Open Access
Issue
Knowl. Managt. Aquatic Ecosyst.
Number 412, 2014
Article Number 11
Number of page(s) 15
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2013093
Published online 21 February 2014
  • Ahmad A., Maimon A., Othman M.S. and Pauzi M.A., 2002. The potential of local benthic macroinvertebrates as a biological monitoring tool for river water quality assessment. In: Omar R., Ali Rahman Z., Latif M.T., Lihan T. and Adam J.H. (eds.), Proceedings of the Regional Symposium on Environmental and natural Resources, Hotel Renaissance Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 464–471. [Google Scholar]
  • APHA 1998. Standard method for the examination of water and waste water, American Public Health Association, Inc. New York. 20th Ed., 10–161. [Google Scholar]
  • Arimoro F.O. and Muller W.J., 2009. Mayfly (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) community structure as an indicator of the ecological status of a stream in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 166, 581–594. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bae Y.J, Kil H.J. and Bae K.S. 2005. Benthic macroinvertebrates for uses in stream biomonitoring and restoration. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 9, 55–63. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Baptista D.F., Buss D.F., Dorville L.F.M. and Nessimian J.L., 2001. Diversity and habitat preference of aquatic insects along the longitudinal gradient of Macae River basin, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 61, 249–258. [Google Scholar]
  • Bauernfeind E. and Moog O., 2000. Mayflies (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) and the assessment of ecological integrity: A methodological approach. Hydrobiologia, 422–423, 71–83. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bonada N., Prat N., Resh V.H. and Statzner B., 2006. Developments in Aquatic insect Biomonitoring: A Comparative Analysis of Recent Approaches. Annual Review Entomology, 51, 495–523. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Boonsoong B., Sangpradub N. and Barbour M.T., 2008. Development of rapid bioassessment approaches using benthic macroinvertebrates for Thai streams. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 155, 129–147. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Boonsoong B., Sangpradub N., Barbour M.T. and Simachaya W., 2009. An implementation plan for using biological indicators to improve assessment of water quality in Thailand. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 165, 205–215. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Burton T.M. and Sivaramakrishnan K.G., 1993. Composition of the insect community in the streams of the Silent valley National park in Southern India. Tropical Ecology, 34, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  • Buss, D.F., 2001. Utilizando macroinvertebrados no desenvolvimento de um procedimento integrado de avaliação da qualidade da água de rios. MS Dissertation. PPGE-UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro. ix + 132p. [Google Scholar]
  • Buss D.F. and Salles F.F., 2007. Using Baetidae Species as Biological Indicators of Environmental Degradation in a Brazilian River Basin. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 130, 365–372. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Buss D.F., Baptista D.F., Silveira M.P., Nessimian J.L. and Dorvillé L.F.M., 2002. Influence of water chemistry and environmental degradation on macroinvertebrate assemblages in a river basin in south-east Brazil. Hydrobiologia, 481, 125–136. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cairns J.Jr. Pratt J.R. 1993. A history of biological monitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. In: Rosenberg D.M. and Resh V.H. (eds.), Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates Chapman and Hall New York, 10–27. [Google Scholar]
  • Callisto M., Esteves F.A., Gonçalves J.F.Jr. and Fonseca J.J.L., 1998. Benthic macro-invertebrates as indicators of ecological fragility of small rivers (‘igarapés’) in a bauxite mining region of Brazilian Amazonia. Amazoniana, 15, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • Chakona A., Phiri C. and Day J.A., 2009. Potential for Trichoptera communities as biological indicators of morphological degradation in riverine systems. Hydrobiologia, 621, 155–167. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • De Pauw N., Ghetti P.F., Manzini P. and Spaggiari D.R., 1992. Biological assessment methods for running waters. In: Newman P., Piavaux A. and Sweeting R. (eds.), River water quality-Ecological assessment and control. Commission of European Countries, 11–38. [Google Scholar]
  • Dinakaran S. and Anbalagan S., 2007a. Effects of riparian vegetation on the functional organization of stream communities in southern Western Ghats. J. Aquat. Biol., 22, 25–31. [Google Scholar]
  • Dinakaran S. and Anbalagan S., 2007b. Diversity, trophic relationships and biomonitoring potential of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera communities in streams of southern Eastern Ghats. Entomon, 32, 169–175. [Google Scholar]
  • Dudgeon D., 1994. Research strategies for the conservation and management of tropical Asian streams and rivers. Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci., 20, 255–285. [Google Scholar]
  • Dudgeon D., 2000. The Ecology of tropical Asian rivers and streams in relation to biodiversity conservation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 31, 239–263. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Groombridge B and Jenkis M.D., 2000. Global Biodiversity: Earth’s living resources in the 21st century. World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK. [Google Scholar]
  • Gupta A. and Michael R.G., 1992. Diversity, distribution and abundance of Ephemeroptera in streams of Meghalaya State, India. Hydrobiologia, 228, 131–139. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hammer Ø., Harper D.A.T.and Ryan D.D., 2001. PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data analysis. Paleontologia Electronica 4, 9 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Johnsingh A.J.T., 2001. The Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve: A global heritage of biological diversity. Curr. Sci., 80, 378–388. [Google Scholar]
  • Kumar C.S,Sundar S. and Arunachalam M., 2012. Diversity and Distribution of Mayflies (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) in Tamirabarani River of Southern Western Ghats, India. Int. J. Appl. Bioresearch, 5, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  • Li L., Zheng B. and Liu L., 2010. Biomonitoring and bioindicators used for river ecosystems: Definitions, approaches and trends. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 2, 1510–1524. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Medina A.I. and Vallania E., 2001. Ephemeroptera: Abundance and distribution in regulated streams (San Luis, Argentina). In: Dominguez E. (ed.), Trends in research in Ephemeroptera & Plecoptera, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 143–151. [Google Scholar]
  • Metcalfe-Smith J.L., 1994. Biological water quality assessment of rivers: use of macroinvertebrate communities. In: Calow P. and Petts G.E. (eds.), The rivers handbook, Blackwell Scientific Publications UK, 144–169. [Google Scholar]
  • Muralidharan M., Selvakumar C., Sundar S. and Raja M., 2010. Macroinvertebrates as Potential Indicators of Environmental Quality. Int. J. Biol. Technol., 23–28. [Google Scholar]
  • Nelson S.M. and Roline R.A., 2003. Effects of Multiple stressors on the hyporheic invertebrates in a lotic system. Ecol. Indicators, 3, 65–79. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ogbogu S.S. and Akinya T.O., 2001. Distribution and abundance of insects orders in relation to habitat types in Opa stream reservoir, Nigeria. J. Aquatic Sci., 16, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  • Pond G.J., 2010. Patterns of Ephemeroptera taxa loss in Appalachian headwater streams (Kentucky, USA). Hydrobiologia, 641, 185–201. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Resh V.H., Norris R.H. and Barbour M.T., 1995. Design and implementation of rapid assessment approaches using benthic macroinvertebrates for water resources assessment. Aust. J. Ecol., 20, 108–121. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Rueda J., Camacho A., Mezquita F., Hernanadez R. and Roca J.R., 2002. Effect of episodic and regular sewage discharge on water chemistry and macroinvertebrate fauna of a Mediteranean stream. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 140, 425–444. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Saunders D.L., Meeuwing J.J. and Vincent A.C.J., 2002. Freshwater protected areas: Strategies for conservation. Conservation Boilogy, 16, 30–41. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Savić, A., Ranđelović V. and Krpo-Ćetković J., 2010. Seasonal variability in community structure, habitat selection of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) in the Nišava River (Serbia). Biotechnol. Biotec. Eq., 24, 639–645. [Google Scholar]
  • Savić A., Ranđelović V., Branković S. and Krpo-Ćetković J., 2011. Mayfly (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) community structure as an indicator of the ecological status of the Nišava river (Central Balkan Peninsula). Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manage., 14, 276–284. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sharma M.P., Sharma S., Goel V.Sharma P. and Kumar A., 2008. Water quality assessment of Nigland stream using benthic macroinvertebrates. Life Science Journal, 5, 67–72. [Google Scholar]
  • Silveira M.P., Buss D.F., Nessimian J.L., Egler M. and Baptista D.F., 2005. Application of biological measures for stream integrity assessment in South-East Brazil. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 101, 117–128. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sivaramakrishnan K.G., 2000. A refined rapid bioassessment protocol for benthic macroinvertebrates for use in peninsular Indian streams and rivers. In: Ramachandra T.V., Rajasekara Murthy Co. and Ahalya N. (eds.), Proceedings of lake 2000 - Symposium on restoration of Lakes and wetlands. Center for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 302–314. [Google Scholar]
  • Sivaramakrishnan K.G. and Venkataraman K., 1987. Observations on feeding properties, growth rate and fecundity in mayflies. Proceedings of Indian Academic Science (Animal Science), 96, 305–309. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sivaramakrishnan K.G., Morgan H.J. and Vincent R.H., 1996. Biological assessment of the Kaveri river catchment, South India, and using benthic macroinvertebrates: Applicability of water quality monitoring approaches developed in other countries. Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci., 32, 113–132. [Google Scholar]
  • Subramanian K.A., Sivaramakrishnan K.G. and Gadgil M., 2005. Impact of riparian landuse on stream insects of Khudremukh National Park, Karnataka state. India. Journal of Insect Science, 5, 49. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.