the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 18 Nov 2024
Non-biting midges (Chironomidae) as a proxy for summer temperatures during the post-Holsteinian (MIS 11b) – a central European perspective
Abstract. Climatic and environmental changes during past interglacial periods can be investigated to improve our understanding of mechanisms governing the changes which are currently observed. Numerous proxies might be utilised to reconstruct various environmental parameters. For instance, pollen analysis indicates changes in vegetation as well as winter temperature fluctuations, while Chironomidae larvae head capsules are widely used to recreate summer thermal conditions. Non-biting midges remains indicate trophy and pH of water bodies as well. Nevertheless, they have been used mostly in the studies of the Holocene with hardly any Chironomid-inferred temperature reconstructions conducted for MIS 11 period. In this study we present the first quantitative summer temperature reconstruction for the post-Holsteinian (Marine Isotope Stage – MIS 11b) in Central Europe based on the analysis of fossil chironomid remains preserved in palaeolake sediments recovered at Krępa, southeastern Poland. The stratigraphic context for the chironomid-based summer temperature reconstruction is provided by pollen data, together allowing to compare our results in the context of climate development at the end of the Holsteinian Interglacial. Chironomidae assemblages at the Krępa site consist mainly of oligotrophic and mesotrophic species (e.g Corynocera ambigua-type, Chironomus anthracinus-type) with lower abundance of eutrophic species (e.g. Chironomus plumosus-type). The chironomid-based summer temperature reconstruction indicates July temperature ranging between 15,3 ॰C and 20,1 ॰C during the early post-Holsteinian. Temperature changes during the first stadial after the Holstein Interglacial period are also reflected by the pollen data, which, however, show a certain delay compared to the chironomids. In any case, results from Krępa prove that conducting Chironomidae analysis is even feasible for periods as early as the mid-Pleistocene, enhancing our understanding of the mechanisms that control present-day climatic and environmental changes. The additional element of this research is indicating sites within the Polish borders that were investigated so far – mostly on the basis of pollen analysis, occasionally Cladocera, isotopes, etc. – and might be new objects of studies based on Chironomid-inferred temperature reconstructions. However, bringing Chironomid analysis with particular emphasis of challenges of conducting it with the use of sediments older than Holocene is the primary aim of this publication. Data from the MIS 11 complex are unique. There are only 4 sites with pre-Late Glacial chironomid-based summer temperature reconstructions in Europe.
- Preprint
(1788 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(415 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 13 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3129', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Dec 2024
reply
The manuscript by Polkowski et al. presents results of chironomid-inferred temperature reconstruction and vegetation changes during the Holsteinian interglacial from a site located in Poland (Krepa). The authors also present a literature review of sites covering the Holsteinian in Poland. The authors discuss in details the possible reasons of poor preservation or absence of chironomid remains in different parts of theirrecord. Because chironomid-inferred temperature reconstructions are rare during this period, the results of the manuscript are valuable for the community. However, I have comments that should be discussed before acceptance of the manuscript for publication in Climate of the Past.
Main comments
- Right now, I am a bit sceptical about the chironomid inferred temperature reconstruction. First, the low concentration of chironomid remains makes it hard to reach 50 chironomid per sample. I understand that you merged some adjacent samples to reach higher numbers of chironomids but I think it would be very useful to indicate in Table 2 the number of chironomids in all the samples used for the temperature reconstruction since even after merging some samples still didn’t reach 50 head capsules. Also, I don’t understand why you decided to keep the sample at 1000 cm (see line 291) since this sample is surrounded by other samples and therefore could be merged. Finally, I don’t understand how you get 15 samples (see line 297) after merging since you write that 5 samples had at least 50 chironomids, 7 samples were merged and you kept the sample at 1000 cm alone: this is 13 samples and not 15. And in Figure 4, I only see 14 dots (which I assume are the samples) on the temperature reconstruction curve. This issue should be solved because at the it is confusing for the reader.
- I find it difficult, at the moment, to understand the relevance of the literature review of polish sites covering the Holsteinian interglacial since you do not use these sites in the discussion of your results. I understand that you made a literature review to show the readers that these sites could also be used in the future in the context of chironomid studies but it would be interesting to compare the results of some of these sites that looked at pollen or diatoms, molluscs or other aquatic indicators with the results (chironomid, pollen) you present for your study site. You could also add, in Supplement Table 2, the proxies analysed for each of the sites.
- I would suggest to work on the discussion because, at the moment, most of your interpretations are often not supported by any other publications. I would suggest trying to find publications supporting your interpretations especially in the section “1.2 Summer temperature and ecological reconstructions based on Chironomids from the Krępa site in relation to environmental change” which is very interesting. I would also suggest using more the pollen in the discussion as, if I understood correctly, these results are not published yet. It would be interesting to compare the vegetation changes at Krepa with other know records.
- I don’t see the relevance of the section “1.1 Possible difficulties in climate reconstruction based on Chironomidae analysis during past interglacials” in the discussion. I understand that you want to show possible explanations for the low concentrations, or absencechironomids in some parts of your record. However, you don’t really make the link with your chironomid assemblages. In this section you mention species/morphotypes that are not present in your chironomid record, so they should probably not be mentioned there.Also, most of the studies you cite in this section worked with specific species so you should not write “-type” after the species names. My suggestion would be to restructure this section to discuss the possible causes of absence of chironomids in some parts of your record, which is very interesting, by linking them with your actual results.
- I would suggest to work on the writing as it is sometimes difficult to understand what you want to say. You also sometimes use the wrong words such as “recreate” instead of “reconstruct”. Also please pay attention on the writing of Chironomidae, which should not be written in italic, and the morphotype/species spelling. The morphotypes should always be written with “-type”, which should not be in italic, and when you are referring to individual species don’t add “-type” after the species name.
Other specific comments
Line 1: don’t write Chironomidae in italic but in regular font as it is a family name and family names are written in regular font.
Line 19: “utilised” → used
Line 21: “Chironomidae” should not be written in italic as it is a family name but in the regular form “Chironomidae”. Please change it throughout the manuscript.
Line 21: “recreate summer thermal conditions” → reconstruct past summer air temperatures or infer past summer air temperatures.
Line 22: “Non-biting midges remains indicate trophy and pH of water bodies as well.” → Chironomid remains can also indicate changes in the trophic state or pH of water bodies.
Line 23: “MIS 11 period” → the MIS 11 period
Lines 26-28: “The stratigraphic context for the chironomid-based summer temperature reconstruction is provided by pollen data, together allowing to compare our results in the context of climate development at the end of the Holsteinian Interglacial.” → Please reformulate this sentence to make it easier to understand.
Line 28: “species” → taxa. If you are talking about morphotypes you can not write species as several species can represent each morphotype. See also line 29.
Line 29: “e.g” → e.g.
Line 29: “Corynocera ambigua-type” → Corynocera ambigua. This one is not a morphotype but rather a species as indicated in the different training set available.
Line 29: “Chironomus anthracinus-type” → Chironomus anthracinus-type. The “-type” should not be formatted in italic but in regular font. This is the case for all the morphotypes. Please change this issue throughout the text.
Line 30: “July temperature” → July air temperature.
Line 30: “15,3 °C” → 15.3 °C. In English the decimals should be indicated with a dot and not a comma. Please change this throughout the manuscript. See also line 31.
Line 33: remove “even”.
Lines 34-37: “The additional element of this research is indicating sites within the Polish borders that were investigated so far - mostly on the basis of pollen analysis, occasionally Cladocera, isotopes, etc. - and might be new objects of studies based on Chironomid-inferred temperature reconstructions.” → Please reformulate this sentence to make it easier to understand and precise which time interval was investigated in these sites.
Line 37: “Chironomid” → chironomid. Please write chironomid without capital letter and check throughout the manuscript.
Line 37: “of challenges of” → on
Line 42: “participation” → influence
Lines 44-46: “various scientific disciplines from the establishment of the boundary of the unit through the scale of human influence on the functioning of the natural environment in the Holocene throughout all scales starting from micro, through regional to global (Brondizio et al., 2016).” → Please reformulate this sentence.
Line 47: “has” → is
Line 48: “i.a.” → i.e. Please check the spelling throughout the manuscript.
Line 49: “etc.” → remove
Line 50: “climatic conditions change” → climatic condition changes
Line 52: “water table depth” → water depth
Line 54: “is a reconstruction tool for ocean pH” → can be used to reconstruct pH in the ocean
Line 55: “vegetation migration” → remove migration
Line 55: “can be used” → and can be used
Line 56: “the activities of a human in the past” → past human activities
Line 58: “Chironomidae remnants analysis allows the assessment of the water reservoir trophy and pH as well.” → The analysis of chironomid remains also allows the assessment of the trophic state or pH of freshwater ecosystems.
Lines 61-63: “However, these reconstructions are not capable of giving unequivocal information about exact air temperature changes nor whether these changes and their pace are induced by natural causes or human activity” → Please rephrase this sentence.
Line 67: “Northern Europe” → Please be consistent in the spelling of Northern Europe throughout the manuscript. See Line 75 “northern Europe”.
Line 75: “southern European” → “southern Europe”
Line 82: “In this research” → In the present study
Line 83: “(Eggermont and Heiri, 2012)” → Here I would cite other references as examples of temperature reconstructions based on chironomids. For example: Bolland et al., 2021; Engels et al., 2008; Ilyashuk et al., 2022; Rigterink et al., 2024...
Line 84: “recreate” → “reconstruct
Line 90: “Nowiny Żukowskie site” → Here I would specify the location of the site by at least mentioning the country
Lines 93-94: “One of the exceptions is Hoxne site in eastern England (Horne et al., 2023).” → Here I would give more information about this study as it is covering the MIS 11 like your site. You could, for example, specify that they also did a temperature reconstruction based on chironomid.
Lines 97-98: “We tested temperature reconstruction using the Swiss-Norwegian-Polish Training Set and presented the first Chironomid-inferred temperature reconstruction from Poland before the Last Glacial Period and even for the post-Holsteinian.” → Here we present the first chironomid-inferred July air temperature from Poland for the post-Holsteinian.
Line 104: “quaternary” → Quaternary
Line 112: “The research covered sites located in Poland. Holsteinian (Mazovian) Interglacial has been included.” → The research included sites located in Poland and covering the Holsteinian (Mazovian) interglacial
Line 114: “several sites located in western half of the country” → several sites located in the western half of the country
Line 114: “area contained between” → remove “contained”
Line 115: “The sites’ locations were” → The sites’ location are
Line 117: “– it” → and therefore
Lines 117-118: “location estimation tools” → What are these tools?
Line 121: “Supplement Figure 2” → Supplement Figure 1”
Line 122: “Glaciation ranges based” → Glaciation ranges are based
Line 133: “while modern distribution limits of these taxa are located estimated further to the west” → remove “located”
Line 152: “146 m amsl.” → 146 m asl
Line 160: In this section “2.4” you already interpret the sediment of your site which does not really fit in the section “2. Data and methods” section. You could maybe add a paragraph in section “3. Results and interpretation” for the interpretation of the sediment?
Lines 161-187: In this section it would help to better link the first and second paragraph to better understand your interpretations of the sediment. For example: Because of the presence of laminated sandy silts and sandy-clayey silts the unit 2 is interpreted as a result of glaciolimnic sedimentation in a relatively shallow water body...
Lines 171-173: “The sediments of unit 2 are interpreted as the result of glaciolimnic sedimentation in a relatively shallow water body between blocks of dead ice during the recession of the Elsterian glacier. The glaciolimnic sediments gradually pass into limnic sediments (unit 3), which are interpreted to be deposited in the profundal of an already relatively deep lake.” → Did you take in consideration in your interpretation of the chironomid results these possible changes in water depth? This could have a strong influence on the chironomid assemblages and could potentially explain why sometimes the concentration of chironomids is very low or even you don’t find any chironomids in your samples.
Line 190: In the section “2.5 Pollen analysis” please indicate the number of pollen samples analysed, the volume of sediment analysed and the batch number and number of Lycopodium spores per tablets that you used. It would also be good to indicate which identification keys/books were used if the pollen data are not already published which I assume is the case since you do not refer to any publications. It would also be good to indicated how the Local Pollen Assemblage Zones were determined. Did you use any statistics (optimal sum of squares partitioning, broken stick model) to divide the pollen record into zones? Also, if you did numerical analyses please indicate which software was used.
Line 198: “in a shortened pollen diagram” → in a simplified pollen diagram
Line 201: “The Holsteinian (Mazovian) commences” → The Holsteinian (Mazovian) starts
Line 205: In the section “2.6 Chironomidae analysis” please indicate the number of samples analysed. How did you measure the volume of your samples? And why are you writing “approximately 1 cm3? As it seems that the chironomid remains in your samples were often damaged I think it would be good to specify how you counted them (halves, presence/absence of mandibles...). As you are dealing with very old chironomid remains, I think it would be valuable to add a plate with pictures of the main chironomid taxa present in your samples. Please indicate what was the KOH concentration used and how long did you leave your samples in heated KOH. Also indicate why you used a 212 μm and if at then end you combined the chironomid remains present in the 212 and 100 μm fractions. Please also indicate which microscope and which magnification was used for the identification of chironomid remains. I don’t think Brooks et al. (2007) is the best reference to find the ecological preferences of chironomid taxa. I would probably also look in other references such as Saether (1979), Brundin (1949), Brodin (1986), Janececk et al. (2017)...
Line 209: “stereo binocular microscope” → stereomicroscope
Line 210: “followed by” → followed
Line 214: In the section “2.7 Mean July air temperature reconstruction” please indicate why you chose the Swiss-Norwegian-Polish training set and not other available training sets (Finnish, Russian, Swiss-Norwegian)? I assume it is probably because it contains lakes from Poland but it I think it would be good to specify it. Also did you calculated the nearest modern analogues for each of your fossil samples? And the goodness of fit? If so it would be good to mention it here as well as the software used for that. If not, I would recommend to calculate these diagnostic statistics that you could show in the Supplementary material (see Bolland et al., 2021). In this section it would also probably be good to mention how many samples (after merging) were used for the temperature reconstruction, as well as how the samples were merged.
Line 219: Please indicate the version of the software
Line 224: Please also mention the chironomids in the caption of the table. For the column dealing with the chironomids you could write: “Main features in the chironomid record” or replace “significant” with “significance”. Please also indicate the unit of the depth column.
Line 237-238: “Assemblages could indicate a deterioration of environmental conditions (Chironomus anthracinus-type and Corynocera ambigua-type).” → Could you explain your interpretation in more details and link it to other publications?
Lines 239-240: “contains mainly cold-adapted and freeze-resistant species like Corynocera ambigua-type, Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type, which are often associated with algae and diatoms or mine leaves (Tarkowska-Kukuryk, 2014).” → Actually, Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type are often associated with relatively warm conditions (Heiri et al., 2011; Nazarova et al., 2015; Luoto, 2009; Kotrys et al., 2020).
Lines 241-242: “LPAZ KR-12c (1022.5-1072.5 cm) is characterized by species highly resistant to difficult environmental conditions, i.a. Chironomus anthracinus-type, Corynocera ambigua-type and Glyptotendipes pallens-type.” → Please provide references to other publications to support your interpretation.
Lines 243-246: “During LPAZ KR-13b (877.5-244 967.5 cm) the number of Chironomidae gradually increased with indicators of progressive eutrophication (e.g. Chironomus plumosus-type and Dicrotendipes nervosus-type (Iwakuma and Yasuno, 1981)) and cold oligotrophic but post-eutrophic environments (Corynocera ambigua-type)(Brooks et al., 2007) occurring more frequently.” → I would suggest to reformulate this sentence as it is hard to understand what you want to say here. Is there an increase of taxa indicator of eutrophication and then, after, an increase of oligotrophic indicators? Or they both increase at the same time?
Line 254: “inhabiting shallow Arctic” → inhabiting shallow arctic.
Lines 279-282: “Both Chironomus anthracinus-type and Corynocera ambigua-type are species found in stratified lakes (e.g., Saether, 1979; Heiri, 2004). As we can see, both species can be called resistant to unfavorable environmental conditions. They have a fairly wide range of conditions in which they occur today and can even withstand long periods of anaerobic conditions in lake reservoirs.” → Please provide a reference to a publication explaining that Corynocera ambigua is tolerant to anaerobic conditions.
Line 290: “Chironomidae subfossil larvae were obtained from a total of 30 samples from the lacustrine sediments.” → Please specify the sedimentary units of the samples.
Lines 290-291: “Samples that contained significantly fewer than 50 head capsules were merged except for a solitary sample at 1000 cm core depth.” → Please explain why you kept a solitary sample at 100 cm. Because to me it seems that this sample is surrounded by other samples on the diagram of Figure 4 and therefore could have merged with other samples.
Lines 294-295: “were included in the reconstruction because the test of the reconstruction showed acceptable results.” → Please which test did you perform.
Lines 296-297: “After merging, the total number of samples used for the Tjul reconstruction was 15.” → From your explanation just above, I understood that you used 5 samples with sufficient amount of chironomids, 7 merged samples and 1 solitary sample to calculate the temperature reconstruction. And these are 13 samples, not 15. Please modify the text where it is necessary.
Line 310: “(MinDC”) → How did you calculate the dissimilarity? Please indicate that in the section “2.7 Mean July air temperature reconstruction”
Lines 325-326: “to reconstruct the average July palaeotemperature quantitatively” → to quantitatively reconstruct July air temperature.
Line 326: “the trophy of the reservoir” → the trophic state of the reservoir.
Line 327: “Training sets were also created” → Training sets are also available.
Lines 453-545: “These data indicate that summer temperature maximum during the post-Holsteinian period was even slightly higher than indicated in the Polish training set (17-20°C)(Kotrys et al., 2020).” → Please reformulate this sentence as it is unclear to me what you want to say.
Lines 470-472: “Considering the dominance of herbs and dwarf shrubs in the pollen spectrum, the limiting factor for the development of forest communities was more likely connected to low winter temperatures as summer temperatures were still relatively high. → Please develop your interpretation and support it with other publications.
Line 474: “In the following” → Following zone?
Lines 480-481: “Summer temperatures during this period reached only 15°C, but the limiting factor for vegetation development still remained the winter temperatures.” → Here again I would suggest developing your interpretation and refer to other publications.
Line 482: “being equivalent” → corresponding
Lines 483-484: “As the pollen record during stadials is mostly controlled by wind-pollinated overproducers such as Poaceae and the long-distance transport of tree pollen (mostly Pinus)” → Here you need a reference.
Figures and Tables
Figure 2: I don’t understand what “Clay, Silt, Sand, Gravel” at the bottom of the figure represent. Also, there is no unit for the numbers between the units and the sediment profile. I assume the unit is meters but I think it should be indicated on the figure. “glaciolimnic sedimentation” at the top of the figure → Glaciolimnic sedimentation with a capital “G” to be consistent with the other sediment types.
Table 1: Depth of KR-4 is overlapping with depth of KR-3. I suggest to add a column specifying the Marine Isotope Stage of each Local Pollen Assemblage Zone. What is the difference between “No Chironomidae” and “No individuals of Chironomidae”? Please specify it, in the caption of the table, if there is a difference. Please check the writing of the depths (the decimals should be indicated with a dot and not a comma in English): see for example “KR-8 1497,5 – 1647.5”. For LAPZ KR-12b, I would suggest to change “high contents of Chironomus anthracinus-type” to “relatively high abundances of Chironomus anthracinus-type”. Also for the same LAPZ you probably forgot words in the second sentence describing the Chironomidae: “The number of Glyptotendipes pallens-type and Glyptotendipes severini-type.” For LAPZ KR-13a, you write that “on average 450 individuals per sample” but in the Figure 4 the maximum sum of chironomid in samples is around 80. Why is that? I would also suggest condensing the table because it is on 9 pages now. You could, for example, reduce the space between each LAPZ and shorten the description of the pollen results.
Figure 3: I think it would be good to have a horizontal line (or dotted line) on the diagram for each zones so that it is easier for the reader to see the differences between the zones. For the lithology it would probably be good to followed the same code as in Figure 2. Please specify the type of spores shown in the diagram (Fern? Fungal?). Please also write the unit of the different pollen types, which I assume is percentage, and for Pediastrum (number of remains?). If possible, it would be good to specify what is included in “Other thermophilic”, “Other AP”, “Other NAP”.
Table 2: I would suggest to add the number of chironomids per sample in the table so that the readers know which samples might be problematic because they have “too low” numbers of chironomids.
Figure 4: Why the chironomids from LAPZ-14 are not shown on the diagram? Based on Table 1, the abundance of chironomids is very low in this zone but you still found two Chironomus plumosus-type so I think it would be good to also show them on the diagram. Also, in this figure the y axis unit is in meters whereas it is in centimeters in Figure 3 and in Table 2. Please be consistent in all figures and tables. Add “Chironomid diagram” in the caption of the figure as you also show the abundances of chironomid and not only the temperature reconstruction. Please indicate what the grey bars indicate on the temperature reconstruction curve (I assume they are the errors?). I would suggest, if possible, to have a better quality of the figure because when zooming on it the names become a bit fuzzy. Please specify the units of the x axes (percentages, counts, °C). “sume” → “Sum” or “Total chironomids”. Please also mention and explain what “MJAT °C” in the text or in the caption of the figure.
Supplement table 2: Why are some references in brackets? See for example “Barkowice Mokre”.
References
Bolland, A., Kern, O.A., Allstädt, F.J., Peteet, D., Koutsodendris, A., Pross, J., Heiri, O., 2021. Summer temperatures during the last glaciation (MIS 5c to MIS 3) inferred from a 50,000-year chironomid record from Füramoos, southern Germany. Quat. Sci. Rev. 264, 107008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2021.107008.
Brodin, Y. W. (1986). The postglacial history of Lake Flarken, southern Sweden, interpreted from subfossil insect remains. Internationale Revue der Gesamten Hydrobiologie und Hydrographie, 71(3), 371-432. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.19860710313.
Brundin, L., 1949. Chironomiden und andere Bodentiere der südschwedischen Urgebirgsseen: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der bodenfaunistischen Charakterzüge schwedischer oligotropher Seen. In: Carl Blom, Lund (Eds.), Intitut of Freshwater Research, Drottningholm.
Engels, S., Bohncke, S.J.P., Bos, J.A.A., Brooks, S.J., Heiri, O., Helmens, K.F., 2008. Chironomid-based palaeotemperature estimates for northeast Finland during oxygen isotope stage 3. J. Paleolimnol. 40, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10933-007-9133-y.
Heiri, O., Brooks, S.J., Birks, H.J.B., Lotter, A.F., 2011. A 274-lake calibration data-set and inference model for chironomid-based summer air temperature reconstruction in Europe. Quat. Sci. Rev. 30, 3445–3456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.09.006.
Ilyashuk, E.A., Ilyashuk, B.P., Heiri, O., Spötl, C., 2022. Summer temperatures and environmental dynamics during the middle würmian (MIS 3) in the eastern Alps: multi-proxy records from the Unterangerberg palaeolake, Austria. Quat. Sci. Adv. 6, 100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qsa.2022.100050.
Janecek, B., Moog, O., Orendt, C., 2017. Diptera: chironomidae (Non-Biting midges). In: Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, p. 111p. Wien, Austria.
Kotrys, B., Płóciennik, M., Sydor, P., and Brooks, S. J.: Expanding the Swiss-Norwegian chironomid training set with Polish data, Boreas, 49, 89–107, https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12406, 2020.
Luoto, T.P., 2009. Subfossil Chironomidae (Insecta: Diptera) along a latitudinal gradient in Finland: development of a new temperature inference model. J. Quat. Sci. 24, 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.1191.
Nazarova, L., Self, A.E., Brooks, S.J., van Hardenbroek, M., Herzschuh, U., Diekmann, B., 2015. Northern Russian chironomid-based modern summer temperature data set and inference models. Global Planet. Change 134, 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2014.11.015.
Rigterink, S., Krahn, K. J., Kotrys, B., Urban, B., Heiri, O., Turner, F., Pannes, A., and Schwalb, A.: Summer temperatures from the Middle Pleistocene site Schöningen 13 II, northern Germany, determined from subfossil chironomid assemblages, Boreas, bor.12658, https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.12658, 2024.
Sæther, O.A., 1979. Chironomid communities as water quality indicators. Holarct. Ecol. 2, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1979.tb00683.x.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3129-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 162 | 22 | 10 | 194 | 15 | 3 | 1 |
- HTML: 162
- PDF: 22
- XML: 10
- Total: 194
- Supplement: 15
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 1
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1