Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:08:44.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distribution and ecology of the mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of Flanders (Belgium)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2011

Koen Lock  and
Peter L.M. Goethals
Koen Lock*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Environmental Toxicology and Aquatic Ecology, Ghent University, J. Plateaustraat 22, 9000 Gent, Belgium
Peter L.M. Goethals
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Environmental Toxicology and Aquatic Ecology, Ghent University, J. Plateaustraat 22, 9000 Gent, Belgium
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A literature survey and the identification of all available collection material resulted in a checklist and distribution maps for the mayflies occurring in Flanders. In addition, the relationship between the occurrence of mayflies and water characteristics was analysed. Of the 32 species that have been recorded, six are now extinct in Flanders (three of which are potamal species), while the majority of the remaining species are rare and their populations are often strongly isolated and therefore extremely vulnerable. Waters with relatively low oxygen levels and high conductivities were characterized by the most tolerant mayfly species Cloeon dipterum and Caenis robusta. However, most other species only occurred at higher oxygen concentrations and lower conductivities and could be separated into two groups. The first group mainly occurred in waters with a high pH and were often restricted to the loamy region or to stagnant waters, while the second group occurred in waters with a lower pH and mainly occurred in the Campine region. For most mayfly species, sustainable populations can only be achieved when their current habitats are adequately protected and, in addition, measures should be taken to connect and enlarge the remaining populations.

Keywords

Checklistdistribution mapsecoregions
Type
Research Article
Information
Annales de Limnologie - International Journal of Limnology , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , 2011 , pp. 159 - 165
Copyright
© EDP Sciences, 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bauernfeind, E. and Humpesch, U.H., 2001. Die Eintagsfliegen Zentraleuropas (Insecta: Ephemeroptera): Bestimmung und Ökologie, Verlag des Naturhistorischen Museums, Wien, 239 p.Google Scholar
Beketov, M.A., 2004. Different sensitivity of mayflies (Insecta, Ephemeroptera) to ammonia, nitrite and nitrate: linkage between experimental and observational data. Hydrobiologia, 528, 209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beketov, M.A., 2009. Cross-Eurasian and altitudinal distribution of lotic mayflies – species with wider altitudinal ranges have narrower geographical distribution. Ann. Limnol. - Int. J. Lim., 45, 209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Pauw, N. and Vanhooren, G., 1983. Method for biological quality assessment of watercourses in Belgium. Hydrobiologia, 100, 153–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Selys-Longchamps, E., 1888. Catalogue raisonné des Orthoptères et des Nevroptères de Belgique. Ann. Soc. Entomol. Belg., 32, 103–203.Google Scholar
Eiseler, B., 2005. Bildbestimmungsschlüssel für die Eintagsfliegenlarven der deutschen Mittelgebirge und des Tieflandes. Lauterbornia, 53, 1–112.Google Scholar
European Council, 2000. 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, Official Journal of the European Communities L327, 22 December 2000, Brussels, 72 p.
Gabriels, W., Lock, K., De Pauw, N. and Goethals, P.L.M., 2010. Multimetric macroinvertebrate index Flanders (MMIF) for biological assessment of rivers and lakes in Flanders (Belgium). Limnologica, 40, 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrovat, M., Urbani, G. and Sivec, I., 2009. Community structure and distribution of Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera larvae in lowland karst rivers in Slovenia. Aquat. Insects, 31, 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IBN, 1984. Biological quality of watercourses. Determination of the biotic index based on aquatic macroinvertebrates, NBN T92-402 (in Dutch and French), Belgian Institute of Normalization, Brussels, 11 p.
IUCN Species Survival Commission, 1994. IUCN Red List categories, IUCN, Gland, 21 p.PubMed
Lepori, F., Barbieri, A. and Ormerod, S.J., 2003. Effects of episodic acidification on macroinvertebrate assemblages in Swiss Alpine streams. Freshwater Biol., 48, 1873–1885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lock, K. and Goethals, P.L.M., 2008. Distribution and ecology of the stoneflies (Plecoptera) of Flanders (Belgium). Ann. Limnol. - Int. J. Lim., 44, 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maes, D. and Van Swaay, C.A.M., 1997. A new methodology for compiling national Red Lists applied to butterflies (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) in Flanders (N-Belgium) and the Netherlands. J. Insect Conserv., 1, 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maes, D., De Bruyn, L. and Kuijken, E., 2003. Red List criteria in Flanders. In: de Iongh, H.H., Bánki, O.S., Bergmans, W. and van der Werff, M.J. (eds.), Harmonization of Red lists in Europe, Proceedings International Seminar, 27–28 November 2002, The Netherlands Foundation for International Nature Protection, Mededelingen No. 38, Leiden, 217–223.Google Scholar
Menetrey, N., Oertli, B., Sartori, M., Wagner, A. and Lachavanne, J.B., 2008. Eutrophication: are mayflies (Ephemeroptera) good bioindicators for ponds? Hydrobiologia, 597, 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouton, A.M., Van der Most, H., Jeuken, A., Goethals, P.L.M. and De Pauw, N., 2008. Evaluation of river basin restoration options by the application of the water framework directive explorer in the Zwalm River basin (Flanders, Belgium). River Res. Appl., 23, 1–16.Google Scholar
Raddum, G.G. and Fjellheim, A., 1984. Acidification and early warning organisms in freshwater in western Norway. Verh. Int. Ver. Limnol., 22, 1973–1980.Google Scholar
Tachet, H., Richoux, P., Bournaud, M. and Usseglio-Polatera, P., 2000. Invertébrés d'eaux douces, Systématique, biologie, écologie, CNRS Éditions, Paris, 588 p.Google Scholar
Ter Braak, C.J.F., 1988. CANOCO – a FORTRAN program for canonical community ordination by (partial) (canonical) correspondence analysis, principal components analysis and redundancy analysis (version 2.1), Agricultural Mat. Group, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Netherlands), Wageningen, 95 p.Google Scholar
Tixier, G., Felten, V. and Guérold, F., 2009. Life cycle strategies of Baetis species (Ephemeroptera, Baetidae) in acidified streams and implications for recovery. Fund. Appl. Limnol., 174, 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VMM, 2009. MIR-T 2008 Indicator report [in Dutch], Van Steertegem, M. (red.), Environmental Report Flanders, Flemish Environment Agency, Aalst, 164 p.Google Scholar
VMM, 2010. Annual report water 2009 [in Dutch], Flemish Environment Agency. Available online at: http://www.vmm.be/pub/jaarrapport-water-2009.