Development, calibration and validation of an index of biotic integrity for the Wabash River.ABSTRACT. Fish assemblage data were collected using daytime electrofishing during 1993-2001 from 275 river reaches found throughout the Interior River Lowland and Eastern Corn Belt Plain ecoregions to construct, test, and apply an index of biotic integrity (IBI). The index was developed from a rapid assessment procedure that was used to assess the environmental quality of large and great river ecosystems in the state. The reference condition was based on 275 sites that were representative of the Wabash River, but were not pristine or least-impacted. These sites were not randomly chosen, but met specific least-impacted criteria to develop the IBI. We used another 36 sites exposed to point-source discharges to test the index. Prior to sampling, sites were classified as "least-impacted" or as affected by point source pollution from industrial discharges. Of the 24 potential IBI metrics considered, 12 metrics were chosen based on statistical relevance for large and great rivers. For the test subset, the least-impacted sites had significantly higher mean scores and lower temporal variation than the point-source site classification, showing they possessed the best ecosystem quality. Point-source sites had the lowest means and most variable scores, signifying degraded ecosystem quality. Least-impacted sites had the highest IBI scores and the lowest variability, while representative sites typical of agricultural land uses had slightly but not significantly worse scores. Regional estimates of stream conditions showed that 42% of the stream reaches in the Interior River Lowland ecoregion had fish assemblages in poor or fair ecological condition, while large-river reaches in the Eastern Corn Belt Plain ecoregion had 36% fair and 23% good. Keywords: Biological integrity, reference condition, IBI, Interior River Lowland, Eastern Corn Belt Plain ********** The index of biological integrity (IBI) is a multimetric index that integrates structure, composition, trophic ecology, and reproductive attributes of fish assemblages at multiple levels of ecological organization (Karr 1981; Karr et al. 1986; Simon & Lyons 1995; Simon 1999). Indices of biological integrity can be viewed as a family of indices for rating the health of an aquatic ecosystem (Simon 2001). These indices provide a valuable framework for assessing the status and evaluating the restoration of aquatic communities (Fausch et al. 1990; Karr & Chu 1999; Simon et al. 2003). Standard procedures are used to compare existing biological conditions in order to assess the current status of the biota. Indices of biotic integrity have been widely based on fish assemblages in "wadeable" streams, but applications to large and great warm water rivers are few (Simon & Lyons 1995; Hughes & Oberdorff 1999; Emery et al. 2003). Simon & Stahl (1998) calibrated an IBI for the Wabash River. This calibration was a preliminary index that was based on a limited number of sites and only a portion of the river from Lafayette (Tippecanoe County) to Wabash Island (Posey County). Gammon (2000) calibrated an index for the middle Wabash River, but this calibration was not based on an entire fish assemblage assessment; rather it focused on large, long-lived fish species. The State of Illinois does not have a large-river calibration for their water monitoring program. In this paper, an IBI is presented that is designed to assess the quality of fish assemblages in the Wabash River. The index was developed using a large statewide database of standardized fish assemblage samples from numerous reaches of varying human impact. An objective procedure was followed to select and score the metrics that comprise the IBI, choosing metrics that represent a variety of the structural, compositional, and functional attributes of large and great rivers (Karr & Chu 1999). The index was then validated with independent data from 36 other river reaches that had anthropogenic disturbances, using as validity criteria the accurate and precise ranking of these other reaches in accordance with their degree of environmental degradation based on water quality, habitat, and use measures. Finally, this IBI was applied to the entire dataset to assess the relative effects of human impacts on river health. METHODS Survey design.--Between 1993 and 2001, teams of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, and Indiana Department of Natural Resources professionals sampled 275 large and great river (as defined by Simon & Emery 2000) sites as part of routine monitoring on the Wabash River. The Wabash River includes sites in wadeable stream (<2590 [km.sup.2]), large- and great fiver categories. Data used for this project were part of the USEPA's ecoregion project in Indiana (Simon & Stahl 1998), probabilistic assessment for water quality impairment, and monitoring of sport fishes in the Wabash River (Fig. 1). Sampling protocols followed boat electrofishing methods developed by USEPA (1988). In response to criticisms of the Simon & Stahl (1998) paper, large-river criteria development in the Wabash River (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1999) were reassessed by external peer review, and comments were responded to by Simon & Stahl (2001). The arguments presented in EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. (1999) were not found to be credible by the external review panel. Protocols, data, and analysis of results were found to be consistent and reproduceble. The conclusion of the external peer review panel was fully supported by both the State of Indiana and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Wabash River traverses two ecoregions in Indiana, including the Interior River Lowland and the Eastern Corn Belt Plain (Omernik & Gallant 1988). The Interior River Lowland (IRL) extends from central Indiana along the Wabash River floodplain to the Ohio River and includes the Mississippi River floodplain. The IRL has varied land use including forestry, diverse cropland agriculture, orchards, livestock production, and oil and gas production. The IRL consists of dissected glacial till plains, which are covered by thick mantle loess, rolling narrow ridgetops, and hilly to steep ridge and valley slopes. Woods et al. (1995) subdivided the ecoregion into two subregions that include the area along the Wabash River floodplain to the White River mouth. The Eastern Corn Belt Plain (ECBP) extends from Lafayette to the river's headwaters in Ohio. The ECBP consists of gently rolling glacial till plain, which is broken by moraines, kames, and outwash plains. Large rivers are defined as drainage units with watersheds greater than 2590 [km.sup.2] (1000 [mi.sup.2]) but less than 5957 [km.sup.2] (2300 [mi.sup.2]) (Simon & Emery 2001), which are effectively sampled using a boat-mounted electrofishing unit. Great rivers include drainage areas greater than 5957 [km.sup.2]. Following the definition of Lyons et al. (1996) and Mundahl & Simon (1999), the thermal classification for all portions of the Wabash River is warmwater, which means that summer temperatures are too warm to allow the survival of salmonid fishes. Site selection was chosen to maximize different locations along the Wabash River so that various fiver reaches incorporating different sizes along the regional gradient were sampled. These sites are representative of the condition of the Wabash River; however, sites were picked to deliberately encompass the full range of natural habitat and flow conditions that exist among the Wabash River. The inclusion of the entire suite of sites enables the entire range of conditions to be used to develop both negative and positive metrics. Also, inclusion of sites were selected so that all geographic portions of the drainage were included. By including drainage areas ranging from 1139.6 to 85,231.7 [km.sup.2], we provide data from sites that are smaller than typical large-river sites. Site information does not suggest that this is a violation of the River Continuum Concept, since these sites do not reflect an accretion of data sufficient to warrant a drainage area metric calibration. By testing ecoregion and drainage area hypotheses, this enables the creation of a single IBI that does not warrant unnecessary separation of expectations based on ecoregion or size. Although the literature shows that small headwater (<54 [km.sup.2]) and wadeable streams (>54-2590 [km.sup.2]) demonstrate a strong species area relationship with drainage area, the size of the main stem Wabash River data used in this study is clearly larger than these size categories; thus it is not surprising that a drainage area calibration correction was not warranted. A five step process in IBI development was followed, including validation, and application that was modified by Lyons et al. (2001) after the recommendations in Hughes et al. (1998) and Karr & Chu (1999). First, an appropriate sampling methodology was identified and tested. Second, this methodology was used to collect fish assemblage data in a standardized manner from river reaches across the two ecoregions. Some reaches had minimal human impact (least-impacted), while others had varying amounts of different types of human impact from point and non-point source pollution (impacted). Third, we used our fish assemblage data to evaluate potential metrics and develop an IBI. We used data from our least-impacted sites to characterize relatively high-quality fish communities and to investigate the influence of natural factors on community attributes. We contrasted data from least-impacted sites with data from degraded impacted sites to quantify the metric range and sensitivity to human impacts. We then selected final metrics, developed metric scoring criteria, and completed the IBI. Fourth, this IBI was tested with a new set of independent field data that had not been used in the development phase. Finally, IBI scores were compared and ratings among river reaches that had been grouped by type of human impact in order to assess the relative effect of each impact on biotic integrity. Study area.--Sampling on the Wabash River included 275 large and great river sites collected between 1993 and 2001 for the development of the reference condition, and an independent set of 36 point-source sites collected during 2002 and 2005 was used to validate the index (Fig. 1). The Wabash River extends from the headwaters in Ohio to the mouth of the river at Wabash Island. The Wabash River is the longest free-flowing river east of the Mississippi River and is the largest northern tributary of the Ohio River. The river begins in northwestern Ohio in the Eastern Corn Belt Plain and flows west to southwest; the river bends and flows south through the Interior River Lowland. The Wabash River at the Indiana state line is between 678.6 [km.sup.2] (262 [mi.sup.2]) to 85,236.9 [km.sup.2] (32,910 [mi.sup.2] at the junction with the Ohio River. Land uses in these areas are principally dominated by agriculture, with some urban, and forested areas. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] Data collection.--Daytime fish assemblage sampling was done along a 500 m river reach at each site, based on time criteria using boat-mounted, pulsed-DC electrofishing equipment. Preliminary sampling to establish standard operating procedures were conducted between 1988 and 1990 (Davis & Simon 1989; Simon 1991; Simon & Saunders 1999). Data from this preliminary sampling were not used in IBI development, validation, or application. Large-river (>2509.3 [km.sup.2] and <5957 [km.sup.2] drainage area) and great river (>5957 km; (2) drainage area) sites were sampled using a Smith-Root DC mounted electrofishing unit in a jon boat (Simon & Sanders 1999). The boat electrofishing method of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was used by all agencies, with the only exception being that the state Department of Natural Resources added two seine hauls at each sampling site to better quantify small non-game minnow and darter diversity. A validation of this approach was conducted by repeat sampling of five sites that were sampled using this procedure by DNR. We used an ANOVA to compare differences between metric results and total IBI score for each site. No significant difference was observed between DNR electrofishing + seine samples compared to electrofishing only results. The addition of seining to the standard method by DNR personnel was to ensure that total catch included small non-game species in order to compensate for inherent personnel bias towards large game species. Easily recognized species, including sport fish were identified and released. Voucher specimens of smaller individuals of each species and unidentified specimens were retained for museum verification. Collections were archived at the Indiana Biological Survey, Division of Fishes, Aquatic Research Center, Bloomington, Indiana. A 500 m reach length is the point distance that has been shown to be representative of a large-river habitat cycle (Simon & Sanders 1999). The adequacy of our stream length criteria was tested by sampling three continuous 500 m segments, for a total of 1500 m. This distance ranged from 2-40x the wetted stream width. The cumulative number of species captured from each consecutive segment was evaluated and analyzed with non-linear regression equations to estimate asymptotic species richness and the sampling distance that would attain 95% of this richness. The 95%-richness distance is a very conservative sampling length. The minimum sampling distance selected was 500 m because no significant difference was observed with species richness or percent metrics with the addition of distance. Since these river reaches do not typically possess riffle-run-pool habitat, reach structure increases species diversity by the presence of woody debris and scour pools. For sampling, time duration ranged from 60-90 min, depending on stream complexity. The objective was to collect a representative sample of the fish assemblage using methods designed to collect all except very rare species and provide an unbiased measure of the proportional abundances of species. During sampling, a single person positioned on the bow, used a dip net with 6 mm mesh (stretch) and attempted to capture all fish seen. This mesh size was effective in retaining small species and individuals such as minnows, darters, and topminnows. Captured fish were identified to species, counted, weighed in aggregate by species, and inspected for deformities, eroded fins, lesions, and tumor (DELT) anomalies (Sanders et al. 1999). Consistent with other IBI's, specimens less than 25 mm TL were considered young-of-year (Fausch et al. 1984; Karr et al. 1986), with the exception of some species that only attain these sizes, i.e., mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). These young-of-year individuals were excluded from the analysis. Data analyses.--Regional literature references were used to classify adult fish into taxonomic and ecological categories for computation of metrics (Appendix; Gerking 1945; Simon 1999b; Goldstein & Simon 1999). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for sub-ecoregional differences in richness metrics, adjusted for catchment area. Finding no such differences, data from all ecoregions were aggregated. All of our impacted sites (n = 36) were classified into one of four categories according to the predominant type of human impact. Classification was done prior to sampling and was based on physical-chemical attributes related to hydrology and water and habitat quality. "Agricultural" sites were located in watershed with at least 50% of their surface area in intensive agriculture or less than 20% in urban land uses. "Point source" sites had been affected by major point source discharges of industrial or municipal waste (IDEM 2002). Since the 1990s, most major discharges into Indiana streams have been eliminated or have been heavily treated to reduce water quality impacts, and violations of water quality standards are much less common (IDEM 2002). Thus, the point source category largely represents a historical impact. The least-impacted sites had relatively few impacts and represented the best remaining river segments in the ecoregions. These sites are not pristine, but generally had intact riparian corridors, minimal non-point source pollution, and limited point source pollution. We considered some agriculture impacts to represent background conditions at almost every site in Indiana. Two datasets were used in developing the IBI. One set (n = 275) included representative, best-remaining, least-impacted sites and was used in the development group to identify appropriate metrics, devise metric scoring criteria, and construct the final IBI. Test data included 36 independent sites that were downstream of point source discharges that were used to validate the IBI and determine how well it reflected known patterns of human impacts. Twenty-four candidate metrics were considered for inclusion in the Wabash River IBI (Table 1). These contained all of the relevant metrics used in previous warmwater stream IBis, plus several additional metrics (Simon & Lyons 1995; Hughes & Oberdorff 1999). Prior to the analyses the metrics were transformed to better approximate normality (a [log.sub.e] transformation for the number of individuals or biomass and an arcsine-square-root transformation for proportional metrics). Results of analyses were considered significant if [alpha] <0.05. First, the variation in metric values was examined in relation to two natural factors, drainage area and geographic location, that might influence fish assemblages. Appropriate metrics would have either little variation relative to these two factors or a strong, monotonic, biologically meaningful relation that could be easily taken into account in IBI calculations (Hughes et al. 1998; Lyons et al. 2001). This analysis was limited to the 275 least-impacted samples from the development group to minimize the potential confounding effects of human impacts. Drainage area upstream of the sampling site ([log.sub.e] transformed) was used as a measure of stream size. Data from large and great river reaches and preliminary analyses of a subset of our large-river reaches based on ecoregions (Eastern Corn Belt Plain ("north"); n = 83 and Interior River Lowland ("south"); n = 192) and sub-ecoregions in the Interior River Lowland (Woods et al. 1995) classified as "north" (Glaciated Wabash Lowlands sub-ecoregion; n = 110) and "south" (Wabash Bottomland sub-ecoregion; n = 82) did not show any substantial structural or compositional differences, so it was not necessary to derive separate reference condition expectations for either the two ecoregions nor the two sub-ecoregions in the final analyses. Regression analysis was used to evaluate patterns between each metric and drainage area, while an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for each metric was used to compare the "north" and "south" potential differences for ecoregion or sub-ecoregions. No statistically significant relationship was observed for drainage area, ecoregion, or subecoregion. Next, metric performance relative to a gradient of human impact was evaluated using the development samples. When examining the most- and least-degraded stream reaches, the assumption was that multiple-impact sites would have the most modified fish assemblages and least-impacted would have the least, with the intermediate impact classes somewhere in between. Metrics that fit this pattern, that is, that showed least-impacted sites as having the best values (highest or lowest depending on the specific metric) and multiple-impact sites having the worst values, were considered appropriate for our IBI. For each potential metric, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used with a Duncan multiple-range, multiple-comparison test (DMC) to assess differences among impact classes. If the metric value at the least-impacted sites were related to stream size, drainage area (loge transformed) was included as a covariate in this analysis. The final metrics chosen for inclusion in the IBI were based on their variation relative to natural factors, their relation to human impact, and whether they represented a unique aspect of the structure, composition, or functional organization of the fish assemblage (Hughes et al. 1998). Each final metric had an appropriate response pattern to both natural factors and human impacts. For those metrics that involved the same species and that were strongly correlated with each other (Pearson's r > 0.6), a single representative metric was chosen for use in the index. The final metrics selected included at least one metric for each of the five attributes of fish assemblages that an IBI should include: species richness and composition, indicator species, trophic function, reproductive function, and individual abundance and condition (Simon & Lyons 1995). Scoring criteria followed the classic 1, 3, and 5 scoring criteria established by Karr (1981) and Karr et al. (1986), which is consistent with previous adaptations of the IBI for other Indiana ecoregions (Simon 1991, 1994; Simon & Dufour 1998a, b) and large rivers (Simon 1992; Simon & Stahl 1998; Emery et al. 2003). A minimum possible score (0 points) was assigned when the metric value was below the level achieved by the development data set. For example, when a site did not possess a particular indicator species or guild, then the specific metric was assigned 0 points. The overall IBI score was the sum of 12 metric scores and ranged between 0 and 60. The IBI was validated with data from the test group by performing an ANOVA and a DMC on the 36 test samples, with impact categories as the main effect and IBI score as the response variable. Index of biotic integrity scores were converted to a proportion from 0 to 1 and then arcsine-square-root transformed prior to analysis. The IBI was considered valid if there were significant differences among impact categories, with the least-impacted samples having the highest scores and the point source samples the lowest. RESULTS Fish assemblages were sampled at 275 Indiana sites in the Wabash River between 1993-2001 (Fig. 1). An independent test sample set of 36 sites exposed to human-impacted conditions were collected between 2002-2005 to evaluate the final IBI. Of the 275 least-impacted sites, 31 were classified as non-impacted, 231 as agriculture exposed, and 13 as point source pollution impacted. Eighty-three sites were in the northern ECBP, while I10 sites were in the northern portion of the IRL ecoregion, and the remaining 82 sites were located in the southern portion of the IRL ecoregion. Watershed areas ranged from 1139.6 (440 [mi.sup.2]) to 85,231.7 [km.sup.2] (32,908 [mi.sup.2]). A total of 119 fish species was collected (Appendix) including 57,519 individuals and 19,825 kg of biomass. The study reaches had a wide variety of fish assemblages. Individual samples yielded from 2-47 species, from 23-5437 individuals (minus schooling species), and from 2.14-34.71 kg of biomass. The most frequently encountered species were carp (92% of samples), channel catfish (84%), gizzard shad (82%), and freshwater drum (77%). The most numerous species were spotfin shiner (12,878 individuals), emerald shiner (9959 individuals), gizzard shad (5296 individuals), and river shiner (4366 individuals), and the greatest biomass was for carp (1057.3 kg), freshwater drum (201.7 kg), and channel catfish (160.5 kg). Index development.--Of the 24 potential metrics considered (see Table 1 for designations and definitions), none varied significantly in relation to either river size or geographic (ecoregion or sub-ecoregion) location for our 31 least-impacted development group samples. This is most likely due to large and great rivers being an assimilator of upstream conditions. Large and great rivers most likely are already beyond the inflexion or accretion curve that is so dramatic in headwater and wadeable streams and thus would not demonstrate the pronounced drainage area relationships seen in small systems. These results are consistent with other large and great river calibrations (Simon & Emery 1998; Niemela et al. 1999; Emery et al. 2003). In addition, the River Continuum Concept (RCC) suggests increasing species richness with downstream drainage area increase; however, it is important to note that the Wabash River main stem is the trunk of the RCC since the increase in species richness occurs in the tributaries. Only a single metric, % great river species, had a positive but weak correlation with stream size (P = 0.036). None of the metrics had values that differed between drainage area, or northern and southern ecoregions or between or northern and southern sub-ecoregions. Twenty metrics met the criteria for inclusion in the IBI based on an analysis of all 275 development group samples. Four of these mettics were excluded because of redundancy. The metrics total species and native species provided almost identical results (r = 0.924) and differed by more than one species at only one site. The number of native species metric was retained, and the total number of species metric was dropped. The metrics % omnivore (r = 0.893), % tolerant (r = 0.888), and % detritivore (r = 0.872), had similar patterns across the impact classes regardless of whether calculated based on the number of individuals or the biomass collected. Since biomass was used as a separate indicator, the % omnivore and % tolerant species metrics was retained. One metric, % DELT was retained that did not meet the criteria for inclusion. This metric has been shown to be particularly sensitive to industrial and toxic discharges in numerous other studies (Sanders et al. 1999). In this data set, the DELT percentages were consistently low and did not differ among impact categories; but since sites with major untreated point source discharges were difficult to find during the time of our sampling, this was not considered a problem. However, such pollution types were common in this ecoregion as recent as the 1970s, so the DELT metric was retained to provide sensitivity to potential impacts that were not encompassed within the dataset. Scoring criteria for the final twelve metrics are provided in Fig. 2 and Table 2. Different criteria were not needed for northern and southern portions of the ecoregion; nor were different metric calibrations needed for stream sizes including % large-river species (< 5,957 [km.sup.2]) and % great-river species (> 5,957 [km.sup.2]). The overall IBI score was the sum of the individual scores for the 12 metrics and could range from 0 (worst) to 60 (best). [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] Index validation.--Overall IBI scores for 36 test group samples ranged from 16 (very poor) to 31 (fair) (Fig. 3), while the entire 275 combined set of development and test samples ranged from 12 (very poor) to 45 (fair-good) (Fig. 4). The least-impacted category was significantly greater than the agriculture and non-point source categories, which did not differ from each other. Least-impacted samples (n = 31) had a mean of 34 (fair) and a range of 22-45 compared to agriculture samples (n = 231), which had a mean of 24 (poor) and a range of 13-44, and a mean of 22 (very poor) and a range of 16-29 for point source samples. Ninety percent of the least-impacted samples were rated between poor and fair, and 83% of the impact samples were rated as poor or very poor. Variation within years.--Substantial annual variation in IBI scores among samples occurred at some sites but not at others. Generally, variation was lowest at the least-impacted sites and highest at the point-source impact sites. Within-year variation in IBI scores for sites ranged from 0 to 8 points with a mean of 3.2 points, and among- year variation ranged from 0 to 12 points with a mean of 4.1 points. All of these sites remained within the same integrity class. One site had ratings that ranged from very poor to fair between years. A single point-source pollution site varied 12 points and fluctuated in rating from very poor to poor between years. DISCUSSION Metric selection.--A wide range of metrics representative of the structure, composition, and functional organization of the Wabash River in the Interior River Lowland and Eastern Corn Belt Plain was considered. Most of the selected metrics have been found useful in other stream IBI applications, though they were modified to reflect understanding of river assemblages in this area. For example, previous stream versions of IBI have not used a "0" score when a metric attribute is not present. This simple adjustment in the scoring procedure reduced inherent natural variation in the degraded sites. Simon et al. (1998) used this procedure in vernal ponds when evaluating a multi-species assemblage and coastal wetlands in Lake Michigan (Simon & Stewart 2006). The choice of metrics reflected a balance between different types of metrics (i.e., structure and function) and different measures of assemblage characteristics (i.e., composition, tolerance, trophic guild, reproductive guild, abundance, and condition). As recommended by Simon & Lyons (1995) and Karr & Chu (1999), metrics that related to species richness and composition (number of native, minnow, sucker, and sunfish species), indicator species (sensitive species, % tolerant species, % pioneer species), trophic function (% insectivores, % detritivores, % carnivores), reproductive function (% lithophils), abundance (CPUE), and fish condition (% DELT). Some previous IBis have used biomass to assess biological integrity when there are large differences in adult size among species or when species richness is low (Hughes & Gammon 1987; Goldstein et al. 1994; Minns et al. 1994; Niemela et al. 1999; Lyons et al. 2000; Emery et al. 2003). Percent metrics were based entirely on individuals since this biomass data are used for another indicator other than the IBI, i.e., index of well being (Gammon 1976). The IBI is an important component of an assessment toolbox that can be used by fisheries and environmental professionals. Only a single metric included in the final metrics of the calibration related weakly to river size, as measured by drainage area. This is consistent with the results of other large-river IBis (Simon 1992; Simon 1994; Simon & Dufour 1998a, b; Simon & Emery 1995; Emery et al. 2003), and Ohio (Ohio EPA 1989) calibrations, which did not show any positive correlation with species richness metrics. Validation and variation.--An analysis of the test dataset validated the effectiveness of the Wabash River IBI (Fig. 3). As is necessary for an effective index, the sites were judged based on a priori, independent (i.e., non-fish) criteria: our least impacted sites had the highest IBI scores, and sites that we judged worst--the point-source sites--had the lowest scores. Based on the entire developmental dataset, the same patterns were observed with agricultural sites attained an intermediate level of impact with associated intermediate scores (Fig. 4). Because the test data were not used in any phase of the index development, these results are strong evidence that the IBI accurately measures the condition of large and great rivers (Karr & Chu 1999; Simon 1999a). These results support the utility of an IBI based on a subset of the river fish community for rapid biological assessment. [FIGURES 3-4 OMITTED] Although our new IBI appears to provide an accurate measure of stream ecosystem condition, this measure is not particularly precise, especially between years. This may be due to extremes in hydrologic conditions between years; however, at the highest quality river reaches little variability was observed. The temporal variation within high-quality reaches was relatively low, at 0-5 points, or about 0-8.3% of actual IBI scores, but much higher within degraded reaches, at 4-12 points or 6.7-20% of actual scores. Several other studies from midwestern United States streams have also found greater variation over time in IBI scores at degraded sites, although variation has typically been in the range of 25-60% of actual scores (summarized in Fore et al. 1994; Yoder & Rankin 1995; Gammon & Simon 2000). These findings suggest that strong temporal variation in fish assemblage characteristics is a real phenomena at degraded sites and not an artifact of the particular IBI used. Variation in IBI scores may be a signal of degradation (Karr & Chu 1999). Additional studies are needed to document the status and trends in biotic integrity at sites with human impacts than will be needed at least-impacted sites. Additional sampling is recommended from different periods to assess the condition of a site of unknown quality. Gammon & Simon (2000) found that four metrics (i.e., total number of species, number of centrarchid species, number of sensitive species, and % lithophils) responded at sites across the Eastern Corn Belt Plain ecoregion and a portion of the Interior River Lowland ecoregion; however, this was not anticipated to be an observed relationship for reference condition calibration since no single site is expected to represent the highest integrity for all metrics. Thus, individual metrics may show a trend in scores across ecoregions without metric expectations showing similar trends since the upper line is derived by either the maximum observed line for percentage metrics or 95 percentile for species structural and compositional metrics. Application.--Since no statistically significant difference was observed in metric response for drainage area, ecoregion, or subecoregion expectations for the reference condition, a single IBI was calibrated for the Wabash River. All studies of large and great rivers have not shown a relationship with drainage area (Goldstein et al. 1994; Minns et al. 1994; Niemela et al. 1999; Lyons et al. 2000; Emery et al. 2003; Simon & Stewart 2006), or across ecoregion or sub-ecoregion (Goldstein et al. 1994; Minns et al. 1994; Niemela et al. 1999; Lyons et al. 2000; Emery et al. 2003). Thus, a relationship between drainage area, ecoregion, or sub-ecoregion and metric expectations was not expected in this study. Simon & Stahl (1998) and Simon (1992) did not observe a relationship between fish assemblages and ecoregions or sub-ecoregions for the Eastern Corn Belt Plain, Interior River Lowland, and Interior River Plateau. Although a drainage area relationship is usually seen with increasing species accretion in headwater and wadeable streams, the RCC predicts that large and great rivers should not show increasing expectations. Once species diversity accretion is attained in large rivers, the replacement of small headwater species with large-river species does not increase substantially since the drainage area is already at the maximum for the watershed. The least-impacted sites had higher IBI scores and better ecosystem quality than sites that are more strongly impacted by human activities. Most least-impacted samples were rated as fair, and seldom were sites rated as good. On the contrary, many impacted sites were rated as poor. The sites rated as poor were representative of widescale land use changes that affected entire river reaches, but would not have been apparent from the local riparian and instream condition. Regional estimates of stream conditions showed that 42% of the stream reaches in the Interior River Lowland ecoregion had fish assemblages in poor or fair ecological condition, while large-river reaches in the Eastern Corn Belt Plain ecoregion had 36% lair and 23% good. Much of Indiana is in agricultural land use and serves as a background condition, thus sediment and nutrient runoff from upstream agriculture may well have reduced ecosystem quality below least-impacted site conditions on other large rivers. Despite the inclusion of lower quality sites in the developmental data base for the IBI, the classification of these sites indicated that both the metrics and the final IBI classification accurately portrayed the actual stream condition.
Appendix.--Classification of fishes captured during this study. For
feeding, P = parasite, F = filter, C = "carnivore" indicates the top
carnivore, I = insectivore, H = herbivore, and O = omnivore. For
habitat, "large" indicates streams greater than 2,590 but less than
5,957 square kilometer drainage area. For spawning, SL = simple
lithophil. "Other" indicates that the species was not included within
one of the categories used in calculating particular metrics. Species
are listed in taxonomic order by family and alphabetically within
family by scientific name. Classifications were taken from Simon
(1999b), Goldstein & Simon (1999), and unpublished data.
Common name Scientific name Origin
Lamprey Petromyzontidae
Chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon Native
castenaus
Silver lamprey Ichthyomyzon unicuspis Native
American brook Lampetra appendix Native
lamprey
Least brook lamprey Lampetra aepyptera Native
Gar Lepisosteidae
Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus Native
Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus Native
Shormose gar Lepisosteus Native
platostomus
Sturgeon Acipenseridae
Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens Native
Shovelnose sturgeon Scaphirhynchus Native
platorhynchus
Paddlefish Polyodontidae
Paddlefish Polyodon spathula Native
Bowfin Amiidae
Bowfin Amia calva Native
Herring Clupeidae
Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris Native
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Native
Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense Native
Mooneye Hiodontidae
Goldeye Hiodon alsoides Native
Mooneye Hiodon tergisus Native
Minnow Cyprinidae
Stoneroller minnow Campostoma Native
anomalum
Goldfish Carassius auratus Exotic
Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera Native
Steelcolor shiner Cyprinella whipplei Native
Common carp Cyprinus carpio Exotic
Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon Exotic
idella
Silverjaw shiner Ericymba buccata Native
Streamline chub Erimystax dissimilis Native
Gravel chub Erimystax x-punctata Native
Bigeye chub Hybopsis amblops Native
Mississippi silvery Hybognathus nuchalis Native
minnow
Silver carp Hypopthalmichthys Exotic
molitrix
Bighead carp Hypophthalmichthys Exotic
nobilis
Striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus Native
Ribbon shiner Lythrurus fumeus Native
Redfin shiner Lythrurus umbratilis Native
Shoal chub Macrhybopsis Native
hvostoma
Silver chub Macrhybopsis Native
storeriana
Hornyhead chub Nocomis biguttatus Native
River chub Nocomis micropogon Native
Golden shiner Notemigonus Native
crysoleucas
Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides Native
River shiner Notropis blennius Native
Bigeye shiner Notropis boops Native
Ghost shiner Notropis buchanani Native
Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius Native
Silver shiner Notropis photogenis Native
Rosyface shiner Notropis rubellus Native
Silverband shiner Notropis shumardi Native
Sand shiner Notropis stramineus Native
Mimic shiner Notropis volucellus Native
Channel shiner Notropis wickliffi Native
Suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis Native
Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus Native
Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas Native
Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax Native
Western blacknose dace Rhinichthys obtusus Native
Creek chub Semotilus Native
atromaculalus
Sucker Catostomidae
River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio Native
Quillback Carpiodes cyprhzus Native
Highfin carpsucker Carpiodes velifer Native
White sucker Catostomus Native
commersonii
Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus Native
Lake chubsucker Erinzyzon sucetta Native
Northern hogsucker Hypentelium nigricans Native
Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus Native
Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cvprinellus Native
Black buffalo Ictiobus niger Native
Spotted sucker Minytreina melanops Native
Silver redhorse Moxostoma anisurum Native
River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum Native
Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei Native
Golden redhorse Moxostotna erythrurum Native
Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma Native
macrolepidotum
Bullhead catfish Ictaluridae
Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis Native
Black bullhead Ameiurus melas Native
Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Native
Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Native
Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus Native
Mountain madtom Noturus eleutherus Native
Stonecat Noturus favus Native
Brindled madtom Noturus miurus Native
Freckled madtom Noturus nocturnus Native
Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris Native
Pike Esocidae
Grass pickerel Esox americanus Native
Mudminnow Umbridae
Central mudminnow Umbra limi Native
Topminnow Fundulidae
Blackstripe topminnow Fundulus notatus Native
Livebearer Peciliidae
Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Native
Silverside Atherinidae
Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus Native
Pirate perch Aphredoderidae
Pirate perch Apheredoderus sayanus Native
Sculpin Cottidae
Mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi Native
Banded sculpin Cottus carolinae Native
Temperate bass Moronidae
White bass Morone chrysops Native
Yellow bass Morone mississippensis Native
Striped bass Morone saxatilis Native
Sunfish Centrarchidae
Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris Native
Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Native
Warmouth Lepomis gulosus Native
Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis Native
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Native
Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus Native
Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis Native
Bantam sunfish Lepomis symmetricus Native
Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu Native
Spotted bass Micropterus Native
punctulatus
Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Native
White crappie Pomoxis annularis Native
Black crappie Pomoxis Native
nigromaculatus
Perch Percidae
Western sand darter Ammocrypta clara Native
Eastern sand darter Ammocrypta pellucida Native
Mud darter Etheostoma asprigene Native
Greenside darter Etheostoma blennioides Native
Rainbow darter Etheostoma caeruleum Native
Bluebreast darter Etheostoma camurum Native
Bluntnose darter Etheostoma chlorosoma Native
Fantail darter Etheostoma flabellare Native
Slugh darter Etheostoma gracile Native
Harlequin darter Etheostoma histrio Native
Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum Native
Orangethroat darter Etheostoma specatbile Native
Tippecanoe darter Etheostoma tippecanoe Native
Logperch Percina caprodes Native
Channel darter Percina copelandi Native
Gilt darter Percina evides Native
Blackside darter Percina maculata Native
Slenderhead darter Percina phoxocephala Native
Dusky darter Percina sciera Native
River darter Percina shumardi Native
Sauger Sander canadense Native
Walleye Sander vitreus Native
Drum Scianidae
Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens Native
Common name Tolerance Feeding Habitat Spawning
Lamprey
Chestnut lamprey Other P Large Other
Silver lamprey Other P Large Other
American brook Intolerant F Other Other
lamprey
Least brook lamprey Intolerant F Other Other
Gar
Spotted gar Other C Other Other
Longnose gar Other C Other Other
Shormose gar Other C Large Other
Sturgeon
Lake sturgeon Other I Large SL
Shovelnose sturgeon Other I Large SL
Paddlefish
Paddlefish Intolerant P Large SL
Bowfin
Bowfin Other C Other Other
Herring
Skipjack herring Other C Large Other
Gizzard shad Other O Other Other
Threadfin shad Other O Large Other
Mooneye
Goldeye Intolerant I Large Other
Mooneye Intolerant I Large Other
Minnow
Stoneroller minnow Other H Other Other
Goldfish Tolerant O Other Other
Spotfin shiner Other I Other Other
Steelcolor shiner Other I Other Other
Common carp Tolerant O Other Other
Grass carp Tolerant O Other Other
Silverjaw shiner Other I Other Other
Streamline chub Intolerant I Large SL
Gravel chub Intolerant I Large SL
Bigeye chub Intolerant I Other SL
Mississippi silvery Other O Large SL
minnow
Silver carp Tolerant H Large Other
Bighead carp Tolerant I Other Other
Striped shiner Other Other Other
Other
Ribbon shiner Other I Other Other
Redfin shiner Other I Other Other
Shoal chub Other I Large Other
Silver chub Other I Large Other
Hornyhead chub Intolerant I Other Other
River chub Intolerant I Large Other
Golden shiner Tolerant I Other Other
Emerald shiner Other I Large Other
River shiner Other I Large SL
Bigeye shiner Intolerant I Other SL
Ghost shiner Other I Other Other
Spottail shiner Other I Large Other
Silver shiner Intolerant I Other SL
Rosyface shiner Intolerant I Other SL
Silverband shiner Intolerant I Large SL
Sand shiner Other I Other Other
Mimic shiner Intolerant I Large Other
Channel shiner Other I Large Other
Suckermouth minnow Other I Other SL
Bluntnose minnow Tolerant O Other Other
Fathead minnow Tolerant O Other Other
Bullhead minnow Other I Large Other
Western blacknose dace Tolerant -- Other SL
Creek chub Tolerant -- Other Other
Sucker
River carpsucker Other O Other Other
Quillback Other O Other Other
Highfin carpsucker Intolerant O Other Other
White sucker Tolerant O Other SL
Blue sucker Intolerant I Large SL
Lake chubsucker Other I Other Other
Northern hogsucker Intolerant I Other SL
Smallmouth buffalo Other O Large Other
Bigmouth buffalo Other O Large Other
Black buffalo Other O Large Other
Spotted sucker Other I Other SL
Silver redhorse Intolerant I Other SL
River redhorse Intolerant I Other SL
Black redhorse Intolerant I Other SL
Golden redhorse Intolerant I Other SL
Shorthead redhorse Intolerant I Other SL
Bullhead catfish
Yellow bullhead Other I Other Other
Black bullhead Tolerant I Other Other
Brown bullhead Other I Other Other
Channel catfish Other C Large Other
Blue catfish Other C Large Other
Mountain madtom Intolerant I Other Other
Stonecat Intolerant I Other Other
Brindled madtom Intolerant I Other Other
Freckled madtom Intolerant I Other Other
Flathead catfish Other C Large Other
Pike
Grass pickerel Other C Other Other
Mudminnow
Central mudminnow Tolerant O Other Other
Topminnow
Blackstripe topminnow Other I Other Other
Livebearer
Mosquitofish Other I Other Other
Silverside
Brook silverside Other I Other Other
Pirate perch
Pirate perch Other I Other Other
Sculpin
Mottled sculpin Other I Other Other
Banded sculpin Other I Other Other
Temperate bass
White bass Other C Large Other
Yellow bass Other C Large Other
Striped bass Other C Large Other
Sunfish
Rock bass Other C Other Other
Green sunfish Tolerant I Other Other
Warmouth Other C Other Other
Orangespotted sunfish Other I Other Other
Bluegill Other I Other Other
Redear sunfish Other I Other Other
Longear sunfish Intolerant I Other Other
Bantam sunfish Other I Other Other
Smallmouth bass Intolerant C Other Other
Spotted bass Other C Other Other
Largemouth bass Other C Other Other
White crappie Other -- Other Other
Black crappie Other -- Other Other
Perch
Western sand darter Intolerant I Large SL
Eastern sand darter Intolerant I Large SL
Mud darter Other I Other Other
Greenside darter Intolerant I Other Other
Rainbow darter Intolerant I Other SL
Bluebreast darter Intolerant I Other SL
Bluntnose darter Other I Other Other
Fantail darter Other I Other Other
Slugh darter Other I Other Other
Harlequin darter Intolerant I Large SL
Johnny darter Other I Other Other
Orangethroat darter Other I Other SL
Tippecanoe darter Intolerant I Other SL
Logperch Other I Other SL
Channel darter Intolerant I Other SL
Gilt darter Intolerant I Other SL
Blackside darter Other I Other SL
Slenderhead darter Intolerant I Other SL
Dusky darter Other I Other SL
River darter Intolerant I Large SL
Sauger Other C Large SL
Walleye Other C Large SL
Drum
Freshwater drum Other -- Large Other
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks to Ronda L. Dufour for preparing Figure 1, assisting in data analysis, and participation in field collection of data. Individuals too numerous to mention were involved in the field collection of data. Without the data provided by Stacy L. Sobat, Charles C. Morris, James R. Stahl (Indiana Department of Environmental Management) and Brian Shoening, Debbie Cook, and Tom Stefanavage (Indiana Department of Natural Resources), this revised calibration could not have been completed. Although this study may have been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency, no endorsement by that agency should be inferred. Manuscript received 7 June 2006, revised 27 November 2006. LITERATURE CITED Davis, W.S. & T.P. Simon. 1988. Sampling and data evaluation requirements for fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Pp. 89-97, In Proceedings of the First National Workshop on Biocriteria, Lincolnwood, Illinois. (T.P. Simon, L.L. Holst & L.J. Shepard, eds.). EPA 905/9-89/003. USEPA, Region V, Instream Biocriteria and Ecological Assessments Committee, Chicago, Illinois. Emery, E.B., T.P. Simon, F.H. McCormick, P.L. Angermeier, J.E. DeShon, C.O. Yoder, R.E. Sanders, W.D. Pearson, G.D. Hickman, R.J. Reash & J.A. Thomas. 2003. Development of a multimetric index for assessing the biological condition of the Ohio River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:791-808. Fausch, K.D., J.R. Karr & P.R. Yant. 1984. Regional application of an index of biotic integrity based on stream fish communities. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:39-55. Fausch, K.D., J. Lyons, J.R. Karr & P.L. Angermeier. 1990. Fish communities as indicators of environmental degradation. Pp. 123-144, In Biological indicators of stress in fish. (S.M. Adams, ed.). American Fisheries Society, Symposium 8, Bethesda, Maryland. Gammon, J.R. & T.P. Simon. 2000. Variation in a great river index of biotic integrity over a 20 year period. Hydrobiologia 422/423:291-304. Goldstein, R.M. & T.P Simon. 1999. Towards a united definition of guild structure for feeding ecology of North American freshwater fishes. Pp. 123-202, In Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. (T.P. Simon, ed.). CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. Goldstein, R.M., T.P. Simon, PA. Bailey, M. Ell, E. Pearson, K. Schmidt & J.W. Emblom. 1994. Concepts for an index of biotic integrity for streams of the Red River of the North Basin. Pp. 169-180, In Proceedings of the North Dakota Water Quality Symposium. March 30-31, 1994, Fargo, North Dakota. Hughes, R.M. & J.R. Gammon. 1987. Longitudinal changes in fish assemblages and water quality in the Willamette River, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:196-209. Hughes, R.M. & T. Oberdorff. 1999. Applications of IBI concepts and metrics to waters outside the United States and Canada. Pp. 79-93, In Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. (T.P. Simon, ed.). CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. Hughes, R.M., P.R. Kaufmann, A.T. Herlihy, T.M. Kincaid, L. Reynolds & D.P. Larsen. 1998. A process for developing and evaluating indices of fish assemblage integrity. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:1618-1631. Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). 2002. 305(b) report to Congress. IDEM, Indianapolis, Indiana. Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21-27. Karr, J.R. & E.W. Chu. 1999. Restoring life in running waters: Better biological monitoring. Island Press. Covelo, California. Karr, J.R., K.D. Fansch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant & I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: A method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5. Champaign, Illinois. Lyons, J., L. Wang & T.D. Simonson. 1996. Development and validation of an index of biotic integrity for coldwater streams in Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:241-256. Lyons, J., A. Gutierrez-Hernandez, E. Diaz-Pardo, E. Soto-Galera, M. Medina-Nava & R. Pineda-Lopez. 2000. Development of a preliminary index of biotic integrity (IBI) based on fish assemblages to assess ecosystem condition in the lakes of central Mexico. Hydrobiolgia 418:57-72. Lyons, J., R.R. Piette & K.W. Niermeyer. 2001. Development, validation, and application of a fish-based index of biotic integrity for Wisconsin's large warmwater rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130:1077-1094. Minns, C.K., V.C. Cairns, R.G. Randall & J.E. Moore. 1994. An index of biotic integrity (IBI) for fish assemblages in the littoral zone of Great Lakes' areas of concern. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:1804-1822. Mundahl, N.D. & T.P Simon. 1999. Development and application of an index of biotic integrity for coldwater streams of the upper Midwestern United States. Pp. 383-416, In Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. (T.P. Simon, ed.). CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. Niemela, S., E. Pearson, T.P. Simon, R.M. Goldstein & P.A. Bailey. 1999. Development of an index of biotic integrity for the species depauperate Lake Agassiz Plain Ecoregion, North Dakota and Minnesota. Pp. 339-380, In Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. (T.P. Simon, ed.). CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. Omernik, J.M. & A.L. Gallant. 1988. Ecoregions of the upper Midwest States. EPA/600/3-88/037. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Corvallis, Oregon. Sanders, R.E., R.J. Miltner, C.O. Yoder & E.T. Rankin. 1999. The use of external deformities, erosion, lesions, and tumors (DELT anomalies) in fish assemblages for characterizing aquatic resources: A case study of seven Ohio streams. Pp. 225-246, In Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. (T.R Simon, ed.). CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. Simon, T.P. 1991. Development of index of biotic integrity expectations for the ecoregions of Indiana. I. Central Corn Belt Plain. EPA 905-9-91-025. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois. Simon, T.P. 1992. Development of biological criteria for large rivers with an emphasis on an assessment of the White River drainage, Indiana. EPA 905-R-92-026. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chicago, Illinois. Simon, T.P. 1994. Development of index of biotic integrity expectations for the ecoregions of Indiana. II. Huron-Erie Lake Plain. EPA 905-R-92-027. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois. Simon, T.P. (ed.). 1999a. Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. Simon, T.P. 1999b. Assessment of Balon's reproductive guilds with application to midwestern North American freshwater fishes. Pp. 97-121, In Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. (T.P. Simon, ed.). CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. Simon, T. P. 2001. The use of biological criteria as a tool for water resource management. Environmental Science and Policy 3:S43-S49. Simon, T.P. 2002a. Biological response signatures: Patterns in aquatic assemblages. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. Simon, T.P. & R.L. Dufour. 1998a. Development of index of biotic integrity expectations for the ecoregions of Indiana. V. Eastern Corn Belt Plain. EPA 905-R-96-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chicago, Illinois. Simon, T.P. & R.L. Dufour. 1998b. Development of index of biotic integrity expectations for the ecoregions of Indiana. IV. Northern Indiana Till Plain. EPA 905-R-96-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois. Simon, T.P. & E.B. Emery. 1995. Modification and assessment of an Index of Biotic Integrity to quantify water resource quality in great rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 11: 283-298. Simon, T.P. & J. Lyons. 1995. Application of the index of biotic integrity to evaluate water resources integrity in freshwater ecosystems. Pp. 245-262, In Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. (W.S. Davis & T.P. Simon, eds.). Lewis Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Simon, T.P., E.T. Rankin, R.L. Dufour & S.A. Newhouse. 2003. Using biological criteria for establishing restoration and ecological recovery endpoints. Pp. 81-94, In Biological Response Dignatures: Indicator Patterns Using Aquatic Communities. (T.P. Simon, ed.). CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. Simon, T.P. & R.E. Sanders. 1999. Applying an index of biotic integrity based on Great-River fish communities: Considerations in sampling and interpretation. Pp. 475-505, In Assessing the Sustainability and Biological Integrity of Water Resources Using Fish Communities. (T.P. Simon, ed.). CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. Simon, T.P. & J.R. Stahl. 1998. Development of index of biotic integrity expectations for the Wabash River. EPA 905-R-96-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois. Simon, T.P. & J.R. Stahl. 2001. Clarifying statement for the report entitled: "Index of Biotic Integrity Expectations for the Wabash River." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois. Simon, T.P. & P.M. Stewart (eds.). 2006. Coastal Wetlands of the Laurentian Great Lakes: Health, Habitat and Indicators. Authorhouse Press. Bloomington, Indiana. Strahler, A.N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 38:913-920. Woods, A.J., J.M. Omernik, S.C. Brockman, T.D. Gerber, W.D. Hosteter, S.H. Azevedo, T.R Simon, C.O. Yoder, P. Merchant, T.R. Loveland, C.L. Bridges, G.L. Overmier, K. Capuzzi, S.A. Newhouse, T. Nash, J.R. Gammon, B.K. Andreas & J. Harrington. 1995. Ecoregions of Indiana and Ohio. Map. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. Yoder, C.O. & E.T. Rankin. 1995. Biological criteria program development and implementation in Ohio. Pp. 109-144, In Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. (T.P. Simon, ed.) Lewis Press. Boca Raton, Florida. Thomas P. Simon: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 620 South Walker Street, Bloomington, Indiana 47403 USA
Table 1.--Candidate metrics considered for inclusion in a calibration
of the index of biotic integrity (IBI) for the Wabash River. Species
designations are provided in the appendix. The abbreviation wt stands
for weight (biomass); n is the total number of fish captured. Metrics
in bold are included in the final IBI.
Metric Definition
CPUE Catch of individuals per standard sampling
distance (500-m).
CPUE2 Catch of individuals per standard sampling
sistance, excluding individuals of
tolerant species.
Total species Total number of species collected.
Native species Total species excluding exotic and
non-indigenous species.
Number sucker species Total number of species in the sucker
family (Catostomidae).
Sunfish species Number of species in the sunfish family
(Centrarchidae), excluding black
basses (genus Micropterus).
Centarchid species Number of species in the sunfish family
(Centrarchidae) including black
basses (genus Micropterus).
Minnow species Number of species in the minnow family
(Cyprinidae).
Darter species Number of species in the perch family
(Percidae) in the genera Ammocrypta,
Etheostoma, Crystallaria, and Percina.
Sensitive species Number of species sensitive to
anthropogenic disturbance of
physical and chemical integrity.
% DELT (n) Percentage of total fish captured that
upon gross inspection possessed
deformities, eroded fins, lesions,
or tumors.
% Top carnivores (n) Percentage of total fish captured that
were top carnivores.
% Insectivores (n) Percentage of total fish captured that
were insectivores.
% Detritivores (n) Percentage of total fish captured that
were detritivores.
% Omnivores (n) Percentage of total fish captured that
were omnivores; i.e., consumed at
least 25% animal and 25% plant
material.
% Great River (n) Percentage of total fish captured that
were obligate great-river species.
% Large-river species (n) Percentage of total fish captured that
were obligate large-river species.
% Lithophil (n) Percentage of total fish captured that
were simple lithophilic spawners (i.e.,
first spawned on clean rocky surface
without preparing a nest or guarding
their eggs).
% Round-bodied suckers (n) Percentage of total fish captured in
the genera Cycleptus (blue sucker),
Hypentelium (hog sucker), Minytrema
(spotted sucker), Erimyzon
(chubsuckers), and Moxostoma
(redhorses).
% Tolerant (n) Percentage of total fish captured that
were considered tolerant of
environmental degradation.
% Top carnivore (wt) Percentage of total biomass accounted
for by top carnivores.
% Insectivores (wt) Percentage of total biomass captured
that were insectivores.
% Detritivores (wt) Percentage of total biomass captured
that were detritivores.
% Omnivores (wt) Percentage of total biomas captured
that were omnivores; i.e., consumed
at least 25% animal and 25% plant
material.
Table 2.--Final metrics and scoring criteria for the Wabash River,
Indiana.
Scoring criteria
and rating (points)
Metric Location Poor (1)
Native species (Total) All -10
Centrarchid species All [less than or equal to] 2
Round-bodied sucker All -2
Sensitive species All [less than or equal to] 3
% Tolerant All <71.6%
% Omnivores All <68.3%
% Insectivores All <25.0%
% Carnivores All <10% or >40%
% Large-river species All <28.3%
CPUE All <600
% Lithophils All <15%
% DELT All >1.3%
Scoring criteria and rating (points)
Metric Fair (3) Good (5)
Native species (Total) 10-20 >20
Centrarchid species 3-4 [greater than or equal to] 5
Round-bodied sucker 2-4 [greater than or equal to] 5
Sensitive species 4-7 [greater than or equal to] 8
% Tolerant 43.3-71.6% >43.3%
% Omnivores 36.7-68.3% >36.7%
% Insectivores 25.0-50.0% >50.0%
% Carnivores 10-20% & 30-40% >20-30%
% Large-river species 28.3-56.6% >56.6%
CPUE 600-1200 >1200
% Lithophils 15-30% >30%
% DELT 0.1-1.3% <0.1%
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion