Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Use of Maryland Biological Stream Survey Data to Determine Effects of Agricultural Riparian Buffers on Measures of Biological Stream Health

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study was undertaken to determine the importance of riparian buffers to stream ecology in agricultural areas. The original Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) data set was partitioned to represent agricultural sites in Maryland's Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions. ANOVA, multiple linear regression (MLR), and CART regression tree models were developed using riparian and site catchment landscape characteristics. MBSS data were both stratified by physiographic region and analyzed as a combined data set. All models indicated that land management at the site was not the controlling factor for fish IBIs (FIBI) at that site and, hence, using FIBI to evaluate site-scale factors would not be a prudent procedure. Measures of instream habitat and location in the stream network were the dominant explanatory factors for FIBI models. Both CART and MLR models indicated that forest buffers were influential on benthic IBIs (BIBI). Explanatory variables reflected instream conditions, adjacent landscape influence, and chemistry in the Coastal Plains sites, all of which are relatively site specific. However, for Piedmont sites, hydrologic factors were important, in addition to adjacent landscape influence, and chemistry. Both Coastal Plain and Piedmont CART models identified several hydrologic factors, emphasizing the dominant control of hydrology on the physical habitat index (PHI). Riparian buffers were a secondary influence on PHI in the Coastal Plain, but not in the Piedmont. Between 40% and 70% of the variation in FIBI, BIBI, and PHI was explained by the “easily obtainable” variables available from the MBSS data set. While these are empirical results specific to Maryland, the general findings are of use to other locations where the establishment of forest buffers is considered as an aquatic ecosystem restoration measure.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguiar, F. C., Ferreria, M. T. and Pinto, P.: 2002, ‘Relative influence of environmental variables on macroinvertebrate assemblages from an Iberian basin’, J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 21(1), 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allan, J. D., Erickson, D. L. and Fay, J.: 1997, ‘The influence of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales’, Freshwater Biol. 37(1), 149–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay: 1996, ‘Final Report of the Riparian Forest Buffer Panel’, Submitted to the Chesapeake Bay Executive Committee. Baltimore, MD.

  • Barker, L. S.: 2004, ‘Quantification of the Effectiveness of Agricultural Riparian Buffers for Protection of Stream Health in Maryland's Coastal Plains and Piedmont Regions’, PhD Dissertation. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Biological Resources Engineering Department.

  • Boward, D. M., Kazyak, P. F., Stranko, S. A., Hurd, M. K. and Prochaska, T. P.: 1999, ‘From the mountains to the sea: The state of Maryland's freshwater streams’, EPA 903-R-99-023. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunn, S. E., Davies, P. M. and Mosisch, T. D.: 1999, ‘Ecosystem measures of river health and their response to riparian and catchment degradation’, Freshwater Biol. 41(2), 333–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelle, A. J., Johnson, A. W. and Conolly, C.: 1994, ‘Wetland and stream buffer size requirements —a review’, J. Environ. Qual. 23, 878–882.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, K. J.: 1995, ‘Environmental factors affecting the taxonomic composition of aquatic macroinvertebrate communities in lowland waterways of Northland, New Zealand’, New Zealand J. Marine Freshwater Res. 29(4), 453–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corkum, L. D.: 1989, ‘Patterns of benthic invertebrate assemblages in rivers of northwestern North America’, Freshwater Biol. 21, 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D'Angelo, D. J., Gregory, S. V., Ashkenas, L. R. and Meyer, J. L.: 1997, ‘Physical and biological linkages within a stream geomorphic hierarchy: A modeling approach’, J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 16(3), 480–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De'ath, G. and Fabricius, K. E.: 2000, ‘Classification and regression trees: A powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis’, Ecology 81(11), 3178–3192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, F. A., Giddings, E. M. P., Scudder, B. C., Sullivan, D. J. and Lenz, B. N.: 2000, ‘Effects of riparian corridors and hydrology on agricultural stream biota’, in: P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta (eds), Proceedings of the International Conference on Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-Use Watersheds, AWRA, Middleburg, VA, pp. 215–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenzel, S. A. and Swanson, R. B.: 1996, ‘Relations of fish community composition to environmental variables in streams of central Nebraska, USA’, Environ. Manage. 20, 689–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, R. M., Stauffer, J. C., Larson, P. R. and Lorenz, D. L.: 1996, ‘Relation of physical and chemical characteristics of stream to fish communities in the Red River of the North Basin, Minnesota and North Dakota, 1993–1995’, US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4227, USGS, Mounds View, MN.

  • Gregory, S., Swanson, V., Frederick, J. and McKee, W. A.: 1991, ‘An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones: Focus on links between land and water’, BioScience 41, 540–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, L. W., Morgan, R. P., Perry, E. S. and Waltz, A.: 1999, ‘Development of a provisional physical habitat index for Maryland freshwater streams’, Publ. No. CBWP-MANTA-EA-99-12. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division. Annapolis, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herlihy, A. and Kaufman, P.: 2000, ‘Riparian vs. watershed influence on macroinvertebrates, fish and chemical indicators of stream condition’, in: Poster at the International Conference on Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-Use Watersheds, Portland, Oregon, 8/27-31, 2000.

  • Johnson, L. B. and Gage, S. H.: 1997, ‘Landscape approaches to the analysis of aquatic ecosystems’, Freshwater Biol. 37(1), 113–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazyak, P. F.: 1997, Maryland Biological Stream Survey. Sampling Manual. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MDw.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klauda, R., Kazyak, P. F., Stranko, S. A., Southerland, M. T., Roth, N. E. and Chaillou, J. C.: 1998, ‘Maryland Biological Stream Survey: A state agency program to assess the impact of anthropogenic stresses on stream habitat, quality and biota’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 51(1/2), 299–316.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., Muller, K. E. and Nizam, A.: 1998, Applied Regression Analysis and Multivatiate Methods, Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lammert, M. and Allan, J. D.: 1999, ‘Assessing biotic integrity of streams: Effects of scale in measuring the influence of land use/cover and habitat structure on fish and macroinvertebrates’, Environ. Manage. 23(2), 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenat, D. R.: 1984, ‘Agriculture and stream water quality, a biological evaluation of erosion control practices’, Environ. Manage. 8, 333–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littell, R. C., Stroup, W. W. and Freund, R. J.: 2002, ‘SAS for Linear Models’, Fourth Edition. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, Cpt. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercurio, G., Chaillou, J. C. and Roth, N. E.: 1999, ‘Guide to using 1995–1997 Maryland Biological Stream Survey Data’, Publ. No. CBWP-MANTA-EA-99-5. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division. Annapolis, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium): 1996a, US Federal Region III land cover data set: Metadata. MRLC website, http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/R3Meta.html.

  • MRLC: 1996b, US Federal Region III land cover Version 2.0 metadata. MRLC website, http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/R3Meta.README.html.

  • Osborne, L. L.: 1992, ‘Influence of tributary spatial position on the structure of warmwater fish communities’, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49(4), 671–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, M. J., Stribling, J. B., Klauda, R. J., Kazyak, P. F., Southerland, M. T. and Roth, N. E.: 2002, ‘A Physical Habitat Index for Freshwater Wadeable Streams in Maryland’, CBWP-EA-03-4. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Resource Assessment Service, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division. Annapolis, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 river: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish’, Publ. No. EPA/444/4-89-011. EPA, Office of water regulations and standards, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, J. M. and Hickey, C. W.: 1990, ‘Characterization and classification of benthic invertebrate communities in 88 New Zealand rivers in relation to environmental factors’, New Zealand J. Marine Freshwater Res. 24, 387–409.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, C., Host, G. E. and Arthur, J. W.: 1993, ‘Identification of predominant environmental factors structuring stream macroinvertebrate communities within a large agricultural catchment’, Freshwater Biol. 29(2), 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, C., Johnson, L. B. and Host, G. E.: 1996, ‘Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and biota’, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53, 295–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, C., Haro, R. J., Johnson, L. B. and Host, G. E.: 1997, ‘Catchment and reach-scale properties as indicators of macroinvertebrate species traits’, Freshwater Biol. 37, 219–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, N. E., Southerland, M. T., Chaillou, J. C., Wilson, H. T., Heimbuch, D. G. and Seibel, J. C.: 1998, ‘Maryland Biological Stream Survey: Ecological Assessment of Non-Tidal Streams Sampled in 1996’, Publ. No. CBWP-MANTA-EA-98-1. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division, Annapolis, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute Inc.: 1988, SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 6.03 Edition, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southerland, M. T., Mercurio, G., Roth, N. E., Strebel, D. and Volstad, J.: 2002, ‘Using the land use-stream condition relationship to target riparian restoration’, Presentation. By Versar, Inc. Columbia, MD.

  • Statistical Sciences: 1999, ‘S-PLUS, version 2000 for Windows’, Mathsoft Inc., Seattle, WA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steedman, R. J.: 1988, ‘Modification and assessment of an index of biotic integrity to quantify stream quality in Southern Ontario’, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45, 492–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J. S., Downes, D. M., Wang, L., Wier, J. A. and Bannerman, R.: 2000, ‘Influences of riparian corridors on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds’, in: P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta (eds), Proceedings of the International Conference on Riparian Ecology and Management in Multi-Use Watersheds, AWRA, Middleburg, VA, pp. 209–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strahler, A. N.: 1957, ‘Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology’, Am. Geophys. Union Trans. 38(6), 913–920.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stribling, J. B., Jessup, B. K., White, J. S., Boward, D. M. and Hurd, M.: 1998, ‘Development of a Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for Maryland Streams’, CBWP-EA-98-3. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Resource Assessment Service, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division, Annapolis, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. M., Winston, M. R. and Matthews, W. J.: 1993, ‘Fish species —environment and abundance relationships in a Great Plains river system’, Ecography 16, 16–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Md. Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Service, Tawes Office Building, Annapolis, MD, 21401, USA

    Linda S. Barker

  2. Department of Biological Resources Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742–2315, USA

    Gary K. Felton

  3. Department of Animal and Avian Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, 20742, USA

    Estelle Russek-Cohen

Authors
  1. Linda S. Barker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary K. Felton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Estelle Russek-Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary K. Felton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barker, L.S., Felton, G.K. & Russek-Cohen, E. Use of Maryland Biological Stream Survey Data to Determine Effects of Agricultural Riparian Buffers on Measures of Biological Stream Health. Environ Monit Assess 117, 1–19 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-006-7721-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-006-7721-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation