, Volume 542, Issue 1, pp 203–220 | Cite as

Native and exotic Amphipoda and other Peracarida in the River Meuse: new assemblages emerge from a fast changing fauna

  • Guy Josens
  • Abraham Bij de Vaate
  • Philippe Usseglio-Polatera
  • Roger Cammaerts
  • Frédéric Chérot
  • Frédéric Grisez
  • Pierre Verboonen
  • Jean-Pierre Vanden Bossche


Samples issued from intensive sampling in the Netherlands (1992–2001) and from extensive sampling carried out in the context of international campaigns (1998, 2000 and 2001) were revisited. Additional samples from artificial substrates (1992–2003) and other techniques (various periods) were analysed. The combined data provide a global and dynamic view on the Peracarida community of the River Meuse, with the focus on the Amphipoda. Among the recent exotic species found, Crangonyx pseudogracilisis regressing, Dikerogammarus haemobaphesis restricted to the Condroz course of the river, Gammarus tigrinusis restricted to the lowlands and seems to regress, Jaera istriis restricted to the ‘tidal’ Meuse, Chelicorophium curvispinumis still migrating upstream into the Lorraine course without any strong impact on the other amphipod species. After a rapid expansion Dikerogammarus villosushas continued its upstream invasion between 1998 and 2002 at a rate of 30–40 km per year, but no further progression was noticed in 2003. Locally and temporarily the native species (Gammarus fossarum and G. pulex) and naturalized species (G. roeseliand Echinogammarus berilloni)mayhave been excluded by the most recent invaders (mainly D. villosus), but none of the native and naturalized species has disappeared completely. Therefore, the number of amphipod species found in the River Meuse has increased. Moreover, the native and naturalized species keep on dominating the tributaries from which the recent invaders seem to be excluded. A changing Peracarida community structure is observed along the course of the River Meuse: four native or naturalized species inhabit the upstream (Lorraine) course, three invasive species dominate in the middle reach (Ardenne-Condroz zone), one exotic species is housed in the Border Meuse and three or four invasive species dominate the assemblages in the lowlands.


aquatic biodiversity alien species invasive species invasibility community dynamics Dikerogammarus villosus Chelicorophium curvispinum 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bayliss, D., Harris, R. R. 1990Chloride ion regulation in the freshwater amphipod Corophium curvispinumand acclimatory effects of external Cl Journal of Comparative Physiology B1588190Google Scholar
  2. Bijde Vaate, A. 1995Macroinvertebrate communities in the Grensmaas stretch of the River Meuse: 1980–1990Journal of Freshwater Ecology107582Google Scholar
  3. Bijde Vaate, A., Klink, A. G. 1995Dikerogammarus villosusSowinsky (Crustacea: Gammaridea) a new immigrant in the Dutch part of the lower RhineLauterbornia205154Google Scholar
  4. C.I.M.-I.M.C. (Commission Internationale de la Meuse – Internationale Maascommissie), 2003. Résultats du réseau de mesures homogène – Resultaten van het homogeen meetnet 2002, 99 pp. Palais des Congrès, Liège or Scholar
  5. C.I.P.M.-I.C.B.M. (Commission Internationale pour la Protection de la Meuse – Internationale Commissie voor de Bescherming van de Maas), 1997. La qualité de la Meuse en 1994. De kwaliteit van de Maas in 1994, 114 pp.Google Scholar
  6. C.I.P.M.-I.C.B.M., 2001. Résultats du réseau de mesures homogène – Resultaten van het homogeen meetnet 1999, 159 pp. Palais des Congrès, Liège or Scholar
  7. C.I.P.M.-I.C.B.M., 2002a. Résultats du réseau de mesures homogène – Resultaten van het homogeen meetnet 2000, 139 pp. Palais des Congrès, Liège or Scholar
  8. C.I.P.M.-I.C.B.M., 2002b. Résultats du réseau de mesures homogène – Resultaten van het homogeen meetnet 2001, 92 pp. Palais des Congrès, Liège or Scholar
  9. Den Hartog, C. 1964The amphipods of the deltaic region of the Rivers Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt in relation to the hydrography of the area; part III. The GammaridaeNetherlands Journal of Sea Research2407457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Den Hartog, C., Brink, F. W. B., Velde, G. 1992Why was the invasion of the River Rhine by Corophium curvispinumand Corbiculaspecies so successful?Journal of Natural History2611211129Google Scholar
  11. Pauw, N., Lambert, V., Kenfoven, A., bijde Vaate, A. 1994Comparison of two artificial substrate samplers for macroinvertebrates in biological monitoring of large and deep rivers and canals in Belgium and the NetherlandsJournal of Environmental Monitoring , Assessment302547Google Scholar
  12. Pauw, N., Roels, D., Fontoura, A. P. 1986Use of artificial substrates for standardized sampling of macroinvertebrates in the assessment of water quality by the Belgian Biotic IndexHydrobiologia133237258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devin, S., Piscart, C., Beisel, J. N., Moreteau, J. C. 2003Ecological traits of the amphipod invader Dikerogammarus villosuson the mesohabitat scaleArchiv für Hydrobiologie1584356Google Scholar
  14. Dick, J. T. A., Platvoet, D. 2000Invading predatory crustacean Dikerogammarus villosuseliminates both native and exotic speciesProceedings of the royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences267977983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. d’Udekem d’Acoz, C., Stroot, P. 1988Note sur 1’expansion de Corophium curvispinumSars, 1895 en Meuse (Crustacea, Amphipoda: Corophiidae)Annales de la Société royale zoologique de Belgique118171175Google Scholar
  16. Frantzen, N. 1991De kwaliteit van Rijn- en Maaswater in de periode 1983–1989. Beoordeling met behulp van macro-evertebratenRIWAAmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  17. Gay Environnement, 1997. Indice biologique global adapté aux grands cours d’eau et aux rivières profondes (I.B.G.A.). Protocole expérimental. Agence de 1’Eau Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse, 45 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Harris, R. R., Bayliss, D. 1990Osmoregulation in Corophium curvispinum(Crustacea: Amphipoda), a recent coloniser of freshwater. III. Evidence for adaptive change in sodium regulationJournal of comparative Physiology B1608592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hynes, H. B. N. 1954The ecology of Gammarus duebeniLilljeborg and its occurrence in fresh water in western BritainJournal of Animal Ecology233884Google Scholar
  20. Hynes H. B. N., 1970. The ecology of running waters. Liverpool University Press, 541 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Jazdzewski, K. 1980Range extension of some Gammaridean species in European inland Waters caused by human activityCrutaceana Suppl.684107Google Scholar
  22. Ketelaars, H. A. M. 1993Die Makro-Invertebratenbesiedlung von künstlichem Substrat in den Flüssen Maas und Rhein im Jahre 1991Wasser Abwasser134533541Google Scholar
  23. Ketelaars, H. A. M., Frantzen, N. M. L. H. F. 1995One decade of benthic macroinvertebrate biomonitoring in the River MeuseNetherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology29121133with addendumCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ketelaars, H. A. M., Lambregts-vande Clundert, F. E., Carpentier, C. J., Wagenvoort, A. J., Hoogenboezem, W. 1999Ecological effects of the mass occurrence of the Ponto-Caspian invader Hemimysis anomala G.O. Sars, 1907 (Crustacea: Mysidacea), in a freshwater storage reservoir in the Netherlands, with notes on its autecology and new recordsHydrobiologia394233248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klink, A. G. , M. A. A. de la Haye, 2000. Inventarisatie van macrofauna in de Limburgse Maasplassen. Reports of the project ‘Ecological rehabilitation of the River Meuse’ RIZA report 34–2000: 73 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Kornberg, H.Williamson, M. H. eds. 1987Quantitative Aspects of the Ecology of Biological InvasionsThe royal SocietyLondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Krieg, H. -J., 2002. Biomonitoring der Amphipodenfauna in der Oberen, Mittleren und Unteren Elbe. ARGE ELBE (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für die Reinhaltung der Elbe). http://www.arge-elbe/wge/Download/Dtexte.html.Google Scholar
  28. Levine, C. M., D’Antonio, C. M. 1999Elton revisited: a review of evidence linking diversity and invasionOikos871526Google Scholar
  29. Lonsdale, W. M. 1999Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibilityEcology8015221536Google Scholar
  30. Maas, H., 2001. Ecotoxicology. In Liefveld, W.M., K. van Looy , K. H. Prins (eds), Biological monitoring of national fresh waters, the River Meuse 1996. RIZA report 2002.022: 23–24.Google Scholar
  31. Meurisse-Genin, M., Reydams-Detollenaere, A., Stroot, Ph., Micha, J. -C. 1987Les macroinvertébrés benthiques de la Meuse belge: bilan de cinq années de recherches (1980 à 1984)Archiv für Hydrobiologie1096788Google Scholar
  32. Moyle, P. B., Light, T. 1996Fish invasions in California: do abiotic factors determine success?Ecology7716661670Google Scholar
  33. Müller, J., 2001. Taxonomic status and genetic structure of Dikerogammarus-species invading the River Rhine, Scholar
  34. Musko, I. B. 1993The life history of Dikerogammarus haemobaphes(Eichw.) (Crustacea, Amphipoda) living on macrophytes in lake Balaton (Hungary)Archiv für Hydrobiologie127227238Google Scholar
  35. Pinkster, S. 1993A revision of the genus Echinogammarus(Stebbing, 1899) with some notes on related genera (Crustacea, Amphipoda)Memorie del Museo di storia naturale (II° serie) Scienze della vitta (a Biologia)109183Google Scholar
  36. Pinkster, S., Platvoet, D. 1983Further observations on the distribution and biology of two alien amphipods, Gammarus tigrinusSexton, 1939 and Crangonyx pseudogracilisBousfield, 1958 in the Netherlands (Crustacea, Amphipoda)Bulletin zoölogisch Museum Universiteit van Amsterdam9153164Google Scholar
  37. Pinkster, S., Scheepmaker, M., Platvoet, D., Broodbakker, N. 1992Drastic changes in the amphipod fauna (Crustacea) of Dutch inland waters during the last 25 yearsBijdragen tot de Dierkunde61193204Google Scholar
  38. Rajagopal, S., Velde, G., Paffen, B. G. P., bijde Vaate, A. 1998Growth and production of Corophium curvispinumG.O. Sars, 1895 (Amphipoda) an invader in the lower RhineProceedings of the fourth international Crustacean Congress1998457472Google Scholar
  39. R.I.Z.A. (Rijksinstituut voor Integraal Zoetwaterbeheer en Afvalwaterbehandeling), 1998. Proposal for the harmonisation of macroinvertebrate monitoring in the River Meuse, 15 pp.Google Scholar
  40. Schmit, O., Josens, G. 2004Preliminary study of the scars borne by Gammaridae (Amphipoda, Crustacea)Belgian Journal of Zoology1347578Google Scholar
  41. Schleuter, M., Schleuter, A., Potel, S., Banning, M. 1994Dikerogammarus haemobaphes(Eichwald, 1841) (Gammaridae) aus der Donau erreicht über den Main-Donau-Kanal den MainLauterbornia21155159Google Scholar
  42. Thioulouse ,J., S. Dolédec, D.Chessel & J. M.Olivier, 1997. ADE software: multivariate analysis and graphical display of environmental ata, Software per 1’Ambiente, Guariso G. , A. Rizzoli (eds), Bologna: 57–62.Google Scholar
  43. Tittizer, T., 1996. Vorkommen und Ausbreitung aquatischer Neozoen (Makrozoobenthos) in den Bundeswasserstrassen. In Gebhardt, H., R. Kinzelbach , S. Schmidt-Fischer (eds), Gebietsfremde Tierarten – Auswirkungen auf einheimische Arten, Lebensgemeinschaften und Biotope – Situationsanalyse: 49–86.Google Scholar
  44. Tittizer, T., Banning, M. 2000Biological assessment in the Danube catchment area: indications of shifts in species composition induced by human activitiesEuropean Water Management33545Google Scholar
  45. Tittizer, T., Schöll, F., Banning, M., Haybach, A., Schleuter, M. 2000Aquatische Neozoen im Makrozoobenthos der Binnenwasserstrassen DeutschlandsLauterbornia39172Google Scholar
  46. Usseglio-Polatera, Ph. , J. N. Beisel, 2002a. Traitement des résultats du monitoring international de la faune de macroinvertébrés de la Meuse, 108 pp. Rapport C.I.P.M.-I.C.B.M., Palais des Congrès, Liège.Google Scholar
  47. Usseglio-Polatera, Ph., Beisel, J. N. 2002bLongitudinal changes in macroinvertebrate assemblages in the Meuse River: anthropogenic effects versus natural changeRiver Research and Applications18197211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vanden Bossche, J. -P., E. Delooz , F. Grisez, 1999. Macroinvertébrés benthiques et qualité biologique de la Meuse wallonne en 1998. Centre de Recherche de la Nature, des Forêts et du Bois. D.G.R.N.E. Ministère de la Région wallonne. Gembloux, 60 pp.Google Scholar
  49. Vanden Bossche, J. -P. 2002First records and fast spread of five new (1995–2000) alien species in the River Meuse in Belgium: Hypania invalida, Corbicula fluminea, Hemimysis anomala, Dikerogammarus villosusand Crangonyx pseudogracilis Bulletin de 1’ Institut royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique Biologic72(Suppl.)7378Google Scholar
  50. Vanden Brink, F. W. B., Velde, G., bijde Vaate, A. 1993Ecological aspects, explosive range extension and impact of a mass invader, Corophium curvispinumSars, 1895 (Crustacea, Amphipoda) in the lower Rhine (the Netherlands)Oecologia93224232Google Scholar
  51. Velde, G., Nagelkerken, I., Rajagopal, S., bijde Vaate, A. 2002Invasions by alien species in inland freshwater bodies in Western Europe: the Rhine deltaLeppäkoski, E.Gollasch, S.Olenin, S. eds. Invasive aquatic species of Europe. Distribution, impacts and managementKluwer Academic Publ.Dordrecht360372Google Scholar
  52. Van der Velde G., Rajagopal S., van den Brink F.W.B., Kelleher B., Paffen B.G.P., Kempers A.J., bij de Vaate A. 1998. Ecological impact of an exotic invasion in the River Rhine. In Nienhuis, P. H., R. S. E. W. Leuven , A. M. J. Ragas (eds), New concepts for sustainable management of river basins, 159–169. Backhuys Publ., Leiden.Google Scholar
  53. Vereertsraeten, J., 1971. Le bassin de la Meuse, étude de géographie hydrologique. Revue belge de Géographie 94: 1–339.Google Scholar
  54. Volz, J., H. Ketelaars , A. Wagenvoort, 2002. Cinquante années d’évolution de la qualité de 1’eau de la Meuse – un aperçu. H2O 3: 21–26Google Scholar
  55. Williamson, M. , A. Fitter, 1996. The varying success of invaders. Ecology 77: 1661–1666.Google Scholar
  56. Wouters, K. A., 1985. Corophium curvispinumSars, 1895 (Amphipoda) in the River Meuse, Belgium. Crustaceana 48: 218–220.Google Scholar
  57. Wouters K.(2002). On the distribution of alien non-marine and estuarine macro-crustaceans in Belgium. Bulletin de 1’Institut royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique, Biologie 72 (Suppl).: 119–129Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guy Josens
    • 1
  • Abraham Bij de Vaate
    • 2
  • Philippe Usseglio-Polatera
    • 3
  • Roger Cammaerts
    • 1
    • 4
  • Frédéric Chérot
    • 1
    • 4
  • Frédéric Grisez
    • 1
    • 4
  • Pierre Verboonen
    • 1
  • Jean-Pierre Vanden Bossche
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Université Libre de Bruxelles, Service de systématique et d’écologie animales, av.Bruxelles
  2. 2.Institute for Inland Water Management , Waste Water TreatmentLelystadThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Université de MetzMetz
  4. 4.Centre de Recherche de la Nature, des Forêts et du Bois, DGRNE, Ministère de la Région wallonneGembloux

Personalised recommendations