Ecological Archives A015-032-A2

Aaron A. Moore and Margaret A. Palmer. 2005. Invertebrate biodiversity in agricultural and urban headwater streams: implications for conversation and management. Ecological Applications 15:1169–1177.

Appendix B (Table B1). Published reports of macroinvertebrate richness in agriculturally impacted streams based on a literature search. See Notes at end of table for details.


Study
Geographical location
Land use description and extent
Taxonomic resolution
Estimated mean total richness
Estimated mean EPT richness
Determination of mean richness

Anderson et al. (2003) California Row crops throughout watershed, heavy agricultural impacts from local tributaries. Genus or Species
16.9
-
Mean of tabular values for composite samples at stations 2, 3, and 4.
Armitage and Petts (1992) United Kingdom Agriculture influenced sites subject to spray irrigation and runoff from fertilized land. "Genus" (family and species mean)
21
-
Mean of graphical values (estimated from mean of species and  family richness) for WP, EP and CD sites.
Barton and Metcalfe-Smith (1992) Quebec Grain crops dominate watersheds of sampling sites; influences of pesticides, fertilizers and tile drainage. Unknown (lowest possible)
40
-
Mean of estimated graphical values for July Surber samples at sites 31 and 32.
Bis et al. (2000) Poland 50-86% Agriculture, 6-36% forest throughout study watersheds. Unknown (lowest possible)
16.4
-
Mean of estimated graphical values for all sites.
Brewin et al. (2000) Nepal 39-98% Terraced agriculture (mostly rice and maize),   2-60% forest throughout watersheds.  Family
22.7
-
Mean of tabular values of winter and pre-monsoon samples at Likhu Khola sites.
Brown and May (2000) California Sites in agricultural drainages or streams affected by agriculture. Family
17
6
Mean richness given for Twinspan group "drain 1"; may exclude some rare taxa.
Caruso (2002) New Zealand One site (of 12 sites sampled) described as an  "agricultural" catchment.  Unknown
35.5
-
Mean of endpoints of the range of richness values (34-37) given at agricultural site.
Clenaghan et al. (1998) Ireland 25% Agriculture; 40% forest (conifer plantation); 35% moorland (sheep grazing) throughout watershed. Species
50
-
Estimated mean from graphical values for all sites.
Corkum (1996) Ontario Dominated by agricultural land. Family
20
8
Richness values obtained from graphical density plots at 3 agricultural sites using natural rocks.
Crane et al. (1995) United Kingdom Cereal crops, orchards, grazed pastures throughout watershed; some sewage influences. Family
13.9
2.6
Mean of richness values obtained from taxa density tables for all sampljng stations.
de Billy et al. (2000) France Upper portion of catchment dominated by meadows used for cattle grazing. Genus
24.4
-
Mean of tabular values for Spring and Winter samples for all sites.
Delong and Brusven (1998) Idaho 43% Crop land (wheat/pea/barley rotation), 13% grazing pasture, 44% woodland throughout watershed. Genus
50.8
24.8
Mean of tabular values for all sites (after richness standardized to genus level).
Dovciak and Perry (2002) Minnesota Corn-soy crop rotation and hog-cattle production throughout watersheds. Genus
-
7
Estimated mean from scatterplot values throughout all 68 study sites
Genito et al. (2002) Pennsylvania Overall study area land use is 57% cropland, 35% forest, and 8% permanent pasture. Genus
10
-
Estimated mean from scatterplot values of all sites with >50% agriculture.
Kay et al. (2002) Australia Most sites located in wheat and wool growing agricultural areas.  Family
13.8
-
Mean of average richness values given for 7 site groups (weighted by site number in group).
Koetsier (2002) Idaho Irrigated agricultural land in watershed, streams receive return water from fields. Species
8
-
Mean of estimated graphical values for sites MC and ICI in winter samples.
Lenat and Crawford (1994) North Carolina 48% Row crops, 5% grasslands and pasture, 31% forest throughout watershed. Unknown (probably species)
60
11.3
Mean richness values given for kick-net samples in agricultural catchment.
Liess and Schulz (1999) Germany Beet, barley and wheat crops dominate region. Species
11
-
Mean of estimated graphical values for 2 months prior to insecticide contamination at site.
Matagi (1996) Uganda Region influenced by fallow agriculture with some bush land. Genus
10
2
Mean is number of taxa found at B1 sampling site across entire year.
Monaghan et al. (2000) Ecuador Mixed forest and pasture, some crop land throughout study area. Family
23
-
Mean of graphical values for agriculturally impacted "modified" sites.
Neumann and Dudgeon (2002) China Vegetable and flower crop lands near sampling stations, secondary forest upstream. Species
8.8
-
Mean of estimated graphical values for 3 downstream sites in March and April.
O'Connor and Lake (1994) Australia Sheep and cattle grazing, broad-acre cereal cropping  dominate watershed. Species
20
-
Estimated mean from graphical values for all sites across all sampling dates.
Richards and Host (1994) Minnesota 23% Agriculture, 77% forest in watershed (but agriculture heaviest near watershed outlet). Genus
25
18
Richness values given for East Branch Knife River (agricultural) site.
Rothrock et al. (1998) Montana Region subject to irrigation of hay and alfalfa crops; Livestock production at various intensities. Genus or Species
30.8
12.3
Mean of tabular values for Cottonwood, Nevada, Rock and Union tributaries.
Shieh et al. (1999) Colorado Irrigated agriculture (corn, hay, wheat, beans, barley) dominate region, some urban influence. Genus
13
-
Mean of estimated graphical values for sites 3, 4, and 6 (agriculturally impacted sites).
Sorace et al. (1999) Italy Tributary characterized as an agricultural zone, with some meadows and uncultivated areas. Unknown
7
1
Richness value given at Paglia River (agricultural) site.
Stewart et al. (2001) Wisconsin 20-90% agricultural land use throughout 38 watersheds used in study. Species
18
5.2
Median total richness given;  EPT richness back-calculated from median "% EPT species" value.
Walsh et al. (2001) Australia Hinterlands; dominated by a mixture of agriculture and forest, with some small urban centers. Unknown (lowest possible)
10
5
Estimated means from scatterplot values for hinterland sites in Spring riffle samples.
Weigel et al. (2000) Wisconsin Sites in valleys dominated by agriculture; riparian land use varying from wooded to continuous grazing. Genus
15.6
-
Mean of tabular values for generic richness for all sites.
Williams et al. (1991) Australia Agriculture (and  vegetation clearing) throughout river catchments; influenced by agricultural salinization. Genus or Species
23.3
3.5
Mean of tabular presence/absence values for all sites (except estuarine stations).
Wohl and Carline (1996) Pennsylvania 50-85% Agricultural land throughout watersheds of all sites (mostly pasture). Family
12.8
-
Mean of 3 median richness values for each site during May sampling period.

   Notes: Articles were included if: (1) the studies were in running-water systems, (2) were empirical in nature, (3) did not have significant land use impacts other than agriculture (e.g. urban, mining), and (4) macroinvertebrate richness could be estimated from text, graphical or tabular values. In many cases, only a subset of sites were used from a study according to the author’s indication of streams under agricultural influences.

 

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, B. S., J. W. Hunt, B. M. Phillips, P. A. Nicely, V. de Vlaming, V. Connor, N. Richard, and R. S. Tjeerdema.  2003.  Integrated assessment of the impacts of agricultural drainwater in the Salinas River (California, USA).  Environmental Pollution 124:523–532.

Armitage, P. D., and G. E. Petts.  1992.  Biotic score and prediction to assess the effects of water abstractions on river macroinvertebrates for conservation purposes.  Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 2:1–17.

Barton, D. R., and J. L. Metcalfe-Smith.  1992.  A comparison of sampling techniques and summary indices for assessment of water quality in the Yamaska River, Quebec, based on benthic macroinvertebrates.  Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 21:225–244.

Bis, B., A. Zdanowicz, and M. Zalewski.  2000.  Effects of catchment properties on hydrochemistry, habitat complexity and invertebrate community structure in a lowland river.  Hydrobiologia 422:369–387.

Brewin, P. A., S. T. Buckton, and S. J. Ormerod.  2000.  The seasonal dynamics and persistence of stream macroinvertebrates in Nepal: do monsoon floods represent disturbance?  Freshwater Biology 44(4):581–594.

Brown, L. R., and J. T. May.  2000.  Macroinvertebrate assemblages on woody debris and their relations with environmental variables in the lower Sacramento and San Joaquin River drainages, California.  Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 64(1):311–329.

Caruso, B. S.  2002.  Temporal and spatial patterns of extreme low flows and effects on stream ecosystems in Otago, New Zealand.  Journal of Hydrology 257:115–133.

Clenaghan, C., P. S. Giller, J. O’Halloran, and R. Hernan.  1998.  Stream macroinvertebrate communities in a conifer-afforested catchment in Ireland: relationships to physico-chemical and biotic factors.  Freshwater Biology 40:175–193.

Corkum, L. D.  1996.  Responses of chlorophyll-a, organic matter, and macroinvertebrates to nutrient additions in rivers flowing through agricultural and forested land.  Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 136(3):391–411.

Crane, M., P. Delaney, C. Mainstone and S. Clarke.  1995.  Measurement by in situ bioassay of water quality in an agricultural catchment.  Water Research 29(11):2441–2448.

de Billy, V.D., P. Reyes-Marchant, N. Lair, and B. Valadas.  2000.  Impact of agricultural practices on a small headwater stream: terrestrial and aquatic characteristics and self-purifying processes.  Hydrobiologia 421:129–139.

Delong, M. D., and M. A. Brusven.  1998.  Macroinvertebrate community structure along the longitudinal gradient of an agriculturally impacted stream.  Environmental Management 22(3):445–457.

Dovciak, A. L., and J. A. Perry.  2002.  In search of effective scales for stream management: does agroecoregion, watershed, or their intersection best explain the variance in stream macroinvertebrate communities?  Environmental Management 30(3):365–377.

Genito, D., W. J. Gburek, and A. N. Sharpley.  2002.  Response of stream macroinvertebrates to agricultural land cover in a small watershed.  Journal of Freshwater Ecology 17(1):109–119.

Kay, W. R., S. A. Halse, M. D. Scanlon, and M. J. Smith.  2001.  Distribution and environmental tolerances of aquatic macroinvertebrate families in the agricultural zone of southwestern Australia.  Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20(2):182–199.

Koetsier, P.  2002.  Short term benthic colonization dynamics in an agricultural stream recovering from slaughterhouse effluents.  Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38(5):1409–1422.

Lenat, D. R., and J. K. Crawford.  1994.  Effects of land use on water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina Piedmont streams.  Hydrobiologia 294:185–199.

Liess, M., and R. Schulz.  1999.  Linking insecticide contamination and population response in an agricultural stream.  Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18(9):1948–1955.

Matagi, S. V.  1996.  The effect of pollution on benthic macroinvertebrates in a Ugandan stream.  Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 137(4):537–549.

Monaghan, K. A., M. R. Peck, P. A. Brewin, M. Masiero, E. Zarate, P. Turcotte, and S. J. Omerod.  2000.  Macroinvertebrate distribution in Ecuadorian hill streams: the effects of altitude and land use.  Archiv Fur Hydrobiologie 149(3):421–440. 

Neumann, M., and D. Dudgeon.  2002.  The impact of agricultural runoff of stream benthos in Hong Kong, China.  Water Research 36(12):3103–3109.

O’Connor, N. A., and P. S. Lake.  1994.  Long-term and seasonal large-scale disturbances of a small lowland stream.  Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45(2):243–255.

Richards, C., and G. Host.  1994.  Examining land-use influences on stream habitats and macroinvertebrates – a GIS approach.  Water Resources Bulletin 30(4):729–738.

Rothrock, J. A., P. K. Barten, and G. L. Ingman.  1998.  Land use and aquatic biointegrity in the Blackfoot River watershed, Montana.  Journal of the American WaterResources Association 34(3):565–581.

Shieh, S. H., B. C. Kondratieff, and J. V. Ward.  1999.  Longitudinal changes in benthic organic matter and macroinvertebrates in a polluted Colorado plains stream.  Hydrobiologia 411:191–209.

Sorace, A., P. Colombari, and E. Cordiner.  1999.  Bird communities and extended biotic Index (EBI) in some tributaries of the Tiber river.  Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 9(3):279–290.

Stewart, J. S., L. Wang, J. Lyons, J. A. Horwatich, and R. Bannerman.  2001.  Influences of watershed, riparian-corridor, and reach-scale characteristics on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds.  Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(6):1475–1487.

Walsh, C. J., A. Sharpe, P. F. Breen, and J. A. Sonneman.  2001.  Effects of urbanization on streams of the Melbourne region, Victoria, Australia. I. Benthic macroinvertebrate communities.  Freshwater Biology 46:535-551.37(6):1475–1487.

Weigel, B. M., J. Lyons, L. K. Paine, S. I. Dodson, and D. J. Undersander.  1999.  Using stream macroinvertebrates to compare riparian land use practices on cattle farms in southwestern Wisconsin.  Journal of Freshwater Ecology 15(1):93–106.

Williams, W. D., R. G. Taaffe, and A. J. Boulton.  1991.  Longitudinal distribution of macroinvertebrates in 2 rivers subject to salinization.  Hydrobiologia 210:151–160.

Wohl, N. E., and R. F. Carline.  1996.  Relations among riparian grazing, sediment loads, macroinvertebrates, and fishes in three central Pennsylvania streams.  Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:260–266.



[Back to A015-032]