species diversity of macrobenthic invertebrates in the semenyih

PertanikaJ. Trop. Agric. Sci. 26(2): 139 -146 (2003) ISSN: 1511-3701© Universiti Putra Malaysia Press

Species Diversity of Macrobenthic Invertebrates in the Semenyih River,Selangor, Peninsular Malaysia

YAP, C. K., A. RAHIM ISMAIL, A. ISMAIL 8c S. G. TANDepartment of Biology, Faculty of Science and Environmental Studies,

Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang,Selangor, Malaysia

Keywords: Macrobenthic invertebrates, Semenyih River, Peninsular Malaysia

ABSTRAK

Kajian ini dijalankan di sebuah sungai di Semenanjung Malaysia, Sungai Semenyih. Sungai ini menyokongpelbagai makrobentik invertebrata di mana stesyen yang berada di hulu sungai didominasi oleh Crustacea,Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Gastropoda, Trichoptera, Coleoptera dan Diptera sementara Hirudinea and Oligocheataadalah organisma-organisma bentik yang mendominasi stesyen di hilir sungai ini. Species-species 'caddisfly'seperti Microstenum similior dan Amphipsyche meridiana didapati berpotensi menjadi penunjuk biologikepada ekosistem yang bersih. Cacing yang berketahanan tinggi, Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri, ditemui sebagaispecies yang berdominasi di bahagian hilir sungai ini dan dianggap sebagai penunjuk biologi kepada ekosistemyang tercemar. Spesies diversiti yang rendah dan kewujudan spesies yang berketahanan tinggi menunjukkanbahawa hilir sungai ini telah tercemar disebabkan oleh degradasi kualiti air. Dengan pertambahan pendudukyang pesat, perindustrian and aktiviti pertanian di Malaysia telah menyebabkan masalah serius kepada kualitiair di kebanyakan sungai, makrobentik invertebrata yang ditemui di sepanjang sungai-sungai boleh digunakansebagai penunjuk biologi kepada pengaruh ekotosikobgi oleh pencemaran sungai di Malaysia.

ABSTRACT

This study was carried out on one of the rivers in Peninsular Malaysia, the Semenyih River. The river supporteddiverse macrobenthic invertebrates in which the upstream sampling stations were dominated by Crustacea,Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Gastropoda, Trichoptera, Coleoptera and Diptera while Hirudinea and Oligocheatawere the benthic organisms found predominant at downstream stations. Some caddisfly species such asMicrostenum similior and Amphipsyche meridiana were found to be potential bioindicators for a cleanecosystem. The resistant worm, Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri, was found to be the most dominant species at thedownstream of the river and is considered a potential bioindicator for a polluted ecosystem. Low species diversityand occurrence of resistant worm species indicated that the downstream of the river deteriorated due to waterquality degradation. As rapid increases in population growth, industrialization and agricultural activities inMalaysia have caused serious problems to the water quality of many rivers, the macrobenthic invertebrates foundalang the rivers can be used as bioindicators of the ecotoxicological effects of river pollution in Malaysia.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, numerous publications havecritically reviewed the use of macrobenthicinvertebrates as bioindicators as well as theappropriateness and shortcomings of certainindices. Macrobenthic invertebrates have beenmuch used for biological monitoring ofenvironmental quality in aquatic ecosystems inEurope and North America (Hellawell 1986;Metcalfe 1989; Rosenberg and Resh 1993; Pinel-Alloul et al. 1996). They have sedentary lifestyles

that reflect local sediment conditions, life spansthat integrate contaminant impacts over time,they live in the sediment and water interfacewhere contaminants accumulate, and mostimportantly they show differential levels oftolerance to contaminants (Dauer 1993). Sincechanges in taxonomic richness and compositionof macrobenthic invertebrates were consideredsensitive tools for detecting alterations in aquaticecosystems (Pinder et al. 1987), methods basedon indicator species have been developed. Most

YAP, C. K., A. RAHIM ISMAIL, A. ISMAIL & S. G. TAN

of the indices based on the presence-absence ofpollution scored taxa focussed on the detectionof organic pollution (Hilsenhoff 1987, 1988).Later, assessment of macrobenthic communitystructure was used as a measure of contaminationby organic matter and pollutants (Jones et al.1981; Johnson and Wiederholm 1989).

In Malaysia, the use of macrobenthicinvertebrates in the study of river pollution hasnot been practised because the Department ofthe Environment (DOE 2001) has not includedthis methodology for the river pollution studies.For the year 2000 (DOE 2001), there were 34river basins (28.3%) found to be clean, 71(61.7%) were slightly polluted and 12 (10%)were polluted. These classifications were basedon a river water quality index (WQI) whichfocussed on six parameters (ammoniacal nitrogen(NH3-N), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),chemical oxygen demand (COD), dissolvedoxygen (DO), pH and suspended solids). This

paper provides a list of macrobenthicinvertebrates found in Semenyih River inPeninsular Malaysia which could be used toassess water quality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Area and Sampling

This study, which was carried out in June 1997during the dry season, covered the riverine systemof the Semenyih River in the district of UluLangat, Selangor, Peninsular Malaysia {Figure 1).The depth of the river ranged from 0.15 to 0.33m. The Semenyih River (2° 54' N to 3° N and101° 48'E to 101° 53'E) is a tributary of theLangat River. The Semenyih Dam, across theSemenyih River, is one of the major sources ofwater supply for the densely populated KlangValley. Seven sampling stations were established(Fig. 1). The substrata of stations 1 to 3 consistedmostly of cobbles or pebbles and a modified

Semenyih >

Fig. 1: Sampling stations of macrobenthic invertebrates from Semenyih River

140 PERTANIKAJ. TROP. AGRIC. SCI. VOL. 26 NO. 2, 2003

SPECIES DIVERSITY OF MACROBENTHIC INVERTEBRATES IN THE SEMENYIH RIVER

Surber sampler (1256.8 cm2) was used at thesetwo sites. The bottom of Station 4 consistedmainly of sand while Stations 5 to 7 werecharacterized by silt or muddy sand, where aPVC tube (10.19 cm2) was used for sampling inthese stations. Three sites were located at eachsampling station. At each sampling site, threereplicates were sampled. Thus, a total of 63samples were collected for this study.

Storage and Identification of Macrobenthic

Invertebrates

The samples collected were sieved using an 80mm mesh. After field collection, the sampleswere put into polyethylene bottles and preservedwith 80% alcohol. In the laboratory, themacrobenthic invertebrates were sorted,enumerated and identified to the lowest possibletaxon. The keys used were Gloyd and Wright(1966), Brinkhurst andjamieson (1971), Merrittand Cummins (1978), Pennak (1978), McCafferty(1981), Scott (1983) and Ismail (1993). Data onindividuals per taxon were used to calculatevarious biological parameters.

A biotic index, the Biological MonitoringWorking Party (BMWP) system (Armitage et ai1983) which depends on family levelidentification, was employed for pollutionassessment By using this system, families ofmacrobenthic invertebrates were allocated scoresin the range of 1 (tolerant) to 10 (intolerant)according to their tolerance to organic pollutionand the scores of all the families present werethen summed up to obtain the BMWP score(Wright et al 1993).

Statistical Analysis

Simple statistical analyses were done by usingthe Statistical Analysis System Version 6.0 (SAS1987). At each station, parameters such as density(numbers /m 2 ) , number of species (R0),Margalef's species richness index (Rl ) ,Menhinick's species richness index (R2),Shannon's diversity index (//% Hill's diversityindex (Nl) and Hill's evenness index (E4) andAlatalo's evenness index (E5) (Ludwig andReynolds 1988), were calculated using a statisticalsoftware that had been exclusively programmedin SAS by Rashid et al (1998) to use count data(Ludwig and Reynolds 1988), that is, the numberof individuals (N) of each species and the totalnumber of individuals sampled.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Density and Distribution of Macrobenthic

Invertebrates

The densities of macrobenthos are shown inTable 1. High diversities were observed atupstream stations (Stations 1 to 3), but atdownstream stations (Stations 4 to 7) thepopulations were characterized by the sand-bottomed substratum (Station 4) and the anoxicconditions of silt or mud (Stations 6 and 7) andonly one or two species could survive (Thorneand Williams 1997). Station 7 was found to haveonly one single species, namely Limnodrilushoffmeisteri (Oligochaeta) and this worm speciesis known to be able to tolerate unfavourableconditions such as low dissolved oxygen andhigh pollutant concentrations (Brinkhurst andKennedy 1965; Brinkhurst 1967). For example,a high density of oligochaetes is a good indicationof organic pollution (Slepukhina 1984; Lang1985). Therefore, L. hoffmeisteri is a potentialbioindicator for the polluted ecosystem of theriver. On the other hand, clean areas with cobblesand pebbles were the major substratacomposition at the upstream sampling stations(Stations 1 to 3) and Station 2 was recorded tohave the highest number of species (R0= 18).Among the caddisfly species found, Microstenumsimilior and Amphipsyche meridiana were found tobe potential bioindicators for the clean ecosystemsince they could be found at the clean upstreamstations (Stations 1 to 3) of Semenyih River. Atthe sandy substratum of Station 4, it was onlydominated by a single bivalve species, Corbiculajavanica.

Of all the taxa recorded, Hirudinea andOligocheata were the organisms foundpredominately at downstream stations (Stations5 to 7) with L. hoffmeisteri being the mostabundant species. On the other hand, the othertaxa (Crustacea, Ephemeroptera, Odonata,Gastropoda, Trichoptera, Coleoptera andDiptera) were recorded mainly at upstreamsampling stations with Baetidae and Filopaludinamartensi martensi showing the least number ofindividuals at Station 1. These species, althoughlow in density, were still of importance incontributing toward the species richness. Thetaxa Leptophlebiidae, Hydropsyche annulata,Polymorphanisus species and Tipulidae were onlyfound at Station 3. This occurrence might bedue to drift from the Tekala River (Fig. I) which

PERTANIKAJ. TROP. AGRIC. SCI. VOL. 26 NO. 2, 2003 141

YAP, C. K., A. RAHIM ISMAIL, A. ISMAIL 8c S. G. TAN

TABLE 1Densities (numbers/m2 ± standard error; N= 3) of macrobenthos in the 7 stations of the

Semenyih River, Selangor, Peninsular Malaysia. St: Sampling station; NF= Not found

Taxa

HirudineaPiscicola sp.Batrachobdelh. sp.

Oligochaeta

St-1

NFNF

Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri NF

L. hoffmeisteri(Juvenile)

CrustaceaPenaeus sp.

EphemeropteraCaenidaeBaetidaeHeptageniidaeLeptophlebiidae

OdonataLeucorrhinia sp.Ophiogomphus sp.

GastropodaFilopaludina martensi

martensiMelanoides

turberculataBivalvia

Corbicula javanicaTrichoptera

Macrostemum similiorAmphipsyche

meridianaHydropsyche annulataPolymorphanisus sp.BeraeidaePolycentropodidae

ColeopteraLimnebiidae

DipteraTipulidaeSimuliidae

ChironomidaePentaneura sp.Parachironomus sp.CeratopogonidaeEmpididae

NF

5.30 ± 2.65

15.9 ± 4.602.65 ± 2.6515.9 ± 4.60

NF

5.30 ± 2.65NF

2.65 ± 2.65

NF

42.4 ± 7.02

1172 ± 375

76.9 ± 29.9NFNF

66.3 ± 7.0282.2 ± 29.9

5.30 ± 2.65

NF39.8 ± 12.2

519.8 ± 78.33846 ± 98713.3 ± 5.305.30 ± 2.65

St-2

15.91 ± 7.965.30 ± 2.65

NF

NF

NF

5.30 ± 2.65NF

5.30 ± 2.65NF

13.3 ± 2.655.30 ± 2.65

5.30 ± 2.65

5.30 ± 2.65

21.2 ± 7.02

504 ± 44.1

7.96 ± 4.59NFNF

39.8 ± 4.597.96 ± 4.59

NF

NF7.96 ± 4.59

286 ± 41.31578 ± 63613.3 ± 2.655.30 ± 2.65

St-3

NFNF

NF

NF

NF

47.7 ± 9.1961.0 ± 16.139.8 ± 4.595.30 ± 2.65

2.65 ± 2.655.30 ± 2.65

NF

NF

NF

66.3 ±11.6

NF10.6 ± 2.65101 ± 37.1

NF5.30 ± 2.65

NF

34.5 ± 7.02NF

196 ± 45.3321 ± 38.518.6 ± 7.02

NF

St-4

NFNF

NF

NF

NF

NFNFNFNF

NFNF

NF

NF

1636 ± 327

NF

NFNFNFNFNF

NF

NFNF

NFNFNFNF

St-5

654 1 3273598 ± 865

13413 ± 865

9814 ± 1499

NF

NFNFNFNF

NFNF

NF

NF

NF

NF

NFNFNFNFNF

NF

NFNF

NFNFNFNF

St-6

NF3598 ± 865

70985 ±5675.3

109910 ±4840.9

NF

NFNFNFNF

NFNF

NF

NF

NF

NF

NFNFNFNFNF

NF

NFNF

NFNFNFNF

St-7

NFNF

30095 ±3980

21263 ±2852

NF

NFNFNFNF

NFNF

NF

NF

NF

NF

NFNFNFNFNF

NF

NFNF

NFNFNFNF

was believed to have very high species richnessdue to its pristine condition.

Diversity Indices

The results of species richness, diversity andevenn-ess indices of the macrobenthicinvertebrates found in the Semenyih River areshown in Table 2. Diversity indices give betterinformation about the environmental conditions

under which the organisms live (Gaufin 1973;Hawkes 1979; Teles 1994) than a considerationof individual taxa alone.

A detailed analysis of the species richness inthe macrobenthic communities at severalsampling stations along the Semenyih River hasled us to consider the factors responsible for theestablishment and maintenance of themacrobenthic community structure in the river.

142 PERTANIKA J. TROP. AGRIC. SCL VOL. 26 NO. 2, 2003


TABLE 2Species richness, diversity and evenness indices for macrobenthic invertebrates found

in the Semenyih River. St: Sampling station

Indices St-1 St-2 St-3 St-4 St-5 St-6 St-7 Overall

Number of individuals (N)Number of species (RO)Richness

Margalef (Rl)Menhinick (R2)

DiversityShannon (Hr)Hill (Nl)

EvennessHill (E4)Alatalo (E5)

BioticBMWPStatus

17,848 7,64017 18

1.630.13

1.133.09

0.690.54

1.900.21

1.203.32

0.680.55

2,76014

1.640.27

1.967.12

0.710.67

72 75 66(good) (good) (good)

4,9051

0.000.014

0.001.00

LOO1

0

82,4044

0.270.014

1.072.92

0.900.84

544,455 154,017

0.150.004

0.691.99

0.960.93

0.080.005

0.681.97

0.990.97

1(poor) (poor) (poor) (poor)

814,02927

1.910.03

0.982.66

0.840.74

Types of substrata and pollution levels are twoimportant factors that determine the distributionof macrobenthic invertebrates found in SemenyihRiver.

The richness indices (Rl and R2) varieddifferently with numbers of species and numbersof individuals. The Margalef s species richnessindex (Rl) values were higher at the upstream(Stations 1 to 3) (Rl= 1.63-1.90) than those(Rl= 0.00-0.27) at the downstream (Stations 4 to7). Similarly, Menhinick's species richness indices(R2) show higher values (R2= 0.13-0.27) at theupstream (Stations 1 to 3) than those (R2=0.004-0.014) at the downstream (Stations 4 to7). Although these richness values computedhere are for illustrative purposes (Ludwig andReynolds 1988) we can conclude that speciesrichness generally declined from the upstreamto the downstream stations.

The diversity indices are suitable foraddressing any question that a heterogeneityindex can answer (Peet 1974). These indicesshowed higher values of Shannon's diversityindex (Hf= 1.13-1.96) and Hill's diversity index(Nl= 3.09-7.12) at the upstream (Stations 1 to3) than those (//'= 0-1.07; Nl= 1.00-2.92) at thedownstream (Stations 4 to 7). These numbersindicate an increase in dominance of fewerspecies especially at the downstream stations.

For the evenness indices, the highest valueswere found at Station 4 since there was only onespecies found at all three sites of this station.The lowest values are computed for the upstreamstations. For instance, lower values of Hill's

evenness index (E4= 0.68-0.71) and Alatalo'sevenness index (E5= 0.54-0.67) were found atupstream (Stations 1 to 3) than those (E4= 0.96-1.00; E5= 0.84-1.00) at the downstream (Stations4 to 7). This indicates the evenness indices (E4and E5) increased from the upstream to thedownstream stations. The lower values of E4 andE5 at the upstream Station 1 seemed to berelated to the co-dominance by two species outof the 17 present and their numbers ofindividuals were very high (1,172 and 3,846)when compared to the remaining 15 species(Tables 1 and 2). As for Station 7, E4 and E5values were 0.99 and 0.97, respectively. At thisstation, only one species of Oligochaeta wasfound. As both the juvenile and adult wormswere considered as L. hoffmeisteri, the samplingsite thus was dominated by a single worm species.When all species in a sample were equallyabundant, it seems reasonable that an evennessindex should be maximum and this valuedecreases toward zero as the relative density ofthe species diverges away from evenness (Ludwigand Reynolds 1988). In addition, conditions ofunstable substrata at downstream stations couldbe a contributing factor to the low speciesrichness of the river ecosystem.

Another important characteristic ofecological communities is the spatialheterogeneity (Allen 1984) of macrobenthicinvertebrates-namely random, clumped anduniform (Rosenberg and Resh 1993). Thepreferences of macrobenthic invertebrates toaggregate in the more favourable parts of the


YAP, C K., A. RAHIM ISMAIL, A. ISMAIL 8c S. G. TAN

river substrata had caused their distributions tobe clumped. Furthermore, nature is multifactorial(Quinn and Dunham 1983) in which manyinteracting processes, both biotic and abiotic,may contribute to the existence of the pattern.Hewitt et al (1997) revealed that macrobenthicinvertebrates in a dynamic estuarine systemexhibited stability of spatial pattern, even whenthey were undergoing movement and changesin mean density. The distribution of themacrobenthic invertebrates in the SemenyihRiver could possibly remain in the clumpedpattern for a period of time unless the river isdisturbed by natural and anthropogenic activities.

Based on the scores of BMWP, the threestations located at the upstream (Stations 1 to 3)were found to be 'good' status (66-75) while thestations found located at the downstream(Stations 4 to 7) had 'poor' status (0-5), asshown in Table 2. This is in agreement with thereport by DOE (2001) that rivers in Malaysiawere generally clean at the upstream while thoselocated at the downstream were either slightlypolluted or polluted due to urban wastes andagricultural activities. This has strengthened ourecotoxicological point of view that pollution levelrather than types of substrate contributed to thedistribution of macrobenthic invertebrates inSemenyih River.

CONCLUSIONThe present study established a list ofmacrobenthic invertebrates in a typical river inMalaysia. The collection for certain macrobenthicspecies present particularly in polluted and non-polluted parts of a river indicated that theycould be used as good bioindicators for riverpollution studies. Since information on the lifehistories of macrobenthic invertebrates fromMalaysia is lacking, our list of macrobenthicinvertebrates found in the Semenyih River isuseful and more taxonomic work should bedone for the identification of the organisms atthe generic level. Future studies should alsoinclude the physico-chemical parameters of riversand relate them to the macrobenthic invertebratedata.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank laboratory assistantMr. Sharom Khatim for his help during fieldsampling and Mr. Mansor Rashid for his helpwith the statistical analysis.

REFERENCES

ALLEN, I. D. 1984. Hypothesis testing in ecologicalstudies of aquatic insects. In The Ecology ofAquatic Insects, ed. V. H. Resh and D. M.Rosenberg, p. 484-507. New York: PraegerPublishers.

ARMITAGE, P. D., D. MOSS, J. F. WRIGHT and M. T.

FURSE. 1983. The performance of a newbiological water quality score based onmacroinvertebrates over a wide range ofunpolluted running-water sites. Wat. Res. 17:333-347.

BRINKHURST, R. O. and B. G. M. JAMIESON. 1971.

Aquatic Oligochaeta of the World. 860p.Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

BRINKHURST, R. O. 1967. The distribution ofaquatic oligochaetes in Saginaw Bay, LakeHuron. LimnoL Oceanogr. 12: 137-143.

BRINKHURST, R. O. and C. R. KENNEDY. 1965.

Studies on the biology of the tubificidae(Annelida, Oligochaeta) in a pollutedstream. / . Am. Ecol. 34: 429-443.

DAUER, D. M. 1993. Biological criteria,environmental health and estuarinemacrobenthic community structure. Mar.Pollut. Bull 26: 249-257.

DOE, 2001. Malaysia Environmental Quality Report2000. Department of Environment, Ministryof Science, Technology and EnvironmentMalaysia. 86 p. Kuala Lumpur: Maskha Sdn.Bhd.

GAUFIN, A. R. 1973. Use of aquatic invertebratesin the assessment of water quality. InBiological Methods for the Assessment of WaterQuality, STP 528, ed. J. J. Cairns and K. L.Dickson, p. 96-116. Philadelphia: AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials.

GLOYD, L. K and M. WRIGHT. 1966. Odonata. InFreshwater Biology Second Edition, ed. W. T.Edmonson, p. 917-940. USA: John Wileyand Son.

HAWKES, H. A. 1979. Invertebrates as indicatorsof river water quality. In Biological Indicatorsof Water Quality, ed. A. James and L. Evison.Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

HELLAWELL, J. M. 1986. Biological indicators offreshwater pollution and environmental

144 PERTANIKAJ. TROP. AGRIC. SCI. VOL. 26 NO. 2, 2003


management. In Pollution Monitoring Series,ed. K. Melanby, 546p. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

HEWITT, J. E., R. D. PRIDMORE, S. F. THRUSH and V.

J. CUMMINGS. 1997. Assessing the short-termstability of spatial patterns of macrobenthosin a dynamic estuarine system. Limnol.Oceanogr. 42: 282-288.

HILSENHOFF, W. L. 1987. An improved bioticindex of organic stream pollution. Great LakesEntomoL 20: 31-39.

HILSENHOFF, W. L. 1988. Rapid field assessmenton organic pollution with a family-level bioticindex. / . North Am. Benthol Soc. 7: 65-68.

ISMAIL, A. R. 1993. Taxonomic and biologicalstudies on caddies flies (Trichoptera: Insecta)from Peninsular Malaysia. Dissertationsubmitted for the degree of philosophiaedoctor, University of Wales.

JOHNSON, R. K. and T. WIEDERHOLMN. 1989.

Classification and ordination of profundalmacroinvertebrate communities in nutrientpoor, oligo-mesohumic lakes in relation toenvironmental data. Freshwat. BioL 21: 375-386.

JONES, J. R., B. H. TRACY, J. L. SEBAUGH, D. H.

HAZELWOOD and M. M. SMART. 1981. Bioticindex testing for ability to assess water qualityof Missouri Ozark streams. Trans. Am. Fish.Soc. 110: 627-637.

LANG, C. 1985. Eutrophication of lake genevaindicated by the oligochaete communitiesof the profundal. HydrobioL 126: 237-243.

LUDWIG, J. A. and J. F. REYNOLDS. 1988. StatisticalEcology: A Primer on Methods and Computing.p. 85-106. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

MCCAFFERTY, W. P. 1981. Aquatic Entomology.Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

MERRITT, R. W. and K W. CUMMINS. 1978. An

Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of NorthAmerica. Iowa: Kendall/Hunt PublishingCompany.

METCALFE, J. L. 1989. Biological water qualityassessment of running waters based onmacroinvertebrate communities: history andpresent status in Europe. Environ. Pollut. 60:101-139.

PEET, R. JL 1974. The measurement of speciesdiversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 58: 485-499.

PENNAK, R. W. 1978. Freshwater Invertebrates of theUnited States. Second edition. New York: JohnWiley and Son.

PINDER, L. C. V., M. LADLE, T. GLEDHILL, J. A. M.

BASS and A. M. MATTHEWS. 1987, Biologicalsurveillance of water quality-1. A comparisonof macroinvertebrate surveillance methodsin relation to assessment of water quality, ina chalk stream. Arch. HydrobioL 109: 207-226.

PINEL-ALLOUL, B., G. METHOT, L. LAPIERRE and A.

WILLSIE. 1996. Macrobenthic community asa biological indicator of ecological andtoxicological factors in Lake Saint-Francois(Quebec). Environ. Pollut. 91: 65-87.

QUINN, J. F. and A. E. DUNHAM. 1983. On the

hypothesis testing in ecology and evolution.Am. Naturalist. 122: 602-617.

RASHID, M. M., S. T. S. HASSAN, I. AZHAR and A.

RAHIM ISMAIL. 1998. Comparative analysis onecosystem diversity indices using SAScomputer programming. J. Tropical Agric.Food Sci. 27: 177-192.

ROSENBERG, D. M. and V. H. RESH. 1993. FreshwaterBiomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates.488p. New York: Chapman and Hall.

SAS. 1987. Guide for Personal Computers. Version 6edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, TheUnited States of America.

SCOTT, K. M. F. 1983. On the hydropsychidae

(Trichoptera) of southern Africa with keysto African genera of imagos, larvae andpupae and species lists. Annals of the CapeProvincial Museums (Natural History).Albany Museums, Grahamstown, South Africa14: 299-422.

SLEPUKHINA, T. D. 1984. Comparison of differentmethods of water quality evaluation by meansof oligochaetes. HydrobioL 115: 183-186.

TELES, L. F. O. 1994. A new methodology forbiological water quality assessment. Int. Assoc.Theoret. Appl. Limnol. 25: 1942-1944.


YAP, C. K., A. RAHIM ISMAIL, A. ISMAIL & S. G. TAN

THORNE, R. J. and W. P. WILLIAMS. 1997. The WRIGHT, J. F., M. T. FURSE, P. D. ARMITAGE and D.

response of benthic macroinvertebrates to Moss. 1993. New procedures for identifyingpollution in developing countries: a running-water sites subject to environmentalmultimetric system of bioassessment. stress and for evaluating sites forFreshwaL BioL 37: 671-686. conservation, based on the macroinvertebrate

fauna. Arch, Hydrobiol 127: 319-326.

(Received: 11 January 2003)(Accepted: 8 July 2003)

146 PERTANIKA J. TROP. AGRIC. SCI. VOL. 26 NO. 2, 2003

species diversity of macrobenthic invertebrates in the semenyih

Documents