Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

1
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

• And their role in Biomonitoring

2
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates and Biomonitoring

• Introduction/definitions
• Types/Uses of biomonitoring
• /- of using macroinvertebrates
• History
• Focus on
• EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
• Iowas Biological Assessment Program

3

• 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.

4

• Introduction (contd)
• 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)

5
Types of Biomonitoring Studies

• Organism level
• Biochemical
• Physiological
• Morphological
• Behavioral
• Life History
• Bioaccumulation

• Population
• Biotic Indices
• Multivariate analysis

6
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

7
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

8
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

9
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

10
History

• Europe
• 1st indicator organisms Kolkwitz Marsonn 1908
• Saprobity organic pollution reduces DO and
  restricts taxa
• Lake classification systems Thienemann 1925
  benthos oligotrophic/eutrophic

11
Classification of Dutch Waters
12
History (contd)

• Europe (contd)
• Diversity indices developed (1950-1980)
• Score systems indicator concepts with
  diversity (1980s)
• BMWP- binary system, family level
• (Siphlonuridae10, Chironomidae2)
• Sum of scores of individual families gives site
  score

13
EPT Tolerance Values
Family (Species range)
Ephemerellidae 1 (0-2)
Taeniopterygidae 2 (2-3)
Rhyacophilidae
0 (0-1)
Leptophlebiidae 2 (1-6)
Brachycentridae
1 (0-2)
Capniidae 1 (1-3)
Isonychiidae 2 (2-2)
Limnephilidae
Baetiscidae 3
Leuctridae 0 (0-0)
4 (0-4)
Heptageniidae 4 (0-7)
Hydropsychidae
Perlidae 1 (0-4)
4 (0-6)
Caenidae 7 (3-7)
14
Other taxa tolerance values, Family (species)
Elmidae 4 (2-6)
Corydalidae 0 (4)
Psephenidae 4 (4-5)
Gomphidae 1 (1-5)
Tipulidae 3 (2-7)
Aeshnidae 3 (2-6)
Chironomidae Tanypodinae (4-10) Podonominae (1-8)
Calopterygidae 5 (5-6)
Simulidae 6 (1-7)
From Benthic Macroinvertebrates in
Freshwaters- Taxa Tolerance Values, Metric and
Protocols (Mandaville 2002)
15
History

• North America little acceptance for these ideas
• European indicator species not applicable
• NAs problems were toxic not organics
• NA biologists were skeptical of indicator species
  concept

16
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

17
History

• N. America (contd)
• 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

18
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

19
IBI values in references sites within ecoregions
of Ohio.
20
Response of Benthic macroinvertebrates to various
impacts, Ohio ICI data
21
Spatial and temporal changes trends in ICI,
Scioto River, Ohio.
22
(No Transcript)
23
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

24
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)

25
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)
26
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

27
Iowas Biological Assessment Program

• Initial Phase
• Protocols
• Assessment

28
Why Biological Assessment? Iowas Reasons

• Accurate and cost-effective
• Federal Clean Water Act goals and requirements
• Inventory biological resources

29
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
30
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)

31
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)
32
IA Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Multi-Habitat Samples
Qualitative Data 3x Multi-habitat (hand-picking
from all available habitats, 1.5 hours, target
150 organisms)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
Stream Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Standard-Habitat Samples, 94-98
37
Aquatic Life Use Attainment Determined from
94-98 Biological Assessments (149 Stream Sites)
38
Everyones Doing It!