DSpace at VNU: Aquatic insect faunas and communities of a mountain stream in Sapa Highland, northern Vietnam

Limnology (2008) 9:219–229
DOI 10.1007/s10201-008-0250-8

ASIA/OCEANIA REPORT

Aquatic insect faunas and communities of a mountain stream
in Sapa Highland, northern Vietnam
Sang Woo Jung Æ Van Vinh Nguyen Æ
Quang Huy Nguyen Æ Yeon Jae Bae

Received: 22 November 2006 / Accepted: 13 August 2007 / Published online: 9 July 2008
Ó The Japanese Society of Limnology 2008

Abstract Aquatic insect communities were investigated
from the Muonghoa Stream in the Sapa Highland (highest
peak 3,143 m), a subtropical mountain stream in northern
Vietnam. Field investigations for quantitative (Surber net
50 cm 9 50 cm, mesh size 0.2 mm, riffle and pool/run)
and qualitative (hand net, mesh size 1 mm) sampling were
conducted at nine sites along the watercourse between 27
November and 2 December 2005. As a result, a total of 216
species (the majority of them undescribed) belonging to
139 genera, 61 families, and nine orders were recognized:
53 Ephemeroptera species (24.5%), nine Odonata species
(4.2%), 15 Plecoptera species (6.9%), seven Hemiptera
species (3.2%), 35 Coleoptera species (16.2%), one Megaloptera species (0.5%), 29 Diptera species (13.4%), 66
Trichoptera species (30.6%), and one Lepidoptera species
(0.5%). Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera, and Coleoptera represented the major aquatic insect groups with regard to
taxonomic and individual richness, whereas Hemiptera and
Odonata were relatively less diverse and abundant than in
studies of other tropical Southeast Asian streams. The

dominance, richness, and diversity indices (H0 ) fell within

the following ranges [mean ± standard deviation (SD)]:
0.18–0.76 (0.42 ± 0.19), 4.13–9.19 (7.06 ± 1.45), and
1.61–3.22 (2.67 ± 0.55), respectively. Riffle habitats generally yielded numbers of aquatic insect species and
individuals approximately twice that sampled in pool/run
habitats. Shredders were relatively larger in proportion
within the headwater reach, whereas scrapers and collectorgatherers were more abundant in the middle and lower
stream reaches. This functional feeding group composition
is characteristic of temperate streams in East Asia. The
results of detrended correspondence analysis and Bray–
Curtis cluster analysis indicated that aquatic insect compositions at the sampling sites were very reflective of the
reach characteristics, which evidence gradual changes with
altitude and stream order along the stream watercourse.
This is the first comprehensive investigation of aquatic
insects in highland Southeast Asian regions.
Keywords Aquatic insect fauna Á Biodiversity Á
Community composition Á Tropical stream Á Southeast Asia

Introduction
S. W. Jung Á Y. J. Bae
Department of Biology, Seoul Women’s University,
Seoul, South Korea
V. V. Nguyen Á Q. H. Nguyen
Department of Invertebrate Zoology,
Hanoi University of Science, Hanoi, Vietnam
Present Address:
Y. J. Bae (&)
Lab of Animal Systematics and Ecology,
Division of Life Sciences and Biotechnology,

Korea University, 1 Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu,
Seoul 136-701, South Korea
e-mail:

The Sapa Highland is located in northern Vietnam (Fig. 1)
and has been identified as the center of biodiversity in
mainland Southeast Asia (Nguyen and Harder 1996). This
area embraces Mt. Fansipan (3,143 m), the highest mountain within peninsular Southeast Asia, and the associated
mountain range extends to the adjacent Yunnan Province
of China and further to the Himalayas.
Although tropical Asian streams are known to constitute
rich habitats for diverse groups of freshwater organisms,
including aquatic insects, the actual makeup of the fauna
inhabiting these regions remain poorly understood. In

123


220

Limnology (2008) 9:219–229

Fig. 1 Study sites (St. 1–St. 9)
in the Muonghoa Stream of
Sapa Highland, northern
Vietnam

previous studies, Nguyen et al. (2001) studied the altitudinal
distribution of aquatic insects in a stream in Tam Dao
National Park in northern Vietnam, and Cao et al. (2008)

conducted a faunistic study of aquatic insects in Bach Ma
National Park in central Vietnam. Hoang and Bae (2006)
demonstrated that a tropical stream in southern Vietnam
evidenced a higher degree of aquatic insect diversity than
that observed in temperate streams in Korea. The aquatic
insect fauna and the community compositions of the Sapa
Highland have not yet been investigated, with the exception
of a few fragmented taxonomic studies of some aquatic
insect groups (Nguyen and Bae 2004; Hoang and Bae 2005;
Cao et al. 2007).
In this paper, we provide faunistic and community data
of aquatic insects in the Sapa Highland, based on a comprehensive field investigation, in order to explain
biodiversity in tropical mountain streams.

Materials and methods
Study stream and sites
The Sapa Highland is located in northern Vietnam,
approximately 38 km west of Lao Cai Province and
375 km northwest of Hanoi (22°070 –22°280 N, 103°430 –
104°040 E) (Fig. 1). The region covers an area of 67,864 ha
and has an average elevation of 1,500 m above sea level.
The climate is generally humid (humidity 76–96%) all
year, with an average yearly rainfall of 2,770 mm. The
heaviest rains occur in July and August. The average

123

temperature is approximately 15°C, in a range between 3°C and 20°C, and December and January are the coldest
months. Snow falls on 1–3 days per year. The Muonghoa
Stream runs across the Sapa Highland and is approximately

42 km in total length. As the stream flows from the high
mountain peaks to the lowland areas along the watercourse,
the stream and riparian areas represent diverse temperate
and tropical forest elements (Nguyen and Harder 1996).
Nine sampling sites belonging to stream orders I–V
(stream orders were determined with a map of scale
1:60,000) were selected as follows along the watercourse;
all but one site (site 3) were located on the mainstream
watercourse (Fig. 1). Site 3 was located at a tributary
headwater within the upper stream reach. The
environmental factors at each sampling site are shown in
Table 1.
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

9

(22°210 88700
(22°210 33400
(22°210 83300
(22°200 48900
(22°190 25000
(22°180 29400
(22°170 25000
(22°150 95600
(22°220 00500

N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,

103°460 66600
103°460 25000
103°470 98200
103°480 59700
103°500 33400
103°530 30100
103°550 18400
103°580 04800

104°040 26300

E): Thac-Bac (upper)
E): Thac-Bac (lower)
E): Quy-Ho
E): Shin-Chai
E): Cat-Cat
E): Ta-Van
E): Cau-May
E): Ban-Ho
E): Ben-Den.

Field investigations and analyses
Field investigations were conducted from 27 November to
2 December in 2005. Aquatic insects were sampled with a


Depth and current speed were measured at the sampling points

Substrate: S sand, G gravel, P pebble, C cobble, B boulder, L leaf litter, M moss, A algae; dominant substrates are indicated in bold
c

a, b

1139.4 ± 667.5 46.7 ± 39.8 24.2 ± 24.5 18.7 ± 8.1 26.6 ± 11.1 3.0 ± 0.8 0.4 ± 0.6 15.3 ± 3.4 7.3 ± 0.9 7.5 ± 0.5

79
V

Mean ± SD

Village agriculture

Village
0
C, S, G, P
7.65
8.70
20.6
0
4.64
30
16
60–65

Village

St. 9

100–110

0

0
C, B, P, A

B, P, A, C
8.39

6.94

7.18

7.85
17.5

18.4
0

1.00
3.96

3.13
40

31
30

23
35–38

50–57
95–100
404
IV
St. 8

643
III
St. 7

982
III

50–60

Forest agriculture

Pasture agriculture
0
C, P, B G,
7.06
8.20
18.7
0
2.80
30
15
40–45

Forest

St. 6

1,250
III

80–90

30
C, P, G, B

7.59
7.78
13.1
1.00
2.97
41
30
10–12

Forest

St. 5

1,358
III

25–30

90
C, P, B, G
8.10
6.85
12.1
0
2.80
23
23
5–6

Forest

St. 4

1,669
I

20–22

100
L, P, C, B
7.31
6.62
13.1
0
2.42
6
11
1–4

Forest

St. 3

1,830
II

2,040
I

St. 2

8–10

80

90
C, M, L, P

B, M, P, C
7.25

7.60
5.71

6.90
12.8

11.7
0

1.40
2.42

1.98
20

18
10

10

1–3

Pool/run

Pool/run
Riffle
Riffle

St. 1

5–10

1–2

Substratec
DO
(mg/l)
pH
Water
temp. (°C)
Current speed (m/s)b
Depth (cm)a

Water
width (m)
Stream Altitude (m)
order

Stream
width (m)

221

Site

Table 1 Environmental data of the Muonghoa Stream of Sapa Highland, northern Vietnam (DO dissolved oxygen, SD standard deviation)

10–15

Canopy Landscape
(%)

Limnology (2008) 9:219–229

Surber net (50 cm 9 50 cm, mesh size 0.2 mm) for
quantitative purposes; two Surber samples were obtained
in riffle and pool/run habitats (total sampling area
5,000 cm2 per site). Additional samples were obtained
with a hand net (mesh size 1 mm) in a variety of
microhabitats for qualitative purposes. General environmental factors, including geographic location and altitude
[portable global positioning system (GPS): SP24XC,
MLR, USA], stream width and depth, surface current
velocity (Craig 1987), water temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen (portable water checker: WQC-22A, TOA,
Japan), and substrate composition (subjectively estimated
percentage cover of bedrock/boulder [ 256 mm, cobble
64–256 mm, pebble 16–64 mm, gravel 2–16 mm, coarse
sand 0.5–2 mm, and fine sand/silt \ 0.5 mm) were
determined at all sampling sites.
All sampled materials were maintained in 250 ml
plastic vials with Kahle’s solution and brought to the

laboratory for sorting of aquatic insects. The sorted
aquatic insects were preserved in 80% ethyl alcohol
(EtOH). The aquatic insects were identified to the species or lowest taxonomic categories, from available
references (Wiederholm 1983; Morse et al. 1994; Yoon
1995; Merritt and Cummins 1996; Wiggins 1996;
Dudgeon 1999; Kawai and Tanida 2005). We also
employed additional taxonomic articles (e.g., Sangpradub
and Boonsoong 2004) for the identification of specific
aquatic insect groups. Taxa without taxonomic references
to species level, which describes the majority of
the cases in this study, were separated into morphospecies, based primarily on external ultrastructures. All
materials are housed in the Aquatic Insect Collection of
Seoul Women’s University and Hanoi University of
Science.
McNaughton’s dominance index (DI), Margalef’s
richness index (RI), and Shannon species diversity index
(H0 ) were calculated according to Smith and Smith
(2001). Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) (Hill
and Gauch 1980) and Bray–Curtis (Bray and Curtis 1957)
similarity measure were employed in the analyses of
aquatic insect communities between the study sites.
Functional feeding groups (FFGs) were classified mainly
according to Morse et al. (1994) and Merritt and Cummins (1996). All these community analyses were on the
basis of the quantitative samples, but we excluded all
Diptera taxa in the community analyses because their
species level treatments, particularly the larvae of Chironomidae and Simuliidae, may have created biased
results due to sampling and identification difficulties in
poorly known aquatic insect communities. We have,
however, included the list of Diptera taxa in Appendix 1
to provide an understanding of the general faunistic features of the area.

123


222

Results
Stream environments
The habitat topology and general environmental factors of
the sampling sites, including stream width and water
temperature, changed gradually as the stream flowed to the
lower reaches (Table 1). A number of waterfalls and small
cascades existed in the upper reaches of the stream. Cobble
and boulder-sized stones predominated throughout the
sampling sites, although other diverse substrates, including
pebbles, gravel, sand, leaves, mosses, and attached algae,
were found mixed with larger stones. The riparian forest
consisted of a variety of evergreen trees and grasses,
including bamboo, palm, vine, and Carex (Cyperaceae).
Aquatic macrophytes were relatively rare, partially due to
the fact that the sampling season was in late autumn, and
because of other anthropogenic influences. In the middle
and lower stream reaches, drainage areas were affected to a
moderate degree by human influence, including terraced
rice paddies, pastures, roads, and villages.
Aquatic insect fauna
On the basis of quantitative and qualitative sampling, a total
number of 216 species (the majority of which were undescribed) belonging to 139 genera, 61 families, and nine
orders were recognized in the Muonghoa Stream (Appendix
1). Trichoptera (66 species, 30.6%), Ephemeroptera (53

species, 24.5%), and Coleoptera (35 species, 16.2%) constituted the three major aquatic insect groups, and Diptera
(29 species, 13.4%), Plecoptera (15 species, 6.9%), Odonata
(nine species, 4.2%), Hemiptera (seven species, 3.2%),
Megaloptera (one species, 0.5%), and Lepidoptera (one
species, 0.5%) were the taxa (in descending order) in terms
of species richness (Appendix 1).
Ephemeroptera: Ephemeroptera was one of the most
species-rich and abundant aquatic insect groups in the
Muonghoa Stream, and this phenomenon was apparent in
the middle and lower stream reaches. The Leptophlebiidae
were relatively more abundant in the upper stream reach,
whereas Baetidae and Heptageniidae were more abundant
in the middle and lower stream reaches. Epeorus aculatus
and Ecdyonurus cervina (Heptageniidae) were commonly
found throughout the stream reaches. Nigrobaetis sp. 2
(Baetidae) predominated in the lower stream reach.
Potamanthus sp. (Potamanthidae), Vietnamella sp.
(Ephemerellidae), and Caenis sp. (Caeniidae) were rarely
found, and were limited to the lower stream reach. Isonychia formosana (Isonychiidae) was found only at the
lowermost site (site 9).
Odonata: Odonata species and individual numbers were
relatively poorly represented, and no members of this order

123

Limnology (2008) 9:219–229

were found in the upper stream reach (sites 1 and 2).
Gomphidae species were only rarely found in the lower
stream reach. Bayadera sp. (Euphaeidae), Anotogaster sp.

(Cordulegastridae), and Ophiogomphus sp. (Gomphidae)
inhabited the pool areas, whereas Brachythemis sp. 1
(Libellulidae) was found in the riffle areas.
Plecoptera: the majority of Plecoptera species were
found in the upper stream reach (sites 1–4), while Perlidae
was found throughout the sampling sites (sites 1–9).
Togoperla (Perlidae) showed a relatively wider altitudinal
distribution, and Tetropina and Neoperla (Perlidae) were
found in the middle and lower stream reaches, respectively.
Hemiptera: Hemiptera species and individual numbers
were relatively low, and only seven species were found in
the sampling sites. Heleocoris sp. (Naucoridae) and
Aphelocheirus sp. (Aphelocheiridae) were found throughout the sampling sites, whereas a number of immature
Micronecta sp. (Corixidae) individuals were collected in a
pool in the middle stream reach (site 7).
Coleoptera: 35 species of Coleoptera occurred
throughout the entire sampling sites. Elmidae was the most
species-rich taxon of Coleoptera in the Muonghoa Stream,
and members of the family inhabited the riffle areas and
were found on the surfaces of moss-covered cobble and
boulder-sized stones. Scirtidae were found in the upper
stream reach, whereas Psephenidae more richly occurred in
the lower stream reach. Haliplidae, Ptilodactylidae, Dytiscidae, Noteridae, and Lampyridae were rarely found in
restricted habitats.
Megaloptera: only one species of Corydalidae, Protohermes sp., occurred more abundantly in the middle stream
reach.
Diptera: 29 species of Diptera occurred throughout the
sampling sites. Simuliidae dominated in riffle areas in the
uppermost stream site (site 1), and the family also abundantly inhabited the upper stream reach. Chironomidae
were abundantly found throughout the sampling sites, and

Tipulidae and Blephariceridae also occurred abundantly in
the lower stream reach. Few red chironomids were found in
the sampling sites.
Trichoptera: 66 species of Trichoptera in 15 families
occurred throughout the sampling sites. This represented
the highest degree of species richness of aquatic insects in
the stream. They inhabited a wide range of habitats
according to the taxa. Net-spinning caddisflies, including
Cheumatopsyche, Ceratopsyche, and Hydropsyche (Hydropsychidae), were found more abundantly in the riffle
areas of the middle stream reach. Glossosoma sp.
(Glossosomatidae) was also found abundantly in the
middle stream reach. Diplectrona (Hydropsychidae),
Dolophilodes (Philopotamidae), and Psilotreta (Odontoceridae) were found only in the headwater stream sites
(sites 1 and 3).


Limnology (2008) 9:219–229

223

Lepidoptera: only one species of Pyralidae, Parapoynx
sp., occurred in the lower stream reach (sites 6–8).
Community
On the basis of quantitative sampling, three major tropical
aquatic insect groups (Ephemeroptera, 2,541 individuals,
62.7%; Trichoptera, 686 individuals, 16.9%; Coleoptera,
382 individuals, 9.4%) represented 89% of the total individual number of aquatic insects collected from the
sampling sites, whereas the other remaining taxa (Hemiptera, 204 individuals, 5.0%; Plecoptera, 200 individuals,
5.0%; Megaloptera, 19 individuals, 0.5%; Odonata, 18
individuals, 0.5%) contributed to the aquatic insect community to a lesser degree. Quantitative data at each

sampling site (Figs. 2, 3) also indicated that the Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera, and Coleoptera represented almost the
entire aquatic insect communities. In general, the aquatic
insect communities inhabiting the Muonghoa Stream were
dominated by philopotamid larvae (Dolophilodes sp. 1) or
nemourid larvae (Nemoura sp. 2) in the upper stream reach,
as well as baetid mayfly larvae (Nigrobaetis sp. 2) in the
middle and lower stream reaches (Table 2). The riffle
habitats generally yielded larger species and individual
numbers, and higher diversity indices (number of species
33.6 ± 7.2 per 2,500 cm2; individual number 293.9 ±
186.1 per 2,500 cm2; H0 2.58 ± 0.56) than in pool per run
habitats (number of species 21.0 ± 9.8 per 2,500 cm2;
individual number 156.1 ± 128.7 per 2,500 cm2;
H0 1.98 ± 0.68) at most sampling sites (Table 3). The
numbers of species and individuals at each sampling site
were significantly different (P \ 0.01 and P \ 0.05,
respectively) between the habitat types (Table 3). The
dominance indices (DI), richness indices (RI), and diversity
indices (H’) fell within the following ranges
[mean ± standard deviation (SD) 0.18–0.76 (0.42 ± 0.19),
4.13–9.19 (7.06 ± 1.45), and 1.61–3.22 (2.67 ± 0.55)],
respectively (Table 2).
Shredders represented a relatively larger proportion at
the headwater sites (sites 1 and 3) than at the other lower
stream sites, but the proportions themselves remained
rather small (Fig. 4). Scrapers and collector-gatherers were
increasingly abundant in the lower stream reach (sites 4–8).
The first two axes of the DCA ordination accounted
for the majority of the variation in the species data, with
eigenvalues of 0.69 and 0.41 for axes 1 and 2, respectively,

with a total inertia (total variation in the species data) of
3.08. The first axis corresponds to the most important
gradient in the data (Fig. 5). On the basis of the aquatic
insect community data, the sampling sites of Muonghoa
Stream can be separated into two groups (sites 1–3; sites 4–
9) on axis I. The former and latter groups represented high
and mid–low altitude sites, respectively, although site 9 is

Fig. 2 Average number of species of aquatic insects, excluding
Diptera, per Surber sample (2,500 cm2) in the Muonghoa Stream of
Sapa Highland, northern Vietnam

Fig. 3 Average individual number of aquatic insects, excluding
Diptera, per Surber sample (2,500 cm2) in the Muonghoa Stream of
Sapa Highland, northern Vietnam

situated somewhat apart from the other stream sites. Sites 1
and 3, which belonged to stream order I, are apart from
the other sites (sites 2 and 4–9) on axis II. This can be
best explained by general habitat difference between the
headwater sites (sites 1 and 3) and other mainstream
watercourse sites (sites 2 and 4–9) (Table 1). In addition,
site 3 is a tributary stream below site 2, and it represented
the most different species composition from that of all
other stream sites.
The Bray–Curtis similarity matrix indicates that the
middle stream sites, including sites 6 and 8 (63.8%) and
sites 4 and 5 (47.1%) can be grouped relatively closely, but
that the tributary headwater site (site 3) and lowermost site
(site 9) are the most distant (20–24%) from the other sites

(Fig. 6).

Discussion
The biodiversity of aquatic insects in a stream can be
determined by a variety of ecological and environmental
factors on local, basin, and regional scales, including
habitat complexity and biogeographical history (Vinson
and Hawkins 1998; Hoang and Bae 2006). Although the

123


224

Limnology (2008) 9:219–229

Table 2 Average number of species and individual numbers, first and
second dominant species, dominance index (DI), richness index (RI),
and diversity index (H0 ) of aquatic insects, excluding Diptera, per
Site (altitude)

Surber sample (2,500 cm2) in the Muonghoa Stream of Sapa
Highland, northern Vietnam

No. of species No. of individuals First dominant species (%) Second dominant species (%) DI

RI

H0
2.94

St. 1 (2,040 m) 45

346

Dolophilodes sp. 1 (26.9) Zaitzevia sp. 2 (6.9)

0.34

7.53

St. 2 (1,830 m) 42

274

Ecdyonurus cervina (13.5) Labiobaetis sp. 1 (9.5)

0.23

7.30

3.15

St. 3 (1,669 m) 21

127

Nemoura sp. 2 (32.3)

Epeorus aculatus (15.7)

0.48

4.13

2.29

St. 4 (1,358 m) 46
St. 5 (1,250 m) 57

236
444

Nigrobaetis sp. 2 (16.9)
Nigrobaetis sp. 2 (26.1)

Epeorus aculatus (14.4)
Epeorus aculatus (12.8)

0.31
0.39

8.24
9.19

3.08
3.04

St. 6 (928 m)

51

788

Nigrobaetis sp. 2 (50.8)

Ecdyonurus cervina (7.7)

0.59

7.50

2.27

St. 7 (643 m)

48

772

Nigrobaetis sp. 2 (31.5)

Micronecta sp. (22.4)

0.54

7.07

2.44

St. 8 (404 m)

40

864

Nigrobaetis sp. 2 (62.2)

Platybaetis sp. 1 (14.0)

0.76

5.77

1.61

St. 9 (79 m)

37

199

Platybaetis sp. 1 (9.5)

Ceratopsyche sp. 7 (8.0)

0.18

6.80

3.22

Mean ± SD

38.0 ± 10.2

450.0 ± 283.8

Table 3 Comparison of species
and individual numbers of
aquatic insects, excluding
Diptera, per Surber sample
(2,500 cm2) between the riffle
and pool/run habitats in the
Muonghoa Stream of Sapa
Highland, northern Vietnam.
The difference in the
quantitative data between the
riffle and pool/run habitats was
examined by paired t test

Site (altitude)

0.4 ± 0.2 7.1 ± 1.5 2.7 ± 0.6

No. of species
Riffle

Pool/run

Riffle

St. 1 (2,040 m)

37

24

252

94

St. 2 (1,830 m)

37

20

199

75

St. 3 (1,669 m)

20

7

106

21

St. 4 (1,358 m)

27

29

137

99

St. 5 (1,250 m)

39

38

208

236

St. 6 (928 m)

41

20

378

410

St. 7 (643 m)

39

19

551

221

St. 8 (404 m)

27

25

631

233

St. 9 (79 m)

35

7

183

16

Mean ± SD

33.6 ± 7.2

P (n = 9)

\ 0.01

Muonghoa Stream in the Sapa Highland is located within
mainland Southeast Asia, its general environment and
aquatic insect fauna differ from those of typical tropical
streams in Southeast Asia due to its geographical location.
This area is subtropical in terms of latitude, but the
majority of the stream reaches are located within a highland mountain area, with the exception of the lowermost
site (site 9). Because of this, the aquatic insect faunas and
community compositions of the stream evidenced a mixture of temperate and tropical features.
The number of aquatic insect taxa found in the Sapa
Highland (216 species, 139 genera, and 61 families) was
larger than that of Tam Dao National Park in northern
Vietnam (145 species, 127 genera, and 63 families)
(Nguyen et al. 2001) or Bach Ma National Park in central
Vietnam (143 species, 119 genera, and 65 families) (Cao
et al. 2008), but was smaller than that of Dak Pri stream in
southern Vietnam (268 species, 230 genera, and 91 families) (Hoang and Bae 2006). Although these comparisons
were not predicated on the same sampling methods (i.e.,

123

No. of individuals

21.0 ± 9.9

293.9 ± 186.1

Pool/run

156.1 ± 128.7

\ 0.05

spatial and temporal scales and duplicates), the taxa richness of the Sapa Highland was determined to be relatively
larger than has generally been observed in northern Vietnamese streams (e.g., Tam Dao National Park) or Northeast
Asian temperate streams (e.g., Gapyeong stream in Korea)
(Hoang and Bae 2006).
One of the unique features of the aquatic insect fauna of
the Sapa Highland is the high degree of species richness of
Trichoptera (66 species, 30.6%). The numbers of Trichoptera species tend to be generally smaller than those
of Ephemeroptera in other Vietnamese tropical streams
(Nguyen et al. 2001; Cao et al. 2008), but they are relatively larger in the majority of temperate streams (Hoang
and Bae 2006). Mey (2005) demonstrated that Mt. Fansipan and its surrounding highland areas constitute the center
of caddisfly diversity in tropical Southeast Asia.
The Odonata and Hemiptera were found to be less
species-rich than is normally found in southern Vietnamese
tropical streams. In general, the diversity of Odonata is
substantially influenced by temperature and tends to be


Limnology (2008) 9:219–229

Fig. 4 Individual number composition of functional feeding groups
of aquatic insects, excluding Diptera, per Surber sample (2,500 cm2)
in the Muonghoa Stream of Sapa Highland, northern Vietnam

Fig. 5 DCA ordination based on species composition of aquatic
insects, excluding Diptera, sampled from nine study sites in the
Muonghoa Stream of Sapa Highland, northern Vietnam

correlated with vegetation cover in streams (Corbet 1999).
Aquatic macrophytes were poorly developed in the
Muonghoa Stream, which may also explain the generally
low species richness of Odonata. Simuliids were relatively
abundant, particularly in the upper reaches of the stream,
another feature of temperate streams (McCreadie et al.
2005). However, the species richness of Coleoptera, in
particular the Elmidae, was relatively larger than that
normally observed in temperate streams, and this is characteristic of tropical streams (Brown 1981; Hoang and Bae
2006).
Species richness and community compositions were
similar between the sampling sites, with the exception of
the tributary headwater site (site 3) (Fig. 2), whereas

225

Fig. 6 Bray–Curtis similarity diagram of study sites based on species
composition of aquatic insects, excluding Diptera, sampled from nine
study sites in the Muonghoa Stream of Sapa Highland, northern
Vietnam

individual abundance increased with decreasing altitude,
with the exception of the lowermost site (site 9) (Fig. 3).
The relatively smaller number of individuals at the site 9 is
probably attributable to anthropogenic influences from a
nearby town. The riffle habitats yielded approximately
double the species richness, diversity, and individual
abundance than was observed in the pool/run habitats. This
is due primarily to the larger numbers of swimmers (e.g.,
baetid mayflies) and clingers (e.g., heptageniid mayflies
and hydropsychid caddisflies) inhabiting the riffle habitats.
Functional feeding groups (FFGs) of the Muonghoa
Stream differed to some degree from those of other tropical
streams in Southeast Asia, which are influenced by riparian
forests and in-stream environmental conditions, including
substrate compositions and marginal macrophytes. Typical
tropical streams, e.g., the Dak Pri stream in southern
Vietnam (Hoang and Bae 2006), are almost completely
covered by riparian forest, and the substrates are more
heterogeneous, harboring an abundance of leaf packs and
root masses. However, the Muonghoa Stream is generally
open to sunlight and lacks abundant aquatic macrophytes in
the middle and lower stream reaches. Owing to this,
scrapers such as the Heptageniidae, Glossosomatidae, and
Psephenidae were relatively more abundant in the middle
and lower reaches. It remains unclear, however, as to the
manner in which food resources influence aquatic insect
communities, as well as the manner in which the feeding
strategies of tropical aquatic insects differ from those of the
temperate streams (Yule 1996; Motta and Uieda 2004;
Tomanova et al. 2006). According to Tomanova et al.

(2006), the FFG classifications of aquatic insects of neotropical streams are not always congruent with their
congeners inhabiting temperate streams.
The results of DCA indicated that the aquatic insect
communities of Muonghoa Stream are influenced primarily

123


226

by altitudinal differences, along with other environmental
factors, including stream size, current velocity, water
temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), substrate, food
resource, and canopy (see Fig. 5 and Table 1). The Bray–
Curtis similarity diagram (Fig. 6) is also quite reflective of
the habitat characteristics of the middle stream (sites 4 and
5) and lower stream (sites 6, 7 and 8) sites. The communities of the upper stream reaches (sites 1 and 2) and the
tributary and lowermost stream reaches (sites 3 and 9)
differ from those of the middle stream sites, which may
also reflect differing environmental conditions in the
sampling sites.
Acknowledgments This work was supported by a Korea Research
Foundation Grant (KRF-2005-212-C00002).

Appendix 1. Aquatic insect taxa in the Muonghoa
Stream of Sapa Highland, northern Vietnam
Order Ephemeroptera
Family Leptophlebiidae
1. Choroterpes sp. 1
2. Choroterpes sp. 2

3. Choroterpes vittata
4. Habrophlebiodes prominens
5. Isca fascia
6. Isca sp.
7. Thraulus bishopi
8. Thraulus sp.
Family Potamanthidae
9. Potamanthus sp.
Family Ephemeridae
10. Ephemera sp.
Family Ephemerellidae
11. Cincticostella gosei
12. Cincticostella sp.
13. Epharacella sp.
14. Serratella sp.
15. Torleya arenosa
16. Torleya sp. 1
17. Torleya sp. 2
Family Austremerellidae
18. Vietnamella sp.
Family Caenidae
19. Caenis sp.
Family Isonychiidae
20. Isonychia formosana
Family Heptageniidae
21. Afronurus meo
22. Afronurus mnong
23. Epeorus hieroglyphicus
24. Epeorus aculatus

123

Limnology (2008) 9:219–229

25. Epeorus bifurcates
26. Epeorus sp.
27. Ecdyonurus cervina
28. Ecdyonurus landai
29. Ecdyonurus sp. 1
30. Ecdyonurus sp. 2
31. Iron martinus
32. Iron sp.
33. Rhithrogena sp.
34. Rhithrogeniella tonkinensis
35. Rhithrogeniella sp.
Family Baetidae
36. Acentrella sp.
37. Baetiella sp. 1
38. Baetiella sp. 2
39. Baetiella sp. 3
40. Baetiella sp. 4
41. Baetis sp. 1
42. Baetis sp. 2
43. Baetis sp. 3
44. Centroptella sp. 1
45. Centroptella sp. 2
46. Heterocloeon sp. 1
47. Heterocloeon sp. 2
48. Labiobaetis sp. 1
49. Nigrobaetis sp. 1

50. Nigrobaetis sp. 2
51. Platybaetis sp. 1
52. Platybaetis sp. 2
53. Procloeon sp.
Order Odonata
Family Calopterygidae
54. Mnais sp.
55. Neurobasis sp.
Family Euphaeidae
56. Bayadera sp.
57. Euphaea sp.
Family Aeshnidae
58. Aeschnophlebia sp.
Family Cordulegastridae
59. Anotogaster sp.
Family Gomphidae
60. Ophiogomphus sp.
Family Libellulidae
61. Brachythemis sp. 1
62. Brachythemis sp. 2
Order Plecoptera
Family Nemouridae
63. Ampinemura sp.
64. Nemoura sp. 1
65. Nemoura sp. 2
66. Protonemura sp.
67. Sphaeronemoura sp.


Limnology (2008) 9:219–229

Family Leuctridae
68. Perlomyia sp.
69. Rhopalopsole sp.
Family Perlidae
70. Acroneuria sp.
71. Kamimuria sp.
72. Kiotina sp
73. Neoperla sp.
74. Tetropina sp.
75. Togoperla sp. 1
76. Togoperla sp. 2
77. Togoperla sp. 3
Order Hemiptera
Family Naucoridae
78. Heleocoris sp.
Family Aphelocheiridae
79. Aphelocheirus sp.
Family Corixidae
80. Micronecta sp.
Family Helotrephidae
81. Helotrephes sp.
Family Hebridae
82. Hyrcanus sp.
83. Nieserius sp.
Family Gerridae
84. Rhyacobates sp.
Order Coleoptera
Family Gyrinidae
85. Gyretes sp.

86. Gyrinus sp.
Family Haliplidae
87. Haliplus sp.
Family Dytiscidae
88. Hydrovatus sp.
89. Rhantus sp.
Family Hydrophilidae
90. Berosus sp.
91. Enochrus sp.
92. Hydrobius sp.
93. Hydrochara sp.
94. Paracymus sp.
Family Hydraenidae
95. Limnebius sp.
96. Ochthebius sp.
Family Lampyridae
97. Luciola sp.
Family Noteridae
98. Hydrocoptus sp.
Family Sciritidae
99. Cyphon sp.
Family Ptilodactylidae
100. Stenocolus sp.
Family Dryopidae

227

101. Helichus sp.
Family Psephenidae
102. Eubrianax sp. 1

103. Eubrianax sp. 2
104. Psephenoides sp.
105. Psephenus sp.
Family Elmidae
106. Atractelmis sp.
107. Heterlimnius sp.
108. Macronychus sp. 1
109. Macronychus sp. 2
110. Ordobrevia sp.
111. Promoresia sp.
112. Stenelmis sp. 1
113. Stenelmis sp. 2
114. Stenelmis sp. 3
115. Stenelmis sp. 4
116. Zaitzevia sp. 1
117. Zaitzevia sp. 2
118. Zaitzevia sp. 3
119. Zaitzevia sp. 4
Order Megaloptera
Family Corydalidae
120. Protohermes sp.
Order Diptera
Family Tipulidae
121. Antocha sp.
122. Dicranota sp.
123. Hexatoma sp. 1
124. Hexatoma sp. 2
125. Holorusia sp.
126. Limnophila sp.
127. Tipula sp. 1

128. Tipula sp. 2
129. Tipula sp. 3
Family Blephariceridae
130. Blepharicera sp.
131. Philorus sp.
Family Psychodidae
132. Pericoma sp.
Family Simuliidae
133. Prosimulium sp.
134. Simulium sp.
Family Ceratopogonidae
135. Bezzia sp.
Family Chironomidae
136. Chironominae sp. 1
137. Chironominae sp. 2
138. Chironominae sp. 3
139. Chironominae sp. 4
140. Chironominae sp. 5
141. Chironominae sp. 6
142. Chironominae sp. 7

123


228

143. Chironominae sp. 8
144. Orthocladiinae sp.
145. Tanypodinae sp. 1
146. Tanypodinae sp. 2

Family Empididae
147. Hemerodromia sp.
Family Tabanidae
148. Tabanus sp. 1
149. Tabanus sp. 2
Order Trichoptera
Family Ecnomidae
150. Ecnomus sp.
Family Hydropsychidae
151. Amphipsyche sp.
152. Arctopsyche sp. 1
153. Arctopsyche sp. 2
154. Arctopsyche sp. 3
155. Ceratopsyche sp. 1
156. Ceratopsyche sp. 2
157. Ceratopsyche sp. 3
158. Ceratopsyche sp. 4
159. Ceratopsyche sp. 5
160. Ceratopsyche sp. 6
161. Ceratopsyche sp. 7
162. Ceratopsyche sp. 8
163. Ceratopsyche sp. 9
164. Cheumatopsyche sp. 1
165. Cheumatopsyche sp. 2
166. Cheumatopsyche sp. 3
167. Cheumatopsyche sp. 4
168. Diplectrona sp.
169. Hydropsyche sp. 1
170. Hydropsyche sp. 2
171. Hydropsyche sp. 3

172. Hydropsyche sp. 4
173. Hydropsyche sp. 5
174. Hydropsyche sp. 6
175. Hydatomaicus sp.
176. Hydromanicus sp. 1
177. Hydromanicus sp. 2
178. Macrostemum sp.
179. Parapsyche sp. 1
180. Parapsyche sp. 2
181. Potamyia sp. 1
182. Potamyia sp. 2
183. Trichomacronema sp.
Family Polycentropodidae
184. Neureclipsis sp.
185. Plectrocnemia sp. 1
186. Plectrocnemia sp. 2
187. Polycentropus sp.
Family Psychomyiidae
188. Lype sp.

123

Limnology (2008) 9:219–229

189. Psychomyia sp. 1
190. Psychomyia sp. 2
191. Tinodes sp.
Family Philopotamidae
192. Chimarra sp. 1
193. Chimarra sp. 2

194. Dolophilodes sp. 1
195. Dolophilodes sp. 2
196. Wormaldia sp.
Family Stenopsychidae
197. Stenopsyche ulmeri
198. Stenopsyche sp.
Family Glossosomatidae
199. Glossosoma sp.
Family Hydroptilidae
200. Hydroptila sp.
201. Orthotrichia sp.
Family Rhyacophilidae
202. Himalopsyche sp.
203. Rhyacophila sp. 1
204. Rhyacophila sp. 2
205. Rhyacophila sp. 3
Family Hydrobiosidae
206. Apsilochorema sp.
Family Limnephilidae
207. Goera sp.
208. Moselyana sp.
Family Brachycentridae
209. Micrasema sp.
Family Lepidostomatidae
210. Lepidostoma sp. 1
211. Lepidostoma sp. 2
Family Odontoceridae
212. Psilotreta sp. 1
213. Psilotreta sp. 2
Family Leptoceridae

214. Ceraclea sp.
215. Triplectides sp.
Order Lepidoptera
Family Pyralidae
216. Parapoynx sp.

References
Bray JR, Curtis JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest
communities of Southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 27:325–349
Brown HP (1981) A distributional survey of the world genera of
aquatic dryopoid beetles (Coleoptera: Dryopoidae, Elmidae, and
Psephenidae sens. alt.). Pan-Pac Entomol 57:133–148
Cao TKT, Ham SA, Bae YJ (2007) Description of three new species
of Neoperla (Plecoptera: Perlidae) and a historical review of
tropical Southeast Asian Perlidae. Zootaxa 1435:41–54
Cao TKT, Nguyen VV, Bae YJ (2008) Aquatic insect fauna of Bach
Ma National Park in Thua Thien, Hue Province, Vietnam. In:


Limnology (2008) 9:219–229
Wang XH (ed) Proceedings of the 3rd symposium of aquatic
entomology in East Asia, The Chinese Society of Aquatic
Entomology, Tianjin, China, in press
Corbet PS (1999) Dragonflies: behavior and ecology of Odonata.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 179–206
Craig DA (1987) Some of what you should know about water. Bull
North Am Benthol Soc 4:178–182
Dudgeon D (1999) Tropical Asian streams. Zoobenthos, ecology and
conservation. Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong
Hill MO, Gauch HG (1980) Detrended correspondence analysis: an

improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42:47–58
Hoang DH, Bae YJ (2005) New records of Psychomyiidae (Insecta:
Trichoptera) from Vietnam. Korean J Syst Zool 21:273–279
Hoang DH, Bae YJ (2006) Aquatic insect diversity in a tropical
Vietnamese stream in comparison with that in a temperate
Korean stream. Limnology 7:45–55
Kawai T, Tanida K (eds) (2005) Aquatic insects of Japan: manual
with keys and illustrations. Tokai University Press, Kanagawa
McCreadie JW, Adler PH, Hamada N (2005) Patterns of species
richness for blackflies (Diptera: Simuliidae) in the Nearctic and
Neotropical regions. Ecol Entomol 30:201–209
Merritt RW, Cummins KW (eds) (1996) An introduction to the aquatic
insects of North America, 3rd edn. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque
Mey W (2005) The Fang Si Pan Massif in North Vietnam—Toward a
reference locality for Trichoptera in SE Asia. In: Tanida K,
Rossiter A (eds) Proceedings of the 11th international symposium
on Trichoptera, Tokai University Press, Kanagawa, pp 273–284
Morse JC, Yang L, Tian L (eds) (1994) Aquatic insects of China
useful for monitoring water quality. Hohai University Press,
Nanjing
Motta RL, Uieda VS (2004) Diet and trophic groups of an aquatic
insect community in a tropical stream. Braz J Biol 64:809–817

229
Nguyen VV, Hoang DH, Cao TKT, Nguyen XQ, Bae YJ (2001)
Altitudinal distribution of aquatic insects from Tam Dao
National Park in northern Vietnam. In: Bae YJ (ed) The 21st
century and aquatic entomology in East Asia. Jeonghaengsa,
Seoul, pp 123–133
Nguyen VV, Bae YJ (2004) Descriptions of Rhoenanthus sapa, new

species, and larval stage of R. magnificus Ulmer (Ephemeroptera: Potamanthidae) from Vietnam. Aquat Ins 26:9–17
Nguyen NT, Harder DK (1996) Diversity of the flora of Fan Si Pan,
the highest mountain in Vietnam. Ann Mo Bot Gard 83:404–408
Sangpradub N, Boonsoong B (2004) Identification of freshwater
invertebrates of the Mekong River and tributaries. Mekong River
Commission, Khon Kaen
Smith RL, Smith TM (2001) Ecology and field biology, 6th edn.
Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco
Tomanova S, Goitia E, Helesˇic J (2006) Trophic levels and functional
feeding groups of macroinvertebrates in neotropical stream.
Hydrobiologia 556:251–264
Vinson MR, Hawkins CP (1998) Biodeversity of stream insects:
variation at local, basin, and regional scales. Annu Rev Entomol
43:271–293
Wiederholm T (ed) (1983) Chironomidae of the Holarctic region.
Keys and diagnoses. Part 1—Larvae. Entomol Scand Suppl 9:1–
457
Wiggins GB (1996) Larvae of the North American caddisfly genera
(Trichoptera), 2nd edn. University of Toronto Press, Toronto
Yoon IB (1995) Aquatic insects of Korea. Jeonghaengsa, Seoul
Yule CM (1996) Trophic relationships and food webs of the benthic
invertebrate fauna of two aseasonal tropical streams on Bougainville Island, Papua New Guinea. J Trop Ecol 12:517–534

123