Abstract
Environmental agencies are often faced with resource and time constraints in assessing waterbody health. We compared the strengths of varying levels of effort (field measures, laboratory chemistry, land use, and multiple combinations of these) to explain macroinvertebrate assemblage response along a gradient of urban land use intensity among 30 headwater streams in northern West Virginia. Because the spatial arrangement of human disturbance can govern biotic response, land use effects were analyzed at five spatial scales (whole catchment, and 100 m buffer zone at three fixed upstream distances and total stream network upstream of site); instream ecological measures included physical habitat, algal concentrations and water chemistry. Of the five spatial scales, we predicted that riparian land use nearest the site would explain the most variation but that instream measures would be the overall driver of the macroinvertebrate assemblages. Regression analysis evaluated the strength of single and multiple variables in explaining macroinvertebrate multimetric index (MMI) and ordination patterns, and revealed that assemblages were highly responsive to numerous stressors. In contrast to predictions, total upstream network riparian forest cover explained the most variation overall (83%) while specific conductance was the single best instream measure (64%). Stepwise regression models using combinations of field, laboratory, and land use variables all performed reasonably well but we found that a 3-variable model [% forest (catchment), road density, and specific conductance] that minimized colinearity and cost/effort explained 90% of the variation in the MMI. Validation and spatial autocorrelation results suggest that this model could potentially be used to forecast stream condition for prioritizing conservation and remediation efforts in headwaters within the ecoregion, and our general approach would be broadly applicable in other settings.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Ann Rev Ecol Evolut Syst 35:257–284
Bailey RC, Reynoldson TB, Yates AG, Bailey J, Linke S (2007) Integrating stream bioassessment and landscape ecology as a tool for land use planning. Freshw Biol 52:908–917
Baker ME, King RS (2010) A new method for detecting and interpreting biodiversity and ecological community thresholds. Methods Ecol Evol 1:25–37
Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB (1999) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish, 2nd edn. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC
Bernhardt ES, Lutz BD, King RS, Fay JP, Carter CE, Helton AM, Campagna D, Amos J (2012) How many mountains can we mine? Assessing the regional degradation of central Appalachian rivers by surface coal mining. Environ Sci Technol 46:8115–8122
Bond NR, Lake PS (2003) Local habitat restoration in streams: constraints on the effectiveness of restoration for stream biota. Ecol Manage Restor 4:193–198
Brabec E, Schulte S, Richards PL (2002) Impervious surfaces and water quality: a review of current literature and its implications for watershed planning. J Plan Lit 16:499–514
Brown DG, Walker R, Manson S, Seto K (2012) Modeling land use and land cover change. In Land change science. Springer Netherlands, The Netherlands, pp 395–409
Bryant WL, Carlisle DM (2012) The relative importance of physicochemical factors to stream biological condition in urbanizing basins: evidence from multimodel inference. Freshw Sci 31:154–166
Carlisle DM, Hawkins CP (2008) Land use and the structure of western US stream invertebrate assemblages: predictive models and ecological traits. J N Am Benthol Soc 27:986–999
Cormier SM, Suter GW, Zheng L (2013a) Derivation of a benchmark for freshwater ionic strength. Environ Toxicol Chem 32:263–271
Cormier SM, Suter GW, Zheng L, Pond GJ (2013b) Assessing causation of the extirpation of stream macroinvertebrates by a mixture of ions. Environ Toxicol Chem 32:277–287
Cuffney TF, Brightbill RA, May JT, Waite IR (2010) Responses of benthic macroinvertebrates to environmental changes associated with urbanization in nine metropolitan areas. Ecol Appl 20:1384–1401
Dodds WK, Clements WH, Gido K, Hilderbrand RH, King RS (2010) Thresholds, breakpoints, and nonlinearity in freshwaters as related to management. J N Am Benthol Soc 29:988–997
Findlay S, Kelly VR (2011) Emerging indirect and long-term road salt effects on ecosystems. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1223:58–68
Gergel SE, Turner MG, Miller JR, Melack JM, Stanley EH (2002) Landscape indicators of human impacts to riverine systems. Aquat Sci 64:118–128
Griffith MB, Norton SB, Alexander LC, Pollard AI, LeDuc SD (2012) The effects of mountaintop mines and valley fills on the physicochemical quality of stream ecosystems in the central Appalachians: a review. Sci Total Environ 417:1–12
Hale AN, Noble G, Piper K, Garmire K, Tonsor SJ (2016) Controlling for hydrologic connectivity to assess the importance of catchment-and reach-scale factors on macroinvertebrate community structure. Hydrobiologia 763:285–299
Homer CH, Fry JA, Barnes CA (2012) The national land cover database US Geological Survey Fact Sheet 3020:1–4
King RS, Baker ME (2010) Considerations for analyzing ecological community thresholds in response to anthropogenic environmental gradients. J N Am Benthol Soc 29:998–1008
King RS, Baker ME, Whigham DF, Weller DE, Jordan TE, Kazyak PF, Hurd MK (2005) Spatial considerations for linking watershed land cover to ecological indicators in streams. Ecol Appl 15:137–153
King RS, Baker ME, Kazyak PF, Weller DE (2011) How novel is too novel? Stream community thresholds at exceptionally low levels of catchment urbanization. Ecol Appl 21:1659–1678
Kristensen EA, Baattrup-Pedersen A, Andersen HE (2012) Prediction of stream fish assemblages from land use characteristics: implications for cost-effective design of monitoring programmes. Environ Monit Assess 184:1435–1448
Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Neter J (2004) Applied Linear Regression Models, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, Irwin
Lammert M, Allan JD (1999) Assessing biotic integrity of streams: effects of scale in measuring the influence of land use/cover and habitat structure on fish and macroinvertebrates. Environ Manage 23:257–270
Ligeiro R, Ferreira W, Hughes RM, Callisto M (2013) The problem of using fixed-area subsampling methods to estimate macroinvertebrate richness: a case study with Neotropical stream data. Environ Monit Assess 85:4077–4085
Macedo DR, Hughes RM, Ligeiro R, Ferreira WR, Castro MA, Junqueira NT, Oliveira DR, Firmiano KR, Kaufmann PR, Pompeu PS, Callisto M (2014) The relative influence of catchment and site variables on fish and macroinvertebrate richness in cerrado biome streams. Lands Ecol 29:1001–1016
McBride M, Booth DB (2005) Urban impacts on physical stream condition: effects of spatial scale, connectivity, and longitudinal trends. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:565–580
McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach
McManus MG, Pond GJ, Reynolds L, Griffith MB (2016) Multivariate condition assessment of watersheds with linked micromaps. J Am Water Resour Assoc 52:494–507
Merriam ER, Petty JT, Strager MP, Maxwell AE, Ziemkiewicz PF (2013) Scenario analysis predicts context-dependent stream response to landuse change in a heavily mined central Appalachian watershed. Freshw Sci 32:1246–1259
Meyer JL, Strayer DL, Wallace JB, Eggert SL, Helfman GS, Leonard NE (2007) The contribution of headwater streams to biodiversity in river networks. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43:86–103
Moore AA, Palmer MA (2005) Invertebrate biodiversity in agricultural and urban headwater streams: implications for conservation and management. Ecol Appl 15:1169–1177
Morgan RP II, Kline KM, Cushman SF (2007) Relationships among nutrients, chloride and biological indices in urban Maryland streams. Urban Ecosyst 10:153–166
Ourso RT, Frenzel SA (2003) Identification of linear and threshold responses in streams along a gradient of urbanization in Anchorage, Alaska. Hydrobiologia 501:117–131
Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 2011:333–365
Pond GJ, Passmore ME, Borsuk FA, Reynolds L, Rose CJ (2008) Downstream effects of mountaintop coal mining: comparing biological conditions using family-and genus-level macroinvertebrate bioassessment tools. J N Am Benthol Soc 27:717–737
Pond GJ, Bailey JE, Lowman BM, Whitman MJ (2011) The West Virginia GLIMPSS (genus-level index of most probable stream status): a benthic macroinvertebrate index of biotic integrity for West Virginia’s wadeable streams. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water and Waste Management, Watershed Assessment Branch, Charleston, WV. http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/bio_fish/Documents/20110829GLIMPSSFinalWVDEPDOI.pdf. Accessed 21 Nov 2016
Pond GJ, Bailey JE, Lowman BM, Whitman MJ (2012) Calibration and validation of a regionally and seasonally stratified macroinvertebrate index for West Virginia wadeable streams. Environ Monit Assess 185:1515–1540
Rios SL, Bailey RC (2006) Relationship between riparian vegetation and stream benthic communities at three spatial scales. Hydrobiologia 553:153–160
Roth NE, Allan JD, Erickson DL (1996) Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecol 11:141–156
Roy AH, Shuster WD (2009) Assessing impervious surface connectivity and applications for watershed management. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 45:198–209
Roy AH, Rosemond AD, Paul MJ, Leigh DS, Wallace JB (2003) Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanisation (Georgia, USA). Freshw Biol 48:329–346
Roy AH, Freeman BJ, Freeman MC (2007) Riparian influences on stream fish assemblage structure in urbanizing streams. Landsc Ecol 22:385–402
Roy AH, Dybas AL, Fritz KM, Lubbers HR (2009) Urbanization affects the extent and hydrologic permanence of headwater streams in a midwestern US metropolitan area. J N Am Benthol Soc 28:911–928
Sliva L, Williams DD (2001) Buffer zone versus whole catchment approaches to studying land use impact on river water quality. Water Res 35:3462–3472
Sponseller RA, Benfield EF, Valett HM (2001) Relationships between land use spatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communities. Freshw Biol 46:1409–1424
Swan CM, DePalma CA (2012) Elevated chloride and consumer presence independently influence processing of stream detritus. Urban Ecosyst 15:625–635
Tran CP, Bode RW, Smith AJ, Kleppel GS (2010) Land-use proximity as a basis for assessing stream water quality in New York State (USA). Ecol Indic 10:727–733
Utz RM, Hilderbrand RH, Boward DM (2009) Identifying regional differences in threshold responses of aquatic invertebrates to land cover gradients. Ecol Indic 9:556–567
Utz RM, Hopkins KG, Beesley L, Booth DB, Hawley RJ, Baker ME, Freeman MC, L Jones K (2016) Ecological resistance in urban streams: the role of natural and legacy attributes. Freshw Sci 35:380–397
Van Sickle J, Johnson CB (2008) Parametric distance weighting of landscape influence on streams. Landsc Ecol 23:427–438
Van Sickle J, Baker J, Herlihy A, Bayley P, Gregory S, Haggerty P, Ashkenas L, Li, J (2004) Projecting the biological condition of streams under alternative scenarios of human land use. Ecol Appl 14:368–380
Ver Hoef JM, Peterson EE, Clifford D, Shah R (2014) SSN: an R package for spatial statistical modeling on stream networks. J Stat Softw 56:1–43
Villeneuve B, Souchon Y, Usseglio-Polatera P, Ferréol M, Valette L (2015) Can we predict biological condition of stream ecosystems? A multi-stressors approach linking three biological indices to physico-chemistry, hydromorphology and land use. Ecol Indic 48:88–98
Wahl CM, Neils A, Hooper D (2013) Impacts of land use at the catchment scale constrain the habitat benefits of stream riparian buffers. Freshw Biol 58:2310–2324
Wallace AM, Biastoch RG (2016) Detecting changes in the benthic invertebrate community in response to increasing chloride in streams in Toronto, Canada. Freshw Sci 35:353–363
Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM, Morgan RP II (2005) The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J N Am Benthol Soc 24:706–723
Walsh CJ, Waller KA, Gehling J, Nally RM (2007) Riverine invertebrate assemblages are degraded more by catchment urbanisation than by riparian deforestation. Freshw Biol 52:574–587
Wang L, Lyons J, Rasmussen P, Seelbach P, Simon T, Wiley M, Kanehl P, Baker E, Niemela S, Stewart PM (2003) Watershed, reach, and riparian influences on stream fish assemblages in the Northern Lakes and Forest Ecoregion, USA. Can J Fish Aquatic Sci 60:491–505
Wang L, Seelbach PW, Lyons J (2006) Effects of levels of human disturbance on the influence of catchment, riparian, and reach-scale factors on fish assemblages. In: RM Hughes, L Wang, PW Seelbach (eds) Landscape influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages. American Fisheries Society Symposium 48, Bethesda, Maryland, pp 641–664
[WVDEP] West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (2015) Watershed assessment branch 2015 standard operating procedures. Division of Water and Waste Management, Watershed Assessment Branch, Charleston, WV. http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/watershed/Pages/WBSOPs.aspx
Wickham J, Neale A, Mehaffey M, Jarnagin T, Norton D (2016) Temporal Trends in the Spatial Distribution of Impervious Cover Relative to Stream Location. J Am Water Resour Assoc 52:409–419
Woods AJ, Omernik JM, Brown DD, Kiilsgaard CW (1996) Level III and IV Ecoregions of Pennsylvania and the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Ridge and Valley, and the Central Appalachians of Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland EPA/600R-96/077. USEPA, ORD, Corvallis
Acknowledgements
We recognize John Pomponio, John Forren, Bill Jenkins, and Don Evans (EPA Region III) for programmatic support to the authors. Appreciation for field assistance goes to Frank Borsuk and to Christine Mazzarella (EPA Region III) for GIS advice. We thank Trevor Dunn and Lindsey Burton for macroinvertebrate subsampling assistance, EPA Region III’s Office of Analytical Services and Quality Assurance Branch for water chemistry analyses, and Karen Blocksom and Mike McManus (EPA Office of Research and Development) for statistical advice and reviews. An earlier draft of the manuscript was improved by Jeff Bailey and Michael Whitman (WVDEP), Stefania Shamet (EPA Region III) and two anonymous reviewers. Although this research was supported by EPA, the views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the EPA or the US government.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pond, G.J., Krock, K.J.G., Cruz, J.V. et al. Effort-based predictors of headwater stream conditions: comparing the proximity of land use pressures and instream stressors on macroinvertebrate assemblages. Aquat Sci 79, 765–781 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-017-0534-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-017-0534-3