Ecological notes on an endemic freshwater lamprey, Lampetra zanandreai (Vladykov, 1955)

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location of the surveyed reaches considered in the study. Surveyed stream reaches: 1 = Belbo River; 2–3 = Ghiandone River; 4 = Orco River; 5 = Pellice River.

Table I. Name, location, characteristics and morphological classification of surveyed reaches. River morphology codes (according to Gurnell et al. 2014): C = confined; P = partly confined; U = unconfined; SS = straight-sinuous; M = meandering; S = sinuous; PM = pseudo-meandering. Reach width represents the mean value of the active river channel width in each surveyed reach.

Stream reaches	UTM 32 N coordinates	Reach length [m]	Reach width [m]	Reach morphology
Belbo (1)	E: 424,589.17 m; N: 4,926,974.84 m	92	8	C-SS
Ghiandone (2)	E: 373,732.28 m; N: 4,953,061.32 m	105	15	U-M
Ghiandone (3)	E: 375,752.25 m; N: 4,953,863.60 m	57	11	U-S
Orco (4)	E: 401,136.29 m; N: 5,019,727.21 m	580	85	P-PM
Pellice (5)	E: 381,704.61 m; N: 4,963,271.94 m	1500	105	P-PM

Table II. The physical habitat attributes of the MesoHABSIM approach used to describe the hydro-morphological units (HMUs) in the surveyed reaches. For each habitat parameter the corresponding categories are expressed as reported in Vezza et al. (2014, 2017).

Habitat parameter	Unit	Number of categories	Categories/description
HMUs	Yes/no	17	Pothole, cascade, rapid, riffle, step, pool, glide, dune, aquatic vegetation, secondary channel, flood lake, wetland, artificial element, waterfall, plunge pool, backwater, rock glide
HMU gradient	%	1	Water surface mean gradient of the HMU
HMU longitudinal connectivity	Yes/no	1	Habitat binary attribute describing mesohabitats’ longitudinal river connectivity
Depth	Percentage of random samples	9	Categories in 15 cm increments (range 0–120 cm and above)
Velocity	Percentage of random samples	9	Categories in 15 cm/s increments (range 0–120 cm/s and above)
Substrate	Percentage of random samples	12	Gigalithal, megalithal, macrolithal, mesolithal, microlithal, akal, psammal, pelal, detritus, xylal, sapropel, phytal
Cover	Yes/no	9	Boulders, canopy shading, overhanging vegetation, roots, submerged vegetation, emerging vegetation, undercut banks, woody debris, shallow margins

Figure 2. (a) Sampling station, Ghiandone River (NW Italy); (b) sediment cores; (c) Bertel mechanical sieve; (d) samples of the five granulometric classes considered.

Figure 3. Lampetra zanandreai ammocoetes RF model. Selected physical attributes (in order of importance) for the oversampled parsimonious model. The relationship between variables and probability of presence is reported using partial dependence plots (PDPs).

Table III. Correlations between volume and mass of the different granulometric size classes.

Size class [mm]	r Spearman [rs]	p
> 2.0	rs = 0.947	<.001
2.0–1.0	rs = 0.859	<.001
1.0–0.5	rs = 0.912	<.001
0.5–0.2	rs = 0.984	<.001
< 0.2	rs = 0.868	<.001

Figure 4. Mean mass percentage of the five granulometric classes in the 25 samples considered.

Figure 5. Principal component analysis ordination plot. Labels indicate granulometric classes; dots represent sample cores.

Gurnell M, Bussettini M, Camenen B, González Del Tánago M, Grabowski R, Hendriks D, Henshaw A, Latapie A, Rinaldi M, Surian N. 2014. REstoring rivers FOR effective catchment management (REFORM). Deliverable D2.1 Part I. A hierarchical multi-scale framework and indicators of hydromorphological processes and forms. Available: http://www.reformrivers.eu/system/files/D2.

 Google Scholar

Vezza P, Parasiewicz P, Spairani M, Comoglio C. 2014. Habitat modeling in high‐gradient streams: The mesoscale approach and application. Ecological Applications 24(4):844–861. DOI: 10.1890/11-2066.1.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vezza P, Zanin A, Parasiewicz P. 2017. Manuale tecnico-operativo per la modellazione e la valutazione dell’integrità dell’habitat fluviale. ISPRA–Manuali e Linee Guida 154:1–102.

 Google Scholar