Bioassessment of stream ecosystems enduring a decade of simulated degradation: Lessons for the real world

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

Volumn 69, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 784-796

  Bailey, Robert C ^a   Scrimgeour, Garry ^b   Coté, David ^b   Kehler, Dan ^b   Linke, Simon ^c   Cao, Yong ^d  

^a CAPE BRETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b PARKS CANADA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENTHOS; BIOASSAY; CADDISFLY; DECADAL VARIATION; DEGRADATION; ERROR ANALYSIS; MACROINVERTEBRATE; MAYFLY; NUMERICAL MODEL; SPECIES RICHNESS; STONEFLY; STREAM; SUSPENDED SEDIMENT; TAXONOMY; TOLERANCE;

BRITISH COLUMBIA; CANADA; FRASER BASIN;

EPHEMEROPTERA; PLECOPTERA; TRICHOPTERA;

EID: 84858962879     PISSN: 0706652X     EISSN: 12057533     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/F2012-010     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Bailey, R.C., Kennedy, M.G., Dervish, M.Z., and Taylor, R.M. 1998. Biological assessment of freshwater ecosystems using a reference condition approach: comparing predicted and actual benthic invertebrate communities in Yukon streams. Freshw. Biol. 39(4): 765-774. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2427.1998.00317.x
2. Bailey, R.C., Norris, R.H., and Reynoldson, T.B. 2004. Bioassessment of freshwater ecosystems: using the reference condition approach. Springer-Verlag, New York.
3. Bates Prins, S.C., and Smith, E.P. 2007. Using biological metrics to score and evaluate sites: a nearest-neighbour reference condition approach. Freshw. Biol. 52(1): 98-111. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01675.x
4. Bowman, M.F., and Somers, K.M. 2006. Evaluating a novel test site analysis (TSA) bioassessment approach. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 25(3): 712-727. doi:10.1899/0887-3593(2006)25[712:EANTSA]2.0.CO;2
5. Cabecinha, E., Silva-Santos, P., Cortes, R., and Cabral, J.A. 2007. Applying a stochastic-dynamic methodology (StDM) to facilitate ecological monitoring of running waters, using selected trophic and taxonomic metrics as state variables. Ecol. Model. 207(2/4): 109-127. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.04.009
6. Cao, Y., and Hawkins, C.P. 2005. Simulating biological impairment to evaluate the accuracy of ecological indicators. J. Appl. Ecol. 42(5): 954-965. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01075.x
7. Cao, Y., Williams, D.D., and Larsen, D.P. 2002. Comparison of ecological communities: the problem of sample representativeness. Ecol. Monogr. 72(1): 41-56.doi:10.1890/0012-9615(2002)072[0041:COECTP]2.0.CO;2
8. Clarke, R.T., and Murphy, J.F. 2006. Effects of locally rare taxa on the precision and sensitivity of RIVPACS bioassessment of freshwaters. Freshw. Biol. 51(10): 1924-1940. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01611.x
9. Gertseva, V.V., Schindler, J.E., Gertsev, V.I., Ponomarev, N.Y., and English, W.R. 2004. A simulation model of the dynamics of aquatic macroinvertebrate communities. Ecol. Model. 176(1/2): 173-186. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.10.029
10. Green, R.H. 1979. Sampling design and statistical methods for environmental biologists. Wiley, New York.
11. Johnson, R.K. 2003. Development of a prediction system for lake stony-bottom littoral macroinvertebrate communities. Arch. Hydrobiol. 158(4): 517-540. doi:10.1127/0003-9136/2003/0158-0517
12. Linke, S., Norris, R.H., and Robinson, W. 2004. Impairator - a program to simulate the impacts of disturbance on biological assemblages. Version 1.0 [computer program]. CRC for Freshwater Ecology, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.
13. Linke, S., Norris, R.H., Faith, D.P., and Stockwell, D. 2005. ANNA: a new prediction method for bioassessment programs. Freshw. Biol. 50(1): 147-158. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2004.01286.x
14. Marchant, R. 2007. The use of taxonomic distinctness to assess environmental disturbance of insect communities from running water. Freshw. Biol. 52(8): 1634-1645. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2007.01785.x
15. Mazor, R.D., Reynoldson, T.B., Rosenberg, D.M., and Resh, V.H. 2006. Effects of biotic assemblage, classification, and assessment method on bioassessment performance. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63(2): 394-411. doi:10.1139/f05-222
16. Nichols, S.J., Robinson, W.A., and Norris, R.H. 2006. Sample variability influences on the precision of predictive bioassessment. Hydrobiologia, 572(1): 215-233. doi:10.1007/s10750-005-9003-4
17. Reynoldson, T.B., Norris, R.H., Resh, V.H., Day, K.E., and Rosenberg, D.M. 1997. The reference condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 16(4): 833-852. doi:10.2307/1468175
18. Reynoldson, T.B., Day, K.E., and Pascoe, T. 2000. The development of the BEAST: a predictive approach for assessing sediment quality in the North American Great Lakes. In Assessing the biological quality of freshwaters: RIVPACS and similar techniques. Edited by J.F. Wright, D.W. Sutcliffe, and M.T. Furse. Freshwater Biological Association, Cumbria, UK. pp. 165-180.
19. Van Sickle, J., Hawkins, C.P., Larsen, D.P., and Herlihy, A.T. 2005. A null model for the expected macroinvertebrate assemblage in streams. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 24(1): 178-191. doi:10.1899/0887-3593(2005)024<0178:ANMFTE>2.0.CO;2
20. Wright, J.F. 1995. Development and use of a system for predicting the macroinvertebrate fauna in flowing water. Aust. J. Ecol. 20(1): 181-197. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.1995.tb00531.x
21. Yates, A.G., and Bailey, R.C. 2010a. Selecting objectively defined reference sites for stream bioassessment programs. Environ. Monit. Assess. 170(1/-4): 129-140. doi:10.1007/s10661-009-1221-1. PMID:19902368
22. Yates, A.G., and Bailey, R.C. 2010b. Improving the description of human activities potentially affecting rural stream ecosystems. Landsc. Ecol. 25(3): 371-382. doi:10.1007/s10980-009-9413-1