Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation and application of methods for biological assessment of streams: summary of papers

  • Bioassessment Methods
  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

During the past decade, new biological assessment methods have been developed for use in inland waters. Less work has gone into objective testing of the individual methods and their diagnostic or other capabilities, and very little effort has been devoted to comparing methods. This special issue of Hydrobiologia brings together a number of the most recently developed bioassessment methods, or aspects of them, so readers can begin to compare their potential value and practical usefulness.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Addison, R. F. & K. R. Clarke, 1990. The IOC/GEEP Bermuda Workshop. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 138: 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayne, B. L., K. R. Clarke & J. S. Gray, 1988. Background and rationale to a practical workshop on biological effects of pollutants. Marine Ecology Progress Series 46: 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulton, A. J., 1999. An overview of river health assessment: philosophies, practice, problems and prognosis. Freshwater Biology 41: 469–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boys, C. A. & M. C. Thoms, 2006. A large-scale, hierarchical approach for assessing habitat associations of fish assemblages in large dryland rivers. Hydrobiologia 572: 11–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carignan, V. & M. A. Villard, 2002. Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity: A review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 78: 45–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chester, H. & R. Norris, 2006. Dams and flow in the Cotter River, Australia: effects on instream trophic structure and benthic metabolism. Hydrobiologia 572: 275–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J., P. Horwitz, R. Norris, B. Chessman, M. McGuire & B. Sommer, 2006. Are river bioassessment methods using macroinvertebrates applicable to wetlands? Hydrobiologia 572: 115–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union Water Framework Directive, 2000. Directive 2000/60/4d of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000: establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities 222122000 L 327/1–327/72. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html.

  • Fairweather, P. G., 1999. State of environment indicators of ‘river health’: exploring the metaphor. Freshwater Biology 41: 211–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fellows, C. S., J. E. Clapcott, J. W. Udy, S. E. Bunn, B. D. Harch, M. J. Smith & P. M. Davies, 2006. Benthic metabolism as an indicator of stream ecosystem health. Hydrobiologia 572: 71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennard, M. J., B. D. Harch, B. J. Pusey & A. H. Arthington, 2006a. Accurately defining the reference condition for summary biotic metrics: a comparison of four approaches. Hydrobiologia 572: 151–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennard, M. J., B. J. Pusey, A. H. Arthington, B. D. Harch & S. J. Mackay, 2006b. Development and application of a predictive model of freshwater fish assemblage composition to evaluate river health in eastern Australia. Hydrobiologia 572: 33–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J. C., A. L. Steward & B. D. Harch, 2006. Taxonomic resolution and quantification of freshwater macroinvertebrate samples from an Australian dryland river: the benefits and costs of using species abundance data. Hydrobiologia 572: 171–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mebane, E. A., 2001. Testing bioassessment metrics:macroinvertebrate, sculpin, and salmonid responses to stream habitat, sediment, and metals. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 67: 293–322.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Metzeling, L., B. Chessman, R. Hardwick & V. Wong, 2003. Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: the role of experience, and comparisons with quantitative methods. Hydrobiologia 510: 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metzeling, L., S. Perriss, D. Robinson, 2006a. Can the detection of salinity and habitat simplification gradients using rapid bioassessment of benthic invertebrates be improved through finer taxonomic resolution or alternative indices? Hydrobiologia 572: 235–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzeling, L., D. Tiller, P. Newall, F. Wells & J. Reed, 2006b. Biological objectives for the protection of rivers and streams in Victoria, Australia. Hydrobiologia 572: 287–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mugodo, J., M. Kennard, P. Liston, S. Nichols, S. Linke, R. H. Norris & M. Lintermans, 2006. Local stream habitat variables predicted from catchment scale characteristics are useful for predicting fish distribution. Hydrobiologia 572: 59–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Water Initiative, 2004. http://www.dpmc.gov.au/nwi/index.cfm.

  • Newall, P., N. Bate & L. Metzeling, 2006. A comparison of diatom and macroinvertebrate classification of sites in the Kiewa river system, Australia. Hydrobiologia 572: 131–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, S. & R. H. Norris, 2006. River condition assessment may depend on the sub-sampling method: field live-sort versus laboratory sub-sampling of invertebrates for bioassessment. Hydrobiologia 572: 195–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, S., R. Norris, W. Maher & M. Thoms, 2006a. Ecological effects of serial impoundment on the Cotter River, Australia. Hydrobiologia 572: 255–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, S. J., W. A. Robinson & R. H. Norris, 2006b. Sample variability influences on the precision of predictive bioassessment. Hydrobiologia 572: 215–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, R. H. & C. P. Hawkins, 2000. Monitoring river health. Hydrobiologia 435: 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philibert, A., P. Gell, P. Newall, B. Chessman & N. Bate, 2006. Development of diatom-based tools for assessing stream water quality in south eastern Australia: Assessment of environmental transfer functions. Hydrobiologia 572: 103–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roux, D. J., C. J. Kleynahans & C. Thirion, 1999 a. Biological monitoring and assessment of rivers as a basis for indentifying and prioritizing river management options. Water Science and Technology 39: 207–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roux, D. J., C. J. Kleynahans, C. Thirion, L. Hill, J. S. Engelbrecht, A. R. Deacon & N. P. Kemper, 1999 b. Adaptive assessment and management of riverine ecosystems: the Crocodile/Elands river case study. Water SA 25: 501–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloane, P. I. W. & R. H. Norris, 2003. Relationship of AUSRIVAS-based macroinvertebrate predictive model outputs to a metal pollution gradient. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 22: 457–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stebbing, A. R. D & V. Dethlefsen, 1992. Introduction to the Bremerhaven Workshop on the biological effects of contaminants. Marine Ecology Progress Series 91: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Udy, J. W., C. S. Fellows, M. E. Bartkow, S. E. Bunn, J. E. Clapcott & B. D. Harch, 2006. Measures of nutrient processes as indicators of stream ecosystem health. Hydrobiologia 572: 89–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walz, R., 2000. Development of environmental indicator systems: Experiences from Germany. Environmental Management. 25: 613–623.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This issue offers a wide range of viewpoints, whose relevance has been confirmed by our reviewers. We gratefully acknowledge the following reviewers for their important input to the issue: M. Acreman, J. D. Allan, P. L. Angermeier, R. P. Brooks, A. Butturini, J. L. Carter, B. Chessman, G. Closs, P. Cranston, P. E. Davies, S. P. Davies, W. K. Dodds, J. Gerritsen, M. Grace, I. Growns, P. Humphries, J. K. Jackson, S. Jackson, Mike Kevin Joy, P. R. Kaufmann, M. G. Kelly, S. B. Lanza, D. R. Lenat, R. Marchant, D. G. McNeil, L. Metzeling, R. C. Nijboer, R. K. Paavola, S. I. Passy, J. L. Pretty, M. Reid, I. Rutherfurd, L. Sandin, R. J. Stevenson, I. R. Waite, C. J. Walsh, P. J. Wood, Yangdong Pan.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Museum Victoria, GPO Box 666, Melbourne, VIC, 3001, Australia

    Richard Marchant

  2. eWater CRC, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia

    Richard H. Norris & Ann Milligan

Authors
  1. Richard Marchant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard H. Norris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ann Milligan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard H. Norris.

Additional information

Guest editors: R. H. Norris, R. Marchant and A. Milligan

Evaluation and Application of Methods for Biological Assessment of Streams

Handling editor: K. Martens

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marchant, R., Norris, R.H. & Milligan, A. Evaluation and application of methods for biological assessment of streams: summary of papers. Hydrobiologia 572, 1–7 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0382-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-006-0382-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation