Next Article in Journal
Inhibition of Cationic Polymer-Induced Colloid Flocculation by Polyacrylic Acid
Next Article in Special Issue
Coupling of Ultrasonic and Photometric Techniques for Synchronous Measurements of Unconfined Turbidity Currents
Previous Article in Journal
An Integrated Hydrological-Hydraulic Model for Simulating Surface Water Flows of a Shallow Lake Surrounded by Large Floodplains
Previous Article in Special Issue
Observation of the Dynamics and Horizontal Dispersion in a Shallow Intermittently Closed and Open Lake and Lagoon (ICOLL)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 10
Issue 9
10.3390/w10091214
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Macroinvertebrate Biodiversity Trends and Habitat Relationships within Headwater Rivers of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau

by
Mengzhen Xu
1,*,
Na Zhao
2,
Xiongdong Zhou
1,
Baozhu Pan
3,
Wei Liu
1,
Shimin Tian
4,* and
Zhaoyin Wang
1
1
State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
2
College of Agricultural Equipment Engineering, Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang 471003, China
3
State Key Laboratory of Eco-hydraulics in Northwest Arid Region of China, Xi’an University of Technology, Xi’an 710048, China
4
Key Laboratory of Yellow River Sediment, MWR, Institute of Hydraulic Research, YRCC, Zhengzhou 450003, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2018, 10(9), 1214; https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091214
Submission received: 19 January 2018 / Revised: 20 August 2018 / Accepted: 3 September 2018 / Published: 7 September 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water Resources and Environmental Fluid Mechanics: From the Glacier to the Lake/Ocean)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Highland running-water biodiversity has gained growing interest around the world, because of the more pristine conditions and higher sensitivity to environmental changes of highland rivers compared to the lowland rivers. This study presents the findings of systematic investigations and analyses on running-water biodiversity of macroinvertebrate assemblages in the most important headwater streams in the Yalutsangpo and Sanjiangyuan River basins in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and the lowland headwaters of the Songhua River, Juma River, and East River during the non-flood seasons of 2012 to 2016. The results indicated that the headwaters on the plateau had a higher regional biodiversity compared to the lowland rivers with the similar flow and substrate conditions. Even though the local diversity of the highland rivers was not significantly different at each single site, the taxonomic composition was significantly different with several rarely seen species scattering among the different sites, resulting in a high regional biodiversity. The biodiversity and composition of macroinvertebrates were strongly affected by the altitude gradient and the environmental variables associated with altitude. To be specific, for the Yalutsangpo River, canonical correspondence analyses of the macroinvertebrate assemblages and their environmental variables indicated that altitude, stream condition (represented by river pattern, riverbed structures, substrate composition), and water temperature influence macroinvertebrate taxa composition. Because of the restrictive plateau conditions including low water temperature, poor aquatic and riparian vegetation, and low runoff, the macroinvertebrate assemblages showed low biodiversity and were vulnerable to potential human disturbance/climate change. Therefore, it is essential to conserve suitable conditions of the determinative environmental variables to protect the unique and high regional biodiversity of the headwaters on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.

1. Introduction

Studying and protecting highland (i.e., high altitude) running-water biodiversity has gained growing interest over the world, because of more pristine conditions and higher sensitivity to environmental changes in highland rivers than in lowland rivers [1]. The Qinghai-Tibet Plateau is usually called “the water tower of Asia” due to its active water cycle and because it serves as the headwaters for most of the largest Asian rivers. The plateau representing an ecologically interesting transition between the Palaearctic and Oriental regions, covers an area of about 2.3 million km2 with an average altitude of over 4000 m a.s.l., and includes the topographically highest and least studied lotic ecosystems [2]. Its environmental and ecological conditions have been the focus of attention for decades owing to its unique geographical location and ecological functions including water resource conservation and biodiversity protection [3]. It has been expected to have novel relationships of macroinvertebrate communities with stream habitat variables since highly diverse and unique assemblages of aquatic Protozoa, Insecta, Hirudinea, Rotatoria, and Crustacea have been reported [4,5].
However, climate change and anthropogenic activities have significantly influenced the physical and ecological conditions of the headwaters on the plateau [6]. Temperature and precipitation variations were regarded as the main driving forces for such changes [7]. The plateau river ecosystems appeared to be suffering decreasing surface runoff, shrinking lakes and wetlands, and conflicts between ecological protection and social economic development under the increasing influences of global warming and human disturbance [8]. Understanding the aquatic biodiversity, especially the relationships of biodiversity with major geographical and other environmental variables of the plateau is important for protecting the highland ecology and the headwater ecosystem functions of large Asian rivers.
Macroinvertebrates are among the most important components of the aquatic ecosystem and have been considered as useful indicators for analyses of relationships of biotic communities with stream habitat variables because of their confinement to the river bed, limited movement abilities, long life cycles, and sensitivity to environmental changes [9]. Xu et al. [5] reported the major features of the macroinvertebrate communities in several sections of the main stem and tributaries of the Yalutsangpo River. Jiang et al. [2] analyzed the longitudinal patterns of macroinvertebrates in relation to environmental factors in the Niyang River, the largest first-order tributary of the Yalutsangpo. Pan et al. [10] investigated the macroinvertebrates in the Sanjiangyuan river basin at the center of the plateau. These studies consistently indicated that the compositions of macroinvertebrate assemblages in the plateau were significantly associated with the high altitudes and the variation trends of biodiversity might be different from that of the lowland rivers. However, how the macroinvertebrate communities responded to altitude gradient and the other environmental variables associated with altitude was not clear from these three studies [2,5,10].
According to the River Continuum Concept (RCC) theory, as a river changes along the altitude gradient from headwaters to the lower reaches, the physical geomorphological features change and thus structural and functional characteristics of stream communities are adapted to the most probable position or mean state of the physical habitat; and therefore, there will be a change in the relationship between the production and consumption (respiration) of the material [11]. The hypothesis of this study was that the macroinvertebrate communities and their environmental variables varied with altitude, and a greater altitude gradient could attribute larger variations of macroinvertebrate community structure. The objectives were (1) to illuminate the differences in the macroinvertebrate communities and their environmental variables between the rivers with larger altitude gradients (highland rivers) and the rivers with smaller altitude gradients (lowland rivers); and (2) to document the influence of altitude gradient on macroinvertebrate assemblages and their environment variables.
We investigated the highland headwater rivers, including the Yalutsangpo River and the source region of the Yellow, Yangtze, and Mekong Rivers (called Sanjiangyuan in Figure 1a) on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, and the lowland rivers: Songhua River, Juma River, and East River (Figure 1a). Comparison based on statistical analyses was carried out to explore the variations in macroinvertebrate communities and stream habitat variables along the altitude gradient. With the intent to analyze in detail the missing difference in altitude, in particular between 3500–<1000 m a.s.l., more detailed sampling were carried out in the Yalutsangpo River basin (Figure 1b), in which the altitude gradient was among the largest on earth. Further, based on the detailed samplings, the determinative physical variables affecting the macroinvertebrate assemblage composition were identified along the large altitude gradient.

2. Study Areas and Methods

2.1. Study Areas

The sampling sites in the five selected rivers were shown in Figure 1a. The Yalutsangpo River basin is located along the southwest boundary of the plateau, and the Sanjiangyuan river basin is located in center of the plateau. These two headwater river basins are among the most remote and undisturbed aquatic environments in the world. The Songhua River is located on the Northeast Plain, the Juma River is located on the North Plain, and the East River is located on the South Plain, representing rivers in the major lowland regions in China. The sites in the three lowland river basins were generally located on the 1st to 3rd order streams with little human disturbance. The altitudes of the sites in the Yalutsangpo, Sanjiangyuan, Songhua, Juma, and East rivers were in 3500–4500, 3500–4900, <500, <300, and <300 m a.s.l., respectively.
The systematic sampling sites (with average length of 50–100 m) were generally located on the 1st to 5th order streams in the Yalutsangpo River Basin, which is 1200 km long and flows from the west with an altitude of 4500 m a.s.l. to the east with an altitude <1000 m a.s.l., providing headwaters for the Brahmaputra River (Figure 1b). In East Tibet, the Yalutsangpo passes through the world’s largest and deepest river canyon (i.e., Yalutsangpo Grand Canyon) and then flows to India as Brahmaputra River. Annual precipitation varies from less than 300 mm in the upstream to over 4000 mm in the downstream as the altitude descending from over 4000 m to below 700 m. Average annual air temperature of the downstream is at least 10 °C higher than the upstream. The sites S6, S9, S11, S12, S13, and S19–23 were located in the stem of Yalutsangpo; to be specific, S21–S23 were in the Grand Canyon segment. The other sites were in the tributaries of Yalutsangpo: S3 in the Nianchu River; S1, S4, and S8 in the Lhasa River; S0, S2, S10, S14 in the Niyang River; S5, S7, and S15–S18 in the Parlung Tsangpo River. S0–S3 were located in the altitude region of 4000–5000 m, followed by S4–S11 in 3000–4000 m, S12–S17 in 2000–3000 m, S18–S20 in 1000–2000 m, and S21–S23 in <1000 m.

2.2. Environmental Variable Measurement

The field investigations were carried out in the early summers of 2012 to 2016, before the summer floods occurred, guaranteeing that at the time of sampling, macroinvertebrate communities had not been disturbed by flood events [12]. Specifically, the investigations were carried out in April 2012 in East River, May 2013 in Juma River, June 2012 in Songhua River, July 2013 in Sanjiangyuan, and May 2012 and May 2014 in Yalutsangpo River. Geographical locations and altitudes (H) of the sampling sites were obtained using an iHand differential GPS (GPS 72H, Huaxing, Zhengzhou, China). On each sampling occasion, multiple measurements of physical and chemical parameters were made along multiple transects within each site and the averages of the multiple measurements were recorded (Tables 1 and 7). River width (W) was measured with a laser rangefinder. Water depth (h) was measured with a sounding lead or a steel ruler. Flow velocity (v) was measured at 60% of the water depth from the river bed with a propeller-type current meter (Model LS 1206B; Nanjing Automation Institute of Water Conservancy and Hydrology, Nanjing, China).
Water samples were taken (500 mL each, mixed with 250 mL water near the surface and 250 mL water near the bottom) and sediment samples (200 g each) were taken from the substrate for laboratory analyses. Dominant substrates were visually estimated and assigned into different types: silt and clay, sand, pebbles and fine gravel, cobbles, and boulders according to the classification of Subcommittee on Sediment Terminology [13]. Median grain size (D50) was measured by combining measurement of coarse grains by sieving and fine particles using an instrument of laser diffraction particle sizing—Malvern Mastersizer 2000 (Malvern, Worcestershire, UK). The general features of land use, river patterns, and riparian vegetation were recorded and photographed. Scores for stream condition were assigned to the sites according to the statues of their river patterns, substrate compositions, and riparian vegetation, etc. [14]. The better the condition’s suitability for macroinvertebrates, the higher the score was (Appendix A Table A1, e.g., the sites with scores over 10 generally had better suitability compared to the sites with scores lower than 5). For the detailed sampling in the Yalutsangpo River basin, an EXO Sondes and EXO Handheld System were used to obtain in situ measurements of water temperature (T), dissolved oxygen (DO).

2.3. Macroinvertebrate Sampling

For all the sampling sites, the kick net (1 m × 1 m area, 420 μm mesh) was used to take samples from the bed surface to a depth of 15 cm in the substrate along the riverbanks with water depth less than 1 m as well as the central of the rivers if the water depth was less than 1 m. For the river center with water depth over 1 m, a Peterson dredge sampler with a sampling area of 1/16 m2 was also applied for taking supplementary samples in addition to the samples along the riverbanks. For each site, at least three samples were sampled from a quadrat of 10 m × 10 m, and the sampled area of all the samples were added up to 1 m2. The samples were sieved with a 500 μm sieve. Then they were manually picked out using a white porcelain plate and stored in 75% ethanol.
Macroinvertebrates were brought back to the lab after the sampling and identified following standard taxonomic literature [15,16,17,18] under a stereoscopic microscope and an optical microscope. Jacobsen [19] indicated that family-level identification of macroinvertebrates was suitable for evaluating the biodiversity trends along geographic gradients. We identified aquatic insects mostly to genus level and crustaceans and annelids mostly to family level (Tables 2 and 8). Photographs of the specimens were captured in a SmartV Camera image acquisition system, and then the body length of each individual specimen was measured (to the nearest 0.01 mm). Individuals were counted for density estimations (ind./m2).
Considering the different regions of the five rivers, the family/genus level taxa richness would be more reasonable in order to have a homogeneous scale for the biodiversity of the among river comparison. While for the specific case of the Yalutsangpo River, to reveal the detailed differences in the macroinvertebrate assemblages due to the variation in altitude, some taxa were identified to genus or species level. Only in these conditions were comparisons possible.

2.4. Data Analyses

Taxa richness S, Shannon-Wiener index H′, and Improved Shannon-Wiener index B were calculated to evaluate alpha (local) diversity of macroinvertebrates for each site. Taxa richness S, the number of taxa (family for the five river comparison; the lowest identified taxon level for the detailed investigation of the Yalutsangpo River), provides a measure of both ecological diversity and habitat conditions of streams. Shannon-Wiener index H′ defined by Krebs [20], integrates taxa richness and the contribution of each taxon in the assemblage. Considering difference attributed to the assemblage abundance, an Improved Shannon-Wiener index B was defined by Wang et al. [21] by coupling the abundance with the Shannon-Wiener index H′ as
B = − ( ln N ) ∑ i = 1 S ( n i / N ) ln ( n i / N )
in which N is the density (abundance) of macroinvertebrate assemblage at a sampling site, and ni is the density of the ith taxon.
A one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal Wallis test were conducted to determine if the alpha diversity indices differed among each of the investigated river basins. For the data tested to normally distributed using Shapiro-Wilk test, the ANOVA was adopted, otherwise the Kruskal Wallis test would be used. Post-hoc analysis on alpha biodiversity indices was carried out using the Tukey HSD method to detect the pairs of the rivers attributing to the overall difference. Moreover, multi-response permutation procedure (MRPP) was performed to determine if taxa composition (based on Bray-Curtis distance measure) differed among the river basins, and the pairwise comparison was conducted using the Bonferroni corrected p. All of the mentioned statistical analyses were conducted using the packages in R (R Foundation, Austria). In addition to analyses of variance and multi-response permutation procedure, K-dominant curves were plotted in this study for comparison of biodiversity among the different river basins and the different altitude regions. K-dominant curve, conveniently combining the taxa richness and the evenness of each taxa in the community, is usually used to illustrate the difference among different assemblages [10]. In this method, dominance patterns are represented by plotting accumulative abundance of each taxa (%) ranked in decreasing order of dominance. If curve 1 is under curve 2, the biodiversity of assemblage 1 is higher than that of assemblage 2.
Ordination analyses were applied to the data matrix of taxa on the lowest taxonomic level as in Table 8 with environmental variables using CANOCO 4.5 (Microcomputer Power, New York, NY, USA) to obtain responses of macroinvertebrates to environmental gradients from the perspective of assemblage composition. Average or score values of the environmental variables, including altitude, substrate median diameter, water depth and flow velocity at the sampling site, dissolved oxygen, water temperature, stream condition (Appendix A Table A1) were analyzed pairwise using SPSS 22.0 (IBM SPSS, Armonk, New York, NY, USA) to examine the Spearman correlations. Only uncorrelated (correlation |r| < 0.4) environmental variables were used in the ordination analysis to reduce arch effects [22]. The detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) was conducted first using only macroinvertebrate data to ascertain correspondence patterns between macroinvertebrates and environmental gradients. As Lepš and Šmilauer [22] suggested, a canonical correspondence analysis (CCA, based on unimodal response models) was conducted if the longest gradient in the DCA results exceeded a threshold value (Lth = 4.0, the index to determine the heterogeneity and deviation of taxa). Macroinvertebrate density data were log (x + 1) transformed, and the downweighting option was checked to reduce the influence of rare taxa. Forward selection with Monte Carlo permutation tests (499 permutations) was used to select a parsimonious set of explanatory variables under the cutoff point of p < 0.10.

3. Results

3.1. Comparison of Macroinvertebrate Biodiversity in Highland and Lowland Rivers

For the five rivers (Figure 1a), the physical conditions (altitude H, substrate composition, water depth h, and flow velocity v) and alpha-diversity indices (S, H′, B) are listed in Table 1; and compositions of macroinvertebrate assemblages were listed in Table 2. The sites in the Yalutsangpo (YA) and Juma (JU) were characterized by relatively coarser substrates (e.g., boulder, pebble, cobble, etc.) compared to the sites in the Sanjiangyuan (SA), Songhua (SO), and East (EA), which mainly consist of finer particles (e.g., gravel, sand, silt, fluid mud, etc.). Water depth and flow velocity were non-significantly different among all the sampled sites. For the coarse substrate Yalutsangpo and Juma River, the average values of their alpha-diversity indices taxa richness, and Shannon-Wiener index as well as improved Shannon-Wiener index were all in similar ranges. Similarly, no visible difference was seen in each of the alpha-diversity indices among the three fine substrate rivers.
The results of the ANOVA test suggested that global variations in taxa richness, density, Shannon-Wiener index, and Improved Shannon-Wiener index were significant among the five rivers (Table 3). Pairwise comparisons of alpha diversity indices among the five rivers (Table 4) indicated that the local biodiversity was generally not significantly different within the fine substrate rivers Songhua, East, Sanjiangyuan, nor were they within the coarse substrate rivers Juma and Yalutsangpo. Significant differences were mainly found between the fine and coarse substrates rivers. In other words, the local biodiversity was not significantly affected by altitude gradients as it was almost the same for the highland rivers and the lowland rivers if their substrates were comparable.
The MRPP results and pair-comparison both indicated that the taxa compositions of macroinvertebrate assemblages of the five rivers were generally significantly different (Table 5 and Table 6). It was indicated that even though the local biodiversity had a non-significant difference, the assemblage composition varied significantly among sites, attributing to the difference between the different rivers.
The K-dominant curves of macroinvertebrate assemblages of the five rivers clearly show that the regional taxa richness was the highest and regional taxa distribution was the most even in the Yalutsangpo, followed by the Juma, Sanjiangyuan, East, and the least in the Songhua (Figure 2). Considering the influence of substrates, consistent with the MRPP test, the highland Yalutsangpo had a higher regional biodiversity than the lowland Juma, and the highland Sanjiangyuan had a higher regional biodiversity than the lowland Songhua and East.

3.2. Relationships of Macroinvertebrate Communities with Stream Habitat Variables of the Yalutsangpo River

Environmental parameters and density of macroinvertebrates captured from 24 sites in the Yalutsangpo basin are listed in Table 7 and Table 8, respectively. DO in all sites was within optimal limits for macroinvertebrates (6.2–10.0 mg/L). Water depth and flow velocity of the sites were seldom different. While generally, the medium grain size of substrates, water temperature, stream condition, and riparian condition varied as the altitude decreased.
Altogether, 125 taxa of macroinvertebrates belonging to 65 families and 118 genera were identified (Table 8). Among them were 1 Turbellaria, 1 Nematoda, 3 Hirudinea, 17 Oligochaeta, 7 mollusks, 1 Arachnida, 2 Crustacea, and 93 Insecta. Aquatic insects contributed 74.4% of the total richness, with Chironomidae (31.2%, 39 taxa), Oligochaeta (13.6%, 17 taxa), Trichoptera (9.6%, 12 taxa), Ephemeroptera (7.2%, 9 taxa), and Plecoptera (6.4%, 8 taxa) as the dominant groups. As indicated by the present rate (the number of the sites where the taxon present divided by the number of all sites) being lower than 5%, there were 24 rare taxa, such as Piscicolidae (only present at S6), Blephariceridae (S2), Enchytraeidae (S5), Muscidae (S4), etc. These rare taxa were scattered in the different altitude regions and were essential for sustaining the high regional biodiversity. Taxa richness and evenness of distribution were the highest in the altitude range of 3000–4000 m, followed by 4000–5000 m, 2000–3000 m, and 1000–2000 m, successively (Figure 3). No specimen has been found in the sites with altitudes below 1000 m. It should be noted that these low altitude sites (H < 1000 m) were located in the Grand Canyon reach, where the velocity of the main flow was extremely high (>8 m/s), which restrained macroinvertebrate inhabitation. It could also be due to sampling difficulties of such a high velocity condition, but at least it is indicated that the abundance of macroinvertebrate assemblages were low and could not be caught by regular sampling methods.
The CCA biplots of sampling sites-environments of the Yalutsangpo River (Figure 4) indicated that the dominant environmental parameters (incorporated values were listed in Appendix A Table A1) influencing the abundance and distribution of macroinvertebrates in the Yalutsangpo were altitude (H), water temperature (T), and stream condition (SC) scores including river patterns, bed structures, bed material compositions, etc. Axes 1 and 2 accounted for 78.4% of the taxa-environment relations, and both axes were significant at p < 0.05. Axis 1 indicated predominantly gradients of stream condition scores and water temperature. Axis 2 indicated predominantly gradients of altitude and water temperature. The sites characterized by stable substrates (e.g., step-pool systems and gravel beds) were mainly arranged at the left side of Axis 2. The sites characterized by less stable substrates, were mainly arranged at the right side of Axis 2. Additionally, the arrangement of the fine substrate sites also revealed the influence of river patterns: Along Axis 1 there were barrier lakes, wetland, and braided rivers, successively. For each type of substrate (connected by the thin dotted lines), the sites were generally arranged along Axis 2 according to their altitudes.

4. Discussion

Altitude has been considered as the most important variable determining the living conditions of macroinvertebrates in plateau areas [23]. Xu et al. [5] showed that assemblage structures and functional feeding compositions of macroinvertebrates were closely related to altitude. This study indicated that the local biodiversity may not be significantly affected by altitude, while the high regional biodiversity of highland rivers was obviously associated with the high altitudes, and especially the high altitude gradients, which created the high habitat heterogeneity. Füreder et al. [24] showed similar findings, that in high altitude regions great altitude gradients and the physical variables associated with the altitude, such as climate, riparian vegetation, and water temperature affected macroinvertebrate assemblages in terms of the functional feeding groups and biodiversity. Especially, water temperature and channel stability were regarded as the principle parameters determining the macroinvertebrate community [25].
In this study, it was found that the environmental parameters of aquatic habitat, including dissolved oxygen; water temperature; and medium grain size, which essentially determined the channel stability, changed significantly as altitude decreased. Following the Yalutsangpo, as the altitude descended from 4000–5000 m to 3000–4000 m and then to 2000 m, the riparian vegetation changed from cold desert to arid steppe and then to deciduous scrub, which resulted in changes in taxa composition and the formation of a high regionally diverse macroinvertebrate community. For the central plateau headwaters, the Sanjiangyuan possessed a less diverse macroinvertebrate community compared with the Yalutsangpo, owing to its smaller altitude gradients and less variations in the altitude-associated environmental conditions [26].
Milner and Petts’s conceptual model [25] indicated that turbidity, discharge, sediment transport, and channel form all affected the channel stability and consequently influenced the biotic communities by influencing primary productivity, habitat suitability, attachment, and production of macroinvertebrates and fish. The CCA analyses of the Yalutsangpo (this study) and the Yellow River Source Region [26] both confirmed that the diversity of the macroinvertebrate assemblage was positively correlated with the heterogeneity and stability of substrates. It was believed that coarse substrates provide a wide range of refuges and principal habitats for macroinvertebrates [27]. In addition, our CCA analyses also indicated that water temperature was another determinative parameter influencing the assemblage composition, which was also consistent with the findings of Milner and Petts [25]. As most of the source water in the Yalutsangpo was glacial in origin, the aquatic biota was adapted to persistent low temperature [28]. Many psychrophilic taxa, such as Rhyacophilidae, Enchytraeidae, Ecdyuridae, etc. were indeed sampled in our investigation. Similarly, psychrophilic taxa were also commonly seen in the Sanjiangyuan basin with the average altitude higher than 3000 m [26]. In general, as altitude decreased to less than 2000 m, water temperature increased because of less glacial origin water input, as a result, less psychrophilic taxa were present.
In addition to the variables influencing macroinvertebrates that were revealed in the CCA analyses, flow velocity was also suggested as a significant predictor of the community variance by Jiang et al. [2] in their study of the Niyang River, the tributary of Yalutsangpo. Flow influences many important structural attributes of stream ecosystems such as substrate stability, habitat volume and channel morphology [29]. Extremely high velocity (>3 m/s) can cause bedload movement, which destroys aquatic habitat [14,30]. Zhou et al. [31] indicated that in the Yalutsangpo River the flow velocity and stream power increased as the altitude descended and consequently most of the taxa that preferred low or medium stream power conditions disappeared, while only the taxa that either have strong attachment or swimming abilities could survive. No macroinvertebrate was captured from the Yalutsangpo Grand Canyon during our study, confirming that the high current velocity restrained the aquatic biota.
Therefore, according to the macroinvertebrate biodiversity trends and the relationships of macroinvertebrates with stream habitat variables explored in this study, the following strategies for conservation of such highland headwater systems are proposed: (1) Donserving the high regional heterogeneity of aquatic habitat in different altitude regions, especially in 3000–4000 m, because the taxa composition varied among the different altitude regions and the high habitat heterogeneity supported high regional diversity of aquatic biota; (2) protecting suitable habitat conditions, including natural stream conditions, suitable flow velocity, and riparian vegetation conditions from anthropological disturbance to sustain suitable habitat conditions for diverse macroinvertebrate assemblages. Step-pool systems, stable gravel beds, and riparian wetland zones were suggested to be preserved or restored for suitable stream condition. Channelization, gravel mining, and riparian vegetation deterioration should be avoided, especially in the altitudes of 3000–4000 m. For the Yalutsangpo Grand Canyon, reasonable adjustments like increasing river bed roughness structures or knickpoints to reduce the extremely high flow velocity could be beneficial for aquatic biota.
Moreover, as in the remote areas, the plateau headwaters were nearly-pristine and well-preserved, and are supposed to have good water quality and little pollution. Owing to the harsh natural conditions of the high plateau, a gentle disturbance could result in a great deterioration in the eco-environment. For instance, as detected by Liu et al. [26], the macroinvertebrate assemblages varied significantly from the headwaters to the tributaries and the main stem of the Yellow River source: fewer EPT taxa, more Chironomidae and more Oligochaeta were found in the headwater streams suffering livestock grazing and nitrogen enrichment owing to the low flow discharge of the headwater and low denitrification rate under the low temperature plateau condition. In summary, sustainable expansion of anthropological activities should pay more attention to conservation of the plateau aquatic ecosystem. Nevertheless, considering the ongoing climate change and the plateau being especially sensitive to climate change, the water temperature may change and cause disturbance to the aquatic ecosystem due to changes of water sources, e.g., may include more melting water. Such changes may cause a significant impact on the aquatic communities and should be studied further for better conservation.

5. Conclusions

This study indicated that the Tibetan highland rivers have much higher regional diversity of macroinvertebrates compared to the lowland rivers with similar flow and substrate conditions. The high regional biodiversity was obviously associated with high altitudes, which created high habitat heterogeneity among different altitude regions. The plateau boundary river Yalutsangpo was characterized by high regional biodiversity and more rarely present taxa scatting in the large range of altitudes. Along with the great altitude gradient, the stream bed condition and water temperature were among the important environmental variables influencing the abundance and distribution of macroinvertebrates. The highest taxa richness and evenness of distribution of macroinvertebrates in the altitude region 3000–4000 m, was attributed to the optimal conditions of substrate composition and river pattern, water temperature, and riparian condition. Owing to the harsh natural conditions of the high plateau, a gentle disturbance could result in a great deterioration of the eco-environment. Therefore, conserving the high regional heterogeneity of aquatic habitat in the different altitude regions, especially the high altitude gradient regions, is crucial for sustaining rare taxa and high heterogeneity of aquatic biota.

Author Contributions

M.X. conceived and designed the study, and led the data analyses. N.Z., B.P. and W.L. performed the experiments. X.Z. helped in data analysis. M.X. wrote the paper. S.T. and Z.W. reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Funding

This research was founded by study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 91547204, 51779120, 51479091, 51622901), Tsinghua University (Grant No. 2015THZ02-1), the State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering (Grant No. 2016-KY-04), and the Yellow River Institute of Hydraulic Research (Grant No. HKY-JBYW-2016-03).

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful for the support of the fund, and appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions from the editor and the anonymous reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Values assigned for the environmental parameters of the sites in the Yalutsangpo basin for CCA.
Table A1. Values assigned for the environmental parameters of the sites in the Yalutsangpo basin for CCA.
SiteH (m)D50 (mm)h (cm)v (m/s)DO (mg/L)T (°C)Bed Structure ScoreRiparian Condition ScoreStream Condition Score = Bed Structure Score × Riparian Condition Score
S048735500.056.42.44832
S1448440150.48.41.391090
S24228100300.838.13.561060
S3401450200.47.94.7326
S439165150.36.1510.54.51045
S539015300.17.93212
S6376810200.39.617.44.514.5
S73752300250.48.523.5414
S83598150350.610.310.54.5627
S93566200350.37.712.42.512.5
S103514500300.48.17.29218
S1132371000100188919
S1229938003506.7132.512.5
S1329593003027.883.5621
S14294830700.97.5154.5731.5
S152744150300.758.510.16424
S162228150150.39.610.33.5828
S1722085300.17.913.21.511.5
S182008180200.49.6116636
S19110050150.559.5156742
S201001120150.159.314.49763
S21718300250.49.213.52.512.5
S22705200200.49.514.63.513.5
S23688200200.459.414.12.512.5
Note: Scores for bed structure and riparian condition were based on the suitability of them for macroinvertebrate assemblages [14].

References

  1. Maiolini, B.; Lencioni, V. Longitudinal distribution of macroinvertebrate assemblages in a glacially influenced stream system in the Italian Alps. Freshw. Biol. 2001, 46, 1625–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jiang, X.M.; Xie, Z.C.; Chen, Y.F. Longitudinal patterns of macroinvertebrate communities in relation to environmental factors in a Tibetan-Plateau river system. Quat. Int. 2013, 304, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Brierley, G.J.; Li, X.; Cullum, C.; Gao, J. Introduction: Landscape and ecosystem diversity in the Yellow River Source Zone. In Landscape and Ecosystem Diversity, Dynamics and Management in the Yellow River Source Zone; Brierley, G.J., Li, X., Cullum, C., Gao, J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 1–34. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chiang, S.C.; Shen, Y.F.; Gong, X.J. Aquatic Invertebrate in Tibet, 1st ed.; Science Press: Beijing, China, 1983; (In Chinese, Latin Names). [Google Scholar]
  5. Xu, M.Z.; Wang, Z.Y.; Pan, B.Z.; Yu, G.A. The assemblage characteristics of benthic macroinvertebrates in the Yalutsangpo Basin, the highest-altitude major river in the world. Front. Earth Sci. 2014, 8, 351–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Feng, J.; Wang, T.; Xie, C. Eco-environmental degradation in the source region of the Yellow River, Northeast Qinghai-Xizang Plateau. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2006, 122, 125–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. McGregor, G.R. Climate variability and change in the Sanjiangyuan region. In Landscape and Ecosystem Diversity, Dynamics and Management in the Yellow River Source Zone; Brierley, G.J., Li, X., Cullum, C., Gao, J., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Basel, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 35–57. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chang, G.; Li, L.; Zhu, X.; Wang, Z.; Xiao, J.; Li, F. Influencing factors of water resources in the source region of the Yellow River. J. Geogr. Sci. 2007, 17, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Smith, M.J.; Kay, W.R.; Edward, D.H.D.; Papas, P.J.; St. J. Richardson, K.; Simpson, J.C.; Pinder, A.M.; Cale, D.J.; Horwitz, P.H.J.; Davis, J.A.; et al. Using macroinvertebrates to assess ecological condition of rivers in Western Australia. Freshw. Biol. 1999, 41, 269–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pan, B.Z.; Wang, Z.Y.; Li, Z.W.; Yu, G.A.; Xu, M.Z.; Zhao, N.; Brierley, G. An exploratory analysis of benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators of the ecological status of the Upper Yellow and Yangtze Rivers. J. Geogr. Sci. 2013, 23, 871–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Vannote, R.L.; Minshall, G.W.; Cummins, K.W.; Sedell, J.R.; Cushing, C.E. The River Continuum Concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1980, 37, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Xu, M.Z.; Wang, Z.Y.; Pan, B.Z.; Zhao, N. Distribution and species composition of macroinvertebrates in the hyporheic zone of bed sediment. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2012, 27, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Subcommittee on Sediment Terminology. Report on the Subcommittee on Sediment Terminology, American Geophysical Union. Transit. Am. Geophys. Union 1947, 28, 936–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Duan, X.H.; Wang, Z.Y.; Xu, M.Z.; Zhang, K. Effect of streambed sediment on benthic ecology. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2009, 24, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wiggins, G.B. Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera (Trichoptera), 2nd ed.; University of Toronto Press: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  16. Epler, J.H. Identification Manual for the Larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of North and South Carolina: A Guide to the Taxonomy of the Midges of the Southeastern United States, Including Florida; Special Publication SH2001-SP13; North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  17. Morse, J.C.; Yang, L.F.; Tian, L.X. Aquatic Insects of China Useful for Monitoring Water Quality, 1st ed.; Hohai University Press: Nanjing, China, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  18. Liang, Y.L.; Wang, H.Z. Zoobenthos. In Advanced Hydrobiology; Liu, J.K., Ed.; Science Press: Beijing, China, 1999. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  19. Jacobsen, D. Contrasting patterns in local and zonal family richness of stream invertebrates along an Andean altitudinal gradient. Freshw. Biol. 2004, 49, 1293–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Krebs, C.J. Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance, 2nd ed.; Harper and Row Press: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  21. Wang, Z.Y.; Lee, J.H.W.; Melching, C.S. River Dynamics and Integrated River Management, 1st ed.; Tsinghua University Press: Beijing, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lepš, J.; Šmilauer, P. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using CANOCO; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  23. Scheibler, E.E.; Claps, M.C.; Roig-Juñent, S.A. Temporal and Altitudinal Variations in Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in an Andean River Basin of Argentina. J. Limnol. 2014, 73, 92–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Füreder, L.; Schütz, C.; Wallinger, M. Physico-chemistry and aquatic insects of a glacier-fed and a spring-fed alpine stream. Freshw. Biol. 2001, 46, 1673–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Milner, A.M.; Petts, G.E. Glacial rivers: Physical habitat and ecology. Freshw. Biol. 1994, 32, 295–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liu, W.; Xu, M.Z.; Zhao, N.; Zhou, X.D.; Pan, B.Z.; Lei, F.K.; Tian, S.M. Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Assessment of the Yellow River Headwater Region Based on the Multiple Traits of Macroinvertebrate Community; Inner Report of River Research Institute [2018.1.30]; Tsinghua University: Beijing, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  27. Beisel, J.N.; Usseglio-Polatera, P.; Moreteau, J.C. The spatial heterogeneity of a river bottom, a key factor determining macroinvertebrate communities. Hydrobiologia 2000, 422/423, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Skjelkvåle, B.L.; Wright, R.F. Mountain lakes; sensitivity to acid deposition and global climate change. AMBIO 1998, 27, 280–286. [Google Scholar]
  29. Schwendel, A.C.; Death, R.G.; Fuller, I.C.; Tonkin, J.D. A new approach to assess bed stability relevant for invertebrate Communities in upland streams. River Res. Appl. 2012, 28, 1726–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhao, N.; Wang, Z.Y.; Pan, B.Z.; Xu, M.Z.; Li, Z.W. Macroinvertebrate assemblages in mountain streams with different streambed stability. River Res. Appl. 2014, 31, 825–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhou, X.D.; Wang, Z.Y.; Xu, M.Z.; Yu, B.F.; Liu, W.; Pan, B.Z.; Zhao, N.; Shao, X.J. The stream power parameter as a predictive indicator of aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages in the Yarlung Tsangpo River Basin (Tibetan Plateau). Hydrobiologia 2017, 797, 215–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 10 01214 g001 550
Figure 1. Study area and sampling sites: (a) sampling sites in the five selected rivers in different altitude regions; (b) sampling sites in the Yalutsangpo River basin.
Figure 1. Study area and sampling sites: (a) sampling sites in the five selected rivers in different altitude regions; (b) sampling sites in the Yalutsangpo River basin.
Water 10 01214 g001
Water 10 01214 g002 550
Figure 2. K-dominant curves of macroinvertebrates in the different rivers.
Figure 2. K-dominant curves of macroinvertebrates in the different rivers.
Water 10 01214 g002
Water 10 01214 g003 550
Figure 3. (a) Local taxa richness and (b) K-dominant curves of macroinvertebrate assemblages for the different altitude regions in the Yalutsangpo basin.
Figure 3. (a) Local taxa richness and (b) K-dominant curves of macroinvertebrate assemblages for the different altitude regions in the Yalutsangpo basin.
Water 10 01214 g003
Water 10 01214 g004 550
Figure 4. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) ordination plots of the Yalutsangpo. H: altitude, T: water temperature, SC: stream condition, S0–S20: the sampling sites. ◆: mountain streams with step-pool systems developed, ○: rivers with stable gravel bed, ●: barrier lakes (river dammed by landslides), ▽: wetland, ▲: braided rivers.
Figure 4. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) ordination plots of the Yalutsangpo. H: altitude, T: water temperature, SC: stream condition, S0–S20: the sampling sites. ◆: mountain streams with step-pool systems developed, ○: rivers with stable gravel bed, ●: barrier lakes (river dammed by landslides), ▽: wetland, ▲: braided rivers.
Water 10 01214 g004
Table
Table 1. Comparison of physical variables and alpha diversity indices among the two highland rivers and the three lowland rivers.
Table 1. Comparison of physical variables and alpha diversity indices among the two highland rivers and the three lowland rivers.
SRHSubstrate CompositionD50 (mm)W (m)H (m)V (m/s)Alpha-Diversity Indices
SH′B
YA3500–4500five sites with boulder, pebble, cobble, sand, and aquatic macrophytes; two with sand, gravel20–2005–400–0.50.3–0.817–331.7–2.79.8–19.2
SA3500–4900five sites with gravel, sand, and aquatic macrophytes; two with silt and gravel0.5–5.05–600–0.60–0.56–210.5–2.13.0–10.0
SO<500five sites with gravel, sand, and aquatic macrophytes; two with silt, fluid mud0.01–5.05–300.3–1.50–0.86–131.2–1.83.7–8.9
JU<300five sites with boulder, pebble, gravel, sand, and aquatic macrophytes; two with sand, silt20–1005–300.2–0.70.1–0.616–381.2–2.67.5–17.3
EA<100three sites with gravel, sand, aquatic macrophytes; two with gravel and sand; two with fine sand, silt and clay0.1–2.05–400.3–1.30.3–1.06–151.1–1.94.1–10.1
Note: SR: Study Rivers; YA: Yalutsangpo; SA: Sanjiangyuan; SO: Songhua; JU: Juma; EA: East; H: altitude, m a.s.l.; D50: median diameter of substrate, W: river width, H: water depth, V: flow velocity (m/s) were averages for multiple measurements of each sampling site.
Table
Table 2. Taxa composition of macroinvertebrate assemblages in the five river basins (“+” indicates occurrence of the corresponding taxon).
Table 2. Taxa composition of macroinvertebrate assemblages in the five river basins (“+” indicates occurrence of the corresponding taxon).
PhylumClassFamilyYASASOJUEA
PlatyhelminthesTurbellaria n.d.++
NematodaNematodan.d.++
AnnelidaHirudineaGlossiphonidae+
Glossiphoniidae++
Piscicolidae+
Branchiobdellidae+
Erpobdellidae+
Hirudinidae+++
OligochaetaTubificidae+++++
Lumbriculidae++
Naididae++
MolluscaGastropodaLymnaeidae++++
Planorbidae++++
Physidae+
Hydrobiidae++
Pleuroceridae++
Stenothyridae++
Turbinidae+
Viviparidae+
BivalviaCorbiculidae+++
Unionidae+
ArthropodaCrustaceaGammaridae+++
Palaemonidae++
Atyidae+
ArachnidaHydrachnidae++++
InsectaBaetidae+++++
Heptageniidae++++
Ephemerellidae++++
Ephemeridae+
Leptophlebiidae++++
Siphlonuridae++
Caenidae+++
Potamanthidae+
Isonychiidae+
Neoephemeridae+
Coenagrionidae++
Gomphidae++
Corduliidae++
Macromiidae+
Platycnemididae++
Agriidae+
Perlidae+++
Chloroperlidae+
Nemouridae++
Capniidae+
Pteronarcidae+
Perlodidae+
Naucoridae++++
Corixidae++
Sisyridae+
Corydalidae++
Hydropsychidae++++
Hydroptilidae+
Rhyacophilidae++
Limnephilidae++
Polycentropodidae+
Stenopsychidae+
Leptoceridae++
Psychomyiidae+
Molannidae+
Brachycentridae++
Hydrobiosidae++
Arctopsychidae+
Glossosomatidae+
Philopotamidae+
Pyralididae+
Dytiscidae+++
Elmidae+++++
Hydrophilidae+
Chrysomelidae+
Entomobryomorpha+
Tipulidae+++++
Simuliidae++++
Ephydridae+
Culicidae+++
Ceratopogonidae+++
Psychodidae++
Dolichopodidae+
Empididae++
Stratiomyiidae+
Tabanidae++
Blephariceridae+
Muscidae+
Chironomidae+++++
Note: n.d.—did not identified to family.
Table
Table 3. Global variation of the alpha diversity indices among all of the sampling sites in the five rivers.
Table 3. Global variation of the alpha diversity indices among all of the sampling sites in the five rivers.
VariableHVTMethodStatistical ValueSig.
Taxa richness0.140ANOVA14.4100.000 *
Density (ind./m2)0.000KW15.2300.004 *
Shannon-Wiener index0.165ANOVA4.3770.005 *
Improved Shannon-Wiener index0.905ANOVA11.7660.000 *
Note: HVT: homogeneous variance test; KW: Kruskal-Wallis; Statistical value: KW.chi or ANOVA.F; *: Significant difference with confidential level of 95%.
Table
Table 4. Pair comparison among each of the alpha diversity indices of the five rivers based on post-hoc test.
Table 4. Pair comparison among each of the alpha diversity indices of the five rivers based on post-hoc test.
Pairwise ComparisonTaxa Richness. p-ValueDensity. p-ValueShannon-Wiener Index. p-ValueImproved Shannon-Wiener Index. p-Value
SO-EA0.6550.5590.9420.496
SO-SA0.9991.0000.9380.996
SO-JU0.000 ***1.0000.1000.007 **
SO-YA0.2610.5880.6620.024 *
EA-SA0.8250.7501.0000.774
EA-JU0.000 ***0.012 *0.009 **0.000 ***
EA-YA0.006 **0.002 **0.1770.000 ***
SA-JU0.000 ***1.0000.020 *0.003 **
SA-YA0.1970.6020.2440.012 *
JU-YA0.016 *1.0000.7080.976
Note: “*”—Significant difference with confidential level of 95%; “**”—Significant difference with confidential level of 99%; “***”—Significant difference with confidential level of 99.9%.
Table
Table 5. MRPP test of the compositions of macroinvertebrate assemblages of the five rivers.
Table 5. MRPP test of the compositions of macroinvertebrate assemblages of the five rivers.
MRPP StatisticsSOEASAJMYA
delta0.89780.92000.85570.80050.8989
n812789
Chance corrected within-group agreement A: 0.0721; Based on observed delta 0.8797 and expected delta 0.948.
Note: Significance of delta: 0.001; Permutation: free; Number of permutations: 999.
Table
Table 6. Pair comparison of macroinvertebrate assemblages of the five rivers based on Tukey’s post-hoc test.
Table 6. Pair comparison of macroinvertebrate assemblages of the five rivers based on Tukey’s post-hoc test.
PairsF ModelR2p-ValueAdjusted p
SO-EA1.6400.0840.0370.37
SO-SA2.1440.1420.0020.02 *
SO-JU2.9990.1760.0020.02 *
SO-YA1.8010.1070.0090.09
EA-SA2.2640.1180.0020.02 *
EA-JU2.9490.1410.0010.01 *
EA-YA2.2920.1080.0010.01 *
SA-JU3.4900.2120.0010.01 *
SA-YA2.1930.1350.0010.01 *
JU-YA2.7800.1560.0010.01 *
Note: “*”—Significant difference with confidential level of 95%.
Table
Table 7. Means (±SE) and ranges of environmental parameters of the sites in the Yalutsangpo basin.
Table 7. Means (±SE) and ranges of environmental parameters of the sites in the Yalutsangpo basin.
SHD50hvDOTStream Pattern & Bed Structure Riparian Condition (VC and VH)
04873 ± 250.2–0.80–0.16.4 ± 0.22.4 ± 0.1wetland, mud poolAlpine meadow, VC = 80%, VH = 1–5 cm
14484 ± 3400–0.20.3–0.58.4 ± 0.21.3 ± 0.1Step-pool developedAlpine meadow, VC = 100%, VH = 1–5 cm
24228 ± 21000.1–0.40.838.1 ± 0.13.5 ± 0.2stable bedAlpine meadow, VC = 100%, VH = 1–5 cm
34014 ± 3500–0.250.3–0.57.9 ± 0.34.7 ± 0.1braided stream, macro-algae covered bed Channelized bank, VC < 5%
43916 ± 450–0.150.1–0.36.2 ± 0.210.5 ± 0.2wetland linked with channel, rich humusAlpine meadow, VC = 100%, VH = 5–20 cm
53901 ± 250.2–0.40.17.9 ± 0.33.1 ± 0.2barrier lake, sand bedNo vegetation
63768 ± 2100–0.30.39.6 ± 0.217.4 ± 0.3braided, gravel bedNo vegetation
73752 ± 43000.1–0.30.3–0.58.5 ± 0.12.2 ± 0.2glacial stream, gravel bedShrub, VC = 10%
83598 ± 51500–0.50.3–0.810.0 ± 0.310.5 ± 0.2braided river, wide valley, gravel bedHerbaceous vegetation and trees, VC = 100%
93566 ± 32000–0.50.37.7 ± 0.212.4 ± 0.3braided river, wide valley, gravel-clay bedNo vegetation
103514 ± 45000–0.40.3–0.58.1 ± 0.47.2 ± 0.2step-pool developedChannelized bank, VC < 2%
113237 ± 310000.5–1.50.5–1.58.0 ± 0.38.0 ± 0.1step-pool developedNo vegetation
122993 ± 48000.1–0.506.7 ± 0.113.0 ± 0.2river bend, lentic No vegetation
132959 ± 33000.2–0.41.5–27.8 ± 0.48.0 ± 0.3gravel bed, loticAlpine meadow, VC = 50%, VH = 5–200 cm
142948 ± 4300.3–1.00.3–2.07.5 ± 0.215.0 ± 0.2wetland, gravel bedAlpine meadow, VC = 80%, VH = 1–10 cm
152744 ± 41500.1–0.50.5–1.08.5 ± 0.310.1 ± 0.1stable bedHerbaceous vegetation, VC < 10%
162228 ± 51500–0.20.39.6 ± 0.110.3 ± 0.2gravel bed, river bendHerbaceous vegetation and shrubs, VC > 80%, VH = 20–500 cm
172208 ± 650.2–0.40.17.9 ± 0.213.2 ± 0.2barrier lake, sand bedNo vegetation
181998 ± 51800–0.40.3–0.59.6 ± 0.211.0 ± 0.2gravel and sand bedHerbaceous vegetation and shrubs, VC > 60%, VH = 10–200 cm
191100 ± 6500.1–0.30.3–0.89.5 ± 0.315.0 ± 0.1stable bedHerbaceous vegetation and shrubs, VC > 70%, VH = 20–300 cm
201001 ± 51200–0.30–0.39.3 ± 0.414.4 ± 0.2Step-pool developedHerbaceous vegetation and shrubs, VC > 70%, VH = 20–200 cm
21718 ± 73000–0.50.3–0.59.2 ± 0.113.5 ± 0.3river bend, lenticNo vegetation
22705 ± 62000–0.40.3–0.59.5 ± 0.314.6 ± 0.1gravel bed, loticNo vegetation
23688 ± 82000–0.40.4–0.59.4 ± 0.214.1 ± 0.2river bend, lenticNo vegetation
Note: S: sites; H: altitude, m; D50: median particle diameter of substrate, mm; h: water depth of the zone where macroinvertebrate samples were taken, m; v: flow velocity of the zone where macroinvertebrate samples were taken, m/s; DO: dissolved oxygen, mg/L; T: water temperature, °C; VC and VH: riparian vegetation coverage rate and height, respectively.
Table
Table 8. Taxa and density compositions of macroinvertebrates in the sampling sites of Yalutsangpo basin (numbers indicate density, ind./m2).
Table 8. Taxa and density compositions of macroinvertebrates in the sampling sites of Yalutsangpo basin (numbers indicate density, ind./m2).
FamilyGenusS0S1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9S10S11S12S13S14S15S16S17S18S19S20S21S22S23
Planariidaen.d.001200001600170000000000000
Pratylenchidaen.d.000000100210000000010000
Glossiphoniidaen.d.000100300000000000000000
GlossiphoniidaeHelobdella000020000000000000000000
PiscicolidaePiscicola geometra000000300000000000000000
Branchiobdellidaen.d.000000300000002000000000
Tubificidae Limnodrilus sp.00005022102400000000000000
Limnodrilus claparedeianus00000002000000256000000000
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri0000080200001400000000000
Rhyacodrilus stephesoni00000001001480000000000000
Tubifex tubifex15000061212038002127000000000
LumbriculidaeLumbriculus variegatus0000210001020000065000000000
Enchytraediaen.d.000002000000000000000000
NaididaeChaetogaster diaphanus000000100000000000000000
Nais barbata000000022000000000010000
Nais bretscheri0000004154000000000000000
Nais communis000000100000000000000000
Nais elinguis000000210000000000000000
Nais pardalis000000410000000000000000
Paranais frici00000021927400000000000000
Stylaria lacustris000000015000000000000000
Uncinais uncinata000000510000000000000000
LymnaeidaeRadix sp10000301605320201000000010000
Radix sp2000000004120191000000000000
PlanorbidaeGyraulus sp.0000360300000100000000000
Hippeutis sp.0000003080000000000000000
PhysidaePhysa sp.00000000133000001000000000
Ampullariidaen.d.000000000000300000000000
Sphaeriidae n.d.4600090000000000000000000
Gammaridaen.d.010000550221600000000000000
Clausidiidae5700000000000000000000000
Hydrachnidaen.d.025304700707810220422047850000000
Entomobryomorphan.d.001000000000000000000000
Elmidaen.d.050000000000000000003000
Chrysomelidaen.d.000000000000010000000000
PtilodactylidaeStenocolus sp.000000000000000000001000
DryopidaeElmoparnus sp.000000000000000000001000
Ceratopogonidaen.d.00002910200134002000000000
ChironomidaeAlotanypus sp.000010000000000000000000
Brillia sp.000000010000000000000000
Cardiocladius sp.0001800001500690054030000000
Chaetodadius sp.00013300000000000000000000
Conclvapelopia sp.0000000000000117000000000
Cricotopus sp.000000900030000000000000
Diamesa sp.0450001680210000016000000000
Dicrotendipes sp.000020000000000000000000
Eukiefferiella sp.0403000300052000000000000
Heleniella sp.000000000000000100000000
Heterotrissodadius sp.000000030000000000000000
Kiefferulus sp.000000000010000000000000
Larsia sp.051000000000000000000000
Limnphyes sp.000000010008000030000000
Metriocnemus sp.35001200000000000000000000
Micropsectra sp.0110000150313600000000000000
Monodiamesa sp.0000000004004210500000000
Orthocladius sp.036200012020110470171830021000
Pagastia sp.0191000010030001500000000
Paracladopelma sp.000000003001000000000000
Paradadopelma sp.0000000000000000024000000
Parakiefferiella sp.0000000000000000019000000
Parametriocnemus sp.000000000000000100000000
Paratanytarsus sp.1000000000000000000000000
Paratendipes sp.000000000000001156000000000
Paratrichodadius sp.000000000020000000000000
Polypedilum sp.00000040215400236003907000000
Porilla sp.000000000000001000000000
Psectrodadius sp.00000000000030800000000000
Pseudodiamesa sp.000000020000000000000000
Pseudorthocladius sp.000000000000010000000000
Radotanypus sp.000000000000000200000000
Rheocricotopus sp.000000010000000000000000
Stictochironomus sp.000062058022578000000030000000
Sympothastia sp.0000000000045000000000000
Tanypus sp.0000000001800000000000000
Tanytarsus sp.3000001119000954101800000000
Tendipus sp.320000010203117000000000020000
Tvetenia sp.000125001300000000502000000
Simuliidaen.d.00000200008100200000100000
Psychodidaen.d.000000000020000000000000
Dolichopodidaen.d.000080000000000000000000
Empididaen.d.0013400000000000000000000
Stratiomyiidaen.d.000000000000010000000000
TipulidaeAntocha sp.0193000001115000000001000
Hexatoma sp.0103000001340000210001000
Pedicia sp.0103000000640000000000000
Tipula sp.1223000300170000100000000
Blephariceridaen.d.002000000000000000000000
Muscidaen.d.000020000000000000000000
Syrphidaen.d.100000000000000000001000
BaetidaeBaetiella sp.0463510200108770123000003000
Baetis sp.04669103021201287112420702146000
EphemeridaeEphemera sp.000000000000000000002000
EcdyuridaeCinygmina sp.007900002000640000000001000
Iron sp.00160000049001000010420600000
EphemerellidaeDrunella sp.0000100000120000000000000
Serratella sp.000000000000000030001000
Leptophlebiidaen.d.000000000072000102400000000
Siphlonuridaen.d.0000000200120000000000000
Corixidaen.d.000010000000000000000000
NaucoridaeGestroiella sp.000000000000000000006000
Hydropsychidaen.d.038016001010100000000010414000
RhyacophilidaeHimalopsyche sp.001000000041000000000000
Rhyacophila sp.00160100100594000030001000
Limnophilidaen.d.0070000000410000000000000
Leptoceridaen.d.000000000000122559100000000
Hydropsychidaen.d.100000010000000000000000
Psychomyiidaen.d.000100400007000000003000
Molannidaen.d.010000000000000000000000
Brachycentridaen.d.0201650000000900015000000000
Hydrobiosidaen.d.010000000000000000000000
Glossosomatidaen.d.003100000002250000000000000
Philopotamidaen.d.0000000029000000000000000
Libellulidaen.d.000020000000000000000000
Coenagrionidaen.d.000010000000000000000000
Gomphusn.d.0000000000001400000002000
Aeshnidaen.d.000000000000000020000000
Sisyridaen.d.000000000010000000004000
Perlidaen.d.03701001100000010150001000
Chloroperlidaen.d.047300000370000000000000000
Nemouridaen.d.001300004000700020030100000
Capniidaen.d.00000003700690000000000000
Pteronarcidaen.d.0023000000000000000000000
Perlodidaen.d.0000000360020020310002000
StyloperlidaeCerconychia sp.000000000000000000002000
Leuctridaen.d.000000010000000000000000
Note: n.d.—did not identified to genus.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xu, M.; Zhao, N.; Zhou, X.; Pan, B.; Liu, W.; Tian, S.; Wang, Z. Macroinvertebrate Biodiversity Trends and Habitat Relationships within Headwater Rivers of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Water 2018, 10, 1214. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091214

AMA Style

Xu M, Zhao N, Zhou X, Pan B, Liu W, Tian S, Wang Z. Macroinvertebrate Biodiversity Trends and Habitat Relationships within Headwater Rivers of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Water. 2018; 10(9):1214. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091214

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xu, Mengzhen, Na Zhao, Xiongdong Zhou, Baozhu Pan, Wei Liu, Shimin Tian, and Zhaoyin Wang. 2018. "Macroinvertebrate Biodiversity Trends and Habitat Relationships within Headwater Rivers of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau" Water 10, no. 9: 1214. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091214

APA Style

Xu, M., Zhao, N., Zhou, X., Pan, B., Liu, W., Tian, S., & Wang, Z. (2018). Macroinvertebrate Biodiversity Trends and Habitat Relationships within Headwater Rivers of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Water, 10(9), 1214. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091214

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop