Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 145–167 | Cite as

Status assessment in acid-sensitive and non-acid-sensitive Maryland coastal planin streams using an integrated biological, chemical, physical, and land-use approach

  • Lenwood W. HallJr.
  • Steven A. Fischer
  • William D. KillenJr.
  • Mark C. Scott
  • Michael C. Ziegenfuss
  • Ronald D. Anderson


This study was designed to: (1) evaluate the ecological status of acid-sensitive and non acid-sensitive Maryland coastal plain streams using biological (Index of biotic Integrity [IBI] for fish), chemical and physical habitat conditions; (2) determine if a low IBI for coastal plain stream fish can be related to stream sensitivity from acidic inputs and (3) correlate land use activities and watershed size in the coastal plain streams with biological, chemical and physical conditions. IBI values obtained using 12 community metrics for Maryland coastal plain stream fish demonstrated that there were no significant differences in these values when acid-sensitive and non-acid-sensitive streams were compared. However, other complementary data in acid-sensitive streams such as absence of the acid-sensitive species, blacknose dace and higher numbers and biomass of tolerant species suggested that these streams may be impacted. IBI values were also found to be negatively correlated with various trace metals in acid-sensitive streams but not in non-acid-sensitive areas. Chemical conditions such as trace metals and nutrients were associated with land use activities. Highest concentrations of trace metals (chromium, nickel, and cadmium) were found in streams with the highest percentage of low residential housing. Nitrate concentrations were significantly higher in streams found in agricultural areas than in forested areas. Agriculturally dominated streams with highest nitrate concentrations (> 10 mg l-1) also contained the highest percentage of livestock feeding operations. The mean IBI score for streams draining agricultural land was higher than the mean value for forested streams when all streams were compared. However, when several streams that were only marginally forested (< 50%) were removed from the analysis, the IBI scores did not differ significantly by land use. Two physical habitat indices exhibited a strong associated with each other. Each habitat index also correlated with IBI values.

Key words

acidification Index of Biotic Integrity physical habitat fish 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Angermeier, P. L. & J. R. Karr, 1986. Applying an index of biotic integrity based on stream-fish community considerations in sampling and interpretation. N. Amer. J. Fish. Manag. 6: 418–429.Google Scholar
  2. APHA et al., 1985. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Amer. Public Health Assoc., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, J. P. & S. W. Christensen, 1991. Effects of acidification on biological communities in aquatic ecosystems. In: D. F. Charles (ed.), Acidic Deposition and Aquatic Ecosystems. pp. 83–106. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, J. P., D. P. Bernard, S. W. Christensen, M. J. Sale, J. Freda, K. Heltcher, D. Maromorek, L. Rowe, P. Scanlon, G. Suter, W. Warren-Hicks & P. Welbourn, 1990. Biological Effects of Changes in Surface Water Acid-Base Chemistry. NAPAP Report 13. In: National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, Acidic Deposition: State of Science and Technology. Vol. II, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. Balon, E. K., 1975. Reproductive guilds of fishes: a proposal and definition. J. Fish. Res. Broad Can. 32: 821–864.Google Scholar
  6. Berkman, H. E. & C. F. Rabeni, 1987. Effect of siltation on stream fish communities. Environ. Biol. Fishes 18: 285–294.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, E. L., 1983. Fishes of Pennsylvania and the Northeastern United States. Penn. State Univ. Press, University Park, Pennsylvania, 243 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simmons, 1989. Proceedings of the 1989 Midwest Pollution Control biologists Meeting. U.S. Environ. Protect. Agency, EPA-905/9-89-007.Google Scholar
  9. Dickson, K. L., W. T. Waller, J. H. Kennedy & L. P. Ammann, 1992. Assessing the relationship between ambient toxicity and instream biological response. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11: 1307–1322.Google Scholar
  10. Draper, N. R. & H. Smith, 1981. Applied Regression Analysis, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 709 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Eddy, S. & J. C. Underhill, 1978. How to know the freshwater fishes. 3rd edn. W.C. Brown Comp. Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa, 215 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Fischer, S. A., L. W. Hall, Jr., W. D. Killen, Jr., M. C. Ziegenfuss, R. D. Anderson & R. J. Klauda, 1992a. Concurrent fish community metric, physical and chemical approaches for assessing environmental degradation in Maryland coastal plain streams. In: R.E. Stroud (ed.), Fisheries Management and Watershed Development AFS Symposium 13. p. 270. Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, S. A., L. W. HallJr. & W. D. KillenJr., 1992b. Distribution of the endangered glassy darter, Etheostoma vitreum, in Maryland coastal plain streams. Virg. J. Sci. 43: 47–52.Google Scholar
  14. Gammon, J. R., 1976. The fish populations of the middle 340 km of the Wabash River. Purdue Univ. Water Resources Res. Center, Tech. Rep. 86, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
  15. Gammon, J. R., 1980. The use of community parameters derived from electrofishing catches of river fish as indicators of environmental quality. In: Seminar on Water Quality Management Trade-offs. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, EPA-905/9-80-009: 335–363.Google Scholar
  16. Gorman, O. T. & J. R. Karr, 1978. Habitat structure and stream fish communities. Ecology 59: 507–515.Google Scholar
  17. Greening, H. S., A. J. Janicki & W. P. Saunders, 1987. An evaluation of stream liming effects on water quality and yellow perch spawning in Maryland coastal plain streams: 1986 Final Report. Internat. Sci. Technol. Inc, Reston, Virginia.Google Scholar
  18. Greening, H. S., A. J. Janicki, R. J. Klauda, D. M. Boulder, D. M. Levin & E. S. Perry, 1989. An evaluation of stream liming effects on water quality and spawning of migratory fishes in Maryland coastal plain streams: 1988 results. Maryland Dep. Natur. Resources, Chesapeake Bay Res. Monit. Div., final Rep. AD-89-5.Google Scholar
  19. Greer, J., 1991. Shaping the watershed: How should we manage growth. Watershed Summer/Spring: 2–14.Google Scholar
  20. Hall, L. W.Jr., S. A. Fischer, W. D. KillenJr., M. C. Ziegenfuss & R. D. Anderson, 1992. 1991 Doser Study in Maryland coastal plain: Use of lime doser to mitigate stream acidification. Maryland Dep. Natur. Resources, Chesapeake Bay Res. Monit. Div., Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  21. Henshaw, J. M., T. E. Lewis & E. M. Heithman (in press). A semi-automatic calorimetric method for the determination of monomeric aluminum species in natural waters by flow injection analysis. Internat. J. Environ. Anal. Chem.Google Scholar
  22. Hillman, D. C., S. H. Pia & J. J. Simon, 1986. Analytical methods manual for the National Surface Water Stream Survey (Middle Atlantic Phase I, Southeast Screening and Middle Atlantic Episode Pilot). Lockheed Engin. Managem. Serv. Co., Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada.Google Scholar
  23. Hughes, R. M. & J. R. Gammon, 1987. Longitudinal changes in fish assemblages and water quality in the Willamette River, Oregon. Trans. Amer. Fish Soc. 116: 196–209.Google Scholar
  24. IST (International Science and Technology, Inc.), 1988. Maryland Synoptic Stream Chemistry Survey: Estimating the number and distribution of streams affected by or at risk from acidification. Maryland Power Plant Research Program, Rep. AD-88-2.Google Scholar
  25. Jacobson, R., P. Kazyak, A. Janicki, D. Wade, H. Wilson & R. P. Morgan, 1992. Feasibility of using an index of biotic integrity (IBI) approach for synthesizing data from a Maryland biological stream survey. Rep. prep. by Versar Inc., Columbia, Maryland.Google Scholar
  26. Janicki, A. J. & H. S. Greening, 1988. An evaluation of stream liming effects on water quality and anadromous fish spawning in Maryland coastal plain streams: 1987 results. Rep. Internat. Sci. Technol. Inc., Reston, Virginia.Google Scholar
  27. Karr, J. R., 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6: 21–27.Google Scholar
  28. Karr, J. R., 1991. Biological integrity; A long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol. Appl. 1: 66–84.Google Scholar
  29. Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant & I. J. Schlosser, 1987. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natur. Hist. Surv., Spec. Pub. 5.Google Scholar
  30. Klauda, R. J., 1989. Definitions of critical environmental conditions for selected Chesapeake Bay finfish exposed to acidic episodes in spawning and nursery habitats. Maryland Dep. Natur. Resources, Chesapeake Bay Res. Monit. Div., Acid Deposition Program, Rep. CBRM AD-89-6.Google Scholar
  31. Klauda, R. J., S. A. Fischer, L. W. HallJr. & J. A. Sullivan, 1991. Alewife and Blueback Herring. In: S. L. Funderburk, J. A. Mihursky, S. J. Jordan & D. Riley (eds), Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources, 2nd edn. pp. 10.1–10.29, Chesapeake Research Consortium Inc., Solomons, MD.Google Scholar
  32. Kramer, J. R., 1984. Modified gram analysis for acid and based titrations. Environ. Geochem. Rep. 1984–2.Google Scholar
  33. Lee, D. S., A. Norden, C. R. Gilbert & R. Franz, 1976. A list of the freshwater fishes of Maryland and Delaware. Chesapeake Sci. 17: 205–211.Google Scholar
  34. Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister & J. R. StaufferJr., 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Caroline State Mus. Natur. Hist., Raleigh, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  35. Mahon, R., 1980. Accuracy of catch-effort methods for estimating fish density and biomass in streams. Environ. Biol. Fishes 5: 343–360.Google Scholar
  36. Majumdar, S. K., L. W. HallJr. & H. M. Austin, 1987. Contaminant Problems and Management of Living Chesapeake Bay Resources, Pennsylvania Acad. Sci., Easton, Pennsylvania. 573 pp.Google Scholar
  37. Maryland Office of Planning, 1991. Maryland's Land 1973–1990 A Changing Resource. Off. State Planning, Baltimore, Maryland. Pub. 91–8.Google Scholar
  38. Miller, D. L., P. M. Leonard, R. Hughes, J. R. Karr, P. B. Moyle, L. H. Schrader, B. A. Thompson, R. A. Daniels, K. D. Fausch, G. A. Fitzhugh, J. R. Gannon, D. B. Halliwell, P. L. Angermeier & D. J. Orth, 1988. Regional Applications of an index of biotic integrity for use in water resource management. Fisheries 13: 12–20.Google Scholar
  39. Milliken, G. A. & D. Johnson, 1984. Analysis of Messy Data. Volume 1: Designed Experiments. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 473 pp.Google Scholar
  40. Myers, T. J. & S. Swanson, 1991. Aquatic habitat condition index, stream type and livestock bank drainage in northern Nevada. Water Res. Bull. 27: 667–676.Google Scholar
  41. Oberdorff, T. & R. M. Hughes, 1992. Modification of an index of biotic integrity based on fish assemblages to characterize rivers of the Seine River, France. Hydrobiologia 228: 117–130.Google Scholar
  42. OECD (Orangization for Economic Cooperation and Development), 1986. Water Pollution by Fertilizers and Pesticides. Paris, France.Google Scholar
  43. OEPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency), 1987. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume II: users manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface water. Div. Water Qual. Monit. Assess. Surface Water Sect., Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  44. OEPA, 1989. The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): rationale, methods and application. Div. Water Qual. Monit. Assess., Surface Water Sect., Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  45. Page, L. M., 1983. Handbook of darters. TFH Publications, Inc., Neptune City, NJ. 271 pp.Google Scholar
  46. Parsons, T. R., Y. Maita & C. M. Lalli, 1984. A Manual of Chemical and Biological Methods for Sea Water Analysis. Pergamon Press, New York. 174 pp.Google Scholar
  47. Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross & R. M. Hughes, 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. U.S. Environ. Protect. Agency, EPA/440/4-89/001.Google Scholar
  48. Scott, D. & T. Hall, 1991. Comparative analysis of agricultural land use practices on two similar size Choptank River watersheds. Rep. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Chesapeake Estuary Program, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, P. W., 1979. The fishes of Illinois. Univ. Ill. Press, Urbana. Illinois. 314 pp.Google Scholar
  50. Speir, H. J., D. R. Weinrich & W. R. Carter, III, 1976. Evaluation of the effects of channelization on small Coastal Plain streams of Maryland. Rep. to U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Maryland Dep. Natur. Resources, Rep. F-24-R, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  51. Steedman, R. J., 1988. Modification and assessment of an index of biotic integrity to quantify stream quality in Southern California. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45: 492–501.Google Scholar
  52. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1979. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. EPA-600/4-79-020.Google Scholar
  53. USEPA, 1987. Water quality criteria summary. Off. Water Regulations and Standards. Criteria and Standards Div.Google Scholar
  54. USEPA, 1991. Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List. Report prepared by the Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Subcommittee's by the Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Subcommittee's Living Resources Subcommittee's Joint Criteria and Standards Workgroup, Annapolis, Maryland.Google Scholar
  55. Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell & C. E. Cushing, 1980. The River continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 130–137.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lenwood W. HallJr.
    • 1
  • Steven A. Fischer
    • 1
  • William D. KillenJr.
    • 1
  • Mark C. Scott
    • 1
  • Michael C. Ziegenfuss
    • 1
  • Ronald D. Anderson
    • 1
  1. 1.Agricultural Experiment Station, Wye Research and Education CenterUniversity of Maryland SystemQueenstownUSA

Personalised recommendations