4.4 Article

Macroinvertebrate biomonitoring in intermittent coastal plain streams impacted by animal agriculture

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 1036-1043

Publisher

AMER SOC AGRONOMY
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2003.1036

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Little attention has been given to the ecology of intermittent coastal plain streams in the southeastern United States, and it is not known whether available macroinvertebrate biomonitoring methods reliably detect degradation in these streams. This study compared differences in biomonitoring metrics between reference and agricultural streams, and between the flow period (January-April) and the intermittent flow period (May-December). Percentages of crustaceans, isopods, and Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-Trichoptera (EPT) were significantly higher at the reference site than the two most impacted sites during the How period, probably resulting from the abundance of leaf litter and lower temperatures. During this same period, the agriculturally impacted sites had a significantly higher percentage of dipterans-a group that thrives in the silty, nutrient-rich waters. Four metrics (percent Crustacea, Isopoda, Diptera, and EPT) had no overlap between values for the most impacted and the least impacted sites during the flow period, but no metrics were able to detect more discrete differences among sites. Sites were physically and biologically similar during the intermittent period when natural stresses (i.e., stagnant water, high temperatures, low dissolved oxygen) were high, with many metrics, such as percentages of dominant family, burrowers, chironomids, and dipterans becoming similar at all sites. Our findings indicate that development of a better understanding of invertebrate fauna in reference conditions and of the natural variation in intermittent streams is necessary to develop effective biomonitoring programs for these systems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available