DOCSLIB.ORG

Effects of Emergent Structure on the Abundance and Size Distribution of Trichoptera in Bay of Plenty Hill-Country Streams

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effects of Emergent Structure on the Abundance and Size Distribution of Trichoptera in Bay of Plenty Hill-Country Streams http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/ Research Commons at the University of Waikato Copyright Statement: The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). The thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: Any use you make of these documents or images must be for research or private study purposes only, and you may not make them available to any other person. Authors control the copyright of their thesis. You will recognise the author’s right to be identified as the author of the thesis, and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate. You will obtain the author’s permission before publishing any material from the thesis. Effects of emergent structure on the abundance and size distribution of Trichoptera in Bay of Plenty hill-country streams A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science (Research) in Biological Sciences at The University of Waikato by James Cooper 2018 Abstract Restoration of streams is not limited to recreating structural habitat complexity, but also requires recolonisation of biota that had been excluded prior to restoration. Aquatic insects are a key component of a streams ecosystem, but often do not recolonise restored sites at expected rates. It is hypothesised that this is due to a lack of suitable habitat for the oviposition of certain groups, particularly the Trichopteran family Hydrobiosidae which is known to use emergent stones to access the stream bed for oviposition. I investigated associations between Trichoptera groups with different oviposition strategies and emergent structure in the form of boulders in six Bay of Plenty stream sites. I compared abundances and size class distribution of Hydrobiosidae, Conoesucidae and Hydropsychidae at sites with and without emergent boulders. Results from that study suggest that the presence of oviposition structure was not linked to either the abundance or size distribution of Hydrobiosidae within the sites we examined where other factors such as degree of shade, water velocity and substrate size were key determinant of larval abundance. This first suggested that Hydrobiosidae may arrive in sites lacking emergent structure via alternative means. Two potential pathways for the colonisation of Hydrobiosidae in reaches without emergent structure were subsequently identified and investigated: (i) access via the banks or emergent vegetation for oviposition; and/or (ii) Hydrobiosidae drift from upstream areas with suitable oviposition habitat. Page | i A study on longitudinal patterns of Hydrobiosidae drift showed inconclusive results, with no significant changes in drift densities or larval size with distance downstream of emergent structure. A study on the lateral distribution of Hydrobiosidae in a reach lacking emergent structure provided evidence that adults were utilising stream banks to access submerged oviposition habitat with higher numbers of smaller Hydrobiosidae found near the stream edges compared to within the channel. Findings from my study suggest that there should not be any constraints on the recolonisation of Hydrobiosidae within a restored reach as long as: (i) there is suitable oviposition habitat <2km upstream of a restored site; (ii) there is a source population of adults capable of reaching oviposition habitat within the targeted stream; (iii) the water quality is suitable for colonisation; and (iv) instream conditions such as shade, substrate size and water velocities are within the preferred ranges. Page | ii Acknowledgements First and foremost I have to give a huge thank you to my supervisors, Kevin Collier, Richard Storey and Brian Smith for putting up me all this time and supporting me throughout this journey. A special thank you to my parents, Kevin & Claire Cooper, for supporting me both morally and financially these past years and especially to my partner, Celsa Davas, both for the support and also for acting as my field assistant. I love you. A big thank you to my other Field assistant, Ashleigh Pos. Thank you for coming out to one of the hardest field sampling days and giving it your all. This thesis would not have been possible without the support and permission of the land owners; in particular the owners of the farm at the Waimapu stream who allowed me free access whenever it was needed. This thesis was conducted as part of a National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) study into the habitat bottlenecks which can form barriers to the successful recolonisation of stream insects into restored waterways. Funding was provided in part by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) under the “Habitat bottlenecks for freshwater fauna” project. Contract: C01X1615 Page | iii Contents Chapter 1: General Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 1.1 Thesis aims ........................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Thesis structure .................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 2: Study Area ............................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Sampling dates ................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Geology .............................................................................................................................. 11 2.3 Climate ............................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................... 14 2.5 Physiochemical attributes .................................................................................................. 16 2.6 Land use ............................................................................................................................. 17 2.7 Ecology ............................................................................................................................... 18 Chapter 3: Effect of emergent structure on the distribution, abundance and size range of Trichoptera ................................................................................................................ 20 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 20 3.2 Site description................................................................................................................... 24 3.3 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 25 3.3.1 Field sampling ........................................................................................... 25 3.3.2 Benthic invertebrate collection and processing ....................................... 26 3.3.3 Statistical analysis ..................................................................................... 27 3.4 Results ................................................................................................................................ 29 3.4.1 Habitat characteristics .............................................................................. 29 3.4.2 Trichoptera Fauna .................................................................................... 31 3.4.3 Taxa densities ........................................................................................... 41 3.4.4 Larval sizes ................................................................................................ 46 3.5 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 48 3.5.1 Comparison of study areas / study limitations ........................................ 49 3.5.2 Community structure and taxa densities ................................................. 51 3.5.3 Size distribution responses to emergent structure .................................. 57 3.6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 60 Page | iv Chapter 4: Lateral distribution and longitudinal drift of larval Hydrobiosidae in Waimapu Stream. .................................................................................................................... 62 4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 62 4.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 66 4.2.1 Site description ......................................................................................... 66 4.2.2 Lateral distribution sampling .................................................................... 66 4.2.3 Longitudinal drift distribution study ........................................................ 69 4.3 Results ................................................................................................................................ 74 4.3.1 Lateral distribution study ........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • About the Book the Format Acknowledgments
    About the Book For more than ten years I have been working on a book on bryophyte ecology and was joined by Heinjo During, who has been very helpful in critiquing multiple versions of the chapters. But as the book progressed, the field of bryophyte ecology progressed faster. No chapter ever seemed to stay finished, hence the decision to publish online. Furthermore, rather than being a textbook, it is evolving into an encyclopedia that would be at least three volumes. Having reached the age when I could retire whenever I wanted to, I no longer needed be so concerned with the publish or perish paradigm. In keeping with the sharing nature of bryologists, and the need to educate the non-bryologists about the nature and role of bryophytes in the ecosystem, it seemed my personal goals could best be accomplished by publishing online. This has several advantages for me. I can choose the format I want, I can include lots of color images, and I can post chapters or parts of chapters as I complete them and update later if I find it important. Throughout the book I have posed questions. I have even attempt to offer hypotheses for many of these. It is my hope that these questions and hypotheses will inspire students of all ages to attempt to answer these. Some are simple and could even be done by elementary school children. Others are suitable for undergraduate projects. And some will take lifelong work or a large team of researchers around the world. Have fun with them! The Format The decision to publish Bryophyte Ecology as an ebook occurred after I had a publisher, and I am sure I have not thought of all the complexities of publishing as I complete things, rather than in the order of the planned organization.
    [Show full text]
  • ARTHROPODA Subphylum Hexapoda Protura, Springtails, Diplura, and Insects
    NINE Phylum ARTHROPODA SUBPHYLUM HEXAPODA Protura, springtails, Diplura, and insects ROD P. MACFARLANE, PETER A. MADDISON, IAN G. ANDREW, JOCELYN A. BERRY, PETER M. JOHNS, ROBERT J. B. HOARE, MARIE-CLAUDE LARIVIÈRE, PENELOPE GREENSLADE, ROSA C. HENDERSON, COURTenaY N. SMITHERS, RicarDO L. PALMA, JOHN B. WARD, ROBERT L. C. PILGRIM, DaVID R. TOWNS, IAN McLELLAN, DAVID A. J. TEULON, TERRY R. HITCHINGS, VICTOR F. EASTOP, NICHOLAS A. MARTIN, MURRAY J. FLETCHER, MARLON A. W. STUFKENS, PAMELA J. DALE, Daniel BURCKHARDT, THOMAS R. BUCKLEY, STEVEN A. TREWICK defining feature of the Hexapoda, as the name suggests, is six legs. Also, the body comprises a head, thorax, and abdomen. The number A of abdominal segments varies, however; there are only six in the Collembola (springtails), 9–12 in the Protura, and 10 in the Diplura, whereas in all other hexapods there are strictly 11. Insects are now regarded as comprising only those hexapods with 11 abdominal segments. Whereas crustaceans are the dominant group of arthropods in the sea, hexapods prevail on land, in numbers and biomass. Altogether, the Hexapoda constitutes the most diverse group of animals – the estimated number of described species worldwide is just over 900,000, with the beetles (order Coleoptera) comprising more than a third of these. Today, the Hexapoda is considered to contain four classes – the Insecta, and the Protura, Collembola, and Diplura. The latter three classes were formerly allied with the insect orders Archaeognatha (jumping bristletails) and Thysanura (silverfish) as the insect subclass Apterygota (‘wingless’). The Apterygota is now regarded as an artificial assemblage (Bitsch & Bitsch 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity and Ecosystem Services of Trichoptera
    Review Diversity and Ecosystem Services of Trichoptera John C. Morse 1,*, Paul B. Frandsen 2,3, Wolfram Graf 4 and Jessica A. Thomas 5 1 Department of Plant & Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, E-143 Poole Agricultural Center, Clemson, SC 29634-0310, USA; [email protected] 2 Department of Plant & Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, 701 E University Parkway Drive, Provo, UT 84602, USA; [email protected] 3 Data Science Lab, Smithsonian Institution, 600 Maryland Ave SW, Washington, D.C. 20024, USA 4 BOKU, Institute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecology Management, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendelstr. 33, A-1180 Vienna, Austria; [email protected] 5 Department of Biology, University of York, Wentworth Way, York Y010 5DD, UK; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-864-656-5049 Received: 2 February 2019; Accepted: 12 April 2019; Published: 1 May 2019 Abstract: The holometabolous insect order Trichoptera (caddisflies) includes more known species than all of the other primarily aquatic orders of insects combined. They are distributed unevenly; with the greatest number and density occurring in the Oriental Biogeographic Region and the smallest in the East Palearctic. Ecosystem services provided by Trichoptera are also very diverse and include their essential roles in food webs, in biological monitoring of water quality, as food for fish and other predators (many of which are of human concern), and as engineers that stabilize gravel bed sediment. They are especially important in capturing and using a wide variety of nutrients in many forms, transforming them for use by other organisms in freshwaters and surrounding riparian areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue Information
    Systematic Entomology (2017), 42, 240–266 DOI: 10.1111/syen.12209 Molecular phylogeny of Sericostomatoidea (Trichoptera) with the establishment of three new families KJELL ARNE JOHANSON1, TOBIAS MALM1 andMARIANNE ESPELAND2 1Department of Zoology, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden and 2Arthropoda Department, Zoological Research Museum Alexander Koenig, Bonn, Germany Abstract. We inferred the phylogenetic relationships among 58 genera of Sericostom- atoidea, representing all previously accepted families as well as genera that were not placed in established families. The analyses were based on five fragments of the protein coding genes carbamoylphosphate synthetase (CPSase of CAD), isocitrate dehydroge- nase (IDH), Elongation factor 1a (EF-1a), RNA polymerase II (POL II) and cytochrome oxidase I (COI). The data set was analysed using Bayesian methods with a mixed model, raxml, and parsimony. The various methods generated slightly different results regarding relationships among families, but the shared results comprise support for: (i) a monophyletic Sericostomatoidea; (ii) a paraphyletic Parasericostoma due to inclusion of Myotrichia murina, leading to synonymization of Myotrichia with Parasericostoma; (iii) a polyphyletic Sericostomatidae, which is divided into two families, Sericostom- atidae sensu stricto and Parasericostomatidae fam.n.; (iv) a polyphyletic Helicophidae which is divided into Helicophidae sensu stricto and Heloccabucidae fam.n.; (v) hypoth- esized phylogenetic placement of the former incerta sedis genera Ngoya, Seselpsyche and Karomana; (vi) a paraphyletic Costora (Conoesucidae) that should be divided into several genera after more careful examination of morphological data; (vii) reinstatement of Gyrocarisa as a valid genus within Petrothrincidae. A third family, Ceylanopsychi- dae fam.n., is established based on morphological characters alone. A hypothesis of the relationship among 14 of the 15 families in the superfamily is presented.
    [Show full text]
  • South, Tasmania
    Biodiversity Summary for NRM Regions Guide to Users Background What is the summary for and where does it come from? This summary has been produced by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPC) for the Natural Resource Management Spatial Information System. It highlights important elements of the biodiversity of the region in two ways: • Listing species which may be significant for management because they are found only in the region, mainly in the region, or they have a conservation status such as endangered or vulnerable. • Comparing the region to other parts of Australia in terms of the composition and distribution of its species, to suggest components of its biodiversity which may be nationally significant. The summary was produced using the Australian Natural Natural Heritage Heritage Assessment Assessment Tool Tool (ANHAT), which analyses data from a range of plant and animal surveys and collections from across Australia to automatically generate a report for each NRM region. Data sources (Appendix 2) include national and state herbaria, museums, state governments, CSIRO, Birds Australia and a range of surveys conducted by or for DEWHA. Limitations • ANHAT currently contains information on the distribution of over 30,000 Australian taxa. This includes all mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs and fish, 137 families of vascular plants (over 15,000 species) and a range of invertebrate groups. The list of families covered in ANHAT is shown in Appendix 1. Groups notnot yet yet covered covered in inANHAT ANHAT are are not not included included in the in the summary. • The data used for this summary come from authoritative sources, but they are not perfect.
    [Show full text]
  • Morse, JE 1993. a Checklist of the Trichoptera of North
    751 NOMINA INSECTA NEARCTICA The Trichoptera list is taken from the very important Phryganeidae paper: Morse, J.E. 1993. A checklist of the Trichoptera (Phryganopsychidae not NA) of North America, including Greenland and Mexico. (Plectrotarsidae not NA) Transactions of the American Entomological Society, Polycentropodidae 119:47-93. The list was modified by the addition of Psychomyiidae generic synonomies, the reversion to original orthography Rhyacophilidae for the valid species group names, and the elimination of Sericostomatidae the purely Mexican species. (Stenopsychidae not NA) (Tasmiidae not NA) ALTERNATIVE FAMILY NAMES Uenoidae Xiphocentronidae The purpose of this section is to list some family names the user might encounter in the Trichoptera. This list is not an exhaustive compilation of family group names, but STATISTICS is included for the convenience of the users of the check list. The abbreviation (not NA) stands for not North The following statistics are offered without comment. America, ie. the family is not found north of the US- Mexican border. Family # Names # Valid Arctopsychidae 17 11 Beraeidae 3 3 Agrypniidae (see Phryganeidae) Brachycentridae 47 35 (Anomalopsychidae not NA) Calamoceratidae 8 5 (Antipodoeciidae not NA) Glossosomatidae 83 78 Goeridae 12 12 Arctopsychidae Helicopsychidae 12 9 (Atriplectididae not NA) Hydrobiosidae 3 3 (Barbarochthonidae not NA) Hydropsychidae 175 146 Beraeidae Hydroptilidae 268 245 Lepidostomatidae 89 68 Brachycentridae Leptoceridae 173 113 Calamoceratidae Limnephilidae 406 292 (Calocidae
    [Show full text]
  • Are New Zealand's Marine Caddisflies a ‘Ghost of Gondwana’? Phylogenetic Placement of the Chathamiidae
    I Acknowledgments This study would not have been possible without the considerable level of assistance and contribution others have provided to this study. Firstly I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Peter Ritchie who has helped and guided me through this thesis every step of the way, almost three years in the making. Pete willingly took me on long before caddisflies even crossed my mind as a research topic, and his patience with a student in ecology attempting a thesis on genetics has been extraordinary. My co-supervisor Dr Ian Henderson has also been of invaluable assistance, not only going out of his way to collect a considerable number of samples specifically for my study and donating his own specimens, but also willingly providing his formidable expertise to shape and steer this thesis. I am indebted to you both. I cannot thank enough those who were willing to help with my sampling in this study. I must give special thanks to Dr Alice Wells who provided me with samples collected from three different areas in New South Wales Australia. I also must thank Karen Baird for her readiness and willingness to collect for me samples from the almost untouchable Kermadec Islands, for which I am still immensely grateful to have had the fortune to have obtained! Michelle Jenkinson at Department of Conservation was of considerable help and patience for helping me to secure permission for use of the Kermadec material, of whom her and Karen both stepped out of protocol to make up for my own disorganisation! I must also extend my gratitude to the entomological society of New Zealand who provided me with a 21st anniversary grant to facilitate my travel to the Chatham Islands for collection.
    [Show full text]
  • The Caddisflies(Insecta: Trichoffera)Of the Lake Itasca Region, Minnesota, and a Preliminary Assessment of the Conservation Status of Minnesota Trichoptera
    THE CADDISFLIES(INSECTA: TRICHOFFERA)OF THE LAKE ITASCA REGION, MINNESOTA, AND A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSERVATION STATUS OF MINNESOTA TRICHOPTERA A THESIS SUBMMTD TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY MARGOT PECK MONSON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE SEPTEMBER, 1994 .2:-?, FISHERIES, I WELLAAVE LIBRARY p El 6 if 9? JAN12 3 T 0 Margot Peck Monson 1994 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my major advisor, Dr. Ralph Holzenthal, for taking me on as his student and for his time, effort, and patient guidance in helping me pursue this project. I also wish to thank Dr. Roger Moon for his helpful counsel and encouragement, as well as the other members of my examination committee, Dr. William Miller and Dr. Francesca Cuthbert, for their support. I am grateful to Dr. 0. J. Flint, Dr. Steve Harris, Dr. David Etnier, and the Illinois Natural History Survey for their assistance in making specimens available and for verification of some determinations. Dr. Etnier was also most generous in making several donations to the University of Minnesota Insect Collection. I am thankful for the partial funding for this project, contributed by the Nongame Wildlife Program of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. The helpfulness of Dr. Phil Clausen, Curator of the University of Minnesota Insect Collection, was most appreciated (as was his willingness to answer my many questions). The friendship and good humor extended by my colleagues in the lab, Roger, Atilano, Jolanda, Sonia, John, and Marc, as well as Sue, Paul, Sujaya, and Diann will be fondly remembered.
    [Show full text]
  • Critter Catalogue a Guide to the Aquatic Invertebrates of South Australian Inland Waters
    ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY Critter Catalogue A guide to the aquatic invertebrates of South Australian inland waters. Critter Catalogue A guide to the aquatic invertebrates of South Australian inland waters. Authors Sam Wade, Environment Protection Authority Tracy Corbin, Australian Water Quality Centre Linda-Marie McDowell, Environment Protection Authority Original illustrations by John Bradbury Scientific editing by Alice Wells—Australian Biological Resources Survey, Environment Australia Project Management by Simone Williams, Environment Protection Authority ISBN 1 876562 67 6 June 2004 For further information please contact: Environment Protection Authority GPO Box 2607 Adelaide SA 5001 Telephone: (08) 8204 2004 Facsimile: (08) 8204 9393 Freecall (country): 1800 623 445 © Environment Protection Authority This document, including illustrations, may be reproduced in whole or part for the purpose of study or training, subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source and to its not being used for commercial purposes or sale. Reproduction for purposes other than those given above requires the prior written permission of the Environment Protection Authority. i Critter Catalogue Dedication WD (Bill) Williams, AO, DSc, PhD 21 August 1936—26 January 2002 This guide is dedicated to the memory of Bill Williams, an internationally noted aquatic ecologist and Professor of Zoology at the University of Adelaide. Bill was active in the science and conservation of aquatic ecosystems both in Australia and internationally. Bill wrote Australian Freshwater Life, the first comprehensive guide to the fauna of Australian inland waters. It was initially published in 1968 and continues to be used by students, scientists and naturalists to this day. Bill generously allowed illustrations from his book to be used in earlier versions of this guide.
    [Show full text]
  • CADDIS) Prepared by John Ward, Canterbury Museum
    National Centre for Aquatic Biodiversity and Biosecurity www.niwa.co.nz/ncabb CHECKLIST OF THE NEW ZEALAND TRICHOPTERA (CADDIS) Prepared by John Ward, Canterbury Museum CALOCIDAE Alloecentrella magnicornis Wise, 1958 Alloecentrella 3 un-named species Pycnocentrella eruensis Mosely, 1953 CHATHAMIIDAE Chathamia brevipennis Tillyard, 1925 Chathamia integripennis Riek, 1976 Philanisus fasciatus Riek, 1976 Philanisus mataua Ward, 1995 Philanisus plebeius Walker, 1852 CONOESUCIDAE Beraeoptera roria Mosely, 1953 Confluens hamiltoni (Tillyard, 1924) Confluens olingoides (Tillyard, 1924) Confluens 1 un-named species Olinga christinae Ward & McKenzie, 1998 Olinga feredayi (McLachlan, 1868) Olinga fumosa Wise, 1958 Olinga jeanae McFarlane, 1966 Periwinkla childi McFarlane, 1973 Pycnocentria evecta McLachlan, 1868 Pycnocentria forcipata Mosely, 1953 Pycnocentria funerea McLachlan, 1866 Pycnocentria gunni (McFarlane, 1956) Pycnocentria hawdonia McFarlane, 1956 Pycnocentria mordax Ward, 1997 Pycnocentria patricki Ward, 1995 Pycnocentria sylvestris McFarlane, 1973 Pycnocentria 4 un-named species Pycnocentrodes aeris Wise, 1958 Pycnocentrodes aureolus (McLachlan, 1868) Pycnocentrodes modestus Cowley, 1976 ECNOMIDAE Ecnomina zealandica Wise, 1958 HELICOPHIDAE Zelolessica cheira McFarlane, 1956 Zelolessica meizon McFarlane, 1981 HELICOPSYCHIDAE Helicopsyche (Saetotricha) albescens Tillyard, 1924 Helicopsyche (Saetotricha) cuvieri Johanson, 1999 Helicopsyche (Saetotricha) haurapango Johanson, 1999 Helicopsyche (Saetotricha) howesi Tillyard, 1924 Helicopsyche
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliographia Trichopterorum
    1 Bibliographia Trichopterorum Volume 5 2001-2010 (Preliminary) ©Andrew P.Nimmo. 106-29 Ave NW, EDMONTON, Alberta, Canada T6J 4H6 e-mail: [email protected]] [As at 1/6/14] LITERATURE CITATIONS [* indicates that I have a copy of the paper in question] 2 0000 *Anon. 2001. 4.3.14 Vesiperhoset. pp 172-176, In: Suomen lajien uhanal-aisuus 2000. The 2000 Red List of Finnish species. Finnish Environment Unit, Minist. Environ., Helsinki. ISBN 951 37 3594 X. Fin. 0000 Anon. 2004. Verzeichnis der in diesem Band neu beschriebenen Taxa. Taxa Index in this volume of newly described taxa. Denisia, (13):635. BAan 2005-00041035 & -00042644. 0000 Anon. 2005. Breeding and emargence [emergence] of the parasitic wasp Agriotypus. Hibakagaku 215:1-9. [Plates unpag.]. Jap., engl. ZRan 141-07000151. 0000 Anon. 2006. Stream macroalgae of the Hawaiian Islands: a floristic Survey1. Pacif. Sci. 60:191. BAan 2007-0103135359-01065. 0000 *Anon. 2006. Chruściki w kryminalistyce? Wyszperane z Internetu. Trichopteron 19:5. 0000 *Anon. 2006. Gruczoly jedwabne chruscikow, czyli podwodni inzynierowie. Trichopteron 20:6. ZRan 142-11069503. 0000 Anon. 2007. Verzeichnis der in diesem Heft (39/1) neu beschriebenen Taxa. Linzer biol. Beitr 39:703-705. BPan 2008-00165441. 0000 Anon. 2008. Appendix list of the Invertebrates of Plummers Island, Maryland. Bull. biol. Soc. Wash. 15:192-226. BioOnean 0097 0298 15 1 192. 0000 Anon. 2008. New data on the Caddisflies (Trichoptera) from Moldova. Vestn. Zool. 42:76. BPan 2008-00504703. 0000 *Anon. 2009. [A study of geunus [sic] Hydroptila with two new species and two new record species from China (Trichoptera, Hydroptilidae).].
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Bioassessment Methodology for Rivers and Streams
    GUIDELINE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RAPID BIOASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY FOR RIVERS AND STREAMS GUIDELINE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RAPID BIOASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY FOR RIVERS AND STREAMS EPA Victoria 40 City Road, Southbank Victoria 3006 AUSTRALIA October 2003 Publication 604.1 ISBN 0 7306 7637 4 © EPA Victoria, 2003 Acknowledgments: Rapid Bioassessment Methodology for Rivers and Streams represents the culmination of many years of method development and refinement under the National River Health Program and by EPA Victoria. The delivery of this updated edition of the Guideline was enabled by funding from the joint Commonwealth and State partnership for the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. EPA Victoria gratefully acknowledges the support of all contributors past and present. FOREWORD As Victorians, we recognise the importance of maintaining or improving the quality of our rivers and streams, protecting them so that they sustain us, our way of living, and our future. This task is too big for any one organisation and is increasingly being entrusted to a broader range of partners across the community. One challenge partners face is measuring the effectiveness of the environmental and resource management decisions we make on environmental condition. Over the past decade, combined State and national efforts have led to the development and implementation of rapid bioassessment for rivers and streams. This approach, which examines the response of biota to environmental disturbances, is more effective than the traditional approach of taking water quality ‘snap-shots’ in time because it reflects the net effect of disturbances over the previous weeks, months or years. As a result, rapid bioassessment of macroinvertebrate communities, considered to be currently the best available general indicator, has become a key tool in Victoria for assessing the environmental condition of rivers and streams.
    [Show full text]