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

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.Keywords: Subsampling taxonomic resolution, Biomonitoring protocols, River management, Standardization, Biological assessmen

Data Paper. Data Paper

<h2>File List</h2><blockquote> <p><a href="gages_basinchar_sept3_09.zip">gages_basinchar_sept3_09.zip</a> -- Zipped file containing 25 tab-delimited ASCII text files, representing watershed and site characteristics, one ASCII tab-delimited text file containing variable descriptions, and one MS Excel spreadsheet showing the hydrologic disturbance index score calculation.</p> <p>Each of the 25 text data files has 6785 records (one record for each stream gage), identified by the unique identifier field GAGE_ID. Each file contains data values for one or more variables for a class of data, as described below:</p> <p>The 25 files are: </p> <p><a href="basinid.txt">basinid.txt</a>: Basic identification characteristics of the stream gage (e.g., name, drainage area, lat/long, water resources region).</p> <p><a href="bas_classif.txt">bas_classif.txt</a>: Reference/non-reference classification and primary quantitative information that went into the classification decision, including pertinent ADR remarks.</p> <p><a href="bas_morph.txt">bas_morph.txt</a>: Basin morphology (e.g., compactness ratio).</p> <p><a href="census_block.txt">census_block.txt</a>: Population densities derived from Census Block-level data.</p> <p><a href="census_county.txt">census_county.txt</a>: Population densities derived from Census County-level data.</p> <p><a href="climate.txt">climate.txt</a>: Climate characteristics (e.g., mean precipitation, temperature).</p> <p><a href="geology.txt">geology.txt</a>: Geological characteristics (e.g., dominant geology in watershed).</p> <p><a href="hydro.txt">hydro.txt</a>: Hydrologic characteristics derived from GIS data (e.g., stream order at the streamgage, base-flow-index, percent runoff).</p> <p><a href="hydromod_dams.txt">hydromod_dams.txt</a>: Information about historical and current dams in the watershed.</p> <p><a href="hydromod_other.txt">hydromod_other.txt</a>: Information about other anthropogenic hydrologic modifications (e.g., percent canals in watershed or on mainstem, presence of permitted pollution discharge sites, estimate of water withdrawal).</p> <p><a href="infrastructure.txt">infrastructure.txt</a>: Road density and percent impervious surfaces in watershed.</p> <p><a href="landscape_pat.txt">landscape_pat.txt</a>: Landscape pattern metric(s) (e.g., fragmentation of undeveloped land).</p> <p><a href="lc01_basin.txt">lc01_basin.txt</a>: Percentages of land cover circa year 2001 in the watershed. </p> <p><a href="lc_change92_01.txt">lc_change92_01.txt</a>: Estimates of changes from 1992 to 2001 in percentages of major land cover classes.</p> <p><a href="lc01_mains100.txt">lc01_mains100.txt</a>: Percentages of land cover classes in 100-m mainstem buffer (100 m each side of mainstem stream line).</p> <p><a href="lc01_mains800.txt">lc01_mains800.txt</a>: Percentages of land cover classes in 800-m mainstem buffer (800 m each side of mainstem streamline).</p> <p><a href="lc01_rip100.txt">lc01_rip100.txt</a>: Percentages of land cover classes in 100-m riparian buffer (100 m each side of all streamlines in watershed).</p> <p><a href="lc01_rip800.txt">lc01_rip800.txt</a>: Percentages of land cover classes in 800-m riparian buffer (800 m each side of all streamlines in watershed).</p> <p><a href="nutrient_app.txt">nutrient_app.txt</a>: Estimates of nitrogen and phosphorus application in the watershed.</p> <p><a href="pest_app.txt">pest_app.txt</a>: Estimates of agricultural pesticide application in the watershed.</p> <p><a href="prot_areas.txt">prot_areas.txt</a>: Percent area of the watershed in "protected" land cover zones (e.g., National Parks, Wilderness Areas) </p> <p><a href="reach.txt">reach.txt</a>: Reachcode for linking to NHDPlus for obtaining reach data, as well as the type of stream at the reach (StreamRiver, Canal, etc.).</p> <p><a href="regions.txt">regions.txt</a>: Site location and percent of watershed area in various regions (e.g., EPA Level II or III ecoregions).</p> <p><a href="soils.txt">soils.txt</a>: Soils characteristics.</p> <p><a href="topo.txt">topo.txt</a>: Topographic characteristics (e.g., mean basin elevation, mean slope).</p> <p>The file <a href="gages_variable_desc_sept3_09.txt">gages_variable_desc_sept3_09.txt</a> contains metadata for the variables in the data files above. This metadata file has 375 records; each record has detailed information about a specific variable. The file is in tab-delimited text format.</p> <p>The MS Excel spreadsheet is named <a href="disturb_index6785_sept3_09.xls">disturb_index6785_sept3_09.xls</a>. This file is provided as a convenience only as demonstration of how the disturbance index scores were assigned. Instructions on how to modify the spreadsheet, if so desired, are provided in the "notes" worksheet.</p> </blockquote><h2>Description</h2><blockquote> <p>Streamflow is a controlling element in the ecology of rivers and streams. Knowledge of the natural flow regime facilitates the assessment of whether specific hydrologic attributes have been altered by humans in a particular stream and the establishment of specific goals for streamflow restoration. Because most streams are ungaged or have been altered by human influences, characterizing the natural flow regime is often only possible by estimating flow characteristics based on nearby stream gages of reference quality, i.e., gaged locations that are least-disturbed by human influences. The ability to evaluate natural streamflow, that which is not altered by human activities, would be enhanced by the existence of a nationally consistent and up-to-date database of gages in relatively undisturbed watersheds.</p> <p>As part of a national effort to characterize streamflow effects on ecological condition, data for 6785 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gages and their upstream watersheds were compiled. The sites comprise all USGS stream gages in the conterminous United States with at least 20 years of complete-year flow record from 1950–2007, and for which watershed boundaries could reliably be delineated (median size = 578 km²). Several hundred watershed and site characteristics were calculated or compiled from national data sources, including environmental features (e.g., climate, geology, soils, topography) and anthropogenic influences (e.g., land use, roads, presence of dams, or canals).</p> <p>In addition, watersheds were assessed for their reference quality within nine broad regions for use in studies intended to characterize streamflows under conditions minimally influenced by human activities. Three primary criteria were used to assess reference quality: (1) a quantitative index of anthropogenic modification within the watershed based on GIS-derived variables, (2) visual inspection of every stream gage and drainage basin from recent high-resolution imagery and topographic maps, and (3) information about man-made influences from USGS Annual Water Data Reports. From the set of 6785 sites, we identified 1512 as reference-quality stream gages. All data derived for these watersheds as well as the reference condition evaluation are provided as an online data set termed GAGES (geospatial attributes of gages for evaluating streamflow).</p> <p><i>Key words: aquatic ecology; dams; hydrologic condition; hydrologic modification; natural flow regime;reference stream gages; streamflow; stream gage network; stream gages; water withdrawal.</i></p> </blockquote

Multi-region assessment of pharmaceutical exposures and predicted effects in USA wadeable urban-gradient streams.

Human-use pharmaceuticals in urban streams link aquatic-ecosystem health to human health. Pharmaceutical mixtures have been widely reported in larger streams due to historical emphasis on wastewater-treatment plant (WWTP) sources, with limited investigation of pharmaceutical exposures and potential effects in smaller headwater streams. In 2014-2017, the United States Geological Survey measured 111 pharmaceutical compounds in 308 headwater streams (261 urban-gradient sites sampled 3-5 times, 47 putative low-impact sites sampled once) in 4 regions across the US. Simultaneous exposures to multiple pharmaceutical compounds (pharmaceutical mixtures) were observed in 91% of streams (248 urban-gradient, 32 low-impact), with 88 analytes detected across all sites and cumulative maximum concentrations up to 36,142 ng/L per site. Cumulative detections and concentrations correlated to urban land use and presence/absence of permitted WWTP discharges, but pharmaceutical mixtures also were common in the 75% of sampled streams without WWTP. Cumulative exposure-activity ratios (EAR) indicated widespread transient exposures with high probability of molecular effects to vertebrates. Considering the potential individual and interactive effects of the detected pharmaceuticals and the recognized analytical underestimation of the pharmaceutical-contaminant (unassessed parent compounds, metabolites, degradates) space, these results demonstrate a nation-wide environmental concern and the need for watershed-scale mitigation of in-stream pharmaceutical contamination

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

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

Metformin and Other Pharmaceuticals Widespread in Wadeable Streams of the Southeastern United States

Pharmaceutical contaminants are growing aquatic-health concerns and largely attributed to wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) discharges. Five biweekly water samples from 59 small Piedmont (United States) streams were analyzed for 108 pharmaceuticals and degradates using high-performance liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry. The antidiabetic metformin was detected in 89% of samples and at 97% of sites. At least one pharmaceutical was detected at every site (median of 6, maximum of 45), and several were detected at ≥10% of sites at concentrations reported to affect multiple aquatic end points. Maximal cumulative (all detected compounds) concentrations per site ranged from 17 to 16000 ng L^–1. Watershed urbanization, water table depth, soil thickness, and WWTF metrics correlated significantly with in-stream pharmaceutical contamination. Comparable pharmaceutical concentrations and detections at sites with and without permitted wastewater discharges demonstrate the importance of non-WWTF sources and the need for broad-scale mitigation. The results highlight a fundamental biochemical link between global human-health crises like diabetes and aquatic ecosystem health