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

Book ReviewGuides to the freshwater invertebrates of southern Africa. Volume 3: Crustacea II. Ostracoda, Copepoda and Branchiuraby JA Day, IJ de Moor, BA Stewart and AE Louw (Editors), March 2001

WRC Report No. TT148/01 ISBN 1 86845 703 6 Soft cover: R50 (South Africa), $25 (international) Obtainable from Water Research Commission, PO Box 824, Pretoria 0001, South Africa or [email protected]

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

Assemblage-based biomonitoring of freshwater ecosystem health via multimetric indices: A critical review and suggestions for improving their applicability

Freshwater biota are more comprehensive and direct indicators of biological impacts, and more meaningful to the public than water quality or physical habitat surrogates. Freshwater biotic data and the multiple biological indicators developed from them offer a much richer array of data for assessing the impacts of pollution controls than a limited set of physical or chemical measures. In recent decades, assemblage-based assessments by ecologists, environmental scientists, and water quality agencies have been employed globally for determining the condition of, and threats to, freshwater ecosystems. A key step in this advance has been the development of multimetric indices (MMIs) or indices of biotic integrity (IBIs) based on quantitative assessments of algae, macrophyte, macroinvertebrate, fish or riparian bird assemblages. In Europe, where biological assemblages are mandated for assessing freshwater ecosystem health, many indices are multimetric. However, the proliferation of MMIs globally has not always occurred through the application of rigorous study designs and monitoring protocols, nor have they always effectively incorporated functional metrics, stressor assessments, and statistical analyses. Therefore, in this review, we discuss eleven major concerns with the development and application (including logistical limitations) of multimetric indicators based on freshwater biota to encourage more rigorous and widely applicable (transferable) MMI use and implementation. Specifically, our concerns focus on reference conditions; sampling effort, methods, and season; trophic guild definition; metric comprehensiveness, options, screening and scoring; and MMI validation. MMIs could also benefit from increased attention to ecological mechanisms and metric development, to further improve our understanding of anthropogenic impacts as well as rehabilitation effects on freshwater ecosystems globally. Paying closer attention to study designs, ecological mechanisms and metric development should further improve our understanding of anthropogenic impacts and better facilitate rehabilitation of degraded freshwater ecosystems, as well as aiding in the conservation of healthy freshwater ecosystems globally