Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …


12 Issues per year

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 71, Issue 1


The use of BMWP and ASPT indices for evaluation of water quality according to macroinvertebrates in Küçük Menderes River (Turkey)

Naime Arslan / Ali Salur / Hasan Kalyoncu
  • Department of Biology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Deniz Mercan / Burcu Barişik / Deniz A. Odabaşi
  • Department of Fisheries Engineering, Faculty of Marine Sciences and Technology, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-02-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/biolog-2016-0005


This study was carried out in the Küçük Menderes River basin in order to determine the water quality and investigate the environmental quality and the applicability of both the Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) and Average Score Per Taxon (ASPT). Monitoring took place in May, July and September 2014 at 10 stations (7 rivers and 3 lakes) according to the method of Intercalibration Common Metrics. Some metrics (BMWP, ASPT, Family Biotic Index, Simpson Diversity Index, Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index, Margalef Diversity Index, dominance, frequency and existence of sensitive species) were calculated. In total, 69 taxa comprising 5,814 individuals were detected. The taxa having the highest frequency rate were Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri (70%), Chironomus (Camptochironomus) tentans (70%), Psammoryctides albicola (60%), Physella acuta (60%), Nais elinguis (60%) and Stylaria lacustris (50%), which are alpha mesosaprobic and polysaprobic species, respectively. The presence and high dominance and frequency rate of these species have indicated basin pollution. Positive indicator species for water quality are Gomphus schneideri, Trithemis annulata, Lindenia tetraphylla, Orthetrum cancellatum, Hydropsyche angustipennis, Cricotopus (Cricotopus) fuscus and Cricotopus (Cricotopus) annulator, while negative indicator species are Culex pipiens, Chironomus (Camptoch.) tentans, Chironomus thummi, Stylaria lacustris and Eristalis tenax. Habitat quality of the Küçük Menderes River basin was not high (it was found to be heavily polluted/polluted/slightly polluted according to the physicochemical data, BMWP and ASPT) due to physical habitat degradation, urban waste waters, touristic, seasonal dwelling and agricultural activities.

Key words: Küçük Menderes River; benthic macroinvertebrates; biodiversity indices; BMWP; ASPT

The paper was presented at the 13th International Symposium on Aquatic Oligochaeta, Brno, Czech Republic, 7–11 September, 2015


  • APHA. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th edition. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C., 1325 pp. ISBN: 0875532357, 9780875532356Google Scholar

  • AQEM Consortium. 2002. Manual for the Application of the AQEM System. A Comprehensive Method to Assess European Streams Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Developed for the Purpose of the Water Framework Directive. Version 1.0., 202 pp.

  • Armitage P.D., Moss D., Wright J.F. & Furse M.T. 1983. The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running water sites. Water Res. 17 (3): 333–347. DOI: 10.1016/0043-1354(83)90188-4CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Armitage P., Cranston P.S. & Pinder L.C.V. 1995. The Chironomidae: The Biology and Ecology of Non-biting Midges. Chapman & Hall, New York, 572 pp. ISBN: 0-412-45260Google Scholar

  • Aygen C. & Balık S. 2002. A new record for the freshwater ostracod fauna of Turkey: Hungarocypris madaraszi (Örley, 1886) (Crustacea: Ostracoda), Zool. Middle East 25 (1): 49–52. DOI: 10.1080/09397140.2002.10637904CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Balık S., Ustaoğlu M.R., Özbek M., Yıldız S., Ta¸sdemir A. &˙Ilhan A. 2006. Küçük Menderes Nehri’nin (Selçuk, ˙Izmir) A¸sağı Havzasındaki Kirliliğin Makro Bentik Omurgasızlar Kullanılarak Saptanması [Determination of pollution at lower basin of Küçük Menderes River (Selçuk, ˙Izmir) by using macro benthic invertebrates]. E.U. Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 23 (1-2): 61–65.Google Scholar

  • Bellan-Santini D. 1969. Contribution à l’étude des peuplements infralittoraux sur substrats rocheux (étude qualitative et quantitative de la frange supérieure). Recueil des Travaux de la Station Marine d’Endoum 63 (47): 9–294.Google Scholar

  • Callisto M., Moreno P. & Barbosa F.A.R. 2001. Habitat diversity and benthic functional trophic groups at Serra do Cipó, southeast Brazil. Rev. Bras. Biol. 61 (2): 259–266. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-71082001000200008

  • Çamur Elipek B., Arslan N., Kırgız T., Öterler B., Güher H. & Özkan N. 2010. Analysis of benthic macroinvertebrates in relation to environmental variables of Lake Gala, a National Park of Turkey. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 10: 235–243. DOI: 10.4194/trjfas.2010.0212CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Czeniawska-Kusza I. 2005. Comparing modified biological monitoring working party score system and several biological indices based on macroinvertebrates for water quality assessment. Limnologica 35 (3): 169–176. DOI: 10.1016/j.limno. 2005.05.003CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dugel M. & Kazancı N. 2004. Assessment of water quality of the Büyük Menderes River (Turkey) by using ordination and classification of macroinvertebrates and environmental variables. J. Freshwater Ecol. 19 (4): 1–8. DOI: 10.1080/02705060.2004.9664741CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Duran M. 2006. Monitoring water quality using benthic macroin-vertebrates and physicochemical parameters of the Behzat Stream (Tokat, N Turkey). Polish J. Environ. Stud. 15 (5): 709–717.Google Scholar

  • Duran M. & Suiçmez M. 2007. Utilization of both macroinvertebrates and physicochemical parameters for evaluating water quality of the Stream Çekerek (Tokat, Turkey). J. Environ. Biol. 28 (2): 231–236. PMID: 17915756Google Scholar

  • Hammer Ø., Harper D.A.T. & Ryan P.D. 2001. Past: palaentological statistical software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica 4(1): art. 4, 9 pp.Google Scholar

  • Hellawell J.M. 1986. Biological Indicators of Freshwater Pollution and Environmental Management. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, NY, 546 pp. ISBN: 978-94-010-8417-8Google Scholar

  • Kalyoncu H. & Gulboy H. 2009. Benthic macroinvertebrates from Darıoren and Isparta streams (Isparta/Turkey) – biotic indices and multivariate analysis. J. Appl. Biol. Sci. 3(1): 79–86.Google Scholar

  • Kazancı N., Türkmen G., Ertunç Ö., Ekingen P., Öz B. &Gültutan Y. 2010. Su Çerçeve Direktifi kapsamındaki taban büyük omurgasızlarına dayalı yöntemlerin uygulanması ile Ye¸silırmak Nehri’nin ekolojik kalitesinin belirlenmesi [Assessment of ecological quality of Ye¸silırmak River (Turkey) by using macroinvertebrate-based methods in the content of Water Framework Directive] Rev. Hydrobiol. 3(2): 89–110.Google Scholar

  • Kazancı N., Turkmen G., Ekingen P. & Ba¸soren O. 2013. Preparation of a biotic index (Ye¸silırmak-BMWP) for water quality monitoring of Ye¸silırmak River (Turkey) by using benthic macroinvertebrates. Rev. Hydrobiol. 6(1): 1–29.Google Scholar

  • Korycińska M. & Królak E. 2006. The use of various biotic indices for evaluation of water quality in the lowland rivers of Poland (exemplified by the Liwiec River). Polish J. Environ. Stud. 15 (3): 419–428.Google Scholar

  • Mason C.F. 2002. Biology of Freshwater Pollution. 4th ed. Prentice Hall, New York, USA, 400 pp. ISBN-10: 0130906395, ISBN-13: 978-0130906397Google Scholar

  • Ozbek M. & Ustaoglu R. 2001. ˙Izmir ˙Ili ve Civarı Tatlısu Malacostraca (Crustacea) Faunası (Amphipoda Hariç) [Freshwater Malacostraca (Crustacea) fauna of ˙Izmir Province and adjacent areas (except Amphipoda)]. Anadolu University Journal of Science and Technology 2(1): 19–25.Google Scholar

  • Paisley M.F., Trigg D.J. & Walley W.J. 2013. Revision of the Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) Score System: Derivation of present-only and abundance-related scores from field data. River Res. Appl. 30 (7): 887–904. DOI: 10.1002/rra.2686CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Plafkin J.L., Barbour M.T, Porter K.D., Gross S.K. & Hughes R.M. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Offce of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC, USA, 179 pp.Google Scholar

  • Richardson R.E. 1928. The bottom fauna of the Middle Illinois River 1913–1925; its distribution, abundance, variation and index value in the study of stream pollution. Illinois Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull. 17: 387–475.Google Scholar

  • Robinson W.H. 2005. Urban Insects and Arachnids. A Handbook of Urban Entomology. Cambridge University Press, 480 pp. ISBN: 9780521812535Google Scholar

  • Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment and Forest. 2012.Surface Water Quality Management Regulation.

  • Soyer J. 1970. Bionomie benthique du plateau continental de la côte catalane française. III. Les peuplements de Copépodes harpacticoides (Crustacea). Vie et Milieu B21 (2): 337–511.Google Scholar

  • Stribling J.B., Jessup K.B. & White J.S. 1998. Development of a Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for Maryland Streams. Report No. CBWP-EA-98-3. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division, Annapolis, MD, USA, 62 pp.Google Scholar

  • Svensson J.M., Bergman E. & Andersson G. 1999. Impact of cyprinid reduction on the benthic macroinvertebrate community and implications for increased nitrogen retention. Hydro-biologia 404: 99–112. DOI: 10.1023/A:1003772529654CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Šporka F. 2003. Vodné bezstavovce (makroevertebrata) Slovenska, súpis druhov a autekologické charakteristiky. Slovak Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Checklist and Catalogue of Autecological Notes. Slovenský hydrometeorologický ústav, Bratislava, 590 pp. ISBN: 80-88907-37-3Google Scholar

  • Türkmen G. & Kazancı N. 2010. Applications of various biodiversity indices to benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in streams of a national park in Turkey. Rev. Hydrobiol. 3(2): 111–125.Google Scholar

  • WFD. 2000. The EU Water Framework Directive – 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Offcial Journal of the European Communities: L 327, 22.12.2000. P. 0001–0073. http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000 L0060 (accessed 10.09.2015)Google Scholar

  • Woodiwiss F.S. 1964. The biological system of stream classification used by the Trent River Board. Chemistry and Industry 11: 443–447.Google Scholar

  • Yıldız S., Özbek M., Ta¸sdemir A. & Balik S. 2010. Identification of predominant environmental factors structuring benthic macroinvertebrate communities: A case study in the Küçük Menderes coastal wetland (Turkey). Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 19 (1): 30–36.Google Scholar

  • Zeybek M., Kalyoncu H., Karaka¸s B. & Özgül S. 2014.The use of BMWP and ASPT indices for evaluation of water quality according to macroinvertebrates in Değirmendere Stream (Isparta, Turkey). Turk. J. Zool. 38: 603–613. DOI: 10.3906/zoo-1310-9CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2015-10-16

Accepted: 2015-11-13

Published Online: 2016-02-25

Published in Print: 2016-01-01

Citation Information: Biologia, Volume 71, Issue 1, Pages 49–57, ISSN (Online) 1336-9563, ISSN (Print) 0006-3088, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/biolog-2016-0005.

Export Citation

2016 Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in