Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 422, Issue 0, pp 225–232 | Cite as

Macroinvertebrate functional feeding group methods in ecological assessment

  • C. Rawer-Jost
  • J. Böhmer
  • J. Blank
  • H. Rahmann
Article

Abstract

Six functional feeding group (FFG) indices applied in ecological assessment were tested for their accuracy in detecting impairment in 12 cases of disturbance on 11 streams in south-western Germany. Three metrics – percentage of predators, percentage of shredders and Rhithron-Ernährungstypen-Index RETI – performed well in small highland streams up to five m width. The FFG metrics were compared to the taxonomic measures `percentage of Chironomidae' and `percentage of ephemeropteran, plecopteran and trichopteran taxa' (EPT) used the U.S.A., and to a metric based on locomotion type (percentage of sessile taxa). As the implementation of such metrics implies the use of ecological data tables, some aspects of the pro and contra of European ecological lists published in recent years were critically assessed.

benthic macroinvertebrates functional feeding groups disturbance metrics index Germany 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder & J. B. Stribling, 1997. Revision to Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use in streams and rivers. Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. Http://www.epa.gov/owowwtr1/monitoring/AWPD/RBP/html.Google Scholar
  2. Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, G. E. Griffith, R. Frydenborg, E. McCarron, J. S. White & M. L. Bastian, 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 15: 185–211.Google Scholar
  3. Bayerisches Landesamt für Wasserwirtschaft (ed.), 1996. Ökologische Typisierung der Aquatischen Makrofauna. Informationsberichte 4/96, München: 543 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Cummins, K. W., 1988. Rapid bioassessment using functional analysis of running water invertebrates. In Simon T. P., L. L. Holst & L. J. Shepard (eds), Proceedings of the First National Workshop on Biological Criteria. EPA-905/9–89/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago: 49–54.Google Scholar
  5. Cummins, K. W. & M. A. Wilzbach, 1985. Field procedures for analysis of functional feeding groups of stream macroinvertebrates. Contribution 1611, Appalachian Environmental Laboratory, University of Maryland, Frostburg: 18 pp.Google Scholar
  6. DeShon, J. E., 1995. Development and applicability of the Invertebrate Community Index. In Davis W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision-making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL: 415 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Hawkins, C. P. & J. A. MacMahon, 1989. Guilds: The multiple meanings of a concept. Ann. Rev. Ent. 34: 423–451.Google Scholar
  8. Karr, J. R., 1999. Defining and measuring river health. Freshwat. Biol. In press.Google Scholar
  9. Kerans, B. L. & J. R. Karr, 1994. A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee Valley. Ecol. Appl. 4: 768–785.Google Scholar
  10. MACS (Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams Workgroup), 1996. Standard operating procedures and technical basis: Macroinvertebrate collection and habitat assessment for low-gradient nontidal streams. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation, Dover, DE.Google Scholar
  11. Merritt, R. W. & K. W. Cummins (eds), 1984. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. 2nd edn. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, IA: 862 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Merritt, R. W. & K. W. Cummins, 1996. Trophic relations of macroinvertebrates. In Hauer, F. R. & G. A. Lamberti (eds), Methods in Stream Ecology. Academic Press Inc., San Diego: 453–474.Google Scholar
  13. Mihuc, T. B., 1997. The functional trophic role of lotic primary consumers: generalist versus specialist strategies. Freshwat. Biol. 37: 455–462.Google Scholar
  14. Mihuc, T. B. & G.W. Minshall, 1995. Trophic generalists vs. trophic specialists: implications for food web dynamics in post-fire streams. Ecology 76: 2361–2372.Google Scholar
  15. Moog, O. (ed.), 1995. Fauna Aquatica Austriaca. Wasserwirtschaftskataster, Bundesministerium für Land-und Fortswirtschaft. Wien, Loseblattsammlung.Google Scholar
  16. Resh, V. H., 1994. Variability, accuracy, and taxonomic cost of rapid assessment approaches in benthic macroinvertebrate biomonitoring. Boll. Zool. 61: 375–383.Google Scholar
  17. Resh, V. H. & J. K. Jackson, 1993. Rapid assessment approaches to biomonitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. In Rosenberg, D. M. & V. H. Resh (eds), Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman & Hall, New York: 195–223.Google Scholar
  18. Resh, V. H., R. H. Norris & M. T. Barbour, 1995. Design and implementation of rapid assessment approaches for water resource monitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. Aust. J. Ecol. 20: 108–121.Google Scholar
  19. Schweder, H., 1990. Neue Indizes für die Bewertung des ökologischen Zustandes von Fließgewässern, abgeleitet aus der Makroinvertebraten-Ernährungstypologie. In Friedrich, G. & J.Google Scholar
  20. Lacombe (eds), Ökologische Bewertung von Fließgewässern. Limnologie aktuell 3. G. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart: 353–377.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Rawer-Jost
    • 1
  • J. Böhmer
    • 1
  • J. Blank
    • 1
  • H. Rahmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for ZoologyUniversity of HohenheimStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations