Herman, 2015

G Model
ECOHYD 74 1–15
Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecohyd
1
2 Review Article
3 A review of macroinvertebrate- and fish-based stream health

4 indices
5 Q1 Matthew R. Herman, A. Pouyan Nejadhashemi *
6 Q2 Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Michigan State University, 215 Farrall Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article history: The focus of this review is to discuss the current uses and developments of
Received 10 June 2014 macroinvertebrate and fish indicators in riverine ecosystems. Macroinvertebrates and
Accepted 23 April 2015 fish are commonly used indicators of stream heath, due to their ability to represent
Available online xxx
degradation occurring at the local or regional scales, respectively. A total of 78 macro-
invertebrate and fish indices were reviewed, and the frequently used macroinvertebrate
Keywords:
and fish indices are discussed in detail in the context of aquatic ecosystem health
Abundance
evaluation. This review also discusses several types of common components, or metrics,
Functional feeding groups
Species richness used in the creation of indices. Following this, the review will focus on the different
Stream health methods used for macroinvertebrate and fish collection, in both wadeable and non-
wadeable aquatic ecosystems. With the basics of macroinvertebrate and fish indices
discussed, emphasis will be placed on the application of indices and the different regions
for which they are developed. The final section will provide a summary of the benefits and
limitations of macroinvertebrate and fish indices. In general, the majority of studies have
been performed in wadeable streams; therefore, our knowledge about these indices in
non-wadeable streams is limited, which should be the subject of future research.
ß 2015 Published by Elsevier Urban & Partner Sp. z o.o on behalf of European Regional
Centre for Ecohydrology of Polish Academy of Sciences.
7
8 1. Introduction will be able to provide ecosystem services for future 20
generations (USGS, 2013). Stream health can be defined as 21
9 As the human population continues to grow, it can be the chemical, physical, and biological condition of a stream 22
10 expected that anthropogenic activities will have impacts (Karr, 1999; Maddock, 1999). This definition describes 23
11 on the environment (Walters et al., 2009; Young and aspects of a very complex system, in which organisms 24
12 Collier, 2009; Dos Santos et al., 2011; Pander and Geist, interact with their surrounding and vice versa. 25
13 2013). This in combination with changing climates will To evaluate stream health three components are often 26
14 only amplify the impacts on stream ecosystems (Meyer used, which include: chemical, physical, and biological 27
15 et al., 1999; Ridoutt and Pfister, 2010). To determine how integrity of the surface water (Karr, 1981; Karr et al., 1986; 28
16 climate change and anthropogenic activities impact Butcher et al., 2003a). Traditionally of these three, 29
17 aquatic ecosystems, it has been recognized that monitor- chemical is the most commonly used to evaluate stream 30
18 ing the health of streams is required. Furthermore this health; however, recently it has be recognized that the use 31
19 helps ensure that stream systems are able to function and of biological integrity can lead to a better understanding of 32
what is occurring in the ecosystem as well as identify the 33
cause of degradations (EPA, 2011). And with the high 34
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 517 432 7653; fax: +1 517 432 2892. diversity found within aquatic ecosystems (Pander and 35
E-mail address: pouyan@msu.edu (A.P. Nejadhashemi). Geist, 2013), there are many organisms, such as algae, 36
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2015.04.001
1642-3593/ß 2015 Published by Elsevier Urban & Partner Sp. z o.o on behalf of European Regional Centre for Ecohydrology of Polish Academy of Sciences.
Please cite this article in press as: Herman, M.R., Nejadhashemi, A.P., A review of macroinvertebrate- and fish-based
stream health indices. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2015.04.001
G Model
ECOHYD 74 1–15
2 M.R. Herman, A.P. Nejadhashemi / Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
37 amphibians, diatoms, fish, macroinvertebrates, mammals, 2.2. Multi-metric indices 94

38 microorganisms, periphyton, phytoplankton, plants, rep-
39 tiles, and zooplankton, that can be included in the decision Multi-metric indices, such as the Index of Biotic 95
40 making process to evaluate the quality of the stream Integrity (Karr, 1981) and the Benthic Index of Biotic 96
41 health. Another benefit to using biological indicators for Integrity (Kerans and Karr, 1994), utilize several metrics or 97
42 evaluating stream health is that they not only take into characteristics to evaluate stream health. The develop- 98
43 account biological factors but also the physical and ment of multi-metric indices takes into account the 99
44 chemical characteristics of the system (Brazner et al., following factors: metric selection (Stoddard et al., 100
45 2007; Pelletier et al., 2012; Leigh et al., 2013). This is 2008), survey design (Hughes and Peck, 2008), sampling 101
46 because biological factors are influenced by the physical procedures (Hughes and Peck, 2008), organism taxonomic 102
47 and chemical characteristics of the ecosystem. By using identification level (Waite et al., 2004; Chessman et al., 103
48 indicators to evaluate the biotic integrity, environmental 2007), number and types of sampled habitats (Chessman 104
49 resource managers are able to identify degraded areas and et al., 2007), and organism classification and identification 105
50 can allocate resources to restore the ecosystems with the (Cuffney et al., 2007). By accounting for the complexity of 106
51 greatest needs (Butcher et al., 2003a; Walters et al., 2009; stream ecosystems a more comprehensive view of what is 107
52 Einheuser et al., 2012; Pelletier et al., 2012), in the most occurring within streams can be made (Thorne and 108
53 cost-effective way (Neumann et al., 2003b). The specific Williams, 1997; Rakocinski, 2012). This provides decision 109
54 objectives for this study were to (1) determine the origins makers and stakeholders with more detailed information 110
55 and applications of macroinvertebrate and fish stream about the degradation within the streams and allows them 111
56 health indices; (2) summarize the benefits and limitations to effectively implement mitigation practices. However, 112
57 of existing macroinvertebrate and fish stream health with the increased complexity of multi-metric indices the 113
58 indices; and (3) identify the knowledge gaps within the calculations required to determine stream health are more 114
59 field of biomonitoring that require additional research. complicated than those used biotic indices. 115
60 This will be done by first reviewing the individual
61 components, collection strategies, and applications of 2.3. Multivariate methods 116
62 stream health indices. Following these sections the paper
63 will explore macroinvertebrate and fish based indices as Multivariate methods require the development of 117
64 well as more detailed reviews of the major indices being models to relate physical and chemical stream features 118
65 used in the field. to observed organisms (Wright et al., 1998). Several 119
commonly used multivariate models include the River 120
66 2. Stream health indices Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System (RIV- 121
PACS), Two-Way Indicator Species Analysis (TWINSPAN), 122
67 Stream health indices are evaluation systems that are Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA), and the 123
68 used to assess aquatic ecosystems conditions for individual Australian River Assessment Scheme (AusRivAS). After 124
69 streams (Hu et al., 2007). These indices are also used to for the models were developed, they can be used to evaluate 125
70 comparison purposes among different ecoregions (Butcher stream health beyond sampling points. The data inputs to 126
71 et al., 2003a). In general, stream health indices are divided the models can be simulated from calibrated watershed 127
72 into three general groups: biotic indices, multi-metric models. This makes multivariate methods very useful for 128
73 indices, and multivariate methods (Ollis et al., 2006). identifying degraded areas. However, the model develop- 129
ment can be challenging and there is an uncertainty in 130
74 2.1. Biotic indices their predictions. Therefore, it is recommended that 131
multivariate methods be used in combination with 132
75 Biotic indices or uni-metric, such as the Hilsenhoff multi-metric and biotic indices for evaluating the stream 133
76 Biotic Index (Hilsenhoff, 1977), utilize only one metric or health (Reynoldson et al., 1997). 134
77 characteristic to evaluate stream health. Originally, biotic
78 indices focused on organism tolerances to organic 3. Metrics 135
79 pollution (Hilsenhoff, 1987; Ollis et al., 2006). This
80 allowed for the identification of regional degradations. Metrics are individual characteristics of the ecosystem 136
81 However there are many stressors that can impact stream used to provide information about the conditions within 137
82 health besides organic pollution. Therefore, to advance streams (Barbour et al., 1999; Butcher et al., 2003a). 138
83 the use of biotic indices additional organisms should be Biological metrics include species abundance and condi- 139
84 selected that are sensitive to other pollutions such as tion, species richness and composition, and trophic 140
85 nitrogen, sediment, and temperature (Smith et al., 2007; composition. These metrics are used to describe stream 141
86 Haase and Nolte, 2008). One of the benefits of biotic index health (Van Hoey et al., 2007) through development of 142
87 is that stream health can be determined by simple stream health indices. 143
88 calculation of one metric. However, this approach did
89 not take into account the combined impacts of multiple 3.1. Species abundance and condition 144
90 stressors within streams or the complex nature of stream
91 ecosystems. This led to the development of more complex Metrics that are used to describe the number and 145
92 stream health indices such as multi-metric indices and condition of each species found in the rivers are known as 146
93 multivariate methods. species abundance and condition metrics. These include 147
G Model
ECOHYD 74 1–15
M.R. Herman, A.P. Nejadhashemi / Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 3
148 the number of species collected, such as the number of following functional groups: collectors, scrapers, shred- 205
149 Ephemeroptera taxa collected per sample (Walters et al., ders, piercers, and predators (Cummins and Klug, 1979; 206
150 2009), or determining the percentage of injured individu- Couceiro et al., 2012). While fish can be classified as 207
151 als in a sample, such as the percentage of individuals with herbivores, insectivores, planktivores, piscivores, and 208
152 disease, tumors, fin damage, and skeletal anomalies (Karr omnivores (Karr, 1981). Each functional group has a 209
153 et al., 1986). In many multi-metric indices, the use of specific role in the ecosystem; collectors either filter or 210
154 abundance and condition metrics is common (Houston gather nutrients from the water, scrapers live on the rocks 211
155 et al., 2002; Boyle and Fraleigh, 2003; Butcher et al., 2003a; on the streambed and scrap off organic material to eat, 212
156 Couceiro et al., 2012; Magbanua, 2012). Often abun- shredders break down biomass such as leaves, and piercers 213
157 dance indicators are used to evaluate key or sensitive and predators actively hunt other organisms for a food 214
158 macroinvertebrate and fish families, such as the EPT supply. Similarly herbivores feed off plant life within the 215
159 (Ephemeroptera/Plechoptera/Trichoptera) index, to pro- streams, insectivores feed off the macroinvertebrates, 216
160 vide information about the conditions in the stream. In planktivores feed off microscopic organisms, piscivores 217
161 general, for identical streams, the system with more feed off other fish, and omnivores feed off both plants and 218
162 sensitive organisms is less impacted by anthropogenic other organisms. Since macroinvertebrates and fish can be 219
163 activities (Johnson et al., 2013). found in every functional level (Karr, 1981; Barbour et al., 220
1999), they can be used to develop an overall picture of the 221
164 3.2. Species richness and composition ecosystem. To use these metrics, the functional feeding 222
group of each organism taxa is determined by classifying 223
165 Metrics that fall under the category of species richness each taxa by its method of food acquisition for macro- 224
166 and composition are used as a qualitative measure to invertebrates (Cummins and Klug, 1979) and tropic level 225
167 approximate the diversity found in the ecosystem. This not for fish (Karr, 1981). This distribution of the functional 226
168 only gives an overview of what is found in the stream, but feeding groups within the system is used to evaluate the 227
169 it can also indicate the stream health based on species status of the stream. Often changes in the functional 228
170 distributions. In general, the presence of dominant species feeding groups are driven by nutrient changes (Smith et al., 229
171 or absence of rare species indicates impacted environ- 2007), which means that the use of these metrics can 230
172 ments (Wan et al., 2010). Furthermore, it has generally provide information about the chemical composition of the 231
173 been shown that regions with high biodiversity are in river system. Similar to the species richness metrics, many 232
174 better condition and show less degradation, while the multi-metric indices, including the Index of Biotic Integri- 233
175 opposite condition, of low biodiversity, often indicates a ty, Benthic Community Index, and government indices 234
176 region with more degradation (Boyle and Fraleigh, 2003). such as the Florida Department of Environmental Protec- 235
177 This is calculated by recording the number of different tion Index, use function feeding group metrics (Karr, 1981; 236
178 taxa, from the highest taxonomic level, such as order, to Houston et al., 2002; Boyle and Fraleigh, 2003; Butcher 237
179 the lowest possible level, such as genus or species, taken et al., 2003a; Couceiro et al., 2012). 238
180 from a stream sample (Smith et al., 2007). In many multi-
181 metric indices, including the Index of Biotic Integrity, the 4. Application 239
182 Benthic Community Index, and government indices such
183 as the Alabama Department of Environmental Manage- Studies involving macroinvertebrate and fish commu- 240
184 ment Index, include the use of species richness and nities often focus on either defining stream health in a 241
185 composition metrics (Houston et al., 2002; Boyle and region through the development of a new index (Butcher 242
186 Fraleigh, 2003; Butcher et al., 2003a; Couceiro et al., 2012; et al., 2003a), using a previously created index (Butcher 243
187 Magbanua, 2012). Another example of indices that utilize et al., 2003b), testing an index to see if it can identify a 244
188 species richness metrics are the Simpson and Shannon known stressor (Compin and Céréghino, 2003), comparing 245
189 diversity and richness indices (Keylock, 2005). The the results of different indices in one region (Justus et al., 246
190 Simpson index is based on the probability that two 2010), or testing to see if a previously created index can be 247
191 randomly selected organisms from a set are the same applied to a new region (Muxika et al., 2005). The first type 248
192 species. Meanwhile, the Shannon index is the proportional of study is preformed to provide an index that can be used 249
193 abundances of each species within a set. While the for streams in the region; stakeholders and governments 250
194 Simpson and Shannon indices use different approaches, can use these studies to implement projects to improve the 251
195 both take into account species richness and composition to locations within the region that require it the most. Testing 252
196 provide diversity scores that can be used to describe the already known indices is performed to see if the current 253
197 stream biodiversity (Keylock, 2005). index can be extended to include more results about the 254
ecosystem. If the results of the study are positive, this 255
198 3.3. Trophic composition shows that the index can be applied to more regions and 256
provide a more complete understanding of the environ- 257
199 Metrics that fall under the tropic composition category ment (Compin and Céréghino, 2003). The comparison 258
200 are used to study the transfer of energy and nutrients studies between different indices are very useful on several 259
201 through the system (Cummins and Klug, 1979). Trophic levels. First, it identifies the best index to use for stream 260
202 levels or functional feeding groups are categories that health evaluation in the region; second, it allows general- 261
203 describe an organism’s role in the food web. Benthic izations to be drawn about indices and what they can 262
204 macroinvertebrates can be classified in one or more of the determine. This was the case in the study by Justus et al. 263
G Model
ECOHYD 74 1–15
264 (2010), where macroinvertebrates were not as capable as driven and solely based on the river size (EPA, 2006). In this 323
265 algae at detecting low concentration changes in nutrients concept, stream order 5 is generally used as a break point. 324
266 levels. However, the macroinvertebrates were able to Stream orders 1–5 generally represent wadeable streams 325
267 respond to the low nutrient concentrations better than the and stream orders greater than 5 generally represent non- 326
268 fish community. The final type of study was to determine if wadeable streams (EPA, 2006). It is important to note that 327
269 an index can be applied to a new region. This is important the stream order concept does not always correspond to 328
270 because it can expand the use of indices to provide wadeability or river size. Overall the majority of wadeable 329
271 information about the region without having to create a streams express the patterns seen in headwaters and 330
272 new index. One example is the AZTI Marine Biotic Index medium-sized streams while non-wadeable streams 331
273 (AMBI), which was originally developed by Borja et al. express the patterns seen in large rivers. Understanding 332
274 (2000) but applied by Muxika et al. (2005) to six different the patterns described in the river continuum concept 333
275 costal sites throughout Europe with the goal of determin- allows for the creation of indices that can accurately 334
276 ing the suitability of the index for evaluating the health of capture the expected community populations and detect 335
277 the ecosystems. These sites ranged from the Baltic to the degradation within wadeable and non-wadeable stream 336
278 Mediterranean Seas. After evaluating all of the sites, it was systems. 337
279 determined that the AMBI was a suitable choice for all
280 European coastal ecosystems. At the same time these 5.1. Wadeable waterways 338
281 studies have the chance of showing that the index in
282 question cannot be applied to the region without Streams are classified as wadeable by the EPA when 339
283 modifications. they are shallow enough to take samples from without 340
using a boat (EPA, 2006). The EPA mainly focus on these 341
284 5. Sampling protocols streams since they represent about 90% of the perennial 342
streams and river miles in the United States (EPA, 2006). 343
285 Since the majority of metrics used for indices are based For macroinvertebrate sampling, a variety of methods 344
286 on observations of macroinvertebrate and fish communi- exist, these include: surbers, hesses, D-frame dip nets, 345
287 ties found in rivers, strategies are needed to collect rectangular dip nets, and kick nets (Plafkin et al., 1989). 346
288 samples for analysis. While individual strategies may Subers are 0.3 m 0.3 m square frame nets that are placed 347
289 change from study to study, such as number of samples or on cobble substrates in shallow water (<0.3 m) and are 348
290 equipment used for sampling; all require the use of used to collect dislodged organisms (Plafkin et al., 1989). 349
291 individuals, either volunteers or trained workers, to go out Hesses are 0.5 m diameter metal cylinders that are used 350
292 and take samples (Butcher et al., 2003b). Often times this similarly to subers, however they can be used in slightly 351
293 includes taking samples at different times of the year to deeper water (<0.5 m) and prevent organisms from 352
294 determine the general condition year round (Neumann escaping (Plafkin et al., 1989). D-frame dip nets 353
295 et al., 2003a). However, the actual process of collecting the (0.3 m 0.3 m), rectangular dip nets (0.5 m 0.3 m), and 354
296 samples is not uniform across all regions; this brings up the kick nets (1 m 1 m) are recommended for use in stony 355
297 need for different monitoring strategies to capture stream riffles and runs with depths smaller than 1 m (Plafkin et al., 356
298 network characteristics. The river continuum concept 1989). The technique used to collect organisms with these 357
299 describes the predictable physical and biological patterns three methods is similar: the stream bed is disturbed and a 358
300 seen in different regions of rivers (EPA, 2014). Based on the collection net is dragged along parallel to the disturbance, 359
301 river continuum concept, headwater organisms are de- collecting the displaced macroinvertebrates (Plafkin et al., 360
302 pendent on interactions with the riparian zone for sources 1989; Butcher et al., 2003a; Young and Collier, 2009; 361
303 of energy and nutrients; therefore, the macroinvertebrate Couceiro et al., 2012). Of these five recommended methods 362
304 communities found there are primarily composed of the most often used is the kick net method. For all of these 363
305 collectors and shredders (Vannote et al., 1980). However, methods, nets are used to collect the organisms; however, 364
306 for large rivers, organic transport from upstream (head- the mesh size can vary based on the goal of the project and 365
307 waters and medium-sized streams) and algae are the the location of the study. For example the standard mesh 366
308 major sources of nutrients and energy, completely repla- size suggested by the EPA for benthic macroinvertebrate 367
309 cing the significance of the riparian vegetation (Vannote sampling is a 500 m screen (EPA, 2012). The organisms 368
310 et al., 1980). This change in primary production source also collected in the nets are transferred to containers (Barbour 369
311 changes the community composition, for example the et al., 1999), which are sent to labs for analysis. However it 370
312 macroinvertebrate communities are mainly collectors is important to note that the kick net method, while very 371
313 (Vannote et al., 1980). popular, has some errors. During the collection process 372
314 In the river continuum concept, three physically based only those organisms residing near the stream bed and 373
315 categories are used to describe the ecological regions of a transects are caught, which leads to an incomplete 374
316 river system; headwaters (stream orders 1–3), medium- community sampling (Blocksom and Flotemersch, 2005). 375
317 sized streams (stream orders 4–6), and large rivers (stream To account for this deficiency, multiple transects per site 376
318 orders > 6) (Vannote et al., 1980). However, the type of should be performed to provide a more complete view of 377
319 equipment and the ease of sampling are largely dependent stream organisms (EPA, 2002). 378
320 on the size of the rivers. Therefore, the Environmental As for sampling fish communities in wadeable streams, 379
321 Protection Agency (EPA) introduced the concept of electrofishing is commonly used (Plafkin et al., 1989; Terra 380
322 wadeable and non-wadeable streams that is not ecological et al., 2013). In electrofishing, a direct current is applied to 381
G Model
ECOHYD 74 1–15
382 the water to stun nearby fish (Plafkin et al., 1989). Once was based on. The third column presents the changes or 438
383 stunned they can be collected with nets and placed in modifications made from the based index to create the 439
384 buckets for field identification before being released back new index. The fourth column describes specific char- 440
385 into the stream (Plafkin et al., 1989). There are some acteristics of the index such as the number of metrics, score 441
386 limitations with electrofishing including misrepresenta- trends, or aspect that is evaluated. The fifth column 442
387 tion of fish populations during seasonal migrations describes the stream size in which the index is applied, 443
388 (Zalewski, 1983; Roset et al., 2007). This can be somewhat with a total of three possibilities: wadeable streams, non- 444
389 mitigated by taking multiple samples from the same site at wadeable streams, and wadeable and non-wadeable 445
390 different times throughout the year. Furthermore, smaller streams. And the final column lists the metrics used for 446
391 fish are less efficiently collected using the electrofishing each index. 447
392 technique. The indices presented below offer many different 448
techniques for evaluating stream health. However, these 449
393 5.2. Non-wadeable waterways indices generally originate from four common indices, 450
which include Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI), 451
394 Streams are classified as non-wadeable when they are Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, 452
395 too large for an individual to take samples without the use Trichoptera (EPT) Index, and the Biological Monitoring 453
396 of a boat (EPA, 2006; Rossaro et al., 2007). These water Working Party Index (BMWP). These indices can look at 454
397 bodies include coastal regions (Muxika et al., 2005), many aspects of the ecosystem, such as the B-IBI, or 455
398 estuaries (Puente et al., 2008), large rivers (Angradi and focused on one particular characteristic of the environ- 456
399 Jicha, 2010), and lakes (Rossaro et al., 2007; Launois et al., ment, such as the BMWP index. Out of the 40 macro- 457
400 2011). For macroinvertebrate sampling, wadeable techni- invertebrate indices listed in Table A1, 15 used EPT as the 458
401 ques can be used in shallow river edges while deeper base index. This made EPT the most often used base index. 459
402 regions of the river can be sampled by using drift nets and Of the modifications made to the EPT index, the most 460
403 multi-plate samplers (Blocksom and Flotemersch, 2005). common was the addition of metrics that evaluated other 461
404 Drift nets are anchored to stream beds with steel rods and aspects of the streams, such as the presence of other 462
405 trap macroinvertebrates as they drift with the current; organisms, for example the number of Chironomidae 463
406 however this method is generally recommended for (Houston et al., 2002), or functional feeding groups 464
407 depths not exceeding three meters (Lazorchak et al., metrics, for example the % filters (Houston et al., 2002). 465
408 2000). Multi-plate samplers are stacks of plates with This allowed the new index to provide a better picture of 466
409 spacers between the plates that are secured to the bottom the conditions within the stream as well as take into 467
410 of the river and left for a few weeks before being retrieved. account local characteristics. The following sections 468
411 After collected the multi-plate samplers, macroinverte- describe the major macroinvertebrate indices into three 469
412 brates are gathered from the gaps between the plates groups according to the stream health grouping (biotic 470
413 (Wisconsin DNR, 1995). indices, multi-metric indices, and multivariate methods). 471
414 For fish sampling, electrofishing and trawling nets are
415 used (Esselman et al., 2013; Harrison and Kelly, 2013). 6.1.1. Macroinvertebrate-based biotic indices 472
416 Electrofishing is conducted from a boat and the stunned
417 fish collected with nets for identification and release 6.1.1.1. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index. The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 473
418 (Esselman et al., 2013). Trawling nets are used for deep (HBI) is a commonly used (Butcher et al., 2003a) index 474
419 coastal regions and lakes. In this technique a net is dragged developed by Hilsenhoff in the 1970s (Hilsenhoff, 1977). It 475
420 behind a boat to collect fish for identification (Harrison and was based on the tolerances of each observed taxa in the 476
421 Kelly, 2013). river system to organic pollutants (Hilsenhoff, 1987). 477
Therefore, HBI is used as an indicator for chemical 478
422 6. Macroinvertebrate- and fish-based indices degradation within river systems. To use this index, 479
samples are taken from the river and used to determine 480
423 6.1. Macroinvertebrate-based indices the average tolerance value for the system (Hilsenhoff, 481
1987). After recording all of the tolerances each river 482
424 One group of organisms that is often used for segment is ranked on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being the 483
425 determining stream health are macroinvertebrates (EPA, best (Goetz and Fiske, 2013). This value can be compared to 484
426 2013). They are useful at determining local sources of other sites to determine the degradations across the 485
427 degradation due their limited mobility within the stream region. To allow for a faster analysis of the system, 486
428 channel (Kerans and Karr, 1994). Also, macroinvertebrates Hilsenhoff provided a table describing the HBI values and 487
429 are sensitive to low levels of pollutants allowing for early their corresponding stream health classification. The 488
430 detection of stream degradation (Compin and Céréghino, scores were grouped into seven water quality categories 489
431 2003). Due to the frequent use of macroinvertebrates of: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Fairly Poor, Poor, and 490
432 (Flinders et al., 2008; Sharma and Rawat, 2009; Pelletier Very Poor. Each water quality category represents a 491
433 et al., 2012), many indices have been developed and are different level of organic pollution based on the dissolved 492
434 used to monitor stream health. Table A1 presents oxygen level (Hilsenhoff, 1987). For example, an Excellent 493
435 41 macroinvertebrate indices that were reviewed in this water quality category corresponds to no apparent organic 494
436 study. The first column indicates the name of the index and pollution and a score range of 0.00–3.50, while a Very Poor 495
437 its reference. The second column indicates the index that it water quality category corresponds to severe organic 496
G Model
ECOHYD 74 1–15
497 pollution and a score range of 8.51–10.00. Continued use of in community compositions, it was noted that ISI species 558
498 the HBI has also led to the discovery that this index can also related scores that were calculated for the stream 559
499 be used to identify regions with low dissolved oxygen and classifications may not be accurate in other regions (Haase 560
500 related temperature regimes (Butcher et al., 2003a). and Nolte, 2008). But if the organisms are ranked again for 561
501 Additionally, the HBI has become a very useful measure- the new region, this index would be useful for identifying 562
502 ment of stream heath to the point where it has been nutrient based degradations within stream systems. In 563
503 included as a metric in other multi-metric indices (Butcher addition to NBI and ISI, other indices were developed for 564
504 et al., 2003a) to provide information about the condition of calculating stressor tolerances. A study by Meador et al. 565
505 the stream with respect to organic pollutants. However, (2008) looked at organism tolerances to dissolved oxygen, 566
506 the number and type of organisms in the stream varies nitrite plus nitrate, total phosphorus, and water tempera- 567
507 based on the location and size of the streams as suggested ture. This shows how versatile the concept of organism 568
508 by the river continuum concept. Therefore, the organisms tolerances is, and the need for studies to explore organism 569
509 originally ranked for use in the HBI may not naturally occur tolerances to other stressors. 570
510 in all rivers, so additional organisms need to be added to Table A1 presents the metrics used in HBI as well as the 571
511 insure the HBI captures what is happening within the river metrics used in other indices that are either based on or use 572
512 systems (Chessman, 1995). Furthermore, the organisms the HBI for analysis. Of the original metrics listed in 573
513 used in the HBI index can be sensitive to several stressors, Table A1, the most common adjustment to the HBI was to 574
514 such as stream flow and nitrogen. This can lead to change the stressor being evaluated. The HBI looks at 575
515 inaccurate results using HBI (Lenat, 1993; Hilsenhoff, organism tolerances of organic pollutants, while the 576
516 1998; Barbour et al., 1999). Finally, the presence of tolerant indices based on the HBI look at organism tolerances to 577
517 organism communities may not be indicative of a other stressors such as nutrients (NBI) or temperature 578
518 degraded system, however these organisms increase HBI (TIV). 579
519 scores, which can be misleading (Hilsenhoff, 1998).
520 Other studies have taken the concept used for the HBI 6.1.1.2. Biological Monitoring Working Party. The Biological 580
521 and applied it to other stressors to make new indices. One Monitoring Working Party Index (BMWP) was developed 581
522 example of a new index that is based on the HBI, is the by the UK Biological Monitoring Working Party in 1978 to 582
523 Nutrient Biotic Index (NBI), which instead of considering evaluate stream health in both England and Wales 583
524 the impacts of organic pollutants; it was developed to (Chesters, 1980; Paisley et al., 2013). Since its develop- Q3 584
525 assess the tolerances of organisms to nutrient loading ment, it has become a commonly used index throughout 585
526 within aquatic ecosystems and in particular wadeable the world (Junqueira and Campos, 1998; Mustow, 2002; 586
527 streams (Smith et al., 2007). To do this, two different Monaghan and Soares, 2010; Navarro-Llácer et al., 2010; 587
528 indices were created, one for nitrogen (NBI-N) and one of Gutiérrez-Fonseca and Lorion, 2014). To determine the 588
529 phosphorous (NBI-P). Stream health is calculate with these stream health based on the BMWP, macroinvertebrate 589
530 indices by ranking organisms based on their tolerance to organic pollution tolerances were determined by relating 590
531 nitrogen and phosphorous; after this step stream samples macroinvertebrate presence to stream organic pollution 591
532 can be taken used to determine the average nitrogen and levels based on dissolved oxygen (Chesters, 1980; Hawkes, 592
533 phosphorous tolerance scores (Smith et al., 2007). These 1998; Junqueira and Campos, 1998), this is similar to the 593
534 scores are used to compare between different streams and technique used in the HBI (Hilsenhoff, 1987). However, the 594
535 locate the optimal concentration needed of each nutrient scoring system is reversed, while the HBI has tolerance 595
536 for organism survival (Smith et al., 2007). Smith et al. rankings from 0 to 10 with 0 being the best (Goetz and 596
537 (2007) identified the tolerances of 164 collected taxa and Fiske, 2013); the BMWP has tolerance rankings from 0 to 597
538 ranked them from a 0 to 10 scale where 10 indicated high 10 with 10 being the best (Hawkes, 1998: Junqueira and 598
539 tolerance and 0 low tolerance (Smith et al., 2007). This Campos, 1998). Macroinvertebrate samples are identified 599
540 allowed for comparisons between different streams and to the family level (Mustow, 2002; Pander and Geist, 2013; 600
541 evaluation of the nutrient loading in the study region. Paisley et al., 2013) with some studies going further to the 601
542 Using the concept of HBI to evaluate nutrient loading was genus level for ranking pollution sensitivity (Beauger and 602
543 also used in Haase and Nolte’s study (2008). The Inverte- Lair, 2008). Once all macroinvertebrate families/genera 603
544 brate Species Index (ISI) was developed to determine have been identified, an average stream score is calculated. 604
545 stream health and in particular the impacts of eutrophica- These scores are categorized into different classes to allow 605
546 tion in Queensland, Australia (Haase and Nolte, 2008). easy comparison between different stream sites. For 606
547 They scaled the sensitivity of macroinvertebrate species example, in Junqueira and Campos (1998), five stream 607
548 from 1 to 10, where a score of 10 means the species is very classes were defined: class I was for streams with BMWP 608
549 sensitive to pollution and a score of 1 means the species is scores 86 and were considered to have excellent water 609
550 resistant (Haase and Nolte, 2008), exactly the same as the quality, class II was for streams with BMWP scores ranging 610
551 HBI and NBI. Once all the sensitivity scores were from 64 to 85 and were considered to have good water 611
552 determined an average score is calculated to represent quality, class III was for streams with BMWP scores ranging 612
553 the conditions within the stream (Haase and Nolte, 2008). from 37 to 63 and were considered to have satisfactory 613
554 In Haase and Nolte (2008), tolerances were determined for water quality, class IV was for streams with BMWP scores 614
555 203 species of macroinvertebrates, which were used for ranging from 17 to 36 and were considered to have bad 615
556 comparison and evaluation of the upland streams in water quality, and class V was for streams with BMWP 616
557 southeast Queensland, Australia. However, due to changes scores 16 and were considered to have very bad water 617
G Model
ECOHYD 74 1–15
618 quality. These classes allow watershed managers to relate index uses the total number of macroinvertebrate families 676
619 BMWP scores to water quality, allowing for easier present in the stream to evaluate stream health (Sánchez- 677
620 identification of regions that need restoration. However, Montoya et al., 2010). This index assumes that the number 678
621 like the HBI and EPT, the BMWP is based on organism of taxa within an ecosystem increses in healther streams 679
622 tolerances to organic pollution; and the organisms used are (Wan et al., 2010). Therefore streams with many different 680
623 sensitive to more than just organic pollution (Department macroinvertebrate taxa have higher NFAM scores and are 681
624 for International Development, 2004). This can lead to considered less degraded, while sites dominated by few 682
625 distorted BMWP scores. Furthermore, these organisms taxa have lower NFAM scores and are considered highly 683
626 may not be naturally present in many regions, so different degraded. 684
627 organisms need to be considered to insure accurate
628 representation of river health conditions (Junqueira and 6.1.2. Macroinvertebrate-based multi-metric Indices 685
629 Campos, 1998; Mustow, 2002; Department for Interna-
630 tional Development, 2004). Studies that applied the BMWP 6.1.2.1. Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity. The Benthic Index 686
631 index without making modifications reported that it did of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) is a multi-metric index developed 687
632 not represent stream health accurately (Iliopoulou-Geor- by Kerans and Karr (1994) and is based on the Index of 688
633 gudaki et al., 2003). This is expected since the size and Biotic Integrity (IBI) developed by Karr in 1981. The B-IBI 689
634 location of a stream dictates the number and type of functions similarly to the IBI since it also uses organism 690
635 organisms found there according to the river continuum communities to evaluate stream health; however, the 691
636 concept. Meanwhile, studies that have modified the BMWP major change is that the B-IBI considers macroinverte- 692
637 to include local macroinvertebrate families have accurate- brates instead of fish. The metrics used in the B-IBI are 693
638 ly evaluated stream health (Junqueira and Campos, 1998; classified into three categories: taxa richness, taxa 694
639 Mustow, 2002; Gutiérrez-Fonseca and Lorion, 2014). composition, and biological processes of the macroinver- 695
tebrate community in the aquatic ecosystem (Kerans and 696
640 6.1.1.3. Abundance Biomass Comparison. Abundance Bio- Karr, 1994). Kerans and Karr (1994) described these 697
641 mass Comparison (ABC) index was originally introduced categories as follows: taxa richness metrics are the number 698
642 by Warwick et al. (1987) and used for evaluating the health of taxa observed within the stream, taxa composition 699
643 of lake ecosystems by comparing macroinvertebrate metrics are the percentages of the total population for 700
644 biomass and macroinvertebrate species abundance k- different taxa, such as % Ephemeroptera, and biological 701
645 dominance curves. If the biomass curve lies above the processes metrics describe the percentages of the total 702
646 species abundance curve the site in question is unpolluted, population for different functional feeding groups, such as 703
647 if the curves are similar to each other the site is moderately % shredders. This allows for a detailed analysis of the 704
648 polluted, and if the species abundance curve lies above the system and its condition. The thirteen metrics included in 705
649 biomass curve the site is severely polluted (Warwick, this index are total taxa richness, intolerant snail and 706
650 1986). Further evaluation of this index showed that the mussel species richness, mayfly richness, caddisfly rich- 707
651 ABC was sensitive to many different types of disturbances, ness, stonefly richness, relative abundance of Corbicula, 708
652 such as organic pollution and suspended sediment oligochaetes, omnivores, filterers, grazers, and predators, 709
653 (Warwick et al., 1987). proportion of individuals in two most abundant taxa, and 710
total abundance. Each metric is given a score from 1 to 711
654 6.1.1.4. AZTI Marine Biotic Index. AZTI Marine Biotic index 5 based on the observations of the stream region in 712
655 was developed by Borja et al. (2000) to evaluate the health comparison to a reference site that had minimal ecosystem 713
656 of non-wadeable, coastal regions. It categorizes macro- degradation (Kerans and Karr, 1994). A higher score 714
657 invertebrate species into one of five ecological groups indicates that the metric is closer to the reference site. A 715
658 based on their tolerance to pollutants (Borja et al., 2000). reference site is defined as the attainable or undisturbed 716
659 The group definitions are as follows: Group I are species stream conditions for a particular region (Reynoldson et al., 717
660 that are very sensitive to organic enrichment and present 1997; Hawkins et al., 2010). Selection of reference sites has 718
661 in unpolluted conditions; Group II are species that are been identified as a key step in the development and 719
662 unaffected by organic enrichment; Group III are species application of stream health indices (Whittier et al., 2007). 720
663 that are tolerant to excess organic enrichment; Group IV To calculate stream health scores, all of the metric scores 721
664 are species that are common in moderately degraded are summed. These scores can be used to evaluate the 722
665 conditions; and Group V are species that are common in impacts of watershed management scenarios. Based on 723
666 highly degraded conditions (Borja et al., 2000). After this analysis, sites that are given lower scores exhibit 724
667 sorting the organisms, a weighted biotic coefficient is greater degradation and thus can be selected for restora- 725
668 calculated for each site. The weighted biotic coefficient tion projects. For example, the original index scores ranged 726
669 scores range from 0 to 6 where 0 indicates an undisturbed from 0 to 65 with a score of 65 representing a non- 727
670 site and 6 a heavily degraded site (Borja et al., 2000). impacted ecosystem and a score of 0 representing a heavily 728
degraded ecosystem (Kerans and Karr, 1994). Kerans and 729
671 6.1.1.5. Number of Macroinvertebrate Families. Number of Karr’s study (1994) showed that this index was effective at 730
672 Macroinvertebrate Families (NFAM) index is a uni-metric detecting industrial degradations by taking samples above 731
673 index similar to the EPT (Sánchez-Montoya et al., 2010). and below industrial effluents. However, a universal B-IBI 732
674 However unlike the EPT, which uses three stressor does not exist and the B-IBI components need to be 733
675 sensitive taxa (Compin and Céréghino, 2003), the NFAM adjusted for different regions to better describe the 734
G Model
ECOHYD 74 1–15
735 ecosystem. This was done in the study by Roy et al. (2003), misleading index scores (Meixler and Bain, 1999; Brooks 795
736 where the B-IBI was modified to better represent the local et al., 2002; Mažeika et al., 2004). 796
737 condition using 11 metrics instead of the original To improve applications of the EPT index, it has been 797
738 13 metrics. Furthermore, despite the fact that B-IBI is a modified by including invertebrates from the Coleoptera 798
739 great measure for evaluating stream conditions, its metrics family. This modified index is known as the EPTC index 799
740 may not clearly represent biological conditions (Hender- (Compin and Céréghino, 2003). By adding an additional 800
741 son, 2014). Therefore, it is important to select metrics that invertebrate order to the index, the sensitivity of the index 801
742 capture local characteristics such as community composi- to pollution is increased, which helps provide a better view 802
743 tions and land use (Rehn et al., 2008). In addition, the of what is happening in the ecosystem. The EPTC index was 803
744 stressor source (natural versus anthropogenic) may not used to evaluate conditions in both streams and large 804
745 always be identified using B-IBI (Weisberg et al., 1997; rivers (Compin and Céréghino, 2003). The scores from the 805
746 Engle and Summers, 1999; Bilkovic et al., 2006). index we grouped into five different classes, Excellent, 806
747 Table A1 presents the metrics used in the B-IBI as well Good, Good-fair, Fair, and Poor. The score ranges for each 807
748 as the metrics of other indices originated from the B-IBI. Of class depended on the type of ecosystem evaluate; for 808
749 the original metrics listed, the most commonly removed example a score of 50 or more was considered as 809
750 metrics were % grazers and intolerant snail and mussel ‘‘Excellent’’ for streams while for the large rivers, a score 810
751 species richness; however, no single metric was commonly of 35 or more was considered as ‘‘Excellent’’. Meanwhile, a 811
752 added. Overall, these changes were made to better EPTC score less than 24 was considered as a poor stream 812
753 represent the local conditions and the ecosystem accord- condition, while a EPTC score less than two is poor for the 813
754 ing to the river continuum concept in which, the number large rivers. Distinction between streams and large rivers 814
755 and type of organism varies based on the location and size in the EPTC method makes it more realistic because the 815
756 of the streams. ecosystems found in each generally quite different. 816
However, EPTC is recommended for evaluation of small 817
757 6.1.2.2. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera bodies of water such as streams rather than large bodies of 818
758 Index. The Ephemeroptera (E), Plecoptera (P) and Trichop- water such as rivers. 819
759 tera (T) index, also known as the EPT index, is based on the Table A1 presents the metrics used in EPT as well as the 820
760 observation of organisms of the Ephemeroptera (mayflies), metrics of other indices that are either based on or use EPT 821
761 Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies) fami- for analysis. Of the original metrics listed, the most 822
762 lies (Lenat, 1988). These families are used because they are common change to the EPT was the removal of the % 823
763 particularly sensitive to organic pollution levels within the abundance metric. In the cases when EPT % abundance was 824
764 ecosystem and therefore can be used to identify local removed, additional richness and composition metrics 825
765 impacted regions (Butcher et al., 2003a; Compin and were added, such as Diptera taxa richness, % Coleoptera 826
766 Céréghino, 2003). Their sensitivity to organic pollutants taxa, and % Oligochaeta and leech taxa (Blocksom and 827
767 also allows for early identification of problems in the Johnson, 2009). Another common addition to the EPT index 828
768 ecosystem and allows subsequent actions to be taken to was functional feeding group metrics, such as % collector- 829
769 repair the ecosystem (Johnson et al., 2013). Couceiro et al. filterer individuals, predator taxa richness, number of 830
770 (2012) initially used EPT richness and abundance to scrapers/number of gatherers, number of shredders/total 831
771 evaluate stream health conditions within the Central number collected, and % filterers (Houston et al., 2002; 832
772 Amazon region of Brazil for distinguishing between Blocksom and Johnson, 2009). The addition of these 833
773 degraded and non-degraded sites. However, it was metrics increases the index’s ability to determine what 834
774 disregarded due to its insensitivity between the sites. In is occurring within the ecosystem. For example, the 835
775 contrast, Oliveira et al. (2011) used EPT as one of the final addition of the functional feeding group metrics helps 836
776 9 metrics for their multi-metric index with scores ranging determine energy and nutrient flows, while the abundance 837
777 from 0.27 to 65.90 (Oliveira et al., 2011). EPT was also part EPT metrics identify pollution levels within the stream. 838
778 of the final list of metrics for the benthic community index
779 developed by Butcher et al. (2003a). EPT can also be used as 6.1.2.3. Multimetric Index for Castilla-La Mancha. Multi- 839
780 a standalone index. However, in the last two examples, EPT metric Index for Castilla-La Mancha (MCLM) index was 840
781 was used as a metric in a multi-metric framework, which developed by Navarro-Llácer (2006) for the Castilla-La 841
782 can lead to a better understanding of the system and what Mancha region in Spain. The MCLM uses three metrics to 842
783 is affecting it (Butcher et al., 2003a; Oliveira et al., 2011). describe stream health (Navarro-Llácer et al., 2010) These 843
784 The macroinvertebrate families used in the EPT are three metrics include: the average biological monitoring 844
785 widespread in all streams and regions. However, there water quality, the number of families from Plecoptera and 845
786 are some limitations to using EPT that include: insensitivi- Trichoptera, and the number of families from Gasteropoda, 846
787 ty in Afrotropic regions due to the low diversity of Oligochaeta, and Diptera (Navarro-Llácer et al., 2010). For 847
788 Plecoptera, which makes it difficult to accurately evaluate each site the individual metric scores are calcualted and 848
789 stream health; among the EPT families some are tolerant or averaged to obtain the stream health score. Streams with 849
790 moderately tolerant to organic pollution, this compro- higher scores are less degraded than those with lower 850
791 mises its utility as a discriminator of organic pollutants in scores (Navarro-Llácer et al., 2010). 851
792 streams (Thorne and Williams, 1997; Masese et al., 2013);
793 and the EPT families are sensitive to other stressors, such as 6.1.2.4. Yungas Biotic Index. Yungas Biotic Index was 852
794 flow regime and stream geomorphology, this can lead to developed by Dos Santos et al. (2011) to evaluate wadeable 853
G Model
ECOHYD 74 1–15
854 stream heath in the Yungas Rainforest in Southern Bolivia indicates the index that it was based on. The third column 911
855 and Northern Argentina. This index determines stream presents the changes or modifications made from the 912
856 health solely based on the presence of four macroinverte- based index to create the new index. The fourth column 913
857 brate taxa: Elmidae, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, and describes specific characteristics of the index such as the 914
858 Megaloptera. Using this system each stream is ranked number of metrics, score trends, or aspect that is 915
859 between 0 and 4, with each value indicating the number of evaluated. The fifth column describes the stream size in 916
860 these taxa present at the site (Dos Santos et al., 2011). which the index is applied, with a total of three 917
861 Therefore a stream site with none of the four taxa will have possibilities: wadeable streams, non-wadeable streams, 918
862 a score of 0 and will be considered degraded, while a and wadeable and non-wadeable streams. And the final 919
863 stream with all four taxa present will have a score of 4 and column lists the metrics used for each index. Out of the 920
864 will be considered non-degraded. 34 fish indices listed in Table A2, 28 were based on the 921
Index of Biological Integrity (IBI). This made IBI, by far, the 922
865 6.1.3. Macroinvertebrate-based multivariate Indices most often used base index. Of the modifications made to 923
the IBI index, the most common was the addition or 924
866 6.1.3.1. River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification subtraction of metrics to provide a better picture of the 925
867 System. River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification ecosystems by taking into account local characteristics. An 926
868 System (RIVPACS) index is a multivariate method that is example of this is the Fish Based Index for Lakes (FBIL) 927
869 based on species diversity within stream systems (Moya developed by Launois et al. (2011). To consider the 928
870 et al., 2011). Developed in the late 1970s, RIVPACS aimed to differences for evaluating a lake in France; three metrics 929
871 relate macroinvertebrate species diversity to physical and were added: number of planktivore species, total biomass 930
872 chemical features within minimally disturbed streams of strict lithophilic individuals, and % total biomass of 931
873 (Wright et al., 1998). Thirty physical and chemical features tolerant individuals. Meanwhile, 10 of the 12 original 932
874 were selected and correlated to macroinvertebrate assem- metrics used in the IBI were removed (Launois et al., 2011). 933
875 blages. After the development of the RIVPACS model, it was By doing this, the FBIL was able to identify urban and local 934
876 used to predict the species and number of organisms that pressures that were a source of degradation for the French 935
877 would be expected to appear in a stream system. lakes. Of the indices listed in Table A2, few are not based on 936
878 Comparison of these results with observed macroinverte- the IBI, included in this category are the Tolerance 937
879 brate samples was used to evaluate stream condition. Indicator Values Index (TIVI) and the Stressor Gradients 938
Index (SGI). The TIVI was developed by Meador and Carlisle 939
880 6.2. Fish-based indices (2007) and functions similarly to the HBI. However, instead 940
of considering organic pollutant tolerances, it looks at the 941
881 Another group of organisms that is often used to organism tolerances to dissolved oxygen, nitrite plus 942
882 evaluate stream heath are fish (Mack, 2007; Zhu and nitrate, total phosphorus, and water temperature 943
883 Chang, 2008; EPA, 2013; Krause et al., 2013). Karr (1981) (Meador and Carlisle, 2007). The scores from each river 944
884 listed seven advantages for using fish for evaluating the can be used to compare between different rivers as well as 945
885 stream conditions, which included (1) well known life- indicate the levels of each component identifying where 946
886 history, (2) species found in many trophic levels (omni- there is too much or too little of each. The SGI was used by 947
887 vores, herbivores, insectivores planktivores, and pisci- Angradi et al. (2009) to correlate stressor gradients, such as 948
888 vores), (3) easy identification, (4) understood by general total nitrogen, sediment toxicity, and water temperature to 949
889 public, (5) can be used to identify a variety of stresses, (6) stream health. This was unique in the sense that the 950
890 are present in most water bodies, (7) can be easily stressor gradients were correlated to biological metrics in 951
891 connected with regulations. Points 1, 2, 5, and 6 show the order to determine the condition within the stream. The 952
892 usefulness of fish as indicators to determine what is use of the SGI was able to identify the anthropogenic 953
893 occurring within the ecosystem; while points 3, 4, and impacts on the river systems of the Upper Mississippi River 954
894 7 show that data collection and presentation is relatively basin. The following sections describe the major fish 955
895 easy when compared to other types of organisms. Unlike indices into three groups according to the stream health 956
896 macroinvertebrates, fish move throughout entire river grouping (biotic indices, multi-metric indices, and multi- 957
897 systems, which allows for representation of the conditions variate methods). 958
898 within an entire water system over a longer period of time
899 (Karr, 1981; EPA, 2013). Another benefit of fish is that they 6.2.1. Fish-based biotic indices 959
900 promptly respond to changes in flow regime (Navarro-
901 Llácer et al., 2010), which means that they can be used to 6.2.1.1. Fish Response Curves. The Fish Response Curves 960
902 evaluate the impacts of flow altering structures, such as (FRC) biotic index was developed by Zorn et al., 2012 with Q4 961
903 dams, on the ecosystem. All of these factors make fish the purpose of identifying regions where altered stream 962
904 based indices very useful for stream health monitoring flow has adverse impacts on fish communities in Michigan. 963
905 (EPA, 2013). Nevertheless, using fish communities for In this technique, streams were classified based on two 964
906 indices has its fair share of limitations as well. Limitations parameters: size (streams, small rivers, and large rivers) 965
907 include sampling selectivity, fish seasonal migrations, and and temperature (cold, cold-transitional, warm-transition- 966
908 the cost of sampling. Table A2 presents 37 fish indices that al, and warm) (Zorn et al., 2012). Within each stream, fish 967
909 were reviewed in this study. The first column indicates the species were further classified into ‘‘characteristic’’ and 968
910 name of the index and its reference. The second column ‘‘thriving’’ based on their abundance. This allows for 969
G Model
ECOHYD 74 1–15
970 capturing the variability in fish communities between the studies (Zhu and Chang, 2008; Smith and Sklarew, 2012; 1028
971 different types of streams. In the next step, fish assemblage Krause et al., 2013). In Europe, a commonly used index of 1029
972 response curves were developed for different levels of flow stream health based on the IBI is the Fish-Based Index (FBI) 1030
973 alteration within the driest month of the year (Zorn et al., (Launois et al., 2011). In Launois et al.’s application of the 1031
974 2012). Once developed the curves could be used to FBI, 15 metrics were used with scores ranging from 0 to 1032
975 evaluate how much water could be removed from the 100 with 100 being the best. The FBI was able to 1033
976 stream before the fish community was adversely impacted. successfully identify degraded water bodies, but lacked 1034
977 This technique was adopted by law makers as a guideline the ability to identify individual stressors (Launois et al., 1035
978 for water withdrawal in the state of Michigan (IWR, 2008). 2011). This shows that the selection of metrics is vital to 1036
ensure that the expected regional characteristics and 1037
979 6.2.1.2. Fish Species Biotic Index. Fish Species Biotic Index stresses are represented (Ruaro and Gubiani, 2013). 1038
980 (FSBI) was developed by Paller et al. (1996) with the Recently, Lyons (2012) modified the IBI for use in 1039
981 purpose of evaluating stream health for the U.S. Depart- perennial coolwater streams in Wisconsin. This required the 1040
982 ment of Energy facility in South Carolina. The FSBI utilizes creation of two different IBIs the Cool-Cold Transition (CCT) 1041
983 four species richness metrics including: percentage of IBI and the Cool-Warm Transition (CWT) IBI. Each index uses 1042
984 expected number of total species, percentage of expected five metrics to represent the ecosystems (Table A2) (Lyons, 1043
985 number of native minnow species, percentage of expected 2012). The metrics are given a score of 0, 10, or 20 based on 1044
986 number of piscivorous species, and percentage of expected the analysis of the sample. Next, the metric scores are 1045
987 number of madtom and darter species (Paller et al., 1996). summed to calculate the IBI score giving a range of scores 1046
988 Each metric is given a score of 1, 3, or 5 with 1 representing from 0 to 100 with 100 being the best similar to the FBI 1047
989 degraded sites and 5 representing non-degraded sites. A (Lyons, 2012). Overall, the results showed that while both 1048
990 weighted average of the individual metric scores was used indices identified disturbed areas with low scores; the CWT 1049
991 to determine the overall stream health score for each index performed better than the CCT index. However, due to 1050
992 sampling site (Paller et al., 1996). the wide variation in scores for similar stream sites, it was 1051
recommended that multiple samples and a mean or median 1052
993 6.2.2. Fish-based multi-metric indices score should be used to classify the systems instead of a 1053
single sample (Lyons, 2012). 1054
994 6.2.2.1. Index of Biotic Integrity. The Index of Biotic A different study that utilized the IBI found that rare 1055
995 Integrity (IBI) is a multi-metric index introduced by Karr taxa had major impacts on the results of IBI scores (Wan 1056
996 in 1981. It is based on fish communities and widely used to et al., 2010). In Wan et al. (2010) the sensitivity of the IBI 1057
997 determine the overall stream health (Karr, 1981). Karr was tested and it found that the presence/removal of rare 1058
998 listed three assumptions that are needed for the use of this taxa, often considered an indicator of lower degradation, 1059
999 index; (1) the fish sample is a balanced representation of can lower the IBI score by 38 points. While this was a 1060
1000 the community at the site, (2) the chosen site is concern, this result of the study still shows that the IBI is 1061
1001 representative of the region in which the IBI is being sensitive to the conditions within the stream, and as long 1062
1002 applied, and (3) the personal charged with analysis of the as the metrics are weighted correctly, the results of the 1063
1003 collected data are trained (Karr, 1981). If any of these index can provide accurate information about stream 1064
1004 assumptions is violated, the results of this index can be degradation. However, seasonal migration of fish commu- 1065
1005 misleading. Originally, the IBI was composed of 12 metrics, nities can lead to incomplete community sampling which 1066
1006 which can be grouped in one of the three following in turn leads to misleading IBI results especially at a large 1067
1007 classifications; (1) species richness and composition, (2) scale (Zalewski, 1983; Schlosser, 1990; Roset et al., 2007). 1068
1008 tropic composition, and (3) fish abundance and condition In addition, using IBI may not always help in determining 1069
1009 (Karr, 1981; Hu et al., 2007). Each of these metrics is given a source of stressors (natural or anthropogenic) even though 1070
1010 score of 1, 3, or 5 based on undisturbed reference sites, or it provides overall stream health condition. 1071
1011 sites with as little human disturbance as possible Table A2 presents the metrics used in IBI as well the 1072
1012 (Stoddard et al., 2006; Whittier et al., 2007), where a metrics used in other indices that are either based on or use 1073
1013 score of 5 is the best. After scoring all the metrics, the IBI for analysis. Of the metrics listed in the table, the most 1074
1014 individual scores are summed to provide the IBI score for common change to the IBI was the removal of most of the 1075
1015 each site. The IBI scores ranged from 0 to 60 and were original metrics such as the species richness and composi- 1076
1016 grouped into 9 stream classes, Excellent, Excellent-Good, tion of darters, suckers, and sunfish (except green sunfish), 1077
1017 Good, Good-Fair, Fair, Fair-Poor, Poor, Poor-Very Poor, and and the proportion of green sunfish (Karr, 1981). This was 1078
1018 Very Poor. Under this class system a stream scoring a 23 or done in combination with the addition of other metrics to 1079
1019 less would be classified as Very Poor while scores of 57–60 represented local characteristics. For example, number of 1080
1020 would be considered Excellent. Even though the 9 stream coolwater species, percentage tolerant species, % inverti- 1081
1021 classes are applicable in different regions, caution should vore/piscivore individuals, and % native large river taxa 1082
1022 be taken when correlating IBI scores from different regions. (Kanno et al., 2010; Esselman et al., 2013). This also follows 1083
1023 In order to address this issue, Karr (1981) also provided a the river continuum concept in which, the number and 1084
1024 description of what should generally be found in each type of organism varies based on the location and size of 1085
1025 stream class. This makes it easier to modify the IBI so it can the streams. By modifying the IBI to such an extent allows 1086
1026 be more transferable for multiregional studies of stream for better understanding of what is occurring within the 1087
1027 health. The IBI has been applied and modified in a variety of ecosystems by taking into account local characteristics. 1088
G Model
ECOHYD 74 1–15
1089 6.2.2.2. Estuarine Multi-metric Fish Index. Estuarine Multi- By using the relationships between fish communities and 1146
1090 metric Fish Index (EMFI) was developed by Harrison and stressors, this index can be used to evaluate stream health 1147
1091 Kelly (2013) with the purpose of evaluating Irish in regions where fish communities have not been sampled. 1148
1092 transitional waters. To capture the characteristics of
1093 transitional waters the EMFI uses fourteen metrics: species 7. Conclusions and recommendations 1149
1094 richness, number of introduced species, species composi-
1095 tion, species abundance, dominance, number of daidro- Throughout this review a variety of macroinvertebrate 1150
1096 mous species, estuarine species richness, marine migrant and fish indices were discussed, each had benefits and 1151
1097 species richness, estuarine species abundance, marine limitations. For macroinvertebrate indices, the B-IBI was 1152
1098 migrant species abundance, zoobenthivore species rich- capable of identifying industrial and chemical degradation 1153
1099 ness, piscivore species richness, zoobenthivore abundance, (Kerans and Karr, 1994) as well as changes brought about 1154
1100 and piscivore abundance (Harrison and Kelly, 2013). Each by land use change such as urbanization (Roy et al., 2003). 1155
1101 of these metrics is given a score from 1 to 5 with However, these indices are site specific (Kerans and Karr, 1156
1102 1 representing degraded conditions 5 representing non- 1994), which means that to insure accurate evaluation of 1157
1103 degraded conditions. After individual metric scores are stream health the metrics need to be fitted to the 1158
1104 calculated, they are summed to provide site health scores, conditions of the site. The HBI, NBI, and ISI were all able 1159
1105 which can be used to compare between sites (Harrison and to determine organism tolerances to pollutants whether 1160
1106 Kelly, 2013). organic (HBI) (Goetz and Fiske, 2013) or nutrient (NBI, ISI) 1161
(Smith et al., 2007; Haase and Nolte, 2008). The HBI also 1162
1107 6.2.2.3. Fish Community Index. Fish Community Index (FCI) has the benefit that it can be used as a metric of other 1163
1108 was developed by Jordan et al. (2010) with the purpose of multi-metric indices (Butcher et al., 2003a) allowing for 1164
1109 evaluating estuarine environments within the Gulf of better understanding of the ecosystems. Yet again, these 1165
1110 Mexico. The conditions that FCI was developed for are indices may not be applicable to other regions (Haase and 1166
1111 similar to those for the EMFI. However, the FCI only uses Nolte, 2008) because the tolerances of species may change 1167
1112 three metrics (Jordan et al., 2010) compared to the based on the natural conditions within different habitats. 1168
1113 fourteen used for the EMFI (Harrison and Kelly, 2013). The EPT index is capable of detecting low levels of 1169
1114 The metrics used for the FCI include: number of species, degradation due to the sensitivity of the Ephemeroptera 1170
1115 species abundance, and trophic index (Jordan et al., 2010). (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddis- 1171
1116 Each metric is given a score of 0, 1, or 2 with 0 representing flies) families (Goetz and Fiske, 2013). And similar to the 1172
1117 degraded sites and 2 representing non-degraded sites HBI, the EPT index can all be included in other multi-metric 1173
1118 (Jordan et al., 2010). The individual metric scores are indices (Butcher et al., 2003a). However, if the diversity of 1174
1119 summed to provide the health score for each site (Jordan these families is low it can lead to misleading index scores 1175
1120 et al., 2010). These scores were not only used to compare of stream health (Couceiro et al., 2012). In terms of fish 1176
1121 between sites but also between years. indices, the most commonly used and modified index is the 1177
IBI. This index allows for the evaluation of entire regions 1178
1122 6.2.2.4. Similarity Indices. Similarity Indices (SI) were de- (Karr, 1981) while at the same time being easily modified 1179
1123 veloped by Navarro-Llácer et al. (2010) to evaluate stream to take into account different climates (Lyons, 2012). 1180
1124 health by relating conditions within stream sites to However, the selection of the metrics used in this index is 1181
1125 established reference sites. Four different metrics of the vital for interpretation of the results (Wan et al., 2010; 1182
1126 fish community (composition, relative abundance, age Launois et al., 2011). 1183
1127 structure, and a global similarity value) are used to
1128 compare stream conditions (Navarro-Llácer et al., 2010). 7.1. Benefits 1184
1129 Each of these metrics is given a score from 0 to 1 with
1130 1 representing the reference conditions (Navarro-Llácer There are many reasons that a macroinvertebrate or fish 1185
1131 et al., 2010). These scores allow for rapid comparison of index would be applied to a river system; whether it is to 1186
1132 sites and the identification of heavily degraded regions. indicate the presence of pollutants (Karr, 1981; Johnson 1187
et al., 2013), or determine the optimal nutrient load for the 1188
1133 6.2.3. Fish-based multivariate indices system (Smith et al., 2007), or compare levels of degrada- 1189
tion between streams (Karr, 1981; Kerans and Karr, 1994). 1190
1134 6.2.3.1. Stressor Gradients. Stressor Gradients index was Furthermore, some macroinvertebrates are sensitive to 1191
1135 developed by Angradi et al. (2009) to assess stream health very low levels of degradation at local levels; therefore 1192
1136 by relating stressor metrics to fish communities. A variety they can be used by stakeholders to detect and correct 1193
1137 of stressors including total nitrogen, turbidity, human problems before more serious damage occurs (Barbour 1194
1138 disturbance, distance to upriver dam, and percent riparian et al., 1999; Flinders et al., 2008). While fish indices can be 1195
1139 wetland were used (Angradi et al., 2009). These metrics used to evaluate the conditions on a regional scale, due to 1196
1140 were related to a variety of fish assemblage metrics, such their mobility and lifespans (Karr, 1981). This makes them 1197
1141 as number of minnow species, total number of fish species, useful for watershed managers, since they can be used to 1198
1142 and proportion of invertivore individuals (Angradi et al., identify problems found throughout the entire watershed. 1199
1143 2009). Once these relationships were determined, stressor Another benefit to using macroinvertebrate and fish 1200
1144 metrics were given a score from 0 to 1 for each site, where indicators, is that they are also sensitive to the develop- 1201
1145 1 represented non-degraded regions (Angradi et al., 2009). ment of storage structures such as dams (Navarro-Llácer 1202
G Model
ECOHYD 74 1–15
1203 et al., 2010; Marzin et al., 2012) and can be used to monitor and downstream (Roset et al., 2007). Those effects may 1262
1204 the impact of anthropogenic changes to the flow levels in be further biased by electrofishing efficiency, which in one 1263
1205 the rivers. Besides being able to be used for a variety of run collects only certain fractions of the community. 1264
1206 different stream health indices, macroinvertebrates and Additionally, this is being affected by size distribution of 1265
1207 fish can also be used to identify the stressors causing the community (smaller fish are less efficiently collected) and 1266
1208 degradation of a site, based on the number and type of for the same size of fish body shape (long and slender fish 1267
1209 sensitive taxa present. And the wide distribution of are more efficiently collected than wide-bodied). Thus, to 1268
1210 macroinvertebrates and fish over trophic levels allows eliminate those biases during sampling procedure the 1269
1211 for a better understanding of what is actually happening mathematical formula was elaborated toward assessment 1270
1212 within the system and what changes are occurring due to of efficiency of electrofishing on the basis of only one 1271
1213 anthropogenic impacts. When all of this is taken into electrofishing run (Zalewski, 1983). 1272
1214 account, macroinvertebrates and fish can be seen as a very In regard to limitations of specific indices; while the IBI 1273
1215 versatile indicator of stream health and the impacts can capture broad characteristics within streams, its multi- 1274
1216 humans have on the aquatic ecosystems for which they metric nature can make it difficult to determine the origin 1275
1217 rely on for drinking water and irrigation. of the stressors (natural verses anthropogenic). Similar to 1276
1218 In regard to the benefits of specific indices; the IBI is a the IBI, the B-IBI may be unable to identify the stressor 1277
1219 comprehensive index and due to its multi-metric nature it source. The HBI, BMWP, and EPT are sensitive to organic 1278
1220 can be used to capture broad characteristics within pollution for stream health evaluation. However, the 1279
1221 streams that is beneficial in regional studies. Like the organisms used for these indices are also sensitive to 1280
1222 IBI, B-IBI is a multi-metric index, which provides a other stressors. This can lead to the misidentification of the 1281
1223 comprehensive overview of stream condition at local stressor impacting the system. Additionally, the organisms 1282
1224 levels. This index can also be modified to be sensitive to used for these indices may not naturally occur in different 1283
1225 individual pollutants such as industrial effluent. The HBI regions, this prevents the indices from accurately describ- 1284
1226 and BMWP use macroinvertebrate tolerances of organic ing the system. 1285
1227 pollution to evaluate stream health. The wide distribution Overall, determining which index to apply to a region is 1286
1228 of ranked organisms allows this index to be applied in challenging. Biotic indices (HBI, BMWP and EPT) while 1287
1229 many locations with minimal modification. Additionally, effective at determining the stream health based on a 1288
1230 the use of organism tolerances has been expanded to specific stressor, such as organic pollution, are insensitive 1289
1231 include other stressors such as nutrients and temperature. to other stressors that can impact the system. Multi-metric 1290
1232 Another index that is sensitive to organic pollution is the indices (IBI and B-IBI) help solve this problem by looking at 1291
1233 EPT, which is composed of a group of organisms that is several different metrics and allowing for a wider 1292
1234 commonly present in streams. Therefore, the EPT is often understanding of what is occurring within the stream. 1293
1235 added as a metric for multi-metric indices regardless of the However, these systems are still limited by sampling 1294
1236 location. technique efficiency. In general, this can be mitigated by 1295
increasing the number of samples taken from each site in 1296
1237 7.2. Limitations and future research the study, but it still needs to be noted that incomplete 1297
community samples limit the usefulness of stream health 1298
1238 Macroinvertebrates and fish are useful indicators of indices. 1299
1239 stream health (Karr, 1981; Iliopoulou-Georgudaki et al., Throughout this review, different aspects and applica- 1300
1240 2003) and a number of studies have used them to evaluate tions of macroinvertebrate and fish indices have been 1301
1241 large regions (Whittier et al., 2007; Paulsen et al., 2008; discussed. The majority of these works were performed in 1302
1242 Stoddard et al., 2008; Marzin et al., 2012). These regions wadeable streams, describing how the ecosystem responds 1303
1243 can be as large as entire countries. For example Marzin to different stressors. However, fewer studies have been 1304
1244 et al. (2012) evaluated stream health for all of France; done for non-wadeable streams, which should be the focus 1305
1245 while Paulsen et al. (2008) performed a nationwide of future research. 1306
1246 analysis on the first national assessment of the United
1247 States. Evaluating stream health on this scale allows for the Conflict of interest 1307
1248 comparison of scores between many different locations.
1249 However, some level of inaccuracy is expected on regional None declared. 1308
1250 use of biological indicators due to ecological and physio-
1251 graphical diversity (Hering et al., 2010). This is more Financial disclosure 1309
1252 pronounced for fish than macroinvertebrate indices, such
1253 as the IBI. To reduce this inaccuracy, ecoregions are This article was written by my graduate student 1310
1254 commonly used for regional studies (Whittier et al., 2007; (Mathew Herman) and me (A. Pouyan Nejadhashemi), 1311
1255 Paulsen et al., 2008), this is due to the fact that ecoregions whilst employed by the Michigan State University. 1312
1256 are relatively uniform in terms of biotic and abiotic
1257 characteristics (Butcher et al., 2003a). Uncited references Q5 1313
1258 The riverine macroinvertebrates and fish communities
1259 have been characterized by seasonal dynamics. However, Alba-Tercedor and Sánchez-Ortega (1988), Besley and 1314
1260 seasonal fish migrations along the river continuum Chessman (2008), Chessman et al. (1997), Griffith et al. 1315
1261 seriously affect community structure, both upstream (2005), Harrison and Whitfield (2006), Kleynhans (1999), 1316
G Model
ECOHYD 74 1–15
1317 Lyons et al. (2000), McCormick et al. (2001), Mebane et al. Chessman, B.C., 1995. Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinverte- 1382
brates: a procedure based on habitat-specific sampling, family level 1383
1318 (2003), Musil et al. (2012), Pont et al. (2007), Resh and identification and a biotic index. Aust. J. Ecol. 20 (1), 122–129. 1384
1319 Jackson (1993), Wiederholm (1980) and Wright et al. Chessman, B.C., Growns, J.E., Kotlash, A.R., 1997. Objective derivation of 1385
1320 (1984). macro invertebrate family sensitivity grade numbers for the SIGNAL 1386
biotic index: application to the Hunter River system, New South 1387
Wales. Mar. Freshw. Res. 48 (2), 159–172. 1388
1321 Acknowledgments Chessman, B., Williams, S., Besley, C., 2007. Bioassessment of streams 1389
with macroinvertebrates: effect of sampled habitat and taxonomic 1390
resolution. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 26 (3), 546–565. 1391
1322 Q7 This work is supported by the USDA National Institute Chesters, K.R., 1980. Biological Monitoring Working Party. The 1978 Na- 1392
1323 Q6 of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project MICL02212. We tional Testing Exercise. Water Data Unit. Technical Memorandum, No. 1393
19, pp. 37. 1394
1324 would also like to thank Ms. Christine Herman for her Compin, A., Céréghino, R., 2003. Sensitivity of aquatic insect species 1395
1325 editorial inputs. richness to disturbance in the Adour–Garonne stream system 1396
(France). Ecol. Indic. 3 (2), 135–142. 1397
Couceiro, S., Hamada, N., Forsberg, B., Pimentel, T., Luz, S., 2012. A 1398
macroinvertebrate multimetric index to evaluate the biological con- 1399
1326 Appendix A. Supplementary data dition of streams in the Central Amazon region of Brazil. Ecol. Indic. 1400
18, 118–125. 1401
1327 Supplementary data associated with this article can be Cuffney, T.F., Bilger, M.D., Haigler, A.M., 2007. Ambiguous taxa: effects on 1402
1328 found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.ecohyd.2015.04. the characterization and interpretation of invertebrate assemblages. 1403
J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 26 (2), 286–307. 1404
1329 001. Cummins, K.W., Klug, M.J., 1979. Feeding ecology of stream invertebrates. 1405
Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10, 147–172. 1406
Department for International Development, 2004. Biological Monitoring 1407
1330 References of Pollution. Retrieved from http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/ 1408
Water/R8161-Section5.pdf. 1409
1331 Alba-Tercedor, J., Sánchez-Ortega, A., 1988. Un método rápido y simple Dos Santos, D.A., Molineri, C., Reynaga, M.C., Basualdo, C., 2011. Which 1410
1332 para evaluar la calidad biológica de las aguas corrientes basado en el index is the best to assess stream health? Ecol. Indic. 11 (2), 582–589. 1411
1333 de Hellawell (1978). Limnetica 4 (51–56) . Einheuser, M.D., Nejadhashemi, A.P., Sowa, S.P., Wang, L., Hamaamin, Y.A., 1412
1334 Angradi, T.R., Jicha, T.M., 2010. Mesohabitat-specific macroinvertebrate Woznicki, S.A., 2012. Modeling the effects of conservation practices 1413
1335 assemblage responses to water quality variation in mid-continent on stream health. Sci. Total Environ. 435, 380–391. 1414
1336 (North America) great rivers. Ecol. Indic. 10 (5), 943–954. Engle, V.D., Summers, J.K., 1999. Refinement, validation, and application 1415
1337 Angradi, T.R., Pearson, M.S., Jicha, T.M., Taylor, D.L., Bolgrien, D.W., of a Benthic Condition Index for Northern Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. 1416
1338 Moffett, M.F., Blocksom, K.A., Hill, B.H., 2009. Using stressor gradients Estuaries 22 (3), 624–635. 1417
1339 to determine reference expectations for great river fish assemblages. EPA, 2002. Standard Operating Procedure for Macroinvertebrate Kick Net 1418
1340 Ecol. Indic. 9 (4), 748–764. Sampling. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/region1/lab/ 1419
1341 Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., Stribling, J.B., 1999. Rapid Bioas- reportsdocuments/wadeable/methods/MacroKickSample.pdf. 1420
1342 sessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: EPA, 2006. Wadeable Streams Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the 1421
1343 Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA 841-B-99- Nation’s Streams. Office of Research and Development: Office of 1422
1344 002, 2nd ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Water, Washington, DC. 1423
1345 Washington, DC. EPA, 2011. Aquatic Resource Monitoring. Retrieved 25.01.2014 from 1424
1346 Beauger, A., Lair, N., 2008. Keeping it simple: benefits of targeting riffle- Aquatic Indicators: www.epa.gov/nhrlsup1/arm/indicators/ 1425
1347 pool macroinvertebrate communities over multi-substratum sam- indicators.htm. 1426
1348 pling protocols in the preparation of a new European biotic index. EPA, 2012. Chapter 7 (Part A): Benthic Macroinvertebrate Protocols. 1427
1349 Ecol. Indic. 8 (5), 555–563. Retrieved from Water: Bioassessment: http://water.epa.gov/ 1428
1350 Besley, C.H., Chessman, B.C., 2008. Rapid biological assessment charts the scitech/monitoring/rsl/bioassessment/ch07main.cfm. 1429
1351 recovery of stream macroinvertebrate assemblages after sewage EPA, 2013. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2008–2009: A Col- 1430
1352 discharges cease. Ecol. Indic. 8 (5), 625–638. laborative Survey. EPA/841/D-13/001. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and 1431
1353 Bilkovic, D.M., Roggero, M., Hershner, C.H., Havens, K.H., 2006. Influence Watersheds and Office of Research and Development, Washington, 1432
1354 of land use on macrobenthic communities in nearshore estuarine DC. 1433
1355 habitats. Estuar. Coasts 29 (6), 1185–1195. EPA, 2014. Introduction to Watershed Ecology. Retrieved from Watershed 1434
1356 Blocksom, K.A., Flotemersch, J.E., 2005. Comparison of macroinvertebrate Academy Web: http://cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/pdf/modules/ 1435
1357 sampling methods for nonwadeable streams. Environ. Monit. Assess WatershedEcology.pdf. 1436
1358 102 (1–3), 243–262. Esselman, P.C., Infante, D.M., Wang, L., Cooper, A.R., Wieferich, D., Tsang, 1437
1359 Blocksom, K., Johnson, B., 2009. Development of a regional macroinverte- Y.-P., Thornbrugh, D.J., Taylor, W.W., 2013. Regional fish community 1438
1360 brate index for large river bioassessment. Ecol. Indic. 9 (2), 313–328. indicators of landscape disturbance to catchments of the contermi- 1439
1361 Borja, A., Franco, J., Pérez, V., 2000. A marine biotic index to establish the nous United States. Ecol. Indic. 26, 163–173. 1440
1362 ecological quality of soft-bottom benthos within European estuarine Flinders, C., Horwitz, R., Belton, T., 2008. Relationship of fish and macro- 1441
1363 and coastal environments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 40 (12), 1100–1114. invertebrate communities in the mid-Atlantic uplands: implications 1442
1364 Boyle, T.P., Fraleigh, H.D., 2003. Natural and anthropogenic factors affect- for integrated assessments. Ecol. Indic. 8 (5), 588–598. 1443
1365 ing the structure of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in an Goetz, S., Fiske, G.J., 2013. On the relationship between stream biotic 1444
1366 effluent-dominated reach of the Santa Cruz River, AZ. Ecol. Indic. 3 (2), diversity and exurbanization in the Northeastern USA. Geospatial 1445
1367 93–117. Tools for Urban Water Resources, vol. 7. Springer, Netherlands, , pp. 1446
1368 Brazner, J., Danz, N., Niemi, G., Regal, R., Trebitz, A., Howe, R., Hanowski, J., 61–78. 1447
1369 Johnson, L., Ciborowski, J., Johnston, C., Reavie, E., Brady, V., Sgro, G., Griffith, M.B., Hill, B.H., McCormick, F.H., Kaufmann, P.R., Herlihy, A.T., 1448
1370 2007. Evaluation of geographic, geomorphic and human influences on Selle, A.R., 2005. Comparative application of indices of biotic integrity 1449
1371 Great Lakes wetland indicators: a multi-assemblage approach. based on periphyton, macroinvertebrates, and fish to southern Rocky 1450
1372 Ecol. Indic. 7 (3), 610–635. Mountain streams. Ecol. Indic. 5 (2), 117–136. 1451
1373 Brooks, S.S., Palmer, M.A., Cardinale, B.J., Swan, C.M., Ribblett, S., 2002. Gutiérrez-Fonseca, P., Lorion, C., 2014. Application of the BMWP-Costa 1452
1374 Assessing stream ecosystem rehabilitation: limitations of community Rica biotic index in aquatic biomonitoring: sensitivity to collection 1453
1375 structure data. Restor. Ecol. 10 (1), 156–168. method and sampling intensity. Int. J. Trop. Biol. Conserv. 62, 1454
1376 Butcher, J.T., Stewart, P.M., Simon, T.P., 2003a. A Benthic Community 275–289. 1455
1377 Index for streams in the Northern Lakes and Forests Ecoregion. Haase, R., Nolte, U., 2008. The invertebrate species index (ISI) for streams 1456
1378 Ecol. Indic. 3 (3), 181–193. in southeast Queensland, Australia. Ecol. Indic. 8 (5), 599–613. 1457
1379 Butcher, J.T., Stewart, P.M., Simon, T.P., 2003b. Effects of two classification Harrison, T.D., Kelly, F.L., 2013. Development of an estuarine multi-metric 1458
1380 strategies on a Benthic Community Index for streams in the Northern fish index and its application to Irish transitional waters. Ecol. Indic. 1459
1381 Lakes and Forests Ecoregion. Ecol. Indic. 3 (3), 195–202. 34, 494–506. 1460
G Model
ECOHYD 74 1–15
1461 Harrison, T.D., Whitfield, A.K., 2006. Application of a multimetric fish of Non-Wadeable Rivers and Streams. U.S. Environmental Protection 1541
1462 index to assess the environmental condition of South African estuar- Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 1542
1463 ies. Estuar. Coasts 29 (6), 1108–1120. Leigh, C., Stubbington, R., Sheldon, F., Boulton, A.J., 2013. Hyporheic 1543
1464 Hawkes, H.A., 1998. Origin and development of the biological monitoring invertebrates as bioindicators of ecological health in temporary riv- 1544
1465 working party score system. Water Res. 32 (3), 964–968. ers: a meta-analysis. Ecol. Indic. 32, 62–73. 1545
1466 Hawkins, C.P., Olson, J.R., Hill, R.A., 2010. The reference conditions: Lenat, D.R., 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative 1546
1467 predicting benchmarks for ecological and water-quality assessment. collection method for benthic macroinvertebrates. J. North Am. 1547
1468 J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 29, 312L 343. Benthol. Soc. 7 (3), 222–233. 1548
1469 Henderson, D., 2014. About the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI). Lenat, D.R., 1993. A biotic index for the southeastern United States: 1549
1470 Retrieved from Puget Sound Stream Benthos Monitoring and Analy- derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning 1550
1471 sis: http://pugetsoundstreambenthos.org/About-BIBI.aspx. water-quality ratings. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 12 (3), 279–290. 1551
1472 Hering, D., Borja, A., Carstensen, J., Carvalho, L., Elliott, M., Feld, C.K., Lyons, J., 2012. Development and validation of two fish-based indices of 1552
1473 Heiskanen, A., Johnson, R., Moe, J., Pont, D., Solheim, A.L., de Bund, biotic integrity for assessing perennial coolwater streams in Wiscon- 1553
1474 W.V., 2010. The European Water Framework Directive at the age of sin, USA. Ecol. Indic. 23, 402–412. 1554
1475 10: a critical review of the achievements with recommendations for Lyons, J., Gutierrez-Hernandez, A., Diaz-Pardo, E., Soto-Galera, E., Medina- 1555
1476 the future. Sci. Total Environ. 408 (19), 4007–4019. Nava, M., Pineda-Lopez, R., 2000. Development of a preliminary 1556
1477 Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1977. Use of Arthropods to Evaluate Water Quality of index of biotic integrity (IBI) based on fish assemblages to assess 1557
1478 Streams. Retrieved from Ecology and Natural Resources Collection: ecosystem condition in the lakes of central Mexico. Hydrobiologia 1558
1479 http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/EcoNatRes.DNRBull100. 418 (1), 57–72. 1559
1480 Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream Mack, J.J., 2007. Developing a wetland IBI with statewide application after 1560
1481 pollution. Great Lakes Entomol. 20 (1), 31–39. multiple testing iterations. Ecol. Indic. 7 (4), 864–881. 1561
1482 Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1998. A modification of the biotic index of organic Maddock, I., 1999. The importance of physical habitat assessment for 1562
1483 stream pollution to remedy problems and permit its use throughout evaluating river health. Freshw. Biol. 41 (2), 373–391. 1563
1484 the year. Great Lakes Entomol. 31 (1), 1–12. Magbanua, F.S., 2012. Agricultural Intensification and Stream Health: 1564
1485 Houston, L., Barbour, M., Lenat, D., Penrose, D., 2002. A multi-agency Combined Impacts of Pesticide and Sediment. (Thesis, Doctor of 1565
1486 comparison of aquatic macroinvertebrate-based stream bioassess- Philosophy)University of Otago. 1566
1487 ment methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 1 (4), 279–292. Marzin, A., Archaimbault, V., Belliard, J., Chauvin, C., Delmas, F., Pont, D., 1567
1488 Hu, T.-J., Wang, H.-W., Lee, H.-Y., 2007. Assessment of environmental 2012. Ecological assessment of running waters: do macrophytes, 1568
1489 conditions of Nan-Shih stream in Taiwan. Ecol. Indic. 7 (2), 430–441. macroinvertebrates, diatoms and fish show similar responses to 1569
1490 Hughes, R.M., Peck, D.V., 2008. Acquiring data for large aquatic resource human pressures? Ecol. Indic. 23, 56–65. 1570
1491 surveys: the art of compromise among science, logistics, and reality. Masese, F.O., Omukoto, J.O., Nyakeya, K., 2013. Biomonitoring as a pre- 1571
1492 J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 27 (4), 837–859. requisite for sustainable water resources: a review of current status, 1572
1493 Iliopoulou-Georgudaki, J., Kantzaris, V., Katharios, P., Kaspiris, P., Geor- opportunities and challenges to scaling up in East Africa. 1573
1494 giadis, T., Montesantou, B., 2003. An application of different bioindi- Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 13 (3), 173–191. 1574
1495 cators for assessing water quality: a case study in the rivers Alfeios Mažeika, S., Sullivan, P., Watzin, M.C., Hession, W.C., 2004. Understanding 1575
1496 and Pineios (Peloponnisos, Greece). Ecol. Indic. 2 (4), 345–360. stream geomorphic state in relation to ecological integrity: evidence 1576
1497 IWR, 2008. New Water Use Regulations. Retrieved from Institute of Water using habitat assessments and macroinvertebrates. Environ. Manage. 1577
1498 Research: http://www.miwwat.org/wateruse/regulations.asp. 34 (5), 669–683. 1578
1499 Johnson, R.C., Carreiro, M.M., Jin, H.-S., Jack, J.D., 2013. Within-year McCormick, F.H., Hughes, R.M., Kaufmann, P.R., Peck, D.V., Stoddard, J.L., 1579
1500 temporal variation and life-cycle seasonality affect stream macro- Herlihy, A.T., 2001. Development of an index of biotic integrity for the 1580
1501 invertebrate community structure and biotic metrics. Ecol. Indic. 13 Mid-Atlantic Highlands region. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 130 (5), 857–877. 1581
1502 (1), 206–214. Meador, M.R., Carlisle, D.M., 2007. Quantifying tolerance indicator values 1582
1503 Jordan, S.J., Lewis, M.A., Harwell, L.M., Goodman, L.R., 2010. Summer fish for common stream fish species of the United States. Ecol. Indic. 7 (2), 1583
1504 communities in northern Gulf of Mexico estuaries: indices of eco- 329–338. 1584
1505 logical condition. Ecol. Indic. 10 (2), 504–515. Meador, M.R., Carlisle, D.M., Coles, J.F., 2008. Use of tolerance values to 1585
1506 Junqueira, V.M., Campos, S.C.M., 1998. Adaptation of the BMWP method diagnose water-quality stressors to aquatic biota in New England 1586
1507 for water quality evaluation to Rio das Velhas watershed (Minas streams. Ecol. Indic. 8 (5), 718–728. 1587
1508 Gerais, Brazil). Acta Limnol. Bras. 10 (2), 125–135. Mebane, C.A., Maret, T.R., Hughes, R.M., 2003. An Index of Biological 1588
1509 Justus, B., Petersen, J.C., Femmer, S.R., Davis, J.V., Wallace, J., 2010. A Integrity (IBI) for Pacific Northwest Rivers. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 1589
1510 comparison of algal, macroinvertebrate, and fish assemblage indices 132 (2), 239–261. 1590
1511 for assessing low-level nutrient enrichment in wadeable Ozark Meixler, M.S., Bain, M.B., 1999. Application of Gap Analysis to New York 1591
1512 streams. Ecol. Indic. 10 (3), 627–638. Waters. Gap Analysis Program Biological Resources Division U. S. 1592
1513 Kanno, Y., Vokoun, J., Beauchene, M., 2010. Development of dual fish Geological Survey. 1593
1514 multi-metric indices of biological condition for streams with charac- Meyer, J.L., Sale, M.J., Mulholland, P.J., Poff, N.L., 1999. Impacts of climate 1594
1515 teristic thermal gradients and low species richness. Ecol. Indic. 10 (3), change on aquatic ecosystem functioning an health. J. Am. Water 1595
1516 565–571. Resour. Assoc. 35 (6), 1373–1386. 1596
1517 Karr, J.R., 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Monaghan, K.A., Soares, A.M., 2010. The bioassessment of fish and macro- 1597
1518 Fisheries 6 (6), 21–27. invertebrates in a Mediterranean–Atlantic climate: habitat assess- 1598
1519 Karr, J.R., Fausch, K.D., Angermeier, P.L., Yant, P.R., Schlosser, I.J., 1986. ment and concordance between contrasting ecological samples. 1599
1520 Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters. A Method and Its Ecol. Indic. 10 (2), 184–191. 1600
1521 Rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Special Publi- Moya, N., Hughes, R.M., Domı́nguez, E., Gibon, F.M., Goitia, E., Oberdorff, 1601
1522 cation, 5. T., 2011. Macroinvertebrate-based multimetric predictive models for 1602
1523 Karr, J.R., 1999. Defining and measuring river health. Freshw. Biol. 41 (2), evaluating the human impact on biotic condition of Bolivian streams. 1603
1524 221–234. Ecol. Indic. 11 (3), 840–847. 1604
1525 Kerans, B.L., Karr, J.R., 1994. A Benthic Index of Biological Integrity (B-IBI) Musil, J., Horky, P., Slavı́k, O., Zboril, A., Horká, P., 2012. The response of the 1605
1526 for Rivers of the Tennessee Valley. Ecol. Applic. 4, 768–785. young of the year fish to river obstacles: functional and numerical 1606
1527 Keylock, C.J., 2005. Simpson diversity and the Shannon–Wiener index as linkages between dams, weirs, fish habitat guilds and biotic integrity 1607
1528 special cases of a generalized entropy. Oikos 109 (1), 203–207. across large spatial scale. Ecol. Indic. 23, 634–640. 1608
1529 Kleynhans, C.J., 1999. The development of a fish index to assess the Mustow, S.E., 2002. Biological monitoring of rivers in Thailand: use and 1609
1530 biological integrity of South African rivers. WATER SA-PRETORIA adaptation of the BMWP score. Hydrobiologia 479 (1–3), 191–229. 1610
1531 25, 265–278. Muxika, I., Borja, A., Bonne, W., 2005. The suitability of the marine biotic 1611
1532 Krause, J.R., Bertrand, K.N., Kafle, A., Troelstrup Jr., N.H., 2013. A fish index index (AMBI) to new impact sources along European coasts. 1612
1533 of biotic integrity for South Dakota’s Northern Glaciated Plains Ecor- Ecol. Indic. 5 (1), 19–31. 1613
1534 egion. Ecol. Indic. 34, 313–322. Navarro-Llácer, C., 2006. Aplicación de un ı́ndice multimétrico basado en 1614
1535 Launois, L., Veslot, J., Irz, P., Argillier, C., 2011. Development of a fish-based la comunidad de macroinvertebrados para la evaluación del estado 1615
1536 index (FBI) of biotic integrity for French lakes using the hindcasting ecológico de los rı́os castellano-manchegos. Actas XIII Congreso de la 1616
1537 approach. Ecol. Indic. 11 (6), 1572–1583. Asociación Espanõla de Limnologı́a, Barcelona, pp. 64. 1617
1538 Lazorchak, J.M., Hill, B.H., Averill, D.K., Peck, D.V., Klemm, D.J., 2000. Navarro-Llácer, C., Baeza, D., Heras, J., 2010. Assessment of regulated 1618
1539 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program-Surface Waters: rivers with indices based on macroinvertebrates, fish and riparian 1619
1540 Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Condition forest in the southeast of Spain. Ecol. Indic. 10 (5), 935–942. 1620
G Model
ECOHYD 74 1–15
1621 Neumann, M., Baumeister, J., Liess, M., Schulz, R., 2003a. An expert system Schlosser, I.J., 1990. Environmental variation, life history attributes, and 1697
1622 to estimate the pesticide contamination of small streams using community structure in stream fishes: implications for environmen- 1698
1623 benthic macroinvertebrates as bioindicators II. The knowledge base tal management and assessment. Environ. Manage. 14 (5), 621–628. 1699
1624 of LIMPACT. Ecol. Indic. 2 (4), 391–401. Sharma, R.C., Rawat, J.S., 2009. Monitoring of aquatic macroinvertebrates 1700
1625 Neumann, M., Liess, M., Schulz, R., 2003b. An expert system to estimate as bioindicator for assessing the health of wetlands: a case study in 1701
1626 the pesticide contamination of small streams using benthic macro- the Central Himalayas, India. Ecol. Indic. 9 (1), 118–128. 1702
1627 invertebrates as bioindicators Part 1. The database of LIMPACT. Smith, A.J., Bode, R.W., Kleppel, G.S., 2007. A nutrient biotic index (NBI) for 1703
1628 Ecol. Indic. 2 (4), 379–389. use with benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Ecol. Indic. 7 (2), 1704
1629 Oliveira, R.B., Baptista, D.F., Mugnai, R., Castro, C.M., Hughes, R.M., 2011. 371–386. 1705
1630 Towards rapid bioassessment of wadeable streams in Brazil: devel- Smith, K.A., Sklarew, D., 2012. A stream suitability index for brook trout 1706
1631 opment of the Guapiacu-Macau Multimetric Index (GMMI) based on (Savelinus fontinalis) in the Mid-Atlantic United States of America. 1707
1632 benthic macroinvertebrates. Ecol. Indic. 11 (6), 1584–1593. Ecol. Indic. 23, 242–249. 1708
1633 Ollis, D.J., Dallas, H.F., Esler, K.J., Boucher, C., 2006. Bioassessment of the Stoddard, J.L., Larsen, D.P., Hawkins, C.P., Johnson, R.K., Norris, R.H., 2006. 1709
1634 ecological integrity of river ecosystems using aquatic macroinverte- Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the 1710
1635 brates: an overview with a focus on South Africa. Afr. J. Aquat. Sci. 31 concept for reference condition. Ecol. Appl. 16, 1267–1276. 1711
1636 (2), 205–227. Stoddard, J.L., Herlihy, A.T., Peck, D.V., Hughes, R.M., Whittier, T.R., Tar- 1712
1637 Paisley, M.F., Trigg, D.J., Walley, W.J., 2013. Revision of the biological quinio, E., 2008. A process for creating multimetric indices for large- 1713
1638 monitoring working party (BMWP) score system: derivation of pres- scale aquatic surveys. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 27 (4), 878–891. 1714
1639 ent-only and abundance-related scores from field data. River Terra, B.D., Hughes, R.M., Francelino, M.R., Araujo, F.G., 2013. Assessment 1715
1640 Res. Appl. 30 (7), 887–904. of biotic condition of Atlantic Rain Forest streams: a fish-based 1716
1641 Paller, M.H., Reichert, M.J., Dean, J.M., 1996. Use of fish communities to multimetric approach. Ecol. Indic. 34, 136–148. 1717
1642 assess environmental impacts in South Carolina coastal plain streams. Thorne, R., Williams, P., 1997. The response of benthic macroinverte- 1718
1643 Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 125 (5), 633–644. brates to pollution in developing countries: a multimetric system of 1719
1644 Pander, J., Geist, J., 2013. Ecological indicators for stream restoration bioassessment? Freshw. Biol. 37 (3), 671–686. 1720
1645 success. Ecol. Indic. 30, 106–118. USGS, 2013. The USGS Water Science School Retrieved August 2013, 2013, 1721
1646 Paulsen, S.G., Mayio, A., Peck, D.V., Stoddard, J.L., Tarquinio, E., Holds- from The Water Cycle: Freshwater Storage: ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/ 1722
1647 worth, S.M., Sickle, J.V., Yuan, L.L., Hawkins, C.P., Herlihy, A.T., Kauf- watercyclefreshstorage.html. 1723
1648 mann, P.R., Barbour, M.T., Larsen, D.P., Olsen, A.R., 2008. Condition of Van Hoey, G., Rees, H.L., Berghe, E.V., 2007. 5.6 A Comparison of Indicators 1724
1649 stream ecosystems in the US: an overview of the first national Reflecting the Status of the North Sea benthos. 1725
1650 assessment. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 27 (4), 812–821. Vannote, R.L., Minshall, G.W., Cummins, K.W., Sedell, J.R., Cushing, C.E., 1726
1651 Pelletier, M.C., Gold, A.J., Gonzalez, L., Oviatt, C., 2012. Application 1980. The river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37 (1), 1727
1652 of multiple index development approaches to benthic invertebrate 130–137. 1728
1653 data from the Virginian Biogeographic Province, USA. Ecol. Indic. 23, Waite, I.R., Herlihy, A.T., Larsen, D.P., Urquhart, N.S., Klemm, D.J., 2004. 1729
1654 176–188. The effects of macroinvertebrate taxonomic resolution in large land- 1730
1655 Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., Hughes, R.M., 1989. scape bioassessments: an example from the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, 1731
1656 Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Sites and Rivers: Benthic USA. Freshw. Biol. 49 (4), 474–489. 1732
1657 Macroivertebrates and Fish. US Environmental Protection Agency, Walters, D., Roy, A., Leigh, D., 2009. Environmental indicators of macro- 1733
1658 Washington, DC. invertebrate and fish assemblage integrity in urbanizing watersheds. 1734
1659 Pont, D., Hugueny, B., Rogers, C., 2007. Development of a fish-based index Ecol. Indic. 9 (6), 1222–1233. 1735
1660 for the assessment of river health in Europe: the European Fish Index. Wan, H., Chizinski, C.J., Dolph, C.L., Vondracek, B., Wilson, B.N., 2010. The 1736
1661 Fish. Manage. Ecol. 14 (6), 427–439. impact of rare taxa on a fish index of biotic integrity. Ecol. Indic. 10 (4), 1737
1662 Puente, A., Juanes, J., Garcia, A., Alvarez, C., Revilla, J., Carranza, I., 2008. 781–788. 1738
1663 Ecological assessment of soft bottom benthic communities in north- Warwick, R., 1986. A new method for detecting pollution effects on 1739
1664 ern Spanish estuaries. Ecol. Indic. 8 (4), 373–388. marine macrobenthic communities. Mar. Biol. 92 (4), 557–562. 1740
1665 Rakocinski, C.F., 2012. Evaluating macrobenthic process indicators in Warwick, R.M., Pearson, T.H., Ruswahyuni, 1987. Detection of pollution 1741
1666 relation to organic enrichment and hypoxia. Ecol. Indic. 13 (1), 1–12. effects on marine macrobenthos: further evaluation of the species 1742
1667 Rehn, A.C., Ode, P.R., May, J.T., 2008. Addendum to the North Cost IBI. abundance/biomass method. Mar. Biol. 95 (2), 193–200. 1743
1668 California Dept of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, CA. Weisberg, S.B., Ranasinghe, J.A., Dauer, D.M., Schaffner, L.C., Diaz, R.J., 1744
1669 Resh, V.H., Jackson, J.K., 1993. Rapid assessment approaches to biomo- Frithsen, J.B., 1997. An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity 1745
1670 nitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. In: Rosenberg, D.M., Resh, (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 149–158. 1746
1671 V.H. (Eds.), Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinverte- Whittier, T.R., Stoddard, J.L., Larsen, D.P., Herlihy, A.T., 2007. Selecting 1747
1672 brates. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp. 195–233. reference sites for stream biological assessments: best professional 1748
1673 Reynoldson, T.B., Norris, R.H., Resh, V.H., Day, K.E., Rosenberg, D.M., 1997. judgment or objective criteria. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 26, 349L 360. 1749
1674 The reference condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivari- Wiederholm, T., 1980. Use of benthos in lake monitoring. J. Water Pollut. 1750
1675 ate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic Control Fed. 52 (3), 537–547. 1751
1676 macroinvertebrates. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 16 (4), 833–852. Wisconsin DNR, 1995. WI DNR Field Procedures Manual: Part B: Collec- 1752
1677 Ridoutt, B.G., Pfister, S., 2010. A revised approach to water footprinting tion Procedures. 1753
1678 to make transparent the impacts of consumption and production Wright, J.F., Moss, D., Armitage, P.D., Furse, M.T., 1984. A preliminary 1754
1679 on global freshwater scarcity. Global Environ. Chang. 20 (1), classification of running-water sites in Great Britain based on macro- 1755
1680 113–120. invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using 1756
1681 Roset, N., Grenouillet, G., Goffaux, D., Pont, D., Kestemont, P., 2007. A environmental data. Freshw. Biol. 14 (1984), 221–256. 1757
1682 review of existing fish assemblage indicators and methodologies. Wright, J.F., Furse, M.T., Moss, D., 1998. River classification using inverte- 1758
1683 Fish. Manage. Ecol. 14 (6), 393–405. brates: RIVPACS applications. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 8 1759
1684 Rossaro, B., Marziali, L., Cardoso, A.C., Solimini, A., Free, G., Giacchini, R., (4), 617–631. 1760
1685 2007. A biotic index using benthic macroinvertebrates for Italian Young, R.G., Collier, K.J., 2009. Contrasting responses to catchment mod- 1761
1686 lakes. Ecol. Indic. 7 (2), 412–429. ification among a range of functional and structural indicators of river 1762
1687 Roy, A.H., Rosemond, A.D., Paul, M.J., Leigh, D.S., Wallace, J.B., 2003. ecosystem health. Freshw. Biol. 54 (10), 2155–2170. 1763
1688 Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanisation Zalewski, 1983. The influence of fish community structure on the effi- 1764
1689 (Georgia, U.S.A.). Freshw. Biol. 48 (2), 329–346. ciency of electrofishing. Fish. Mgmt. 14, 177–186. 1765
1690 Ruaro, R., Gubiani, É.A., 2013. A scientometric assessment of 30 years of Zhu, D., Chang, J., 2008. Annual variations of biotic integrity in the upper 1766
1691 the Index of Biotic Integrity in aquatic ecosystems: applications and Yangtze River using an adapted index of biotic integrity (IBI). 1767
1692 main flaws. Ecol. Indic. 29, 105–110. Ecol. Indic. 8 (5), 564–572. 1768
1693 Sánchez-Montoya, M., Vidal-Abarca, M., Suarez, M., 2010. Comparing the Zorn, T.G., Seelbach, P.W., Rutherford, E.S., 2012. A regional-scale habitat 1769
1694 sensitivity of diverse macroinvertebrate metrics to a multiple stressor suitability model to assess the effects of flow reduction on fish 1770
1695 gradient in Mediterranean streams and its influence on the assess- assemblages in Michigan streams. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 48 1771
1696 ment of ecological status. Ecol. Indic. 10 (4), 896–904. (5), 871–895. 1772

Herman, 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Herman, 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G Model

Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology

3 A review of macroinvertebrate- and ﬁsh-based stream health

37 amphibians, diatoms, ﬁsh, macroinvertebrates, mammals, 2.2. Multi-metric indices 94

You might also like