Next Article in Journal
Ecological Approaches in the Process of Formation of the Bolshoe Toko National Park, Yakutia
Previous Article in Journal
Multi-Gene Analysis, Morphology, and Species Delimitation Methods Reveal a New Species of Melanothamnus, M. coxsbazarensis sp. nov. (Rhodomelaceae, Ceramiales), for the Marine Red Algal Flora from Bangladesh
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 17
Issue 9
10.3390/d17090624
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Environmental Drivers of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in Mediterranean River Basins of Türkiye

by
Deniz Mercan
1,*,
Abdullah A. Saber
2,
Cüneyt Nadir Solak
3,
Gamze Özel
4,
Hanan M. Alharbi
5,
Abdelghafar M. Abu-Elsaoud
6 and
Naime Arslan
1
1
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, 26040 Eskişehir, Türkiye
2
Botany Department, Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University, Abbassia Square, Cairo 11566, Egypt
3
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Art, Dumlupınar University, 43000 Kütahya, Türkiye
4
Department of Statistics, Faculty of Science, Hacettepe University, 06800 Ankara, Türkiye
5
Department of Biology, College of Science, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, P.O. Box 84428, Riyadh 11671, Saudi Arabia
6
Department of Biology, College of Science, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Riyadh 11623, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2025, 17(9), 624; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17090624
Submission received: 2 June 2025 / Revised: 26 August 2025 / Accepted: 28 August 2025 / Published: 5 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Freshwater Biodiversity)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study investigated the influence of physicochemical water parameters on benthic macroinvertebrate communities across 11 sampling stations located in the Western, Antalya, and Eastern Mediterranean Basins of Türkiye. Field studies were conducted in April, July, and October of 2018–2019. Water quality variables, such as temperature, pH, electrical conductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen (DO), biological oxygen demand, ammonia nitrogen, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus, were measured. A total of 177 taxa and 5331 individuals were identified, with Insecta being the most dominant class, especially the order Diptera. Statistical analyses, including detrended correspondence analysis (DCA), revealed clear relationships between environmental gradients and species distribution. Species such as Paratendipes albimanus, Microtendipes pedellus, and Potamanthus luteus showed strong correlations with DO and other water quality parameters. This study emphasizes the importance of specific macroinvertebrate taxa as indicators of environmental conditions and suggests that certain species may serve as bioindicators for ecological monitoring and management in Mediterranean freshwater ecosystems in the context of ongoing global climate change.

1. Introduction

The availability of freshwater is changing globally due to human activity [1]. Streams and rivers are the freshwater ecosystems most influenced or threatened by anthropogenic stressors [2]. River pollution, which is linked to human disturbances such as anthropogenic activities and urbanization [3], has a number of negative consequences for river ecosystems, necessitating increased water assessment efforts by managers [4].
Water quality is characterized by the physicochemical and biological qualities of water that influence its acceptability. The biota and water quality of a catchment area reflect the interactions among physical, chemical, and anthropogenic processes [5]. Because biota respond to stressors on many spatial and temporal scales, biological approaches are useful in many studies for identifying natural and anthropogenic influences on water resources and habitats [6]. Furthermore, aquatic organisms have proven to be more useful in ecological studies than environmental factors alone because the aquatic population combines structural and functional traits and represents the health of the streams under study [7,8]. According to the European Water Framework Directive (WFD; Directive 2000/60/EC), all European water bodies must have “a good ecological status” by 2027 [9,10]. The WFD mandates that all water bodies be observed and their conditions evaluated on a regular basis in order to accomplish this [11]. The WFD now prioritizes ecologically based water quality metrics over chemical metrics. Although they are considered “supporting elements” of the biological aspects, the chemical and physical components of water quality remain crucial to the assessment process [12]. The condition of the five biological groups in the aquatic ecosystem—phytoplankton, diatoms, macrophytes, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish fauna—forms the basis of the WFD’s ecological quality evaluation [13,14]. Among river components, aquatic macroinvertebrates are the most vulnerable to anthropogenic influences [15]. Macroinvertebrate responses to changes in aquatic ecosystem conditions are well known and are used in indices to monitor freshwater ecosystem integrity, assisting in management decisions [16]. Biotic indices are numerical representations that categorize water quality according to the richness and ecological sensitivity of the taxa present. Since macroinvertebrates play a crucial role in the aquatic ecosystem by aiding in the decomposition of organic matter and serving as a primary food source for fish, other aquatic invertebrates, and certain birds, numerous biotic indices have been developed based on them [17].
Human activities and pollution sources degrade water quality, limit the range of riverine species, and undermine the ecological integrity of lotic ecosystems [18]. Lotic systems are among the most diverse sources of biological variety, with a diverse range of biotic and abiotic elements [19]. In lotic systems, benthic macroinvertebrates have high functional and taxonomic diversity and are significant components of the aquatic environment in numerous ways [20]. Their distribution patterns, migration, and impact on ecological flows attest to their significance in various landscape ecological processes [21]. They are a varied group of animals that respond to human activities in aquatic ecosystems in a consistent and predictable way. Furthermore, because some are stationary, their body loads reflect local conditions, enabling the detection of a variety of changes in various aquatic habitats. Macroinvertebrate populations in streams and rivers can aid in overall system health assessments [22].
The physicochemical properties of water have a major influence on the abundance, richness, and species composition of benthic macroinvertebrates in any aquatic ecosystem [23,24]. Increased inputs of nutrients, silt, and pollutants from agriculture, urban areas, forest harvesting [25], and industry have resulted in freshwater degradation [26]. These effects have a negative impact on biological diversity and water quality of aquatic ecosystems [27].
Ecosystem management requires a fundamental understanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental changes. The diversity and stability of stream habitats, which provide opportunities for development, determine the species composition of benthic communities, particularly in aquatic ecosystems. As a result, benthic macroinvertebrates are frequently used as indicators of both short- and long-term environmental changes in lotic systems. Species richness (i.e., the number of species in a particular area) is commonly employed as an integrative descriptor of ecological communities because it is influenced by a wide range of environmental parameters, such as ecosystem productivity, environmental stability, and habitat heterogeneity. The interactions among these factors can influence the gradients in species richness within stream ecosystems [28].
Türkiye contains 25 river basins with inland water bodies, including 200 natural lakes, 806 reservoirs, and 1000 ponds. Although Türkiye is rich in aquatic ecosystems, the Mediterranean Region (Antalya, Western, and Eastern Mediterranean Basins) is particularly vulnerable, as surface waters often dry up in summer due to climatic conditions, aquatic habitats vanish, and tourism is intensive, increasing anthropogenic pressure. Therefore, considering the identification, monitoring, and necessary precautions for bioindicator species in the WFD, this region was chosen as the study area because of its vulnerability to natural and anthropogenic pressure. In this study, macroinvertebrate samples and environmental parameters were collected from 11 rivers in three basins: Antalya, Western, and Eastern Mediterranean, located in the Mediterranean Region of Türkiye. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of environmental parameters on the diversity and species composition of benthic macroinvertebrates.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Benthic macroinvertebrates and water samples were collected from 11 stations in the Mediterranean region of Türkiye (Figure 1). The stations are located in the three freshwater basins of Türkiye: the Western Mediterranean, Antalya, and Eastern Mediterranean (Table 1). The Western Mediterranean Basin consists of a group of precipitation areas that discharge water into the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas in southwest Anatolia. The basin area is approximately 21,223 km2, and the ratio of the basin to the area of Türkiye is 2.7% [29]. Antalya Basin is located in the southern part of the Mediterranean Region of Türkiye, between the Western Mediterranean and the Eastern Mediterranean Basins. The basin area is approximately 20,331 km2 and covers approximately 3% of the surface area of Türkiye. The Eastern Mediterranean Basin is located in the south of Türkiye and is adjacent to the Konya Closed Basin in the north, the Seyhan Basin in the east, and the Antalya Basin in the west. The Eastern Mediterranean Basin, with an area of approximately 2,180,704 hectares (ha), constitutes approximately 2.8% of Türkiye’s surface area [30].

2.2. Sampling Procedures and Environmental Variables

Samples from 11 stations in the Western Mediterranean, Antalya, and Eastern Mediterranean basins were collected three times in April, July, and October in 2018–2019 (Figure 1). Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected using a hand net (500-μm mesh size) from different aquatic systems (streams and waterfalls) at each of the 11 stations (Table 1). Samples were washed in situ using a series of sieves with decreasing mesh sizes of 2, 1, and 0.5 mm. The material was preserved in 70% ethyl alcohol, transported to the laboratory, and the macroinvertebrate samples were sorted to the family level under a SteREO Discovery.V12 stereomicroscope (Carl Zeiss AG, Oberkochen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany). Moreover, the benthic macroinvertebrate samples were identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level (species, genus, or family) using the identification keys given in [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52]. All macroinvertebrate samples were stored in the Eskişehir Osmangazi University (ESOGU) Hydrobiology Laboratory. At the same time, the temperature, pH, electrical conductivity (EC), salinity, and dissolved oxygen (DO) parameters were measured in situ using a Hach Lange DR40D spectrophotometer (Hach Co., Loveland, CO, USA). Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia nitrogen (NH4+-N), total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP), which are parameters listed in the Turkish Surface Water Quality Management Regulations (SWQMR), were evaluated in the laboratory following standard methods [53].

2.3. Data Analyses

Analyses were conducted by taking the average values of the environmental parameters and the number of individual taxa for the 11 stations in April, July, and October. Two separate data matrices were created in PC-ORD v7.0 (MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR, USA) and R program v4.3.1 [54] using the vegan package. In R, detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) was performed using the “decorana” function in the vegan package. However, due to the high number of taxa and the limited visualizations provided by the vegan package, the PC-ORD package was preferred for result visualization.
First, DCA was performed. Then, parameters affecting taxon richness in the study areas were analyzed. Nine parameters were used to determine the parameters influencing taxon richness based on DCA analysis. Results were obtained using both PC-ORD and vegan package in R. In PC-ORD, the distribution of taxa living in the study areas based on density was also provided using the HeatMap visualization tool. The variance inflation factor (VIF) values for the environmental variables were calculated and are presented in Table S2.

3. Results

3.1. Environmental Parameters

The minimum-maximum and mean ± standard deviation (SD) values of the analyzed environmental parameters at the 11 sampling stations are presented in Table 2. According to the mean values of the parameters, the water temperature varied between 14.78 and 25.43 °C, with the highest and lowest temperatures recorded at the Oba and Sapadere streams, respectively. The pH levels varied between 7.23 and 8.31, with the highest value detected at Bağırsak Stream. The EC ranged from 234.33 to 757.33 µS cm−1, with the highest and lowest values at the Oba and Sapadere streams, respectively. The DO levels ranged from 5.17 to 10.18 mg L−1 O2, with the highest and lowest levels at the Anamur and Oba streams, respectively. The BOD values varied between 2.15 and 6.05 mg L−1, with the lowest value at Sarıkavak Stream. The NH4+-N levels varied between 0.04 and 0.17 mg/L, while those for the TN were between 0.15 and 7.92 mg/L. For TP, the highest and lowest values were 0.01 and 0.22 mg/L, respectively.
Hierarchical cluster analysis revealed distinct groupings among the sampling stations based on their physicochemical characteristics (Figure 2). The dendrogram illustrates three primary clusters: Cluster 1 includes stations such as Ulupınar Waterfall (UW) and Düden Stream (DDS), which are characterized by relatively high conductivity and TN levels. Cluster 2 groups, Bağırsak Stream (BS) and Oba Stream (OS), indicated similar environmental profiles, particularly in terms of elevated BOD and ammonium nitrogen. Cluster 3 consists of Sapadere Canyon (SC), Sapadere Stream (SS), Sarıkavak Stream (SRS), Anamur Stream (AS), and Göksu River (GR), which are relatively less impacted and exhibit moderate to high DO and low nutrient concentrations. This clustering pattern suggests that environmental gradients, especially those related to nutrient enrichment and oxygen levels, are the main drivers of site similarity.

3.2. Diversity of Macrozoobenthics

The dominance values of the general zoobenthic communities are listed in Table S1. A total of 177 taxa and 5331 specimens of benthic macroinvertebrates were evaluated in this study. Among the taxa, 12 species were from the class Gastropoda (Mollusca), two from the class Bivalvia (Mollusca), 25 from the class Clitellata (Annelida), 134 from the class Insecta (Arthropoda), and four from the class Malacostraca (Arthropoda). The dominant class was Insecta. The highest number of species was in the Order Diptera, with 77 species. Orders Plecoptera and Coleoptera had the lowest number of taxa, with four and six, respectively. Anamur Stream had the highest number of taxa, with 55 species, followed by Dim Stream and Ulupınar Waterfall, with 52 and 45 species, respectively. Düden Stream had the lowest number of taxa, with 12 species (Figure 3). Nais pardalis from Clitellata was detected at nine stations, and Gyraulus albus from Gastropoda was identified at eight. Caenis macrura (Ephemeroptera) was the dominant taxon at the sampling stations, followed by Hydrobia sp. (Gastropoda). Leuctra inermis (Plecoptera) and Ecnomus sp. (Trichoptera) were the least abundant.
The HeatMap illustrates the distribution of the normalized abundance values (log + z-score transformed) of the benthic macroinvertebrate taxa across the sampled stations (Figure 4). Warmer colors (yellow-green tones) indicate higher relative abundance (positive z-scores), while cooler tones (blue-purple) represent lower abundance or absence of taxa (negative z-scores). This standardized visualization allows for the comparison of community composition patterns across different environmental gradients.
Notably, stations such as Oba Stream exhibited high normalized values for a wide range of taxa, suggesting diverse macroinvertebrate assemblages. Conversely, stations like Düden Stream and Göksu River displayed generally lower z-scores across most taxa, indicating reduced diversity or limited taxa presence.
The DCA ordination plot revealed that the structure of the benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages varies significantly among the stations, primarily influenced by environmental gradients (Figure 5). Axis 1 represents the most prominent gradient in species composition and was positively associated with EC and salinity. Accordingly, the Düden Stream station with Hydrobia sp. (S3), Hydropsyche contubernalis (S78), Theodoxus anatolicus (S1), and Polypedilum laetum (S58) were positioned on the right side of the plot, which was related to elevated salinity and EC (Table 2). This can result from various factors, including saltwater intrusion, irrigation with saline water, or the presence of naturally occurring saline deposits. DO is related to upstream stations SC, SS, and SRS, AS, OS, DS, and UW, indicating a more balanced environmental regime and mixed species composition. BOD, temperature, NH4, and total nitrogen were related to stations MW and BS, indicating anthropogenic stress or urban influence. DCA ordination highlighted the clear structuring of macroinvertebrate communities in response to physicochemical stress gradients.

4. Discussion

The effect of environmental parameters on the population density and distribution of species detected in the research area was analyzed using DCA (Figure 5). DO, BOD, NH4+-N, and temperature influenced the abundance of some detected species. Moreover, EC and salinity were especially effective in the distribution of Theodoxus anatolicus and Hydropsyche contubernalis species. According to Bilgin [55], T. anatolicus is primarily found in springs, particularly in clean water environments. This species favors oligotrophic water sources, such as streams with stony bottoms. According to Koşal Şahin and Albayrak [56], this species had the greatest optimum estimations for EC (432.18 µS cm−1), temperature between 7.6 and 13.7 °C, pH between 7.38 and 8.79, and DO between 6.2 and 10.21 mg L−1. It seems that the larvae of Hydropsyche contubernalis are associated with aquatic plants, either submerged or floating, and the larvae of the species colonize stones, plants, or submerged parts of trees as well [57].
According to the DCA diagram, Paratendipes albimanus, Microtendipes pedellus (Chironomidae), and Micronecta pusilla (Hemiptera) showed the highest positive correlation with DO. Of these species, P. albimanus can be found nearly everywhere on the European mainland [58] and has also been recorded in different river systems in Türkiye [39,59]. P. albimanus is a typical bottom dweller, most abundant on muddy bottoms, but also inhabits sand and gravel [60]. This species has been recorded in both oligotrophic and eutrophic lakes [61,62]. Sládecek [63] considered Paratendipes larvae to be specific to alpha- and beta-meso-saprobic water. However, Wilson and Ruse [64] considered this genus to be intolerant of organic pollution. In Dutch brooks and streams, the larvae are found in water with a rather high BOD and ammonium content, but not under oxygen-poor conditions. Microtendipes pedellus larvae inhabit lowland brooks with sand and organic bottoms. Although the larvae are also found in stagnant water (but as far as is known, only in water bodies with groundwater seepage and in stagnant water, they are expected to be in somewhat larger water bodies) [65]. M. pedellus is generally reported from exclusively flowing water but also inhabits streams with faster currents [66,67]. Moller Pillot [65] indicated that larvae have been mainly collected in brooks with better water quality, as they seem to prefer water with higher oxygen content. Micronecta pusilla (Hemiptera), previously recorded from different aquatic systems in Türkiye [68,69], showed a positive correlation with DO, but this correlation rate was lower than that of the above two Chironomid species (Figure 5). Shapovalov et al. [70] reported that Micronecta pusilla occurs in the littoral zone of the steppe rivers with a slow-moderate current, but more frequently, in ponds, at shallow depths, and in silt. It occurs singularly or in small groups. When the distributions of the three species showing a positive correlation with DO were examined in the research area, all three species were found in the Sarıkavak Stream (Adrasan) at varying population densities. P. albimanus was also found in the Anamur Stream, and M. pedellus and M. pusilla were also found in the Oba Stream outside the Sarıkavak Stream. It is seen that the DO value of Sarıkavak Stream, where all three species were found, varies between 8.25 and 8.93 mg L−1, the bottom structure is coarse sand and stony (Table 1), and it is a flowing aquatic system (field observation/surveillance). Considering that sampling was performed in April, July, and October, these DO values can be considered quite high for a region with a hot and dry climate in summer, such as the Mediterranean Region. The station with the highest DO value in the research area was Anamur Stream (9.85–10.55 mg L−1), and P. albimanus had a rate of 2.1% in the general zoobenthos at this station. The dominant species at this station were Nais bretscheri [71] (5.83%) and Caenis macrura (4.58%), which are known as typical species of flowing waters with sandy and stony substrates. In addition, the temperature of the Anamur Stream (13.52–18.32 °C) was lower than that of the other stations. Since it is known that water temperature and DO are inversely proportional in aquatic systems [72], the high DO value of this station in a region with a Mediterranean climate is not surprising. Although the population density of P. albimanus in the general zoobenthos at this station was 2.1%, it was not low. However, this can be explained by the possibility that the species is univoltine and that low nutritional quality based on competition within the rich zoobenthic community prevents the second generation. Following the Anamur Stream, the other sampling areas with the highest DO values in the region were the Sapadere Canyon (9.30–10.25 mg L−1) and Sapadere Stream (7.80–10.90 mg L−1). As can be understood from the names of both stations, since the canyon and the continuation of the canyon are fluvial systems, the bottom structure consists of large rocks, and they are also places that are open to local and foreign tourists and include restaurants and cafés. The absence of the three species at these stations can be associated with the bottom structure and, to some extent, the negative impact of anthropogenic pressure. The species–station association diagram illustrates the distinct preferences of certain macroinvertebrate taxa for specific sampling sites (Figure 6). Gammarus pulex was predominantly associated with Manavgat Waterfall, whereas Hydrobia sp. showed a strong link to Düden Stream. The presence of P. antipodarum at Dim Stream and Hydropsyche modesta at Sapadere Stream suggests habitat-specific preferences, possibly driven by local environmental conditions. These associations may reflect varying habitat characteristics, such as flow regime, substrate composition, or water quality parameters across stations. These patterns underscore the importance of site-specific factors in shaping macroinvertebrate community structures.
Other species that may have a moderate correlation between DO and population density according to the DCA analysis were Rheocricotopus fuscipes, Potthastia gaedii, and Dicrotendipes nervosus from Chironomidae, and Epallage fatime from Odonata. With the exception of D. nervosus, all of these species are most prevalent in quickly moving streams [66] with stony or gravelly bottoms [73,74] that are either completely or very slightly contaminated. Although the population densities of all four species were not very high, DO affected the distribution and abundance of the species. Epallage fatime is exclusively found in running waters, generally in flowing streams, and has a strong preference for clear streams with pebbles and rocks [75]. These results are consistent with the findings of the present study. D. nervosus is known to be highly resistant to organic pollution [76,77]. The reason why this species is included in this group in the DCA analysis can be explained by the fact that the sampling periods coincide with the reproductive periods of the species and that it is tolerant.
The species with the highest correlation with NH4+-BOD-temperature in the research area was Potamanthus luteus, also known as yellow mayfly, from Ephemeroptera. The highest density of larvae was found at sites with deeper, slower-flowing water with substrata of consolidated gravel [78]. Hammett [79] stated that larvae in the River Wye were found under loose stones and preferred mobile sections of shingle or a mixture of larger stones with loose shingle, such as those found downstream of bridges or at the confluence of tributaries. Moreover, it has been reported that larvae are tolerant of high water temperatures, although with a decrease in both abundance and biomass [80]. Potamanthus luteus was detected at the highest population density (5.41%) at the Manavgat Waterfall. The temperature at this station was between 15 and 22 °C (19.32 ± 3.08 °C), and the bottom structure was medium-coarse gravel, which is consistent with the literature data. The fact that it was not detected at other stations with relatively high temperatures strengthens the notion that the substrate structure at these stations is not suitable for the distribution of this species. In addition, it is known that P. lutheus nymphs mostly prefer beta-mesosaprobic environments, although they can also be found in alpha-mesosaprobic environments [81]. In addition, the species is classified as vulnerable (pRDB2) in the review of rare and scarce Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera [82]; however, it is not listed in the IUCN Red Data Book. Perhaps due to the habitat preferences and bioecological characteristics of the species, more targeted monitoring of macrozoobenthos in biological assessments and water quality studies supports the idea that it can provide important findings in the preparation of basin management plans.
Apart from P. luteus, other species showing correlation with the NH4+-N-BOD-temperature were Chironomus anthracinus, Tvetenia discoloripes, Cricotopus (Cricotopus) annulator, Ischnura elegans, and Philopotamus sp. Members of Chironomidae, such as Chironomus anthracinus, Cricotopus (Cricotopus) annulator, and Tvetenia discoloripes, are widely distributed in Europe and Türkiye. The larvae of C. annulator and Tvetenia discoloripes inhabit plants, wood, and stones, but can also be abundant on sandy or gravelly substrates [83,84], and they can be found in fast-flowing streams and rivers [66,85]. It has been reported that larvae of both species can be found in polluted environments if there is sufficient oxygen (occasionally larvae and exuviae have been found in highly polluted streams, provided there was adequate oxygen present), and that Tvetenia discoloripes larvae can be found in non-polluted mountain streams, but can also be found in sewage-contaminated waters with sufficient oxygen and a BOD value above 10 [86]. Larvae of Tvetenia discoloripes appear to be more prevalent after sewage effluent pollution [87]. In southern Limburg, they were discovered in small numbers in an eker, a fast-moving, highly polluted stream with a BOD of 10 or more but consistently high oxygen. In lowland streams, the preference for riffles or fish ladders is another sign of high oxygen demand. In brooks free of organic contamination, larvae were occasionally discovered in great numbers; in such situations, an abundance of naturally occurring decaying material was typically present [88]. Both species appear to tolerate organic pollution in aquatic environments with sufficient oxygen concentrations. Apart from these two Orthocladiinae species, Chironomus anthracinus larvae, a member of Chironomini, live mainly in oligotrophic and mesotrophic waters [89], and Wiederholm [90] reported that they are very tolerant to hypoxia and are still able to feed at oxygen concentrations as low as 2.5 mg L−1 [91]. This supports the correlation between the three chironomid species in the current study and the NH4+-N-BOD-temperature values. According to the literature, it can be said that Chironomus anthracinus larvae are more tolerant than those of C. annulator and T. discoloripes. Oba Stream, one of the stations where C. anthracinus was detected, had one of the highest water temperatures in the study area. The fact that these three Chironomid species are particularly tolerant to high temperature-BOD values indicates that they can be used as organic pollution indicators in biological monitoring studies.
Another species showing correlation with the NH4+-N-BOD-temperature values was Ischnura elegans, a eurytopic and very common species occurring from western Europe to Japan [92]. Vinko et al. [93] indicated that this species is able to colonize in a wide range of habitats, reproduces in all kinds of standing and slow-flowing waters, is very common on eutrophic and mesotrophic sites, and is tolerant to rather high salinity and moderate acidity. The highest population density of the species (1.94%) was detected in Bağırsak Stream (Table S1), which had the highest water temperature and BOD value (24.55–26.9 °C, mean: 25.43 ± 1.04 °C, and 2.25–6.50 mg L−1, mean 3.68 ± 1.99 mg L−1, respectively) in the research area, supporting the results of the DCA analysis. Although the abundance rate of 1.94% is not very high, Gastropoda and Ephemeroptera individuals were dominant in the zoobenthic community at this station. Species that do not have a very high abundance value may be due to nutrient scarcity and competition within the zoobenthic community.
It has been shown that members of Philopotamidae (Philopotamus spp.), known as rhithral filter feeders, can tolerate higher amounts of biofilms and relatively high PO4 concentrations [94]. This shows that they are more tolerant than other Trichoptera members and can be found in moderately polluted and/or polluted environments in terms of organic matter. According to the DCA analysis in the present research, the correlation between the NH4+-N-BOD-temperature values and Philopotamus sp. supports this.
The pH values of the surface waters in the study area were within normal limits, but the highest pH values were detected in Bağırsak Stream (8.15–8.60; mean 8.32 ± 0.20) and Sapadere Stream (8.15–8.38; mean 8.24 ± 0.10). In the analysis, Brilla bifida, Chironomus dorsalis (Chironomidae), and Stylaria lacustris and Nais barbata (Oligochaeta) showed a positive correlation with pH. Brilla bifida larvae inhabit springs, brooks, and streams, and the occurrence of the species has been described as more or less independent of current velocity; however, in general, the species is much more common in hilly and montane regions than in lowland brooks [67,95]. In the current study, the species was generally collected from decayed plants, leaves, and coarse organic material in aquatic systems with flow and coarse-grained substrates. Orendt [96] collected B. bifida from brooks with a pH between 4 and 7. Other researchers have also reported the presence of larvae in acidic water ([97]: pH 6.5; [98]: pH around 6). Nevertheless, according to Moller Pillot [86], the species is usually absent from acid lowland brooks in Germany (e.g., [67]) and in the Netherlands, and in general, B. bifida is more common under neutral conditions. In the present study, the areas where the species was detected had pH values >8, and the highest abundance was found in the Göksu River, with an average pH of 8.08 ± 0.14. This strengthens the findings that the species prefers more neutral environments rather than acidic ones, as stated by Moller Pillot [86]. Chironomus dorsalis, similar to Brilla bifida, was collected from areas with low current, among dead leaves and organic material. Chironomus dorsalis larvae live in water with a range of pH values [99], and Moller Pillot [65] reported a mean pH of 7.5. In the current study, the pH of the water where the species was detected was > 8. This shows that both Chironomidae species prefer relatively neutral environments.
Oligochaeta members are generally known to have the highest tolerance to pollution and changing environmental conditions among zoobenthos. Both species showed a correlation with pH, especially at the stations where Stylaria lacustris had the highest abundance in the research area: Oba Stream (7.59%), Sapadere Stream (3.87%), Anamur Stream (2.14%), and Bağırsak Stream (1.18%). The pH values at all four stations were greater than 8. Stylaria lacustris, a common species, has been recorded from lentic, lotic, and brackish waters. Stylaria lacustris is known as a poly- and mesosaprobic oligochaete worm species and is very common, especially among water plants. Dumnicka [100] reported the species from the clean water reaches of a lowland river with a muddy bottom, Davis reported it from the gravel riffles of a clean water stream with moderately dense macrophytes and filamentous algae, and Timm [101] found the species in brackish water with salinity less than 7%, also in open water and even in the profundal zone, and Arslan and Şahin [102] reported the species in various fresh waters, especially in the vegetation zone, and also on the sandy substrates of the Sakarya River system. In recent years, S. lacustris has been recorded as a dominant species in a typical lentic habitat type, with slow current or stagnant water and the presence of detritus and macrophytes [103]. In the present study, the station with the highest population density (7.59%) for this species was Oba Stream, which has a low current, is shallow, and has a bottom structure with fine sand and high organic material (dead leaves and plant parts). The pH value at this station is 7.77 ± 0.12 on average, and the temperature is relatively high. These findings show that the species is poly-and mesosaprobic and that the population density may increase at values parallel to the pH values reported in the literature. Nais barbata, generally known as a species of flowing waters, was collected from the flowing area and among the coarser substrates of the high population density Göksu River (6.77%), Manavgat Waterfall (3.83%), and Sapadere Stream (3.07%). The pH values in all three sampling areas were above 8. The data obtained from the DCA diagram for both oligochaete species were consistent with the literature.

5. Conclusions

This study provides comprehensive insights into the relationships between environmental parameters and the structure of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in freshwater ecosystems across three major basins—Western Mediterranean, Antalya, and Eastern Mediterranean—within the Mediterranean Region of Türkiye. A total of 177 taxa were identified during three seasonal periods. This research highlights the ecological importance of environmental gradients in shaping species distribution and abundance. Among the environmental parameters, DO, EC, salinity, BOD, NH4+-N, and temperature were the most influential factors affecting the composition and diversity of macroinvertebrate communities. The DCA results underscored that certain species were strongly associated with specific environmental conditions. For instance, Paratendipes albimanus, Microtendipes pedellus, and Micronecta pusilla were highly correlated with elevated levels of DO, indicating their preference for well-oxygenated, less-disturbed habitats. Conversely, Potamanthus luteus, Chironomus anthracinus, and Ischnura elegans were more abundant in environments with higher temperatures, BOD, and NH4+-N levels, suggesting their tolerance to moderate organic pollution and anthropogenic impacts. Their high abundance in biological monitoring studies and river basin planning indicates species that are highly tolerant to pollution.
Some of the identified taxa, including Theodoxus anatolicus and Hydropsyche contubernalis, showed strong associations with higher EC and salinity, which may reflect localized anthropogenic influences or geological characteristics of the habitat. These findings support the use of macroinvertebrates as reliable bioindicators in ecological assessments.
Overall, this study emphasizes that benthic macroinvertebrates respond in predictable ways to environmental stressors and can be effectively used in biomonitoring programs aimed at evaluating and managing water quality in freshwater ecosystems. The results contribute valuable ecological data for the Mediterranean basins of Türkiye and underscore the need for integrated basin-scale management strategies that include regular biological monitoring. Such efforts are essential not only for protecting aquatic biodiversity but also for maintaining the ecological integrity and sustainability of freshwater resources in the face of ongoing environmental changes and increasing anthropogenic pressure.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/d17090624/s1, Table S1: Taxa identified in the present study and their codes in the DCA analysis. Table S2: VIF values of environmental variables.

Author Contributions

D.M.: Conceptualization, Investigation and Formal Analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing—Original draft and Editing; A.A.S.: Supervision, Writing—Review and editing; C.N.S.: Methodology, Supervision, Resources, Writing—Review and editing; G.Ö.: Visualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing—Original draft preparation and Writing—Review and editing; H.M.A.: Supervision, Writing—Review and editing; A.M.A.: data interpretation and curation, Writing—Review and editing; N.A.: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing—Original draft and Editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was partly supported by the ESOGU BAP via research projects under grant number 201919A131. This research was also funded by Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Supporting Project number (PNURSP2025R454), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Data Availability Statement

The information provided in this research can be found in this article as well as in the related Supplementary Material.

Acknowledgments

We thank Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Supporting Project number (PNURSP2025R454), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rodell, M.; Famiglietti, J.S.; Wiese, D.N.; Reager, J.T.; Beaudoing, H.K.; Landerer, F.W.; Lo, M.H. Emerging trends in global freshwater availability. Nature 2018, 557, 651–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Best, J.; Darby, S.E. The pace of human-induced change in large rivers: Stresses, resilience, and vulnerability to extreme events. One Earth 2020, 2, 510–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Edegbene, A.O.; Odume, O.N.; Arimoro, F.O.; Keke, U.N. Identifying and classifying macroinvertebrate indicator signature traits and ecological preferences along urban pollution gradient in the Niger Delta. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 281, 117076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Clifford, T.; Tariro, D. Land-use impacts on river water quality in lowveld sand river systems in south-east Zimbabwe. Land Use Water Resour. Res. 2005, 5, 3.1–3.10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pedersen, F.; Petersen, G.I. Variability of species sensitivity to complex mixtures. Water Sci. Technol. 1996, 33, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kurthen, A.L.; He, F.; Dong, X.; Maasri, A.; Wu, N.; Cai, Q.; Jähnig, S.C. Metacommunity structures of macroinvertebrates and diatoms in high mountain streams, Yunnan, China. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 8, 571887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bonada, N.; Prat, N.; Resh, V.H.; Statzner, B. Developments in aquatic insect biomonitoring: A comparative analysis of recent approaches. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2006, 51, 495–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. He, S.; Soininen, J.; Chen, K.; Wang, B. Environmental factors override dispersal-related factors in shaping diatom and macroinvertebrate communities within stream networks in China. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 8, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. European Commission. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Off. J. Eur. Commun. 2000, L327, 1–72. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kristensen, P.; Whalley, C.; Zal, F.N.N.; Christiansen, T. European Waters Assessment of Status and Pressures; EEA Report 7/2018; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  11. Álvarez-Robles, J.A.; Latre, M.Á.; Muro-Medrano, P.R.; Zarazaga-Soria, F.J.; Béjar, R. Water quality monitoring to support the European commission’s water framework directive reporting requirements. Trans. GIS 2007, 11, 835–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Free, G.; Little, R.; Tierney, D.; Donnelly, K.; Caron, R. A Reference Based Typology and Ecological Assessment System for Irish Lakes Preliminary Investigations Synthesis Report; Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  13. Szilágyi, F.; Ács, É.; Borics, G.; Halasi-Kovács, B.; Juhász, P.; Kiss, B.; Kovács, T.; Müller, Z.; Lakatos, G.; Padisák, J.; et al. Application of water framework directive in Hungary: Development of biological classification systems. Water Sci. Technol. 2008, 58, 2117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bahçeci, H.; Turan, N.; Çetin, T.; Arı, S.; Erkan Aydar, M. Research on Biological Indices for Ecological Assessment of Water Bodies in Turkey. In Proceedings of the XVI World Water Congress, International Water Resources Association (IWRA), Cancun, Quintana Roo, Mexico, 29 May–3 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ko, N.T.; Suter, P.; Conallin, J.; Rutten, M.; Bogaard, T. Aquatic macroinvertebrate community changes downstream of the hydropower generating dams in myanmar-potential negative impacts from increased power generation. Front. Water 2020, 2, 573543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tampo, L.; Kaboré, I.; Alhassan, E.H.; Ouéda, A.; Bawa, L.M.; Djaneye-Boundjou, G. Benthic Macroinvertebrates as Ecological Indicators: Their Sensitivity to the Water Quality and Human Disturbances in a Tropical River. Front. Water 2021, 3, 662765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Callisto, M.; Moreno, P.; Barbosa, F.A.R. Habitat diversity and benthic functional trophic groups at Serra do Cipó, southeast Brazil. Rev. Bras. Biol. 2001, 61, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Saunders, D.L.; Meeuwig, J.J.; Vincent, A.C.J. Freshwater protected areas strategies for conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2002, 16, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Clegg, J. Freshwater Life; Frederick Warne & Co., Ltd.: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1974; pp. 1–261. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cummins, K.W.; Merritt, R.W.; Andrade, P.C.N. The use of invertebrate functional groups to characterize the ecosystem attributes in selected streams and rivers in south Brazil. Stud. Neotrop. Fauna Environ. 2005, 40, 69–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Baker, A. Land use and water quality. Hydrol. Process. 2003, 17, 2499–2501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Onwona Kwakye, M.; Peng, F.J.; Hogarh, J.N.; Van den Brink, P. Linking Macroinvertebrates and Physicochemical Parameters for Water Quality Assessment in the Lower Basin of the Volta River in Ghana. Environ. Manag. 2021, 68, 928–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Garcia, L.; Delgado, C.; Pardo, I. Seasonal changes of benthic communities in a temporary stream of Ibiza (Balearic Islands). Limnetica 2008, 27, 259–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Boonsoong, B.; Sangpradub, N. Diversity of stream benthic macroinvertebrates at the Loei River and adjacent catchments, northeastern Thailand. KKU Sci. J. 2008, 36, 107–121. [Google Scholar]
  25. Maddock, I. The importance of physical habitat assessment for evaluating river health. Biology 1999, 41, 373–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Azrina, M.Z.; Yap, C.K.; Rahim-Ismail, A.; Ismail, A.; Tan, S.G. Anthropogenic impacts on the distribution and biodiversity of benthic macroinvertebrates and water quality of the Langat River, Peninsular Malaysia. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2006, 64, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Schofield, K.A.; Pringle, C.M.; Meyer, J.L.; Rosi-Marshall, E.J. Functional redundancy of stream macroconsumers despite differences in catchment land use. Freshw. Biol. 2008, 53, 2587–2599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Park, Y.S.; Céréghino, R.; Compin, A.; Lek, S. Applications of artificial neural networks for patterning and predicting aquatic insect species richness in running waters. Ecol. Model. 2003, 160, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Technical Assistance Project for Economic Analysis and Water Efficiency Studies Within the Scope of River Basin Management Plans in 3 Pilot Basins, Strategic Environmental Assessment; Scoping Report. Western Mediterranean River Basin; Directorate General for Water Management: Ankara, Türkiye, 2019. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
  30. Directorate General for Water Management. Western Mediterranean Basin Drought Management Plan. Volume I—General Description of The Basin and Drought Analysis; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: Ankara, Türkiye, 2018. (In Turkish) [Google Scholar]
  31. Hungerford, H.B. The Corixidae of the Western Hemisphere (Hemiptera). Univ. Kans. Sci. Bull. 1948, 32, 1–827. [Google Scholar]
  32. Macan, T.T. A Revised Key to the British Water Bugs (Hemiptera-Heteroptera): With Notes on Their Ecology; Freshwater Biological Association: Cumbria, UK, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  33. Cook, D.G. The Tubificidae (Annelida: Oligochaeta) of Cape Cod Bay, II: Ecology and systematics, with the description of Phallodrilus parviatriatus nov.sp. Biol. Bull. 1971, 141, 203–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Karaman, G.S. Contribution to the knowledge of the amphipoda. Some new or veryinteresting Gammarus species from southern Europa and Asia minor. Polyoprivreda I Sumar. 1973, XIX, 1–42. [Google Scholar]
  35. Karaman, G.S.; Pinkster, S. Freshwater Gammarus species from Europe, North Africa and adjacent regions of Asia (Crustecea-Amphipoda), Part I Gammarus pulex Group and related species. Bijdragen Tot Dierkunde 1977, 47, 1–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Macan, T.T. A Key to the Nymphs of the British Species of Ephemeroptera with Sotes on Their Ecology; Scientific Publications of the Freshwater Biological Association: Windermere, UK, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  37. Demirsoy, A. Türkiye faunası (Odonata); Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknik Araştırma Kurumu (TÜBİTAK): Ankara, Türkiye, 1982; TBAG Seri No:28, Tübitak yayınları No: 508. [Google Scholar]
  38. Belfiore, C. Efemerottori (Ephemeroptera). In Guide per il Riconoscimento delle Specie Animali delle Acque Interne Italiane; Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche: Roma, Italy, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  39. Şahin, Y. Doğu ve Güney Doğu Anadolu Bölgeleri Akarsu ve Göllerindeki Chironomidae (Diptera) Larvaları Teşhisi ve Dağılışları; Anadolu Üniversitesi: Eskişehir, Turkey, 1984; Yayın No:57, Fen Edebiyat Fak., Yayın No:2. [Google Scholar]
  40. Brinkhurst, R.O. A Guide to the Freshwater Aquatic Microdrile Oligochaetes of North America; Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1986; Volume 84, p. 259. [Google Scholar]
  41. Askew, R.R. The Dragonflies of Europe; Harley: Colchester, England, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  42. Elliot, J.M.; Humpesch, U.M.; Macan, T.T. Larvae of the British Ephemeroptera: A Key with Ecologycal Notes; Freshwater Biological Association: Cumbria, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  43. Timm, T. A Guide to the Estonian Annelida; Estonian Academy Publishers: Tallinn, Estonia, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wallace, I.D.; Wallace, B.; Philipson, G.N. A Key to the Case-Bearing Caddish Larvae of Britain and Ireland; Freshwater Biological Association: Cumbria, UK, 1990; Volume 51. [Google Scholar]
  45. Şahin, Y. Türkiye Chironomidae potamofaunası (Chironomidae potamofauna of Turkey); Project no: TBAG-869, VHAG-347, TBAG669, TBAG-79; Tubitak: Ankara, Turkey, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  46. Studemann, D.; Landolt, P.; Sartori, M.; Hefti, D.; Tomka, I. Ephemeroptera. In Insecta Helvetica Fauna; Sauter, W., Ed.; Erganzungsband Schweizerische Entomologische Gesellschaft: Zurich, Switzerland, 1992; Volume 9, pp. 1–74. [Google Scholar]
  47. Nilsson, A.N.; Holmen, M. The Aquatic Adephage (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark; Brill, E.J., Ed.; Brill Academic Publishers: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  48. Papp, L.; Darvas, B. Palaearctic Diptera Vol 2: Nematocera and Lower Brachycera; Science Herald: Budapest, Hungary, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  49. Boucherd, R.W., Jr. Guide to Aquatic Invertebrates of The Upper Midwest; Universtiy of Minnesota: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  50. Timm, T. A guide to the freshwater Oligochaeta and Polychaeta of Northern and Central Europe. Lauterbornia 2009, 66, 1–235. [Google Scholar]
  51. Bauernfeind, E.; Soldán, T. The Mayflies of Europe (Ephemeroptera); Apollo Books: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  52. Thorp, J.H.; Rogers, D.C. Keys to Palaearctic Fauna Thorp and Covich’s Freshwater Invertebrates; Academic Press, Elsevier: Waltham, MA, USA, 2019; Volume IV. [Google Scholar]
  53. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  54. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2023; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 12 March 2025).
  55. Bilgin, F.H. Batı Anadolu’nun bazı önemli tatlı sularından toplanan Mollusca türlerinin sistematiği ve dağılışı. Diyarbakır Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 1980, 8, 1–64. [Google Scholar]
  56. Koşal Şahin, S.; Albayrak, E. Some ecological needs of the species in the aquatic Gastropods in Malatya Region (Turkey). Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2017, 28, 1127–1134. [Google Scholar]
  57. Czachorowski, S.; Serafin, E. The distribution and ecology of Hydropsyche bulgaromanorum and Hydropsyche contubernalis (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae) in Poland and Belarus. Lauterbornia 2004, 50, 85–98. [Google Scholar]
  58. Saether, O.A.; Spies, M. Fauna Europe: Chironomidae. In Fauna Europe: Diptera, Nematocera; de Jong, H., Ed.; version 1.1; Fauna Europaea: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  59. Özkan, N. Chironomidae (Diptera) Larvae From the Thrace Region of Turkey. Trakya Univ. J. Sci. 2010, 11, 7–13. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ward, G.M.; Cummins, K.W. Life history and growth pattern of Paratendipes albimanus in a Michigan headwater stream. Ann. Ent. Soc. Am. 1978, 71, 272–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Brundin, L. Chironomiden und andere Bodentiere der südschwedischeb Urgebirgsseen. Rep. Inst. Freshw. Res. Drottningholm 1949, 30, 1–914. [Google Scholar]
  62. Brodersen, K.P.; Dall, P.C.; Lindegaard, C. The fauna in the upper stony littoral of Danish lakes: Macroinvertebrates as trophic indicators. Freshw. Biol. 1998, 39, 577–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sládecek, V. System of water quality from the biological point of view. Arch Hydrobiol. Beiheft. 1973, 7, 1–218. [Google Scholar]
  64. Wilson, R.S.; Ruse, L.P. A guide to the identification of genera of chironomid pupal exuviae occurring in Britain and Ireland and their use in monitoring lotic and lentic fresh waters. Freshw. Biol. Spec. Publ. 2005, 13, 1–176. [Google Scholar]
  65. Moller Pillot, H.K.M. Chironomidae Larvae, Volume 2: Biology and Ecology of the Chironomini; KNNV Publishing: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; p. 270. [Google Scholar]
  66. Orendt, C. Biozönotische Klassifizierung naturnaher Flussabschnitte des nördlichen Alpenvorlandes auf der Grundlage der Zuckmücken Lebens-gemein-schaften (Diptera: Chironomidae). Lauterbornia 2002, 44, 121–146. [Google Scholar]
  67. Janzen, L. Typisierung und Bewertung von Fliessgewässern mit Hilfe der Chironomidae (Zuckmücken)-Fauna anhand des AQEM Datensatzes. Masters’s Thesis, Duisburg-Essen Üniversitesi, Duisburg, Germany, 2003; pp. 1–117. [Google Scholar]
  68. Fent, M.; Kment, P.; Çamur-Elipek, B.; Kırgız, T. Annotated catalogue of Enicocephalomorpha, Dipsocoromorpha, Nepomorpha, Gerromorpha, and Leptopodomorpha (Hemiptera) of Turkey, with new records. Zootaxa 2011, 2856, 1–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Dursun, A.; Fent, M. Contributions to Nepomorpha (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) fauna in wetland areas of Amasya, Turkey. Acta Biol. Turc. 2018, 31, 193–202. [Google Scholar]
  70. Shapovalov, M.I.; Saprykin, M.A.; Prokin, A.A. Review of Water Bugs of the Genus Micronecta Kirk. (Heteroptera, Corixidae) of the Fauna of the Northwestern Caucasus. Entomol. Rev. 2014, 94, 1000–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Brinkhurst, R.O. A Guide for the Identification of British Aquatic Oligochaeta, 2nd ed.; Freshwater Biological Association. Scientific Publication: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1971; No. 22. [Google Scholar]
  72. Wetzel, R.G. Limnology Lake and Reservoir Ecosystems; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  73. Pinder, L.C.V. Spatial distribution of Chironomidae in an English chalk stream. In Chironomidae: Ecology, Systematics, Cytology and Physiology; Murray, D.A., Ed.; Oxford, Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1980; pp. 153–161. [Google Scholar]
  74. Pinder, L.C.V. Observations on the life cycles of some Chironomidae in southern England. Mem. Amer. Ent. Soc. 1983, 34, 249–265. [Google Scholar]
  75. De Knijf, G.; Billqvist, M.; van Grunsven, R.H.A.; Prunier, F.; Vinko, D. Epallage fatime (Europe assessment). In The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species; European Commission: Brussesls, Belgium, 2024; p. e.T165515A208848436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Peters, A.J.G.P.; Gijlstra, R.; Gardeniers, J.J.P. Waterkwaliteitsbeoordeling van Macrofauna; STORA-rapport 88-06; STORA: Rijswijk, The Netherlands, 1988; pp. 1–56+app. [Google Scholar]
  77. Wilson, R.S. The modification of chironomid pupal exuvial assemblages by Avon catchment, England. Acta. Biol. Debrecina Oecol. Hung. 1989, 3, 367–376. [Google Scholar]
  78. Brooker, M.P.; Morris, D.L. Potamanthus luteus (Linnaeus) (Ephemeroptera: Potamanthidae) in the River Wye. Entomol. Gaz. 1980, 31, 247–251. [Google Scholar]
  79. Hammett, M.J. Conservation Objective for the Mayfly Potamanthus luteus on the River Wye (Lower Wye) SSSI; Report for the Countryside Council for Wales (FC 73-01- 555). 2009; 6. [Google Scholar]
  80. Obrdlík, P.; Adámek, Z.; Zahrádka, J. Mayfly fauna (Ephemeroptera) and the biology of the species Potamanthus luteus (L.) in a warmed stretch of the Oslava River. Hydrobiology 1979, 67, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bauernfeind, E.; Moog, O.; Weichselbaumer, P. Ephemeroptera . In Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, Lieferung, Wasserwirtschaftskataster; Moog, O., Ed.; Bundesministerium Für Land Und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt Und Wasserwirtschaft: Wien, Austria, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  82. Bratton, J. A review of the scarcer Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera of Great Britain. In Research and Survey in Nature Conservation No. 29; Nature Conservancy Council: Peterborough, UK, 1990; pp. 13–14. [Google Scholar]
  83. Tokeshi, M. Resource utilisation, overlap and temporal community Dynamics: A null model analysis of an epiphytic chironomid community. J. Anim. Ecol. 1986, 55, 491–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Becker, C. Ein Beitrag zur Zuckmückenfauna des Rheins (Diptera: Chironomidae). Thesis Bonn, Shaker Verlag, Aachen, Germany. 1995. [Google Scholar]
  85. Caspers, N. The actual biocoenotic zonation of the river Rhine exemplified by the chironomid midges (Insecta: Diptera). Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 1991, 24, 1829–1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Moller Pillot, H.K.M. Chironomidae Larvae, Volume III: Biology and Ecology of the Orthocladiinae; KNNV Publishing: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; p. 312. [Google Scholar]
  87. Maasri, A.; Fayolle, S.; Franquet, E. Epilithic chironomid community structure: Is it a matter of algae? Bol. Mus. Mun. Funchal. Suppl. 2008, 13, 133–140. [Google Scholar]
  88. Tolkamp, H.H. Organism-substrate Relationships in Lowland Streams. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wageningen, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  89. Saether, O.A. Chironomid communities as water quality indicators. Holarc. Ecol. 1979, 2, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wiederholm, T. Chironomidae as indicators of water quality in Swedish lakes. Acta Univ. Caroline Biol. 1980, 1978, 275–283. [Google Scholar]
  91. Heinis, F.; Crommentuijn, T. Behavioural responses to changing oxygen concentrations of deposit feeding chironomid larvae (Diptera) of littoral and profundal habitats. Arch. Hydrobiol. 1992, 124, 173–185. [Google Scholar]
  92. Boudot, J.P.; Šalamun, A. Ischnura elegans (Vander Linden, 1820). In Atlas of the European Dragonflies and Damselflies; Boudot, J.P., Kalkman, V.J., Eds.; KNNV Publishing: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 125–126. [Google Scholar]
  93. Vinko, D.; Billqvist, M.; De Knijf, G.; van Grunsven, R.H.A.; Prunier, F. Ischnura elegans (Europe assessment). In The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2024; p. e.T165479A208836177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kalaninová, D.; Bulánková, E.; Šporka, F. Caddisflies (Trichoptera) as good indicators of environmental stress in mountain lotic ecosystems. Biologia 2014, 69, 1030–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bitušik, P. Prirucka na urcovanie lariev pakomárov (Diptera: Chironomidae) Slovenska. Cast’ I. Buchonomyinae, Diamesinae, Prodiamesinae a Orthocladiinae. Techn. Univ. Vo Zvolene, Fak. Ekol. Environm. Katedra Biológie 2000, 1–133. [Google Scholar]
  96. Orendt, C. Chironomids as bioindicators in acidified streams: A contribution to the acidity tolerance of chironomid species, with a classification in sensitivity classes. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 1999, 84, 439–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Verdonschot, P.F.M.; Schot, J.A. Macrofaunal community types in helocrene springs. Ann. Rep. Res. Inst. Nat Manag. 1987, 1986, 85–103. [Google Scholar]
  98. Hawczak, A.; Armitage, P.D.; Blackburn, J.H. The macroinvertebrate fauna and environmental quality of the Oakers Stream, a small tributary of the River Frome. Dorset. Proc. Dorset Nat. Hist. Archaeol. Soc. 2009, 130, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  99. Thienemann, A. Chironomus. Leben, Verbreitung und wissenschaftliche Bedeutung der Chironomiden. Biennengewässer 1954, 20, 1–834. [Google Scholar]
  100. Dumnicka, E. Communities of oligochaetes (Oligochaeta) of the River Nida and its tributaries. Acta Hyrobiol. 1978, 20, 117–141. [Google Scholar]
  101. Timm, T. On the fauna of the Estonian Oligochaeta. Pedobiologia 1970, 10, 52–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Arslan, N.; Şahin, Y. Nine new Naididae (Oligochaeta) species for Sakarya River, Turkey. Turk. J. Zool. 2003, 27, 27–38. [Google Scholar]
  103. Atanackovi’c, A.; Popovi’c, N.; Marinkovi’c, N.; Tomovi’c, J.; Ðukni’c, J.; Stankovi’c, J.; Paunovi’c, M. Effects of environmental factors on the distribution and diversity of aquatic Oligochaetes. Water 2023, 15, 3873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 17 00624 g001
Figure 1. Geographical locations of the sampling stations.
Figure 1. Geographical locations of the sampling stations.
Diversity 17 00624 g001
Diversity 17 00624 g002
Figure 2. Dendrogram of sampling stations based on environmental parameters. Stations closer on the branches show higher similarity, while branch colors are automatically assigned by the software for visualization only.
Figure 2. Dendrogram of sampling stations based on environmental parameters. Stations closer on the branches show higher similarity, while branch colors are automatically assigned by the software for visualization only.
Diversity 17 00624 g002
Diversity 17 00624 g003
Figure 3. Mean (±standard error) taxon counts at sampling stations.
Figure 3. Mean (±standard error) taxon counts at sampling stations.
Diversity 17 00624 g003
Diversity 17 00624 g004
Figure 4. HeatMap showing the abundance of the top 30 benthic macroinvertebrate taxa across the sampling stations. Rows represent taxa (S1–S30) and columns represent stations. Color intensity indicates abundance, with darker purple reflecting lower values and yellow representing the highest abundances.
Figure 4. HeatMap showing the abundance of the top 30 benthic macroinvertebrate taxa across the sampling stations. Rows represent taxa (S1–S30) and columns represent stations. Color intensity indicates abundance, with darker purple reflecting lower values and yellow representing the highest abundances.
Diversity 17 00624 g004
Diversity 17 00624 g005
Figure 5. DCA graph of the relationships between the stations (blue triangles), macroinvertebrate species (red dots), and environmental variables. Parameter and station abbreviations: Temp.: Temperature; Sal.: Salinity; EC.: Electrical conductivity; DO: Dissolved oxygen; BOD: Biochemical oxygen demand; UW: Ulupınar Waterfall; BS: Bağırsak Stream; DDS: Düden Stream; SC: Sapadere Canyon; SS: Sapadere Stream; DS: Dim Stream; OS: Oba Stream; MW: Manavgat Waterfall; SRS: Sarıkavak Stream; AS: Anamur Stream; GR: Göksu River. Species codes: S1: Theodoxus anatolicus, S2: Potamopyrgus antipodarum, S3: Hydrobia sp., S4: Esperiana sangarica, S5: Radix labiata, S6: Gyraulus albus, S7: Physella acuta, S8: Nais barbata, S9: Nais bretscheri, S10: Nais pardalis, S11: Paranais frici, S12: Pristinella jenkinae, S13: Stylaria lacustris, S14: Potamothrix hammoniensis, S15: Psammoryctides albicola, S16: Caenis luctuosa, S17: Caenis macrura, S18: Baetis rhodani, S19: Baetis lutheri, S20: Centroptilum luteolum, S21: Potamanthus luteus, S22: Epeorus znojkoi, S23: Ischnura elegans, S24: Epallage fatime, S25: Calopteryx sp., S26: Gerris thoracicus, S27: Micronecta pusilla, S28: Clinotanypus pinguis, S29: Tanypus vilipennis, S30: Tanypus punctipennis, S31: Macropelopia nebulosa, S32: Ablabesmyia monilis, S33: Ablabesmyia longistyla, S34: Krenopelopia binotata, S35: Potthastia gaedii, S36: Brillia bifida, S37: Synorthocladius semivirens, S38: Epoicocladius flavens, S39: Rheocricotopus fuscipes, S40: Paracladius conversus, S41: Cricotopus (Cricotopus) annulator, S42: Cricotopus (Cricotopus) flavocinctus, S43: Cricotopus (Isocladius) sylvestris, S44: Cricotopus (Isocladius) reversus, S45: Cricotopus (Isocladius) suspicious, S46: Halocladius fucicola, S47: Eukiefferiella brevicalcar, S48: Tvetenia discoloripes, S49: Eukiefferiella clypeata, S50: Eukiefferiella claripennis, S51: Corynoneura validicornis, S52: Orthocladius (O.) thienemanni, S53: Einfeldia carbonaria, S54: Chironomus anthracinus, S55: Chironomus viridicollis, S56: Polypedilum pedestre, S57: Polypedilum convictum, S58: Polypedilum laetum, S59: Polypedilum scalaenum, S60: Polypedilum cultellatum, S61: Dicrotendipes nervosus, S62: Paratendipes albimanus, S63: Microtendipes pedellus, S64: Paratanytarsus lauterborni, S65: Micropsectra notescens, S66: Micropsectra praecox, S67: Cladotanytarsus mancus, S68: Tanytarsus gregarius, S69: Simulium spp., S70: Culicoides spp., S71: Perla bipunctata, S72: Leuctra sp., S73: Isoperla spp., S74: Hydropsyche incognita, S75: Hydropsyche bulbifera, S76: Hydropsyche modesta, S77: Hydropsyche pellucidula, S78: Hydropsyche contubernalis, S79: Hydroptila sp., S80: Philopotamus sp., S81: Synagapetus iridipennis, S82: Gammarus spp., S83: Gammarus pulex, S84: Palaemonetes sp.
Figure 5. DCA graph of the relationships between the stations (blue triangles), macroinvertebrate species (red dots), and environmental variables. Parameter and station abbreviations: Temp.: Temperature; Sal.: Salinity; EC.: Electrical conductivity; DO: Dissolved oxygen; BOD: Biochemical oxygen demand; UW: Ulupınar Waterfall; BS: Bağırsak Stream; DDS: Düden Stream; SC: Sapadere Canyon; SS: Sapadere Stream; DS: Dim Stream; OS: Oba Stream; MW: Manavgat Waterfall; SRS: Sarıkavak Stream; AS: Anamur Stream; GR: Göksu River. Species codes: S1: Theodoxus anatolicus, S2: Potamopyrgus antipodarum, S3: Hydrobia sp., S4: Esperiana sangarica, S5: Radix labiata, S6: Gyraulus albus, S7: Physella acuta, S8: Nais barbata, S9: Nais bretscheri, S10: Nais pardalis, S11: Paranais frici, S12: Pristinella jenkinae, S13: Stylaria lacustris, S14: Potamothrix hammoniensis, S15: Psammoryctides albicola, S16: Caenis luctuosa, S17: Caenis macrura, S18: Baetis rhodani, S19: Baetis lutheri, S20: Centroptilum luteolum, S21: Potamanthus luteus, S22: Epeorus znojkoi, S23: Ischnura elegans, S24: Epallage fatime, S25: Calopteryx sp., S26: Gerris thoracicus, S27: Micronecta pusilla, S28: Clinotanypus pinguis, S29: Tanypus vilipennis, S30: Tanypus punctipennis, S31: Macropelopia nebulosa, S32: Ablabesmyia monilis, S33: Ablabesmyia longistyla, S34: Krenopelopia binotata, S35: Potthastia gaedii, S36: Brillia bifida, S37: Synorthocladius semivirens, S38: Epoicocladius flavens, S39: Rheocricotopus fuscipes, S40: Paracladius conversus, S41: Cricotopus (Cricotopus) annulator, S42: Cricotopus (Cricotopus) flavocinctus, S43: Cricotopus (Isocladius) sylvestris, S44: Cricotopus (Isocladius) reversus, S45: Cricotopus (Isocladius) suspicious, S46: Halocladius fucicola, S47: Eukiefferiella brevicalcar, S48: Tvetenia discoloripes, S49: Eukiefferiella clypeata, S50: Eukiefferiella claripennis, S51: Corynoneura validicornis, S52: Orthocladius (O.) thienemanni, S53: Einfeldia carbonaria, S54: Chironomus anthracinus, S55: Chironomus viridicollis, S56: Polypedilum pedestre, S57: Polypedilum convictum, S58: Polypedilum laetum, S59: Polypedilum scalaenum, S60: Polypedilum cultellatum, S61: Dicrotendipes nervosus, S62: Paratendipes albimanus, S63: Microtendipes pedellus, S64: Paratanytarsus lauterborni, S65: Micropsectra notescens, S66: Micropsectra praecox, S67: Cladotanytarsus mancus, S68: Tanytarsus gregarius, S69: Simulium spp., S70: Culicoides spp., S71: Perla bipunctata, S72: Leuctra sp., S73: Isoperla spp., S74: Hydropsyche incognita, S75: Hydropsyche bulbifera, S76: Hydropsyche modesta, S77: Hydropsyche pellucidula, S78: Hydropsyche contubernalis, S79: Hydroptila sp., S80: Philopotamus sp., S81: Synagapetus iridipennis, S82: Gammarus spp., S83: Gammarus pulex, S84: Palaemonetes sp.
Diversity 17 00624 g005
Diversity 17 00624 g006
Figure 6. Diagram of the station selection of benthic macroinvertebrates.
Figure 6. Diagram of the station selection of benthic macroinvertebrates.
Diversity 17 00624 g006
Table 1. Sampling station details.
Table 1. Sampling station details.
StationsGPS CoordinatesFreshwater BasinSubstratumAbbreviations
Ulupınar Waterfall36°26′59.27″ N, 30°25′53.95″ EWesternMediterraneanStonyUW
Bağırsak Stream36°30′4.15″ N, 30°29′28.02″ EWesternMediterraneanFine sandBS
Sarıkavak Stream30°29′28.02″ N, 30°27′42.58″ EWesternMediterraneanSand-stonySRS
Düden Stream36°54′12.96″ N, 30°46′1.83″ EAntalyaFine sandDDS
Sapadere Canyon36°31′51.48″ N, 32°18′53.41″ EAntalyaLarge rockSC
Sapadere Stream36°31′6.93″ N, 32°18′42.86″ EAntalyaFine sandSS
Dim Stream36°34′1.49″ N, 32°12′56.74″ EAntalyaSand-stonyDS
Oba Stream36°34′58.38″ N, 32° 4′31.34″ EAntalyaMuddyOS
Manavgat Waterfall36°48′45.18″ N, 31°27′19.68″ EAntalyaCoarsegravelMW
Anamur Stream36°12′33.78″ N, 32°50′34.23″ EEastern MediterraneanSandy-stonyAS
Göksu River36°20′56.01″ N, 34°1′8.61″ EEastern MediterraneanSand-muddyGR
Table 2. Details of the environmental parameters at the sampling stations (given as min–max and mean ± SD).
Table 2. Details of the environmental parameters at the sampling stations (given as min–max and mean ± SD).
Stations/ParametersTemperature
(°C)		pHElectrical Conductivity
(µS cm−1)		Salinity
(‰)		DO
(mg L−1 O2)		BOD
(mg L−1 O2)		NH4+-N
(mg L−1)		Total Nitrogen
(mg L−1)		Total Phosphorus
(mg L−1)
Ulupınar Waterfall (UW)16.35–20.10,
17.75 ± 1.67		7.85–8.31,
8.02 ± 0.21		420.00–460.00,
441.67 ± 16.50		0.15–0.19,
0.17 ± 0.02		7.90–8.30,
8.08 ± 0.16		2.25–6.50,
3.68 ± 1.99		0.10–0.15,
0.12 ± 0.02		6.40–7.92,
7.11 ± 0.63		0.20–0.22,
0.21 ± 0.01
Bağırsak
Stream (BS)		24.55–26.90,
25.43 ± 1.04		8.15–8.60,
8.32 ± 0.20		385.00–479.00,
439.67 ± 39.88		0.15–0.21,
0.19 ± 0.03		4.60–8.06,
6.73 ± 1.52		2.54–8.25,
4.51 ± 2.64		0.06–0.07,
0.06 ± 0.01		0.21–0.75,
0.42 ± 0.24		<0.01,
<0.01 ± 0.00
Düden
Stream (DDS)		17.90–20.05,
18.95 ± 0.88		7.10–7.35,
7.23 ± 0.10		560.00–890.00,
756.67 ± 141.97		0.40–0.45,
0.42 ± 0.02		6.20–9.66,
7.90 ± 1.41		2.25–2.30,
3.52 ± 1.76		0.05–0.10,
0.08 ± 0.02		1.55–2.00,
1.82 ± 0.19		0.09–0.16,
0.12 ± 0.03
Sapadere Canyon (SC)17.00–19.20,
17.75 ± 1.03		7.90–8.30,
8.15 ± 0.18		350.00–375.00,
361.67 ± 10.27		0.10–0.18,
0.13 ± 0.04		9.30–10.25,
9.68 ± 0.41		2.30–2.50,
2.40 ± 0.08		0.04–0.05,
0.05 ± 0.00		0.15–0.17,
0.16 ± 0.01		<0.01,
<0.01 ± <0.01
Sapadere
Stream (SS)		13.05–16.20,
14.78 ± 1.31		8.15–8.38,
8.24 ± 0.10		210.00–250.00,
234.33 ± 17.44		0.10–0.10,
0.10 ± 0.00		7.80–10.90,
9.38 ± 1.27		2.20–2.30,
2.25 ± 0.04		0.06–0.13,
0.09 ± 0.03		0.30–0.51,
0.43 ± 0.09		0.02–0.08,
0.04 ± 0.03
Dim
Stream (DS)		16.85–19.40,
17.77 ± 1.16		7.89–8.15,
8.05 ± 0.11		352.00–425.00,
399.00 ± 33.30		0.19–0.20,
0.20 ± 0.00		8.35–9.20,
8.88 ± 0.38		2.20–2.65,
2.45 ± 0.19		0.12–0.18,
0.15 ± 0.02		<0.25,
<0.25 ± 0.00		<0.01,
<0.01 ± 0.00
Oba
Stream (OS)		21.50–28.20,
25.40 ± 2.84		7.60–7.90,
7.77 ± 0.12		730.00–780.00,
757.33 ± 20.67		0.30–0.40,
0.35 ± 0.04		4.35–5.95,
5.17 ± 0.65		2.25–10.80,
6.05 ± 3.55		0.10–0.18,
0.13 ± 0.04		0.47–0.90,
0.75 ± 0.20		<0.01–0.03,
0.02 ± 0.01
Manavgat Waterfall (MW)15.01–22.00,
19.32 ± 3.08		7.40–7.98,
7.74 ± 0.25		460.00–615.00,
521.67 ± 67.12		0.20–0.25,
0.23 ± 0.02		7.55–8.20,
7.92 ± 0.27		2.25–4.50,
3.02 ± 1.05		0.15–0.18,
0.17 ± 0.01		0.43–0.81,
0.68 ± 0.18		<0.01,
<0.01 ± 0.00
Sarıkavak
Stream (SRS)		16.20–21.3,
18.92 ± 2.10		7.55–8.02,
7.75 ± 0.20		340.00–370.00,
353.33 ± 12.47		0.15–0.18,
0.16 ± 0.01		8.25–8.93,
8.69 ± 0.31		2.00–2.25,
2.15 ± 0.11		0.04–0.06,
0.05 ± 0.01		0.37–0.82,
0.65 ± 0.20		<0.01–0.07,
0.05 ± 0.03
Anamur
Stream (AS)		13.52–18.32,
16.11 ± 1.98		8.02–8.31,
8.19 ± 0.12		420.00–465.00,
438.33 ± 19.29		0.20–0.21,
0.21 ± 0.00		9.85–10.55,
10.18 ± 0.29		2.25–2.30,
2.28 ± 0.02		0.04–0.05,
0.04 ± 0.00		0.53–1.05,
0.78 ± 0.21		<0.01–0.01,
0.01 ± 0.00
Göksu
River (GR)		19.65–23.90,
21.19 ± 1.92		7.90–8.25,
8.08 ± 0.14		405.00–470.00,
438.33 ± 26.56		0.20–0.29,
0.23 ± 0.04		7.54–8.90,
8.13 ± 0.57		2.30–2.35,
2.33 ± 0.02		0.15–0.18,
0.16 ± 0.01		0.35–0.78,
0.63 ± 0.20		<0.01,
<0.01 ± 0.00
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mercan, D.; Saber, A.A.; Solak, C.N.; Özel, G.; Alharbi, H.M.; Abu-Elsaoud, A.M.; Arslan, N. Environmental Drivers of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in Mediterranean River Basins of Türkiye. Diversity 2025, 17, 624. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17090624

AMA Style

Mercan D, Saber AA, Solak CN, Özel G, Alharbi HM, Abu-Elsaoud AM, Arslan N. Environmental Drivers of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in Mediterranean River Basins of Türkiye. Diversity. 2025; 17(9):624. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17090624

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mercan, Deniz, Abdullah A. Saber, Cüneyt Nadir Solak, Gamze Özel, Hanan M. Alharbi, Abdelghafar M. Abu-Elsaoud, and Naime Arslan. 2025. "Environmental Drivers of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in Mediterranean River Basins of Türkiye" Diversity 17, no. 9: 624. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17090624

APA Style

Mercan, D., Saber, A. A., Solak, C. N., Özel, G., Alharbi, H. M., Abu-Elsaoud, A. M., & Arslan, N. (2025). Environmental Drivers of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in Mediterranean River Basins of Türkiye. Diversity, 17(9), 624. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17090624

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop