Effect of sampling method on diatom composition for use in monitoring and assessing large river condition

River Research and Applications

Volumn 23, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 1126-1146

  Lane, Charles R ^a   Flotemersch, Joseph E ^a   Blocksom, Karen A ^a   Decelles, Susanna ^b  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^b DYNAMAC CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Diatom; EMAP; Large rivers; NAWQA; Periphyton; Phytoplankton; Sampling method; Water quality

Indexed keywords

CORRELATION; DIATOM; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; INTERTIDAL ENVIRONMENT; LOTIC ENVIRONMENT; PERIPHYTON; PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTY; PHYTOPLANKTON; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; SAMPLING; WATER QUALITY;

KENTUCKY; NORTH AMERICA; OHIO; UNITED STATES;

ALGAE; BACILLARIOPHYTA;

EID: 38349186204     PISSN: 15351459     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/rra.1038     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. American Public Health Association (APHA). 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association: Washington, DC.
2. Angradi TR. (ed.). 2006. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Great River Ecosystems, Field Operations Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC; EPA-620/R-06/002.
3. Bahls LL. 1993. Periphyton Bioassessment Methods for Montana Streams. Water Quality Bureau, Department of Health and Environmental Sciences: Helena, MT.
4. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water: Washington, DC.
5. Blocksom KA, Flotemersch JE. 2005. Comparison of macroinvertebrate sampling methods for nonwadeable streams. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 102(1-3): 243-262.
6. Brown MT, Vivas MB. 2005. A Landscape Development Intensity Index. Ecological Monitoring and Assessment 101: 289-309.
7. Charles DF, Acker F, Roberts NA. 1996. Diatom Periphyton in Montana Lakes and Wetlands: Ecology and Potential as Bioassessment Indicators. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Environmental Research Division, Patrick Center of Environmental Research: Philadelphia, PA.
8. Collins GB, Kalinsky RG. 1977. Studies on Ohio Diatoms: I. Diatoms of the Scioto River basin. Bulletin of the Ohio Biological Survey 5(3): 1-45.
9. Dickman MD, Peart MR, Yim MMS. 2005. Benthic diatoms as indicators of stream sediment concentration in Hong Kong. International Review of Hydrobiology 90(4): 412-421.
10. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 1999. Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System. Handbook of Florida Department of Transportation, Surveying and Mapping Office, Thematic Mapping Section. Florida Department of Transportation: Tallahassee, FL; 91.
11. Flotemersch JE, Blocksom KA. 2005. Electrofishing in boatable rivers: does sampling design affect bioassessment metrics? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 102(1-3): 263-283.
12. Fore LS. 2002. Response of diatom assemblages to human disturbance: development and testing of a multimetric index for the Mid Atlantic Region (USA). Biological Response Signatures. In Indicator Patterns Using Aquatic Communities, Simon TP (ed.). CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton, FL; 347-370.
13. Fore LS, Grafe C. 2002. Using diatoms to assess the biological condition of large rivers in Idaho (U.S.A.). Freshwater Biology 47: 2015-2037.
14. Gerritsen J, Jessup B, Leppo E, White, J. 2000. Development of Lake Condition Indexes (LCI)for Florida. Tetratech, Inc.: Owings Mills, MD.
15. Gilliom RJ, Alley WM, Gurtz ME. 1995. Design of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program - Occurrence and Distribution of Water-Quality Conditions. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1112: Washington, DC.
16. Hasle GR, Fryxell GA. 1970. Diatoms: cleaning and mounting for light and electron microscopy. Transactions of the American Microscopy Society 89: 466-474.
17. Hill BH, Herlihy AT. 2000. Periphyton. In Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program - Surface Waters: Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition of Non-Wadeable Rivers and Streams, Lazorchak JM, Hill BH, Averill DK, Peck DV, Klemm DJ (eds). US Environmental Protection Agency: Cincinnati, OH; 7-1-7-10, EPA/620/ R-94/004F.
18. Hill BH, Herlihy AT, Kaufman PR, Stevenson RJ, McCormick FH, Johnson CB. 2000. Use of periphyton assemblage data as an index of biotic integrity. Journal of the North America Benthological Society 19(1): 50-67.
19. Hughes RM, Gammon JR. 1987. Longitudinal changes in fish assemblages and water quality in the Willamette River Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116: 196-209.
20. Karr JR. 1981. Assessment of biotic integration using fish communities. Fisheries 6(6): 21-27.
21. Karr JR, Chu EW. 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters. Island Press: Washington, DC.
22. Kelly MG. 1998. Use of the trophic diatom index to monitor eutrophication in rivers. Water Research 32: 236-242.
23. Kitner M, Poulickova A. 2003. Littoral diatoms as indicators for the eutrophication of shallow lakes. Hydrobiologia 506-509: 519-524.
24. Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H. 1986. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Band 2. Bacillariophyceae. Teil, 1. Naviculaceae. Gustav Fischer Verlag: Stuttgart.
25. Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H. 1988. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Band 2. Bacillariophyceae. Teil, 2. Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae. Gustav Fischer Verlag: Stuttgart.
26. Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H. 1991a. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Band 2. Bacillariophyceae. Teil, 3. Centrales, Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae. Gustav Fischer Verlag: Stuttgart.
27. Krammer K, Lange-Bertalot H. 1991b. Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Band 2. Bacillariophyceae. Teil, 4. Achnanthaceae, Kritische Ergänzungen zu Navicula (Lineolatae) and Gomphonema. Gustav Fischer Verlag: Stuttgart.
28. Kruskal JB. 1964. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrika 29: 115-129.
29. Lane CR, Brown MT. 2006. Energy-based land use predictors of proximal factors and benthic diatom composition in Florida freshwater marshes. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 117: 433-450.
30. Lazorchak JM, Hill BH, Averill DK, Peck DV, Klemm DJ (eds). 2000. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program - Surface Waters Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition of Non-Wadeable Rivers and Streams. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Cincinnati, OH; EPA-620/R-06/00.
31. Leland HV, Porter SD. 2000. Distribution of benthic algae in the upper Illinois river basin in relation to geology and land use. Freshwater Biology 44: 279-301.
32. Lowe RL. 1974. Environmental requirements and pollution tolerance of freshwater diatoms. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Environmental Research Center, Office of Research and: Development: Cincinnati, OH; EPA-670/4-74-005.
33. Lyons John, Piette RR, Niermeyer KW. 2001. Development, validation, and application of a fish-based index of biotic integrity for Wisconsin's large warmwater rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130(6): 1077-1094.
34. Mack J. 2001. Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands, Manual for Using Version 5.0. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, 401 Wetland Ecology Unit: Columbus, OH.
35. Mantel N. 1967. The detection of disease clustering and generalized regression approach. Cancer Research 27: 209-220.
36. McCormick FH, Peck DV. 2000. Fish indicator development: metrics and indices of biotic integrity. In Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological Indicators, C EPA/620/R-99/005, Jackson LE, Kurtz JC, Fischer WS (eds). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development: Research Triangle Park, NC; 4-1-4-45.
37. McCune B, Grace JB. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design: Gleneden Beach, OR.
38. Mielke PW Jr. 1984. Meteorological applications of permutation techniques based on distance functions. In Handbook of Statistics, Krishnaiah PR, Sens PK (eds). Elsevier: Amsterdam.
39. Newall P, Walsh CJ. 2005. Response of epilithic diatom assemblages to urbanization influences. Hydrobiologia 532: 53-67.
40. Pan Y, Stevenson RJ. 1996. Gradient analysis of diatom assemblages in Western Kentucky Wetlands. Journal of Phycology 32: 222-232.
41. Pan Y, Stevenson RJ, Hill BH, Herlihy AT, Collins GB. 1996. Using diatoms as indicators of ecological conditions in lotic systems: a regional assessment. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15(4): 481-495.
42. Pantle R, Buck H. 1955. Die Biologische Überwachung der Gewässer und die Darstellung der Ergebnisse. Gas und Wasserfach 96.
43. Patrick R, Reimer CW. 1966. The Diatoms of the United States, vol. 1, Monographs of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia: Philadelphia.
44. Patrick R, Reimer CW. 1975. The Diatoms of the United States, vol. 2, Monographs of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia: Philadelphia.
45. Paul MJ, Meyer JL. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review in Ecology and Systematics 32: 333-365.
46. Porter SD, Cuffney TF, Gurtz ME, Meador MR. 1993. Methods for Collecting Algal Samples as Part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. U.S. Geological Survey: Raleigh, NC; Report 93-409.
47. Potapova M, Charles DF. 2005. Choice of substrate in algae-based water-quality assessment. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24(2): 415-427.
48. Rice WR. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43(1): 223-225.
49. Rosenberg DM, Resh VH (eds). 1993. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall: NY; 488 p.
50. Rott E, Duthie HC, Pipp E. 1998. Monitoring organic pollution and eutrophication in the Grand River, Ontario, by means of diatoms. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 1443-1453.
51. Round FE. 1981. The Ecology of Algae. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
52. Simon TP. 1999. Introduction: biological integrity and use of ecological health concepts for application to water resource characterization. In Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities, Simon TP (ed.). CRC Lewis Publisher: Boca Raton, FL; 3-16.
53. Soininen J, Eloranta P. 2004. Seasonal persistence and stability of diatom communities in rivers: are there habitat specific differences? European Journal of Phycology 39(2): 153-160.
54. Soininen J, Kononen K. 2004. Comparative study of monitoring south-Finnish rivers and streams using macroinvertebrate and benthic diatom community structure. Aquatic Ecology 38: 63-75.
55. Stevenson RJ. 1997. Scale-dependent determinants and consequences of benthic algal heterogeneity. Journal of the North America Benthological Society 16: 248-262.
56. Stevenson RJ, Smol JP. 2002. Use of algae in environmental assessments. In Freshwater Algae in North America: Classification and Ecology, Wehr JD, Sheath RG (eds). Academic Press: San Diego, CA; 775-804.
57. Stevenson RJ, Sweets PR, Pan Y, Schultz RE. 1999. Algal community patterns in wetlands and their use as indicators of ecological conditions. In Proceedings of INTECOL's Vth International Wetland Conference; McComb AJ, Davis JA (eds). Gleneagles Press: Adelaide; 517-527.
58. Townsend SA, Gell PA. 2005. The role of substrate type on benthic diatom assemblages in the Daly and Roper Rivers of the Australian wet/dry tropics. Hydrobiologia 548: 101-115.
59. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1983. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes, EPA-600-4-79-020, U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
60. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000a. National Water Quality Report to Congress. Office of Water. Washington DC, Internet: www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/ [Accessed 2 August 2006].
61. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000b. Stressor Identification Guidance Document. Office of Research and Development. EPA/822/B-00/025, Washington DC.
62. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002a. Summary of Biological Assessment Programs and Biocriteria Development for States, Tribes, Territories, and Interstate Commissions: Streams and Wadeable Rivers. EPA-822/R-02/048. Accessed from http://www.epa.gov/ bioindicators/html/program_summary.html
63. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002b. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Using Algae to Assess Environmental Conditions in Wetlands. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-822-R-02-02: Washington, DC.
64. Van Dam H, Mertens A, Sinkeldam J. 1994. A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from The Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology 28: 117-133.
65. Wang YK, Stevenson RJ, Metzmeier L. 2005. Development and evaluation of a diatom-based index of Biotic Integrity for the Interior Plateau Ecoregion, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24(4): 990-1008.
66. Whitmore TJ. 1989. Florida diatom assemblages as indicators of trophic state and pH. Limnology and Oceanography 34(5): 882-895.
67. Winter JG, Duthie HC. 2000. Epilithic diatoms as indicators of stream total N and total P concentration. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19(1): 32-49.
68. Zar JH. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.