Applications of various diversity indices to benthic ...

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235933603

Applications of various diversity indices to benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in streams in a national park in Turkey Article · December 2010 CITATIONS

READS

45

1,680

2 authors: Gencer Türkmen

Nilgün Kazanci

Hacettepe University

Hacettepe University

35 PUBLICATIONS 223 CITATIONS

150 PUBLICATIONS 863 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Fizikokimyasal Değişkenler ve Taban Büyük Omurgasızları Kullanılarak Avrupa Birliği Su Çerçeve Direktifi Kriterlerine Göre Aksu Çayı’nın (Giresun) Habitat Kalitesinin Belirlenmesi View project Biodiversitiy of aquatic insects of Turkey View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gencer Türkmen on 26 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Review of Hydrobiology www.reviewofhydrobiology.com 3,2: 111-125 (2010)

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Applications of various biodiversity indices to benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in streams of a national park in Turkey GENCER TÜRKMEN*AND NİLGÜN KAZANCI Hacettepe University, Science Faculty, Biology Department, Hydrobiology Section, Ankara, Turkey [*Corresponding Author: Gencer Türkmen, [email protected]]

ABSTRACT 1. The present work aims to find which biodiversity indices applied to benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages can be used more effectively in determining habitat qualities of undisturbed streams in a national park. 2. Samples were collected at 10 sites in Yedigöller National Park in June 2007. Benthic macroinvertebrate taxa were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible. The benthic macroinvertebrate samples consisted of 137 taxa and 14184 individuals belonging to nine classes which were Turbellaria, Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Hirudinea, Gordioida, Arachnida, Malacostrata, Entognatha and Insecta. Species composition and quantitative characteristics of the benthic macroinvertebrates have been assessed by using Shannon Diversity Index, Simpson Diversity Index, Margalef Diversity Index and McIntosh Diversity Index and two evenness indices, Pielou Evenness Index and McIntosh Evenness Index. 3. The water quality of collecting sites and conditions of reference habitats were determined by application of biodiversity indices to benthic macroinvertebrate taxa and physico-chemicals variables. According to the results, Site 1, Site 4, Site 5, Site 6, Site 7, Site 8 and Site 9 were found as reference sites. 4. As a result of this study, it was indicated that each biodiversity indices had their own different purposes and they based on different variables such as number of species, number of individuals etc. The results of all biodiversity and evenness indices in this study were close and highly resemble to each other, and thus all of these indices can be used in studies of determining habitat qualities in streams of undisturbed areas. KEY WORDS: benthic macroinvertebrates, diversity index, evenness index, national park, reference habitat, Turkey, Yedigöller, water quality.

111

Review of Hydrobiology www.reviewofhydrobiology.com 3,2: 111-125 (2010)

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Türkiye’deki bir ulusal parktaki akarsuların taban büyük omurgasız topluluklarına farklı biyoçeşitlilik indekslerinin uygulanması

GENCER TÜRKMEN* VE NİLGÜN KAZANCI Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Fen Fakültesi, Biyoloji Bölümü, Hidrobiyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye [*İletişim: Gencer Türkmen, [email protected]]

ÖZ 1. Bu çalışma, bir ulusal parktaki bozulmamış akarsuların habitat kalitesini belirlemede, taban büyük omurgasız topluluklarına uygulanan biyoçeşitlilik indekslerinden hangisinin daha etkili bir biçimde kullanılacağını belirlemek amacıyla yapılmıştır. 2. Haziran 2007’de, Yedigöller Ulusal Parkı’ndaki 10 istasyondan taban büyük omurgasız örnekleri toplanarak tür, cins ve familya düzeyinde teşhisleri yapılmıştır. Taban büyük omurgasız örnekleri Turbellaria, Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Hirudinea, Gordioida, Arachnida, Malacostrata, Entognatha ve Insecta olmak üzere dokuz sınıfa ait 137 taksa ve 14184 bireyden oluşmaktadır. Taban büyük omurgasızlarının tür kompozisyonları ve nicel özellikleri Shannon, Simpson, Margalef ve McIntosh Çeşitlilik İndeksleri ile Pielou ve McIntosh Eşitlik İndeksleri kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. 3. Ayrıca, taban büyük omurgasız taksonlarına uygulanan biyoçeşitlilik indeksleri ve fiziko-kimyasal değişkenler kullanılarak referans habitatlar ve istasyonların su kaliteleri belirlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlara göre İstasyon 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ve 9 referans istasyonlar olarak belirlenmiştir. 4. Çalışma sonucunda, her indeksin kendine özgü amacı olduğu ve tür sayısı, birey sayısı gibi değişkenlere dayandığı belirtilmiştir. Bu çalışmadaki biyoçeşitlilik ve eşitlik indekslerinin sonuçları birbirine yakın olup büyük ölçüde benzerlik göstermektedir. Bu nedenle, bozulmamış alanlardaki akarsuların habitat kalitelerini belirleme çalışmalarında tüm bu indeksler kullanılabilirler. ANAHTAR KELİMELER: çeşitlilik indeksi, eşitlik indeksi, referans habitat, su kalitesi, taban büyük omurgasızları, Türkiye, ulusal park, Yedigöller.

112

Applications of various biodiversity indices to benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in streams of a national park in Turkey

INTRODUCTION Water resources have begun to be limited with increasing effects of global warming recently, so that they have started to become more of an issue. Studying the protection, restoration and monitoring of these resources have been developing worldwide. Water resources and wetlands in Turkey have begun to disappear, and deterioration of water quality and increasing water pollution have also being observed in some areas. Using the biological approaches to determine the ecological effects of pollution has been preferred widely for decades. These approaches have more advantages than determining the pollution with only using physico-chemical methods, because physicochemical variables give information about only the situation of water at the time of measuring (Rosenberg and Resh 1993). Benthic macroinvertebrates are the most preferred group in biomonitoring studies (Rosenberg and Resh 1993). Because of having limited habitat and less moving ability, they cannot change their habitats quickly and they respond to any pollutants by changing their community composition. In addition, the life cycles of this group are long enough to understand what the differences are in their habitats before and after the pollution. All of these reasons make benthic macroinvertebrates most favorable group among the other groups (Rosenberg and Resh 1993). Various indices and statistical methods based on benthic macroinvertebrate were performed by researchers in Turkey (Kazancı 1993, Girgin 1997, Kazancı and Dügel 2000, Duran et al. 2003, Kazancı et al. 2003, Dügel and Kazancı 2004, Kazancı and Türkmen 2008, Kazancı et al. 2008a, Kazancı et al. 2008b, Kazancı and Dügel 2008, Kazancı et al. 2009a, Kazancı et al. 2009b, Kazancı 2009, Türkmen and Kazancı 2010). Various diversity indices are used to determine the distribution of benthic macroinvertebrates related to habitat quality. Diversity index is a statistical method which is planned to evaluate the variety of a data group consisting of different types of components. Features of a population such as number of existing species (Richness), distribution of individuals equally (Evenness) and total number of existing individuals underlie the basis of diversity indices (Wilhm and Dorris 1968, Allan 1975). Thus, any changes in any of these three features will affect the whole population, so that the diversity indices depending upon these features are used effectively to determine the changes in a population (Mandaville 2002, Dügel 1995). 113

GENCER TÜRKMEN AND NİLGÜN KAZANCI

Undisturbed habitats are characterized by high diversity and number of different species. Rich nutrient sources occur with the contributing the organic contaminants to a stream. While the pollution is increasing, the number of tolerant species increases and sensitive species begin to disappear. Both diversity and abundance in a population are decreasing (Hellawell 1986). Important findings about the structure of a stream are gained by using the diversity indices. Four diversity indices (Shannon Diversity Index, Simpson Diversity Index, Margalef Diversity Index and McIntosh Diversity Index) and two evenness indices (Pielou Evenness Index and McIntosh Evenness Index) were used in this study. This study aims to find which benthic macroinvertebrate-based diversity indices can be used more effectively to find out habitat quality of streams in a national park.

MATERIAL AND METHODS Site Description Yedigöller National Park is located in the province of Bolu in the West Black Sea Region of Turkey (Figure 1). The national park, which was declared as a protected area in 1965, covers 2019 hectare area. The habitats in national parks are generally reference habitats due to the protection. This research is a part of M.Sc. Thesis which is “Analysis of macrobenthic community of reference sites in some running waters in the province of Bolu” (Türkmen 2008). Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected by using standard pond net at ten sites in streams in the Yedigöller National Park and surrounding areas in June 2007. Physico-chemical variables (water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity and phosphorous) were measured while benthic macroinvertebrates were being sampled. The collected samples were kept in 80% alcohol and brought to the laboratory. All individuals were identified to species, genus and family level. Shannon, Simpson, Margalef and McIntosh Diversity Indices and, Pielou and McIntosh Evenness Indices were used for statistical analyses of benthic macroinvertebrates. 114


Figure 1. Location of Yedigöller National Park in Turkey. Shannon Diversity Index This is an index applied to biological systems by derived from a mathematical formula used in communication area by Shannon in 1948 (Mandaville 2002). It’s the most preferred index among the other diversity indices. The index values are between 0.0 – 5.0. Results are generally between 1.5 – 3.5, and it exceeds 4.5 very rarely (Kocataş 1992). The values above 3.0 indicate that the structure of habitat is stable and balanced; the values under 1.0 indicate that there are pollution and degradation of habitat structure. H’ = -Σ [ (ni / N) x (ln ni / N) ] H’: Shannon Diversity Index ni : Number of individuals belonging to i species N : Total number of individuals

Simpson Diversity Index It’s a diversity indices derived by Simpson in 1949 (Mandaville 2002). Simpson index values (∆) are between 0 – 1. But while calculating, final result is subtracted from 1 to correct the inverse proportion. 1 -∆ = [ Σ ni (ni -1) ] / N (N-1) ∆ : Simpson Diversity Index ni : Number of individuals belonging to i species N : Total number of individuals 115


Margalef Diversity Index It has no limit value and it shows a variation depending upon the number of species. Thus, it’s used for comparison of sites (Kocataş 1992). d = (S-1) / ln N d : Margalef Diversity Index S : Total number of species N : Total number of individuals

McIntosh Diversity Index It was suggested by McIntosh in 1967. The values are between 0 – 1. When the value is getting closer to 1, it means that the organisms in a community are homogeneously distributed (McIntosh 1967). Mc = [ N - √( Σ ni2) ] / [ N -√N ]

Mc : McIntosh Diversity Index

ni : Number of individuals belonging to i species N : Total number of individuals

Pielou Evenness Index It was derived from Shannon index by Pielou in 1966. The ratio of the observed value of Shannon index to the maximum value gives the Pielou Evenness Index result. The values are between 0 – 1. When the value is getting closer to 1, it means that the individuals are distributed equally (Pielou 1966). J’ = H’ / H’max

J’ : Pielou evenness index H’ : The observed value of Shannon index H’max : lnS

S : Total number of species

McIntosh Evenness Index It was derived from McIntosh index. The values are between 0 – 1. When the value is getting closer to 1, it means that the individuals are distributed equally (Heip and Engels 1974). 116


Mc E = [ N -√(Σ ni2 ] / [ N – (N /√S) ] Mc E : McIntosh evenness index J’ = H’ / H’max ni : Number of individuals belonging to i species J’ : Pielou evenness index H’ : The value Shannon index S : observed Total number of of species H’max : lnS N : Total number of individuals : Total number of species S McIntosh Evenness Index It was derived from McIntosh index.RESULTS The valuesAND are between 0 – 1. When the value is getting closer to DISCUSSION 1, it means that the individuals are distributed equally (Heip and Engels 1974). Mc E = [ N - (∑ni2) ] / [ N – (N /S) ] The benthic macroinvertebrate fauna of Yedigöller National Park was chosen to Mc E : McIntosh evenness index study because of beingbelonging in a protected area and having isolated structure. : Number of individuals to i species ni S : Total number of species N : Total number of individuals

Biological Findings Total 14184 individuals belonging 137 taxa were identified from ten sites in the Results and Discussion streams in Yedigöller National Park and surrounding areas. Class-level distribution of Biological Findings these taxa was shown in Figure 2. Class Insecta is the largest group in runnig water Total 14184 individuals belonging 137 taxa were identified from ten sites in the streams in Yedigöller In respect toareas. both diversity and distribution abundance, this grouptaxa is represented at in high National ecosystems. Park and surrounding Class-level of these was shown Figure 2. Class Insecta is the largest group in aquatic systems. In respect to both diversity and abundance, this levels compared to other groups (Hynes 1970). Insecta constituted 84% of all benthic group is represented at high levels compared to other groups (Hynes 1970). Insecta constituted 84% macroinvertebrates in thisinstudy. of all benthic macroinvertebrates this study.

Turbellaria; 4

Gastropoda ; 7

Bivalvia; 3

Hirudinea; 1 Gordioida; 2 Arachnida; 1 Malacostraca; 2 Entognatha; 2

Insecta; 115 Figure 2. Class-level distribution of benthic macroinvertebrates with numbers of taxa. Figure 2. Class-level distribution of 137 taxa Class Insecta was the largest class by having 115 taxa. Order-level distribution of

this class was shown in Figure 3. In high and good quality aquatic habitats, the most

Class Insecta was the largest class by having 115 taxa. Order-level distribution of this class was common represented groups are Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera among other shown in Figure 3. In high and good quality aquatic habitats, the most common represented groups orders of Insecta. All these groupsamong are important waterofquality indicators to groups are Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and three Trichoptera other orders Insecta. All thesedue three are important water quality indicators due to their taxonomic richness, diversity, and abundance in their taxonomic richness, diversity, and abundance in generally all freshwater ecosystems generally all freshwater ecosystems (Rosenberg and Resh 1993, Kazanc et al. 1997, Kazanc 2009, and Feltmate 1992, Rosenberg and Resh 1993, Merritt Cummins Kazanc (Williams and Türkmen 2008, Türkmen 2008, Williams and Feltmate 1992,and Wallin et al. 1996, 2003, Merritt and Cummins 1996, Berlin and Thiele 2002). As it’s seen in figure 3, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera families constituted 73% of Insecta in this 117 study. BALWOIS 2010 - Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia - 25, 29 May 2010

4


Kazancı et al. 1997, Berlin and Thiele 2002, Wallin et al. 2003, Türkmen 2008, Kazancı and Türkmen 2008, Kazancı 2009, ). As it’s seen in figure 3, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera families constituted 73% of Insecta in this study.

Hemiptera; 7

Lepidoptera; 2 Ephemeroptera; 27

Coleoptera; 16 Odonata; 6

Plecoptera; 10

Trichoptera; 47 Figure 3. Order-level distribution of Insecta with numbers of taxa.

Figure 3. Order-level distribution of Insecta

Physico-chemical Findings Physico-chemical Findings In this study physico-chemical variables of studied sites were measured and classified according to thisWater study Pollution physico-chemical sites were measured and classified the RegulationInon Control variables (Ministry of of studied Environment and Forestry, 2004). The water quality classes of sites were shown in Table 1, and also all of these sites were found as reference according to the Regulation on Water Pollution Control (Ministry of Environment and habitats according to the criteria of EC REFCOND Working Group (2001).

Forestry, 2004). The water quality classes of sites were shown in Table 1, and seven sites Table 1. were Waterfound Qualities of the sites. as reference habitats according to the criteria of EC REFCOND Working Group (2001). Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Water Quality Classes Reference Habitats

Site 10

I-II

II

II

I

I-II

I

I

I

I

II





















Table 1. Water Qualities of sites.

Statsitical Findings Water Quality Classes

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9

Site 10

I-II

II

II

I

I-II

I

I

I

I

II

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ Shannon Reference DiversityHabitats Index th The values of Shannon Diversity Index were between 1.48 – 3.21. The lowest value was for 7 site st and the highest value was for 1 site (Figure 4). All results, except the result of site 7, were found in According to theSite physico-chemical results, water qualities of sites were between the proper range (1.5 - 3.5). 1 had I-II water quality class according to the physico-chemical measurement, but its benthic macroinvertebrate composition was found very diverse. Thus, Shannon and II. class. theassites which had I and I-II class water quality were found as DiversityI.Index result wasOnly found the highest value.

reference habitats (Table 1). Other sites (Site 2, Site 3 and Site 10) didn’t have reference habitat conditions.

Shannon Diversity Index

3,50 3,00

The concept of “reference habitat” was used for the first times in Turkey by Kazancı 2,50 and Türkmen 2,00 (2008). This concept indicates undisturbed or slightly disturbed habitats. Especially, 1,50 habitats in national parks have reference habitat conditionsH' due to being 1,00 protected area (Türkmen and Kazancı 2008). 0,50 0,00 Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

118

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9

Figure 4. Shannon Diversity Index BALWOIS 2010 - Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia - 25, 29 May 2010

Site 10

5

quality classes of sites were shown in Table 1, and also all of these sites were found as reference habitats according to the criteria of EC REFCOND Working Group (2001). Table 1. Water Qualities of the sites.


Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Water Quality Classes Statistical I-II Findings II   Reference Habitats

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9

Site 10

II

I

I-II

I

I

I

I

II

















Shannon Diversity Index The values of Shannon Diversity Index were between 1.48 – 3.21. The lowest value Statsitical Findings was for Site 7 and the highest value was for Site 1 (Figure 4, Table 2). All results, except Shannon Diversity Index th of SiteDiversity 7, were found the proper range1.48 (1.5 -–3.5). Site 1 had I-II water The valuestheofresult Shannon Indexinwere between 3.21. The lowest valuequality was for 7 site st site (Figure 4). All results, except the result of site 7, were found in and the highest value was class according to for the 1 physico-chemical measurement, but its benthic macroinvertebrate the proper range (1.5 - 3.5). Site 1 had I-II water quality class according to the physico-chemical composition was found very diverse. Thus, Shannon Diversity Index result was found as measurement, but its benthic macroinvertebrate composition was found very diverse. Thus, Shannon the highest Diversity Index resultvalue. was found as the highest value. Shannon Diversity Index 3,50 3,00 2,50 2,00 H'

1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00 Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9

Site 10

Figure 4. Shannon Diversity Index

Figure 4. Shannon Diversity Index values of sites.

BALWOIS 2010 - Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia - 25, 29 May 2010

5

Simpson Diversity Index The values of Simpson Diversity Index were between 0.66 – 0.94. The lowest value Simpson Diversity Index was of forSimpson Site 7 andDiversity the highest value was for Site 0.66 1 (Figure 5, Table 2). Thevalue resultwas of this The values Index were between – 0.94. The lowest for 7th site 5). The result of this index and the result and theindex highest was for 1st site (Figure andvalue the result of Shannon index were found highly resemble to each other. of TheShannon index were found highly resemble to each other. The values of the three sites (Site 1, 8 and 9) which of the three values sites (Site 1, the 8 and 9) which had the first three highest values were the had the values first three highest were same in both indices. same in both indices.

Simpson Diversity Index 1,00 0,90 0,80 0,70 0,60 0,50

1‐∆

0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9 Site 10

Figure 5. Simpson Indexof sites. Figure 5. Simpson DiversityDiversity Index values 119

Margalef Diversity Index The values of Margalef Diversity Index were between 2.46 – 8.93. The lowest value was for 7th site and the highest value was for 1st site (Figure 6). This index shows variation depending on number of

0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 Site 1

Site 2GENCER Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 AND Site 6 NİLGÜN Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 TÜRKMEN KAZANCI

Figure 5. Simpson Diversity Index

Margalef Diversity Index The values of Margalef Diversity Index were between 2.46 – 8.93. The lowest valueDiversity was for Index Site 7 and the highest value was for Site 1 (Figure 6, Table 2). This index Margalef The values of Margalef Diversity Index were between 2.46 – 8.93. The lowest value was for 7th site shows variation depending on number of species, so that the number of individuals is less and the highest value was for 1st site (Figure 6). This index shows variation depending on number of species, so thatfor thecalculation. number of individuals is less purpose importantoffor calculation. It has a different purpose of important It has a different usage from other indices. However, usage from other indices. However, it showed similar results with the other indices. For example site 1 it showed similar results with the other indices. For example, Site 1 had the highest value had the highest value in this index like in the others. in this index like in the others.

Margalef Diversity Index 10,00 9,00 8,00 7,00 6,00 5,00 4,00 3,00

d

2,00 1,00 0,00 Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9 Site 10

6. Margalef Index of sites. Figure 6. Figure Margalef DiversityDiversity Index values

McIntosh Diversity Index Diversity Index The valuesMcIntosh of McIntosh Diversity Index were between 0.49 – 0.78. The lowest value was for 7th site st (Figure 7). Thiswere indexbetween shows how arelowest homogeneously and the highest value was for 1 site The values of McIntosh Diversity Index 0.49organisms – 0.78. The value distribute in a site. So it has a different purpose too. However, the results of this index were highly wastofor Site 7 and and Simpson the highest value was for Site 1 (Figure 7, Table 2). This index shows similar Shannon indices.

how organisms are homogeneously distribute in a site. So it has a different purpose too. However, resultsRepublic of this index were highly similar to Shannon and Simpson indices. BALWOIS 2010the - Ohrid, of Macedonia - 25, 29 May 2010

6

McIntosh Diversity Index 0,90 0,80 0,70 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30

Mc

0,20 0,10 0,00 Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9

Site 10

7. McIntosh Indexof sites. Figure Figure 7. McIntosh DiversityDiversity Index values

Pielou Evenness Index th The values of Pielou Evenness Index were between 120 0.52 – 0.80. The lowest value was for 10 site and the highest value was for 9th site (Figure 8). In site 1, we found that the individuals evenly distributed into taxa.

0,90

0,20

0,80

0,10

0,70

0,00 0,60 Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9

Site 10

Applications of 0,50 various biodiversity indices to benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in streams of a national park in Turkey 0,40

Figure 7. McIntosh Diversity Index Mc Pielou Evenness Index 0,20 Pielou Evenness Index The values of Pielou Evenness Index were between 0.52 – 0.80. The lowest value The values of Pielou0,10Evenness Index were between 0.52 – 0.80. The lowest value was for 10th site 0,00 was for Site 10 and value was for8).Site (Figure 8, Table 2). In Sitethe 1, we found (Figure In9site 1, we found that individuals evenly and the highest value wasthe forhighest 9th site Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 distributedthat intothe taxa. individuals evenly distributed into taxa. 0,30

Figure 7. McIntosh Diversity Index

Pielou Evenness Index

0,90Index Pielou Evenness The values of Pielou Evenness Index were between 0.52 – 0.80. The lowest value was for 10th site 0,80 th site (Figure 8). In site 1, we found that the individuals evenly and the highest 0,70value was for 9 distributed into 0,60 taxa. 0,50


0,40

0,90

J'

0,300,80 0,200,70 0,100,60 0,000,50 Site 1 0,40 0,30 0,20

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9

Site 10

J'

8. Evenness Pielou Evenness Index FigureFigure 8. Pielou Index values of sites.

McIntosh Evenness0,10 Index 0,00 The values of McIntosh Evenness Index were between 0.59 – 0.86. The lowest value was for 7th site Site 1 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 site. Because this index depends on McIntosh Diversity Index, its and the highest value wasSite 2 for 9thSite 3 McIntosh Evenness Index results were totally same with McIntosh Diversity results, and this similarity was obviously seen Figure 8. PielouIndex Evenness Index The values of McIntosh Evenness Index were between 0.59 – 0.86. The lowest in Figure 7 and Figure 9. value was forIndex Site 7 and the highest value was for Site 1 and Site 9 (Table 2). Because this McIntosh Evenness McIntosh Evenness Index The values of McIntosh Index were between 0.59 – 0.86. The lowest value was for 7th site index depends onEvenness McIntosh th Diversity Index, its results were totally same with McIntosh and the highest value was for 9 site. Because this index depends on McIntosh Diversity Index, its Diversity Index results, and this similarity obviously seenthis in Figure 7 and Figure 9. seen results were totally same with McIntosh Diversity was Index results, and similarity was obviously 1,00 in Figure 7 and Figure 9. 0,90 0,80

McIntosh Evenness Index

0,70 0,60

1,00

0,50

0,90

Mc E

0,40

0,80

0,30

0,70

0,20

0,60

0,10

0,50

0,00 0,40 Site 1 0,30 0,20 0,10

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Site 8

Site 9

Site 10

Mc E

Figure 9. McIntosh Evenness Index

0,00

Site 1Republic Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5- 25, Site 6 Site 7 2010 Site 8 BALWOIS 2010 - Ohrid, of Macedonia 29 May

Site 9

Figure 9. McIntosh Evenness Indexof sites. Figure 9. McIntosh Evenness Index values BALWOIS 2010 - Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia - 25, 29 May 2010

7

Site 10

7

121

GENCER TÜRKMEN AND NİLGÜN KAZANCI The number of species and individuals and the values of the all indices were shown in the Table 2.

Tablo 2.All Allnumeric numeric ofstudy. the study. Tablo 2. datadata of the S

N

H'

1–∆

Site 1

66

1452

3.21**

0.94**

8.93**

0.78**

0.77

0.86 **

Site 2

34

1932

2.02

0.83

4.36

0.60

0.57

0.70

Site 3

52

2840

2.29

0.82

6.41

0.58

0.58

0.66

Site 4

50

1240

2.35

0.80

6.88

0.56

0.60

0.64

Site 5

15

109

1.87

0.77

2.98

0.57

0.69

0.70

Site 6

39

878

2.24

0.77

5.61

0.54

0.61

0.62

Site 7

9

26

1.48*

0.66*

2.46*

0.49*

0.67

0.60*

Site 8

40

1481

2.65

0.89

5.34

0.69

0.72

0.80

Site 9

32

535

2.78

0.92

4.93

0.74

0.80**

0.86**

Site 10

45

3691

1.99

0.76

5.36

0.52

0.52*

0.60*

S:

Number of species Number of species individuals H’: Shannon Diversity Index N: Number of individuals 1 – ∆: Simpson Diversity Index d: Margalef Diversity Index H’: Mc : Shannon McIntoshDiversity DiversityIndex Index J’: Pielou Evenness Index 1Mc – Δ: E: Simpson McIntosh Diversity EvennessIndex Index

N: S:

d

d:

Mc

J'

Mc E

Margalef Diversity Index

Mc : McIntosh Diversity Index J’:


Mc E: McIntosh Evenness Index

The lowest biodiversity and evenness index value.

*

**

The highest biodiversity and evenness Conclusion index value.

In this study, we aimed to find which benthic macroinvertebrate-based diversity indices can be used more effectively in undisturbed streams in a national park. As a result of this study, that each had theirnot ownnumber different purposes and it is Margalef Indexwe is found depended on diversity numberindices of species, of individuals. not possible to determine which one has an effective usage in this kind of studies, because each diversity indices based of on individuals different variables such as numberisofnegligible. species, number individuals etc. All Equally distribution in taxa (Evenness) Thus,ofthis biodiversity diversity indices and evenness results were generally close and highly resemble to each others, and index from other biodiversity thus allis ofdiffer these indices can be used in suchindices. studies carrying out in undisturbed areas.

Evenness is important for Shannon, Simpson and McIntosh Diversity Indices. The difference of Simpson Index from theseReferences two indices is that, in Simpson Index, the species represented by oneThe individual don’tEcology take into calculation. Allan, J.D., 1975: Distributional andthe Diversity of Benthic Insects in Cement Creek, Colorado, Ecology, 56: 1040-1053.

Berlin,Although A. and Thiele, V., 2002: Trichoptera in assessment in the Shannon and McIntosh Diversity Indicesand areclassification highly closeof tostreams each other, lowlands of northeastern Germany, pp. 481-490. In: W. Mey [ed.], Proceedings of the 10th Shannon Diversity Index is the most 30 preffered index among other indices. International Symposium on Trichoptera, July-05 August, Potsdam, Germany. Nova Supplementa Entomologica, Keltern, Germany. Duran,The M., Tüzen, M. andbetween Kayim, M., 2003:and Exploration of biological andiswater differences Pielou McIntosh Evennesrichness Indices that,quality Pielouof stream Kelkit, Tokat-Turkey. Fresenius Envir. Bull., 12 (4), 368-375.

Evennes Index is derived from Shannon Diversity Index, while McIntosh Evennes Index

Dügel, M., 1995: Köyceğiz Gölü’ne dökülen akarsularn su kalitelerinin fiziko-kimyasal ve biyolojik

is derived from McIntoshBilim Diversity Index. TheHacettepe limit values of two evenness indices are parametrelerle belirlenmesi, Uzmanlğ Tezi, Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, 88s. between 0-1. The results of evennes indices in this study were close to each others. BALWOIS 2010 - Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia - 25, 29 May 2010

8

122


In this study, all diversity index results were the highest in Site 1. In Shannon, Simpson and McIntosh Diversity Indices, the sites which had the highest values were Site 1, Site 9 and Site 8, respecitively. The lowest value of all diversity index results belonged to Site 7. In Margalef diversity index, the sites which had the highest values were Site 1, Site 4 and Site 3, respectively. Similarly, the highest number of species were in Site 1, Site 3 and Site 4 in this study. The reason of the difference from other biodiversity indices results was the dependence on number of species, not number of individuals.

CONCLUSION In this study, we aimed to find which biodiversity indices applied to benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages can be used more effectively in undisturbed streams in a national park. The effects of pollution and degradations in habitat quality cause a decrease in number of species and a change in number of individuals of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in streams. The biodiversity indices and evenness indices in this study reflected the degredations in habitats correctly and effectively.

REFERENCES Allan, J.D., 1975. The Distributional Ecology and Diversity of Benthic Insects in Cement Creek, Colorado, Ecology, 56: 1040-1053. Berlin, A. and Thiele, V., 2002. Trichoptera in assessment and classification of streams in the lowlands of northeastern Germany, pp. 481-490. In: W. Mey [ed.], Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Trichoptera, 30 July-05 August, Potsdam, Germany. Nova Supplementa Entomologica, Keltern, Germany. Duran, M., Tüzen, M. and Kayim, M., 2003. Exploration of biological richness and water quality of stream Kelkit, Tokat-Turkey. Fresenius Envir. Bull., 12,4: 368-375. Dügel, M., 1995. Köyceğiz Gölü’ne dökülen akarsuların su kalitelerinin fiziko-kimyasal ve biyolojik parametrelerle belirlenmesi, Bilim Uzmanlığı Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, 88s. Dügel, M. and Kazancı, N., 2004. Assessment of water quality of the Büyük Menderes River (Turkey) by using ordination and classification of macroinvertebrates and environmental variables. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 19,4:605-612. 123


EC REFCOND Working Group, 2001. Guidance on the establishing reference conditions and ecological status class boundaries for inland surface waters. 3rd draft, Version No. 3., 22.10.02. Girgin, S., 1997, Ankara Çayı’nda taban büyük omurgasızlarının çeşitliliklerinin değişik indisler kullanılarak araştırılması, Turk J Zool., 21: 269-274. Hellawell, J.M., 1986. Biological Indicators of Freshwater Pollution and Environmental Management, Elsevier Publishers, London, 546p. Heip, C. and Engels, P., 1974. Comparing species diversity and evenness indices. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K., 54:559-563. Hynes, H.B.N., 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters, Liverpool University Press, 555p. Kazancı, N., 1993. Protection of Environment and Nature in Köyceğiz-Dalyan, Final Report of Hydrobiological Subproject (GTZ) GmbH. Darmstadt, Özel Çevre Koruma Kurumu yayını, 229. Kazancı, N., Girgin, S., Dügel, M. and Oğuzkurt, D., 1997. Türkiye iç Suları Araştırma Dizisi II (Ed. N. Kazancı): Akarsuların Çevre Kalitesi Yönünden Değerlendirilmesinde ve izlenmesinde Biyotik indeks Yöntemi, İmaj Press, Ankara. Kazancı, N. and Dügel, M., 2000. An Evaluation of the Water Quality of Yuvarlakçay Stream, in the Köycegiz-Dalyan Protected Area, SW Turkey. Turk J. Zool., 24: 69-80. Kazancı, N., Oğuzkurt, D. and Dügel, M., 2003. Türkiye İç suları Araştırma Dizisi VII: Beyşehir Gölü’nün Limnolojisi, Çevre Kalitesi, Biyolojik Çeşitliliği ve Korunması. (ed. Nilgün Kazancı). İmaj yayınevi 148 s. Ankara. Kazancı, N. and Dügel, M., 2008. Prediction of global climate change impact on structure of aquatic insect assemblages by using species optimum and tolerance values of temperature. Review of Hydrobiology 1,2: 73-80. Kazancı, N. and Türkmen, G., 2008. Yedigöller Milli Parkı (Bolu) Ephemeroptera (Insecta) faunası üzerine bir araştırma: su kalitesi ve referans habitat özellikleri. Review of Hydrobiology 1,1: 53-71. Kazancı, N., Dügel, M. and Girgin, S., 2008a. Determination of indicator genera of benthic mactoinvertebrate communities in running waters in western Turkey. Review of Hydrobiology 1,1: 1-16. Kazancı, N., Türkmen, G., Ertunç, Ö., Gültutan, Y., Ekingen, P. and Öz, B., 2008b. A research on water quality of Kelkit Stream using benthic macroinvertebrates and physicochemical variables, Review of Hydrobiology 1,2: 145-160. Kazancı, N., 2009. Records of Plecoptera (Insecta) species and affects of episodic acidification on physicochemical properties of their habitats in the Eastern Black Sea Region and Yeşilırmak River Basin. Review of Hydrobiology 2,2: 187-197. Kazancı, N., Öz, B., Dügel, M., Ertunç, Ö and Türkmen, G., 2009a. First faunistic survey and canonical correspondence analysis of interstitial aquatic insect assemblages of running waters in Turkey. Review of Hydrobiology 2,2: 1-11. Kazancı, N., Ekingen, P. and Türkmen, G., 2009b. A study on Hirudinea Fauna of Turkey and habitat quality of the species. Review of Hydrobiology 2,2: 81-95. Kocataş, A., 1992. Ekoloji ve Çevre Biyolojisi, Ege Üniv. Matbaası, İzmir, 564s. 124


Mandaville, S.M., 2002. Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Freshwater – Taxa Tolerance Values, Metrics, and Protocols, Project H - 1. (Nova Scotia: Soil & Water Conservation Society of Metro Halifax). McIntosh, R.P., 1967. An Index of Diversity and the Relation of Certain Concepts to Diversity. Merritt, R. W. and Cummins, K. W., 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, 3rd ed. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA. Ministry of Environment and Forestry, 2004. Regulation on Water Pollution Control. Pielou, E.C., 1966. The Measurement of Diversity in Different Types of Biological Collections, J. Theoret. Biol., 13: 131-144. Rosenberg, D. and Resh, V., 1993. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman & Hall. New York. Türkmen, G., 2008. Bolu İlindeki Bazı akarsulardan seçilen referans istasyonlardaki makrobentik toplulukların analizi Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Biyoloji Bölümü, Yüksek Lisans tezi, Ankara, 76s. Türkmen, G. and Kazancı, N., 2008. Water quality evaluation of reference sites by using saprobic index in some running waters in the province of Bolu. Review of Hydrobiology 1,2: 93-118. Türkmen, G. and Kazancı, N., 2010. Applications Of Various Diversity Indices to Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages In Streams In A National Park In Turkey. Balwois 2010, Available from: http://www.balwois.com/balwois/ administration/full_ paper/ffp-1765.pdf Wallin, M., Wiederholm, T. and Johnson, R. K., 2003. Guidance on establishing reference conditions and ecological status class boundaries for inland surface waters, CIS Working Group 2.3- REFCOND. 7th Version. Wilhm, J.L. and Dorris, T.C., 1968. Biological Parameters for Water Quality Criteria, Bioscience 18,6: 477-481. Williams, D.D. and Feltmate, B.W., 1992. Aquatic Insects, CAB International.

125

View publication stats