Variance partitioning of stream diatom, fish, and invertebrate indicators of biological condition

Zuellig, Robert E.; Carlisle, Daren M.; Meador, Michael R.; Potapova, Marina

doi:10.1899/11-040.1

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These aspects need more research. Some insights for that are provided by the USEPA, USGS, and CABIN/Canada protocols that repeat samples to assess the effects of sampling, processing, month and year, and differing field crews on indicator variance Stoddard et al 2008;Zuellig et al 2012; Table 1). …”

Section: Sampling Effortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stream biomonitoring using macroinvertebrates around the globe: a comparison of large-scale programs

Buss

Carlisle

Chon

et al. 2014

Environ Monit Assess

Self Cite

255

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water quality agencies and scientists are increasingly adopting standardized sampling methodologies because of the challenges associated with interpreting data derived from dissimilar protocols. Here, we compare 13 protocols for monitoring streams from different regions and countries around the globe. Despite the spatially diverse range of countries assessed, many aspects of bioassessment structure and protocols were similar, thereby providing evidence of key characteristics that might be incorporated in a global sampling methodology. Similarities were found regarding sampler type, mesh size, sampling period, subsampling methods, and taxonomic resolution. Consistent field and laboratory methods are essential for merging data sets collected by multiple institutions to enable large-scale comparisons. We discuss the similarities and differences among protocols and present current trends and future recommendations for monitoring programs, especially for regions where large-scale protocols do not yet exist. We summarize the current state in one of these regions, Latin America, and comment on the possible development path for these techniques in this region. We conclude that several aspects of stream biomonitoring need additional performance evaluation (accuracy, precision, discriminatory power, relative costs), particularly when comparing targeted habitat (only the commonest habitat type) versus site-wide sampling (multiple habitat types), appropriate levels of sampling and processing effort, and standardized indicators to resolve dissimilarities among biomonitoring methods. Global issues such as climate change are creating an environment where there is an increasing need to have universally consistent data collection, processing and storage to enable large-scale trend analysis. Biomonitoring programs following standardized methods could aid international data sharing and interpretation.

show abstract

Section: Sampling Effortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stream biomonitoring using macroinvertebrates around the globe: a comparison of large-scale programs

Buss

Carlisle

Chon

et al. 2014

Environ Monit Assess

Self Cite

255

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, sampling typically occurred within a predefined six-week index period, but some sites were unavoidably sampled earlier or later on occasion due to changing streamflow conditions in some years. Even over a short three-year period, Zuellig et al (2012) found withinsite annual variability explained as much as 12% of the total variance in biological condition. In a variance components study of invertebrate data, Gurtz et al (2013) found that the timing of sampling within a 10-week index period (i.e., DOY) accounted for over 30% of the total variance in taxa richness but was as high as 60% for other metrics of community composition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Most monitoring programs set a sampling index period in order to control for the effects of phenology. Other variance partitioning studies (e.g., Zuellig et al 2012) did not address DOY or antecedent streamflow directly but rather captured it indirectly by estimating variance in endpoint values due to annual variability in site conditions (i.e., the interaction between site and year) (sensu Kincaid et al 2004). The fact that DOY contributed on average to 26% of all meaningful correlations and nearly one-third of changes in interpretation indicates that despite the use of an index period, annual trends in ecological attributes may often be confounded by phenology of the aquatic biota being sampled.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a variance components study of invertebrate data, Gurtz et al (2013) found that the timing of sampling within a 10-week index period (i.e., DOY) accounted for over 30% of the total variance in taxa richness but was as high as 60% for other metrics of community composition. Other variance partitioning studies (e.g., Zuellig et al 2012) did not address DOY or antecedent streamflow directly but rather captured it indirectly by estimating variance in endpoint values due to annual variability in site conditions (i.e., the interaction between site and year) (sensu Kincaid et al 2004). Even over a short three-year period, Zuellig et al (2012) found withinsite annual variability explained as much as 12% of the total variance in biological condition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Antecedent Streamflow and Sample Timing on Trend Assessments of Fish, Invertebrate, and Diatom Communities

Zuellig

Carlisle

2018

J American Water Resour Assoc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Detecting trends in biological attributes is central to many stream monitoring programs; however, understanding how natural variability in environmental factors affects trend results is not well understood. We evaluated the influence of antecedent streamflow and sample timing (covariates) on trend estimates for fish, invertebrate, and diatom taxa richness and biological condition from 2002 to 2012 at 51 sites distributed across the conterminous United States. A combination of linear regression and Kendall‐tau test for trends were used to evaluate covariate influence on trend estimates. Adjusting for covariates changed the magnitude of trend estimates in two‐thirds of cases on average by 21%, most often reducing the estimated magnitude of the trend. Additionally, covariates influenced the interpretation of over one‐third of trend estimates by either strengthening or weakening trends after adjustment. Our findings clearly indicate that antecedent streamflow and sample timing influences trend estimates and subsequent interpretation. Accounting for covariates during trend analysis will enhance stream monitoring programs by providing a better understanding and interpretation of estimated changes in biological endpoints at monitored sites. Failure to account for antecedent streamflow and sample timing may lead to mischaracterization of a trend and/or misunderstanding of potential causes.

show abstract

“…Based on accuracy alone, CIS ≥ 10th and CIR ≥ 2 were almost identical in overall percent correct assessment rate. However, as previously suggested, other factors, such as sensitivity to stress and precision of replicate measures, are also critical to consider in development and selection of an assessment method (Blocksom, ; Herbst and Silldorff, ; Stribling et al ., ; Zuellig et al ., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Combination of Biological and Habitat Indices for Assessment of Idaho Streams

Jessup

Pappani

2015

J American Water Resour Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

States and tribes are encouraged to use multiple biological assemblages in assessment of water bodies. An assessment index for each assemblage provides information on aspects of the aquatic resource that may be unique in terms of stressor sensitivity, stressor type, or ecological scale. However, assessment results relative to impairment thresholds can disagree among indices for an individual water body, leading to uncertain overall water‐body assessments. We explored options for combining stream indices for macroinvertebrates, fish, and habitat in ways that would yield the most consistent and sensitive results relative to established disturbance categories. Methods varied in the scoring or rating scales used to standardize each index value, the thresholds used to define impairment of aquatic life uses, and the ways of synthesizing multiple indices. The index compositing method that scores each index on a continuous scale and averages the scores after standardizing had superior accuracy, sensitivity, and precision. In addition, using the 25th quantile of reference sites instead of the 10th quantile resulted in a more balanced error rate among reference and degraded site categories.

show abstract

Variance partitioning of stream diatom, fish, and invertebrate indicators of biological condition

Cited by 11 publications

References 44 publications

Stream biomonitoring using macroinvertebrates around the globe: a comparison of large-scale programs

Stream biomonitoring using macroinvertebrates around the globe: a comparison of large-scale programs

Effects of Antecedent Streamflow and Sample Timing on Trend Assessments of Fish, Invertebrate, and Diatom Communities

Combination of Biological and Habitat Indices for Assessment of Idaho Streams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About