Proceedings of the Zoological Society

, Volume 72, Issue 2, pp 130–153 | Cite as

Checklist of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa Along Different Riparian Land Use Types in Alaknanda River Catchment of the Central Himalaya, Uttarakhand (India)

  • Jitendra Singh RanaEmail author
  • Bhaskaranand Semalty
  • Pranav Singh
  • Navneet Swami
  • Saurabh Dewan
  • Jagmohan Singh
  • Manju Prakash Gusain
  • Om Prakash Gusain
Research Article


A checklist of benthic macroinvertebrates recorded at 08 different riparian land use (RLU) types in Alaknanda river catchment (ARC) in the Central Himalaya (India) is provided here. Among 77 taxa recorded, 73 insect genera belonged to 09 orders and 52 families at different RLU types. Majorities were nymphs and larvae of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Odonata, Hemiptera, Megaloptera and Diptera. The highest number of insect taxa (50) was recorded from Dense Mixed Forest; whereas, the lowest (27) was recorded from barren site i.e., Montane Barren. Also, the forested site had most number of common taxa (25). Benthic macroinvertebrates at Chir Pine Forest serves as a link between Dense Mixed Forest and Open Mixed Forest. Agricultural sites had 36 taxa in common. Interestingly the agricultural sites share 24 taxa with the forested sites. Overall 13 benthic insect taxa were ubiquitous in ARC, while 15 were rare, confined to a single site.


Aquatic insects Checklist Riparian land use Catchment Central Himalaya Uttarakhand 



We acknowledge the Uttarakhand State Council for Science and Technology (UCOST), Dehradun (Uttarakhand) for financial assistance in the form of research project. We are thankful to the Head, Department of Zoology and Biotechnology, Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University (Uttarakhand) for providing necessary facilities for the present work.


  1. Bonada, N., M. Rieradevall, N. Prat, and V.H. Resh. 2006. Benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages and macrohabitat connectivity in Mediterranean-climate streams of northern California. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25: 32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bothwell, M.L., and J.M. Culp. 1993. Sensitivity of the Thompson River to phosphorus: studies in trophic dynamics. Canada: National Hydrological Research Institute, Contribution No. 93006.Google Scholar
  3. Bouchard Jr., R.W. 2004. Guide to aquatic macroinvertebrates of the Upper Midwest. Saint Paul, MN: Water Resources Center, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  4. Brasher, A.M.D., Wolff, R.H., and Luton, C.D. 2004. Associations among land use, habitat characteristics, and invertebrate community structure in nine streams on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. United States Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4256.Google Scholar
  5. Brasher, A.M.D. 2003. Impacts of human disturbances on biotic communities in Hawaiian streams. BioScience 53(11): 1052–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brewin, P.A., T.M.L. Newman, and S.J. Ormerod. 1995. Patterns of macroinvertebrate distribution in relation to altitude, habitat structure and land use in streams of the Nepalese Himalaya. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 135: 79–100.Google Scholar
  7. Burcher, C.L., and E.F. Benfield. 2006. Physical and biological responses of streams to suburbanization of historically agricultural watersheds. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25: 356–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CBWP-MANTA-EA-99-2. 2003. Family-level key to the stream invertebrates of Maryland and surrounding areas. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Programs Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division.Google Scholar
  9. Cummins, K.W. 1962. An evaluation of some techniques for the collection and analysis of benthic samples with special emphasis on lotic waters. American Midland Naturalist 67: 477–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Death, R. 2000. Invertebrate–substratum relationships. In New Zealand stream invertebrates: Ecology and implications for management, ed. K.J. Collier, and M.J. Winterbourn, 157–178. Christchurch: New Zealand Limnological Society.Google Scholar
  11. Diego, L.C., L.C. Edgardo, I. Vanessa, A. Fatnori, B. Madeleine, and Z. Valentina. 2012. Checklist of benthonic marine invertebrates from Malaga Bay (Isla Palma and Los Negritos), Colombian Pacific. Check List 8(4): 703–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dudgeon, D. 1984. Seasonal and long-term changes in hydrobiology of the Lam Tsuen River, New Territories, Hong Kong, with special reference to benthic macroinvertebrate distribution and abundance. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie Supplement 69: 55–129.Google Scholar
  13. Dudgeon, D. 1990. Determinant of the distribution and abundance of larval Ephemeroptera (Insecta) in Hong Kong running waters. In Mayflies and stoneflies: Life histories and biology, ed. I.C. Campbell, 221–232. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publicers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dudgeon, D. 1992. Patterns and processes in steam ecology. Stuggart: Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
  15. Dudgeon, D. 1999. Tropical Asian streams. Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dudgeon, D., A.H. Arthington, M.O. Gessner, Z.I. Kawabata, D.J. Knowler, C. Leveque, R.J. Naiman, A.H. Prieur-Richard, D. Soto, M.L.J. Stiassny, and C.A. Sullivan. 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81: 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eckholm, E. 1975. The deterioration of mountain environments. Science 189: 764–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edington, J.M., and A.G. Hildrew. 1995. Caseless caddis larvae of the British Isles (A key with ecological notes). London: Freshwater Biological Association Scientific Publication No. 53.Google Scholar
  19. Edmondson, W.T. 1992. Freshwater biology. Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, India: International Books and Periodical Supply Service.Google Scholar
  20. Erman, N.A., and C.D. Nagano. 1992. A review of the California caddisflies (Trichoptera) listed as candidate species on the 1989 federal “Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Animal notice of review.”. California Fish and Game 78(2): 45–56.Google Scholar
  21. Fausch, K.D., C.E. Torgersen, C.V. Baxter, and H.W. Li. 2002. Landscapes to riverscapes: Bridging the gap between research and conservation of stream fishes. BioScience 52: 483–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Friberg, N., M.J. Winterbourn, K.A. Shearer, and S.E. Larsen. 1997. Benthic communities of forest streams in the South Island, New Zealand: effects of forest type and location. Archiv fur Hydrobiolgie 138: 289–306.Google Scholar
  23. Frissell, C.A., W.J. Liss, C.E. Warren, and M.D. Hurley. 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: Viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management 10: 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hendrickx, M., and A.W. Harvey. 1999. Checklist of anomuran crabs (Crustacea: Decapoda) from the Eastern Tropical Pacific. Belgian Journal of Zoology 129(2): 363–389.Google Scholar
  25. Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hynes, H.B.N. 1976. Biology of Plecoptera. Annual Review of Entomology 21: 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hynes, H.B.N. 1988. Biogeography and origins of the North American stoneflies (Plecoptera). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 144: 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ives, J.D., and B. Messerli. 1989. The Himalayan dilemma: Reconciling development and conservation. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Iwata, T., S. Nakano, and M. Inoue. 2003. Impacts of past riparian deforestation on stream communities in a tropical rain forest in Borneo. Ecological Applications 13: 461–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johnson, M.R., and R.B. Zelt. 2005. Protocols for mapping and characterizing land use/land cover in riparian zones. United State Geological Survey, Open File Report 2005-1302, 22 p.Google Scholar
  31. Kasangaki, A., D. Babaasa, J. Efitre, A. McNeilag, and R. Bitariho. 2006. Links between anthropogenic perturbations and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in Afromontane forest streams in Uganda. Hydrobiologia 563: 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kasangaki, A., J.C. Lauren, and D.J. Balirwa. 2008. Land use and the ecology of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages of high-altitude rainforest streams in Uganda. Freshwater Biology 53: 681–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lancaster, J. 2000. Geometric scaling of microhabitat patches and their efficacy as refugia during disturbance. Journal of Animal Ecology 69: 442–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Macan, T.T. 1979. A key to the nymphs of the British species of Ephemeroptera with notes on their ecology. London: Freshwater Biological Association, Scientific Publication No. 20(III).Google Scholar
  35. Maitland, P.S. 1965. The feeding relationships of Salmon, Trout, Minnows, Stone Loach and Three-spined Sticklebacks in the River Endrick, Scotland. Journal of Animal Ecology 34: 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Malmqvist, B., and S. Rundle. 2002. Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world. Environmental Conservation 29: 134–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meher-Homji, V.M. 1978. Vegetation classification. Need we disseminate environmental terminologies from the physiognomic nomenclature. Indian Forester 104: 653–660.Google Scholar
  38. Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  39. Montgomery, D.R. 1999. Process domains and the river continuum. Journal of American Water Resource Association 35: 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Myers, N. 1988. Threatened biotas: ‘Hot spots’ in tropical forests. Environmentalist 8: 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Myers, N. 1990. The biodiversity challenge: Expanded ‘hot spot’ analysis. Environmentalist 10: 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Needham, J.G., and P.R. Needham. 1962. A guide to the study of freshwater biology. San Francisco: Holden-Day Incorporation.Google Scholar
  43. Norris, R.H., and C.P. Hawkins. 2000. Monitoring river health. Hydrobiologia 435: 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ogilvie, G., and H.F. Clifford. 1986. Life histories, production, and microdistribution of two caddisflies (Trichoptera) in a Rocky Mountain stream. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64: 2706–2716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ormerod, S.J., H.S. Baral, P.A. Brewin, S.T. Buckton, I. Juttner, H. Rothfritz, and A.M. Suren. 1997. River habitat surveys and biodiversity in the Nepal Himalaya. In Freshwater quality: Defining the indefinable?, ed. P.J. Boon, and D.L. Howell, 241–250. Edinburgh, UK: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  46. Ormerod, S.J., S.D. Rundle, S.M. Wilkinson, G.P. Daly, K.M. Dale, and I. Juttner. 1994. Altitudinal trends in the diatoms, bryophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish of a Nepalese river system. Freshwater Biology 32: 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Palmer, M.A., P. Arensburger, A.P. Martin, and D.W. Denman. 1996. Disturbance and patch-specific responses: The interactive effects of woody debris and floods on lotic invertebrates. Oecologia 105: 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pritchard, G., and H.A. Hall. 1971. An introduction to the biology of craneflies in a series of abandoned beaver ponds, with an account of the life cycle of Tipula sacra Alexander (Diptera: Tipulidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 49: 467–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Quinn, J.M., A.B. Cooper, R.J. Davies-Colley, J.C. Rutherford, and R.B. Williamson. 1997. Land use effects on habitat, water quality, periphyton, and benthic invertebrates in Waikato, New Zealand, hill-country streams. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 31: 579–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rawat, D.S., B.S. Bhandari, and R.D. Gaur. 2001. Vegetational wealth: Garhwal Himalaya. In Garhwal Himalaya: Nature, culture and society, ed. O.P. Kandari, and O.P. Gusain, 69–92. Srinagar Garhwal: Transmedia, Media House.Google Scholar
  51. Rosenberg, D.M., and V.H. Resh. 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  52. Rothfritz, H., I. Juttner, A. Suren, and S.J. Ormerod. 1997. Epiphytic and epilithic diatom communities along environmental gradients in the Nepalese Himalaya: Implications for the assessment of biodiversity and water quality. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 138: 465–482.Google Scholar
  53. Sorenson, S.K., S.D. Porter, K.K.B. Akers, M.A. Harris, S.J. Kalkhoff, K.E. Lee, L.R. Roberts and P.J. Terrio. 1999. Water quality and habitat conditions in upper Midwest streams relative to riparian vegetation and soil characteristics, August 1997: study design, methods, and data. Denver: United State Geological Survey, Open-File Report 99–202.Google Scholar
  54. Sponseller, R.A., E.F. Benfield, and H.M. Valett. 2001. Relationships between land use, spatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwater Biology 46: 1409–1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stauffer, J.C., R.M. Goldstein, and R.M. Newman. 2000. Relation of wooded riparian zones and runoff potential to fish community composition in agricultural streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stone, M.K., and J.B. Wallace. 1998. Long term recovery of a mountain stream from clear-cut logging: The effects of forest succession on benthic invertebrate community structure. Freshwater Biology 39: 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Suren, A.M. 1994. Macroinvertebrate communities of streams in western Nepal: effect of altitude and land use. Freshwater Biology 32: 323–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Suren, A.M., and S.J. Ormerod. 1998. Aquatic bryophytes in Himalayan streams: Testing a distribution model in a heterogeneous environment. Freshwater Biology 40: 697–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tonapi, G.T. 1980. Freshwater animals of India (an ecological approach). New Delhi: Oxford & BH Publication Corporation.Google Scholar
  60. Unzicker, J.D., V.H. Resh, and J.C. Morse. 1982. Trichoptera. In Aquatic insects and oligochaetes of North and South Carolina, ed. R. Brigham, W.V. Brigham, and A. Gnilka, 9.1–9.138. Mahomet, Iceland: Midwest Aquatic Enterprises.Google Scholar
  61. Usinger, R.L. 1956. Aquatic insects of California. Berkeley: University of Califorina Press.Google Scholar
  62. Usinger, R.L. 1971. Aquatic insects of California with keys to North American genera and California species. Berkeley: California University of California Press.Google Scholar
  63. Wallace, J.B., and J.C. Webster. 1996. The role of macroinvertebrates in stream ecosystem function. Annual Review of Entomology 41: 115–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ward, H.B., and G.C. Whipple. 1959. Freshwater biology. New York: Willey.Google Scholar
  65. Weber, C.I. 1973. Biological field and laboratory methods for measuring the quality of surface water and effluent, EPA-670/4-73-001. Cincinnati: USEPA National Environmental Research Center.Google Scholar
  66. Welch, P.S. 1952. Limnology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Zoological Society, Kolkata, India 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jitendra Singh Rana
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bhaskaranand Semalty
    • 1
  • Pranav Singh
    • 1
  • Navneet Swami
    • 1
  • Saurabh Dewan
    • 1
  • Jagmohan Singh
    • 1
  • Manju Prakash Gusain
    • 1
  • Om Prakash Gusain
    • 1
  1. 1.Freshwater Biology Unit, Department of Zoology and BiotechnologyHemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal UniversitySrinagar (Garhwal)India

Personalised recommendations