STUDY REGARDING THE OLT RIVER (ROMANIA)
Acta Oecol. Carpat. V . Acta Oecologica Carpatica VII
hISTORICAL Human impact effect
on the alpine capra STREAM
MACROINVERTEBRATES AND FISH COMMUNITIES
(SOUTHERN ROMANIAN CARPATHIANS)Angela CURTEAN-BNDUC 1, Doru
BNDUC 2,
Luciana URSU and 3 and Rzvan RCHIT 4Keywords: Carpaii
Meridionali/Merridional Carpathians/Transylvanian Alps, Fgra
Mountains, alpine stream, human impact, macroinvertebrates and fish
communities, assessment.
ABSTRACT
Water Framework Directive (60/2000/CE) National Management Plan
approved by Government No. 80/2011., European institutions of
Applied Ecology, University of Environmental Protection,
environmental movements and foundations, European Union
legislation, etc., bring a substantial contribution to the
protection of lotic ecosystems in Europe and not only. Proposal and
implementation of solutions to restore the longitudinal
connectivity reduce the effect of the hydromorphological pressures
(cross barring) on watercourses. The solution presented is
relatively complex but robust with non-corrosive components.
Besides a safe transport of fish upstream of the basin, this
system, after some resizing, can be successfully used to another
dam or discharge sill located on the Someul Mic River.REZUMAT:
Restabilirea conectivitii longitudinale a rului Someul Mic n
apropierea barajului din satul Mnstirea (Transilvania,
Romnia).Directiva Cadru Ap (60/2000/CE), Planul Naional de Gestiune
aprobat prin Hotrrea de Guvern nr. 80/2011, instituiile europene cu
competene n protecia mediului, Universitatea de Ecologie, ONG-urile
de mediu, legislaia european etc. i aduc o contribuie substanial la
protecia ecosistemelor lotice din Europa i nu numai. Propunerea i
implementarea de soluii pentru restaurarea conectivitii
longitudinale au ca scop reducerea efectului presiunilor
hidromorfologice asupra cursurilor de ap. Soluia prezentat n
prezentul articol este relativ complex dar robust i nu conine
componente corozive. Pe lng un sistem de transport n siguran a
petelui n amonte, acest sistem, dup unele reajustri, poate fi
utilizat cu succes i n cazul altor baraje i stvilare situate pe rul
Someul Mic.RSUM: Rtablissement de la connectivit longitudinale de
la rivire Somesul Mic dans la proximit du barrage du village
Mnstirea (Transylvanie, Roumanie).La Directive Cadre de lEau
(60/2000/CE), Le Plan National de Gestion approuv par la Dcision
Gouvernementale no. 80/2011, les institutions europennes ayant des
comptences dans la protection de lenvironnement, lUniversit
Ecologique, les ONGs de profil, la lgislation europenne etc.
contribuent dune manire signifiante la protection des cosystmes
lotiques dEurope et non seulement. La proposition et la mise en
place des solutions pour le rtablissement de la connectivit
longitudinale se proposent de rduire leffet des pressions hydro
morphologiques sur les cours deau. La solution prsente dans le
prsent article est relativement complexe mais robuste et ne
comprend pas des composants corrosifs. A part un systme de
transport sur du poisson en amont du bassin, ce systme, aprs
certains rajustements, peut tre utilis avec succs dans le cas
dautres barrages INTRODUCTION
The Carpathian Mountains are a part of the Alps-Himalaya
mountains system, formed in the geological Alpine orogeny period, a
system which is extended from the west of Europe to the south of
Asia, including: Alps, Alborz, Apennine, Atlas, Balkan, Baetic
Cordillera, Carpathian, Cantabrian, Caucasus, Dinaric Alps,
Hellenides, Himalayas, Hindu Kush, Karakoram, Pamir, Pyrenees,
Taurus and Zagros mountains. (Moores and Fairbridge, 1998; Schmid
et al., 2004). The Romanian Carpathians appeared due to the Alpine
orogeny in the active edge of the Euroasian geological plate
(Mutihac, 1990).
The Transylvanian Alps (de Martonne, 1907), are a mountain
ranges which divide the central and southern national territory of
Romania. They cover a significant part of the Romanian Carpathian
Mountains, part which is located between the Prahova River in the
east and the Timi and Cerna rivers in the west (Posea et al.,
1974).One of the most emblematic alpine relief for the Carpathian
Mountains can be found in the Fgra Mountains which stretch between
the Olt River at west and the Rucr-Bran Passage and the Dmbovia
River at east, and are characterised by frequent altitudes over
2,000 m a.s.l (ex. Moldoveanu Peak, 2,544 m, Negoiu Peak, 2,535 m,
Vitea Mare Peak, 2,527 m, Lespezi Peak, 2,522 m, Vntoarea lui
Buteanu Peak, 2,506 m), accentuated slopes, massiveness and a large
range of geomorphosites which were formed by the action of the
glaciers. (Badea, 1983; Rou, 1980; Posea, 1982; Florea 1998;
Voiculescu, 2002; Niculescu et al., 1960; Vuia, 2011)
One of the most important targets of the European Union in the
environmental field of interest are the protection, conservation
and the improvement of the environment quality, in the context of
the intelligent use of the ecosystems resources and services. In
the last few decades the biodiversity conservation was one of the
main objectives in this respect. The action frame at the EU level,
to preserve the biodiversity was mainly established based on the
Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and Birds Directive (79/409/EEC).
Romania is the country with the highest biogeographic diversity,
with a total of five biogeographic regions: alpine, continental,
pannonic, pontic and stepic. (Curtean-Bnduc and Florescu, 2007)
There are few main ways through which the Natura 2000 net
initiative in Romania too can improve its nature protection:
extension of the natural areas surface; the creation and
implementation of correct management plans for these protected
areas; institutional capacity building; raising awareness. This
study was realised to offer data regarding one very characteristic
alpine stream in one of the most representative Natura 2000 site in
the Romanian alpine biogeographic region, the Fgra Mountains Natura
2000 site (administrated together with the Fgra Piedmont Natura
2000 site). These two areas of community interest overlap over 27
localities areas, including a total surface area of 243,627.7 ha,
20 natural protected areas (24,205.5 ha), 66 endemic plant species,
326 plant and animal important species of protective interest, etc.
(*)
Historically, the economic activities have often had major
destructive impact on aquatic species communities from small
streams to large rivers. The present is not different, the main
direct or/and indirect effects on fresh water ecosystems are mainly
due to the habitats physical and chemical alterations (Petts, 2001;
Dudgeon, 1992, 1995; Iannuzzi and Ludwig, 2004; Das and
Chakrebarty, 2007; Markovi et al., 2007; Liogchii, 2008;
Kutzenberger, 2008; Yacoub, 2011; Tockner et al., 2009; Yildiz et
al., 2010, Curtean-Bnduc et al., 2007).The macroinvertebrates and
fish communities assessment are commonly used tools for the aquatic
habitats ecological assessment (Fausch et al., 1990; Edds, 1993;
Harrison and Whitfield, 1995; Schiemer, 2000; Aparicio et al.,
2000; Magalhaes et al., 2002; Bnduc, 2005; Pont et al., 2007;
Vassilev and Botev, 2008; Kadye et al., 2008; Cao et al., 1997;
Clements et al., 1997; Couceiro et al., 2012; Curtean-Bnduc, 2005,
2008; Hilsenhoff, 1981, 1987; Infante et al., 2009; Jiang et al.,
2013; Lcke and Johnson, 2009; Monaghan and Soares, 2012; Park et
al., 2007; Pru and Doldec, 2010; Rosenberg and Resh, 1993;
Snchez-Montoya et al., 2010).Assessing macroinvertebrates and fish
communities diversity causes and effects requires an adaptative
scale approach (Friesel et al., 1986; Habersack, 2000; Levin, 1992;
Naiman et al., 1992; Ciesielka and Bailey, 2007; Heino and Mykr,
2006; Jiang et al., 2011; Keith et al., 2009; Roth et al., 1996).
The river/basin approach is one of the most appropriate one in this
respect.
The need for this specific type of scientific studies is coming
from the serious concerns regarding the trend of continuous and
pronounced quantitatively and qualitatively deterioration of the
aquatic ecosystems as complex and very valuable resources worldwide
(Kalinin and Bykov, 1970; Sokolov, 1977; Aldwell, 1977; Arnell,
2004; Lundqvist, 2009). In spite of the relatively low/medium human
access in the mountainous zones, these areas have become lately a
more and more attractive target for new socio-economic objectives
and the Carpathians Mountains is not an exception (Dank, 1993;
Costea, 2008; Curtean-Bnduc et al., 2008; Sandu et al., 2008; Hajdu
and Fleky, 2008; Reif et al., 2009; Bnduc, 2010).
The Fgra Mountains alpine lotic ecosystems, especially the high
altitude sectors, due to their relative isolation and difficult
acces for field work were studied relative rarely in comparison
with the lower sectors of these rivers or more lower/accessible
rivers from this perspective. In the present energetic crisis, the
alternative sources should to be quickly adopted and exploited,
including microhidropower plants which are fitting well in alpine
areas, but without to irresponsible negatively affect the
environment elements.
Hydropower generates arround 16% of global electricity
consumption and from generated energy from renewable energy
sources, it is 86% (IPCC, 2011).After Romania joins the EU in 1
January 2007, it was clear (European Conference for Renewable
Energy) that till 2020 it should produce 20% renewable energy,
microhidropowerplans being a natural option for a Carpathian
country like Romania is.
On the other hand the degradation of Carpathian streams due to
microhydropower plants construction is one of the nine significant
problematical cases of thus construction in the world, (WWF,
2013).In Romania aproximatively 411 hidropower plants are in
various stages of planing, permitting, construction or in
exploitation and more than a quarter are porpose to be situated
inside or at the limit of protected areas. In this context numerous
streams and rivers are already or can be affected in the future by
microhidropowerplants in Fgra Mountains Natura 2000 site and Fgra
Piedmont Natura 2000 sites: Blea, Crioara, Ru Mare, Vitea, Smbta,
Ucea, Dejani, Lupa, Vitioara, Sebe, Valea Satului, Boia Mic, Boia
Mare, Curpn, Capra, Buda-Otic, Modrogaz, Valea Rea, Zrna, Vlsan,
Valea Doamnei, Topolog, Cuca, Brsa, Olt, Pojorta, Brescioara, etc.
All of these are/will be/can be funded from UE funds and green
certificates acquired were allocated under the national scheme are
not based on ecologycal criterion (WWF, 2013).Capra Stream is one
of the most representative case of negative human impact on a
Carpathian lotic system situated in a Natura 2000 site (Fig. 1),
due to a series of microhidropowerplants made without adequate
impact studies. It is still to be found in this study if the actual
state of Capra Stream is a consequence of these
microhidropowerplants or other human impacts should be taken in
consideration.In spite of some allready existing species red lists
which include also the Carpathians basin fish species (IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species; Kukua and Sandor 2003; Voloscuk ed.
1996; Bnrescu in: Botnariuc and Tatole, 2005); and also of
publications which sugests management elements including for
macroinvertebates and fish species, and habitats management in the
Carpathians area (Bnduc et al., 2006; Curtean-Bnduc, 2008, 2010,
Bnduc and Curtean- Bnduc 2014).One of the most characteristic lotic
ecosystem for this exquisite alpine area is the Capra Stream (Fig.
1), and this specific study intend to bring data regarding the
local macroinvertebrate and fish fauna, data needed for the
creation and implementation of a correct management plan for the
Fgra Mountains Natura 2000 site and for raising awareness in an
alpine environment which have become lately a target for human
impact extension and intensification.The Capra gill flows from
Capra glacial lake located at the altitude of 2,230 m, with an area
of 18,340 m2 and a depth of 8 m and from Cpria Lake with an area of
2,190 m2 and a depth of 1.5 m. These two alpine lakes are
positioned beneath the edge of the fifth highest peak of Fgra
Mountains (Vntoarea lui Buteanu, 2,506 m). (Ujvari, 1972; Badea,
1983; Rou, 1980)
The Capra and Buda gills form together the Arge hidrographical
system which has an area of 12.521 km2 and a length of 339,6 km
(Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology, 1971).
This system includes the highest (166,6 m) concrete dam (Vidraru
Dam) in Romania, built in 1965 for the energy prduction and supply.
The Vidraru Lake has a built water volume of 465 millions m3, a
potential surface of 893 ha, a length of 12,3 km and a
circumference of 28 km (Constantinescu et al., 1990).
Figure 1: Capra River basin localisation.The mountain group
which includes the Capra Stream drainage area neighbours with Fgra
depression at north, Olt valley at west, Dmbovia valley at east,
Cmpulung depression, Brdetu, Arefu and Jiblea at south (Badea et
al, 1983).The main edge where Capra gill springs from is oriented
west-east and Capra river basin is oriented north-east. (Ujvari,
1972; Badea, 1983; Rou, 1980).The local relief has altitudes of
over 2,000 m in the upper part of the basin which are
characteristic for Fgra Mountains. The minimum altitude where is
positioned Capra drainage area is at about 800 m downstream of
Vidraru Lake. (Velcea and Savu, 1982)For the first time in Romania
was mentioned glacial relief here in the Fgra Mountains area
(Lehmann, 1881). Capra drainage area is characterised by glacial
relief, due to its orogeny and geological evolution as was
highlighted above.This area registered the cuaternary glaciation
mark, reflected by the presence of the glacial cirques and valleys
with steep flanks covered by debris and moraines.The upper drainage
area is mainly characterized by river and rainfall processes caused
by high leakage and high slopes. The high duration of low
temperatures upwards of 1,850 m altitude determine as domniants the
crionival and torrential processes, while at lower altitudes in the
deciduos and coniferous forests, biochemical, river and rain
erosion processes have the mainly role.Processes that affect Capra
Basin versants are solifuction, gullying, torrential erosion,
erosion and transport in river beds, disintegrations, dissolutions
and landslides.
Climatic characteristics of the basin due to its position in the
relief unit, so that it is temperate - continental alpine climate,
with short and cool summers and long, cold, snowy winters.
The average annual temperature varies in Capra basin area from -
2C in the upper area at 8C at the bottom of it. Medium and absolute
low temperatures of January range from -10C in the upper basin at
-3C at the bottom of the basin, and medium and absolute maxima of
July was 6C to 8C.
In terms of rainfall there are mean annual quantities between
1,000 and 1,400 mm. The average snow cover in the basin is 200
days, in winter, the average number of days with snow being over
80.
The area is affected by movements of air masses coming from the
N and NW. (Posea et al., 1982)Capra River has a length of 20 km and
the drainage area is 97 km2 (Ujvari, 1972). Throughout its length,
he receives several tributaries, both left and right.
Major right tributaries of the Capra River are Paltinu Creek,
Lespezi Creek, Anghel Creek, Florea Creek, Cerbului Creek,
Modrugazu Creek, Stan Valley - located downstream of Vidraru
Lake.
Tributaries of the left are: Lipitoarea Ursului Creek (found in
some maps as the Piscul Negru Creek), Piscul Negru Creek, Braila
Creek, Ciocanului Creek (Fig. 2).
On the right tributary, Paltinu Creek there is a lake called
Clun, with an area of 7751 m2 and a depth of 11.8 m Goat River,
flows into Vidraru lake and then continue downstream to the right
tributary - Valley of Stan. (Ujvari, 1972)
Landforms that resulted from the evolution in time of the river
basin, have offered various opportunities for various human
economic activities such as livestock (especially sheep), logging
(was practiced rafting on the Capra river) tourism, etc...
Penetration of human presence in this relatively isolated area with
difficult access was facilitated especially after achieving
Transfgran road.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish are considered two of the
most important groups of organisms selected in the frame of Water
Framework Directive (60/2000/EC) to assess and monitor the
integrity of aquatic biological communities in the process of
assessing the ecological status of a river (Metcalfe, 1989;
Rosenberg and Resh, 1993; Gabriels et al., 2010; Steinman et al.,
2003).
The field campaign of this study was realised in 2012. The
studied macroinvertebrates and fish sampling stations were chosen
according to: the valley morphology, the type of river substratum,
the confluences with the main tributaries and the human impact
presence bias (hydro technical works and polution).For the
macroinvertebrates sampling the Surber Sampler (887 cm2 surface and
250 m mesh net) was used, four quantitative and one qualitative
samples were taken in each of the 17 sampled river sectors, from
near springs area to the stream flow in Vidraru Lake (Fig. 1). The
samples were preserved in 4% formaldehyde solution (NaHCO3 was
added). After that, the samples were washed in a 0.2 mm mesh net
and analised at KRSS OPTRONIC binocular and Olympus (150X)
stereomicroscope. Identifying individuals was made at level of
systematical group. After the sampled individuals were identified
and counted, they were kept in polystyrene tube, preserved in 70%
alcohol, and included in the collections of the Aquatic Biology
Laboratory, Faculty of Sciences, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu,
Romania.
To procces the primary data was made the report with the number
of individuals per square meter. The relative abundance and
frequency were used for the macroinvertebrates quatitative
description and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index to quantify the river
ecological status, reverse Simpson and Margalef indexes to measure
biodiversity, as a method of river homeostazy assessment..
Figure 2: Surber Sampler benthic macroinvertebrates sampling on
Capra Stream.
The indexes used to describe benthic macroinvertebrates
communities and analyze stream ecological status relative
abundance, frequency, ecologycal significance index, Simpson
Reversed Index, Margalef Index, Hilsenhoff Index and EPT/C Index.
The relative abundance and frequency are used to describe
quantitatively the structure of comunities, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
to quantify ecological status of the river, and Simpson Reversed
Index and Margalef Index to measure biodiversity as a method to
evaluate the homeostasis of the river.
The Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera orders and
Chironomidae family abundace show the balance between benthic
invertebrate communities; Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera
are more sensitive to pollution than Chironomidae (Platfkin and
colab., 1989). Balanced distribution of those groups reveal stream
sectors with good ecologycal status.This index reveal the ratio
between the sum of sampled individuals who belong to Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Trichoptera orders groups and the sum of individuals
who belong to Chironomidae family group.Fish are considered the
most important groups of organisms selected in the frame of Water
Framework Directive (60/2000/EC) to assess and monitor the
integrity of aquatic biological communities in the process of
assessing the ecological status of a river. Much more they are used
to assess the ecological status of rivers as they are composed of
species that constitute a large range of trophic levels and
pollution tolerances (Metcalfe, 1989; Rosenberg and Resh,
1993).
The two fish sampling methods used were: electrofishing with
AquaTech IGT600 and AquaTech IG1300 devices (Fig. 3) on 100 m river
sectors units.
One of the largely accepted integrated approach in the fish
assessment and monitoring respect is that one based on the biotic
integrity using fish communities (Karr, 1981; Leonard and Orth,
1986; Fausch and Schrader, 1987; Lyons et al., 1996; Hughes and
Oberdorf, 1998; Goldstein and Simon, 1998; Smathers et al., 1998;
Miller et al., 1988; Bramblett and Fausch, 1991; Oberdorff et al.,
2002; Sostoa et al., 2003; Bozzetti and Schulz, 2004; Pont et al.,
2007; Petesse et al., 2007; Casatti et al., 2009). It is
demonstrable the fact that particular adaptations are necessary for
each studied river in different regions. Such a specific adaptation
of an integrity biotic index for the Carpathians area basins/rivers
was proposed by Bnduc and Curtean-Bnduc (2002), its main elements
are shortly presented below and were used in this study.The
combination of metrics for this index was created to expose
insights of assemblage, community, population, and ecosystem
perspectives, and to suit local and/or regional patterns in fish
ecology.Every selected metric value should be compared with the
estimated value from similar/comparable sites/sectors with smaller,
minimal or no human impact.In general it can be considered that as
this adapted/flexible biotic integrity index values decrease, the
habitat and lotic ecosystems (as sources of services and resources)
quality decrease too.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score represent a
nine-metrics sum and can be interpreted using the following
intervals for comparation: (45-43 excellent) this maximum score
attest an excellent, comparable to pristine conditions, exceptional
assemblage of species; (42-36 very good) this second score
certifies a decreased species richness, intolerant species in
particular, sensitive species present; (35-31 good) this score
describes fair intolerant and sensitive species absence, skewed
trophic structure; (30-24 fair) a score which reflects some
expected species absent or rare, while omnivores and tolerant
species are dominating; (23-17 fairly poor) this score shows few
species and individuals present, tolerant species ; (16-10 poor)
this score reveals very few species and individuals present,
tolerant species dominating; (9-1 very poor) this minimum possible
score reflects extreme few species and individuals present,
tolerant species dominating, or no fish individuals present.
The selected fish assemblage metrics in this respect are the
following: species richness and species composition (total number
of fish species; proportion of benthic fish species; proportion of
water column species; proportion of individuals of intolerant
species; proportion of individuals of typically tolerant species),
trophic composition (proportion of individuals as omnivores
feeders; proportion of individuals as insectivores feeders) and
fish abundance and condition (number of individuals in sample;
introduced species - on zoogeographic basis). Ratings of 5, 3 and 1
are assigned to each metric according to weather its assessed value
approximates, deviates from the value expected at a comparable site
that is relatively undisturbed.
The Carpathian Fish - Index of Biotic Integrity (CF-IBI) scores
results are generally overlapping on other much more resources
consuming assessment methods (Bnduc and Curtean-Bnduc, 2002). This
index significant metrics respond to river natural, seminatural
and/or anthropogenic variations/disturbances in a predictable
manner, match lotic ecosystem quality correctly revealing an
important correlation with the local habitats and microhabitats
degradation, are generally spatially and temporally stable, and
showed significant correlation with independent measures of water
quality. Although the overall classifying success of this index is
similar to that of its metrics, it is superior to them, becouse is
a compromise measure, balancing the tendencies of the metrics
overestimate or underestimate the habitat quality.The high quality
of the Carpathian Fish - Index of Biotic Integrity, as an indicator
of fish assemblage and habitat quality, rely on the: possibility to
explain the features of the fish assemblage in a particular
Carpathian region; tracked medium-term and long-term modifications,
is replicable across a wide suite of sampling sections; is
evidently correlated with other indicators of the river water
quality.
The Carpathian Fish Index of Biotic Integrity is very efficient
in discriminating over a large gradient of human negative effects:
biotic assemblages changing due to flow alteration, dam discharges,
toxic chemicals; habitat disturbance, microhabitat disturbance,
unnatural runoff, banks vegetation clearing, islands vegetation
clearing, excess sediments or nutrients transport, channelization,
de-snagging; and seem consistent in medium and long periods of time
in differentiating human activities negative impacts.The main
quality of the assessment made with this specific index is based on
its capacity to interpret the main features of the fish assemblage
in characteristic alpine Carpathians area conditions.
Figure 3: Electrofishing sampling.
Figure
....................................................................
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Station 1 (Fig. 4) is situated on the closest point near the
river streams from all prelevation points. It is situated at 1,785
m altitude and their coordinates are north latitude 4535.682 and
east longitude 2438.666. The maximum river width is 3 m, medium
width 1,5 m and the minimum 1 m. The substrate is made of rock,
boulder and gravel.
Figure 4: Sampling station 1 on Capra Stream.
Macroinvertebrate community present in this river is formed by:
Oligochaeta , Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
Trichoptera, Diptera, Turbellaria and Chironomidae (Tab. 11).
From the numerical point of view Chirinomidae are dominant
groups (40,75%). From all sistematical groups the group with
biggest frequency are: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Chiromidae.
The present systematic groups with biggest frequency are:
Oligochaeta, Araneida, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and
Chironomidae. Dependent of calculated ecological semnification
index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae, Plecoptera and
Ephemeroptera; dominant groups: Oligochaeta; subdominant groups
:Trichoptera, Araneida and other Diptera, above groups: Collembola
and Turbellaria.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor),
a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish
individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of
neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for
good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc
unpublished data)
Station S2 (Fig. 5) is situated at the altitude of 1721 m, at 1
km downstream of the prelevation station. The coordinates are
4535.419 north latitude and 2438.672 east longitude. The maximum
width is 7,5 m and the minimum is 1,5 m. The medium width is 2,5
m.
Figure 5: Sampling station 2 on Capra Stream.
The benthonic macroinvertebrates community from this river is
formed by Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Diptera and Turbellaria (Tab. 11). From the numerical
point of view Chironomidae are dominant groups. (69,22%). The
systematic groups with the highest frequency are: Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Trichoptera, and Diptera. Acording to calculated
ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups:
Chironomidae, Plecoptera, and Ephemeroptera; subdominant groups:
other Diptera and Trichoptera, recedent groups: Oligochaeta and
Turbellaria, subrecedent groups: Collembola.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor),
a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish
individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of
neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for
good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc
unpublished data)
Prelevation station S3 (Fig. 6) is situated at 1663 m, at 1 km
downstream of the Station 2. The coordinates are 4535.130 north
latitude and 2438.534 east longitude. The maximum width of the
river is 4 m, minimum 1 m and medium width 2,5 m. The maximum depth
is 70 cm and the minimum is 8 cm.
Figure 6: Sampling station 3 on Capra Stream.The benthonic
macroinvertebrates community from this river is formed by
Olihochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and
Diptera. (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the dominating
groups are: Chironomidae (67,27%). The systematic groups with the
highest frequency are: Oigochaeta, Araneida, Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Chironomidae. Acording to calculated ecological
semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae,
Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera; recedent groups: Oligochaeta, Other
Diptera Araneida, Collembola, Trichoptera and Turbellaria.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor),
a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish
individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of
neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for
good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc
unpublished data)
Station S4 (Fig. 7) is situated at 1541 m altitude, at 1 km
downstream from station nr. 3. The coordinates are: north latitude
4535.013, and east longitude 2437.925. The maximum width of the
river is 8 m , minimun width 2 m and medium width 3,5 m. The
maximum depth of the river is about 60 cm, and the minimum depth is
5 cm. At 200 m downostream from this station is situated the first
microhidropowerplant (Fig. 8).
Figure 7: Sampling station 4 on Capra Stream.
Figure 8: Capra Stream microhidropowerplant Capra I.The
benthonic macroinvertebrates community from this river is formed
by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
Trichoptera, Diptera and Turbellaria. (Tab. 11). From the numerical
point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (72,66%). The
groups with the highest frequency are: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera
and Diptera. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index
we have: eudominant groups : Chironomidae and Ephemeroptera,
dominant groups: Plecoptera; subdominant groups: Other Diptera,
recedent groups: Trichoptera, Oligochaeta, Aranedia trichoptere,
oligochete i araneide; subrecedent groups: Collembola and
Turbellaria.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score is 1 very
poor.
Sampling station nr. S5 (Fig. 9) is situated at 1492 m altitude,
at 0,9 km downstream of station nr. S4. The coordinates are:
4534.809 north latitude, and 2437.447 east longitude. The maximum
width of the river is 8,5 m , the minimum 3 m and the medium 4 m.
The maximum depth of the river is 50 cm wthile the minimum is 5
cm.
Figure 9: Sampling station 5 on Capra Stream.
The benthonic macroinvertebrates community from this river is
formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Ostracoda, Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Diptera and Turbellaria (Tab. 11). From
the numerical point of view the dominating groups are: Chironomidae
(55,9%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Oligochaeta,
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Chironomidae. Acording to calculated
ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups:
Chironomidae, Ephemeroptera; dominant groups: Trichoptera and
Oligochaeta; subdominant groups: Plecoptera, other Diptera and
Araneida; subrecedent groups: Turbellaria and Ostracoda.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor),
a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish
individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of
neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for
good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc
unpublished data)
The prelevation station nr. S6 (Fig. 10) is situated at1492 m
altitude, at 1 km donwstream of station nr. S5. The coordonates
are: 4534.809 north latitude and 2437.447 east longitude. The
maximum width of the river is 8,5 m, minimum is 3 m and medium is 4
m The maximum depth of the river is 50 cm and minimum is 5 cm.
Figure 10: Sampling station 6 on Capra Stream.The benthonic
macroinvertebrates community from this river is formed by:
Oligochaeta, Araneida, Colembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and
diptera. (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the dominating
groups are: Chironomidae (91,87%). The groups with the highest
frequency are: Oligochaeta, Ephemeroptera, and Chironomidae.
Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have:
eudominant groups: Chironomidae; subdominant groups: Ephemeroptera,
Oligochaeta and Plectoptera; recedent groups: Araneida, Other
Diptera and Trichoptera and subrecedent groups: Collembola.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor),
a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish
individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of
neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for
good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc
unpublished data)Sampling station S7 (Fig. 11) is situated at 1249
m altitude, at 3 km downstream of station S6. The coordinates are:
4533.726 north latitude, and 2436.468 east longitude. The maximum
width of the river is 12 m, the minimum is 6 m and medium with is 8
m. The maximum depth of the river is 65 cm and the minimum is 7 cm.
In the downstream part of the prelevation station the habitat is
very affected by the microhidropowerplant which construction is in
progress (Fig. 12).
Figure 11: Sampling station 7 on Capra Stream, natural lotic
habitat.
Figure 12: Sampling station 7 on Capra Stream,lotic habitat
negatively affected by works for microhidropowerplant Capra II.The
benthonic macroinvertebrates community from this river is formed
by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera
and Diptera. From the numerical point of view the dominant groups
are: Oligochaeta (63,05%). The groups with the highest frequency
are: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola and Chironomidae. Acording
to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant
groups: Oligochaeta and Chironomidae; dominant groups:Araneida;
subdominant groups: Collembola; recedent groups: Ephemeroptera and
Other; subrecedent groups: Plecoptera.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very
poor).Prelevation Station S8 (Fig. 13) is situated at 1 km
downstream from prelevation station S7 at 1242 m altitude. The
coordinates are North latitude 4533.697 and east longitude
2436.426. The maximum width is 9 m long, minimum 1,5 m. In this
point is situated Siesta cottage (Fig. 14). Here we can notice
wasted water evacuation and the lack of a treatment plant.
Figure 13: Sampling station 8 on Capra Stream, natural
habitat.
Figure 14: Touristic complex at sampling station 8 on capra
Stream.The benthonic macroinvertebrates community from this river
is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Ostracoda, Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera (Tab. 11). From the numerical
point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (76,46%). The
groups with the highest frequency are: Plecoptera, Chironomidae.
Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have:
eudominant groups: Chironomidae and Plecoptera; subdominant groups:
Oligochaeta, Ephemeroptera, Araneida and Trichoptera; recedent
groups: Other Diptera and subrecedent groups: Ostracoda.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very
poor).
Prelevation station S9 (Fig. 15) is situated at 2 km downstream
from prelevation station S8. The station is positioned at 1158 m
altitude. The coordinates are: 4532.925 north latitude and 2435.920
east logintude. The maximum width of the river course is 14 m and
the minimum 10m.
Figura 15: Sampling station 9 on Capra Stream.
Figure 16: Sampling station 9 on Capra Stream, pipe ready to be
buried.The benthonic macroinvertebrates community from this river
sector is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola,
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Diptera, Amfipoda and
Turbellaria. (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the
dominant groups are: Chironomidae (78,89%). The groups with the
highest frequency are: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Chironomidae. Acording to calculated
ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups:
Chironomidae; eudominant groups: Plecoptera; subdominant groups:
Ephemeroptera, Oligochaeta, Araneida and Trichoptera; recedent
groups: other Diptera, Amphipoda and Turbellaria; subrecedent
groups: Collembola.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (31 good),
describes fair intolerant and sensitive species absent, skewed
trophic structure. Just two Salmo trutta fario individuals were
sampled in the fishing time unit.Sampling station S10 (Fig. 17) is
situated at 2.4 km downstream from prelevation station S9. The
station is positioned at 1131 m altitude. The coordinates are:
4531.899 north latitude and 2435.284 east logintude. The maximum
width of the river course is 14 m and the minimum 10m.
The maximum width of the river course is 13m and the minimum 7
m. The maximum depth is 70 cm and the minimum is 15 cm. In this
prelevation station half of the river course is ocupied by river
rocks. Downstream from this station it is situated the
Microhidropowerplant nr. III (Fig. 18).
Figura 17: Sampling station 10 on Capra Stream, burried pipe at
microhidropowerplant no. III.
Figure 18: Sampling station 10 on Capra Stream,lotic habitat
negatively affected by works for microhidropowerplant Capra III.The
macroinvertebrates community from this river sector is formed by:
Oligochaeta, Araneida,Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
Trichoptera and Diptera (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view
the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (64,03%). The groups with the
highest frequency are: Oligochaeta, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
Trichoptera and Diptera. Acording to calculated ecological
semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae and
Plecoptera; dominant groups: Ephemeroptera; subdominant groups:
Trichoptera, Oligochaeta and other Diptera, recedent groups:
Araneida; subrecedent groups: Collembola.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very
poor).Sampling station S11 (Fig. 20) is situated at 2.4 km
downstream from prelevation station S10. The station is positioned
at 1046 m altitude. The coordinates are 4530.793 north latitude and
2435.028 east longitude. The maximum width of the river course is 9
m and the minimum 5 m.
Figure 19: Sampling station 11 on Capra Stream.
Figure 20: Near the sampling station 11, remaines of old rocks
and loggs dam used for rafting.The macroinvertebrates community
from this river sector is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida,
Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera
(Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the dominant groups
are: Chironomidae (85,09%). The groups with the highest frequency
are: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Chironomidae. Acording to
calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant
groups: Chironomidae; subdominant groups: Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Oligochaeta and Araneida; recedent groups: Other
Diptera, Collembola and Trichoptera.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor),
a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish
individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of
neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for
good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc
unpublished data)Prelevation station S12 (Fig. 21) is situated at
1.7 km downstream from prelevation station S11. The station is
positioned at 966 m altitude. The coordinates are: 4530.124 north
latitude and 2435.011 east longitude. The maximum width of the
river course is 8 m and the minimum 1.3 m.The river bed is formed
by: sand and gravel.
The maximum width of the river course is 13 m and the minimum 7
m. The maximum depth is 70 cm and the minimum is 15 cm. The rock
filling width which cover the pipe is half of the initial river
bed. The prelevation stations is situated downstream of the
Michrohidropowerplant nr. IV which is under construction.
Figure 21: Sampling station 12 on Capra Stream.
The macroinvertebrates community from this river sector is
formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera (Tab. 11). From the numerical
point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (88,98%). The
groups with the highest frequency are: Plecoptera and Chironomidae.
Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have:
eudominant groups: Chironomidae; subdominant groups: Ephemeroptera
and Plecoptera; recedent groups: Araneida, Oligochaeta Trichoptera
and other Diptera; subrecedent groups: Collembola.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor),
a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish
individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of
neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for
good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc
unpublished data)Prelevation station S13 (Fig. 22) is situated at
1.5 km downstream from prelevation station S12 on the future
placement of the Microhidropwerplant nr. V. The station is
positioned at 915 m altitude. The coordinates are: 4529.289 north
latitude and 2434.998 east logintude. The maximum width of the
river course is 8 m and the minimum 1.3 m. The river bed is formed
by: sand and gravel.The maximum width of the river course is 7 m
and the minimum 4 m. The maximum depth is 130 cm. To be able to
bury the pipe there have been developed a road through the river
bed (800 m distance) (Fig. 23).In this prelevation station the
building ground necessary to bury the pipes is wider than remaining
river bed width. The riverbed work is done with heavy construction
equipment with no measures to minimize the impact. (Fig. 24).
Figure 22: Sampling station 13 on Capra Stream, lotic habitat
negatively affected by works for microhidropowerplant Capra V
underground pipes.
Figure 23: Pipe which takes water for generating
hidro-energy.
Figure 24: Heavy construction equipment work near the
prelevation station nr. 13 lotic habitat negatively affected by
works for microhidropowerplant Capra V.
Ne of the lateral connection of Capra River with one of his
tributary is blocked by the construction of a dam (Fig. 23).
Figura 23: Dam on a tributary in the proximity of sampling
station 13.The macroinvertebrates community from this river sector
is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Ostracoda, Collembola,
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera (Tab. 11). From
the numerical point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae
(71,91%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera and Chironomidae. Acording to calculated ecological
semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae and
Ephemeroptera; subdominant groups: Collembola, Plecoptera,
Araneida, Oligochaeta, and Other Diptera; recedent groups
:Trichoptera; subrecedent groups: Ostracoda.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very
poor).Prelevation station S14 (Fig. 24) is situated at 1.7 km
downstream from prelevation station S13 on the future placement of
the Microhidropwerplant nr. VI. The station is positioned at 890 m
altitude. The coordinates are: 4528.649 north latitude and 2435.826
east logintude. The maximum width of the river course is 11 m and
the minimum 9 m. The river bed is formed by clifs, big boulders,
gravel and sand. The maximum depth of the water si about 1 m and
the minimum 30 cm. The flanks are covered by deciduous forests and
coniferous forests.
Figura 24: Sampling station 14 on Capra Stream,
lotic habitat negatively affected by works for
microhidropowerplant Capra VI.
In this prelevation station the lateral connection of Capra
river with a tributary is stopped by an anti-bottom sediments
dam.
The macroinvertebrates community from this river sector is
formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera. From the numerical point of
view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (88,89%). The groups
with the highest frequency are: Oligochaeta, Plecoptera,
Trichoptera and Diptera. Acording to calculated ecological
semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae;
subdominant groups: Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Oligochaeta and other
Diptera; recedent groups: Ephemeroptera, Araneida and
Collembola.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor),
a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish
individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of
neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for
good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc
unpublished data).Prelevation station S15 (Fig. 25) is situated at
1.5 km downstream from prelevation station S14 at 845 m altitude.
The coordinates are: 4528.644 north latitude and 2436.058 east
logintude. The maximum width of the river course is 11 m and the
minimum 9 m. The substrate is formed by large boulders, gravel and
sand. In the river bed we noticed clifs too. The maximum depth is
90 cm while the minimum is 20 cm. The The flanks are covered by
deciduous forests and coniferous forests.
Figure 25: Sampling station 15 on Capra Stream.
The macroinvertebrates community from this river sector is
formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Ostracoda, Collembola,
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera (Tab. 11). From
the numerical point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae
(82,73%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera. Acording to calculated
ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups:
Chironomidae; subdominant groups: Trichoptera, Oligochaeta, Other
Diptera Plecoptera and Ephemeroptera; recedent groups: Collembola
and Araneida, subrecedent groups: Ostracoda.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor),
a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish
individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of
neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for
good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc
unpublished data).Next to last prelevation station nr. 16 (Fig. 26)
is situated at 500 m downstream the station S15. The coordinates
are: 4527.751 north latitude and 2436.172 east longitude. The
maximum width of the river course is 18 m, the minimum 13 m and the
medium 15 m. The substrate is formed by large boulders, gravel and
sand. The maximum depth is 95 cm while the minimum is 20 cm. The
flanks are covered by deciduous forests and coniferous forests.
Figure 26: Sampling station 16 on Capra Stream.The
macroinvertebrates community from this river sector is formed by:
Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Epemeroptera, Plecoptera,
Trichoptera and Diptera (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view
the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (89,77%). The groups with the
highest frequency are: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and
Diptera. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we
have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae; subdominant groups:
Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Other Diptera and Oligochaeta; recedent
groups: Ephemeroptera and Aranieda; subrecedent groups:
Collembola.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor),
a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish
individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of
neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for
good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc
unpublished data).The last Capra Stream prelevation station, S17 is
situtated upstream the Vidraru Lake at the edge of the lake,
upstream the anti-bottom sediments dam (Fig. 27). The coordinates
are: 4527.543' north latitude and 2436.202' east longitude. S17 is
situated at 843 m altitude. The substrate is formed by gravel and
sand. The maximum width of the river course is 29 m and the minimum
9 m. Here we can see small sediment particles cumulation (sand and
mud) and gravel which generate the semnificative change of the
habitats and microhabitats against their natural state. The maxumum
depth of the river course is 1 m and the minimum 10 cm. The flanks
are covered by deciduous forests and coniferous forests.
Figure 27: Sampling station 16 on Capra Stream.
Figure 28: Logs blocks the dam near the Vidraru Lake during high
flows period in S17.
Figure 28: Sampling station 16 on Capra Stream, view from
downstream of the concrete anti-bottom sediments dam on the Capra
River Course at the edge of Lake Vidraru.
The macroinvertebrates community from this river sector is
formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Diptera (Tab. 11). From the numerical
point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (86,01%). The
groups with the highest frequency are: Plecoptera and Chironomidae.
Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have:
eudominant groups: Chironimidae; subdominant groups: Plecoptera,
Ephemeroptera, Oligochaeta, Trichoptera and other Diptera; recedent
groups: Araneida and Collembola.
The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very
poor).
Analising the similarities between the benthonic
macroinvertebrates communities from the Capra Stream based on the
relative abundance of the present taxonomic groups we found out
that they can be grouped in 8 classes (Fig. 30, Tab. 11). I The
communites dominating from the numerical point of view are
Chironomidae. These communities are present at 1.6 km downstream
from the first microhidropowerplant (prelevation station nr. 6) at
2.4 km downstream of the Microhidropowerplant nr. III which was
under construction (S11) downstream of the Microhidropowerplant nr.
IV in construction during the prelevation period (S12), in the
future emplacement of Microhidropowerplant nr. VI where during
prelevation period the investor was preparing for the construction
of Microhidropowerplant nr. VI. (S14), downstream of the future
emplacement of the Microhidropowerplant VI (S16) and upstream of
the Vidraru Filling Lake (S17). II Communities where dominant
(numerical) are still Chironomidae but with a lower relative
abundance than the above case. These communities are situated at
1500 m downstream of the future emplacement of the
Microhidropowerplant nr. VI and at 1500 m downstream of the
anti-bottom sendiments dam which blocks the connection of Caprea
stream with a tributary of his. III Communities with numerical
dominant groups Chironomidae and Plecoptera. These are present near
the touristic area Piscul Negru (S8) and a 2 km downstream of the
touristic complex (S9). IV Communities with the highest relative
abundance (between 64,03% and 72,66%) beside them apearing also
Ephemeroptera (6,76-15,33%) and Plecoptera (8,4-15,79%). These
communities are present in the first 3 km of the river, downstream
the first prelevation station (S2, 3 and 4) in the place where
began the Microhidropwerplant nr. III construction during the
prelevation period (S10) and at 3 km downstream of
Microhidrpowerplant nr. IV also in construction (S13). V
Communities with the highest relative abundance: Chironomidae
(40,75%), Plecoptera (26,67%), Efemeroptera (17,61%) and
Oligochaeta (7,2%). These communities are situated in the first
prelevation station, at the closest point from the headspring (S1).
VI Communities with numerical dominant groups Chironomidae (55,9%),
Trichoptera (15,31%) and Ephemeroptera (12,36%). These are present
at aprox. 4 km downstream from the first prelevation station (S5).
VII Communities with numerical dominant groups Oligochaeta (63,05%)
and Chironimidae (24,05%). These are present donwstream from the
Michrohidropowerplant nr. II in construction during the prevelation
period (S7).
Figura 30: Similarity analysis of benthonic macroinvertebrates
from Capra Streambased on relative aboundance values of these
groups(grouped at euclidean distance S1-S17 prelevation
stations)
Tabel 11: Benthonic macroinvertebrates communities structure
from the Capra River Basin (Distribution ind/square m, A Relative
abundance, F-frequency and W ecological index).Sampling
sationSistematicgroupAFW
1Cls. Oligochaeta6,291006,29
Cls. Araneida1,641001,64
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Collembola1,26750,94
Ord. Ephemeroptera17,6110017,61
Ord. Plecoptera26,6710026,67
Ord. Trichoptera2,521002,52
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae40,7510040,75
Alte diptere2,01751,51
Cls. Turbellaria1,26500,63
2Cls. Oligochaeta1,04750,78
Cls. Araneida0,54750,41
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Collembola0,1500,05
Ord. Ephemeroptera12,5210012,52
Ord. Plecoptera12,8610012,86
Ord. Trichoptera1,291001,29
Fam. Hydropsychidae0,2750,15
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae69,22100100
Alte diptere1,83100100
Cls. Turbellaria0,47575
3Cls. Oligochaeta1,031001,03
Cls. Araneida0,671000,67
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Collembola0,42750,32
Ord. Ephemeroptera12,5810012,58
Ord. Plecoptera15,7910015,79
Ord. Trichoptera0,48750,36
Fam Hydropsychidae0,12500,06
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae67,2710067,27
Alte diptere1,03750,77
Cls. Turbellaria0,6750,45
4Cls. Oligochaeta0,71750,53
Cls. Araneida0,77500,38
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Collembola0,06250,01
Ord. Ephemeroptera15,3310015,33
Ord. Plecoptera8,41008,4
Ord. Trichoptera0,77750,58
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae72,6610072,66
Alte diptere1,121001,12
Cls. Turbellaria0,06250,01
5Cls. Oligochaeta7,21007,2
Cls. Araneida1,48751,11
Cls. Ostracoda0,18250,05
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Ephemeroptera12,3610012,36
Ord. Plecoptera4,981004,98
Ord. Trichoptera15,31507,66
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae55,910055,9
Alte diptere2,21751,66
Cls. Turbellaria0,37250,09
6Cls. Oligochaeta21002
Cls. Araneida0,71750,53
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Collembola0,14250,04
Ord. Ephemeroptera2,141002,14
Ord. Plecoptera2751,5
Ord. Trichoptera0,29500,14
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae91,8710091,87
Alte diptere0,86500,43
7Cls. Oligochaeta63,0510063,05
Cls. Araneida6,741006,74
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Collembola3,521003,52
Ord. Ephemeroptera1,17500,59
Ord. Plecoptera0,29250,07
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae24,0510024,05
Alte diptere1,17500,59
8Cls. Oligochaeta5,5502,75
Cls. Araneida1,55751,16
Cls. Ostracoda0,17250,04
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Ephemeroptera3,44752,58
Ord. Plecoptera10,8210010,82
Ord. Trichoptera1,55751,16
Fam. Hydropsychidae0,17250,04
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae76,4610076,46
Alte diptere0,34500,17
9Cls. Oligochaeta4,221004,22
Cls. Araneida2,881002,88
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Collembola0,19250,05
Ord. Ephemeroptera4,81004,8
Ord. Plecoptera5,371005,37
Ord. Trichoptera1,731001,73
Fam. Hydropsychidae0,77500,38
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae78,8910078,89
Alte diptere0,38500,19
Cls. Turbellaria 0,38250,1
Ord. Amphipoda0,38250,1
10Cls. Oligochaeta2,181002,18
Cls. Araneida0,8500,4
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Collembola0,11250,03
Ord. Ephemeroptera6,761006,76
Ord. Plecoptera21,1910021,19
Ord. Trichoptera2,631002,63
Fam. Hydropsychidae0,11250,03
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae64,0310064,03
Alte diptere2,18751,63
11Cls. Oligochaeta2,64751,98
Cls. Araneida2,08751,56
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Collembola0,75500,38
Ord. Ephemeroptera4,911004,91
Ord. Plecoptera3,41003,4
Ord. Trichoptera0,38500,19
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae85,0910085,09
Alte diptere0,75750,57
12Cls. Oligochaeta1,38500,69
Cls. Araneida1,38751,03
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Collembola0,2250,05
Ord. Ephemeroptera4,33753,25
Ord. Plecoptera1,971001,97
Ord. Trichoptera0,79750,59
Fam. Hydropsychidae0,39250,1
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae88,9810088,98
Alte diptere0,59750,44
13Cls. Oligochaeta2,81752,11
Cls. Araneida3,37752,53
Cls. Ostracoda0,28250,07
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Collembola4,49753,37
Ord. Ephemeroptera10,9610010,96
Ord. Plecoptera3,371003,37
Ord. Trichoptera0,847550,63
Fam. Hydropsychidae0,28250,07
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae71,9110071,91
Alte diptere1,69751,26
14Cls. Oligochaeta1,771001,77
Cls. Araneida1,06750,8
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Collembola0,47500,24
Ord. Ephemeroptera1,77500,89
Ord. Plecoptera2,481002,48
Ord. Trichoptera1,891001,89
Fam. Hydropsychidae0,47250,12
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae88,8910088,89
Alte diptere1,181001,18
15Cls. Oligochaeta4,18753,14
Cls. Araneida0,55500,27
Cls. Ostracoda0,18250,05
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Collembola0,73500,36
Ord. Ephemeroptera1,451001,45
Ord. Plecoptera21002
Ord. Trichoptera4,911004,91
Fam. Hydropsychidae0,36500,18
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae82,7310082,73
Alte diptere2,911002,91
16Cls. Oligochaeta1,52751,14
Cls. Araneida0,58750,44
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Collembola0,07250,02
Ord. Ephemeroptera0,511000,51
Ord. Plecoptera3,121003,12
Ord. Trichoptera2,251002,25
Fam. Hydropsychidae0,871000,87
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae89,7710089,77
Alte diptere1,311001,31
17Cls. Oligochaeta2,51751,88
Cls. Araneida0,42250,1
Cls. Insecta
Ord. Collembola0,42500,21
Ord. Ephemeroptera3,76752,82
Ord. Plecoptera3,341003,34
Ord. Trichoptera1,67751,25
Fam. Hydropsychidae0,42250,1
Ord. Diptera
Fam. Chironomidae86,0110086,01
Alte diptere1,46751,1
Figure 31: Simpson Index variation for Insecta Class.
Figure 32: Margalef Index variation for Insecta Class.
Acording to reversed Simpson and Margalef Index values Insecta
Class we recorded that although the diversity is high (Fig. 32) the
taxonomic groups distribution in the lotic system is homogenous
(Fig. 31).
Capra River ecological state based on benthonic
macroinvertebrates communities structureThe biotic Hilsenhoff index
shows organic charge of the water and according to registered
values the water quality is good in the prelevation stations of the
Capra River (Tab. 12). This point shows that the untreated water
resulting from touristic areas along the river doesnt have a
nevative impact on the benthonic macroinvertebrates communities.
The EPT/C index reveals the communities taxonomic groups structure
sensitive to differnt types of impact. Systematic groups
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera beside the fact that they
are sensitive to Oxigen concentration they directly depend on the
lithologic substrate structure and type of flow. The registered
value of EPT/C higher than 1, only in the first Prelevation station
(Tab. 12) shows that the impact of microhidropowerplants
preparatory works on the other prelevation stations is
semnificative for the benthonic macroinvertebrates communities from
the river.
The presented structure of benthonic macroinvertebrates
communities in the previous subchaper and the biotic integrity
values of the Hilsenhoff and EPT/C indexes (Tab. 12, Fig. 33),
shows the existance of 3 ecological zones on the river : I The
superior sector of the river characterised by a very good state.
Here the anthropic impact is insignificant, the aquatic habitats
being close from the natural state of the river. II The middle
sector of the river reveals a unsatisfactory because of the
Microhidropowerplant nr. II construction work and because of the
untreated waste water resulting from the Conacul Ursului chalet.
Because of the Microhidropowerplant nr. II development work there
have been observed hidrological and morphological changes in the
river bed. The river banks have been also modified because of the
pipe burial. III The lower sector of the river (downstream from S8)
shows a better ecological state than the preveious sector. The good
water quality is due to tributaries waters which flow directly in
the Capra river course. This river sector is also exposed to
anthropic pressures: the development of four microhidropowerplants,
buried pipes in the river banks, hasty set up roads for buring the
pipes in the river bed, the building site with heavy equipment in
the river bed without any measures to reduce the impact, the side
connection block of the river and the untreated waste water
ejection from the touristic zone stiuated near by.Tabel 12: The
Hilsenhoff index values (with the adequate quality classes),
Margalef and reversed Simpson (based on the resulted values for
Insecta Class).IBHEPT/CMargalefReversed Simpson
S13,54Excellent1,141,372,89
S24,16Very good0,381,191,79
S34,09Very good0,431,231,94
S44,32Good0,331,221,74
S54,15Very good0,581,092,33
S64,85Good0,041,391,12
S76,29unsatisfactory0,061,451,54
S84,52Good0,21,081,44
S94,6Good0,161,461,35
S103,87Very good0,471,342,05
S114,67Good0,11,451,25
S124,75Good0,081,461,19
S134,26Good0,211,551,65
S144,72Good0,071,351,19
S154,64Good0,11,441,31
S164,73Good0,071,261,19
S174,71Good0,11,471,27
Figura 33: Capra River sectors enframe in quality categories,
depend on Hilsenhoffbiotic index values (IBH).CONCLUSIONS
Afer the analysis of ecological state of Capra River based on
biotic integrity indexes (IBH i EPT/C) we noticed the present
impact of the microhidropowerplants development on the benthonic
macroinvertebrates communities. These are directly affected by the
lithological substrate change (in conditions of which they depend
on the substrate) and by the flow regime change.
Along the Capra stream we managed to distinquish 3 ecological
zones.
The first ecological zone is characterised by a good ecological
state the anthropic impact beeing insignificant. Because the lotic
habitats are in an apropiate state of the natural one, we recomend
apropiate management of lotic communities conservation for this
river sector. The second ecological zone is characterised by an
unsatisfacatory ecological state mainly because of the
Microhidropowerplant nr. III developement and because of the
untreated wastewaters discharges in the river. In this river sector
have been hidrological and morphological changes which generate
stress for the benthonic communities fact which determinate changes
in their structure. The river banks configuration change also may
determinate river bed deepen because of the rotational flow having
the same effect on the communities. We propose the next management
measures for this river sector to reduce/ban the causes which
generates hidrological changes, so the analysed lotic communities
can benefit by the ecological flow regime ( meantioned in waters
law nr. 107/1996 necessary for the aquatic communities structure
maintainance and ecological system well function in natural
conditions or apropiate conditions to natural. Then we propose
re-establishing measures for the modified river banks and reduction
of the river bed erosion by creating some semi-natural dams which
lower the speed flow. The third ecological zone is better than the
previous one from the ecological point of view because of the left
and right tribtuaries contribution of the Capra river. In this
sector the anthropic impact is still seminificative because of the
development of the four Microhidropowerplants, the tributaries
connection block and the untreated wastewater discharge. The
agressive building works simultanous with the semnificative river
bed damage determinated a critical rare situation in the Romanian
Charpatians the Cottus gobio extinction and the drastic reduction
(The presence of Salmo truta fario in just one river sector from 17
prelevation stations) of Salmo truta fario idividuals.
After finishing the Microhidropowerplants chain construction on
this river its compulsory to repopulate with trout and bullhead
species which before the anthropic impact had stable populations
data. (Bnduc, unpublished data). These repopulations are recomended
to be done with biologic material prelevated from Buda stream which
have similar ecological characteristics with Capra, and also been
in connection with Capra river. The extiction of every fish species
in all prelevation stations except station 9, area with low
abundance though is due to major inadequate interventions (as
temporal aspect aswell as arial aspect) of the
microhidropowerplants construction team upstream.
This situation resulted because of some factors along the time:
rafting in interbelic period, fractioning of the ichtiofauna
connectivity because of the anti-bottom sediments dams without fish
ladder built on the tributaries and especially the one built on
Capra in the nearness of the edge of Vidraru Lake (during the
comunism period) and because of agressive damage of the river bed
for pipe burial for the microhidropowerplants chain in different
states of development and the secondary impact of the untreated
wastewater discharges of Piscul Negru chalet (in the last 2
decades).
The proposed management measures for this river sector are
prevention measures from developening of new roads through river
bed and re-establishing measures where they are need it,
re-establishing the tributaries connections and re-establising of
past water courses, the adequate treatment of
wasterwaters.AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the Faculty of Science of the Lucian Blaga
University of Sibiu and NGO Ecotur Sibiu for the support during the
field campaign.REFERENCESBnduc D, Fishs associations habitats
quality relation in the Trnave rivers ecological assessment,
Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, 2,
Editura Universitii "Lucian Blaga" din Sibiu, ISSN 1841-7051, ISBN
973-739-141-1, pp. 123 136, 2005Cao Y., Bark A. W., Williams W. P.,
1997, Analysing benthic macroinvertebrate community change along a
pollution gradient: A framework for the development of biotic
indices, Water Research, 31 (4): 884-892.
Clements W. H., Farris J. L., Cherry D. S., Cairns Jr. J., 1989,
The influence of water quality on macroinvertebrate communitiety
responses to copper in outdoor experimental streams, Aquatic
Tixicology, 14 (3): 249 262.
Couceiro S. R .M., Hamada N., Forsberg B. R., Pimentel T. P.,
Luz S. L. B., 2012, A macroinvertabrate multimetric index to
evaluate the biological condition of streams in the Central Amazon
region of Brazil, Ecological Indicators, 18: 118 125.
Curtean-Bnduc A., 2008, Vieu River and some tributaries
ecological assessment based on macroinvertebrate communities
(Maramure, Romania), Transylv. Rev. Syst. Ecol. Res., Vol. 5 The
Maramure Mountains Nature Park, pp. 165-182.Bnduc D., Curtean-Bnduc
Angela, A biotic integrity index adaptation for a Carpathian (first
- second order) river assesment, Acta oecologica, Vol IX, Nr. 1-2,
Editura Universitii "Lucian Blaga" din Sibiu, ISSN 1221-5015, pp.
81 99, 2002Curtean-Bnduc A., 2005, Trnava Mare River (Transylvania,
Romania) ecological assessment, based on the benthic
macroinvertebrate communities, Transylv. Rev. Syst. Ecol. Res., 2,
pp. 109-122.
Hilsenhoff W.L., 1981 - Use of arthropods to
evaluate water quality of streams, Tech. Bulletin, No. 100,
Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.
Hilsenhoff W. L., 1987 - An improved biotic
index of organic stream pollution, Great Lakes Entomologist,
20:3139.Kukua and Sandor, 2003 n: Witkowski et al., Europress,
Krakw, Poland, Infante D. M., Allan D. J., Linke S. and Norris R.
H., 2009 Relationship of fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages to
environmental factors: implications for community concordance,
Hydrobiologia, 623: 87-103.
Jiang X., Xie Z., Chen Y., 2013, Longitudinal patterns of
macroinvertebrate communities in relation to environmental factors
in a Tibetan-Plateau river system, Quaternary International, 304:
107 -114.
Lcke J. D., Johnson R. K., 2009, Detection of ecological change
in stream macroinvertebrate assemblages using single metric,
multimetric or multivariate approaches, Ecological Indicators, 9
(4): 659 669.
Monaghan K. A., Soares A. M. V. M., 2012, Bringing new knowledge
to an old problem: Building a biotic index from lotic
macroinvertebrate traits, Ecological Indicators, 20: 213 220.Park
Y., Song M., Park Y., Oh K., 2007, Community patterns of benthic
macroinvertebrates collected on the national scale in Korea,
Ecological modelling, 203: 26 33.
Pru N., Doldec S., 2010, From compositional to functional
biodiversity metrics in bioassessment: A case study using stream
macroinvertebrate communities, Ecological Indicators, 10 (5): 1025
1036.Rosenberg D. M., Resh V. H. (Eds.), 1993, Freshwater
Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Chapman and Hall, New
York.
Snchez-Montoya M. M.,. Vidal-Abarca M. R, Surez M. L., 2010,
Comparing the sensitivity of diverse macroinvertebrate metrics to a
multiple stressor gradient in Mediterranean streams and its
influence on the assessment of ecological status, Ecological
Indicators, 10 (4): 896 904.Habersack H. M., 2000 The river-scaling
concept (RSC): a basis for ecological assessments, Hydrobiologia,
422/423: 49-60.
Ciesielka I. K., Bailey R. C., 2007 Hierarchical structure of
stream ecosystems: consequences for bioassessment, Hydrobiologia,
586: 57-67.
Heino J. and Mykr J., 2006 Assessing physical surrogates for
biodiversity: Do tributary and stream type classifications reflect
macroinvertebrate assemblage diversity in running waters?,
Biological Conservation, 129: 418-426.
Jiang X., Xiong J., Xie Z. and Chen Y., 2011 Longitudinal
patterns of macroinvertebrate functional feeding groups in a
Chinese river system: A test for river continuum concept (RCC),
Quaternary International, Vol. 244, 2: 289-295.Keith D. A., Orscheg
C., Simpson C. C., Clarke P. J., Hughes L., Kennelly S. J., Major
R. E., Soderquist T. R., Wilson A. L. and Bedward M., 2009 A new
approach and case study for estimating extent and rates of habitat
loss for ecological communities, Biological Conservation, 142:
1469-1479.
Roth N. E., Allen J. D., and Errickson, D. E., 1996 Landscape
influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial
scales. Landscape Ecology, 11, 141-156.
Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, 3,
Retezat National Park 2006 DB eds 1-204,
Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, 5,
The Maramuresului Mountains Nature Park 2008 AC-B eds., 1-222
Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, 9,
The Rodna Mountains National Park 2010, A. C-B eds. 1-210
The Iron Gates Natural Park 2014 A and D16.), in fact each
stream basin should have its special designated study to can obtain
a more accurate specific assessment, monitoring and management
data.
Mutihac V., 1990 - Structura geologica a teritoriului Romaniei,
Editura Tehnica, Bucuresti, ISBN 973-31-0193-8, 418.
CurteanBnduc A., Bnduc D., Buca C., Watershed Management
(Transylvania, Romania) implications, risks, solutions, Strategies
to Enhance Environmental Security in Transition Countries, NATO
Security trough Science Series C: Environmental Security, Springer,
pp. 225 - 238, ISBN 978-1-4020-5995-7, 2007.
Constantinescu M. and Pslaru M., 1990, Construcii
hidroenergetice n Romania 1950-1990, 322.Mutihac V., 1990.
Structura geologica a teritoriului Romaniei Tehnica, Bucharest, 419
p.
Moores E. M. And Fairbridge R. W. 1998. Encyclopedia of European
and Asian Regional Geology. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series,
London, 825 pp.
Schmid A. M., Fgenschuh B., Kissling E. and Schuster R.,
Tectonic map and overall architecture of the Alpine orogen,
Ecologae geol. Helv. 97 (2004)93-117, Birkhuser Verlag, Basel.
Badea L., (coord.) 1983, Geografia Romaniei vol. 1, Geografia
Fizica, Editura Academiei Romane.
Martonne E. De, 1907, Recherches sur lvolution morphologicue des
Alpes de Transylvanie (Karpates mridionales), Rev. de gogr.
Annuelle, t. I (1906-1907), Paris, 286, p., (in French).
2007, Curtean-Banaduc and Florentina Florescu (eds.) ED. Alma
Mater Sibiu, ISBN 978-973-632-402-4.
Posea G., (coord.) 1982Enciclopedia Geografica a Romaniei, Ed.
Didactica si Pedagogica, Bucuresti (in Romanian)
Rosu A., 1980, Geografia Fizica a Romaniei, Ed. Didactica si
Pedagogica, Bucuresti.
Florea M., 1998, Muntii Fagarasului Edit. Foton Brasov, p.
189.
Voiculescu M., 2002, Studiul potentialului geoecologic al
Masivului Fagaras si protectia mediului inconjurator, Edit. Mirton
Timisoara, p. 375.
Niculescu G., Nedelcu E. and Iancu S., 1960, Nouvelle
contribution a l'tude de la morphologie glaciaire des Carpates
roumaines, Recueil'tudes gographiques concernant le territoire de
la Rpublique Roumanie, Edit. Academiei, Bucuresti, pp. 29-43.
Botnariuc N., Cartea rosie a vertebratelor din Romania, 180 p.,
Academia romana
Posea G., Popescu N. and Ielenicz M., 1974. Relieful Romaniei,
Editura Stiintifica, Bucuresti, 483.
Banaduc D., Oprean L., Bogdan A. and Curtean-Banaduc A., The
assessment, monitoring and management of the Carpathian rivers fish
diversity, Management of Sustainable Development, Sibiu
Romania,
Voloscuk I., (ed.) 1996, Red data book, Lists of threatened
plants and animals of the Carpathian National Parks and reserves.
ACNAP, Tatranska Lomnica, Slovak Republik.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources.International Union for Conservation of Nature Resources
(IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species
http://www.iucnredlist.org/
Kukua K. and Sandor J., Fishes and Lampreys in: Witkowski Z. J.,
Krl W. and Solarz W. (eds.), Carpathian List of Endangered Species,
WWF and Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of
Sciences, Vienna-Krakow, ISBN 83-918914-0-2, 84 p., 2003.
Constantinescu et al., 1990, Constructii hidroenergetice in
Romania 1950-1990, Edit. Arta Grafica, 322.Bnduc D., 2001 Specii de
peti dulcicoli i migratori n mediul dulcicol, de interes comunitar,
prezente n Romnia, n Natura 2000 n Romnia, Conservarea speciilor i
habitatelor acvatice, coordonator Curtean-Bnduc Angela, Edit. Alma
Mater Sibiu, ISBN 973-632-243-2, 72 - 81. (in Romanian)
Bnduc D., 2008 Umbra krameri Walbaum, 1792 a Natura 2000
protected fish species, in Romania, Acta Ichtiologica Romanica III,
Bnduc D. (ed.), 33-44.
Bnrescu M. P. and Bnduc D., 2007 Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC)
fish species (Osteichthyes) on the Romanian territory, Acta
Ichtiologica Romanica II, Bnduc D. (ed.), 43-78.
Sundseth K. and Creed P., 2008 Natura 2000 Protecting Europe's
biodiversity, European Commission, Directorate General for the
Enviroment, ISBN 9789279083082, 296.Mutihac V., 1990 - Structura
geologica a teritoriului Romaniei, Editura Tehnica, Bucuresti, ISBN
973-31-0193-8, 418.
CurteanBnduc A., Bnduc D., Buca C., Watershed Management
(Transylvania, Romania) implications, risks, solutions, Strategies
to Enhance Environmental Security in Transition Countries, NATO
Security trough Science Series C: Environmental Security, Springer,
pp. 225 - 238, ISBN 978-1-4020-5995-7, 2007.
Constantinescu M. and Pslaru M., 1990, Construcii
hidroenergetice n Romania 1950-1990, 322.*
http://infonatura2000.cndd.ro/documents/
sesiuni_de_instruire/Managementul_integrat_al_siturilor_aspecte_tehnice.pdf1.
Iannuzzi T. J. and Ludwig D. F., Historical and Current Ecology of
the Lower Passaic River, Urban Habitats. Vol. 2. No. 1. pp.
147-173, (2004).2. Das S. K. and Chakrabarty D, The use of fish
community structure as a measure of ecological degradation: A case
study in two tropical rivers of India, Biosystems, Vol 90, Issue 1,
pp. 188 196, (2007).
3. Dudgeon D., Endangered ecosystems - a review of the
conservation status of tropical Asian rivers, Hydrobiologia, Vol
248, Iss 3, pp. 167-191, (1992).
4. Dudgeon D., River regulation in southern China - ecological
implications, conservation and environmental-management, Regulated
Rivers-Research & Management, Vol 11, Iss 1, pp. 35-54,
(1995).
5. Petts G., Sustaining our rivers in crisis: setting the
international agenda for action, Water Science and Technology, Vol.
43, Iss. 9, pp. 3-16, (2001).
6. Tockner K., Robinson T. R. and Uehlinger U., River of Europe,
pp. 700, (2009).
7. Yacoub H., Human impacts on nutritive value of Najas spp. in
Wadi Allaqi (Nasser Lake, Egypt), Romanian Journal of Aquatic
Ecology, Vol. 1, pp. 63 82, (2011).
8. Kutzenberger H., Threats for Danube Region Biodiversity -
Global trends and local impacts and changes in biogeographical
patterns, Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological
Research, Vol. 6, The Wetlands Diversity, pp. 149 154, (2008).
9. Yildiz F. E., nsal N. and Grer I., Water pollution at
Sultansazligi Wetland and Develi closed basin (Turkey);
Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, Vol.
10, The Wetlands Diversity, pp. 169 - 184, (2010)
10. Liogchii N., Considerations on the human impact on some
aquatic ecosystems (Moldavia), Acta Oecologica Carpatica I, pp. 139
144, (2008).
11. Markovi G., Lenhardt M. and Gai Z., Successions of the
ichthyofauna in an eutrophic Serbian Reservoir, Acta Ichtiologica
Romanica, Vol. 5, The Maramure Mountains Nature Park, pp. 151 -
160, (2007).
12. Antipa G., Fauna Ihtiologic a Romniei, Bucharest, pp. 288 +,
(1909).
13. Bnrescu P. M., Fauna R. P. R., Pisces-Osteichthyes (Peti
ganoizi i osoi), vol. XIII, pp. 959, (1964).
14. Bnrescu P. M., 1969, Fauna R.S.R., Cyclostomata i
Chondrichthzes, vol. XII, fasc. 1, Editura Academiei R. S. R., p.
1-125, Bucureti, Romnia.
15. Bnduc D., Fish associations - habitats quality relation in
the Trnave rivers (Transylvania, Romania) ecological assessment,
Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, Vol.
2, The Trnava River Basin, pp. 123 136, (2005).
16. Bnduc D., The Rul Mare River (Retezat Mountains, Romania)
fish fauna, Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological
Research, Vol. 3, The Retezat National Park, pp. 117 124,
(2006).
17. Bnduc D., The Hucho hucho (Linnaeus, 1758), (Salmoniformes,
Salmonidae), species monitoring in the Vieu River (Maramure,
Romania), Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological
Research, Vol. 5, The Maramure Mountains Nature Park, pp. 183 188,
(2008).
18. Bnduc D., Hydrotechnical works impact on Cyclostomata and
Cottidae species in the Rodna Mountains and Maramure Mountains
Natura 2000 sites (Eastern Carpathians, Romania), Repede River a
study case, Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological
Research, Vol. 9, The Rodna Mountains National Park, pp. 175 184,
(2010).19. Sokolov A. A., World water resources: Perspectives and
problems, World Development, Vol. 5, Iss. 5-7, pp. 519-523,
(1977).
20. Arnell N. W., Climate change and global water resources:
SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios, Global Environmental
Change, Vol. 14, Iss. 1, pp. 31-52, (2004).21. Lundqvist J., Water
as a human Resource, Encyclopedia of Inland Waters, pp. 31-42,
(2009).
22. Aldwell C. R., Water resources of the world - Selected
statistics: Frits van der Leeden, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 32,
Iss. 3-4, pp. 401-402 (1977).
23. Kalinin G. P. and Bykov V. D., The world's water resources,
past, present and future, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 10, Iss. 3,
pp. 308, (1970).
24. Hajdu Z. and Fleky G., Nitrates pollution in Niraj River
basin assessment (Transylvania, Romania), Acta Oecologica Carpatica
I, pp. 115-126 (2008).
25. Costea M., Using the Impact Matrix and the Sorensen Network
for the evaluation of land-use impact upon versants. Case study:
Sebe River basin (Mure Basin, Transylvania, Romania), Acta
Oecologica Carpatica I, pp. 127-138 (2008).
26. Curtean-Bnduc A., Costea M. and Bnduc D., Sebe River
montainous sector (Olt River watershed) ecological assessment
(Transylvania, Romania), Acta Oecologica Carpatica I, pp. 145-156
(2008).
27. Reif A., Rudea E., Brinkmann K., Harth B., Pcurar F. and
Rotar I, Vegetation patterns and land use systems in a traditional
cultural landscape a case study from the village of Gheari
(Transylvania, Romania), Acta Oecologica Carpatica II, pp. 79-140
(2009).
28. Bnduc D., Hydrotechnical works impact on Cyclostomata and
Cottidae species in the Rodna Moutains and Maramure Mountains
Natura 2000 sites (Eastern Carpathians, Romania), Repede River a
study case, Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological
Research, Vol. 9, The Rodna Mountains National Park, pp. 175 - 184,
(2010)
29. Sandu C., Bloesch J. and Coman A., Water pollution in the
Mure Catchment and its impact on the aquatic communities (Romania)
Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, Vol.
6, The Wetlands Diversity, pp. 97 - 108, (2008)
30. Dank L., International economic co-operation in the
Carpathian region, International Business Reviev, Vol. 2, Iss. 3,
pp. 269-279 (1993).
31. Vasilev M. and Botev I., Assessment of the ecological status
of some Bulga
32. Minca E. and Petz K. Ecosystem services and their mapping in
the Tisza/Tisa River basin - initial steps in Hungary and Romania,
Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, Vol.
6, The Wetlands Diversity, pp. 87 96, (2008).
33. Radu G. A., Biodiversity - the foundation of ecosystem
services, Acta Oecologica Carpatica II, pp. 183 190, (2009).
34. Aparicio E., Vargas M. J., Olmo J. M. and Sostoa A., Decline
of native freshwater fishes in a Mediterranean watershed of the
Iberian Peninsula: a quantitative assessment. Environmental Biology
of Fishes, 59, pp. 11 19, (2000).
35. Fausch K., Lyons J., Karr J. and Angermeier P. L., Fish
communities as indicators of environmental degradation. American
Fisheries Society Symposium, 8, pp. 123- 144, (1990).
36. Pont D., Hugueny B., Beier U., Goffaux D., Melcher A., Noble
R., Rogers C., Roset N. and Schmutz S., Assessing river biotic
condition at a continental scale: a European approach using
functional metrics and fish assemblages. Journal of Applied
Ecology, 43, pp. 70 80 (2006).
37. Schiemer F., Fish as indicators for the assessment of the
ecological integrity of large rivers. Hidrobiologia 422/423, pp.
271 278, (2000).
38. Harrison T. D. and Whitfield A. K., Fish community structure
in three temporarily open/closed estuaries on the natal cost.
Ichthyological Bulletin of the J. B. Smith Institute of
Ichthyology, Grahamstown, South Africa 64: pp. 1 80 (1995).
39. Edds D. R., 1993, Fish assemblage structure and
environmental correlates in Nepal's Gandaki river. Copeia, pp. 48
60 (1993).
40. Kadye W. T., Magadza C. H. D., Moyo N. A. G. and Kativu S.,
Stream fish assemblages in relation to environmental factor on a
montane plateau (Nyika Plateau Malawi). Environmental Biology of
Fishes, 83, pp. 417 428 (2008).
41. Magalhaes M. F., Batalha D. C. and Collares-Pereira M. J.,
Gradients in stream fish assemblages across a Mediterranean
landscape: contributions of environmental factors and spatial
structure. Freshwater Biologi, 47, pp. 1015 1031 (2002).
42. Bramblett R. G. and Fausch K. D., Variable fish communities
and the Index of Biotic Integrity in a western Great Plains river.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 120, pp. 752-769
(1991).
43. Goldstein R. M. and Simon T. P., Toward a united definition
of guild structure for feeding ecology of North American freshwater
fishes. In: Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity
of Water Resources Using Fish Communities (Eds. T. P. Simon), pp.
123 202 (1998).
44. Lyons J., Wang L. and Simonson T. D., Development and
validation of an index of biotic integrity for coldwater streams in
Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16, pp.
241 256 (1996).
45. Oberdorff T., Pont D., Hugueny B. and Porcher J. P.,
Development and validation of a fish-based index for the assessment
of "river health" in France. Freshwater Biology, 47, 1720-1734
(2002).
46. Pont D., Hugueny B. and Rogers C., Development of a
fish-based index for the assessment of river health in Europe: the
European Fish Index. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 14, pp. 427
439 (2007).
47. Sostoa A., Casals F., Caiola N. M., Vinyoles D., Snchez S.
and Franch C., Development of a Biotic Integrity Index (IBICAT)
Based on the Use of Fish as Indicators of the Environmental Quality
of the Rivers of Catalonia. Catalan Water Agency, Barcelona,
http//aca-web.gencat.cat/aca/ (2003).48. Bozzetti M. and Schulz U.
H., An index of biotic integrity based on fish assemblage for
subtropical streams in southern Brazil. Hydrobiologia 529, pp. 133
144 (2004).49. Casatti L., Ferreira C. P. and Langeani F., A
fish-based biotic integrity index for assessment of lowland streams
in southeastern Brazil. Hydrobiologia, 623, pp. 173 189 (2009).
50. Petesse M. L., Petrere M. and Spigolon R. J., Adaptation of
the Reservoir fish assemblage index (RFAI) for assessing the Barra
Bonita Reservoir (So Paulo, Brazil). River Research and
Applications, 23, pp. 1 18 (2007).
51. Hughes R. M. and Oberdorff T., Aplication of IBI concepts
and metrics to water outside the United States. In Simon T. P.,
(ed.). Assessment Approaches for Estimating Biological Integrity
ising Fish Assemblages. Lewis Press, Boca Raton, FL: PP. 79-83
(1998).
52. Noss R. F., Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a
hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology, 4, pp, 355 364
(1990).
53. Angradi, T. R., Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program: Great River Ecosystems, Field Operations Manual.
EPA/620/R-06/002, E.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
D.C. (2006).
54. Gutreuter S., The need for stratified spatially randomized
sampling fishes in the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program.
Report to the LTRM Analysis Team. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Environmental Management Technical Center, Onalaska, Wiskonsin
(1993).
55. West P., Brown A. and Hall K., Review of alien fish
monitoring techniques, indicators and protocols: implications for
national monitoring of Australia's inland river systems. Report to
the National Land and Water Resources Audit, pp. 98 (2008).
56. Bnduc D., Ichthyofaunistic criteria for Cibin River human
impact assesment, Travaux du Museum National d Histoire naturelle
Grogore Antipa, Bucureti, p. 365-372, vol. XLII. 2000.
57. Curtean-Bnduc Angela, Bnduc D., Trnave rivers (Transylvania,
Romania) ecological management proposal, Studia Universitatis
Vasile Goldi Arad, seria tiinele Vieii, Vol. 15., Vasile Goldi
University Press ISSN 1584-2363, 16 pg., 2005.
58. Oprean L., Curtean-Bnduc A., Bnduc D., Vieu River Watershed
(Maramure, Romania) ecological management proposal, Management of
Sustainable Development, Sibiu, Romania, 2009.
59. Bnduc D. and Curtean-Bnduc Angela, A biotic integrity index
adaptation for a Carpathian (first - second order) river assesment,
Acta oecologica, Vol IX, Nr. 1-2, Editura Universitii "Lucian
Blaga" din Sibiu, ISSN 1221-5015, pp. 81 99, 2002
60. Frisell C. A., Liss W. J., Waren C. E. and Hurley M. D., A
hierarchical framework for stream classification: viewing streams
in a watershed context, Envir. Mgmt. 10: 199-214. 1986
61. Habersack H., 1998 Numerical sediment transport models -
theoretical and practical aspects, IAHS Publ. 249: 299-308.
1998
62. Levin S. A., 1992 The problem of pattern and scale in
ecology. Ecology 73: 1943-1967.
63. Naiman A. J., Lonzarich D. J., Beechie T. J. and Ralph S.
C., 1992 General principles of classification and the assessment of
conservation potential in rivers, In Boon, Calow, Petts, G. E.
(eds.) River Conservation and Management. Willey and sons,
Chichester, Sussex: 93-123.
64. Fausch K. D. and Schrader L. H., 1987, Use of the index of
biotic integrity to evaluate the effects of habitat, flow, and
water quality on fish assemblages in three Colorado Frint Range
streams Colorado Division and the Cities of Fort Collins, Loveland,
Greeley, Longmont, and Windsor: Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Colins,
Colorado.65. Karr J. R., 1981, Assessment of biotic integrity using
fish ass