Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 85, Issue 1, pp 23–53 | Cite as

A Longitudinal Assessment of the Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Community in the Channelized Lower Missouri River

  • Barry C. Poulton
  • Mark L. Wildhaber
  • Collette S. Charbonneau
  • James F. Fairchild
  • Brad G. Mueller
  • Christopher J. Schmitt


We conducted an aquatic macroinvertebrate assessment in the channelized reach of the lower Missouri River, and used statistical analysis of individual metrics and multimetric scores to identify community response patterns and evaluate relative biological condition. We examined longitudinal site differences that are potentially associated with water qualityrelated factors originating from the Kansas City metropolitan area, using data from coarse rock substrate in flowing water habitats (outside river bends), and depositional mud substratein slack water habitats (dike fields). Three sites above rivermile (RM) 369 in Kansas City (Nebraska City, RM = 560; St. Joseph, RM = 530; Parkville, RM = 377) and three below (Lexington, RM = 319; Glasgow, RM = 228; Hermann, RM = 94) were sampled with rock basket artificial substrates, a qualitative kicknet method, and the Petite Ponar. We also compared the performance of the methods used. A total of 132 aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa were collected from the lower Missouri River; one third of these taxa belonged to the sensitiveEPOT insect orders (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Odonata, and Trichoptera). Rock baskets had the highest mean efficiency (34.1%) of the methods, and the largest number of taxa was collected by Ponar (n = 69) and kicknet (n = 69) methods. Seven of the 15 metrics calculated from rock basket data, and five ofthe nine metrics calculated from Ponar data showed highly significant differences (ANOVA, P < 0.001) at one or more sitesbelow Kansas City. We observed a substantial reduction in net-spinning Trichoptera in rock habitats below Kansas City (Lexington), an increase in relative dominance of Oligochaeta in depositional habitats at the next site downstream (Glasgow), and lower relative condition scores in rock habitat at Lexingtonand depositional habitat at Glasgow. Collectively, these data indicate that some urban-related impacts on the aquatic macroinvertebrate community are occurring. Our results suggest that the methods and assessment framework we used in this studycould be successfully applied on a larger scale with concurrentwater and sediment chemistry to validate metrics, establish impairment levels, and develop a specific macroinvertebrate community index for the lower Missouri River. We recommend accomplishing this with longitudinal multi-habitat sampling at a larger number of sites related to all potential sources of impairment, including major tributaries, urban areas, and point sources.

assessment biological condition habitat Kansas City macroinvertebrates Missouri River petite ponar rock substrate 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, J. B. and Mason Jr., W. T.: 1968, 'A comparison of benthic macroinvertebraes collected by dredge and basket samplers', J. Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed. 40, 252-259.Google Scholar
  2. Atchison, G. J., Bachmann, R. W., Nickum, J. G., Barnumm, J. B. and Sandheinrich, M. B.: 1986, 'Aquatic Biota Associated with Channel Stabilization Structures and Abandoned Channels in the Middle Missouri River', Tech. Report E-86-6, prepared by Iowa State University for the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 53 p.Google Scholar
  3. Ballentine, R. K., Arden, J. E., Parrish, L. P., Hicks, D. B. and Bugbee. S. L.: 1970, Water Quality of the Missouri River: Gavins Point Dam to Hermann, Missouri, Dept. of the Interior, Fed. Water Qual. Admin., Cincinnati, OH, 34 p.Google Scholar
  4. Barbour, M. T.: 1997, 'The re-invention of biological assessment in the U.S.', Hum. Ecolog. Risk Assess. 3(6), 933-940.Google Scholar
  5. Barbour, M. T., Plafkin, J. L., Bradley, B. P., Graves, C. G. and Wisseman, R.W.: 1992, 'Evaluation of EPA's rapid bioassessment benthic metrics: Metric redundancy and variability among reference stream sites', Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11, 437-449.Google Scholar
  6. Barbour, M. T., Stribling, J. B. and Karr, J. R.: 1995, 'Multimetric Approach for Establishing Biocriteria and Measuring Biological Condition', Chapter 6, pp. 63-77, in W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL, 415 p.Google Scholar
  7. Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Griffith, G. E., Frydenborg, R., McCarron, E., White, J. S. and Bastian, M. L.: 1996, 'A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates', J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 15(2), 185-211.Google Scholar
  8. Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B. D. and Stribling, J. B.: 1999, 'Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish', 2nd ed., U.S. EPA Report, EPA 841/B-99/002.Google Scholar
  9. Barnum, J. B. and Bachmann, R. W.: 1988, 'Benthic macroinvertebrate habitat associations of the channelized middle Missouri River', J. Iowa Acad. Sci. 95(2), 60-65.Google Scholar
  10. Battegazzore, M., Petersen Jr., R. C., Moretti, G. and Rossaro, B.: 1992, 'An evaluation of the environmental quality of the River Po using benthic macroinvertebrates', Arch. Hydrobiol. 125(2), 175-206.Google Scholar
  11. Beckettt, D. C. and Pennington, C. H.: 1986, 'Water Quality, Macroinvertebrates, Larval Fishes, and Fishes of the Lower Mississippi River-A Synthesis', Techn. Report, E-86-12, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 123 p.Google Scholar
  12. Benke, A. C., Gillespie, D. M., Parrish, F. K., Van Arsdall Jr., T. C., Hunter, R. J. and Henry, R. L.: 1979, Biological Basis for Assessing Impacts of Channel Modifications: Invertebrate Production, Drift, and Fish Feeding in a Southeastern Blackwater River, Environmental Resource Center Publication, No. ERC 06-79, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 187 p.Google Scholar
  13. Benke, A. C., Hunter, R. J. and Parrish, F. K.: 1986, 'Invertebrate dynamics in a subtropical blackwater river', J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 5(3), 173-190.Google Scholar
  14. Berner, L. M.: 1951, 'Limnology of the lower Missouri River', Ecology 32, 1-12.Google Scholar
  15. Boesch, D. F.: 1977, Application of Numerical Classification in Ecological Investigations of Water Pollution, U.S. EPA, EPA-600/3-77-033, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, 113 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Braaten, P. J. and Guy, C. S.: 1997, 'Stranding of Pentagenia vittigera following flow reductions in the lower Missouri River', J. Freshw. Ecol. 12(3), 493-494.Google Scholar
  17. Brunsing, M. H.: 1993, 'A Comparison of the Species Richness, Standing Crop Densities and Relative Abundance of Ichthyofauna and Macroinvertebrates in Boyer Chute and the Missouri River, Nebraska', M.S. Thesis, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, 114 p.Google Scholar
  18. Burress, R. M., Krieger, D. A. and Pennington, C. H.: 1982, 'Aquatic Biota of Bank Stabilization Structures on the Missouri River, North Dakota', Techn. Report, E-82-6, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 51 p.Google Scholar
  19. Burt, A. J., McKee, P. M., Hart, D. R. and Kauss, P. B.: 1991, 'Effects of pollution on benthic invertebrate communities of the St. Marys River, 1985', Hydrobiology 219, 63-81.Google Scholar
  20. Camargo, J. A.: 1992, 'Macroinvertebrate responses along the recovery gradient of a regulated river (Spain) receiving an industrial effluent', Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 23, 324-332.Google Scholar
  21. Camp, Dresser and McKee Inc.: 1981, 'Water Quality and Aquatic Biological Preoperational Monitoring Program for the Callaway Nuclear Plant', Annual Report to Union Electric Company, June 1980-May 1981, 62 p.Google Scholar
  22. Carter, S. R., Bazata, K. R. and Andersen, D. L.: 1982, 'Macroinvertebrate Communities of the Channelized Missouri River near Two Nuclear Power Stations', in L. W. Hesse, G. L. Hergenrader, H. S. Lewis, S. D. Reetz and A. B. Schlesinger (eds), The Middle Missouri River, (pp. 147-182), Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 301 p.Google Scholar
  23. Depauw, N., Lambert, V. and Van Kenhove, A.: 1994, 'Performance of two artificial substrate samplers for macroinvertebrates in biological monitoring of large and deep rivers and canals in Belgium and The Netherlands', Environ. Monit. Assess. 30, 25-47.Google Scholar
  24. Dickson, K. L., Cairns Jr., J. and Arnold, J. C.: 1971, 'An evaluation of the use of a basket-type artificial substrate for sampling macroinvertebrate organisms', Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 100, 553-559.Google Scholar
  25. Dixon, K. M.: 1986, 'Secondary Production of Macroinvertebrates from Selected Habitats of the Unchannelized Missouri River', M.A. Thesis, Univ. of S.D., Vermillion, 86 p.Google Scholar
  26. Elstad, C. A.: 1986, 'Macrobenthic distribution and community structure in the upper navigation pools of the Upper Mississippi River', Hydrobiology 136, 85-100.Google Scholar
  27. Elliot, J. M. and Drake, C. M.: 1981, 'A comparative study of four dredges used for sampling benthic macroinvertebrates in rivers', Freshw. Biol. 11, 245-261.Google Scholar
  28. Ericksen, C. H.: 1968, 'Ecological significance of respiration and substrate for burrowing Ephemeroptera', Can. J. Zool. 46, 93-103.Google Scholar
  29. Fausch, K. D., Lyons, J., Karr, J. R. and Angermeier, P. L.: 1990, 'Fish Communities as Indicators of Environmental Degredation', in S. M. Adams (ed.), Biological Indicators of Stress in Fish, American Fisheries Society Symposium 8, Bethesda, MD, pp. 123-144Google Scholar
  30. Ferrell, J.: 1996, Soundings: 100 Years of the Missouri River Navigation Project, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1996-555-110, 171 p.Google Scholar
  31. Ford, J. C.: 1980, Water Quality of the Lower Missouri River, Gavins Point Dam to the Mouth, Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, 35 p.Google Scholar
  32. Fore, L. S., Karr, J. R. and Conquest, L. L.: 1994, 'Statistical properties of an index of biological integrity used to evaluate water resources', Can J. Fish Aquat. Sci. 51, 1077-1087.Google Scholar
  33. Fremling, C. R.: 1964, 'Mayfly distribution indicates water quality on the upper Mississippi River', Science 146, 1164-1166.Google Scholar
  34. Friedrich, G., Chapman, D. and Beim, A.: 1992, 'The Use of Biological Material', in D. Chapman (ed.), Water Quality Assessments, a Guide to the Use of Biota, Sediments and Water in Environmental Monitoring, (pp. 171-238), Chapman and Hall, London, 238 p.Google Scholar
  35. Gammon, J. R.: 1991, 'Biological Monitoring in the Wabash River and its Tributaries', in Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century (Proceedings of a Symposium), U.S.EPA,Office of Water, May 1991, Arlington, VA, pp. 105-111.Google Scholar
  36. Gerritsen, J.: 1995, 'Additive biological indices for resource management', J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 14(3), 451–457.Google Scholar
  37. Hannaford, M. J. and Resh, V. H.: 1995, 'Variability in macroinvertebrate rapid-bioassessment surveys and habitat assessments in a northern California stream', J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 14(3), 430-439.Google Scholar
  38. Hansen, M. D. and Dillon, R. D.: 1973, 'Measurements of the Species Diversity of Planktonic and Microbenthic Organisms', Final Report, Dept. of Biology, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD. Missouri River Environmental Inventory, 120 p.Google Scholar
  39. Hellawell, J. M.: 1986, Biological Indicators of Freshwater Pollution and Environmental Management, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London, 143 pp.Google Scholar
  40. Hesse, L. W. and Mestl, G. E.: 1985, 'Ecology of Unchannelized Reaches of the Missouri River', Performance Report, DJ project F-75-R, NE, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.Google Scholar
  41. Hesse, L. W.: 1987, 'Taming the wild Missouri River: What has it cost?', Fisheries 12(2), 2-9.Google Scholar
  42. Hesse, L. W., Wolfe, C. W. and Cole, N. K.: 1988, The Missouri River: The Resources, their Uses and Values, in N. G. Benson (ed.), N. Cent. Div. Amer. Fish. Soc. Spec. Pub. 8, pp. 13-29.Google Scholar
  43. Hesse, L. W., Schmulbach, J. C., Carr, J. M., Keenlyne, K. D., Unkenholz, D. G., Robinson, J. W. and Mestl, G. E.: 1989, 'Missouri River Fishery Resources in Relation to Past, Present, and Future Stresses', in D. P. Dodge (ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Restoration Planning for the Rivers of the Mississippi River Ecosystem, Biol. Rep. 19. U.S. Dept. Int., NBS, Washington, D.C., pp. 352-371.Google Scholar
  44. Hesse, L. W. and Sheets, W.: 1993, 'The Missouri river hydrosystem', Fisheries 18(5), 5-14.Google Scholar
  45. Hesse, L. W., Mestl, G. E. and Robinson, J. W.: 1993, 'Status of Selected Fishes in theMissouri River in Nebraska with Recommendations for their Recovery', in L. W. Hesse et al. (eds). Proceedings of the Symposium on Restoration Planning for the Rivers of the Mississippi River Ecosystem, Biol. Rep. 19. U.S. Dept. Int., NBS, Washington, D.C., pp. 327-340.Google Scholar
  46. Hilsenhoff, W. L.: 1982, 'Using a Biotic Index to Evaluate Water Quality in Streams', Tech. Bull., No. 132, Dept. of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, 48 pp.Google Scholar
  47. Hilsenhoff, W. L.: 1987, 'An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution', Great Lakes Entomol. 20, 31-39.Google Scholar
  48. Hornbach, D. J., Deneka, T., Payne, B. S. and Miller, A. C.: 1989, 'Benthic macroinvertebrate community structure in a backwater lake of pool 2, Upper Mississippi river', J. Freshw. Ecol. 5(2), 131-138.Google Scholar
  49. House, M. A., Ellis, J. B., Herricks, E. E., Hvitved-Jacobsen, T., Seager, J., Lijklema, L., Aalderink, H. and Clifforde, I. T.: 1993, 'Urban drainage-impacts on receiving water quality',Wat. Sci. Tech. 27(12), 117-158.Google Scholar
  50. Jacobi, G. Z.: 1971, 'A quantitative artificial substrate sampler for benthic macroinvertebrates', Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 1, 136-138.Google Scholar
  51. Jennings, D. K.: 1979, 'An Evaluation of Aquatic Habitat Associated with Notched Dikes on the Missouri River, Missouri', M.S. Thesis, UMC, Columbia, MO, 261 pp.Google Scholar
  52. Johnson, J. H., Solomon, R. C., Bingham, C. R., Colbert, B. K., Enge, W. P., Mathis, D. B. and Hall Jr., R. W.: 1974, 'Environmental Analysis and Assessment of the Mississippi River 9-Ft. Channel Project Between St. Louis, MO and Cairo, IL', Tech. Report Y-74-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 104 p.Google Scholar
  53. Junk, W. J., Bayley, P. B. and Sparks, R. E.: 1989, Proceeding of the International Large River Symposium, in D. P. Dodge (ed.), Can. Spec. Pub. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106, Depart. Fish. Oceans, Ottawa, pp. 110-127.Google Scholar
  54. Karr, J. R., Fausch, K. D., Angermeier, P. L., Yant, P. R. and Schlosser, I. J.: 1986, Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and its Rational, Ill. Nat. Hist. Surv. Special Pub. 5, Champaign, IL, 28 p.Google Scholar
  55. Karr, J. R.: 1991, 'Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource management', Ecolog. Appl. 1(1), 66-84.Google Scholar
  56. Karr, J. R.: 1993, 'Defining and assessing ecological integrity: Beyond water quality', Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12, 1521-1531.Google Scholar
  57. Karr, J. R. and Kerans, B. L.: 1991, 'Components of Biological Integrity: Their Definition and Use in Development of an Invertebrate IBI', U.S. EPA Report 905-R-92-003, Environmental Sciences Div, Chicago, IL, 16 p.Google Scholar
  58. Karr, J. R. and Chu, E. W.: 1999, Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 206 p.Google Scholar
  59. Kerans, B. L., Karr, J. R. and Ahlstedt, S. A.: 1992, 'Aquatic invertebrate assemblages: Spatial and temporal differences among sampling protocols', J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 11(4), 377-390.Google Scholar
  60. Kerans, B. L. and Karr, J. R.: 1994, 'A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee Valley', Ecol. Appl. 4(4), 768-785.Google Scholar
  61. Lenat, D. L.: 1983, 'Chironomid taxa richness: Natural variation and use in pollution assessment', Freshw. Invert. Biol. 2(4), 192-198.Google Scholar
  62. Lenat, D. L.: 1988, 'Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for benthic invertebrates', J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 7, 222-233.Google Scholar
  63. Lenat, D. R.: 1993, 'A biotic index for the Southeastern United States: derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water-quality ratings-1993', J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 12, 279-290.Google Scholar
  64. Lyons, J., Wang, L. and Simonson, T. D.: 1996, 'Development and validation of an index of biotic integrity for coldwater streams in Wisconsin', North Am. J. Fish. Manage. 16(2), 241-256Google Scholar
  65. Mathis, D. B., Bingham, C. R. and Sanders, L. G.: 1982, 'Assessment of Implanted Substrate Samplers for Macroinvertebrates Inhabiting Stone Dikes of the Lower Mississippi River', Misc. Paper E-82-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 42 p.Google Scholar
  66. Mason Jr., W. T., Lewis, P. A. and Anderson, J. B.: 1971, Macroinvertebrate Collections and Water Quality Monitoring in the Ohio River Basin,1963-1967, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH, 65 p.Google Scholar
  67. Mason Jr., W. T., Weber, C. I., Lewis, P. A. and Julian, E. C.: 1973, 'Factors affecting the performance of basket and multiplate macroinvertebrate samplers', Freshw. Biol. 3, 409-436.Google Scholar
  68. McMahon, J., Wolf, J. and Diggins, S. M.: 1972, 'Chironomidae, Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera in the benthos of unchannelized and channelized portions of the Missouri River', Proc. S.D. Acad. Sci. 51, 168-181.Google Scholar
  69. Merritt, R. W. and Cummins, K. W.: 1996, An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 3rd ed., Kendall-Hunt Pub., Dubuque, IA, 862 p.Google Scholar
  70. Mestl, G. E. and Hesse, L.W.: 1993, 'secondary Production of Aquatic Insects in the Unchannelized Missouri River, Nebraska', in L. W. Hesse, C. B. Stalnaker, N. G. Benson and J. R. Zuboy, (eds), Proc. of the Symposium on Restoration Planning for the Rivers of the Mississippi River Ecosystem, USDOI, NBS Biological Report 19, October 1993, pp. 341-349.Google Scholar
  71. Milliken, G. A. and Johnson, D. E.: 1984, Analysis of Messy Data, Volume I: Designed Experiments, Wadsworth, Inc., Belmont, California.Google Scholar
  72. Modde, T. C. and Schmulbach, J. C.: 1973, 'Seasonal changes in the drift and benthic macroinvertebrates in the unchannelized Missouri River in South Dakota', Proc. S.D. Acad. Sci. 52, 118-126.Google Scholar
  73. Morris, L. A., Langemeier, R. N., Russell, T. R. and Witt Jr., A.: 1968, 'Effects of main stem impoundments and channelization upon the limnology of theMissouri River, Nebraska', Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 97, 380-388.Google Scholar
  74. Moulton II, S. R., Carter, J. L., Grotheer, S. A., Cuffney, T. F. and Short, T. M.: 2000, 'Methods of Analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory: Processing, Taxonomy, and Quality Control of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Samples', USGS Open File Report 0-212, 49 pp.Google Scholar
  75. Munger, P. R., Wixson, B. G., Senne, J. H., Modesitt, D. E., Stevens, G. T., Tharp, E. L., Muir, C. D., Stern, D. H., Stern, M. S., Gillespie, G. A., Lind, W. E., Minter, K. W., Robel, R. J., Smith, C. C., Tatschl, A. K., Zimmerman, J. L. and Ferguson, G. W.: 1974, 'A Base Line Study of the Missouri River: Rulo, Nebraska to the Mouth near St. Louis, Missouri', Techn. Report under Contract DACW 41-73-C-0112, by U.S. Army, Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers, 576 p.Google Scholar
  76. Neuswanger, D. J., Taylor, W. W. and Reynolds, J. B.: 1982, 'Comparison of macroinvertebrate herpobenthos and haptobenthos in side channel and slough in the Upper Mississippi River', Freshw. Invert. Biol. 1, 13-24.Google Scholar
  77. Nord, A. E. and Schmulbach, J. C.: 1973, 'A comparison of the macroinvertebrate aufwuchs in the unstabilized and stabilized Missouri River', Proc. S.D. Acad. Sci. 52, 127-139.Google Scholar
  78. Novak, M. A. and Bode, R. W.: 1992, 'Percent model affinity: A new measure of macroinvertebrate community composition', J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 11(1), 80-85.Google Scholar
  79. Petty, J. D., Huckins, J. N., Orazio, C. E., Lebo, L. A., Poulton, B. C., Gale, R. W., Charbonneau, C. S. and Kaiser, E. M.: 1995, 'Determination of waterborne bioavailable organochlorine pesticide residues in the lower Missouri River', Environ. Sci. Technol. 29(10), 2561-2566.Google Scholar
  80. Petty, J. D., Poulton, B. C., Charbonneau, C. S., Huckins, J. N., Jones, S. B., Cameron, J. T. and Prest, H. F.: 1998, 'Determination of bioavailable contaminants in the lower Missouri River following the flood of 1993', Environ. Sci. Technol. 32(7), 837-842.Google Scholar
  81. Plafkin, J. L., Barbour, M. T., Porter, K. D., Gross, S. K. and Hughes, R. M.: 1989, Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use in Streams and Rivers, EPA/444/4-89-001, Wa1979, Ecological Effects of Urban Stormwater Runoff on Benthic Macroinvertebrates Inhabiting the Green River, Massachusetts, Univ. Mass. Water Resources Res. Publ., No. 100 (1979).Google Scholar
  82. Rae, J. G.: 1989, 'Chironomid midges as indicators of organic pollution in the Scioto River basin, Ohio', Ohio J. Sci. 89(1), 5-9.Google Scholar
  83. Ramade, F.: 1989, 'The Pollution of the Hydrosphere by Global Contaminants and its Effects on Aquatic Ecosystems', in A. Boudou and F. Ribeyre (eds), Aquatic Ecotoxicology: Fundamental Concepts and Methodologies, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 151-183.Google Scholar
  84. Richardson, R. E.: 1921, 'The small bottom and shore fauna of the Middle and lower Illinois River and its connecting lakes, Chillicothe to Grafton: Its evaluation, its sources of food supply, and its relation to the fishery', Bull. Ill. State Nat. Hist. Surv. 13, 363-522.Google Scholar
  85. Rosenberg, D. M. and Resh, V. H.: 1982, Artificial Substrates, in J. Cairns Jr. (ed.), Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 175-236.Google Scholar
  86. Sanders, H. L.: 1960, 'Benthic studies in Buzzards Bay III. The structure of the soft-bottom community', Limnol. Oceanog. 5, 138-153.Google Scholar
  87. Sandheinrich, M. B. and Atchison, G. L.: 1986, 'Environmental Effects of Dikes and Revetments on Large Riverine Systems', Technical Report E-86-5, prepared by USFWS, Iowa Cooperative Fishery Research Unit and Dept. of Animal Ecology, Iowa State University, for the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 49 p.Google Scholar
  88. SAS Institute: 1992, SAS/LAB Software, Release 6.08. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  89. Seager, J. and Abrahams, R.: 1990, 'The impact of storm sewerage discharges on the ecology of a small urban river', Wat. Sci. Tech. 22(10/11), 163-171.Google Scholar
  90. Schloesser, D. W., Edsall, T. A., Manny, B. A. and Nichols, S. J.: 1991, 'Distribution of Hexagenia nymphs and visible oil in sediments of the upper Great Lakes connecting channels', Hydrobiologia 219, 345-352.Google Scholar
  91. Schmulbach, J.C., Hesse, L. W. and Bush, J. E.: 1992, 'The Missouri River-Great Plains Thread of Life', in C. D. Becker and D. A. Neitzel (eds), Water Quality in North American River Systems, pp. 137-158.Google Scholar
  92. Shackleford, B.: 1988, Rapid Bioassessments of Lotic Macroinvertebrate Communities: Biocriteria Development, Arkansas Dept. of Pollut. Contr. and Ecology, Little Rock, AR, 44 pp.Google Scholar
  93. Simon, T. P. and Emery, E. B.: 1995, 'Modification and assessment of an index of biotic integrity to quantify water resource quality in great rivers', Regul. Rivers: Res. Manag. 11, 283-298.Google Scholar
  94. Simon, T. P. and Lyons, J.: 1995, 'Using Fish Community Attributes for Evaluating Water Resource Integrity in Freshwater Ecosystems', in W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, Lewis Pub., Ann Arbor, pp. 179-206.Google Scholar
  95. Slack, K. V., Ferreira, R. F. and Averett, R. C.: 1986, 'Comparison of four artificial substrates and the ponar grab for benthic invertebrate collection', Water Res. Bull. 22(2), 237-248.Google Scholar
  96. Southerland, M. T. and Stribling, J. B.: 1995, 'Status of Biological Criteria Development and Implementation', in W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, (pp. 81-96), Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL, 415 p.Google Scholar
  97. Thiel, P. A. and Sauer, J. S.: 1995, 'Long Term Resource Monitoring Program Procedures: Macroinvertebrate Monitoring', National Biological Service (USGS-BRD), Environmental Management Technical Center, Onalaska, WI, August 1995, Program Report LTRMP 95-P002-2, 9 p.Google Scholar
  98. Todd, C. S. and Stewart, K. W.: 1985, 'Food habits and dietarty overlap of nongame insectivorous fishes in Flint Creek, Oklahoma, a western Ozark foothills stream', Great Basin Nat. 45(4), 721-733.Google Scholar
  99. Tsui, P. T. P. and Breedlove, B. W.: 1978, 'Use of the multiple-plate sampler in biological monitoring of the aquatic environment', Florida Scientist 41(2), 110-116.Google Scholar
  100. USACE: 1993, Waterborne Commerce of the United States: Part 2-Waterways and Harbors, Gulf Coast, Mississippi River System and Antilles, Calendar Year 1993, Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, WRSC-WCUS-93-2, Water Resources Support Center, Port Belvoir, VA, 604 pp.Google Scholar
  101. U.S. EPA: 1990, Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters, U.S. EPA Office of Water, EPA-440/5-90-004, Washington, DC, 57 p.Google Scholar
  102. Walter, C. M.: 1971, Everyone can't Live Upstream: A Contemporary History of the Water Quality Problems on the Missouri River (Sioux City, IA to Hermann, MO), U.S. EPA, Region VII, Kansas City, MO, 295 p.Google Scholar
  103. Welsh, D.: 1992, 'Potential Sources of Contaminants in the Missouri River System and Impacts on Endangered Species', USFWS, Report to Fish and Wildlife Enhancement, Environmental Contaminants Program, April 1992, Bismarck, ND, 13 p.Google Scholar
  104. Wildhaber, M. L. and Schmitt, C. S.: 1998, 'Indices of benthic community tolerance in contaminated great lakes sediments: Relations with sediment contaminant concentrations, sediment toxicity, and the sediment quality triad', Environ. Monit. Assess. 49, 23-49.Google Scholar
  105. Willemsen, G. D., Gast, H. F., Franken, R. O. G. and Cuppen. J. G. M.: 1990, 'Urban storm water discharges: Effects upon communities of sessile diatoms and macro-invertebrates', Wat. Sci. Tech. 22(10/11), 147-154.Google Scholar
  106. Wolf, J., McMahon, J. and Diggins, S. M.: 1972, 'Comparison of benthic organisms in semi-natural and channeled portions of the Missouri River', Proc. S.D. Acad. Sci. 51, 160-167.Google Scholar
  107. Wright, L. L. and Mattice, J. S.: 1981, 'Substrate selection as a factor in Hexagenia distribution', Aquat. Insects 3, 13-24.Google Scholar
  108. Yoder, C. O.: 1991, 'The Integrated Biosurvey as a Tool for Evaluation of Aquatic Life Use Attainment and Impairment in Ohio Surface Waters', in Biological Criteria Research and Regulation, Proceedings of a Symposium, 12-13 December 1990, Arlington, VA, EPA-440-5-91-005, U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC, pp. 110-122.Google Scholar
  109. Yoder, C. O. and Rankin, E. T.: 1995, 'Biological Response Signatures and the Area of Degredation Value: New Tools for InterpretingMultimetric Data', Chapter 17, in W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon, (eds), Biological Assessment and Ccriteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making (pp. 263-286), Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL, 415 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry C. Poulton
    • 1
  • Mark L. Wildhaber
    • 1
  • Collette S. Charbonneau
    • 2
  • James F. Fairchild
    • 1
  • Brad G. Mueller
    • 3
  • Christopher J. Schmitt
    • 1
  1. 1.Columbia Environmental Research CenterU.S. Geological SurveyColumbiaU.S.A.
  2. 2.Region 3 Field OfficeU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceFort SnellingU.S.A
  3. 3.Jackson Field Research StationU.S. Geological SurveyJacksonU.S.A

Personalised recommendations