101F90051 Criteria For Choosing Indicator Species for Ecological Risk Assessments at Superfund Sites Prepared for: Dr. Andrew Podowski Waste Management Division USEPA Region V Prepared by: Thomas H. Angus NNEMS Graduate Student Intern Environmental Science and Engineering Department University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina 5 L.brary -- ,. ,„ floor ------- DISCLAIMER This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by the student identified on the cover page, under a National Network for Environmental Management Studies fellowship. The contents are essentially as received from the author. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mention, if any, of company, process, or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ------- Table of Contents page Ob j ective .. 1 The Indicator Species Concept Definition 2 History of Concept 3 Chemical Stress and Indicator Species 4 Advantages 6 Disadvantages 7 Conclusion 8 Terrestrial Organisms Aquatic vs Terrestrial Organisms 10 Introduction 11 Plants 13 Invertebrates 14 Vertebrates 14 Aquatic Organisms Introduction 16 Periphton 18 Phytoplankton 19 Macroinvertebrates 19 Fish 21 Criteria for Choosing Indicator Species Introduction 23 Confounding Factors 24 Criteria Summarized 28 Wide Distribution 30 Ecosystem Integration 30 Residency Status 31 Available Information and Data 31 Species Sensitivity 32 Minimize Informational overlap 34 Historical Information 34 Easily and Accurately Collected/Monitored 35 Temporal Contiuum of Reproducing Stocks 36 Suitable for Laboratory Experiments 36 Social Value 37 Size 37 Exposure to Contaminants 38 Life Stage 40 Critical Species 40 Low Redundancy and Immigration 42 High Reliablility/ Specificity of Response....42 ------- Objective The purpose of this paper is to develop criteria for choosing indicator species for ecological risk assessments at Superfund sites. The paper begins with an introduction of the indicator species concept and a brief review of the use of indicator species in terrestrial and aquatic environments. Criteria for choosing species are then outlined and explained. ------- The Indicator Species Concept indicator Species Definition An indicator is "an organism or ecological community so strictly associated with particular environmental conditions that its presence is indicative of the existence of these conditions" (Morrison 1986). The presence or absence of indicator species is commonly used to assess adverse impacts on ecological communities. Indicator species are organisms that are selectively adapted to certain pollution conditions, either heavily polluted or clean. The term "indicator species" has also been applied to organisms that bioaccumulate toxic substances present in trace amounts in the environment. This second definition, however, is not in keeping with the original application of the term and bioaccumulating species are more properly referred to as "chemical monitor species" (Connell and Miller 1984). Indicator species can be divided into two types, class I and class II (Ryder and Edwards, 1985): Class I Indicator Species. Class I indicator species are specialized organisms that have narrow tolerances for most environmental properties. These are stenoecious organisms that have evolved to be specially adapted to pristine conditions. Selected attributes of type I indicator organisms may serve as early warning indicators of ------- perturbations such as chemical stress from a hazardous waste site. The attribute most often chosen is population decline. Class I organisms tend to signal earlier environmental degradation than class II organisms. Class II organisms fill the niches which are emptied by the decline of class I organisms. Class II Indicator Species. Class II indicator species are less specialized organisms that have relatively broad tolerances for many environmental properties. These organisms are euryecious and are outcompeted by stenoecious organisms in the environments to which the latter are specially adapted. Type II organisms therefore tend to be present in low numbers in healthy ecosystems. However, tolerant organisms are better adapted to the degraded conditions of a stressed system. Thus an increase in the populations of class II organisms can signal the degradation of environmental conditions. History of the Indicator Species Concept In 1908 Kolwitz and Marsson proposed the "saprobien" spectrum, which used continuity composition to assess the effects of organic pollution on aquatic ecosystems. They developed lists of organisms associated with various zones of pollution, differentiated according to the degree of organic matter in the system. These zones ranged from the ------- 4 polysaprobic (large amount of decomposable organic matter and a low dissolved oxygen concentration) through the alpha and beta zones of recovery, to a clean water oligosaprobic zone. Zones were the "centers for optimum growth and development" for the organisms associated with them. An investigator then collects and identifies the organisms at a location, and compares them with a list to determine the level of organic pollution. This system was then refined by various scientists in Europe (Thomas 1975, Sladecek 1965). However, this system relied on species sensitivity to dissolved oxygen content in water and did not take into account the toxic pollutants present today. The importance of the saprobian system is its introduction of the indicator species concept. Chemical Stress and Indicator Species For areas such as hazardous waste sites the emphasis on indicator species needs to be shifted from dissolved oxygen sensitivity to toxic substance sensitivity. For Toxicants, there is a large difference in susceptibility between species (Slooff 1983). Differences in susceptibility of species occupying key places in the food web may have drastic consequences for the structure and function of an ecosystem. Changes in chemical conditions can result in the appearance of characteristic taxa, although these often ------- represent large population increases in previously inconspicuous taxa rather than colonization (Ford, 1988). Changes in species composition may be so imperceptible as the elimination of only one of the most sensitive species. This species may be of minor ecological importance or concern. However, if this is a major species such as a fish or an important fish-food organism, this may give rise to a great deal of concern (Hawkes 1982). More intense chemical stress may affect large numbers of organisms in an ecological community. Chemical stress can result in individual species replacements when stressor-tolerant species replace stressor-sensitive ones. Other affects on species are more common than straight-forward mortality. Sensitive species losses may not be directly attributable to the chemical stress, but the stress may leave the organism open to other threats such as fungal or insect attacks, or failure in pollination due to deleterious effects on honey bees or other sensitive animals (Borman, 1983). Areas such as resource gathering and reproduction may also be affected. Shifts in dominance may occur at different trophic levels. Increased levels or duration of chemical stress not only cause the disappearance of type I indicator species, but lead to increases in the numbers of Type II indicator species. Blooms of opportunistic species normally controlled by competition or predation appear. Blooms create new food supplies for decomposer species, and can lead to a temporary increase in decomposer species (Ford 1988). ------- The ecosystem response to a stressor depends on the point of attack of the stressor on the system as well as other properties of the system. A proper ecological assessment based on indicator species needs a thorough knowledge of the relationships between the type of the stress and the response of the system. When dealing with disturbance caused by toxic chemicals, knowledge is insufficient and environmental assessment is seriously hampered (Sloof 1983) . Advantages of the Indicator Species Approach. The Indicator species approach has many advantages: -Indicator species are a relatively easy, inexpensive and accurate ecological measure if chosen correctly. -Indicator species serve as continuous monitors of pollution at a hazardous waste site, integrating fluctuations in exposure over time.Indicator species can also demonstrate when conditions are returning to normal. -Indicator species are a direct measure of the effects on the ecology of an area. There is no need to extrapolate from laboratory tests. -Effects on indicator species populations are easily understood by managers, regulators, and the general public. -Indicator species are useful in identifying specific species at risk (EPA 1989b). Karr (1986) writes that indicator species are a useful measure of the biotic integrity of an area. He defines biotic integrity as the ability to support and maintain "a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species compostion, diversity, and functional organization ------- comparable to that of the natural habitat of the region." Systems with biotic integrity can withstand or rapidly recover from natural and human induced perturbations. Systems without biotic integrity are often already degraded and when further perturbed are likely to change rapidly to even more degraded states. Karr uses the "index of biotic integrity" he developed as applied to fish to determine perturbations to aquatic ecosystems. Disadvantages of the Indicator Species Approach. In recent years there has been a growing dissatisfaction among scientists with the use of indicator species (Cairns 1986, Ford 1988). Biologists have been pushing for a whole ecosystem approach. Whole ecosystem studies are a great deal more costly and time consuming. The arguments against indicator species are outlined below: No single taxa have emerged as the accepted standard among all biologists (Cairns 1974). Anthropogenic chemicals may cause stress to exposed organisms that leads to gradual degradation of cumulative changes rather than immediate loss of organisms (Weinstein 1988). -Absence of indicator species may be due to factors other than anthropogenic chemicals, such as competition, predation, lack of colonization potential, inadequate sampling intensity, and chance. Presence of indicator species can also be misleading as they may be present in low numbers in undisturbed systems. -The signal of the response to chemical stress may not be discernable from natural variations in species populations (Kelly et al 1988). ------- 8 -If an ecosystem is subject -to more than one chemical stress, as is often the case at hazardous waste sites, the indicator species concept may be difficult to apply as different species respond differently to various sets of stressors (Ford 1988). A variety of toxic chemicals will result in a non-specific decrease of species richness and population size (Sloof 1983). -Although many indicator species are common, many other are uncommon or rare in a community, and their presence and especially their absence may be difficult to demonstrate. Under ideal circumstances, a biological monitoring program would include many taxa on different trophic levels, but time and money do not usually allow this (Cairns 1974). Conclusion Whether or not animals are strongly associated with specific environmental conditions and share these associations with others is currently under debate (Mannan et al 1984). The use of indicator species has not been critically evaluated. The circumstances under which plants or animals may provide insight into environmental degradation, or the specific organisms that may best serve as the the indicators of degradation have not been well defined (Morrison 1986). The following two sections of this paper will briefly outline what information is available for plant and animal indicator species in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem. The value of the indicator species approach is low in the absence of other supporting data. But careful choice of indicator species applied to well defined problems may be useful in detecting regional and site- specific contamination. The value of the indicator species approach is enhanced if groups of indicator species are ------- used. It is particularly useful if they are chosen from different guilds or trophic levels (Kelly et al 1988). If groups of indicator species all begin to show changes the likelihood that the changes are caused by factors other than chemical stress is greatly reduced. ------- 10 Terrestrial Organisms Aquatic Verses Terrestrial Organisms Indicator species have been much more extensively used for aquatic ecosystems than they have for terrestrial ecosystems. In forest ecosystems the dominant producers are trees. Trees reproduce and grow slowly. If they are killed it may be years before they are replaced. A gradual movement from pollution sensitive to pollution resistant species occurs in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. This trend is much slower in terrestrial ecosystems. The turnover time for terrestrial ecosystems may be years or centuries instead of days. Therefore changes are not detectable nearly • as early in terrestrial ecosystems as they are in aquatic ecosystems. However, it will also take a lot longer for a terrestrial ecosystem to recover so detection of terrestrial perturbation may be even more important in terrestrial ecosysytems (Schindler, 1987). Terrestrial soils tend to concentrate pollutants, thus exposing the primary producers to toxic chemicals. In aquatic ecosystems the key primary producers are phytoplankton. They are exposed to toxic pollutants only if those pollutants are water soluble. Introduction A chronic xenobiotic chemical is stress a terrestrial ecosystem is likely to have been previously exposed to. Many organisms are likely to be sensitive to the chemical, as ------- 11 evolution would not have had time to eliminate sensitive species. Various organisms in a terrestrial ecosystem are differentially susceptible to toxic compounds. Microorganisms capable of detoxifying and breaking down xenobiotics are not likely to have developed significant population sizes, if they exist at all. Studies by Sheehan and Winner (1984) found that pollutants tend to affect species compostion and succession by replacing advanced communities with species of earlier serai stages (see also Woodwell 1983, Odum 1985). Plants • Early use of indicator species primarily took the form of plants used to identify habitat types. Dominant autotrophs determine ecosystem structure to a large extent, so much has been done to study changes to these organisms (Weistein 1988). Plants have been used in studies of both soil and air pollution (Jones and Heck 1981, Martin and Coughtrey 1982, Dewit 1983, Eijsackers 1983, Ernst 1983). Certain plants have been shown to be abundant in metal contaminated soils (Hutton 1984). Ten Houten (1983) found that plants are generally more suitable for air pollution studies than animals because they "ask less attention and react frequently with characteristic symptoms to low concentrations of specific air pollutants". Air pollution ------- 12 from volatile organics is an important consideration when determining ecological damage at Superfund sites. Plants have several advantages and disadvantages as indicator species: Advantages; Sedentary. Easy to identify and usually do not need to be collected. Ubiquitous occurrence. Low trophic level organisms. Disadvantages: There is not a great deal of datam plant sensitivity to toxic chemicals. The focus has been on animal species. Are not useful for hydrophobic bioaccumulating compounds. May react less rapidly than animals. Plants may take up chemicals with low log P values through their roots. They can't transport significant amounts of compounds with high molecular weights or high log P values. Plants may become contaminated by soil or water, or by the volatilization of chemicals at a site. Patton (1984) claims that plants are the best indicators of environmental change since they are directly affected by environmental factors. Animals are not only dependent upon plants, but are also influenced by environmental factors. Plants are non-mobile, easy to count, and indicate change with a high degree of certainty. Perrenial plants are the ------- 13 best indicators because repeated measurements can be made at the same location. Invertebrates Terrestrial invertebrates have been used to some extent, but not to the overwhelming extent they have been in aquatic environments. Rosenburg (1986) reviews the use of terrestrial insects in monitoring studies. Soil is the major terrestrial sink for pollutants, so invertebrates are often heavily exposed to contaminants. Invertebrates have many advantages and disadvantages implicit in their use: Advantages: small organisms with rapid turnover rates in which effects are likely to occur earlier. High species diversity Ubiquitous occurrence Often abundant and easily sampled Ecological and Economic Importance -decomposition of organic matter, provision of food for fish and wildlife, purification of groundwater. Disadvantagesi Small and cryptic in coloration and behavior -not as easily observed as birds or mammals. Identification and analysis of samples is time consuming and expensive. Species level taxonomic data is often lacking (Whitby and Hutchinson 1974). Variable soil types need to be characterized in order to choose species. ------- 14 Decomposer organisms in the litter layer appear to be relatively sensitive to metals because of their intimate exposure to them (.Hutton 1984). For example, earthworms are efficient accumulators of both metals and organochlorine compounds, and give a measure of the relative amounts entering the foodchain. The species Allobophora Calliginosa has been shown to be especially sensitive in studies with copper, cadmium, zinc, fly ash, and sewage sludge (Eijsackers 1983). Earthworms burrow through the upper soil layers (20-100 cm) thus integrating the toxic components of these different layers. Organisms that are soil ingestors like earthworms are particularly useful because they are highly exposed to pollutants in soil. Vertebrates Vertebrates have not been used extensively to monitor for environmental contaminants. Advantages; High ecological, economic, and social value Conspicuous and easily observed Extensive taxonomic, life history and chemical sensitivity information. Upper trophic level organisms which are especially susceptible to bioaccumulating compounds. Disadvantages; Effects of environmental contaminants occur relatively late when compared with smaller organisms with higher turnover rates. ------- 15 Populations tend to be small, and absence may be due to demographics or inadequate sampling. Birds are the most extensively used vertebrate indicator species (Roberts 1985, Block et al 1986, Block et al 1987). Birds are often the most conspicuous organisms within ecosystems (Morrison 1986). They also appear to be more sensitive to environmental contaminants than other vertebrates (Stickel 1975, Grue et al 1983). Rats, mice, and rabbits are other vertebrates that have frequently been favored as indicator species. This is not because of their inherent sensitivity but because of the wealth of laboratory data available which aids in correlating population decreases with the presence of environmental contaminants. Sylvia Talmage (1989) assessed the merits of using small mammals as monitors for environmental contaminants. There was a correlation between the amount of contaminants in the soil and in small mammals. The concentrations of contaminants generally increases with higher trophic level organisms. ------- 16 Aquatic organisms introduction The use of indicator species is more prevalent in aquatic it is in terrestrial ecosystems (Phillips 1978, Angermeier and Karr 1986, Peterson 1986, Courtemanch and Davies 1987, Klerks and Levington 1989). This is because aquatic ecosystems have been the traditional receptors for municipal and industrial waste. Most of the work that has been done with indicator species has been in regards to municipal sewage. However organisms respond very differently to sewage than they do to toxic chemicals. High sewage concentrations favor organisms that can survive in environments with a low dissolved oxygen content. Toxicity is the main concern with chemical compounds at hazardous waste sites. In contrast to the relatively slow reactions of terrestrial ecosystems, aquatic systems are very dynamic. Heterogeneity is a particularly severe problem in aquatic ecosystems. It is often difficult or impossible to measure the variability of a system. This is particularly important in weighing the presence or absence of a species. Aquatic community structure is often cryptic, and stochiastic factors are important in determining ecosystem structure and dynamics. Even normal seasonal successional changes are more variable than in terrestrial systems (Ford 1988). The large ------- 17 numbers of chemicals and ecosystem types make the two very difficult to match in terms of expected effects and changes. Large lakes are.temporally stable physiochemical environments that can also be surprisingly patchy arid changing in terms of community structure. Stratification and mixing lead to cryptic differences in species abundance and ecosystem structure. The sampling intensity necessary to account for ecosystem variability can be great. Rivers and streams are at the other extreme from lake ecosystems. Lotic systems are temporally variable and a longer monitoring period may be necessary to characterize lotic systems than non-moving systems. This can be overcome however by monitoring a section of stream upstream from the site as well as a section that is being affected by the site (Stauffer and Hocutt 1980). This allows for comparison between the two sections. Care must be taken that the ecosystem types of the two sections and extraneous factors are not significantly different. For aquatic systems it is necessary to determine ecosystem properties such as substrate, flow, and temperature. In most aquatic ecosystems the sensitive indicators of stress include changes in sensitive short- lived species and changes in community structure resulting from the elimination of keystone predators (Schindler 1987). ------- 18 Periphyton Periphyton are complex assemblages comprised of autotrophs (algae), .and heterotrophs (fungi, bacteria, or protozoa) attached to substrates in lotic environments. They are sometimes are sensitive indicators of environmental contaminants in lotic ecosystems (Lewis et al 1986). "Non- diatom species predominate in in polluted and recovering areas. Studies have shown declining species diversity and species richness which demonstrate a loss of sensitive species with a concurrent increase of more resistant species (Crossey and Lapoint 1988, Steinman and Mclntire 1990). Advantages t Small and rapidly reproducing, are among the first organisms affected Ubiquitous occurrence Easy to collect Ecological importance - food sorce for higher trophic level organisms Disadvantages t Relatively little information available on species sensitivity Difficult to identify Little data available t Phytoplankton Phytoplankton have not been used extensively as indicators of chemical contaminants (Shubert 1984). Changes in Phytoplankton species composition are thought to be among ------- 19 the most sensitive indicators of ecosystem stress, but collection and identification problems have kept phytoplankton from being used (Schindler 1987). Advantages: Among the first organisms to show changes in species dominant because they are small, rapidly reproducing, and disperse widely. Are sensitive to a large number of compounds: organochlorines such as DDT and PCBs, and trace elements such as copper, zinc and mercury, Disadvantages s Difficult to obtain sort samples - species identification. Rapid species succession can cause acute responses to be masked -little time integration. Have not been used extensively -data are lacking. Macroinvertebrates Aquatic macroinvertebrates are the most commonly used organisms for the ecological assessment of environmental contaminants (Resh and Unzicker 1975). Many studies have been performed using aquatic macroinvertebrates (Lenat et al 1983, Schaeffer et al 1985, Hilsenhoff 1988). Because pollutants are generally more concentrated in sediments than in the water column, benthic macroinvertebrates are exposed to greater concentrations of pollutants than pelagic or planktonic organisms. Thus benthic organisms are the macroinvertebrates most commonly chosen (Morse 1983). Many ------- 20 benthic organisms are among the most sensitive higher aquatic species, even to pollutants such as acids which are not concetrated in.sediments (Schindler 1987). Aquatic macroinvertebrates exhibit a steady, predictable response to heavy metals and other compounds. In streams extensively polluted with heavy metals, all species except for tubificid worms and chironomids were virtually eliminated (Winner et al 1980). Mayflies were found to occur only at he least polluted areas while heavily polluted areas were dominated by midges. Chironomids comprise a very small fraction of the fauna in unpolluted streams in North America, but comprise 40-75% of the fauna in streams contaminated with heavy metals. Caddis flies wer eliminated at the most seriously polluted parts of streams but were co- dominant with chironids in moderately polluted parts of streams (Sheehan and Winner 1984). Advantages; Large enough for easy collection Are not mobile enough to leave an area of pollution rapidly Can be studied in labs easily Exist in all aquatic environments Life cycle is short enough that short term effects of pollutants will not be overcome until the following generation. Communities heterogeneous, several phyla usually represented, therefore chances are high that some groups will respond to environmental contaminants (Hellawell 1986). ------- 21 Disadvantages: Quantitative samples may be difficult to obtain. Species that drift may be found in areas where they normally don't occur. Sorting and identifying species may be time consuming and expensive (Berkman 1986). Species level taxonomic and life stage information may be lacking. Chemical sensitivity data are often lacking. Under certain circumstances benthic macroinvertebrates may not be affected by pollution discharges of short duration that may affect organisms in the water column (Hawkes 1982). Fish Fish are commonly used as bioassay organisms, but they have rarely been used in comprehensive monitoring studies. Fish are becoming more popular as indicator species. Many scientists have decided that the advantages of fish as a monitoring species outweigh the disadvantages (Karr 1981, Hocutt 1981). When there is a large number of non-migratory species of various ages and normal growth rates, than pollution has not likely occurred recently. The presence of fish is more useful than their absence because of their motility (Goodnight 1973). Karr (1986) has found both the proportion of omnivores and presence of top carnivores to be important in determining pollution levels. Omnivores constitute less than 20% of the fish in an unpolluted ecosystem. A proportion of omnivores of greater than 45% indicates gross ------- 22 pollution. Presence of top carnivores indicates a relatively healthy and trophically diverse ecosystem. Advantages; Commonly used as a bioassay organism -there is a great deal of data on chemical sensitivity. Economic, recreational, and aesthetic value. Identification is relatively easy compared to smaller organisms. Much information available on the environmental requirements and life histories of fish. Fish are "integrators" of lower trophic levels (Hendricks et al 1980) Long lived -temporal integration Species occupy many trophic levels Most species reproduce once a year leading to stable populations in the summer when most sampling occurs Contain upper trophic level species which will bioaccumulate hydrophic compounds. Disadvantages: Mobile and can move away from contaminated areas. Numbers are fewer than with smaller organisms, leading to a greater chance of sampling error being responsible for presence or absence. It may also cause sampling to affect the success of a species at the site. Quantitative samples are difficult to obtain. Have rarely been used -are not tried and tested. ------- 23 Criteria For Choosing Indicator Species Introduction The selection of a suitable organism is one of the first and most important tasks in environmental risk assessments once the decision to use indicator species has been made. An incorrect decision at this stage may render the ecological assessment useless. The species choice will be influenced by the needs of the survey as well as by site-specific characterisitics of the hazardous waste site. The choice of the site should reflect the aquatic and terrestrial resources at risk. Two different branches of the federal government have already developed criteria for choosing indicator species. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1980a,b,c) and the United States Forest Service (Code of Federal Regulations 1985) have developed criteria for choosing indicator species. The United States Fish and Wildlife criteria are as follows: Ecological Criteria: Sensitivity to specific environmental factors. Keystone species (exert a major influence on the community). Single species representative of a guild. Socioeconomic Criteria: High public interest value. High socioeconomic value. ------- 24 The United States Forest Service has developed criteria for choosing "management indicator species" : Recovery species - those identified by state or local government as threatened, endangered, or rare. Featured species - those of high socioeconomic value. Sensitive species - those identified by regional foresters as having habitat requirements particularly sensitive to management activities. ecological indicators - Those used to monitor the state of environmental factors, population trends of other species, or habitat conditions. Specific goals, objectives, and standards for management indicator species appear in each National Forest Plan that the United States Forest Service is required to develop (Code of Federal Regulations, 1985). These criteria were developed to monitor the impact of management activities on federal land rather than to monitor for ecological contamination with toxic chemicals. Confounding Factors Introduction Choosing indicator species is a difficult task. A number of factors confound the choice of an indicator species. Even well defined ecosystem types have a variety of trophic structures and redundancy characteristics. Key species and processes may also vary (Ford 1988). Thus different species are important in different ecosystems and these species can vary widely in their sensitivity to a number of chemical contaminants present at a hazardous waste ------- 25 site. Several floral and faunal groups should ideally be incorporated into an integrated ecological assessment. (Roberts 1985). Practical consideration such as time and money often require that a single species be used. This makes the choice of a proper species crucial. It is difficult to choose between monitoring for the presence of a tolerant species or the absence of an intolerant one to determine environmental degradation through chemical contamination. Sensitive species must decline in abundance before the less competitive tolerant species can increase in abundance. Thus sensitive species are an earlier indicator of environmental degradation. However most scientists use the presence of a tolerant species in determining chemical contamination. Organisms have a wide range of tolerance to pollution conditions. Therefore an observed absence of non-tolerant species is of greater significance than the presence of tolerant species (Lenat et al 1983). Cairns (1974) however, has a different point of view. He notes that the presence of a species indicates that certain minimal environmental conditions have been met. The absence of a species is the more risky choice because of possible confounding factors: The environmental conditions are unsuitable. The species has not had a chance to colonize the area but would do so if introduced. Another species has assumed the functional niche. ------- 26 The presence of an indicator species is more useful, but the absence of species can be equally useful if a group of species with similar needs and sensitivities are absent. Species present/absent due to factors other than tolerance/intolerance. Species may be present or absent due to a number of factors. Species are affected by many factors such as fire or drought, extreme weather conditions, or unknown conditions in areas such as migration routes or wintering grounds. Natural variability and successional changes within the ecosystem may cause changes in species compostion over time. Competition, predation, and disease are factors which can lead to the presence or absence of a species. These three factors, however, are in turn affected by environmental contaminants. Chronic exposure to toxic chemicals can lead to weakness or behavioral abnormalities in organisms. This can cause a species to lose its ability to compete with other organisms or escape a predator. A predator may be affected by a chemical compound and be killed or unable to catch prey as successfully which could lead to a shift in the competitive balance of lower trophic levels. Toxic chemicals may also may a species more susceptible to disease. Thus competition, predation, and disease may cause the presence or absence of a species, and in turn be affected by the introduction of toxic .chemicals. It is important to try to separate out the influence of these ------- 27 factors while at the same time evaluating the importance of toxic chemicals in contributions of these factors to the presence or absence of species. Differences in comparing one site to another. An indicator that is appropriate in one area may not be appropriate in another area. Geographically separated areas may appear similar but have subtle differences. These differences can occur in the dominant or subdominant species of plants and animals, or in the species performing vital ecosystem functions. There may be different natural disturbances in the area, and habitat and resource patchiness. An organism which is found in one ecosystem may not have been introduced to a second ecosystem. Ambiguous, ill-defined, and confounded criteria. Criteria for choosing indicator species need to be unambiguously and explicitly defined. In the practice of choosing indicator species, criteria are often confounded (Landres et al 1988). A species used to fill one criterion should not be used to fulfill a second criterion unless it explicitly meets the needs of the second criterion. A species with a high socioeconomic value will sometimes be used to fullfill an ecological criterion. This is not appropriate unless it fulfills both criteria. Species should not be used for multiple roles without research verifying that the species is appropriate for both criteria. The reasons for having each criterion should be explicitly stated. ------- 28 Sources of subjectivity. All of the sources of subjectivity in selecting indicator species must be identified and defined. These sources will vary depending on the attributes of the site and the ecosystem and species types found on the site. All assessments and technical decisions inherently contain value judgments which should be discussed so that the merits and difficulties of each may determined. ------- 29 Criteria. Summarized 1. Wide Distribution 2. Ecosystem Integration 3. Residency Status 4. Available Information and Data 5. Species Sensitivity 6. Minimize Informational Overlap 7. Historical Information 8. Easily Collected and Monitored 9. Temporal Continuum of Reproducing Stocks 10. Suitable for Lab Experiments 11. Social Value 12. Size: Small - Short Term, Large - Long Term 13. Exposure to Environmental Contaminants 14. Life Stage 15. Critical Species 16. Low Redundancy and Immigration 17. High Reliability and Specificity of Response ------- 30 Criteria When using the criteria, candidate organisms may be arranged by taxonomic class in order to make them easier to compare. An ideal organism would fulfill all of the following criteria. However, the following criteria are extensive, and it may be difficult or impossible to find one organism that fulfills all the criteria. However, several organisms taken together should be able to fulfill the criteria and provide important information for an ecological assessment. Wide Distribution. Potential indicator organisms should be widely distributed in the area. This will allow for comparison with other sites in the area. Candidate species should be screened for orgnanisms whose geographic range does not include the area of the hazardous waste site or who require special habitat features not found at the site (Fry et al 1986). The species should also be abundant enough to be easily found. This minimizes the risk that a species will be misclassified as present or absent. It also minimizes the risk that the populations will be affected by any samples taken. Ecosystem Integration. The"organism chosen should display at least a moderate level of ecosystem integration. It should interact with many other natural and human components of the community. An organism which interacts with many ------- 31 other parts of the community will generally have more importance to the system and therefore more relevance in measuring the degradation of the ecosystem. Residency Status. When monitoring for the absence of an intolerant indicator species it is important for the organism to be indigenous and a structurally stable component of the ecosystem. Such an organism will be adapted to relatively unperturbed conditions (only for abscence). Indicator species should be permanent residents of the site. Migrating species are affected by many offsite factors. However, migrating species are often included for other reasons such as socioeconomic factors (Landres et al 1988). Available Information and Data. The biology of the organism should be known in detail. This should include behavioral response, life history, and interactions with other species. This will aid in the evaluation of an organism's response. The organism's responses to a wide range of environmental conditions should also be known (Lenat et al 1983). This will help ensure that environmental factors other than chemical sensitivity will not be responsible for an the presence of a tolerant species or the absence of an intolerant species. Niche requirements and habitat characteristics should be known and supported by adequate scientific information. This will allow the ------- 32 investigator to determine that the organism's absence is not due to unmet niche needs or unsuitable habitat at the site. Using quantity of information as a selection criteria reduces time and costs in terms of additional research that may have to be done on the organism (Landres et al 1988). This often has the drawback of reducing the relevance of the organism for an ecological assessment. Little information may exist for a relatively sensitive indicator while a great deal of information exists for a sensitive one. The less sensitive indicator may be chosen while the more sensitive species is the better indicator of environmental conditions. This criterion must be used carefully and in conjunction with the relative senstivity of the organism. Species Sensitivity. Indicator Species should be chosen based on thier sensitivity to the specific environmental contaminants which must be monitored. Sensitivity to toxic chemicals is a crucial element in choosing an indicator species. Those species that are most sensitive to contaminats potentially make the best indicator species (Szaro and Balda 1983). Organisms differ in their relative abilities to take in, accumulate, metabolize, distribute , and eliminate contaiminants. Together, these attributes result in often extreme differences in species relative sensitivities to environmental contaminants. However, these attributes can differ dramatically from chemical to chemical. Consequently, exposure to two different chemicals ------- 33 can produce two markedly different responses. It is important to determine the contaminants of concern at a site and to match these.contaminants with species that are relatively sensitive or insensitive to them. The organism chosen should be at one end of the range, either extremely sensitive or extremely insensitive to toxic chemicals. It may also be useful to choose species that by themselves or in conjunction with one another will exhbit a graded response to a range of increasing levels of environmental contamination. For example, Sheehan and Winner (1984) that in streams polluted with heavy metals, mayflies were a significant part of the insect community only at the unpolluted sites. Caddis flies were co-dominant with chironomids at moderately polluted sites while they were eliminated at the most grossly polluted sites. Chironomids were most abundant at the most grossly polluted sites. Thus the level of contamination could be roughly determined by the relative proportions of the three types of insects. Sensitivity to the contaminants of concern should have a direct cause and effect relationship, rather than a correlation. Otherwise the effect of contaminants on populations may not be separable from other regulating factors such as competition, predation, and disease (Landres et al 1988). It is also important for sensitive organisms to have a relatively rapid response to environmental contaminants (Kelly and Harwell 1988). Where possible, it should be among ------- 34 the first species to be affected by a pollutant. This often means a species at a low trophic level. The length of time it takes for a species to be affected by toxic chemicals depends on both species sensitivity and exposure. Paleoecological studies are becoming more important in determining species sensitive to pollutants (Schindler 1987, Ford 1988). They offer the opportunity to examine changes in community structure at sites that have already experienced chemical stress. Minimize Informational overlap. Species should be chosen in such a way that they complement the other information used in the ecological assessment (Ryder and Edwards 1985). Different indicators should reflect different areas of concern. Informational overlap should be minimized insofar as is possible. This will prevent redundancy in information obtained and provide for the most efficient use of the monitoring resources utilized. It is also helpful if indicator species are chosen from different guilds are trophic levels, to monitor as much of the ecosystem as possible (Kelly et al 1988). Historical Information. Species should be chosen based on the information available on the species' history in the ecosystem. Information is necessary on the species' natural baseline condition and its range of variation in the ecosytem. The species should have one or more historic data ------- 35 series for comparison with the present. The data should show quantifiable evidence for the relative abundance or scarcity of an indicator species during a period of relatively little contamination. Information on the organism at the site can be supplemented by reviewing information on previous work performed on the organism in similar ecosystems. This information will help confirm that the population decline or increase of a species is due to chemical contaminants. An alternative to this is to have a similar site for comparison with the contaminated site, but if this is done care must be taken to account for confounding factors i.e. differences in food web structure, nutrient abundance, disease incidence, habitat type. Easily and Accurately Collected and Monitored. It is important to use a species that can be collected and measured easily to determine the standing stock in terms of numbers and biomass. This will decrease the time and cost expenditures of the evironmental assessment and increase the accuracy of the results (Berkman 1986). In order for a species to be easily collected and monitored it must have a fairly high population density. Organisms with a low population density lead to sampling problems which may make an accurate assessment impossible despite the organism being a good indicator in other ways. Long term research is needed on each indicator species to assess natural variation in population density no related to environmental contaminants ------- 36 which may confound results. Population density must be balanced with species sensitivity however and Zyromska (1977) and Freckman et al (1980) showed that less abundant species are relatively sensitive to adverse influences. Szaro and Balda (1983) said that organisms with the following three attributes were relatively easy to monitor: -Conspicuous by sight and sound. -Easy to recognize in the field without the observer having to capture the species to identify it. -Operate during the hours which man is active. Temporal Continuum of Reproducing Stocks. A temporal continuum of reproducing stocks serves several purposes .It. *-»•% assures that the organism is a permanent part of the ecosystem which is unlikely to increase or disappear for other reasons. It also allows for continued monitoring of successive generations to determine improvment or further degradation at the site. The organism should be. sufficiently long lived for the examination of more than one year class if desired. Suitable for Laboratory Experiments. The organism should be suitable for laboratory experiments, especially those designed to investigate cause and effect relationships. Most ecological assessments need a combination of field observation and laboratory experiments of organisms. It is ------- 37 important to quantify species species sensitivity to an environmental contaminant in a laboratory setting. Social Value. It is often helpful to reduce the number of possible species by looking at those which are important to humans. The species may be valuable for aesthetic, economic, educational, scientific, or sporting reasons. These include threatened and endangered species which appear on current state and federal lists. Species important for hunting, fishing, and trapping can be determined using lists obtained from state departments of fish and game. Species of high social value are the species for which we have the most information. They are also the species we are most concerned with protecting against the deleterious impacts of environmental contaminants. This criteria has often been the primary concern when indicator species have been chosen, but it is not as important as species sensitivity. Alternatively, organisms which are a vital food source for an organism of social value may be chosen. The species may also be one which has a breeding habitat at the site or which uses the site as part of its migration route. The problem with migrating species however is they are affected by many off-site factors. Size: Short Term - Small Organisms, Long Term - Large Organisms. The organism should be of a size that makes it easy to collect or observe. It is important to monitor both ------- 38 small and large species in order to monitor both short term and long term changes in ecosystem health. Small organisms have a shorter lifespan and will react more rapidly to environmental contaminants. This makes them good indicators of short-term response or recovery. Larger organisms have a slower population turnover and tend to take a longer time to reat to or recover from environmental contaminants. Larger organisms are better indicators of of long term response or recovery. Larger organisms are usually easier to observe and identify. Larger organisms tend to have more stable populations which makes it easier to detect significant changes in population size. Large organisms also tend to range over a larger area and may spend much of their time off-site, decreasing their exposure to contaminants (Landres et al 1988). Exposure to Environmental contaminants. Exposure to environmental contaminants is an extremely important consideration when choosing indicator species. It is important to pick the species which is most exposed to the contaminated media. The primary uptake routes of the organism should be considered. Organochlorines tend to be associated with are associated with particulate matter so a soil organism or filter feeder should be chosen (Phillips 1980). Synthetic organics such as such as poly-chlorinated biphenyls and dioxins are soluble in fat and thus species with a large amount of body fat would be appropriate. Trace ------- 39 metals such as cadmium exist almost totally in solution so an organism that exists in the pelagic zone of an aquatic ecosystem would be appropriate. Landres et al (1988) cautions that metal pollution in organisms may result from mobility and transport of the pollutant within the ecosystem rather than being directly related to pollution concentration in the environment. Therefore caution and detailed information is necessary when using indicators of environmental contaminants. Water soluble compounds should be investigated for potential exposure routes to aquatic species. Water soluble compounds may also move through the aqueous phase of some soils, increasing the likelihood of exposure to soil organisms. Compounds with low water solubility may adsorb to soil particles and may affect organisms living on or in the ground. Contaminants adsorbed to soil paticles may also be carried by erosion to aquatic or other terrestrial sites. Hydrophobic compounds tend to bioaccumulate and an upper trophic level organism may be appropriate (Farrington 1988). Dose is an important element of exposure when looking at indicator species. A high dose or acute exposure will induce mortality rapidly. A low dose or chronic exposure will impair the functioning of some biological process within the organism (Weinstein and Burk 1988). The species chosen should preferably be sedentary at most stages of its life cycle and especially at the life stage of ------- 40 interest. The organism will be more representative of the site the site if it does not spend part of its time off- site. An organism that spends part of its life off-site will not be as fully exposed to the contaminants at the hazardous waste site as an organism which is sedentary. Once the medium which will yield the greatest contaminant exposure has been chosen a sedentary organism in that medium to ensure the greatest possible exposure. Life Stage. When choosing an indicator species it is important to consider the life stage of interest. A species may have a life stage that is particularly vulnerable to environmental contaminants. To cause injury, chemical exposure must occur at a vulnerable location during a vulnerable period (Weintein and Birk 1988). The life stage of interest may cover any one of a number of areas: -Reproductive success as measured by the survival of gametes, larva, juveniles, or embryos. -Survival or juveniles or molts. -Longevity of adults. -Incidence of disease, including physiological and behavioral abnormalities (EPA 1989b). Critical Species. In order to ensure that the ecosystem is being adversely affected by chemical contaminants, the indicator organism should be a critical species. A critical species is an organism that performs a vital ecosystem function in the cycle of physical and biological processes ------- 41 in an ecosystem. A critical species helps maintain the cycle which which provides all organisms in the community with sufficient energy and nutrients. As a result, a disruption in these species would result in a disruption of energy and nutrient pools. Sheehan (1984) notes a buildup of soil litter at sites contaminated with heavy metals. This was due to the loss of critical litter decomposing organisms and led to a loss of energy and nutrients in the ecosystem. Ecosytem stability and viability depends upon the continued success of critical species. Ecosystem decline will be signaled by the decline of these species. Recovery of ecosystems is also closely linked with the recovery of critical species (Weinstein and Birk 1988). Critical species also include top predators which keep populations under control and maintain species diversity. When looking at critical species, it is often useful to look at shifts in the dominant species in an ecosytem. These shifts tend to be more ecologically damaging (Ford 1988). The critical species concept applies to tolerant as well as intolerant species.The relative abundance of species with short life cycles changes to favor those that can maintain critical ecosystem functions in the early stages of ecosystem stress. Such organisms contain valuable indicators of stress and may serve as an early warning of contaminant problems (Schindler 1987). The critical species criterion is sometimes difficult to apply because few critical species have been identified although research is continuing. ------- 42 Low Redundancy and Immmigration. The species should occupy a place in the food web where both redundancy and immigration are low. These are the species that are most important to community structure and stability. If few other species occupy the functional niche of the species and immigration is unlikely to occur, then adverse effects to the organism could significantly effect the food web. High Reliability and Specificity of Response. The organism should exhibit high reliability and specificity of response (Landres et al 1988). In order for this to be happen, several factors must hold true. Natural variability within the population must be low. There must also be a high response rate of individuals in the species to the environmental contaminant in question. Alternatively, the contribution from each significant source of variation must be identified. The organism chosen should have a high signal to noise ratio (Slooff 1983). The response of the species should be specific to exposure to the contaminant in question. ------- References Angermeier, P. L., and James A. Karr, 1986,Applying an Index of Biotic Integrity Based on Stream Fish Communities: Consideration in Sampling and Interpretation, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, Vol. 6 pp. 418-429. Berkman, Hilary E., Charles F. Rabeni and Terence P. Boyle 1986, Biomonitors of Stream Quality in Agricultural Areas: Fish Versus Invertebrates, Environmental Management, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 413-419. Block, William M., Leonard A. Brennan, and R.J. Gutierrez 1986, The Use of Guilds and Guild-Indicator Species For Assessing Habitat Suitability, from: Jared Verner, Michael L. Morrison and C. John Ralph, eds., Wildlife 2000: Modelling Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp. 109-113 Block, William M., Leonard A. Brennan and R. J. Gutierrez 1987, Evaluation of Guild-Indicator Species For Use in Resource Management, Environmental Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 265-269. Borman, F.H., 1983, Factors Confounding Evaluation of Air Pollution Stress on Forests: Pollution Input and Ecosystem Complexity, Symposium: "Acid Depostion, a Challenge for Europe," Karlsruhe, FDR, Sept. 19-23, 1983. Butler, P.A., L. Andren, G.J. Bonde, A. Jernelov, and D.J. Reisch, 1971, Monitoring Organisms, In: F.A.O. Technical Conference on Marine Pollution and Its Effects on Living Resources and Fishing, Rome, 1970, Supplement 1: Methods of Detection, Measurement, and Monitoring of Pollutants in the Marine Environment, ed. by M. Ruivo, London, Fishing News (Books) Ltd. pp.101-112. Cairns, John Jr., 1974, Indicator Species vs. the Concept of Community Structure as an Index of Pollution, Water Resources Bulletin, Vol.10, No.2, pp.338-347. Cairns, John Jr., 1986, The Myth of the Most Sensitive Species, Bioscience, Vol.36, No.10, pp.670-672. Code of Federal Regulations 1985, 36 CFR Chapter II 219.19:64 Connell, Des W., and Gregory J. Miller, 1984, Chemistry and Ecotoxicology of Pollution, John Wiley and Sons, New York City. ------- Courtemanch, David L., and Susan P. Davies, 1987, A Coefflent of Comunity Loss to Assess Detrimental Change in Aquatic Communities, Water Research, Vol.21 No.2, pp.217-222. Crossey, Michael J,, and Thomas W. La Point, 1988, A Comparison of Periphyton Community Structural and Functional Responses to Heavy Metals, Hydrobiologia, Vol.162, pp.109-121. Dewit, T., 1983, Higher Plants as Indicators of Gaseous Air Pollution, From: Best and Haeck eds, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 3, David Reidel Publishing Company, New York, pp.263-281. Eijsackers, H., 1983, Soil Fauna and Soil Microflora as Possible Indicators of Soil Pollution, Form: Best and Haeck eds, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 3, David Reidel Publishing Company, New York, pp.307-316 Ernst, W.H.O., J.A.C. Verkleij, and R. Vooijs, 1983, Bioindication of Surplus Heavy Metals in Terrestrial Ecosystems, From: Best and Haeck eds., Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 3, David Reidel Publishing Company, New York, pp.297-305. Farrington, John W., 1989, Bioaccumulation of Hydrophobic Organic Compounds, From: Levin, Simon A. et al eds., Ecotoxicology: Problems and Approaches, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp.279-308. Ford, Jesse, 1989, The Effects of Chemical Stress on Aquatic Species Composition and Community Structure, From: Levin, Simon A. et al eds., Ecotoxicology: Problems and Approaches, Springer-Verlag, New York pp.99-129. Freckman, D.W., L.B. Slobodkin, and C.E. Taylor, 1980, Relation Between Species Lists and Nematicides, In: D.L. Dindal editor, Soil Biology as related to Land Use Practices, Proceedings of the Seventh annual International Colloquium of Soil Biology, Syracuse, 1979, EPA 560/13-80-038, Washington, 391-396. Fry, Michael E., Roland J, Risser, Harrison A. Stubbs, and Jeffrey P. Leighton, 1986, Species Selection For Habitat Evaluation Procedures, From: Jared Verner, Michael L. Morrison, and C. John Ralph eds., Wildlife 2000: Modelling Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp.105-108. Ginsburg, Walter, Betty Crawford, and John J. Knipper, 1972, Technique for Rapid Screening of Indicator Organisms, American Water Works Association Journal, Vol,64 No.8, pp.499-504 ------- Goodnight, Clarence J., 1973, The Use of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates as Indicators of Stream Pollution, Transactions of the North American Microscopal Society, Vol.92 No.l, pp.1-12 Grue, C.E. et al, 1983, Assessing Hazards of Organophosphate Pesticides to Wildlife, Transactions of the North America Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 48: 200-220. Hawkes, H.A., 1982, Biological Surveillance of Rivers, Water Pollution Control, 81: 329-341. Hellawell, J.M., 1986, Biological Indicators of Fresh Water Pollution and Environmental Management, Applied Science Publishers, London. Hendricks, M.L., C.H. Hocutt, and J.R. Stauffer, 1980, Monitoring of Fish in Lotic Habitats, pp.205-233 In: Hocutt, C.H., and J.R. Stauffer editors, Monitoring of Fish, Lexington Books, Lexington Ma. Herricks, Edwin E., and David J. Schaeffer, 1985, Can We Optimize Biomonitoring ?, Environmental Management, Vol.9 No.6 pp.487-492. Herricks, Edwin E., David J. Schaeffer, and James A. Perry, 1989, Biomonitoring: Closing the Loop in the Environmental Sciences, From: Levin, Simon A. et al eds, Ecotoxicology: Problems and Approaches, Springer-Verlag, pp.351-364. Hilsenhoff, William L., 1988, Rapid Field Assessment of Organic Pollution With a Family Level Biotic Index, Journal of the North American Benthological Society, Vol.7 No.l, pp.65-68. Hocutt, Charles H., 1981, Fish as Indicators of Biological Integrity, Fisheries, Vol.6 No.6 pp.28-30 Hutton, M., 1984, Impact of Airborne Metal Contamination on a Deciduous Woodland System, From: P.J. Sheehan et al eds, Effects of Pollutants at the Ecosystem Level, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp.365-374. Jones, H.C., and W.W. Heck, 1981, Vegetation - Biological Indicators or Monitors of Air Pollutants, pp. 117-121 In: Biological Monitoring for Environmental Effects, Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington Ma. Karr, James R., 1981, Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities, Fisheries, Vol.6 No.6, pp.21-27. Karr, James R., et al, 1986, Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and its Rationale, Illinois ------- Natural History Survey Special Publication No.5, Champaign, IL, 28pp. Karr, James A., 1987, Biological Monitoring and Environmental Assessment: A Conceptual Framework, Environmental Management, Vol.10, No.2 pp.249-256. Kelly, John R., and Mark A. Harwell, 1989, Indicators of Ecosystem Response and Recovery, From: Levin, Simon A., et al eds, Ecotoxicology: Problems and Approaches, Springer- Verlag, New York, pp.9-32 Klerks, Paul L., and Jeffrey S> Levington, 1989, Effects of Heavy Metals in a Polluted Aquatic Ecosystem, From: Levin, Simon A. et al eds, Ecotoxicology: Problems and Approaches, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp.41-61. Kolkowitz, R., and M. Marrson, 1908, Ecology of Plant Saprobia, Reports of the German Botanical Society, 26a: 505-519. Kolkowitz, R., and M. Marrson, 1908, Ecology of Animal Saprobia, International Review of Hydrobiology and Hydrogeography, 2: 126-152. Landres, Peter B., Jared Verner, and Jack Ward Thomas, 1988, Ecological Uses of Vertebrate Indicator Species: A Critique, Conservation Biology, Vol.2 No.4, pp.316-328. Lenat, D.R., L.A. Smok and D.L. Penrose, 1983, Use of Benthic Macroivertebrates as Indicators of Environmental Quality, From: Douglas L. Worf ed., Biological Monitoring for Environmenta Effects, pp.97-112. Levin, Simon A., and Kenneth D. Kimball eds, 1984, New Perspectives in Ecotoxicology, Environmental Management, Vol.8 No.5, pp.375-442. Levine, Suzanne N., 1985, Theoretical and Methodological Reasons For Variability in the Responses of Aquatic Ecosystem Processes to Chemical Stress, From: Levin, Simon A. et al eds, Ecotoxicology: Problems and Approaches, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp.145-174. Lewis, M.A., M.J. Taylor, and R.J. Larson, 1986, Structural and Functional Response of Natural Phytoplankton and Periphyton Communities to a Cationic Surfactant With Considerations on Environmental Fate, pp.241-268 In: John Cairns Jr. editor, Community Toxicity Testing ASTM STP 920, American Society Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA. Liebold, Matthew A., 1988, Resource Edibility and the Effects of Predators and Productivity on the Outcome of Trophic Interactions, American Naturalist, Vol.134 pp.922- ------- 949. Moriarity, F, 1983, Ecotoxicology: The Study of Pollutants in Ecosystems, Academic Press, London. Mannan, R.W. et al, 1984, Comment: The Use of Guilds in Forest Bird Management, Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol.12 pp.426-430. Martin, M.H., and P.J. Coughtrey, 1982, Biological Monitoring of Heavy Metal Pollution: Land and Air, Applied Science Publishers, New York. Matthews Robin A. et al, 1980, A Field Verification of the Use of Autotrophic Index in Monitoring Stress Effects, Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxic., Vol.25, pp.226-233. Matthews, Robin A. et al, 1982, Biological Monitoring Part IIA: Receiving System Functional Methods, Relationships, and Indices, Water Research, Vol.16, pp.129-139. Morrison, Michael L., 1986, Bird Populations as Indicators of Environmental Change, From: R.F. Johnston editor, Current Ornithology, Vol.3, Plenum Press, New York, pp.429- 451. Morse, John C., 1983, Research Suggestions-Benthic Invertebrates as Biological Indicators, From: Doulas L. Worf editor, Biological Monitoring for Environmental Effects, pp.113-114 Newman, James R., and R. Kent Schreiber, 1984, Animals as Ecosystem Response to Air Emissions, Environmental Management, Vol.8 No.4, pp.309-324. O'Connor, Donald J., John P. Connolly, and Edward J. Garland, 1989, Mathematical Models: Fate, Transport, and Foodchain, From: Levin, Simon A., et al eds, Ecotoxicology: Problems and Approaches, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 2 21- 242. Odum, E.P.,1971, Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd edition, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia, Pennsylvannia. Odum, E.P., 1985, Trends Expected in Stressed Ecosystems, Bioscience, Vol.35 No.7, pp.419-422. O'Neil, L.Jean, and Andrew B. Carey, 1986, When Habitats Fail as Predictors, From: Jared Verner, Michael L. Morrison, and C. John Ralph eds, Wildlife 2000: Modelling ------- Habitat relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp. 207-208. Patton, David R., 1987, Is the Use of Management Indicator Species Feasible ?, Wildlife Journal of Merican Forestry, Vol.2 No.l, pp.33-34. Petersen, Robert C. Jr, 1986, Population and Guild Analysis for Interpretation of Heavy Metal Pollution in Streams, From: John Cairns Jr. ed, Community Toxicity Testing, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp.180-198. Phillips, David J.H., 1978, Use of Biological Indicator Organsisms to Quantitate Organochlorine Pollutants In Aquatic Environments-A Review, Environmental Pollution, Vol.16 No.3, pp.167-223. Phillips, David J.H., 1980, Quantitative Aquatic Biological Indicators, Applied Science Publishers Ltd., London. Resh, V.H., and John D. Unzicker, 1975, Water Quality Monitoring and Aquatic Organisms: The Importance of Species Identification, Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol.47 No.l, pp.9-19. Roberts, R.D. and M.S. Johnson, 1978, Dispersal of Heavy Metals From Abandoned Mines and Their Transfer Through Terrestrial Food Chains, Environmental Pollution, Vol.16, pp.293-309. Roberts, T.H., and C.J. O'Neil, 1985, Species Selection for Habitat Assessments, Transactions of the North American wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Vol.50, pp.352- 362. Rosenburg, David M., H.V. Danks and Dennis M. Lehmkuhl, 1986, Importance of Insects in Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Management, Vol.10, No.6, pp.773- 783. Ryder, R.A., and C.J. Edwards editors, 1985, A Conceptual Approach for the Application of Biological Indicators of Ecosystem Quality in the Great Lakes Basin, Joint Effort of the International Joint Commission and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, March 1985, Windsor Ontario. Wildlife 2000: Modelling Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp.419-424. Schaeffer, D.J., et al, 1985, Evaluation of a Community Based Index Using Benthic Indicator Organisms for ------- Classifying Stream Quality. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol»57 pp.167-171. Schindler, D.W., 1987, Detecting Ecosystem Responses to Anthropogenic Stress, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,. Vol.44 Supp. 1 pp.6-25. Schroevers, P.J., 1983, The Need of an Ecological Quality Concept, From: Best and Haeck eds, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 3, David Reidel Publishing Company, New York, pp.219-226. Sheehan, P.J., 1984, Effects on Community and Ecosystem Structure and Dynamics, From: P.J. Sheehan et al eds, Effects of Pollutants at the Ecosystem Level, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp.51-100. Sheehan, P.J., and Robert W. Winner, 1984, Comparison of Gradient Studies in Heavy Metal Polluted Streams, From: P.J. Sheehan et al eds, Effects of Pollutants at the Ecosystem Level, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp.255-267 Shelby, Michael D., 1983, Plants as Monitors for Environmental Mutagens, From:Douglas L. Worf editor, Biological Monitoring for Environmental Effects, pp.185- 189. Short, H.L., And K.P. Burnham, 1982, Technique for Structuring Wildlife Guilds to Evaluate Impacts on Wildlife Communities, Special Scientific Report, Wildlife Number 244, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C., 34pp. Shubert, L.E. Editor, 1984, Algae as Ecological Indicators, Academic Press, New York. Sladecek, V., 1965, The Future of the Saprobity System, Hydrobiologia, 25, The Hague: Dr. W. Junk Publishers. Sloof, W., and D. De Zwart, 1983, Bio-indicators and Chemical Pollution of Surface Waters, From: Best and Haeck eds, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 3, David Reidel Publishing Company, pp.237-245. Stauffer, Jay R., and Charles H. Hocutt, 1980, Inertia and Recovery: An Approach to Stream Classification and Stress Evaluation, Water Resources Bulletin, Vol.16, No.l, pp.72- 78. Steinman, Alan D., and C. David Mclntire, 1990, Recovery of Lotic Periphyton Communities After Disturbance, ------- Environmental Management, Vol.14, No.5, pp.589-604. Stickel, W.H., 1975, Some Effects of Pollutants in Terrestrial Ecosytems, In: Ecological Toxicology Research, A.D. Mclntyre and C.F. Mills editors, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 25-74. . Szaro, R.C., and R.P. Balda, 1982, Selection and Monitoring of Avian Indicator Species: An Example from a Ponderosa Pine Forest in the Southwest, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-89 7pp. Talmage, Sylvia, 1989, Comparative Evaluation of Several Small Mammal Species as Monitors of Heavy Metals, Radionuclides, and Selected Organic Compounds in the Environment, Doctoral Dissertation at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Ten Houten, J.G., 1983, Biological Indicators of Air Pollution, From: Best and Haeck eds, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 3, David Reidel Publishing Company, pp257-26l. Thomas, E.A., 1975, Indicators of Environmental Quality, Plenum Publishing Company, New York. Thomas, W.A., 1972, Indicators of Environmental Quality: An Overview, From: W.A. Thomas editor, Indicators of Environmental Quality, Plenum Press, New York. U.S. EPA, 1988, Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual, EPA 540/1-89/ 001. U.S. EPA, 1989, Risk Assessment Guidanc for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, EPA 540/1-89/002 U.S. EPA, 1989, Risk Assessment Guidance For Superfund Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual, EPA 540/1-89/001. U.S. EPA, 1989, Ecological Assessments of Hazardous Waste Sites: A field and Laboratory Reference Guide, EPA 600/3-89/013 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980a, Habitat as a Basis for Environmental Assessment, Ecological Services Manual 101, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Divisionof Ecological Services, Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 28pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980b, Habitat Evaluation Procedures, Ecological Services Manual 102, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological ------- Services, Government Printing-office, Washington D.C., 84pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981, Standards for the Development of Suitability Index Models, Ecological Services Manual 103, U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services, Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. Weinstein, David A., and Elaine M. Birk, 1989, The Effects of Chemicals on the Structure of Terrestrial Ecosystems: Mechanisms and Patterns of Change, From: Levin, Simon A. et al editors, Ecotoxicology: Problems and Approaches, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp.181-203. Winner, R.W., M.W. Boesel and M.P. Farrel, 1980, Insect Community Structure as an Index of Heavy Metal Pollution in Lotic Ecosystems, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, vol.37 pp.647-655. Whitby L.M., and T.C. Hutchinson, 1974, Heavy Metal Pollution in the Sudbury Mining and Smelting Region of Canada II: Soil Toxicity Tests, Environmental Conservation, 1: 191-200. ------- |