A comparison of macroinvertebrate-based indices for biological assessment of river health: A case example from the sub-tropical Richmond River Catchment in northeast New South Wales, Australia

Cox, Brendan; Oeding, Sue; Taffs, Kathryn H

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105479

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We mostly focused on three insect orders (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera), which are among the most frequently used macroinvertebrates for the bioassessment of streams (e.g. Brabec et al 2004;Hering et al 2006a;Gabriels et al 2010;Arman et al 2019; but see also Cox et al 2019). We also considered a broad range of organisms belonging to other orders of insects and other classes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study we combined in vitro and in silico analyses to compare the performance of three primer pairs potentially suitable for the metabarcoding of bulk or eDNA from freshwater macroinvertebrates (macrobenthos), and we developed an extensive reference database for benthic macroinvertebrates living in European freshwaters. We focused mostly on three insect orders (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera), which are among the most frequently used macroinvertebrates for the bioassessment of streams (e.g., Brabec et al., 2004; Hering et al., 2006; Gabriels et al., 2010; Arman et al., 2019; but see also Cox et al., 2019). We also considered a broad range of organisms belonging to other orders of insects and other classes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of markers for the monitoring of freshwater benthic biodiversity through DNA metabarcoding

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Metabarcoding of bulk or environmental DNA has great potential for biomonitoring freshwater environments. However, successful application of metabarcoding to biodiversity monitoring requires universal primers with high taxonomic coverage that amplify highly variable, short metabarcodes with high taxonomic resolution. Moreover, reliable and extensive reference databases are essential to match the outcome of metabarcoding analyses with the available taxonomy and biomonitoring indices. Benthic invertebrates, particularly insects, are key taxa for freshwater bioassessment. Nevertheless, few studies have so far assessed markers for metabarcoding of freshwater macrobenthos. Here we combined in silico and laboratory analyses to test the performance of different markers amplifying regions in the 18S rDNA (Euka02), 16S rDNA (Inse01), and COI (BF1_BR2-COI) genes, and developed an extensive database of benthic macroinvertebrates of France and Europe, with a special focus on key insect orders (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera). Analyses on 1514 individuals representing different taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates showed very different amplification success across primer combinations. The Euka02 marker showed the highest universality, while the Inse01 marker showed excellent performance for the amplification of insects. BF1_BR2-COI showed the highest resolution, while the resolution of Euka02 was often limited. By combining our data with GenBank information, we developed a curated database including sequences representing 822 genera. The heterogeneous performance of the different primers highlights the complexity of the identification of the best markers, and advocates for the integration of multiple metabarcodes for a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of ecological impacts on freshwater biodiversity.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of markers for the monitoring of freshwater benthic biodiversity through DNA metabarcoding

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By evaluating comparative performance of several aquatic health indices, Cox et al (2019) found that the stream invertebrate grade number-average level (SIGNAL2) is the most sensitive index, family richness percentage is the most robust index, family richness and family richness percentage are the best ranked indices for both measures of usability; but Australian River Assessment System (AUSRIVAS OE50), Ephemeroptera In this study, for the assessment of the bioindicator potential of the insects, SIGNAL2 (family) score was used which is a family-level water pollution index based on the known tolerances of aquatic macro-invertebrate families to various pollutants which has a gradient from 1 to 10 (ranging from a pollution tolerant to a pollution sensitive community) (Chessman et al 1995). The SIGNAL2 (family) scores were plotted in a quadrant diagram (SIGNAL2 score in the y axis and the numbers of families in the x axis) which includes four quadrants.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity of aquatic insects and biomonitoring of water quality in the upper Ganga River, a Ramsar site: a preliminary assessment

Sarkar

Singh

et al. 2021

J. Threat. Taxa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring of freshwater habitats through aquatic insects is widely used. A study was carried out in March, 2019 at 14 sites in the Upper Ganga River between Brijghat and Narora, a riverine Ramsar site in India, to document the diversity of three major aquatic predatory insect groups—Odonata, Coleoptera, and Hemiptera—and determine their biomonitoring potential. The study recorded three species of Coleoptera, four Hemiptera, 14 dragonflies, and eight damselflies. The Shannon diversity index (H′) ranged from 2.465 to 2.782, Pielou’s Evenness index (J′) from 0.841 to 0.894, and Berger–Parker index of dominance (d) from 0.122 to 0.243. Families Libellulidae (Odonata), Coenagrionidae (Odonata) and Gerridae (Hemiptera) had high relative abundance and dominant status. The stream invertebrate grade number-average level (SIGNAL2) score (for family) ranged from 2.316 to 3.174, lying within quadrant 2 of the SIGNAL2 (family) quadrant diagram. This suggested that the water in the area is likely to have high levels of turbidity, salinity, or nutrients, caused naturally or by anthropogenic activities, and the water has low levels of most toxic chemicals.

show abstract

“…Both of these indices have been widely tested, and found to out-perform AUSRIVAS O/E in several investigations (e.g. Chessman et al 2006;Walsh 2006;Cox et al 2019). Other options, such as the environmental filters method of Chessman and Royal (2004), the salinity index of Horrigan et al (2005), and the invertebrate species index of Haase and Nolte (2008), have not been greatly tested, and so their general utility is uncertain.…”

Section: Alternatives To Ausrivasmentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s wrong with the Australian River Assessment System (AUSRIVAS)?

Chessman¹

2021

Mar. Freshwater Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Australian River Assessment System (AUSRIVAS or AusRivAS) is a national biomonitoring scheme that supposedly assesses the 'biological health' of rivers. AUSRIVAS outputs observed-over-expected (O/E) indices derived from macroinvertebrate survey data obtained both at a site to be assessed and at designated reference sites. However, AUSRIVAS reference sites lack any consistent or quantified status, and, therefore, AUSRIVAS O/E indices have no particular meaning. Moreover, many studies have found AUSRIVAS O/E to be a weak or inconsistent indicator of exposure to anthropogenic or human-influenced stressors. Poor performance by AUSRIVAS may relate to numerous factors including the following: (1) variable reference-site status, (2) inappropriate model predictors, (3) limitations of O/E indices, (4) inconstant sampling methods, and (5) neglect of non-seasonal temporal variability. The indices Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) and stream invertebrate grade number-average level (SIGNAL) provide alternatives that have often outperformed AUSRIVAS O/E in comparative tests. In addition, bioassessment of Australian rivers might be advanced by the development of diagnostic methods to identify the stressors causing ecological impact rather than merely to infer impact intensity and assign quality ratings to assessment sites.

show abstract

A comparison of macroinvertebrate-based indices for biological assessment of river health: A case example from the sub-tropical Richmond River Catchment in northeast New South Wales, Australia

Cited by 19 publications

References 49 publications

Comparison of markers for the monitoring of freshwater benthic biodiversity through DNA metabarcoding

Comparison of markers for the monitoring of freshwater benthic biodiversity through DNA metabarcoding

Diversity of aquatic insects and biomonitoring of water quality in the upper Ganga River, a Ramsar site: a preliminary assessment

What’s wrong with the Australian River Assessment System (AUSRIVAS)?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About