Research Article

Comparative analysis of a benthic macroinvertebrate-based biotic index: Evaluating the suitability of European BMWP versions and Tr-BMWP for Turkish river ecosystems

Volume: 10 Number: 2 August 31, 2025

Comparative analysis of a benthic macroinvertebrate-based biotic index: Evaluating the suitability of European BMWP versions and Tr-BMWP for Turkish river ecosystems

Abstract

Biotic indices like the Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) are widely used for freshwater quality assessment based on benthic macroinvertebrates. Many European countries have adapted BMWP to their local conditions, resulting in various regional versions. In Türkiye, the Turkish-BMWP was developed for national water quality monitoring, but the compatibility of other BMWP versions with it remains uncertain. This study assessed the applicability of different European BMWP versions in Turkish freshwater ecosystems. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected from five ecologically different river basins in Türkiye. Families such as Baetidae, Heptagenidae, Ephemerellidae, Caenidae, Perlidae, and Hydropsychidae were identified in all basins. These families belong to Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera, collectively known as EPT, and these orders are frequently used as water quality indicators. The data were analyzed using the original BMWP and six adapted versions: Greek-BMWP, Iberian-BMWP, Czech-BMWP, Hungarian-BMWP, Polish-BMWP, and Turkish-BMWP. Compatibility with Turkish-BMWP was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis and Spearman correlation. The results showed that Greek-BMWP, Iberian-BMWP, and the original BMWP had the highest agreement with Turkish-BMWP, making them more suitable for Turkish river systems. This study highlighted the importance of regional adaptations of biotic indices, as variations in benthic macroinvertebrate communities, environmental conditions, and pollution tolerance levels can affect their effectiveness. While multiple BMWP versions have been used in Türkiye, Turkish-BMWP provided the most accurate ecological assessments. If alternatives are needed, Greek-BMWP, Iberian-BMWP, and original BMWP are recommended, respectively. Additionally, Bland-Altman analysis proved more reliable than correlation analysis in comparing BMWP versions. This research contributed to the refinement of bioassessment tools and emphasized the need for continuous validation of biotic indices to ensure their applicability across different regions. Future studies should focus on further calibrating Turkish-BMWP with extensive datasets across diverse freshwater ecosystems in Türkiye.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Hacettepe University, Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit; TUBITAK

Project Number

07 D03 601 001; 09 D03 601 002; 010 D02 601 004; 07 01 601 005; 013 T06 604 008; FHD-2015-7087; 5651_3; 104 T 106

Ethical Statement

Ethical approval is not necessary.

Thanks

I am grateful to T. Tugaytimur, Y. Gültutan, H.A. Bolat for their help during the field trips; to N. Kazancı, Ö. Başören, P. Ekingen Abdik for their help during field trips and laboratory studies.

References

  1. Aazami, J., Esmaili Sari, A., Abdoli, A., Sohrabi, H., & Van den Brink, P. J. (2015). Assessment of ecological quality of the Tajan River in Iran using a multimetric macroinvertebrate index and species traits. Environmental Management, 56, 260-269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0489-x
  2. Akay, E., & Dalkıran, N. (2020). Assessing biological water quality of Yalakdere stream (Yalova, Turkey) with benthic macroinvertebrate-based metrics. Biologia, 75(9), 1347-1363. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-019-00387-9
  3. Alba-Tercedor, J., & Sánchez Ortega, A. (1988). Un método rápido y simple para evaluar la calidad biológica de las aguas corrientes basado en el de Hellawell (1978). Limnetica, 4, 51-56.
  4. AQEM Consortium. (2002). Manual for the application of the AQEM method. A comprehensive method to assess European streams using benthic macroinvertebrates, developed for the purpose of the Water Framework Directive. Version, 1.
  5. Armitage, P. D., Moss, D., Wright, J. F., & Furse, M. T. (1983). The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites. Water research, 17(3), 333-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(83)90188-4
  6. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet, 327(8476), 307-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
  7. Bonada, N., Prat, N., Resh, V. H., & Statzner, B. (2006). Developments in aquatic insect biomonitoring: a comparative analysis of recent approaches. Annual Review of Entomology, 51(1), 495-523. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151124
  8. Bourne, D. R., Kyle, C. J., LeBlanc, H. N., & Beresford, D. (2019). A rapid, non-invasive method for measuring live or preserved insect specimens using digital image analysis. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 1, 140-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.07.006

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Hydrobiology

Journal Section

Research Article

Publication Date

August 31, 2025

Submission Date

March 2, 2025

Acceptance Date

July 7, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 10 Number: 2

APA
Türkmen, G. (2025). Comparative analysis of a benthic macroinvertebrate-based biotic index: Evaluating the suitability of European BMWP versions and Tr-BMWP for Turkish river ecosystems. Journal of Advances in VetBio Science and Techniques, 10(2), 122-134. https://doi.org/10.31797/vetbio.1649762

22563     logo_world_of_journals_no_margin.png     logo.png        google-scholar.jpg?itok=fFLzEt0n