Transcript Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

Aquatic
Macroinvertebrates
And their role in
Biomonitoring
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates
and Biomonitoring





Introduction/definitions
Types/Uses of
biomonitoring
+/- of using
macroinvertebrates
History
Focus on


EPA Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols
Iowa’s Biological
Assessment Program
Introduction:
Biomonitoring- an evaluation of the
condition of a water body using biological
surveys and other direct measurements of
the resident biota in surface waters.
Benthic macroinvertebrates- organisms that
inhabit bottom substrates for at least part
of their life cycle and are retained by a
200µm to 500µm mesh.
Introduction (cont’d):
Metric- quantifiable attribute of aquatic
community that is ecologically relevant and
responds predictably along a disturbance
gradient
Biocriteria- numerical measurements or narrative
expressions that describe the reference
biological condition of aquatic communities
inhabiting waters of a given designated aquatic
life use (EPA 1996)
Types of Biomonitoring Studies

Organism level
Biochemical
 Physiological
 Morphological
 Behavioral
 Life History
 Bioaccumulation


Population
Biotic Indices
 Multivariate analysis

Types of Biomonitoring Studies
(ctd)

Community Level
Taxa richness
 Enumeration
 Diversity Indices
 Similarity Indices
 Biotic Indices
 FFG measures
 Combinations


Ecosystem Level
Structure of food
webs
 Productivity
 Decomposition
 Chemical cycling

Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Biotic Index Uses

Type 1 – Surveillance

Surveys before & after; determine effects of project or
action



Project built
Toxicant released
Type 2- Compliance

Regular sampling or toxicity testing to assure
compliance with mandated standards


Test effluents
Ensure water meets water quality standards
Advantages of BMIs








Ubiquitous (all habitats)
Large # of species (allow wide spectrum of responses)
Sedentary (allows spatial analysis)
Life cycle long enough (to see temporal changes)
Sampling/analysis relatively inexpensive
Taxonomy of many groups well known (keys)
Methods of data analysis (biotic/diversity indices)
Responses of common species known
Disadvantages of BMIs




Response to some stressors
inadequate
Natural conditions, current &
substrate affect distribution and
abundance
Seasonal variations in diversity &
abundance create problems (data
comparison)
Sample processing & ID can be costly
and time consuming
History

Europe
1st indicator organisms Kolkwitz & Marsonn 1908
 Saprobity – organic pollution reduces DO and
restricts taxa
 Lake classification systems Thienemann 1925
benthos – oligotrophic/eutrophic

Classification of Dutch Waters
Saprobity Classification
Indicator Organisms
I
Oligosaprobic
Clean water org
Trich/Plecoptera
II
Beta-mesosaprobic
Pollution tolerant;
No dominance by
Chironomus/Tubifex
III
Alpha-mesosaprobic
Tolerant: Chironomus,
Tubifex, Asellus,
Erpobdella
IV
Polysaprobic
Only Eristalis, Tubifex,
Chironomus
CLASS
History (cont’d)

Europe (cont’d)
Diversity indices developed (1950-1980)
 “Score systems” – indicator concepts with diversity
(1980s)

BMWP- binary system, family level
(Siphlonuridae=10, Chironomidae=2)
Sum of scores of individual families gives site score

EPT Tolerance Values
Ephemerellidae
1 (0-2)
Family (Species range)
Taeniopterygidae
2 (2-3)
Rhyacophilidae
0 (0-1)
Leptophlebiidae
2 (1-6)
Isonychiidae
2 (2-2)
Baetiscidae
3
Capniidae
1 (1-3)
Leuctridae
0 (0-0)
Heptageniidae
4 (0-7)
Caenidae
7 (3-7)
Perlidae
1 (0-4)
Brachycentridae
1 (0-2)
Limnephilidae
4 (0-4)
Hydropsychidae
4 (0-6)
Other taxa tolerance values, Family (species)
Corydalidae
0 (4)
Gomphidae
1 (1-5)
Elmidae
4 (2-6)
Psephenidae
4 (4-5)
Tipulidae
3 (2-7)
Aeshnidae
3 (2-6)
Chironomidae
Tanypodinae (4-10)
Podonominae (1-8)
Calopterygidae
5 (5-6)
From: Benthic Macroinvertebrates in FreshwatersTaxa Tolerance Values, Metric and Protocols (Mandaville 2002)
Simulidae
6 (1-7)
History

North America little acceptance for these ideas
European indicator species not applicable
 NA’s problems were toxic not organics
 NA biologists were skeptical of indicator species
concept

History

North America
S.A. Forbes 1870s benthic fauna indicator species
 Ruth Patrick 1948 community indicator groups
Eastern stream surveys of diatoms
 MacArthur & Wilson 1967 dynamic community
concept, continual local immigration & extinction
 Equilibrium and diversity indices 1970s
 Hurbert 1971 questioned the relationship between
diversity and system stability

History

N. America (cont’d)
Energetics, RCC, Vannote 1980
 Development of Ecoregion concept 1987
 Reference site idea Karr 1986
 Ohio EPA 1987 Invertebrate Community Index
 Karr 1986 Index of Biotic Integrity
 EPA Rapid Assessment Protocols

Invertebrate Community Index (ICI)
Ohio EPA 1987



Sum of 10 measures
Ohio 232 reference
sites over 5 ecoregions
Scored according to
drainage area










# of taxa (species)
# of Ephemeroptera
# of Trichoptera
# of Diptera
% of Ephemeroptera
% of Trichoptera
% of Chironomidae (Tanytarsini)
% of other dips & non-insects
% of tolerant organisms (list)
# of EPT taxa
IBI values in references sites within ecoregions of Ohio.
Response of Benthic macroinvertebrates to various impacts, Ohio ICI data
Spatial and temporal changes trends in ICI, Scioto River, Ohio.
J.R. Karr






First developed biotic index for fish
Became multi-metric index
IBIs are now used world-wide
Must be regionally calibrated with
reference sites
He is currently developing an IBI for
terrestrial habitats
ISU alumni, BS Fish & Wildlife Biology
Biological Integrity
“the capability of supporting and
maintaining a balanced, integrated,
adaptive community of organisms having
a composition, diversity and functional
organization comparable to that of
natural habitats of the region”
(Karr and Dudley 1981)
The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is
useful because…








It is an ensemble of biological information
It objectively defines benchmark conditions
It can assess change due to human causes
It uses standardized methods
It scores sites numerically, describes narratively
It defines multiple condition classes
It has a strong theoretical basis
It does not require fine resolution of taxa
(Karr, ISU seminar)
EPA Rapid Assessment Protocols




Cost effective, rapid,
understandable, benign
Integrated assessment of habitat,
water quality and biological
measures (periphyton,
macroinvertebrates, fish) with
defined reference conditions
Developed standard sampling,
data analysis and reporting
protocols
Use as a tool for states
Iowa’s Biological Assessment Program



Initial Phase
Protocols
Assessment
Why Biological Assessment?
Iowa’s Reasons
• Accurate and cost-effective
• Federal Clean Water Act goals and
requirements
• Inventory biological resources
Biological Assessment
An evaluation of the biological condition of a stream
using information obtained by sampling the resident
aquatic community.
Three-step process:
1. Sample aquatic organisms
2. Summarize data using biological indices
3. Compare to reference streams
Iowa BM Sampling Protocol




July 15-Oct 15
Stream flow near base flow levels
Benthic habitat inventory
Stream reach 150-350 m (2 riffle/pool, 2
bends)
IA Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Standard-Habitat Samples
Semi-quantitative
3x Rock or wood in flowing water (Hess or Surber sampler)
Or 3x Multi-plate artificial substrates (4-6 week colonization)
IA Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Multi-Habitat Samples
Qualitative Data
3x Multi-habitat (hand-picking from all available
habitats, 1.5 hours, target 150 organisms)
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Metrics.
1. Total Number of Taxa (genus or species)
2. Number of Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Trichoptera
(EPT) Taxa
3. Number of Sensitive Taxa
4. % Mayfly Taxa
5. % EPT Taxa
6. % Chironomidae Taxa
7. % Scraper Organisms
8. % 3-Dominant Taxa
9. % Dominant Functional Feeding Group
10. Modified-Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
Stream Benthic Macroinvertebrates:
Standard-Habitat Samples, ‘94-’98
Aquatic Life Use Attainment Determined from ‘94-’98
Biological Assessments (149 Stream Sites)
50%
50%
Aquatic Life
40%
30%
19%
Impairment
24%
20%
10%
7%
0%
Full Support
Full Support \
Threatened Partial Support
Non Support
Everyone’s Doing It!