Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Next Article in Journal
Enhancing Ecological Design Principles in Vortex Settling Basins for Sustainable Water Management
Previous Article in Journal
How Can We Improve the Consumer Acceptance Level for Disposers Considering Regional Characteristics?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 17
Issue 4
10.3390/w17040494
water-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

Do Endangered Lampreys Benefit from Water Pollution? Effect of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Operation on Growth and Abundance of the Ukrainian Brook Lamprey and the European Brook Lamprey

by
Kacper Pyrzanowski
1,*,
Grzegorz Zięba
1,
Lidia Marszał
1,
Marta Leśniak
2,
Daniel Banasiak
1 and
Mirosław Przybylski
1,†
1
Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, Department of Ecology and Vertebrate Zoology, University of Lodz, 90-136 Lodz, Poland
2
Regional Directorate for Environmental Protection, 90-113 Lodz, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Deceased.
Water 2025, 17(4), 494; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17040494
Submission received: 3 December 2024 / Revised: 29 January 2025 / Accepted: 7 February 2025 / Published: 10 February 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The impact of municipal pollution on the larvae of the Ukrainian brook lamprey and the European brook lamprey was studied in the River Gać, a left-bank tributary of the River Pilica. Both lamprey species share similar morphologies and habits, including filtration-based feeding and burial in soft river sediments. This study focused on a 200 m stretch of the river, divided by sewage discharge from a municipal wastewater treatment plant into unpolluted (above the discharge) and polluted (below the discharge) sections. The Ukrainian brook lamprey exhibited higher densities (1612 individuals in total over the study period) compared to those of the European brook lamprey (336 in total). Survival methods, such as body length-frequency charts, were used to determine age. These diagrams, showing multimodal distributions, facilitated the differentiation of age groups and the application of the von Bertalanffy growth function to determine growth parameters. The growth curves revealed that the Ukrainian brook lamprey achieve greater body lengths (246.7 mm for the unpolluted section; 256.3 mm for the polluted section) at the same age and asymptotic lengths when compared to those of the European brook lamprey (187.2 mm for the unpolluted section; 180.7 mm for the polluted section). Furthermore, the European brook lamprey exhibited inferior growth in the polluted river section compared to that of the Ukrainian brook lamprey. The response of both lamprey species to municipal pollution suggests that such pollution could promote the expansion of the Ukrainian brook lamprey, while causing the decline of European brook lamprey in areas of their overlapping habitat.

1. Introduction

The current environmental crisis, directly attributed to deteriorating water quality due to pollution influx, impacts numerous populations of freshwater vertebrates. In temperate climate zone rivers, a notable loss of biodiversity and a decline in the abundance of ichthyofauna species are particularly evident [1]. An exceptional element of the ichthyofauna in the temperate rivers is represented by non-parasitic lampreys, some of the most primitive vertebrates, e.g., the European brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri) and the Ukrainian brook lamprey (Eudontomyzon mariae), and their co-occurrence is even scarcer. Typical habitats for both species include the upper courses of rivers and streams of uplands, although the species are also encountered in lowland rivers [2,3]. Until metamorphosis, non-parasitic lamprey larvae (ammocoetes) can remain buried in soft substrates for up to 5–7 years. They are unique species, permanently residing in stagnant sections of the stream characterized by sandy bottoms covered with organic sediments. Due to filter feeding, they are susceptible to the accumulation of dissolved contaminants or suspended solids. Adult individuals prefer fast-flowing sections of rivers, with clean, well-oxygenated water and gravelly–sandy bottoms, where they spawn [4,5]. Both species exhibit similar morphologies and feeding habits and possess a narrow range of tolerance to environmental factors (pollution, flow changes, sedimentation), making them indicators of stream conditions [6]. Lamprey larvae play a significant role in freshwater ecosystems as engineering species, digging in muddy bottoms to enhance oxygenation and accelerate the mineralization of fine particulate organic matter. Despite their ecological role, knowledge about their biology and ecology remains fragmented [7,8]. Both lamprey species are subject to various forms of protection, both at the national [9] (including Poland) and EU level [10]. They are also listed in the Polish Red Book of Animals [11] and in the Red List of Endangered and Threatened Animals in Poland [12]. The European brook lamprey is an Atlantic species, mainly associated with Northwestern Europe. In contrast, the Ukrainian brook lamprey originates from the Ponto–Caspian region and is mainly found in the basins of the Black and Baltic Seas. In Central and Eastern Poland, the distribution ranges of both species overlap (Figure 1) [13]. Recent data on the distribution and abundance of both species indicate an expansion of the Ukrainian brook lamprey and a simultaneous decrease in the population size of the European brook lamprey [14,15]. This phenomenon poses significant implications for biological and ecological research. The sympatric occurrence raises questions related to understanding the processes of competition and adaptation to a shared environment. The identified primary threats affecting lamprey larvae are the pollution of waters with organic waste from agricultural activities, the influx of nutrients from diffuse runoff or point sources like wastewater treatment plants, and accidental toxic spills, posing substantial threats to individual lamprey populations due to prolonged periods of impact [16]. The magnitude of this threat may be particularly underestimated in small watercourses inhabited by lampreys, where pollution levels are not monitored. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of water pollution from municipal sewage on co-occurring Ukrainian brook lamprey and European brook lamprey. It was hypothesized that (1) the population density of both lamprey species will react in a similar way and will decrease in polluted waters compared to unpolluted habitats due to reduced habitat quality, and (2) the growth rates of each species will be lower in contaminated areas, as pollutants are expected to impact food quality and availability.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

The study was carried out in the River Gać, a left-side tributary of the River Pilica in the village of Spała in Central Poland. Gać is a small, third-order stream with a length of 18.6 km and the slope of 2.07‰. Lampreys were collected around a 200 m section of the river below the dam reservoir in Spała (Figure 1). The average width of the river is 3–4 m, while the average depth ranges from 0.3 to 0.7 m. The riverbanks were reinforced with fascine, which has now mostly been eroded. The bottom is sandy, with gravel/cobble patches along the riffles, covered with thick layers of silt and organic deposits in pools, with limited submerged vegetation of Elodea canadensis and Potamogeton sp. due to the dense canopy of an adjacent forest. In the middle of the studied river course (51.539270° N, 20.139083° E), there is a communal mechanical–biological sewage treatment plant in Spała (capacity of 202.8 m3/24 h), which discharges sewage directly into the river. The sewage discharge outflow divides the study section into the part under the constant severe influence of the sewage treatment plant (section below the sewage discharge) and the reference site (above) (Figure 1) [17]. Neither section differed in terms of the morphology of the riverbed. The water quality parameters were measured using a WTW MultiLine® Multi 3630 IDS Multi-Parameter Portable Meter (Troistedt, Germany). Analyses of the sediment and water samples in terms of the amounts of organic substances, selected compounds, and elements were performed by the following accredited laboratories: the Regional Chemical–Agriculture Station in Lodz and the laboratory of the Regional Center for Ecohydrology in Lodz (Polish Academy of Sciences, UNESCO). These analyses showed differences between the two tested sections (Table 1 and Table 2). In the summer months (July–August), exclusively in the polluted section, intensive development of “sewage fungus” (Sphaerotilus natans)—aquatic periphyton bacterium associated with polluted water—was observed growing on the riverbed and submerged stones and branches. During the study two lamprey species, gudgeon (Gobio gobio), bleak (Alburnus alburnus), roach (Rutilus rutilus), stone loach (Barbatula barbatula), perch (Perca fluviatilis), pike (Esox lucius), tench (Tinca tinca), ide (Leuciscus idus), crucian carp (Carassius carassius), gibel carp (Carassius gibelio), rudd (Scardinius erythrophthalmus), chub (Squalius cephalus), spined loach (Cobitis taenia) and weatherfish (Misgurnus fossilis) were found.

2.2. Lamprey Sampling

The European brook lamprey and the Ukrainian brook lamprey were collected on several dates in 2016–2019 (Table 3) via electrofishing (EFGI 650, BSE Bretschneider Spezialelektronik, Chemnitz, Germany). Sampling started in the spring, with an observed spring increase in lamprey activity corresponding to a rise in water temperature above 10 °C, and ended when water temperature fell below 10 °C. An attempt was made to conduct three inspections per year, taking into account seasonality (spring, summer, and autumn). Both species are protected in Poland; therefore, lamprey capture was conducted with permissions from the Regional Directorate of Environmental Protection (WPN-II.6401.73.2016.TD, WPN.6401.65.2018.Kwi, WPN.6401.377.2019.Kwi). Sampling was carried out along a zig-zag transect, where the sampling points were spaced at 5 m fixed distances along the river, which proved to be large enough to avoid electrical disturbance of the unsampled areas [18]. Sampling started on the left bank and proceeded upstream through the middle to the right bank of the river and back. At each standardized point (1 m2), the catching time ranged from 2 min (no lampreys) to a maximum of 10 min (lampreys present, sampling until no more individuals were found). The time of electrofishing included several to ten minutes with breaks, each lasting for a few seconds. This procedure is considered to be the most effective sampling method in lamprey research [19]. In the reference section above the sewage discharge, electrofishing was carried out at 17 sampling points, while along the polluted section, it was conducted at 15 points. The density of lampreys was estimated based on the number of individuals caught at each transect point; this is known as the point abundance method [20]. The captured lampreys were identified according to species, counted, measured for total length (Lt) to the nearest 1 mm, and weighed (W) to the nearest 0.1 g. The time of electrofishing included several to ten breaks, each lasting for a few seconds [21]. The individuals remained in the oil-infused water only until they showed signs of full anesthesia, after which they were immediately removed for measurement; placed in a container with fresh, aerated water until full recovery; and released at the point of capture, with a delay to avoid recapture. Lamprey anesthesia was conducted under permission from the Local Ethics Committee (14/ŁB18/2016).

2.3. The Length and Growth of Lampreys

The growth of the lampreys was assessed based on length–frequency analysis. Size classes were presumed to represent annual age classes identified in seasonal length–frequency samples using the method of Bhattacharya (1967), separating partial normal distributions characterized by mean values and standard deviations. This method is particularly reliable with one-batch spawners and does not require post-mortem collection of statoliths. Modal class progression analysis was conducted with a minimum class separation index of 2. The decomposition of the frequency diagrams was performed using the FiSAT II (1.2.0.2.) package (ELEFANT) [22]. It was assumed that the separated partial frequency diagrams represent age groups (cohorts). The results from length–frequency decomposition were used to describe the lampreys larvae growth pattern using the von Bertalanffy growth function (VBGF), defined as
Lt = Linf (1 − exp (−k (t − t0)))
where Lt is the total length (Lt in mm), Linf is the asymptotic standard length (mm), k is the rate at which the asymptotic length is approached, t0 is the origin of the growth curve, and t is age in years [23,24]. Because the parameters Linf and k are inversely correlated [25], the index of growth performance φ′ [26] was calculated as
φ′ = log10 (k) + 2log10 (Linf)
The parameters of the VBGF and their standard errors for each sample were estimated by non-linear regression implemented in FiSAT [22]. To judge the accuracy of the VBGF, we used Taylor’s criterion [27], which states that the asymptotic length is satisfactorily estimated when the maximum observed length represents approximately 95% of Linf. For the analysis of the VBGF growth parameters, only the Lt measurements of individuals included in the last size class (on the basis of the frequency diagrams of total length) were used. Multiple comparisons of the VBGF (Linf and k) parameters between section of the stream were performed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with sequential Bonferroni correction. To assess the pattern of growth, either the isometric (slopes b = 3) or allometric (positive, b > 3, or negative, b < 3) [24] relationships between body weight (W) and total length (Lt) were determined using linear regression (log-transformed data), as follows:
log(W) = log(a) + b⋅log(Lt)
and is based on the idea that the volume (and therefore, the weight) of a fish increases faster than its length, following the principle of allometric growth.
For the analysis of the relationship between W and Lt, only measurements of the larvae collected in June 2016, 2017 and 2018 were used. To identify differences among species and sections of the stream, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used. Firstly, differences in slopes (b) were tested, and if the null hypothesis was rejected, the common slope (bc) was calculated, and the differences in intercepts (a coefficient) were tested. Tukey’s HSD post hoc test was also used to identify which sites were responsible for differences in linear regressions [28] (Statistica 13).

3. Results

A total of 336 of the European brook lamprey larvae and 1612 of the Ukrainian brook lamprey larvae were caught in the examined section of the River Gać. Adults and subadults of both species were caught only in late autumn and early spring (Table 3). Lampreys were found mainly near the river banks, where silt deposits accumulated. In the central points of the zig-zag transect (middle of the riverbed), occasionally, both lamprey species were caught. In the polluted section, the Ukrainian brook lamprey larvae were more numerous than in the section above the sewage discharge, while in the case of the European brook lamprey, the proportions were equal (Figure 2). The Ukrainian brook lamprey larvae in both (polluted and unpolluted) sections displayed higher densities (indiv. per m2) than did the European brook lamprey larvae (above: 0.13, below: 0.23 for the Ukrainian brook lamprey; above: 0.04, below: 0.03 for the European brook lamprey). The frequency diagrams of the body length (Lt) of the larvae of both lamprey species were multimodal, but only in the case of the Ukrainian brook lamprey was it possible to determine partial normal distributions representing age groups. The decomposition of the frequency diagrams using the Bhattacharya method allowed for the distinguishing of five size classes of the Ukrainian brook lamprey in the polluted and four in the unpolluted sections (Figure 3). Frequency diagrams determined throughout the entire study period made it possible to calculate the parameters of the von Bertalanffy growth function (Table 4). Two-way ANOVA revealed that the variation in the asymptotic body length of the larvae differed significantly between the river sections (F1,49 = 7.78, p = 0.007. A post hoc HSD Tukey test showed that in the polluted and unpolluted sections, the Ukrainian brook lamprey larvae reached a higher asymptotic body length than did the European brook lamprey larvae. However, the European brook lamprey in the unpolluted section of the river exhibited a higher value of asymptotic body length than did individuals in the polluted section (Table 4). The differences in the growth of lamprey larvae depending on the species and pollution are clearly visible in the growth trajectory (Figure 4). The back-calculated Lt showed a good fit to the von Bertalanffy growth model (Table 4). However, according to Taylor’s criterion, the von Bertalanffy growth function can be considered to satisfactorily describe growth if the maximum observed length is approximately 95% of Linf. In the case of the Ukrainian brook lamprey larvae in the river section above the sewage discharge, the asymptotic length is slightly underestimated, i.e., the maximum length of the larvae in this section is only 91% of the asymptotic length. The relationship between Lt and W for each species and river section are presented in Table 5. The Ukrainian brook lamprey larvae inhabiting the polluted section were characterized by a much higher value of the weight–length regression slope coefficient b than that in the section above the sewage discharge. In the case of the European brook lamprey larvae, this relationship was reversed, i.e., larvae of this species in the polluted section exhibited a lower body weight than did larvae in the section above the sewage discharge at the same lengths (higher slope value) (Table 5). At the same time, in the case of the unpolluted section, larvae of both lamprey species showed a negatively allometric (b < 3) relationship between body weight and body length (EM: t91 = 5.036, p < 0.001; LP: t40 = 1.951, p = 0.029).

4. Discussion

Our study aimed to explore the potential impact of long-term residence of two endangered lamprey species, the Ukrainian brook lamprey (Eudontomyzon mariae) and the European brook lamprey (Lampetra planeri), in an environment under the influence of municipal sewage discharge on their growth and abundance. We hypothesized that lower water quality sites (polluted) would negatively affect both species, reducing their density and growth. However, the results suggest that the responses of these two species to environmental conditions differ. These differences highlight species-specific ecological traits that may influence their resilience to environmental stressors, including organic pollution.
In both studied sections of the River Gać, the Ukrainian brook lamprey was the dominant species and achieved higher abundance than did the European brook lamprey in each of the subsequent catches. The numbers (density) of the Ukrainian brook lamprey differed in the studied sections, with higher densities observed in the section affected by WWTP outflow discharge. In contrast, the density of the European brook lamprey was similar in both sections. However, based on the estimated average densities, in both sections, the density of both lamprey species was sufficient to recognize the state of the local populations as favorable (0.05 indiv./m2) [14,15]. This indicates that despite potential environmental pressures, both species maintained viable population levels in the study area.
The impact of water pollution on the biology of lamprey larvae is still unknown [4]. Despite significant similarities between both species relative to their morphology, preferred habitat, and feeding strategy [13], the European brook lamprey seems to be more sensitive to changes in water quality and can be considered a species indicative of smaller and cleaner streams. Contrarily, the Ukrainian brook lamprey is a species more often found in medium and large rivers, where the volumes of pollutants may be higher. Therefore, differences in habitat preferences and ecological niches may explain their differing responses to pollution. As proved in a study of the same system by Zięba et al. [17], regarding both filter-feeding lamprey larvae, the Ukrainian brook lamprey may benefit more from organic matter entering the water system along with treated wastewater and can utilize fine organic particles and biofilms of microorganisms as food sources [17]. Furthermore, the larvae of both species, when exposed to pollutants, but devoid of toxic substances, do not appear to suffer increased mortality [29]. Experimental studies on Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) and European river lamprey (L. fluviatilis) larvae have shown no significant negative effects on growth, survival, or burrowing behavior when exposed to polluted sediments over short- or long-term periods [30,31]. Increased concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds causing eutrophication may even favor the development of larvae by increasing their food base. In our study, differences in growth patterns were observed between the two species. The Ukrainian brook lamprey larvae achieved greater body weight and asymptotic length in the deprived water quality section compared to in the unpolluted section. In contrast, the European brook lamprey larvae exhibited poorer growth in the polluted section. These patterns may reflect species-specific physiological responses to altered environmental conditions. It is possible that increased nutrient availability from WWTP discharge, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus compounds, enhances the food base for filter-feeding larvae, contributing to better growth in the Ukrainian brook lamprey, but is not as beneficial for the European brook lamprey, indicating that this species may have a narrower tolerance range for environmental degradation.
Typically, fish age is assessed based on calcinated structures such as scales or otoliths [32]. In the case of lampreys, the structures enabling age determination are the statoliths (readings of annuli). The analysis of the age based on the statolith proved to be useful for larvae of the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) [33]. The authors of this study concluded, however, that the use of statoliths is appropriate, but they are difficult to locate during dissection. Additionally, obtaining statoliths requires killing an individual, and the structure itself is often difficult to read [4]. An alternative approach is to determine age and growth in vivo, based on the analysis of body length–frequency diagrams, which were used in most cases of lamprey research [4]. The use of this method seems justified in the case of endangered fish and lamprey species for which a decline in population is observed. In this study, multimodal body length–frequency diagrams were prepared for both lamprey species, but only in the case of the Ukrainian brook lamprey did the number of caught individuals allow for a clear distinction of partial normal distributions in both the polluted and unpolluted sections. Assuming that the extracted distributions represent age groups, in the unpolluted section, the Ukrainian brook lamprey population is represented by individuals belonging to four age groups, while in the polluted section, it is represented by five cohorts. In the case of the European brook lamprey, it was not possible to obtain such clear results of the frequency diagrams at any of the sampling dates due to smaller sample sizes. Similar results of the body length–frequency diagram analysis (four size groups) were achieved in the case of the Turkish brook lamprey E. lanceolata [34], for which the age determination based on statoliths was not possible due to their unreadability. Despite the difficulties of analyzing the European brook lamprey frequency diagrams, the FiSAT application made it possible to calculate the parameters of the growth pattern. In the polluted section, the Ukrainian brook lamprey larvae are characterized by greater growth than in the unpolluted section, reaching a higher value of asymptotic length. In the case of the European brook lamprey, the situation is the opposite, and the larvae of this species exhibit poorer growth in the polluted section. The relationship between body weight (W) and total length (Lt) is one of the condition measures of fish and lampreys [35] and may reflect the influence of environmental conditions.
Our study also included age and growth assessments based on body length–frequency diagrams. While multimodal distributions were obtained for the Ukrainian brook lamprey in both sections, the European brook lamprey yielded less clear results due to smaller sample sizes. For the Ukrainian brook lamprey, the unpolluted section contained individuals from four age groups, while the polluted section contained five cohorts. These differences may indicate that the altered water condition section provides favorable conditions for larval recruitment and survival, although additional research is needed to confirm this hypothesis.
Generally, in unfavorable conditions, individuals achieve lower body weights at the same length [36]. Organisms with an eel-like body shape are characterized by an allometric weight–length relationship, as found in populations of lampreys (E. lanceolata) [34]. The relationship between body weight and length may also vary depending on the stage of individual development and changes during ontogenesis. In the case of lampreys larvae, there are three stages of growth: 1—positively allometric, up to 1.5 years, when growth is the fastest, but body weight increases faster than length; 2—negatively allometric, between 1.5 and 2.5 years, when the length rate decreases, and the value of the regression slope coefficient decreases; 3—isometric relationship, in the final period of life in the larval stage, when the linear growth rate of length and weight is observed [37]. In the last year of larval life, the growth of individuals completely stops, which is related to the cessation of feeding and metamorphosis [38].
In our study, differences in the slope coefficient values reflect the effect of river pollution, which may maximize the relationships indicated by Hardisty (1994) [37]. In the polluted section, the slope (b-values) is higher for both lamprey species. This could be the result of the potential food abundance. The larvae of both species of lampreys are filter feeders, and the discharge of municipal sewage, if it does not exceed critical values of toxicity for the species, increases the amount of fine-particle organic matter, together with the biofilm of microorganisms, which are the important dietary components of lampreys [37].

5. Conclusions

Our study suggest that lamprey species may exhibit different tolerances to environmental conditions arising from the presence of WWTP outflow. The Ukrainian brook lamprey achieved higher densities and better growth in the section affected by WWTP outflow. In contrast, the European brook lamprey appeared more sensitive to changes in water quality, exhibiting poorer growth in the altered water condition section. However, more extensive sampling will be needed to confirm the obtained results. Any changes in the habitats occupied by lampreys may affect the condition of the population or even lead to its complete disappearance. On the other hand, the presence or absence of lampreys in the stream can reflect the water quality and the state of stream transformation, i.e., regulation of the stream, strengthening of the banks, and the construction of transverse barriers slowing down the water flow, which are also migration barriers. Despite their differing habitat preferences, both lamprey species play important roles in their respective ecosystems, contributing to nutrient cycling and serving as indicators of water quality. Understanding the ecological nuances between these two species is crucial for effective conservation and management efforts aimed at preserving their populations and the health of the freshwater ecosystems they inhabit.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.P. and M.P.; methodology, K.P. and M.P.; formal analysis, K.P. and M.P.; investigation, K.P., M.P., G.Z., L.M., M.L. and D.B.; data curation, K.P. and M.L.; writing—original draft preparation, K.P. and G.Z.; writing—review and editing, K.P. and G.Z.; visualization, K.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

All procedures were carried out under permission from the Local Ethics Committee (14/ŁB18/2016) and the Regional Directorate of Environmental Protection (WPN-II.6401.73.2016.TD, WPN.6401.65.2018.Kwi, WPN.6401.377.2019.Kwi).

Data Availability Statement

Data will be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We are greatly indebted to S. Szklarek from the European Regional Center for Ecohydrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences (UNESCO) for the water sample analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Reid, A.J.; Carlson, A.K.; Creed, I.F.; Eliason, E.J.; Gell, P.A.; Johnson, P.T.; Kidd, K.A.; MacCormack, T.J.; Olden, J.D.; Ormerod, S.J.; et al. Emerging threats and persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 2019, 94, 849–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Maitland, P.S.; Renaud, C.B.; Quintella, B.R.; Close, D.A.; Docker, M.F. Conservation of native lampreys. In Lampreys: Biology, Conservation and Control; Docker, M.F., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; Volume 1, pp. 375–428. [Google Scholar]
  3. Jażdżewski, M.; Marszał, L.; Przybylski, M. Habitat preferences of The Ukrainian brook lamprey Eudontomyzon mariae ammocoetes in the lowland rivers of Central Europe. J. Fish Biol. 2016, 88, 477–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dawson, H.A.; Quintella, B.R.; Almeida, P.R.; Treble, A.J.; Jolley, J.C. The ecology of larval and metamorphosing lampreys. In Lampreys: Biology, Conservation and Control; Docker, M.F., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; Volume 1, pp. 75–137. [Google Scholar]
  5. Johnson, N.S.; Buchinger, T.J.; Li, W. Reproductive ecology of lampreys. In Lampreys: Biology, Conservation and Control; Docker, M.F., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; Volume 1, pp. 265–303. [Google Scholar]
  6. Mustonen, T.; Tossavainen, T. Brook lampreys of life: Towards holistic monitoring of boreal aquatic habitats using ‘subtle signs’ and oral histories. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2018, 28, 657–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shirakawa, H.; Yanai, S.; Goto, A. Lamprey larvae as ecosystem engineers: Physical and geochemical impact on the streambed by their burrowing behavior. Hydrobiologia 2013, 701, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Boeker, C.; Geist, J. Lampreys as ecosystem engineers: Burrows of Eudontomyzon sp. and their impact on physical, chemical, and microbial properties in freshwater substrates. Hydrobiologia 2016, 777, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Renaud, C.B. Conservation status of northern hemisphere lampreys (Petromyzontidae). J. Appl. Ichthyol. 1997, 13, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. European Union. Council directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. Off. J. Eur. Union 1992, 206, 50. [Google Scholar]
  11. Głowaciński, Z. Polska Czerwona Księga Zwierząt. Kręgowce; PWRiL: Warsaw, Poland, 2001; pp. 325–327. [Google Scholar]
  12. Witkowski, A.; Kotusz, J.; Przybylski, M. The degree of threat to the freshwater ichthyofauna of Poland: Red list of fishes and lampreys—Situation in 2009. Chrońmy Przyr. Ojcz. 2009, 65, 33–52. [Google Scholar]
  13. Brylińska, M. Ryby Słodkowodne Polski; PWN: Warsaw, Poland, 2000; pp. 137–148. [Google Scholar]
  14. Prenda, J.; Armitage, P.D.; Grayston, A. Habitat use by the fish assemblages of two chalk streams. J. Fish Biol. 1997, 51, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cowx, I.G.; Harvey, J.P.; Noble, R.A.; Nunn, A.D. Establishing survey and monitoring protocols for the assessment of conservation status of fish populations in river Special Areas of Conservation in the UK. Aquatic Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2009, 19, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Marszał, L. Minóg strumieniowy Lampetra planeri. In Monitoring Gatunków Zwierząt. Przewodnik Metodyczny. Część III; Makomaska-Juchiewicz, M., Baran, P., Eds.; GIOŚ: Warsaw, Poland, 2012; pp. 101–117. [Google Scholar]
  17. Zięba, G.; Moryl, M.; Drzewiecka, D.; Przybylski, M.; Pyrzanowski, K.; Grabowska, J. Effects of Domestic Pollution on European Brook Lamprey Ammocoetes in a Lowland River: Insights from Microbiological Analysis. Water 2024, 16, 2349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Marszał, L. Minóg ukraiński Eudonyomyzon mariae. In Monitoring Gatunków Zwierząt. Przewodnik Metodyczny. Część III; Makomaska-Juchiewicz, M., Baran, P., Eds.; GIOŚ: Warsaw, Poland, 2012; pp. 118–133. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kappus, B.; Janse, W.; Fok, P.; Rahman, H. Threatened lamprey (Lampetra planeri) populations of the Danube Basin within Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. Misc. Zool. Hung. 1995, 10, 85–98. [Google Scholar]
  20. Persat, H.; Copp, G.H. Electric fishing and point abundance sampling for the ichthyology of large rivers. In Developments in Electric Fishing; Cowx, I.G., Ed.; Kluwer: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1990; pp. 197–209. [Google Scholar]
  21. Javahery, S.; Nekoubim, H.; Moradlu, A.H. Effect of anaesthesia with clove oil in fish (review). Fish Physiol. Biochem. 2012, 38, 1545–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gayanilo, F.C., Jr.; Sparre, P.; Pauly, D. FAO-ICLARM Stock Assessment Tools II (FiSAT II). Revised Version. User’s Guide; FAO Computerized Information Series (Fisheries); No. 8; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  23. von Bertalanffy, L. Quantitative laws in metabolism and growth. Q. Rev. Biol. 1957, 32, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ricker, W.E. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 1975, 191, 1–382. [Google Scholar]
  25. Moreau, J.; Belaud, A.; Dauba, F.; Nelva, A. A model for rapid growth evaluation in fishes: The case of the cyprinids of some large French rivers. Hydrobiologia 1985, 120, 225–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Munro, J.L.; Pauly, D. A simple method for comparing the growth of fish and invertebrates. FishByte 1983, 1, 5–6. [Google Scholar]
  27. Taylor, C.C. Growth equation with metabolic parameters. J. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 1962, 27, 270–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zar, J.H. Biostatistical Analysis; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  29. Madenjian, C.; Unrein, J.; Pedro, S. Trends and biological effects of environmental contaminants in lamprey. J. Great Lakes Res. 2021, 47, 112–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Unrein, J.R.; Morris, J.M.; Chitwood, R.S.; Lipton, J.; Peers, J.; van de Wetering, S.; Schreck, C.B. Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) ammocoetes exposed to contaminated Portland Harbor sediments: Method development and effects on survival, growth, and behavior Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2016, 35, 2092–2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Salmelin, J.; Karjalainen, A.K.; Hämäläinen, H.; Leppänen, M.T.; Kiviranta, H.; Kukkonen, J.V.K.; Vuori, K.M. Biological responses of midge (Chironomus riparius) and lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis) larvae in ecotoxicity assessment of PCDD/F-, PCB- and Hg-contaminated river sediments. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 18379–18393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Casselman, J.M. Growth and relative size of calcified structures of fish. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 1990, 119, 673–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Barker, L.A.; Morrison, B.J.; Wick, B.J.; Beamish, F.W.H. Age discrimination and statolith diversity in sea lamprey from streams with varying alkalinity. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 1997, 126, 1021–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gözler, A.M.; Engin, S.; Turan, D.; Şahin, C. Age, growth and fecundity of the Turkish Brook Lamprey, Eudontomyzon lanceolata (Kux and Steiner, 1972), in north-eastern Turkey. Zool. Middle East 2011, 52, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bolger, T.; Connolly, P.L. The selection of suitable indices of the measurement and analysis of fish condition. J. Fish Biol. 1989, 34, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Le Cren, E.D. The length-weight relationship and seasonal cycle in gonad and condition in the perch (Perca fluviatilis). J. Anim. Ecol. 1951, 20, 201–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hardisty, M.W. The Life History and Growth of the Brook Lamprey (Lampetra planeri). J. Anim. Ecol. 1994, 13, 110–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lowe, D.R.; Beamish, F.W.H. Changes in the proximate body composition of the landlocked sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus (L.) during larval life and metamorphosis. J. Fish Biol. 1973, 5, 673–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 17 00494 g001
Figure 1. Occurrence of the Ukrainian brook lamprey (blue) and European brook lamprey (yellow) and areas of their overlapping habitat (green) in Europe (A) and Poland (B). The study area, the River Gać with a WWTP (wastewater treatment plant) (red dot) (C,D).
Figure 1. Occurrence of the Ukrainian brook lamprey (blue) and European brook lamprey (yellow) and areas of their overlapping habitat (green) in Europe (A) and Poland (B). The study area, the River Gać with a WWTP (wastewater treatment plant) (red dot) (C,D).
Water 17 00494 g001
Water 17 00494 g002
Figure 2. Proportions of the Ukrainian brook lamprey (EM) and European brook lamprey (LP) larvae, subadults, and adults caught in the unpolluted (above) and polluted (below) sections of the River Gać.
Figure 2. Proportions of the Ukrainian brook lamprey (EM) and European brook lamprey (LP) larvae, subadults, and adults caught in the unpolluted (above) and polluted (below) sections of the River Gać.
Water 17 00494 g002
Water 17 00494 g003
Figure 3. Frequency diagrams of total length (Lt) of the Ukrainian brook lamprey in an unpolluted (above) and polluted (below) sections of the River Gać. The extracted partial normal distributions in the multimodal distribution represent age groups.
Figure 3. Frequency diagrams of total length (Lt) of the Ukrainian brook lamprey in an unpolluted (above) and polluted (below) sections of the River Gać. The extracted partial normal distributions in the multimodal distribution represent age groups.
Water 17 00494 g003
Water 17 00494 g004
Figure 4. (A) Growth, based on von Bertalanffy function (VBGF), of the European brook lamprey (LP) and the Ukrainian brook lamprey (EM) in the unpolluted (above) and polluted (below) sections of the River Gać. (B) Index of growth performance (φ′). Homogeneous groups are marked with letters (Tukey’s HSD test).
Figure 4. (A) Growth, based on von Bertalanffy function (VBGF), of the European brook lamprey (LP) and the Ukrainian brook lamprey (EM) in the unpolluted (above) and polluted (below) sections of the River Gać. (B) Index of growth performance (φ′). Homogeneous groups are marked with letters (Tukey’s HSD test).
Water 17 00494 g004
Table 1. Comparison of water quality parameters (mean values ± standard deviation) for the River Gać, above and below the sewage discharge, during sample collection.
Table 1. Comparison of water quality parameters (mean values ± standard deviation) for the River Gać, above and below the sewage discharge, during sample collection.
Above (Unpolluted)Below (Polluted)
Sampling dateApril–August 2016–2018
Water temperature [°C]18.70±2.2218.68±2.21
Dissolved oxygen [mg/L]8.94±0.938.61±1.78
Dissolved oxygen [%]96.45±6.9399.36±7.47
Specific conductance [µSL−1]321.33±26.70303.67±18.15
pH7.46±0.247.56±0.13
Sampling dateMay 2018
Organic matter [%]0.60±0.0501.06±0.100
Nitrogen [%]0.03±0.0040.06±0.008
Phosphorus P2O5 [mg/100 g]5.6±0.80019.4±2.900
Table 2. Comparison of chemical compounds in water for the River Gać, above and below the sewage discharge, in May 2018.
Table 2. Comparison of chemical compounds in water for the River Gać, above and below the sewage discharge, in May 2018.
Above (Unpolluted)Below (Polluted)
Nitrates (NO3−) [mg/L]7.268.48
Nitrites (NO2−) [mg/L]0.030.22
Phosphates (PO43−) [mg/L]2.644.43
Sulphureous (SO42−) [mg/L]139.29102.81
Fluorides (F−) [mg/L]0.220.45
Chlorides (Cl−) [mg/L]43.0243.56
Bromides (Br−) [mg/L]0.050.07
Sodium (Na) [mg/L]9.8111.40
Ammonium (NH4+) [mg/L]0.112.98
Table 3. Number of individuals and density of the European brook lamprey and the Ukrainian brook lamprey larvae, subadults, and adults collected on several dates in 2016–2019 in the unpolluted (above) and polluted (below) sections of the River Gać.
Table 3. Number of individuals and density of the European brook lamprey and the Ukrainian brook lamprey larvae, subadults, and adults collected on several dates in 2016–2019 in the unpolluted (above) and polluted (below) sections of the River Gać.
European Brook LampreyUkrainian Brook Lamprey
DateAboveBelowAboveBelow
LarvaeSubadultAdultLarvaeSubadultAdultLarvaeSubadultAdultLarvaeSubadultAdult
June 20162900230069007600
August 201692015504917037100
September 2016840271605632056650
March 2017205---15026--0
May 201720615014032300
June 20176006002001300
April 20181922910723235313
June 201870090022004900
October 201869001900446022810
April 2019100430114801039402
total1618171262224815862929775
Table 4. Estimation of von Bertalanffy growth function (VBGF) parameters and their asymptotic standard errors (SE) for the European brook lamprey and the Ukrainian brook lamprey larvae collected from unpolluted (above) and polluted (below) sections of the River Gać. Homogeneous groups are marked with letters (Tukey’s HSD test).
Table 4. Estimation of von Bertalanffy growth function (VBGF) parameters and their asymptotic standard errors (SE) for the European brook lamprey and the Ukrainian brook lamprey larvae collected from unpolluted (above) and polluted (below) sections of the River Gać. Homogeneous groups are marked with letters (Tukey’s HSD test).
SpeciesSiteLinf (SE)
[mm]		k (SE)Taylor’s [%]n
European brook lampreyabove (A)187.20.6a0.5560.014a97.7511
below (B)180.70.6b0.5050.013b97.3912
Ukrainian brook lampreyabove (C)246.70.5c0.4460.012c94.0513
below (D)256.30.5d0.4410.011c91.2117
Table 5. Length–weight regression parameters (log10-transformed data) for the European brook lamprey and the Ukrainian brook lamprey larvae collected in June 2016, 2017, 2018 (pooled) from unpolluted (above) and polluted (below) sections of the River Gać.
Table 5. Length–weight regression parameters (log10-transformed data) for the European brook lamprey and the Ukrainian brook lamprey larvae collected in June 2016, 2017, 2018 (pooled) from unpolluted (above) and polluted (below) sections of the River Gać.
SpeciesSiteas.e.abs.e.br2n
European brook lampreyabove (A)−5.4080.1742.8410.0820.96842
below (B)−5.3760.1392.8280.1760.87838
Ukrainian brook lampreyabove (C)−5.1490.1272.7060.0580.95993
below (D)−5.7840.1393.0000.0630.945136
slope comparisonsF = 5.88p = 0.001
Tukey’s post hoc test A BC D
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

Pyrzanowski, K.; Zięba, G.; Marszał, L.; Leśniak, M.; Banasiak, D.; Przybylski, M. Do Endangered Lampreys Benefit from Water Pollution? Effect of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Operation on Growth and Abundance of the Ukrainian Brook Lamprey and the European Brook Lamprey. Water 2025, 17, 494. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17040494

AMA Style

Pyrzanowski K, Zięba G, Marszał L, Leśniak M, Banasiak D, Przybylski M. Do Endangered Lampreys Benefit from Water Pollution? Effect of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Operation on Growth and Abundance of the Ukrainian Brook Lamprey and the European Brook Lamprey. Water. 2025; 17(4):494. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17040494

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pyrzanowski, Kacper, Grzegorz Zięba, Lidia Marszał, Marta Leśniak, Daniel Banasiak, and Mirosław Przybylski. 2025. "Do Endangered Lampreys Benefit from Water Pollution? Effect of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Operation on Growth and Abundance of the Ukrainian Brook Lamprey and the European Brook Lamprey" Water 17, no. 4: 494. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17040494

APA Style

Pyrzanowski, K., Zięba, G., Marszał, L., Leśniak, M., Banasiak, D., & Przybylski, M. (2025). Do Endangered Lampreys Benefit from Water Pollution? Effect of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Operation on Growth and Abundance of the Ukrainian Brook Lamprey and the European Brook Lamprey. Water, 17(4), 494. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17040494

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