Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Principles for the Development of Contemporary Bioassessment Indices for Freshwater Ecosystems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Watershed Science and Assessment

Part of the book series: The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry ((HEC,volume 33))

Abstract

Bioassessment can be broadly defined as the use of biota to assess the nature and magnitude of anthropogenic impacts to natural systems. We focus on an important and specific type of bioassessment: the use of ecological assemblages, primarily fish, macroinvertebrates, and algae, as indicators of anthropogenic impairment in aquatic systems. Investigators have long known that biota provide spatially and temporally integrative indicators of impairment. This chapter provides an introduction to the process of developing assemblage-level indices that provide quantitative estimates of the ecological integrity of freshwater ecosystems. We discuss important developments made in the latter half of the twentieth century which are still relevant and useful for bioassessment, as well as more recent developments that have improved the effectiveness of bioassessment strategies. Throughout the chapter, we focus on analytical approaches for improving the effectiveness of bioassessment indices for detecting anthropogenic impairment. In the concluding section of the chapter, we widen our perspective and include excerpts from discussions with three expert practitioners on topics that are more broadly applicable to the assessment of the ecological integrity of aquatic systems. The major challenge for all bioassessment programs is to separate the effects of anthropogenic impairment on biota from the effects of natural environmental variability unrelated to impairment. Analytical developments, such as advanced predictive modeling techniques, coupled with emerging technologies and the development of large-scale bioassessment programs will continue to increase our ability to meet this challenge and to improve our understanding of how aquatic assemblages are affected by anthropogenic impairment.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder B et al (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

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ahrens L, Bundschuh M (2014) Fate and effects of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances in the aquatic environment: a review. Environ Toxicol Chem 33:1921–1929

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mueller M, Pander J, Geist J (2014) A new tool for assessment and monitoring of community and ecosystem change based on multivariate abundance data integration from different taxonomic groups. Environ Syst Res 3(1):12. doi:10.1186/2193-2697-3-12

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kolkwitz R, Marsson M (1902) Grundsätze für die biologische beurtheilung des wassers, nach seiner flora und fauna. Mitteilungen der Prufungsansalt fur Wasserversorgung und Abwasserreining 1:1–64

    Google Scholar 

  5. Junqueira MV, Friedrich G, de Araujo PR (2010) A saprobic index for biological assessment of river water quality in Brazil (Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro states). Environ Monit Assess 163:545–554

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Usseglio‐Polatera P, Bournaud M, Richoux P et al (2000) Biological and ecological traits of benthic freshwater macroinvertebrates: relationships and definition of groups with similar traits. Freshw Biol 43:175–205

    Google Scholar 

  7. Frey DG (1977) Biological integrity of water-an historical approach. In: The integrity of water: proceedings of a symposium, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 10–12 Mar 1975

    Google Scholar 

  8. Karr JR, Dudley DR (1981) Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environ Manage 5:55–68

    Google Scholar 

  9. Barbour MT, Paul MJ (2010) Adding value to water resource management through biological assessment of rivers. Hydrobiologia 651:17–24

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fauth J, Bernardo J, Camara M et al (1996) Simplifying the jargon of community ecology: a conceptual approach. Am Nat 147:282–286

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carlisle DM, Hawkins CP, Meador MR et al (2008) Biological assessments of Appalachian streams based on predictive models for fish, macroinvertebrate, and diatom assemblages. J North Am Benthol Soc 27:16–37

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bae M, Kwon Y, Hwang S et al (2011) Relationships between three major stream assemblages and their environmental factors in multiple spatial scales. Ann Limnol—Int J Lim 47:S91–S105

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pilière A, Schipper AM, Breure AM et al (2014) Comparing responses of freshwater fish and invertebrate community integrity along multiple environmental gradients. Ecol Indic 43:215–226

    Google Scholar 

  14. Carter JL, Resh VH (2001) After site selection and before data analysis: sampling, sorting, and laboratory procedures used in stream benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring programs by USA state agencies. J North Am Benthol Soc 20:658–682

    Google Scholar 

  15. Potapova M, Charles DF (2005) Choice of substrate in algae-based water-quality assessment. J North Am Benthol Soc 24:415–427

    Google Scholar 

  16. Li J, Herlihy A, Gerth W et al (2001) Variability in stream macroinvertebrates at multiple spatial scales. Freshw Biol 46:87–97

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pritt JJ, Frimpong EA (2014) The effect of sampling intensity on patterns of rarity and community assessment metrics in stream fish samples. Ecol Indic 39:169–178

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lenat DR, Resh VH (2001) Taxonomy and stream ecology—the benefits of genus-and species-level identification. J North Am Benthol Soc 20:287–298

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jiang X, Xiong J, Song Z et al (2013) Is coarse taxonomy sufficient for detecting macroinvertebrate patterns in floodplain lakes? Ecol Indic 27:48–55

    Google Scholar 

  20. Uzarski DG, Burton TM, Cooper MJ et al (2005) Fish habitat use within and across wetland classes in coastal wetlands of the five Great Lakes: development of a fish-based index of biotic integrity. J Great Lakes Res 31:171–187

    Google Scholar 

  21. Chen K, Hughes RM, Xu S et al (2014) Evaluating performance of macroinvertebrate-based adjusted and unadjusted multi-metric indices (MMI) using multi-season and multi-year samples. Ecol Indic 36:142–151

    Google Scholar 

  22. Smucker NJ, Vis ML (2009) Use of diatoms to assess agricultural and coal mining impacts on streams and a multiassemblage case study. J North Am Benthol Soc 28:659–675

    Google Scholar 

  23. Blocksom KA, Kurtenbach JP, Klemm DJ et al (2002) Development and evaluation of the lake macroinvertebrate integrity index (LMII) for New Jersey lakes and reservoirs. Environ Monit Assess 77:311–333

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pan Y, Hughes RM, Herlihy AT et al (2012) Non-wadeable river bioassessment: spatial variation of benthic diatom assemblages in Pacific Northwest rivers, USA. Hydrobiologia 684:241–260

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Whittier TR, Hughes RM, Lomnicky GA et al (2007) Fish and amphibian tolerance values and an assemblage tolerance index for streams and rivers in the western USA. Trans Am Fish Soc 136:254–271

    Google Scholar 

  26. Black RW, Moran PW, Frankforter JD (2011) Response of algal metrics to nutrients and physical factors and identification of nutrient thresholds in agricultural streams. Environ Monit Assess 175:397–417

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhu D, Chang J (2008) Annual variations of biotic integrity in the upper Yangtze River using an adapted index of biotic integrity (IBI). Ecol Indic 8:564–572

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lenat DR (1993) Using mentum deformities of Chironomus larvae to evaluate the effects of toxicity and organic loading in streams. J North Am Benthol Soc 12(3):265–269

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fore LS, Grafe C (2002) Using diatoms to assess the biological condition of large rivers in Idaho (USA). Freshw Biol 47:2015–2037

    Google Scholar 

  30. Reynoldson T, Norris R, Resh V et al (1997) The reference condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. J North Am Benthol Soc 16:833–852

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bailey RC, Kennedy MG, Dervish MZ (1998) Biological assessment of freshwater ecosystems using a reference condition approach: comparing predicted and actual benthic invertebrate communities in Yukon streams. Freshw Biol 39:765–774

    Google Scholar 

  32. Stoddard JL, Larsen DP, Hawkins CP et al (2006) Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. Ecol Appl 16:1267–1276

    Google Scholar 

  33. Birks H, Line J, Juggins S et al (1990) Diatoms and pH reconstruction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 327:263–278

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hughes RM, Kaufmann PR, Herlihy AT et al (1998) A process for developing and evaluating indices of fish assemblage integrity. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:1618–1631

    Google Scholar 

  35. Thoms M, Ogden R, Reid M (1999) Establishing the condition of lowland floodplain rivers: a palaeo-ecological approach. Freshw Biol 41:407–423

    Google Scholar 

  36. Shirey PD, Cowley DE, Sallenave R (2008) Diatoms from gut contents of museum specimens of an endangered minnow suggest long-term ecological changes in the Rio Grande (USA). J Paleolimnol 40:263–272

    Google Scholar 

  37. Nelson SM, Roline RA (1996) Recovery of a stream macroinvertebrate community from mine drainage disturbance. Hydrobiologia 339:73–84

    Google Scholar 

  38. Clark JL, Clements WH (2006) The use of in situ and stream microcosm experiments to assess population- and community-level responses to metals. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:2306–2312

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Applegate JM, Baumann PC, Emery EB et al (2007) First steps in developing a multimetric macroinvertebrate index for the Ohio River. River Res Appl 23:683–697

    Google Scholar 

  40. Plafkin JL, Barbour MT, Porter KD, et al (1989) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA 444-4-89-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mykrä H, Heino J, Muotka T (2007) Scale-related patterns in the spatial and environmental components of stream macroinvertebrate assemblage variation. Global Ecol Biogeogr 16:149–159

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hoeinghaus DJ, Winemiller KO, Birnbaum JS (2007) Local and regional determinants of stream fish assemblage structure: inferences based on taxonomic vs. functional groups. J Biogeogr 34:324–338

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hawkins CP, Olson JR, Hill RA (2010) The reference condition: predicting benchmarks for ecological and water-quality assessments. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:312–343

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ganasan V, Hughes RM (1998) Application of an index of biological integrity (IBI) to fish assemblages of the rivers Khan and Kshipra (Madhya Pradesh), India. Freshw Biol 40:367–383

    Google Scholar 

  45. Davies SP, Jackson SK (2006) The biological condition gradient: a descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecol Appl 16:1251–1266

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mazor RD, Reynoldson TB, Rosenberg DM et al (2006) Effects of biotic assemblage, classification, and assessment method on bioassessment performance. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:394–411

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hawkes H (1998) Origin and development of the biological monitoring working party score system. Water Res 32:964–968

    Google Scholar 

  48. Whittier TR, Stoddard JL, Larsen DP et al (2007) Selecting reference sites for stream biological assessments: best professional judgment or objective criteria. J North Am Benthol Soc 26:349–360

    Google Scholar 

  49. Blocksom KA (2003) A performance comparison of metric scoring methods for a multimetric index for Mid-Atlantic Highlands streams. Environ Manage 31:670–682

    Google Scholar 

  50. Yates AG, Bailey RC (2010) Selecting objectively defined reference sites for stream bioassessment programs. Environ Monit Assess 170:129–140

    Google Scholar 

  51. Blocksom KA, Flotemersch JE (2005) Comparison of macroinvertebrate sampling methods for nonwadeable streams. Environ Monit Assess 102:243–262

    Google Scholar 

  52. McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Glendale Beach

    Google Scholar 

  53. Legendre P, Legendre LF (2012) Numerical ecology. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  54. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.r-project.org/

  55. Bray JR, Curtis JT (1957) An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 27:325–349

    Google Scholar 

  56. Dice LR (1945) Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26:297–302

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sorenson T (1948) A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content. Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab 5:4–7

    Google Scholar 

  58. Van Sickle J, Hughes RM (2000) Classification strengths of ecoregions, catchments, and geographic clusters for aquatic vertebrates in Oregon. J North Am Benthol Soc 19:370–384

    Google Scholar 

  59. Clarke K, Green R (1988) Statistical design and analysis for a “biological effects” study. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 46:213–226

    Google Scholar 

  60. Mielke PW Jr, Berry KJ, Johnson ES (1976) Multi-response permutation procedures for a priori classifications. Commun Stat Theory Methods 5:1409–1424

    Google Scholar 

  61. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46

    Google Scholar 

  62. Omernik JM (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77:118–125

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hughes RM, Larsen DP, Omernik JM (1986) Regional reference sites: a method for assessing stream potentials. Environ Manage 10:629–635

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Aroviita J, Mykra H, Muotka T et al (2009) Influence of geographical extent on typology- and model-based assessments of taxonomic completeness of river macroinvertebrates. Freshw Biol 54:1774–1787

    Google Scholar 

  65. Hawkins CP, Norris RH, Gerritsen J et al (2000) Evaluation of the use of landscape classifications for the prediction of freshwater biota: synthesis and recommendations. J North Am Benthol Soc 19:541–556

    Google Scholar 

  66. Dallas HF (2004) Spatial variability in macroinvertebrate assemblages: comparing regional and multivariate approaches for classifying reference sites in South Africa. Afr J Aquat Sci 29:161–171

    Google Scholar 

  67. Dail MR, Hill JR, Miller RD (2013) The Virginia coastal plain macroinvertebrate index. Technical bulletin WQA/2013-002. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Richmond

    Google Scholar 

  68. Burton J, Gerritsen J (2003) A stream condition index for Virginia non-coastal streams. Tetra-Tech, Owings Mills

    Google Scholar 

  69. Hawkins CP, Vinson MR (2000) Weak correspondence between landscape classifications and stream invertebrate assemblages: implications for bioassessment. J North Am Benthol Soc 19:501–517

    Google Scholar 

  70. Wright J, Moss D, Armitage P et al (1984) A preliminary classification of running-water sites in Great Britain based on macro-invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data. Freshw Biol 14:221–256

    Google Scholar 

  71. Wright JF, Sutcliffe DW, Furse MT (2000) Assessing the biological quality of freshwaters. RIVPACS and other techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside

    Google Scholar 

  72. Hawkins CP, Norris RH, Hogue JN et al (2000) Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecol Appl 10:1456–1477

    Google Scholar 

  73. Smith M, Kay W, Edward D et al (1999) AusRivAS: using macroinvertebrates to assess ecological condition of rivers in Western Australia. Freshw Biol 41:269–282

    Google Scholar 

  74. Reynoldson TB, Bailey R, Day K et al (1995) Biological guidelines for freshwater sediment based on BEnthic Assessment of SedimenT (the BEAST) using a multivariate approach for predicting biological state. Aust J Ecol 20:198–219

    Google Scholar 

  75. Pond GJ, North SH (2013) Application of a benthic observed/expected-type model for assessing Central Appalachian streams influenced by regional stressors in West Virginia and Kentucky. Environ Monit Assess 185:9299–9320

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Pardo I, Gómez-Rodríguez C, Abraín R et al (2014) An invertebrate predictive model (NORTI) for streams and rivers: sensitivity of the model in detecting stress gradients. Ecol Indic 45:51–62

    Google Scholar 

  77. Linke S, Bailey RC, Schwindt J (1999) Temporal variability of stream bioassessments using benthic macroinvertebrates. Freshw Biol 42:575–584

    Google Scholar 

  78. Pond G, Call S, Brumley J et al (2003) The Kentucky macroinvertebrate bioassessment index: derivation of regional narrative criteria for headwater and wadeable streams. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Division of Water, Frankfort. http://water.ky.gov/Documents/QA/MBI/Statewide_MBI.pdf

  79. Hill MO (1979) TWINSPAN: a FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way table by classification of the individuals and attributes. Cornell University, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  80. Davy-Bowker J, Clarke R, Corbin T (2008) River invertebrate classification tool—final report. Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  81. Oksanen J, Minchin PR (1997) Instability of ordination results under changes in input data order: explanations and remedies. J Veg Sci 8:447–454

    Google Scholar 

  82. Austin M (2013) Inconsistencies between theory and methodology: a recurrent problem in ordination studies. J Veg Sci 24:251–268

    Google Scholar 

  83. Linke S, Norris RH, Faith DP et al (2005) ANNA: a new prediction method for bioassessment programs. Freshw Biol 50:147–158

    Google Scholar 

  84. Olden JD (2003) A species-specific approach to modeling biological communities and its potential for conservation. Conserv Biol 17:854–863

    Google Scholar 

  85. Bowman MF, Somers KM (2005) Considerations when using the reference condition approach for bioassessment of freshwater ecosystems. Water Qual Res J Can 40:347–360

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Melles S, Jones N, Schmidt B (2014) Evaluation of current approaches to stream classification and a heuristic guide to developing classifications of integrated aquatic networks. Environ Manage 53:549–566

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Ode PR, Hawkins CP, Mazor RD (2008) Comparability of biological assessments derived from predictive models and multimetric indices of increasing geographic scope. J North Am Benthol Soc 27:967–985

    Google Scholar 

  88. Aroviita J, Koskenniemi E, Kotanen J et al (2008) A priori typology-based prediction of benthic macroinvertebrate fauna for ecological classification of rivers. Environ Manage 42:894–906

    Google Scholar 

  89. Joy M, Death R (2002) Predictive modelling of freshwater fish as a biomonitoring tool in New Zealand. Freshw Biol 47:2261–2275

    Google Scholar 

  90. Clarke RT, Wright JF, Furse MT (2003) RIVPACS models for predicting the expected macroinvertebrate fauna and assessing the ecological quality of rivers. Ecol Model 160:219–233

    Google Scholar 

  91. Hawkins CP (2006) Quantifying biological integrity by taxonomic completeness: its utility in regional and global assessments. Ecol Appl 16:1277–1294

    Google Scholar 

  92. Simpson J, Norris R, Wright J et al (2000) Biological assessment of river quality: development of AUSRIVAS models and outputs. In: Wright J, Sutcliffe D, Furse M (eds) Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside

    Google Scholar 

  93. Van Sickle J (2008) An index of compositional dissimilarity between observed and expected assemblages. J North Am Benthol Soc 27:227–235

    Google Scholar 

  94. Van Sickle J, Larsen DP, Hawkins CP (2007) Exclusion of rare taxa affects performance of the O/E index in bioassessments. J North Am Benthol Soc 26:319–331

    Google Scholar 

  95. Bates Prins SC, Smith EP (2007) Using biological metrics to score and evaluate sites: a nearest-neighbour reference condition approach. Freshw Biol 52:98–111

    Google Scholar 

  96. Moss D, Wright J, Sutcliffe D et al (2000) Evolution of statistical methods in RIVPACS. In: Wright J, Sutcliffe D, Furse M (eds) Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside

    Google Scholar 

  97. Hoang H, Recknagel F, Marshall J et al (2001) Predictive modelling of macroinvertebrate assemblages for stream habitat assessments in Queensland (Australia). Ecol Model 146:195–206

    Google Scholar 

  98. Waite IR, Brown LR, Kennen JG et al (2010) Comparison of watershed disturbance predictive models for stream benthic macroinvertebrates for three distinct ecoregions in western US. Ecol Indic 10:1125–1136

    Google Scholar 

  99. McCormick FH, Hughes RM, Kaufmann PR et al (2001) Development of an index of biotic integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands region. Trans Am Fish Soc 130:857–877

    Google Scholar 

  100. Oberdorff T, Pont D, Hugueny B et al (2002) Development and validation of a fish-based index for the assessment of river health in France. Freshw Biol 47:1720–1734

    Google Scholar 

  101. Vander Laan JJ, Hawkins CP (2014) Enhancing the performance and interpretation of freshwater biological indices: an application in arid zone streams. Ecol Indic 36:470–482

    Google Scholar 

  102. Cao Y, Hawkins CP, Olson J et al (2007) Modeling natural environmental gradients improves the accuracy and precision of diatom-based indicators. J North Am Benthol Soc 26:566–585

    Google Scholar 

  103. Yuan LL (2004) Assigning macroinvertebrate tolerance classifications using generalised additive models. Freshw Biol 49:662–677

    Google Scholar 

  104. Wintle BA, McCarthy MA, Volinsky CT et al (2003) The use of Bayesian model averaging to better represent uncertainty in ecological models. Conserv Biol 17:1579–1590

    Google Scholar 

  105. Clark JS (2005) Why environmental scientists are becoming Bayesians. Ecol Lett 8:2–14

    Google Scholar 

  106. Marzin A, Delaigue O, Logez M et al (2014) Uncertainty associated with river health assessment in a varying environment: the case of a predictive fish-based index in France. Ecol Indic 43:195–204

    Google Scholar 

  107. Cutler DR, Edwards TC Jr, Beard KH et al (2007) Random forests for classification in ecology. Ecology 88:2783–2792

    Google Scholar 

  108. De’ath G (2007) Boosted trees for ecological modeling and prediction. Ecology 88:243–251

    Google Scholar 

  109. Olden JD, Lawler JJ, Poff NL (2008) Machine learning methods without tears: a primer for ecologists. Q Rev Biol 83:171–193

    Google Scholar 

  110. Goethals PL, Dedecker AP, Gabriels W et al (2007) Applications of artificial neural networks predicting macroinvertebrates in freshwaters. Aquat Ecol 41:491–508

    Google Scholar 

  111. Hoang TH, Lock K, Mouton A et al (2010) Application of classification trees and support vector machines to model the presence of macroinvertebrates in rivers in Vietnam. Ecol Inform 5:140–146

    Google Scholar 

  112. Feio M, Viana‐Ferreira C, Costa C (2014) Combining multiple machine learning algorithms to predict taxa under reference conditions for streams bioassessment. River Res Appl 30(9):1157–1165. doi:10.1002/rra.2707

    Google Scholar 

  113. Bishop CM (1995) Neural networks for pattern recognition. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  114. Olden JD, Joy MK, Death RG (2006) Rediscovering the species in community-wide predictive modeling. Ecol Appl 16:1449–1460

    Google Scholar 

  115. Breiman L, Friedman J, Olshen R et al (1984) Classification and regression trees (CART). Wadsworth International Group, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  116. Hawkins CP, Cao Y, Roper B (2010) Method of predicting reference condition biota affects the performance and interpretation of ecological indices. Freshw Biol 55:1066–1085

    Google Scholar 

  117. Waite IR, Kennen JG, May JT et al (2012) Comparison of stream invertebrate response models for bioassessment metrics. J Am Water Resour Assoc 48:570–583

    Google Scholar 

  118. Baker EA, Wehrly KE, Seelbach PW et al (2005) A multimetric assessment of stream condition in the Northern Lakes and Forests Ecoregion using spatially explicit statistical modeling and regional normalization. Trans Am Fish Soc 134:697–710

    Google Scholar 

  119. Angradi TR, Pearson MS, Bolgrien DW et al (2009) Multimetric macroinvertebrate indices for mid-continent US great rivers. J North Am Benthol Soc 28:785–804

    Google Scholar 

  120. Chessman BC, Royal MJ (2004) Bioassessment without reference sites: use of environmental filters to predict natural assemblages of river macroinvertebrates. J North Am Benthol Soc 23:599–615

    Google Scholar 

  121. Schoolmaster DR Jr, Grace JB, Schweiger EW et al (2013) A causal examination of the effects of confounding factors on multimetric indices. Ecol Indic 29:411–419

    Google Scholar 

  122. Hering D, Feld CK, Moog O et al (2006) Cook book for the development of a multimetric index for biological condition of aquatic ecosystems: experiences from the European AQEM and STAR projects and related initiatives. Hydrobiologia 566:311–324

    Google Scholar 

  123. Stoddard JL, Herlihy AT, Peck DV et al (2008) A process for creating multimetric indices for large-scale aquatic surveys. J North Am Benthol Soc 27:878–891

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  125. Stevenson RJ, Zalack JT, Wolin J (2013) A multimetric index of lake diatom condition based on surface-sediment assemblages. Freshw Sci 32:1005–1025

    Google Scholar 

  126. Cao Y, Hawkins CP (2011) The comparability of bioassessments: a review of conceptual and methodological issues1. J North Am Benthol Soc 30:680–701

    Google Scholar 

  127. Baptista DF, Henriques-Oliveira AL, Oliveira RBS et al (2013) Development of a benthic multimetric index for the Serra da Bocaina bioregion in Southeast Brazil. Braz J Biol 73:573–583

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Fetscher AE, Stancheva R, Kociolek JP et al (2014) Development and comparison of stream indices of biotic integrity using diatoms vs. non-diatom algae vs. a combination. J Appl Phychol 26:433–450

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  129. McBride GB, Loftis JC, Adkins NC (1993) What do significance tests really tell us about the environment? Environ Manage 17:423–432

    Google Scholar 

  130. Smith J, Beauchamp J, Stewart A (2005) Alternative approach for establishing acceptable thresholds on macroinvertebrate community metrics. J North Am Benthol Soc 24:428–440

    Google Scholar 

  131. Bowman MF, Somers KM (2006) Evaluating a novel Test Site Analysis (TSA) bioassessment approach. J North Am Benthol Soc 25:712–727

    Google Scholar 

  132. Stribling J, Jessup B, Gerritsen J (2000) Development of biological and physical habitat criteria for Wyoming streams and their use in the TMDL process. Tetra-Tech, Owings Mills

    Google Scholar 

  133. Barbour M, Gerritsen J, Griffith G et al (1996) A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. J North Am Benthol Soc 15(2):185–211

    Google Scholar 

  134. Clarke R, Furse M, Gunn R et al (2002) Sampling variation in macroinvertebrate data and implications for river quality indices. Freshw Biol 47:1735–1751

    Google Scholar 

  135. Kaufmann PR, Levine P, Peck DV et al (1999) Quantifying physical habitat in wadeable streams. EPA/620/R-99-003, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  136. Hose G, Turak E, Waddell N (2004) Reproducibility of AUSRIVAS rapid bioassessments using macroinvertebrates. J North Am Benthol Soc 23:126–139

    Google Scholar 

  137. Houston L, Barbour M, Lenat D et al (2002) A multi-agency comparison of aquatic macroinvertebrate-based stream bioassessment methodologies. Ecol Indic 1:279–292

    Google Scholar 

  138. Lyons J (2012) Development and validation of two fish-based indices of biotic integrity for assessing perennial coolwater streams in Wisconsin, USA. Ecol Indic 23:402–412

    Google Scholar 

  139. Van Sickle J (2010) Correlated metrics yield multimetric indices with inferior performance. Trans Am Fish Soc 139:1802–1817

    Google Scholar 

  140. Schoolmaster DR, Grace JB, Schweiger EW (2012) A general theory of multimetric indices and their properties. Methods Ecol Evol 3:773–781

    Google Scholar 

  141. Langhans SD, Lienert J, Schuwirth N et al (2013) How to make river assessments comparable: a demonstration for hydromorphology. Ecol Indic 32:264–275

    Google Scholar 

  142. Wu W, Xu Z, Yin X et al (2014) Assessment of ecosystem health based on fish assemblages in the Wei River basin, China. Environ Monit Assess 186:3701–3716

    Google Scholar 

  143. Lunde KB, Resh VH (2012) Development and validation of a macroinvertebrate index of biotic integrity (IBI) for assessing urban impacts to Northern California freshwater wetlands. Environ Monit Assess 184:3653–3674

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  144. Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32

    Google Scholar 

  145. Van Sickle J, Hawkins CP, Larsen DP et al (2005) A null model for the expected macroinvertebrate assemblage in streams. J North Am Benthol Soc 24:178–191

    Google Scholar 

  146. Yoder CO, Barbour MT (2009) Critical technical elements of state bioassessment programs: a process to evaluate program rigor and comparability. Environ Monit Assess 150:31–42

    Google Scholar 

  147. Commission E (2000) Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Off J Eur Community L327:1–73

    Google Scholar 

  148. Tonkin JD, Stoll S, Sundermann A et al (2014) Dispersal distance and the pool of taxa, but not barriers, determine the colonisation of restored river reaches by benthic invertebrates. Freshw Biol 59(9):1843–1855

    Google Scholar 

  149. Woods A, Omernik J, Brown D et al (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/600/R-96/077, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  150. Bryce S, Hughes R, Kaufmann P (2002) Development of a bird integrity index: using bird assemblages as indicators of riparian condition. Environ Manage 30:294–310

    Google Scholar 

  151. Kanninen A, Vallinkoski V, Leka J et al (2013) A comparison of two methods for surveying aquatic macrophyte communities in boreal lakes: implications for bioassessment. Aquat Bot 104:88–100

    Google Scholar 

  152. Washington VJ, Lear G, Neale MW et al (2013) Environmental effects on biofilm bacterial communities: a comparison of natural and anthropogenic factors in New Zealand streams. Freshw Biol 58:2277–2286

    Google Scholar 

  153. Burgos-Caraballo S, Cantrell SA, Ramírez A (2014) Diversity of benthic biofilms along a land use gradient in tropical headwater streams, Puerto Rico. Microb Ecol 68(1):47–59

    Google Scholar 

  154. Baird DJ, Hajibabaei M (2012) Biomonitoring 2.0: a new paradigm in ecosystem assessment made possible by next-generation DNA sequencing. Mol Ecol 21:2039–2044

    Google Scholar 

  155. Pfrender M, Hawkins C, Bagley M et al (2010) Assessing macroinvertebrate biodiversity in freshwater ecosystems: advances and challenges in DNA-based approaches. Q Rev Biol 85:319–340

    Google Scholar 

  156. Manoylov KM (2014) Taxonomic identification of algae (morphological and molecular): species concepts, methodologies, and their implications for ecological bioassessment. J Phycol 50:409–424

    Google Scholar 

  157. Stein ED, White BP, Mazor RD et al (2014) Does DNA barcoding improve performance of traditional stream bioassessment metrics? Freshw Sci 33:302–311

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Michael Barbour, Simone Langhans, and Gregory Pond for providing the material that resulted in our “interviews with the experts” section. Their insights have provided an invaluable contribution to this work. This is VCU Rice Rivers Center Contribution Number 49.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. VCU Rice Rivers Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA

    Andrew L. Garey & Leonard A. Smock

Authors
  1. Andrew L. Garey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leonard A. Smock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew L. Garey .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Cabel Brand Center for Global Poverty and Resources Sustainability Studies, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

    Tamim Younos

  2. Department of Geography, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

    Tammy E. Parece

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Garey, A.L., Smock, L.A. (2015). Principles for the Development of Contemporary Bioassessment Indices for Freshwater Ecosystems. In: Younos, T., Parece, T. (eds) Advances in Watershed Science and Assessment. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, vol 33. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14212-8_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation