Hydrobiologia

, Volume 719, Issue 1, pp 483–507 | Cite as

Ecological status assessment in mediterranean rivers: complexities and challenges in developing tools for assessing ecological status and defining reference conditions

MEDITERRANEAN CLIMATE STREAMS Review Paper

Abstract

Rivers in mediterranean regions are subject to hydrological extremes. They range from highly stable, perennial ground- or snow-fed systems to highly ephemeral, unpredictable ones in semi-arid environments. Spatial and temporal complexity inherent in these systems presents challenges for ecological status assessment and defining reference conditions, particularly as many areas have been extensively transformed through anthropogenic activities. Temporal variability driven by sequential and predictable, seasonal events of flooding and drying accentuates the need to take season and/or hydrological period into account. Intermittent streams, which are common in mediterranean regions (med-regions) and which have aquatic communities distinct from perennial streams, are often not incorporated in bioassessment and present distinct challenges. Med-regions are also known for their high biodiversity and rates of endemism, as well as large numbers of introduced species. Med-regions are expected to be among the most affected by global climate change and, in these systems, climate change is an additional driver influencing ecosystems that are already stressed. From this review it is evident that an understanding of responses of indices, metrics, and models to climate change in comparison to existing stresses, and the development of thermally specific bioassessment tools are needed for this region.

Keywords

Bioassessment Indices Metrics Periphyton Invertebrate Fish Riparian 

References

  1. Aguiar, F. C., M. T. Ferreira, A. Albuquerque & I. Moreira, 2007. Alien and endemic flora on reference and non-reference sites from Mediterranean type-streams of Portugal. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 17: 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguiar, F. C., M. T. Ferreira, A. Albuquerque, P. Rodriguez-Gonzalez & P. Segurado, 2009. Structural and functional responses of riparian vegetation to human disturbance: performance and scale-dependence. Fundamental and Applied Limnology 175: 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aguiar, F. C., M. J. Feio & M. T. Ferreira, 2011. Choosing the best method for stream bioassessment using macrophyte communities: indices and predictive models. Ecological Indicators 11: 379–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alba-Tercedor, J. & N. Prat, 1992. Spanish Experience in the Use of Macroinvertebrates as Biological Pollution Indicators. River Water Quality Assessment and Control. CCEE, Brussels.Google Scholar
  5. Alba-Tercedor, J. & A. Pujante, 2000. Running-water biomonitoring in Spain: opportunities for a predictive approach. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters—RIVPACS and Other Techniques. FBA, Ambleside: 207–216.Google Scholar
  6. Alba-Tercedor, J. & A. Sánchez-Ortega, 1988. Un método rápido y simple para evaluar la calidad biológica de las aguas corrientes basado en el de Hellawell. Limnetica 4: 51–56.Google Scholar
  7. Aparicio, E., G. Carmona-Catot, P. B. Moyle & E. García-Berthou, 2011. Development and evaluation of a fish-based index to assess biological integrity of Mediterranean streams. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 21: 324–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Argyroudi, A., Y. Chatzinikolaou, K. Poirazidis & M. Lazaridou, 2008. Do intermittent and ephemeral Mediterranean rivers belong to the same river type? Aquatic Ecology 43: 465–476.Google Scholar
  9. Armitage, P. D., D. Moss, J. F. Wright & M. T. Furse, 1983. The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites. Water Research 17: 333–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Artemiadou, V. & M. Lazaridou, 2005. Evaluation score and interpretation index for the ecological quality of running waters in Central and Northern Hellas. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 110: 1–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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, 2nd edn. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington DC, United States.Google Scholar
  12. Barbour, M. T. & C. Hill, 2003. The Status and Future of Biological Assessment for California Streams. Final Report. California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality, Sacramento, California, United States.Google Scholar
  13. Barbour, M. T., B. G. Bierwagen, A. T. Hamilton & N. G. Aumen, 2010. Climate change and biological indicators: detection, attribution, and management implications for aquatic ecosystems. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 1349–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bêche, L. A. & V. H. Resh, 2007. Short-term climatic trends affect the temporal variability of macroinvertebrates in California ‘Mediterranean’ streams. Freshwater Biology 52: 2317–2339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bêche, L. A., E. P. McElravy & V. H. Resh, 2006. Long-term seasonal variation in the biological traits of benthic-macroinvertebrates in two Mediterranean-climate streams in California, USA. Freshwater Biology 51: 56–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Benejam, L., E. Aparicio, M. J. Vargas, A. Vila-Gispert & E. García-Berthou, 2008. Assessing fish metrics and biotic indices in a Mediterranean stream: effects of uncertain native status of fish. Hydrobiologia 603: 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bonada, N., 2003. Ecology of the macroinvertebrate communities in Mediterranean rivers at different scales and organization levels. PhD Thesis, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  18. Bonada, N., H. Dallas, M. Rieradevall, N. Prat & J. Day, 2006a. A comparison of rapid bioassessment protocols used in 2 regions with Mediterranean climates, the Iberian Peninsula and South Africa. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25: 487–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bonada, N., N. Prat, V. H. Resh & B. Statzner, 2006b. Developments in aquatic insect biomonitoring: a comparative analysis of recent approaches. Annual Review of Entomology 51: 495–523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bonada, N., M. Rieradevall, N. Prat & V. H. Resh, 2006c. Benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages and macrohabitat connectivity in Mediterranean-climate streams of northern California. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25: 32–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Boulton, A. J., P. Marmonier & J. A. Davis, 1999. Hydrological exchange and subsurface water chemistry in streams varying in salinity in south-western Australia. International Journal of Salt Lake Research 8: 361–382.Google Scholar
  22. Brooks, A. J., B. C. Chessman & T. Haeusler, 2011. Macroinvertebrate traits distinguish unregulated rivers subject to water abstraction. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 30: 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Buffagni, A. & M. T. Furse, 2006. Intercalibration and comparison—Major results and conclusions from the STAR project. Hydrobiologia 566: 357–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Buffagni, A., S. Erba, M. Cazzola & J. L. Kemp, 2004. The AQEM multimetric system for the southern Italian Apennines: assessing the impact of water quality and habitat degradation on pool macroinvertebrates in Mediterranean rivers. Hydrobiologia 516: 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Bunn, S. E. & P. M. Davies, 1990. Why is the stream fauna of southwestern Australia so impoverished? Hydrobiologia 194: 169–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Bunn, S. E. & P. M. Davies, 1992. Community structure of the macro-invertebrate fauna and water quality of a saline river system in south-western Australia. Hydrobiologia 248: 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Bunn, S. E. & P. M. Davies, 2000. Biological processes in running waters and their implications for the assessment of ecological integrity. Hydrobiologia 422(423): 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Bunn, S. E., D. H. Edward & N. R. Loneragan, 1986. Spatial and temporal variation in the macroinvertebrate fauna of streams of the northern jarrah forest, Western Australia: community structure. Freshwater Biology 16: 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cao, Y. & C. P. Hawkins, 2010. The comparability of bioassessments: a review of conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 30: 680–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Carter, J. L., A. H. Purcell, S. V. Fend & V. H. Resh, 2009. Development of a local-scale urban stream assessment method using benthic macroinvertebrates: an example from the Santa Clara Basin, California. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 28: 1007–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cayan, D., M. Tyree, M. Dettinger, H. Hidalgo, T. Das, E. Maurer, P. Bromirski, N. Graham & R. Flick, 2009. Climate change scenarios and sea level rise estimates for the California 2008—Climate Change Scenarios Assessment. California Climate Change Center CEC-500-2009-014-D, California, United States.Google Scholar
  32. Chaves, M. L., J. L. Costa, P. Chainho, M. J. Costa & N. Prat, 2006. Selection and validation of reference sites in small river basins. Hydrobiologia 573: 133–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Chessman, B. C., 1995. Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: a procedure based on habitat-specific sampling, family-level identification, and a biotic index. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 122–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Chessman, B. C., 2003a. SIGNAL 2—A Scoring System for Macro-invertebrate (‘Water Bugs’) in Australian Rivers, Monitoring River Heath Initiative Technical Report No 31, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.Google Scholar
  35. Chessman, B. C., 2003b. New sensitivity grades for Australian river macroinvertebrates. Marine and Freshwater Research 54: 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Chessman, B. C., 2009. Climatic changes and 13-year trends in stream macroinvertebrate assemblages in New South Wales, Australia. Global Change Biology 15: 2791–2802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Chessman, B. C. & M. J. Royal, 2004. Bioassessment without reference sites: use of environmental filters to predict natural assemblages of river macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23: 599–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Chessman, B. C. & S. A. Townsend, 2010. Differing effects of catchment land use on water chemistry explain contrasting behaviour of a diatom index in tropical northern and temperate southern Australia. Ecological Indicators 10: 620–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Chessman, B. C., J. E. Growns & A. R. Kotlash, 1997. Objective derivation of macroinvertebrate family sensitivity grade numbers for the SIGNAL biotic index: application to the Hunter River system, New South Wales. Marine and Freshwater Research 48: 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Chessman, B., I. Growns, J. Currey & N. Plunkett-Cole, 1999. Predicting diatom communities at the genus level for the rapid biological assessment of rivers. Freshwater Biology 41: 317–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Chessman, B. C., L. A. Thurtell & M. J. Royal, 2006. Bioassessment in a harsh environment: a comparison of macroinvertebrate assemblages at reference and assessment sites in an Australian inland river system. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 119: 303–330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Chessman, B. C., N. Bate, P. A. Gell & P. Newall, 2007. A diatom species index for bioassessment of Australian rivers. Marine and Freshwater Research 58: 542–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Chutter, F. M., 1972. An empirical biotic index of the quality of water in South African streams and rivers. Water Research 6: 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Chutter, F. M., 1998. Research on the Rapid Biological Assessment of Water Quality Impacts in Streams and Rivers. Water Research Commission Report No. 422/1/98. Water Research Commission. Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  45. Collins, J. N., E. D. Stein, M. Sutula, R. Clark, A.E. Fetscher, L. Grenier, C. Grosso & A. Wiskind, 2008. California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) for Wetlands, San Francisco Estuary Institute. Oakland, California, www.cramwetlands.org.
  46. CSIRO, 2007. Climate change in Australia, Technical Report 2007, CSIRO, Australia (http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/technical_report.php).
  47. Dallas, H. F., 1997. A preliminary evaluation of aspects of SASS (South African Scoring System) for the rapid bioassessment of water quality in rivers, with particular reference to the incorporation of SASS in a national biomonitoring programme. South African Journal of Aquatic Sciences 23: 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Dallas, H. F., 2000. Ecological reference conditions for riverine macroinvertebrates and the River Health Programme, South Africa. In: Brito, R., J. Ndamba & P. van der Zaag (eds), Proceedings of the First WARFSA/WaterNet Symposium: Sustainable Use of Water Resources; Maputo, Mozambique: 1–10.Google Scholar
  49. Dallas, H. F., 2002. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in lotic systems: implications for defining reference conditions for riverine macroinvertebrates. Water Research Commission Report No. KV138/03, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  50. Dallas, H. F., 2004a. Spatial variability in macroinvertebrate assemblages: comparing regional and multivariate approaches for classifying reference sites in South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science 29: 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Dallas, H. F., 2004b. Seasonal variability of macroinvertebrate assemblages in two regions of South Africa: implications for aquatic bioassessment. African Journal of Aquatic Science 29: 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Dallas, H. F., 2007a. The influence of biotope availability on macroinvertebrate assemblages in South African rivers: implications for aquatic bioassessment. Freshwater Biology 52: 370–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Dallas, H. F., 2007b. River Health Programme: South African Scoring System (SASS) data interpretation guidelines. Prepared for the Institute of Natural Resources and the Resource Quality Services River Health, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. The Freshwater Consulting Group, Cape Town, South Africa.Google Scholar
  54. Dallas, H. F., 2007c. The effect of biotope-specific sampling for aquatic macroinvertebrates on reference site classification and the identification of environmental predictors in Mpumalanga, South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science 32: 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Dallas, H. F. & N. A. Rivers-Moore, 2009. Future uncertain—climate change and freshwater resources in South Africa. Technical Report produced for the Water Research Commission and the World Wide Fund for Wildlife. The Freshwater Consulting Group and Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, Cape Town, South Africa.Google Scholar
  56. Dallas, H. F. & J. A. Day, 2007. Natural variation in macroinvertebrate assemblages and the development of a biological banding system for interpreting bioassessment data—a preliminary evaluation using data from upland sites in the south-western Cape, South Africa. Hydrobiologia 575: 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Dallas, H. F. & Z. A. Ketley, 2011. Upper thermal limits of aquatic macroinvertebrates: comparing critical thermal maxima with 96-LT50 values. Journal of Thermal Biology 36: 322–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Dallas, H. F. & N. A. Rivers-Moore, 2012. Critical Thermal Maxima of aquatic macroinvertebrates: towards identifying bioindicators of thermal alteration. Hydrobiologia 679: 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Davies, P. M., 2010. Climate change implications for river restoration in global biodiversity hotspots. Restoration Ecology 18: 261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Davies, P. E., J. H. Harris, T. J. Hillman & K. F. Walker, 2010. The Sustainable Rivers Audit: assessing river ecosystem health in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 61: 764–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Dell’Uomo, A. & M. Torrisi, 2011. The Eutrophication/Pollution Index-Diatom based (EPI-D) and three new related indices for monitoring rivers: the case study of the river Potenza (the Marches, Italy). Plant Biosystems 145: 331–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning (DEA&DP), 2011. Western Cape Integrated Water Resources Management Action Plan Status Quo Report, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Western Cape, South Africa.Google Scholar
  63. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF), 2008. National Aquatic Ecosystem Health Monitoring Programme (NAEHMP): River Health Programme (RHP) Implementation Manual. Version 2. ISBN No. 978-0-621-383343-0, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  64. Dickens, C. W. S. & P. M. Graham, 2002. The South African Scoring System (SASS) Version 5 rapid bioassessment method for rivers. African Journal of Aquatic Science 27: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Directive 2000/60/EC, 2000. Water Framework Directive of the European Parliament and the Council, of 23 October 2000, establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities 327: 1–72.Google Scholar
  66. Dixon, I., M. Douglas, J. Dowe, D. Burrows & S. Townsend, 2005. A rapid method for assessing the condition of riparian zones in the wet/dry tropics of Northern Australia. In Rutherford, I. D., I. Wiszinwski, M. J. Askey-Doran & R. Glazik (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth Australian Stream Management Conference: Linking Rivers to Landscapes. Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment, Hobart, Tazmania: 178–193.Google Scholar
  67. Feio, M. J. & J. M. Poquet, 2011. Predictive models for freshwater biological assessment: Statistical approaches, biological elements and the Iberian Peninsula Experience: a review. International Review of Hydrobiology 96: 321–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Feio, M. J., T. B. Reynoldson & M. A. S. Graça, 2006. Effect of seasonal changes on predictive model assessments of streams water quality with macroinvertebrates. International Review of Hydrobiology 91: 509–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Feio, M. J., S. F. P. Almeida, S. C. Craveiro & A. J. Calado, 2007a. Diatoms and macroinvertebrates provide consistent and complementary information on environmental quality: a predictive model approach. Fundamentals of Applied Limnology 168: 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Feio, M. J., T. B. Reynoldson, V. Ferreira & M. A. S. Graça, 2007b. A predictive model for freshwater bioassessment (Mondego River, Portugal). Hydrobiologia 589: 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Feio, M. J., S. F. P. Almeida, S. C. Craveiro & A. J. Calado, 2009a. A comparison between biotic indices and predictive models in stream water quality assessment based on benthic diatom communities. Ecological Indicators 9: 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Feio, M. J., R. H. Norris, M. A. S. Graça & S. Nichols, 2009b. Water quality assessment of Portuguese streams: regional or national predictive models? Ecological Indicators 9: 791–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ferreira, M. T. & F. C. Aguiar, 2006. Riparian and aquatic vegetation in Mediterranean-type streams (western Iberia). Limnetica 25: 411–424.Google Scholar
  74. Ferreira, M. T., A. Albuquerque, F. C. Aguiar & N. Sidorkewicz, 2002. Assessing reference sites and ecological quality of river plant assemblages from an Iberian basin using a multivariate approach. Archiv fűr Hydrobiologia 155: 121–145.Google Scholar
  75. Ferreira, M. T., P. M. Rodriguez-González, F. C. Aguiar & A. Albuquerque, 2005. Assessing biotic integrity in Iberian rivers: development of a multimetric plant index. Ecological Indicators 5: 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ferreira, M. T., N. Caiola, F. Casals, J. M. Oliveira & A. de Sostoa, 2007a. Assessing perturbation of river fish communities in the Iberian Ecoregion. Fisheries Management and Ecology 14: 519–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ferreira, M. T., N. Caiola, F. Casals, R. Cortes, A. Economou, D. García-Jalón, M. Ilhéu, F. Martinez-Capel, J. Oliveira, D. Pont, J. Prenda, C. Rogers, A. Sostoa & S. Zogaris, 2007b. Ecological traits of fish assemblages from Mediterranean Europe and their responses to human disturbances. Fisheries Management and Ecology 14: 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Fetscher, A. E. & K. McLaughlin, 2008. Incorporating Bioassessment Using Freshwater Algae into California’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). Prepared for the Technical Report 563 prepared for the State Water Resources Control Board’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, California, United States.Google Scholar
  79. Figueroa, R., C. Valdovinos, E. Araya & O. Parra, 2003. Macroinvertebrados bentónicos como indicadores de calidad de agua de ríos del sur de Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 76: 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Figueroa, R., F. X. Niell, A. Avilés, L. Palomo, M. Carrasco & S. Moreno, 2005. Calidad biológica del agua: cuenca del Río Palmones. Almoraima 31: 71–79.Google Scholar
  81. Figueroa, R., V. H. Ruiz, E. Araya, X. Niell & A. Palma, 2006. Invertebrates colonization patterns in a Mediterranean Chilean stream. Hydrobiologia 571: 409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Figueroa, R., A. Palma, V. Ruiz & X. Niell, 2007. Análisis comparativo de índices bióticos utilizados en la evaluación de la calidad de las aguas en un río mediterráneo de Chile: rio Chillán, VIII Region. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 80: 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Frissell, C. A., W. J. Liss, C. E. Warren & M. D. Hurley, 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management 10: 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Gasith, A. & V. H. Resh, 1999. Streams in Mediterranean climate regions: abiotic influences and biotic responses to predictable seasonal events. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30: 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Giorgi, F. & P. Lionella, 2008. Climate change projections for the Mediterranean region. Global and Planetary Change 63: 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Growns, J. E., B. C. Chessman, P. K. McEvoy & I. A. Wright, 1995. Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: case studies in the Nepean River and Blue Mountains, NSW. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Habit, E., M. C. Belk, R. C. Tuckfield & O. Parra, 2006. Response of the fish community to human-induced changes in the Biobío River in Chile. Freshwater Biology 51: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Halse, S. A., M. D. Scanlon, J. S. Cocking, M. J. Smith & W. R. Kay, 2007. Factors affecting river health and its assessment over broad geographic ranges: the Western Australian experience. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 134: 161–175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Hamilton, A. T., J. D. Stamp & B. G. Bierwagen, 2010. Vulnerability of biological metrics and multimetric indices to effects of climate change. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 1379–1396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Harris, J. H., 1995. The use of fish in ecological assessments. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Harris, J. H. & R. Silveira, 1999. Large-scale assessments of river health using an index of biotic integrity with low diversity fish communities. Freshwater Biology 41: 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Hawkins, C. P., R. H. Norris, J. N. Hogue & J. W. Feminella, 2000. Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecological Applications 10: 1456–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 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: 312–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Herbst, D. B. & D. W. Blinn, 2007. Preliminary Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) for Periphyton in the Lahontan Region, Eastern Sierra Nevada, California—Draft Report. Unpublished report submitted to the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, South Lake Tahoe, California, United States. www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb6/water…/herbst_algae082008.pdf.
  95. Herbst, D.B. & E.L. Silldorff, 2009. Development of a Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) for Stream Assessments in the Eastern Sierra Nevada of California. Final report submitted to the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, South Lake Tahoe, California, United States. www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb6/water_issues/…/east_sierra_rpt.pdf.
  96. Herbst, D. B. & E. L. Silldorff, 2006. Comparison of the performance of different bioassessment methods: similar evaluations of biotic integrity from separate programs and procedures. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25: 513–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Hermoso, V., M. Clavero, F. Blanco-Garrido & J. Prenda, 2010. Assessing the ecological status in species-poor systems: a fish-based index for Mediterranean rivers (Guadiana River, SW Spain). Ecological Indicators 10: 1152–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Hilsenhoff, W. L., 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7: 65–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Karr, J. R., 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6: 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Kay, W. R., S. A. Halse, M. D. Scanlon & M. J. Smith, 2001. Distribution and environmental tolerances of aquatic macroinvertebrate families in the agricultural zone of southwestern Australia. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 182–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Kennard, M. J., A. H. Arthington, B. J. Pusey & B. D. Harch, 2005. Are alien fish a reliable indicator of river health? Freshwater Biology 50: 174–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Kennard, M. J., B. J. Pusey, A. H. Arthington, B. D. Harch & S. J. Mackay, 2006. Development and application of a predictive model of freshwater fish assemblage composition to evaluate river health in eastern Australia. Hydrobiologia 572: 33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Kleynhans, C. J., 2007. Module D: Fish Response Assessment Index in River EcoClassification: Manual for EcoStatus Determination (version 2) Joint Water Research Commission and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry report. Water Research Commission Report No. TT330/08, Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  104. Kleynhans, C. J., J. MacKenzie & M. D. Louw, 2007. Module F: Riparian Vegetation Response Assessment Index in River EcoClassification: Manual for EcoStatus Determination (version 2). Joint Water Research Commission and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry report. Water Research Commission Report No. TT 333/08, Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  105. Ladson, A. R., L. J. White, J. A. Doolan, B. L. Finlayson, B. T. Hart, P. S. Lake & J. W. Tilleard, 1999. Development and testing of an Index of Stream Condition for waterway management in Australia. Freshwater Biology 41: 453–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Lawrence, J. E., K. B. Lunde, R. D. Mazor, L. A. Bêche, E. P. Mcelravy & V. H. Resh, 2010. Long-term macroinvertebrate responses to climate change: implications for biological assessment in mediterranean-climate streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 1424–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Linke, S., R. H. Norris, D. P. Faith & D. Stockwell, 2005. ANNA: a new prediction method for bioassessment programs. Freshwater Biology 50: 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Magalhães, M. F., C. E. Ramalho & M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2008. Assessing biotic integrity in a Mediterranean watershed: development and evaluation of a fish-based index. Fisheries Management and Ecology 15: 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Marr, S. M., M. P. Marchetti, J. D. Olden, E. García-Berthou, D. L. Morgan, I. Arismendi, J. A. Day, C. L. Griffiths & P. H. Skelton, 2010. Freshwater fish introductions in mediterranean-climate regions: are there commonalities in the conservation problem? Diversity and Distributions 16: 606–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Martín, G., J. Toja, S. E. Sala, M. de los de los Reyes Fernández, I. Reyes & M. Adela Casco, 2010. Application of diatom biotic indices in the Guadalquivir River Basin, a Mediterranean basin. Which one is the most appropriated? Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 170: 519–534.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. May, J. T. & L. R. Brown, 2002. Fish communities of the Sacramento River Basin: implications for conservation of native fishes in the Central Valley, California. Environmental Biology of Fishes 63: 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Mazor, R. D., D. J. Gillett, K. Schiff & K. Ritter, 2011. Ecological condition of watersheds in coastal southern California: summary of the Stormwater Monitoring Coalition’s stream monitoring program first year (2009). Technical Report 639. Prepared for the Stormwater Monitoring Coalition Bioassessment Workgroup, California, United States.Google Scholar
  113. Mazor, R. D., A. H. Purcell & V. H. Resh, 2009. Long-term variability in bioassessments: A twenty-year study from two Northern California Streams. Environmental Management 43: 1269–1286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Mazor, R. D., K. Schiff, R. Ritter, A. Rehn & P. Ode, 2010. Bioassessment tools in novel habitats: an evaluation of indices and sampling methods in low-gradient streams in California. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 167: 91–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. McComb, A. J. & J. A. Davis, 1993. Eutrophic waters of southwestern Australia. Fertilizer Research 36: 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. McKee, T. B., N. J. Doesken & J. Kleist, 1995. Drought monitoring with multiple time scales, American Meteorological Society, 9th Conference on Applied Climatology, Dallas, Texas: 233–236.Google Scholar
  117. Metzeling, L., B. Chessman, R. Hardwick & A. Wong, 2003. Rapid assessment of Australian rivers using macroinvertebrates: a comparison of quantitative and rapid methods and experienced and novice operators. Hydrobiologia 510: 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Midgley, G. F., R. A. Chapman, B. Hewitson, P. Johnston, M. De Wit, G. Ziervogel, P. Mukheibir, L. Van Niekerk, M. Tadross, B. W. Van Wilgen, B. Kgope, P. Morant, A. Theron, R. J. Scholes & G.G. Forsyth, 2005. A Status Quo, Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment of the Physical and Socio-Economic Effects of Climate Change in the Western Cape, Report No. ENV-S-C 2005-073 to the Western Cape Government, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Stellenbosch, South Africa.Google Scholar
  119. Morais, M., P. Pinto, P. Guilherme, J. Rosado & I. Antunes, 2004. Assessment of temporary streams: the robustness of metric and multimetric indices under different hydrological conditions. Hydrobiologia 516: 229–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Morgan, D. L., H. S. Gill & I. C. Potter, 1998. Distribution, identification and biology of freshwater fishes in south-western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum Supplement No. 56: 1–97.Google Scholar
  121. Moyle, P. B. & P. J. Randall, 1998. Evaluating the biotic integrity of watersheds in the Sierra Nevada, California. Conservation Biology 12: 1318–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Munné, A. & N. Prat, 2009. Use of macroinvertebrate-based multimetric indices for water quality evaluation in Spanish Mediterranean rivers: an intercalibration approach with the IBMWP index. Hydrobiologia 628: 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Munné, A. & N. Prat, 2011. Effects of Mediterranean climate annual variability on stream biological quality assessment using macroinvertebrate communities. Ecological Indicators 11: 651–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Munné, A., N. Prat, C. Solà, N. Bonada & M. Rieradevall, 2003. A simple field method for assessing the ecological quality of riparian habitat in rivers and streams: QBR index. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13: 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca & J. Kent, 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Nichols, S. J., W. A. Robinson & R. H. Norris, 2010. Using the reference condition maintains the integrity of a bioassessment program in a changing climate. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 1459–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Ode, P. R. & K. Schiff, 2009. Recommendations for the Development and Maintenance of a Reference Condition Management Program to Support Biological Assessment of California’s Wadeable Streams. Technical Report 581 prepared for the State Water Resources Control Board’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, California, United States.Google Scholar
  128. Ode, P. R., A. C. Rehn & J. T. May, 2005. A quantitative tool for assessing the integrity of southern coastal California streams. Environmental Management 35: 493–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Ode, P. R., C. P. Hawkins & R. D. Mazor, 2008. Comparability of biological assessments derived from predictive models and multimetric indices of increasing geographic scope. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27: 967–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Ollis, D. J., H. F. Dallas, K. J. Esler & C. Boucher, 2006. Rapid bioassessment of the ecological integrity of river ecosystems using aquatic macroinvertebrates: review with a focus on South Africa. African Journal of Aquatic Science 31: 205–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Pan, Y., B. H. Hill, P. Husby, R. K. Hall & P. R. Kaufmann, 2006. Relationships between environmental variables and benthic diatom assemblages in California Central Valley streams (USA). Hydrobiologia 561: 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Pinto, P. P., J. Rosado, M. Morais & I. Antunes, 2004. Assessment methodology for southern siliceous basins in Portugal. Hydrobiologia 516: 191–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Poquet, J. M., J. Alba-Tercedor, T. Puntí, M. Sánchez-Montoya, S. Robles, M. Álvarez, C. Zamora-Muñoz, M. Vidal-Abarca, M. Luisa Suárez, M. Toro, A. M. Pujante, M. Rieradevall & N. Prat, 2009. The MEDiterranean Prediction And Classification System (MEDPACS): an implementation of the RIVPACS/AUSRIVAS predictive approach for assessing Mediterranean aquatic macroinvertebrate communities. Hydrobiologia 623: 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Power, M. E., R. J. Stout, C. E. Cushing, P. P. Harper, F. R. Hauer, W. J. Matthews, P. B. Moyle, B. Stazner & I. R. Wais De Badgen, 1988. Biotic and abiotic controls in river and stream communities. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7: 456–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Prat, N., 2002. El proyecto GUADALMED. Limnetica 21(3–4): 1–3.Google Scholar
  136. Ratcliffe, S. G., 2009. Disturbance and temporal variability in invertebrate assemblages in two South African rivers. PhD Thesis, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa.Google Scholar
  137. Rehn, A. C., P. R. Ode, & J. T. May, 2005. Development of a benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for wadeable streams in northern coastal California and its application to regional 305(b) assessment. Report to the State Water Resources Control Board. California Department of Fish and Game Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory, Rancho Cordova, California, United States.Google Scholar
  138. Reynoldson, T. B., R. C. Bailey, K. E. Day & R. H. Norris, 1995. Biological guidelines for freshwater sediment based on BEnthic Assessment of SedimenT (the BEAST) using a multivariate approach for predicting biological state. Australian Journal of Ecology 20: 198–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Rico, E., A. Rallo, M. A. Sevillano & M. L. Arretxe, 1992. Comparison of several biological indices based on river macroinvertebrate benthic community for assessment of running water quality. Annales de Limnologie 28: 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Rieradevall, M., N. Bonada & N. Prat, 1999. Community structure and water quality in the Mediterranean streams of a natural park (St. Llorenc, del Munt, NE Spain). Limnetica 17: 45–56.Google Scholar
  141. Ritz, C. 2010. Effectiveness of RIVPACS predictive models to evaluate diatom response to nutrient stress in coastal California streams. Master Thesis, California State University, United States.Google Scholar
  142. Rose, P., L. Metzeling & S. Catzikiris, 2008. Can macroinvertebrate rapid bioassessment methods be used to assess river held during a drought in southeastern Australia streams. Freshwater Biology 53: 2626–2638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Rosenberg, D. M. & V. H. Resh, 1993. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  144. Sánchez-Montoya, M. M., M. L. Suárez & M. R. Vidal-Abarca, 2009a. Seasonal and interannual variability of macroinvertebrate reference communities and its influence on bioassessment in different Mediterranean stream types. Fundamentals of Applied Limnology 174: 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Sánchez-Montoya, M. M., M. R. Vidal-Abarca, T. Puntí, J. M. Poquet, N. Prat, M. Rieradevall, J. Alba-Tercedor, C. Zamora-Muñoz, M. Toro, S. Robles, M. Álvarez & M. L. Suárez, 2009b. Defining criteria to select reference sites in Mediterranean Streams. Hydrobiologia 619: 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Sánchez-Montoya, M. M., M. R. Vidal-Abarca & M. L. Suárez, 2010. Comparing the sensitivity of diverse macroinvertebrate metrics to a multiple stressor gradient in Mediterranean streams and its influence on the assessment of ecological status. Ecological Indicators 10: 896–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Simpson, J. & R. H. Norris, 2000. Biological assessment of water quality: development of AUSRIVAS models and outputs. In Wright, J. F., D. W. Sutcliffe & M. T. Furse (eds), Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and Other Techniques. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside: 125–142.Google Scholar
  148. Smith, M. J., W. R. Kay, D. H. D. Edward, P. J. Papas, K. St, J. Richardson, J. C. Simpson, A. M. Pinder, D. J. Cale, P. H. J. Horwitz, J. A. Davis, F. H. Yung, R. H. Norris & S. A. Halse, 1999. AUSRIVAS: using macroinvertebrates to assess ecological condition of rivers in Western Australia. Freshwater Biology 41: 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Solek, C. W., E. D. Stein & M. Sutula, 2011. Demonstration of an integrated watershed assessment using a three-tiered assessment framework. Wetlands Ecology and Management 19: 459–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Soto, D., I. Arismendi, J. González, J. Sanzana, F. Jara, C. Jara, E. Guzmán & A. Lara, 2006. Southern Chile, trout and salmon country: invasion patterns and threats for native species. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 79: 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Stamp, J. D., A. Hamilton, L. Zheng & B. Bierwagen, 2010. Use of thermal preference metrics to examine state biomonitoring data for climate change effects. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 1410–1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Stein, E. D., A. E. Fetscher, R. P. Clark, A. Wiskind, J. L. Grenier, M. Sutula, J. N. Collins & C. Grosso, 2009. Validation of a wetland rapid assessment method: use of EPA’s Level 1–2-3 framework for method testing and refinement. Wetlands 29: 648–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Stevenson, R. J., P. Pan, K. M. Manoylov, C. A. Parker, D. P. Larsen & A. T. Herlihy, 2008. Development of diatom indicators of ecological conditions for streams of the western US. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27: 1000–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Stewart, B., 2011. Assessing the ecological values of rivers: an application of a multi-criteria approach to rivers of the South Coast Region, Western Australia. Biodiversity and Conservation. doi:10.1007/s10531-011-0111-3.
  155. Stoddard, J. L., D. V. Peck, S. G. Paulsen, J. Van Sickle, C. P. Hawkins, A. T. Herlihy, R. M. Hughes, P. R. Kaufmann, D. P. Larsen, G. Lomniki, A. R. Olsen, S. A. Peterson, P. L. Ringold & T. R. Whittier. 2005. An Ecological Assessment of Western Streams and Rivers. EPA 620/R-05/005. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, United States.Google Scholar
  156. Stoddard, J. L., D. P. Larsen, C. P. Hawkins, R. Johnson & R. Norris, 2006. Setting expectations for ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference conditions. Ecological Applications 16: 1267–1276.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Taylor, J. C., W. R. Harding & C. G. M. Archibald, 2007a. An illustrated guide to some common diatom species from South Africa. Water Research Commission Report No TT 282/07. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  158. Taylor, J. C., W. R. Harding & C. G. M. Archibald, 2007b. A methods manual for the collection, preparation and analysis of diatom samples. Water Research Commission Report No TT 281/07. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  159. Taylor, J. C., J. Prygiel, A. Vosloo, P. A. De La Rey & L. Van Rensburg, 2007c. Can diatom based pollution indices be used for bio-monitoring in South Africa? A case study of the Crocodile West and Marico water management area. Hydrobiologia 592: 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Taylor, J. C., M. S. Janse van Vuuren & A. J. H. Pieterse, 2007d. The application and testing of diatom-based indices in the Vaal and Wilge rivers, South Africa. Water SA 33: 51–60.Google Scholar
  161. Thirion, C., 2007. Module E: Macroinvertebrate Response Assessment Index. In River EcoClassification: Manual for EcoStatus Determination (version 2). Water Research Commission Report No. TT 333/08. Joint Water Research Commission and Department of Water Affairs and Forestry report, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
  162. Torrisi, M. & A. Dell’Uomo, 2006. Biological monitoring of some Apennine rivers (Central Italy) using the diatom-based Eutrophication/Pollution Index (EPI-D) compared to other European diatom indices. Diatom Research 21: 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Uys, M. & J. H. O’Keeffe, 1997. Simple words and fuzzy zones: early directions for temporary river research in South Africa. Environmental Management 21: 517–531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Webb, J. A. & E. L. King, 2009. A Bayesian hierarchical trend analysis finds strong evidence for large-scale temporal declines in stream ecological condition around Melbourne, Australia. Ecography 32: 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Williams, D. D., 1996. Environmental constraints in temporary fresh waters and their consequences for the insect fauna. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: 634–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Wishart, M. J. & J. A. Day, 2002. Endemism in the freshwater fauna of the south-western Cape, South Africa. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung fűr Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 28: 1–5.Google Scholar
  167. Woodford, D. J., N. D. Impson, J. A. Day & I. R. Bills, 2005. The predatory impact of invasive alien smallmouth bass, Micropterus dolomieu (Teleostei: Centrarchidae), on indigenous fishes in a Cape Floristic Region mountain stream. African Journal of Aquatic Science 30: 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Wright, J. F., M. T. Furse & P. D. Armitage, 1993. RIVPACS—a technique for evaluating the biological quality of rivers in the UK. European Water Pollution Contributions 3: 15–25.Google Scholar
  169. Yoder, C. O. & R. Plotnikoff, 2009. Evaluation of the California State Water Resource Control Boards Bioassessment Program. Technical Memorandum: California SWRCB Bioassessment Program. Final Report to U.S. EPA-OST and Region IX, California, United States.Google Scholar
  170. Zamora-Muñoz, C., C. E. Sáinz-Cantero, A. Sánchez-Ortega & J. Alba-Tercedor, 1995. Are biological indexes BMWP and ASPT and their significance regarding water-quality seasonality dependent—factors explaining their variations. Water Research 29: 285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nelson Mandela Metropolitan UniversityPort ElizabethSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations