Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual.

1
 Aquatic Insects for
Biomonitoring Freshwater
Ecosystems-
A Methodology Manual

K.A.Subramanian
&
K.G.Sivaramakrishnan

Asoka Trust for Research in Ecology and

Environment (ATREE), Bangalore, India

2007

2
 Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction.....................................................5
2. Methods..........................................................7
3. Sampling Protocol...........................................8
4. Collection and Preservation of Samples.........9
5. Analysing Samples.........................................10
6. Calculating Biomonitoring Scores..................10
7. Interpreting and Presenting the results...........11
8. References.....................................................12
9. Figures, plates, tables and appendices..........14

3
Design and layout: R.Shobana

Illustrations: R.Shobana & K.A.Subramanian

Photographs: K.A.Subramanian

Comments and suggestions: <subbu.aqua@gmail.com> &

<kgskrishnan@gmail.com>

About the authors: K.A.Subramanian studied stream insect

communities of the Western Ghats for his doctoral thesis. Cur-
rently he is a DST-Young Scientist at Centre for Ecological Sci-
ences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and studies the
evolution and community ecology of Indian odonates. He is also
interested in freshwater biodiversity conservation and ecology of
aquatic insects. Professor K.G.Sivramakrishnan specializes on
the systematics and biogeography of mayflies, caddiesflies and
stoneflies of peninsular India. Currently he is a visiting faculty at
the Paramakalyani Centre for Environmental Studies,
M.S.University, Alwarkurichi, Tamil Nadu.

Acknowledgements: This field guide would not have achieved

this shape without the support of ATREE through its Small
Grants Programme to K.A.Subramaninan. Authors sincerely
thank friends and colleagues for valuable comments and
suggestions on earlier drafts of this guide. We sincerely thank
the Karnataka and Kerala forest departments for their field
support.

Citation: Subramanian, K.A. and Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. (2007). Aquatic Insects for
Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual. Ashoka Trust for Ecol-
ogy and Environment (ATREE), Bangalore, India. 31pp.

4
 Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual.

Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring

Freshwater Ecosystems-
A Methodology Manual

1. Introduction
Around the world, freshwater habitats are
being subjected to increased levels of hu-
man disturbance (Saunders et al., 2002). A
recent assessment of the status of inland
water ecosystems shows that globally most
threatened river catchments are to be found
in the Indian subcontinent (WCMC, 2000).
A study based on 195 animal species of in-
land water ecosystems indicates that on av-
erage monitored populations have declined
by 54% during 1970-2000. This compares
with a decline over the same period of some
35% in 217 marine and coastal species, 15%
in 282 terrestrial species. Though, not con-
clusive, these provide strong indications that
inland water ecosystems are suffering the
greatest negative impact from human activi-
ties at present (WWF 2002 & WCMC, 2000).
In this juncture, it is imperative to identify,
monitor and conserve important areas
biodiversity especially of the riverine eco-
systems (Dudgeon, 1994).

Dudgeon et al., (1994, 2000) stresses the

importance of biomonitoring and identifying
areas of riverine biodiversity for long term
conservation. Biological assessment of the
freshwater habitats aims at characterizing
and monitoring the conditions of the aquatic
resources (Sivaramakrishnan, et al., 1996a).
The assessments are commonly associated
with human impact (Resh, et al., 1995). The
use of living organism for monitoring water
quality originated in Europe early in this cen-
tury and it is widely used (Cairns and Pratt,
1993; Metcalfe-Smith, 1994). A spectrum of

5
biological communities including plankton, periphyton, microphytobenthos,
macrozoobenthos, aquatic macrophytes and fish has been used in the assessment of the
water quality (De Pauw et al., 1992). However, experiences from USA and European
programmes have demonstrated that benthic macroinvertebrates are most useful in moni-
toring freshwater ecosystems (De Pauw et al., 1992; Hellawell, 1986; Rosenberg and
Resh, 1993).

1.1. Assumptions: Biological assess-

ment methods using macroinvertebrates are
based on the assumptions that with increas-
ing pollution, change will occur in

(1) the species present (e.g., appearance of

tolerant species)

(2) the number of species and

(3) change in abundance of species.

1. 2.Advantages: Current monitoring

techniques detect one or more of these
changes to identify water quality problems
at a site (Sivaramakrishnan et al., 1996a).
Traditionally, qualitative and quantitative ap-
proaches are employed for biomonitoring of
freshwater ecosystems. The analytical meth-
ods used for quantitative biomonitoring meth-
ods require replicate sampling. The problem Anisocentropus and Chironomus are
with this approach is only few sites can be indicators of unpolluted and polluted
sampled and most of the time will be waters respectively.
expended on identification of the whole sample
(Sivaramakrishnan et al., 1996). In contrast, the qualitative sampling requires only few
samples from a site and various measures (or metrics) are easily calculated (Resh and
Jackson, 1993; Metcalfe-Smith, 1994). The level of impairment is estimated by comparing
the deviation of the test site values from the reference site (Sivaramakrishnan et al.,
1996).

Biomonitoring can not entirely replace standard physic-chemical water quality methods.
Standard physico-chemical water quality measures provide information on water quality
at a particular spatial unit during the time of sampling. It cannot provide historical informa-
tion on water quality. On the other hand, by knowing the ecology of aquatic insect commu-
nity, biomonitoring tools provide some historic insights into the water quality. Standard
physico-chemical water quality methods need to be carried out in conjunction with
biomonitoring tools to comprehensively evaluate the health of freshwater ecosystems.
This is particularly important when heavy metal or pesticide contamination is suspected.

1. 3. Historic background: The biotic index approach adopted by many European

programmes integrates the indicator species concept with elements of diversity. A biotic
index is a “scoring system” and assigns scores to taxonomic groups based on assumed
tolerance of the taxa to pollution and habitat disturbance (Cairns and Pratt, 1993). The

6
 Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual.

basis for modern day biotic indices is the Trent Biotic Index (TBI), which was originally
developed in 1964 for the Trent River in England (Metcalfe-Smith, 1994). Currently, for
biomonitroing the Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) score (Armitage et al.,
1983) and the “Average Score per Taxon” (ASPT) modification of this index is frequently
used (Sivaramakrishnan et al., 1996). In India various studies have presented spatial and
temporal trends in diversity or biotic index of streams, rivers and lakes (Chattopadhyay et
al., 1987; Jhingran et al., 1989; Khanna, 1993; Verma et al., 1978, Bhat, 2002). The
biomonitoring system developed for the temperate streams was tested and found to be
useful for the river Cauvery (Sivaramakrishnan, 1992; Sivramakrishnan et al., 1996). The
biomonitoring scores for the river Cauvery was developed by using, the modified form of
standard table of Armitage et al., (1983) developed for the Yamuna River (Trivedi, 1991;
Sivaramakrishnan, 1992; Sivramakrishnan et al., 1996).

2. Methods
2. 1.Tools for Sampling

A checklist of tools for sampling aquatic insects is provided in the Appendix-1 and figure-
1. Most of the materials for sampling can be locally fabricated or procured.

2. 2.Selecting Study sites

A reconnaissance visit to the proposed study site is necessary to select sampling loca-
tions, design sampling protocol and work out the logistics. It is better to take one or two
local persons who are familiar with the area during the reconnaissance tour. You can
particularly request them to show most polluted and least disturbed areas of your study
site. You may even hold a small meeting of local residents and explain them the purpose
of your study and inform about your proposed study locations. Try to involve local schools/
colleges in your study. If your study site falls under any forest/defence/private/panchayat/
municipality/ corporation area take written permissions from concerned authority.

Topographic maps (Survey of India Topo sheets 1:2, 50,000 and 1:50,000) is necessary
to understand the ecological setting of the study locations. SOI topo sheets of 1:2, 50,000
scales are easily available for general public and would serve most of the practical pur-
pose. It is advisable to carry the topo sheets during reconnaissance tour and mark changes
in the water bodies after the publication of the map. Note down the local names of water
bodies from local residents. This will help in communicating the results of your findings to
locals.

It is very important to select reference site(s) within the study site. Reference site(s) are
locations which are assessed to be least disturbed or represent natural or near natural
condition of the freshwater ecosystem under study. It is advisable to select the reference
site(s) within the same catchment (Fig.2). However, if the suitable reference site(s) are
not available within the catchment, sites from neighbouring catchment can be selected.

7
3.Sampling Protocol
3. 1.Identifying Freshwater Habitat: The inland freshwaters encompass a diverse
array of ecosystems as varied as lakes and rivers, ponds and streams, temporary pud-
dles, thermal springs and even pools of water that collect in the leaf axils of certain plants.
This is a small fraction of world’s water resource. Despite this, inland aquatic habitats
show far more variety in their physical and chemical characteristics than marine habitats
and contain a disproportionately high fraction of the world’s biodiversity.

Inland water habitats can be classified into stagnant (lentic) and flowing (lotic). They may
also be classified into perennial or transient. Each of these has its own set of distinctive
ecology and biological community. Lentic systems comprise lakes and ponds. Manmade
lentic habitats such as irrigation tanks, ponds and reservoirs are predominant landscape
features in many parts of Asia.

Lotic system encompasses rivers and streams. A river system is essentially a linear body
of water draining under the influence of gravity. Most of the river systems discharge
intose the sea and some into lakes. A few watercourses in arid regions enter inland
basins where no permanent lakes exist and disappear into the dry plains. Large rivers
such as Ganges and Brahmaputra cross over many degrees of latitude and traverse a
wide range of climatic conditions. Variations in water flow and underlying geology also
create a wide range of habitats, often within a short distance. Because of this change in
habitats, different organisms are typically present in different parts of any given river
system. Even though rivers are physically very dynamic, large rivers rarely disappear,
and there are indications that some of the large rivers are in existence for tens of millions
of years. This is reflected in the fact that, all the taxonomic groups are found in running
waters, and some invertebrate taxa are exclusive or attain greatest diversity there.

Widely accepted classification scheme for inland aquatic habitats is given in Appendix-
2.

3. 2. How many samples? This is a recurring question in biomonitoring studies. As a

guideline, widely accepted taxa/family accumulation curve (across samples) can be used
to determine the efficacy of the sampling. Figure-2 shows family accumulation curve
across samples. It shows that most of the families have been encountered by 39 sampling
sessions. This graph can be easily prepared in MS Office Excel and it is better to plot this
graph after few sampling (about 10) to know the taxa accumulation trend and to decide on
future sampling.
3.3.When to sample? This is a very important sampling issue. Many aquatic insects
show clear seasonality and community composition changes across seasons. So it is
better to sample the study sites across seasons. Studies in peninsular India have shown
that sampling during post monsoon (August-December) gives a reasonable picture of
community composition. However, this may not be applicable to other parts of India and
more data is required to design appropriate sampling schedule for those parts.

3.4.Where to sample? It is better to stratify the study area before sampling. The
study area can be stratified based on broad ecological variables (altitude, rainfall gradi-

8
 Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual.

ent, vegetation type, riparian landuse etc.), or disturbance regime (polluted, unpolluted,
dams, canalized etc.). Topographic and thematic maps are essential at this stage to
decide on sampling spot.

3.5.Are water quality parameters necessary? Basic water quality parameters

(water temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Tur-
bidity, Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) provides useful
information and helps in analyzing biological data. Protocols for these methods are stand-
ardized. The methods standardized by American Public Health Association (APHA)
(Clescerl et al., 1999) are universally accepted and followed.

3.6. What other data to collect? Data on aquatic plants and observations on distur-
bances are quite useful. Interviewing local residents, fisher folks, and other indigenous
communities who are depending on the water body will provide interesting insights on the
history of the ecosystem. This is very important to understand the stake holder perception
on the ecosystem and design future conservation strategies.

3.7. Sampling Data Sheet:

A sample data sheet is provided in Appendix-3.

4 .Collection and Preservation of Samples:

Different methods are employed to sample aquatic insects from the target habitats. The
methods employed for collecting aquatic insects from different habitats are outlined be-
low. In all the methods, collected samples are stored in 70% ethanol and labeled sepa-
rately in the field for each sampling session.

4.1. Lotic habitats (Streams and Rivers):

In streams where the water flows through boulders and cobbles with high turbulence
using nets is extremely difficult owing to its physical nature. An “all out search” method
can used to collect the aquatic insects. The effort in sampling is standardized by restrict-
ing the collection of aquatic insects from 10 sq.m area for one hour. Within the sampling
area, aquatic insects are searched in all the possible substrata collected from substrata
such as bedrocks, boulders, cobbles, leaf litter and dead wood. A sable hairbrush or
forceps is used to collect all samples.

In stretches of streams and rivers where the water flows with little turbulence over gravel
and sand, physical nature permits to use nets. Aquatic insects were sampled by taking
three, 1-minute kick-net samples (mesh opening: 180μm; area 1m2). The kick-net is held
against water current and an area of 1m2 in front of the net is disturbed for one minute.
Contents of the net is pooled and preserved in 70% ethanol.

Pools are stretches of streams and rivers where the water flow is minimum with least
turbulence. Aquatic insects on water surface are collected using a nylon pond net (mesh
opening: 500μm; diameter: 30cm; depth: 15cm). All out search method mentioned earlier
is also employed to collect aquatic insects from the substratum in the shallow pools.

9
4.2. Lentic habitats (Ponds and lakes):

In ponds and lakes aquatic insects can be sampled using a pond net mentioned earlier. A
bigger pond net (mesh opening: 500μm; diameter: 60cm; depth: 50cm) with adjustable
handle is quite useful in large lakes and ponds. Many aquatic beetles and bugs use
aquatic vegetation as a shelter. Aquatic vegetation can be taken out to the shore with the
pond net and vigorously searched for aquatic insects using a forceps. Make a special
effort to sample shores of the water body to collect semi aquatic insects.

5.Analyzing samples
5.1. Identification of Samples:

Collected samples should be examined under a dissection or stereozoom microscope

(10X and above) and identified using standard taxonomic literature. Samples can be as-
signed to a family or genus using taxonomic keys for that particular group. Following keys
are useful for identification: Ephemeroptera (Dudgeon, 1999); Odonata, Plecoptera, Hemi-
ptera, Megaloptera, Coleoptera, Diptera and Lepidoptera (Fraser, 1933-36; Morse et al.,
1994; Dudgeon, 1999); Hemiptera (Thirumalai 1989, 1999; Morse et al., 1994), Trichoptera
(Wiggins, 1975, 1996).

5.2. Data organization:

Data collected can be organized for future analysis using spread sheets such as MS
Office Excel 2003-2007. It is better to make to master list of taxa with corrected spelling
for before entering the data. This will eliminate problem of “pseudo taxa” while creating
the data matrix using the software. Data in matrix is used to calculate biodiversity indices
and biomonitoring scores. Pivot table function of MS Office Excel is useful in creating
data matrix.

5.3. Basic data analysis:

There are many free softwares in Windows platform to estimate basic biodiversity param-
eters. Programs such as Past, EstimateS and BiodiversityPro will meet most of the
basic analytical requirement.

6.Calculating Biomonitoring Scores

6.1. Assigning BMWP Scores:

The determination of Biomonitoring Working Party (BMWP) scores was based on the
standard table of Armitage et al., (1983). Trivedi (1991) adopted this in a modified form for
the biomonitoring studies of Yamuna River. For calculation of BMWP score, identification

10
 Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual.

to family is sufficient. The biomonitoring scores can be obtained by summing the indi-
vidual scores of all families present (Appendix-4). Score values for individual families
reflect their pollution tolerance based on the current knowledge of distribution and abun-
dance. Pollution intolerant families have high BMWP scores, while pollution tolerant fami-
lies have low scores (Sivaramakrishnan, 1992).

6.2. BMWP-ASPT: The Average Score per Taxon (ASPT) is calculated by dividing the
score by the total number of scoring taxa. A high ASPT usually characterizes clean sites
with relatively large numbers of high scoring taxa. Disturbed sites generally have low
ASPT values and do not support many high scoring taxa (Sivaramakrishnan, 1992).

6.3. Percent Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (%EPT):

Propotion of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera in total number of individuals

collected gives a fairly descent picture of water quality in rivers and streams. These groups
prefer clear, unpolluted fast flowing streams and are sensitive to pollution.

7. Interpreting and Presenting Results

Results of impacted site should be compared with reference site to know how the aquatic
insect community has responded to habitat change. The results thus obtained can be
presented as simple tables and charts. It is advisable to prepare charts in black and white
for easy reproduction. Key results should be highlighted and presented in simple lan-
guage. Graphical representation of results through maps and charts are powerful tools for
communicating the results to general public.

Photo:Giby.K

11
8.References
Armitage, P.D., D. Moss, J.F. Wright and M.T. Furse. (1983). The Performance of A New Biological
Water Quality System Based On Macroinvertebrates Over a Wide Range Of Unpolluted
Running Water Sites. Water Research.17 (3): 333-347.
Bhat, A. (2002). A study of the diversity and ecology of the freshwater fishes of four river systems of
Uttara Kannada District, Karnataka, India. Ph.D. Thesis submitted to Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore. 178pp.
Cairns, J. Jr. and Pratt, J.R (1993). A history of biological monitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates.
Pages.10-27.In: Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates (eds.Rosenberg,
D.M and Resh, V.H.). Chapman and Hall, New York.
Chattopadhyay, D.N., Saha, M.K. and Konar, S.K. (1987). Some bioecological studies of the river
Ganga in relation to water pollution. Envi.Ecol. 5: 494-500.
Clescerl L.S., Greenberg, A.E., Eaton, A.D. (1999) Standard Methods for Examination of Water
& Wastewater. American Public Health Association. 1325pp.
De Pauw, N., Ghetti, P.F., Manzini, P. and Spaggiari, D.R. (1992). Biological assessment methods for
running waters.Pages 11-38. In: River water quality-Ecological assessment and control.
Commission of European Countries (eds. Newman, P., Piavaux, A. and Sweeting, R).
Dudgeon, D (1994). Research strategies for the conservation and management of tropical Asian
streams and rivers. Int.J.Ecol.Envi.20:255-285.
Dudgeon, D.(2000). Riverine Wetlands and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Asia. In: Biodiversity
in Wetlands:assessement, function and conservation, Vol.I (eds. B.Gopal, W.J. Junk and
J.A.Davis) 35-60. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Dudgeon, D. (1999). Tropical Asian Streams-Zoobenthos, Ecology and Conservation. Hongkong
University Press. Hongkong. 828pp.
Fraser, F.C. (1933-36). The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, Odonata, Vols.I-III.
Taylor & Francis Ltd., London.
Jhingran, V.G., Ahmad, S.H. and Singh, A.K. (1989). Application of Shannon-Weiner Index as a
measure of pollution of river Ganga at Patna, Bihar, India. Curr.Sci.58: 717-720.
Khanna, D.R. (1993). Ecology and pollution of Ganga river (A limnological study at Hardwar). Ashish
Publishing House, New Delhi.
Hellawell, J.M.(1986). Biological indicators of freshwater pollution and environmental management.
Elsevier, London.
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L.(1994). Biological water-quality assessment of rivers: use of macroinvertebrate
communities. Pages 144-169. In: The rivers handbook Vol.II (eds. Calow, P and Petts, G.E).
Blackwell Scientific Publications, U.K.
Morse C.J, Yang Lianfang and Tian Lixin (ed.) (1994). Aquatic Insects Of China Useful For Monitoring
Water Quality. Hohai University Press, Nanjiing People’s Republic Of China pp 569.
Resh, V.H. and Jackson, J.K. (1993). Rapid assessment approaches to biomonitoring using benthic
macroinvertebrates. Pages 195-233. In: Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic
Macroinvertebrates (eds.Rosenberg, D.M and Resh, V.H.). Chapman and Hall, New York.
Resh, V.H., Norris,R.H. and Barbour, M.T.(1995). Design and implementation of rapid assessment
approaches using benthic macroinvertebrates for water resources assessment. Aus.J.Ecol.
20:108-121.
Rosenberg, D.M. and Resh, V.H. (1993). Introduction to freshwater biomonitoring and benthic
macroinvertebrates. Pages 1-9. In: Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates
(eds.Rosenberg, D.M and Resh, V.H.). Chapman and Hall, New York.
Saunders, D.L., Meeuwig, J.J and Vincent, A.C.J (2002). Freshwater protected areas: Strategies for
Conservation. Cons.Biol. 16 (1): 30-41.
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G, Hannaford, J Morgan and Resh H Vincent. (1996). Biological Assessment of
the Kaveri River Catchment, South India, and Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Applicability
of Water Quality Monitoring Approaches Developed in Other Countries. Int. J. Eco.and
Env.Sci.32: 113-132.
Sivaramakrishnan, K.G. (1992).Composition And Zonation Of Aquatic Insect Fauna Of Kaveri and its
Tributaries and the Identification of Insect Fauna as Indicator of Pollution. D.O.E. Project Number
22/18/89-Re.
Subramanian, K.A., Sivaramakrishnan, K.G., Madhav Gadgi (2002). Impact of Riparian Landuse on Stream
Insect Communities of the Kudremukh National Park, Karnataka state, India. Journal of Insect
Science 5:49.2005.

12
 Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual.

Thirumalai, G (1999). Aquatic and semi-aquatic Heteroptera of India. Indian Association of Aquatic
Biologists. Publication No.7. Hyderabad. pp 74.
Thirumalai, G. (1989). Aquatic and semi aquatic Hemiptera (Insecta) of Javadi Hills, Tamil Nadu.
Occasional paper no.118. Zoological Survey of India, Culcutta.
Trivedi,R.C. (1991). Biomonitoring A Case Study On Yamuna River. On The Implementation of a
Biomonitoring yardstick for Water Quality Management in Indian Rivers. Proceedings of Indo-
Dutch Workshop New Delhi-29th -31ST Oct, 1991.
Verma, S.R., Tyagi, A.K. and Dalela, R.C (1978). Pollution studies of few rivers of western Uttar
Pradesh with reference to biological indices. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. 87: 123-131.
Wiggins.B. (1975). Larvae Of The North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera). University Of Toronto
Press, Tronto. pp401.
Wiggins.B. (1996). Larvae Of The North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera). 2nd edition. University
Of Toronto Press, Tronto. pp457.
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (2000). Global Biodiversity: Earth’s living resources in the 21st
century.By:Groombridge,B.and Jenkins,M.D.World Conservation Press,Cambridge,UK.
World Wide Fund for Nature. (2002). Living Planet Report. WWF International, Switzerland. 35pp.

Softwares

1. EstimateS 8.0: http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates

2. PAST: http://folk.uio.no/ohammu/past/
3. BiodiversityPro: www.sams.ac.uk/research/software

Suggested Reading

Allan, D.J.(1995). Stream Ecology: Structure and function of running waters. Chapman & Hall,
Madras.388pp.
Bishop, J.E. (1973) Limnology of a small Malayan River, Sungai Gombak. Monogr. Biol. 22, Dr.W.
Junk Publishers, The Hague, 485 pp.
Champion, H G and Seth, S, K. (1968). A revised survey of the forest types of India, New Delhi, Forest
Research Institute.
Chandran, M.D.S. (1997). On the ecological history of the Western Ghats. Curr. Sci. Vol.73 (2): 146-
155.
Goldshmidt, T. (1996). Darwin’s Dream Pond: drama in Lake Victoria. MIT Press. Cambridge
Massachusetts.
Hynes, H.B.N. (1970). The ecology of running waters. Liverpool University Press. 555pp.
Jayaram,K.C.(2000).Kaveri Riverine System: An Environmental Study. Madras Science Foundation,
Chennai, India.257pp
Kottelat, M. and Whitten, T.(1996). Freshwater biodiversity in Asia with special reference to fish. World
Bank Technical Paper No.343.
Ludwig,J.A. and Reynolds,J.F(1988). Statistical Ecology: A primer on methods and computing. A Wiley-
Interscience publication. John Wiley & Sons, New York.337 pp.
Mani,M,S.(1974). Biogeographic evolution in India. Pages 698-722.In: Ecology and Biogeography in
India (ed. Mani, M,S). Junk Publishers, Hague. 772pp.
Merritt, R.W and Cummins, K.W (1996). An introduction to the Aquatic insects of North America. Third
Edition. Kendall/Hunt publishing company. Iowa. pp.862.
Misra, V.N. (2001). Prehistoric human colonization of India. J.Biosci.Vol.26.(4):Suppl. 491-531.
Myers Norman, Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G.,da Fonseca, Gustavo A.B., Kent,J.
(2000).Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature Vol.403.853-858.
Noss, R.E (1989). Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach. Cons.Biol. 4(4): 356-
364.
Pascal, J P. (1988). Wet evergreen forests of the Western Ghats of India: ecology,structure, floristic
composition and succession. Institut Francaise de Pondichery. Pondicherry, India.345pp.
Rosenzweig, M L. (1997). Species Diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press. 436pp.
Vannote, R.L., Minshall, G.W., Cummins, K.W., Sedell, J.R. & Cushing, C.E. (1980). The River
Continuum Concept. Can.J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 130-137.

13
 Appendix-1. Tools for Sampling Aquatic Insects

1. Pencil
2. Alcohol proof pen
3. Field note book
4. Fine forceps
5. Blunt forceps
6. Hand lens
7. Watch glass
8. Plastic tray
9. Plastic jars (various sizes)
10. Leak proof vials (vaious sizes)
11. Measuring tape
12. Rope
13. Twine
14. Blade
15. Scissors
16. Knife
17. Box for keeping samples
18. Map of the study area
19. Magnetic compass
20. Geographic Position System (GPS) if available
21. Altimeter
23. Thermometer
24. Kicknet
25. Pond net
26. Small sieve
27. Brushes-various sizes
28. Torch
29. Polythene covers
30. Camera
31. Data sheets
32. Permission letters
33. Contact addresses
34. First aid kit

14
Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual.

15
Figure-2. An example for distributing study sites within a
landscape

(Ref: K.A.Subramanian et.al., (2005). Journal of Insect Science 5:49)

16
 Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual.

Appendix-2 Classification of Freshwater Habitats

(Dugan, 1993)

1.0. Freshwater

1.1 Riverine

1.Perennial
i) Permanent rivers and streams, including waterfalls.
ii) Inland deltas.
2.Temporary
i) Seasonal and irregular rivers and streams
ii) Riverine floodplains, including river flats,
flooded river basins, seasonally flooded grassland.

1.2 Lacustrinel

1.Permanent
i) Permanent freshwater lakes (> 8ha), including shores subject to
seasonal of irregular inundataion
ii) Permanent freshwater ponds (< 8ha).
2.Seasonal
i) Seasonal freshwater lakes (> 8ha), including floodplain lakes.

1.3 Palustrinel

1.Emergent
i) Permanent freshwater marshes and swamps on inorganic soils, with
emergent vegetation whose bases ie. below the water table for at least
most of the growing season.
ii) Permanent peat-forming freshwater swamps,including tropical upland
valley swamps dominated by Papyrus or Typha.
iii) Seasonal freshwater marshes on inorganic soil,
including sloughs, potholes, seasonally flooded meadows, sedge
marshes, and dambos.
iv) Peatlands, including acidophilous, ombrogenous, or soligenous mires
covered by moss, herbs or dwarf shrub vegetation, and fens of all types.
v) Alpine and polar wetlands, including seasonally flooded meadows
moistened by temporary waters from snowmelt.
vi) Freshwater springs and oases with surrounding vegetation.
vii) Volcanic fumaroles continually moistened by emerging and condensing
water vapour.

2.Forested

i) Shrub swamps, including shrub-dominated freshwater marsh, shrub and

thickets, on inorganic soils.

17
 ii) Freshwater swamp forest, including seasonally flooded forest, wooded
swamps on inorganic soils.
iii) Forested peatlands, including peat swamp forest.3. Man-Made
Wetlands

3.Manmade wetlands

3.1Aquaculture/ Mariculture
i)Aquaculture ponds, including fish ponds and shrimp ponds.

3.2 Agriculture
i) Ponds, including farm ponds, stock ponds, small tanks.
ii) Irrigated land and irrigated channels, including rice fields, canals and
ditches.
iii) Seasonally flooded arable lands.

3.3 Urban/ Industrial

i) Excavations, including gravel pits, borrow pits and mining pools.

ii) Wastewater treatment areas, including sewage farms, settling ponds
and oxidation basins.

3.4 Water-storage areas

i) Reservoirs holding water for irrigation and/ or human consumption with a

pattern of gradual, seasonal, draw down of water level.
ii) Hydro-dams with regular fluctuations in water level on a weekly or
monthly basis.

18
Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual.

Plate-1. Some Freshwater Ecosystems

1 2

3 4

5 6

Ecosystem Suggested Methodology

(1) Pond.......................................... Pond net and sweep net
(2) Lake........................................... Pond net and sweep net
(3) Reservoir................................... Pond net and sweep net
(4) Stream....................................... Kicknet, Pond net and all out search
(5) River.......................................... Kicknet, Pond net and all out search
(6) Myristica Swamp.................... All out search

19
 Plate-2. Major Lotic Habitats

Waterfalls Cascades

Riffles Pools

20
Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual.

Plate-3. Use of Kicknet and unsorted beetle samples

21
Plate-4.Some Common Aquatic Insects

22
Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual.

Plate-5.Some Common Aquatic Insects

23
Plate-6.Some Common Aquatic Insects

24
 Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual.

Figure-3. Family accumulation curve across samples in Kudremukh

Streams, Karnataka

Estimation of Family Richness for the Samples

70

60

50
Number of Families

40

30

20

10

0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37
Number of Samples

The graph indicates that by 37 sampling sessions, most of the families are encountered in
the study site.

25
 Appendix-3. Basic Details of Sampling Localities and sample data

State: Karnataka
River Basin: Sharavathi

Sl.No Site Name District Altitude(m) Latitude(°N) Longitude(°E) AARF(mm) NDM

1 Hosanagara Shimoga 513 13.8833 75.05 2500 6
2 Nagodi Shimoga 550 13.91299 74.85861 2500 6
3 Nittur Shimoga 550 13.9333 75.9 2500 6
4 Nellibedu Shimoga 550 13.93822 74.8497 2500 6
5 Mavinahole Uttara Kannada 550 13.9666 75.1 3500 6
6 Nandihole Shimoga 530 14 75.1333 981 6
7 Haridravathi Shimoga 525 14.1 75.1333 981 6
8 Malemanne Uttara Kannada 500 14.2833 74.7333 4000 6
9 Kathlekan Uttara Kannada 525 14.2833 74.75 4000 6

26
AARF: Average Annual Rainfall; NDM: Number of Dry Months

Sample Data from Kudremukh National Park, Karnataka

SNo Sample Number Site code Order Family Genus Number of individuals
24 40 7 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis 3
537 40 7 Coleoptera Elmididae Leptelmis 6
532 40 7 Odonata Euphaeidae Euphaea 3
531 40 7 Odonata Gomphidae Lamelligomphus 1
147 40 7 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 10
148 40 7 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Leptonema 2
142 40 7 Trichoptera Lepidostomatidae Goerodes 1
143 40 7 Trichoptera Limnephilidae Moselyana 1
535 40 7 Plecoptera Perlidae Neoperala 3
144 40 7 Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Polycentropus 2
536 40 7 Coleoptera Psephenidae Eubrianax 5
132 41 7 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Baetis 5
131 41 7 Ephemeroptera Heptagaeniidae Epeorus 8
132 41 7 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 12
152 41 7 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 25
 Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual.

Appendix-4 BMWP Scores of families

SlNo Order Family BMWPScore

I Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)

1 Baetidae 04
2 Caenidae 07
3 Ephemerellidae 10
4 Heptageniidae 10
5 Oligoneuridae 10
6 Leptophlebiidae 10
7 Potamanthidae 10
8 Trichorythidae 10

II Odonata (Dragonflies and Damselflies)

9 Chlorocyphidae 10
10 Euphaeidae 09
11 Gomphidae 08
12 Libellulidae 08
13 Protoneuridae 08

III Plecoptera (Stoneflies)

14 Perlidae 10

IV Orthoptera (Grasshoppers and Crickets)

15 Tetrigidae 10

V Blattodea (Semiaquatic Cockroach)

16 Blaberidae 07

VI Hemiptera (Aquatic Bugs)

17 Corixidae 05
18 Gerridae 05
19 Hebridae 05
20 Naucoridae 05
21 Notonectidae 05
22 Pleidae 05
23 Veliidae 10

VII Megaloptera (Alderflies)

24 Corydalidae 10

VIII Coleoptera (Aquatic Beetles)

25 Curculionidae 05
26 Dytiscidae 05
27 Elmidae 05
28 Gyrinidae 05
29 Haliplidae 05
30 Hydrophilidae 05
31 Noteridae 07
32 Psephenidae 08

27
33 Staphylinidae 05

IX Trichoptera (Caddiesflies)

34 Calamoceratidae 10
35 Glossosomatidae 10
36 Helicopsychidae 10
37 Hydropsychidae 05
38 Lepidostomatidae 10
39 Limnephilidae 07
40 Philopotamidae 08
41 Polycentropodidae 07
42 Rhyacophilidae 07
43 Stenopsychidae 10

X Lepidoptera (Aquatic Moths)

44 Pyralidae 08

XI Diptera (Flies)

45 Blephariceridae 10
46 Chironomidae 02
47 Ephydridae 07
48 Simuliidae 05
49 Tabanidae 06
50 Tipulidae 06

28
 Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual.

Appendix-5: Biomonitoring Scores for study sites in

Sharavathy River, Karnataka
Site Gen.Richness %EPT BMWP ASPT
Kodigathe 2 86 20 10
Nandihole 5 100 39 8
Sharavathy 6 100 42 7
Huledevarakudulu 8 88 43 5
Markatehole 9 45 50 6
Badal 10 83 57 6
Mavinahole 10 71 62 6
Kathlekan 11 76 62 6
Haridravathi 11 96 63 6
Nagodihole 11 87 87 8
Nellibedu 12 86 92 8
Votehalla 18 51 113 6

Legends: (1) %EPT: Percent of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (2) BMWP:
Biomonitoring Working Party Score (3) ASPT: Average Score Per Taxon

Biomonitoring Scores for Twelve Sites

120

100

80
Percent EPT
60
BMWP Score
40

20

Sites

29
Space for Notes

30
 Aquatic Insects for Biomonitoring Freshwater Ecosystems-A Methodology Manual.

Photo:K.A.Subramanian

Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment (ATREE),

Bangalore, India
Small Grants Programme
2007
31