Contents lists available at

Journal homepage: http://twasp.info/journal/home

Research

Assessment of The Ecological Health Status of River Berga Using Benthic

Macroinvertebrates as Bioindicators, Ethiopia

Lammessa Berisa*1

, Aschalew Lakew2, Alemayehu Negassa

3

1Aquatic Animals Biodiversity case Team, Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute, P.O. Box 30726

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 2Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), National Fishery and Aquatic Life

Research Centre, P.O. Box 64, Sebeta, Ethiopia 3Departments of Biology, Ambo University, Ethiopia

*Corresponding Author :

Lammessa Berisa

Email: birisalemesa9@gmail.com

Published online : 1 June, 2019

Abstract: Riverine ecosystem is one of the most productive ecosystems in the world that

supports a large proportion of the earth’s biodiversity.Numerous plants and animals survive

and grow in water and thus, it serves as home of aquatic organisms.However, anthropogenic

activities in theriver system and its catchment have adverse effect on the existence of aquatic

biota and hamper the provision of good quality water.This study was conducted to assess

theecological health status of River Berga using benthic macroinvertebrates as

bioindicators. The study was carried out at three sampling sites (Cecafe, Melka fiche and

Kimoye) in December 2016, February and April 2017.Sampling sites were selected based on

land use pattern, habitat types, substrate structure and other human

activities.Macroinvertebrates were collected using a standard hand netwith frame width of

25*25 cm and the collected macroinvertebrates were identified to family level. A total of

7295 benthic macroinvertebrates comprising 38 families, 10 orders and 3 phyla were

recorded. Among benthic macroinvertebrates, Ephemeroptera (53%), Trichoptera (36.23%)

and Diptera (4.67%) were the dominant taxa groups. Diversity index such as Shannon-

Weiner diversity and biotic scores like ETHbios showed increasing degradation along the

river channel mainly from non-point sources of pollution and physical disturbances. The

presence of few pollution-sensitive taxa such as(Leptophlebiidae and Philopotamidae), and

some moderately-sensitive taxa like (Psephenidae) at site one, implies the upper section was

not as polluted as the downstream sections. Comparisons of sites with selected benthic

invertebrate indices reflect increasing level of ecological degradation of the river that

requires management actions.Comprehensive and long term study may be required

tounderstandfactors impacting the river.

Keywords: metrics, macroinvertebrates,biodiversity, stressors, river

Introduction

Rivers provide suitable habitats for diverse species of macroinvertebrates.Numerous plants and

animals, ranging from microscopic algae to large plants, from protozoan to mammals, survive

and grow in water and thus, it serves as home of aquatic organisms (Gopal and Chauhan, 2001).

Benthic macroinvertebrates refer to the organisms that inhabit the bottom substrates (sediments,

debris, logs, macrophytes, filamentous algae etc.) of aquatic habitats, for at least part of their life

cycleand which are usually retained by nets with rush size of about 0.6mm (Macan, 1959). The

density of aquatic benthic macroinvertebrate families and communities is controlled by a variety

of environmental factors such as habitat characteristics (Peeters and Gardeniers, 1998), sediment

grain size (Tolkamp, 1980), and by biological factors, including competition and predation

(Bhatet al., 2011). Stream flow, nature of substratum and organic pollution generally regulates

the species composition and dominance of different taxa in various stretches of rivers (Bhatet al.,

2011). Further, anthropogenic activities, such as agriculture, recreation, silviculture, land

clearing, urban development, organic and metal contamination affect the composition

anddistribution of freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates (Wahizatulet al., 2011). Thus,the

macroinvertebrate fauna could be affected by each one of those stresses, and the fauna at any

given site may be the result of more than one category of stress (Wright, 1997).

Benthic macroinvertebrates have been favoredto explain the function and biodiversity of

ecosystem in running water, since they serve in detritus processing, animal-microbial interaction

and energy transfer to the consumers at higher trophic levels (Wallace and Webster, 1996). They

are generally abundant and can be found year round so are easily sampled. Since many aquatic

species have a life span in water of approximately a year, they provide an indication of water

quality conditions over that period.A number of studies have been carried out in Ethiopia relating

to biomonitoring of rivers and streams so far (Baye Sitotaw, 2006; Birenesh Abay, 2007;

Aschalew Lakew, 2015a; Alemayehu Negassa, 2016). Besides, Seyoum Leta et al. (2003)

characterized the wastewater and downstream pollution profiles of Mojo River in Ethiopian Rift

valley.However,since not much information is available on the biomonitoring of River Berga the

present study attempts to assess the ecological health of River Berga using benthic

macroinvertebrates as bioindicators.

Materials and Methods

Description of the Study area

The study area is situated in the Ethiopian central high land lying between latitude 9o1'40"N–

9o1'30"N and longitude 38

o21'0"E–38

o21'15"E (Fig.1). It focuses on the river Berga, major

tributary of river Awash in the upper section.River Berga is perennial river which originates

from the central highland of Ethiopia around Addea berga weroda and flows southwards to join

Upper Awash. It is about 60 km from the capital Addis-Ababa on the way to Ambo town and 80

km on the way to Mugger. River Berga catchment is about 303 km2 (Hussen Endre, 2006).

Dobbi, Addama, Fachi and Kerbo are among the most tributariesand the river provides several

services, on which the people depend for domestic and irrigation along its gradient from the head

water to the junction with river Awash.Furthermore, people use the river water for drinking and

washing their clothes in the upper section and intensively used for livestock watering.

Fig.1. Map of the study area showing the sampling sites.

Three important sites were selected based on land use pattern, vegetation cover, habitat types,

substrate structure and other human activities, such as washing clothes, grazing animals,

watering and agricultural activities. Thus, the selected sites were following the rapid bio

assessment protocol criteria (Barbour et al., 1999). Site one (S1) is located at the river reach

called Cecafe. The selection of the site was based on observation of minimally impacted physical

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

habitat, low human population pressure; no known discharge and good vegetation cover. The

substrates were dominated by megalithal, macrolithal, mesolithal, microlithal, sand and a muddy

mixed with decaying leaf litter in pool area. The banks were moderately covered with herbs,

shrubs and trees on both sides. Site two (S2) is located in Cirri, particular name called Melka

Fiche 300 meters in length downstream of site one.The substrate of the river was dominated by

megalithal, macrolithal, mesolithal, microlithal and muddy. Bank of the river scattered steep with

herbs, shrubs and trees on the left side and eroded on the right side. At this site, agricultural

activities and bathing were common practices. Site three (S3) is located in near Kimoye village,

above the main bridge on Addis Ababa to Ambo town high way at the distance of 400 meters

downstream from the site two. The banks of the river were eroded. Anthropogenic activities such

as grazing, washing clothes, cattle watering and bathing are common practices. The structural

habitat of the river is dominated by microlithal, mesolithal, macrolithal and megalithal at riffle;

sand and mud are the dominant habitats in pools.

Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling

Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected using standard hand net with frame width of 25*25

cm and mesh size 500μm. A method suitable to sample variety of habitat types, multi-habitat

sampling (MHS) scheme, was implemented (Moog, 2005) and a total of 20 sampling units per

sampling stations were taken. These sampling units were proportionally situated in all

microhabitats with at least 5% coverage at each station. A sampling unit is a sample performed

by positioning the net downstream and disturbing the substrate in a quadratic area that equals the

frame area of the net. Sampling start at the downstream end of the reach and proceeded upstream

against the current within the stretch sampling size of 40 meters. Megalithal stones were sampled

by brushing the surface approximately equal to size of the sampling net. Macrolithal stones were

picked by hand and their surfaces were brushed to dislodge clingers and sessile organisms.

During sampling, the net was rinsed by running clean stream water to avoid clogging which

could interfere with obtaining an appropriate sample. The macroinvertebrates samples collected

were transferred into a container and washed with sufficient amount of water added and the

supernatant was poured onto a sieve (500μm) to retain the macroinvertebrates while removing

the mud. Samples per sampling units were then combined and preserved in 4% formaldehyde for

further analysis.

In laboratory, a complete samples were passed through a set of sieves (2000, 1000, 500 and 250

mm mesh size) in order to remove formalin, and separate size classes of macroinvertebrate

groups under tap water in laboratory (Aschalew Lakew, 2014). The process of sieving is very

delicate and care was taken to avoid any damage to the fragile organisms and to secure all

animals present in the samples collected. The sorting was made effective by adding a small

amount of retained materials from the sieves and moderate volume of water into container to

improve visibility. During the process, the organisms recovered from the sample were placed

into the Petri dishes according to their taxonomic categories. Accordingly, large benthic

organisms easily visible were picked out first using forceps, whereas smaller ones picked out

starting from one side (left–right or vice versa) of the container continuously until the organisms

completed in the pan. In this way, macroinvertebrates trapped in the coarse fraction of the sieve

were sorted completely in the laboratory using naked eyes, while organisms trapped in the

smaller fraction of the sieve were sorted with the help of hand lens and light microscope. When

the sorting of a sample was completed, the family names and associated counts were recorded on

a data sheet. The identification have been done up to family level based on the available

literatures (Merritt and Cummins, 1996; Gerber and Gabrial, 2002 and Wolfram et al., 2006). All

the identified organisms were placed (by each taxonomic category) into small alcohol filled vials

and internally labeled. Finally, the identified organisms were immediately preserved with 70%

alcohol for further taxonomic analysis.

Results and Discussion

Macroinvertebrate composition and distribution

Present investigations on benthic macroinvertebrate fauna of river Berga revealed the presence of

three major Phyla i.e. Annelida, Arthropoda and Mollusca (Alamet al., 2008), as confirmed by

this study. In total, 38 benthic macroinvertebrate families (taxa) comprising 7295 individuals

were identified, of which 2 families belonged to Annelida, 33 families to Arthropoda and 3

families to Mollusca in 10 orders (Table 1). Arthropoda belonging to 33 families made up

99.42% of total abundance and non-insect belonging to 5 families constituted the remaining 0.58.

Table 1. Distribution and relative abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates families collected

from the different sampling sites of river Berga.

pg. 9

Order Family/taxa Mean ofindividuals/m2

S1 S2 S3

Coleoptera (Beetles) Dytiscidae 5 4 15

Elmidae 27 43 41

Gyrinidae 1 1 0

Psephenidae 6 0 0

Diptera (True flies) Chironomidae 27 57 78

Muscidae 3 6 10

Simuliidae 12 29 94

Tabanidae 2 10 6

Tipulidae 2 3 2

Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)

Baetidae 996 879 765

Caenidae 181 184 96

Heptageniidae 208 239 186

Leptophlebiidae 13 4 2

Prosopistomatidae 1 0 0

Tricorythidae 46 41 50

Hemiptera (True bugs) Corixidae 20 37 7

Gerridae 1 0 0

Naucoridae 7 5 0

Notonectidae 1 1 4

Pleidae 43 39 14

Veliidae 2 0 0

Odonata (Dragonflies and

Damselflies)

Aeshnidae 6 8 3

Chlorolestidae 1 0 0

Coenagrionidae 3 7 4

Gomphidae 3 12 3

Lestidae 1 1 0

Libellulidae 1 2 0

Trichoptera (caddisflies) Helicopsychidae 1 7 0

Hydropsychidae 1188 720 688

Philopotamidae 2 0 0

Pisulidae 1 0 0

Polycentropodidae 1 0 0

Psychomyiidae 16 3 15

Basommatophora Physidae 0 1 4

Planorbidae 0 18 16

Veneroidea Corbiculidae 0 1 0

Arhynchobdellida Hirudinae 0 1 0

Tubificida Tubificidae 0 0 1

Total no. of taxa (families) 38

Total no. of individuals 7295

33

2828

30

2363

23

2104

While registering the macroinvertebrates, some fluctuations were observed in the abundance

of taxa among the sites. S1 had the highest number of individuals followed by S2 while S3

has the lowest individual abundance (Table 1). Of 10 identified orders; Ephemeroptera and

Trichoptera were decreased in abundance and Coleoptera, Diptera and Basommatophora

increased in abundance from S1 to S3 during the study period. The general decrease in the

number of taxa and the absence of sensitive taxa; Plecoptera and less numbers of

pg. 10

Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera at S2 and S3 can be associated to stressors; increase in

washing cloth, bathing, agricultural activities, cattle grazing in the shore and watering points.

The present observation corroborates with the findings of Aschalew Lakew (2015) who

reported human activities, such as cattle watering, domestic waste disposal and agricultural

activities reduced taxa composition compared with least impacted sites in upper Awash

River.

Tabatabaie and Amiri (2010) also recorded lower diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates at

polluted sites of the water bodies they studied, which supports the present result as benthic

macroinvertebrates diversity and abundance drastically decreased at impaired S2 and S3 as

compared with least impaired S1. Ephemeroptera was represented by six families of

Prosopistomatidae, Leptophlebiidae,Caenidae, Tricorythidae, Heptageniidae and Baetidae,

the latter of which was the most preponderant and most abundant in the group (36.2% of total

abundance). It was the most abundant at S1 (1445ind/m2) followed by S2 (1347 ind/m

2) and

least at S3 (1099 ind/m2). Pollution can cause a decline in Ephemeropteran population

(Padmanabha and Belagali, 2007). According to Biasi et al. (2008), one of the factors that

affect the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera richness in streams is the availability of

habitats. However, moderate pollution sensitive Ephemeropteran and Trichoptera family,

Baetidae and Hydropsychidae had their highest abundance (879ind/m2 and 1188ind/m

2) at S2

and S1, respectively. Thus, the present observation corroborates with the findings of Buss et

al. (2002), Buss and Salles, (2007), Biasi et al. (2008) and Aschalew Lakew and Moog

(2015) who reported Baetidae and Hydropsychidae tolerant to the adverse conditions that

cause an increment in its population in relation to other taxa.

The presence of Coleopteran together with other somewhat tolerant families such as

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera in the aquatic system reflects good water

conditions (Emere and Nasiru, 2009). In the study area except Plecoptera, all of these

families were recorded in all sites, but relatively highest in S1 (37%) followed by S2 (29%)

and the least abundant in S3 (25%). The abundance of Coleopterans revealed that it was

higher (48 ind/m2) at S2 as compared to (30ind/m

2) at S1. Spanhoff et al. (2007) recorded

Coleopterans at least polluted sites and Camargo (1992) recorded them absent at discharge

point. Lenat (1984) reported that Coleoptera replaced sensitive EPT taxa in the streams

receiving agricultural runoff; they were ranked relatively more tolerant to agricultural inputs

(Lenat, 1993). The present result, Coleoptera (particularly Elmidae larvae) was the most

abundant (43ind/m2) macroinvertebrate groups at S2 that lined with the finding ofLenat

(1993). Besides, other Coleoptera member includes Psephenidae, identified only at S1

pg. 11

conformed to finding of (Junqueira and Campos (1998) who reported Psephenidae extremely

sensitive to pollution and recorded at least polluted sites.

The presence of Dipterans at the polluted sites was mainly contributed by Chironomidae

family with the abundance of 57ind/m2 and 78 ind/m

2 at S2 and S3, respectively. Dipterans

are tolerant organisms (Lenat, 1993), and their abundance may indicate degraded conditions

(Buckup et al., 2007). Sharma et al. (2013) identified Order Diptera constituting largest

density owing to the most abundant group Chironomidae which justifies its highest density at

S3 in our study area due to some stressors; bathing, domestic waste and soil bank eroded side

by side. A very meager density of Odonata was observed at all sites with 10, 30 and 10ind.m2

at S1, S2 and S3, respectively. Verma and Saksena (2010) reported Odonata nymphs as

inhabitants of freshwaters with rich oxygen and least/no pollution. Emere and Nasiru (2009)

also associated Odonata with clean water. However, this is not supported with the present

result the greatest abundance was recorded in impaired S2.This might be attributed to its

direct relationship with availability of sufficient food production due to nutrient supply from

agricultural farm lands compared to other sites.

The densities of non-insect taxa were relatively low, of the 38 taxa only Physidae,

Planorbidae, Corbiculidae, Hirudinae and Tubificidae presence were limited to S2 and S3

(Table 1). The presence of Hirudinae indicates water of poor quality. It is known that leeches

are very tolerant to impacted and eutrophic environments (Pérez, 1988).Molluscs

(Gastropoda and Bivalvia) were available in S2 and S3 during the study period, which

indicate the environment of the river Berga was polluted with organic and inorganic

pollutants from point and non-point sources. This may happened due to various stressors such

as unsuitable agricultural practices, cattle grazing in the river shore and physical disturbance

in watering points.These activities could affect the occurrence of macroinvertebrates and the

abundance specifically sensitive taxa groups (Aschalew Lakew and Moog, 2015).

Table 2. The average value of core macroinvertebrate metrics among sites of river Berga.

Metrics

Sites

S1 S2 S3

Taxa richness 38 30 23

Shannon Diversity Index 5.25 4.93 4.8

Hilsenhoff family-level biotic index 4.2 4.37 5.3

Percentage of Chironomidae 0.95 2.45 3.7

ETHbios index score 170 145 119

ETHbios- Average Score Per Taxa 5.86 5.18 5.17

pg. 12

Taxa richness is the simplest diversity measures used for evaluating different stressors (Royer

et al., 2001; Ofenboeck et al., 2004). A decrease of taxa richness in response to disturbance is

reported by many authors (Barbour et al., 1996; Karr and Chu, 1999) but others like Metcalfe

(1989) indicated increase of taxa richness with intermediate disturbance. In this study

significant number of taxa reduction was observed in S3 which could be explained by high

in-stream activities, poor agricultural practices and physical disturbance by livestock.

ETHbios was developed to provide a simple biomonitoring tool for assessing ecological

status of Ethiopian highland streams,specifically for woodland and grassland ecoregions

located above1800 m a.s.l (Aschalew Lakew and Moog, 2015). This score metrics showed

significant difference among sites showed increasing disturbance level along the river

channel.

Percentage of Chironomidae was the highest at site three (3.7%) followed by site two

(2.45%) and the least percentage of Chironomidae was recorded at site one (0.95%) (Table

2).This revealed that, Site three is more polluted than other sites. The result is confirmed with

the foundation of Marques et al. (1999) which explained that the dominance of Chironomidae

showed decline in ecosystem health.A Shannon diversity index was the highestdiversity

index at site one (H’=5.25) followed by site two (H’ = 4.93) and least at site three (H’= 4.8).

The H-FBI value of site one had lowest H-FBI index (4.2) followed by site two (4.37) and

site three had the highest (5.3). There by indicating that site three and two are slightly poorer

in benthic macroinvertebrate diversity than that of the site one. As the whole the H-FBI

values for the entire sample sites scored 4.6 which indicate some organic pollution likely

affect the water river and leading to reduce biodiversity which confirmed with foundation of

Dallas, 2007.

Conclusion and recommendation

A trend in the benthic community was observed to predict alterations caused by different

stressors observed in the study sites mainly, in-stream activities, agricultural practices and

animal watering pointswere the major factors in determining the abundance, composition and

distribution of benthic macroinvertebrates. The present study concluded that the presence of

some pollution indicator families, such as Tubificidae, Hirudinae, Chironomidae, Tabanidae,

Caenidae, Physidae and the total absence of the Plecoptera family at S1 directly points to the

shifting status of the river from non-polluted to pollute. Thus, the stressors caused alarming

shift or total elimination of sensitive biotic community from the habitat.Furthermore, there

were few pollution-sensitive (i.e., Leptophlebiidae and Philopotamidae), and some

moderately-sensitive (i.e., Psephenidae) families, which implies that theS1 was not as

pg. 13

polluted as the downstream sites. This observation was confirmed by ETHbios threshold

values where the upper site fell in high water quality, and the downstream sites are moderate

water quality status.Therefore, the mitigate measures should be taken to prevent the further

deterioration of river Berga.

Acknowledgment

First and for most, I would like to thank God for his elegance and immeasurable love, giving

me strength and patience to bring out this humble piece of work in to light. I am greatly

indebted to Professor P. Natarajan for his encouragement during field work and Mr. Berhan

Asmamaw for editorial comments. My deepest heartfelt thanks also extended to my wife

Fantu Wego for her support all my achievements by taking the entire load of my shoulder.

Last, but not least, I have special thanks to all my families, my mother Nigise Weyuma, my

brothers Guta, Banti, Milkesa and my sisters Chuchu and Likitu for all their assistance and

taking responsibility of the family.

References

Alam M.S., Hoque M.M., Bari M.F., Badruzzaman A.B.M., Tuber H. and Fliedl B.(2008).

Aquatic macroinvertebrates as bio-indicators: a new approach for river water quality

assessment in Bangladesh. ASSESS-HKH Proceedings of the Scientific Conference

on the Ecology and Environmental Assessment of Rivers in the Hindu Kush-

Himalaya.

Alemayehu Negassa (2016). Spatial and Temporal trends in the water quality of Huluka

River, Ethiopia: an assessment using selected physicochemical and biological

methods Thesis for (PhD), Addis Ababa University. Available on line

at:etd.aau.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/13730/1/Alemayehu%20Negassa%20Emana

Aschalew Lakew and Moog O. (2015). Benthic macro invertebrates based new biotic score

“ETHbios” for assessing ecological conditions of highland streams and rivers in

Ethiopia”. Limnological 52 (2015): 11-19.

Aschalew Lakew (2015). Assessing Anthropogenic impacts using benthic macro

invertebrates as bio-indicator in central highland streams of Ethiopia. Ethiopian

Journal ofEnvironmental Studies and Management, 8(1):45-26.

Aschalew Lakew (2014). Development of biological monitoring systems using benthic

invertebrates to assess the ecological status of central and southeast highland rivers of

Ethiopia.Ph.D Thesis, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences at Vienna,

Austria, 163 p.

pg. 14

Barbour M.T., Gerristen J., Snyder B.D. and Stripling J.B. (1999). Rapid bio assessment

protocols for use in streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, benthic

macroinvertebrates and fish, second edition. EPA841-B-99-002.U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency; Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

Baye Sitotaw (2006). Assessment of Benthic macro-invertebrate structures in relation to

Environmental Degradation in some Ethiopia rivers.M.Sc. Thesis, Addis Ababa

University, Addis Ababa.

Bhat S.U., Sofi A.H., Yaseen T., Pandit A.K. and YousufA.R. (2011). Macro Invertebrate

Community from Sonamarg Streams of Kashmir Himalaya. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 14:

182-194.

Biasi C., Milesi S.V., Restello R.M. and Hepp L.U. (2008). Occurrence distribution insect’s

aquatic organisms (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) Perspectiva,

32:171‑180.

Birnesh, Abay (2007). Assessment of benthic macroinvertebrate structures in relation to

environmental degradation in some Ethiopian rivers M.Sc. Thesis, School of Graduate

Studies, Addis Ababa University.

Buckup L., Alessandra A.P.B., Bond-Buckup G., Casagrande M. and Majolo F. (2007). The

benthic macroinvertebrate fauna of highland strauna of highland streams in

southereams in southern Brazil: composition, diversity and structure.

RevistaBrasileira de Zoologia, 24 (2): 294–301.

Buss D.F. and Salles F.F. (2007).Using Baetidae species as biological indicators of

environmental degradation in a Brazil River basin.Environ. Monit.Assess,130: 365-

372.

Buss D.F., Baptista D.F., Silveira M.P., Nessimian J.L. and Dorvillé L.F.M. (2002). Influence

of water chemistry and environmental degradation on macroinvertebrates assemblages

in a river basin in south-east Brazil. Hydrobiology, 481(1-3):125-136.

CarmagoJ.A. (1992). Macroinvertebrate responses along the recovery gradient of a regulated

river (Spain) receiving an industrial effluent. Arch. Envir. Contam.Toxicol.23: 324–

332.

Dallas H.F.(2007). The influence of biotope availability on macroinvertebrate assemblages in

South African rivers: implications for aquatic bioassessment. Freshwater.Biol. 52,

370–380.

pg. 15

Dobson M., Mathooko J.M., Magana A. and Ndegwa F.K. (2002). Macroinvertebrate

assemblages and detritus processing in Kenyan highland streams: more evidence for

the paucity of shredders in the tropics. Freshwater biology,47(5):909-919

Dudgeon D. (1999). Tropical Asian Streams: Zoobenthos, ecology and conservation. Hong

Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Emere M.C. and Nasiru C.E. (2009).Macroinvertebrates as indicators of the water quality of

an urbanized stream, Kaduna, Nigeria.Nature and Science,7(1): 1-7.

Flore J. and Zafaralla M. (2012). Macroinvertebrate composition, diversity and richness in

relation to the water quality status of Mananga River, Cebu,Guest Editor: Benjamin

M. Vallejo, 5(2):103-113.

Gerber A.M. and Gabriel J.M. (2002). Aquatic Invertebrates of South African Rivers, Field

Guide, Institute for Water Quality studies, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry,

24-145p.

Gopal B. and Chauhan M. (2001). Ecohydrology: Rediscovering freshwater ecology. In:

Subramanian, V. and Ramanathan, A.L. (eds.), Ecohydrology. UNESCO- IHP Series,

New Delhi, Capital Publishing: 339- 354p.

Groombridge, B. and Jenkins, M. (1998). Freshwater Biodiversity: A preliminary global

assessment. Cambridge, United Nations Environment Programme-World

Conservation Monitoring Centre, World Conservation Press.

Hussen Endre (2006). Water resource potential evaluation of berga river

catchment.M.Sc.Thesis Addis Ababa University.

Junqueira V.M. and Campos S.C.M. (1998).Adaptation of the “BMWP” method for water

quality evaluation to Rio das Velhas watershed (Minas Gerais,

Brazil).ActaLimnologicaBrasiliensia, 10(2):125-135.

Lenat D.R. (1984). Benthic macroinvertebrates of Cane Creek, North Carolina, and

comparisons with other southeastern streams.Brimleyana, 9: 53-68.

Lenat D.R. (1993). Using mentum deformities of Chironomus larvae to evaluate the effects of

toxicity and organic loading in streams. J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 21: 265-269.

Macan T.T (1959). A guide on freshwater vertebrates, Longman publishers London. 118pp

Marques M.M.G.S.M., Barbosa F.A.R., Callisto M., 1999.Distribution and abundance of

Chironomidae (Diptera, Insecta) in an impacted watershed in southeast Brazil. Rev.

Brasil. Biol. 54(4), 1-9.

Merritt R.W. and Cummins K.W. (1996).An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North

America.3rd edn. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. 862p.

pg. 16

Moog O. (2005). Guidance for pre-classifying the ecological status of HKH Rivers.

Deliverable 7b for ASSESS-HKH, European Commission, 27 pp. Available from:

http://www. Assess-hkh.

Padmanabha B. and Belagali S. L. (2007).Macro benthos as pollution indicators in freshwater

lakes of Mysore.Pollute. Res., 26(2): 245–248.

Peeters E.T.H.M. and Gardeniers, J.J.P. (1998).Logistic regression as a tool for defining

habitat requirements of two common gammarids.Freshwater Biology, 39: 605-615.

Pérez, G.R. (1988). Guíapara el estudio de los macroinvertebradosAquáticos del department

Antioquia. Bogotá: Editorial Presença. 217p.

Seyoum Leta, Fassil A. and Gunnel (2003). Characterization of Tannery wastewater and

assessment of downstream pollution profiles along Modjo River in Ethiopia. Ethiopia.

Journal Biology Science,2(2):157-168.

Sharma S., Dubey S., Chaurasia R. and Dave V. (2013). Macro-invertebrates community

diversity in relation to water quality status of Kunda River (M.P.) India; Discovery,

3(9): 40-46.

Spanhoff B., Bischof R., Bohme A., Lorenz S., Neumeister K., Nothlich A. and Kusel K.

(2007).Assessing the impact of effluents from a modern wastewater treatment plant

on breakdown of coarse particulate organic matter and benthic macroinvertebrates in

a lowland river.Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 180(1): 119–129.

Tabatabaie T. and Amiri F. (2010).The impact of industrial pollution on benthic macro fauna

communities.African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 4(9): 547-

557.

Verma A.K. and Saksena D.N. (2010). Assessment of water quality and pollution status of

Kalpi (Morar) river, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh: with special reference to conservation

and management plan. Asian J. Exp. Biol. Sci., 1(2): 419-429.

Wahizatul A.A., Long S.H. and Ahmad A. (2011).Composition and distribution of aquatic

insect communities in relation to water quality in two freshwater streams of Hulu

Terengganu, Terengganu.Journal of Hazardous Materials,6(1): 148-155.

Wallace J.B., Webster J.R. and Lowe R.L. (1996).High-gradient streams of the Appalachians.

In: Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States Aquatic Communities. (Hackney,

C.T., Adams, S.M. and Martin.W.A. eds). John Willy and Sons, New York. 133-

191p.

pg. 17

Wolfram, G., Hans, M. and Astrid Schmidt, K. (2006). Development of an assessment system

to evaluate the ecological status of Rivers in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region,

Kathmandu University Dhulikhel, Nepal,18p.

Wright J.F.(1997). An introduction to RIVPACS.In assessing the biological quality of

freshwaters; RIVPACS and other techniques.(J.F.Wright, D.W. Sutcliffe and M.T.

Furse, eds), Freshwater Biological Association, UK. 1–24p

© 2019 by the authors. TWASP, NY, USA . Author/authors are

fully responsible for the text, figure, data in above pages. This

article is an open access article distributed under the terms and

conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)