4.7 Article

Integrative assessment of Western Himalayas streams using multimeric index

Journal

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
Volume 63, Issue -, Pages 386-397

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.12.016

Keywords

Multimeric; Bioassessment; Himalayan; Fish diversity; Biotic index

Funding

  1. Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multimeric index based on fish composition was used to assess integrity of shallow and wadeable streams of lower Himalayas in temperate and subtropical ecoregions. Streams were surveyed for biotic and abiotic sampling during base flow periods in pre and post monsoon seasons in 2007 and 2008. Twenty three metrics were computed based on taxonomic richness, trophic composition, habitat preferences, abundance, stress tolerance and species origin attributes of 19 fish species. Candidate metrics were analyzed for efficiency to discriminate degraded sites from non-degraded and redundancy analysis, which sorted 71% of omnivore individuals (excluding intolerant species), 40% of intolerant individuals, 44% of herbivore individuals (excluding benthic species), abundance and 44.5% of non-native individuals as potential metrics. IBI values at forest, agriculture and urban zones were ranged between (max-min) 9.9-3.22, 6.18-2.49 and 4.43-0.69 respectively. Results suggested that poor ecological conditions in streams were generally related to drainage of urban sewage and habitat fragmentation while agriculture land use seems to have moderate impact on ecological integrity of the streams. Less urbanized upstream with grasslands and forests as land use, showed excellent to good ecological integrity of the streams. Proposed index was able to distinguish varying degrees of human impact on ecological integrity of streams and thus index could be used as valuable tool for bioassessment of regional flowing water resources. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available