Raul Capra

STUDY REGARDING THE OLT RIVER (ROMANIA)

Acta Oecol. Carpat. V . Acta Oecologica Carpatica VII

hISTORICAL Human impact effect

on the alpine capra STREAM

MACROINVERTEBRATES AND FISH COMMUNITIES

(SOUTHERN ROMANIAN CARPATHIANS)Angela CURTEAN-BNDUC 1, Doru BNDUC 2,

Luciana URSU and 3 and Rzvan RCHIT 4Keywords: Carpaii Meridionali/Merridional Carpathians/Transylvanian Alps, Fgra Mountains, alpine stream, human impact, macroinvertebrates and fish communities, assessment.

ABSTRACT

Water Framework Directive (60/2000/CE) National Management Plan approved by Government No. 80/2011., European institutions of Applied Ecology, University of Environmental Protection, environmental movements and foundations, European Union legislation, etc., bring a substantial contribution to the protection of lotic ecosystems in Europe and not only. Proposal and implementation of solutions to restore the longitudinal connectivity reduce the effect of the hydromorphological pressures (cross barring) on watercourses. The solution presented is relatively complex but robust with non-corrosive components. Besides a safe transport of fish upstream of the basin, this system, after some resizing, can be successfully used to another dam or discharge sill located on the Someul Mic River.REZUMAT: Restabilirea conectivitii longitudinale a rului Someul Mic n apropierea barajului din satul Mnstirea (Transilvania, Romnia).Directiva Cadru Ap (60/2000/CE), Planul Naional de Gestiune aprobat prin Hotrrea de Guvern nr. 80/2011, instituiile europene cu competene n protecia mediului, Universitatea de Ecologie, ONG-urile de mediu, legislaia european etc. i aduc o contribuie substanial la protecia ecosistemelor lotice din Europa i nu numai. Propunerea i implementarea de soluii pentru restaurarea conectivitii longitudinale au ca scop reducerea efectului presiunilor hidromorfologice asupra cursurilor de ap. Soluia prezentat n prezentul articol este relativ complex dar robust i nu conine componente corozive. Pe lng un sistem de transport n siguran a petelui n amonte, acest sistem, dup unele reajustri, poate fi utilizat cu succes i n cazul altor baraje i stvilare situate pe rul Someul Mic.RSUM: Rtablissement de la connectivit longitudinale de la rivire Somesul Mic dans la proximit du barrage du village Mnstirea (Transylvanie, Roumanie).La Directive Cadre de lEau (60/2000/CE), Le Plan National de Gestion approuv par la Dcision Gouvernementale no. 80/2011, les institutions europennes ayant des comptences dans la protection de lenvironnement, lUniversit Ecologique, les ONGs de profil, la lgislation europenne etc. contribuent dune manire signifiante la protection des cosystmes lotiques dEurope et non seulement. La proposition et la mise en place des solutions pour le rtablissement de la connectivit longitudinale se proposent de rduire leffet des pressions hydro morphologiques sur les cours deau. La solution prsente dans le prsent article est relativement complexe mais robuste et ne comprend pas des composants corrosifs. A part un systme de transport sur du poisson en amont du bassin, ce systme, aprs certains rajustements, peut tre utilis avec succs dans le cas dautres barrages INTRODUCTION

The Carpathian Mountains are a part of the Alps-Himalaya mountains system, formed in the geological Alpine orogeny period, a system which is extended from the west of Europe to the south of Asia, including: Alps, Alborz, Apennine, Atlas, Balkan, Baetic Cordillera, Carpathian, Cantabrian, Caucasus, Dinaric Alps, Hellenides, Himalayas, Hindu Kush, Karakoram, Pamir, Pyrenees, Taurus and Zagros mountains. (Moores and Fairbridge, 1998; Schmid et al., 2004). The Romanian Carpathians appeared due to the Alpine orogeny in the active edge of the Euroasian geological plate (Mutihac, 1990).

The Transylvanian Alps (de Martonne, 1907), are a mountain ranges which divide the central and southern national territory of Romania. They cover a significant part of the Romanian Carpathian Mountains, part which is located between the Prahova River in the east and the Timi and Cerna rivers in the west (Posea et al., 1974).One of the most emblematic alpine relief for the Carpathian Mountains can be found in the Fgra Mountains which stretch between the Olt River at west and the Rucr-Bran Passage and the Dmbovia River at east, and are characterised by frequent altitudes over 2,000 m a.s.l (ex. Moldoveanu Peak, 2,544 m, Negoiu Peak, 2,535 m, Vitea Mare Peak, 2,527 m, Lespezi Peak, 2,522 m, Vntoarea lui Buteanu Peak, 2,506 m), accentuated slopes, massiveness and a large range of geomorphosites which were formed by the action of the glaciers. (Badea, 1983; Rou, 1980; Posea, 1982; Florea 1998; Voiculescu, 2002; Niculescu et al., 1960; Vuia, 2011)

One of the most important targets of the European Union in the environmental field of interest are the protection, conservation and the improvement of the environment quality, in the context of the intelligent use of the ecosystems resources and services. In the last few decades the biodiversity conservation was one of the main objectives in this respect. The action frame at the EU level, to preserve the biodiversity was mainly established based on the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and Birds Directive (79/409/EEC). Romania is the country with the highest biogeographic diversity, with a total of five biogeographic regions: alpine, continental, pannonic, pontic and stepic. (Curtean-Bnduc and Florescu, 2007)

There are few main ways through which the Natura 2000 net initiative in Romania too can improve its nature protection: extension of the natural areas surface; the creation and implementation of correct management plans for these protected areas; institutional capacity building; raising awareness. This study was realised to offer data regarding one very characteristic alpine stream in one of the most representative Natura 2000 site in the Romanian alpine biogeographic region, the Fgra Mountains Natura 2000 site (administrated together with the Fgra Piedmont Natura 2000 site). These two areas of community interest overlap over 27 localities areas, including a total surface area of 243,627.7 ha, 20 natural protected areas (24,205.5 ha), 66 endemic plant species, 326 plant and animal important species of protective interest, etc. (*)

Historically, the economic activities have often had major destructive impact on aquatic species communities from small streams to large rivers. The present is not different, the main direct or/and indirect effects on fresh water ecosystems are mainly due to the habitats physical and chemical alterations (Petts, 2001; Dudgeon, 1992, 1995; Iannuzzi and Ludwig, 2004; Das and Chakrebarty, 2007; Markovi et al., 2007; Liogchii, 2008; Kutzenberger, 2008; Yacoub, 2011; Tockner et al., 2009; Yildiz et al., 2010, Curtean-Bnduc et al., 2007).The macroinvertebrates and fish communities assessment are commonly used tools for the aquatic habitats ecological assessment (Fausch et al., 1990; Edds, 1993; Harrison and Whitfield, 1995; Schiemer, 2000; Aparicio et al., 2000; Magalhaes et al., 2002; Bnduc, 2005; Pont et al., 2007; Vassilev and Botev, 2008; Kadye et al., 2008; Cao et al., 1997; Clements et al., 1997; Couceiro et al., 2012; Curtean-Bnduc, 2005, 2008; Hilsenhoff, 1981, 1987; Infante et al., 2009; Jiang et al., 2013; Lcke and Johnson, 2009; Monaghan and Soares, 2012; Park et al., 2007; Pru and Doldec, 2010; Rosenberg and Resh, 1993; Snchez-Montoya et al., 2010).Assessing macroinvertebrates and fish communities diversity causes and effects requires an adaptative scale approach (Friesel et al., 1986; Habersack, 2000; Levin, 1992; Naiman et al., 1992; Ciesielka and Bailey, 2007; Heino and Mykr, 2006; Jiang et al., 2011; Keith et al., 2009; Roth et al., 1996). The river/basin approach is one of the most appropriate one in this respect.

The need for this specific type of scientific studies is coming from the serious concerns regarding the trend of continuous and pronounced quantitatively and qualitatively deterioration of the aquatic ecosystems as complex and very valuable resources worldwide (Kalinin and Bykov, 1970; Sokolov, 1977; Aldwell, 1977; Arnell, 2004; Lundqvist, 2009). In spite of the relatively low/medium human access in the mountainous zones, these areas have become lately a more and more attractive target for new socio-economic objectives and the Carpathians Mountains is not an exception (Dank, 1993; Costea, 2008; Curtean-Bnduc et al., 2008; Sandu et al., 2008; Hajdu and Fleky, 2008; Reif et al., 2009; Bnduc, 2010).

The Fgra Mountains alpine lotic ecosystems, especially the high altitude sectors, due to their relative isolation and difficult acces for field work were studied relative rarely in comparison with the lower sectors of these rivers or more lower/accessible rivers from this perspective. In the present energetic crisis, the alternative sources should to be quickly adopted and exploited, including microhidropower plants which are fitting well in alpine areas, but without to irresponsible negatively affect the environment elements.

Hydropower generates arround 16% of global electricity consumption and from generated energy from renewable energy sources, it is 86% (IPCC, 2011).After Romania joins the EU in 1 January 2007, it was clear (European Conference for Renewable Energy) that till 2020 it should produce 20% renewable energy, microhidropowerplans being a natural option for a Carpathian country like Romania is.

On the other hand the degradation of Carpathian streams due to microhydropower plants construction is one of the nine significant problematical cases of thus construction in the world, (WWF, 2013).In Romania aproximatively 411 hidropower plants are in various stages of planing, permitting, construction or in exploitation and more than a quarter are porpose to be situated inside or at the limit of protected areas. In this context numerous streams and rivers are already or can be affected in the future by microhidropowerplants in Fgra Mountains Natura 2000 site and Fgra Piedmont Natura 2000 sites: Blea, Crioara, Ru Mare, Vitea, Smbta, Ucea, Dejani, Lupa, Vitioara, Sebe, Valea Satului, Boia Mic, Boia Mare, Curpn, Capra, Buda-Otic, Modrogaz, Valea Rea, Zrna, Vlsan, Valea Doamnei, Topolog, Cuca, Brsa, Olt, Pojorta, Brescioara, etc. All of these are/will be/can be funded from UE funds and green certificates acquired were allocated under the national scheme are not based on ecologycal criterion (WWF, 2013).Capra Stream is one of the most representative case of negative human impact on a Carpathian lotic system situated in a Natura 2000 site (Fig. 1), due to a series of microhidropowerplants made without adequate impact studies. It is still to be found in this study if the actual state of Capra Stream is a consequence of these microhidropowerplants or other human impacts should be taken in consideration.In spite of some allready existing species red lists which include also the Carpathians basin fish species (IUCN Red List of Threatened Species; Kukua and Sandor 2003; Voloscuk ed. 1996; Bnrescu in: Botnariuc and Tatole, 2005); and also of publications which sugests management elements including for macroinvertebates and fish species, and habitats management in the Carpathians area (Bnduc et al., 2006; Curtean-Bnduc, 2008, 2010, Bnduc and Curtean- Bnduc 2014).One of the most characteristic lotic ecosystem for this exquisite alpine area is the Capra Stream (Fig. 1), and this specific study intend to bring data regarding the local macroinvertebrate and fish fauna, data needed for the creation and implementation of a correct management plan for the Fgra Mountains Natura 2000 site and for raising awareness in an alpine environment which have become lately a target for human impact extension and intensification.The Capra gill flows from Capra glacial lake located at the altitude of 2,230 m, with an area of 18,340 m2 and a depth of 8 m and from Cpria Lake with an area of 2,190 m2 and a depth of 1.5 m. These two alpine lakes are positioned beneath the edge of the fifth highest peak of Fgra Mountains (Vntoarea lui Buteanu, 2,506 m). (Ujvari, 1972; Badea, 1983; Rou, 1980)

The Capra and Buda gills form together the Arge hidrographical system which has an area of 12.521 km2 and a length of 339,6 km (Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology, 1971).

This system includes the highest (166,6 m) concrete dam (Vidraru Dam) in Romania, built in 1965 for the energy prduction and supply. The Vidraru Lake has a built water volume of 465 millions m3, a potential surface of 893 ha, a length of 12,3 km and a circumference of 28 km (Constantinescu et al., 1990).

Figure 1: Capra River basin localisation.The mountain group which includes the Capra Stream drainage area neighbours with Fgra depression at north, Olt valley at west, Dmbovia valley at east, Cmpulung depression, Brdetu, Arefu and Jiblea at south (Badea et al, 1983).The main edge where Capra gill springs from is oriented west-east and Capra river basin is oriented north-east. (Ujvari, 1972; Badea, 1983; Rou, 1980).The local relief has altitudes of over 2,000 m in the upper part of the basin which are characteristic for Fgra Mountains. The minimum altitude where is positioned Capra drainage area is at about 800 m downstream of Vidraru Lake. (Velcea and Savu, 1982)For the first time in Romania was mentioned glacial relief here in the Fgra Mountains area (Lehmann, 1881). Capra drainage area is characterised by glacial relief, due to its orogeny and geological evolution as was highlighted above.This area registered the cuaternary glaciation mark, reflected by the presence of the glacial cirques and valleys with steep flanks covered by debris and moraines.The upper drainage area is mainly characterized by river and rainfall processes caused by high leakage and high slopes. The high duration of low temperatures upwards of 1,850 m altitude determine as domniants the crionival and torrential processes, while at lower altitudes in the deciduos and coniferous forests, biochemical, river and rain erosion processes have the mainly role.Processes that affect Capra Basin versants are solifuction, gullying, torrential erosion, erosion and transport in river beds, disintegrations, dissolutions and landslides.

Climatic characteristics of the basin due to its position in the relief unit, so that it is temperate - continental alpine climate, with short and cool summers and long, cold, snowy winters.

The average annual temperature varies in Capra basin area from - 2C in the upper area at 8C at the bottom of it. Medium and absolute low temperatures of January range from -10C in the upper basin at -3C at the bottom of the basin, and medium and absolute maxima of July was 6C to 8C.

In terms of rainfall there are mean annual quantities between 1,000 and 1,400 mm. The average snow cover in the basin is 200 days, in winter, the average number of days with snow being over 80.

The area is affected by movements of air masses coming from the N and NW. (Posea et al., 1982)Capra River has a length of 20 km and the drainage area is 97 km2 (Ujvari, 1972). Throughout its length, he receives several tributaries, both left and right.

Major right tributaries of the Capra River are Paltinu Creek, Lespezi Creek, Anghel Creek, Florea Creek, Cerbului Creek, Modrugazu Creek, Stan Valley - located downstream of Vidraru Lake.

Tributaries of the left are: Lipitoarea Ursului Creek (found in some maps as the Piscul Negru Creek), Piscul Negru Creek, Braila Creek, Ciocanului Creek (Fig. 2).

On the right tributary, Paltinu Creek there is a lake called Clun, with an area of 7751 m2 and a depth of 11.8 m Goat River, flows into Vidraru lake and then continue downstream to the right tributary - Valley of Stan. (Ujvari, 1972)

Landforms that resulted from the evolution in time of the river basin, have offered various opportunities for various human economic activities such as livestock (especially sheep), logging (was practiced rafting on the Capra river) tourism, etc... Penetration of human presence in this relatively isolated area with difficult access was facilitated especially after achieving Transfgran road.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish are considered two of the most important groups of organisms selected in the frame of Water Framework Directive (60/2000/EC) to assess and monitor the integrity of aquatic biological communities in the process of assessing the ecological status of a river (Metcalfe, 1989; Rosenberg and Resh, 1993; Gabriels et al., 2010; Steinman et al., 2003).

The field campaign of this study was realised in 2012. The studied macroinvertebrates and fish sampling stations were chosen according to: the valley morphology, the type of river substratum, the confluences with the main tributaries and the human impact presence bias (hydro technical works and polution).For the macroinvertebrates sampling the Surber Sampler (887 cm2 surface and 250 m mesh net) was used, four quantitative and one qualitative samples were taken in each of the 17 sampled river sectors, from near springs area to the stream flow in Vidraru Lake (Fig. 1). The samples were preserved in 4% formaldehyde solution (NaHCO3 was added). After that, the samples were washed in a 0.2 mm mesh net and analised at KRSS OPTRONIC binocular and Olympus (150X) stereomicroscope. Identifying individuals was made at level of systematical group. After the sampled individuals were identified and counted, they were kept in polystyrene tube, preserved in 70% alcohol, and included in the collections of the Aquatic Biology Laboratory, Faculty of Sciences, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania.

To procces the primary data was made the report with the number of individuals per square meter. The relative abundance and frequency were used for the macroinvertebrates quatitative description and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index to quantify the river ecological status, reverse Simpson and Margalef indexes to measure biodiversity, as a method of river homeostazy assessment..

Figure 2: Surber Sampler benthic macroinvertebrates sampling on Capra Stream.

The indexes used to describe benthic macroinvertebrates communities and analyze stream ecological status relative abundance, frequency, ecologycal significance index, Simpson Reversed Index, Margalef Index, Hilsenhoff Index and EPT/C Index. The relative abundance and frequency are used to describe quantitatively the structure of comunities, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index to quantify ecological status of the river, and Simpson Reversed Index and Margalef Index to measure biodiversity as a method to evaluate the homeostasis of the river.

The Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera orders and Chironomidae family abundace show the balance between benthic invertebrate communities; Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera are more sensitive to pollution than Chironomidae (Platfkin and colab., 1989). Balanced distribution of those groups reveal stream sectors with good ecologycal status.This index reveal the ratio between the sum of sampled individuals who belong to Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera orders groups and the sum of individuals who belong to Chironomidae family group.Fish are considered the most important groups of organisms selected in the frame of Water Framework Directive (60/2000/EC) to assess and monitor the integrity of aquatic biological communities in the process of assessing the ecological status of a river. Much more they are used to assess the ecological status of rivers as they are composed of species that constitute a large range of trophic levels and pollution tolerances (Metcalfe, 1989; Rosenberg and Resh, 1993).

The two fish sampling methods used were: electrofishing with AquaTech IGT600 and AquaTech IG1300 devices (Fig. 3) on 100 m river sectors units.

One of the largely accepted integrated approach in the fish assessment and monitoring respect is that one based on the biotic integrity using fish communities (Karr, 1981; Leonard and Orth, 1986; Fausch and Schrader, 1987; Lyons et al., 1996; Hughes and Oberdorf, 1998; Goldstein and Simon, 1998; Smathers et al., 1998; Miller et al., 1988; Bramblett and Fausch, 1991; Oberdorff et al., 2002; Sostoa et al., 2003; Bozzetti and Schulz, 2004; Pont et al., 2007; Petesse et al., 2007; Casatti et al., 2009). It is demonstrable the fact that particular adaptations are necessary for each studied river in different regions. Such a specific adaptation of an integrity biotic index for the Carpathians area basins/rivers was proposed by Bnduc and Curtean-Bnduc (2002), its main elements are shortly presented below and were used in this study.The combination of metrics for this index was created to expose insights of assemblage, community, population, and ecosystem perspectives, and to suit local and/or regional patterns in fish ecology.Every selected metric value should be compared with the estimated value from similar/comparable sites/sectors with smaller, minimal or no human impact.In general it can be considered that as this adapted/flexible biotic integrity index values decrease, the habitat and lotic ecosystems (as sources of services and resources) quality decrease too.

The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score represent a nine-metrics sum and can be interpreted using the following intervals for comparation: (45-43 excellent) this maximum score attest an excellent, comparable to pristine conditions, exceptional assemblage of species; (42-36 very good) this second score certifies a decreased species richness, intolerant species in particular, sensitive species present; (35-31 good) this score describes fair intolerant and sensitive species absence, skewed trophic structure; (30-24 fair) a score which reflects some expected species absent or rare, while omnivores and tolerant species are dominating; (23-17 fairly poor) this score shows few species and individuals present, tolerant species ; (16-10 poor) this score reveals very few species and individuals present, tolerant species dominating; (9-1 very poor) this minimum possible score reflects extreme few species and individuals present, tolerant species dominating, or no fish individuals present.

The selected fish assemblage metrics in this respect are the following: species richness and species composition (total number of fish species; proportion of benthic fish species; proportion of water column species; proportion of individuals of intolerant species; proportion of individuals of typically tolerant species), trophic composition (proportion of individuals as omnivores feeders; proportion of individuals as insectivores feeders) and fish abundance and condition (number of individuals in sample; introduced species - on zoogeographic basis). Ratings of 5, 3 and 1 are assigned to each metric according to weather its assessed value approximates, deviates from the value expected at a comparable site that is relatively undisturbed.

The Carpathian Fish - Index of Biotic Integrity (CF-IBI) scores results are generally overlapping on other much more resources consuming assessment methods (Bnduc and Curtean-Bnduc, 2002). This index significant metrics respond to river natural, seminatural and/or anthropogenic variations/disturbances in a predictable manner, match lotic ecosystem quality correctly revealing an important correlation with the local habitats and microhabitats degradation, are generally spatially and temporally stable, and showed significant correlation with independent measures of water quality. Although the overall classifying success of this index is similar to that of its metrics, it is superior to them, becouse is a compromise measure, balancing the tendencies of the metrics overestimate or underestimate the habitat quality.The high quality of the Carpathian Fish - Index of Biotic Integrity, as an indicator of fish assemblage and habitat quality, rely on the: possibility to explain the features of the fish assemblage in a particular Carpathian region; tracked medium-term and long-term modifications, is replicable across a wide suite of sampling sections; is evidently correlated with other indicators of the river water quality.

The Carpathian Fish Index of Biotic Integrity is very efficient in discriminating over a large gradient of human negative effects: biotic assemblages changing due to flow alteration, dam discharges, toxic chemicals; habitat disturbance, microhabitat disturbance, unnatural runoff, banks vegetation clearing, islands vegetation clearing, excess sediments or nutrients transport, channelization, de-snagging; and seem consistent in medium and long periods of time in differentiating human activities negative impacts.The main quality of the assessment made with this specific index is based on its capacity to interpret the main features of the fish assemblage in characteristic alpine Carpathians area conditions.

Figure 3: Electrofishing sampling.

Figure ....................................................................

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Station 1 (Fig. 4) is situated on the closest point near the river streams from all prelevation points. It is situated at 1,785 m altitude and their coordinates are north latitude 4535.682 and east longitude 2438.666. The maximum river width is 3 m, medium width 1,5 m and the minimum 1 m. The substrate is made of rock, boulder and gravel.

Figure 4: Sampling station 1 on Capra Stream.

Macroinvertebrate community present in this river is formed by: Oligochaeta , Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Diptera, Turbellaria and Chironomidae (Tab. 11).

From the numerical point of view Chirinomidae are dominant groups (40,75%). From all sistematical groups the group with biggest frequency are: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Chiromidae.

The present systematic groups with biggest frequency are: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Chironomidae. Dependent of calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae, Plecoptera and Ephemeroptera; dominant groups: Oligochaeta; subdominant groups :Trichoptera, Araneida and other Diptera, above groups: Collembola and Turbellaria.

The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor), a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc unpublished data)

Station S2 (Fig. 5) is situated at the altitude of 1721 m, at 1 km downstream of the prelevation station. The coordinates are 4535.419 north latitude and 2438.672 east longitude. The maximum width is 7,5 m and the minimum is 1,5 m. The medium width is 2,5 m.


The benthonic macroinvertebrates community from this river is formed by Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Diptera and Turbellaria (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view Chironomidae are dominant groups. (69,22%). The systematic groups with the highest frequency are: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, and Diptera. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae, Plecoptera, and Ephemeroptera; subdominant groups: other Diptera and Trichoptera, recedent groups: Oligochaeta and Turbellaria, subrecedent groups: Collembola.


Prelevation station S3 (Fig. 6) is situated at 1663 m, at 1 km downstream of the Station 2. The coordinates are 4535.130 north latitude and 2438.534 east longitude. The maximum width of the river is 4 m, minimum 1 m and medium width 2,5 m. The maximum depth is 70 cm and the minimum is 8 cm.

Figure 6: Sampling station 3 on Capra Stream.The benthonic macroinvertebrates community from this river is formed by Olihochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Diptera. (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the dominating groups are: Chironomidae (67,27%). The systematic groups with the highest frequency are: Oigochaeta, Araneida, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Chironomidae. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae, Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera; recedent groups: Oligochaeta, Other Diptera Araneida, Collembola, Trichoptera and Turbellaria.


Station S4 (Fig. 7) is situated at 1541 m altitude, at 1 km downstream from station nr. 3. The coordinates are: north latitude 4535.013, and east longitude 2437.925. The maximum width of the river is 8 m , minimun width 2 m and medium width 3,5 m. The maximum depth of the river is about 60 cm, and the minimum depth is 5 cm. At 200 m downostream from this station is situated the first microhidropowerplant (Fig. 8).


Figure 8: Capra Stream microhidropowerplant Capra I.The benthonic macroinvertebrates community from this river is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Diptera and Turbellaria. (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (72,66%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Diptera. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups : Chironomidae and Ephemeroptera, dominant groups: Plecoptera; subdominant groups: Other Diptera, recedent groups: Trichoptera, Oligochaeta, Aranedia trichoptere, oligochete i araneide; subrecedent groups: Collembola and Turbellaria.

The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score is 1 very poor.

Sampling station nr. S5 (Fig. 9) is situated at 1492 m altitude, at 0,9 km downstream of station nr. S4. The coordinates are: 4534.809 north latitude, and 2437.447 east longitude. The maximum width of the river is 8,5 m , the minimum 3 m and the medium 4 m. The maximum depth of the river is 50 cm wthile the minimum is 5 cm.


The benthonic macroinvertebrates community from this river is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Ostracoda, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Diptera and Turbellaria (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the dominating groups are: Chironomidae (55,9%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Oligochaeta, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Chironomidae. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae, Ephemeroptera; dominant groups: Trichoptera and Oligochaeta; subdominant groups: Plecoptera, other Diptera and Araneida; subrecedent groups: Turbellaria and Ostracoda.


The prelevation station nr. S6 (Fig. 10) is situated at1492 m altitude, at 1 km donwstream of station nr. S5. The coordonates are: 4534.809 north latitude and 2437.447 east longitude. The maximum width of the river is 8,5 m, minimum is 3 m and medium is 4 m The maximum depth of the river is 50 cm and minimum is 5 cm.

Figure 10: Sampling station 6 on Capra Stream.The benthonic macroinvertebrates community from this river is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Colembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and diptera. (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the dominating groups are: Chironomidae (91,87%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Oligochaeta, Ephemeroptera, and Chironomidae. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae; subdominant groups: Ephemeroptera, Oligochaeta and Plectoptera; recedent groups: Araneida, Other Diptera and Trichoptera and subrecedent groups: Collembola.

The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor), a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc unpublished data)Sampling station S7 (Fig. 11) is situated at 1249 m altitude, at 3 km downstream of station S6. The coordinates are: 4533.726 north latitude, and 2436.468 east longitude. The maximum width of the river is 12 m, the minimum is 6 m and medium with is 8 m. The maximum depth of the river is 65 cm and the minimum is 7 cm. In the downstream part of the prelevation station the habitat is very affected by the microhidropowerplant which construction is in progress (Fig. 12).

Figure 11: Sampling station 7 on Capra Stream, natural lotic habitat.

Figure 12: Sampling station 7 on Capra Stream,lotic habitat negatively affected by works for microhidropowerplant Capra II.The benthonic macroinvertebrates community from this river is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Diptera. From the numerical point of view the dominant groups are: Oligochaeta (63,05%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola and Chironomidae. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Oligochaeta and Chironomidae; dominant groups:Araneida; subdominant groups: Collembola; recedent groups: Ephemeroptera and Other; subrecedent groups: Plecoptera.

The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor).Prelevation Station S8 (Fig. 13) is situated at 1 km downstream from prelevation station S7 at 1242 m altitude. The coordinates are North latitude 4533.697 and east longitude 2436.426. The maximum width is 9 m long, minimum 1,5 m. In this point is situated Siesta cottage (Fig. 14). Here we can notice wasted water evacuation and the lack of a treatment plant.

Figure 13: Sampling station 8 on Capra Stream, natural habitat.

Figure 14: Touristic complex at sampling station 8 on capra Stream.The benthonic macroinvertebrates community from this river is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Ostracoda, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (76,46%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Plecoptera, Chironomidae. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae and Plecoptera; subdominant groups: Oligochaeta, Ephemeroptera, Araneida and Trichoptera; recedent groups: Other Diptera and subrecedent groups: Ostracoda.

The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor).

Prelevation station S9 (Fig. 15) is situated at 2 km downstream from prelevation station S8. The station is positioned at 1158 m altitude. The coordinates are: 4532.925 north latitude and 2435.920 east logintude. The maximum width of the river course is 14 m and the minimum 10m.

Figura 15: Sampling station 9 on Capra Stream.

Figure 16: Sampling station 9 on Capra Stream, pipe ready to be buried.The benthonic macroinvertebrates community from this river sector is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Diptera, Amfipoda and Turbellaria. (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (78,89%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Chironomidae. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae; eudominant groups: Plecoptera; subdominant groups: Ephemeroptera, Oligochaeta, Araneida and Trichoptera; recedent groups: other Diptera, Amphipoda and Turbellaria; subrecedent groups: Collembola.

The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (31 good), describes fair intolerant and sensitive species absent, skewed trophic structure. Just two Salmo trutta fario individuals were sampled in the fishing time unit.Sampling station S10 (Fig. 17) is situated at 2.4 km downstream from prelevation station S9. The station is positioned at 1131 m altitude. The coordinates are: 4531.899 north latitude and 2435.284 east logintude. The maximum width of the river course is 14 m and the minimum 10m.

The maximum width of the river course is 13m and the minimum 7 m. The maximum depth is 70 cm and the minimum is 15 cm. In this prelevation station half of the river course is ocupied by river rocks. Downstream from this station it is situated the Microhidropowerplant nr. III (Fig. 18).

Figura 17: Sampling station 10 on Capra Stream, burried pipe at microhidropowerplant no. III.

Figure 18: Sampling station 10 on Capra Stream,lotic habitat negatively affected by works for microhidropowerplant Capra III.The macroinvertebrates community from this river sector is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida,Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (64,03%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Oligochaeta, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae and Plecoptera; dominant groups: Ephemeroptera; subdominant groups: Trichoptera, Oligochaeta and other Diptera, recedent groups: Araneida; subrecedent groups: Collembola.

The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor).Sampling station S11 (Fig. 20) is situated at 2.4 km downstream from prelevation station S10. The station is positioned at 1046 m altitude. The coordinates are 4530.793 north latitude and 2435.028 east longitude. The maximum width of the river course is 9 m and the minimum 5 m.


Figure 20: Near the sampling station 11, remaines of old rocks and loggs dam used for rafting.The macroinvertebrates community from this river sector is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (85,09%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Chironomidae. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae; subdominant groups: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Oligochaeta and Araneida; recedent groups: Other Diptera, Collembola and Trichoptera.

The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor), a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc unpublished data)Prelevation station S12 (Fig. 21) is situated at 1.7 km downstream from prelevation station S11. The station is positioned at 966 m altitude. The coordinates are: 4530.124 north latitude and 2435.011 east longitude. The maximum width of the river course is 8 m and the minimum 1.3 m.The river bed is formed by: sand and gravel.

The maximum width of the river course is 13 m and the minimum 7 m. The maximum depth is 70 cm and the minimum is 15 cm. The rock filling width which cover the pipe is half of the initial river bed. The prelevation stations is situated downstream of the Michrohidropowerplant nr. IV which is under construction.


The macroinvertebrates community from this river sector is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (88,98%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Plecoptera and Chironomidae. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae; subdominant groups: Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera; recedent groups: Araneida, Oligochaeta Trichoptera and other Diptera; subrecedent groups: Collembola.

The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor), a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc unpublished data)Prelevation station S13 (Fig. 22) is situated at 1.5 km downstream from prelevation station S12 on the future placement of the Microhidropwerplant nr. V. The station is positioned at 915 m altitude. The coordinates are: 4529.289 north latitude and 2434.998 east logintude. The maximum width of the river course is 8 m and the minimum 1.3 m. The river bed is formed by: sand and gravel.The maximum width of the river course is 7 m and the minimum 4 m. The maximum depth is 130 cm. To be able to bury the pipe there have been developed a road through the river bed (800 m distance) (Fig. 23).In this prelevation station the building ground necessary to bury the pipes is wider than remaining river bed width. The riverbed work is done with heavy construction equipment with no measures to minimize the impact. (Fig. 24).

Figure 22: Sampling station 13 on Capra Stream, lotic habitat negatively affected by works for microhidropowerplant Capra V underground pipes.

Figure 23: Pipe which takes water for generating hidro-energy.

Figure 24: Heavy construction equipment work near the prelevation station nr. 13 lotic habitat negatively affected by works for microhidropowerplant Capra V.

Ne of the lateral connection of Capra River with one of his tributary is blocked by the construction of a dam (Fig. 23).

Figura 23: Dam on a tributary in the proximity of sampling station 13.The macroinvertebrates community from this river sector is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Ostracoda, Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (71,91%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Chironomidae. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae and Ephemeroptera; subdominant groups: Collembola, Plecoptera, Araneida, Oligochaeta, and Other Diptera; recedent groups :Trichoptera; subrecedent groups: Ostracoda.

The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor).Prelevation station S14 (Fig. 24) is situated at 1.7 km downstream from prelevation station S13 on the future placement of the Microhidropwerplant nr. VI. The station is positioned at 890 m altitude. The coordinates are: 4528.649 north latitude and 2435.826 east logintude. The maximum width of the river course is 11 m and the minimum 9 m. The river bed is formed by clifs, big boulders, gravel and sand. The maximum depth of the water si about 1 m and the minimum 30 cm. The flanks are covered by deciduous forests and coniferous forests.

Figura 24: Sampling station 14 on Capra Stream,

lotic habitat negatively affected by works for microhidropowerplant Capra VI.

In this prelevation station the lateral connection of Capra river with a tributary is stopped by an anti-bottom sediments dam.

The macroinvertebrates community from this river sector is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera. From the numerical point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (88,89%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Oligochaeta, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae; subdominant groups: Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Oligochaeta and other Diptera; recedent groups: Ephemeroptera, Araneida and Collembola.

The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor), a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc unpublished data).Prelevation station S15 (Fig. 25) is situated at 1.5 km downstream from prelevation station S14 at 845 m altitude. The coordinates are: 4528.644 north latitude and 2436.058 east logintude. The maximum width of the river course is 11 m and the minimum 9 m. The substrate is formed by large boulders, gravel and sand. In the river bed we noticed clifs too. The maximum depth is 90 cm while the minimum is 20 cm. The The flanks are covered by deciduous forests and coniferous forests.


The macroinvertebrates community from this river sector is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Ostracoda, Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (82,73%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae; subdominant groups: Trichoptera, Oligochaeta, Other Diptera Plecoptera and Ephemeroptera; recedent groups: Collembola and Araneida, subrecedent groups: Ostracoda.

The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor), a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc unpublished data).Next to last prelevation station nr. 16 (Fig. 26) is situated at 500 m downstream the station S15. The coordinates are: 4527.751 north latitude and 2436.172 east longitude. The maximum width of the river course is 18 m, the minimum 13 m and the medium 15 m. The substrate is formed by large boulders, gravel and sand. The maximum depth is 95 cm while the minimum is 20 cm. The flanks are covered by deciduous forests and coniferous forests.

Figure 26: Sampling station 16 on Capra Stream.The macroinvertebrates community from this river sector is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Epemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (89,77%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Diptera. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironomidae; subdominant groups: Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Other Diptera and Oligochaeta; recedent groups: Ephemeroptera and Aranieda; subrecedent groups: Collembola.

The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor), a minimum possible score of this index, reflects no fish individuals present. In this area in similar lotic sectors of neighbouring streams (e.g. Buda Stream) are proper habitats for good populations of Salmo trutta fario and Cottus gobio. (Bnduc unpublished data).The last Capra Stream prelevation station, S17 is situtated upstream the Vidraru Lake at the edge of the lake, upstream the anti-bottom sediments dam (Fig. 27). The coordinates are: 4527.543' north latitude and 2436.202' east longitude. S17 is situated at 843 m altitude. The substrate is formed by gravel and sand. The maximum width of the river course is 29 m and the minimum 9 m. Here we can see small sediment particles cumulation (sand and mud) and gravel which generate the semnificative change of the habitats and microhabitats against their natural state. The maxumum depth of the river course is 1 m and the minimum 10 cm. The flanks are covered by deciduous forests and coniferous forests.


Figure 28: Logs blocks the dam near the Vidraru Lake during high flows period in S17.

Figure 28: Sampling station 16 on Capra Stream, view from downstream of the concrete anti-bottom sediments dam on the Capra River Course at the edge of Lake Vidraru.

The macroinvertebrates community from this river sector is formed by: Oligochaeta, Araneida, Collembola, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Diptera (Tab. 11). From the numerical point of view the dominant groups are: Chironomidae (86,01%). The groups with the highest frequency are: Plecoptera and Chironomidae. Acording to calculated ecological semnification index we have: eudominant groups: Chironimidae; subdominant groups: Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera, Oligochaeta, Trichoptera and other Diptera; recedent groups: Araneida and Collembola.

The Carpathian Fish Integrity Biotic Index score (1 very poor).

Analising the similarities between the benthonic macroinvertebrates communities from the Capra Stream based on the relative abundance of the present taxonomic groups we found out that they can be grouped in 8 classes (Fig. 30, Tab. 11). I The communites dominating from the numerical point of view are Chironomidae. These communities are present at 1.6 km downstream from the first microhidropowerplant (prelevation station nr. 6) at 2.4 km downstream of the Microhidropowerplant nr. III which was under construction (S11) downstream of the Microhidropowerplant nr. IV in construction during the prelevation period (S12), in the future emplacement of Microhidropowerplant nr. VI where during prelevation period the investor was preparing for the construction of Microhidropowerplant nr. VI. (S14), downstream of the future emplacement of the Microhidropowerplant VI (S16) and upstream of the Vidraru Filling Lake (S17). II Communities where dominant (numerical) are still Chironomidae but with a lower relative abundance than the above case. These communities are situated at 1500 m downstream of the future emplacement of the Microhidropowerplant nr. VI and at 1500 m downstream of the anti-bottom sendiments dam which blocks the connection of Caprea stream with a tributary of his. III Communities with numerical dominant groups Chironomidae and Plecoptera. These are present near the touristic area Piscul Negru (S8) and a 2 km downstream of the touristic complex (S9). IV Communities with the highest relative abundance (between 64,03% and 72,66%) beside them apearing also Ephemeroptera (6,76-15,33%) and Plecoptera (8,4-15,79%). These communities are present in the first 3 km of the river, downstream the first prelevation station (S2, 3 and 4) in the place where began the Microhidropwerplant nr. III construction during the prelevation period (S10) and at 3 km downstream of Microhidrpowerplant nr. IV also in construction (S13). V Communities with the highest relative abundance: Chironomidae (40,75%), Plecoptera (26,67%), Efemeroptera (17,61%) and Oligochaeta (7,2%). These communities are situated in the first prelevation station, at the closest point from the headspring (S1). VI Communities with numerical dominant groups Chironomidae (55,9%), Trichoptera (15,31%) and Ephemeroptera (12,36%). These are present at aprox. 4 km downstream from the first prelevation station (S5). VII Communities with numerical dominant groups Oligochaeta (63,05%) and Chironimidae (24,05%). These are present donwstream from the Michrohidropowerplant nr. II in construction during the prevelation period (S7).

Figura 30: Similarity analysis of benthonic macroinvertebrates from Capra Streambased on relative aboundance values of these groups(grouped at euclidean distance S1-S17 prelevation stations)

Tabel 11: Benthonic macroinvertebrates communities structure from the Capra River Basin (Distribution ind/square m, A Relative abundance, F-frequency and W ecological index).Sampling sationSistematicgroupAFW

1Cls. Oligochaeta6,291006,29

Cls. Araneida1,641001,64

Cls. Insecta

Ord. Collembola1,26750,94

Ord. Ephemeroptera17,6110017,61

Ord. Plecoptera26,6710026,67

Ord. Trichoptera2,521002,52

Ord. Diptera

Fam. Chironomidae40,7510040,75

Alte diptere2,01751,51

Cls. Turbellaria1,26500,63



Cls. Insecta





Fam. Hydropsychidae0,2750,15

Ord. Diptera

Fam. Chironomidae69,22100100

Alte diptere1,83100100

Cls. Turbellaria0,47575



Cls. Insecta





Fam Hydropsychidae0,12500,06

Ord. Diptera






Cls. Insecta





Ord. Diptera






Cls. Ostracoda0,18250,05

Cls. Insecta




Ord. Diptera




6Cls. Oligochaeta21002


Cls. Insecta



Ord. Plecoptera2751,5


Ord. Diptera





Cls. Insecta




Ord. Diptera






Cls. Insecta





Ord. Diptera





Cls. Insecta






Ord. Diptera



Cls. Turbellaria 0,38250,1

Ord. Amphipoda0,38250,1



Cls. Insecta






Ord. Diptera





Cls. Insecta





Ord. Diptera





Cls. Insecta






Ord. Diptera






Cls. Insecta






Ord. Diptera





Cls. Insecta






Ord. Diptera






Cls. Insecta



Ord. Plecoptera21002



Ord. Diptera





Cls. Insecta






Ord. Diptera





Cls. Insecta






Ord. Diptera



Figure 31: Simpson Index variation for Insecta Class.

Figure 32: Margalef Index variation for Insecta Class.

Acording to reversed Simpson and Margalef Index values Insecta Class we recorded that although the diversity is high (Fig. 32) the taxonomic groups distribution in the lotic system is homogenous (Fig. 31).

Capra River ecological state based on benthonic macroinvertebrates communities structureThe biotic Hilsenhoff index shows organic charge of the water and according to registered values the water quality is good in the prelevation stations of the Capra River (Tab. 12). This point shows that the untreated water resulting from touristic areas along the river doesnt have a nevative impact on the benthonic macroinvertebrates communities. The EPT/C index reveals the communities taxonomic groups structure sensitive to differnt types of impact. Systematic groups Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera beside the fact that they are sensitive to Oxigen concentration they directly depend on the lithologic substrate structure and type of flow. The registered value of EPT/C higher than 1, only in the first Prelevation station (Tab. 12) shows that the impact of microhidropowerplants preparatory works on the other prelevation stations is semnificative for the benthonic macroinvertebrates communities from the river.

The presented structure of benthonic macroinvertebrates communities in the previous subchaper and the biotic integrity values of the Hilsenhoff and EPT/C indexes (Tab. 12, Fig. 33), shows the existance of 3 ecological zones on the river : I The superior sector of the river characterised by a very good state. Here the anthropic impact is insignificant, the aquatic habitats being close from the natural state of the river. II The middle sector of the river reveals a unsatisfactory because of the Microhidropowerplant nr. II construction work and because of the untreated waste water resulting from the Conacul Ursului chalet. Because of the Microhidropowerplant nr. II development work there have been observed hidrological and morphological changes in the river bed. The river banks have been also modified because of the pipe burial. III The lower sector of the river (downstream from S8) shows a better ecological state than the preveious sector. The good water quality is due to tributaries waters which flow directly in the Capra river course. This river sector is also exposed to anthropic pressures: the development of four microhidropowerplants, buried pipes in the river banks, hasty set up roads for buring the pipes in the river bed, the building site with heavy equipment in the river bed without any measures to reduce the impact, the side connection block of the river and the untreated waste water ejection from the touristic zone stiuated near by.Tabel 12: The Hilsenhoff index values (with the adequate quality classes), Margalef and reversed Simpson (based on the resulted values for Insecta Class).IBHEPT/CMargalefReversed Simpson

S13,54Excellent1,141,372,89

S24,16Very good0,381,191,79

S34,09Very good0,431,231,94

S44,32Good0,331,221,74

S54,15Very good0,581,092,33

S64,85Good0,041,391,12

S76,29unsatisfactory0,061,451,54

S84,52Good0,21,081,44

S94,6Good0,161,461,35

S103,87Very good0,471,342,05

S114,67Good0,11,451,25

S124,75Good0,081,461,19

S134,26Good0,211,551,65

S144,72Good0,071,351,19

S154,64Good0,11,441,31

S164,73Good0,071,261,19

S174,71Good0,11,471,27

Figura 33: Capra River sectors enframe in quality categories, depend on Hilsenhoffbiotic index values (IBH).CONCLUSIONS

Afer the analysis of ecological state of Capra River based on biotic integrity indexes (IBH i EPT/C) we noticed the present impact of the microhidropowerplants development on the benthonic macroinvertebrates communities. These are directly affected by the lithological substrate change (in conditions of which they depend on the substrate) and by the flow regime change.

Along the Capra stream we managed to distinquish 3 ecological zones.

The first ecological zone is characterised by a good ecological state the anthropic impact beeing insignificant. Because the lotic habitats are in an apropiate state of the natural one, we recomend apropiate management of lotic communities conservation for this river sector. The second ecological zone is characterised by an unsatisfacatory ecological state mainly because of the Microhidropowerplant nr. III developement and because of the untreated wastewaters discharges in the river. In this river sector have been hidrological and morphological changes which generate stress for the benthonic communities fact which determinate changes in their structure. The river banks configuration change also may determinate river bed deepen because of the rotational flow having the same effect on the communities. We propose the next management measures for this river sector to reduce/ban the causes which generates hidrological changes, so the analysed lotic communities can benefit by the ecological flow regime ( meantioned in waters law nr. 107/1996 necessary for the aquatic communities structure maintainance and ecological system well function in natural conditions or apropiate conditions to natural. Then we propose re-establishing measures for the modified river banks and reduction of the river bed erosion by creating some semi-natural dams which lower the speed flow. The third ecological zone is better than the previous one from the ecological point of view because of the left and right tribtuaries contribution of the Capra river. In this sector the anthropic impact is still seminificative because of the development of the four Microhidropowerplants, the tributaries connection block and the untreated wastewater discharge. The agressive building works simultanous with the semnificative river bed damage determinated a critical rare situation in the Romanian Charpatians the Cottus gobio extinction and the drastic reduction (The presence of Salmo truta fario in just one river sector from 17 prelevation stations) of Salmo truta fario idividuals.

After finishing the Microhidropowerplants chain construction on this river its compulsory to repopulate with trout and bullhead species which before the anthropic impact had stable populations data. (Bnduc, unpublished data). These repopulations are recomended to be done with biologic material prelevated from Buda stream which have similar ecological characteristics with Capra, and also been in connection with Capra river. The extiction of every fish species in all prelevation stations except station 9, area with low abundance though is due to major inadequate interventions (as temporal aspect aswell as arial aspect) of the microhidropowerplants construction team upstream.

This situation resulted because of some factors along the time: rafting in interbelic period, fractioning of the ichtiofauna connectivity because of the anti-bottom sediments dams without fish ladder built on the tributaries and especially the one built on Capra in the nearness of the edge of Vidraru Lake (during the comunism period) and because of agressive damage of the river bed for pipe burial for the microhidropowerplants chain in different states of development and the secondary impact of the untreated wastewater discharges of Piscul Negru chalet (in the last 2 decades).

The proposed management measures for this river sector are prevention measures from developening of new roads through river bed and re-establishing measures where they are need it, re-establishing the tributaries connections and re-establising of past water courses, the adequate treatment of wasterwaters.AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the Faculty of Science of the Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu and NGO Ecotur Sibiu for the support during the field campaign.REFERENCESBnduc D, Fishs associations habitats quality relation in the Trnave rivers ecological assessment, Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, 2, Editura Universitii "Lucian Blaga" din Sibiu, ISSN 1841-7051, ISBN 973-739-141-1, pp. 123 136, 2005Cao Y., Bark A. W., Williams W. P., 1997, Analysing benthic macroinvertebrate community change along a pollution gradient: A framework for the development of biotic indices, Water Research, 31 (4): 884-892.

Clements W. H., Farris J. L., Cherry D. S., Cairns Jr. J., 1989, The influence of water quality on macroinvertebrate communitiety responses to copper in outdoor experimental streams, Aquatic Tixicology, 14 (3): 249 262.

Couceiro S. R .M., Hamada N., Forsberg B. R., Pimentel T. P., Luz S. L. B., 2012, A macroinvertabrate multimetric index to evaluate the biological condition of streams in the Central Amazon region of Brazil, Ecological Indicators, 18: 118 125.

Curtean-Bnduc A., 2008, Vieu River and some tributaries ecological assessment based on macroinvertebrate communities (Maramure, Romania), Transylv. Rev. Syst. Ecol. Res., Vol. 5 The Maramure Mountains Nature Park, pp. 165-182.Bnduc D., Curtean-Bnduc Angela, A biotic integrity index adaptation for a Carpathian (first - second order) river assesment, Acta oecologica, Vol IX, Nr. 1-2, Editura Universitii "Lucian Blaga" din Sibiu, ISSN 1221-5015, pp. 81 99, 2002Curtean-Bnduc A., 2005, Trnava Mare River (Transylvania, Romania) ecological assessment, based on the benthic macroinvertebrate communities, Transylv. Rev. Syst. Ecol. Res., 2, pp. 109-122.

Hilsenhoff W.L., 1981 - Use of arthropods to

evaluate water quality of streams, Tech. Bulletin, No. 100, Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.

Hilsenhoff W. L., 1987 - An improved biotic

index of organic stream pollution, Great Lakes Entomologist, 20:3139.Kukua and Sandor, 2003 n: Witkowski et al., Europress, Krakw, Poland, Infante D. M., Allan D. J., Linke S. and Norris R. H., 2009 Relationship of fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages to environmental factors: implications for community concordance, Hydrobiologia, 623: 87-103.

Jiang X., Xie Z., Chen Y., 2013, Longitudinal patterns of macroinvertebrate communities in relation to environmental factors in a Tibetan-Plateau river system, Quaternary International, 304: 107 -114.

Lcke J. D., Johnson R. K., 2009, Detection of ecological change in stream macroinvertebrate assemblages using single metric, multimetric or multivariate approaches, Ecological Indicators, 9 (4): 659 669.

Monaghan K. A., Soares A. M. V. M., 2012, Bringing new knowledge to an old problem: Building a biotic index from lotic macroinvertebrate traits, Ecological Indicators, 20: 213 220.Park Y., Song M., Park Y., Oh K., 2007, Community patterns of benthic macroinvertebrates collected on the national scale in Korea, Ecological modelling, 203: 26 33.

Pru N., Doldec S., 2010, From compositional to functional biodiversity metrics in bioassessment: A case study using stream macroinvertebrate communities, Ecological Indicators, 10 (5): 1025 1036.Rosenberg D. M., Resh V. H. (Eds.), 1993, Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Chapman and Hall, New York.

Snchez-Montoya M. M.,. Vidal-Abarca M. R, Surez M. L., 2010, Comparing the sensitivity of diverse macroinvertebrate metrics to a multiple stressor gradient in Mediterranean streams and its influence on the assessment of ecological status, Ecological Indicators, 10 (4): 896 904.Habersack H. M., 2000 The river-scaling concept (RSC): a basis for ecological assessments, Hydrobiologia, 422/423: 49-60.

Ciesielka I. K., Bailey R. C., 2007 Hierarchical structure of stream ecosystems: consequences for bioassessment, Hydrobiologia, 586: 57-67.

Heino J. and Mykr J., 2006 Assessing physical surrogates for biodiversity: Do tributary and stream type classifications reflect macroinvertebrate assemblage diversity in running waters?, Biological Conservation, 129: 418-426.

Jiang X., Xiong J., Xie Z. and Chen Y., 2011 Longitudinal patterns of macroinvertebrate functional feeding groups in a Chinese river system: A test for river continuum concept (RCC), Quaternary International, Vol. 244, 2: 289-295.Keith D. A., Orscheg C., Simpson C. C., Clarke P. J., Hughes L., Kennelly S. J., Major R. E., Soderquist T. R., Wilson A. L. and Bedward M., 2009 A new approach and case study for estimating extent and rates of habitat loss for ecological communities, Biological Conservation, 142: 1469-1479.

Roth N. E., Allen J. D., and Errickson, D. E., 1996 Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology, 11, 141-156.

Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, 3, Retezat National Park 2006 DB eds 1-204,

Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, 5, The Maramuresului Mountains Nature Park 2008 AC-B eds., 1-222

Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, 9, The Rodna Mountains National Park 2010, A. C-B eds. 1-210

The Iron Gates Natural Park 2014 A and D16.), in fact each stream basin should have its special designated study to can obtain a more accurate specific assessment, monitoring and management data.

Mutihac V., 1990 - Structura geologica a teritoriului Romaniei, Editura Tehnica, Bucuresti, ISBN 973-31-0193-8, 418.

CurteanBnduc A., Bnduc D., Buca C., Watershed Management (Transylvania, Romania) implications, risks, solutions, Strategies to Enhance Environmental Security in Transition Countries, NATO Security trough Science Series C: Environmental Security, Springer, pp. 225 - 238, ISBN 978-1-4020-5995-7, 2007.

Constantinescu M. and Pslaru M., 1990, Construcii hidroenergetice n Romania 1950-1990, 322.Mutihac V., 1990. Structura geologica a teritoriului Romaniei Tehnica, Bucharest, 419 p.

Moores E. M. And Fairbridge R. W. 1998. Encyclopedia of European and Asian Regional Geology. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series, London, 825 pp.

Schmid A. M., Fgenschuh B., Kissling E. and Schuster R., Tectonic map and overall architecture of the Alpine orogen, Ecologae geol. Helv. 97 (2004)93-117, Birkhuser Verlag, Basel.

Badea L., (coord.) 1983, Geografia Romaniei vol. 1, Geografia Fizica, Editura Academiei Romane.

Martonne E. De, 1907, Recherches sur lvolution morphologicue des Alpes de Transylvanie (Karpates mridionales), Rev. de gogr. Annuelle, t. I (1906-1907), Paris, 286, p., (in French).

2007, Curtean-Banaduc and Florentina Florescu (eds.) ED. Alma Mater Sibiu, ISBN 978-973-632-402-4.

Posea G., (coord.) 1982Enciclopedia Geografica a Romaniei, Ed. Didactica si Pedagogica, Bucuresti (in Romanian)

Rosu A., 1980, Geografia Fizica a Romaniei, Ed. Didactica si Pedagogica, Bucuresti.

Florea M., 1998, Muntii Fagarasului Edit. Foton Brasov, p. 189.

Voiculescu M., 2002, Studiul potentialului geoecologic al Masivului Fagaras si protectia mediului inconjurator, Edit. Mirton Timisoara, p. 375.

Niculescu G., Nedelcu E. and Iancu S., 1960, Nouvelle contribution a l'tude de la morphologie glaciaire des Carpates roumaines, Recueil'tudes gographiques concernant le territoire de la Rpublique Roumanie, Edit. Academiei, Bucuresti, pp. 29-43.

Botnariuc N., Cartea rosie a vertebratelor din Romania, 180 p., Academia romana

Posea G., Popescu N. and Ielenicz M., 1974. Relieful Romaniei, Editura Stiintifica, Bucuresti, 483.

Banaduc D., Oprean L., Bogdan A. and Curtean-Banaduc A., The assessment, monitoring and management of the Carpathian rivers fish diversity, Management of Sustainable Development, Sibiu Romania,

Voloscuk I., (ed.) 1996, Red data book, Lists of threatened plants and animals of the Carpathian National Parks and reserves. ACNAP, Tatranska Lomnica, Slovak Republik.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.International Union for Conservation of Nature Resources (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species http://www.iucnredlist.org/

Kukua K. and Sandor J., Fishes and Lampreys in: Witkowski Z. J., Krl W. and Solarz W. (eds.), Carpathian List of Endangered Species, WWF and Institute of Nature Conservation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Vienna-Krakow, ISBN 83-918914-0-2, 84 p., 2003.

Constantinescu et al., 1990, Constructii hidroenergetice in Romania 1950-1990, Edit. Arta Grafica, 322.Bnduc D., 2001 Specii de peti dulcicoli i migratori n mediul dulcicol, de interes comunitar, prezente n Romnia, n Natura 2000 n Romnia, Conservarea speciilor i habitatelor acvatice, coordonator Curtean-Bnduc Angela, Edit. Alma Mater Sibiu, ISBN 973-632-243-2, 72 - 81. (in Romanian)

Bnduc D., 2008 Umbra krameri Walbaum, 1792 a Natura 2000 protected fish species, in Romania, Acta Ichtiologica Romanica III, Bnduc D. (ed.), 33-44.

Bnrescu M. P. and Bnduc D., 2007 Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) fish species (Osteichthyes) on the Romanian territory, Acta Ichtiologica Romanica II, Bnduc D. (ed.), 43-78.

Sundseth K. and Creed P., 2008 Natura 2000 Protecting Europe's biodiversity, European Commission, Directorate General for the Enviroment, ISBN 9789279083082, 296.Mutihac V., 1990 - Structura geologica a teritoriului Romaniei, Editura Tehnica, Bucuresti, ISBN 973-31-0193-8, 418.

CurteanBnduc A., Bnduc D., Buca C., Watershed Management (Transylvania, Romania) implications, risks, solutions, Strategies to Enhance Environmental Security in Transition Countries, NATO Security trough Science Series C: Environmental Security, Springer, pp. 225 - 238, ISBN 978-1-4020-5995-7, 2007.

Constantinescu M. and Pslaru M., 1990, Construcii hidroenergetice n Romania 1950-1990, 322.* http://infonatura2000.cndd.ro/documents/ sesiuni_de_instruire/Managementul_integrat_al_siturilor_aspecte_tehnice.pdf1. Iannuzzi T. J. and Ludwig D. F., Historical and Current Ecology of the Lower Passaic River, Urban Habitats. Vol. 2. No. 1. pp. 147-173, (2004).2. Das S. K. and Chakrabarty D, The use of fish community structure as a measure of ecological degradation: A case study in two tropical rivers of India, Biosystems, Vol 90, Issue 1, pp. 188 196, (2007).

3. Dudgeon D., Endangered ecosystems - a review of the conservation status of tropical Asian rivers, Hydrobiologia, Vol 248, Iss 3, pp. 167-191, (1992).

4. Dudgeon D., River regulation in southern China - ecological implications, conservation and environmental-management, Regulated Rivers-Research & Management, Vol 11, Iss 1, pp. 35-54, (1995).

5. Petts G., Sustaining our rivers in crisis: setting the international agenda for action, Water Science and Technology, Vol. 43, Iss. 9, pp. 3-16, (2001).

6. Tockner K., Robinson T. R. and Uehlinger U., River of Europe, pp. 700, (2009).

7. Yacoub H., Human impacts on nutritive value of Najas spp. in Wadi Allaqi (Nasser Lake, Egypt), Romanian Journal of Aquatic Ecology, Vol. 1, pp. 63 82, (2011).

8. Kutzenberger H., Threats for Danube Region Biodiversity - Global trends and local impacts and changes in biogeographical patterns, Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, Vol. 6, The Wetlands Diversity, pp. 149 154, (2008).

9. Yildiz F. E., nsal N. and Grer I., Water pollution at Sultansazligi Wetland and Develi closed basin (Turkey); Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, Vol. 10, The Wetlands Diversity, pp. 169 - 184, (2010)

10. Liogchii N., Considerations on the human impact on some aquatic ecosystems (Moldavia), Acta Oecologica Carpatica I, pp. 139 144, (2008).

11. Markovi G., Lenhardt M. and Gai Z., Successions of the ichthyofauna in an eutrophic Serbian Reservoir, Acta Ichtiologica Romanica, Vol. 5, The Maramure Mountains Nature Park, pp. 151 - 160, (2007).

12. Antipa G., Fauna Ihtiologic a Romniei, Bucharest, pp. 288 +, (1909).

13. Bnrescu P. M., Fauna R. P. R., Pisces-Osteichthyes (Peti ganoizi i osoi), vol. XIII, pp. 959, (1964).

14. Bnrescu P. M., 1969, Fauna R.S.R., Cyclostomata i Chondrichthzes, vol. XII, fasc. 1, Editura Academiei R. S. R., p. 1-125, Bucureti, Romnia.

15. Bnduc D., Fish associations - habitats quality relation in the Trnave rivers (Transylvania, Romania) ecological assessment, Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, Vol. 2, The Trnava River Basin, pp. 123 136, (2005).

16. Bnduc D., The Rul Mare River (Retezat Mountains, Romania) fish fauna, Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, Vol. 3, The Retezat National Park, pp. 117 124, (2006).

17. Bnduc D., The Hucho hucho (Linnaeus, 1758), (Salmoniformes, Salmonidae), species monitoring in the Vieu River (Maramure, Romania), Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, Vol. 5, The Maramure Mountains Nature Park, pp. 183 188, (2008).

18. Bnduc D., Hydrotechnical works impact on Cyclostomata and Cottidae species in the Rodna Mountains and Maramure Mountains Natura 2000 sites (Eastern Carpathians, Romania), Repede River a study case, Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, Vol. 9, The Rodna Mountains National Park, pp. 175 184, (2010).19. Sokolov A. A., World water resources: Perspectives and problems, World Development, Vol. 5, Iss. 5-7, pp. 519-523, (1977).

20. Arnell N. W., Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 14, Iss. 1, pp. 31-52, (2004).21. Lundqvist J., Water as a human Resource, Encyclopedia of Inland Waters, pp. 31-42, (2009).

22. Aldwell C. R., Water resources of the world - Selected statistics: Frits van der Leeden, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 32, Iss. 3-4, pp. 401-402 (1977).

23. Kalinin G. P. and Bykov V. D., The world's water resources, past, present and future, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 308, (1970).

24. Hajdu Z. and Fleky G., Nitrates pollution in Niraj River basin assessment (Transylvania, Romania), Acta Oecologica Carpatica I, pp. 115-126 (2008).

25. Costea M., Using the Impact Matrix and the Sorensen Network for the evaluation of land-use impact upon versants. Case study: Sebe River basin (Mure Basin, Transylvania, Romania), Acta Oecologica Carpatica I, pp. 127-138 (2008).

26. Curtean-Bnduc A., Costea M. and Bnduc D., Sebe River montainous sector (Olt River watershed) ecological assessment (Transylvania, Romania), Acta Oecologica Carpatica I, pp. 145-156 (2008).

27. Reif A., Rudea E., Brinkmann K., Harth B., Pcurar F. and Rotar I, Vegetation patterns and land use systems in a traditional cultural landscape a case study from the village of Gheari (Transylvania, Romania), Acta Oecologica Carpatica II, pp. 79-140 (2009).

28. Bnduc D., Hydrotechnical works impact on Cyclostomata and Cottidae species in the Rodna Moutains and Maramure Mountains Natura 2000 sites (Eastern Carpathians, Romania), Repede River a study case, Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, Vol. 9, The Rodna Mountains National Park, pp. 175 - 184, (2010)

29. Sandu C., Bloesch J. and Coman A., Water pollution in the Mure Catchment and its impact on the aquatic communities (Romania) Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, Vol. 6, The Wetlands Diversity, pp. 97 - 108, (2008)

30. Dank L., International economic co-operation in the Carpathian region, International Business Reviev, Vol. 2, Iss. 3, pp. 269-279 (1993).

31. Vasilev M. and Botev I., Assessment of the ecological status of some Bulga

32. Minca E. and Petz K. Ecosystem services and their mapping in the Tisza/Tisa River basin - initial steps in Hungary and Romania, Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, Vol. 6, The Wetlands Diversity, pp. 87 96, (2008).

33. Radu G. A., Biodiversity - the foundation of ecosystem services, Acta Oecologica Carpatica II, pp. 183 190, (2009).

34. Aparicio E., Vargas M. J., Olmo J. M. and Sostoa A., Decline of native freshwater fishes in a Mediterranean watershed of the Iberian Peninsula: a quantitative assessment. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 59, pp. 11 19, (2000).

35. Fausch K., Lyons J., Karr J. and Angermeier P. L., Fish communities as indicators of environmental degradation. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 8, pp. 123- 144, (1990).

36. Pont D., Hugueny B., Beier U., Goffaux D., Melcher A., Noble R., Rogers C., Roset N. and Schmutz S., Assessing river biotic condition at a continental scale: a European approach using functional metrics and fish assemblages. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, pp. 70 80 (2006).

37. Schiemer F., Fish as indicators for the assessment of the ecological integrity of large rivers. Hidrobiologia 422/423, pp. 271 278, (2000).

38. Harrison T. D. and Whitfield A. K., Fish community structure in three temporarily open/closed estuaries on the natal cost. Ichthyological Bulletin of the J. B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology, Grahamstown, South Africa 64: pp. 1 80 (1995).

39. Edds D. R., 1993, Fish assemblage structure and environmental correlates in Nepal's Gandaki river. Copeia, pp. 48 60 (1993).

40. Kadye W. T., Magadza C. H. D., Moyo N. A. G. and Kativu S., Stream fish assemblages in relation to environmental factor on a montane plateau (Nyika Plateau Malawi). Environmental Biology of Fishes, 83, pp. 417 428 (2008).

41. Magalhaes M. F., Batalha D. C. and Collares-Pereira M. J., Gradients in stream fish assemblages across a Mediterranean landscape: contributions of environmental factors and spatial structure. Freshwater Biologi, 47, pp. 1015 1031 (2002).

42. Bramblett R. G. and Fausch K. D., Variable fish communities and the Index of Biotic Integrity in a western Great Plains river. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 120, pp. 752-769 (1991).

43. Goldstein R. M. and Simon T. P., Toward a united definition of guild structure for feeding ecology of North American freshwater fishes. In: Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities (Eds. T. P. Simon), pp. 123 202 (1998).

44. Lyons J., Wang L. and Simonson T. D., Development and validation of an index of biotic integrity for coldwater streams in Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16, pp. 241 256 (1996).

45. Oberdorff T., Pont D., Hugueny B. and Porcher J. P., Development and validation of a fish-based index for the assessment of "river health" in France. Freshwater Biology, 47, 1720-1734 (2002).

46. Pont D., Hugueny B. and Rogers C., Development of a fish-based index for the assessment of river health in Europe: the European Fish Index. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 14, pp. 427 439 (2007).

47. Sostoa A., Casals F., Caiola N. M., Vinyoles D., Snchez S. and Franch C., Development of a Biotic Integrity Index (IBICAT) Based on the Use of Fish as Indicators of the Environmental Quality of the Rivers of Catalonia. Catalan Water Agency, Barcelona, http//aca-web.gencat.cat/aca/ (2003).48. Bozzetti M. and Schulz U. H., An index of biotic integrity based on fish assemblage for subtropical streams in southern Brazil. Hydrobiologia 529, pp. 133 144 (2004).49. Casatti L., Ferreira C. P. and Langeani F., A fish-based biotic integrity index for assessment of lowland streams in southeastern Brazil. Hydrobiologia, 623, pp. 173 189 (2009).

50. Petesse M. L., Petrere M. and Spigolon R. J., Adaptation of the Reservoir fish assemblage index (RFAI) for assessing the Barra Bonita Reservoir (So Paulo, Brazil). River Research and Applications, 23, pp. 1 18 (2007).

51. Hughes R. M. and Oberdorff T., Aplication of IBI concepts and metrics to water outside the United States. In Simon T. P., (ed.). Assessment Approaches for Estimating Biological Integrity ising Fish Assemblages. Lewis Press, Boca Raton, FL: PP. 79-83 (1998).

52. Noss R. F., Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology, 4, pp, 355 364 (1990).

53. Angradi, T. R., Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Great River Ecosystems, Field Operations Manual. EPA/620/R-06/002, E.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. (2006).

54. Gutreuter S., The need for stratified spatially randomized sampling fishes in the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. Report to the LTRM Analysis Team. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Management Technical Center, Onalaska, Wiskonsin (1993).

55. West P., Brown A. and Hall K., Review of alien fish monitoring techniques, indicators and protocols: implications for national monitoring of Australia's inland river systems. Report to the National Land and Water Resources Audit, pp. 98 (2008).

56. Bnduc D., Ichthyofaunistic criteria for Cibin River human impact assesment, Travaux du Museum National d Histoire naturelle Grogore Antipa, Bucureti, p. 365-372, vol. XLII. 2000.

57. Curtean-Bnduc Angela, Bnduc D., Trnave rivers (Transylvania, Romania) ecological management proposal, Studia Universitatis Vasile Goldi Arad, seria tiinele Vieii, Vol. 15., Vasile Goldi University Press ISSN 1584-2363, 16 pg., 2005.

58. Oprean L., Curtean-Bnduc A., Bnduc D., Vieu River Watershed (Maramure, Romania) ecological management proposal, Management of Sustainable Development, Sibiu, Romania, 2009.

59. Bnduc D. and Curtean-Bnduc Angela, A biotic integrity index adaptation for a Carpathian (first - second order) river assesment, Acta oecologica, Vol IX, Nr. 1-2, Editura Universitii "Lucian Blaga" din Sibiu, ISSN 1221-5015, pp. 81 99, 2002

60. Frisell C. A., Liss W. J., Waren C. E. and Hurley M. D., A hierarchical framework for stream classification: viewing streams in a watershed context, Envir. Mgmt. 10: 199-214. 1986

61. Habersack H., 1998 Numerical sediment transport models - theoretical and practical aspects, IAHS Publ. 249: 299-308. 1998

62. Levin S. A., 1992 The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 1943-1967.

63. Naiman A. J., Lonzarich D. J., Beechie T. J. and Ralph S. C., 1992 General principles of classification and the assessment of conservation potential in rivers, In Boon, Calow, Petts, G. E. (eds.) River Conservation and Management. Willey and sons, Chichester, Sussex: 93-123.

64. Fausch K. D. and Schrader L. H., 1987, Use of the index of biotic integrity to evaluate the effects of habitat, flow, and water quality on fish assemblages in three Colorado Frint Range streams Colorado Division and the Cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Greeley, Longmont, and Windsor: Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Colins, Colorado.65. Karr J. R., 1981, Assessment of biotic integrity using fish ass

Raul Capra

Documents

Transcript of Raul Capra