Evaluation of EPA's rapid bioassessment benthic metrics: Metric redundancy and variability among reference stream sites

Barbour, Michael T.; Graves, Carol G.; Plafkin, James L.; Wisseman, Robert W.; Bradley, Brian P.

doi:10.1002/etc.5620110401

Cited by 164 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such approaches define the normal structure of a system, measure deviations from normal and thereby evaluate severity of impairment. This method has been effective in freshwater habitats (Green and Vascotto, 1978;Lenat, 1988;Barbour et al, 1992;Rosenburg and Resh, 1993). Another approach widely used in wetland systems is the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach (Brinson, 1993;Smith et al, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the condition of Hawaiian coral reefs

Rodgers

Jokiel

Bird

et al. 2009

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1) This investigation developed and tested descriptive models designed to evaluate coral reef ecological condition based on data developed using the basic techniques most often used in coral reef surveys.(2) Forty-three variables at 184 stations were analysed in order to identify specific factors that are useful metrics for describing reef condition.(3) The common practice of using 'reference sites' for paired site comparisons was evaluated by developing a reference site model (RSM). This use of reference sites proved to be subjective and unreliable, especially when multiple factors and multiple sites are involved. However, in some cases the RSM is appropriate in demonstrating severe degradation based on factors such as sediment, coral cover and fish abundance.(4) An objective ecological gradient model (EGM) was developed based on a wide range of metrics at numerous sites. A computer program was developed that allows a quantitative ranking of reef condition along a continuum and can be used to compare reefs across a wide range of conditions. Further, this approach permits the operator to alter and define criteria appropriate to a specific question.(5) Results of this investigation provide ecological insights into the importance of natural and anthropogenic ecological factors in determining coral reef condition. RESULTS Identification of major factorsBoth natural and anthropogenic factors were influential in structuring coral and fish communities, explaining a considerable portion of the variability (Table 3).The most important natural factors include depth, wave regime and rugosity. Factors related to anthropogenic impact include human population, silt, and organics. Influencing factors that were QUANTIFYING THE CONDITION OF HAWAIIAN CORAL REEFS 97

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the condition of Hawaiian coral reefs

Rodgers

Jokiel

Bird

et al. 2009

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Benthic macroinvertebrate populations are notorious for background variation due to spatial and temporal heterogeneity [17,18]. Hannaford and Resh [16] demonstrated considerable variation due to human error in biological assessments, and others have shown that metric values varied significantly among replicates [20] and seasons [7]. Hannaford and Resh [16] demonstrated considerable variation due to human error in biological assessments, and others have shown that metric values varied significantly among replicates [20] and seasons [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity and variability of metrics used in biological assessments of running waters

Carlisle

Clements

1999

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluated the variability and sensitivity of a suite of biological metrics for detecting the ecological effects of metals in streams. The variability of these metrics was evaluated by partitioning the total variance in a three‐way analysis of variance among spatial, seasonal, annual, and temporal–spatial interaction components using data from 6 years of biomonitoring on the Arkansas River, Colorado, USA. We then calculated the statistical power of these metrics given a likely experimental design aimed at detecting metal‐pollution effects in streams and using estimates of variability from field data. Finally, we experimentally tested the sensitivity of these metrics to a metal mixture in stream microcosms. More than one half of the variation in richness and scraper functional feeding group metrics was explained by differences among sampling sites, which were presumably due to the presence of metal pollution. Statistical power was highest for richness measures and low for all other metrics examined. Experimental exposures revealed that richness measures were also more sensitive than functional group metrics. Our results support those of previous, comparative studies that show the superiority (in terms of sensitivity, variability, and statistical power) of taxa richness measures. Most abundance, ratio, and functional group metrics were either insensitive to metal pollution, highly variable, or both. We conclude that similar systematic testing on a variety of metrics with other stressors will greatly enhance the utility of biological metrics in assessing the ecological effects of contaminants and establishing biological criteria.

show abstract

“…Both annual temperature range and maximum temperature tend to increase downstream in most river systems (Minshall and Robinson, 1998) Hilsenhoff's (1987) .24, No.2, 1999 Downloaded by [198.91.36.79] at 07:46 06 October 2014 developed explicitly for the assessment of organic enrichment, although Barbour et al (1992) found it to be a good general indicator of stress on stream benthos.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%