<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJE</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Ecology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-1985</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/oje.2020.104011</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJE-99346</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Composition, Structure and Functional Feeding of Aquatic Entomofauna in Kodjobou&#233; Lake: Water Quality Assessment
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Idrissa</surname><given-names>Adama Camara</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mathieu</surname><given-names>Kobenan Kra</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Norbert</surname><given-names>Kouakou Kouadio</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mexmin</surname><given-names>Koffi Konan</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Lassina</surname><given-names>Doumbia</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Allassane</surname><given-names>Ouattara</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Dramane</surname><given-names>Diomande</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Edia</surname><given-names>Oi Edia</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Laboratoire d’Environnement et de Biologie Aquatique (LEBA), UFR-Sciences et Gestion de l’Environnement (SGE), Université Nangui Abrogoua (UNA), Abidjan, C&amp;amp;#244;te d’Ivoire</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>03</day><month>04</month><year>2020</year></pub-date><volume>10</volume><issue>04</issue><fpage>160</fpage><lpage>176</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>16,</day>	<month>December</month>	<year>2019</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>4,</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2020</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>7,</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2020</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  The composition, structure and Functional Feeding Groups (FFGs) of aquatic insects were investigated in Kodjobou&#233; lake (South-East of C
  &amp;#244;te d’Ivoire) to assess water quality. Four sites (K1 - K4) were sampled during eight campaigns. At each site aquatic insects were collected using a kick-net (25 &#215; 20 cm, 500 μm mesh size). Environmental variables were also recorded during this period. Water was collected from each sampling site for nutrient (phosphorus, nitrate) analysis in laboratory. A total of 68 aquatic insect taxa belonging to six orders and 32 families were recorded during the study. Site K4, subject to intense agricultural activity, had the lower diversity and least balanced stand with the lowest values of Shannon-Weaver index, Pielou’s Evenness index and rarefied richness. The functional approach revealed five major FFGs: predators, scrapers, shredders, gatherers-collectors and filter-collectors. Among the different functional feeding groups, the percentage of predators was higher than that of other groups at all the sites. The P/R report indicated that our four sites are characterized as heterotrophic with K1 as the least heterotrophic. Focused Principal Component Analysis (FPCA) showed that parameters of water, like pH, dissolved oxygen, nitrate were statistically correlated with species abundance. The diversity and Functional Feeding Groups metrics of aquatic insects used to describe the state of Kodjobou&#233; lake reveal its disturbed state.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Kodjobou&#233; Lake</kwd><kwd> Aquatic Insects</kwd><kwd> Functional Feeding Groups</kwd><kwd> Taxonomic Diversity</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Aquatic macroinvertebrates are the main group of organisms using to assess the ecological state of continental hydrosystems. They are recognized as the best indicators of the ecological health of hydrosystems through the use of the structure of their communities as an indicator of the effects of human activity on hydrosystems [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref3">3</xref>] but also, by having within them, bio-indicator species of water quality. Of the biological quality elements that have been used for water quality assessment, aquatic insects are most often recommended [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref4">4</xref>] due to their varying sensitivity to several abiotic and biotic factors in the environment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref5">5</xref>] . They constitute the most diverse taxonomic group and the most abundant in aquatic environments [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref6">6</xref>] . The use of these organisms in bioindication is commonly done with taxonomic descriptors (diversity indices, taxonomic richness, relative abundances, indicator species) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref9">9</xref>] . However, the functional approach is more appropriate and faster than the taxonomic approach to characterize ecosystem conditions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref10">10</xref>] . As a result, the functional approach is increasingly used in the assessment of surface water quality [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref12">12</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref13">13</xref>] . Also, functional feeding groups measures do not require standardized sampling and different sampling methods can be used to assign aquatic invertebrates to functional feeding groups [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref14">14</xref>] .</p><p>Despite the growing interest in the study of functional diversity, no attempt to our knowledge has been made to establish a diagnosis of water quality in C&#244;te d’Ivoire.</p><p>In addition, while much work has been done on the macrofauna of some lakes in C&#244;te d’Ivoire [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref17">17</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref19">19</xref>] , very little data exists on Kodjobou&#233; lake [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref20">20</xref>] . Given the importance of the functional feeding groups approach in biomonitoring and conservation, the evaluation of the functional organization of macroinvertebrate communities is essential [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref21">21</xref>] , particularly that of aquatic insects. The aim of this study is to use the taxonomic composition and the functional feeding groups of the aquatic insects to assess the ecological state of Kodjobou&#233; lake (South-East, C&#244;te d’Ivoire).</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Study Area and Sampling Sites</title><p>Kodjobou&#233; lake is located in south-eastern C&#244;te d’Ivoire in the South-Como&#233; region about 4 km south of the town of Bonoua between longitudes 3˚35'9&quot;W and latitudes 5˚14'11&quot;N. This area is contiguous to the Grand-Bassam wetland and covers an area of 3.404 Km<sup>2</sup> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref20">20</xref>] . This lake communicates with the Como&#233; river by a thin stream of water. This region has an average altitude of 90 m, its climate is subequatorial with an average annual temperature ranged between 25˚C to 33˚C. The rainfall varies from 1400 to 2500 mm/year and an annual rate of humidity about 80% to 90% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref22">22</xref>] . This climate is characterized by four seasons: two dry seasons (mid-July to mid-September and December to March) and two rainy seasons (April to mid-July and mid-September to mid-November) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref23">23</xref>] . Four sampling sites were selected in Kodjobou&#233; lake (K1 to K4) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). These sites were sampled during eight sampling campaigns from June 2014 to May 2017. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> summarizes the characteristics of these sampling sites.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Data Collection</title><p>Aquatic insects of the native vegetation, covering the banks of the lake were</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Characteristics of the four sampling sites in Kodjobou&#233; lake (South-East, C&#244;te d’Ivoire)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Sampling sites</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Geographical positions (UTM)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Nature of disturbance</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Average depth (m)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Substratum (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Canopy (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >X</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Y</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >436,617</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >579,119</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fishing, dishes, laundry</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.34</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Mud (95%) Sand (5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >435,800</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >579,202</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agricultural waste</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.17</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >435,017</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >579,456</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Laundry, dishes, agricultural waste</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >K4</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >429,117</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >580,611</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Agricultural waste, fishing, deforestation</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >1.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sand (35%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >70</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Plant debris (40%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mud (25%)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>sampled at the sites during the eight sampling campaigns with a kick-net (25 &#215; 20 cm, 500 &#181;m mesh size). At each site 5 net strokes are sampled. A net stroke consists of pulling the net over a distance approximately 1 m. The initial net is followed by two round trips on the surface to capture the dislodged organisms. The samples were then pooled to make one composite sample per site. Samples were fixed on 70% ethanol and stored in labelled polyethylene flasks.</p><p>In the laboratory, specimens were sorted and identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level using a stereomicroscope Olympus SZ (40&#215; magnification) and a series of identification keys [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref24">24</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref29">29</xref>] . FFGs of aquatic insects were identified based on Cummins et al. (2005) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref10">10</xref>] and Tachet et al. (2010) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref29">29</xref>] . Temperature, pH, conductivity and dissolved oxygen were measured in situ at each sampling site with a portable multi-parameter (HANNA), water transparency was determined with a Secchi disc. Water was also collected with bottle of 1L at each sampling site for nutrients (phosphorus and nitrate) analysis in the laboratory using Rodier et al. (2009) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref30">30</xref>] methods.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Data Analysis</title><p>Species diversity was calculated using the Shannon-Weaver diversity index and Pielou evenness. Taxonomic richness was rarefied in each site per sampling period. Precisely, rarefied richness was used to avoid any bias related to differences in abundances between samples [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref31">31</xref>] . Before performing comparison analyses, data normality was checked using Shapiro test. As the biotic and environment data distribution follow non-normal distribution (P &lt; 0.05), the non-parametric test of Kruskal-Wallis was performed to compare data variability between sampling sites. When Kruskal-Wallis test is significant, Mann-Whitney test was used for pairwise comparison. The significance threshold was p = 0.05. Analyses were conducted using the R package. The occurrence percentage (FO) was calculated using the following formula: FO = (Ni/Nts) &#215; 100; with Ni = number of samples containing a given species i, and Nts = total number of samples collected. The FO was used to classify species following (Dajoz, 2000) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref32">32</xref>] : FO &gt; 50: very frequent species; 25 &lt; FO ≤ 50: frequent species; FO ≤ 25: rare species.</p><p>The FFGs include the calculation of the relative abundance of each FFG, Top-down predator control (ratio of predators to all other FFGs) and the calculation of the balance between autotrophy and heterotrophy (production [P]/respiration [R]). This index was calculated as the ratio of scrapers to (shredders + total collectors):</p><disp-formula id="scirp.99346-formula5"><graphic  xlink:href="//html.scirp.org/file/2-1381079x4.png"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>scr, shr, fc and gc represent the abundances of scrapers, shredders, filterers-collectors and gatherers-collectors respectively. According to Cummins et al. (2005) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref10">10</xref>] , P/R &gt; 0.75 indicates autotrophy.</p><p>Focused Principal Component Analysis (FPCA) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref33">33</xref>] was used to assess relationships between taxa abundance and environmental variables. Focused Principal Component Analysis (FPCA) is a variation of the traditional principal component analysis. It uses the same types of matrix as the PCA but differs from it in that it is centred or focused on a variable xi. Indeed, it allows a graphical representation of the correlations that exist between this variable xi and the other variables. The graph provides access not only to the nature (positive or negative) but also to the significance (P &lt; 0.05) of the correlations between variable xi and the other variables. It is also possible to observe on the graph the correlations between the other variables.</p><p>In this study, the FPCA was used to determine the variables that influence the abundance of macroinvertebrate taxa that contribute at least 5% of the total abundance. This analysis was performed using the psy package on the R software.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Environment Variables</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> shows the variations of environmental variables measured in the four studied sites.</p><p>Temperature ranged from 25.9˚C (K1) to 32˚C (K2). Conductivity varied between 14 &#181;S/cm and 37.1 &#181;S/cm (K1). The dissolved oxygen variation was situated between 0.1 mg/L and 11.3 mg/L (K1). The water transparency of sites values varied from 10 cm to 218 cm (K1). Concerning the pH, it varied from 5.19 (K1) to 8.01 (K4). Regarding the phosphate and nitrate, their values were low, varied from 0.015 mg/L (K2) to 0.31 mg/L (K3) and from 0.1 mg/L (K2 and K4) to 2.65 mg/L (K2 and K3) respectively. Analysis showed no significant differences of these parameters between sites (Kruskal-Wallis, P &gt; 0.05).</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Composition and Distribution of Aquatic Insects</title><p>A total of 5562 aquatic insect individuals from six orders, 32 families and 68 taxa have been recorded. The order Coleoptera was the most diversified with 19 taxa and eight families. The order of the Diptera was as follows with 15 taxa and</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Median, minimum and maximum values of environmental variables measured at the four sampling sites of Kodjobou&#233; lake (South-East, C&#244;te d’Ivoire)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Parameters</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >K1</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >K2</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >K3</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >K4</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Temperature (˚C)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.19 (25.9 - 31.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.2 (27 - 32)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.1 (27.2 - 31.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.2 (27.2 - 31.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Conductivity (&#181;S/cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.3 (14 - 37.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.5 (19 - 36)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.94 (20 - 28.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.6 (21 - 27.2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.50 (0.1 - 11.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.4 (0.17 - 9.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.31 (0.15 - 9.36)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.26 (0.14 - 8.11)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Transparency (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >113 (10 - 218)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.5 (50 - 125)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >110 (51 - 190)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98 (73 - 124)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >pH</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.4 (5.19 - 7.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.48 (6 - 7.69)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.63 (5.3 - 7.66)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.50 (6 - 8.01)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Phosphate (mg/L)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.078 (0.039 - 0.13)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07 (0.015 - 0.22)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.059 (0.016 - 0.31)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.08 (0.017 - 0.18)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nitrate (mg/L)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.22 (0.2 - 2.21)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.83 (0.1 - 2.65)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.64 (0.2 - 2.65)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.70 (0.1 - 1.77)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>seven families. The least diversified order was the order of Trichoptera with 03 taxa and two families. Families of Dytiscidae and Chironomidae dominated abundances with respectively 33.5% and 26%. The K1 site of Lake Kodjobou&#233; recorded the highest number of aquatic insects (77.68%) followed by the site K2 with 10.48% of the insects harvested. The lowest number of insects was recorded in K4 (5.44%) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Frequency of Occurrence</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref> shows the percentages of the very common, frequent and rare taxa at the four sites. The percentages of very frequent taxa vary between 06.25% (K4) to 12.96% (K1). Those of frequent taxa varied between 21.87% (K4) to 38.88% (K1 and K3). Regarding rare taxa, they are the most numerous at all sites with percentages ranging from 48.14% (K1) to 71.87% (K4). Polypedilum deletum (Diptera) was common to the four sites with a very high occurrence (FO ≥ 50).</p><p>The qualitative data on sampling at the lake sites considered are summarized in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>. Site K1, with 54 taxa, has the highest taxonomic richness. It is followed by the site K3 with 36 taxa. Site K2, with 32 taxa, has the lowest taxonomic richness of all the stations considered. Of the taxa identified, only 13 are common to all four sites.</p><p>The different sites are compared with each other based on their taxonomic composition (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>). Sites K1 and K4 contain more common taxa (26), site pairs (K1 - K3) and (K1 - K3) contain fewer common taxa with 18 taxa each. It should also be noted that site K3 contains more specific taxa (04), while sites K1, K2 and K4 each contain only one specific taxon (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Diversity Metrics</title><p>The lowest values of the three diversity metrics, Shannon-Weaver index, Pielou’s Evenness Index and rarefied richness were recorded at site K4. However, the highest values were observed at the site K3 for these three metrics. Of these three metrics, only rarefied richness does not show significant variation between the different sites (P &gt; 0.05; Mann-Whitney) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s3_5"><title>3.5. Functional Feeding Groups</title><p>Five major FFGs were identified in this study: predators (pre), scrapers (scr), shredders (shr), gatherers-collectors (gc), and filter-collectors (fc). The analysis</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Proportions of aquatic insects very frequent, frequent and rare at the different sampling sites of the Kodjobou&#233; lake (South-East of C&#244;te d’Ivoire)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sites</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Very frequent (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequent (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Rare (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.14</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >06.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >58.06</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >08.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.77</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >06.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71.87</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap-group id="4"><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> List of the aquatic insects’ taxa found in the four sites of Kodjobou&#233; with their functional groups and their relative contribution (South-East, C&#244;te d’Ivoire)</title></caption><table-wrap id="4_1"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Orders</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Famillies</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Taxa</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Sampling sites</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Feeding groups</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Relative contribution (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >K2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >K3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >K4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="7"  >Eph&#233;m&#233;roptera</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Baetidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Baetis sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.90</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cloeon sp.<sup>(MA)</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.15</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Procleon sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Caenidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Caenis sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ephemeridae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Eatonica sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Polymitarcydae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Povilla adusta</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tricorythidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tricorythys sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&#173;-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="11"  >Odonata</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Coenagrionidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ceriagrion sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudagrion sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.28</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >Libellulibidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bradinopygas sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.43</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chalcostephia sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.38</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Crocothemis sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.61</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Libellula sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Macrodiplax sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.49</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pantala flavescens</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.38</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Trithemis dorsalis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Urothemis sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.20</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zygonyx torrida</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="13"  >Heteroptera</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Belostomatidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Diplonychus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.28</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Gerridae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Eurymetra sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.22</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Limnogonus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rhagadotarsus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hydrometridae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hydrometra sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Naucoridae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Laccocoris sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.58</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Naucoris sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.19</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nepidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ranatra linearis</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Notonectidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Anisops sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Notonecta sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pleidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Plea sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Veliidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Microvelia sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.94</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rhagovelia sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.52</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Trichoptera</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ecnomidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ecnomus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >fc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Hydropsychidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Polymorphanisus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >fc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cheumatopsyche sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >fc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="4_2"><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="19"  >Coleoptera</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Curculionidae</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Pseudobagous longulus</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >***</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >**</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >**</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >*</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >shr</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >1.76</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Notaris sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >shr</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="6"  >Dytiscidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agabus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bidessus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hydaticus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.31</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hydrovatus sp.<sup>(MA)</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hyphydrus</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.74</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Laccophilus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.18</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Elmidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Esolus sp.<sup>(MA)</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Limnius sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.99</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Potamodytes sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >scr</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.18</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Gyrinidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dineutus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Orectogyrus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.37</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Haliplidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Haliplus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >shr</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.59</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hydrochidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hydrochus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >scr</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Hydrophilidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Amphiops sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.41</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Enochrus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.63</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hydrobius sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.18</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Noreridae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Noterus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="15"  >Diptera</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chaoboridae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mochlonyx sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >pre</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ceratopogonidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Culicoides sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >fc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="9"  >Chironomidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ablabesmyia sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chironomus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.58</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cricotopus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.24</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cryptochironomus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.53</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Polypedilum abyssiniae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.47</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Polypedilum deletum<sup>(MA)</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >***</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Stenochironomus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Clinotanypus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.18</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Stictochironomus sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.23</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Culicidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Culex sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >fc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.68</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dixidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Dixa sp.</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >**</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.43</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rhagionidae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Syphiridae</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >gc</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Taxonomic richness</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></table-wrap-group><p>***Very frequent (%OF &gt; 50); **frequent (25 &lt; %OF ≤ 50);*rare (%OF ≤ 25). (MA) = taxa representing at least 5% of the total abundance.</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Synthesis of qualitative sampling data from sampling sites in Lake Kodjobou&#233;</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Diversity measures</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >Sampling sites</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >K2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >K3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >K4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Number of taxa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Families</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Orders</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Common taxa</td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="4"  >13</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>of the functional composition of the assemblage revealed that the predators were the most abundant (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>) with a proportion of 53.74% of the insects harvested. Gatherers-collectors ranked second with 42.05% of the total insect population. A proportion of 2.84% was observed for the shredders, while filter-collectors and scrapers had the lowest proportions respectively 0.91% and 0.44% of the total abundance.</p><p>At the spatial scales (study sites), the sites K2 and K3 had a high proportion of predators compared to the collector-gatherers, while the K1 and K4 sites recorded more gatherers (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref>). No scraper was recorded in sites K2, K3 and K4 during this study.</p><p>The value of the autotrophic heterotrophy index is less than 0.75 at all four sites. For the top-down predator control, the values are all greater than 0.2 on all our sites (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Ratios of aquatic insects Functional Feeding Groups in Kodjobou&#233; lake. Ratios are based on numerical abundance of Functional Feeding Groups (FFGs). The autotrophy to heterotrophy (production [P]/respiration [R]) index was calculated as the ratio of scrapers to (shredders + total collectors). Top-down predator control is the ratio of predators to all other FFGs</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sites</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P/R</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Top-down predator control</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.26</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.65</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.78</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >K4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.74</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s3_6"><title>3.6. Correlation between Aquatic Insects and Environment Variables</title><p>Focused Principal Component Analysis (FPCA) was performed using environmental parameters with a focus on the most abundant taxa (at least 5% of total abundance). Thus, the FPCA states that Hydrovatus sp.is significantly and negatively influenced (P &lt; 0.05) by dissolved oxygen (O<sub>2</sub>). Also, this insect is positively correlated with parameters such as conductivity (CND), nitrate (NO<sub>3</sub>), temperature (T) and transparency (Transp) but negatively correlated with pH and phosphate (PO<sub>4</sub>). Polypedilum deletum is significantly and positively correlated with nitrate (P &lt; 0.05). This taxon is negatively correlated with temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen but positively correlated with other parameters. Cloeon sp. is significantly correlated with dissolved oxygen and pH (P &lt; 0.05). This Ephemeroptera is positively correlated with transparency, but negatively correlated with other parameters. As for Esolus sp., it is negatively correlated with pH and temperature but positively correlated with conductivity, nitrate, phosphate and transparency. Esolus sp. is significantly correlated with dissolved oxygen (P &lt; 0.05) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>In this study, the water temperature range of Kodjobou&#233; Lake was between 25.9˚C and 31.9˚C and was considered relatively warm. This trend reflects the temperature in the tropics. This range is close to that observed in Taabo Lake by Kouam&#233; et al. (2010) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref17">17</xref>] . Our low conductivity levels (14 to 37.1 μS/cm) would indicate low levels of natural or anthropogenic sediments throughout Kodjobou&#233; Lake. With regard to dissolved oxygen, the range is between 0.10 and 11.3 mg/l. This range is greater than that obtained at Taabo Lake (3.62 - 9.2 mg/l) by Kouam&#233; et al., (2010) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref17">17</xref>] . The amplitude of temperature and dissolved oxygen variations can be linked to the lack of coverage plant on the lake. The transparency of the water varies between 10 and 218 cm at Lake Kodjobou&#233;. This range is higher than that observed (73 and 112 cm) at Ayam&#233; Lake by Di&#233;toa (2002) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref16">16</xref>] . Low levels of nitrate (0.1 - 2.65 mg/l) and phosphorus (0.015 - 0.31 mg/l) were recorded. Nitrate levels are higher than those obtained in Lake Taabo (0.05 -1.95 mg/l) and those in phosphate are low compared to those obtained in the same lake (0.24 - 28.47 μmol/l) by Kouam&#233; et al. (2010) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref17">17</xref>] . These environmental variables do not vary significantly from one site to another. However, there are wide variations in conductivity, dissolved oxygen and transparency within the sites. This is due to the fact that the samples were taken at different seasons. Indeed, during our study we sampled both in the dry season and in the rainy seasons.</p><p>Out of a total of 5562 aquatic insects composed of 6 orders, 32 families and 68 taxa, Coleoptera are the most diversified and the most abundant with a high proportion for Dytiscidae. The preponderance of Coleoptera is explained by the fact that they are the only holometabolous insects to appear in both the imaginal and larval forms in aquatic environments. They colonize various habitats when</p><p>conditions become hostile to reduced interspecific competition in other species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref34">34</xref>] .</p><p>In this study, the lowest values of the three metrics of diversity calculated the Shannon-Weaver index (1.74), the Pielou’s Evenness index (0.16) and the rarefied richness (1.74) have been recorded in K4. However, the highest values were observed in K3, 2.33 for the Shannon-Weaver index, 0.68 for the Pielou’s Evenness index and 15.31 for the rarefied richness. The site K3 would therefore be the most diversified and the most stable and K4 the least diversified. The low diversity of the site K4 is undoubtedly linked to the numerous agricultural activities that are carried out there. Indeed, the shores of this site have several rubber plantations whose maintenance requires fertilizers and pesticides. Of these three metrics, only the rarefied wealth deemed to be unbiased does not show a significant difference between the sites. These sites would therefore be subject to the same environmental conditions.</p><p>Chironomidae, Polypedilum deletum is the only taxon that was most common at all sites. The regular harvest of these chironomids would be linked to their broad spectrum of resilience and morphological, physiological and behavioural adaptations.</p><p>Five functional feeding groups were identified in this study: predators (pre), scrapers (scr), shredders (shr), gatherers-collectors (gc) and filter-collectors (fc). Among the different functional feeding groups, the percentage of predators was higher than that of the other groups in our sites, followed by gatherers-collectors. Predator preponderance would probably be related to prey availability, especially gatherer-collectors such as Chironomidae ranked second in abundance. In fact, predatory organisms reproduce proportionally to the availability of food. The growth rate of predators is therefore an increasing function of prey [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref35">35</xref>] .</p><p>Shredders, filter-collectors and scrapers had the lowest proportions of total abundance. The low proportion of shredders in this lake is thought to be related to the fact that in tropical areas high temperatures increase the decomposition of litter and leaves by microbial activity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref36">36</xref>] . They do not have enough plant debris to be shredded, hence their low proportion. Several studies have shown the low proportion of shredders in the tropics [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref37">37</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref38">38</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref39">39</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref40">40</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref41">41</xref>] . The waters of Lake Kodjobou&#233; would be disturbed because according to Babour et al. (1996) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref42">42</xref>] , specialized feeders, such as shredders and scrapers, are presumed to be more sensitive to disturbance. Their low proportions are due to a disturbed environment.</p><p>The P/R ratio (&lt;0.75 at all sites) indicates that our four sites are characterized as heterotrophic. The K1 site is the least heterotrophic compared to the other three sites. According to Savić et al. (2017) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref43">43</xref>] , this would mean that the dominant staple food chain for aquatic insect communities has been found to be non-native detritus. Concerning the Top-down predator control, all values are above 0.2 at all our sites. According to Masese et al. (2014) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref44">44</xref>] , the value of the predator-prey ratio must be between 0.1 and 0.2 for there to be a balance between predators and prey. In other words, none of our sites have predator-prey balance or top-down control. So, we have an overabundance of predators in Lake Kodjobou&#233;.</p><p>Correlations between the most abundant taxa and environmental parameters using the Focused Principal Component Analysis (FPCA) show a strong negative correlation between Hydrovatus sp. (Predator) and dissolved oxygen. This correlation reveals the ability of this Beetle to live in anoxia. Unlike the Ephemeroptera Cloeon sp. is positively correlated with dissolved oxygen. Indeed, Ephemeroptera are known to live in highly oxygenated environments [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.99346-ref45">45</xref>] . Polypedilum deletum (gatherers-collectors) is significantly and positively correlated showing the polluting resistance of the Chironomidae family.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>This work enabled us to identify 68 aquatic insect taxa divided into six orders and 32 families. Beetles were the most abundant in both quality and quantity. Site K4, subject to intense agricultural activity, had the least diversified and least balanced stand with the lowest values of the Shannon-Weaver index, the Pielou Evenness index and rarefied richness. Functionally, five major FFGs were identified in this study: predators (pre), scrapers (scr), shredders (shr), gatherers-collectors (gc) and filter-collectors (fc). Among the different functional feeding groups, the percentage of predators was higher than that of other groups at our sites. The P/R ratio indicated that our four sites, are characterized as heterotrophic with K1 as the least heterotrophic. Top-down predator control ratio revealed an overabundance of predators. The diversity and Functional Feeding Groups metrics of aquatic insects used to describe the state of Kodjobou&#233; lake reveal a disturbed state, therefore of poor quality. It would be important to implement a sustainable management program for this lake in order to conserve its biodiversity.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>This work was supported by the PASRES (Strategic Support Program Scientific Research) (C&#244;te d’Ivoire), under research project number 110 entitled “Approche &#233;cosyst&#233;mique de la p&#234;che comme moyen d’exploitation durable des ressources halieutiques dans la zone humide de Grand-Bassam” (ecosystem approach to fisheries as a means of sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources in the Grand-Bassam wetland).</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Camara, I.A., Kra, M.K., Kouadio, N.K., Konan, M.K., Edia, E.O., Doumbia, L., Ouattara, A. and Diomande, D. (2020) Composition, Structure and Functional Feeding of Aquatic Entomofauna in Kodjobou&#233; Lake: Water Quality Assessment. Open Journal of Ecology, 10, 160-176. https://doi.org/10.4236/oje.2020.104011</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.99346-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Camargo, J.A., Alonso, A. and De la Puente, M. (2004) Multimetric Assessment of Nutrient Enrichment in Impounded Rivers Based on Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Environmental Monitoring and Publishers, 96, 233-249. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EMAS.0000031730.78630.75</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Woodcock, T.S. and Huryn, A.D. (2007) The Response of Macroinvertebrates Production to a Pollution Gradient in a Headwater Stream. Freshwater Biology, 52, 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01676.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Arimoro, F.O. and Ikomi, R.B. (2009) Ecological Integrity of Upper Warri River, Niger Delta Using Aquatic Insects as Bioindicators. Ecological Indicators, 9, 455-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.06.006</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Santhosh, S.K. and Ashadevi, R. (2017) Biomonitoring as a Strategy for Ecosystem Health—A Case Study at the Upper Reaches of Vamanapuram River, Kerala. International Journal of Science and Research, 6, 750-754.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">El Husseiny, I.M., Mona, M.H., Seif, A.I. and Yassin, M.T. (2015) Aquatic Insects as Bio Indicators for Pollution in Some Egyptian Streams. Sci-Afric Journal of Scientific Issues, Research and Essays, 3, 607-615.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gagnon, E. and Pedneau, J. (2006) Surveillance Volontaire (SurVol) Benthos, guide du volontaire, programme de surveillance volontaire des petits cours d’eau. CVRB, Québec, 25 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dolédec, S., Statzner, B. and Bournard, M. (1999) Species Traits for Future Biomonitoring across Ecoregions Patterns along a Human-Impacted River. Freshwater Biology, 42, 7737-758. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00509.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bady, P., Dolédec, S., Fesl, C., Gayraud, S., Bacchi, M. and Scholl, F. (2005) Use of Invertebrate Traits for the Biomonitoring of European Large Rivers: The Effects of Sampling Effort on Genus Richness and Functional Diversity. Freshwater Biology, 50, 159-173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2004.01287.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Archaimbault, V., Rosebery, T.J. and Morin, S. (2010) Traits biologiques et écologiques, intérêt et perspectives pour la bio-indication des pollutions toxiques. Sciences et Territoires, 1, 46-51. https://doi.org/10.3917/set.001.0046</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cummins, K.W., Merritt, R.W. and Andrade, P.C. (2005) The Use of Invertebrate Functional Groups to Characterize Ecosystem Attributes in Selected Streams and Rivers in South Brazil. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment, 40, 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650520400025720</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Usseglio-Polatera, P., Bournaud, M., Richoux, P. and Tachet, H. (2000) Biological and Ecological Traits of Benthic Freshwater Macroinvertebrates: Relationships and Definition of Groups with Similar Traits. Freshwater Biology, 43, 175-205. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2000.00535.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tomanova, S., Moya, N. and Oberdorff, T. (2008) Using Macroinvertebrate Biological Traits for Assessing Biotic Integrity of Neotropical Streams. River Research and Applications, 24, 1230-1239. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1148</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Diaz, A.M., Alonso, M.L.S. and Gutiérrez, M.R.V.A. (2007) Biological Traits of Stream Macroinvertebrates from a Semi-Arid Catchment: Patterns along Complex Environmental Gradients. Freshwater Biology, 53, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01854.x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rawer-Jost, C., B&amp;#1255;hmer, J., Blank, J. and Rahmann, H. (2000) Macroinvertebrate Functional Feeding Group Methods in Ecological Assessment. Hydrobiologia, 422-423, 225-232. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017078401734</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sankaré</surname><given-names> Y. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1991</year>)<article-title>Etude comparative de la macrofaune associée aux racines de Pistia stratiotes L. (Araceae) du lac de barrage d’Ayamé II et du fleuve Comoé (C&amp;#244;te d’Ivoire)</article-title><source> Journal Ivoirien d’Océanologie et Limnologie</source><volume> 1</volume>,<fpage> 131</fpage>-<lpage>138</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Diétoa, Y.M. (2002) Entomofaune et stratégies alimentaires des poissons du genre Brycinus (Characidae) en milieux fluviales et lacustre (Bassin Bia et Agnéby; C&amp;#244;te d’Ivoire). Thèse de Doctorat, Université d’Abob-Adjamé, C&amp;#244;te d’Ivoire, 261.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kouamé, M.K., Diétoa, M.Y., Da Costa, S.K., Edia, O.E., Ouattarra, A. and Gourène G. (2010) Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages Associated with Root Masses of Water Hyacinths, Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms-Laubach, 1883 (Commelinales: Pontederiaceae) in Taabo Lake, Ivory Coast. Journal of Natural History, 44, 257-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222930903457208</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kouamé, M.K., Diétoa, M.Y., Edia, O.E., Da Costa, S.K., Ouattara, A. and Gourène G. (2011) Macroinvertebrate Communities Associated with Macrophyte Habitats in a Tropical Man-Made Lake (Lake Taabo, C&amp;#244;te d’Ivoire). Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems, 20, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2010035</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Diomandé, D., Kpai, N.N., Kouadio, K.N., Da Costa, K.S. and Gourène, G. (2013) Spatial Distribution and Structure of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Artificial Reservoir: Taabo Lake (C&amp;#244;te d’Ivoire). International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 7, 1503-1514. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v7i4.7</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kra, K.M., Camara, A.I., Edia, O.E., Konan, K.M., Ouattara, A. and Diomandé, D. (2018) First Survey of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Diversity in Kodjoboué Lake (South-East of C&amp;#244;te d’Ivoire). International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Research, 3, 23-30.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Principe, R., Gualdoni, C., Oberto, A., Raffaini, G. and Corigliano, M. (2010) Spatial Temporal Patterns of Functional Feeding Groups in Mountain Streams of Córdoba, Argentina. Ecología Austral, 20, 257-268.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Halle, B. and Bruzon, V. (2006) Profil environnemental de la C&amp;#244;te d’Ivoire. Rapport final de la Commission Européenne, 133 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Brou, Y. (1997) Analyse et dynamique de la pluviométrie en milieu forestier ivoirien. Thèse de Doctorat 3ème cycle, Université de Cocody Abidjan, C&amp;#244;te d’Ivoire, 200 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Déjoux, C., Elouard, J.M., Forge, P. and Malsin, J. (1981) Catalogue iconographique des insectes aquatiques de C&amp;#244;te d’Ivoire. Rapport ORSTOM. Bouaké, C&amp;#244;te d’Ivoire, 172 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Day, J.A., Stewart, B.A. and de Moor, I.J. (2003) Guide to the Freshwater Invertebrates of Southern Africa. Volume 9: Diptera. Rapport N TT 201/02 Water Research Commission, South Africa, 200 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">De Moor, I.J., Day, J.A. and Moor, F.C. (2003) Guide to the Freshwater Invertebrates of Southern Africa. Volume 7: Insecta I: Ephemeroptera, Odonata and Plecoptera. Rapport N&amp;#730; TT 207/03 Water Research Commission, South Africa, 288 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">De Moor, I.J., Day, J.A. and Moor, F.C. (2003) Guide to the Freshwater Invertebrates of Southern Africa. Volume 8: Insecta II: Hemiptera, Megaloptera, Neuroptera, Trichoptera and Lepidoptera. Rapport N&amp;#730; TT 214/03 Water Research Commission, South Africa, 209 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Stals, R. and De Moor, I.J. (2007) Guides to the Freshwater Invertebrates of Southern Africa. Volume 10: Coleoptera. Rapport N TT 320/07 Water Research Commission, South Africa, 263 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tachet, H., Richoux, P., Bournaud, M. and Usseglio-Polatera, P. (2010) Freshwater Invertebrates: Taxonomy, Biology, Ecology. CNRS Editions, Paris.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rodier, J., Legube, B. and Merlet, N. (2009) L’Analyse de l’Eau. 9è édition, Dunod, Paris, 1579 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Grall, J. and Co&amp;#239;c, N. (2005) Synthèse des méthodes d’évaluation de la qualité du benthos en milieu c&amp;#244;tier. Rebent, 48, 90.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dajoz, R. (200) Précis d’Ecologie. 7ème édition, Dunod, Paris, 615 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Falissard, B. (1999) Focused Principal Component Analysis: Looking at a Correlation Matrix with a Particular Interest in a Given Variable. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 8, 906-912. https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.1999.10474855</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ben moussa, A., Chahlaoui, A., Rour, E. and Chahboune, M. (2014) Taxonomic Diversity and Structure of Benthic Macrofauna of Surface Water of Khoumane River. Moulay Idriss Zerhoun, Morocco. Journal of Materials and Environmental Science, 5, 183-198.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Arditi, R. and Ginzburg, L.R. (1989) Coupling in Predator-Prey Dynamics: Ratio-Dependence. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 139, 311-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(89)80211-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Barman, B. and Gupta, S. (2015) Spatial Distribution and Functional Feeding Groups of Aquatic Insects in a Stream of Chakrashila Wildlife Sanctuary, Assam, India. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems, 416, 37. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2015028</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gon&amp;#231;alves, J.R., Fran&amp;#231;a, J.S., Medeiros, A.O., Rosa, C.A. and Callisto, M. (2006) Leaf Breakdown in a Tropical Stream. International Review of Hydrobiology, 91, 164-177. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.200510826</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Li, A.O. and Dudgeon, D. (2009) Shredders: Species Richness, Abundance, and Role in Litter Breakdown in Tropical Hong Kong Streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 28, 167-180. https://doi.org/10.1899/08-043.1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Masese, F.O., Raburu, P.O. and Muchiri, M. (2009) A Preliminary Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) for Monitoring the Moiben River, Lake Victoria Basin, Kenya. African Journal of Aquatic Science, 34, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.2989/AJAS.2009.34.1.1.726</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kaboré, I., Moog, O., Alp, M., Guenda, W., Koblinger, T., Mano, K., Ouéda, A., Ouédraogo, R., Trauner, D. and Melcher, A.H. (2016) Using Macroinvertebrates for Ecosystem Health Assessment in Semi-Arid Streams of Burkina Faso. Hydrobiologia, 766, 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-015-2443-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Madomguia, D., Zebaze, T.S.H. and Fomena, A. (2016) Macro Invertebrates Functional Feeding Groups, Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, Percentage of Tolerant Taxa and Intolerant Taxa as Major Indices of Biological Assessment in Ephemeral Stream in Sudano-Sahelian Zone (Far-North, Cameroon). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 5, 792-806. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2016.510.086</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Griffith, G.E., Frydenborg, R., McCarron, E., White, J.S. and Bastian, M.L. (1996) A Framework for Biological Criteria for Florida Streams Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15, 185-211. https://doi.org/10.2307/1467948</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Savi&amp;#263;, A., &amp;#272;or&amp;#273;evi&amp;#263;, M., Ju&amp;#353;kovi&amp;#263;, M. and Pe&amp;#353;i&amp;#263;, V. (2017) Ecological Analysis of Macroinvertebrate Communities Based on Functional Feeding Groups: A Case Study in Southeastern Serbia. Biologica Nyssana, 8, 159-166.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Masese, F.O., Kitaka, N., Kipkemboi, J., Gettel, G.M., Irvine, K. and McClain, M.E. (2014) Macroinvertebrate Functional Feeding Groups in Kenyan Highland Streams: Evidence for a Diverse Shredder Guild. Freshwater Science, 33, 435-450. https://doi.org/10.1086/675681</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.99346-ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Arimoro, O.F., Ikomi, B.R. and Iwegbue, A.M. (2007) Water Quality Changes in Relation to Diptera Community Patterns and Diversity Measured at an Organic Effluent Impacted Stream in the Niger Delta, Nigeria. Ecological Indicators, 7, 541-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.06.002</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>