Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-88psn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-21T19:38:10.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ecological informatics approach to screening of integrity metrics based on benthic macroinvertebrates in streams

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2011

Woon-Seok Cho ,
Young-Seuk Park ,
Hae-Kyung Park ,
Hak-Yang Kong  and
Tae-Soo Chon
Woon-Seok Cho
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Republic of Korea
Young-Seuk Park
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 130-701, Republic of Korea
Hae-Kyung Park
Affiliation:
Water Environment Research Department, The National Institute of Environmental Research, Incheon 404-170, Republic of Korea
Hak-Yang Kong
Affiliation:
Water Environment Research Department, The National Institute of Environmental Research, Incheon 404-170, Republic of Korea
Tae-Soo Chon*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Republic of Korea
*
*Corresponding author: tschon@pusan.ac.kr

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Benthic macroinvertebrates are considered as a representative taxon that indicates the ecological status of freshwater ecosystems. Numerous indices derived from community data have been proposed to estimate either biological water quality or ecosystem health. In this study, metrics based on benthic macroinvertebrates at the family level were screened using ecological informatics to provide a multi-metric measurement that would be suitable for presenting ecological integrity across different levels of environmental impact. Benthic macroinvertebrates were collected at a total of 720 sample sites from river basins and streams in Korea in 2009. Based on four categories of community status (i.e., diversity, richness, tolerance, and composition), 37 metrics were selected as initial candidates according to the literature. The candidate metrics were evaluated according to parameters including discriminatory power, redundancy, and responsiveness to stressors. Self-organizing map was utilized to assist the screening procedure by providing ordination, clustering, and visualization of metric and environmental data. Six metrics were finally selected as a multi-metric and were compared with conventional indicators for presenting the ecological integrity of streams.

Keywords

Multi-metricecological integritybiological indicatoraquatic ecosystemdiscrimination power

References

Armitage, P.D., Moss, D., Wright, J.F. and Furse, M.T., 1983. The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites. Water Res., 17, 333–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbour, M.T., Stribling, J.B. and Karr, J.R. 1995. The multimetric approach for establishing biocriteria and measuring biological conditions. In: Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P. (eds.), Biological Assessment and Criteria, Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, Lewis Publishers, FL.Google Scholar
Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Griffith, G.E., Frydenborg, R., McCarron, E., White, J.S. and Bastian, M.L., 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 15, 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D. and Stribling, J.B., 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Blocksom, K.A., 2003. A performance comparison of metric scoring methods for a multimetric index for Mid-Atlantic Highlands streams. Environ. Manage., 31, 670–682.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blocksom, K.A., Kurtenbach, J.P., Klemm, D.J., Fulk, F.A. and Cormier, S.M., 2002. Development and evaluation of the Lake Macroinvertebrate Integrity Index (LMII) for New Jersey lakes and reservoirs. Environ. Monit. Assess., 77, 311–333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Böhmer, J., Rawer-Jost, C., Zenker, A., Meier, C., Feld, C.K., Biss, R. and Hering, D., 2004. Assessing streams in Germany with benthic invertebrates: Development of a multimetric invertebrate based assessment system. Limnologica, 34, 416–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, J.T., Stewart, P.M. and Simon, T.P., 2003. A benthic community index for streams in the northern lakes and forests ecoregion. Ecol. Indic., 3, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, D.M. and Clements, W.H., 1999. Sensitivity and variability of metrics used in biological assessments of running waters. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 18, 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chon, T.-S., Park, Y.-S., Moon, K.H. and Cha, E.Y., 1996. Patternizing communities by using an artificial neural network. Ecol. Model., 90, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J., Passmore, M. and Childers, H., 2000. A survey of the condition of streams in the primary region of mountaintop mining/valley fill coal mining. Appendix. In: Mountaintop Mining/valley Fills in Appalachia. Final programmatic environmental impact statement, US Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Hargett, E.G. and ZumBerge, J.R., 2006. Redevelopment of the Wyoming Stream Integrity Index (WSII) for assessing the biological condition of wadeable streams in Wyoming, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY.
Hawkes, H., 1979. Invertebrates as indicators of river water quality. In: James, A. and Evision, L. (eds.), Biological Indicators of Water Quality, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great Lake Entomol., 20, 31–40.Google Scholar
Karr, J.R. and Chu, E.W., 1999. Restoring life in running waters: better biological monitoring, Island Press, Washington, DC, 206 p.Google Scholar
Kerans, B.L. and Karr, J.R., 1994. A Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) for Rivers of the Tennessee Valley. Ecol. Appl., 4, 768–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemm, D.J., Blocksom, K.A., Thoeny, W.T., Fulk, F.A., Herlihy, A.T., Kaufmann, P.R. and Cormier, S.M., 2002. Methods development and use of macroinvertebrates as indicators of ecological conditions for streams in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Region. Environ. Monit. Assess., 78, 169–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klemm, D.J., Blocksom, K.A., Fulk, F.A., Herlihy, A.T., Hughes, R.M., Kaufmann, P.R., Peck, D.V., Stoddard, J.L., Thoeny, W.T. and Griffith, M.B., 2003. Development and evaluation of a macroinvertebrate biotic integrity index (MBII) for regionally assessing Mid-Atlantic Highlands streams. Environ. Manage., 31, 656–669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenat, D.R., 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for benthic macroinvertebrates. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 7, 222–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenat, D.R., 1993. A biotic index for the southeastern United States: derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water-quality ratings. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 12, 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNaughton, S.J., 1967. Relationship among functional properties of California grassland. Nature, 216, 168–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MOE/NIER, 2008. The survey and evaluation of aquatic ecosystem health in Korea, The Ministry of Environment/National Institute of Environmental Research, Incheon, Korea (in Korean with English summary).
Ode, P.R., Rehn, A.C. and May, J.T., 2005. A quantitative tool for assessing the integrity of southern coastal California streams. Environ. Manage., 35, 493–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, Y.-S., Cereghino, R., Compin, A. and Lek, S., 2003. Applications of artificial neural networks for patterning and predicting aquatic insect species richness in running waters. Ecol. Model., 160, 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pielou, E.C., 1975. Ecological Diversity, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Pond, G.J., Passmore, M.E., Borsuk, F.A., Reynolds, L. and Rose, C.J., 2008. Downstream effects of mountaintop coal mining: comparing biological conditions using family- and genus-level macroinvertebrate bioassessment tools. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 27, 717–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purcell, A.H., Bressler, D.W., Paul, M.J., Barbour, M.T., Rankin, E.T., Carter, J.L. and Resh, V.H., 2009. Assessment tools for urban catchments: developing biological indicators based on benthic macroinvertebrates. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 45, 306–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resh, V.H., Norris, R.H. and Barbour, M.T., 1995. Design and implementation of rapid assessment approaches for water resource monitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. Aust. J. Ecol., 20, 108–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynoldson, T.B., Norris, R.H., Resh, V.H., Day, K.E. and Rosenberg, D.M., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, D.M. and Resh, V., 1993. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Chapman and Hall, London, 488 p.Google Scholar
Shannon, C.E. and Weaver, W., 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar
Simon, T.P. and Lyons, J., 1995. Application of the index of biotic integrity to evaluate water resource integrity in freshwater ecosystems. In: Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P. (eds.), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.Google Scholar
Solimini, A.G., Bazzanti, M., Ruggiero, A. and Carchini, G., 2008. Developing a multimetric index of ecological integrity based on macroinvertebrates of mountain ponds in central Italy. Hydrobiologia, 597, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, M.-Y., Hwang, H.-J., Kwak, I.-S., Ji, C.W., Oh, Y.-N., Youn, B.J. and Chon, T.-S., 2007. Self-organizing mapping of benthic macroinvertebrate communities implemented to community assessment and water quality evaluation. Ecol. Model., 203, 18–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoddard, J.L., Herlihy, A.T., Peck, D.V., Hughes, R.M., Whittier, T.R. and Tarquinio, E., 2009. A process for creating multimetric indices for large-scale aquatic surveys. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 27, 878–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taowu, M., Qinghui, H., Hai, W., Zijian, W., Chunxia, W. and Shengbiao, H., 2008. Selection of benthic macroinvertebrate-based multimetrics and preliminary establishment of biocriteria for the bioassessment of the water quality of Taihu Lake, China. Acta Ecol. Sin., 28, 1192–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Mathworks Inc., 2001. Matlab. Version 6.1, The Mathworks Inc., Massachusetts.
Trigal-Domínguez, C., Fernández-Aláez, C. and García-Criado, F., 2010. Ecological assessment of highly heterogeneous systems: The importance of taxonomic sufficiency. Limnologica, 40, 208–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trigal, C., Garcia-Criado, F. and Fernandez-Alaez, C., 2009. Towards a multimetric index for ecological assessment of Mediterranean flatland ponds: the use of macroinvertebrates as bioindicators. Hydrobiologia, 618, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vesanto, J., Himberg, J., Alhoniemi, E., Parhankangas, J., Team, S. and Oy, L., 2000. SOM Toolbox for Matlab, Techn. Ber. Helsinki University of Technology.
Waite, I.R., Herlihy, A.T., Larsen, D.P., Urquhart, N.S. and Klemm, D.J., 2004. The effects of macroinvertebrate taxonomic resolution in large landscape bioassessments: an example from the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, USA. Freshwater Biol., 49, 474–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walley, W.J. and Hawkes, H.A., 1996. A computer-based reappraisal of the Biological Monitoring Working Party scores using data from the 1990 river quality survey of England and Wales. Water Res., 30, 2086–2094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walley, W.J. and Hawkes, H.A., 1997. A computer-based development of the Biological Monitoring Working Party score system incorporating abundance rating, site type and indicator value. Water Res., 31, 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, J.H., 1963. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 58, 236–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittier, T.R., Hughes, R.M., Stoddard, J.L., Lomnicky, G.A., Peck, D.V. and Herlihy, A.T., 2007. A structured approach to developing indices of biotic integrity: three examples from western USA streams and rivers. Am. Fish. Soc., 136, 718–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Won, D.H., Jun, T.C., Kwon, S.J., Hwang, S.J., Ahn, K.G. and Lee, J.K., 2006. Development of Korean Saprobic Index using benthic macroinvertebrate and its application to biological stream environment assessment. J. Korean Soc. Water Qual., 22, 768–783.Google Scholar
Wright, J.F., Sutcliffe, D.W. and Furse, M.T., 2000. Assessing the biological quality of fresh waters: RIVPACS and other techniques, Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, 400 p.Google Scholar
Zurada, J., 1992. Introduction to artificial neural systems, West Publishing Co., NY, 683 p.Google Scholar