Microsoft Word - BN-OA-0201-08 Stojkovic M_et_al BIOLOGICA NYSSANA 2 (1) September 2011: 59-66 Stojković, M. et al. Ichthyological integral indices, the history of development… 59 Original Article ! Ichthyological integral indices, the history of development and possible application on rivers in Serbia Milica Stojković*1, Djuradj Milosević1, Vladica Simić2 1University of Niš, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Department of Biology and Ecology, Višegradska 33, 18000 Niš, Serbia 2University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Institute of Biology and Ecology, Radoja Domanovića 12, 34000 Kragujevac, Serbia * E-mail: milicastojkovic83@gmail.com Abstract: Stojković, M., Milošević, Đ., Simić, V.: Ichthyological integral indices, the history of development and possible application on rivers in Serbia. Biologica Nyssana, 2 (1), September 2011: 59-66. Based on a literature review, the different approaches in the water quality assessment using fish communities in freshwaters are summarized. Fish assemblage indicators, developed throughout the world, were reviewed and the main differences in methodologies, number of metrics and values are summarized. We have drawn attention to the methods used for designing a fish-based index with a particular focus on original developments in North America and its adaptations in many different regions and habitat types. The main obstacles for ecological assessment are scarce ecological information and the problem with the classification. The lack of knowledge is especially true for species assemblages in the relatively unexplored river basins of Europe, e.g. The Balkans peninsular. Key words: biotic indices, fish, multimetric approach, water quality assessment Introduction ! Monitoring the ecological status of aquatic systems is in use by water resource managers worldwide. Historically, aquatic systems were assessed primarily through chemical measuring, providing a snapshot of water quality conditions. The anthropogenic capacity to alter the natural world usually overcomes our ability to assess the impacts of these alterations on the biological inhabitants within the water ecosystems (S i m o n , 1999). Fish are an unavoidable element for such assessments because of their biological and socioeconomic status. Fish are considered as a reliable indicators in water quality assessment for various reasons: fish are present in most surface waters; the identification of species is relatively easy; the sensitivity to disturbance is well known for many species; as well as their responses to environmental stressors; different species represent distinct trophic levels; fish occupy a variety of habitats in rivers; diminished growth and recruitment are easily assessed and reflect exposure to stress (FAME CONSORTIUM, 2004). However, there are a few disadvantages: manpower needs - a three person crew is required to effectively and safely sample fish communities; migration of fish may provide misleading data; overlapping the effects of overfishing with pollution effects may lead to erroneous conclusions (G r a b a r k i e w i c z & D a v i s , 2008; S i m i ć & S i m i ć , 2009) Various fish-based indices have been developed worldwide for assessing the ecological status of rivers. Most of them include a reference condition approach and appropriate biological variables or metrics (N o b l e & C o w s , 2007; R o s e t et al., 2007), describing the fish assemblage 2 (1) • September 2011: 59-66 BIOLOGICA NYSSANA 2 (1) September 2011: 59-66 Stojković, M. et al. Ichthyological integral indices, the history of development… 60 attributes and quantifying the impact of anthropogenic activities on the biota. The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) was initially developed by Dr. James Karr for the purpose of evaluating and describing the condition of small warm water streams in central Illinois and Indiana (K a r r , 1981). As the IBI became widely used, different versions were developed for different regions and ecosystems. New versions, generally, retained most of the original metrics but the some of them have been modified for application in a particular region or type of stream. The aim of this paper is to compare different approaches for assessing the ecological condition using fish communities. Likewise, we want to propose the most applicable metrics for rivers in Serbia. Material and methods The comparison was made between different methods used for designing a fish-based index according to a literature review from a period 1981- 2009. The different approaches, used in North America, according to K a r r (1981), L e o n a r d & O r t h (1986), M o y l e et al. (1986), H u g h e s & G a m m o n (1987), M i l l e r et al. (1988), S t e e d m a n (1988), S i m o n (1991), L y o n s (1992), S i m o n & L y o n s (1995), L y o n s et al. (1996), O v e r t o n (2001), T e e l s et al. (2004), Barbour et al. (2002), N i e m e l a & F e i s t (2000), were described. In addition, different modifications of IBI applied for water quality assessment in Europe (B e l l i a r d et al., 1999; B r e i n e et al., 2004; A n g e r m e i e r & D a v i d e a n u , 2004; FAME CONSORTIUM, 2004; L e n h a r d t et al., 2009) were compared. The original version had 12 metrics that refer to fish species richness and composition, number and abundance of species, trophic organization and function, reproductive behavior, fish abundance, and condition of individual fish (Tab. 1). K a r r (1981) proposed a rating system for each metric based upon the degree of deviation (5 (none to slight), 3 (moderately) and 1 (significantly)) from the appropriate ecoregional reference conditions. The metrics were scored and summed to arrive at an index ranging from 60 (best) to 12 (worst). Metrics, which are defined in original version of IBI (K a r r , 1981) and envisaged for Illinois area, have been changed for application in many different regions worldwide. In every other version (K a r r , 1981; L e o n a r d & O r t h , 1986; M o y l e et al., 1986; H u g h e s & G a m m o n , 1987; M i l l e r et al., 1988; S t e e d m a n , 1988; S i m o n , 1991; L y o n s , 1992; S i m o n & L y o n s , 1995; L y o n s et al., 1996; O v e r t o n , 2001; T e e l s et al., 2004; B a r b o u r et. al., 2002; N i e m e l a & F e i s t , 2000), list of metrics has been modified according to features of target region (Tab. 1). Some of them are commonly used such as: total number of fish species, % individuals as omnivores, % individuals with anomalies; but most of them was adjusted according to assemblage of investigated area (N o b l e & C o w s , 2007). Results and discussion According to the metrics from the list above and its variations, it can be concluded that each of them assess the same aspect of functional community but in a different way. Before making a choice which metrics are more appropriate, it should be drawn attention to their applicability in the investigated area. The potential metrics have to be changed in a predictive manner according to anthropogenic influence. Likewise, they have to be sensitive to stressors and to provide the response that can be discriminated from natural variation (N o b l e et al., 2007). The utilization of the fish-based indices in Europe is less widespread than in the United States of America. Recently, scientists in France, Belgium and Romania have endeavored to adjust IBI for usage in their own countries (V i d a l , 2008). B e l l i a r d et al. (1999) have suggested 10 metrics for water quality assessment in France, applying them on the Seine River. In Belgium, from the total of 28 candidate metrics, nine had been selected (Breine et al., 2004). In Romania, Angermeier & Davideanu (2004) made distinction between hilly and montane region, and have chosen 7 metrics for each region to include in preliminary multimetric indices (PMIs). K a r r ’ s (1981) original IBI was also adapted in Serbia. This version related to lentic system, analyzed changes in the fish assemblage compared to sediment deposition in the reservoir. It contains 10 suitable metrics (L e n h a r d t et al., 2009). In each of these four versions, scoring system was used but with different scores applied. B e l l i a r d et al. (1999) kept the original scoring system (K a r r , 1981) using score values: 5, 3, 1 for slightly, moderately and the most impacted, respectively. In the second case, IBI score of an investigated site is the mean of scores for all metrics, and varies between 0 and 5. In dependence of the final IBI score, a given site will be classified in an appropriate water class according to Water Framework Directive (B r e i n e et al., 2004). Values for metric scoring classes in Romania were assigned for each metric at each site as 3, 2, 1 for BIOLOGICA NYSSANA 2 (1) September 2011: 59-66 Stojković, M. et al. Ichthyological integral indices, the history of development… 61 Table 1. Metrics of the original IBI and other versions used for designing IBI in different regions Category Metrics of the original IBI (Karr, 1981) Version of metrics used in different regions Species richness Total number of species 1. Total number of native species (Karr et al., 1986, Leonard & Orth, 1986, Moyle et al., 1986), Hughes & Gammon, 1987, Miller et al., 1988, Steedman, 1988, Simon, 1991, Lyons, 1992, Simon & Lyons, 1995, Lyons et al., 1996, Teels et al., 2004) 2. Salmonid age classes (Moyle et al., 1986, Hughes & Gammon, 1987) Species composition Number of darter species 1. Number of darter and sculpin species (Steedman, 1988) 2. Number of sculpin species (Hughes & Gammon, 1987) 3. Number of benthic species (Karr et al., 1986, Leonard & Orth, 1986, Moyle et al., 1986, Hughes & Gammon, 1987, Miller et al., 1988, Steedman, 1988, Simon, 1991, Lyons, 1992, Simon & Lyons, 1995, Lyons et al., 1996) 4. Number of darter species, excluding tolerant species (Gatz & Harig, 1993) Number of sunfish species 1. Number of sunfish species, including genus Micropterus (Karr et al., 1986, Simon, 1991, Hoefs and Boyle, 1992, Lyons, 1992) 2. Number of cyprinid species (Hoefs and Boyle, 1992) 3. Number of sunfish and trout species (Steedman, 1988) 4. Number of water column species (Miller et al., 1988, Oberdorff & Hughes, 1992) 5. Number of headwater species (Simon, 1991) Number of sucker species 1. Number of sucker and cyprinid species (Hoefs and Boyle, 1992) 2. Number of sucker and catfish species (Steedman, 1988) 3. Number of minnow species (Hughes & Gammon, 1987, Simon, 1991, Hoefs and Boyle, 1992) Tolerance guilds Number of intolerant species 1. Number of amphibian species (Moyle et al., 1986) 2. % Individuals as brook trout (Langdon, 1989) 3. Number of trout species (Moyle et al., 1986, Simon, 1991) 4. Number of sensitive species (Karr et al., 1986, Leonard & Orth, 1986, Moyle et al., 1986), Hughes & Gammon, 1987, Miller et al., 1988, Steedman, 1988, Simon, 1991, Lyons, 1992, Simon & Lyons, 1995, Lyons et al., 1996) % Individuals as green sunfish 1. % Individuals as common carp (Hughes & Gammon, 1987) 2. % Tolerant species (Karr et al., 1986, Leonard & Orth ,1986, Moyle et al., 1986), Hughes & Gammon, 1987, Miller et al., 1988, Steedman, 1988, Simon, 1991, Lyons, 1992, Simon & Lyons, 1995, Lyons et al., 1996) 3. % Introduced species (Hughes & Gammon, 1987) 4. % Individuals as common roach (Oberdorff & Hughes, 1992) Trophic guilds % Individuals as omnivores 1. % Individuals as omnivores and herbivores (Overton, 2001) 2. % Individuals as generalists (Karr et al., 1986, Leonard & Orth, 1986, Moyle et al., 1986), Hughes & Gammon, 1987, Miller et al., 1988, Steedman, 1988, Simon, 1991, Lyons, 1992, Simon & Lyons, 1995, Lyons et al., 1996) % Individuals as insectivorous cyprinids 1. % Individuals as insectivorous (Hughes and Gammon, 1987, Simon, 1991, Miller et al., 1988, Lyons, 1992, Hoefs and Boyle, 1992, Oberdorff and Hughes, 1992) 2. % Specialized insectivores (Leonard & Orth ,1986) 3. % Individuals as benthic insectivorous (Teels et al., 2004) % Individuals as piscivorous 1. % Catchable salmonids Karr et al., 1986, Leonard & Orth ,1986, Moyle et al., 1986), Hughes & Gammon, 1987, Miller et al., 1988, Steedman, 1988, Simon, 1991, Lyons, 1992, Simon & Lyons, 1995, Lyons et al., 1996) 2. % Pioneering species (Karr et al., 1986, Leonard & Orth ,1986, Moyle et al., 1986), Hughes & Gammon, 1987, Miller et al., 1988, Steedman, 1988, Simon, 1991, Lyons, 1992, Simon & Lyons, 1995, Lyons et al., 1996) BIOLOGICA NYSSANA 2 (1) September 2011: 59-66 Stojković, M. et al. Ichthyological integral indices, the history of development… 62 Abundance Number of individuals 1. Density of individuals (Karr et al., 1986, Leonard & Orth ,1986, Moyle et al., 1986), Hughes & Gammon, 1987, Miller et al., 1988, Steedman, 1988, Simon, 1991, Lyons, 1992, Simon & Lyons, 1995, Lyons et al., 1996) 2. Biomass of fish (Hughes and Gammon, 1987) Reproduction and condition % Individuals as hybrids 1. % introduced species (Karr et al., 1986, Leonard & Orth ,1986, Moyle et al., 1986), Hughes & Gammon, 1987, Miller et al., 1988, Steedman, 1988, Simon, 1991, Lyons, 1992, Simon & Lyons, 1995, Lyons et al., 1996) 2. % simple lithophils (Simon, 1991, Lyons, 1992, Hoefs and Boyle, 1992) 3. Number of late maturing species (Teels et al., 2004) 4. Percentage of species with multiple age groups (NCDEHNR, 1997) % Individuals with anomalies 1. Percent of individuals with heavy infestation of cysts of the parasite Neascus (Steedman, 1988) slightly, moderately and the most impacted, respectively (A n g e r m e i e r & D a v i d e a n u , 2004). Finally, in Serbia, for each metric, data were sorted into quartiles, according to L o n g & W a l k e r (2005). A site had score of 1 where the observed value for the metric fell below the first quartile threshold. A score of 5 was attributed to those sites for which the observation occurred above the fourth quartile. Sites with the observation values falling within the second and third quartiles scored 3. European fish index (EFI) has been developed as a result of European Union project, named FAME (Development, Evaluation and Implementation of the Standardized Fish-based Assessment Method for the Ecological Status of European Rivers). Generally, EFI is based on a predictive model that derives reference condition for the each site and quantifies the deviation between predicted and observed condition of the fish fauna (FAME CONSORTIUM, 2004). EFI employs 10 metrics (Table II.) and their response to human pressures has been already known. Theoretical values are predicted for each metric using environmental variables by means of a multilinear regression model. In order to quantify a level of degradation, the residuals, calculated as difference between observed and predicted metric values, are used. The ecological status is expressed as an index ranging from 1 (high ecological status) to 0 (bad ecological status). It has been recommended that EFI should not be applied in areas where a fish fauna significantly deviates from those of the tested regions e.g. rivers of the south-eastern part of Europe (FAME CONSORTIUM, 2004). In order to adjust IBI for application on rivers in Serbia, a great amount of ecological information is required for each species, which is the base for their classification in ecological guilds. The election of metrics is essential to make IBI strong enough to represent the condition of the river ecosystems in Serbia. We have suggested the preliminary list of metrics (Table III.) which can be potentially used in Serbia. The total number of species represents a reliable indicator of the target population condition. Healthy ecosystem contains a great number of species (K a r r et al., 1986). However, invasive and introduced species should be considered as a separate metric, because of their negative influence on the status of natural populations. According to Fame (FAME CONSORTIUM, 2004), metrics, which refer to tolerance guilds, are represented as a number of intolerant species and a number of tolerant species. In addition, FAME proposed to employ metrics related to reproductive requirements: relative abundance of lithophilic species and density of the phytophilic species. The evaluation of these characteristics is based on the fact that the increase of habitat degradation reduces the possibility of finding a specific substrate for spawning. The percentage of species with multiple age groups simultaneously may assess suitability of habitat conditions for reproduction and the degree of reproductive success. From the parameters related to the assessment of trophic structure, the percentage of: omnivorous individuals; specialized insectivores; obligate piscivores can be applied as the appropriate metrics. This recommendation can made a difference between species specialized for the certain type of food from those within a wide spectrum. Each species has its own specific requirements according to the habitat type (reophilic, limnophilic and euritop). According to K a r r (1981), species are divided in two groups: the species which lives nearby the bottom and the species which lives in the water column (Percidae, Centrarchidae, respectively). This kind of division, BIOLOGICA NYSSANA 2 (1) September 2011: 59-66 Stojković, M. et al. Ichthyological integral indices, the history of development… 63 Table 2. Metrics used by European fish index (EFI) and their response to anthropogenic influence Selected metrics Response to anthropogenic influence 1. Density of the insectivorous species Decrease 2. Density of the omnivorous species Increase 3. Density of the phytophilic species Increase 4. Relative abundance of lithophilic species Decrease 5. Number of benthic species Decrease 6. Number of rheophilic species Decrease 7. Relative number of intolerant species Decrease 8. Relative number of tolerant species Increase 9. Number of species migrating over long distances Decrease 10. Number of potamodromous species Decrease Table 3. Preliminary list of metrics for application on rivers in Serbia Selected metrics Response to anthropogenic influence 1. Total number of native species Decrease 2. Total number of alien species Increase 3. Number of intolerant species Decrease 4. Number of tolerant species Increase 5. % Individuals as omnivores Increase 6. % Individuals as specialized insectivorous Decrease 7. % Individuals as obligate piscivorous Decrease 8. Number of rheophilic species Decrease 9. Number of euritop species Increase 10. Percentage of species with multiple age groups Decrease 11. % Individuals with anomalies Increase beside habitat type, takes trophic requirements into account and introduces the problem of stratification in shallow waters. Therefore, it would be recommented more suitable metrics such as: number of rheophilic species (specialized of habitat type), and number of euritop species (tolerant of habitat type). Metrics related to migration guilds are not acceptable for applying on rivers in Serbia, because there are very few species which can be classified as diadromous (Acipenseridae and Clupeidae). The total number of individuals, as a rule, should be reduced with increasing the environmental degradation. In some instances, although the environmental conditions are degraded, the number of individuals increase in term of abundance. Increased abundance of individual species is an outcome of their tolerance to the changes in the environment. Percentage of diseased fish, the presence of tumors and other abnormalities, in most cases has low value or it is absent, but may have a great importance for identifying areas with high concentration of toxic substances. Conclusion Classification of fish into ecological guilds is a prerequisite for the development of an IBI. Regional modifications of IBI are based on a different metrics which are employed. Choice of metrics requires the great ecological knowledge of the local fish population. The chosen list of metrics should be suitable for the target fish assemblage and strong enough to detect changes in functioning BIOLOGICA NYSSANA 2 (1) September 2011: 59-66 Stojković, M. et al. Ichthyological integral indices, the history of development… 64 community. Formulation of an index, such as Index of Biotic Integrity in Serbia, based on fish assemblages, and its affiliation to the already existing Balkan Biotic Index (S i m i c & S i m i c , 1999), based on macrozoobenthos, may contribute to the development of a new approach in the environmental condition assessment. Such a comprehensive assessment, including a majority of freshwater biota, may lead to the formulation of an advanced strategy for conservation of ecosystem health. Acknowledgments. This work was supported by Ministry of Education and Science, Serbia, grant No.043002. References Angermeier, P.L. and Davideanu, G. 2004: Using fish communities to assess streams in Romania: initial development of an index of biotic integrity. Hydrobiologia, 511: 65-78. Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., Stribling, J.B. 2002: Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic, macroinvertebrates and fish. Environmental Protection Agency, United States. Belliard, J.,Berrebi dit Thomas, R., Monnie D. 1999: Fish communities and river alteration in the Seine Basin and nearby coastal streams. Hydrobiologia 400: 155-166. Breine, J., Simoens, I., Goethals, P., Quataert, P., Ercken, D., Van Liefferinghe, C. and Belpaire, C. 2004: A fish-based index of biotic integrity for upstream brooks in Flanders (Belgium ). Hydrobiologia 522:133-148. FAME CONSORTIUM 2004: Manual for the application of the European Fish Index-EFI. A fish-based method to assess the ecological status of European rivers in support of Water Framework Directive. Gatz, A. J. Jr. and Harig, A. L. 1993: Decline in the Index of Biotic Integrity of Delaware Run, Ohio, over 50 years. Ohio Journal of Science 93(4): 95- 100. Grabarkiewicz, J.D. and Davis, W.S. 2008: An introduction to freshwater fishes as biological indicators. Environmental Protection Agency, United States. Hoefs, N.J. and Boyle, T.P. 1992: Contribution of fish community metrics to the index of biotic integrity in two Ozark rivers. Ecological indicators, 1: 283-303. Hughes, R.M. and Gammon, J.R. 1987: Longitudinal changes in fish assemblages and water quality in the Willamette River, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116(2):196-209. Karr, J. R. 1981: Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6(6): 21–27. Karr, J. R., Faush, K. D., Angermeier, P. L., Yant, P. R. and Schlosser I. J. 1986: Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a methods and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey. Special Publication 5, Urbana Illinois. Langdon, R. W. 1989: The development of fish population- based biocriteria in Vermont. In Simon, T.P., Holst, L.L. and Shepard, L.J. (ed.), Proceedings of the first national workshop on biocriteria 12-25, U. S. EPA, Region 5, Chicago. Lenhardt, M., Markovic, G. and Gacic, Z. 2009: Decline in the Index of Biotic Integrity of the fish assemblage as a response to reservoir aging. Water Resource Manage 23: 1713-1723. Leonard, P.M. and Orth, D.J. 1986: Application and testing of an index of biotic integrity in small, coolwater streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115:401- 14. Long, J. M. and Walker, D. J. 2005: Small scale application and assessment of an Index of Biotic Integrity for large boreal river. Hydrobiologia 544:177-187. Lyons, J. 1992: Using the index of biotic integrity (IBI) to measure environmental quality in warmwater streams of Wisconsin. General Technical Report, NC-149. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, St. Paul, Minnesota. Lyons, J., L. Wang, and T.D. Simonson. 1996: Development and Validation of an Index of Biotic Integrity for Coldwater Streams in Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:241- 256. Miller, D.L.,Leonard, P.M.,Hughes, R.M.,Karr, J.R.,Moyle, P.B.,Schrader, L.H., Thompson, B.A.,Daniel, R.A.,Fausch, K.D.,Fitzhugh, G.A.,Gammon, J.R.,Halliwell, D.B., Angermeier, P.L. and Orth, D.J. 1988: Regional applications of an Index of Biotic Integrity for use in water resource management. Fisheries 13(5):12-20. Moyle, P.B., Brown, L.R. and Herbold, B. 1986: Final report on development and preliminary tests of indices of biotic integrity for California. Final report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. Niemela, S. and Feist, M. 2000: Index of biotic integrity (IBI). Guidance for coolwater rivers and streams of the St. Croix River Basin in Minnesota. St Paul, Minnesota. Noble, R.A.A. and Cows, I.G. 2007: Assessing the health of European rivers using functional BIOLOGICA NYSSANA 2 (1) September 2011: 59-66 Stojković, M. et al. Ichthyological integral indices, the history of development… 65 ecological guilds of fish communities: standardizing species classification and approaches to metric selection. Fisheries Management and Ecology 14: 381-392. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). 1997: Standard operating procedures for biological monitoring. Environmental Sciences Branch. Biological Assessment Group. North Carolina. 52 pp. Oberdorff, T. and Hughes, R.M. 1992: Modification of an index of biotic integrity based on fish assemblages to characterize rivers of the Seine Basin. Hydrobiologia 228: 117-130. Overton, J.R. 2001: Standard operating procedures. Stream fish community assessment and fish tissue. Department of environment and natural resources, North Carolina. Roset, N., Grenouillet, G., Goffaux, D., Pont, D. and Kestemont, P. 2007: A review of existing fish assemblage indicators and methodologies. Fisheries Management and Ecology 14: 393– 405. Simic , V. and Simic , S. 1999: Use of the river macrozoobenthos of Serbia to formulate a biotic index. Hydrobiologia 416: 51-64. Simic, S. and Simic, V. 2009: Ekologija kopnenih voda. Beograd, Bioloski fakultet; Kragujevac, Prirodno matematicki fakultet. Zemun. 295 p. Simon, T.P. 1991: Development of ecoregion expectations for the index of biotic integrity (IBI) Central Corn Belt Plain. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Chicago, Illinois. EPA 905/9-91/025. Simon, T. P. 1999: Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities.CRC Press, Boca Ration, Florida. Simon, T.P. and Lyons, J. 1995: Application of the index of biotic integrity to evaluate water resource integrity in freshwater ecosystems. In: Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P (ed.), Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water resource planning and decision making 245-262, Lewis Publishers, BocaRaton, Florida. Steedman, R.J. 1988: Modification and assessment of an index of biotic integrity to quantify stream quality in southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 45:492-501. Teels, B.M., Mazati, L.E. and Rewa, C.A. 2004: Using an IBI to assess effectiveness of mitigation measures to perlace loss of wetland-stream ecosystem. Wetlands 24: 375-384. Vidal, L.B. 2008: Fish as ecological indicators in Mediterranean freshwater ecosystems. Ph.D. Thesis. Institute of aquatic ecology and department of environmental science. University of Girona. BIOLOGICA NYSSANA 2 (1) September 2011: 59-66 Stojković, M. et al. Ichthyological integral indices, the history of development… 66