Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 167, Issue 1–4, pp 91–104 | Cite as

Bioassessment tools in novel habitats: an evaluation of indices and sampling methods in low-gradient streams in California

  • Raphael D. Mazor
  • Kenneth Schiff
  • Kerry Ritter
  • Andy Rehn
  • Peter Ode


Biomonitoring programs are often required to assess streams for which assessment tools have not been developed. For example, low-gradient streams (slope ≤1%) comprise 20–30% of stream miles in California and are of particular interest to watershed managers, yet most sampling methods and bioassessment indices in the state were developed in high-gradient systems. This study evaluated the performance of three sampling methods [targeted riffle composite (TRC), reach-wide benthos (RWB), and the margin–center–margin modification of RWB (MCM)] and two indices [the Southern California Index of Biotic Integrity (SCIBI) and the ratio of observed to expected taxa (O/E)] in low-gradient streams in California for application in this habitat type. Performance was evaluated in terms of efficacy (i.e., ability to collect enough individuals for index calculation), comparability (i.e., similarity of assemblages and index scores), sensitivity (i.e., responsiveness to disturbance), and precision (i.e., ability to detect small differences in index scores). The sampling methods varied in the degree to which they targeted macroinvertebrate-rich microhabitats, such as riffles and vegetated margins, which may be naturally scarce in low-gradient streams. The RWB method failed to collect sufficient numbers of individuals (i.e., ≥450) to calculate the SCIBI in 28 of 45 samples and often collected fewer than 100 individuals, suggesting it is inappropriate for low-gradient streams in California; failures for the other methods were less common (TRC, 16 samples; MCM, 11 samples). Within-site precision, measured as the minimum detectable difference (MDD) was poor but similar across methods for the SCIBI (ranging from 19 to 22). However, RWB had the lowest MDD for O/E scores (0.20 versus 0.24 and 0.28 for MCM and TRC, respectively). Mantel correlations showed that assemblages were more similar within sites among methods than within methods among sites, suggesting that the sampling methods were collecting similar assemblages of organisms. Statistically significant disagreements among methods were not detected, although O/E scores were higher for RWB samples than TRC. Index scores suggested impairment at all sites in the study. Although index scores did not respond strongly to several measurements of disturbance in the watershed, percent agriculture showed a significant, negative relationship with O/E scores.


Low-gradient streams Bioassessment Multimetric indices Multivariate indices RIVPACS Habitats California Methods comparison 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Benke, A. C. (1998). Production dynamics of riverine chironomids: Extremely high biomass turnover rates of primary consumers. Ecology, 79(3), 899–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blocksom, K. A., Autrey, B. C., Passmore, M., & Reynolds, L. (2008). A comparison of single and multiple habitat protocols for collecting macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 44(3), 577–593. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2008.00183.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cao, Y., Hawkins, C. P., & Storey, A. W. (2005). A method for measuring the comparability of different sampling methods used in biological surveys: Implications for data integration and synthesis. Freshwater Biology, 50, 1105–1115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01377.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carter, J. L., & Resh, V. H. (2005). Pacific coast rivers of the coterminous United States. In. A. C. Benke & C. E. Cushing (Eds.), Rivers of North America (pp. 541–590). Boston: Elsevier Academic.Google Scholar
  5. Courbois, J.-Y. P., & Urquhart, N. S. (2004). Comparison of survey estimates of the finite population variance. Journal of Agricultural Biological & Environmental Statistics, 9, 236–251. doi:10.1198/1085711043596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fore, L. S., Paulsen, K., & O’Laughlin, K. (2001). Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshwater Biology, 46, 109–123. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2427.2001.00640.x.Google Scholar
  7. Harrington, J. M. (1999). California stream bioassessment procedures. Rancho Cordova: California Department of Fish and Game, Water Pollution Control Laboratory.Google Scholar
  8. Hatt, B. E., Fletcher, T. D., Walsh, C. J., & Taylor, S. L. (2004). The influence of urban density and drainage infrastructure on the concentrations and loads of pollutants in small streams. Environmental Management, 34, 112–124. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0221-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hickey, M. B. C., & Doran, B. (2004). A review of the efficiency of buffer strips for the maintenance and enhancement of riparian ecosystems. Water Quality Research Journal, 39, 311–317.Google Scholar
  10. Larsen, D. P., Kincaid, T. M., Jacobs, S. E., & Urquhart, N. S. (2001). Designs for evaluating local and regional scale trends. Bioscience, 51, 1069–1078. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[1069:DFELAR]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lewis, W. M. Jr., Hamilton, S. K., & Saunders, J. F., III. (2005). Rivers of northern South America. In: C. E. Cushing, K. W. Cummins, & G. W. Minshall (Eds.), River and stream ecosystems of the world (pp. 219–256). Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  12. Mantel, N. (1967). The detection of disease clustering and generalized regression approach. Cancer Research, 27, 209–220.Google Scholar
  13. McCune, B., & Mefford, M. J. (2006). PC-ORD [5.12]. Gleneden Beach: MJM Software Design.Google Scholar
  14. Montgomery, D., & Buffington, J. (1997). Channel-reach morphology in mountain drainage basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 109, 596–611. doi:10.1130/0016-7606(1997)109<0596:CRMIMD>2.3.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ode, P. R. (2007). Standard operating procedures for collecting benthic macroinvertebrate samples and associated physical and chemical data for ambient bioassessment in California. Available from http://mpsl.mlml.calstate.edu/phab_sopr6.pdf.
  16. Ode, P. R., & van Buuren, B. H. (2008). Amendment to SWAMP interim guidance on quality assurance for SWAMP bioassessments. Sacramento: Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program.Google Scholar
  17. Ode, P. R., Rehn, A. C., & May, J. T. (2005). A quantitative tool for assessing the integrity of southern coastal California streams. Environmental Management, 35, 493–504. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0035-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ode, P. R., Hawkins, C. P., & Mazor, R. D. (2008). Comparability of biological assessments derived from predictive models and multimetric indices of increasing geographic scope. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27, 967–985. doi:10.1899/08-051.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peck, D. V., Herlihy, A. T., Hill, B. H., Hughes, R. M., Kaufmann, P. R., Kemm, D. J., et al. (2006). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program—Surface Waters Western Pilot study: Field operations manual for wadeable streams. EPA/620/R-06/003. Corvallis: Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  20. Rehn, A. C., Ode, P. R., & Hawkins, C. P. (2007). Comparison of targeted-riffle and reach-wide benthic macroinvertebrate samples: Implications for data sharing in stream-condition assessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 26(2), 332–348. doi:10.1899/0887-3593(2007)26[332:COTARB]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Richards, A. B., & Rogers, D. C. (2006). List of freshwater macroinvertebrate taxa from California and adjacent states including standard taxonomic effort levels. Southwest Association of Freshwater Invertebrate Taxonomists. Accessed online March 1, 2008: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/swamp/docs/safit/ste_list.pdf.
  22. Sandin, L., & Johnson, R. K. (2004). Local, landscape and regional factors structuring benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in Swedish streams. Landscape Ecology, 19, 504–514. doi:10.1023/B:LAND.0000036116.44231.1c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. SAS Institute Inc. (2004). SAS OnlineDoc 9.1.3. Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  24. Sioli, H. (1975). Tropical river: The Amazon. In: B. A. Whitton (Ed.), River ecology (pp. 461–488). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  25. Stokes, M. E., Davis, C. S., & Koch, G. G. (2000). Categorical data analysis using the SAS system (2nd ed., pp. 40–41). Cary: SAS Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Stormwater Monitoring Coalition Bioassessment Working Group (2007). Regional monitoring of Southern California’s coastal watersheds. Technical report 539. Costa Mesa, CA: Southern California Coastal Water Research Project.Google Scholar
  27. Theil, H. (1958). Ecnomic forecasting and policy. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  28. US Environmental Protection Agency and US Geological Survey (2005). National hydrography dataset plus. Edition 1.0. Available from: http://www.horizonsystems.com/nhdplus/.
  29. US Geological Survey (2003). National land cover database. Edition 1.0.Google Scholar
  30. Vannote, R. L., Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R., & Cushing, C. E. (1980). The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 37, 130–137. doi:10.1139/f80-017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wallace, J. B., & Benke, A. C. (1984). Quantification of wood habitat in subtropical Coastal Plain streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 41, 1643–1652. doi:10.1139/f84-203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walsh, C. J., Waller, K. A., Gehling, J., & MacNally, R. (2007). Riverine invertebrate assemblages are degraded more by catchment urbanisation than by riparian deforestation. Freshwater Biology, 52, 574–587. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01706.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zar, J. (1999). Biostatistical analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raphael D. Mazor
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kenneth Schiff
    • 1
  • Kerry Ritter
    • 1
  • Andy Rehn
    • 2
  • Peter Ode
    • 2
  1. 1.Southern California Coastal Water Research ProjectCosta MesaUSA
  2. 2.Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory, Water Pollution Control LaboratoryCalifornia Department of Fish and GameSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations