Is hydromorphological diversity reflected in biodiversity? · 2010-12-02 · 2008; Baumgartner, et al., 2008). Several indices for Biodiversity will be presented and compared with

Is hydromorphological diversity reflected in biodiversity?

Project work by Claude Herzog

Department of Biology

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, ETHZ

Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Eawag, Dübendorf

Supervisor Dr. Christopher T. Robinson

Abstract

The findings of this study demonstrate that approaching biodiversity with morphological indicators can be critical. In many way the abiotic indicators correlates with the biotic aquatic invertebrates. Natural fluctuations can‟t be detected like seasonal changes in the community by abiotic observation. Moreover important for ecosystem functioning is a operational trophic cascade which is even hard to assess directly with biotic indicators. A nice detection for the importance of present food source could be shown by the correlation of baetidae and phytoplankton in one of the sampling cycles. There are further factors which need to be considered which can disturb the faunal community. Water chemistry as an example can have large influence and in extreme cases like pollution it can lead to drastic changes in the constellation of communities. Habitat fragmentation seems somehow to be a leading factor for the formation of invertebrate communities distinct to the natural composition. In our case the river degradation affects the total amount of present benthic organisms.

Introduction

River revitalisation achieved gained importance in the big field of aquatic Ecology during the last 10 years. Anthropogenic influences, often by river degradation processes, largely destroyed natural habitats in Swiss lowland rivers. The channelization of aquatic habitats is thought to negatively affect biodiversity of aquatic communities. Mainly habitat destruction and fragmentation impair the ecological functionality of a river system. Restoring the heterogeneity of a river system to natural conditions is aimed. The benefit of river restoration stabilizing biodiversity or regenerate primal conditions could not be proven yet. Moreover biological systems are to a great extend complicated. Whereas the measurement of hydromorphological improvements is feasible to compare and fast to identify, biological parameters are laggard. The comparison of two different evaluation models for river quality assessment is bold. It is important to keep in mind that those to assessment options respond unequally to changes in the system. For this study morphologically highly variable study sites were chosen to identify impacts of the hydromorphological river condition on biodiversity. The morphology of the river system were addressed with measurements of abiotic factors. Influences of river heterogeneity of a study site is thought to increase biodiversity The biotic diversity was investigated with widely used indicators assumed to be sensitive to such habitat characteristics as hydrology, morphology, as well as water quality of the river system (Illies et al., 1963; Dance et al., 1980). A healthy stream system strongly depends on the littoral zone. Riparian invertebrates were used as an indicator for stability of trophic cascade. The connectivity and interaction of riparian and aquatic habitats is crucial for a stable ecosystem (Ward et al., 1995). Similar studies was executed at the lowland river system Bünz by Stäheli and Baumgartner (Stäheli, et al., 2008; Baumgartner, et al., 2008). Several indices for Biodiversity will be presented and compared with the results from river Bünz. Due to the more natural status of the river Sense we would expect a higher biodiversity compared to river Bünz. At the study sites at river Sense we expect to find an intact river system. Nonetheless differences are expected between the different study sites. The close to nature control sites should show higher macro invertebrate diversity as the channelized and degraded sites. Supplementary the data is been analyzed for correlations between the biodiversity of the sites with abiotic indicators and environmental parameters. The results should clearly correlate with the intensity of human impact at the each site

Fig. 1: Map section, scale 1:50000, between Fribourg and Bern (Switzerland). The fiver

study sites are marked (red rectangle) and labeled (Braided A, Canyon, Braided B, Riprap, Canal)

Materials& Methods

The river Sense, on the boarder of the cantons Bern and Fribourg, is one of the few remaining streams with mainly unmodified course in Switzerland. Along its length it is characterized by a high variability in morphology, with stretches ranging from broad floodplains, to canyon like areas and a channelized section downstream. It is an important affluent of the river Saane and has a total watershed of 387km

2. Annual discharge at Thörishaus is 7.84 m

3/s

(http://www.hydrodaten.admin.ch/d/2179.htm). It‟s headwaters being

Warme and Kalte Sense it gets a major input from several tributaries, the most important one being Schwarzwasser.

The river bed is about 30 to 100 meter wide and is entirely inundated during extrem flood events, whereas only 10% is inundated at normal water level. On many stable gravel banks, salix and alnus sp. could develop. The middle reaches form a 15 km long canyon which is a reason why the natural morphology in the upper part still exists and hasn‟t been suffering of engineering constructions for agricultural use. The corrected underflow between Thörishaus and the estuary has been stabilized by rip rap and canalization (Zurwerra et al., 2000)

Study sites at river Sense

The five study sites: Braided A, Canyon, Braided B, Riprap and Canal are mapped in figure 1. The characterization of each site are found in tables 1 to 5.

The flow direction of the river Sense is from south to north.

Table 1: Study site 1, Braided A.

Site name Braided A (BA)

Status Natural, control site

Coordinates 589'123,175'659

Length 150m

Width 140m

Characterization Braided A, is a natural head water stretch in near-pristine state. Wide riverbed with good connectivity between aquatic and riparian zone are present.

Pictures

Table 2: Study site 2, Canyon.

Site name Canyon (CA)

Status Meandring, slightly braided, naturally channelized


Length 150m

Width 120m

Characterization Canyon, the river course is flanked by 20 to 50 meter high cliffs but forms a broad area with gravel banks and pools.

Pictures

Fig. 2: Photos taken by Anna Steit at site Canyon

Fig. 1: Photos taken by Anna Steit at the natural study site Braided A

Table 3: Study site 3, Braided B.

Site name Braided B (BB)



Length 150m

Width 150m

Characterization Braided B, acts as a second natural intercept as a control.

Pictures

Table 4: Study site 4, Riprap.

Site name Riprap (RR)


Coordinates 593'451, 192'060

Length 120m

Width 75m

Characterization Riprap, semi-natural site because bank stabilizing rip-rap were constructed in the 19th century. At this site many anthropogenic disturbances due to good accessibility manly used for swimming.

Pictures

Fig. 4: Photos taken by Anna Steit at the natural study site Riprap

Fig. 3: Photos taken by Anna Steit at the second natural control study site Braided B

Table 5: Study site 5, Canal.

Site name Canal (CL)

Status channelized, artificial, rip-rap protection on both sides

Coordinates 591'76, 193'545

Length 80m

Width 25m

Characterization Canal, the river was regulated and straightened over a length of about 10 km. A 80m long part has been chosen for our study.

Picture

The river Bünz has been used for comparison. It is a small midland stream about 25 km long. In its natural state, it was a slow meandering river due to the low slope. A large length of the river was channelized around 1930 to claim space for agriculture and human settlement. Only a part of the downstream section was left in a near-natural state. In this part, the riverbanks were stabilized to keep the river in its channel. In the last five years, multiple restoration projects were completed along the river in the formerly channelized part. In the near natural section, an extreme flood event created a floodplain in the year 1999 (Burger et al., 2007). A small hydropower plant that is privately owned hydrologically influences the downstream part of the river by periodic releases [13].

Fig. 5: Photos taken by Anna Steit at the strongly impaired study site Canal

Abiotic indicators

The abiotic indicators were required for the mapping of the ecomorphology of the river system. 7 standard indicators recommended by BUWAL (1998) for characterization of the sites morphology were assessed. These indicators derived from the “Modul-Stufen-Konzept” contain biologically important hydro-morphological patterns.

Indicator 14 is a measurement for the water-table variability, correlating with the connectivity between the riparian and aquatic zone.

Indicator 35 attends to the quality and character of the gravel. A factor on which the riverine fauna and flora highly depends on due to habitat occurrence.

Indicator 36 monitors the riverbed structure respectively structures along a length unit.

Indicator 37 addresses the abundance and sort of gravel bank boarding.

Indicator 42 equates to riparian width and quality. Missing of an adequate riparian zone could disable the aquatic and terrestrial exchange.

Indicator 45 depends on the riparian structure that indicates the lateral connectivity and abundance of structures along the river bank.

Indicator 46 monitors rip rap kind and degree at the river bank base.

Biotic indicators

All sampling of biotic indicator were executed at three different dates during summer 2009. The first sampling cycle 15.07.2009 was executed by Anna Streit and Taxa identification by Christa Jolidon. Repeated sampling is compulsory regarding seasonal effects on biotic taxa compositions. Periphyton quantification analysis were executed. Epilithic algae were collected by scrubbing random chosen water covered stone with a tooth brush. Srubbed area and amount of washing water was measured. The solution was filtered with a hand pump. Samples were dried for 24h; tared and reweighted after burning the periphyton at 550°C for two hours. The weight is given in dry mass per milliliter per area. Macrozoobenthos sampling was done by the kicksampling method as it is proposed by BUWAL (2005) for the indicator 23. At two different dates (28.08.2009, 1.10.2009) the sampling with a kicknet with mesh size of 200 μm was performed. During 5 minutes kicking in all present choriotopes relative to their abundance was done. The sample was preserved in 70% alcohol solution and stored at 4°C. Two different approaches were used to assess the abundance and diversity of the riparian invertebrates. Hand sampling (a half quantitative technique) of a randomly chosen area (0.25m

2) was performed on each site five

times, corresponding to the present choriotopes. Pitfall traps (0.01m2) were installed twice for 24 hours at the

most abundant habitat types. The invertebrates were counted and identified to genus level for all kind of catchment.

Statistical analysis

For the analysis of the abundance values of the macrozoobenthos the biodiversity indices Makroindex (MI) and the “Indices biologic global normalisé” (IBGN) were used (Agences de l'eau, 2000). Moreover Evenness,

Shannon- and Simspon - Indices were calculated. Tab.6: Formulas used for diversity indices calculations.

Shannon-index

Simpson-index

Evenness

; ; Further the macrozoobenthos data was analyzed with a principle component analysis (PCA) using the statistic tool project-R (Script attached in Appendix). The relative abundance data was Arcussinus transformed. Effects of environmental parameters on the macrozoobenthos community and abundance were tested. With a multivariate approach significantly influencing abiotic parameters could be detected. The statistic tool project-R was used for the canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) (Script attached in Appendix). The relative abundance data was Arcussinus transformed A Two-Way-ANOVA variance analysis was performed with the periphyton data, checking influences of water temperature and sampling site. The variance analysis was executed with the statistic tool project-R (Script attached in Appendix). Figures 6-9, tables 1, A1 and calculations of standard errors were assessed with Microsoft® Office Excel® 2007.

Fig. 6: The five abiotic indicators value for the five study sites (Braided A, Canyon, Braided B, Riprap, Canal). The scale is given from 0 to 1, whereat 1 indicates a natural river system.

Results (River Sense)

Abiotic indicators

The abiotic indicators express to which amount the river morphology resembles to natural conditions. The tested indicators reach values from 0 standing for fully degraded to 1 meaning natural conditions. The results from river Sense show clear differences between the sites, except for indicator 37. In fact the natural river site Braided A ends with the highest value possible, whereas canal is highly impaired (fig. 6). The natural reference system Braided A seems to be a perfect match. Every abiotic indicator accomplish the highest possible value at the natural site Braided A. The second control site Braided B differs in the indicator 35 from Braided A. This indicator attends to the quality and character of the gravel. A factor on which the riverine fauna and flora highly depends on due to habitat occurrence. The canalized site Canal doesn‟t express the thought worst case scenario. In contrary the indicator 37 standing for the abundance and composition of the gravel bank is as natural as Braided A. Even though this indicator 37 revealed a perfect natural abundance and composition of the gravel for all five sample sites. Results of water samples are listed in table A1 in the appendix. No critical values were measured for the measured parameters ((Dissolved organic carbon (DOC), particulate organic carbon (POC), alkalinity, total inorganic carbon (TIC), nitrate and nitrogen compounds (NO3-N), particulate nitrogen compounds (PN), phosphate (PO4-P), particulate phosphate (PP)). Further water temperature, conductivity, pH and turbidity were measured (table A2 in appendix).

Biotic indicators

Epilithic periphyton quantification showed similar results at the first sampled day (fig. 7). On the first of October the data is more fluctuating, even though there seems to be big difference in temperature. Two way ANOVA showed no significant impact of site nor temperature on the periphyton abundance.

Fig. 7: Periphyton quantification at all five sample. Sampling was executed twice at distinct dates (27.08.2009

and 1.10.2009). Measured temperature is indicated by the colored line. Standard errors were calculated and plotted as black bars.

Fig. 9: Biodiversity indices recommended by BUWAL 2005, Makroindex (MI) and Index biologique global normalize

(IBGN). Indices calculated for the five sampling sites at three monitoring dates.

Fig. 8: The two calculated indices for benthic biodiversity, Shannon and Evenness for the three

sampling dates at the five sampling sites

In figure 8 the biodiversity indices of the macro zoobenthos data are plotted. There are big differences between the different sampling dates. Comparing the sites during a single sampling run no big variance can be detected in the natural sites. Riprap seems to be the only outlier at the last sampling date. As well the Canal data shows some decreased biodiversity indices value. Seasonal effects appear to be present. The Shannon-Index predicts a lower diversity in early summer, and peaks on the second sampling date. Whereas Evenness shows opposite results. Highest diversity is achieved on the first sampling date in June and steadily declines in subsequent sampling cycles.

The indices plotted in figure 9 results in a standardized value that stands for the overall water body condition. Large variation can be found in the first sampling cycle. The results leads to a deficient water body condition for all sites. Actually the natural sites terminate as bad as the degraded ones. Remarkably are the results of the second and third sampling runs. At all sites diminutive impacts on abundance and diversity of benthic organisms were detected. The slight progression in the IBGN Index can be attributed to seasonal effects. The differences are not as clear as in figure 8.

Tab. 1: Standardized diversity index based on Makroindex (MI) and Indices biologic global normalize (IBGN) calculated for the five sampling sites and all three dates. Colors indicate the grad of water body degradation. Green stands for a good, orange for a neutral and red for a dissatisfying water body quality.

Fig. 10: PCA of benthic macro invertebrates. The axis PC1 describes 76.9% and

PC2 describes 15.3% of the variance present in the data. The five sampling sites: Braided A (BA), Canyon (CA), Braided B (BB), Riprap (RR), Canal (CL) are plotted for the last two retake dates; 27.8.2009 (3), 1.10.2009 (4).

Highly alarming are the results shown in Table 1. The standardized biodiversity index combined of the MI and the IBGN shows large differences between the sampling dates. The first sampling cycle uncovers unsatisfying and unnatural river conditions based on the biotic standardized diversity index. Nonetheless there are some changes along the river progression. Interesting is that in the results of all three samplings the natural control sites, Braided A and Braided B, never reveals a higher biodiversity category. Braided A and Canal conclude with the best diversity values.

The PCA of the macro invertebrate collected by kicksampling is plotted in figure 10. The first axis PC1 explains 58.38% of the data variance, whereas the second explains 28.26%. The PCA primarily shows two clear outliers RR4 and BA4. The sampling date are nearly separated by the PC1 axis. Naturally classified sites (BA, CA, BB) are not fully clusterd. Canal the most degraded sampling site (CL1, CL2) appears closer to the natural cluster than many natural classified sites (BA4, CA3). The pattern of the fourth sampling cycle in October splites up better the natural and degraded sites by the Y-Axis. The degraded sites (RR4, CL4) result with a positive value, whereas the more natural sites (CA4, BB4, BA4) achieve negative values.

Fig. 11: Plotted Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) with CCA1-axis explaining (top, 27.08.2009) 57.0%,

(bottom, 01.10.2009) 74.3% of the variance and CCA2-axis explaining (top, 27.08.2009) 28.1%, (bottom, 01.10.2009) 23.5%. Results of the Macro invertebrate sampled by kicksampling, from the sampling sites Braided A (BA), Canyon (CA), Braided B (BB), Riprap (RR), Canal (CL) and the sampling dates 27.8.2009 (3), 1.10.2009 (4) , were used as community matrix with explanatory environmental factors (left: water temperature (Temp), conductivity (Leitf), pH, turbidity (Trb); right: (DOC), (POC), alkalinity (Alk), (TIC), (NO3-N), (PN), (PO4-P), (PP)).

The CCA‟s from the two last sampling cycles were split up in two for clearer arrangement. The distribution pattern found in the PCA can be detected here aswell. The clustering of the natural sites is slightly present in the second sampling cycle whereas in August no clustering is detectable. Anova testing had no significant results for the impact of the water chemistry on the distribution patterns of the sampling sites.

Fig. 12: Composition of invertebrate community at the five kicksampling sampled sites. The identified important groups are indicated by the color scale (taxonomic classification in appendix), Numbers of individuals found of the families are indicated on the Y-axis. The Y-axis scale differs between the sampling dates because of tremendous variation.

Fig. 13: Composition of invertebrate community, Baetidae excluded, at the five kicksampling sampled sites. The identified important groups are indicated by the color scale (taxonomic classification in appendix), Numbers of individuals found of the families are indicated on the Y-axis. The Y-axis scale differs between the sampling dates because of tremendous variation.

Fig. 14: Comparison of Riparian Arthropodes and benthic macroinvertebrates, the value on the Y-Axis indicates the overall abundance of organisms of the given type (Riparian Arthropodes, benthic macroinvertebrates) relative to the other sampling cycles.

In the two last samplings (27.08.09, 01.10.09) a clear reduction of the total abundance of macro invertebrates in the degraded site Canal is detected (figure 12). Surprisingly in the October sampling Riprap shows a higher total abundance of macro invertebrates than all other sites. In fact many very young larvae of baetidae were present. Therefore we excluded baetidae in figure 13 resulting in the same pattern found in August of higher presence of macro invertebrates in the natural systems compared to the degraded sites.

In Figure 14 the data from the last two sampling cycles in August and October are chosen to compare the present Riparian Arthropodes, sampled by pitfalls and the benthic macroinvetebrates sampled by kicksampling. The data shows no correlation by the descriptive approach.

Discussion

Abiotic indicators

The overall impression is that abiotic factors much better resembles the human first impression. In figure 11 the results of the abiotic factors are presented. Obviously the more natural control sites shows perfect natural results, indicated by the value 1. Whereas the degraded sites partially receive values close to minimum. On River Bünz the abiotic indicators were analyzed multiple times. The progress of the revitalization efforts could be detected for every site. For the abiotic indicators comparison is impractical the differences between the river sites is large and the Sense is also without renaturalization attempt closer to natural status.

Biotic indicators Discrimination between the different study sites based on the diversity indices was unsuccessful. This result can have multiple explanations. As cited in the introduction, the diversity of river associated organisms often is highly affected by the river progression. On one hand human impact and habitat fragmentation can decrease biodiversity. In contrary downstream the input of new species by facilitated connectivity is higher and rougher climatic condition which are present in highland rivers are missing. This would lead to a increased diversity downstream (Jacobsen et al., 2003). For this reason we choose the degraded site downstream. The result don‟t show an increase in the closer to nature sites. If high differences were detected, in all likelihood habitat fragmentation and overall negative effects of the degradation would be a reasonable explanation, since the downstream site should have increased diversity due to its downstream position (Zwick et al., 1992). The human impact is for our study site a feasible alternative reason for the slight decrease in biodiversity in the degraded sites. The differences in altitude or climatic conditions are low between the sampled sites. The contradictory theoretic bases are perfectly confirmed by the standardized diversity index based on MI and IBGN. The natural control site Braided A and the most degraded site Canal nearly coincide and show a higher diversity level than the sites laying in between. Increase in Braided A would there for be because of the sites natural condition including a habitat diversity. Whereas Canal has the benefit of the localization downstream with high biotic input from lowland rivers. Comparing the diversity indices to the results from river Bünz, these seasonal patterns are present as well. The Indices values are only scarcely comparable. Nonetheless river Bünz doesn‟t backslide at all, moreover the macro invertebrate diversity is often higher. The results from the PCA affirm the findings from the biodiversity indices. The sites are difficult to separate by the biotic data sampled. The clear classification pattern of natural and degraded sites can‟t be reproduced as observed in the abiotic indicator data. The Kicksampling results sampled in the degraded site Canal are close to the natural sites in the PCA aswell. The fourth sampling cycle nearly achieve the separation of the progression from close to natural status to degraded. The outliers can be explained by superior amount of baetidae in the Riprap sample and chironomidae in the Braided A sample. The CCA‟s in figure 11 seems to support the hypothesis that the seasonal patterns are of higher importance for the clustering of the sites. The same patterns are detected as in the PCA therefor the Impact of the Water chemistry and indicators on the distribution of the different sites are negligible. The data are of low variability and don‟t differ much between the sites during one sampling date. That ANOVA test of the CCA had no significant outcome is therefor not surprising.

The community assembly indicated in figures 12 and 13 show an overall nearly constant constellation of species present on all sites. Interestingly the total amount of counted invertebrates shows a clear reduction towards the degraded sites. This can be explained by worse living conditions, mostly due to habitat destruction but also human impacts like water pollution (e.g. agriculture) can have negative effects on invertebrate density. Here the effects of seasonality seems to be drastic, comparing the samplings from July and October. Not only in the overall density of invertebrates but also the community structure. In October much more plecoptera and heptagenidae species were present. Probably influencing the high presence of baetidae at the Riprap site in the October sampling is as well triggered by the high density of Phytoplankton. Phytoplankton constitutes by principal food source for baetidae (Richards et al., 1988). Needless to say the samplings from Mai and July were executed by different workers than those in August and October, therefore the results are most likely biased. The data resulting from hand- and pitfall sampling couldn‟t be correlated with other data. The data was of great variability and fragmentary. Figure 14 indicates a comparison examination to assess the correlation found by Baxter et al. (Baxter et al., 2005). The correlation couldn‟t be detected with our data. In this case the type of chosen sampling probably has not the needed resolution. For comparison of benthic and riparian fauna linked by the food web the occurance of a lag phase needs to be considered. The results presented in this study clearly shows that not only morphological indication of a river can predict for the presence of absence of biodiversity. Moreover not even the combination of different factors seems to result in a suitable prediction. To some degree a slight correlation is present with invertebrates present in the river. But factors like seasonal change and functionality of the food chain can have large influence on the outcome of the correlation comparison.

References

1. Agences de l'eau, (2000) Indice biologique global normalisé I.B.G.N, NF T 90‐350. Guide technique.

2ème édition. Paris: Les études des agences de l'eau n° 90. 2. Baumgartner C., Diploma work, unpublished data 3. Baxter, C.V., K.D. Fausch and W.C. Saunders. 2005. Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate

prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshwater Biology Vol.50. 201-220. 4. BUWAL (2005), for biotic indicator (23) 5. BUWAL (1998), abiotic indicators (14, 35, 36, 37, 42, 45, 46) 6. Dance K.W. and Hynes H.B.N., Some effects of agricultural land use on stream insect communities.

Environ Pollut Ser A 22 (1980), pp. 19–28.

7. Hart, D . D., 1978. Diversity in stream insects: regulation by rock size and microspatial complexity.- Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 20: 209-235. - and Horwitz, R. J. 1991. Habitat diversity and the species-area relationship: alternative models and tests.- In: Bell, S. S., McCoy, E. D. and Mushinsky, H. R. (eds), Habitat structure: the physical arrangement of objects in space. Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 47-68.

8. Illies, J. and Botosaneanu, L. 1963. „Proble`mes et me´thodes de la classification et de la zonation e´cologique des eaux courantes, considere´es sutout du point de vue faunistique‟, Mitt. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 12, 1–57.

9. Jacobsen D., Altitudinal changes in diversity of macroinvertebrates from small streams in the Ecuadorian Andes, Archiv für Hydrobiologie, Volume 158, Number 2, 1 September 2003 , pp. 145-167(23).

10. Paetzold, A, C.J. Schubert and K. Tockner. 2005. Aquatic terrestrial linkages along a braided-river: Riparian arthropods feeding on aquatic insects. Ecosystems Vol. 8. 748-759.

11. Richards C., Minshall W.G,, 1988, The Influence of Periphyton Abundance on Baetis bicaudatus Distribution and Colonization in a Small Stream, Journal of the North American Benthological Society, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), pp. 77-86

12. Stähli T., Diploma work (In German), unpublished data 13. Ward J.V. & Stanford J.A. (1995) The serial discontinuity concept: extending the model to floodplain

rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 10, 159–168. 14. Williamson,M .. Relationship of species number to area, distance and other variables. -In: Myers,A. A.

And Giller, P.S. (eds), Analytical biogeography. An integrated approach to the study of animal and plant communities. Chapman and Hall, London,1988, pp. 91-115.

15. Zurwerra et al (2000) Benthische Wirbellosenfauna des Sensesystems 16. Zwick, P. (1. Juni 1992). Stream habitat fragmentation: a threat to biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation , S. 80‐ 97.

Appendix

Tab. A1: Water parameters. Dissolved organic carbon (DOC), particulate organic carbon (POC), alkalinity, total inorganic carbon (TIC), nitrate and

nitrogen compounds (NO3-N), particulate nitrogen compounds (PN), phosphate (PO4-P), particulate phosphate (PP). Sampling dates where 27.8.2009 and 1.10.2009, the dates in the table represents the date of measurement.

Tab. A2: Water parameters. Water temperature, conductivity, pH and turbidity were measured. Sampling dates where 27.8.2009 and

1.10.2009.

R-Script for Principle Component Analysis (PCA):

# data input >library(stats) >bent<-read.table("C:\\Rdata\\KickPCA2") >str(bent) # PCA >prcomp(bent, cor=TRUE)->pca >pca.pr<-predict(pca) >plot(pca.pr, type="n", xlab="PC1 (53%)", ylab="PC2 (15%)") >text(pca.pr, names(bent)) >summary(pca.pr) >pca.pr # standard deviation >pca.pr<-prcomp(~ BA1 + BA2 + BA3 + CA1 + CA2 + CA3 + BB1 + BB2 + BB3 + RR1 + RR2

+ RR3 + CL1 + CL2 + CL3, data=bent, na.action=na.exclude, cor=TRUE) >pca.pr # calculation of described variance (Sta.div(PC1)/(Sta.div(PC1)+Sta.div(PC2)+...)) R-Script for periphyton Two-Way-ANOVA:

# data input > peri<-read.table("C:/Rdata/two_way_periphyton") # Two-Way-ANOVA > peri.aov1 = aov(peri$V3~peri$V2*peri$V1) > summary.aov(peri.aov1) # Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)

# peri$V2 1 60.7 60.7 0.0384 0.85110 # peri$V1 1 8294.5 8294.5 5.2477 0.06188 . # peri$V2:peri$V1 1 1936.8 1936.8 1.2253 0.31071 # Residuals 6 9483.6 1580.6 # --- # Signif. codes: 0 „***‟ 0.001 „**‟ 0.01 „*‟ 0.05 „.‟ 0.1 „ ‟ 1

> peri.aov2 = aov(peri$V3~peri$V2+peri$V1) > summary.aov(peri.aov2) #Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)

#peri$V2 1 60.7 60.7 0.0372 0.85252 #peri$V1 1 8294.5 8294.5 5.0840 0.05878 . #Residuals 7 11420.4 1631.5 #--- #Signif. codes: 0 „***‟ 0.001 „**‟ 0.01 „*‟ 0.05 „.‟ 0.1 „ ‟ 1

R-Script for Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA):

# data input > Kick3 <- read.table("C:/Rdata/KickCCAarc3.txt", header=TRUE, sep="", na.strings="NA", dec=".", strip.white=TRUE) > Env13 <- read.table("C:/Rdata/CCA_env1_3.txt", header=TRUE, sep="", na.strings="NA", dec=".", strip.white=TRUE) > check.datasets(Kick3, Env13) # CCA > Ordination.model1 <- cca(Kick3 ~ Temp + pH + Leitf + Trb,Env13) > check.ordiscores(Kick3,Ordination.model1, check.species=T) > summary(Ordination.model1, scaling=2) > deviance(Ordination.model1) > vif.cca(Ordination.model1) > goodness(Ordination.model1, display='sites', statistic='explained') > inertcomp(Ordination.model1, display='sites', statistic='explained', > permutest.cca(Ordination.model1, permutations=100) > permutest.cca(Ordination.model1, permutations=100, first=T) > anova.cca(Ordination.model1, step=100, by='terms') > anova.cca(Ordination.model1, step=100, by='margin') > par(cex=1) # CCA plot > plot1 <- ordiplot(Ordination.model1, type='none',choices=c(1,2), scaling=2)

Fig. A2: Composition of invertebrate community at the five kicksampling sampled sites. The identified families are indicated by the color scale, Numbers of individuals found of the families are indicated on the Y-axis. The Y-axis scale differs between the sampling dates because of tremendous variation.

Tab. A3: Taxalist of the sampled invertebrates by kicksampling

Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls

1 2 Insecta Plecoptera Larve 80

1 2 Insecta Plecoptera Perlodidae Larve 20

1 2 Insecta Plecoptera Nemoura Larve 31

1 2 Insecta Plecoptera Leuctridae Larve 25

1 2 Insecta Diptera Simulidae Larve 8

1 2 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Larve 308

1 2 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis sp. Larve 71

1 2 Insecta Trichoptera Larve 9

1 2 Arachnida Acari Hydrachnellae Adult 6

1 2 Insecta Diptera Larve 26

1 2 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Ectyonurus Larve 120

1 2 Insecta Coleoptera Larve 3





1 3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Larve 130


1 3 Insecta Hymenoptera Larve 14



1 4 Insecta Ephemeroptera 3 Larve 692

1 4 Arachnida Acari Hydrachnellae Larve 2



1 5 Insecta Ephemeroptera 3 Larve 369


1 5 Arachnida Acari Hydrachnellae Larve 2

2 1 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Larve 1





2 1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Larve 6

2 1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Larve 3

Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls






2 2 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemeroptera 1 Larve 9






2 3 Insecta Diptera Diptera 5 Larve 3



2 4 Insecta Diptera Chaoboridae Larve 1










2 5 Malacostraca Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus sp. Adult 2

3 1 Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae Perla sp. Larve 2


3 1 Insecta Plecoptera Chloroperlidae Larve 110


3 1 Insecta Diptera Limonidae Larve 10

3 1 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Larve 5



3 1 Insecta Diptera Tabanidae Larve 2


3 1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Rhitrogena Larve 267

Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls

3 1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Larve 314

3 1 Insecta Trichoptera Hydoptilidae Hydroptila sp. Larve 6

3 1 Insecta Trichoptera Hydopsychidae Larve 7

3 1 Insecta Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila sp. Larve 4



3 1 Clitallata Oligochaeta Adult 1

3 1 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Elmis sp. Larve 2

3 1 Insecta Coleoptera Adult 1

3 1 Insecta Hymenoptera Adult 2

3 2 Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae Larve 5







3 2 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis sp. Puppe 4



3 2 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Ecdyonurus Larve 3


3 2 Insecta Trichoptera Trichoptera 1 Larve 1

3 2 Insecta Trichoptera Hydopychidae Larve 13




3 2 Clitallata Oligochaeta Oligochaeta 1 Adult 3

3 2 Insecta Coleoptera Coleoptera 1 Adult 3

3 2 Insecta Hymenoptera Hymenoptera 1 Adult 1









Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls







3 3 Clitallata Oligochaeta Oligochaeta Adult 1

3 3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Ephemeroptera 4 Adult 2

3 3 Insecta Hymenoptera Hymenoptera Adult 4

3 3 Insecta Diptera Diptera 5 Adult 1









3 4 Insecta Ephemeroptera Haptageniidae Ecdyonurus Larve 3




3 4 Insecta Trichoptera Leptoceridae Larve 1
















Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls



3 5 Clitallata Oligochaeta Oligochaeta 1 Adult 3




3 5 Insecta Hymenoptera Formicidae Adult 2

















4 1 Insecta Diptera Adult 3

4 1 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Larve 1

4 1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Paraleptophlebia Larve 8


4 1 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Puppe 1







4 2 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Rhitrogena sp. Larve 531




Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls






4 2 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis sp. Adult 2

4 2 Insecta Collembola Adult 1


4 2 Insecta Diptera Puppe 1
























4 3 Insecta Diptera Athericidae Larve 1

4 3 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Epeorus Larve 2

4 3 Insecta Homoptera Adult 1

4 3 Insecta Thysanoptera Adult 1

4 3 Insecta Collembola Tomoceridae Dicyrtoma Adult 1


Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls



















4 4 Insecta Diptera Simulidae Puppe 2



4 4 Insecta Hemiptera Adult 1




4 4 Insecta Plecoptera Adult 1




4 5 Insecta Diptera Limoniidae Dicranota Larve 7

4 5 Insecta Diptera Limoniidae Larve 1








Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls

4 5 Clitallata Oligochaeta Oligochaeta Adult 7

4 5 Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Larve 1




4 5 Insecta Diptera Puppe 8







Tab. A4: Taxalist of the sampled invertebrates by Pitfalls

Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls

1 2 Arachnida Araneae Adult 3

1 2 Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae Adult 3








1 2 Insecta Hymenoptera Formicidae Myrmica sp. Adult 1










1 2 Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Adult 3

Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls








1 2 Insecta Lepidoptera Adult 5





1 2 Insecta Pterygota Adult 1

1 2 Insecta Ephemeroptera Adult 1


1 3 Arachnida Acari Hydracarnia Adult 1



1 3 Insecta Adult 1















1 3 Gastropoda Adult 1

1 3 Insecta Coleoptera Staphlinidae Pterostrichus Adult 1




Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls

1 3 Arachnida Opilliones Adult 2




1 3 Diplopoda Adult 1


1 3 Insecta Heteroptera Adult 20










1 3 Insecta Coleoptera Staphlinidae Adult 2
















1 4 Insecta Coleoptera Staphillinidae Adult 1

1 4 Insecta Plecoptera Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila sp. Adult 4





Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls























1 4 Crustaceae Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus sp. Adult 1




1 4 Arachnida Araneae Lycosidae Adult 6












Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls






1 5 Arachnida Opiliones Adult 1

1 5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Adult 1






1 5 Insecta Hymenoptera Formicidae myrmica sp. Adult 1

1 5 Insecta Hymenoptera Formicidae Camponotus sp. Adult 1




1 5 Insecta Hymenoptera

Adult 6







1 5 Arachnida Opiliones Adult 1





2 1 Insecta Hymenoptera Formicidae Myrmica Adult 2


2 1 Insecta Coleoptera Staphilinidae Adult 1




2 1 Gastropoda Valvatidae Adult 1



Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls


2 1 Arachnida Araneae Lycosidae Perdosa Adult 1







2 2 Gastropoda Physidae Adult 2



2 2 Chilopoda Adult 1

2 3 Insecta Hymenoptera Formicidae Camponotus Adult 1



2 3 Insecta Adult 1






2 3 Insecta Hymenoptera Formicidae Camponotus Adult 4

2 3 Malacostra Isopoda Adult 1



2 3 Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae Staphilinidae Adult 1

2 3 Oligochaeta Adult 2

2 3 Arachnida Araneae Araneidae Araneus diadematus Adult 2






2 4 Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae Staphilinidae Adult 1



2 4 Insecta Megaloptera Adult 1


Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls



2 5 Arachnida Acari Adult 1






3 1 Arachnida Araneae Lycosidae Perdosa amentata Adult 5

3 1 Arachnida Araneae Aranea 3 Adult 1

3 1 Insecta Collembola Poduridae Podura aquatica Adult 2

3 1 Insecta Coleoptera Trichoceridae Philanthus marginatus Adult 1

3 1 Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae Nebria picicornis Adult 2

3 1 Insecta Hymenoptera Cynipidae Adult 1

3 1 Insecta Coleoptera Trichoceridae Philanthus marginatus Adult 1


3 1 Insecta Coleoptera Cicindelidae Cicindela hybrida Adult 1



3 1 Insecta Hymenoptera Formicidae Camponotus lateralis Adult 6



3 1 Insecta Hemiptera Aphididae Aphis sp. Adult 1

3 1 Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae Pterostichus nigrita Adult 1

3 1 Insecta Collembola Collembola 3 Adult 2


3 1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptagonidae Larve 1

3 1 Insecta Diptera Phoridae Phora atra Adult 1

3 1 Gastropoda Gastropoda 1 Adult 1

3 1 Arachnida Acari Acari 1 Adult 5


3 1 Insecta Collembola Tomoceridae Tomocerus longicornis Adult 5

3 1 Insecta Coleoptera Coleoptera 3 Larve 4



3 1 Insecta Hymenoptera Hymenoptera 4 Larve 2

3 1 Insecta Hemiptera Ceropidae Adult 2


Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls

3 1 Insecta Hymenoptera Ichneumonidae Ichneuma sp. Adult 1

3 1 Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Limonia sp. Adult 1




3 1 Insecta Hymenoptera Formicidae Myrmica rubra Adult 19


3 1 Insecta Diptera Apomyzidae Apomyza germinatiosis Adult 1




3 1 Insecta Hymenoptera Hymenoptera 5 Larve 1


3 1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baëtidae Baëtis sp. Adult 1

3 1 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptagonidae Rhytrognea Adult 1

3 1 Insecta Thysanoptera Thysanoptera 1 Adult 1



3 2 Insecta Hemiptera Miridae Adult 1

3 2 Insecta Diptera Trichoceridae Trichocera annulata Adult 1


3 2 Arachnida Opiliones Sclerosomatidae Leiobunum rotundum Adult 1

3 2 Gastropoda Gastropoda 1 Adult 2





3 2 Insecta Coleoptera Elateridae Byrrhus pilula Adult 1


3 2 Amphibia Anura Ranidae Rana temporaria Adult 1

3 2 Insecta Collembola Poduridae Podura aquatica Adult > 1000




3 2 Arachnida Hymenoptera Sphecidae Larra anathema Adult 1




Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls



3 2 Insecta Saltatoria Acrididae Gomphocerippus rufus Adult 1



3 2 Insecta Hemiptera Ceropidae Philaenus spumarius Adult 1

3 2 Insecta Hemiptera Aphididae Adult 1


3 2 Insecta Trichoptera Trichoptera 2 Larve 1




3 2 Insecta Hemiptera Aphididae Aphis sp. Adult 3

3 2 Insecta Diptera Muscidae Mesembrina meridiana Adult 1









3 2 Insecta Coleoptera Coleoptera 4 Adult 1


3 2 Insecta Diptera Ephydridae Psilopa nitidula Adult 1



3 2 Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptagonidae Ectyonurus dispar Adult 2





3 3 Insecta Collembola Hypogastruridae Neanura muscorum Adult 1

3 3 Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae Pterostichus nigrita Adult 1


3 3 Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae Pterostrichus nigrita Adult 1

3 3 Insecta Coleoptera Staphlinidae Philothus marginatus Adult 2


Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls



3 3 Insecta Hymenoptera Tenthredinidae Adult 1



3 3 Insecta Collembola Dicyrtomidae Dicyrtoma fusca Adult 3








3 3 Insecta Isopoda Porcellionidae Porcellio scaber Adult 1












3 3 Insecta Hemiptera Delphacidae Delphacodes pellucide Adult 1

3 3 Insecta Coleoptera Staphlinidae Adult 1





3 3 Insecta Diptera Lonchaeidae Lonchaea chorea Adult 1

3 3 Insecta Coleoptera Elateridae Byrrhus pilula Adult 1

3 3 Insecta Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae Phyacophila sp. Larve 1





Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls

3 3 Insecta Hemiptera Aphrophoridae Adult 2










3 4 Insecta Hymenoptera Cinipidae Adult 1



3 4 Arachnida Opiliones Nemastomatidae Nemastoma bimaculatum Adult 1











3 4 Insecta Hemiptera Delphacidae Delphacodes pellucide Adult 1








3 4 Insecta Diptera Ephidridae Psilopa nitidula Adult 1






Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls


3 5 Diplopoda Chordeumatidae Chordeumatidae Chordeuma sp. Adult 1

3 5 Insecta Isopoda Porcellionidae Porcellio sp. Adult 1



3 5 Arachnida Araneae Gnaphosidae Drassodes sp. Adult 1


3 5 Insecta Diptera Phoridae Phora sp. Adult 1







3 5 Diplopoda Chordeumatidae Chordeumatidae Chordeuma sp. Adult 1

3 5 Insecta Diptera Ephyridae Psilopa nitidula Adult 2

3 5 Insecta Diptera Phoridae Phora sp. Adult 1


3 5 Insecta Hymenoptera Formicidae Camponotus sp. Adult 6











4 1 Insecta Collembola Tomoceridae Tomocerus sp. Adult 4

4 1 Arachnida Araneae Pisauridae Dolomedes sp. Adult 1






4 1 Insecta Dermaptera Adult 1


Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls


4 1 Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae Dyschirius Adult 1






4 1 Insecta Coleoptera Staphylinidae Philanthus sp. Adult 1













4 1 Insecta Diptera Muscidae Mydaea sp. Adult 1





4 2 Insecta Hymenoptera Halictidae Halictus sp. Adult 1







4 2 Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae Dyschirius Adult 1




4 2 Insecta Hymenoptera Ichneumonidae Adult 2


Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls




4 2 Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Hydrobius sp. Adult 1













4 2 Insecta Lepidoptera Larve 1






















Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls


4 3 Gastropoda Pulmonata Physidae Adult 3





4 3 Gastropoda Hydobiidae Adult 1
















4 3 Insecta Homoptera Cicadellidae Eupterix aurata Adult 2
















Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls


















4 4 Arachnida Araneae Cybaeidae Argyroneta aquatica Adult 1






4 4 Insecta Hymenoptera Ichneumonidae Adult 1


4 1 Insecta Collembola Tomoceridae Tomocerus sp. Adult >100













Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls


4 1 Arachnida Araneae Araneaidae Araneus sp. Adult 1



4 1 Insecta Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila sp. Adult 1


4 1 Insecta Collembola Tomoceridae Tomocerus sp. Adult >100















Tab. A5: Taxalist of the sampled invertebrates by Handsampling

Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls


1 2 Arachnida Araneae

Adult 1



Adult 6


1 2 Acari Hydacarnia Adult 1







1 5 Insecta Caelifera Adult 3


Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls



2 3 Malacostraca Isopoda

Adult 2





Adult 3





2 3 Insecta Coleoptera

Adult 4




2 3 Insecta Collembola

Adult 5


2 3 Acari Acaridae Adult 2

2 3 Insecta Trichoptera

Adult 8













Adult 1




Adult 10






Adult 3


2 4 Malacostraca Isopoda Adult 1

2 4 Arachnida Araneae Cybaeidae Adult 9






Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls





Adult 5

















2 5 Insecta Plecoptera Nemouridae Protenemura sp. Adult 1





2 5 Arachnida Opilliones Adult 1





2 5 Arachnida Araneae Staphilinidae Adult 7











2 5 Arachnida Acari Adult 2






Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls




3 2 Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae Pterostrichus madidus Adult 1







3 3 Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae Pterostrichus cupreus Adult 1





3 4 Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae Pterostrichus madidus Adult 1



















4 3 Insecta Coleoptera Staphylinidae Philanthus sp. Adult 1



4 3 Chilopoda Adult 1


4 3 Insecta Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Chrysomela geminata Adult 1








Fig. A1: Additional results from the abiotic indicator 35. Composition of river bed sediment at the five sampling sites in percent.

Sa

mp

ling

Site

cla

ss

ord

er

fam

ily

Ge

nu

s

Sp

ecie

s

Sta

diu

m

Ind

ivid

ua

ls





Documents

Is hydromorphological diversity reflected in biodiversity? · 2010-12-02 · 2008; Baumgartner, et al., 2008). Several indices for Biodiversity will be presented and compared with