Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Best Management Practice on Ecological Condition: Does Location Matter?

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Best management practices (BMPs) are increasingly being promoted as a solution to the potentially adverse effects agriculture can have on aquatic systems. However, the ability of BMPs to improve riverine systems continues to be questioned due to equivocal empirical evidence linking BMP use with improved stream conditions, particularly in regard to ecological conditions. Explicitly viewing BMP location in relation to hydrological pathways may, however, assist in establishing stronger ecological linkages. The goal of this study was to assess the association between water chemistry, benthic macroinvertebrate community structure, and the number and location of agricultural BMPs in a catchment. Macroinvertebrate and water samples were collected in 30 small (<12 km2) catchments exhibiting gradients of BMP use and location in the Grand River Watershed, Southern Ontario, Canada. Stepwise regression analysis revealed that concentrations of most stream nutrients declined in association with greater numbers of BMPs and particularly when BMPs were located in hydrologically connected areas. However, BMPs were significantly associated with only one metric (%EPT) describing macroinvertebrate community structure. Furthermore, variance partitioning analysis indicated that less than 5 % of the among site variation in the macroinvertebrate community could be attributed to BMPs. Overall, the implemented BMPs appear to be achieving water quality improvement goals but spatial targeting of specific BMP types may allow management agencies to attain further water quality improvements more efficiently. Mitigation and rehabilitation measures beyond the BMPs assessed in this study may be required to meet goals of enhanced ecological condition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AAFRD (Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development) (2006) Beneficial management practices: environmental manual for alberta farmsteads. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Edmonton

    Google Scholar 

  • Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:257–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armanini DG, Horrigan N, Monk WA, Peters DL, Baird DG (2011) Development of a benthic macroinvertebrate flow sensitivity index for Canadian rivers. River Res Appl 27:723–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB (1999) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, 2nd edn. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water, Washington, DC

  • Barton D, Farmer M (1997) The effects of conservation tillage practices on benthic invertebrate communities in headwater streams in southwestern Ontario, Canada. Environ Pollut 96:207–215

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barton DR, Taylor WD, Biette RM (1985) Dimensions of riparian buffer strips required to maintain trout habitat in southern Ontario streams. N Am J Fish Manage 5:364–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belsky A, Matzke A, Uselman S (1999) Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. J Soil Water Conserv 54:419–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger WH, Parker FL (1970) Diversity of planktonic foraminifera in deep sea sediments. Science 168:1345–1347

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop PL, Hively WD, Stedinger JR, Rafferty MR, Lojpersberger JL, Bloomfield JA (2005) Multivariate analysis of paired watershed data to evaluate agricultural best management practice effects on stream water phosphorus. J Environ Qual 34:1087–1101

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchet FG, Legendre P, Borcard B (2008) Forward selection of explanatory variables. Ecology 89:2623–2632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borcard D, Gillet F, Legendre P (2011a) Canonical ordination. In: Gentleman R, Hornik K, Parmigiani G (eds) Use R! numerical ecology with R. Springer, New York, pp 153–226

  • Borcard D, Gillet F, Legendre P (2011b) Unconstrained ordination: principal component analysis. In: Gentleman R, Hornik K, Parmigiani G (eds) Use R! numerical ecology with R. Springer, New York, pp 117–131

  • Bosch NS, Allan JD, Selegean JP, Scavia D (2013) Scenario-testing of agricultural best management practices in Lake Erie watersheds. J Great Lakes Res 39:429–436

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brannan KM, Mostaghimi S, McClellan PW, Inamdar S (2000) Animal waste BMP impacts on sediment and nutrient losses in runoff from the Owl Run watershed. Trans ASAE 43:1155–1166

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brown KM (1991) Mollusca: gastropoda. In: Thorp HT, Covich AP (eds) Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates. Academic Press Inc, Toronto, pp 285–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao Y, Larsen D, Thorne R (2001) Rare species in multivariate analysis for bioassessment: some considerations. J North Am Benthol Soc 20:144–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter S, Caraco N, Correll D, Howarth R, Sharpley A, Smith V (1998) Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8:559–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins R, Mcleod M, Hedley M, Donnison A, Close M, Hanly J, Horne D, Ross C, Davies-Colley R, Bagshaw C, Matthews L (2007) Best management practices to mitigate faecal contamination by livestock of New Zealand waters. New Zeal J Agric Res 50:267–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz ME (2007) Low impact development practices: a review of current research and recommendations for future directions. Water Air Soil Pollut 186:351–363

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Donohue I, Jackson AL, Pusch MT, Irvine K (2009) Nutrient enrichment homogenizes lake benthic assemblages at local and regional scales. Ecology 90:3470–3477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easton ZM, Walter MT, Steenhuis TS (2008) Combined monitoring and modeling indicate the most effective agricultural best management practices. J Environ Qual 37:1798–1809

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Environment Canada (2014) Canadian Climate Normals 1981–2010. Waterloo Wellington A. Retrieved from http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html

  • ESRI (Environmental Systems Resource Institute) (2010a) ArcMap 10.0. ESRI, Redlands, California

  • ESRI (Environmental Systems Resource Institute) (2010b) ArcMap 2.0. ESRI, Redlands, California

  • FAO Statistical Yearbook (2013) World food and agriculture food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. Rome, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3107e/i3107e00.htm

  • Fox J, Monette G (1992) Generalized collinearity diagnostics. J Am Stat Assoc 87:178–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel KW, Wehr JD, Truhn KM (2012) Assessment of the effectiveness of best management practices for streams draining agricultural landscapes using diatoms and macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 680:247–264

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gallichand J, Aubin E, Baril P, Debailleul G (1998) Water quality improvement at the watershed scale in an animal production area. Can Agr Eng 40:67–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM (2004) A primer of ecological statistics. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Herendeen N, Glazier N (2009) Agricultural best management practices for Conesus Lake: the role of extension and soil/water conservation districts. J Great Lakes Res 35:15–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hering D, Moog O, Sandin L, Verdonschot PFM (2004) Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia 516:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill M, Gauch H (1980) Detrended correspondence-analysis—an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42:47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilsenhoff WL (1982) Using a biotic index to evaluate water quality in streams. Technical bulletin 132. Department of Natural Resources. Madison, Wisconsin

  • Holysh S, Pitcher J, Boyd D (2000) Regional groundwater mapping: an assessment tool for incorporating groundwater into the planning process. Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ice GG, Schilling EG, Vowel JG (2010) Trends for forestry best management practice implementation. J Forest 108:267–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Inamdar SP, Mostaghimi S, McClellan PW, Brannan KM (2001) BMP impacts on sediment and nutrient yields from an agricultural watershed in the coastal plain region. Trans ASAE 44:1191–1200

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kiffney P, Richardson J, Bull J (2003) Responses of periphyton and insects to experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width along forest streams. J Appl Ecol 40:1060–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klienman PJA, Sharpley AN, Withers PJA, Bergstrom L, Johnson LT, Doody DG (2015) Implementing agricultural phosphorus science and management to combat eutrophication. Ambio 44:S297–S310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenat D (1984) Agriculture and stream water quality: a biological evaluation of erosion control practices. Environ Manag 8:333–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenat D, Penrose D, Eagleson K (1981) Variable effects of sediment addition on stream benthos. Hydrobiologia 79:187–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makarewicz JC, Lewis TW, Bosch I, Noll MR, Herendeen N, Simon RD, Zollweg J, Vodacek A (2009) The impact of agricultural best management practices on downstream systems: soil loss and nutrient chemistry and flux to Conesus Lake, New York, USA. J Great Lakes Res 35:23–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney KO, Munguia P, Mitchell RM (2011) Anthropogenic disturbance and landscape patterns affect diversity patterns of aquatic benthic macroinvertebrates. J N Am Benthol Soc 30:284–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchant R (1989) A subsampler for samples of benthic invertebrates. Bull Aust Soc Limnol 12:49–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall DW, Fayram AH, Panuska JC, Baumann J, Hennessy J (2008) Positive effects of agricultural land use changes on coldwater fish communities in southwest Wisconsin streams. N Am J Fish Manage 28:944–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer PM, Reynolds SK, McCutchen MD, Canfield TJ (2007) Meta-analysis of nitrogen removal in riparian buffers. J Environ Qual 36:1172–1180

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon RF (1991) Mollusca: bivalvia. In: Thorp HT, Covich AP (eds) Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates. Academic Press Inc, Toronto, pp 315–400

    Google Scholar 

  • McRae T, Smith CAS, Gregorich LJ (eds) (2000) Environmental sustainability of Canadian agriculture: Report of the agri-environmental indicator project. A summary. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Merritt RW, Cummins KW, Berg MB (2008) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque

    Google Scholar 

  • Miltner R, Rankin E (1998) Primary nutrients and the biotic integrity of rivers and streams. Freshw Biol 40:145–158

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Muenz TK, Golladay SW, Vellidis G, Smith LL (2006) Stream buffer effectiveness in an agriculturally influenced area, southwestern Georgia: responses of water quality, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. J Environ Qual 35:1924–1938

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Negishi JN, Inoue M, Nunokawa M (2002) Effects of channelization on stream habitat in relation to a spate and flow refugia for macroinvertebrates in northern Japan. Freshw Biol 47:1515–1529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nerbonne BA, Vondracek B (2001) Effects of local land use on physical habitat, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish in the Whitewater River, Minnesota, USA. Environ Manag 28:87–99

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen J, Blanchet F, Kindt R, Legendre P, Minchin P, O’Hara R, Simpson G, Solymos P, Henry M, Stevens H, Wagner H (2013). Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.0-10. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan

  • Olden JD, Poff NL (2004) Ecological processes driving biotic homogenization: testing a mechanistic model using fish faunas. Ecology 85:1867–1875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne L, Kovacic D (1993) Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water-quality restoration and stream management. Freshw Biol 29:243–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MA, Ambrose RF, Poff NL (1997) Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 5:291–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MA, Hondula KL, Koch BJ (2014) Ecological restoration of streams and rivers: shifting strategies and shifting goals. Ann Rev Ecol Evol S 45:247–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park S, Cooke R, Mcclellan P, Mostaghimi S (1994) Bmp impacts on watershed runoff, sediment, and nutrient yields. Water Resour Bull 30:1011–1023

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peckarsky BL, Fraissinet PR, Penton MA, Conklin DG Jr (1990) Freshwater macroinvertebrates of northeastern North America. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson EE, Sheldon F, Darnell R, Bunn SE, Harch BD (2011) A comparison of spatially explicit landscape representation methods and their relationship to stream condition. 56:590–610

    Google Scholar 

  • Piechnik DA, Goslee SC, Veith TL, Bishop JA, Brooks RP (2012) Topographic placement of management practices in riparian zones to reduce water quality impacts from pastures. Landsc Ecol 27:1307–1319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Project Team (2014) Grand River watershed water management plan. Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Qiu Z, Walter MT, Hall C (2007) Managing variable source pollution in agricultural watersheds. J Soil Water Conserv 62:115–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn JM, Williamson RB, Smith RK, Vickers ML (1992) Effects of riparian grazing and channelization on streams in southland New Zealand. 2. Benthic invertebrates. New Zeal J Mar Fresh 26:259–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao NS, Easton ZM, Schneiderman EM, Zion MS, Lee DR, Steenhuis TS (2009) Modeling watershed-scale effectiveness of agricultural best management practices to reduce phosphorus loading. J Environ Manag 90:1385–1395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynoldson T, Logan C, Pascoe T, Thompson S, Strachan S, Mackinlay C, McDermott H, Paull T (2012) Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network (CABIN) Field manual: wadeable streams. Retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/rcba-cabin/

  • Riseng CM, Wiley MJ, Black RW, Munn MD (2011) Impacts of agricultural land use on biological integrity: a causal analysis. Ecol Appl 21:3128–3146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosgen D (1998) Applied stream geomorphology. Widland Hydrol, Pagoda Springs, Colorado

    Google Scholar 

  • Software Systat (2008) Systat 13. San Jose, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Strayer D (1990) Freshwater mollusca. In: Peckarsky BL, Fraissinet PR, Penton MA, Conklin FJ Jr (eds) Freshwater macroinvertebrates of northeastern North America. Comstock Publishing Associates, London, pp 335–372

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/

  • Tomer MD, James DE, Isenhart TM (2003) Optimizing the placement of riparian practices in a watershed using terrain analysis. J Soil Water Conserv 58:198–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Tormos T, Van Looy K, Villeneuve B, Kosuth P, Souchon Y (2014) High resolution land cover data improve understanding of mechanistic linkages with stream integrity. Freshw Biol 59:1721–1734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Sickle J, Johnson CB (2008) Parametric distance weighting of landscape influence on streams. Landsc Ecol 23:427–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlek HE, Verdonschot PF, Nijboer RC (2004) Towards a multimetric index for the assessment of Dutch streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. In: Integrated assessment of running waters in Europe. Springer, Berlin, pp 173–189

  • Voora VA, McCandless M, Roy D, Venema HD, Oborne B (2012) Water quality trading in the Lake Winnipeg Basin: a multilevel architecture. J Great Lakes Res 38:183–192

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walker J, Graczyk D (1993) Preliminary evaluation of effects of best management-practices in the Black Earth Creek, Wisconsin, priority watershed. Water Sci Technol 28:539–548

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walser C, Bart H (1999) Influence of agriculture on in-stream habitat and fish community structure in piedmont watersheds of the Chattahoochee river system. Ecol Freshw Fish 8(4):237–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang L, Lyons J, Kanehl P (2002) Effects of watershed best management practices on habitat and fish in Wisconsin streams. J Am Water Resour As 38:663–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkerson E, Hagan J, Siegel D, Whitman A (2006) The effectiveness of different buffer widths for protecting headwater stream temperature in Maine. For Sci 52:221–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates AG, Bailey RC (2010) Improving the description of human activities potentially affecting rural stream ecosystems. Landsc Ecol 25:371–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates AG, Bailey RC, Schwindt JA (2007) Effectiveness of best management practices in improving stream ecosystem quality. Hydrobiologia 583:331–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates AG, Brua RB, Corriveau J, Culp JM, Chambers PA (2014a) Seasonally driven variation in spatial relationships between agricultural land use and in-stream nutrient concentrations. River Res Appl 30:476–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates AG, Brua RB, Culp JM, Chambers PA, Wassenaar LI (2014b) Sensitivity of structural and functional indicators depends on type and resolution of anthropogenic activities. Ecol Indic 45:274–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Support related to study design and project development were provided by the Grand River Conservation Authority, Agriculture and Agri-food Canada and the Region of Waterloo. BMP data from the Rural Water Quality Program were provided by the Grand River Conservation Authority. E. Krynak assisted with field sampling. Comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript were provided by P. Ashmore, R. Bailey, and D Shrubsole. Funding for this project was provided by grants to A.G. Yates from the Canadian Water Network Watershed Consortia Initiative, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs New Directions research program and a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, Western University & Canadian Rivers Institute, 1151 Richmond St, London, ON, N6A 5B7, Canada

    Roger Holmes, David G. Armanini & Adam G. Yates

  2. Prothea Srl, Milan, Italy

    David G. Armanini

Authors
  1. Roger Holmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David G. Armanini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adam G. Yates
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam G. Yates.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Holmes, R., Armanini, D.G. & Yates, A.G. Effects of Best Management Practice on Ecological Condition: Does Location Matter?. Environmental Management 57, 1062–1076 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0662-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0662-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation