Environmental Management

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 499–515 | Cite as

Sensitivity of Indices of Biotic Integrity to Simulated Fish Assemblage Changes

  • Anett S. Trebitz
  • Brian H. Hill
  • Frank H. McCormick
Environmental Assessment

Abstract

Multimetric indices of biotic integrity (IBIs) are commonly used to assess condition of stream fish assemblages, but their ability to monitor trends within streams over time is largely unknown. We assessed the trend detection ability of two IBI formulations (one with traditional scoring and metrics, and one with nontraditional scoring and region-specific metrics) and of similarity and diversity indices using simulations that progressively altered the fish assemblages of 39 streams in the United States mid-Atlantic Highlands region. We also assessed responses to simulated 50% variability in fish abundances, as a measure of background “noise.” Fish assemblage indices responded little to changes that affected all species proportionally despite substantial changes in total fish number. Assemblage indices responded better to scenarios that differentially affected fish species, either according to life history traits or by increasing dominance of already common species, but even these changes took some time to detect relative to background variability levels. Ordinations of stream fish assemblage data suggested that differences among sites were maintained even after substantial alterations of fish composition within sites. IBIs are designed to detect broad assemblage differences among sites while downplaying abundance changes and variability increases that were the first indications of within-site changes, and they appear more suited to detecting large departures from natural fish assemblages than for monitoring gradual changes such as those our simulations produced. Inferences about causes of assemblage changes should be made with caution because of correlations among species traits and interdependence among IBI component metrics. Site trend assessments should be made based on all available data rather than just by summary indices.

Keywords

Index of biotic integrity Fish assemblages Streams Trend monitoring 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the many people who conducted field sampling and provided species identification, database management, and statistical support for the EMAP project. Thanks to John Brazner for many conversations about fish assemblage assessment and reviewing several versions of the manuscript. Valerie Brady and Jack Kelly also provided constructive reviews, as did journal editors and reviewers. This research was supported directly by the US Environmental Protection Agency and by a postgraduate fellowship to A.T. funded by EPA through the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. This manuscript has been reviewed by EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory and approved for publication, although approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the agency.

References

  1. 1.
    Angermeier, P. L., Smogor, R. A., Stauffer, J. R. 2000Regional frameworks and candidate metrics for assessing biotic integrity in Mid-Atlantic Highland streams.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society129962981Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beals, E. W. 1984Bray-Curtis ordination an effective strategy for analysis of multivariate ecological data.Advances in Ecological Research14155Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boyle, T. P., Smillie, G. M., Anderson, J. C., Beeson, D. R. 1990Sensitivity analysis of nine diversity and seven similarity indices. Research Journal of the Water.Pollution Control Federation62749762Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fausch, K. D., Karr, J. R., Yant, P. R. 1984Regional application of an index of biotic integrity based on stream fish communities.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society1133955Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fausch, K. D., Lyons, J., Karr, J. R., Angermeyer, P. L. 1990Fish communities as indicators of environmental degradation.American Fisheries Society Symposium8123144Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fore, L. S., Karr, J. R., Conquest, L. L. 1994Statistical properties of an index of biological integrity used to evaluate water resources.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences5110771087Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grossman, G. D., Dowd, J. F., Crawford, M. 1990Assemblage stability in stream fishes: A review.Environmental Management14661671Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hawkins, C. P. 2000Evaluation of the use of landscape classifications for the prediction of freshwater biota: Synthesis and recommendations.Journal of the North American Benthological Society19541556Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hoefs, N. J., and T. P. Boyle. 1992. Contribution of fish community metrics to the index of biotic integrity in two Ozark rivers. Pages 283–303 in D. H. McKenzie, D. E. Hyatt, and V. J. McDonald (eds.) Ecological indicators. Elsevier Applied Science, London.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hughes, R. M., Gammon, J. R. 1987Longitudinal changes in fish assemblages and water quality in the Willamette River, Oregon.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society116196206Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hughes, R. M., and T. Oberdorff. 1999. Application of IBI concepts and metrics to waters outside the United States and Canada. Pages 79–93 in T. P., Simon (ed.) Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hughes, R. M., Kaufmann, P. R., Herlihy, A. T., Kincaid, T. M., Reynolds, L., Larsen, D. P. 1998A process for developing and evaluating indices of fish assemblage integrity.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences5516181631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jackson, D. A., Harvey, H. H. 1997Qualitative and quantitative sampling of lake fish communities.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences5428072813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kanehl, P. D., Lyons, J., Nelson, J. E. 1997Changes in the habitat and fish community of the Milwaukee River, Wisconsin, following removal of the Woolen Mills Dam.North American Journal of Fish Management17387400Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karr, J. R. 1993. Measuring biological integrity: Lessons from streams. Pages 83–104 in S. Woodley, J. Kay, G. Frances (eds.) Ecological integrity and the management of ecosystems. St. Lucie Press, Florida. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karr, J. R., Chu, E. W. 1999Restoring life in running waters—better biological monitoringIsland PressWashington D.CGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L., Angermeier, P. R., Yant, and I. J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running water: A method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey, Special Publication 5, Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karr, J. R., Yant, P. R., Fausch, K. D. 1987Spatial and temporal variability of the index of biotic integrity in three midwestern streams.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society116111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lammert, M., Allan, J. D. 1999Assessing biotic integrity of streams: Effects of scale in measuring the influence of land use/cover and habitat structure on fish and invertebrates.Environmental Management23257270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leonard, P. M., Orth, D. J. 1986Application and testing of an index of biotic integrity in small coolwater streams.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society115401414Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ludwig, J. A., Reynolds, J. F. 1988Statistical ecologyJohn Wiley & SonsNew York337 ppGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lyons, J., Wang, L., Simonson, T. D. 1996Development and validation of an index of biotic integrity for cold-water streams in Wisconsin.North American Journal of Fisheries Management16241256Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Magnuson, J. J., Benson, B. J., McLain, A. S. 1994Insights on species richness and turnover from long-term ecological research: fishes in north temperate lakes.American Zoologist34437451Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCormick, F. H., Hughes, R. M., Kaufmann, P. R., Peck, D. V., Stoddard, J. L., Herlihy, A. T. 2001Development of an index of biotic integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highlands region.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society130857877Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McCormick, F. H, Peck, D. V., Larsen, D. P. 2000Comparison of geographic classification schemes for Mid-Atlantic stream fish assemblages.Journal of the North American Benthological Society19385404Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McCune, B., and M. J. Mefford. 1999. Multivariate analysis of ecological data, Version 4.14. MJM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miller, D. L. 1988Regional applications of an index of biotic integrity for use in water resource management.Fisheries131220Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Minns, C. K., Cairns, V. W., Randall, R. G., Moore, J. E. 1994An index of biotic integrity (IBI) for fish assemblages in the littoral zone of Great Lakes Areas of Concern.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences5118041822Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Osborne, L. L. 1992Influence of stream location in a drainage network on the index of biotic integrity.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society121635643Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Paller, M. H., Reichert, M. J. M., Dean, J. M., Seigle, J. C. 2000Use of fish community data to evaluate restoration success of a riparian stream.Ecological Engineering15S171S187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Peterson, J. T., Rabeni, C. F. 1995Optimizing sampling effort for sampling warmwater stream fish communities.North American Journal of Fisheries Management15528541Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rahel, F. J. 1990The hierarchical nature of community persistence: A problem of scale.American Naturalist136328344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rankin, E. T., and C. O. Yoder. 1990. The nature of sampling variability in the index of biotic integrity (IBI) in Ohio streams. Pages 9–18 in W. S. Davis (ed.), Proceedings of the 1990 Midwest Pollution Control Biologists Meeting. U.S.-EPA report 905/9-90/005. Chicago.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rankin, E. T., and C. O. Yoder. 1998. Adjustments to the index of biotic integrity: a summary of Ohio experiences and some suggested modifications. Pages 625–637 in T. P. Simon (ed.), Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reinke, D. C. 1986. Evaluation of the use of community similarly techniques as applied to phytoplankton communities. Pages 6–16 in J. C. Cairns (ed.), Community toxicity testing. American Society for Testing and Materials, report ASTM STP 920. Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roth, N. 1998Maryland biological stream survey: Development of a fish index of biotic integrity.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment5189106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schubauer-Berigan, M. K., Smith, M., Hopkins, J., Cormier, S. M. 2000Using historical biological data to evaluate status and trends in the Big Darby Creek watershed (Ohio, USA).Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry1910971105Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Scott, M. C., Hall, L. W. 1997Fish assemblages as indicators of environmental degradation in Maryland coastal streams.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society126349360Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Scott, M. C., Helfman, G. S. 2001Native invasions, homogenization, and the mismeasure of integrity of fish assemblages.Fisheries26615Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shields, F. D., Knight, S. S., Cooper, C. M. 1995Use of the index of biotic integrity to assess physical habitat degradation in warmwater streams.Hydrobiologia312191208Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Simon, T. P. 1998. Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Simon, T. P., and J. Lyons . 1995, Application of the Index of Biotic Integrity to evaluate water resource integrity in freshwater ecosystems. Pages 245–262 in W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon (eds.), Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Smokorowski, K. E., M. G. Stoneman, V. W. Cairns, C. K. Minns, R. G. Randall, and B. Valere. 1998. Trends in the nearshore fish community of Hamilton Harbour, 1988 to 1997, as measured using an index of biotic integrity. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences no. 2230.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    SYSTAT, Inc. 1999. SYSTAT 9. SPSS Inc., Chicago.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wang, L., J. Lyons, P. Kanehl, R. Bannerman, and E. Emmons. 2000. Watershed urbanization and changes in fish communities in southeastern Wisconsin streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36:1173–1189.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yoder, C. O., and J. E. DeShon. 2002. Using biological response signatures within a framework of multiple indicators to assess and diagnose causes and sources of impairments to aquatic assemblages. Pages 23–81 in T. P. Simon (ed.), Biological response signatures: indicator patterns using aquatic communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yoder, C. O., and E. T. Rankin. 1995. Biological response signatures and the area of degradation value: New tools for interpreting multimetric data. Pages 263–286 in W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon (eds.), Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anett S. Trebitz
    • 1
  • Brian H. Hill
    • 1
  • Frank H. McCormick
    • 2
  1. 1.Mid-Continent Ecology DivisionU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 6201 Congdon Boulevard, Duluth, Minnesota 55804USA
  2. 2.Ecological Exposure Research DivisionU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, Ohio 45268USA

Personalised recommendations