Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 182, Issue 1–4, pp 259–277 | Cite as

Predicting biological impairment from habitat assessments

Article

Abstract

The goal of biological monitoring programs is to determine impairment classification and identify local stressors. Biological monitoring performs well at detecting impairment but when used alone falls short of determining the cause of the impairment. Following detection a more thorough survey is often conducted using extensive biological, chemical, and physical analysis coupled with exhaustive statistical treatments. These methods can be prohibitive for small programs that are limited by time and budget. The objective of this study was to develop a simple and useful model to predict the probability of biological impairment based on routinely collected habitat assessments. Biological communities were assessed with the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), and habitat was assessed with the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index. Two models were constructed from a validation dataset. The first predicted a binary outcome of impaired (IBI < 35) or non-impaired (IBI ≥ 35) and the second predicted a categorical gradient of impairment. Categories include very poor, poor, fair, good, and excellent. The models were then validated with an independently collected dataset. Both models successfully predicted biological integrity of the validation dataset with an accuracy of 0.84 (binary) and 0.75 (categorical). Based on the binary outcome model, 22 sites were observed to be impaired while the model predicted them to not be impaired. The categorical model misclassified 47 samples while only seven of those were misclassified by two or more categories. The impairment source was subsequently identified by known stressors. The models developed here can be easily applied to other datasets from the Eastern Corn Belt Plain to aid in stressor identification by predicting the probability of observing an impaired fish community based on habitat. Predicted probabilities from the models can also be used to support conclusions that have already been determined.

Keywords

Index of Biotic Integrity Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index Model prediction Biological assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bramblett, R. G., Johnson, T. R., Zale, A. V., & Heggem, D. G. (2005). Development and evaluation of a fish assemblage index of biotic integrity for Northwestern Great Plains streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 134, 624–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bunnell, D. B., Madenjian, C. P., & Claramunt, R. M. (2006). Long-term changes of the Lake Michigan fish community following the reduction of exotic alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63(11), 2434–2446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cade, B. S., & Noon, B. R. (2003). A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(8), 412–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cade, B. S., Terrel, J. W., & Schroeder, R. L. (1999). Estimating effects of limiting factors with regression quantiles. Ecology, 80(1), 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlisle, D. M., Hawkins, C. P., Meador, M. R., Potapova, M., & Falcone, J. (2008). Biological assessments of Appalachian streams based on predictive models for fish, macroinvertebrate, and diatom assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27(1), 16–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Compton, M. C., Pond, G. J., & Brumley, J. F. (2003). Development and Application of the Kentucky Index of Biotic Integrity (KIBI). Frankfort: Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Division of Water.Google Scholar
  7. Conrad, R. C. (2005). Fish Community Report for the White River and Selected Tributaries 2004. Muncie: Muncie Sanitary District’s Bureau of Water Quality.Google Scholar
  8. Davies, S. P., & Jackson, S. K. (2006). The biological condition gradient: A descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications, 16(4), 1251–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doll, J. C., Holloway, D., & Conrad, R. C. (2009). Fish Community Report for the White River and Selected Tributaries 2008. Muncie: Muncie Sanitary District’s Bureau of Water Quality.Google Scholar
  10. Dolph, C. L., Sheshukov, A. Y., Chizinski, C. J., Vondracek, & Wilson, B. (2010). The index of biological integrity and the bootstrap: Can random sampling error affect stream impairment decisions? Ecological Indicators, 10, 527–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerking, S. D. (1955). Key to the fishes of Indiana. Investigations of Indiana Lakes and Streams, 4, 49–86.Google Scholar
  12. Griffith, M. B., Hill, B. H., McCormick, F. H., Kaufmann, P. R., Herlihy, A. T., & Selle, A. R. (2005). Comparative application of indices of biotic integrity based on periphyton, macroinvertebrates, and fish to southern Rocky Mountain streams. Ecological Indicators, 5, 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heath, A. G. (1995). Water Pollution and Fish Physiology, 2nd edn. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hrodey, P. J., Sutton, T. M., & Frimpong, E. A. (2009). Land-use impacts on watershed health and integrity in Indiana warmwater streams. American Midland Naturalist, 161, 76–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huston, M. A. (2002). Introductory essay: Critical issues for improving predictions. In J. M. Scott, P. Heglund &M. L. Morrison (eds.), Predicting Species Occurrences: Issues of Accuracy and Scale (pp. 7–21). Covelo: Island Press.Google Scholar
  16. IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management). (2007). IDEM’s surface water quality assessment program. Office of Water Quality, Assessment Branch, Indianapolis, Indiana. B-004-OWQ-BS-06-0-R6.Google Scholar
  17. IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management). (2008). Indiana integrated water monitoring and assessment report 2008. Indianapolis, Indiana.Google Scholar
  18. IEPA (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency). (2008). Illinois integrated water quality report and section 303(d) list—2008. Springfield, Illinois. IEPA/BOW/08-016.Google Scholar
  19. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaiser, M. S., Speckman, P. L., & Jones, J. R. (1994). Statistical models for limiting nutrient relations in inland waters. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89(426), 410–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kanehl, P. D., Lyons, J., & Nelson, J. E. (1997). Changes in habitat and fish community of Milwaukee River, Wisconsin, following removal of the Woolen Mills Dam. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 17, 387–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karr, J. R. (1981). Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries, 6(6), 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karr, J. R., Yant, P. R., & Fausch, K. D. (1987). Spatial and temporal variability of the index of biotic integrity in three midwestern streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 116(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kerans, B. L., & Karr, J. R. (1994). A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee Valley. Ecological Applications, 4(4), 768–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koenker, R., & Machado, J. A. F. (1999). Goodness of fit and related inference process for quantile regression. Journal of American Statistical Association, 94(448), 1296–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kring, L. (2009). Elkhart-Mishawaka-South Bend Aquatic Community Monitoring Annual Report 2008. Elkhart: Elkhart Public Works.Google Scholar
  27. Liebig, J. (1840). Chemistry in Its Application to Agriculture and Physiology. London: Taylor and Walton.Google Scholar
  28. Maceina, M. J. (1997). Simple application of using residuals from catch—Curve regressions to assess year-class strength in fish. Fisheries Research, 32(2), 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maloney, K. O., Weller, D. E., Russell, M. J., & Hothorn, T. (2009). Classifying the biological condition of small streams: An example using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 28(4), 869–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Messer, J. J., Linthurst, R. A., & Overton, W. S. (1991). An EPA program for monitoring ecological status and trends. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 17, 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morris, C. C., Simon, T. P. & Newhouse, S. A. (2006). A local-scale in situ approach at stressor identification of biologically impaired aquatic systems. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 50, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nagelkerke, N. J. D. (1991). A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika, 78, 691–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. NCDENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources). (2006). Standard Operating Procedure, Biological Monitoring, Stream Fish Community Assessment Program, Version 4. Raleigh: Division of Water Quality.Google Scholar
  34. Nguyen, P. (2007). nonbinROC: Software for evaluating diagnostic accuracies with non-binary gold standards. Journal of Statistical Software, 21(10), 1–10.Google Scholar
  35. Norton, S. B., Cormier, S. M., Sutter, G. W., II, Subramanian, B., Lin, E., Altfater, D., et al. (2002). Determining probable causes of ecological impairment in the little Scioto River, Ohio, USA: Part1. Listing candidate causes and analyzing evidence. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 21(6), 1112–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Oberdorff, T., & Hughes, R. M. (1992). Modification of an index of biotic integrity based on fish assemblages to characterize rivers of the Seine Basin, France. Hydrobiologia, 228(2), 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Obuchowski, N. A. (2005). Estimating and comparing diagnostic tests’ accuracy when the gold standard is not binary. Statistics in Medicine, 20, 3261–3278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. OEPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency). (1987). Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life. Volumes 1,2,3. Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Ecological Assessment Section. Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  39. OEPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency). (2005). Surface and ground water monitoring and assessment strategy 2005–2009. Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin. Columbus, Ohio. EAS/2005-09-01,Google Scholar
  40. Omernik, J. M., & Gallant, A. L. (1988). Ecoregions of the upper Midwest States. Corvallis, Oregon. EPA/600/3-88/037.Google Scholar
  41. Ostermiller, J. D., & Hawkins, C. P. (2004). Effects of sampling error on bioassessments of stream ecosystems: Application to RIVPACS-type models. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 23(2), 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peng, C. Y. J., Lee, K. L., & Ingersoll, G. M. (2002). An introduction to logistic regression analysis and reporting. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rankin, E. T. (1989). The qualitative habitat evaluation index [QHEI]: Rationale, methods, and application. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus Ohio.Google Scholar
  44. Rankin, E. T. (1995). Habitat indices in water resource quality assessments. In W. S. Davis, T. P. Simon (Ed.), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making (pp. 181–208). Washington D.C.: CRC Press LLC.Google Scholar
  45. Rogers, C. E., Brabander, D. J., Barbour, M. T., & Hemond, H. F. (2002). Use of physical, chemical, and biological indices to assess impacts of contaminants and physical habitat alteration in urban streams. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 21(6), 1156–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. R Development Core Team. (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org.
  47. Sammons, S. M., Bettoli, P. W., Isermann, D. A., & Churchill, T. N. (2002). Recruitment variation in crappies in response to hydrology of Tennessee Reservoirs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 22, 1393–1398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. SAS Institute. (2008). SAS, Version 9.2. Cary: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  49. Schmutz, S., Kaufmann, M., Vogel, B., Jungwirth, M., & Muhar, S. (2000). A multi-level concept for fish-based, river-type-specific assessment of ecological integrity. Hydrobiologia, 422/423, 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shtatland, E. S., Cain, E. M., & Barton, B. B. (2001). The Perils of Stepwise Logistic Regression and How to Escape Them Using Information Criteria and the Output Delivery System. SUGI ’26 Proceeding Paper 222–26. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  51. Simon, T. P., & Dufour, R. (1997). Development of Index of Biotic Integrity expectations for the ecoregions of Indiana. V. Eastern Cornbelt Plain. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region V. Water Division. Watershed and Nonpoint Source Branch. Chicago, Illinois. EPA 905/R-96/002.Google Scholar
  52. Smith, P. W. (1973). The Fishes of Illinois. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, p 314.Google Scholar
  53. Steedman, R. J. (1988). Modification and assessment of an index of biotic integrity to quantify stream quality in southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 45(3), 492–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strahler, A. N. (1952). Dynamic basis of geomorphology. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 63, 923–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sullivan, B. E., Rigsby, L. S., Berndt, A., Jones-Wuellner, M., Simon, T. P., Lauer, T., et al. (2004). Habitat influence on fish community assemblage in an agricultural landscape in four East Central Indiana streams. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 19(1), 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sutter, G. W., II, Norton, S. B., & Cormier, S. M. (2002). A methodology for inferring the causes of observed impairments in aquatic ecosystems. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 21(6), 1101–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sweeten, J. (2009). Quality assurance project plan: Middle Eel River Initiative (ARN#9-90). Prepared for: Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Water Management. Indianapolis.Google Scholar
  58. Swets, J. A. (1988). Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240, 1285–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Terrell, J. W., Cade, B. S., Carpenter, J., & Thompson, J. M. (1996). Modeling stream fish habitat limitations from wedge-shaped patterns of variation in standing stock. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 125, 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thomson, J. D., Weiblen, G., Thomson, B. A., Alfaro, S., & Legendre, P. (1996). Untangling multiple factors in spatial distributions: Lilies, gophers, and rocks. Ecology, 77, 1698–1715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Trautman, M. B. (1981). The Fishes of Ohio. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, p 782.Google Scholar
  62. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (1994). Environmental monitoring and assessment program, surface waters and region 3 regional environmental monitoring and assessment program, 1994 pilot field operations and methods manuals for streams. EPA/620/R-94/004. In D. J. Klemm, J. M. Lazorchak (Eds). Bioassessment and Ecotoxicology Branch, Ecological Monitoring Research Division, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory. Cincinnati: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  63. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2000). Stressor identification guidance document. EPA-822-B-00-025.Google Scholar
  64. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). (2009). National water quality inventory: Report to Congress. EPA 841-R-08-001.Google Scholar
  65. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). (1994). Report of the interagency biological methods workshop. Open-file report 94-490. In M. E. Gurtz and T. A. Muir (Eds.). Raleigh: U.S. Geological Survey.Google Scholar
  66. Wang, L., Lyons, J., & Kanehl, R. (2001). Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environmental Management, 28(2), 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weigel, B. M., Henne, L. J., & Martinez-Rivera, L. M. (2002). Macroinvertebrate-based index of biotic integrity for protection of streams in west-central Mexico. Journal of the American Benthological Society, 21(4), 686–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wharfe, J., Adams, W., Apitz, S. E., Barra, R., Bridges, T. S., Hickey, T., et al. (2007). In situ methods of measurement—An important line of evidence in the environmental risk framework. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 3(2), 268–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yoder, C. O., & Rankin, E. T. (1995). Biological response signatures and the area of degradation value: New tools for interpreting multimetric data. In W. S. Davis, T. P. Simon, (ed.), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making (pp. 263–26). Washington D.C.: CRC Press LLC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bureau of Water QualityMuncie Sanitary DistrictMuncieUSA

Personalised recommendations