, Volume 663, Issue 1, pp 51–69

Response of stream macroinvertebrate assemblages to erosion control structures in a wastewater dominated urban stream in the southwestern U.S.

Primary research paper


Effects of stream erosion control structures on aquatic macroinvertebrates were studied (2000–2009) in a wastewater dominated drainage (Wash) in Las Vegas, Nevada. Mainstem sites with and without structures, wastewater treatment plant outfalls, a reference site above treatment plant inputs, and tributary sites were sampled. Ordination suggested hydrology and channel characteristics (current velocity, stream depth, and width), and water quality (conductivity) were primary factors in organizing macroinvertebrate communities, with some variables altered at structures. Treatment plant inputs changed hydrology (increased flows), water chemistry (conductivity decreased below treatment plants), and temperature. Assemblages differed between site types, with midges and damselflies important at tributary sites and Fallceon mayflies and Smicridea caddisflies common at erosion control structures. Locally unique communities developed at structures which also may have facilitated exotic species invasions. Analyses showed that taxa richness increased over time at these sites and differed significantly from richness at sites without structures. Structures appeared important in retaining organic matter and, among mainstem sites, coarse particulate organic matter was highest, but variable, at structures and at wetlands above the structures. Erosion control structures, coupled with warm effluent, high baseflows, and altered water quality resulted in development of a macroinvertebrate community that did not trend towards reference or tributary sites. In this case, ecological communities at structures used for river restoration were not on a continuum between disturbed and reference sites. Goal setting of community responses at these structures would have required insight beyond the simple use of reference site attributes.


Erosion control structures Las Vegas Wash Macroinvertebrates Stream restoration Thiaridae Urban 


  1. Albertson, L. K., B. J. Cardinale, S. C. Zeug, L. R. Harrison, H. S. Lenihan & M. A. Wydzga. 2010. Impacts of channel reconstruction on invertebrate assemblages in a restored river. Restoration Ecology. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00672.x.
  2. APHA, 1975. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 14th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  3. APHA, 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  4. Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory. 2003. CAMLnet list of Californian macroinvertebrate taxa and standard taxonomic effort. Revision date: 27 January 2003. California Department of Fish and Game.Google Scholar
  5. 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, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99–002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  6. Beavan, L., J. Sadler & C. Pinder, 2001. The invertebrate fauna of a physically modified urban river. Hydrobiologia 445: 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bevans, H. E., M. S. Lico & S. J. Lawrence. 1998. Water quality in the Las Vegas valley area and the Carson and Truckee River basins, Nevada and California, 1992–96 [http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ1170m]. Updated 19 March 1998.
  8. Blakely, T. J. & J. S. Harding, 2005. Longitudinal patterns in benthic communities in an urban stream under restoration. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 39: 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blinn, D. W. & D. E. Ruiter, 2006. Tolerance values of stream caddisflies (Trichoptera) in the lower Colorado River basin, USA. The Southwestern Naturalist 51(3): 326–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bond, N. R. & P. S. Lake, 2003. Local habitat restoration in streams: constraints on the effectiveness of restoration for stream biota. Ecological Management and Restoration 4(3): 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Booth, D. B., J. R. Karr, S. Schauman, C. P. Konrad, S. A. Morley, M. G. Larson & S. J. Burges, 2004. Reviving urban streams: land use, hydrology, biology, and human behavior. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40: 1351–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, L. R., T. F. Cuffney, J. F. Coles, F. Fitzpatrick, G. McMahon, J. Steuer, A. H. Bell & J. T. May, 2009. Urban streams across the USA: lessons learned from studies in 9 metropolitan areas. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 28(4): 1051–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buckingham, S. E. & J. W. Whitney, 2007. GIS methodology for quantifying channel change in Las Vegas, Nevada. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43(4): 888–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cairns Jr., J., 1972. Environmental quality and the thermal pollution problem. In Farvar, M. T. & J. P. Milton (eds), The Careless Technology Ecology and International Development. The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York: 829–853.Google Scholar
  15. Carlisle, D. M., M. R. Meador, S. R. Moulton III & P. M. Ruhl, 2007. Estimation and application of indicator values for common macroinvertebrate genera and families of the United States. Ecological Indicators 7: 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Choi, Y. D., V. M. Temperton, E. B. Allen, A. P. Grootjans, M. Halassy, R. J. Hobbs, M. A. Naeth & K. Torok, 2008. Ecological restoration for future sustainability in a changing environment. Ecoscience 15(1): 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gray, L. J., 1981. Species composition and life histories of aquatic insects in a lowland Sonoran desert stream. The American Midland Naturalist 106(2): 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grimm, N. B., J. M. Grove, S. T. A. Pickett & C. L. Redman, 2000. Integrated approaches to long-term studies of urban ecological systems. BioScience 50: 571–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. GS, U. S., 1979. Methods for the Determination of Inorganic Substances in Water and Fluvial Sediments, Book 5. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  20. Hargrove, W. W. & J. Pickering, 1992. Pseudoreplication: a sine qua non for regional ecology. Landscape Ecology 6(4): 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harrison, S. S. C., J. L. Pretty, D. Shepherd, A. G. Hildrew, C. Smith & R. D. Hey, 2004. The effect of instream rehabilitation structures on macroinvertebrates in lowland rivers. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 1140–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hawkins, C. P., J. R. Olson & R. A. Hill, 2010. The reference condition: predicting benchmarks for ecological and water-quality assessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29(1): 312–343.Google Scholar
  23. Henshaw, P. C. & D. B. Booth, 2000. Natural restabilization of stream channels in urban watersheds. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36(6): 1219–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hilderbrand, R. H., A. C. Watts & A. M. Randle. 2005. The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society 10(1): 19. [http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art19/].
  25. Hogg, I. D. & D. D. Williams, 1996. Response of stream invertebrates to a global-warming thermal regime: an ecosystem-level manipulation. Ecology 77: 395–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hollis, G. E., 1975. The effect of urbanization of floods of different recurrence interval. Water Resources Research 11(3): 431–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hurlbert, S. H., 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs 54(2): 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones, R. C. & C. C. Clark, 1987. Impact of watershed urbanization on stream insect communities. Water Resources Bulletin 23(6): 1047–1055.Google Scholar
  29. Jowett, I. G. & J. Richardson, 1990. Microhabitat preferences of benthic invertebrates in a New Zealand river and the development of in-stream flow-habitat models for Deleatidium spp. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 24: 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klein, R. D., 1979. Urbanization and stream quality impairment. Water Resources Bulletin 15(4): 948–963.Google Scholar
  31. Kondratieff, P. F. & G. M. Simmons Jr, 1982. Nutrient retention and macroinvertebrate community structure in a small stream receiving sewage effluent. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 94(1): 83–98.Google Scholar
  32. Langford, T. E. L., P. J. Shaw, A. J. D. Ferguson & S. R. Howard. 2009. Long-term recovery of macroinvertebrate biota in grossly polluted streams: recolonisation as a constraint to ecological quality. Ecological Indicators. doi:10.1016/jecolind.2008.12.012.
  33. Larson, M. G., D. B. Booth & S. A. Morley, 2001. Effectiveness of large woody debris in stream rehabilitation projects in urban basins. Ecological Engineering 18: 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Litvan, M. E., T. W. Stewart, C. L. Pierce & C. J. Larson, 2007. Effects of grade control structures on the macroinvertebrate assemblage of an agriculturally impacted stream. River Research and Application 24: 218–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller, J. R. & R. J. Hobbs, 2007. Habitat restoration – do we know what we’re doing? Restoration Ecology 15(3): 382–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller, S. W., P. Budy & J. C. Schmidt, 2010. Quantifying macroinvertebrate responses to in-stream habitat restoration: applications of meta-analysis to river restoration. Restoration Ecology 18(1): 8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mitchell, A. J. & T. M. Brandt, 2005. Temperature tolerance of Red-rim Melania Melanoides tuberculatus, an exotic aquatic snail established in the United States. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134: 126–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moerke, A. H. & G. A. Lamberti, 2004. Restoring stream ecosystems: lessons from a Midwestern state. Restoration Ecology 12(3): 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Muotka, T., R. Paavola, A. Haapala, M. Novikmec & P. Laasonen, 2002. Long-term recovery of stream habitat structure and benthic invertebrate communities from in-stream restoration. Biological Conservation 105: 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Negishi, J. N. & J. S. Richardson, 2003. Responses of organic matter and macroinvertebrates to placements of boulder clusters in a small stream of southwestern British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Padilla, D. K. & S. L. Williams, 2004. Beyond ballast water: aquarium and ornamental trades as sources of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(3): 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paetzold, A., C. J. Schubert & K. Tockner, 2005. Aquatic terrestrial linkages along a braided-river: riparian arthropods feeding on aquatic insects. Ecosystems 8: 748–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paul, M. J. & J. L. Meyer, 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. PBS&J. 2008. 2008 Las Vegas Valley Flood Control Master Plan Update. Clark County Regional Flood Control District.Google Scholar
  45. Pfankuch, D. J., 1975. Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Region 1, Missoula, MT.Google Scholar
  46. Rader, R. B., M. C. Belk & M. J. Keleher, 2003. The introduction of an invasive snail (Melanoides turberculata) to spring ecosystems of the Bonneville Basin, Utah. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 18(4): 647–657.Google Scholar
  47. Reclamation. 1982. Status Report, Las Vegas Wash Unit, Nevada, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, L.C. Region, Reclamation, Boulder City, NV.Google Scholar
  48. Remsburg, A. J. & M. G. Turner, 2009. Aquatic and terrestrial drivers of dragonfly (Odonata) assemblages within and among north-temperate lakes. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 28(1): 44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sartoris, J. J., R. A. Roline & S. M. Nelson. 2005. Las Vegas Wash Water Quality Monitoring Program 1990-2004 Summary of Finding. Technical Memorandum No. 8220-05-14. Technical Service Center, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  50. Schueler, T. R., 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMP’s. Prepared for the Washington Metropolitan Water Resources Planning Board. Metropolitan Council of Governments, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  51. SNWA. 2006. Southern Nevada Water Authority 2006 Water Resource Plan. http://www.snwa.com/html/wr_resource_plan.html.
  52. Stave, K. A., 2001. Dynamics of wetland development and resource management in Las Vegas Wash, Nevada. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(5): 1369–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stewart, T. W., T. L. Shumaker & T. A. Radzio, 2003. Linear and nonlinear effects of habitat structure on composition and abundance in the macroinvertebrate community of a large river. American Midland Naturalist 149: 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor, C. M., M. R. Winston & W. J. Matthews, 1996. Temporal variation in tributary and mainstem fish assemblages in a Great Plains stream system. Copeia 1996(2): 280–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Townsend, C. R., M. R. Scarsbrook & S. Dolédec, 1997. Quantifying disturbance in streams: alternative measures of disturbance in relation to macroinvertebrate species traits and species richness. Journal of North American Benthological Society 16(3): 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Trush, W. J., S. M. McBain & L. B. Leopold, 2000. Attributes of an alluvial river and their relation to water policy and management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97(22): 11858–11863.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Urban, M. C., D. K. Skelly, D. Burchsted, W. Price & S. Lowry, 2006. Stream communities across a rural-urban landscape gradient. Diversity and Distributions 12: 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988. Ambient aquatic life water quality criteria for chloride. EPA 440/5–88-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN.Google Scholar
  59. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Best management practices drastically reduce sediment and restore water quality in Las Vegas Wash. Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program Success Story, EPA 841-F-05-003G. Office of Water, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  60. U.S. Forest Service. 1989. Aquatic macroinvertebrate surveys. Fisheries Habitat Surveys Handbook (R-4 FSH 2609.23). U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service-Intermountain Region, Fisheries and Wildlife Management.Google Scholar
  61. van Buren, M. A., W. E. Watt, J. Marsalek & B. C. Anderson, 2000. Thermal enhancement of stormwater runoff by paved surfaces. Water Research 34(4): 1359–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vannote, R. L. & B. W. Sweeney, 1980. Geographic analysis of thermal equilibra: a conceptual model for evaluating the effect of natural and modified thermal regimes on aquatic insect communities. American Naturalist 115: 667–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Walsh, J. W., A. K. Sharpe, P. F. Breen & J. A. Sonneman, 2001. Effects of urbanization of streams of the Melbourne region, Victoria, Australia. I. Benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwater Biology 46: 535–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Walsh, C. J., A. H. Roy, J. W. Feminella, P. D. Cottingham, P. M. Groffman & R. P. Morgan II, 2005. The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24(3): 706–723.Google Scholar
  65. Wang, L. & P. Kanehl, 2003. Influences of watershed urbanization and instream habitat on macroinvertebrates in cold water streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39(5): 1181–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wang, L., J. Lyons, P. Kanehl & R. Bannerman, 2001. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environmental Management 28(2): 255–266.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Zedler, J. B. & J. C. Callaway, 1999. Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restoration Ecology 7(1): 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical Service Center, Bureau of ReclamationDenver Federal CenterDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations