Erratum: An approach for determining bioassessment performance and comparability (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2012) DOI: 10.1007/s10661-011-2114-7));An approach for determining bioassessment performance and comparability

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Volumn 184, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 2247-2260

  Diamond, Jerry ^a   Stribling, James R ^a   Huff, Lisa ^b   Gilliam, Jaime ^a  

^a TETRA TECH INC   (United States)

^b Ala Dept of Environmental Management   (United States)

Author keywords

Bioassessment; Data quality; Macroinvertebrates; Method performance; Streams

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

BIOASSESSMENT; DATA QUALITY; MACROINVERTEBRATES; METHOD PERFORMANCE; STREAMS;

QUALITY CONTROL;

BIOMONITORING; DATA QUALITY; ENVIRONMENTAL DISTURBANCE; HUMAN ACTIVITY; MACROINVERTEBRATE; SAMPLING; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STREAM;

ACCURACY; ADAPTATION; ARTICLE; BIOASSESSMENT; BIOGEOGRAPHIC REGION; BIOLOGICAL MONITORING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONDUCTANCE; DATA ANALYSIS; HABITAT; LAND USE; MACROINVERTEBRATE; MEASUREMENT; PILOT STUDY; QUALITY CONTROL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STREAM (RIVER); UNITED STATES;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84862847818     PISSN: 01676369     EISSN: 15732959     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-012-2613-1     Document Type: Erratum

References (35)

1. Astin, L. (2006). Data synthesis and bioindicator development for nontidal streams in the interstate Potomac River Basin, USA. Ecological Indicators, 6, 664-685.
2. Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B. D., & Stribling, J. B. (1999). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and Wadeable rivers: Periphyton, Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA 481-B-99-002.
3. Blocksom, K. (2003). A performance comparison of metric scoring methods for a multimetric index for mid-Atlantic highland streams. Environmental Management, 31, 670-682.
4. Blocksom, K., & Flotemersch, J. (2005). Comparison of macroinvertebrate sampling methods for nonwadeable streams. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 102, 243-262.
5. Brown, M. T., & Vivas, M. B. (2005). Landscape development intensity index. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 101, 289-309
6. Cao, Y., Hawkins, C. P., & Storey, A. D. (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., & Resh, V. H. (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, 658-676.
8. Costanza, R., Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1992). Assessing and communicating data quality in policyrelevant research. Environmental Management, 16(1), 121-131.
9. Cuffney, T., Gurtz, M., & Meador, M. (1993). Methods for collecting benthic invertebrate samples as part of the National Water Quality Assessment Program. Reston: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 93-406.
10. Davies, S. P., & Jackson, S. K. (2006). The biological condition gradient: A descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications, 16, 1251-1266.
11. Diamond, J. M., Barbour, M. T., & Stribling, J. B. (1996). Characterizing and comparing bioassessment methods and their results: A perspective. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15, 713-727.
12. Edwards, P. N. (2004). A vast-machine: Standards as social technology. Science, 304(7), 827-828.
13. Flotemersch, J. F., Stribling, J. B., & Paul, M. J. (2006). Concepts and approaches for the bioassessment of non-wadeable streams and rivers. EPA/600/R- 06/127. Cincinnati: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
14. Fore, L. S. (2004). Development and testing of biomonitoring tools for macroinvertebrates in Florida streams. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
15. GAO (2004). Watershed management: Better coordination of data collection efforts. General Accounting Office, GAO-04-382. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ d04382.pdf.
16. Hawkins, C. P., & Norris, R. H. (2000). Effects of taxonomic resolution and use of subsets of the fauna on the performance of RIVPACS-type models. In: J. F. Wight, D. W. Sutcliffe,&M. T. Furse (Eds.), Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques (pp. 217-228). Ambleside: Freshwater Biological Association.
17. Herbst, D., & Silldorff, E. (2006). Comparison of the performance of different bioassessment methods: Comparable evaluations of biotic integrity from contrasting procedures. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 25, 513-530.
18. Herlihy, A. T., Larsen, D. P., Paulsen, S. G., Urquhart, N. S., & Rosenbaum, B. J. (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.
19. Houston, L., Barbour, M. T., Lenat, D., & Penrose, D. (2002). A multi-agency comparison of aquatic macroinvertebrate-based stream bioassessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 1, 279-292.
20. ITFM (1995a). The Strategy for Improving Water Quality Monitoring in the U.S. Report #OFR95-742. Reston: U.S. Geological Survey.
21. ITFM (1995b). Performance-based approach to water quality monitoring. In: Strategy for improving water quality monitoring in the U.S., Appendix M, Report #OFR95-742, Interagency Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. Reston: U.S. Geological Survey.
22. Jessup, B., & Gerritsen, J. (2006). Data and assessment comparability among stream bioassessment methods: EPA-NEWS methods and New England State methods. Prepared for: Susan Holdsworth, USEPA Office of Water, Office of Watersheds, Oceans, and Wetlands, Washington, DC, Tetra Tech, Inc., Montpelier, VT, March 2006.
23. Karr, J. R., & Chu, E. W. (1999). Restoring life in running waters: Better biological monitoring.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
24. Mackey, E. (2002). The state of the nation's ecosystems: measuring the lands, waters, and living resources of the United States. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, Washington, D.C., Cambridge University Press. http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/index.shtml.
25. NWQMC. (2001). Towards a def inition of performancebased laboratory methods. National Water Quality Monitoring Council Technical Report 01-02. Reston: U.S. Geological Survey.
26. Peterson, D., & Zumberge, J. (2006). Comparison of macroinvertebrate community structure between two rif f le-based sampling protocols in Wyoming, Colorado, and Montana, 2000-2001. Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5117. Reston: U.S. Geological Survey.
27. Reynoldson, T. B., Norris, R. H., Resh, V. H., Day, K. E., & Rosenberg, D. M. (1997). The reference condition: A comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16(4), 833-852.
28. Rosenberg, D., & Resh, V. (1993). Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. New York: Chapman and Hall.
29. Stoddard, J., Larsen, D., Hawkins, C., Johnson, R., & Norris, R. (2006). Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: The concept of reference condition. Ecological Applications, 16, 1267-1276.
30. Stribling, J.,Moulton, S. II, & Lester, G. (2003). Determining the quality of taxonomic data. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 22, 621-631.
31. Stribling, J. B., Pavlik, K. L., Holdsworth, S. M., & Leppo, E. W. (2008a). Data quality, performance, and uncertainty in taxonomic identification for biological assessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27(4), 906-919.
32. Stribling, J. B., Jessup, B. K., & Feldman, D. L. (2008b). Precision of benthic macroinvertebrate indicators of stream condition in Montana. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27(1), 58-67.
33. Tetra Tech, Inc. (2006). Southern California Coastal stream tiered aquatic life uses: Pilot study. Prepared for Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and USEPA, Washington, DC. Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, MD.
34. Wiley, M. J., Seelbach, P. W., Wehrly, K., & Martin, J. S. (2003). Regional ecological normalization using linear models: a meta-method for scaling stream assessment indicators. In T. Simon (Ed.), Biological response signatures: Indicator patterns using aquatic communities (pp. 201-224). Boca Raton: CRC.
35. Yuan, L. L., & Norton, S. B. (2003). Comparing responses of macroinvertebrate metrics to increasing stress. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 22(2), 308-322.