Effects of Land Cover Disturbance on Stream Invertebrate Diversity and Metal Concentrations in a Small Urban Industrial Watershed

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1078-1095

  Davidson, Jennifer ^a   Gunn, John ^a  

^a LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

benthic invertebrates; diversity; metals; mining; stream assessment; watershed land cover

Indexed keywords

INVERTEBRATA;

EID: 84867147631     PISSN: 10807039     EISSN: 15497860     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2012.707935     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Alberti, M, Booth, DHill, K. 2007. The impact of urban patterns on aquatic ecosystems: An empirical analysis in Puget lowland sub-basins. Landscape and Urban Planning, 80: 345-61.
2. Allan, JD. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst, 35: 257-84.
3. Allan, J D, Erickson, D L and Fay, J. 1997. The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biol, 37: 149-61.
4. Arnold, C L and Gibbons, C J. 1996. Impervious surface coverage: The emergence of a key environmental indicator. Am Planners Assoc J, 62: 243-58.
5. Bailey, R C, Norris, R H and Reynoldson, T B. 2004. Bioassessment of Freshwater Ecosystems: Using the Reference Condition Approach, Norwell, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
6. Barbour, M T, Gerritsen, JSnyder, B D. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, 2nd Edit, Washington, DC, USA: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 841-B-99-002
7. Black, R W, Munn, M D and Plotnikoff, R W. 2004. Using macroinvertebrates to identify biota-land cover optima at multiple scales in the Pacific Northwest, USA. J North Am Bentho Soc, 23: 340-62.
8. Bohn, B A and Kershner, J L. 2002. Establishing aquatic restoration priorities using a watershed approach. J Environ Manage, 64: 355-63.
9. Booth, D B, Karr, J RSchauman, S. 2004. Reviving urban streams: Land use, hydrology, biology, and human behavior. J Am Water Resour Assoc, 40: 1351-64.
10. Bowman, M F and Somers, K. 2006. Evaluating a novel Test Site Analysis (TSA) bioassessment approach. J North Am Bentho Soc, 25: 712-27.
11. Brabec, E, Schulte, S and Richards, P L. 2002. Impervious surfaces and water quality: A review of current literature and its implications for watershed planning. J Plan Lit, 16: 499-514.
12. Burcher, C L, Valett, H M and Benfield, E F. 2007. The land-cover cascade: Relationships coupling land and water. Ecology, 88: 228-242.
13. CGS (City of Greater Sudbury). 2009. Ecological Risk Management Framework for Greater Sudbury: Toward A Community-Based Biodiversity Action Plan. Available at http://www.sudburysoilsstudy.com/EN/indexE.htm
14. Clements, W H, Carlisle, D MLazorchak, J M. 2000. Heavy metals structure benthic communities in Colorado Mountain streams. Ecol Apps, 10: 626-38.
15. Dale, V H, Biddinger, G RNewman, M C. 2008. Enhancing the ecological risk assessment process. Integr Environ Assess Manag, 4: 306-13.
16. David, S M, Somers, K MReid, R A. 1996. Sampling Protocols for the Rapid Bioassessment of Streams and Lakes Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates, ON, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Environment. Dorset Environmental Science Centre Report, ISBN:0- 7778-5931-9
17. Diamond, J M and Serveiss, V B. 2001. Identifying sources of stress to native aquatic fauna using a watershed ecological risk assessment framework. Environ Sci Technol, 35: 4711-18.
18. Diamond, J M, Bressler, D W and Serveiss, V B. 2002. Assessing relationships between human land uses and the decline of native mussels, fish, and macroinvertebrates in the Clinch and Powell River watershed, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem, 21: 1147-55.
19. Dixit, S S, Dixit, A S and Smol, J P. 1992. Assessment of changes in lake water chemistry in Sudbury area lakes since preindustrial times. Can J Fish Aquat Sci., 49: 8-16.
20. Dolédec, S and Statzner, B. 2010. Responses of freshwater biota to human disturbances: Contribution of J-NABS to developments in ecological integrity assessments. J North Am Bentho Soc, 29: 286-311.
21. Environment Canada. 2002. Metal Mining Guidance Documents For Aquatic Environmental Effects Monitoring. Chapter 5. Benthic Invertebrate Community Monitoring, Ottawa, ON, Canada: National EEM Office, Environment Canada.
22. Environment Canada. 2003. Linking Community Based Ecosystem Monitoring to Local Decision Making and Policy Development on Sustainability. Available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.asp?lang = En&xml = 22DD33B5-A6E9-4AFD-83E9-3C8F86699460
23. Environment Canada. 2010. CABIN (Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network) Invertebrate Biomonitoring Field Manual for Wadeable Streams. Available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.asp?lang = En&xml = C183563B-CF3E-42E3-9A9E-F7CC856219 E1
24. Fisher, F. 1991. Risk assessment and environmental crisis: Toward an integration of science and participation. Organizat Environ, 5: 113-32.
25. Frewer, LJ. 2001. "Environmental risk, public trust and perceived exclusion from risk management". In Environmental Risks: Perception, Evaluation and Management Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, vol 9, Edited by: Böm, G, Nerb, J and McDaniels, T. 221-48. Cambridge, MA, USA: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
26. Gardner, J, Sherlock, C and Hunter, G. 2003. Appreciating the Values, Needs and Potential of the Stewardship and Conservation Sector in Canada: Strategic Directions for Funding and Other Support, Vancouver, BC Canada: Dovetail Consulting Inc.
27. Ginebreda, A, Muñoz, Ide Alda, M L. 2010. Environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals in rivers: Relationships between hazard indexes and aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity indexes in the Llobregat River (NE Spain). Environ Int, 36: 153-62.
28. Gunn, J M, Keller, W BNegusanti, J. 1995. Ecosystem recovery after emission reductions: Sudbury, Canada. Water, Air, Soil Pollut, 85: 1783-8.
29. Gunn, J, Sarrazin-Delay, CWesolek, B. 2010. Delayed recovery of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in Junction Creek, Sudbury, Ontario, after the diversion of acid mine drainage. Hum Ecol Risk Assess, 16: 901-12.
30. Iannuzzi, T J, Durda, J LPreziosi, D V. 2009. Development of a preliminary relative risk model for evaluating regional ecological conditions in the Delaware River Estuary, USA. Intergr Environ Assess Manage, 6: 164-79.
31. Johnson, T E, McNair, J MSrivastava, P. 2007. Stream ecosystem responses to spatially variable land cover: An empirically based model for developing riparian restoration strategies. Freshwater Biol, 52: 680-95.
32. Jupiter, S D and Marion, G S. 2008. Changes in forest area along stream networks in an agricultural catchment of the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon. Environ Manag, 42: 66-79.
33. Keller, W B, Pitblado, J R and Carbone, J. 1992. Chemical responses of acidic lakes in the Sudbury, Ontario, Area to reduced smelter emissions, 1981-89. Can J Fish Aquat Sci', 49: 25-32.
34. Keller, W B, Yan, N DGunn, J M. 2007. Recovery of acidified lakes: Lessons from Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. Water, Air, Soil Pollut: Focus, 7: 317-22.
35. King, R S, Baker, M EWhigham, D F. 2005. Spatial considerations for linking watershed land cover to ecological indicators in streams. Ecolog Apps, 15: 137-53.
36. Lake, P S, Bond, N and Reich, P. 2007. Linking ecological theory with stream restoration. Freshwater Biol, 52: 597-615.
37. Landis, W G and Thomas, J F. 2009. Regional risk assessment as a part of the long-term receiving water study. Integr Environ Assess Manage, 5: 234-47.
38. Leach, W D, Pelkey, N W and Sabatier, P A. 2002. Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. J Policy Analysis Manage, 21: 645-70.
39. Lichtveld, MY. 2010. Education for environmental protection: Successes, challenges, and opportunities for USEPA's Environmental Education Program. Hum Ecol Risk Assess, 16: 1242-8.
40. Marchant, R. 1989. A subsampler for samples of benthic invertebrates. Bull Austr Soc Limnol, 12: 49-52.
41. Mattson, K M and Angermeier, P L. 2007. Integrating human impacts and ecological integrity into a risk-based protocol for conservation planning. Environ Manage, 39: 125-38.
42. MNR. 2009. Making a Difference Through Ontario Stewardship 2008-2009. Available at http://www.ontariostewardship.org/files/Stew_Annual_09_reviesd_final.pdf
43. MOE (Ontario Ministry of the Environment). 2001. Metals in Soils and Vegetation in the Sudbury Area (Survey 2001 and Additional Historic Data) Toronto, ON, Canada SDB-008-3511-2003, Available at http://www.sudburysoilsstudy.com/EN/media/support/reports/2001SoilsData/VOL_I/MOE_Report.pdf
44. Morley, S A and Karr, J R. 2002. Assessing and Restoring the Health of Urban Streams in the Puget Sound Basin. Conservat Biol, 16: 1498-509.
45. Norris, R H, Linke, SProsser, I. 2007. Very-broad-scale assessment of human impacts on river condition. Freshwater Biol, 52: 959-76.
46. Norton, S B, Cormier, S MSuter, GW II. 2002. Determining probable causes of ecological impairment in the Little Scioto River, Ohio, USA: Part 1. Listing candidate causes and analyzing evidence. Environ Toxicol Chem, 21: 1112-24.
47. Ohlson, D W and Serveiss, V B. 2007. The integration of ecological risk assessment and structured decision making into watershed management. Integr Environ Assess Manage, 3: 118-28.
48. Paller, M H and Dyer, S A. 2010. Ecological effects of metals in streams on a defense materials processing site in South Carolina, USA. Hum Ecol Risk Assess, 16: 1095-114.
49. Paul, M J and Meyer, J L. 2001. The ecology of urban streams. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 32: 333-65.
50. Pearce, AJ. 1976. Geomorphic and hydrologic consequences of vegetation destruction, Sudbury, Ontario. Can J Earth Sci'18, 13: 1358-73.
51. Pearson, D AB, Lock, A SBelzile, N. 2002. "Assessing Kelly Lake's history as a natural trap for mining industry and municipal effluent during the growth of Sudbury". In The Physical Environment of the City of Greater Sudbury, Ontario Geological Survey, Special Vol 6, 175-92. Toronto, ON, Canada: Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry.
52. Power, M E, Brozovic, NBode, C. 2005. Spatially explicit tools for understanding and sustaining inland water ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ, 3: 47-55.
53. Richards, C, Haro, R JJohnsonm, L B. 1997. Catchment and reach-sale properties as indicators of macroinvertebrate species traits. Freshwater Biol, 37: 219-30.
54. Ross, B B and Dillaha, T A. 1993. Rainfall Simulation/Water Quality Monitoring for Best Management Practice Effectiveness Evaluation, Blacksburg, VA, USA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
55. Roy, A H, Rosemond, A DPaul, M J. 2003. Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanisation (Georgia, U.S.A.). Freshwater Biol, 48: 329-46.
56. SARA (Sudbury Area Risk assessment Group). 2009. Sudbury Soils Study Volume III. Ecological Risk Assessment. Available at http://www.sudburysoilsstudy.com
57. Snyder, C D, Young, J AVillella, R. 2003. Influences of upland and riparian land use patterns on stream biotic Integrity. Landscape Ecology, 18: 647-64.
58. Snyder, M N, Goetz, S J and Wright, R K. 2005. Stream health rankings predicted by satellite derived land cover metrics. J Am Water Resour Assoc, 41: 659-77.
59. Sponseller, R A, Benfield, E F and Valett, H M. 2001. Relationships between land use, spatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwater Biol, 46: 1409-24.
60. Stephenson, J M and Morin, A. 2009. Covariation of stream community structure and biomass of algae, invertebrates and fish with forest cover at multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biol, 54: 2139-54.
61. Stewart, J S, Wang, LLyons, J. 2001. Influences of watershed, riparian-corridor, and reach-scale characteristics on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. J Am Water Resour Assoc, 37: 1475-87.
62. Strayer, D L, Beighley, R EThompson, L C. 2003. Effects of land cover on stream ecosystems: Roles of empirical models and scaling issues. Ecosystems, 6: 407-23.
63. Suter, GW II and Maciorowski, A F. 2010. The future of ecological assessment at the US Environmental Protection Agency. Hum Ecol Risk Assess, 16: 1221-6.
64. Suter, GW II, Norton, S B and Cormier, S M. 2002. A methodology for inferring the causes of observed impairments in aquatic ecosystems. Environ Toxicol Chem, 21: 1101-11.
65. Van Sickle, J, Baker, JHerlihy, A. 2004. Projecting the biological condition of streams under alternative scenarios of human land use. Ecol Apps,: 368-80.
66. Wang, L, Lyons, J and Kanehl, P. 2001. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environ Manage, 28: 255-66.
67. Wesolek, B E, Genrich, E KGunn, J M. 2010. Use of littoral benthic invertebrates to assess factors affecting biological recovery of acid- and metal-damaged lakes. J North Am Bentho Soc, 29: 572-85.
68. Whitelaw, G, Eagles, PGibson, R. 2008. Roles of environmental movement organisations in land-use planning: Case studies of the Niagara Escarpment and Oak Ridges Moraine, Ontario, Canada. J Environ Plan Manage, 51: 801-16.
69. Winterhalder, K. 1995. "Early history of human activities in the Sudbury area and ecological damage to the landscape". In Restoration and Recovery of an Industrial Region, Edited by: Gunn, J M. 17-31. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag.