Influence of a dam and tributaries on macrobenthos communities and ecological water quality in the Kebir–Rhumel wadi (Northeast Algeria)

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Taxa richness and mean abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates collected above and below the Beni Haroun dam in the Kebir–Rhumel wadi_

Taxon	Code	Above the dam		Below the dam
		Rhumel wadi (Rh)	S-TR	Kebir wadi (Kr)	T-TR
TRICLADIDA
Dugesia gonocephala	D.gon	1	4	7	1
Polycelis felina		-	1	2	2
OLIGOCHAETA
Lumbriculidae		1.67	1	-	-
Tubifex sp.	Tub	270	-	-	-
Naididae	Nai	16.67	92	3	-
HIRUDINEA
Dina lineata	D.lin	29.33	22	-	-
Erpobdella octoculata		0.67	-	-	-
Helobdella stagnalis	H.sta	2.67	3	-	-
Placobdella costata		0.67	-	-	-
GASTROPODA
Physa acuta	P.acu	29.33	42	12	2
Ancylus fluviatilis	A.flu	-	4	-	13
Lithoglyphus naticoides		1	-	-	-
ARACHNIDA
Unionicola sp.	Uni	-	-	28.33	60
DECAPODA
Atyaephyra desmarestii	A.des	1.33	28	5.33	-
AMPHIPODA
Gammarus sp.		-	-	0.67	4
DIPTERA
Chironomidae	Chi	475	253	241.33	440
Limnophora riparia	L.rip	-	3	-	16
Simulium hispaniola	S.his	-	-	0.67	52
S. (S.) ornatum	S.orn	-	10	76.33	-
S. (W.) pseudequinum	S.pse	196.67	25	116.67	116
S. (E.) aureum	S.aur	-	-	32.33	120
Ceratopogonidae	Cer	-	11	6.67	57
Tabanus sp.			4	2.33	-
Culex sp.		-	2	-	-
Tipulidae	Tip	0.33	4	2.33	5
Empididae		0.67	2	1.33	-
Syrphidae		2.33	-	-	-
Hexatoma sp.	Hex	3.67	4	7	7
Dicranota sp.		-	-	-	3
Stratiomyidae		-	-	1.67	2
Atherix sp.	Ath	-	-	1.67	5
PLECOPTERA
Capnia nigra		-	-	1.67	1
Isoperla sp.	Iso	-	-	-	11
Leuctra sp.		-	-	-	9
EPHEMEROPTERA
Acentrella sinaica	A.sin	-	-	19.33	26
Baetis pavidus	B.pav	401.67	41	177	448
Baetis rhodani	B.rho	-	-	2	85
Cloeon dipterum	C.dip	1.67	7	-	23
Cloeon saharense		-	-	-	5
Procloeon stagnicola	P.sta	-	-	3.33	6
Caenis luctuosa	C.lus	1	310	89	77
Caenis pusilla	C.pus	-	-	3.33	67
Ecdyonurus rothschildi	E.rot	-	-	1.33	41
Choroterpes atlas	C.atl	-	-	-	62
Choroterpes lindrothi	C.lin	-	-	-	13
COLEOPTERA
Laccophilus hyalinus		1	3	0.67	-
Aulonogyrus striatus	A.str	-	-	6.67	-
Gyrinus dejeani		-	2	1	-
Limnius intermedius	L.int	0.33	11	0.67	37
Esolus filum	E.fil	7	-	1.67	20
Stenelmis consobrina	S.con	-	-	-	41
Dryops sp.	Dry	0.33	6	6.33	-
Hydraena sp.		3	-	1	-
Ochthebius		-	1	-	-
Hydrobius sp.		0.67	7	-	-
Laccobius gracilis	L.gra	3.33	-	2	-
Crenitis sp.		-	8	-	-
Coelostoma sp.		-	1	-	-
Helochares obscurus		2.67	-	-	-
Hydrochus sp.		2	-	-	-
Hydrocyphon sp.		-	-	-	7
TRICHOPTERA
Hydropsyche lobata	H.lob	51.33	48	91.33	193
Hydropsyche maroccana	H.mar	2.33	27	23	49
Cheumatopsyche lepida	C.lep	-	-	6	24
Rhyacophila munda		-	-	-	2
Pararhyacophila sp.	Par	-	-	1	15
Chimarra marginata	C.mar	-	-	-	64
Psychomyia pusilla		-	-	2	1
ODONATA
Gomphus lucasii	G.luc	-	-	6.67	-
Praragomphus genei		-	-	-	2
Onychogomphus costae		-	-	1.33	-
O. unguiculatus		-	-	1.67	2
Boyeria irene		-	-	-	3
Orthetrum chrysostigma		-	2	0.67	-
Sympetrum fonscolombii		0.67	-	1	-
Sympetrum striolatum		0.33	-	0.67	-
Brachythemis impartita		1.67	4	2.33	-
Coenagrion sp.	Coe	2.33	3	1	-
Erythromma lindenii		-	5	-	-
Ischnura graellsii		0.67	3	-	-
Platycnemis subdilatata		-	-	0.33	-
HETEROPTERA
Nepa sp.		0.67	-	0.67	1
Micronecta sp.	Mic	110.33	420	20.67	-
Corixa punctata		2	-	-	-
Paracorixa concinna		2.67	-	-	-
Microvelia pygmaea		-	6	-	-
Gerris lacustris	G.lac	1.67	4	3.33	-
Naucoris maculatus		-	4	2.67	-
Naucoris cimicoides		-	-	0.67	-
Notonecta obliqua	N.obl	3.33	-	-	-
Anisops sardea		1	-	-	-
Abundance		1634.35	1438	1032.68	2240
Number of taxa		43	41	54	46

SIMPER and one-way ANOSIM on pairwise comparisons of sites using Bray–Curtis dissimilarities_ Upper triangular matrix shows the overall average dissimilarity (%) and lower triangular matrix shows the R-statistic_ Ns: not significant difference (p > 0_05)_

Above the dam					Below the dam
	R-UC	R-C	R-DC	S-TR		K-UC	K-C	K-DC	T-TR
R-UC		45.56	40.77	61.68	K-UC		45.57	42.99	62.75
R-C	0.35		39.48	56.5	K-C	0.24		48.99	61.10
R-DC	0.05Ns	0.20Ns		61.33	K-DC	0.19Ns	0.20Ns		60.41
S-TR	0.97	0.97	1.00		T-TR	0.99	1.00	0.79

Output from SIMPER analysis of macroinvertebrates, showing the most influential taxa to total dissimilarity among segments (Rh, S-TR, Kr, and T-TR)_ List of taxa, which cumulatively account for 50% of the dissimilarity between sample groups_ Av_%_ dissim: average% dissimilarity,%_ Cont_ dissim: % Contribution to the dissimilarity_

Pairwise comparison	R-statistic	Av.%. dissim	Most discriminating taxa	%. Cont. dissim	Most discriminating taxa	%. Cont. dissim
Rh vs. S-TR	0.95	59.84	Caenis luctuosa	7.72	Tubifex sp.	4.28
			Micronecta sp.	6.17	Hydropsyche maroccana	3.35
			Naididae	5.97	Limnius intermedius	2.83
			Simulium. (W.) pseudequinum	5.59	Dina lineata	2.52
			Baetis pavidus	5.49	Esolus filum	2.26
			Atyaephyra desmarestii	4.3
Rh vs. Kr	0.87	59.09	Simulium. (S.) ornatum	5.77	Physa acuta	3.71
			Caenis luctuosa	5.47	Hydropsyche maroccana	3.56
			Tubifex sp.	4.84	Simulium. (W.) pseudequinum	3.42
			Micronecta sp.	4.5	Acentrella sinaica	2.94
			Dina lineata	4.29	Baetis pavidus	2.61
			Chironomidae	4.1	Gomphus lucasii	2.40
			Simulium. (E.) aureum	3.98
Kr vs. T-TR	0.9	61.42	Baetis rhodani	4.44	Caenis pusilla	3.06
			Chimarra marginata	4.18	Chironomidae	2.79
			Choroterpes atlas	3.99	Caenis luctuosa	2.71
			Simulium. (S.) ornatum	3.83	Simulium. (E.) aureum	2.7
			Limnius intermedius	3.53	Cloeon dipterum	2.69
			Simulium hispaniola	3.52	Stenelmis consobrina	2.56
			Ecdyonurus rothschildi	3.49	Unionicola sp.	2.39
			Simulium. (W.) pseudequinum	3.18
S-TR vs. T-TR	1	70.58	Micronecta sp.	5.78	Simulium hispaniola	2.99
			Naididae	3.97	Caenis luctuosa	2.97
			Baetis rhodani	3.85	Atyaephyra desmarestii	2.80
			Baetis pavidus	3.67	Physa acuta	2.58
			Chimarra marginata	3.36	Caenis pusilla	2.57
			Choroterpes atlas	3.21	Simulium. (W.) pseudequinum	2.49
			Simulium. (E.) aureum	3.05	Acentrella sinaica	2.17
			Ecdyonurus rothschildi	3	Stenelmis consobrina	2.06

Mean ± SD values of physicochemical variables at the sampling stations above and below the Beni Haroun dam in the Kebir–Rhumel wadi_ Values in bold indicate significant differences based on ANOVA_

Variable	Above the dam				Below the dam				p-value
	R-UC	R-C	R-DC	S-TR	K-UC	K-C	K-DC	T-TR
T (°C)	18.00 ± 6.08	18.00 ± 6.24	18.00 ± 7.00	14.67 ± 5.51	16.33 ± 6.66	15.67 ± 6.35	15.33 ± 6.66	12.33 ± 4.93	0.526
pH	8.23 ± 0.47	8.17 ± 0.35	8.10 ± 0.53	8.90 ± 0.35	8.80 ± 0.46	8.53 ± 0.38	8.67 ± 0.25	9.33 ± 0.35	0.062
DO (mg l−1)	5.17 ± 0.85	5.23 ± 1.08	4.83 ± 0.99	6.40 ± 0.61	6.53 ± 0.70	6.73 ± 0.83	6.67 ± 0.65	7.93 ± 0.40	0.003
EC (μS cm−1)	1701 ± 290.11	1693.33 ± 344.29	1728.33 ± 358.34	1370 ± 329.7	986.67 ± 100.66	1048.33 ± 101.15	1050.67 ± 115.52	718.33 ± 163.58	0.0001
Salinity	0.87 ± 0.25	0.89 ± 0.30	0.92 ± 0.34	0.62 ± 0.13	0.51 ± 0.14	0.51 ± 0.13	0.52 ± 0.13	0.29 ± 0.08	0.034
NH4+ (mg l−1)	1.90 ± 0.79	3.68 ± 1.83	3.98 ± 1.69	1.85 ± 2.82	0.14 ± 0.04	0.13 ± 0.03	0.12 ± 0.03	0.08 ± 0.03	0.009
NO2− (mg l−1)	2.58 ± 2.46	1.94 ± 1.69	2.26 ± 2.06	0.36 ± 0.33	0.07 ± 0.05	0.06 ± 0.04	0.06 ± 0.05	0.02 ± 0.02	0.028
NO3− (mg l−1)	2.75 ± 2.37	2.40 ± 1.71	3.23 ± 3.02	3.56 ± 1.09	0.67 ± 0.29	0.89 ± 0.27	0.98 ± 0.30	0.32 ± 0.16	0.023
PO43− (mg l−1)	2.37 ± 0.59	2.52 ± 1.00	2.51 ± 0.87	1.56 ± 0.46	0.46 ± 0.12	0.44 ± 0.17	0.45 ± 0.16	0.31 ± 0.17	0.0001

Value of BMWP’ (Alba-Tercedor & Pujante, 2000) and ASPT biotic indices (Hynes, 1998) and color codes according to corresponding water quality classes_

Bioclassification of water quality
BMWP’ score	≤15	16–35	36–60	61–100	101–150 >150
Color codes	Very critical	Critical	Dubious	Passable	Good
ASPT values	<3.9	4–4.9	5–5.9	6–6.9	>7
Color codes	Very poor	Poor	Moderate	Good	Very good

Value of EPT richness according to corresponding water quality bioclassification categories (Bode et al_, 1996)_

EPT richness index	<2	2–5	6–10	>10
Water quality	Poor	Clean	Good	Excellent

Water quality classification system based on the BI values (Hilsenhoff, 1987)_

Biotic index	Water quality	Degree of organic pollution
0.00–3.50	Excellent	Organic pollution unlikely
3.51–4.50	Very good	Possible slight organic pollution
4.51–5.50	Good	Some organic pollution probable
5.51–6.50	Fair	Fairly substantial pollution likely
6.51–7.50	Fairly poor	Substantial pollution likely
7.51–8.50	Poor	Very substantial pollution likely
8.51–10.00	Very poor	Severe organic pollution likely

Pearson’s correlation between diversity and biotic indices with water physicochemical parameters_

	S	H′	EPT	EPT/(EPT + Chironomidae)	BI	BMWP′	ASPT
T°C	–0.83*	–0.93**	–0.83*	–0.74*	0.86**	–0.85**	–0.82*
pH	0.87**	0.92**	0.81*	0.60	–0.81*	0.87**	0.81*
DO	0.76*	0.97**	0.81*	0.74*	–0.89*	0.79**	0.91*
EC	–0.65	–0.92**	–0.76*	–0.66	0.78*	–0.69	–0.91**
Salinity	–0.71*	–0.95**	–0.77*	–0.69	0.84**	–0.74*	–0.90**
NH4+	–0.47	–0.79*	–0.52	–0.43	0.77*	–0.50	–0.73*
NO2−	–0.66	–0.92**	–0.53	–0.74*	0.79*	–0.64	–0.76*
NO3−	–0.36	–0.69	–0.66	–0.50	0.57	–0.44	–0.87**
PO3−	–0.55	–0.87**	–0.61	–0.62	0.75*	–0.57	–0.83*

Mean ± SD values of biological indices and classification of water quality at the sampling stations above and below the Beni Haroun dam in the Kebir–Rhumel wadi_ Values in bold indicate significant differences based on ANOVA_

Biological index	Above the dam				Below the dam				p-value
	R-UC	R-C	R-DC	S-TR	K-UC	K-C	K-DC	T-TR
Taxonomic richness (S)	14.00 ± 1.00	18.00 ± 1.73	13.33 ± 2.31	24.33 ± 5.13	20.33 ± 2.08	14.00 ± 1.73	23.33 ± 4.16	27.67 ± 1.53	0.006
Shannon-Wiener index (H’)	1.57 ± 0.25	1.82 ± 0.02	1.46 ± 0.43	2.19 ± 0.43	2.13 ± 0.39	2.16 ± 0.12	2.25 ± 0.21	2.57 ± 0.10	0.003
EPT index	2	2.66 ± 0.58	2.33 ± 0.58	2.66 ± 0.58	3.66 ± 0.58	2.66 ± 0.58	4	8.33 ± 1.53	0.009
Water-quality-evaluation rating	Clean	Clean	Clean	Clean	Clean	Clean	Clean	Good
EPT/(EPT + Chironomidae)	0.37 ± 0.04	0.64 ± 0.22	0.51 ± 0.16	0.65 ± 0.15	0.53 ± 0.25	0.71 ± 0.21	0.71 ± 0.31	0.76 ± 0.27	0.30
Hilsenhoff biotic index (BI)	6.41 ± 1.94	6.38 ± 1.11	7.07 ± 0.64	5.85 ± 0.09	6.29 ± 0.49	5.79 ± 0.50	5.90 ± 0.56	5.54 ± 0.57	0.34
Water-quality-evaluation rating	Fair	Fair	Poor	Fair	Fair	Fair	Fair	Fair
BMWP’ index	47.00 ± 20	64.66 ± 7.57	42.00 ± 7.21	83.33 ± 14.29	70.00 ± 16.64	47.66 ± 2.08	86.00 ± 15.62	108.66 ± 12.42	0.001
Water-quality-evaluation rating	Dubious	Passable	Dubious	Passable	Passable	Dubious	Passable	Good
ASPT index	3.52 ± 0.21	4.22 ± 0.20	3.42 ± 0.23	3.96 ± 0.24	4.74 ± 0.40	4.62 ± 0.41	4.99 ± 0.25	6.05 ± 0.28	0.0001
Water-quality-evaluation rating	Very poor	Poor	Very poor	Very poor	Poor	Poor	Poor	Good