Length-Weight Relationships for the Benthic Invertebrates of a Mountain River in the Southern Caspian Sea Basin, Iran

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
M. Hajiesmaeili 1
S. A. Ayyoubzadeh 1
A. Abdoli 2
1 Department of Water Structures Engineering, College of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran.
2 Department of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran.
Abstract
Biomass is an important parameter in studying a variety of energetic processes in food webs, community structure, and composition of aquatic organisms. Biomass determinations are based on direct weighing of animals, biovolume determination, and length-weight conversion. Although direct weighing of individual organisms is the most accurate methodology, its application is not very common due to its time consuming nature. Length-weight regressions are the most widely used approach for estimating benthic invertebrate biomass because they are less time consuming and more precise than other methods. In this research, length-weight relationships are evaluated for the most common benthic invertebrates found in an Iranian mountain river in the Southern Caspian Sea Basin by fitting the power function (linearized by logarithmic transformation) to data of wet and dry weights against body length of aquatic invertebrates at both family and order level. A general predictive equation was also obtained for all individuals measured in this study. Regressions obtained were significant at a P value of < 0.05 and explained a high proportion of variation of the dependent variable, as expressed by the correlation coefficient (r= 0.82-0.99). Regression equations obtained in this study for three major orders of aquatic invertebrates were also compared to those in previous studies from different geographical locations. Relationships developed in this study, can be useful for future assessments of benthic community structure and for understanding the importance of these invertebrates in the energy flux of the river.

Keywords

Subjects

1. Abdoli, A., Azizi, Z., Kiabi, B., Mashhadi Ahmadi, A. A. and Golzarianpour, K. 2016. Study of Summer Food Habits of the Brown Trout, Salmo trutta fario, in Lar Dam Lake and Streams in Lar National Park. J. Fish. Sci. and Tech., 5(3): 1-17. (In Persian).
2. Adams, J. and Vaughan, M. 2003. Macroinvertebrates of the Pacific Northwest. A Field Guide. The XERCES Society, Portland.
3. Beauchene, M. 2016. Macroinvertebrate Field Identification Cards, CT DEEP Riffle Bioassessment by Volunteers (RBV) Program. CT Dept. of Energy & Environmental Protection, Hartford, Connecticut.
4. Becker, B., Moretti, M. S. and Callisto, M. 2009. Length-Dry Mass Relationships for a Typical Shredder in Brazilian Streams (Trichoptera: Calamoceratidae). Aquat. Insects., 31(3): 227-234.
5. Benke, A. C., Huryn, A. D., Smock, L. A. and Wallace, J. B. 1999. Length-Mass Relationships for Freshwater Macroinvertebrates in North America with Particular Reference to the Southeastern United States. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 18(3): 308-343.
6. Bouchard, R. W. Jr. 2004. Guide to the Aquatic Macroinvertebrates of the Upper Midwest. Water Resources Center, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.
7. Bouchard, R. W. Jr. 2012. Guide to Aquatic Invertebrates Families of Mongolia. Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA.
8. Burgherr, P. and Meyer, E.I. 1997. Regression Analysis of Linear Body Dimensions vs. Dry Mass in Stream Macroinvertebrates. Arch. Hydrobiol., 139: 101-112.
9. Dermott, R. M. and Paterson, C. G. 1974. Determining Dry Weight and Percentage Dry Matter of Chironomid Larvae. Can. J. Zool., 52: 1243-1250.
10. Engelmann, M. D. 1961. The Role of the Soil Arthropods in the Energetic of an Old Field Community. Ecol. Monogr., 31 (3): 221-238.
11. Esteve, M., Abdoli, A., Hashemzadeh Segherloo, I., Golzarianpour, K. and Ahmadi, A. A. 2018. Observation of Male Choice in Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) from Lar National Park, Iran. In: Brown Trout: Biology, Ecology and Management, Lobón-Cerviá, J., Sanz, N (eds). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. pp.165-178.
12. Giustini, M., Miccoli, F. P., Luca, G. D. and Cicolani, B. 2008. Length-Weight Relationships for Some Plecoptera and Ephemeroptera from a Carbonate Stream in Central Apennine (Italy). Hydrobiologia., 605: 183-191.
13. González, J. M., Basaguren, A. and Pozo, J. 2002. Size-mass Relationships of Stream Invertebrates in a Northern Spain Stream. Hydrobiologia., 489: 131-137.
14. Hajiesmaeili, M., Ayyoubzadeh, S. A., Sedighkia, M. and Kalbassi, M. R. 2014. Physical Habitat Simulation of Rainbow Trout in Mountainous Streams of Iran. J. Bio. & Env. Sci., 5(4): 497-503.
15. Haney, J.F. 2013. An Image-Based Key to Stream Insects, beta version 1.0 released 2013. University of New Hampshire Center for Freshwater Biology <cfb.unh.edu> 5 Jan 2018.
16. Heydarnejad, M. S. 2010. Length-Weight Relationships for Aquatic Beetles (Coleoptera) in a Marsh in Iran. Acta. Entomol. Sinica., 53(8): 932-935.
17. Howmiller, R. I. 1972. Effects of Preservatives on Weights of Some Common Macrobenthic Invertebrates. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 101: 743-746.
18. Johnston, T. A. and Cunjak, R. A. 1999. Dry Mass-length Relationships for Benthic Insects: A Review with New Data from Catamaran Brook, New Brunswick, Canada. Freshwat. Biol., 41: 653-674.
19. Kiyak, S., Canbulat, S. and Salur, A. 2007. Nepomorpha (Heteroptera) Fauna of South-Western Anatolia (Turkey). Bol. Soc. Entomol. Aragonesa., 40: 548-554.
20. Leuven, R. S. E. W., Brock, T. C. M. and Van Druten, H. A. M. 1985. Effects of Preservation on Dry- and Ash-free Dry Weight Biomass of Some Common Aquatic Macro-invertebrates. Hydrobiologia., 127 (2): 151-159.
21. McCafferty, W. P. 1981. Aquatic Entomology. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, U.S.A, 449P.
22. Meyer, E. 1989. The Relationship between Body Length Parameters and Dry Mass in Running Water Invertebrates. Arch. Hydrobiol., 117: 191-203.
23. Miserendino, M. L. 2001. Length-Mass Relationships for Macroinvertebrates in Freshwater Environments of Patagonia (Argentina). Ecol. Austral., 11: 3-8.
24. Nakagawa, H. and Takemon, Y. 2015. Length-Mass Relationships of Macro-Invertebrates in a Freshwater Stream in Japan. Aquat. Insects: Int. J. Freshwat. Entomol.
25. Needham, J. G. and Needham, P. R. 1941. A Guide to the Study of Fresh-Water Biology. Forth edition, Comstock Publishing Company, INC, New York.
26. Railsback, S. F., Harvey, B. C. and Sheppard, C. 2011. inSTREAM: The Individual-based Stream Trout Research and Environmental Assessment Model, Version 5.0.
27. Rajabei Nezhad, R. 2007. Study of Density, Distribution and Yield on Benthic Fauna and Brown Trout (Salmo trutta fario) Feeding in Lar Reservoirs. Ph.D. Thesis, Islamic Azad University, Research and Science Campus.(In Persian).
28. Ross, D. H. 1982. Production of Filter-Feeding Caddisflies (Trichoptera) in a Southern Appalachian Stream System. PhD Dissertation, University of Gorgia, Athens.
29. Sabo, J., Bastow, J. L. and Power, M. E. 2002. Length-Mass Relationships for Adult Aquatic and Terrestrial Invertebrates in a California Watershed. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 21(2): 336-343.
30. Salavatian, S. M. 2012. Identification of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Rivers Entering to Lar Dam Lake. Lahijan J. Env. Sci., 1(4): 67-78. (In Persian).
31. Seiz, A. 2011. Benthic Invertebrate Community Composition in Four Stream across a Restoration Intensity Gradient. Department of Biology, Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA 01610.
32. Smock, L. A. 1980. Relationships between Body Size and Biomass of Aquatic Insects. Freshwat. Biol., 10: 375-383.
33. Towers, D. J., Henderson, I.M. and Veltman, C.J. 1994. Predicting Dry Weight of New Zealand Aquatic Macroinvertebrates from Linear Dimensions. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res., 28: 159-166.
34. Usinger, R. L., ed. 1956. Aquatic Insects of Calofornia. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles., California.
35. Wenzel, F., Meyer, E. and Schwoerbel, J. 1990. Morphometry and Biomass Determination of Dominant Mayfly Larvae (Ephemeroptera) in Running Waters. Arch. Hydrobiol., 118:31-46.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 21, Issue 7
November and December 2019
Pages 1831-1841