SFS Annual Meeting

6/04/2024  |   10:30 - 10:45   |  Salon 10

A new synthesis on bioassessment protocols, their measures, metrics and quality control requirements Effective bioassessment approaches are essential for evaluating the ecological health of lake and river ecosystems. The absence of standardized bioassessment protocols prevents consistency and comparability across different monitoring programs. This lack of uniformity hinders the effective communication of information and poses a significant obstacle in achieving reporting data to the UN SDG 6.3.2 workstream, which focuses on ensuring good ambient water quality. Our objective was to compile a comprehensive inventory of global river and lake bioassessment protocols to provide an overview of macroinvertebrate bioassessment protocols with the aim to promote their harmonization. Methods currently in use were entered into a detailed framework on methods, metrics, and quality control requirements. Protocols for rivers were dominant, with comparatively few focussed on lakes. The framework that these were based on was taxonomy and sensitivity to pollution. Most methods focussed on the family level, with genus-level identification common. Methods were focussed on measuring the impact of organic pollution. For measuring other impacts (e.g. acidification), methods were not defined. The pressure-impact relationship was mainly addressed by European methods. Finally, there was a lack of established quality control standards for numerous methodologies. These findings suggest that there is a need for more efforts to be made to include ecology-based metrics, and to develop metrics which address specific pressures.

Alejandra Correa-Bedoya (Primary Presenter/Author), Universidad de Antioquia, bioaleja0508@gmail.com;

Sandra Poikane (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Joint Research Centre, sandra.poikane@ec.europa.eu;

James Stribling (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Tetra Tech, Inc., james.stribling@tetratech.com;

Jennifer Lento (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Canadian Rivers Institute, Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, jlento@gmail.com;

Andreas Bruder (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Canobbio, Switzerland, andreas.bruder@supsi.ch ;

John Simaika (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, j.simaika@un-ihe.org;

Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.

6/04/2024  |   10:45 - 11:00   |  Salon 10

THE USE OF CONSISTENT METHODS FOR BIOMONITORING ACROSS THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES Within the United States, monitoring is conducted by multiple organization at various scales and purposes. Because of this, monitoring programs use different methods which can lead to comparability issues when trying to report on condition at a regional or national scale. Several critiques in the late 1990s and early 2020s observed that EPA and states could not compile the available data reported under the Clean Water Act to report on the condition of the nation’s waters with statistical certainty due to differences in both study design and field and laboratory protocols. Because of these critiques EPA developed the National Aquatic Resource Surveys, in collaboration with states and tribes, which consist of the four water resource surveys (river/streams, lakes, wetlands, and estuaries). NARS uses a statistical survey design along with consistent field and laboratory protocols to produce data that can be used to report at national and regional scales. Biomonitoring is a substantial component of NARS, with benthic macroinvertebrates being the primary indicators in three of the four surveys. The development of consistent benthic macroinvertebrate protocols including rigorous quality assurance has been key in our ability to report on biological condition of the nation’s waters in a consistent and comparable manner. We will discuss the development of these methods along with issues of comparability to other benthic macroinvertebrate protocols used in the U.S. The views expressed in this abstract are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Richard Mitchell (Primary Presenter/Author), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, mitchell.richard@epa.gov;

Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.

6/04/2024  |   11:00 - 11:15   |  Salon 10

Evaluating three methodologies for benthic macroinvertebrate sampling in multi-year comparison study As required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the 1972 Clean Water Act, state monitoring programs assess if state waterways are supportive of various designated uses, including aquatic life. In Indiana, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) is responsible for monitoring waterways of the state, including conducting assessments of biological communities, such as fish or benthic macroinvertebrates, to determine if a waterbody is supportive of aquatic life. Since 2004, IDEM has primarily used a qualitative, multi-habitat (MHAB) sampling methodology to collect and subsample benthic macroinvertebrates in all wadable and non-wadable streams. In an effort to optimize Indiana’s macroinvertebrate monitoring efforts, IDEM undertook a long-term methodology comparison study to assess the effectiveness of the MHAB method vs two alternative methods, including a quantitative transect kick approach based on the U.S. EPA National Rivers and Streams Assessment sampling and a qualitative transect jab method that was designed as an expansion of the MHAB method. During late summer of 2014-2019, samples were simultaneously collected using the three methodologies at 109 river and stream sampling sites across Indiana. To assess the different results produced by each methodology, we compared various metrics of the macroinvertebrate assemblages, including diversity, richness, and evenness, collected using the three sampling methodologies.

Marissa Cubbage (Primary Presenter/Author), Indiana Department of Environmental Management, MCubbage@idem.in.gov;

Mitchell Owens (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Indiana University - Bloomington , owensm42@gmail.com;

Paul McMurray (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Indiana Department of Environmental Management, pmcmurra@idem.in.gov;

Stacey Sobat (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Indiana Department of Environmental Management, ssobat@idem.in.gov;

Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.

6/04/2024  |   11:15 - 11:30   |  Salon 10

Multi-Plate Samplers – How Robust Is This Macroinvertebrate Sampling Method? The U.S. EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) has used Hester-Dendy (HD) multi-plate artificial substrate samplers as standard monitoring protocols for over a decade at Great Lakes Area of Concern (AOC) sites. To assess project remedy effectiveness at AOC sites, ORD compared macroinvertebrate community sampling methods used by ORD to sampling methods used by Great Lakes states. At the Niagara River AOC, a comparison between ORD and New York state HD methods showed that both methods were robust, giving comparable results with respect to measures of overall water quality, such as the New York Biological Assessment Profile (BAP) index and the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), but community multivariate analyses revealed differences between the macroinvertebrate communities retrieved by the two methods. Observed differences between methods were attributed mainly to differences in HD deployment position. The ORD method calls for deployment of HDs near the sediment surface while the NY method calls for HDs to be suspended in the water column. At Ohio sites, Ashtabula River, Otter Creek, and Ottawa River, comparisons between communities retrieved using ORD and Ohio EPA (OEPA) methods (both with HDs deployed near the sediment surface) revealed no significant differences (p > 0.05) of site averages for total taxa richness or HBI, but some differences were seen. For example, at Ottawa River the average Lacustuary Invertebrate Community Index values from ORD and OEPA methods were both in the poor range, but statistically different, 17 and 23, respectively. Additional studies with replicate moorings are being considered.

Roger Yeardley (Primary Presenter/Author), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, yeardley.roger@epa.gov;

Jim Lazorchak (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Cincinnati, OH 45268, lazorchak.jim@epa.gov;

Marc Mills (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), United States Environmental Protection Agency, mills.marc@epa.gov;

Michael Griffith (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Cincinnati, OH 45268, griffith.michael@epa.gov;

Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.

6/04/2024  |   11:30 - 11:45   |  Salon 10

Comparison of Monitoring for Assessing Biological Diversity versus Biological Condition Sampling and analysis for biodiversity is generally understood as targeting the full species complement across taxonomic, genetic, and ecological/functional diversity. In contrast, that for biological condition of freshwater systems focuses on some subset of species or taxa generally intended to be representative of biota the targeted habitat has the capacity to support. Selection of protocols is driven by goals and objectives which, in themselves, introduce different kinds of biases into monitoring programs and datasets. Indicators used for making statements on biodiversity, such as total number of species; alpha, beta, and gamma diversity; species habitat, protection, and information indexes; or other, are viable. Various data and information needed include species occurrence data records, remote sensing, geographic distributions, and habitat requirements. Indicators used for assessing biological condition, typically with quantitative decision thresholds, are multimetric indexes such as the index of biological integrity; total number of EPT taxa; stressor tolerance values; and multivariate models such as the observed/expected index. Species data produced from field sampling and analysis are used as input for calculation of biological condition indicators, which, in addition to directly comparing to reference conditions, are often simultaneously interpreted with co-located physical habitat and water chemistry variables to address specific or complex stressors and support water resource management decisions. Key aspects of biological condition monitoring include that indicators and decision thresholds are calibrated to waterbody type, site class, targeted organism group(s), sampling season/index period, field sampling techniques, laboratory processing/taxonomic identifications. We discuss these issues in the context of freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates.

James Stribling (Primary Presenter/Author), Tetra Tech, Inc., james.stribling@tetratech.com;

John Simaika (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, j.simaika@un-ihe.org;

Jennifer Lento (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), University of New Brunswick, jlento@unb.ca;

Andreas Bruder (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Canobbio, Switzerland, andreas.bruder@supsi.ch ;

Sandra Poikane (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Joint Research Centre, sandra.poikane@ec.europa.eu;

Marcelo Moretti (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), University of Vila Velha, msmoretti@gmail.com;

Nick Rivers-Moore (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), University of KwaZulu-Natal, blackfly1@vodamail.co.za;

Kristian Meissner (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Finnish Environmental Institute (SYKE), kristian.meissner@ymparisto.fi;

Craig Macadam (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, craig.macadam@buglife.org.uk;

Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.

6/04/2024  |   11:45 - 12:00   |  Salon 10

Navigating the Realities of Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring and Bioassessment Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Challenges and Opportunities Monitoring programs for freshwater ecosystems face significant management and technical challenges, including a lack of coordination and harmonization. This deficiency hinders the assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem degradation drivers on a larger spatial scale and systematic analysis at continental and global scales. Here we present a first overview of the current state, gaps, and challenges in freshwater assessment programs, focusing on bioassessment and biodiversity monitoring using the benthic macroinvertebrate community. A survey conducted by the IUCN SSC Global Freshwater Macroinvertebrate Sampling Protocols Task Force (GLOSAM) from late 2022 to mid-May 2023, involving 110 respondents from 67 countries, revealed a notable absence of nationally and sub-nationally accepted protocols for freshwater benthic macroinvertebrate assessment. The survey results revealed that while bioassessment programs were more prevalent, biodiversity monitoring was limited for lakes, rivers, and artificial waterbodies. We also identified gaps and challenges, organizing them into five primary categories: (a) field sampling, (b) sample processing and identification, (c) metrics and indices, (d) assessment, and (e) other gaps and challenges. The most significant challenge identified was the lack of harmonization, impeding effective collaboration and communication. To address this, we propose as a solution to establish globally-harmonized biodiversity monitoring and biological assessment protocols. This study sheds light on the urgent need for improved coordination and standardization in freshwater assessment programs.

John Simaika (Primary Presenter/Author), IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, j.simaika@un-ihe.org;

James Stribling (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Tetra Tech, Inc., james.stribling@tetratech.com;

Jennifer Lento (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), University of New Brunswick, jlento@unb.ca;

Andreas Bruder (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Canobbio, Switzerland, andreas.bruder@supsi.ch ;

Sandra Poikane (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Joint Research Centre, sandra.poikane@ec.europa.eu;

Marcelo Moretti (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), University of Vila Velha, msmoretti@gmail.com;

Nick Rivers-Moore (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), University of KwaZulu-Natal, blackfly1@vodamail.co.za;

Kristian Meissner (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Finnish Environmental Institute (SYKE), kristian.meissner@ymparisto.fi;

Craig Macadam (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, craig.macadam@buglife.org.uk;

Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.