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
Iowa’s 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 (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)

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
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

12. History (cont’d) Europe (cont’d)
Diversity indices developed ( )
“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

13. EPT Tolerance Values Family (Species range) Ephemerellidae 1 (0-2)
Taeniopterygidae
2 (2-3)
Rhyacophilidae
0 (0-1)
Leptophlebiidae
2 (1-6)
Brachycentridae
Capniidae
1 (1-3)
1 (0-2)
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
NA’s 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 (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

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.
The Warm Water Habitat (WWH) and Exceptional Warm Water Habitat (EWH) biological thresholds are given for each index.
Spatial and temporal changes trends in ICI, Scioto River, Ohio.

22. Figure 9-8. Discriminatory power analysis of the Wyoming Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity. The population of stressed sites was determined a priori. The 25th percentile of the reference distribution determined the threshold, or separation between "good" and "fair" condition ratings. All other condition ratings resulted from equidistant sectioning of the remaining index range. The shaded region represents the 90% confidence limits around a single observation (no replication) falling near the critical threshold.

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. Iowa’s Biological Assessment Program
Initial Phase
Protocols
Assessment

28. Why Biological Assessment? Iowa’s 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 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. 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

36. Stream Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Standard-Habitat Samples, ‘94-’98

37. Aquatic Life Use Attainment Determined from ‘94-’98 Biological Assessments (149 Stream Sites)

38. Everyone’s Doing It!