DOCSLIB.ORG

Further Development of River Invertebrate Classification Tool

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Final Report Project WFD100 Further Development of River Invertebrate Classification Tool September/2010 © SNIFFER 2010 All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of SNIFFER. The views expressed in this document are not necessarily those of SNIFFER. Its members, servants or agents accept no liability whatsoever for any loss or damage arising from the interpretation or use of the information, or reliance upon views contained herein. Dissemination status Unrestricted Project funders Environment Agency Northern Ireland Environment Agency Scottish Environment Protection Agency Whilst this document is considered to represent the best available scientific information and expert opinion available at the stage of completion of the report, it does not necessarily represent the final or policy positions of the project funders. Research contractor This document was produced by the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (main contractor) and the Freshwater Biological Association (sub-contractor): John Davy-Bowker*, Sean Arnott‡, Rebecca Close†, Mike Dobson†, Michael Dunbar‡, Gabriela Jofre*, Diana Morton*, John Murphy∆, William Wareham‡, Stephanie Smith* & Vanya Gordon* *The Freshwater Biological Association, River Laboratory, East Stoke, Wareham, Dorset, BH20 6BB, United Kingdom †The Freshwater Biological Association, The Ferry Landing, Far Sawrey, Ambleside, Cumbria, LA22 0LP, United Kingdom ‡Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BB, United Kingdom ∆Queen Mary University of London, c/o Freshwater Biological Association, River Laboratory, East Stoke, Wareham, Dorset, BH20 6BB, United Kingdom SNIFFER’s project manager SNIFFER’s project manager for this contract is: David Colvill, Scottish Environment Protection Agency SNIFFER’s project steering group members are: David Colvill, Scottish Environment Protection Agency Peter Hale, Northern Ireland Environment Agency Imelda O’Neill, Northern Ireland Environment Agency Ben McFarland, Environment Agency SNIFFER First Floor, Greenside House 25 Greenside Place EDINBURGH EH1 3AA Scotland UK www.sniffer.org.uk Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER), Scottish Charity No SC022375, Company No SC149513. Registered in Edinburgh. Registered Office: Edinburgh Quay, 133 Fountainbridge, Edinburgh, EH3 9AG. SNIFFER WFD100: Further Development of River Invertebrate Classification Tool September, 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WFD100: Further Development of River Invertebrate Classification Tool (March, 2010) Project funders/partners: Environment Agency, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Scottish Environment Protection Agency Background to research The Regulatory Agencies in the UK (the Environment Agency; Scottish Environment Protection Agency; and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency) have recently begun to use the River Invertebrate Classification Tool (RICT) to classify the ecological quality of rivers. RICT incorporates RIVPACS IV predictive models and is a highly capable tool written in a modern software programming language. While RICT classifies waters for general degradation and organic pollution stress, producing assessments of status class and uncertainty, WFD compliance monitoring also requires the UK Agencies to assess the impacts of hydromorphological and acidification stresses. This project seeks to broaden the scope of RICT by adding numerical abundance estimates to the underlying RIVPACS database, thereby allowing the calculation of additional abundance-weighted biotic indices to classify sites affected by hydromorphological and acidification stress. This project also seeks to identify a list of potential new predictive variables to enable subsequent development of a RIVPACS model that does not use predictor variables that are affected by these stressors. Objectives of research • To consult and then propose various new predicted species output options from RICT that more closely conform to the level of species identification routinely achievable in Agency laboratories. • To produce the necessary data and files to implement these new species-level taxonomic output option(s) in RICT. • To allocate numerical abundance values to all of the existing species and family level records in the RIVPACS reference site database. • To calculate a new range of species-level biotic indices in the RIVPACS database and to supply the files necessary to enable RICT to predict reference values for these indices at test sites. • To propose a list of new predictive variables that will both enhance the predictive capabilities of RICT and also offset the loss of predictive power associated with the future removal of variables known to be affected by hydromorphological and acidification stress. i SNIFFER WFD100: Further Development of River Invertebrate Classification Tool September, 2010 This work has fine-tuned the species level index predictions of RICT to better match the needs of the Agencies, improved the usefulness of the RIVPACS dataset to predict abundance weighted indices and paved the way for RICT to make predictions using predictor variables that are more convincingly independent of the stresses being assessed. Key findings and recommendations This project has produced several enhancements to the RIVPACS database and the RIVPACS IV model within RICT: • Data files to support a new predicted species output option from RICT (WFD species level) that more closely conforms to the level of species identification routinely achievable in Agency laboratories. • Allocation of numerical abundance values to all of the existing species and family level records in the RIVPACS reference site database to support the calculation of a wide range of family and species-level indices including those with abundance weighting. • Calculation of a new range of species-level biotic indices in the RIVPACS database and the supply of files necessary for RICT to be able to predict reference values for these indices at test sites. • Production of a list of new predictive variables that could both enhance the predictive capabilities of RICT and also offset the loss of predictive power associated with the future removal of variables known to be affected by hydromorphological and acidification stress. While this project has made reference values of a wide range of new indices available it is recommended that further work should be undertaken to enable RICT to calculate indices that require direct comparison of observed and expected faunal lists (e.g. the Environment Agency Pesticide and the Index of Compositional Dissimilarity). Key words: RIVPACS IV, River Invertebrate Classification Tool, Water Framework Directive ii SNIFFER WFD100: Further Development of River Invertebrate Classification Tool September, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Previous Projects 1 1.2 Project WFD100 2 1.3 Project Objectives 2 1.4 References 4 2. WORK ELEMENTS REPORTS 5 2.1 WE 2.1 Review and consultation on species-level biotic indices 5 2.1 Background 5 2.2 Review of Species Level Indices 5 2.2.1 The Waterview Database 5 2.2.2 EU AQEM/STAR Projects 6 2.2.2.1 ASTERICS 6 2.2.2.2 Species Traits Analysis (STAR Deliverable N2) 6 2.2.3 WFD Inter-calibration reports 7 2.2.4 Published Literature Sources and Reports 10 2.2.4.1 Macroinvertebrate Biological Traits for Bioassessment 10 2.2.4.2 MISA 11 2.2.4.3 DJ Index 12 2.2.4.4 Taxonomic Distinctness Indices 12 2.2.4.5 German Fauna Index D01, D02, D03, D04, D05 13 2.2.4.6 Comparison of Observed and Expected Fauna 13 2.2.4.7 Index of Compositional Dissimilarity 13 2.2.5 Consultation within the UK Agencies 14 2.2 WE 2.2 Consultation on practicable levels of species analysis 19 2.2.1 Background 19 2.2.2 Consultation On Current Levels of Analysis 19 2.2.3 References 20 2.3 WE 2.3 Recommendations for a new level/levels of taxonomic resolution 21 2.3.1 TL5 – WFD Species 21 2.4 WE 3.1 Data entry of species-level numerical abundances to the RIVPACS database 25 2.4.1 Background 25 2.4.2 Abundance Data Entry Process 26 2.4.3 Separating the Composite Families in the Raw Data 27 2.5 WE 3.2 Estimation and addition of numerical abundances to records without data 29 2.5.1 Estimating Missing Values 29 2.5.2 Logic checks 29 2.5.3 The completed RIVPACS database with numerical abundance data 29 2.6 WE 3.3 Calculation of numerical abundances for rationalised taxonomy / taxonomies and update of the RIVPACS reference database 31 2.6.1 Background 31 2.6.2 Production of New Files for Taxonomic Prediction 31 iii SNIFFER WFD100: Further Development of River Invertebrate Classification Tool September, 2010 2.7 WE 4.1/4. 2 Allocation of trait data for new biotic indices and calculation of reference biotic index values and end group means 35 2.7.1 Background 35 2.7.2 Index Calculation 35 2.7.2.1 Taxonomic Levels 35 2.7.2.2 Seasons 35 2.7.2.3 Excluded Sites 36 2.7.2.4 Indices Calculated 36 2.8 WE 5.0 Wish list of potential new predictive variables for future model development 41 2.8.1 Background 41 2.8.2 Predictor variables in RIVPACS/RICT 41 2.8.3 Relative Explanatory Power 42 2.8.4 Candidate Variables 43 2.8.5 References 46 3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 47 4. APPENDICES 49 References are given either within or at the end of each chapter List of Tables Table 1 Intercalibration Common Metrics (ICMs) used in the Intercalibration Common Metric index (ICMi) as described in van de Bund, 2009 (pg 18). 8 Table 2 National methods used in intercalibration (all GIGs combined) as at 28th August 2009. 9 Table 3 Feedback on consultation within the UK Agencies, (EA, SEPA, NIEA) on current and likely future requirements for biotic indices. 15 Table 4 List of biotic indices for the calculation of new reference values (existing indices in RIVPACS IV/RICT are also shown for completeness). All publication references for indices (where available) are given in the Appendices.
Recommended publications
  • Water Beetles

    Water Beetles

    Ireland Red List No. 1 Water beetles Ireland Red List No. 1: Water beetles G.N. Foster1, B.H. Nelson2 & Á. O Connor3 1 3 Eglinton Terrace, Ayr KA7 1JJ 2 Department of Natural Sciences, National Museums Northern Ireland 3 National Parks & Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage & Local Government Citation: Foster, G. N., Nelson, B. H. & O Connor, Á. (2009) Ireland Red List No. 1 – Water beetles. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland. Cover images from top: Dryops similaris (© Roy Anderson); Gyrinus urinator, Hygrotus decoratus, Berosus signaticollis & Platambus maculatus (all © Jonty Denton) Ireland Red List Series Editors: N. Kingston & F. Marnell © National Parks and Wildlife Service 2009 ISSN 2009‐2016 Red list of Irish Water beetles 2009 ____________________________ CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................ 3 NOMENCLATURE AND THE IRISH CHECKLIST................................................................................................ 3 COVERAGE .......................................................................................................................................................
  • R. P. LANE (Department of Entomology), British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 the Diptera of Lundy Have Been Poorly Studied in the Past

    R. P. LANE (Department of Entomology), British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 the Diptera of Lundy Have Been Poorly Studied in the Past

    Swallow 3 Spotted Flytcatcher 28 *Jackdaw I Pied Flycatcher 5 Blue Tit I Dunnock 2 Wren 2 Meadow Pipit 10 Song Thrush 7 Pied Wagtail 4 Redwing 4 Woodchat Shrike 1 Blackbird 60 Red-backed Shrike 1 Stonechat 2 Starling 15 Redstart 7 Greenfinch 5 Black Redstart I Goldfinch 1 Robin I9 Linnet 8 Grasshopper Warbler 2 Chaffinch 47 Reed Warbler 1 House Sparrow 16 Sedge Warbler 14 *Jackdaw is new to the Lundy ringing list. RECOVERIES OF RINGED BIRDS Guillemot GM I9384 ringed 5.6.67 adult found dead Eastbourne 4.12.76. Guillemot GP 95566 ringed 29.6.73 pullus found dead Woolacombe, Devon 8.6.77 Starling XA 92903 ringed 20.8.76 found dead Werl, West Holtun, West Germany 7.10.77 Willow Warbler 836473 ringed 14.4.77 controlled Portland, Dorset 19.8.77 Linnet KC09559 ringed 20.9.76 controlled St Agnes, Scilly 20.4.77 RINGED STRANGERS ON LUNDY Manx Shearwater F.S 92490 ringed 4.9.74 pullus Skokholm, dead Lundy s. Light 13.5.77 Blackbird 3250.062 ringed 8.9.75 FG Eksel, Belgium, dead Lundy 16.1.77 Willow Warbler 993.086 ringed 19.4.76 adult Calf of Man controlled Lundy 6.4.77 THE DIPTERA (TWO-WINGED FLffiS) OF LUNDY ISLAND R. P. LANE (Department of Entomology), British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 The Diptera of Lundy have been poorly studied in the past. Therefore, it is hoped that the production of an annotated checklist, giving an indication of the habits and general distribution of the species recorded will encourage other entomologists to take an interest in the Diptera of Lundy.
  • CHIRONOMUS Newsletter on Chironomidae Research

    CHIRONOMUS Newsletter on Chironomidae Research

    CHIRONOMUS Newsletter on Chironomidae Research No. 25 ISSN 0172-1941 (printed) 1891-5426 (online) November 2012 CONTENTS Editorial: Inventories - What are they good for? 3 Dr. William P. Coffman: Celebrating 50 years of research on Chironomidae 4 Dear Sepp! 9 Dr. Marta Margreiter-Kownacka 14 Current Research Sharma, S. et al. Chironomidae (Diptera) in the Himalayan Lakes - A study of sub- fossil assemblages in the sediments of two high altitude lakes from Nepal 15 Krosch, M. et al. Non-destructive DNA extraction from Chironomidae, including fragile pupal exuviae, extends analysable collections and enhances vouchering 22 Martin, J. Kiefferulus barbitarsis (Kieffer, 1911) and Kiefferulus tainanus (Kieffer, 1912) are distinct species 28 Short Communications An easy to make and simple designed rearing apparatus for Chironomidae 33 Some proposed emendations to larval morphology terminology 35 Chironomids in Quaternary permafrost deposits in the Siberian Arctic 39 New books, resources and announcements 43 Finnish Chironomidae 47 Chironomini indet. (Paratendipes?) from La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica. Photo by Carlos de la Rosa. CHIRONOMUS Newsletter on Chironomidae Research Editors Torbjørn EKREM, Museum of Natural History and Archaeology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway Peter H. LANGTON, 16, Irish Society Court, Coleraine, Co. Londonderry, Northern Ireland BT52 1GX The CHIRONOMUS Newsletter on Chironomidae Research is devoted to all aspects of chironomid research and aims to be an updated news bulletin for the Chironomidae research community. The newsletter is published yearly in October/November, is open access, and can be downloaded free from this website: http:// www.ntnu.no/ojs/index.php/chironomus. Publisher is the Museum of Natural History and Archaeology at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, Norway.
  • Chalk Rivers: Nature Conservation and Management

    Chalk Rivers: Nature Conservation and Management

    Chalk rivers: nature conservation and management Item Type monograph Authors Mainstone, C.P. Publisher English Nature and Environment Agency Download date 03/10/2021 21:57:44 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/27247 C halk rivers nature conservation and m anagem ent Chalk rivers nature conservation and management March 1999 C P Mainstone Water Research Centre Produced on behalf of English Nature and the Environment Agency (English Nature contract number FIN/8.16/97-8) Chalk rivers - nature conservation and management Contributors: N T Holmes Alconbury Environmental Consultants - plants P D Armitage Institute of Freshwater Ecology - invertebrates A M Wilson, J H Marchant, K Evans British Trust for Ornithology - birds D Solomon - fish D Westlake - algae 2 Contents Background 8 1. Introduction 9 2. Environmental characteristics of chalk rivers 12 2.1 Characteristic hydrology 12 2.2 Structural development and definition of reference conditions for conservation management 12 2.3 Characteristic water properties 17 3. Characteristic wildlife communities of chalk rivers 20 3.1 Introduction 20 3.2 Higher plants 25 3.3 Algae 35 3.4 Invertebrates 40 3.5 Fish 47 3.6 Birds 53 3.7 Mammals 58 4. Habitat requirements of characteristic wildlife communities 59 4.1 Introduction 59 4.2 Higher plants 59 4.3 Invertebrates 64 4.4 Fish 70 4.5 Birds 73 4.6 Mammals 79 4.7 Summary of the ecological requirements of chalk river communities 80 5. Human activities and their impacts 83 5.1 The inherent vulnerability of chalk rivers 83 5.2 An inventory of activities and their links to ecological impact 83 5.3 Channel modifications and river/floodplain consequences 89 5.4 Low flows 92 5.5 Siltation 95 5.6 Nutrient enrichment 101 5.7 Hindrances to migration 109 5.8 Channel maintenance 109 5.9 Riparian management 115 5.10 Manipulation of fish populations 116 5.11 Bird species of management concern 119 5.12 Decline of the native crayfish 120 5.13 Commercial watercress beds as a habitat 121 5.14 Spread of non-native plant species 121 3 6.
  • Crossness Sewage Treatment Works Nature Reserve & Southern Marsh Aquatic Invertebrate Survey

    Crossness Sewage Treatment Works Nature Reserve & Southern Marsh Aquatic Invertebrate Survey

    Commissioned by Thames Water Utilities Limited Clearwater Court Vastern Road Reading RG1 8DB CROSSNESS SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS NATURE RESERVE & SOUTHERN MARSH AQUATIC INVERTEBRATE SURVEY Report number: CPA18054 JULY 2019 Prepared by Colin Plant Associates (UK) Consultant Entomologists 30a Alexandra Rd London N8 0PP 1 1 INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY 1.1 Introduction and background 1.1.1 On 30th May 2018 Colin Plant Associates (UK) were commissioned by Biodiversity Team Manager, Karen Sutton on behalf of Thames Water Utilities Ltd. to undertake aquatic invertebrate sampling at Crossness Sewage Treatment Works on Erith Marshes, Kent. This survey was to mirror the locations and methodology of a previous survey undertaken during autumn 2016 and spring 2017. Colin Plant Associates also undertook the aquatic invertebrate sampling of this previous survey. 1.1.2 The 2016-17 aquatic survey was commissioned with the primary objective of establishing a baseline aquatic invertebrate species inventory and to determine the quality of the aquatic habitats present across both the Nature Reserve and Southern Marsh areas of the Crossness Sewage Treatment Works. The surveyors were asked to sample at twenty-four, pre-selected sample station locations, twelve in each area. Aquatic Coleoptera and Heteroptera (beetles and true bugs) were selected as target groups. A report of the previous survey was submitted in Sept 2017 (Plant 2017). 1.1.3 During December 2017 a large-scale pollution event took place and untreated sewage escaped into a section of the Crossness Nature Reserve. The primary point of egress was Nature Reserve Sample Station 1 (NR1) though because of the connectivity of much of the waterbody network on the marsh other areas were affected.
  • Bedfordshire and Luton County Wildlife Sites

    Bedfordshire and Luton County Wildlife Sites

    Bedfordshire and Luton County Wildlife Sites Selection Guidelines VERSION 14 December 2020 BEDFORDSHIRE AND LUTON LOCAL SITES PARTNERSHIP 1 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 2. HISTORY OF THE CWS SYSTEM ......................................................................................................................... 7 3. CURRENT CWS SELECTION PROCESS ................................................................................................................ 8 4. Nature Conservation Review CRITERIA (modified version) ............................................................................. 10 5. GENERAL SUPPLEMENTARY FACTORS ......................................................................................................... 14 6 SITE SELECTION THRESHOLDS........................................................................................................................ 15 BOUNDARIES (all CWS) ............................................................................................................................................ 15 WOODLAND, TREES and HEDGES ........................................................................................................................ 15 TRADITIONAL ORCHARDS AND FRUIT TREES ................................................................................................. 19 ARABLE FIELD MARGINS........................................................................................................................................
  • Annales Zoologici Fennici 39: 109-123

    Annales Zoologici Fennici 39: 109-123

    ANN. ZOOL. FENNICI Vol. 39 • Dispersing diving beetles in different landscapes 109 Ann. Zool. Fennici 39: 109–123 ISSN 0003-455X Helsinki 14 June 2002 © Finnish Zoological and Botanical Publishing Board 2002 Dispersing diving beetles (Dytiscidae) in agricultural and urban landscapes in south-eastern Sweden Elisabeth Lundkvist*, Jan Landin & Fredrik Karlsson Department of Biology, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden (*e-mail: [email protected]) Received 6 April 2001, accepted 15 October 2001 Lundkvist, E., Landin, J. & Karlsson, F. 2002: Dispersing diving beetles (Dytiscidae) in agricultural and urban landscapes in south-eastern Sweden. — Ann. Zool. Fennici 39: 109–123. Flying dytiscids were trapped in an agricultural landscape with wetlands in different successional stages and in two urban landscapes with young wetlands. We compared the faunas in air and in water. Hydroporus and Agabus were the most frequently trapped genera in air. Most species were trapped near water in the agricultural landscape; species characteristic of later successional stages were common in air and dominated in water. In the urban landscapes, species were mainly trapped far from water and species known to colonise new waters were common in air and in the youngest waters. Overall, females and immature adults were more common in fl ight catches during April–July than during August–October. Our results indicate that urbanisation would result in a less diverse fauna, but may lead to an assemblage dominated by species that are infrequent in agricultural landscapes. To obtain a rich wetland insect fauna, a wide range of wetland types is required at the landscape scale. Introduction both in space and time (Bilton 1994).

  • Diptera) of Finland

    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 441: 37–46Checklist (2014) of the familes Chaoboridae, Dixidae, Thaumaleidae, Psychodidae... 37 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.441.7532 CHECKLIST www.zookeys.org Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Checklist of the familes Chaoboridae, Dixidae, Thaumaleidae, Psychodidae and Ptychopteridae (Diptera) of Finland Jukka Salmela1, Lauri Paasivirta2, Gunnar M. Kvifte3 1 Metsähallitus, Natural Heritage Services, P.O. Box 8016, FI-96101 Rovaniemi, Finland 2 Ruuhikosken- katu 17 B 5, 24240 Salo, Finland 3 Department of Limnology, University of Kassel, Heinrich-Plett-Str. 40, 34132 Kassel-Oberzwehren, Germany Corresponding author: Jukka Salmela ([email protected]) Academic editor: J. Kahanpää | Received 17 March 2014 | Accepted 22 May 2014 | Published 19 September 2014 http://zoobank.org/87CA3FF8-F041-48E7-8981-40A10BACC998 Citation: Salmela J, Paasivirta L, Kvifte GM (2014) Checklist of the familes Chaoboridae, Dixidae, Thaumaleidae, Psychodidae and Ptychopteridae (Diptera) of Finland. In: Kahanpää J, Salmela J (Eds) Checklist of the Diptera of Finland. ZooKeys 441: 37–46. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.441.7532 Abstract A checklist of the families Chaoboridae, Dixidae, Thaumaleidae, Psychodidae and Ptychopteridae (Diptera) recorded from Finland is given. Four species, Dixella dyari Garret, 1924 (Dixidae), Threticus tridactilis (Kincaid, 1899), Panimerus albifacies (Tonnoir, 1919) and P. przhiboroi Wagner, 2005 (Psychodidae) are reported for the first time from Finland. Keywords Finland, Diptera, species list, biodiversity, faunistics Introduction Psychodidae or moth flies are an intermediately diverse family of nematocerous flies, comprising over 3000 species world-wide (Pape et al. 2011). Its taxonomy is still very unstable, and multiple conflicting classifications exist (Duckhouse 1987, Vaillant 1990, Ježek and van Harten 2005).
  • Anisus Vorticulus (Troschel 1834) (Gastropoda: Planorbidae) in Northeast Germany

    Anisus Vorticulus (Troschel 1834) (Gastropoda: Planorbidae) in Northeast Germany

    JOURNAL OF CONCHOLOGY (2013), VOL.41, NO.3 389 SOME ECOLOGICAL PECULIARITIES OF ANISUS VORTICULUS (TROSCHEL 1834) (GASTROPODA: PLANORBIDAE) IN NORTHEAST GERMANY MICHAEL L. ZETTLER Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemünde, Seestr. 15, D-18119 Rostock, Germany Abstract During the EU Habitats Directive monitoring between 2008 and 2010 the ecological requirements of the gastropod species Anisus vorticulus (Troschel 1834) were investigated in 24 different waterbodies of northeast Germany. 117 sampling units were analyzed quantitatively. 45 of these units contained living individuals of the target species in abundances between 4 and 616 individuals m-2. More than 25.300 living individuals of accompanying freshwater mollusc species and about 9.400 empty shells were counted and determined to the species level. Altogether 47 species were identified. The benefit of enhanced knowledge on the ecological requirements was gained due to the wide range and high number of sampled habitats with both obviously convenient and inconvenient living conditions for A. vorticulus. In northeast Germany the amphibian zones of sheltered mesotrophic lake shores, swampy (lime) fens and peat holes which are sun exposed and have populations of any Chara species belong to the optimal, continuously and densely colonized biotopes. The cluster analysis emphasized that A. vorticulus was associated with a typical species composition, which can be named as “Anisus-vorticulus-community”. In compliance with that both the frequency of combined occurrence of species and their similarity in relative abundance are important. The following species belong to the “Anisus-vorticulus-community” in northeast Germany: Pisidium obtusale, Pisidium milium, Pisidium pseudosphaerium, Bithynia leachii, Stagnicola palustris, Valvata cristata, Bathyomphalus contortus, Bithynia tentaculata, Anisus vortex, Hippeutis complanatus, Gyraulus crista, Physa fontinalis, Segmentina nitida and Anisus vorticulus.
  • Freshwater Snail Guide

    Freshwater Snail Guide

    A Beginner’s Guide to Freshwater Snails of Central Scotland Freshwater snails are a diverse and fascinating group of molluscs found in ponds, lochs, canals, rivers and watery ditches all across the globe. This guide is a simple introduction to some of the most commonly encountered and easily identifiable freshwater snail species in Central Scotland. How do I look for freshwater snails? 1) Choose your spot: anywhere with water – your garden pond, a nearby river, canal or loch – is likely to have snails. 2) Grab a pond net (buy online or make your own by attaching a sieve to the end of an old broom or mop), a white tray or tub and a hand-lens or magnifier. 3) Fill the tray with water from your chosen habitat. Sweep the net around in the water, making sure to get among any vegetation (don’t go too near the bottom or you’ll get a net full of mud), empty your net into the water-filled tray and identify what you have found! Snail shell features Spire Whorls Some snail species have a hard plate called an ‘operculum’ Height which they Mouth (Aperture) use to seal the mouth of the shell when they are inside Height Pointed shell Flat shell Width Width Pond Snails (Lymnaeidae) Variable in size. Mouth always on right-hand side, shells usually long and pointed. Great Pond Snail Common Pond Snail Lymnaea stagnalis Radix balthica Largest pond snail. Common in ponds Fairly rounded and ’fat’. Common in weedy lakes, canals and sometimes slow river still waters. pools.
  • Table of Contents 2

    Table of Contents 2

    Southwest Association of Freshwater Invertebrate Taxonomists (SAFIT) List of Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Taxa from California and Adjacent States including Standard Taxonomic Effort Levels 1 March 2011 Austin Brady Richards and D. Christopher Rogers Table of Contents 2 1.0 Introduction 4 1.1 Acknowledgments 5 2.0 Standard Taxonomic Effort 5 2.1 Rules for Developing a Standard Taxonomic Effort Document 5 2.2 Changes from the Previous Version 6 2.3 The SAFIT Standard Taxonomic List 6 3.0 Methods and Materials 7 3.1 Habitat information 7 3.2 Geographic Scope 7 3.3 Abbreviations used in the STE List 8 3.4 Life Stage Terminology 8 4.0 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species 8 5.0 Literature Cited 9 Appendix I. The SAFIT Standard Taxonomic Effort List 10 Phylum Silicea 11 Phylum Cnidaria 12 Phylum Platyhelminthes 14 Phylum Nemertea 15 Phylum Nemata 16 Phylum Nematomorpha 17 Phylum Entoprocta 18 Phylum Ectoprocta 19 Phylum Mollusca 20 Phylum Annelida 32 Class Hirudinea Class Branchiobdella Class Polychaeta Class Oligochaeta Phylum Arthropoda Subphylum Chelicerata, Subclass Acari 35 Subphylum Crustacea 47 Subphylum Hexapoda Class Collembola 69 Class Insecta Order Ephemeroptera 71 Order Odonata 95 Order Plecoptera 112 Order Hemiptera 126 Order Megaloptera 139 Order Neuroptera 141 Order Trichoptera 143 Order Lepidoptera 165 2 Order Coleoptera 167 Order Diptera 219 3 1.0 Introduction The Southwest Association of Freshwater Invertebrate Taxonomists (SAFIT) is charged through its charter to develop standardized levels for the taxonomic identification of aquatic macroinvertebrates in support of bioassessment. This document defines the standard levels of taxonomic effort (STE) for bioassessment data compatible with the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) bioassessment protocols (Ode, 2007) or similar procedures.
  • Speeding up the Snail's Pace Bird

    Speeding up the Snail's Pace Bird

    PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen The following full text is a publisher's version. For additional information about this publication click this link. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/93702 Please be advised that this information was generated on 2021-10-07 and may be subject to change. SPEEDING UP THE SNAIL’S PACE Bird-mediated dispersal of aquatic organisms Casper H.A. van Leeuwen Speeding up the snail’s pace Bird-mediated dispersal of aquatic organisms The work in this thesis was conducted at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW) and Radboud University Nijmegen, cooperating within the Centre for Wetland Ecology. This thesis should be cited as: Van Leeuwen, C.H.A. (2012) Speeding up the snail’s pace: bird-mediated dispersal of aquatic organisms. PhD thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands ISBN: 978-90-6464-566-2 Printed by Ponsen & Looijen, Ede, The Netherlands Speeding up the snail’s pace Bird-mediated dispersal of aquatic organisms PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen op het gezag van de rector magnificus prof. mr. S.C.J.J. Kortmann, volgens besluit van het College van Decanen in het openbaar te verdedigen op woensdag 27 juni 2012 om 13.00 uur precies door Casper Hendrik Abram van Leeuwen geboren op 18 september 1983 te Odijk Promotoren: Prof. dr. Jan van Groenendael Prof. dr. Marcel Klaassen (Universiteit Utrecht) Copromotor: Dr. Gerard van der Velde Manuscriptcommissie: Prof. dr. Hans de Kroon Dr. Gerhard Cadée (Koninklijk NIOZ) Prof. dr. Edmund Gittenberger (Universiteit Leiden) Prof.