Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 96, Issue 1–3, pp 233–249 | Cite as

Multimetric Assessment of Nutrient Enrichment in Impounded Rivers Based on Benthic Macroinvertebrates

  • Julio A. CamargoEmail author
  • Alvaro Alonso
  • Marcos De La Puente
Article

Abstract

In this investigation we evaluated the performance of multiple metrics, based on benthic macroinvertebrates, to assess nutrient enrichment in impounded rivers. Field studies were conducted in the upper reaches of four impounded mountain rivers (Tormes, Riaza, Eresma and Miraflores Rivers) of Central Spain. The watersheds of these rivers are underlain by siliceous rocks. Two sampling sites, upstream and downstream from the reservoir, were established in stony riffles of each impounded river. We used a total of 34 metrics, representing five different metric groups: measures of abundance and richness, percentages of taxonomic groups, percentages of functional feeding groups, measures of dominance and diversity, and biotic indices. Evaluation of different metrics was mainly based on correlation analyses between concentrations of nutrients (NO3-N, NH4-N, PO4-P) and values of individual metrics. Deep releases from the reservoirs were the primary cause responsible for the nutrient enrichment at downstream sampling sites. Chironomidae density, Gastropoda density, % Chironomidae, % Gastropoda, % collector-gatherers and scrapers, proportion of the two most dominant taxa, and Camargo's dominance index exhibited the highest positive correlation coefficients. Conversely, Plecoptera density, Trichoptera density, EPT richness, % Plecoptera, % Trichoptera, % collector-filterers, % predators, % shredders, Simpson's and Camargo's diversity indices, and the average BMWQ score (biotic index) exhibited the highest negative correlation coefficients. Overall it is concluded that the multimetric approach may be a useful technique for the biological assessment of nutrient enrichment in fluvial ecosystems, particularlyin upper reaches of siliceous rivers.

benthic macroinvertebrates impounded rivers multimetric assessment nutrient enrichment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allan, J. D.: 1995, Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters, Chapman and Hall, London, U.K.Google Scholar
  2. American Public Health Association: 1992, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th ed., APHA-AWWA-WPCF, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  3. Armitage, P. D., Moss, D., Wright, J. F. and Furse, M. T.: 1983, ‘The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted runningwaters sites’, Water Res. 17, 333–347.Google Scholar
  4. Barbour, M. T. and Yoder, C. O.: 2000, ‘The Multimetric Approach to Bioassessment, as Used in the United States of America’ in J. F. Wright, D. W. Sutcliffe and M. T. Furse (eds), Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters, Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, Cumbria, U.K., pp. 281–292.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, B. J. F.: 2000, ‘Eutrophication of streams and rivers: Dissolved nutrient-chlorophyll relationship for benthic algae’, J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 19, 17–31.Google Scholar
  6. Camargo, J. A.: 1992, ‘Temporal and spatial variations in dominance, diversity and biotic indices along a limestone stream receiving a trout farm effluent’, Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 63, 343–359.Google Scholar
  7. Camargo, J. A.: 1993, ‘Macrobenthic surveys as a valuable tool for assessing freshwater quality in the Iberian Peninsula’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 24, 71–90.Google Scholar
  8. Camargo, J. A.: 1994, ‘The importance of biological monitoring for the ecological risk assessment of freshwater pollution: A case study’, Environ. Int. 20, 229–238.Google Scholar
  9. Camargo, J. A.: 1995, ‘On measuring species evenness and other associated parameters of community structure’, Oikos 74, 538–542.Google Scholar
  10. Camargo, J. A. and Voelz, N. J.: 1998, ‘Biotic and abiotic changes along the recovery gradient of two impounded rivers with different impoundment use’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 50, 142–158.Google Scholar
  11. Carlisle, D. M. and Clements, W. H.: 1999, ‘Sensitivity and variability of metrics used in biological assessments of running waters’, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18, 285–291.Google Scholar
  12. Chesters, R. K.: 1980, Biological Monitoring Working Party: The 1978 National Testing Exercise, Technical Memorandum No. 19, Department of the Environment, U.K.Google Scholar
  13. Craig, J. F. and Kemper, J. B. (eds): 1987, Regulated Streams: Advances in Ecology, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, W. S. and Simon, T. P. (eds): 1995, Biological Assessment and Criteria Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  15. Dodds, W. K. and Welch, E. B.: 2000, ‘Establishing nutrient criteria in streams’, J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 19, 186–196.Google Scholar
  16. Extence, C. A., Bates, A. J., Forbes, W. J. and Barham, P. J.: 1987, ‘Biologically based water quality management’, Environ. Pollut. 45, 221–236.Google Scholar
  17. Fore, L. S., Karr, J. R. and Wisseman, R. W.: 1996, ‘Assessing invertebrate responses to human activities: Evaluating alternative approaches’, J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 15, 212–231.Google Scholar
  18. Goodman, D.: 1975, ‘The theory of diversity-stability relationships in ecology’, Q. Rev. Biol. 50, 237–266.Google Scholar
  19. Gore, J. A. and Petts, G. E. (eds): 1989, Alternatives in Regulated River Management, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  20. Harper, D.: 1992, Eutrophication of Freshwaters, Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  21. Hauer, F. R. and Resh, V. H.: 1996, ‘Benthic Macroinvertebrates’, in F. R. Hauer and G. A. Lamberti (eds), Methods in Stream Ecology, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 339–369.Google Scholar
  22. Hellawell, J. M.: 1986, Biological Indicators of Freshwater Pollution and Environmental Management, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London.Google Scholar
  23. Hilsenhoff, W. L.: 1977, ‘Use of Arthropods to Evaluate Water Quality of Streams’, Technical Bulletin No. 100, Department of Nature Research, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  24. Hilsenhoff, W. L.: 1987, ‘An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution’, Great Lakes Entomol. 20, 31–39.Google Scholar
  25. Karr, J. R. and Chu, E. W.: 1997, ‘Biological monitoring: Essential foundations for ecological risk assessment’, Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 3, 933–1004.Google Scholar
  26. Kempton, R. A. and Wedderburn, R. W. M.: 1978, ‘A comparison of three measures of species diversity’, Biometrics 34, 25–37.Google Scholar
  27. Klemm, D. J., Blocksom, K. A., Thoeny, W. T., Fulk, F. A., Herlihy, A. T., Kaufmann, P. R. and Cormier, S. M.: 2002, ‘Methods development and use of macroinvertebrates as indicators of ecological conditions for streams in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Region’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 78, 169–212.Google Scholar
  28. Magurran, A. E.: 1988, Ecological Diversity and its Measurement, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  29. Margalef, R.: 1983, Limnología, Ediciones Omega, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  30. Merritt, R. W. and Cummins, K. W. (eds): 1996, An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 3rd ed., Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque (Iowa).Google Scholar
  31. Metcalfe, J. R.: 1989, ‘Biological water quality assessment of running waters based on macroinvertebrate communities: History and present states in Europe’, Environ. Pollut. 60, 101–139.Google Scholar
  32. Meybeck, M.: 1982, ‘Carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus transport by world rivers’, Am. J. Sci. 282, 401–450.Google Scholar
  33. Meybeck, M. and Helmer, R.: 1989, ‘The quality of rivers: From pristine stage to global pollution’, Palaeogeogr. Palaeocl. 75, 283–309.Google Scholar
  34. Moog, O.: 1993, ‘Quantification of daily peak hydropower effects on aquatic fauna and management to minimize environmental impacts’, Regul. River. 8, 5–14.Google Scholar
  35. Newall, P. and Tiller, D.: 2002, ‘Derivation of nutrient guidelines for streams in Victoria, Australia’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 74, 85–103.Google Scholar
  36. Peet, R. K.: 1974, ‘The measurement of species diversity’, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5, 285–307.Google Scholar
  37. Petts, G. E.: 1984, Impounded Rivers, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  38. Polls, I.: 1994, ‘How people in the regulated community view biological integrity’, J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 13, 598–604.Google Scholar
  39. Pond, G. J.: 2000, ‘Comparison of macroinvertebrate communities of two intermittent streams with different disturbance histories in Letcher County, Kentucky’, J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 61, 10–22.Google Scholar
  40. Poulton, B. C., Monda, D. P., Woodward, D. F., Wildhaber, M. L. and Brumbaugh, W. G.: 1995, ‘Relations between benthic community structure and metals concentrations in aquatic macroinvertebrates: Clark Fork River Montana’, J. Freshw. Ecol. 10, 277–294.Google Scholar
  41. Rawer, J. C., Boehmer, J., Blank, J. and Rahmann, H.: 2000, ‘Macroinvertebrate functional feeding group methods in ecological assessment’, Hydrobiologia 422-423, 225–232.Google Scholar
  42. Resh, V. H., Rosenberg, D.M. and Reynoldson, T. B.: 2000, ‘Selection of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Metrics for Monitoring Water Quality of the Fraser River, British Columbia: Implications for Both Multimetric Approaches and Multivariate Models’, in J. F. Wright, D.W. Sutcliffe and M. T. Furse (eds), Assessing the Biological Quality of FreshWaters, Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, Cumbria, U.K., pp. 196–206.Google Scholar
  43. Rosenberg, D. M. and Resh, V. H. (eds): 1993, Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  44. Sandin, L. and Johnson, R. K.: 2000, ‘The statistical power of selected indicator metrics using macroinvertebrates for assessing acidification and eutrophication of running waters’, Hydrobiologia 422-423, 233–243.Google Scholar
  45. Shannon, C. E.: 1948, ‘A mathematical theory of communication’, Bell Labs. Tech. J. 27(379–423), 623–656.Google Scholar
  46. Simpson, E. H.: 1949, ‘Measurement of diversity’, Nature 163, 688.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, V. H., Tilman, G. D. and Nekola, J. C.: 1999, ‘Eutrophication: Impacts of excess nutrient inputs on freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems’, Environ. Pollut. 100, 179–196.Google Scholar
  48. Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J.: 1987, Introduction to Biostatistics, 2nd ed., W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.Google Scholar
  49. Sutter, G. W.: 1993, ‘A critique of ecosystem health concepts and indexes’, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12, 1533–1539.Google Scholar
  50. Tachet, H., Richoux, P., Boumaud M. and Usseglio-Polatera, P.: 2000, Invertebrés d'Eau Douce: Systématique, Biologie, Écologie, CNRS Editions, Paris.Google Scholar
  51. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 1994, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Surface Waters and Region 3, EPA/640/R-94/003, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar
  52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 1998, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Surface Waters, Field Operations and Methods for Measuring the Ecological Conditions of Wadeable Streams, EPA/620/R-94/004F, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar
  53. Ward, J. V. and Stanford, J. A. (eds): 1979, The Ecology of Regulated Streams, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  54. Ward, J. V. and Stanford, J. A.: 1983, ‘The Serial Discontinuity Concept of Lotic Ecosystems’ in T. D. Fontaine and S. M. Bartell (eds), Dynamics of Lotic Ecosystems, Ann Arbor Scientific Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 29–42.Google Scholar
  55. Washington, H. G.: 1984, ‘Diversity, biotic and similarity indices: A review with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems’, Water Res. 18, 653–694.Google Scholar
  56. Welch, E. B. and Lindell, T.: 1992, Ecological Effects of Wastewater, 2nd ed., Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  57. Wetzel, R. G.: 2001, Limnology, 3rd ed., Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  58. Wetzel, R. G. and Likens, G. E.: 2000, Limnological Analyses, 3rd ed., Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  59. Whittaker, R. H.: 1972, ‘Evolution and measurement of species diversity’, Taxon 21, 213–251.Google Scholar
  60. Wright, J. F., Sutcliffe, D.W. and Furse, M. T. (eds): 2000, Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters, Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, Cumbria, U.K.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julio A. Camargo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alvaro Alonso
    • 1
  • Marcos De La Puente
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Ecología, Facultad de BiologíaUniversidad de Alcalá, Alcalá de HenaresMadridSpain (author for correspondence

Personalised recommendations