Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 185, Issue 9, pp 7857–7875 | Cite as

Are Toronto’s streams sick? A look at the fish and benthic invertebrate communities in the Toronto region in relation to the urban stream syndrome

  • Angela M. WallaceEmail author
  • Melanie V. Croft-White
  • Jan Moryk


Impacts of urbanization on aquatic ecosystems are intensifying as urban sprawl spreads across the global land base. The urban stream syndrome (USS) identifies “symptoms” associated with urban development including changes in biotic communities, hydrology, water chemistry, and channel morphology. Direct relationships between road density (as surrogate of urbanization) and indicators of the USS were identified for streams in the Toronto region. Significant negative relationships were revealed between road density and biological (fish and benthic macroinvertebrate) richness, diversity, and fish Index of Biotic Integrity scores. Significant positive relationships were found between road density and tolerant fish/benthic macroinvertbrates, benthos Family Biotic Index scores, mean summer stream temperature, stream flashiness, and several water quality variables. Analysis of biological data showed that only four fish species and a reduced number of benthic macroinvertebrate families remained at the most urbanized sites. Road density was found to be a major determinant in both the fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community structure.


Road density Urbanization Benthic invertebrates Fish Urban stream syndrome 



We would like to thank the many TRCA field crews/technicians involved in this project over the past decade as well as Jamie Duncan and David Lawrie for providing data and advice and Jason Tam for his extensive GIS work. Special thanks to Dr. Keith Somers, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, for his statistics advice. We also acknowledge Scott Jarvie, Deborah Martin-Downs, Christine Tu, Jordan Rosenfeld (BC Ministry of the Environment), and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.


  1. Allan, J. D. (2004). Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35, 257–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, C. L., & Gibbons, C. J. (1996). Impervious surface coverage: the emergence of a key environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(2), 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker, D. B. (1989). Fluvial transport and processing of sediment and nutrients in large agricultural river basins. Lake Erie Wastewater Management Study Technical Report Series. Buffalo: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.Google Scholar
  4. Bazinet, N. L., Gilbert, B. M., & Wallace, A. M. (2010). A comparison of urbanization effects on stream benthic macroinvertebrates and water chemistry in an urban and an urbanizing basin in Southern Ontario. Canada Water Qual Res J Canada, 45(3), 327–341.Google Scholar
  5. Bode, R. W., Novak, M. A., & Abele, L. E. (1996). Quality assurance work plan for biological stream monitoring in New York State. Albany: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.Google Scholar
  6. Booth, D. B. (1991). Urbanization and the natural drainage systems—impacts, solutions and prognosis. Northwest Environ, 7, 93–118.Google Scholar
  7. Booth, D. B. (2005). Challenges and prospects for restoring urban streams, a perspective from the Pacific Northwest of North America. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24, 724–737.Google Scholar
  8. Booth, D. B., Hartley, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Forest cover, impervious surface area, and the mitigation of stormwater impacts. J Am Water Resour Ass, 38, 835–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brabec, E., Schulte, S., & Richards, P. L. (2002). Impervious surfaces and water quality: a review of current literature and its implications for watershed planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 16(4), 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brett, M. T., Arhonditsis, G. B., Mueller, S. E., Hartley, D. M., Frodge, J. D., & Funke, D. E. (2005). Non-point-source impacts on stream nutrient concentrations along a forest to urban gradient. Environmental Management, 35(3), 330–342. doi: 10.1007/s00267-003-0322-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, L.R., Burton, C.A., & Belitz, K. (2005). Aquatic assemblages of the highly urbanized Santa Ana River basin, California. In: Effects of urbanization on stream Ecosystems, American Fisheries Society Symposium 47, Bethesda, MD. pp 263–287.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, E. (1863). Census of the Canadas 1860–1861: personal census volume 1. Available at Accessed 15 January 2012.
  13. Carnefix, G., & Frissell, C. (2009). Aquatic and other environmental impacts of roads: the case for road density as indicator of human disturbance and road-density reduction as restoration target. Pacific Rivers Council Science Publication 09-001. Pacific Rivers Council, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  14. Chapman, L., & Putnam, D. (1984). The physiography of Southern Ontario (3rd edn.), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
  15. Coghlan, S. M., & Ringler, N. H. (2005). Survival and bioenergetic responses of juvenile Atlantic salmon along a perturbation gradient in a natural stream. Ecology of Freshwater Fish, 14, 111–124. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0633.2005.00083.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVCA) and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). (2010). Low impact development stormwater management planning and design guide. Toronto: ON.Google Scholar
  17. Crowther, R. A., & Hynes, H. B. N. (1977). The effect of road deicing salt on the drift of stream benthos. Environmental Pollution, 14, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeCatanzaro, R., Cvetkovic, M., & Chow-Fraser, P. (2009). The relative importance of road density and physical watershed features in determining coastal marsh water quality in Georgian Bay. Environmental Management, 44, 456–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eyles, N. (2002). Ontario rocks: three billion years of environmental change. Toronto: Fitzhenry and Whiteside Ltd.Google Scholar
  20. Groffman, P. M., Baron, J. S., Blett, T., Gold, A. J., Goodman, I., Gunderson, L. H., et al. (2006). Ecological thresholds: the key to successful environmental management or an important concept with no practical application? Ecosystems, 9, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanson, N. (2009). Population level effects of reduced fecundity in the fish species perch (Perca fluviatilis) and the implications for environmental monitoring. Ecological Modelling, 220, 2051–2059. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.04.053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Hayes, D. (2008). Historical atlas of Toronto. Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre Ltd.Google Scholar
  24. Hilsenhoff, W. L. (1988). Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 7(1), 65–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones, C., Somers, K. M., Craig, B., & Reynoldson, T. B. (2005). Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network protocol manual. Dorset: Ontario Ministry of Environment.Google Scholar
  26. Kersey, K. & Mackay, R.J. (1981). Laboratory and field studies on the effects of road de-icing salt on stream invertebrates SIC-9. Snow and Ice Control Working Group, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
  27. Konrad, C. P., & Booth, D. B. (2005). Hydrologic changes in urban streams and their ecological significance. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 47, 157–177.Google Scholar
  28. Korman, J., Kaplinski, M., & Melis, T. S. (2011). Effects of fluctuating flows and a controlled flood on incubation success and early survival rates and growth of age-0 rainbow trout in a large regulated river. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 140, 487–505. doi: 10.1080/00028487.2011.572015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin-Downs, D. (1988). Don River biological inventory: past, present and future evaluation. Metro Toronto & Region Conservation Authority. Technical Report #16. April 1998.Google Scholar
  30. Meyer, J. L., Paul, M. J., & Taulbee, W. K. (2005). Stream ecosystem function in urbanizing landscapes. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24, 602–612.Google Scholar
  31. Nelson, J. A., Gotwalt, P. S., Simonetti, C. A., & Snodgrass, J. W. (2008). Environmental correlates, plasticity, and repeatability of differences in performance among Blacknose Dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) populations across a gradient of urbanization. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology, 81(1), 25–42. doi: 10.1086/ Scholar
  32. Ourso, R. T., & Frenzel, S. A. (2003). Identification of linear and threshold responses in streams along a gradient of urbanization in Anchorage, Alaska. Hydrobiologia, 501, 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Palmer, M. A., Allan, J. D., & Butman, C. A. (1996). Dispersal as a regional process affecting the local dynamics of marine and stream benthic invertebrates. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11, 322–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paul, M. J., & Meyer, J. L. (2001). Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 32, 333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pizzuto, J. E., Hession, W. C., & McBride, M. (2000). Comparing gravel-bed rivers in paired urban and rural catchments of southeastern Pennsylvania. Geology, 28, 79–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poff, N. L., & Huryn, A. D. (1998). Multi-scale determinants of secondary production in Atlantic salmon streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 55, 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rahel, F. J., & Hubert, W. A. (1991). Fish assemblages and habitat gradients in a Rocky Mountain–Great Plains stream: Biotic zonation and additive patterns of community change. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 120, 319–332. doi: 10.1577/1548-8659(1991) 120<0319:FAAHGI>2.3.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rhodes, A. M., Newton, R. M., & Pufall, A. (2001). Influences of land use on water quality of a diverse New England watershed. Environmental Science & Technology, 35, 3640–3645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Richards, R. P. (1989). Measures of flow variability for Great Lakes tributaries. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 12, 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robert, A. (2003). River processes: an introduction to fluvial dynamics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Roy, A. H., Freeman, M. C., Freeman, B. J., Wenger, J. S., Ensign, W. E., & Meyer, J. L. (2005). Investigating hydrologic alteration as a mechanism of fish assemblage shifts in urbanizing streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24, 656–678.Google Scholar
  42. Schiff, R., & Benoit, G. (2007). Effects of impervious cover at multiple spatial scales on costal watershed streams. Journal of the American Water Works Association, 43, 712–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 688. doi: 10.1038/163688a0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Skoglund, H., Einum, S., Forseth, T., & Barlaup, B. T. (2011). Phenotypic plasticity in physiological status at emergence from nests as a response to temperature in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 68, 1470–1479. doi: 10.1139/F2011-056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stanfield, L. W., & Kilgour, B. W. (2006). Effects of percent impervious cover on fish and benthos assemblages and instream habitats in Lake Ontario tributaries. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 48, 577–599.Google Scholar
  46. Stanfield, L., Jones, M., Stoneman, M., Kilgour, B., Parish, J., & Wichert, G. (2001). Stream assessment protocol for Southern Ontario. Picton: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.Google Scholar
  47. 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, 492–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strahler, A. N. (1957). Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 38, 913–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. ter Braak, C. J. F., & Smilauer, P. (1998). CANOCO reference manual and user’s guide to Canoco for Windows—Software for canonical community ordination (version 4). Ithaca: Microcomputer Power.Google Scholar
  50. ter Braak, C. J. F., & Verdonschot, P. F. M. (1995). Canonical correspondence analysis and related multivariate methods in aquatic ecology. Aquatic Sciences, 53, 255–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). (1994). Forty steps to a new Don: The report of the Don Watershed Task Force. Toronto, ON. Available at Accessed 17 January 2012.
  52. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). (2011a). Updated assessment report: Toronto and Region source protection area. Toronto, ON. Available at Accessed 10 February 2012.
  53. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). (2011b). The Living City Report Card 2011: An assessment of the environmental health of the Greater Toronto Area. Toronto, ON. Accessed 23 March 2012.
  54. Utz, R. M., Hilderbrand, R. H., & Boward, D. M. (2009). Identifying regional differences in threshold responses of aquatic invertebrates to land cover gradients. Ecological Indicators, 9, 556–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Sickle, J. (2003). Analyzing correlations between stream and watershed attributes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 39, 717–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vinson, M. R., & Hawkins, C. P. (1998). Biodiversity of stream insects: variation at local, basin, and regional spatial scales. Annual Review of Entomology, 43, 271–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Walsh, C. J. (1997). A mutivariate method for determining optimal subsample size in the analysis of macroinvertebrate samples. Marine & Freshwater Research, 48, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Walsh, C. J. (2004). Protection of in-stream biota from urban impacts: minimise catchment imperviousness or improve drainage design? Marine & Freshwater Research, 55, 317–326. doi: 10.1071/MF03206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walsh, C. J., Roy, A. H., Feminella, J. W., Cottingham, P. D., Groffman, P. M., & Morgan, R. P. (2005). The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and search for a cure. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24(3), 706–723.Google Scholar
  60. Wichert, G. A. (1995). Effects of improved sewage effluent management and urbanization on fish associations of Toronto streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 15, 440–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Williams, D. D., Williams, N. E., & Cao, Y. (1997). Spatial differences in macroinvertebrate community structure in springs in southeastern Ontario in relation to their chemical and physical environments. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 75, 1404–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Williams, D. D., Williams, N. E., & Cao, Y. (2000). Road salt contamination in a major metropolitan area and development of a biological index to monitor its impact. Water Research, 34, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zandbergen, P. (1998). Urban watershed assessment: linking watershed health indicators to management. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela M. Wallace
    • 1
    Email author
  • Melanie V. Croft-White
    • 1
  • Jan Moryk
    • 1
  1. 1.Toronto and Region Conservation AuthorityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations