Skip to main content
Log in

Which group is best? Attributes of different biological assemblages used in freshwater biomonitoring programs

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Of the many groups of organisms proposed for use in biomonitoring, assemblages of fish, algae, and benthic macroinvertebrates are the most commonly selected. Purported advantages and disadvantages of using these groups, along with those of zooplankton, were assembled from 65 different publications and websites. From these, 13 categories of advantages and nine of disadvantages were created. The diversity of the assemblage and its importance to the ecosystem were reported as advantages in >20% of citations for each group; these similarities suggest that some redundancy exists among the different groups in terms of these features. Likewise, sampling difficulties and lack of analytic metrics were disadvantages listed in >20% of citations for each group. Few reported advantages (e.g. recreational value of fish) or disadvantages (e.g. short generation time of algae) were unique for a particular assemblage. The validity of reported advantages and disadvantages were sometimes region specific, other times incorrect. The choice of which assemblage is most appropriate for a biomonitoring program ultimately depends on the characteristics of the area to be studied and the program objectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B. D., & Stribling, J. B. (1999). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadable rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. (2nd ed.) EPA 841-B-99-002. Washington D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonada, N., Prat, N., Resh, V. H., & Statzner, B. (2006). Developments in aquatic insect biomonitoring: A comparative analysis of recent approaches. Annual Review of Entomology, 51, 495–523.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brittain, J. E., & Eikeland, T. J. (1988). Invertebrate drift – A review. Hydrobiologia, 166, 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brugam, R. B., & Speziale, B. J. (1983). Human disturbance and the paleolimnological record of change in the zooplankton community of Lake Harriet, Minnesota. Ecology, 64, 578–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, J. Jr. (1988). Politics, economics, science – Going beyond disciplinary boundaries to protect aquatic ecosystems. In M. S. Evans (Ed.), Toxic contaminants and ecosystem health: A Great Lakes focus (pp. 1–16). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, J. Jr., & Pratt, J. R. (1993). A history of biological monitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. In D. M. Rosenberg (Ed.), Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates (pp. 10–27). New York: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J. L., & Resh, V. H. (2001). After site selection and before data analysis: Sampling, sorting, and laboratory procedures used in stream benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring programs by USA state agencies. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 20, 658–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J. L., Resh, V. H., Rosenberg, D. M., & Reynoldson, T. B. (2006). Biomonitoring in North American rivers: A comparison of methods used for benthic macroinvertebrates in Canada and the United States. In G. Ziglio, M. Siligardi, & G. Flaim (Eds.), Biological monitoring of rivers (pp. 203–228). Chicester: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, S. P., Kunpradid, T., Peerapornisal, Y., Nguyen, T. M. L., Pathoumthong, B., Vongsambath, C., et al. (2006). Biomonitoring of the Lower Mekong and selected tributaries. MRC technical paper no. 13. (Vientiane, Lao P. D. R.: Mekong River Commission).

  • De Pauw, N., Gabriels, W., & Goethals, P. L. M. (2006). River monitoring and assessment methods based on macroinvertebrates. In G. Ziglio, M. Siligardi, & G. Flaim (Eds.), Biological monitoring of rivers (pp. 113–134). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWalt, R. E., Favret, C., & Webb, D. W. (2005). Just how imperiled are aquatic insects? A case study of stoneflies (Plecoptera) of Illinois. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 98, 941–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallacher, D. (2001). The application of rapid bioassessment techniques based on benthic macroinvertebrates in East Asian rivers (a review). Internationale Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie Verhandlungen, 27, 3503–3509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, M. B., Hill, B. H., McCormick, F. H., Kaufmann, P. R., Herlihy, A. T., & Selle, A. R. (2005). Comparative application of indices of biotic integrity based on periphyton, macroinvertebrates, and fish to southern Rocky Mountain streams. Ecological Indicators, 5, 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellawell, J. M. (1986). Biological indicators of freshwater pollution and environmental management. New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. M., Paulsen, S. G., & Stoddard, J. L. (2000). EMAP-Surface waters: A multiassemblage, probability survey of ecological integrity in the U.S.A.. Hydrobiologia, 422/423, 429–443.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hynes, H. B. N. (1960). The biology of polluted waters. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, J., Real, M., Juggins, S., Flower, D. T., & Beaumont, W. R. C. (1996). Monitoring temporal changes in the biology of acid waters. Freshwater Biology, 36, 179–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazor, R. D., Reynoldson, T. B., Rosenberg, D. M., & Resh, V. H. (2006). Effects of biotic assemblage, classification, and assessment method on bioassessment performance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63, 394–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newall, P., Bate, N., & Metzeling, L. (2006). A comparison of diatom and macroinvertebrate classification of sites in the Kiewa River system, Australia. Hydrobiologia, 572, 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod, S. D., Rundle, S. D.,Wilkinson, S. M., Daly, G. P., & Juttner, J. (1994). Altitudinal trends in the diatoms, bryophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish of a Nepalese river system. Freshwater Biology, 32, 309–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmalee, P. W., & Klippel, W. E. (1974). Freshwater mussels as prehistoric food resources. American Antiquity, 39, 421–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resh, V. H. (2007). Multinational, freshwater biomonitoring programs in the developing world: Lessons learned from African and Southeast Asian river surveys. Environmental Management, 39, 737–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, J. A., Stewart, P. M., Mullen, M. M., Simon, T. P., & Bennett, H. H. (2004). Influence of habitat, water quality, and land use on macro-invertebrate and fish assemblages of a southeastern coastal plain watershed, USA. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 7, 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonneman, J. A., Walsh, C. L., Breen, P. F., & Sharpe, A. K. (2001). Effects of urbanization on streams of the Melbourne region, Victoria, Australia. II. Benthic diatom communities. Freshwater Biology, 46, 553–565.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spieles, D. J., & Mitsch, W. J. (2000). Macroinvertebrate community structure in high- and low- nutrient constructed wetlands. Wetlands, 20, 716–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoermer, E. (2001). Diatom taxonomy for paleolimnologists. Journal of Paleolimnology, 25, 393–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triest, L., Kaur, P., Heylen, S., & De Pauw, N. (2001). Comparative monitoring of diatoms, macroinvertebrates and macrophytes in the Woluwe River (Brussels, Belgium). Aquatic Ecology, 35, 183–194.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, I. (1993). Paleolimnological biomonitoring using freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates. In D. M. Rosenberg (Ed.), Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates (pp. 306–343). New York: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent H. Resh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Resh, V.H. Which group is best? Attributes of different biological assemblages used in freshwater biomonitoring programs. Environ Monit Assess 138, 131–138 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9749-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9749-4

Keywords

Navigation