A Preliminary Evaluation of the Behaviour of the Biomap Water Quality Index

Abstract

Before any protocol can be recommended for widespread use in assessing water quality with benthic macroinvenebrates, its performance must be thoroughly evaluated. A new procedure, called BioMAP, has been adopted by several agencies in

A comparison of the sensitivity of stream benthic community indices to effects associated with mines, pulp and paper mills, and urbanization

“…Because the HBI was constructed to detect effects associated with nutrient enrichment [15], and because effluents associated with pulp and paper mills and municipal sewage treatment plants include large amounts of organic material [5], we should expect the HBI to detect effects in urban areas or downstream of pulp mills. The similarity between the HBI and WQI results suggests that the WQI tolerance values reflect sensitivity to organic enrichment in addition to water temperature [25] and low dissolved oxygen. Because the river continuum concept predicts that these three factors will be correlated [29], it is not surprising that the HBI and WQI results were similar.…”

“…By contrast, the WQI is a new metric that is calculated much like the HBI, representing an abundance-weighted average of taxon-specific tolerance values. The WQI was included because of interest in how it performs relative to traditional indices [25]. The PMA is the percent similarity (i.e., the complement of the Bray-Curtis distance) between each sample and the average community based on the set of reference-area samples.…”

A Reply to Ronald Griffiths’ Comment

“…A Reply to Ronald Griffiths'Comment David R. Bartonl and Bruce W. Kilgour'? Our original objective was to assess the theory upon which BioMAP is based by testing predictions about the general pattern ofresponse ofthe core metric, the water quality index (Barton and Kilgour, 1999). Griffiths (this volume) argues that our inability to relate the BioMAP water quality index to stream size was a result of ( 1) not having used the proper collection methods, (2) using inappropriate measures of stream size, and (3) (Vannote et al,1980).…”

“…We found no relationship between BioMAP scores and stream size using data only from sites that had highly forested (60-960/o) (Waters, 1995 There are three problems with this approach to bioassessment. First, as we briefly suggested (Barton and Kilgour, 1999),larger watercourses are more stable and predictable than headwaters (Minshall and Robinson, 1998 These conceptual problems are the core of our concern over the promotion of BioMAP. There are a number of approaches to the use ofbenthic invertebrates for the evaiuation of human impacts on freshwater systems (Environment Canada, 1998).…”

“…This idea must be subjected to review and evaluation by the broader scientific community before BioMAP (or any other new protocol) is required of practitioners in the field. Barton and Kilgour (1999) was presented as a first step in such an evaluation. The present exchange ofideas has only strengthened our conclusion that the results obtained through the BioMAP protocol are not easily interpreted.…”