Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Monitoring river health

  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Addison, R. F. & K. R. Clarke, 1990. The IOC/GEEP Bermuda Workshop. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 138: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, M. P., 1976. On non-linear species response models in ordination. Vegetatio 33: 33–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. T. & J. Gerritsen, 1996. Subsampling of benthic samples: a defense of the fixed-count method. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 15: 386–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. T., J. L. Plafkin, B. P. Bradley, C. G. Graves & R. W. Wisseman, 1992. Evaluation of EPA's rapid bioassessment benthic metrics: metric redundancy and variability among reference stream sites. Envir. Toxicol. Chem. 11: 437–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, G. E. Griffith, R. Frydenborg, E. Mc-Carron & J. W. White, 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebates. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 15: 185–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder & J. B. Stribling, 1999. Revision to Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic, Macroinvertebrates and Fish. 2nd Edn. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Water. Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayne, B. L., K. R. Clarke & J. S. Gray, 1988. Background and rationale to a practical workshop on biological effects of pollutants. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 46: 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulton, A. J., 1999. An overview of river health assessment: philosophies, practice, problems and prognosis. Freshwat. Biol. 41: 469–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao, Y. & D. D. Williams, 1999. Rare species are important in bioassessment (Reply to the comments of Marchant). Limnol. Oceanog. 44: 1841–1842.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao, Y., D. D. Williams & N. E. Williams, 1998. How important are rare species in aquatic community ecology and bioassessment? Limnol. Oceanog. 43: 1403–1409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, J. & P. V. McCormick, 1992. Developing an ecosystembased capability for ecological risk assessments. Envir. Prof. 14: 186–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chessman, B. C., 1995. Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: a procedure based on habitat-specific sampling, family-level identification and a biotic index. Aust. J. Ecol. 20: 122–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chutter, F. M. & R. G. Noble, 1966. The reliability of a method of sampling stream invertebrates. Arch. Hydrobiol. 62: 95–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. T., M. T. Furse, J. F. Wright & D. Moss, 1996. Derivation of a biological quality index for river sites: comparison of the observed with the expected fauna. J. appl. Stat. 23: 311–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S. E. K., 1976. Quest for an index of community structure sensitive to water pollution. Envir. Pollut. 11: 269–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtemanch, D. L., 1994. Bridging the old and new science of biological monitoring. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 13: 117–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtemanch, D. L., 1996. Commentary on the sub-sampling procedure used for rapid bioassessments. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 15: 381–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coysh, J. L., S. J. Nichols, J. C., R. H. Norris, L. A. Barmuta, B. C. Chessman & P. Blackman, 2000. Web page for the AUStralian RIVer Assessment System (AUSRIVAS), http://ausrivas.canberra.edu.au/ausrivas

  • Downing, J. A., 1979. Aggregation, transformation, and the design of benthos sampling programs. J. Fish. Res. Bd Can. 36: 1454–1463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberhardt, L. L., 1963. Problems in ecological sampling. Northw. Sci. 37: 144–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberhardt, L. L., 1976. Quantitative ecology and impact assessment. J. Envir. Mgmt 4: 213–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, P. G., 1999. State of environment indicators of 'river health': exploring the metaphor. Freshwat. Biol. 41: 211–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, P. & G. Napier, 1998. Environmental Indicators for National State of the Environment Reporting-Inland Waters, Australia: State of the Environment. Environmental Indicator Reports, Department of the Environment, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith, D. P. & R. H. Norris, 1989. Correlation of environmental variables with patterns of distribution and abundance of common and rare freshwater macroinvertebrates. Biol. Conserv. 50: 452–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fore, L. S., J. R. Karr & L. L. Conquest, 1994. Statistical properties of an index of biological integrity used to evaluate water resources. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 51: 1077–1087.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, D. G., 1977. Biological integrity of water-an historical approach. In Ballantine, R. K. & L. J. Guarraia (eds), The Integrity of Water. Proceedings of a Symposium, March 10-12, 1975. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.: 127–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. R., M. T. Barbour, J. B. Stribling, J. Gerritsen & J. R. Karr, 1996. Biological Criteria-Technical Guidance for Streams and Rivers, Revised Edition. U.S. E.P.A., Office of Water, EPA 822-B-96-001, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, D., 1975. The theory of diversity-stability relationships in ecology. Quart. Rev. Biol. 50: 237–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, R. H., 1979. Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental Biologists. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Ecol. Applic. 10, in press.

  • Hill, B. H., A. T. Herlihy, P. R. Kaufmann, R. J. Stevenson, F. H. McCormick & C. B. Johnson, 2000. Use of periphyton assemblage data as an index of biotic integrity. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 19: 50–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. M., 1995. Defining acceptable biological status by comparing with reference conditions. In Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton: 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. M. & D. P. Larsen, 1988. Ecoregions: an approach to surface water protection. Res. J.Wat. Pollut. Cont. Fed. 60: 486–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. M., D. P. Larsen & J. M. Omernik, 1986. Regional reference sites: a method for assessing stream potential. Envir. Mgmt. 10: 629–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbert, S. H., 1971. The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52: 577–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbert, S. H., 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54: 187–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R., 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6: 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R., 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol. Appl. 1: 66–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R., 1999. Defining and measuring river health. Freshwat. Biol. 41: 221–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R. & E. W. Chu, 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters. Better Biological Monitoring. Island Press, Washington, D.C.: 206 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R. & E. W. Chu, 2000. Sustaining living rivers. Hydrobiologia 422/423 (Dev. Hydrobiol. 149): 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr, J. R. & D. R. Dudley, 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Envir. Mgmt. 5: 55–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kerans, B. L., J. R. Karr & S. A. Ahlstedt, 1992. Aquatic invertebrate assemblages: spatial and temporal differences among sampling protocols. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 11: 377–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kondolf, G. M., 1995. Evaluating stream restoration projects. Envir. Mgmt. 19: 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchant, R., 1999. How important are rare species in aquatic community ecology and bioassessment? A comment on the conclusions of Cao et al. Limnol. Oceanog. 44: 1840–1841.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchant, R., A. Hirst, R. Norris & L. Metzeling, 1999. Classification of macroinvertebrate communities across drainage basins in 17 Victoria, Australia: consequences of sampling on a broad spatial scale for predictive modelling. Freshwat. Biol. 41: 253–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minchin, P. R., 1987. Simulation of multidimensional community patterns: towards a comprehensive model. Vegetatio 71: 145–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, D., M. T. Furse, J. F. Wright & P. D. Armitage, 1987. The prediction of the macro-invertebrate fauna of unpolluted running-water sites in Great Britain using environmental data. Freshwat. Biol. 17: 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munn, R. E., 1988. The design of integrated monitoring systems to provide early indicators of environmental/ecological changes. Envir. Monit. Assess. 11: 203–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Needham, P. R. & R. L. Usinger, 1956. Variability in the macrofauna of a single riffle in Prosser Creek, California, as indicated by the Surber sampler. Hilgardia 24: 383–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, R. H., 1995. Biological monitoring: the dilemma of data analysis. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 14: 440–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, R. H. & A. Georges, 1993. Analysis and interpretation of benthic macroinvertebrate surveys. In Rosenberg, D. M. & V. H. Resh (eds), Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York: 234–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, R. H. & M. C. Thoms, 1999. What is river health? Freshwat. Biol. 41: 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, R. H., P. McElravy & V. H. Resh, 1992. The sampling problem. In Calow, P. & G. E. Petts (eds), Rivers Handbook: Volume 1. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, England: 282–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, R. H., B. T. Hart, M. Finlayson & K. R. Norris (guest eds), 1995. Use of Biota to Assess Water Quality. An International Conference. Aust. J. Ecol. 20: 227 pp.

  • Noss, R. F., 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv. Biol. 4: 355–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omernik, J. M., 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 77: 118–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omernik, J. M., 1995. Ecoregions: a spatial framework for environmental management. In Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida: 49–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, M. P. & R. H. Norris, 1996. The effect of habitat-specific sampling on biological assessment of water quality using a predictive model. Freshwat. Biol. 36: 419–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelley, J., 2000. Restoring our rivers. Envir. Sci. Technol. February 1: 87A–90A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross & R. M. Hughes, 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/444/4-89/001, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.: 160 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapport, D. J., 1991. Myths in the foundations of economics and ecology. Biol. J. linn. Soc. 44: 185–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapport, D., 1995. Ecosystem health: exploring the territory. Ecosyst. Health 1: 5–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynoldson, T. B., R. H. Norris, V. H. Resh, K. E. Day & D. M. Rosenberg, 1997. The reference condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 16: 833–852.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan, P. J., 1984. Effects on community and ecosystem structure and dynamics. In Sheehan, P. J., D. R. Miller, G. C. Butler & P. Boudreau (eds), Effects of Pollution at the Ecosystem Level. John Wiley and Sons, New York: 51–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. C. & R. H. Norris, 2000. Biological assessment of river 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. Freshwat. Biol. Ass. Ambleside, U.K.: 125–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southerland, M. T. & J. B. Stribling, 1995. Status of biological criteria development and implementation. In Davis, W. W. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida: 81–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stebbing, A. R. D. & V. Dethlefsen, 1992. Introduction to the Bremerhaven Workshop on the biological effects of contaminants. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 91: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suter, G. W. II, 1993. A critique of ecosystem health concepts and indexes. Envir. Toxicol. Chem. 12: 1533–1539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, A. J., 1991. Beyond BACI: experimental designs for detecting human environmental impacts on temporal variations in natural populations. Aust. J. mar. freshwat. Res. 42: 569–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell & C. E. Cushing, 1980. The river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. aquat. Sci. 37: 370–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinson, M. R. & C. P. Hawkins, 1996. Effects of sampling area and subsampling procedure on comparisons of taxa richness among streams. J. n. am. Benthol. Soc. 15: 392–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington, H. G., 1984. Diversity, biotic and similarity indices. A review with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Wat. Res. 18: 653–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winget, R. N. & F. A. Magnum, 1979. Biotic Condition Index: Integrated Biological, Physical, and Chemical Stream Parameters for Management. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Region, U.S. Dept of Agriculture. Ogden, Utah.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. F., 1995. Development and use of a system for predicting macroinvertebrates in flowing waters. Aust. J. Ecol. 20: 181–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. F., D. Moss, P. D. Armitage & M. T. Furse, 1984. A preliminary classification of running-water sites in Great Britain based on macroinvertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data. Freshwat. Biol. 14: 221–256.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, University of Canberra, Canberra, 2601, Australia

    Richard H. Norris

  2. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Watershed Science Unit, and Ecology Center, Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322-5210, U.S.A.

    Charles P. Hawkins

Authors
  1. Richard H. Norris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charles P. Hawkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Norris, R.H., Hawkins, C.P. Monitoring river health. Hydrobiologia 435, 5–17 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004176507184

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004176507184

Search

Navigation