Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 186, Issue 10, pp 6537–6551 | Cite as

Relationships among varying sampling distance and the IBI in warmwater, headwater streams of the Eastern Corn Belt Plain

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Single-pass electrofishing was used to define the most efficient sampling distance to assess stream condition using the index of biotic integrity (IBI) methodology in headwater (<36 km2 drainage area), warmwater streams in the Eastern Corn Belt Plain ecoregion. Based on wetted widths (1–3.3 m) of sampled reaches, we defined effort based on increased area (range 50–555 m2). Sampled area necessary to capture a representative fish assemblage increased until 167-m2 distance, which is equivalent to a minimum sampling distance of one habitat cycle. No significant difference in metric actual observed value response was found with increasing habitat cycle. Increased effort is required in smaller streams widths (≤1 m) to achieve the recommended sample area. The effect of rare fish on the IBI was tested using a modified Walford method. A significant decrease in IBI score was observed when 10 % of the rare data were removed. The presence of rare fish did not influence individual IBI metrics or scores for either the increased effort or reduced effort calibrations until greater than 3 % of the data was removed for number of species, 15 % removal of data for number of minnow species, and 5 % removal of data for catch per unit effort (CPUE). Increased effort did not affect any metric or IBI score, while reduced effort influenced the number of darter, madtom, and sculpin species and catch per unit effort metric scores but did not affect IBI score.

Keywords

Method validation Distance length Habitat cycles Index of biological integrity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Tony Olsen for assistance with sampling design and appreciate the field assistance provided by R.L. Dufour, T. Brannam, C.O. Yoder, and T. Minimier. This manuscript was prepared in connection with work done under US Environmental Protection Agency contract. Although this study may have been funded wholly or in part by the US Environmental Protection Agency, no endorsement or agreement with the findings of this study are suggested.

References

  1. Angermeier, P. L., & Schlosser, I. J. (1989). Species-area relationships for stream fishes. Ecology, 70, 1450–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angermeier, P. L., & Smogor, R. A. (1995). Estimating number of species and relative abundances in stream-fish communities: effects of sampling effort and discontinuous spatial distributions. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 52, 936–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arscott, D. B., Jackson, J. K., & Kratzer, E. B. (2006). Role of rarity and taxonomic Resolution in a regional and spatial analysis of stream macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 25, 977–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayley, P. B., & Peterson, J. T. (2001). An approach to estimate probability of presence and richness of fish species. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 130, 620–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaumont, W. R., Peirson, C. G., & Lee, M. J. (2006). Factors affecting the characteristics and propagation of Arkansas voltage gradient fields from electric fishing anodes. Ecology, 13, 47–52.Google Scholar
  6. Cao, Y., Larsen, D. P., & Thorne, R. S. (2001). Rare species in multivariate analysis for bioassessment: some considerations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 20, 144–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cao, Y., Williams, D. D., & Williams, N. E. (1998). How important are rare species in aquatic community ecology and bioassessment? Limnology and Oceanography, 43, 1403–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crisp, D. T., & Crisp, D. C. (2006). Problems with timed electric fishing assessment methods. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 13, 211–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dauwalter, D. C., & Pert, E. J. (2003a). Electrofishing effort and fish species richness and relative abundance in Ozark Highland streams of Arkansas. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 23, 1152–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dauwalter, D. C., & Pert, E. J. (2003b). Effect of electrofishing effort on an index of biotic integrity. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 23, 1247–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Degerman, E., Beier, U., Breine, J., Melcher, A., Quataert, P., Rogers, C., et al. (2007). Classification and assessment of degradation in European running waters. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 14, 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emery, E.B., Simon, T.P., McCormick, F.H. Angermeier, P.L. Deshon, J.E., Yoder, C.O., Sanders, R.E., Pearson, W.D., Hickman, G.D., Reash, R.J., & Thomas, J.A. (2003). Development of a multimetric index for assessing the biological condition of the Ohio River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 132, 781–808.Google Scholar
  13. Fausch, K. D., Karr, J. R., & Yant, P. R. (1984). Regional application of an index of biotic integrity based on stream fish communities. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 113, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Font, D., Hugueny, B., & Rogers, C. (2007). Development of a fish-based index for the assessment of river health in Europe: the European Fish Index. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 14, 427–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heimbuch, D. G., Wilson, H. T., Weisberg, S. B., Volstad, J. H., & Kazyak, P. F. (1997). Estimating fish abundance in stream surveys by using double-pass removal sampling. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 126, 795–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kanno, Y., Vokoun, J. C., Dauwalter, D. C., Hughes, R. M., Herlihy, A. T., Maret, T. R., et al. (2009). Influence of rare species on electrofishing distance when estimating species richness of stream and river reaches. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 238, 1240–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karr, J.R. (1981). Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries, 6, 21–27.Google Scholar
  18. Karr, J.R., Fausch, K.D., Angermeier, P.L., Yant, P.R., & Schlosser, I.J. (1986). Assessing the biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey, Special Publication 5.Google Scholar
  19. Kennard, M. J., Pusey, B. J., Harch, B. D., Dore, E., & Arthington, A. H. (2006). Estimating local stream fish assemblage attributes: sampling effort and efficiency at two spatial scales. Marine and Freshwater Research, 57, 635–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kimmel, W. G., & Argent, D. G. (2006). Efficacy of two-pass electrofishing employing multiple units to assess stream fish species richness. Fisheries Research, 82, 14–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Larimore, R. W., Childers, W. F., & Heckrote, C. (1959). Destruction and reestablishment of stream fish and invertebrates affected by drought. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 88, 261–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leopold, L. B., Woolman, M. G., & Miller, J. P. (1964). Fluvial processes in geomorphology. Freeman, San Francisco, California: W. H.Google Scholar
  23. Lyons, J. (1992). The length of stream to sample with a towed electrofishing unit when fishspecies richness is estimated. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 12, 198–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meador, M. R. (2005). Single-pass versus two-pass boat electrofishing for characterizing river fish assemblages: species richness estimates and sampling distance. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 134, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meador, M.R., Cuffney, T.F., & Gurts, M.E. (1993). Methods for sampling fish communities as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. U.S. Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC. Open-file Report, 93–104.Google Scholar
  26. Meador, M. R., McIntyre, J. P., & Pollock, K. H. (2003). Assessing the efficacy of single-pass backpack electrofishing to characterize fish community structure. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 132, 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Melcher, A., Schmutz, S., Haidvogl, G., & Moder, K. (2007). Spatially based methods to assess the ecological status of European fish assemblage types. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 14, 453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mitro, M. G., & Zale, A. V. (2000). Predicting fish abundances using single-pass Removal sampling. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57, 951–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Noble, R. A. A., Cowx, I. G., Goffaux, D., & Kestemont, P. (2007). Assessing the health of European rivers using functional ecological guilds of fish communities: standardising species classification approaches to metric selection. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 14, 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). (1989). Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life. Volume III: standardized biological field sampling and laboratory methods for assessing fish and macroinvertebrate communities Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment. Columbus, Ohio. Available at: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/bioassess/BioCriteriaProtAqLife.html.
  31. Omernik, J.M., & Gallant, A.L. (1988). Ecoregions of the upper midwest states U. S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory. Corvallis, Oregon. EPA/600/3-88/037.Google Scholar
  32. Paller, M. H. (1994). Relationships between fish assemblage structure and stream order in South Carolina coastal plain streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 123, 150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paller, M. H. (1995). Relationships among number of fish species sampled, reach length surveyed, and sampling effort in South Carolina coastal plain streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 15, 110–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Patton, T. M., Hubert, W. A., Rahel, F. J., & Gerow, K. G. (2000). Effort needed to estimate species richness in small streams on the Great Plains in Wyoming. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 20, 394–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peoples, B. K., & Frimpong, E. A. (2011). Among-pass, interregional, and single- versus multiple-season comparisons of detection probabilities of stream fishes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 140, 67–83.Google Scholar
  36. Peterson, J. T., & Rabeni, C. F. (1995). Optimizing sampling effort for sampling warmwater stream fish communities. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 15, 528–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., & Hughes, R.M. (1989). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA 444/4-89-001.Google Scholar
  38. Pritt, J. J., & Frimpong, E. A. (2010). Quantitative determination of rarity of freshwater fishes and implications of the outcome for imperiled-species designations. Conservation Biology, 24, 1249–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pritt, J. J., & Frimpong, E. A. (2014). The effect of sampling intensity on patterns of rarity and community assessment metrics in stream fish samples. Ecological Indicators, 39, 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pusey, B. J., Kennard, M. J., Arthur, J. M., & Arthington, A. H. (1998). Quantitative sampling of stream fish assemblages: single- vs multiple-pass electrofishing. Australian Journal of Ecology, 23, 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reynolds, L., Herlihy, A. T., Kaufmann, P. R., Gregory, S. V., & Hughes, R. M. (2003). Electrofishing effort requirements for assessing species richness and biotic integrity in western Oregon streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 23, 450–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ricker, W. E. (1975). Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 191.Google Scholar
  43. Roset, N., Grenouillet, G., Goffaux, D., Pont, D., & Kestemont, P. (2007). A review of existing fish assemblage indicators and methodologies. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 14, 393–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmutz, S., Cowx, I. G., Haidvogl, G., & Pont, D. (2007a). Fish-based methods for assessing European running waters: a synthesis. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 14, 369–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schmutz, S., Melcher, A., Frangez, C., Haidvogl, G., Beier, U., Böhmer, J., et al. (2007b). Spatially based methods to assess the ecological status of riverine fish assemblages in European ecoregions. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 14, 441–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simon, T.P. (1991). Development of index of biotic integrity expectations for the ecoregions of Indiana. I. Central Corn Belt Plain. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Chicago, Illinois, EPA 905-9-91-025.Google Scholar
  47. Simon, T.P. (1992). Biological criteria development for large rivers with an emphasis on an assessment of the White River drainage, Indiana. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL. EPA 905-R-92-006.Google Scholar
  48. Simon, T.P. (1994). Development of index of biotic integrity expectations for the ecoregions of Indiana. II. Huron-Erie Lake Plain. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL. EPA 905-R-92-027.Google Scholar
  49. Simon, T.P. (1998). Development of index of biotic integrity expectations for the ecoregions of Indiana. III. Northern Indiana Till Plain. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL. EPA 905-R-96-002.Google Scholar
  50. Simon, T. P. (2000). The use of biocriteria as a tool for water resource management. Environmental Science and Policy, 3, S43–S49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Simon, T. P. (2003). Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  52. Simon, T.P., & Dufour, R.L. (1998). Development of index of biotic integrity expectations for the ecoregions of Indiana. V. Eastern Corn Belt Plain. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Chicago, Illinois,EPA 905-R-96-004.Google Scholar
  53. Simon, T. P., & Lyons, J. (1995). Application of the index of biotic integrity to evaluate water resource integrity in freshwater ecosystems. In W. S. Davis & T. P. Simon (Eds.), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making (pp. 245–262). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  54. Simon, T.P., & Stahl, J.R. (1998). Development of index of biotic integrity expectations For the Wabash River. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL. EPA 905-R-96-005.Google Scholar
  55. Simonson, T. D., & Lyons, J. (1995). Comparison of catch per unit effort and removal procedures for sampling stream fish assemblages. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 15, 419–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith, K. L., & Jones, M. L. (2005). Watershed-level sampling effort requirements for determining riverine fish species composition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 62, 1580–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith, K. L., & Jones, M. L. (2008). Allocation of sampling effort to optimize efficiency of watershed level ichthyofaunal inventories. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 137, 1500–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith, P. W. (1971). Illinois streams: a classification based on their fishes and an analysis of factors responsible for the disappearance of native species. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes, 76.Google Scholar
  59. Smogor, R. A., & Angermeier, P. L. (2001). Determining a regional framework for assessing biotic integrity of Virginia streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 130, 18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Specziár, A., Takács, P., Czeglédi, I., & Er˝os, T. (2012). The role of the electrofishing equipment type and the operator in assessing fish assemblages in a non-wadeable lowland river. Fisheries Research, 125–126, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stevens, D. L., Jr., & Olsen, A. R. (1999). Spatially restricted surveys over time for aquatic resources. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, 4, 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public and Environmental AffairsIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyIndiana State UniversityTerre HauteUSA
  3. 3.Indiana Dunes National LakeshorePorterUSA

Personalised recommendations