Comparisons of targeted-riffle and reach-wide benthic macroinvertebrate samples: Implications for data sharing in stream-condition assessments

Journal of the North American Benthological Society

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 332-348

  Rehn, Andrew C ^a   Ode, Peter R ^a   Hawkins, Charles P ^b  

^a Office of Spill Prevention and Response   (United States)

^b UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Benthic macroinvertebrates; Bioassessment; California; EMAP; Index of biotic integrity; Predictive models; Sample habitat

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; BENTHOS; BIOINDICATOR; BIOMONITORING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA SET; HABITAT TYPE; MACROINVERTEBRATE; STREAM;

CALIFORNIA; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34249788427     PISSN: 08873593     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1899/0887-3593(2007)26[332:COTARB]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. BARBOUR, M. J., J. GERRITSEN, G. E. GRIFFITH, R. FRYDENBORG, E. MCCARRON, J. S. WHITE, AND M. L. BASTIAN. 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15:185-211.
2. BLACKBURN, T. M., J. H. LAWTON, AND J. N. PERRY. 1992. A method of estimating the slope of upper bounds of plots of body size and abundance in natural animal assemblages. Oikos 65:107-112.
3. BLOCKSOM, K. A., AND J. E. FLOTEMERSCH. 2005. Comparison of macroinvertebrate sampling methods for nonwadeable streams. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 102: 243-262.
4. BONADA, N., N. PRAT, V. H. RESH, AND B. STATZNER. 2006. Developments in aquatic insect biomonitoring: a comparative analysis of recent approaches. Annual Review of Entomology 51:495-523.
5. CAO, Y., AND C. P. HAWKINS. 2006. Comparability and integration of data used in aquatic bioassessments: a critical review of definitions, approaches, and methods. Technical report to the Office of Water and Watersheds, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. (Available from: Western Center for Monitoring and Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems, 5210 Old Main Hill, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322-5210 USA.)
6. CAO, Y., C. P. HAWKINS, AND A. W. STOREY. 2005. A method for measuring the comparability of different sampling methods used in biological surveys: implications for data integration and synthesis. Freshwater Biology 50: 1105-1115.
7. CARTER, J. L., AND V. H. RESH. 2001. After site selection and before data analysis: sampling, sorting, and laboratory procedures used in stream benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring programs by USA state agencies. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20:658-682.
8. CHESSMAN, B. C. 1995. Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: a procedure based on habitat-specific sampling, family-level identification and a biotic index. Australian Journal of Ecology 20:122-129.
9. CHUTTER, F. M. 1972. An empirical biotic index of the water quality in South African streams and rivers. Water Research 6:19-30.
10. DE PAUW, N., P. F. GHETTI, P. MANZINI, AND S. SPAGGIARI. 1992. Biological assessment methods for running waters. Pages 217-249 in P. J. Newman, M. A. Piavaux, and R. A. Sweeting (editors). River water quality ecological assessment and control. Commission of the European Communities, Bruxelles, Belgium.
11. DIAMOND, J. M., M. T. BARBOUR, AND J. B. STRIBLING. 19%. Characterizing and comparing bioassessment methods and their results: a perspective. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15:713-727.
12. FORE, L. S., K. PAULSEN, AND K. O'LAUGHLIN. 2001. Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshwater Biology 46:109-123.
13. GERTH, W. J., AND A. T. HERLIHY. 2006. The effect of sampling different habitat types in regional macroinvertebrate bioassessment surveys. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25:501-512.
14. HAWKINS, C. P. 2006. Quantifying biological integrity by taxonomic completeness: evaluation of a potential indicator for use in regional- and global-scale assessments. Ecological Applications 16:1277-1294.
15. HERLIHY, A. T., D. P. LARSEN, S. G. PAULSEN, N. S. URQUHART, AND B. J. ROSENBAUM. 2000. Designing a spatially balanced, randomized site selection process for regional stream surveys: the EMAP Mid-Atlantic pilot study. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 63:95-113.
16. HEWLETT, R. 2000. Implications of taxonomic resolution and sample habitat for stream classification at a broad geographic scale. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19:352-361.
17. HOUSTON, L., M. T. BARBOUR, D. LENAT, AND D. PENROSE. 2002. A multi-agency comparison of aquatic macroinvertebrate-based stream bioassessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators 1279-292.
18. HUGHES, R. M. 1994. Defining acceptable biological status by comparing with reference conditions. Pages 31-47 in W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon (editors). Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
19. KERANS, B. L., J. R. KARR, AND S. A. AHLSTEDT. 1992. Aquatic invertebrate assemblages: spatial and temporal differences among sampling protocols. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 11:377-390.
20. KLEMM, D. J., K. A. BLOCKSOM, F. A. FULK, A. T. HERLIHY, R. M. HUGHES, P. R. KAUFMANN, D. V. PECK, J. L. STODDARD, W. T. THOENY, AND M. B. GRIFFITH. 2003. Development and evaluation of a macroinvertebrate biotic integrity index (MBII) for regionally assessing Mid-Atlantic highland streams. Environmental Management 31:656-669.
21. KLEMM, D. J., AND J. M. LAZORCHAK. 1994. Environmental monitoring and assessment program, surface water and Region 3 regional monitoring and assessment program, 1994 pilot laboratory methods manual for streams. EPA/ 62/R-94/003. Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
22. LENAT, D. R., AND V. H. RESH. 2001. Taxonomy and stream ecology: the benefits of genus and species level identifications. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20:287-298.
23. MCCULLOCH, D. L. 1986. Benthic macroinvertebrate distributions in the riffle-pool communities of two east Texas streams. Hydrobiologia 135:61-70.
24. MOSS, D., M. T. FURSE, J. F. WRIGHT, AND P. D. ARMITAGE. 1987. The prediction of the macro-invertebrate fauna of unpolluted running-water sites in Great Britain using environmental data. Freshwater Biology 17:41-52.
25. ODE, P. R., A. C. REHN, AND J. T. MAY. 2005. A quantitative tool for assessing the integrity of southern coastal California streams. Environmental Management 35:493-504.
26. OSTERMILLER, J. D., AND C. P. HAWKINS. 2004. Effects of sampling error on bioassessments of stream ecosystems: application to RIVPACS-type models. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23:363-382.
27. PARSONS, M., AND R. H. NORRIS. 1996. The effect of habitat-specific sampling on biological assessment of water quality using a predictive model. Freshwater Biology 36: 419-434.
28. PECK, D. V., A. T. HERLIHY, B. H. HILL, R. M. HUGHES, P. R. KAUFMANN, D. J. KLEMM, J. M. LAZORCHAK, F. H. MCCORMICK, S. A. PETERSON, S. A. RINGOLD, T. MAGEE, AND M. CAPPAERT. 2006. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program - Surface Waters Western Pilot study: field operations manual for wadeable streams. EPA/620/R-06/003. Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
29. REHN, A. C., P. R. ODE, AND J. T. MAY. 2005. Development of a benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for wadeable streams in northern coastal California and its application to regional 305(b) reporting. Unpublished technical report for the California State Water Quality Control Board, Sacramento, California. (Available from: http:// www.swrcb.ca.gov/swamp/ docs/northc1.pdf)
30. SIMPSON, J. C., AND R. H. NORRIS. 2000. Biological assessment of river quality: development of AUSRIVAS models and outputs. Pages 125-142 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.
31. STARK, J. D. 1993. Performance of the Macroinvertebrate Community Index: effects of sampling method, sample replication, water depth, current velocity, and substratum size on index values. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 27:463-478.
32. STEVENS, D. L., AND A. R. OLSEN. 2004. Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources. Journal of the American Statistical Association 99:262-278.
33. STODDARD, J. L., D. V. PECK, A. R. OLSEN, D. P. LARSEN, J. VAN SICKLE, C. P. HAWKINS, R. M. HUGHES, T. R. WHITTIER, G. LOMNICKY, A. T. HERLIHY, P. R. KAUFMANN, S. A. PETERSON, P. L. RINGOLD, S. G. PAULSEN, AND R. BLAIR. 2005. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): western streams and rivers statistical summary. EPA620/R-05/006. Office of Research and Development US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
34. SUDARYANTI, S., Y. TRIHADININGRUN, B. T. HART, P. DAVIES, C. HUMPHREY, R. NORRIS, J. SIMPSON, AND L. THURTELL. 2001. Assessment of the health of the Brantas River, East Java, Indonesia using the Australian River Bioassessment Method (AUSRIVAS). Aquatic Ecology 35:135-146.
35. VAN SICKLE, J. 1997. Using mean similarity dendograms to evaluate classification. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 2:370-388.
36. WAITE, I. R., A. T. HERLIHY, D. P. LARSEN, N. S. URQUHART, AND D. J. KLEMM. 2004. The effect of macroinvertebrate taxonomic resolution in large landscape bioassessments: an example from the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology 49:474-489.
37. th edition. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.