1. Biomonitoring and Bioassessment Chapter 11

2. Biomonitoring Biomonitoring – use of a biological systems for the evaluation of the current status of an ecosystem  Generally used to look at exposure and effects Exposure – analytical measurement of a target compound within the tissue of a sampled organism (laboratory or natural environment) - DDT in adipose tissue, Hg in feathers or fur Effects – using one or more levels of biological organization to evaluate the status of biological community (also called Bioassessment) Generally performed with little or no analytical determination of toxicants (biggest difference between exposure and effects)-

3. Biomonitoring  Can be used to verify fate models and estimates of biological hazard developed from laboratory or semi-field toxicity tests

4. Marine fish exposure chambers

5. Some uses of biomonitoring

6. Biomonitoring Tug of War SpecificityReliability Attributing an effect to a specific cause Detecting all effects caused to toxicant exposure

7. Bioassessment Evaluation of the status of biological community Assessment often done by survey Sampling design can be constructed to answer questions of causation of effect

8. Bioassessment Case Study Evaluation of Silviculture BMPs

9. Effectiveness of Silviculture Best Management Practices in Protecting Stream Ecosystems in Arkansas Sam McCord, Ph.D. And Rich Grippo, Ph.D. Environmental Sciences Program Arkansas State University

10. Ecoregions and Study Sites 1A 1C 1B 2 3A 3B 3C 4B 4A

11. Study Design (BACI) Before harvest vs. after harvest Upstream vs. downstream Multiple seasons Tested with GLM Anova and PCA

13. Chironomidae Trichoptera Plecoptera Ephemeroptera

14. Community characteristics examined Total richness EPT richness % Dominant taxon % Diptera Hilsenhoff biotic index % Collectors % EPT % Ephemeroptera % Plecoptera % Trichoptera % Chironomidae % Non-insects % Shredders % Scrapers % Filterers % Predators

15. Analysis of Variance model

16. Were upstream vs. downstream differences detected? Yes No Were differences related to sample design, or other non-silviculture circumstances? YesNo BMPs effective BMPs not effective

17. Summary Seasonal variation was the primary source of variation in macroinvertebrate community characteristics Annual variation was also important, primarily at the intermittent study streams, but did not appear related to silviculture activities Upstream/downstream variation was less common, and appeared to be most associated with habitat differences between stations Significant variation related to the interaction of study year and location was rare (6 of 112 possible results)

18. Conclusion Best management practices applied in these harvest operations were effective in protecting the ecological quality of adjacent streams