Apeer-reviewed open-access journal

BioRisk 14: 1-14 (2019) 2 1
doi: 10.3897/biorisk.14.30319 RESEARCH ARTICLE & B | O RP IS k

https://biorisk.pensoft.net

Impact of hydromorphological pressures on the
macrophytes bioindicators of the ecological water
quality in Mediterranean rivers

Maissour Abdellah', Benamar Saad!

| Laboratoire des Sciences Environnementales Végétales et Urbaines (LSEVU), Ecole Normale Supérieure de
Fes, Université Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah, B.P 5206 Bensouda, Fes, Morocco

Corresponding author: Benamar Saad (saad.benamar@usmba.ac.ma)

Academic editor: Josef Settele | Received 4 October 2018 | Accepted 10 April 2019 | Published 9 May 2019

Citation: Maissour A, Benamar S (2019) Impact of hydromorphological pressures on the macrophytes bioindicators of
the ecological water quality in Mediterranean rivers. BioRisk 14: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3897/biorisk.14.30319

Abstract

One of the important tools to evaluate the ecological quality of surface water is the Macrophytes indi-
ces based on the bioindication capacity of aquatic plants. In Mediterranean rivers (France, Spain, and
Portugal), the development of some macrophytes indices like Indice Biologique Macrophytes Riviéres
(IBMR), the biological metric score (BMS), as well as the Fluvial Macrophyte Index (IMF) are founded
on the determination of the indicator values of the floristic reference lists.

The aim of this study was to test the impact of the eco-Mediterranean differences (from one country
to another) on the indicator taxa by comparing the indicator values of the Euro- Mediterranean mac-
rophyte indices. With this in mind, we explore the possibility of the introduction of the Euro-Mediter-
ranean macrophytes-based indices in Morocco (i.e. the hydrological basin of Sebou (HBS)) as a part of a
preliminary attempt to develop the first Afro-Mediterranean macrophyte index.

We confirm that the ecological amplitude and species optima vary between Mediterranean ecore-
gions, and indicator taxa differ between countries: There are medium to small correlations between Medi-
terranean indices: IBMR/BMS (p = 0.000, R? = 0.57), IMF/BMS (p = 0.000, R? = 0.34), and IBMR/IMF
(p = 0.000, R’ = 0.30). Five species exhibit major differences in indicator values: Zannichellia palustris
and Potamogeton pectinatus have more eutrophic indicator values in France (IBMR) than in Spain (IMF).
Potamogeton nodosus, Amblystegium riparium and Lycopus europaeus have broader ecological amplitudes in
Portugal (BMS) than in France (IBMR) and in Spain (IMF), where it is restricted to eutrophic conditions.

Furthermore, the three indicator systems include different indicator-taxon numbers.

Copyright Maissour Abdellah and Benamar Saad. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited..

2 Maissour Abdellah & Benamar Saad / BioRisk 14: 1-14 (2019)

The comparison of the HBS elaborated list with the Euro-Mediterranean indices revealed the low
level of common taxa approximately 6.76% of all indicator species used in the French index (IBMR),
10.48% in the Portuguese index (IMF) and 12.38% in the Spanish index (BMS).

These results show the inadequacy of the trophic indices approach with the HBS conditions and thus
the need for the development of an index based on biotic indices approach.

Keywords

Ecological water quality, Macrophytes, reference list, bioindication, hydromorphology, Mediterranean rivers

Introduction

Due to their high sensibility to different environmental stresses and their ability to as-
sess the dynamic and the cumulative effects of different stressing factors, macrophytes
species are considered good bioindicators. This bioindication power of macrophytes has
generated a proliferation in the number of macrophyte-based indices in the last decades.

At the present time, the approaches for estimating macrophyte communities’ qual-
ity in the Mediterranean rivers are:

e ‘The approach based on the assumption that environments that have not been im-
pacted have a greater diversity of species than degraded environments (commu-
nity structure approaches): Indice di Biodiversita’ Riparia (IBR) (Maggioni et al.
2009) in Italy is based on biodiversity of macrophytes on the banks. (Patrick 1977)
proved that assemblages with similar diversity scores could represent streams with
significantly different chemical conditions.
e ‘The Biotic indices approach based on the assumption that biological assemblages
in impaired sites should be different from those in reference sites:
= ‘The Iberian multimetric plant index (IMPI) (Ferreira et al. 2005), in the Ibe-
rian Peninsula (Portugal, Spain).

= ‘The Riparian Vegetation index (RVI) (Aguiar et al. 2009) in Portugal.

= River Macrophyte Index (RMI) (Kuhar et al. 2011) in Slovenia, based on the
relative abundance of sensitive and/or tolerant taxa.

e ‘The approach based on indicator values calculated for an elevated number of
aquatic species, according to the species’ relative sensitivity and tolerance to nu-
trients and/or to other abiotic stress factors. The Indices designed to respond to
nutrient enrichment using indicator species in Mediterranean rivers are:

© ‘The Indice Biologique Macrophytique en Riviéres (IBMR): developed in
France by (Haury et al. 2006) for assessing water trophy and organic pol-
lution and calculated using the following formula:

n
>) Bix Kix Csi
IBMR =—
)_ Bix Ki

1

Impact of hydromorphological pressures on the macrophytes bioindicators ... 3

where C’si is the specific rate of trophic level— ranged from 0 (heavy or-
ganic pollution and heterotrophic taxa) to 20 (oligotrophy); £7 represents
the coefficient of ecological amplitude: Coefficient 1, representing wide
amplitude, covered three classes of trophy, and coefficient 3, representing
a very limited amplitude, was restricted to just one class; Ki is the scale of
cover, going from +1 t0-5 (1: <0,1%;,2: 0,1 — <1%; 3: 1= = 10%: 4: 10-=
<50%; 5: >50%).

© ‘The biological metric scores (BMS): developed by (Dodkins et al. 2012)
in Portugal. This index is the mean of the species scores that occur at that
site, weighted by their cover, i.e. the Weighted Averaging (WA) equation
(Braak and Looman 1986):

Cixi
: n
> Ci

where S = site score, n = number of species; Ci = cover scale value of spe-

s=

cies i; and Qi = score of species i. The cover scale values used to weight the
mean were: 0 (for 0% macrophyte cover relative to the channel area), 1
(<1% cover), 2 (<5% cover), 5 (<33% cover) and 6 (>33 cover).

o ‘The index of macrophytes (IM), the Macroscopic Aquatic Vegetation
Index (IVAM) and The Fluvial Macrophyte Index (IMF) (Alcaraz et al.
2006; Flor-Arnau et al. 2015; Suarez et al. 2005) in Spain. The Fluvial
Macrophyte Index (IMF) is calculated using the following formula:

)_ Eix Kix Csi
1M .F =+—
) Bix Ki
where £7 is the coating of the taxa at the station -range: 1-5; 1 (<0.1%),
2 (0.1-1%), 3 (1-10%), 4 (10-50%), 5 (> 50%); Csi is the sensitivity
value for eutrophy (range: 1—20); £7 is the value of stenoicity or ecological
amplitude (range: 1-3). The IMF score is obtained from the formula of
Zelinka and Marvan (1961).

Taking into consideration that the development of macrophytes assemblages
strongly depends on a variety of abiotic and biotic factors and it is assumed that the
most important of them are nutrient concentrations (Dodkins et al. 2012; Robach et
al. 1996; Schneider et al.2000; Szoszkiewicz et al. 2006; Thiebaut et al. 2002; Whitton
1975), and hydromorphological characteristics, such as altitude, flow velocity, water
depth, width of river bed and type of substrate (Balazi and Hrivnak 2017), the overall
purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of localized hydromorphological
differentiation for the bioindication of macrophytes in Mediterranean countries. In

4 Maissour Abdellah & Benamar Saad / BioRisk 14: 1-14 (2019)

particular, we focus on the following question: Is there evidence of a role of hydro-
morphological differentiation in the diversity of macrophyte taxa included in Mediter-
ranean indices? Is there any evidence for the impact of ecoregion differentiation on
the macrophytes indicator values? In other words, are the macrophytes more impacted
by trophic status or by the hydromorphological characteristics of each Mediterranean
country? Is there any possibility to adopt and/or adapt any Euro-Mediterranean mac-

rophytes-based indices in Morocco (HBS)?

Methods

All currently used and published Mediterranean macrophyte indices based on species
indicator values for assessment of river trophic status are included in this study. We
didn't take into consideration indices with low taxonomic rank resolution (family and
order): Macroscopic Aquatic Vegetation Index (IVAM) and the index of macrophytes
(IM). Three macrophyte indices meet the above-indicated criteria: The Fluvial Mac-
rophyte Index (IMF), the Biological metric scores (S), and Indice Biologique Macro-
phytes Riviéres (IBMR).

Comparison of species indicator values between different Mediterranean indices
was performed using correlation analysis.

An extensive field survey of macrophytes communities (aquatic and riparian spe-
cies) in HBS and its tributaries (39 stations) has been carried out. Identification of
the macrophytes was taken using field identification guides (Ahayoun et al. 2007;
Coudreuse et al. 2005; Fennane et al. 1999; Fennane et al. 2007; Valdés 2002).

In order to ensure comparability of species, taxa names were screened for syno-
nyms and harmonized if necessary.

Results

Mediterranean indices comparison

The most striking results to emerge from Mediterranean indices comparison are:

IBMR compared to IMF

A total of 68 species are included in both IBMR and IME Half of these species have an
IMF value between 16-18 (Figure 3). The indicator values are significantly correlated (p =
0.000, R*= 0.30) (Figure 2). Two species differ from the regression curve. In the two cases
the IBMR value is lower than the IMF (Zannichellia palustris, Potamogeton pectinatus).

A total of 158 taxa have only an IBMR, but not an IMF indicator value, while 56
taxa have only IMF indicator value but not an IBMR.

Impact of hydromorphological pressures on the macrophytes bioindicators ... 2

Equisetopsida Class represented by fewer than 5 species
Cyanophyceae 1.51%

1.51% Aa es B

Typhaceae < ° 1.81% re:
363% \_ <a etry \ Magnoliopsida
Characeae “ en?
2.11%
a | -—-=—F Chlorophyceae
Hydrocharitaceae_. “Uy 2.72%
Af
3.02% j
Apiaceae CO, Charophyceae

eid HsSaenaeae 7 3.32%
2.42% ve Jungermanniopsida

0, o
Brachytheciaceae__/Juncaceae Families represented by fewer than 8 species 5.74% Bryopsidal
2.42% 2.42% 50.5% 16.31%

Amblystegiaceae Ranunculaceae Cyperaceae

Order represented by fewer than 9 species Poales

41.39% __ 13.29%

Alismatales

_-~ 12.69%

Hypnales

Apiales 7.85%
2.12% bari
——___ Lamiales

6.04%

Ranunculales

Caryophyllales

3.32% Jungermanniales Charales

3.63% 3.32% 9.74%

Figure |. A families B classes, and C orders of macrophytes species included in the Mediterranean
trophic indices: IBMR, IMF, and BMS.

@ IBMR
——— Polynomial Fit
| 95% Confidence Band of IBMR
95% Prediction Band of IBMR

y= 11.37- 0.68x + 0.04x?

@ |IBMR

Polynomial Fit

_ 95% Confidence Band of IBMR
95% Prediction Band of IBMR

y =7.90 + 0.21X + 0.10x?

Y 16 R?= 0.30 & 16 | R’=0.57 8
= 12 4 H = 12 2
co 8 e ao _ =

8 H ‘ omits 3} 4 P=) 3

: i i i e @Amblystegi ipari

7% @ Potamogeton we inatke Zannich Maipalustts : Potanieoetea soon fe ier ol
A 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 B 0 2 4 6 8 10

IMF BMS
@ IMF
I— Polynomial Fit

~ | 95% Confidence Band of IMF
95% Prediction Band of IMF

y = 5.06 + 1.80X - 0.03X?
R? = 0.34 ®

2
S

OR OND O

'o 0 2 4 BMsS® 8 10

Figure 2. Polynomial regression of A IBMR and IMF B IBMR and BMS C IMF and BMS.

IBMR compared to BMS

A total of 47 species are included in both IBMR and BMS. The indicator values are
significantly correlated (p = 0.000, R’ = 0.57). Two species differ from the regression
curve. In the two cases the IBMR value is lower than the IMF (Amblystegium riparium,
Potamogeton nodosus).

A total of 179 taxa have only an IBMR, but not a BMS indicator value, while 58
taxa have only an IMF indicator value but not an IBMR.

6 Maissour Abdellah & Benamar Saad / BioRisk 14: 1-14 (2019)

8
6
4
2
0

Figure 3. boxplots: indicator values of species that are included in A (IBMR) and (IMF) B (IMF) and
(BMS) C (IMF) and (BMS).

IMF compared to BMS

A total of 35 species are included in both IMF and BMS. The indicator values are
significantly correlated (p= 0.000, R7=0.34). One species differs from the regression
curve. In this case the IMF value is lower than the BMS (Lycopus europaeus).

A total of 89 taxa have only an IMF, but not BMS indicator values, while 70 taxa
have only BMS indicator values but not IBMR.

HBS macrophytes compared to European trophic indices

Our field work and analysis revealed that a limited number (23 indicator species) of
macrophytes recorded in HBS are utilized as bioindicators in biological monitoring
for the ecological status assessment in rivers in Euro-Mediterranean countries (Table
1). Fourteen species are used in IBMR, thirteen species in BMS and IME This limited
number of indicator species represents only 6.76% of all indicator species used in the
French index (IBMR), 10.48% in the Portuguese index (IMF) and 12.38% in the
Spanish index (BMS).

If we extend our analysis to other European indices ie.:

e The British index: The Mean Trophic Rank (MTR), there are only ten spe-
cies of HBS that have MTR indicator value: Berula erecta, Elodea canadensis,

Impact of hydromorphological pressures on the macrophytes bioindicators ... 7

Table |. The list of aquatic taxa of HBS that are included in IBMR, BMS, IME

Species IBMR BMS IMF

Csi Ei Qi Csi Ei
Agrostis stolonifera 10 1 12 2
Arundo donax 1
Berula erecta 14 wy
Elodea canadensis 10 2 1
Epilobium hirsutum 2 4 1
Equisetum ramosissimum 18 3
Helosciadium nodiflorum 10 1 a) 4 1
Hygrohypnum luridum 19 3
Lemna gibba 5 3 2 8 2
Ludwigia palustris 5
Mentha aquatica 12 1 S, 12 2
Mentha longifolia 18 3
Mentha pulegium 4
Nasturtium officinale 11 1 2 8 2
Phragmites australis 9 2 1
Potamogeton nodosus 4 3 3
Potamogeton pectinatus 2 2 8 3
Ranunculus bulbosus 4
Rumex conglomeratus 8 2
Scrophularia auriculata 4 1
Typha angustifolia 6 2
Veronica beccabunga 10 1 3 12 3
Zannichellia palustris 5 1 16 3

Helosciadium nodiflorum, Hygrohypnum luridum, Lemna gibba, Nasturtium
officinale, Phragmites australis, Potamogeton pectinatus, Typha angustifolia,
Zannichellia palustris.

e The German index: Trophic Index of Macrophytes (TIM), there are only eight
species of HBS that have TIM indicator value: Berula erecta, Elodea canadensis,
Mentha aquatica, Nasturtium officinale, Potamogeton nodosus, Potamogeton pectina-
tus, Veronica beccabunga, Zannichellia palustris.

All these species are included in the Euro Mediterranean indices, especially in the
French index.

One of the most common species used in European countries’ indices (MTR,
TIM, IBMR, IMF and BMS) and taking place in HBS is Nasturtium officinale.

Based on IBMR index we have in HBS some species representing wide amplitude
(Ei = 1): Mentha aquatica, Nasturtium officinale, Agrostis stolonifera, Helosciadium nodi-
florum, Veronica beccabunga, Zannichellia palustris. And some species representing a
very limited amplitude (£7 = 3): Hygrohypnum luridum, Lemna gibba, Potamogeton no-
dosus. Furthermore, some species indicating hypertrophic conditions (e.g. Potamogeton
pectinatus, Potamogeton nodosus, Csi = 2-4) and others indicating oligotrophic condi-
tions (e.g. Hygrohypnum luridum, Csi = 19).

Based on BMS index, species associated with high conductivity and nutrient en-
richment (Qi = 1) are: Elodea canadensis, Phragmites australis, Arundo donax.

8 Maissour Abdellah & Benamar Saad / BioRisk 14: 1-14 (2019)

IMF index reveals some species representing wide amplitude (Zi = 1): Epilobium hir-
sutum, Helosciadium nodiflorum, Scrophularia auriculata. Species representing a very lim-
ited amplitude (Ei = 3): Equisetum ramosissimum, Mentha longifolia, Veronica beccabunga,
Potamogeton pectinatus, Zannichellia palustris. Some species indicating hypertrophic con-
ditions (e.g. Epilobium hirsutum, Helosciadium nodiflorum, Scrophularia auriculata, Csi =
4) and others indicating oligotrophic conditions (e.g. Equisetum ramosissimum, Men-

tha longifolia, Csi = 18).

Discussion

The most obvious difference between the three indicator systems is the number of in-
cluded indicator taxa: IBMR (226), IMF (124), BMS (105), and TIM (49).

The IMF and the BMS have the fewest species in common (35 common taxa com-
pared to 47 between IBMR and BMS and 68 between IBMR and IMF).

The allocation of the trophic values was based on empirical studies (correlation
between species occurrence and impact parameters), literature data and expert opinion
in TIM and IBMR. In BMS and IME, the trophic values were determined only by
empirical studies.

IBMR and BMS are moderately correlated (R2=0.57). The worst correlation oc-
curs between IBMR and IMF (R2=0.30).

In France (IBMR), Zannichellia palustris and Potamogeton pectinatus have more
eutrophic indicator values than in Spain (IMF) (Figure 2). Zannichellia palustris is
commonly associated with nutrient-rich conditions (Vukov et al. 2018) as well as
Potamogeton pectinatus. For instance, in Germany (Trophic Index of Macrophytes
(TIM) (Schneider and Melzer 2003)) and Poland (Macrophyte Index for Rivers
(MIR)) Zannichellia palustris and Potamogeton pectinatus are used as indicator of eu-
trophic conditions. However, in the UK (Mean Trophic Rank (MTR) (Dawson et al.
1999)), those species are seen to be tolerant of eutrophication, or cosmopolitan in
their requirements (Table 2).

Potamogeton nodosus, Amblystegium riparium and Lycopus europaeus have more oli-
gotrophic indicator values in Portugal (BMS) than in France (IBMR) and in Spain
(IMF) (Figure 2).

In Poland (MIR), Potamogeton nodosus tends to be used to refer to eutrophic condi-
tions. In Germany (TIM), it is used as an indicator of eutrophic to polytrophic condi-
tions, which is consistent with the eutrophic BMS, IBMR and IMF indicator values.
It is therefore likely that Potamogeton nodosus has a broader ecological amplitude. For
instance, in Zambia (Ihe Zambian Macrophyte Trophic Ranking scheme (ZMTR)
(Kennedy et al. 2016)), this species is considered as ubiquitous species, occurring
across from oligotrophic to eutrophic conditions (Table 3).

Amblystegium riparium is described as tolerant of eutrophication or cosmopolitan in its
requirements. So, it is therefore likely that this species has a broader ecological amplitude.

Impact of hydromorphological pressures on the macrophytes bioindicators ... )

Table 2. Zannichellia palustris and Potamogeton pectinatus indicator values in MTR, TIM, and MIR.

Zannichellia palustris Potamogeton pectinatus
Mean Trophic Rank (MTR) UK STR = 2 tolerant of eutrophication or STR = 1 tolerant of eutrophication or are
are cosmopolitan in their requirements. cosmopolitan in their requirements.
Trophic Index of Macrophytes (TIM) IV = 2.93 meso-eutrophic (m-eu) — IV = 2.88 meso-eutrophic (m-eu) — eutrophic
Germany eutrophic (eu) (eu)
Macrophyte Index for Rivers (MIR) L = 2 eutrophic L=1 eutrophic

Poland

Table 3. Potamogeton nodosus and Amblystegium riparium indicator values in TIM, ZMTR, MTR,

and MIR.
Potamogeton nodosus Amblystegium riparium
Trophic Index of Macrophytes IV=3.1 eutrophic (eu) — eu-
(TIM) Germany polytrophic (eu-p)

The Zambian Macrophyte Trophic ZTRSsp=(3 U) ubiquitous species,
Ranking scheme (ZMTR) Zambia occurring across trophic categories
from oligotrophic to eutrophic

Mean Trophic Rank (MTR) UK STR = 1 tolerant of eutrophication or

are cosmopolitan in their requirements

Macrophyte Index for Rivers L = 3 eutrophic
(MIR) Poland

The apparent weak and moderate correlation and the difference of the included
taxa and their indicator values from one index to another can be attributed to the hy-
dromorphological characteristics of the Mediterranean rivers.

331 species are included in the Euro Mediterranean indices (IBMR, BMS and
IMF) belonging to 98 families, 66 orders and 24 classes. The most diversified fami-
lies are: Potamogetonaceae, Cyperaceae, Ranunculaceae, Amblystegiaceae, Typhaceae,
Plantaginaceae, Characeae, Poaceae, Hydrocharitaceae, Apiaceae, Juncaceae (Figure
1). The most used genera are: Potamogeton (19 species), Ranunculus (19), Sparganium
(9), Fissidens (8), Juncus (8), Carex (7), Callitriche (7), Chara (6), Equisetum (5),
Montia (5) and Najas(5). These indices include some species of Chromista, Bacteria
and Fungi (Table 4).

The comparison of the HBS elaborated list with the Euro-Mediterranean indices
revealed the low level of similarity between HBS community species and the floristic
reference of the French index (IBMR), the Portuguese index (IMF) and the Spanish
index (BMS).

Furthermore, there is a limited number of HBS aquatic species (31 species), which
is in agreement with previous research (Benamar and Maissour 2014).

The high level of aquatic species in France and the low-level of aquatic species in
HBS compared to the Euro-Mediterranean countries can be ascribed to the climate tran-
sition from thetemperate climate of central Europe to the arid climate of northern Africa
(Giorgi et al. 2008). These Afro-Mediterranean conditions deeply affect stream flows
(mixture of perennial and intermittent rivers) and the occurrence of aquatic species.

10 Maissour Abdellah e& Benamar Saad / BioRisk 14: 1-14 (2019)

Table 4. List of Chromista, Bacteria and Fungi taxa used in Euro-Mediterranean indices.

kingdom species IMF IBMR
Bacteria Nostoc + +
Oscillatoria + +
Phormidium + +
Sphaerotilus tt
Chromista Cymbella +
Leptomitus 4
Melosira + Z
Tribonema + +
Vaucheria + +
Fungi Collema dichotomum +
Dermatocarpon luridum +

These results demonstrate the inadequacy of the trophic indices approach espe-
cially with the HBS conditions and in general in the Afro-Mediterranean region, and
thus the need for the development of an index based on biotic indices approach taking
into consideration also the riparian species.

The Biotic indices approach, which is originally developed by Karr and Dudley
(1981), is a widely used method for evaluating anthropogenic pressures on aquatic and
wetland ecosystems: Floristic Quality Assessment Index (FQAI) (Lopez and Siobhan
Fennessy 2002), Integrity Biotic Index (IBI) (Miller et al. 2006), Iberian Multi metric
Plant Index (IMPI) (Ferreira et al. 2005), Index of Plant Community Integrity (IPCI)
(DeKeyser et al. 2003), Index of biotic integrity in Itanhaém (MIBI-ITA) (Umetsu et
al. 2018), Plant Index of Biotic Integrity (PIBI) (Simon et al. 2001), Plant-based index
of biotic integrity (PIBI) (PIBI(M)) (Moges et al.2016), Riparian Forest Quality index
(QBR) (Munné et al. 2003), Riparian Quality Index (RQI) (Del Tanago et al. 2006;
Gonzalez del Tanago and Garcia de Jalon 2006), Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity
(VIBI) (Mack 2007), and Vegetation-based index of biotic integrity (VIBI(Y)) (Yang
et al. 2018).

Among the potential characteristics of the aquatic vegetation (candidate met-
rics) that can be responsive to disturbance in HBS are: diversity, species habitat,
life cycle, life form, nutritional resources, riparian structure, and species tolerance
(Table 5).

Future work will involve the selection of the reference sites. This is because the
reference sites provide the baseline information to detect the deviation of a metric
from a natural or least-disturbed condition. And the selection of suitable metrics in our
context. So, we need to evaluate the ability of every potential candidate metric in terms
of its ability to distinguish reference (undisturbed or least-disturbed) from impaired
(moderately or heavily disturbed) sites. Only the metrics showing significant difference
between reference and impaired sites will be selected as the IBI-HBS metrics (Yang et
al. 2018). The next step is to score the selected core metrics.

Impact of hydromorphological pressures on the macrophytes bioindicators ... in

Table 5. Potential candidate and core metrics in IBI- HBS.

Candidate metrics Expected response to —_— River and wetland indices
decreasing quality
Diversity
Species richness Decrease FQAI, PIBI, IPCI, MIBI-ITA
Species habitat
% Endemic species Decrease FQAI
% Native species Increase PIBI(M)
% Exotic species Increase PIBI(M)
Life cycle
% Annual species Decrease IMPI, IBI, VIBI,
% Perennial species Increase VIBI, PIBI, IPCI, VIBI(Y)
Life form
% Terrestrial species
% Hygrophyte species RQI, PIBI
% Helophyte (emergent species)+ hydrophyte species Decrease IMPI, VIBI, PIBI; MIBI-ITA

(floating-leaved, free-floating, and submerged species)
Nutritional resources

% Ruderal species Increase IMPI
% Nitrophyllous species Increase IMPI, RQI
Riparian structure
% Woody species richness (trees, shrubs, woody climbers) Variable IMPI, IBI, RQI, PIBI(M)
Species tolerance
Tolerant species richness Increase PIBI(M), VIBI(Y)
Sensitive species richness Decrease PIBI(M)
Conclusion

We have confirmed that the ecological amplitude and species optima vary between
Mediterranean ecoregions, and that indicator taxa differ between countries.

It was found that the trophic indices of the Euro Mediterranean rivers can't be applied
easily to the Afro- Mediterranean rivers, particularly in Morocco (HBS), and we don’t have
a good opportunity to enrich the list of indicative species due to the limited number of
species recognized as bioindicators (23 species) and the limited number of aquatic species.
So, it seems more appropriate to develop an index based on a biotic-integrity approach.

References

Aguiar FC, Ferreira MT, Albuquerque A, Rodriguez-Gonzalez P, Segurado P (2009) Structural
and functional responses of riparian vegetation to human disturbance: Performance and
spatial scale-dependence. Fundamental and Applied Limnology. Archiv ftir Hydrobiologie
175(3): 249-267. https://doi.org/10.1127/1863-9135/2009/0175-0249

Ahayoun K, Douira A, Fennane M, Ouazzani Touhami A (2007) Inventaire des Bryophytes de
P Herbier “RAB” de l'Institut Scientifique (Rabat, Maroc). Institut Scientifique, Universite
Mohammed V Agdal, Rabat.

12 Maissour Abdellah e& Benamar Saad / BioRisk 14: 1-14 (2019)

Alcaraz M, Luis J, Navarro-Llacer C, de las Heras Ibanez J (2006) Propuesta de un indice de
vegetacién acuatica (IVAM) para la evaluacién del estado trdfico de los rios de Castilla-La
Mancha: A comparacion con otros indices bidticos. Limnetica 25: 821-838.

Balazi P, Hrivnak RJBL (2017) Environmental effects on macrophyte assemblages of small and
medium-sized rivers in two bioregions of Central Europe. Botany Letters 164: 273-287.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23818107.2017.1344136

Benamar S, Maissour A (2014) Contextualisation du Référentiel floristique pour lutilisation des
macrophytes comme bioindicateurs de |’état des cours d’eau du bassin hydraulique du sebou au
Maroc. Journal International Sciences et Technique de lEau et de Environnement 1: 68-71.

Braak CJ, Looman CW (1986) Weighted averaging, logistic regression and the Gaussian re-
sponse model. Plant Ecology 65(1): 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00032121

Coudreuse J, Haury J, Bardat J, Rebillard J (2005) Les bryophytes aquatiques et supra-aqua-
tiques: clé identification pour la mise en ceuvre de ’Indice Biologique Macrophytiques
en Riviere. Agence de l’eau Adour-Garonne.

Dawson FH, Newman JR, Gravelle MJ, Rouen K, Henville PR, Ecology R (1999) Assessment Of
the Trophic Status of Rivers Using Macrophytes: Evaluation of the Mean Trophic Rank. R
& D Technical Report E39, Environment Agency, 197 pp. https://assets.publishing.service.
gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290569/stre39-e-e. pdf

DeKeyser ES, Kirby DR, EI! MJJEI (2003) An index of plant community integrity: develop-
ment of the methodology for assessing prairie wetland plant communities. Ecological Indi-
cators 3: 119-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-160X(03)00015-3

Del Tanago MG, De Jalon DG, DIRECTIVE WEJIC (2006) Indice RQI para la valoracion de las
riberas fluviales en el contexto de la directiva marco del agua. Ingenieria Civil 143: 97-108.

Dodkins I, Aguiar F, Rivaes R, Albuquerque A, Rodriguez-Gonzalez P, Ferreira MT (2012) Measur-
ing ecological change of aquatic macrophytes in Mediterranean rivers. Limnologica-Ecology and
Management of Inland Waters 42(2): 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2011.09.001

Fennane M, Ibn Tattou M, Mathez J, Ouyahya A, El Oualidi J (1999) Flore pratique du Maroc.
Manuel de détermination des plantes vasculaires volume 1. Pteridophyta, Gymnospermae, An-
giospermae (Lauraceae—Neuradaceae). Travaux de l'Institut Scientifique, Sér Botanique, 558 pp.

Fennane M, Tattou MI, Ouyahya A, El Oualidi J (2007) Flore Pratique du Maroc, Manuel de dé-
termination des plantes vasculaires, Vol. 2. Travaux de l'Institut Scientifique, Série Botanique.

Ferreira MT, Rodriguez-Gonzalez PM, Aguiar FC, Albuquerque A (2005) Assessing biotic in-
tegrity in Iberian rivers: Development of a multimetric plant index. Ecological Indicators
5(2): 137-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.01.001

Flor-Arnau N, Real M, Gonzalez G, Sanchez JC, Moreno JL, Sola C, Munné A (2015) Indice
de Macréfitos Fluviales (IMF), una nueva herramienta para evaluar el estado ecoldgico de
los rios mediterraneos. Limnetica 34: 95-114.

Giorgi E Lionello PJG, change p (2008) Climate change projections for the Mediterranean region.
Global and Planetary Change 63: 90-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2007.09.005

Gonzalez del Tanago M, Garcia de Jalon DJL (2006) Attributes for assessing the environmental
quality of riparian zones. Limnetica 25: 389-402. https://www.limnetica.com/documen-
tos/limnetica/limnetica-25-1-p-389.pdf

Haury J, Peltre M-C, Trémoliéres M, Barbe J, Thiébaut G, Bernez I, Daniel H, Chatenet P,
Haan-Archipof G, Muller S (2006) A new method to assess water trophy and organic pol-

Impact of hydromorphological pressures on the macrophytes bioindicators ... 13

lution — the Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers (IBMR): its application to different
types of river and pollution. Macrophytes in Aquatic Ecosystems: From Biology to Man-
agement. Springer, 153-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5390-0_22

Karr JR, Dudley DR (1981) Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environmental
Management 5(1): 55-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0 1866609

Kennedy MP, Lang P, Grimaldo JT, Martins SV, Bruce A, Lowe S, Dallas H, Davidson
TA, Sichingabula H, Briggs J (2016) The Zambian Macrophyte Trophic Ranking
scheme, ZMTR: A new biomonitoring protocol to assess the trophic status of tropi-
cal southern African rivers. Aquatic Botany 131: 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aquabot.2016.01.006

Kuhar U, Germ M, Gaberscik A, Urbani¢ G (2011) Development of a River Macrophyte In-
dex (RMI) for assessing river ecological status. Limnologica-Ecology and Management of
Inland Waters 41(3): 235-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.limno.2010.11.001

Lopez RD, Siobhan Fennessy MJEA (2002) Testing the floristic quality assessment index as an
indicator of wetland condition. Ecological Applications 12: 487-497.

Mack JJJEI (2007) Developing a wetland IBI with statewide application after multiple testing it-
erations. Ecological Indicators 7: 864-881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.11.002

Maggioni LA, Fontaneto D, Bocchi $, Gomarasca S (2009) Evaluation of water quality and
ecological system conditions through macrophytes. Desalination 246(1—3): 190-201. htt-
ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2008.03.052

Miller SJ, Wardrop DH, Mahaney WM, Brooks RP (2006) A plant-based index of biological
integrity (IBI) for headwater wetlands in central Pennsylvania. Ecological Indicators 6(2):
290-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.03.011

Moges A, Beyene A, Kelbessa E, Mereta S, Ambelu A (2016) Development of a multimetric
plant- based index of biotic integrity for assessing the ecological state of forested, urban
and agricultural natural wetlands of Jimma Highlands, Ethiopia. Ecological Indicators 71:
208-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.06.057

Munné A, Prat N, Sola C, Bonada N, Rieradevall MJACM, Ecosystems F (2003) A simple field
method for assessing the ecological quality of riparian habitat in rivers and streams: QBR
index. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13: 147-163 https://doi.
org/10.1002/aqc.529

Patrick R (1977) Ecology of freshwater diatoms and diatom communities. The Bbiology of
Diatoms, Vol. 13, 284-332.

Robach F, Thiébaut G, Trémoliéres M, Muller S (1996) A Reference System for Continental
Running Waters: Plant Communities as Bioindicators of Increasing Eutrophication in Al-
kaline and Acidic Waters in North-East France. In: Caffrey JM, Barrett PRE, Murphy WJ,
Wade PM (Eds) Management and Ecology of Freshwater Plants. Springer, Netherlands,
67-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5782-7_12

Schneider S, Krumpholz T, Melzer AJAHeH (2000) Indicating the trophic state of running
waters by using TIM (Trophic Index of Macrophytes)-Exemplary implementation of a
new index in the river Inninger Bach. Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica 28: 241-249.

Schneider S, Melzer A (2003) The Trophic Index of Macrophytes (TIM)—a new tool for indi-
cating the trophic state of running waters. International Review of Hydrobiology 88(1):
49-67. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.200390005

14 Maissour Abdellah e& Benamar Saad / BioRisk 14: 1-14 (2019)

Simon TP, Stewart PM, Rothrock PEJAEH, Management (2001) Development of multimetric
indices of biotic integrity for riverine and palustrine wetland plant communities along
Southern Lake Michigan 4: 293-309 https://doi.org/10.1080/146349801753509195

Suarez M, Mellado A, Sanchez-Montoya M, Vidal-Abarca M (2005) Propuesta de un indice
de macrofitos (IM) para evaluar la calidad ecoldgica de los rios de la cuenca del Segura.
Limnetica 24: 305-318.

Szoszkiewicz K, Ferreira T, Korte T, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Davy-Bowker J, O’ Hare M (2006)
European river plant communities: the importance of organic pollution and the usefulness
of existing macrophyte metrics. The Ecological Status of European Rivers: Evaluation and
Intercalibration of Assessment Methods. Springer, 211-234 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
1-4020-5493-8_15

Thiebaut G, Guérold K Muller S)WR (2002) Are trophic and diversity indices based on mac-
rophyte communities pertinent tools to monitor water quality? Water Research 36: 3602-—
3610. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00052-0

Umetsu CA, Aguiar FC, Ferreira MT, Cancian LE Camargo AFMJAB (2018) Addressing bio-
assessment of tropical rivers using macrophytes: The case of Itanhaém Basin, Sao Paulo,
Brazil. Aquatic Botany 150: 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquabot.2018.07.004

Valdés B (2002) Catalogue des plantes vasculaires du nord du Maroc, incluant des clés
d identification. Editorial CSIC-CSIC Press.

Vukov D, Ii¢é M, Cuk M, Radulovié S, Igi¢é R, Janauer GAJSoTTE (2018) Combined effects
of physical environmental conditions and anthropogenic alterations are associated with
macrophyte habitat fragmentation in rivers-Study of the Danube in Serbia. Science of The
Total Environment 634: 780-790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.367

Whitton BA (1975) River Ecology. Univ of California Press.

Yang W, You Q, Fang N, Xu L, Zhou Y, Wu N, Ni C, Liu Y, Liu G, Yang TJEI (2018) As-
sessment of wetland health status of Poyang Lake using vegetation-based indices of biotic
integrity. Ecological Indicators 90: 79-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.056

Zelinka M, Marvan P (1961) Zur Prazisierung der biologischen Klassifikation der Reinheit
fliessender Gewdsser. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 57: 389-407.

Supplementary material |

Checklist of hydrological basin of Sebou macrophytes

Authors: Maissour Abdellah, Benamar Saad

Data type: occurences

Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open Database License
(http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License
(ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and
use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the
original source and author(s) are credited.

Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/biorisk. 14.30319.suppl1