preliminary distribution of ephemeroptera, plecoptera and ... papers/jtas vol. 24 (2) sep....

PertanikaJ. Trop. Agric. Sci. 24(2): 101 - 107 (2001) ISSN: 1511-3701© Universiti Putra Malaysia Press

Preliminary Distribution of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera(EPT) in Kerian River Basin, Perak, Malaysia

CHE SALMAH M R , AMELIA Z.S. & ABU HASSAN A.School of Biological Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia,

11800 Minden, Penang, Malaysia

Keywords: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, EPT, distribution, abundance, Kerian River Basin

ABSTRAK

Kajian permulaan terhadap tiga order serangga akuatik, Ephemeroptera (lalat Met), Plecoptera (lalat batu) danTrichoptera (lalat kandul) (EFT) telah dijalankan di I^embangan Sungai Kerian (LSK) di sempadan negeriKedah-Perak di Semenanjung Malaysia. Ephemeroptera yang terdiri daripada enam famili, 10 genus dan 460individu adalah order yang paling dominan di situ. Sungguhpun Plecoptera dan Trichoptera diwakili olehbilangan famili yang sama, lalat batu didapati lebih limpah di lembangan sungai tersebut. Mengikut turutankelimpahan lalat batu Tetropina, lalat Mei Caenis, dan Centroptilum, dan lalat kandul Macrostemumadalah paling dominan. Kepelbagaian fauna EFT berjulat L41 - 2.65 (H*) dengan taburan yang berbeza(ANOVA, F15 34O = 1.68) pada P= 0.05 dan kesamaan taburan yang tak sekata (Indeks Kesamaan berjulat 0.15-0.95). Indeks kekayaan EFT adalah rendah di semua sungai dan nilai indeks FBI mengkategorikan kualiti airsungai sebagai sederhana tercemar sehingga kualiti yang sangat baik.

ABSTRACT

A preliminary study on three aquatic insect orders, Ephemeroptera (mayfly), Plecoptera (stonejly) and Trichoptera(caddisfly) (EFT) was carried out in Kerian River Basin (KRB), at the border of Kedah-Perak states, inPeninsular Malaysia. Ephemeroptera comprising six families of 10 genera and 460 individuals was the mostdominant order. Although both Plecoptera and Trichoptera was represented by similar number of families,stoneflies ivere found to be more abundant in the river basin. In order of abundance, stonejly Tetropina, mayfliesCaenis, and centroptilum, and caddisfly Macrostemum were the most common geneva. The diversity of theEPT fauna ranged 1.41 - 2.65 xoith significantly different distribution (ANOVA, F w ^ - 1.68) at P= 0.05 andfairly unevenly distributed (Evennes Index Ranged 0.15-0.95). The EFT Richness indices were in low ranges inall river and the FBI scores categorised the water quality of river in this river basin as moderately polluted toexcellent.

INTRODUCTION

Among the macroinvertebrates, insects are themost successful inhabitants of fresh water envi-ronment. This is demonstrated by their compo-sitions and abundance, broad distribution andtheir ability to exploit most types of aquatichabitats (Wallace Anderson 1996). TheEphemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera(EPT) are insect orders that recently have beenproposed for biological monitoring of waterquality especially in pristine areas (Lenat 1988).The mayflies are categorised as a primitive wingedinsect while stoneflies are primarily associatedwith clean and cool running water. Caddisflies is

one of the largest group of aquatic insects (Morseet al. 1994) inhabiting aquatic ecosystem frommoderately poor to good water quality.

Composition and distribution of EPT is de-termined by their physical-chemical tolerance toan array of environmental factors (Dudgeon1984; Hyness 1976). Their distribution variesdue to availability and types of microhabitats. Asaquatic insects tend to remain in their originalhabitats, they are affected by local changes inwater quality. By assessing the diversity and com-position of indicator species such as EPT, it ispossible to determine the status of water qualityof an aquatic system.

CHE SALMAH M.R., AMELIA Z.S. & ABU HASSAN A.

Aquatic insects are not widely studied espe-cially in the northern region of Peninsular Ma-laysia. This research provided a preliminaryrecord of the EPT of the KRB. Their composi-tion and distribution in several river basins wouldindicate their specificity towards available habi-tats or microhabitats in the area thus reflectingtheir affinity towards certain parameters of theenvironment. The implication of the distribu-tion was compared to water quality categoriza-tion using other biological indices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study AreaThe Kerian River basin (5° 09'N - 5° 21'N and100° 36.5'E - 100°46.8'E) consists of two mainrivers; Kerian and Selama (Fig. 1). The SelamaRiver meets Kerian River approximately at themiddle of the basin and continues westward tothe Straits of Malacca. Kerian River, the mainrivers that border the states of Kedah and Perak,starts from the hilly headwaters in Mahang,Kedah while the Selama River originates fromhilly areas in Selama, Perak. Several tributariescontribute to the flow of these two rivers. Six-teen of them, Chelong, Incong, Air Puteh, Salleh,Air Itam, Damak, Siputeh, Nor, Selama, Relau,Mengkuang, Charok Merah, Taka, Kangar,Mahang and Serdang rivers were selected assampling sites. Except for Serdang which is cat-egorized as second order, all other rivers arefirst order rivers. They flow through forestedareas, rubber and oil palm plantations, orchards,several newly constructed settlement areas andvillages down to the Kerian Valley in Parit Buntar,Perak before entering the sea. Some of therivers receive inflows of rice field drainage ca-nals. Dominant riparian vegetation in the basinsare oil palm, Athocarpus sp., Ipomea sp., tapioca,banana, wild rambutan (Nephelium lappacaeum)and rubber. Hydrilla is a dominant aquatic growthin several sampling stations.

Sampling of InsectsThe mayflies (Ephemeroptera) , stoneflies(Plecoptera) and caddisflies (Trichoptera) werecollected along a 100 m stretch of each stationby kick sampling techniques from September1998 until May, 1999. Two stations were selectedin each river and 10 samples were collected ineach station. The sample size represented ap-proximately 75% of the total insect taxa fromeach habitat which was below 40% standard

error acceptable for benthic sampling (Elliot1973; Furse et al 1984). The kick net (500 mmmesh) was placed against water current andabout a meter square area immediately in frontof the net was disturbed for approximately 3minutes (Davis and Simon 1995). The insectscollected in the net were sorted in the laborataryand transferred into universal bottles containing80% ETOH. They were identified to generausing keys of Merrit and Cummins (1996); Morseet al (1994); McCafferty (1981); Edmondson(1683); and Usinger (1956). Differences in dis-tribution of the EPT among rivers were analysedusing a one way ANOVA. Selected biologicalindices were calculated to examine the structureof EPT community (Ludwig and Reynolds 1988)and scores of Family Biotic Index (FBI)(Hilsenhoff 1988) and EPT taxa richness (Morseet al 1994) were used to categorize the quality ofwater of the rivers.

Measurement of Water ParametersSeveral water parameters were measured to in-vestigate the properties of aquatic habitat thatpossibly influenced the distribution of EPT inthis river basin. They were also used to justifythe reliabilities of scores of biological indices ondata collected. Dissolved oxygen and water tem-peratures were measured using an oxygen meter(YSI-55). Water conductivity was recorded by aTDS meter (YSI-44600). A Toledo pH meter wasused to measure the pH of the water and pen-etration of light on water surface was measuredusing a lux meter. A measuring tape was used torecord the width and depth of the river andwater flow was recorded using a hydoprop flowmeter (MK-11-90 cm).

RESULTS

Ephemeroptera was the most abundant amongthe three orders in this river basin comprisingmore than half of the total number of all indi-viduals collected (Table 1). Six genera repre-senting six families of mayflies were recorded(Appendix 1). Plecoptera was relatively abun-dant, making up approximately 30% of totalcollection. Trichoptera contributed 18% of totalEPT in the area. Dominant mayfly genera wereidentified (Table 2) and the most dominantamong the three, Caenis had more than twicethe number of the other two genera combined.However, although Plecoptera was fewer innumber than the Ephemeroptera, Tetropina out-

102 PERTANIKAJ, TROP. AGRIC SCI. VOL. 24 NO. 2, 2001

PRELIMINARY DISTRIBUTION OF EPHEMEROPTERA, PLECOPTERA AND TRICHOPTERA (EPT)

numbered all other dominant genera of EPT.Caddisfly Macrostemum was relatively numerousin the Kerian River Basin. Appendix 1 showsdetail distribution of EPT in all sixteen riverssampled. Caenis was widely distributed in all butMahang River. Tetropina was not collected fromsix rivers but was found in abundance inMengkuang River. Macrostemum preferred NorRiver and was hardly found in other rivers. Aone way ANOVA indicated that the distributionof EPT was significantly different among rivers(F15340= 1.68) atP=0.05.

The EPT in this river basin were moderatelydiverse (H' range 1.41-2.65, D' range 0.45-0.16)with a relatively uneven distribution. The EPTrichness Index was slightly low indicating theareas were slightly to seriously impacted (EPTRichness Index of 5-10, Davis and Simon 1995).

Based on FBI scores, the water quality in thesetributaries however was still in a relatively goodcondition with six rivers having excellent waterquality (Category I), two rivers with slightlycontaminated with organic matter (Category II)and the rest of the rivers moderately pollutedwith organic matter (Category III) (Table 3).

In general dissolved oxygen in the water wasin good range in all rivers. The temperaturedifference was within 6°C which possibly relatedto the time of temperature recording. Waterconductivities were in low ranges reflecting littlecontamination. The water however was slightlyacidic in Mengkuang, Kangar, and Charok Merahrivers to acidic such as in Chelong and Sallehrivers. Current velocities were relatively slow inmany rivers that might implicate sampling sta-tions were in depositional zones. Most of the

TABLE 1Composition and abundance of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and

Trichoptera in Kerian River Basin

ORDER/Fainily

EPHEMEROPTERALepthophlebiidaePothamanthidaeHeptageniidaeBaetidaeCaenidaeSiphlonuridaePLECOPTERAPerlidaePerlodidaePeltoperlidaeUnidentifiedTRICHOPTERAPolycentropodidaeHydropsychidaeLimnephilidae

TOTAL

Abundance (Numbers)

Family

6

111111

3111-4111

13

Genus

6

-141-11

-

413-

11

Individual

460 (52.04%)651221180181

1263 (29.57%)

247919

161 (18.21%)3211316

884 (100%)

TABLE 2Dominant genera of the EPT in Kerian River Basin

ORDER

EPHEMEROPTERA

PLECOPTERATRICHOPTERA

Family

Baetidae

CaenidaePerlidaePolycentropodidaeHydropsyhidae

Genus

BaetisCentropilumCaenisTetropinaPolycentropusHydropsycheMacrostemum

Individual

6293181247322191

Total

336247

144

PERTANIKAJ. TROP. AGRIC. SCI. VOL. 24 NO. 2, 2001 103

CHE SALMAH M.R., AMELIA Z.S. & ABU HASSAN A.

TABLE 3Scores of biological indices on EPT of Kerian River Basin

River

ChelongInchongSerdangAir PutehSallehAir I tarnDamakSiputehNor 1.91SelamaKangarMahangRelauMengkuangCharok MerahTaka

Shannon'sIndex (Hf)

2.562.142.462.482.652.522.102.380.251.412.572.162.462.372.592.65

Simpson'sIndex (D*)

0.230.180.260.160.300.240.420.360.910.420.180.200.230.380.450.22

EvennessIndex (E)

0.790.520.610.250.400.610.900.52

70.380.350.170.15 •0.950.480.48

EPT RichnessIndex

7

7566109

4.47 (III)87756105

Family BioticIndex (category)

3.70 (1)5.72 (III)5.37 (III)5.00(111)4.26 (III)5.11(111)1.93 (I)3.37 (I)

4.24 (II)3.39 (I)3.13 (I)

4.46 (III)1.78 (I)3.93 (I)

5.48 (III)

TABLE 4Water parameters and morphologies of the rivers in Kerian River Basin

River

ChelongInchongAir PutehSerdangSallehAir ItamRelauMengkuangNorSiputehDamakSelamaC. MerahTakaKangarMahang

Dissolvedoxygen(mg/1)

6.20-7.506.70-7.456.50-7.506.10-7.604.40-4.706.50-6.806.84-6.867.78-7.856.50-6.807.50-7.707.10-7.308.10-8.157.41-7.476.17-6.238.36-8.448.56-8.57

Temperature

27.0-28.029.0-30.027.0-29.026.0-30.026.0-27.028.0-29.038.1-28.526.2-26.6

26.027.0-28.0

27.026.0-27.026.8-27.028.7-29.4

24.024.3-24.5

P H

4.40-4.455.40-5.504.43-4.525.24-5.384.10-4.135.05-5.075.47-5.496.63-6.675.40-5.545.18-5.375.36-5.545.58-5.655.89-5.865.65-5.716.10-6.254.82-4.88

LightPenetration

(lux)

6.13-6191156-1558310-424259-760177-263458-508848-856653-852

1112-1240235-270115-193394-407418-428

540290-292250-252

Conductivity(M»)

23-2850

27-2835-37

5040

40-5012-2010-1218-2020-4020-30

6035-4018-2018-20

Width

(m)

2.358.0012.0011.5011.506.507.5011.003.7018.506.40

25.006.304.8016.0010.50

Depth

(m)

2.751.402.504.601.401.000.605.000.804.004.002.500.600.851.202.00

Velocity

(m/s)

0.0040.020.020.0290.0130.026

***

0.0040.1710.0190.0170.1550.0050.0360.0640.045

*** no measurement made

sampling stations were partially shaded. Analysisof Pearson Correlation indicated that there wasno correlation of water parameters with thedistribution of EPT between rivers at P=0.05.Except for low water pHs, many of the riverswould make suitable habitats for the EPT.

DISCUSSION

A relatively abundant EPT fauna in KRB wasquite diverse. Epheroptera was the most domi-nant orders of EPT in the area. Although theywere differently distributed among rivers, anumber of mayfly genera such as Caenis,Centroptilum and Baetis were collected in most ofthe river studied. In general mayfly are nearlycosmopolitan. The larvae of various species in-

104 PERTANIKAJ. TROP. AGRIC. SCI. VOL. 24 NO. 2, 2001


habit an extensive range of standing and run-ning fresh waters. Some of them burrow insubstrates while others sprawl amongst fine sedi-ment and detritus. Most mayfly larvae are collec-tors or scrapers and feed on a variety of detritus,some macrophyte and animal material (Dudg-eon 1984; Merrit and Cummins 1996; Hong1994). A few species are true carnivores. Baetisfor example, occurs in permanent, flowing waterand its species are most common in the clearwater of cold streams. Some Baetis species to-gether with Centroptilum and Caenis however livein erosional and depositional regions of rivers.They feed mostly by scraping algae and collect-ing diatoms and fine paniculate detritus fromsolid surfaces. Many rivers in the KRB are slowflowing which would represent the depositionalhabitats that were suitable for these geneva.

Ephemeropterans are preys for carnivorousaquatic insects such as stoneflies (Stewart andStark 1993). Selective pressures due to preda-tion have resulted in behavioral responses byprey species. Some mayflies react to predators bydrifting or by displaying scorpion - like threatpostures (Peckarsky 1980; Peckarsky and Dodson1980). Mayflies can apparently detect predatorsby non-contact chemical cues. They may be ableto distinguish between predaceous anddetritivorous stoneflies that have a similar bodyform. Suitable habitats in the KRB, behavioraladaption and sensitivity towards chemical cuesmay have contributed to the abundance ofephemeropterans in this river basin.

The distribution of stoneflies is rather re-stricted due to their preference for clean, lowertemperature flowing water. Several species how-ever, have adapted to living in warm and organi-cally enriched environment (Harper 1994). Theytend to prefer specific substract type and streamsize or stream reach. Microhabitats preferenceinclude boulder surfaces, cobble and gravel in-terstices, debris accumulations and leaf packs aswell as the hyporheal. Perlidae was the mostabundant Plecopterans found in selected fewrivers in the river basin such as Mengkuang,Damak, Kangar and Siputeh. Obviously they haveadapted to living in fine sand and muddysubstrates that represent habitats in those rivers.Most members of this family are engulfers thatare herbivores-detritivors or carnivores through-out nymphal development. Stonefly carnivoressubsist primarily on chironomid and mayfly lar-vae (Stewart and Stark 1993) that thrive in habi-

tats found in many rivers in the KRB. As agroup, stoneflies have diversified their food hab-its such that the different species fill about everyconceivable major food niche in streams. Manyspecies shift from herbivory-detritivory in laterperiods. However, some species such asPteronarcella badia was herbivory-detritivorythrough their development and other speciessuch as Claassenia sbulosa and Hesperoperla pacificawere carnivores throughout development (Fullerand Stewart 1977; 1979).

A member of the third order , theTrichoptera (caddisfly) occurs in most types offreshwater habitats such as streams and seepageareas, river, lakes, marshes and temporary pools.Many of them have exploited freshwater habitatsthat are larger, warmer and more lentic. Somelarvae are mainly predaceous. Generally larvalTrichoptera show little selectivity of food theyare highly and diversely specialized for foodacquisition (Morse et al. 1994). In the KRB,Macrostemum was abundant in Nor River thathad a lot of decaying leaves and tree branches,submerged tree stumps and macrophytes alongriver margins. A net spinner that usually lives infixed retreats is a collector-filterer of fineparticulate organic matter that usually clings toits substrate. It is widely distributed in lotic watererosional zone such as that found in Nor River.Hydropsyhe was the next common genus of thiscaddisfly in this area. This genus is probablyquite tolerant and widespread in distribution. InLangat River in the state of Selangor, H. annulataand H. doctersiweve very commonly found (Rahim1992).

Categorization of a river's water quality us-ing the EPT richness index in this study was notconclusive mainly due to inability to identifyspecimens to species. For example, 247 individu-als of Tetropina and Caenis could represent morethan species. The number of taxa (species) isimportant since a richer community would re-flect a healthier environment of unimpactedwater. The FBI however, classified the water insixteen rivers into three categories I, II and IIIimplicating the water was without, slightly andmoderately polluted with organic matter respec-tively. The classification of water using the FBItoo needs to be interpreted with caution be-cause the tolerance values used to calculate theindex was based on those assigned for Wiscon-sin's insect (Hilsenhoff 1988). It has been proventhat ecoregions influenced the scores of such


CHE SALMAH M.R., AMELIA Z.S. & ABU HASSAN A

indices (Lenat 1988; 1993; 1994). Neverthelessthese values could be used as guidelines untilmore appropriate values are available forMalaysian insects.

Within range of water parameters in thisstudy, no significant correlation between distri-bution of EPT taxa and water parameters wasdetected, and no trend of any water parameterthat might influence categorization of waterquality was observed. Except for slightly lowerriver basin is relatively in good condition.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe contribution of Mr Hazdri Abdullah duringfieldwork is highly appreciated. This researchwas funded by the Government of Malaysia IRPAGrant No. 280-6107-0121 of the first and thirdauthor.

REFERENCES

BISHOP, J.E. 1973. Limnology of Small MalayanRiver, Sungai Gombak. Dr. W. Junk B.V. Publ.,The Hague.

DAVIS, W. S. and T. P. SIMON, 1995. BiologicalAssessment and Criteria. Lewis Publ. CRC PressInc.

DUDGEON, D. 1984. Longitudinal and temporalchanges in functional organization of themacroinvertebrate communities in the TsuenRiver, Hong Kong. Hydrobiologia 111 : 207-317.

EATON, L. E. and D. R. LENAT. 1991. Comparisonof rapid bioassessment method with NorthCarolina's qualitative macroinvertebrate col-lection methods./ North Am. Benthol. Soc. 10(30): 335-338.

EDMONDSON, W. T. 1963. Freshwater Biology. 2nd

Edition. New Delhi, India: InternationalBooks Periodicals Supply Service.

ELLIOT, J. M. 1973. Some methods for statiscalanalysis samples of benthic invertebrates,Freshwater Associated Society Publications.25.

FULLER, R. L. and K W. STEWART. 1977. The foodhabits of stoneflies (Plecoptera) in the up-per Gunnison River, Colorado. Environ.EntomoL 6: 193-302.

FULLER, R. L. and K. W. STEWART. 1979. Stonefly(Plecoptera) food habits and prey prefer-ence in the Colores river, Colorado. Am.MidL Nat. 101: 170-181.

FURSE, M. T., D. MORSE, J. F. WRIGHT and P. D.

ARMITAGE. 1984. The influence of seasonaland taxonomic factors of the prediction totheir macro-invertebrate communities.FreshwaL Biol. 14: 257-280.

HARPER, P.P. 1994. Plecoptera. In Aquatic Insectsof China Useful for Monitoring Water Quality.eds. Morse, J.C., Y. Lianfang and T. Lixin.Nanjing, China: Hohai Univ. Press.

HILSENHOFF, W.L. 1988. Rapid field assessment oforganic pollution with family level bioticindex./. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 791: 65-68.

HONG. G. 1994. Ephemeroptera. In Aquatic In-sects of China Useful for Monitoring Water Qual-ity, eds. Morse, J.C., Y. Lianfang and T.Lixin. Nanjing, China: Hohai Univ. Press.

HYNESS, H.B.N. 1976. Biology of Plecoptera. Ann.Rev. EnL 21: 135-153.

LENAT, D.R. 1988. Water quality assessment ofstreams using a qualitative collection methodfor benthic macroinvertebrates. / N. Am,Benthol. Soc. 7(3): 222-233.

LENAT, D.R. 1993. A biotic index for southernUnited States: Derivation and list of toler-ance with criteria for assigning water qualityratings./ North Benthol. Soc. 12: 279-290.

LENAT, D.R. 1994. Using insect to monitor waterquality. In Aquatic Insects of China Useful forMonitoring Water Quality, eds. Morse, J.C., Y.Lianfang and T. Lixin. Nanjing, China:Hohai Univ. Press.

LUDWIG, J.A and J.F. REYNOLDS 1988. StatisticalEcology. A Primer on Method and Computing.John Wiley and Sons Inc.

MCCAFFERTY, W.P. 1981. Aquatic Entomology. TheFisherman's and Ecologist Illustrated Guide toInsect and their Relatives. Boston, Massachu-setts: Science Books Intern.

MERRIT, R.W. and K.W. CUMMINS. 1996. An Intro-duction to Aquatic Insects of North America. 3rded. Dubuque, IA, Kendall/Hunt Pub.

106 PERTANIKAJ. TROP, AGRIC. SCI. VOL. 24 NO. 2, 2001


MORSE, J.C., Y. LIANFANG and T. LIXIN. 1994.

Aquatic Insect of China Useful for MonitoringWater Quality. Nanjing, China: Hohai Univ.Press.

PECKARSKY, B.L. 1980. Predatory interactions be-tween stoneflies and mayflies: behavioralobservations. Ecology 61: 932-943.

PECKARSKY, B.L and S.I. DODSON. 1980. Do stoneflypredators influence benthic distributions instreams? Ecology 61: 1275-1282.

RAHIM, A.B.I. 1992. Taxonomic and biologicalstudies on caddisflies (Trichoptera: Insecta)from Peninsular Malaysia. Ph. D. disserta-tion, University of Wales, College of Cardiff,U.K.

STEWART K.W. and B.P. STARK. 1993. Nymphs ofNorth American stonefly genera(Plecoptera). Denton, Texas, USA: Univer-sity of North Texas Press.

USINGER, R.L. 1956. Aquatic Insects of California,Berkeley, Univ. Calif. Press.

WALLACE, J.B. and N.H. ANDERSON. 1996. Habitat,life history and behavioral adaptions ofaquatic insects. In An Introduction to AquaticInsects of North America, eds. Merrit, R.W. andK.W. Cummins (3rd Ed). Dubuque, IA,Kendall/Hunt Pub.


preliminary distribution of ephemeroptera, plecoptera and ... papers/jtas vol. 24 (2) sep....

Documents