Indicators of ecological change: comparison of the early response of four organism groups to stress gradients

  • Richard K. Johnson
  • Daniel Hering
  • Mike T. Furse
  • Piet F. M. Verdonschot
Part of the Developments in Hydrobiology book series (DIHY, volume 188)

Abstract

A central goal in monitoring and assessment programs is to detect change early before costly or irreversible damage occurs. To design robust early-warning monitoring programs requires knowledge of indicator response to stress as well as the uncertainty associated with the indicator(s) selected. Using a dataset consisting of four organism groups (fish, macrophytes, benthic diatoms and macroinvertebrates) and catchment, riparian and in-stream physico-chemical variables from 77 mountain and 85 lowland streams we determined the relationships between indicator response and complex environmental gradients. The upper (>75th percentile) and lower (<25th percentiles) tails of principal component (PC) gradients were used to study the early response of the four organism groups to stress. An organism/metric was considered as an early warning indicator if the response to the short gradients was more robust (higher R 2 values, steeper slope and lower error) than the null model (organism response to the full PC gradient). For mountain streams, both fish and macrophyte CA scores were shown to exhibit an early warning response to the upper tail of the 1st PC gradient when compared to the null model. Five of the eight metrics showed better response to the upper tail of the 2nd PC gradient compared to the null model, while only one metric (macrophyte CA scores) showed improvement when compared to the lower tail of the 2nd PC gradient. For lowland streams all four organism-groups showed better response (CA scores) to the upper tail of the PC gradient when compared to the null model. Only one metric (fish CA scores) regressed against the lower tail of the 2nd PC gradient was found to be more robust than the PC2 null model. These findings indicate that the nonlinear relationships of organism/metric response to stress can be used to select potentially robust early warning indicators for monitoring and assessment.

Key words

early response streams bioassessment monitoring 

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, 1998. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish (2nd edn.). EPA/841/B/98-010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. European Commission, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council — Establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, Brussels, Belgium, 23 October 2000.Google Scholar
  3. Furse, M. T., A. Schmidt-Kloiber, J. Strackbein, J. Davy-Bowker, A. Lorenz, J. van der Molen J. & P. Scarlett, 2004. Results of the sampling programme. A report to the European Commission. Framework V Project STAR (EVK1-CT-2001_00089).Google Scholar
  4. Hill, M. O., 1973. Reciprocal averaging: an eigenvector method of ordination. Journal of Ecology 61: 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hering, D., R. K. Johnson, S. Kramm, S. Schmutz, K. Szoszkiewicz & P. F. M. Verdonschot. Assessment of European rivers with diatoms, macrophytes, invertebrates and fish: a comparative metric-based analysis of organism response to stress, submitted manuscript.Google Scholar
  6. Hering, D. & J. Strackbein, 2002. STAR stream types and sampling sites. A report to the European Commission. Framework V Project STAR (EVK1-CT-2001_00089).Google Scholar
  7. Holmes, N. T. H., J. R. Newman, S. Chadd, K. J. Rouen, L. Saint & F. H. Dawson, 1999. Mean Trophic Rank: A users manual. R & D Technical Report No. E 38, Environment Agency, Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Johnson, R. K., T. Wiederholm & D. M. Rosenberg, 1993. Freshwater biomonitoring using individual organisms, populations and species assemblages of benthic macroinvertebrates. In Rosenberg, D. M. & V. H. Resh (eds), Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York, 40–158.Google Scholar
  9. Johnson, R. K., D. Hering, M. T. Furse & R. T. Clarke, 2006. Detection of ecological change using multiple organism groups: metrics and uncertainty. Hydrobiologia 566: 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kolkwitz, R. & M. Marsson, 1902. Grundsä tze für die biologiche Beurteilung des Wassers nach seiner Flora und Fauna. Mitteilungen Prüfungsanstalt Wasserversorgung und Abwasserreinigung 1: 33–72.Google Scholar
  11. Metcalfe, J. L., 1989. Biological water-quality assessment of running waters based on macroinvertebrate communities — history and present status in Europe. Environmental Pollution 60: 101–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Raven, P. J., N. T. H. Holmes, F. H. Dawson, P. J. A. Fox, M. Everard, I. R. Fozzard & K. J. Rouen, 1998. River habitat quality — the physical character of rivers and streams in the UK and Isle of Man. River Habitat Survey Report Number 2, Environment Agency, Bristol, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Stirling, Environment and Heritage Service, Belfast, 84 pp.Google Scholar
  13. SAS., 1994. JMP — Statistics Made Visual, Version 3.1. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
  14. Stanner, D. & P. Bordeau, 1995. Europe’s Environment: The Dobris Assessment. European Environment Agency, Luxembourg 712 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Stevenson, R. J., R. C. Bailey, M. C. Harrass, C. P. Hawkins, J. Alba-Tercedor, C. Couch, S. Dyer, F. A. Fulk, J. M. Harrington, C. T. Hunsaker & R. K. Johnson, 2004. Designing data collection for ecological assessments. In Barbour, M.-T., S. B. Norton, H. R. Preston & K. W. Thornton (eds), Ecological Assessment of Aquatic Resources: Linking science to decision making. SETAC, Pensacola, FL, USA, 55–84.Google Scholar
  16. ter Braak, C. F. J., 1988. CANOCO — a FORTRAN program for canonical community ordination by [partial] [detrended] [canonical] correspondence analysis, principal component analysis and redundancy analysis (version 3.15). Agricultural Mathematics Group, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  17. ter Braak, C. F. J., 1990. Update Notes: CANOCO Version 3.10. Agricultural Mathematics Group, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard K. Johnson
    • 1
  • Daniel Hering
    • 2
  • Mike T. Furse
    • 3
  • Piet F. M. Verdonschot
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Environmental AssessmentSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of HydrobiologyUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany
  3. 3.Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Winfrith Technology CentreWinfrith NewburghDorchester, DorsetUK
  4. 4.Alterra Green World ResearchFreshwater EcologyWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations