4.6 Article

Application of the mean individual biomass (MIB) of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) to assess the recovery process of the Guadiamar Green Corridor (southern Iberian Peninsula)

Journal

BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION
Volume 16, Issue 14, Pages 4131-4146

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-007-9211-5

Keywords

carabid beetles; environmental assessment; soil fauna; toxic spill; MIB index

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This research is part of the Guadiamar River Basin (S Iberian Peninsula) Recovery Monitoring Programme. The main aim of this Program is to establish whether the management of the area affected by the Aznalcollar mining accident (1998) has indeed led to a regeneration process and to select applicable parameters for the future following program. The Carabidae Family was selected to analyse these questions since it is one of the most effective bio-indicator taxa belonging to the soil fauna. Previous research carried out in different areas from Europe suggested that the mean individual biomass (MIB) of ground beetles could be used as a suitable measure to assess the environment stage. This paper analyses the progress made by the ground beetles community 6 years after the disaster and aims to validate the usefulness of MIB as a means of assessing the recovery process of the Guadiamar Green Corridor. To evaluate changes in the research area over time, correlation and classification analysis have been performed. Indices commonly used in population dynamics were calculated in addition to the MIB. Results allow us to infer two conclusions: (I) The area as a whole is undergoing a significant recovery process. However, this process has not yet reached the expected levels of a non-affected basin in the southern Iberian Peninsula. (II) The application of the MIB index of Carabid beetles could be a useful tool to assess long-term environmental changes. However, this proposal requires further validation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available