, Volume 641, Issue 1, pp 185–201 | Cite as

Patterns of Ephemeroptera taxa loss in Appalachian headwater streams (Kentucky, USA)

Primary Research Paper


Mayflies (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) are common inhabitants of streams throughout the Appalachian Mountains. Headwater mayfly assemblages were evaluated with respect to regional landuse disturbances (coal mining and residential) in eastern Kentucky, USA. Estimates of mayfly taxa richness and relative abundance were compared at 92 sites represented by least-disturbed reference (REF; n = 44), residential only (RESID; n = 14), mixed residential and mining (MINED/RESID; n = 14), and mining only (MINED; n = 20) landuse categories. A total of 48 species from 27 genera and 9 families were identified; Ephemerella, Epeorus, Ameletus, Cinygmula, and Paraleptophlebia comprised the core 5 genera most frequently encountered at REF sites. These same genera (among others) were often reduced or extirpated from other landuse categories. Mean mayfly richness and relative abundance were significantly higher at REF sites compared to all other categories; MINED sites had significantly lower metric values compared to RESID and MINED/RESID sites. Relative mayfly abundance was most strongly correlated to specific conductance (r = 0.72) compared to total habitat score (r = 0.59), but relationships varied depending on landuse category. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (for mayfly taxa) and principal components analysis (for environmental variables) separated REF sites strongly from most other sites. The results indicate that expected mayfly communities are disappearing from streams where mining disturbance and residential development has occurred and because of the long-term impacts incurred by both landuses, recovery is uncertain.


Ephemeroptera Bioassessment Appalachian Headwater streams Coal mining Urbanization Conductivity 


  1. Alexander, L. C., 2007. Genetic diversity and persistence of mayfly populations in disturbed headwater streams. PhD. Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  2. Barber-James, H. M., J. Gattolliat, M. Sartori & M. D. Hubbard, 2008. Global diversity of mayflies (Ephemeroptera, Insecta) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595: 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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, DC.Google Scholar
  4. Bauernfeind, E. & O. Moog, 2000. Mayflies (Insecta: Ephemeroptera) and the assessment of ecological integrity: a methodological approach. Hydrobiologia 422(423): 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beketov, M. A., 2004. Different sensitivities of mayflies (Insecta, Ephemeroptera) to ammonia, nitrite and nitrate: linkage between experimental and observational data. Hydrobiologia 528: 209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blakely, T. J., J. S. Harding, A. R. Mcintosh & M. J. Winterbourn, 2006. Barriers to the recovery of aquatic insect communities in urban streams. Freshwater Biology 51: 1634–1645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bodkin, R., J. Kern, P. McClellon, A. J. Butt & C. Martin, 2008. Linking total dissolved solids to protect aquatic life. Journal of Soil & Water Conservation 62: 57–61.Google Scholar
  8. 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: 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braun, E. L., 1950. Deciduous Forests of North America. Hafner, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  10. Bray, J. R. & J. T. Curtis, 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities in southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 27: 325–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brinkman, S. F. & W. D. Johnston, 2008. Acute toxicity of aqueous copper, cadium, and zinc to the mayfly Rhithrogena hageni. Achives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 54: 466–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brittain, J. E. & S. J. Saltveit, 1989. Review of effect of river regulation on mayflies (Ephemeroptera). Regulated Rivers Research and Management 3: 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bryant, G., S. McPhilliamy & H. Childers, 2002. A Survey of the Water Quality of Streams in the Primary Region of Mountaintop/valley Fill Coal Mining. Mountaintop Mining/valley Fill Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Region 3, US Environmental Protection Agency, Wheeling, WV.Google Scholar
  14. Buchwalter, D. B. & S. N. Luoma, 2005. Differences in dissolved cadmium and zinc uptake among stream insects: mechanistic explanations. Environmental Science and Technology 39: 498–504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Buchwalter, D. B., D. J. Cain, W. H. Clements & S. N. Luoma, 2007. Using biodynamic models to reconcile differences between laboratory toxicity tests and field biomonitoring with aquatic insects. Environmental Science and Technology 41: 4821–4828.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Buss, D. F. & F. F. Salles, 2007. Using Baetidae species as biological indicators of environmental degradation in a Brazilian River basin. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 130: 365–372.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Chadwick, M. A., H. Hunter, J. M. Feminella & R. P. Henry, 2002. Salt and water balance in Hexagenia limbata (Ephemeroptera: Ephemeridae) when exposed to brackish water. Florida Entomologist 85: 650–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chambers, D. B. & T. Messer, 2000. Benthic Invertebrate Communities and Their Responses to Selected Environmental Factors in the Kanawha River Basin, West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4021. US Geological Survey, Charleston, WV.Google Scholar
  19. Clements, W. H., 1994. Benthic invertebrate community responses to heavy metals in the upper Arkansas River Basin, Colorado. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clements, W. H., 2004. Small-scale experiments support causal relationships between metal contamination and macroinvertebrate community response. Ecological Applications 14: 954–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clements, W. H., D. S. Cherry & J. H. Van Hassel, 1992. Assessment of the impact of heavy metals on benthic communities at the Clinch River (Virginia): evaluation of an index of community sensitivity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:1686–169.Google Scholar
  22. Courtney, L. A. & W. H. Clements, 2000. Sensitivity to acidic pH in benthic invertebrate assemblages with different histories of metal exposure. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 112–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cuffney, T. F., H. Zappia, E. M. P. Giddings & J. F. Coles, 2005. Effects of urbanization on benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in contrasting environmental settings: Boston, Massachusetts; Birmingham, Alabama; and Salt Lake City, Utah. American Fisheries Society Symposium 47: 361–407.Google Scholar
  24. Goetsch, P. A. & C. G. Palmer, 1996. Salinity tolerances of selected macroinvertebrates of the Sabie River, Kruger National Park, South Africa. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 32: 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Green J., M. Passmore & H. Childers, 2000. A survey of the condition of streams in the primary region of mountaintop mining/valley fill coal mining. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III. Wheeling, WV. http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/eis2003appendices.htm.
  26. Griffith, M. B., E. M. Barrows & S. A. Perry, 1998. Lateral dispersal of adult aquatic insects (Plecoptera, Trichoptera) following emergence from headwater streams in forested Appalachian catchments. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 91: 195–201.Google Scholar
  27. Haefner, J. D. & J. B. Wallace, 1981. Shifts in aquatic insect populations in a first-order Appalachian stream following a decade of old field succession. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 38: 353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hartman, K. J., M. D. Kaller, J. W. Howell & J. A. Sweka, 2005. How much do valley fills influence headwater streams? Hydrobiologia 532: 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hassell, K. L., B. J. Kefford & D. Nugegoda, 2006. Sub-lethal and chronic salinity tolerances of three freshwater insects: Cloeon sp. and Centroptilum sp. (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) and Chironomus sp. (Diptera: Chironomidae). Journal of Experimental Biology 209: 4024–4032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Herlihy, A. T., J. L. Stoddard & C. B. Johnson, 1998. The relationship between stream chemistry and watershed land cover data in the Mid-Atlantic region, US. Water, Air, and Soil pollution 105: 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hershey, A. E., J. Pastor, B. J. Peterson & G. J. Kling, 1993. Stable isotopes resolve the drift paradox for Baetis mayflies in an arctic river. Ecology 74: 2415–2425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hughes, J., 2007. Constraints on recovery: using molecular methods to study connectivity of aquatic biota in rivers and streams. Freshwater Biology 52: 616–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kennedy, A. J., D. S. Cherry & R. J. Currie, 2003. Field and laboratory assessment of a coal processing effluent in the Leading Creek watershed, Meigs County, Ohio. Archives Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 44: 324–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (KYDEP), 2007. Kentucky Administrative Regulations, 401 KAR 5:031 Section 4. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Frankfort, Kentucky. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/401/010/031.htm.
  35. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (KYDEP), 2008. Methods for Assessing Biological Integrity of Surface Waters in Kentucky. Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet. http://www.water.ky.gov/sw/swmonitor/sop/.
  36. Kondratieff, B. C. (coordinator), 2000. Mayflies of the United States. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online, Jamestown, ND. Accessed January 7, 2009. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/insects/mfly/index.htm (Version 12DEC2003).
  37. Kreutzweiser, D. P., S. S. Capell & K. P. Good, 2005. Macroinvertebrate community response to selection logging and upland areas of headwater catchments in a northern hardwood forest. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24: 208–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lemly, A. D., 1998. Bacterial growth on stream insects: potential for use in bioassessment. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17(2): 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lemly, A. D., 2000. Using bacterial growth on insects to assess nutrient impacts in streams. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 63: 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Masters, Z., I. Petersen, A. G. Hildrew & S. J. Ormerod, 2006. Insect dispersal does not limit the biological recovery of streams from acidification. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 17: 375–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McClurg, S. E., J. T. Petty, P. M. Mazik & J. L. Clayton, 2007. Stream ecosystem response to limestone treatment in acid impacted watersheds of the Allegheny Plateau. Ecological Applications 17: 1087–1104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. McCune, B. & J. B. Grace, 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR.Google Scholar
  43. McCune, B. & M. J. Mefford, 1999. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 4.25. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, OR.Google Scholar
  44. Merricks, T. C., D. S. Cherry, C. E. Zipper, R. J. Currie & T. W. Valenti, 2007. Coal mine hollow fill and settling pond influences on headwater streams in southern West Virginia, USA. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 129: 359–378.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Moog, O., E. Bauernfeind & P. Weicshelbaumer, 1997. Use of Ephemeroptera as saprobic indicators in Austria. In Landolt, P. & M. Sartori (eds), Ephemroptera and Plecoptera: Biology-Ecology-Systematics. MTL, Fribourg: 254–260.Google Scholar
  46. Morse J. C., B. P. Stark, W. P. McCafferty & K. J. Tennessen, 1997. Southern Appalachian and other southeastern streams at risk: implications for mayflies, dragonflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies. In Benz, G. W. & D. E. Collins (eds), Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Special Publication 1, Southeastern Aquatic Research Institute. Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA: 17–42, 554.Google Scholar
  47. Mount, D. R., D. D. Gulley, J. R. Hoickett, T. D. Garrison & J. M. Evans, 1997. Statistical models to predict the toxicity of major ions to Ceriodaphnia dubia, Daphnia magna, and Pimephales promelas (fathead minnows). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16(10): 2009–2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parker, C. R., O. S. Flint, L. M. Jacobs, B. C. Kondratieff, W. P. McCafferty & J. C. Morse, 2007. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Megaloptera, and Trichoptera of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Southeastern Naturalist Special Issue 1: 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paul, M. J. & J. L. Meyer, 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Sytematics 32: 333–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Petersen, I., Z. Masters, A. G. Hildrew & S. J. Omerod, 2004. Dispersal of adult aquatic insects in catchment of differing land use. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 934–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pond G. J. & S. E. McMurray, 2002. A macroinvertebrate bioassessment index for headwater streams in the eastern coalfield region, Kentucky. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Division of Water, Frankfort, KY. http://www.water.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/4CA8D7C4-309B-4175-ACC4-1CBDDDF73798/0/EKyMBI.pdf.
  52. Pond G. J., S. C. Call, J. F. Brumley & M. C. Compton, 2003. The Kentucky macroinvertebrate bioassessment index: derivation of regional narrative criteria for headwater and wadeable streams. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, Division of Water, Frankfort, KY. http://www.water.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/7F189804-4322-4C3E-B267-5A58E48AAD3F/0/Statewide_MBI.pdf.
  53. Pond, G. J., M. E. Passmore, F. A. Borsuk, L. Reynolds & C. J. Rose, 2008. Downstream effects of mountaintop coal mining: comparing biological conditions using genus- and family-level bioassessment tools. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27: 717–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. R Development Core Team, 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org.
  55. Randolph R. P. & W. P. McCafferty, 1998. Diversity and distribution of the mayflies (Ephemeroptera) of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Ohio Biological Survey Bulletin (new series) 13(1): 188 pp.Google Scholar
  56. Reice, S. R., 1985. Experimental disturbance and the maintenance of species diversity in a stream community. Oecologia 67: 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Slonecker, E. T. & M. J. Benger, 2002. Remote sensing and mountaintop mining. Remote Sensing Reviews 20: 293–322.Google Scholar
  58. Smith, R. F. & W. O. Lamp, 2008. Comparison of insect communities between adjacent headwater and main-stem streams in urban and rural watersheds. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27: 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Snyder, C. D. & Z. B. Johnson, 2006. Macroinvertebrate assemblage recovery following a catastrophic flood and debris flows in an Appalachian mountain stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25: 825–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Soucek, D. J., 2001. Integrative bioassessment of acid mine drainage impacts on the Upper Powell River watershed, Southwestern Virginia. PhD dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.Google Scholar
  61. Stone, M. K. & J. B. Wallace, 1998. Long-term recovery of a mountain stream from clear-cut logging: the effects of forest succession on benthic community structure. Freshwater Biology 39: 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/index.htm.
  63. Wallace, J. B., 1990. Recovery of lotic macroinvertebrate communities from disturbance. Environmental Management 14: 605–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wallace, J. B. & M. E. Gurtz, 1986. Response of Baetis mayflies (Ephemeroptera) to catchment logging. American Midland Naturalist 115: 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wallace, J. B., M. E. Gurtz & F. Smith-Cuffney, 1988. Long-term comparison of insect abundances in disturbed and undisturbed Appalachian headwater streams. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung fur Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 23: 1224–1231.Google Scholar
  66. Weijters, M. J., J. H. Janse, R. Alemade & J. T. A. Verhoeven, 2009. Quantifying the effect of catchment land use and water nutrient concentrations on freshwater river and stream biodiversity. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19: 104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wellnitz, K. A., S. Grief & S. P. Sheldon, 1994. Response of macroinvertebrates to blooms of iron-depositing bacteria. Hydrobiologia 281: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wickham, J. D., K. H. Riitters, T. G. Wade, M. Coan & C. Homer, 2007. The effect of Appalachian mountaintop mining on interior forest. Landscape Ecology 22: 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Woods A. J., J. M. Omernik, W. H. Martin, G. J. Pond, W. M. Andrews, S. M. Call, J. A. Comstock & D. D. Taylor, 2002. Ecoregions of Kentucky (2 sided color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). US Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,000,000), Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  70. Wunsch, D. R., J. S. Dinger, P. B. Taylor, D. I. Carey & C. D. R. Graham, 1996. Hydrogeology, Hydrogeochemistry, and Spoil Settlement at a Large Mine-spoil Area in Eastern Kentucky: Star Fire Tract. Report of Investigations 10, Series XI. Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government: United States Environmental Protection Agency 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3WheelingUSA

Personalised recommendations