Hydrobiologia

, 637:87

Covarying patterns of macroinvertebrate and fish assemblages along natural and human activity gradients: implications for bioassessment

Primary research paper

Abstract

Bioassessment is based upon the premise that biological assemblages have predictable relationships with the surrounding natural and human environments. As the nature of these relationships can vary from region to region, it is important that environment–biota relationships be established prior to the initiation of any bioassessment program. In this study, multivariate analysis was used to establish how fish and benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) assemblages in southwestern Ontario streams vary across natural and human activity gradients. The use of canonical correspondence analysis allowed us to determine that changes in community composition of both fish and BMI are strongly correlated with variation in the extent of human activity. The primary source of variation in community composition across activity gradients appeared to reflect a shift from intolerant to tolerant taxa as the extent of human activity increased. Habitat and feeding traits, for BMI and fish respectively, accounted for a secondary source of variation primarily attributable to differences in the extent of human activity at the reach scale. However, variation in human activity, especially at the basin scale, covaried with the dominant natural gradient of surface geology, making interpretation of the results difficult. Implications for bioassessment studies are discussed.

Keywords

Agricultural gradient Benthic macroinvertebrates Bioassessment Canonical correspondence analysis Fish Surface geology 

References

  1. Allan, J. D., 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 35: 257–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, R. C., R. H. Norris & T. B. Reynoldson, 2001. Taxonomic resolution of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in bioassessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 280–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, R. C., R. H. Norris & T. B. Reynoldson, 2004. Bioassessment of Freshwater Ecosystems: Using the Reference Condition Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar
  4. Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder & J. B. Stribling, 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish (EPA 841-B-99-002), 2nd ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. Bressler, D. W., J. B. Stribling, M. J. Paul & M. B. Hicks, 2006. Stressor tolerance values for benthic macroinvertebrates in Mississippi. Hydrobiologia 573: 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruns, D. A., 2005. Macroinvertebrate response to land cover, habitat, and water chemistry in a mining-impacted river ecosystem: a GIS watershed analysis. Aquatic Sciences 67: 403–423.Google Scholar
  7. Bryce, S. A., D. P. Larsen, R. M. Hughes & P. R. Kaufmann, 1997. Assessing relative risks to aquatic ecosystems: a Mid-Appalachian case study. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaves, M. L., P. M. Chainho & J. L. Costa, 2005. Regional and local environmental factors structuring undisturbed benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the Mondego River basin, Portugal. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 163: 497–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chessman, B. C. & M. J. Royal, 2004. Bioassessment without reference sites: use of environmental filters to predict natural assemblages of river macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23: 599–615.Google Scholar
  10. Coker, G. A., C. B. Portt & C. K. Minns, 2001. Morphological and ecological characteristics of Canadian freshwater fishes. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2554: iv + 89 p.Google Scholar
  11. Corkum, L. D., 1989. Patterns of benthic invertebrate assemblages in rivers of northwestern North America. Freshwater Biology 21: 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Danz, N. P., G. J. Niemi, R. R. Regal, T. Hollenhorst, L. B. Johnson, J. M. Hanowski, R. P. Axler, J. J. H. Ciborowski, T. Hrabik, V. J. Brady, J. R. Kelly, J. A. Morrice, J. C. Brazner, R. W. Howe, C. A. Johnston & G. E. Host, 2007. Integrated measures of anthropogenic stress in the U.S. Great Lakes Basin. Environmental Management 39: 631–647.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Diana, M., J. D. Allan & D. M. Infante, 2006. The influence of physical habitat and land use on stream fish assemblages in southeast Michigan. In Hughes, R. M., L. Wang & P. W. Seelbach (eds), Influences of Landscapes on Stream Habitats and Biological Assemblages. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
  14. Dolédec, S., B. Statzner & M. Bournard, 1999. Species traits for future biomonitoring across ecoregions: patterns along a human-impacted river. Freshwater Biology 42: 737–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dolédec, S., N. Phillips, M. Scarsbrook, R. H. Riley & C. R. Townsend, 2006. Comparison of structural and functional approaches to determining landuse effects on grassland stream invertebrate communities. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25: 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), 2005. ArcGIS, version 9.1. Redlands, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Ferriera, M. T., L. Sousa, J. M. Santos, L. Reino, J. Oliveira, P. R. Almeida & R. V. Cortes, 2007. Regional and local environmental correlates of native Iberian fish fauna. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 16: 504–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fitzpatrick, F. A., B. C. Scudder, B. N. Lenz & D. J. Sullivan, 2001. Effects of multi-scale environmental characteristics on agricultural stream biota in eastern Wisconsin. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37: 1489–1507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freund, J. G. & J. T. Petty, 2007. Response of fish and macroinvertebrate bioassessment indices to water chemistry in a mined Appalachian watershed. Environmental Management 39: 707–720.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldstein, R. M. & T. P. Simon, 1999. Toward a united definition of guild structure for feeding ecology of North American freshwater fishes. In Simon, T. P. (ed.), Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL: 123–202.Google Scholar
  21. Halliwell, D. B., R. W. Langdon, R. A. Daniels, J. P. Kurtenbach & R. A. Jacobson, 1999. Classification of freshwater fish species of the Northeastern United States for use in the development of indices of biological integrity, with regional applications. In Simon, T. P. (ed.), Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL: 301–337.Google Scholar
  22. Hawkes, C. L., D. L. Miller & W. G. Layher, 1986. Fish ecoregions of Kansas – stream fish assemblage patters and associated environmental correlates. Environmental Biology of Fishes 17: 267–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hawkins, C. P. & R. H. Norris, 2000. Performance of different landscape classifications for aquatic bioassessments: introduction to the series. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 367–369.Google Scholar
  24. Hawkins, C. P., R. H. Norris, J. Gerritsen, R. M. Hughes, S. K. Jackson, R. K. Johnson & R. J. Stevenson, 2000. Evaluation of the use of landscape classifications for the prediction of freshwater biota: synthesis and recommendations. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 541–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heino, J., H. Mykra, J. Kotanen & T. Muotka, 2007. Ecological filters and variability in stream macroinvertebrate communities: do taxonomic and functional structure follow the same path? Ecography 30: 217–230.Google Scholar
  26. Herlihy, A. T., W. J. Gerth, J. Li & J. L. Banks, 2005. Macroinvertebrate community response to natural and forest harvest gradients in western Oregon headwater streams. Freshwater Biology 50: 905–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hilsenhoff, W. L., 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomologist 20: 31–39.Google Scholar
  28. Hughes, R. M., P. R. Kaufmann, A. T. Herlihy, T. M. Kincaid, L. Reynolds & D. P. Larsen, 1998. A process for developing and evaluating indices of fish assemblage integrity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 1618–1631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hughes, R. M., S. Howlin & P. R. Kaufmann, 2004. A biointegrity index (IBI) for coldwater streams of Western Oregon and Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133: 1497–1515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Infante, D. M., J. D. Allan, S. Linke & R. H. Norris, 2009. Relationship of fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages to environmental factors: implications for community concordance. Hydrobiologia 623: 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Iverson, L. R., 1988. Land-use changes in Illinois, USA: the influence of landscape attributes on current and historic land use. Landscape Ecology 2: 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jobin, B., J. Beaulieu, M. Grenier, L. Bélanger, C. Masisonneuve, D. Bordage & B. Filion, 2003. Landscape changes and ecological studies in agricultural regions, Quebec, Canada. Landscape Ecology 18: 575–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, R. K., M. T. Furse, D. Hering & L. Sandin, 2007. Ecological relationships between stream communities and spatial scale: implications for designing catchment-level monitoring programmes. Freshwater Biology 52: 939–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Karr, J. R., 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6: 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kennard, M. J., A. H. Arthington, B. J. Pusey & B. D. Harch, 2005. Are alien fish a reliable indicator of river health? Freshwater Biology 50: 174–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kilgour, B. W. & D. R. Barton, 1999. Associations between stream fish and benthos across environmental gradients in southern Ontario, Canada. Freshwater Biology 41: 553–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kilgour, B. W. & L. W. Stanfield, 2006. Hindcasting reference conditions in streams. American Fisheries Society Symposium 48: 1–17.Google Scholar
  38. Lammert, M. & J. D. Allan, 1999. Assessing biotic integrity of streams: effects of scale in measuring the influence of land use/cover and habitat structure on fish and macroinvertebrates. Environmental Management 23: 257–270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Lenat, D. R., 1984. Agriculture and stream water quality: a biological evaluation of erosion control practices. Environmental Management 8: 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mackie, G. L., 2001. Applied Aquatic Ecosystem Concepts. Kendalll/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, IA.Google Scholar
  41. Marshall, D. W., A. H. Fayram, J. C. Panuska, J. Baumann & J. Hennessy, 2008. Positive effects of agricultural land use changes on coldwater fish communities in southwest Wisconsin streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: 944–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCune, B. & M. J. Mefford, 1999. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data, Version 4.17. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, OR.Google Scholar
  43. Meador, M. R. & R. M. Goldstein, 2003. Assessing water quality at large geographic scales: relations among land use, water physicochemistry, riparian condition, and fish community structure. Environmental Management 31: 504–517.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Nijboer, R. C. & P. F. M. Verdonschot, 2001. Zeldzaamheid van de macrofauna van de Nederlandse binnenwateren. Werkgroep Ecologisch Waterbeheer, themanummer 19, alterra, Wageningen, The Netherlands: 84 pp (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  45. Nijboer, R. C., R. K. Johnson, P. F. M. Verdonschot, M. Summerhauser & A. Buffagni, 2004. Establishing reference conditions for European streams. Hydrobiologia 516: 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nislow, K. H. & W. H. Lowe, 2006. Influences of logging history and riparian forest characteristics on macroinvertebrates and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in headwater streams (New Hampshire, USA). Freshwater Biology 51: 388–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Omernik, J. M., 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77: 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ontario Geological Survey, 2000. Quaternary geology, seamless coverage of the Province of Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey, Data Set 14 – Revised.Google Scholar
  49. Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross & R. M. Hughes, 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish (EPA/444/4-89-011). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  50. Rabeni, C. F., K. E. Doisy & L. D. Zweig, 2005. Stream invertebrate community functional responses to deposited sediment. Aquatic Sciences 67: 395–402.Google Scholar
  51. Resh, V. H., R. H. Norris & M. T. Barbour, 1995. Design and implementation of rapid assessment approaches for water-resource monitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 108–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reynoldson, T. B., R. H. Norris, V. H. Resh, K. E. Day & D. M. Rosenberg, 1997. The reference condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16: 833–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reynoldson, T. F., D. M. Rosenberg & V. H. Resh, 2001. Comparison of models predicting invertebrate assemblages for biomonitoring in the Fraser River catchment, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 1395–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Richards, C., G. E. Host & J. W. Arthur, 1993. Identification of predominant environmental-factors structuring stream macroinvertebrate communities within a large agricultural catchment. Freshwater Biology 29: 285–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Richards, C., L. B. Johnson & G. E. Host, 1996. Landscape-scale influence on stream habitats and biota. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53(Suppl): 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Richards, C., R. J. Haro, L. B. Johnson & G. E. Host, 1997. Catchment and reach-scale properties as indicators of macroinvertebrate species traits. Freshwater Biology 37: 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rosenberg, D. M. & V. H. Resh, 1996. Use of aquatic insects in biomonitoring. In Merrit, R. W. & K. W. Cummins (eds), An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. Kendall-Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque: 87–97.Google Scholar
  58. Roth, N. E., J. D. Allan & D. L. Erickson, 1996. Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology 11: 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sánchez-Montoya, M. M., M. R. Vidal-Abarca, T. Puntí, J. M. Poquet, N. Prat, M. Rieradevall, J. Alba-Tercedor, C. Zamore-Munoz, M. Toro, S. Robles, M. Álvarez & M. L. Suárez, 2009. Defining criteria to select reference sites in Mediterranean streams. Hydrobiologia 619: 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sandin, L. & R. K. Johnson, 2000. Ecoregions and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages of Swedish streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Simon, T. P., 1999. Assessment of Balon’s reproductive guilds with application the Midwestern North American freshwater fishes. In Simon, T. P. (ed.), Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL: 97–121.Google Scholar
  62. Stevenson, J., R. C. Bailey, M. Harrass, C. P. Hawkins, J. Alba-Tercedor, C. Couch, S. Dyer, F. Fulk, J. Harrington, C. Hunsaker & R. Johnson, 2004. Designing data collection for ecological assessments. In Barbour, M. T., S. B. Norton, H. R. Preston & K. W. Thornton (eds), Ecological Assessment of our Aquatic Resources: Application, Implementation, and Interpretation. SETAC, Pensacola: 55–84.Google Scholar
  63. Stoddard, J. L., D. P. Larsen, C. P. Hawkins, R. K. Johnson & R. H. Norris, 2006. Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. Ecological Applications 16: 1267–1276.Google Scholar
  64. Strayer, D. L., R. E. Beighley, L. C. Thompson, S. Brooks, C. Nilsson, G. Pinay & R. J. Naiman, 2003. Effects of land cover on stream ecosystems: roles of empirical models and scaling issues. Ecosystems 6: 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vieira, N. K. M., L. N. Poff, D. M. Carlisle, S. R. Moulton II, M. L. Koski & B. C. Kondratieff, 2006. A database of lotic invertebrate traits for North America: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 187 [available on internet at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/ds187].
  66. Wang, L. Z., J. Lyons, P. Kanehl & R. Gatti, 1997. Influences of watershed land use on habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries 22: 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wang, L., J. Lyons & P. Kanehl, 2001. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environmental Management 28: 255–266.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), 2000. Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside.Google Scholar
  69. Yates, A. G. & R. C. Bailey, 2006. The stream and its altered valley: integrating landscape ecology into environmental assessments of agro-ecosystems. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 114: 257–271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Yates, A. G. & R. C. Bailey, 2009. Improving the description of human activities potentially affecting rural stream ecosystems. Landscape Ecology. doi:10.1007/s10980-009-9413-1.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyThe University of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts Research Division, Canada Centre for Inland WatersEnvironment CanadaBurlingtonCanada
  3. 3.Cape Breton UniversitySydneyCanada

Personalised recommendations