Advertisement

Predicting mayfly recovery in acid mine-impaired streams using logistic regression models of in-stream habitat and water chemistry

  • Kelly S. Johnson
  • Ed Rankin
  • Jen Bowman
  • Jessica Deeds
  • Natalie Kruse
Article
  • 120 Downloads

Abstract

Mayflies (Order Ephemeroptera) require high quality water and habitat in streams to thrive, so their appearance after restoration is an indicator of ecological recovery. To better understand the importance of restoring in-stream habitat versus water chemistry for macroinvertebrate communities, we developed taxon-specific models of occurrence for five mayfly genera (Caenis, Isonychia, Stenonema, Stenacron, and Baetis) inhabiting streams in the Appalachian Mountains, USA. Presence/absence records from past decades were used to develop single and multiple logistic predictive models based on catchment characteristics (drainage area, gradient), in-stream habitat variables (e.g., substrate, channel morphology, pool and riffle quality), and water chemistry. Model performance was evaluated using (a) classification rates and Hosmer-Lemeshow values for test sets of data withheld from the original model-building dataset and (b) a field comparison of predicted versus observed mayfly occurrences at 53 sites in acid mine drainage-impaired watersheds in 2012. The classification accuracies of final models for Caenis, Stenacron, and Baetis ranged from 50 to 75%. In-stream habitat features were not significant predictor variables for these three taxa, only water chemistry. Models for Isonychia and Stenonema had higher classification rates (81%) and included both habitat and chemical variables. However, actual occurrences of Isonychia and Stenonema at study sites in 2012 were low, consistent with the calculated probability of occurrence (Po) < 0.60. Caenis occurred at test sites 35% of the time when the model predicted a Po > 0.40. Stenacron showed the greatest consistency of actual versus predicted occurrences, occurring at 56% of sites when the Po (based on pH and conductivity) was > 0.50 and only at 1 site when Po < 0.5. The results demonstrate how predictive models of individual indicator taxa could be valuable for evaluating the relative impacts of restoring physical habitat versus water chemistry during stream remediation.

Keywords

Acid mine drainage Ecological recovery Stream restoration Macroinvertebrates Logistic regression Habitat 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the American Electric Power Foundation and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mineral Resources for funding and the Environmental Studies program at Ohio University and Voinovich School for general support for students, faculty, and staff. Steve Porter and Liz Migliore assisted with statistical analyses and graphics. Jeff Calhoun of Ohio Department of Natural Resources helped conduct habitat assessments for the study sites and we especially thank Michele Shively, Amy Mackey, Sarah Landers, and Nate Schlater for invaluable assistance with water chemistry and biological collection. Special thanks go to Pete Thompson for help with mayfly enumeration and identification.

Supplementary material

10661_2018_6548_MOESM1_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 (DOCX 21 kb).

References

  1. Ahmadi-Nedushan, B., St‐Hilaire, A., Bérubé, M., Robichaud, É., Thiémonge, N., & Bobée, B. (2006). A review of statistical methods for the evaluation of aquatic habitat suitability for instream flow assessment. River Research and Applications, 22(5), 503–523.Google Scholar
  2. Battaglia, M., Hose, G. C., Turak, E., & Warden, B. (2005). Depauperate macroinvertebrates in a mine affected stream: clean water may be the key to recovery. Environmental Pollution, 138(1), 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beechie, T. J., & Sibley, T. H. (1997). Relationships between channel characteristics, woody debris, and fish habitat in northwestern Washington streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 126(2), 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bott, T. L., Jackson, J. K., McTammany, M. E., Newbold, J. D., Rier, S. T., Sweeney, B. W., & Battle, J. M. (2012). Abandoned coal mine drainage and its remediation: impacts on stream ecosystem structure and function. Ecological Applications, 22(8), 2144–2163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowman, J. and Johnson, K. S. (2016) 2015 comprehensive non-point source (NPS) monitoring report for acid mine drainage (AMD), http://www.watersheddata.com/UserView_Report.aspx
  6. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Carlisle, D. M., & Clements, W. H. (2005). Leaf litter breakdown, microbial respiration and shredder production in metal-polluted streams. Freshwater Biology, 50(2), 380–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Churchel, M. A., & Batzer, D. P. (2006). Recovery of aquatic macroinvertebrate communities from drought in Georgia Piedmont headwater streams. The American Midland Naturalist, 156(2), 259–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, R. R. H., & Gorman, J. (1991). Mining-related nonpoint source pollution. Water Environment and Technology, 3, 55–59.Google Scholar
  10. Corkum, L. D. (1989). Habitat characterization of the morphologically similar mayfly larvae, Caenis and Tricorythodes (Ephemeroptera). Hydrobiologia, 179(2), 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cormier, S. M., Suter, G. W., & Zheng, L. (2013). Derivation of a benchmark for freshwater ionic strength. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 32(2), 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cruz, M. J., Rebelo, R., & Crespo, E. (2006). Effects of an introduced crayfish, Procambarus clarkii, on the distribution of south-western Iberian amphibians in their breeding habitats. Ecography, 29(3), 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cruz, M. J., & Rebelo, R. (2007). Colonization of freshwater habitats by an introduced crayfish, Procambarus clarkii, in Southwest Iberian Peninsula. Hydrobiologia, 575(1), 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards, R. T., & Meyer, J. L. (1990). Bacterivory by deposit-feeding mayfly larvae (Stenonema spp.) Freshwater Biology, 24(3), 453–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eyre, M. D., Pilkington, J. G., Carr, R., McBlane, R. P., Rushton, S. P., & Foster, G. N. (1993). The running-water beetles (Coleoptera) of a river catchment in northern England. Hydrobiologia, 264(1), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Echols, B. S., Currie, R. J., & Cherry, D. S. (2010). Preliminary results of laboratory toxicity tests with the mayfly, Isonychia bicolor (Ephemeroptera: Isonychiidae) for development as a standard test organism for evaluating streams in the Appalachian coalfields of Virginia and West Virginia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 169(1–4), 487–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferrier, S., Drielsma, M., Manion, G., & Watson, G. (2002). Extending statistical approaches to modelling spatial patternin biodiversity in northeast New South Wales. II. Community-level modelling. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11, 2309–2338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fritz, K. M., & Dodds, W. K. (2004). Resistance and resilience of macroinvertebrate assemblages to drying and flood in a tallgrass prairie stream system. Hydrobiologia, 527(1), 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuchs, U., & Statzner, B. (1990). Time scales for the recovery potential of river communities after restoration: lessons to be learned from smaller streams. River Research and Applications, 5(1), 77–87.Google Scholar
  20. Gjerløv, C., Hildrew, A. G., & Jones, J. I. (2003). Mobility of stream invertebrates in relation to disturbance and refugia: a test of habitat templet theory. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 22(2), 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gore, J. A., Layzer, J. B., & Mead, J. (2001). Macroinvertebrate in stream flow studies after 20 years: a role in stream management and restoration. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, 17, 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gore, J. A., & Bryant Jr., R. M. (1990). Temporal shifts in physical habitat of the crayfish, Orconectes neglectus (Faxon). Hydrobiologia, 199(2), 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gray, N. F. (1997). Environmental impact and remediation of acid mine drainage: a management problem. Environmental Geology, 30(1–2), 62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harries, J. R. (1997). Acid mine drainage in Australia: its extent and potential future liability. Canberra: Supervising Scientist.Google Scholar
  25. Hawkins, C. P., Norris, R. H., Hogue, J. N., & Feminella, J. W. (2000). Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecological Applications, 10, 1456–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hamsher, S. E., Verb, R. G., & Vis, M. L. (2004). Analysis of acid mine drainage impacted streams using a periphyton index. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 19(2), 313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hastie, L. C., Cooksley, S. L., Scougall, F., Young, M. R., Boon, P. J., & Gaywood, M. J. (2003). Characterization of freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera Mmargaritifera) riverine habitat using River Habitat Survey data. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 13(3), 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heino, J., & Mykrä, H. (2006). Assessing physical surrogates for biodiversity: do tributary and stream type classifications reflect macroinvertebrate assemblage diversity in running waters? Biological Conservation, 129(3), 418–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hogsden, K. L., & Harding, J. S. (2011). Consequences of acid mine drainage for the structure and function of benthic stream communities: a review. Freshwater Science, 31(1), 108–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hogsden, K. L., & Harding, J. S. (2012). Anthropogenic and natural sources of acidity and metals and their influence on the structure of stream food webs. Environmental Pollution, 162, 466–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holland-Bartels, L. E. (1990). Physical factors and their influence on the mussel fauna of a main channel border habitat of the upper Mississippi River. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 9(4), 327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied regression analysis. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 22.0. Armonk: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
  34. Jennings, S. R., Blicker, P. S., & Neuman, D. R. (2008). Acid mine drainage and effects on fish health and ecology: a review. Bozeman: Reclamation Research Group.Google Scholar
  35. Johnson, K. S. (2007). Field and laboratory methods for using the MAIS (Macroinvertebrate Aggregated Index for Streams) in Rapid Bioassessment of Ohio Streams. Can be accessed at http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/credibledata/references.aspx. Accessed 28 Feb 2018
  36. Johnson, D. B., & Hallberg, K. B. (2005). Acid mine drainage remediation options: a review. Science of the Total Environment, 338(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson, K. S., Thompson, P. C., Gromen, L., & Bowman, J. (2014). Spatial patterns in macroinvertebrate recovery and leaf litter breakdown in an acid mine impacted stream treated with an active alkaline doser. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 186(7), 4111–4127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Joy, M. K., & Death, R. G. (2004). Predictive modelling and spatial mapping of freshwater fish and decapod assemblages using GIS and neural networks. Freshwater Biology, 49(8), 1036–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Karr, J. R. (1995). Protecting aquatic ecosystems: clean water is not enough. WS Davis and TP Simon. Biological assessment and criteria. Tools for water resource planning and decision making (pp. 7–13). Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Kennedy, A. J., Cherrry, D. S., & Currie, R. J. (2004). Evaluation of ecologically relevant bioassays for a lotic system impacted by a coal-mine effluent, using Isonychia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 95(1–3), 37–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knapp, R. A., & Preisler, H. K. (1999). Is it possible to predict habitat use by spawning salmonids? A test using California golden trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 56(9), 1576–1584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kondratieff, B. C., & Voshell Jr., J. R. (1984). The North and Central American species of Isonychia (Ephemeroptera: Oligoneuriidae). Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 1, 129–244.Google Scholar
  43. Kowalik, R. A., Cooper, D. M., Evans, C. D., & Ormerod, S. J. (2007). Acidic episodes retard the biological recovery of upland British streams from chronic acidification. Global Change Biology, 13(11), 1365–2486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kruse, N. A., Bowman, J. R., Mackey, A. L., McCament, B., & Johnson, K. S. (2012). The lasting impacts of offline periods in lime dosed streams: a case study in Raccoon Creek, Ohio. Mine Water and the Environment, 31(4), 266–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leftwich, K. N., Angermeier, P. L., & Dolloff, C. A. (1997). Factors influencing behavior and transferability of habitat models for a benthic stream fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 126(5), 725–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Letovsky, E., Myers, I. E., Canepa, A., & McCabe, D. J. (2012). Differences between kick sampling techniques and short-term Hester-Dendy sampling for stream macroinvertebrates. Bios, 83(2), 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Light, T. (2003). Success and failure in a lotic crayfish invasion: the roles of hydrologic variability and habitat alteration. Freshwater Biology, 48(10), 1886–1897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Linke, S., Norris, R. H., Faith, D. P., & Stockwell, D. (2005). ANNA: a new prediction method for bioassessment programs. Freshwater Biology, 50(1), 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Louhi, P., Mykrä, H., Paavola, R., Huusko, A., Vehanen, T., Mäki-Petäys, A., & Muotka, T. (2011). Twenty years of stream restoration in Finland: little response by benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Ecological Applications, 21(6), 1950–1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McCabe, D. J., Hayes-Pontius, E. M., Canepa, A., Berry, K. S., & Levine, B. C. (2012). Measuring standardized effect size improves interpretation of biomonitoring studies and facilitates meta-analysis. Freshwater Science, 31(3), 800–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Macanowicz, N., Boeing, W. J., & Gould, W. R. (2013). Evaluation of methods to assess benthic biodiversity of desert sinkholes. Freshwater Science, 32(4), 1101–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Manel, S., Dias, J., & Ormerod, S. J. (1999). Comparing discriminant analysis, neural networks and logistic regression for predicting species distributions: a case study with a Himalayan river bird. Ecological Modelling, 120(2), 337–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Manel, S., Williams, H. C., & Ormerod, S. J. (2001). Evaluating presence–absence models in ecology: the need to account for prevalence. Journal of Applied Ecology, 38, 921–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Meier, P. G., Penrose, D. L., & Polak, L. (1979). The rate of colonization by macro-invertebrates on artificial substrate samplers.Google Scholar
  55. Merritt, R. W., & Cummins, K. W. (1996). An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Dubuque: Kendall Hunt.Google Scholar
  56. Miller, S. W., Budy, P., & Schmidt, J. C. (2009). Quantifying macroinvertebrate responses to instream habitat restoration: applications of meta-analyses to river restoration. Restoration Ecology, 18, 8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Modde, T., & Drewes, H. G. (1990). Comparison of biotic index values for invertebrate collections from natural and artificial substrates. Freshwater Biology, 23(2), 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Murphy, J. F., Winterbottom, J. H., Orton, S., Simpson, G. L., Shilland, E. M., & Hildrew, A. G. (2014). Evidence of recovery from acidification in the macroinvertebrate assemblages of UK fresh waters: a 20-year time series. Ecological Indicators, 37, 330–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Naidoo, B. (2009). Acid mine drainage single most significant threat to South Africa’s environment. Mining Weekly, 8.Google Scholar
  60. Nelson, S. M., & Roline, R. A. (1996). Recovery of a stream macroinvertebrate community from mine drainage disturbance. Hydrobiologia, 339(1–3), 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Niyogi, D. K., Lewis Jr., W. M., & McKnight, D. M. (2001). Litter breakdown in mountain streams affected by mine drainage: biotic mediation of abiotic controls. Ecological Applications, 11(2), 506–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Niyogi, D. K., Harding, J. S., & Simon, K. S. (2013). Organic matter breakdown as a measure of stream health in New Zealand streams affected by acid mine drainage. Ecological Indicators, 24, 510–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. O'Halloran, K., Cavanagh, J. A., & Harding, J. S. (2008). Response of a New Zealand mayfly (Deleatidium spp.) to acid mine drainage: implications for mine remediation. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 27(5), 1135–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ohio, E. P. A. (1989). Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life. In Standardized biological field sampling and laboratory methods for assessing fish and macroinvertebrate communities (Vol. III). Columbus: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  65. Ohio, E. P. A. (2006). Methods for assessing habitat in flowing waters: using the qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI). Technical Bulletin EAS/2006-06-01.Google Scholar
  66. Ohio, E. P. A. (1999). Ohio EPA five year monitoring surface water monitoring and assessment strategy, 2000–2004. Ohio EPA Tech. Bu ll. MAS/1999–7-2. Ohio: Division of Surface Water, Monitoring and Assessment Section, Columbus.Google Scholar
  67. Olden, J. D. (2003). A species-specific approach to modeling biological communities and its potential for conservation. Conservation Biology, 17, 854–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Olden, J. D., Joy, M. K., & Death, R. G. (2006). Rediscovering the species in community-wide predictive modeling. Ecological Applications, 16(4), 1449–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Omernik, J. M. (1987). Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77(1), 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Palmer, M. A., Menninger, H., & Bernhardt, E. (2010). River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice? Freshwater Biology, 55(Supplement 1), 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pander, J., & Geist, J. (2013). Ecological indicators for stream restoration success. Ecological Indicators, 30, 106–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Park, Y. S., Verdonschot, P. F., Chon, T. S., & Lek, S. (2003). Patterning and predicting aquatic macroinvertebrate diversities using artificial neural network. Water research, 37(8), 1749–1758.Google Scholar
  73. Peeters, E. T. (1998). Logistic regression as a tool for defining habitat requirements of two common gammarids. Freshwater Biology, 39(4), 605–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pond, G. J. (2010). Patterns of Ephemeroptera taxa loss in Appalachian headwater streams (Kentucky, USA). Hydrobiologia, 641(1), 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pond, G. J. (2012). Biodiversity loss in Appalachian headwater streams (Kentucky, USA): Plecoptera and Trichoptera communities. Hydrobiologia, 679(1), 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Pond, G. J., Passmore, M. E., Pointon, N. D., Felbinger, J. K., Walker, C. A., Krock, K. J., Fulton, J. B., & Nash, W. L. (2014). Long-term impacts on macroinvertebrates downstream of reclaimed mountaintop mining valley fills in central Appalachia. Environmental Management, 54(4), 919–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Puckett, R. T., & Cook, J. L. (2004). Physiological tolerance ranges of larval Caenis latipennis (Ephemeroptera: Caenidae) in response to fluctuations in dissolved oxygen concentration, pH and temperature. Texas Journal of Science, 56(2), 123–130.Google Scholar
  78. Rader, R. B. (1997). A functional classification of the drift: traits that influence invertebrate availability to salmonids. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54(6), 1211–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ramcharan, C. W., Padilla, D. K., & Dodson, S. I. (1992). Models to predict potential occurrence and density of the zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 49(12), 2611–2620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rankin, E. T. (1989). The qualitative habitat evaluation index (QHEI): rationale, methods, and application. Div. Water Qual. Plan. & Assess., Ecol. Assess. Sect., Columbus.Google Scholar
  81. Rankin, E. T. (1995). Habitat indices in water resource quality assessment. In W. S. Davis & T. P. Simon (Eds.), Biological assessment and criteria (pp. 181–214). Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  82. Randolph, R. P., & McCafferty, W. P. (1998). Diversity and distribution of the mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Ohio Biological Survey Bulletin New Series, 13(1), 1–188.Google Scholar
  83. Richards, C., & Minshall, G. W. (1992). Spatial and temporal trends in stream macroinvertebrate communities: the influence of catchment disturbance. Hydrobiologia, 241(3), 173–194.Google Scholar
  84. Rinella, D. J., & Feminella, J. W. (2005). Comparison of benthic macroinvertebrates colonizing sand, wood, and artificial substrates in a low-gradient stream. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 20(2), 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rosenberg, D. M., & Resh, V. H. (1982). The use of artificial substrates in the study of freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates. In J. Cairns (Ed.), Artificial substrates (pp. 175–235). Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science.Google Scholar
  86. Simmons, J. A., Lawrence, E. R., & Jones, T. G. (2005). Treated and untreated acid mine drainage effects on stream periphyton biomass, leaf decomposition, and macroinvertebrate diversity. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 20(3), 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Smith, E. P., & Voshell, J. R. (1997). Studies of benthic macroinvertebrates and fish in streams within EPA region 3 for development of biological indicators of ecological condition. Blacksburg: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.Google Scholar
  88. Snucins, E. (2003). Recolonization of acid-damaged lakes by the benthic invertebrates Stenacron interpunctatum, Stenonema femoratum and Hyalella azteca. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 32(3), 225–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Solà, C., Burgos, M., Plazuelo, Á., Toja, J., Plans, M., & Prat, N. (2004). Heavy metal bioaccumulation and macroinvertebrate community changes in a Mediterranean stream affected by acid mine drainage and an accidental spill (Guadiamar River, SW Spain). Science of the Total Environment, 333(1), 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Steyerburg, E. (2009). Clinical prediction models: a practical approach to development, validation and updating, (Chapters 9 & 12). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  91. Symonds, M. R., & Moussalli, A. (2011). A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike’s information criterion. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(1), 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Taylor, J. M., & Kennedy, J. H. (2006). Life history and secondary production of Caenis latipennis (Ephemeroptera: Caenidae) in Honey Creek, Oklahoma. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 99(5), 821–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tronstad, L. M., & Hotaling, S. (2017). Long-term trends in aquatic ecosystem bioassessment metrics are not influenced by sampling method: empirical evidence from the Niobrara River. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems, (418), 28.Google Scholar
  94. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Mid-Atlantic acidification, report, Washington, D. C. Available at http://www.epa.gov/region03/acidification.
  95. Usio, N. (2007). Endangered crayfish in northern Japan: distribution, abundance and microhabitat specificity in relation to stream and riparian environment. Biological Conservation, 134(4), 517–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey URL: http://streamstats.usgs.gov/ Page Contact Information: GS-W_Streamstats@usgs.gov Page Last Modified: Monday, 13-Jul-2015 09:44:12 EDT.
  97. Van Sickle, J., & Hughes, R. M. (2000). Classification strengths of ecoregions, catchments, and geographic clusters for aquatic vertebrates in Oregon. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 19(3), 370–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Verb, R. G., & Vis, M. L. (2005). Periphyton assemblages as bioindicators of mine-drainage in unglaciated Western Allegheny Plateau lotic systems. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 161(1–4), 227–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Walter, C. A., Nelson, D., & Earle, J. I. (2012). Assessment of stream restoration: sources of variation in macroinvertebrate recovery throughout an 11-year study of coal mine drainage treatment. Restoration Ecology, 20(4), 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesOhio UniversityAthensUSA
  2. 2.Voinovich School of Leadership and Public AffairsOhio UniversityAthensUSA
  3. 3.Midwest Biodiversity InstituteHilliardUSA
  4. 4.Environmental Studies ProgramOhio UniversityAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations