Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 679–704 | Cite as

Using macroinvertebrate assemblages and multiple stressors to infer urban stream system condition: a case study in the central US

  • John Nichols
  • Jason A. Hubbart
  • Barry C. Poulton
Article

Abstract

Characterizing the impacts of hydrologic alterations, pollutants, and habitat degradation on macroinvertebrate species assemblages is of critical value for managers wishing to categorize stream ecosystem condition. A combination of approaches including trait-based metrics and traditional bioassessments provides greater information, particularly in anthropogenic stream ecosystems where traditional approaches can be confounded by variously interacting land use impacts. Macroinvertebrates were collected from two rural and three urban nested study sites in central Missouri, USA during the spring and fall seasons of 2011. Land use responses of conventional taxonomic and trait-based metrics were compared to streamflow indices, physical habitat metrics, and water quality indices. Results show that biotic index was significantly different (p < 0.05) between sites with differences detected in 54 % of trait-based metrics. The most consistent response to urbanization was observed in size metrics, with significantly (p < 0.05) fewer small bodied organisms. Increases in fine streambed sediment, decreased submerged woody rootmats, significantly higher winter Chloride concentrations, and decreased mean suspended sediment particle size in lower urban stream reaches also influenced macroinvertebrate assemblages. Riffle habitats in urban reaches contained 21 % more (p = 0.03) multivoltine organisms, which was positively correlated to the magnitude of peak flows (r2 = 0.91, p = 0.012) suggesting that high flow events may serve as a disturbance in those areas. Results support the use of macroinvertebrate assemblages and multiple stressors to characterize urban stream system condition and highlight the need to better understand the complex interactions of trait-based metrics and anthropogenic aquatic ecosystem stressors.

Keywords

Macroinvertebrates Physical habitat Rootmats Trait-based metrics Urbanization Hinkson Creek 

References

  1. Agrawal YP, Pottsmith HC (2000) Instruments for particle size and settling velocity observations in sediment transport. Mar Geol 168:89–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:257–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allert AL, Cole-Neal CL, Fairchild JF (2012) Toxicity of chloride under winter low-flow conditions in an urban watershed in central Missouri, USA. Bull Environ Contam Toxic 89:296–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTM (2007) Standard test methods for determining sediment concentration in water samples. Am Soc Test Mater:D3977–97Google Scholar
  5. ASTM (2009) Standard test methods for particle-size distribution of soils using sieve analysis. Am Soc Test Mater:D6913–04Google Scholar
  6. Baker DB, Richards RP, Loftus TT, Kramer JW (2004) A new flashiness index: characteristics and applications to Midwestern rivers and streams. J Ame Water Res Assoc 40:503–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beechie TJ, Sear DA, Olden JD, Pess GR, Buffington JM, Moir H, Roni P, Pollock MM (2010) Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. Bioscience 60:209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonada N, Prat N, Resh VK, Statzner B (2006) Developments in aquatic insect biomonitoring: a comparative analysis of recent approaches. Ann Rev Entomol 51:495–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Booth DB, Jackson CJ (1997) Urbanization of aquatic systems: degradation thresholds, stormwater detention and the limits of mitigations. Water Res Bull 33:1077–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlisle DM, Hawkins CP (2008) Land use and the structure of western US stream invertebrate assemblages: predictive models and ecological traits. J N Am Benthol Soc 27:986–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiariello NR, Mooney HA, Williams K (1989) Growth, carbon allocation, and cost of plant tissues. In: Pearcy RW, Ehleringer J, Mooney HA, Rundel PW (eds) Plant physiological ecology: field methods and instrumentation. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 327–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coulter CB, Kolka RK, Thompson JA (2004) Water quality in agricultural, urban, and mixed land use watersheds. J Am Water Res Assoc 40:1593–1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cuffney TF, Brightbill RA, May JT, Waite IR (2010) Responses of benthic macroinvertebrates to environmetnal changes associated with urbanization in nine metropolitan areas. Ecol Appl 20:1384–1401Google Scholar
  14. Daley ML, Potter JD, McDowell WH (2009) Salinization of urbanizing New Hampshire streams and groundwater: effects of road salt and hydrologic variability. J N Am Benthtol Soc 28:929–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dewson ZS, James AB, Death RG (2007) A review of the consequences of decreased flow for instream habitat and macroinvertebrates. J N Am Benthol Soc 26:401–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doledec S, Phillips N, Scarsbrook M, Riley RH, Townsend RH (2006) Comparison of structural and functional approaches to determining landuse effects on grassland stream invertebrate communities. J N Am Benthol Soc 25(1):44–60Google Scholar
  17. Feld CK, DeBello F, Doledec S (2014) Biodiversity of traits and species both show weak responses to hydromorphological alteration in lowland river macroinvertebrates. Freshw Biol 59:233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hilsenhoff WL (1987) An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great Lakes Entom 20:31–39Google Scholar
  19. Hubbart JA, Freeman G (2010) Sediment laser diffraction: a new approach to an old problem in the central U.S. Stormwater 11:36–44Google Scholar
  20. Hubbart JA, Holmes J, Bowman G (2010) TMDLs: improving stakeholder acceptance with science-based allocations. Erosion Cont 3:19–24Google Scholar
  21. Hubbart JA (2012) Using sediment particle size class analysis to better understand urban land-use effects. Int J App Sci Tech 2:12–27Google Scholar
  22. Hubbart JA, Kellner E, Freeman G (2014) A case study considering the comparability of mass and volumetric suspended sediment data. Environ Earth Sci 71:4051–4060. doi:10.1007/s12665-013-2788-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ISO (1992) Water quality - measurement of biochemical parameters - spectrometric determination of the chlorophyll-a concentration. International Standard Organization ISO 10260: 1992(E)Google Scholar
  24. Kaushal SS, Groffman PM, Likens GE, Belt KT, Stack WP, Kelly VR, Bandi LE, Fisher GT (2005) Increased salinization of freshwater in the northeastern United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:13517–13520CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. McMahon G, Bales JD, Coles JF, Giddings EM, Zappia H (2003) Use of stage data to characterize hydrologic conditions in an urbanizing environment. J Am Water Res Assoc 39:1529–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McNeil WJ (1960) Measurement of gravel composition of salmon stream beds. Fish Res Inst CircGoogle Scholar
  27. MDNR (1998) Missouri water quality report. Water pollution control program. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson CityGoogle Scholar
  28. MDNR (2002) Biological assessment report. Hinkson Creek Boone County. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson CityGoogle Scholar
  29. MDNR (2004) Hinkson Creek stream study (Phase I). Columbia, Missouri. Boone County. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Jefferson City, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  30. MDNR (2005) Phase II Hinkson Creek stream study. Columbia, Missouri. Boone County. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Jefferson City, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  31. MDNR (2006) Phase III Hinkson Creek stream study. Columbia, Missouri. Boone County. Missouri Department of Natural Resources. Jefferson City, MissouriGoogle Scholar
  32. MDNR (2010) MDNR Project procedure. Semi-quantitative macroinvertebrate stream bioassessment project procedure. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson CityGoogle Scholar
  33. Merritt RW, Cummins KW, Berg MB (2008) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, 4th edn. Kendall/Hunt Publishing, DubuqueGoogle Scholar
  34. Nigh TA, Schroeder WA (2002) Atlas of Missouri ecological sections. Missouri Department of ConservationGoogle Scholar
  35. Olden JD, Poff NL (2003) Redundancy and the choice of hydrologic indices for characterizing streamflow regimes. River Res Appl 19:101–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 32:333–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Platts WS, Armour C, Booth GD, Bryant M, Bufford JL, Cuplin P, Jensen S, Lienkaemper GW, Minshall, GW, Monson SB, Nelson RL, Sedell JR, Tuhy JS (1987) Methods for evaluating riparian habitats with applications to management. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report INT-221Google Scholar
  38. Plafkin JL, Barbour MT, Porter KD, Gross SK, Hughes RM (1989) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/440/4-89/001Google Scholar
  39. Poff NL (1997) Landscape filters and species traits: towards mechanistic understanding and prediction in stream ecology. J N Am Benthol Soc 16:391–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Poff NL, Olden JD, Viera NK, Finn DS, Simmons MP, Kondratieff BC (2006) Functional trait niches of North American lotic insects: traits-based ecological applications in light of phylogenetic relationships. J N Am Benthol Soc 25:730–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pollard AI, Yuan LL (2010) Assessing the consistency of response metrics of the invertebrate benthos: a comparison of trait- and identity-based measures. Freshw Biol 55:1420–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rabeni CF, Wang N, Sarver RJ (1999) Evaluating adequacy of the representative stream reach used in invertebrate monitoring programs. J N Am Benthol Soc 18:284–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rolls RJ, Leigh C, Sheldon F (2012) Mechanistic effects of low-flow hydrology on riverine ecosystems: ecological principles and consequences of alteration. Freshw Sci 31:1163–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roy AH, Rosemond AD, Leigh DS, Paul MJ, Wallace JB (2003) Habitat-specific responses of stream insects to land cover disturbance: biological consequences and monitoring implications. J N Am Benthol Soc 22:292–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith DG (2001) Pennak’s freshwater invertebrates of the United States, 4th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Statzner B, Beche LA (2010) Can biological invertebrate traits resolve effects of multiple stressors on running water ecosystems? Freshw Biol 55:80–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Steuer JJ, Stensvold KA, Gregory MB (2010) Determination of biologically significant hydrologic condition metrics in urbanizing watersheds: an empirical analysis over a range of environmental settings. Hydrobiologia 654:27–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sudduth EB, Meyer JD (2006) Effects of bioengineered streambank stabilization on bank habitat and macroinvertebrates in urban streams. Environ Manag 38:218–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tarr WA (1924) Intrenched and incised meanders of some streams on the northern slope of the Ozark Plateau in Missouri. J Geol 32:583–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Theobald DM (2001) Land-Use dynamics beyond the urban fringe. Geogr Rev 91:544–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Toledo ZO, Kauffman JB (2001) Root biomass in relation to channel morphology of headwater streams. J Am Water Res Assoc 37:1653–1663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tullos DD, Penrose DL, Jennings GD, Cope WG (2009) Analysis of functional traits in reconfigured channels: implications for the bioassessment and disturbance of river restoration. J N Am Benthol Soc 28:80–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. USDA (2001) Soil survey of Boone County Missouri. United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resource Conservation ServiceGoogle Scholar
  54. USEPA (1988) Ambient water quality criteria for chloride. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington. EPA-440/5-88-001Google Scholar
  55. USEPA (2011) Total maximum daily load, Hinkson Creek (MO_1007 and _1008) Boone County, Missouri. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  56. USGS (1994) U.S. Geologic survey, Water resources division hydrologic unit maps of the coterminous United States: 1:250,000 scale, 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes and polygons. RestonGoogle Scholar
  57. Vieira NK, Poff NL, Carlisle DM, Moulton SR, Koski ML, Kondratieff BC (2006) A database of lotic invertebrate traits for North America. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 187, Reston. http://pubs.usgus.gov/ds/ds187/. Accessed 19 January 2011.
  58. Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM, Morgan RPII (2005) The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J N Am Benthol Soc 24:706–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walters AW (2011) Resistance of aquatic insects to a low-flow disturbance: exploring a trait-based approach. J N Am Benthol Soc 30:346–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wood DL, Sites RW (2002) Submerged rootmats: a mesohabitat harboring a distinct insect community in Ozark streams. J Freshw Ecol 17:431–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zar JH (1996) Biostatistical analysis, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Inc, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  62. Zuellig RE, Schmidt TS (2012) Characterizing invertebrate traits in wadeable streams of the contiguous US: differences among ecoregions and land uses. Freshw Sci 31:1042–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Nichols
    • 1
  • Jason A. Hubbart
    • 2
    • 3
  • Barry C. Poulton
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of ForestryUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Davis College, Schools of Agriculture and Food, and Natural ResourcesWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Water Security and ScienceWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA
  4. 4.United States Geological SurveyColumbia Environmental Research CenterColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations