Possible indices for the assessment of ecological stream quality based on macroinvertebrates in Euphrates tributaries (Turkey)

References

• Armitage PD, Moss D, Wright JF, Furse MT. 1983. The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running water sites. Water Res. 17(3):333–347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aschalew L, Moog O. 2015. Benthic macroinvertebrates based new bioticscore “ETHbios” for assessing ecological conditions of highland streams and rivers in Ethiopia. Limnologica. 52:11–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton DR, Metcalfe-Smith JL. 1992. A comparison of sampling techniques and summary indices for assessment of water quality in the Yamaska River, Québec, based on benthic macroinvertebrates. Environ Monit Assess. 21(3):225–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayrak Arslan A. 2015. Su Çerçeve Direktifine Göre Biyolojik Kalite Unsuru: Bentik Makroomurgasiz [Biological quality components according to Water Framework Directive: Benthic Macroinvertebrates] [master thesis]. Ankara/Turkey: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Turkey; General Directorate of Water Management. [accessed 2019 January 10]. https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/SYGM/Menu/20/Tezler. English.
   Google Scholar
• Böhmer J, Rawer-Jost C, Zenker A. 2004. Multimetric assessment of data provided by water managers from Germany: assessment of several different types of stressors with macrozoobenthos communities. Hydrobiologia. 516(1–3):215–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buffagni A, Cazzola M, Lopez-Rodriguez MJ, Alba-Tercedor J, Armanini DG. 2009. Distribution and ecological preferences of European freshwater organisms: Volume 3: Ephemeroptera. Sofia/Moscow: Pensoft.
   Google Scholar
• Carufel LH. 1980. Construction and use of a velocity head rod for measuring stream velocity and flow. BLM/AK Technical Report No. 5. USA: Alaska State Office; p. 3–10.
   Google Scholar
• Clesceri LS, Greenberg AE, Trussel RR. 1989. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 17th ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.
   Google Scholar
• Czerniawska-Kusza I. 2005. Comparing modified biological monitoring working party score system and several biological indices based on macroinvertebrates for waterquality assessment. Limnologica. 35(3):169–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darilmaz MC, Salur A. 2015. Annotated catalogue of the Turkish caddisflies (Insecta: Trichoptera). Munis Entomol Zool J. 10:521–734.
   Google Scholar
• De Pauw N, Vanhooren G. 1983. Method of biological quality assessment of watercourses in Belgium. Hydrobiologia. 100(1):153–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devictor V, Clavel J, Julliard R, Lavergne S, Mouillot D, Thuiller W, Venail P, Villeger S, Mouquet N. 2010. Defining and measuring ecological specialization. J Appl Ecol. 47(1):15–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dufrene M, Legendre P. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr. 67(3):345–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duran M, Tüzen M, Kayim M. 2003. Exploration of biological richness and water quality of stream Kelkit, Tokat, Turkey. Fresenius Environ Bull. 12(4):368–375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Environmental Federal Office of Germany. 2019. LAWA chemical quality classes. [accessed 2019 March 10]. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/1968/dokumente/chemische_guteklassifikation.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Environmental Report of Province Erzincan 2016. T.C. Erzincan Valiligi Cevre ve Sehircilik il Müdürlügü. [accessed 2018 October 10]. http://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/ced/editordosya/Erzincan_icdr2016.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Environmental Report of Province Erzurum 2016. T.C. Erzurum Valiligi Cevre ve Sehircilik il Müdürlügü. [accessed 2018 October 10]. http://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/ced/editordosya/Erzurum_icdr2016.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Feld CK. 2004. Identification and measure of hydromorphological degradation in Central European lowland streams. Hydrobiologia. 516(1–3):69–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Futuyma DJ, Moreno G. 1988. The evolution of ecological specialization. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 19(1):207–233.
   Google Scholar
• Graf W, Lorenz AW, Tierno de Figueroa JM, Lucke S, Lopez-Rodriguez MJ, Davis C. 2009. Distribution and ecological preferences of European freshwater organisms: Volume 2: Plecoptera. Sofia-Moscow: Pensoft.
   Google Scholar
• Graf W, Murphy J, Dahl J, Zamora-Muñoz C, López-Rodríguez MJ. 2008. Distribution and ecological preferences of European freshwater organisms: Volume 1: Trichoptera. Sofia-Moscow: Pensoft Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hering D, Meier C, Rawer-Jost C, Feld CK, Biss R, Zenker A, Sundermann A, Lohse S, Böhmer J. 2004b. Assessing streams in Germany with benthic invertebrates: selection of candidate metrics. Limnologica. 34(4):398–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hering D, Moog O, Sandin L, Verdonschot PFM. 2004a. Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia. 516(1–3):1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalyoncu H, Zeybek M. 2011. An application of different biotic and diversity indices for assessing water quality: a case study in the Rivers Çukurca and Isparta (Turkey). Afr J Agric Res. 6(1):19–27.
   Google Scholar
• Kazanci N. 2001. Türkiye Ephemeroptera (Insecta) Faunasi - Ephemeroptera (Insecta) Fauna of Turkey. Ankara, Turkey: Imaj Printing.
   Google Scholar
• Kazanci N, Basören Ö, Türkmen G, Öz B, Ekingen P, Polat AH. 2013. Assessment of macroinvertebrate community structure and water quality of running waters in Camili (Artvin, Turkey); a part of Caucasus Biodiversity Hotspot, by using Water Framework Directive (WFD) methods. Rev Hydrobiol. 6(2):91–102.
   Google Scholar
• Kazanci N, Ekingen P, Türkmen G, Ertunc Ö, Dügel M, Gültutan Y. 2010a. Assessment of ecological quality of Aksu Stream (Giresun, Turkey) in Eastern Black Sea Region by using Water Framework Directive (WFD) methods based on benthic macroinvertebrates. Rev Hydrobiol. 3:165–184.
   Google Scholar
• Kazanci N, Girgin S, Dugel M, Oguzkurt D. 1997. Akarsularin cevre kalitesi yönünden degerlendirilmesinde ve izlenmesinde biyotik indeks yöntemi, Imaj Yayıncılık. Ankara.
   Google Scholar
• Kazanci N, Öz B, Türkmen G, Başören Ertunç Ö. 2011. Contributions to aquatic fauna of a Biodiversity Hotspot in Eastern Blacksea Region of Turkey with records from running water interstitial fauna of some environmental variables. Rev Hydrobiol. 4(2):131–138.
   Google Scholar
• Kazanci N, Türkmen G. 2012. The checklist of Ephemeroptera (Insecta) species of Turkey. Rev Hydrobiol. 2:143–156.
   Google Scholar
• Kazanci N, Türkmen G, Basören Ö, Ekingen P. 2016. TR-BMWP (Turkish-BMWP) biotic index. Rev Hydrobiol. 9(2):147–151.
   Google Scholar
• Kazanci N, Türkmen G, Ertunç Ö, Ekingen P, Öz B, Gültutan Y. 2010b. Su Çerçeve Direktifi kapsamındaki taban büyük omurgasızlarına dayalı yöntemlerin uygulanması ile Yeşilırmak Nehri’nin ekolojik kalitesinin belirlenmesi. Rev Hydrobiol. 3(2):89–110.
   Google Scholar
• Kneitel JM. 2018. Occupancy and environmental responses of habitat specialists and generalists depend on dispersal traits. Ecosphere. 9(3):e02143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meier C, Böhmer J, Rolauffs P, Hering D. 2006. Kurzdarstellungen “Bewertung Makrozoobenthos” & “Core Metrics Makrozoobenthos”. [accessed 2018 July 22]. http://asterics.de/downloads/Kurzdarstellungen_MZB_Begleittext.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Meier C, Rolauffs P, Hering D. 2004. Weiterentwicklung und Anpassung des nationalen Bewertungssystems für Makrozoobenthos an neue internationale Vorgaben. [accessed 2019 April 15]. http://www.fliessgewaesserbewertung.de/downloads/zwischenbericht_dec_2004.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Moog O, Schmidt-Kloiber A, Ofenböck T, Gerritsen J. 2004. Does the ecoregion approach support the typological demands of the EU ‘water framework directive’? Hydrobiologia. 516(1–3):21–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ofenböck T, Moog O, Sharma S, Korte T. 2010. Development of the HKHbios: a new biotic score to assess the river quality in the Hindu Kush-Himalaya. Hydrobiologia. 651(1):39–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson TH, Rosenberg R. 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanogr Mar Biol. 16:229–311.
   Google Scholar
• Poisot T, Bever JD, Nemri A, Thrall PH, Hochberg ME. 2011. A conceptual framework for the evolution of ecological specialisation. Ecol Lett.14(9):841–851.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. 2017. A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [accessed 2018 April 06]. http://www.R-project.org.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts DW. 2015. Ordination and multivariate analysis for ecology: R package labdsv. [accessed 2018 April 6]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/labdsv.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg DM, Resh VH. 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. New York (NY): Chapman & Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Rygg B. 1985. Distribution of species along pollution induced diversity gradients in benthic communities in Norwegian fjords. Mar Pollut Bull. 16(12):469–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salur A, Darilmaz MC, Bauernfeind E. 2016. An annotated catalogue of the mayfly fauna of Turkey (Insecta, Ephemeroptera). ZooKeys. 620(2):67–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sensoy S, Demircan M, Ulupinar Y, Balta I. 2008. Climate of Turkey. [accessed 2018 August 10]. http://www.mgm.gov.tr/files/en-us/climateofturkey.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Shah RDT, Shah DN. 2012. Performance of different biotic indices assessing the ecological status of rivers in the Central Himalaya. Ecol Indic. 23:447–452.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma P, Sharma S, Gurung S. 2015. Identification and validation of reference sites in the Andhi Khola River, Nepal. J Resour Ecol. 6(1):30.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma S, Moog O. 1996. The applicability of biotic indices and scores in water quality assessment of Nepalese rivers. Proceedings of the Ecohydrology Conference on High Mountain Areas; Mar 23–26; Kathmandu, Nepal. p. 641–657.
   Google Scholar
• Southwood TRE. 1977. Habitat, the Templet for ecological strategies? J Anim Ecol. 46:337–365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Southwood TRE. 1988. Tactics, strategies and templets. Oikos. 2:3–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Townsend CR. 1989. The patch dynamics concept of stream community ecology. J North Am Benthol Soc. 8(1):36–50.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend CR, Hildrew AG. 1994. Species traits in relation to a habitat templet for river 488 systems. Freshw Biol. 31(3):265–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zamora-Munoz C, Alba-Tercedor J. 1996. Bioassessment of organically polluted Spanish rivers, using a biotic index and multivariate methods. J N Am Benthol Soc. 15:332–352.
   Google Scholar
• Zeybek M, Kalyoncu H, Karakaş B, Özgül S. 2014. The use of BMWP and ASPT indices for evaluation of water quality according to macroinvertebrates in Değirmendere Stream (Isparta, Turkey). Turk J Zool. 38(5):603–613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar