Journal of Ecology and Environment

The Ecological Society of Korea (한국생태학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Biological assessment of streams and rivers in U.S. - design, methods, and analysis

  • Received : 2013.03.04
  • Accepted : 2013.03.17
  • Published : 2013.03.27
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Bioassessment is the use of biosurvey data, most commonly for benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, to obtain information about the health of waters in a region. In rivers, bioassessment results are used to evaluate biological condition and trends, to establish relationships between stressors and impairments, and to guide and evaluate management actions.

Keywords

References

  1. Angradi TR, Bolgrien DW, Jicha TM, Pearson MS, B.H. Hill, Taylor DL, Schweiger EW, Shepard L, Batterman AR and Moffett MF et al. 2009. A bioassessment approach for mid-continent great rivers: the Upper Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio (USA). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 152: 425-442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0327-1
  2. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, and Stribling JB. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.
  3. Cao Y. and Hawkins CP. 2011. The comparability of bioassessments: a review of conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 30(3):680-701. https://doi.org/10.1899/10-067.1
  4. Davies SP, and Jackson SK. 2006. The biological condition gradient: a descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications 16:12511266.
  5. Diamond J, Stribling JR, Huff L, Gilliam J. 2012. An approach for determining bioassessment performance and comparability Environ Monit Assess 184:2247-2260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-011-2114-7
  6. Flotemersch JE, Stribling JB, and Paul MJ. 2006. Concepts and Approaches for the Bioassessment of Non-wadeable Streams and Rivers. EPA 600-R-06-127. US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
  7. Frimpong EA and Angermeier PL. 2010. Comparative Utility of Selected Frameworks for Regionalizing Fish-Based Bioassessments across the United States, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139(6):1872-1895 https://doi.org/10.1577/T09-142.1
  8. Hawkins CP. 2012. Use of RIVPACS, a multi-taxon niche model, to assess the condition of macroinvertebrate assemblages in aquatic ecosystems. Korean Journal of Limnology (in press).
  9. Herlihy AT, Paulsen SG, Van Sickle J, Stoddard JL, Hawkins CP and Yuan LL. 2008. Striving for consistency in a national assessment: the challenges of applying a reference-condition approach at a continental scale. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27(4):860-877. https://doi.org/10.1899/08-081.1
  10. Hitt NP and Angermeier PL. 2011. Fish community and bioassessment responses to stream network position. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 30(1):296-309. https://doi.org/10.1899/09-155.1
  11. Hughes RM and Peck DV. 2008. Acquiring data for large aquatic resource surveys: the art of compromise among science, logistics, and reality. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27:837–859. https://doi.org/10.1899/08-028.1
  12. Karr JR, and Chu EW. 1999. Restoring life in running waters: better biological monitoring. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  13. Moulton II, SR, Kennen JG, Goldstein RM, and Hambrook JA. 2002. Revised Protocols for Sampling Algal, Invertebrate, and Fish Communities as Part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 02-150, Reston, VA. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/ofr-02-150/pdf/ofr02-150.pdf
  14. Paulsen SG, Mayio A, Peck DV, Stoddard JL, Tarquinio E, Holdsworth SM, Van Sickle J, Yuan LL, Hawkins CP, Herlihy AT, Kaufmann PR, Barbour MT, Larsen DP and Olsen AR. 2008. Condition of stream ecosystems in the US: an overview of the first national assessment. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27:812-821 https://doi.org/10.1899/08-098.1
  15. Pilgrim EM, Jackson SA, Swenson S, Turcsanyi I, Friedman E, Weigt L, and Bagley MJ. 2011. Incorporation of DNA barcoding into a large-scale biomonitoring program: opportunities and pitfalls. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 30(1):217-231. https://doi.org/10.1899/10-012.1
  16. Qian SS, Cuffney TF and McMahon G. 2012. Multinomial regression for analyzing macroinvertebrate assemblage composition data. Freshwater Science 31(3):681-694. https://doi.org/10.1899/11-026.1
  17. Strobl RO and Robillard PD. 2008. Network design for water quality monitoring of surface freshwaters: A review. Journal of Environmental Management 87:639-648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.03.001
  18. U.S.EPA. 2000. Stressor Identification Guidance Document. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water, Washington, EPA-822-B-00-025
  19. U.S.EPA. 2007. National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Field Operations Manual. EPA-841-B-07-009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
  20. Whittier TR, Hughes RM, Stoddard JL, Lomnick GA, Peck DV and Herlihy AT. 2007. A structured approach to developing indices of biotic integrity: three examples from western USA streams and rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136:718–735. https://doi.org/10.1577/T06-128.1
  21. Wright JF. 2000. An introduction to RIVPACS. Pages 1-24 in J. F. Wright, D. W. Sutcliffe, and M. T. Furse (editors). Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, UK.

Cited by

  1. A tiered aquatic life unit bioassessment model for Gulf of Mexico coastal streams vol.21, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/fme.12098