Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of bacterial, ciliate and macroinvertebrate indicators of stream ecological health

  • Published:
Aquatic Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We evaluate the reliability of communities of bacteria and ciliated protozoa as indicators of freshwater ecological health. Samples of epilithic biofilm were taken from 18 freshwater streams, impacted by varying types and degrees of catchment modification. Communities of bacteria and ciliates were characterised using DNA fingerprinting techniques (automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis and terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism, respectively) and macroinvertebrate data also obtained, for comparison. Similar to the macroinvertebrates, the taxa richness of ciliate communities was reduced in more developed stream catchments; significant differences in the evenness of ciliate communities were also detected. We could identify no significant relationship between the richness of bacterial taxa and the percentage catchment development. However, a significant trend was detected between bacterial community structure and the predominant catchment land use (rural vs. urban) using a Bray–Curtis measure of similarity, a relationship not detected for the ciliate and macroinvertebrate communities. These findings indicate that stream bacterial, ciliate and macroinvertebrate communities each respond differently to various catchment conditions and highlight the potential of microbial communities to provide novel, alternative indicators of stream ecosystem health.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ager D, Evans S, Li H, Lilley AK, Van der Gast CJ (2010) Anthropogenic disturbance affects the structure of bacterial communities. Environ Microbiol 12:670–678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MJ, Willis TJ (2003) Canonical analysis of principal coordinates: a useful measure of constrained ordination for ecology. Ecology 84:511–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. PRIMER-E Ltd., Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  • ARC (2005) Summary of the ecological health of Auckland streams based on state of the environment monitoring 2003–2004, report no. TP336. Auckland Regional Council, Auckland

  • ARC (2007) River water quality: state and trends in the Auckland region, Auckland Regional Council, Auckland, report no. TP336

  • 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. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington EPA 841-B-99–002

    Google Scholar 

  • Berthon V, Bouchez A, Rimet F (2011) Using diatom life-forms and ecological guilds to assess organic pollution and trophic level in rivers: a case study of rivers in south-eastern France. Hydrobiologia 673:259–271

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blakely TJ, Harding JS, McIntosh AR (2003) Impacts of urbanisation in Okeover stream, Christchurch (report). Freshwater Ecology Research Group, University of Canterbury, Christchurch

    Google Scholar 

  • Blocksom KA, Johnson BR (2009) Development of a regional macroinvertebrate index for large river bioassessment. Ecol Indic 9:313–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brielman H, Griebler C, Schmidt SI, Michel R, Lueders T (2009) Effects of thermal energy discharge on shallow groundwater ecosystems. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 68:273–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns J, Pratt J (1993) A history of biological monitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. In: Rosenburg DM, Resh VH (eds) Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Routledge, Chapman and Hall Inc., London, pp 10–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke KR, Warwick RM (1994) Change in microbial communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  • Danovaro R, Luna GM, dell’Anno A, Pietrangeli B (2006) Comparison of two fingerprinting techniques, terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism and automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis, for determination of bacterial diversity in aquatic environments. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:5982–5989

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Denniston WC, Orth RJ, Moore KA, Stevenson JC, Carter V, Kollar S, Bergstron PW, Batiuk RA (1993) Assessing water quality with submerged aquatic vegetation. Bioscience 43:86–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dopheide A, Lear G, Stott R, Lewis GD (2008) Molecular characterization of ciliate diversity in stream biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 74:1740–1747

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dopheide A, Lear G, Stott R, Lewis GD (2009) Relative diversity and community structure of ciliates in stream biofilms according to molecular and microscopy methods. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:5261–5272

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • EC (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Feld CK, Hering D (2007) Community structure or function: effects of environmental stress on benthic macroinvertebrates at different spatial scales. Freshw Biol 52:1380–1399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fierer N, McCain CM, Meir P, Zimmerman M, Rapp JM, Silman MR, Knight R (2011) Microbes do not follow the elevational diversity patterns of plants and animals. Ecology 92:797–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fleishman E, Noss RF, Noon BR (2006) Utility and limitations of species richness metrics for conservation planning. Ecol Indic 6:543–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogolev SK, Wilke B-M (1996) Combination effects of heavy metals and fluoranthene on soil bacteria. Biol Fertility Soils 25:274–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griebler C, Kellermann C, Stein H, Brielmann H, Schmidt SI, Selesi D, Steube C, Berkhoff S, Fuchs A, Hahn HJ (2010) Ecological assessment of groundwater ecosystems—vision or illusion? Environ Eng 36(9):1174–1190

    Google Scholar 

  • He ZL, Gentry TJ, Schadt CW, Wu LY, Liebach J, Chong SC, Huang ZJ, Wu Wm, Gu BH, Jardine P, Criddle C, Zhou J (2007) GeoChip: a comprehensive microarray for investigating biogeochemical, ecological and environmental processes. ISME J 1:67–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hilsenhoff WL (1988) Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. J N Am Benthol Soc 7:65–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hseu Z-Y (2004) Evaluating heavy metal contents in nine composts using four digestion methods. Bioresour Technol 95

  • Johnston EL, Roberts DA (2009) Contaminants reduce the richness and evenness of marine communities: a review and meta-analysis. Environ Pollut 157:1745–1752

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jones CM, Shade AL, McMahon KD, Kent AD (2007) Comparison of primer sets for use in automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis of aquatic bacterial communities: an ecological perspective. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:659–662

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keen G (2001) Australia-wide assessment of river health: Australian Capital Territory bioassessment report (ACT interim final report), monitoring river health initiative technical report no. 3. Commonwealth of Australia and Environment, Australian Capital Territory

  • Lear G, Lewis GD (2009) Impact of catchment land use on bacterial communities within stream biofilms. Ecol Indic 9:848–855

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lear G, Anderson MJ, Smith JP, Boxen K, Lewis GD (2008) Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of the bacterial communities in stream epilithic biofilms. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 65:463–473

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lear G, Boothroyd IKG, Turner SJ, Roberts K, Lewis GD (2009a) A comparison of bacteria and benthic invertebrates as indicators of ecological health within streams. Freshw Biol 54:1532–1543

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lear G, Turner SJ, Lewis GD (2009b) Effect of light regimes on the utilisation of an exogenous carbon source by freshwater biofilm bacterial communities. Aquat Ecol 43:207–220

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenat DR, Resh VH (2001) The benefits of genus- and species-level identifications. J N Am Benthol Soc 20:287–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyautey E, Teissier S, Charcoset Y-V, Rols J-L, Garabetian R (2003) Bacterial diversity of epilithic biofilm assemblages of an anthropised river section, assessed by DGGE analysis of a 16S rDNA fragment. Aquat Microb Ecol 33:217–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McArdle BH, Anderson MJ (2001) Fitting multivariate models to community data: a comment on distance-based redundancy analysis. Ecology 82:290–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Megan MH, Nash MS, Neale AC, Pitchford AM (2007) Biological integrity in mid-Atlantic coastal plains headwater streams. Environ Monit Assess 124:141–156

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller DN, Bryant JE, Madsen EL, Ghiorse WC (1999) Evaluation and optimization of DNA extraction and purification procedures for soil and sediment samples. Appl Environ Microbiol 65:4715–4724

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morrinson MG (1986) Bird populations as indicators of environmental change. Curr Ornithol 3:429–451

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranjard L, Poly F, Lata JC, Mougal C, Thioulouse J, Nazaret S (2001) Characterization of bacterial and fungal soil communities by automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis fingerprints: biological and methodological variability. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:4479–4487

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rousk J, Brookes PC, Baath E (2009) Contrasting soil pH effects on fungal and bacterial growth suggest functional redundancy in carbon mineralization. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:1589–1596

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Satyanarayana T, Raghukumar C, Shivaji S (2005) Extremophilic microbes: diversity and perspectives. Curr Sci 89:78–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Seilheimer TS, Chow-Fraser P (2006) Development and use of the wetland fish index to assess the quality of coastal wetlands in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:354–366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith MJ, Kay WR, Edward DHD, Papas PJ, Richardson KSJ, Simpson JC, Pinder AM, Cale DJ, Horwitz PHJ, Davis JA, Yung FH, Norris RH, Halse SA (1999) AusRivAs using macroinvertebrates to assess ecological condition of rivers in Western Australia. Freshw Biol 41:269–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark JD (1993) Performance of the macroinvertebrate community index: effects of sampling method, sample replication, water depth, current velocity, and substratum on index values. New Zeal J Mar Freshw 27:463–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark JD, Maxted JR (2004) Macroinvertebrate community indices for Auckland’s soft-bottomed streams and applications to SOE reporting. Auckland Regional Council, Auckland

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark JD, Boothroyd IKG, Harding JS, Maxted JR, Scarsbrook MR (2001) Protocols for sampling macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams. New Zealand macroinvertebrate work group report no. 1. Prepared for the Ministry of the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand

  • Stein H, Kellermann C, Schmid SI, Brielman H, Steube C, Berkhoff SE, Fuchs A, Hahn HJ, Thulin B, Griebler C (2010) The potential use of fauna and bacteria as ecological indicators for the assessment of groundwater quality. J Environ Monit 12:242–254

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wright JF, Furse MT, Armitage PD (1993) RIVPACS—a technique for evaluating the biological control of rivers in the U.K. Eur Water Pollut Control 3:15–25

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, New Zealand (Grant No. UoAX0306). All water quality and macroinvertebrate community data are presented with the permission of the Auckland Regional Council, NZ.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Soil and Physical Sciences, Lincoln University, 7647, Lincoln, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Gavin Lear

  2. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92-019, Auckland, New Zealand

    Andrew Dopheide, Pierre Ancion & Gillian D. Lewis

Authors
  1. Gavin Lear
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Dopheide
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pierre Ancion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gillian D. Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gavin Lear.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Michael T. Monaghan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lear, G., Dopheide, A., Ancion, P. et al. A comparison of bacterial, ciliate and macroinvertebrate indicators of stream ecological health. Aquat Ecol 45, 517–527 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-011-9372-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10452-011-9372-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation