Contribution of national bioassessment approaches for assessing ecological water security: an AUSRIVAS case study

doi:10.1007/s11783-013-0556-6

Front Envir Sci Eng

0, Vol.

Issue () : 669-687 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-013-0556-6

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Contribution of national bioassessment approaches for assessing ecological water security: an AUSRIVAS case study

Susan J. NICHOLS(

), Fiona J. DYER

Institute for Applied Ecology and MDBfutures CRN, University of Canberra, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia

Download: PDF(323 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

River managers in Australia are managing in the face of extremes to provide security of water supply for people, production and the environment. Balancing the water requirements of people, environments and economies requires that water security is viewed holistically, not just in terms of the water available for human consumption. Common definitions of water security focus on the needs of both humans and ecosystems for purposes such as drinking, agriculture and industrial use, and to maintain ecological values. Information about achieving water security for the environment or ecological purposes can be a challenge to interpret because the watering requirements of key ecological processes or assets are not well understood, and the links between ecological and human values are often not obvious to water users. Yet the concepts surrounding river health are inherently linked to holistic concepts of water security. The measurement of aquatic biota provides a valuable tool for managers to understand progress toward achieving ecological water security objectives. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the reference condition approach to river health assessment, using the development of the Australian River Assessment System (AUSRIVAS) as a case study. We make the link between the biological assessment of river health and assessment of ecological water security, and suggest that such an approach provides a way of reporting that is relevant to the contribution made by ecosystems to water security. The reference condition approach, which is the condition representative of minimally disturbed sites organized by selected physical, chemical, and biological characteristics, is most important for assessing ecological water security objectives.

Keywords ecological water security biological assessment river health

Corresponding Author(s): NICHOLS Susan J.,Email:sue.nichols@canberra.edu.au

Issue Date: 01 October 2013

Cite this article:

Susan J. NICHOLS,Fiona J. DYER. Contribution of national bioassessment approaches for assessing ecological water security: an AUSRIVAS case study[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 0, (): 669-687.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-013-0556-6
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y0/V/I/669

Tab.1 Components of water security and related ecological processes

Fig.1 Representation of the concept of river health [modified from 22] in relation to the elements of water security; adapted from [,] and the authors’ own work

Tab.2 Example of an AUSRIVAS calculation of the probability of a taxon occurring at a test site for this four-group model. Combined probability that taxon will occur at Site = 76.5%; redrawn from Coysh et al. 71]

Tab.3 Example of AUSRIVAS bands of biological condition for the ACT-autumn-riffle model, showing / range, band descriptions and interpretations; adapted from Coysh et al. []

Fig.2 Target condition and reference condition, showing how target condition may not necessarily be the same as reference condition but rather somewhere between current condition and reference condition [redrawn from Ref.[]]

Fig.3 233 reference sites from the Fraser River, British Columbia, showing distribution along environmental gradients and groups identified by cluster analysis []

1	Maslow A H. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review , 1943, 50(4): 370–396 doi: 10.1037/h0054346
2	Naiman R J, Magnuson J J, Mcknight D M, Stanford J A, Karr J R. Fresh-water ecosystems and their management-a national initiative. Science , 1995, 270(5236): 584–585 doi: 10.1126/science.270.5236.584
3	V?r?smarty C J, McIntyre P B, Gessner M O, Dudgeon D, Prusevich A, Green P, Glidden S, Bunn S E, Sullivan C A, Liermann C R, Davies P M. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature , 2010, 467(7315): 555–561 doi: 10.1038/nature09440 pmid:20882010
4	Bruins H J. Proactive contingency planning vis-à-vis declining water security in the 21st century. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management , 2000, 8(2): 63–72 doi: 10.1111/1468-5973.00125
5	Dudgeon D, Arthington A H, Gessner M O, Kawabata Z I, Knowler D J, Lévêque C, Naiman R J, Prieur-Richard A H, Soto D, Stiassny M L J, Sullivan C A. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , 2006, 81(2): 163–182 doi: 10.1017/S1464793105006950 pmid:16336747
6	Malmqvist B, Rundle S. Threats to the running water ecosystems of the world. Environmental Conservation , 2002, 29(2): 134–153 doi: 10.1017/S0376892902000097
7	Zhang H, Oweis T. Water-yield relations and optimal irrigation scheduling of wheat in the Mediterranean region. Agricultural Water Management , 1999, 38(3): 195–211 doi: 10.1016/S0378-3774(98)00069-9
8	Blum A. Drought resistance, water-use efficiency, and yield potential—are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive? Australian Journal of Agricultural Research , 2005, 56(11): 1159–1168 doi: 10.1071/AR05069
9	Khan S. Managing climate risks in Australia: options for water policy and irrigation management. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture , 2008, 48(3): 265–273 doi: 10.1071/EA06090
10	CSIRO. Water Availability in the Murray-Darling Basin- A Report to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project. Canberra: CSIRO, 2008
11	Brown L R, Halweil B. China’s water shortage could shake world food security. World Watch , 1998, 11(4): 10–16 pmid:12348868
12	Poff N L, Zimmerman J K H. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshwater Biology , 2010, 55(1): 194–205 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02272.x
13	Falkenmark M, Berntell A, Jagerskog A, Lundqvist J, Matz M, Tropp H. On the Verge of a New Water Scarcity: A Call for Good Governance and Human Ingenuity. Stockholm: SIWI Policy Brief, 2007
14	Lautze J, Manthrithilake H. Water security: old concepts, new package, what value? Natural Resources Forum , 2012, 36(2): 76–87 doi: 10.1111/j.1477-8947.2012.01448.x
15	de Groot R S, Wilson M A, Boumans R M J. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics , 2002, 41(3): 393–408 doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
16	Cook C, Bakker K. Water security: debating an emerging paradigm. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions , 2012, 22(1): 94–102 doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.011
17	Grey D, Sadoff C W. Sink or swim? water security for growth and development. Water Policy , 2007, 9(6): 545–571 doi: 10.2166/wp.2007.021
18	Swaminathan M S. Ecology and equity: key determinants of sustainable water security. Water Science and Technology : a Journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 2001, 43(4): 35–44 pmid:11379224
19	Dunn G, Cook C, Bakker K, Allen D. Water Security Guidance Document: Defining and Assessing Water Security. Vancouver, BC: UBC Program on Water Governance, 2012
20	Global Water Partnership. Towards Water Security: A Framework for Action. Stockholm: GWP. 2000
21	Norris R H. Environmental water: the benefits of ecological goods and services? In: Connell D, Grafton R Q, eds. Basin Futures: Water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin . Canberra: ANU E Press, 2011
22	Boulton A J. An overview of river health assessment: philosophies, practice, problems and prognosis. Freshwater Biology , 1999, 41(2): 469–479 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00443.x
23	Karr J R. Defining and measuring river health. Freshwater Biology , 1999, 41(2): 221–234 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00427.x
24	Norris R H, Thoms M C. What is river health? Freshwater Biology , 1999, 41(2): 197–209 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00425.x
25	Bowling L C, Baker P D. Major cyanobacterial bloom in the Barwon-Darling River, Australia, in 1991, and underlying limnological conditions. Marine & Freshwater Research , 1996, 47(4): 643–657 doi: 10.1071/MF9960643
26	Donnelly T H, Grace M R, Hart B T. Algal blooms in the Darling-Barwon River, Australia. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution , 1997, 99(1-4): 487–496 doi: 10.1007/BF02406888
27	Davies P E, Harris J H, Hillman T J, Walker K F. The sustainable rivers audit: assessing river ecosystem health in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Marine & Freshwater Research , 2010, 61(7): 764–777 doi: 10.1071/MF09043
28	Hynes H B N. The Biology of Polluted Waters. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1960
29	Patrick R. A proposed biological measure of stream conditions, based on a survey of the Conestoga Basin, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia , 1949, 101: 277–342
30	Reynoldson T B, Metcalfe-Smith J L. An overview of the assessment of aquatic ecosystem health using benthic invertebrates. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Health , 1992, 1(4): 295–308 doi: 10.1007/BF00044171
31	Resh V H. Which group is best? Attributes of different biological assemblages used in freshwater biomonitoring programs. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 2008, 138(1-3): 131–138 doi: 10.1007/s10661-007-9749-4 pmid:17503204
32	Bailey R C, Norris R H, Reynoldson T B. Bioassessment of Freshwater Ecosystems Using the Reference Condition Approach. New York, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004
33	Bonada N, Prat N, Resh V H, Statzner B. Developments in aquatic insect biomonitoring: a comparative analysis of recent approaches. Annual Review of Entomology , 2006, 51(1): 495–523 doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151124 pmid:16332221
34	Metcalfe J L. Biological water quality assessment of running waters based on macroinvertebrate communities: history and present status in Europe. Environmental Pollution , 1989, 60(1-2): 101–139 doi: 10.1016/0269-7491(89)90223-6 pmid:15092393
35	Rosenberg D M, Resh V H. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1993
36	Hellawell J M. Biological Indicators of Freshwater Pollution and Environment Management. London and New York: Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, 1986
37	Downes B J, Barmuta L A, Fairweather P G, Faith D P, Keough M J, Lake P S, Mapstone B D, Quinn G P. Monitoring Ecological Impacts: Concepts and Practice in Flowing Waters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002
38	Green R H. Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental Biologists New York: Wiley , 1979
39	Karr J R. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries (Bethesda, Md.) , 1981, 6(6): 21–27 doi: 10.1577/1548-8446(1981)006<0021:AOBIUF>2.0.CO;2
40	Plafkin J L, Barbour M T, Porter K D, Gross S K, Hughes R M. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish . Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989
41	Underwood A J. The mechanics of spatially replicated sampling programs to detect environmental impacts in a variable world. Australian Journal of Ecology , 1993, 18(1): 99–116 doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00437.x
42	Underwood A J. On beyond baci-sampling designs that might reliably detect environmental disturbances. Ecological Applications , 1994, 4(1): 3–15 doi: 10.2307/1942110
43	Carey J M, Keough M J. The variability of estimates of variance, and its effect on power analysis in monitoring design. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 2002, 74(3): 225–241 doi: 10.1023/A:1014280405278 pmid:11944796
44	Green R H. A multivariate statistical approach to the Hutchinsonian niche: bivalve molluscs of central Canada. Ecology , 1971, 52(4): 543–556 doi: 10.2307/1934142
45	Green R H. Multivariate niche analysis with temporally varying environmental factors. Ecology , 1974, 55(1): 73–83 doi: 10.2307/1934619
46	Faith D P, Dostine P L, Humphrey C L. Detection of mining impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrate communities: results of a disturbance experiment and the design of a multivariate BACIP monitoring program at Coronation Hill, Northern Territory. Australian Journal of Ecology , 1995, 20(1): 167–180 doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.1995.tb00530.x
47	Wright J F, Moss D, Armitage P D, Furse M T. A preliminary classification of running-water sites in Great Britain based on macro-invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data. Freshwater Biology , 1984, 14(3): 221–256 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.1984.tb00039.x
48	Reynoldson T B, Norris R H, Resh V H, Day K E, Rosenberg D M. The reference condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 1997, 16(4): 833–852 doi: 10.2307/1468175
49	Metzeling L, Chessman B, Hardwick R, Wong V. Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: the role of experience, and comparisons with quantitative methods. Hydrobiologia , 2003, 510(1-3): 39–52 doi: 10.1023/B:HYDR.0000008500.34301.a0
50	Barbour M T, Gerritsen J, Snyder B D, Stribling J B. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002 . Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 1999
51	Wright J F. Development and use of a system for predicting the macroinvertebrate fauna in flowing waters. Australian Journal of Ecology , 1995, 20(1): 181–197 doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.1995.tb00531.x
52	Wright J F, Furse M T, Moss D. River classification using invertebrates: RIVPACS applications. Aquatic Conservation-Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems , 1998, 8(4): 617–631 doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0755(199807/08)8:4<617::AID-AQC255>3.0.CO;2-#
53	Davies P E. Development of a national river bioassessment system (AUSRIVAS) in Australia. In: Wright J F, Sutcliffe D W, Furse M T, eds. Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and Other Techniques . Ambleside: Freshwater Biological Association, 2000, 113–124
54	Simpson J C, Norris R H. Biological assessment of river quality: development of AUSRIVAS models and outputs. In: Wright J F, Sutcliffe D W, Furse M T, eds. Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and Other Techniques. Ambleside, Cumbria: Freshwater Biological Association, 2000, 125–142
55	Hawkins C P, Norris R H, Hogue J N, Feminella J W. Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecological Applications , 2000, 10(5): 1456–1477 doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1456:DAEOPM]2.0.CO;2
56	Reynoldson T B, Day K E, Pascoe T. The development of the BEAST: a predictive approach for assessing sediment quality in the North American Great Lakes. In: Wright J F, Sutcliffe D W, Furse M T, eds. Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and Other Techniques . Ambleside: Freshwater Biological Association, 2000, 165–180
57	Rosenberg D M, Reynoldson T B, Resh V H. Establishing reference conditions in the Fraser River catchment, British Columbia, Canada, using the BEAST. In: Wright J F, Sutcliffe D W, Furse M T, eds. Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and Other Techniques. Ambleside, UK: Freshwater Biological Association, 2000, 181–194
58	Davies P E. River Bioassessment Manual Version 1.0 National River Processes and Management Program Monitoring River Health Initiative. 1994. Available online at http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/environmental/rivers/nrhp/bioassess.html (accessed May 20. 2013)
59	Yates A G, Bailey R C. Selecting objectively defined reference sites for stream bioassessment programs. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 2010, 170(1-4): 129–140 doi: 10.1007/s10661-009-1221-1 pmid:19902368
60	Water Framework Directive . Water framework directive of the European parliament and the council, of 23 October 2000, establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities , 2000, L327: 1–72
61	Feio M J, Poquet J M. Predictive models for freshwater biological assessment: statistical approaches, biological elements and the Iberian Peninsula Experience: a review. International Review of Hydrobiology , 2011, 96(4): 321–346 doi: 10.1002/iroh.201111376
62	Poquet J M, Alba-Tercedor J, Punti T, Sanchez-Montoya M D, Robles S, Alvarez M, Zamora-Munoz C, Sainz-Cantero C E, Vidal-Abarca M R, Suarez M L, Toro M, Pujante A M, Rieradevall M, Prat N. The MEDiterranean Prediction And Classification System (MEDPACS): an implementation of the RIVPACS/AUSRIVAS predictive approach for assessing Mediterranean aquatic macroinvertebrate communities. Hydrobiologia , 2009, 623(1): 153–171 doi: 10.1007/s10750-008-9655-y
63	Parsons M, Norris R H. The effect of habitat-specific sampling on biological assessment of water quality using a predictive model. Freshwater Biology , 1996, 36(2): 419–434 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1996.00088.x
64	Marchant R, Hirst A, Norris R H, Butcher R, Metzeling L, Tiller D. Classification and prediction of macroinvertebrate assemblages from running waters in Victoria, Australia. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 1997, 16(3): 664–681 doi: 10.2307/1468152
65	Lamche G, Fukuda Y.Comparison of Genus and Family AUSRIVAS Models for the Darwin-Daly region and relation to Land Use. Report 01/2008D . Darwin: Aquatic Health Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, 2008
66	Lenat D R, Resh V H. Taxonomy and stream ecology- The benefits of genus- and species-level identifications. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 2001, 20(2): 287–298 doi: 10.2307/1468323
67	Heino J, Soininen J. Are higher taxa adequate surrogates for species-level assemblage patterns and species richness in stream organisms? Biological Conservation , 2007, 137(1): 78–89 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.01.017
68	Chessman B, Williams S, Besley C. Bioassessment of streams with macroinvertebrates: effect of sampled habitat and taxonomic resolution. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 2007, 26(3): 546–565 doi: 10.1899/06-074.1
69	Bailey R C, Norris R H, Reynoldson T B. Taxonomic resolution of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in bioassessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 2001, 20(2): 280–286 doi: 10.2307/1468322
70	Reynoldson T B, Rosenberg D M, Resh V H. Comparison of models predicting invertebrate assemblages for biomonitoring in the Fraser River catchment, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences , 2001, 58(7): 1395–1410 doi: 10.1139/f01-075
71	Coysh J, Nichols S, Ransom G, Simpson J, Norris R, Barmuta L, Chessman B. AUSRIVAS Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment: Predictive Modelling Manual. Canberra: CRC for Freshwater Ecology, 2000 ISBN 0-9751642-05
72	Van Sickle J, Huff D D, Hawkins C P. Selecting discriminant function models for predicting the expected richness of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Freshwater Biology , 2006, 51(2): 359–372 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2005.01487.x
73	Mazor R D, Reynoldson T B, Rosenberg D M, Resh V H. Effects of biotic assemblage, classification, and assessment method on bioassessment performance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences , 2006, 63(2): 394–411 doi: 10.1139/f05-222
74	Clarke R T, Murphy J F. Effects of locally rare taxa on the precision and sensitivity of RIVPACS bioassessment of freshwaters. Freshwater Biology , 2006, 51(10): 1924–1940 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01611.x
75	Marchant R. Do rare species have any place in multivariate analysis for bioassessment? Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 2002, 21(2): 311–313 doi: 10.2307/1468417
76	Ostermiller J D, Hawkins C P. Effects of sampling error on bioassessments of stream ecosystems: application to RIVPACS-type models. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 2004, 23(2): 363–382 doi: 10.1899/0887-3593(2004)023<0363:EOSEOB>2.0.CO;2
77	Van Sickle J, Larsen D P, Hawkins C P. Exclusion of rare taxa affects performance of the O/E index in bioassessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 2007, 26(2): 319–331 doi: 10.1899/0887-3593(2007)26[319:EORTAP]2.0.CO;2
78	Whittington J. Assessing River Condition Using Existing Data: a Guide for Catchment Managers. Canberra: ACT Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, 2002
79	O’Connor R, Nichols S. Framework to Set Targets for Healthy Working River Systems Version 1.1, Project no.156 January 2006. Canberra: eWater CRC, 2006
80	Metzeling L, Robinson D, Perriss S, Marchant R. Temporal persistence of benthic invertebrate communities in south-eastern Australian streams: taxonomic resolution and implications for the use of predictive models. Marine & Freshwater Research , 2002, 53(8): 1223–1234 doi: 10.1071/MF02071
81	Nichols S J, Robinson W A, Norris R H. Using the reference condition maintains the integrity of a bioassessment program in a changing climate. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 2010, 29(4): 1459–1471 doi: 10.1899/09-165.1
82	Reynoldson T B. Relative significance of temporal and spatial variation in characterizing reference conditions for the RCA. In Proceedings of the North American Benthological Society Annual Meeting , 2006, Anchorage: Alaska. Available online at https://www.freshwater-science.org/Other-Publications/NABStracts/2006/255.aspx (accessed July 5, 2013)
83	Sylvestre S, Reynoldson T B. Temporal variation of benthic invertebrate monitoring data in British Columbia, presented at 54th North American Benthological Society Annual Meeting , 2006, Anchorage: Alaska. Available online at http://www.freshwater-science.org/other-publications/nabstracts/2006/256.aspx (accessed July 5, 2013)
84	Reynoldson T B, Wright J F. The reference condition: problems and solutions. In: Wright J F, Sutcliffe D W, Furse M T, eds. Assessing the Biological Quality of Freshwaters. RIVPACS and Other Techniques . Ambleside: Freshwater Biological Association, 2000, 293–304
85	Tannenbaum L V, Bazar M, Hawkins M S, Cornaby B W, Ferguson E A, Chantelle Carroll L, Ryan P F. Rodent sperm analysis in field-based ecological risk assessment: pilot study at Ravenna army ammunition plant, Ravenna, Ohio. Environmental Pollution , 2003, 123(1): 21–29 doi: 10.1016/S0269-7491(02)00360-3 pmid:12663202
86	Davies P E. AusRivAS: Its Utility, Possible Future Governance and Funding Arrangements. Report to Department of the Environment and Water Resources . Hobart: Freshwater Systems, 2007
87	Stoddard J L, Larsen D P, Hawkins C P, Johnson R K, Norris R H. Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. Ecological Applications , 2006, 16(4): 1267–1276 doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1267:SEFTEC]2.0.CO;2 pmid:16937796
88	Hawkins C P, Olson J R, Hill R A. The reference condition: predicting benchmarks for ecological and water-quality assessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 2010, 29(1): 312–343 doi: 10.1899/09-092.1
89	Rose P, Metzeling L, Catzikiris S. Can macroinvertebrate rapid bioassessment methods be used to assess river health during drought in south eastern Australian streams? Freshwater Biology , 2008, 53(12): 2626–2638 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2008.02074.x
90	Chessman B C, Jones H A, Searle N K, Growns I O, Pearson M R. Assessing effects of flow alteration on macroinvertebrate assemblages in Australian dryland rivers. Freshwater Biology , 2010, 55(8): 1780–1800
91	Bailey R C, Kennedy M G, Dervish M Z, Taylor R M. Biological assessment of freshwater ecosystems using a reference condition approach: comparing predicted and actual benthic invertebrate communities in Yukon streams. Freshwater Biology , 1998, 39(4): 765–774 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1998.00317.x
92	Bailey R C, Scrimgeour G, Cote D, Kehler D, Linke S, Cao Y. Bioassessment of stream ecosystems enduring a decade of simulated degradation: lessons for the real world. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences , 2012, 69(4): 784–796 doi: 10.1139/f2012-010
93	Cao Y, Hawkins C P. Simulating biological impairment to evaluate the accuracy of ecological indicators. Journal of Applied Ecology , 2005, 42(5): 954–965 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01075.x
94	Ladson A R, White L J, Doolan J A, Finlayson B L, Hart B T, Lake P S, Tilleard J W. Development and testing of an Index of Stream Condition for waterway management in Australia. Freshwater Biology , 1999, 41(2): 453–468 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00442.x
95	Muxika I, Borja A, Bald J.Using historical data, expert judgement and multivariate analysis in assessing reference conditions and benthic ecological status, according to the European Water Framework Directive. Marine Pollution Bulletin , 2007, 55(1-6): 16–29
96	Thoms M C, Ogden R W, Reid M A. Establishing the condition of lowland floodplain rivers: a palaeo-ecological approach. Freshwater Biology , 1999, 41(2): 407–423 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00439.x
97	Norris R H, Linke S, Prosser I, Young W J, Liston P, Bauer N, Sloane N, Dyer F, Thoms M. Very-broad-scale assessment of human impacts on river condition. Freshwater Biology , 2007, 52(5): 959–976 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2006.01701.x
98	Chessman B C, Royal M J. Bioassessment without reference sites: use of environmental filters to predict natural assemblages of river macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 2004, 23(3): 599–615 doi: 10.1899/0887-3593(2004)023<0599:BWRSUO>2.0.CO;2
99	Norris R H, Georges A. Design and analysis for assessment of water quality. In: De Deckker P, Williams W D, eds. Limnology in Australia . Dordrecht: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Melbourne and Junk Publishers, 1986, 555–572
100	Norris R H, Norris K R. The need for biological assessment of water-quality- Australian perspective. Australian Journal of Ecology , 1995, 20(1): 1–6 doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.1995.tb00516.x
101	ANZECC, ARMCANZ. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. National water quality management strategy. Canberra: Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, 2000
102	Hynes H B N. Edgardo Baldi Memorial Lecture. The stream and its valley. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung fur Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie , 1975, 19: 1–15
103	Southwood T R E. Habitat, the templet for ecological strategies? Journal of Animal Ecology , 1977, 46(2): 336–365 doi: 10.2307/3817
104	Townsend C R, Hildrew A G. Species traits in relation to a habitat templet for river systems. Freshwater Biology , 1994, 31(3): 265–275 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.1994.tb01740.x
105	Hutchinson G E. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology , 1957, 22(0): 415–427 doi: 10.1101/SQB.1957.022.01.039
106	AUSRIVAS. Australian River Assessment System Webpage. Canberra: eWaterCRC, 2012. Available online at http://ausrivas.ewater.com.au/index.php/home (accessed July 5, 2013)
107	Chessman B C. Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates-a procedure based on habitat-specific sampling, family level identification and a Biotic Index. Australian Journal of Ecology , 1995, 20(1): 122–129 doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.1995.tb00526.x
108	John J. Assessment of river health in Australia by diatom assemblages-a review. Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies , 2004, 33(2): 95–104
109	Davies P E, Harris J H, Hillman T J, Walker K F. SRA Report 1: A Report on the Ecological Health of Rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin, 2004-2007. Canberra: MDBC, 2008
110	Fellows C S, Clapcott J E, Udy J W, Bunn S E, Harch B D, Smith M J, Davies P M. Benthic metabolism as an indicator of stream ecosystem health. Hydrobiologia , 2006, 572(1): 71–87 doi: 10.1007/s10750-005-9001-6
111	Boulton A J, Quinn J M. A simple and versatile technique for assessing cellulose decomposition potential in floodplain and riverine sediments. Archiv fuer Hydrobiologie , 2000, 150(1): 133–151
112	Gessner M O, Chauvet E. A case for using litter breakdown to assess functional stream integrity. Ecological Applications , 2002, 12(2): 498–510 doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0498:ACFULB]2.0.CO;2
113	Davies N M, Norris R H, Thoms M C. Prediction and assessment of local stream habitat features using large-scale catchment characteristics. Freshwater Biology , 2000, 45(3): 343–369 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2000.00625.x
114	Mugodo J, Kennard M, Liston P, Nichols S, Linke S, Norris R H, Lintermans M. Local stream habitat variables predicted from catchment scale characteristics are useful for predicting fish distribution. Hydrobiologia , 2006, 572(1): 59–70 doi: 10.1007/s10750-006-0252-7
115	Turak E, Flack L K, Norris R H, Simpson J, Waddell N. Assessment of river condition at a large spatial scale using predictive models. Freshwater Biology , 1999, 41(2): 283–298 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00431.x
116	Wright J F, Sutcliffe D W, Furse M T. Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and Other Techniques. Ambleside, Cumbria: Freshwater Biological Association, 2000
117	Humphrey C L, Storey A W, Thurtell L. AUSRIVAS: operator sample processing errors and temporal variability-implications for model sensitivity. In: Wright J F, Sutcliffe D W, Furse M T, eds. Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and Other Techniques . Ambleside: Freshwater Biological Association, 2000, 143–163
118	Clarke R. Uncertainty in estimates of biological quality based on RIVPACS. In: Wright J F, Sutcliffe D W, Furse M T, eds. Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters; RIVPACS and Other Techniques . Ambleside, Cumbria: Freshwater Biological Association, 2000, 41–54
119	Nichols S J, Norris R H. River condition assessment may depend on the sub-sampling method: field live-sort versus laboratory sub-sampling of invertebrates for bioassessment. Hydrobiologia , 2006, 572(1): 195–213 doi: 10.1007/s10750-006-0253-6
120	Nichols S J, Robinson W A, Norris R H. Sample variability influences on the precision of predictive bioassessment. Hydrobiologia , 2006, 572(1): 215–233 doi: 10.1007/s10750-005-9003-4
121	Gillies C L, Hose G C, Turak E. What do qualitative rapid assessment collections of macroinvertebrates represent? a comparison with extensive quantitative sampling. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 2009, 149(1-4): 99–112 doi: 10.1007/s10661-008-0186-9 pmid:18302002
122	Halse S A, Scanlon M D, Cocking J S, Smith M J, Kay W R. Factors affecting river health and its assessment over broad geographic ranges: the Western Australian experience. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 2007, 134(1-3): 161–175 doi: 10.1007/s10661-007-9607-4 pmid:17342438
123	Hose G, Turak E, Waddell N. Reproducibility of AUSRIVAS rapid bioassessments using macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 2004, 23(1): 126–139 doi: 10.1899/0887-3593(2004)023<0126:ROARBU>2.0.CO;2
124	Johnson R K. RIVPACS and alternative statistical modelling techniques: accuracy and soundness of principles . In: Wright J F, Sutcliffe D W, Furse M T, eds. Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and Other Techniques . Ambleside: Freshwater Biological Association, 2000, 323–332
125	Walley W J, Fontama V N. New approaches to river quality classification based upon Artificial Intelligence. In: Wright J F, Sutcliffe D W, Furse M T, eds. Assessing the Biological Quality of Fresh Waters: RIVPACS and Other Techniques . Ambleside, Cumbria: Freshwater Biological Association, 2000, 263–280
126	Growns I, Reinfelds I, Williams S, Coade G. Longitudinal effects of a water supply reservoir (Tallowa Dam) on downstream water quality, substrate and riffle macroinvertebrate assemblages in the Shoalhaven River, Australia. Marine & Freshwater Research , 2009, 60(6): 594–606 doi: 10.1071/MF08144
127	Marchant R, Hehir G. The use of AUSRIVAS predictive models to assess the response of lotic macroinvertebrates to dams in south-east Australia. Freshwater Biology , 2002, 47(5): 1033–1050 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00823.x
128	Nichols S J, Norris R, Maher W, Thoms M. Ecological effects of serial impoundment on the Cotter River, Australia. Hydrobiologia , 2006, 572(1): 255–273 doi: 10.1007/s10750-005-0995-6
129	Sloane P I W, Norris R H. Relationship of AUSRIVAS-based macroinvertebrate predictive model outputs to a metal pollution gradient. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 2003, 22(3): 457–471 doi: 10.2307/1468274
130	White H L, Nichols S J, Robinson W A, Norris R H. More for less: a study of environmental flows during drought in two Australian rivers. Freshwater Biology , 2012, 57(4): 858–873 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02732.x
131	Harrison E T, Nichols S, Gruber B, Dyer F, Tschierschke A, Norris R. AUSRIVAS: Australia’s in-Stream Biological Health 2003-2010 . 2011 State of the Environment Reporting . Canberra: Institute for Applied Ecology, 2011
132	Norris R H, Liston P, Davies N, Coysh J, Dyer F, Linke S, Prosser I, Young B. Snapshot of the Murray-Darling Basin River Condition. Canberra: Murray-Darling Basin Commission, 2001 ISBN 1876830220
133	Norris R H, Prosser I, Young B, Liston P, Bauer N, Davies N, Dyer F, Linke S, Thoms M.The Assessment of River Condition (ARC). An Audit of the Ecological Condition of Australian Rivers. Canberra: National Land and Water Resources Audit, 2001
134	ACT Government. Environmental Flow Guidelines 2006. Canberra: ACT Government, 2006
135	EPA. Biological Objectives for Rivers and Streams-Ecosystem Protection. Publication 793.2 Melbourne , Australia: Environment Protection Authority, Victoria, 2004
136	Frazier P, Ryder D, McIntyre E, Stewart M. Understanding riverine habitat inundation patterns: remote sensing tools and techniques. Wetlands , 2012, 32(2): 225–237 doi: 10.1007/s13157-011-0229-9
137	Peru N, Doledec S. From compositional to functional biodiversity metrics in bioassessment: a case study using stream macroinvertebrate communities. Ecological Indicators , 2010, 10(5): 1025–1036 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.02.011
138	Hawkins C P, Vinson M R. Weak correspondence between landscape classifications and stream invertebrate assemblages: implications for bioassessment. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 2000, 19(3): 501–517 doi: 10.2307/1468111
139	Menezes S, Baird D J, Soares A M V M. Beyond taxonomy: a review of macroinvertebrate trait-based community descriptors as tools for freshwater biomonitoring. Journal of Applied Ecology , 2010, 47(4): 711–719 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01819.x
140	Resh V H, Hildrew A G, Statzner B, Townsend C R. Theoretical habitat templets, species traits, and species richness- a synthesis of long-term ecological research on the upper Rhone River in the Context of Concurrently Developed Ecological Theory. Freshwater Biology , 1994, 31(3): 539–554 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.1994.tb01756.x
141	Marchant R, Hirst A, Norris R, Metzeling L. Classification of macroinvertebrate communities across drainage basins in Victoria, Australia: consequences of sampling on a broad spatial scale for predictive modelling. Freshwater Biology , 1999, 41(2): 253–268 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00429.x
142	Linke S, Norris R H, Faith D P, Stockwell D. ANNA: a new prediction method for bioassessment programs. Freshwater Biology , 2005, 50(1): 147–158 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2004.01286.x
143	Aroviita J, Mykra H, Hamalainen H. River bioassessment and the preservation of threatened species: Towards acceptable biological quality criteria. Ecological Indicators , 2010, 10(4): 789–795 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.12.007
144	Chessman B C. Climatic changes and 13-year trends in stream macroinvertebrate assemblages in New South Wales, Australia. Global Change Biology , 2009, 15(11): 2791–2802 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01840.x
145	Van Sickle J. An index of compositional dissimilarity between observed and expected assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 2008, 27(2): 227–235 doi: 10.1899/07-111.1
146	Van Sickle J, Stoddard J L, Paulsen S G, Olsen A R. Using relative risk to compare the effects of aquatic stressors at a regional scale. Environmental Management , 2006, 38(6): 1020–1030 doi: 10.1007/s00267-005-0240-0 pmid:17058032
147	Webb J A, King E L. A Bayesian hierarchical trend analysis finds strong evidence for large-scale temporal declines in stream ecological condition around Melbourne, Australia. Ecography , 2009, 32(2): 215–225 doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2008.05686.x
148	Olden J D, Poff N L, Bledsoe B P. Incorporating ecological knowledge into ecoinformatics: an example of modeling hierarchically structured aquatic communities with neural networks. Ecological Informatics , 2006, 1(1): 33–42 doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2005.08.003
149	Merritt R W, Cummins K W, Berg M B, Novak J A, Higgins M J, Wessell K J, Lessard J L. Development and application of a macroinvertebrate functional-group approach in the bioassessment of remnant river oxbows in southwest Florida. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 2002, 21(2): 290–310 doi: 10.2307/1468416
150	Poff N L, Olden J D, Vieira N K M, Finn D S, Simmons M P, Kondratieff B C. Functional trait niches of North American lotic insects: traits-based ecological applications in light of phylogenetic relationships. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 2006, 25(4): 730–755 doi: 10.1899/0887-3593(2006)025[0730:FTNONA]2.0.CO;2
151	Pont D, Hugueny B, Beier U, Goffaux D, Melcher A, Noble R, Rogers C, Roset N, Schmutz S. Assessing river biotic condition at a continental scale: a European approach using functional metrics and fish assemblages. Journal of Applied Ecology , 2006, 43(1): 70–80 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01126.x
152	Environment Canada. Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network (CABIN), . 2012. Available online at http://ec.gc.ca/rcba-cabin/ (accessed July 5, 2013)
153	Feio M J, Doledec S. Integration of invertebrate traits into predictive models for indirect assessment of stream functional integrity: a case study in Portugal. Ecological Indicators , 2012, 15(1): 236–247 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.039
154	Parsons M, Thoms M C, Norris R H. Development of a standardised approach to river habitat assessment in Australia. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 2004, 98(1-3): 109–130 doi: 10.1023/B:EMAS.0000038182.03176.97 pmid:15473532
155	National Water Commission. National Coordination of the Framework for the Assessment of River and Wetland Health (FARWH) Trials. Canberra: National Water Commission webpage, 2012
156	Alluvium Consulting. Framework for the Assessment of River and Wetland Health: Findings from the Trials and Options for Uptake, Waterlines Report . Canberra: National Water Commission, 2011
157	Norris R H, Dyer F, Hairsine P, Kennard M, Linke S, Merrin L, Read A, Robinson W, Ryan C, Wilkinson S, Williams D.Assessment of River and Wetland Health: A Framework for Comparative Assessment of the Ecological Condition of Australian Rivers and Wetlands. Canberra: Australian Water Resources 2005, 2007
158	Bunn S E, Abal E G, Smith M J, Choy S C, Fellows C S, Harch B D, Kennard M J, Sheldon F. Integration of science and monitoring of river ecosystem health to guide investments in catchment protection and rehabilitation. Freshwater Biology , 2010, 55(Suppl. 1): 223–240 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02375.x
159	Schofield N. Australian wide assessment of river health. Water , 2010, 37(1): 153–157
160	Lee L, Ancev T. Two decades of Murray-Darling water management: a river of funding, a trickle of achievement. Agenda (Durban, South Africa) , 2009, 16(1): 5–23
161	Bowmer K H. Water resource protection in Australia: links between land use and river health with a focus on stubble farming systems. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam) , 2011, 403(1-2): 176–185 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.03.050
162	Bond N R, Lake P S. Ecological restoration and large-scale ecological disturbance: The effects of drought on the response by fish to a habitat restoration experiment. Restoration Ecology , 2005, 13(1): 39–48 doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2005.00006.x
163	Lake P S. On the maturing of restoration: linking ecological research and restoration. Ecological Management & Restoration , 2001, 2(2): 110–115 doi: 10.1046/j.1442-8903.2001.00074.x
164	Palmer M A, Bernhardt E S, Allan J D, Lake P S, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm C N, Follstad Shah J F, Galat D L, Loss S G, Goodwin P, Hart D D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Kondolf G M, Lave R, Meyer J L, O'Donnell T K, Pagano L, Sudduth E. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology , 2005, 42(2): 208–217 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x
165	Johansson M E, Nilsson C. Responses of riparian plants to flooding in free-flowing and regulated boreal rivers: an experimental study. Journal of Applied Ecology , 2002, 39(6): 971–986 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00770.x
166	King A J, Ward K A, O'Connor P, Green D, Tonkin Z, Mahoney J. Adaptive management of an environmental watering event to enhance native fish spawning and recruitment. Freshwater Biology , 2010, 55(1): 17–31 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02178.x
167	Poff N L, Allan J D, Palmer M A, Hart D D, Richter B D, Arthington A H, Rogers K H, Meyer J L, Stanford J A. River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision making. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment , 2003, 1(6): 298–306 doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0298:RFAWWE]2.0.CO;2
168	Norris R, Nichols S. Environmental flows: achieving ecological outcomes in variable environments. In: Grafton Q, Hussey K, eds. Water Resources Planning and Management . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, 331–349
169	Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Biological River Water Quality Webpage. London: DEFRA, 2012
170	Haase P, Pauls S U, Schindehutte K, Sundermann A. First audit of macroinvertebrate samples from an EU Water Framework Directive monitoring program: human error greatly lowers precision of assessment results. Journal of the North American Benthological Society , 2010, 29(4): 1279–1291 doi: 10.1899/09-183.1
171	Hebert P D N, Ratnasingham S, deWaard J R. Barcoding animal life: cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 divergences among closely related species. Proceedings Biological sciences / The Royal Society, 2003, 270(Suppl 1): S96–S99 doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0025 pmid:12952648
172	Baird D J, Hajibabaei M. Biomonitoring 2.0: a new paradigm in ecosystem assessment made possible by next-generation DNA sequencing. Molecular Ecology , 2012, 21(8): 2039–2044 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2012.05519.x pmid:22590728

[1]	Fei XU, Yanwei ZHAO, Zhifeng YANG, Yuan ZHANG. Multi-scale evaluation of river health in Liao River Basin, China[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng Chin, 2011, 5(2): 227-235.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed