment area, nearly half the number of the total Odonata fauna in Greece. Also, if
we take on account previous studies that were conducted on the Albanian part of the river (Shkëmbi et
al. 2018) the whole river system hosts a significant number of 41 species. Lestes dryas, Lestes parvidens,
Ischnura pumilio, Enallagma cyathigerum, Coenagrion scitulum, Aeshna cyanea, Cordulia aenea and
Sympetrum pedemontanum are newly reported in the area. The Aoos’ catchment area hosts species that
are restricted only to the southeastern Balkan at European level, like Epallage fatime and Caliaeschna
microstigma. Also, the area hosts species of conservation concern and according to the European Red List
for Dragonflies the species Epallage fatime, Caliaeschna microstigma and Cordulegaster bidentata are
listed as Near Threatened (NT) with a Decreasing population trend.
Additionally, it is clear that habitats of small ponds along the riverside and streams host a rich diversity
and populations of Odonata species. They are the most critical habitats for species of conservational
importance. On the other side, reservoir’s banks host low diversity and few numbers of Odonata species
and the majority of stations are unsuitable for Odonata species throughout the year. Changes of water
level due to damming have significant impacts on physical, chemical, geomorphological, and hydrologic
modifications that affect biodiversity dependent on aquatic habitats (Brendenhand & Samways 2009;
Lessard & Hayes 2003). Concerning the installation of a big scale dam, an additional negative impact is
habitat change and dominance of the artificial lake type of habitat with fluctuating water levels and lack
of riparian vegetation, creating an unfavorable environment for many benthic macroinvertabrates (Petts
et al. 1993). Negative effects of dams for hydroelectric power production on biodiversity must be taken
into account prior to their installation.
Acknowledgment
The study was conducted within the framework of the project: Saving Europe’s Last free flowing wild river
– Aoos/Vjosa: Contribution to biodiversity knowledge of Aoos catchment, supported by Pindos
Perivallontiki. Specimens were examined in the laboratory of Biodiversity Conservation in department of
Biological Applications and Technology, University of Ioannina.
References
Bredenhand E. & Samways M.J., 2009: Impact of a dam on benthic macroinvertebrates in a small river in
a biodiversity hotspot: Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Journal of Insect Conservation 13, 297–
307.
Bulankova E., 1997: Dragonflies (Odonata) as bioindicators of environment quality. Biologia 52(2), 177-
180.
Catling P.M., 2005: A potential for the use of dragonfly (Odonata) diversity as a bioindicator of the
efficiency of sewage lagoons. Canadian Field-Naturalist 119(2), 233-236.
Chovanec A. & Raab R., 1997: Dragonflies (Insecta, Odonata) and the Ecological Status of Newly Created
Wetlands-Examples for Long term Bioindication Programmes. Limnologica 27(3-4), 381-392.
Chovanec A. & Waringer J., 2001: Ecological integrity of river-floodplain systems - assessment by
dragonfly surveys (Insecta: Odonata). Regul. Rivers: Res. Mgmt 17, 493-507.
Corbet P.S., 1999: Dragonflies Behaviour and Ecology of Odonata. Harley Books, Essex, England.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 57
D’Amico F., Darblade S., Avignon S., Blanc-Manel S. & Ormerod S.J., 2004: Odonates as indicators of
shallow lake restoration by liming: comparing adult and larval responses. Restoration Ecology 12,
439–446.
Dijkstra K.-D.B. & Lewington R., 2006: Field Guide to the Dragonflies of Britain and Europe. 320, Britisch
Wildlife Publishing, Gillingham.
Dumont H.J., Mertens J., Miho A., 1993: A contribution to the knowledge of the Odonata of Albania.
Opusc. zool. flumin., 113, 1–10.
Fulan J.A., Raimundo R., Figueiredo D. & Correia M., 2010: Abundance and diversity of dragonflies four
years after the construction of a reservoir. Limnetica 29(2), 279-286.
Kalkman V.J., Boudot-P.J., Bernard R., Conze -J.K., De Knijf G., Dyatlova E., Ferreira S.,
Jović M., Ott J., Riservato E. & Sahlén G., 2010: European Red List of Dragonflies. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the IUCN.
Kalkman V.J., Clausnitzer V., Dijkstra K.-D.B., Orr A.G., Paulson D. R. & van Tol J., 2008:
Global diversity of dragonflies (Odonata) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595, 351–363.
Kalkman V.J. & Lopau W., 2006: Identification of Pyrrhosoma elisabethae with notes on its distribution
and habitat (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). International Journal of Odonatology 9(2), 175-184.
Klein C.E., Pinto N.S., Spigoloni Z.A.V., Bergamini F.M., De Melo F.R., De Marco P. & Juen L., 2018: The
influence of small hydroelectric power plants on the richness and composition of Odonata species
in the Brazilian Savanna. International Journal of Odonatology 21, 33-44.
Lessard J.L. & Hayes D.B., 2003: Effects of elevated water temperature on fish and macroinvertebrate
communities below small dams. Regul. Rivers 19, 721-732.
Muranyi D., 2007: Contribution to the Odonata fauna of Albania. Folia Entomologica Hungarica 68, 41-53.
Petts G.E., Armitage P.D. & Castella E., 1993: Physical habitat changes and macroinvertebrate response
to river regulation: the river Rede, UK. Regul. Rivers 8 (1-2), 167-178.
Riservato E., Boudot J.P., Ferreira S., Jovic´ M., Kalkman V.J., Schneider W., Samraoui B., Cuttelod A., 2009:
The Status and Distribution of Dragonflies of the Mediterranean Basin. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
and Malaga, Spain. 33 pp.
Sahlén G., Bernard R., Rivera A.C., Katelaar R. & Suhling F., 2004: Critical species of Odonata in Europe.
International Journal of Odonatology 7(2), 385-398.
Samuel F.M., Ernest K., Gideon A., Felix B.B.C. & Thomas N., 2012: Impact of dam construction on the
diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates community in a periurban stream in Cameroon.
International Journal of Biosciences 11(2), 137-145.
Shkëmbi E., Gerken B., Pepa B., Kiçaj H., Misja K. & Paparisto A., 2018: Contribution to the knowledge of
Odonata from Vjosa catchment. Acta ZooBot Austria 155: 239-250.
Smith J., Samways M.J. & Taylor S., 2007: Assessing riparian quality using two complementary sets of
bioindicators. Biodiversity and Conservation 16, 2695-2713.
Villanueva R.J.T., 2010: Adult Odonata community in Dinagat Island, The Philippines: Impact of chromium
ore mining on density and species composition. Odonatologica 39(2), 119-126.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 58
Annex I – Photographic documentation of Odonata Species
Figure 23: Calopteryx splendens, a species recorded in a variety of habitats (streams, gravel banks, lakeside
lakes, and ponds
Figure 24: Calopteryx virgo, a species recorded in a variety of habitats (streams, gravel banks, lakeside lakes,
and ponds).
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 59
Figure 25: Onychogomphus forcipatus, one of the most characterisc species on the sunny pebbles of the
river.
Figure 26: Gomphus vulgassimus, a species with a limited distribuon, found mainly at staons near the
arcial lake of the Pigai dam.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 60
Figure 27: Sympetrum striolatum, a species mainly present in stagnant ponds, with the most important
populaons observed in September.
Figure 28: Aeshna cyanea, species present unl late September, mainly in stagnant ponds.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 61
Figure 29: Pyrrhosoma nymphula, a species present in a variety of habitats during the rst summer months
(ponds, lakeside banks and streams).
Figure 30: Ischnura elegans, species present in a variety of habitats (ponds, lakeside lakes and streams).
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 62
Figure 31: Coenagrion puella during the mang stage.
Figure 32: Lestes parvidens, a species with very limited distribuon, as it was located in only in 1 sampling
staon.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 63
Figure 33: Epallage fame, one of the most important species in the region, as the European distribuon of
the species includes exclusively the Southeast Balkans. In the area of Aoos it was observed at staons mainly
within the rst few kilometers of the river.
Figure 34: Crocothemis erythraea, a small species in staons with small stagnant lakes.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 64
Figure 35: Cordulegaster bidentata, a species mainly present in streams.
Figure 36: Sympetrum pedemontanum. This is a rst report of the species in the Aoos region. It
was located in an area outside the sampling staons, near a canal in the Konitsa plain.
CONTRIBUTION TO BIODIVERSITY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AOOS RIVER BASIN
Page 65
Figure 37: Orthetrum brunneum, common species in stagnant waters.
Figure 38: Enallagma cyathigerum, a species with limited distribuon and presence in small lakes with
stagnant waters.
