ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERIES
Water Supply and Pollution Control
QH541.5
.F7K4
BOTTOM-DWELLING MACROFAUNA IN
WATER POLLUTION INVESTIGATIONS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
-------
THE ROLE OF BOTTOM-DWELLING MACROFAlNA
IN WATER POLLUTION INVESTIGATIONS
Lowell E. Keup, William M. Ingram,
and
Kenneth M. Mackenthun
Technical Services Branch
Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard. 12th floor
Chicago, II 60604-3590
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control
Cincinnati, Ohio
1966
-------
The ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERIES of reports was estab-
lished to report the results of scientific and engineering studies of
man's environment: The community, whether urban, suburban, or
rural, where he lives, works, and plays; the air, water, and earth he
uses and re-uses; and the wastes he produces and must dispose of in a
way that preserves these natural resources. This SERIES of reports
provides for professional users a central source of information on the
intramural research activities of Divisions and Centers within the
Public Health Service, and on their cooperative activities with State
and local agencies, research institutions, and industrial organizations,
The general subject area of each report is indicated by the two letters
that appear in the publication number; the indicators are
WP - Water Supply
and Pollution Control
AP - Air Pollution
AH - Arctic Health
EE - Environmental Engineering
FP - Food Protection
OH - Occupational Health
RH - Radiological Health
Triplicate tear-out abstract cards are provided with reports in
the SERIES to facilitate information'retrieval. Space is provided on
the cards for the user's accession number and key words.
Reports i*r the SERIESVfll be distributed to requesters, as
supplies permit. Requests shpuld be. directed to^the. Division identi-
fied on the title page or to the Publications Office, Robert A. Taft
Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226.
Public Health Service Publication No. 999-WP-38
-------
CONTENTS
i"'age
Abstract , , v
Introduction . , 1
Responses to Pollution Generally 3
Responses to Specific Types of Pollution 4
Data Collection and Interpretation . 12
Factors Involved in Data Interpretation 15
Conclusion 16
Acknowledgment 17
Bibliography 19
111
-------
-------
ABSTRACT
The authors evaluate the use of bottom-dwelling animals in water
pollution abatement programs. How and why the bottom-dwelling fauna
exhibit pollution-induced changes and the factors involved in data
collection, interpretation, and evaluation are discussed. A bibliography
on the theory and applied use of bottom-dwelling animals in pollution
evaluation is included.
-------
-------
THE ROLE OF BOTTOM-DWELLING \IACROFAUNA
IN WATER POLLUTION INVESTIGATIONS*
INTRODUCTION
Water pollution evaluation is complicated, but basically it is a
measure of pollution's impact on the environment routinely accomplished
through biological, chemical, physical, and engineering determinations.
Polluting materials may transmit disease organisms, create
nuisances, and adversely affect water supplies, recreation, and biologi-
cal resources, as well as the aesthetic qualities of water. Rarely does
pollution affect one of these independent of the others.
Biology plays a prominent role in all stages of water pollution
abatement: (1) assessing damages, (2) determining the cause of
damages, and '3) solving the problem. A biological survey can deter-
mine the eilrctsoi pollution and c?" aid in identifying the source and in
establishing the specific cause. Solution of the problem is the definitive
act and involves the removal or r^ uction of the damaging agents so that
multiple water .;£< j are not curia-IP.'. Biology can and must contribute
to the solution by assessing how - a -h of the causative agent needs to be
eliminated to reduce the damages to an acceptable level.
Complete biological analyses of the aquatic environment involves
an interpretative study of the physical and chemical environmental
relationships among man, bacteria, fungi, algae, invertebrates, fishes,
and wildlife.
BOTTOM-DWELLING FAUNA
Bottom-dwelling fauna are animals that live directly in association
with the bottom of a waterway (Figure 1). They may crawl on, burrow in,
or attach themselves to the bottom. Macroorganisms are usually defined
as those organisms that will be retained by a No. 30 sieve.t In essence,
the organisms retained by the sieve are those that are visible to the un-
aided eye.
•Originally presented July 14, 1964, at Syracuse University before the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization-Syracuse University International Advanced Study Institute on
"Modern Concepts in Water Supply and Pollution Control."
tA No. 30 U.S. Standard Sieve has openings of 0.0232 inch (0.59 millimeter) and is
formed from wire 0.0114 to 0.0165 inch (0.29 to 0.42 millimeter), in diameter.
-------
A. Stonefly nymph (Plecoptera)
B. Mayfly naiad (Ephemeroptera)
C. Hellgrammite or Dobsonfly larvae
(Corydalidae)
D. Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera)
E. Black fly larvae (Simuliidae)
F. Scud (Amphipoda)
G. Aquatic sow bug (Isopoda)
H. Snail (Gastropoda)
I. Fingernail clam (Sphaeriidae)
J. Damselfly nymph (Zygoptera)
K. Dragonfly nymph (Anisoptera)
L. Bloodworm or midge fly larvae
(Tendipedidae)
M. Leech (Hirundinea)
N. Sludgeworm (Tubificidae)
0. Sewage fly larvae (Psychoda)
P. Rat-tailed maggot (Tubifera-Eristalis)
Figure 1. Representative bottom-dwelling macroanimals.
(Drawings from Geckler, J., K.M. Mackenthun, and W.M. Ingram, 1963.
Glossary of Commonly Used Biological and Related Terms in Water
and Waste Water Control. DHEW, PubMc Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio,
Pub. No. 999-WP-2.)
BOTTOM-DWELLING
-------
Bottom-dwelling organisms have inherent qualities that make their
use in pollution surveys advantageous: a pronounced response to pollu-
tion, a sufficiently long life cycle to prevent a response to intermittent
relief from pollution, and either a means of locomotion that prohibits ex-
tended rapid migrations or a sessile-attached mode of life that reduces
the influence of neighboring water conditions on the organisms. Because
of these qualities, bottom-dwelling organisms reflect conditions at the
sampling point for an extended period of time.
A wide variety of bottom-dwelling macroorganisms inhabit non-
polluted waters. Each occupies a niche in the benthic community, where
the adaptations of the species are most efficiently utilized in maintaining
life processes. Each is limited in numbers by availability of food supply,
intra- and interspecies competition, predation, and the stage of its life
cycle. Since all of these factors are affected by pollution, a biological
survey of the bottom-dwelling macrofauna is in fact an investigation into
the extent and degree of water pollution.
RESPONSES TO POLLUTION GENERALLY
SENSITIVITY
Moderate pollution reduces the number of species surviving in an
area by eliminating the most sensitive ones. As the concentration of a
given pollutant increases, additional species are eliminated in order of
sensitivity to the pollutant until only those species that can survive the
adverse conditions remain. Extreme pollution may eliminate all
organisms in the area.
Elimination of the more sensitive organisms by pollution reduces
competition among, and predation on, the surviving forms. The tolerant
survivors increase in numbers until checked by the amount of available
food and space.
TOLERANCE GROUPING
Flexibility must be maintained in the establishment of tolerance
lists based on the response of organisms to the environment because of
complex interrelationships among varying environmental conditions.
Some general tolerance patterns can be established. Stonefly nymphs,
mayfly naiads, hellgrammites, and caddisfly larvae represent a group-
ing that is quite sensitive to environmental changes. Black fly larvae,
scuds, sowbugs, snails, fingernail clams, dragonfly nymphs, damselfly
nymphs, and most kinds of midge larvae are intermediate in tolerance.
Sludgeworms, some kinds of midge larvae (bloodworms), and some
leeches are tolerant to comparatively heavy loads of organic pollutants.
Sewage mosquitoes and rat-tailed maggots are tolerant of anaerobic
environments (Figure 1).
MACROFAUNA 3
-------
STRUCTURAL LIMITATIONS
The morphological structure of a species limits the type of envir-
onment it may occupy. Species with complex appendages and exposed,
complicated respiratory structures, such as stonefly nymphs, mayfly
nymphs, and caddisfly larvae, that are subjected to a constant deluge of
settleable particulate matter soon abandon the polluted area because of
the constant preening required to maintain mobility or respiratory
functions; otherwise, they are soon smothered. Species without compli-
cated external structures, such as bloodworms and sludgeworms, are
not so limited in adaptability. A slugdeworm, for example, car burrow
in a deluge of particulate organic matter and flourish on the abundance
of "manna." Morphology also determines the species that are found in
riffles, on vegetation, on the bottom of pools, or in bottom deposits.
RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC TYPES OF POLLUTION
ORGANIC, INORGANIC, SLUG
Organic materials constantly undergo decomposition; if this de-
composition proceeds rapidly enough to utilize all the oxygen available
at the sludge-water interface, the worm's life may be in danger. Anaer-
obic decomposition produces methane and hydrogen sulfide. In addition
to being toxic, these gases, because they are ebullient, produce an un-
stable substrate by stirring up the bottom and by blowing mats of sludge
to the surface. Such physical action is adverse to the worms and may
produce a drastic reduction in their numbers.
Wastes, such as heavy metal ions, some synthetic chemicals, and
hot water, do not provide food. Thus, although they eliminate the organ-
isms in order of increasing tolerance, they do not produce a large in-
crease in the number of surviving forms. They also hinder or eliminate
the organisms sensitive to the pollutant, and the pollutant provides no
benefit to the tolerant organisms except a reduction in predation and
interspecific competition.
Often the type, concentration, and quantity of waste are not uniform;
any sudden or temporary change (commonly referred to as a "slug") may
have a detrimental effect on a stream. Figure 2 shows the effect of dura-
tion and concentration of a "slug" on the number of kinds of bottom
organisms. Two miles below the waste source (Figure 2, M-36) the
duration was short, but the concentration was high, and all bottom-
dwelling animals were eliminated. At M-32 six miles downstream where
the duration was longer, but the concentration reduced, a lower mortal-
ity of kinds resulted. As the waste proceeded farther downstream the
concentration continued to diminish; but the still longer duration j csulted
in an increased percentage of mortality. Figure 3 shows the effect of
this waste on the dissolved oxygen concentration.
BOTTOM-DWELLING
-------
MUNICIPAL
Municipal waste contains solids originating as fecal material,
garbage, household wastes, and street washings that are often dispeaed
of through the sewerage system. Upon entering a waterway, these organic
materials sink to the bottom and form sludge beds, the extent of which
KEY:
= CONTROL, NO CHANGE
= KINDS BEFORE "SLUG"
= KINDS AFTER "SLUG"
M = MILES FROM RIVER MOUTH
Figure 2. Comparison of effects of usual quantity of chemical wastes and slug of such
wastes on number of kinds of bottom-dwelling macrofauna
(East Pearl River, September 1962).
MACROFAUNA
-------
depends upon hydrological factors that govern the rate of settling and
the depth of sludge deposition. A sludge bed covers the original stream
bottom of gravel, rubble, and soil with a substrate or "blanket" rich in
organic solids. The consequent reduction in types of niches and the
physical and chemical changes associated with organic decompositior
eliminate the more sensitive organisms. Figures 4 and 5 show the
changes in animal populations that resulted from the addition of munici-
pal organic wastes.
-o-S
£ E
\
»
~O LLJ
I *
s.
a
N30AXO CI3A~IOSSI<]
BOTTOM-DWELLING
-------
A. Five species survive in moderate numbers in moderate pollution.
B. Sludge worms replace more sensitive species upon addition of organic solids.
Figure 4. Effect of addition of domestic organic solids to Chicago River (April 1961).
MACROFAUNA
-------
u
I
2
CQ
BOTTOM-DWELLING
-------
INDUSTRIAL
Industries that use animal or vegetable raw materials produce
wastes that may degrade the environment in a manner similar to that of
200'
100-
L1TTLE QUINNESEC (UPSTREAM FROM MILL)
700— STURGEON FALLS (DOWNSTREAM FROM MILL)
600-
O
O
500-
400-
300-
200-
100 —
Ci
z>
u
Figure 6. Effects of paper mil! waste on bottom fauna. (Menominee River, Auaust 1963).
municipal organic solids. Paper mills discharging wood fiber (Figures
6 and 7), sugar-beet mills discharging beet pulp, and slaughterhouses
and rendering plants discharging animal wastes are examples of the type
of pollution sources that at the same time reduce the number of species
and increase the population of tolerant forms that are capable of utiliz-
ing the additional food.
MACROFAUNA
-------
Wastes from chemical plants can also reduce the number of kinds
of organisms in a stream. Figure 2 shows such a reduction. The usual
pollutant involved was a "uniform" quantity of wastes from the proces-
sing of crude tall oil and crude sulfate turpentine to produce chemical
specialities. The exact chemical composition of the effluent is unknown.
A marked decrease in number of species resulting from this waste flow
was observable 2 miles downstream from the effluent. Six miles down-
stream, the number of species was equal to or exceeded the number up-
stream from the effluent.
Figure 7. Heavy fibreboard formed in Connecticut River, October 1961, when discharge
from paper mills dried after water levels receded.
10
BOTTOM-DWELLING
-------
In highly developed metropolitan areas, the pattern of stream pol-
lution is complicated by the addition of industrial nonorganic wastes and
both municipal and industrial organic solids. (See Figure 8). Samples
Z
III <
£^
< x ,
i (_j '
5'/
/
/ /
V
^^•r^?v-x-:v.-^«^si
o; D
UJ _l
O _J
', 0 0
'1°-
/\
\
*a
t/3
Q
_]
o z.
WJ o
O
y p
Z 3
< -J
O -J
6 o.
< LU
t- >
o z
.--> o
u ;;
Z Li
<
ri- c
9"
it;
\ \
v ' \
, \ ' \
iyj
Z
O
<
1—
LU
,J
S
" o:
LU
>
Qi
(
\
\cH7IIZj
^ <_- ^T-^^^^
. ^7«j
^£?S
-/ "5«
^teijjiiSr^^^^fe^Sfe'.^ S?1"
,?_, , ^^n-1
1 "^^ a '|^ £
r s
i £
a.
:V °
O
to
fcu
<
>£
L1J
MACROFAUNA
11
-------
from the Chicago River (miles 326.9 and 325.8) had a diverse fauna in
contrast to the downstream stations. This fauna is still not indicative of
water as clean as that found in a neighboring stream. Just above mile
324.3, a stream enters that is enriched with organic solids that settle
and form sludge that eliminates the more sensitive species and feeds a
larger population of sludgeworms. At the next two downstream stations,
a reduction in organic solids and the accumulation of comparatively large
quantities of petroleum oils in the bottom substrate reduce surviving
tolerant sludgeworms. The addition of a relatively large volume of do-
mestic sewage effluent then dilutes the effects of these oils and feeds a
large population of sludgeworms at station 314.0. farther downstream,
the stream periodically becomes septic with a resulting reduction in
numbers of sludgeworms at stations 307.9 and 291.1.
NATURAL (SILT)
Silt and other inert solids are also pollutants. Figure 9 shows the
amount of silt that can be carried by water, Inert silt provides no food
and may smother or grind up more sensitive organisms. Figure 10 shows
the destructive effect of silt on the number of kinds of animals: a general
downstream reduction. The scouring and smothering effects were so
severe in this river that only one animal form was found at the last down-
stream station.
Figure 9. Settled water samples from Virgin River showing varying quantity of silt found
in suspension (August 1961).
DATA COLLECTION AND INTERPRETATION
The field sample collection is the basic element of a survey, and
it should be representative of the total environment.
SAMPLING
Qualitative sampling determines the variety of species from an
area. Samples may be taken by any method that will capture representa-
tives of the species present. Collections from such samplings indicate
12
BOTTOM-DWELLING
-------
changes in the environment, but they generally do not accurately reflect
the degree of change. Mayflies, for example, may be reduced from 100 to
1 per square foot, whereas sludgeworms may increase from 1 to 14,000
per square foot. Qualitative data would indicate the presence of both
species, but might not necessarily delineate the change in predominance
from mayflies to sludgeworms.
o
z
s
n
s
o
o
I/)
0
6-
5-
3-
2-
1NCREASING SILT
FLOW DOWNSTREAM
STATIONS
Figure 10. Effect of silt on number of kinds of bottom-dwelling macrofauna
(Virgin River, August 1961).
Quantative sampling is performed to observe changes in pre-
dominance. The most common quantitative sampling tools are the Peter-
sen and Ekman dredges and the Surber stream bottom or square-foot
sampler (Figure 11). Of these, the Petersen dredge samples the widest
variety of substrates. The Ekman dredge is limited to fine-textured and
soft substrates, such as silt and sludge. The Surber sampler is designed
MACROFAUNA
13
-------
for sampling riffle areas; it requires moving water to transport the
dislodged organisms into its net and is limited to depths of 2 feet or
less.
The collected sample is screened with a standard sieve to concen-
trate the organisms; these are sorted from the retained material, and
the number of each species is determined. Data are then adjusted to
number per unit area, usually to the number per square foot of bottom
or occasionally to number per square meter. This adjustment standard-
izes the method of data expression.
A. PETERSEN DREDGE
C. SURBER STREAM-BOTTOM SAMPLER.
EKMAN DREDGF
Figure M. Tools for coilechng quantitative samples of bottom-dwelling macrofauna.
(Drawings from Geckler, J., K.M. Mackenthun, and W.M. Ingram, 1963.
Glossary of Commonly Use^ Btcloaicai and Related Terms in Water and Waste Water Control,
Dept. HEW, Public Hed*1. Se.vice, Cincinnati, Ohio, Pub. No. 999-WP 2.)
Independently, neit .< r qualitative nor quantitative data suffice for
thorough analyses of enviroi-r ental conditions. A cursory examination
to detect damage may be macie with either method, but a combination of
the two gives a more precise determination. If a choice must be made,
quantitative sampling would be best because it incorporates a partial
qualitative sample.
EXTRAPOLATION
How can bottom-dwelling macrofauna data be-extrapolated to other
14 BOTTOM-DWELLING
-------
environmental components? It must be borne in mind that a component of
the total environment is being sampled. If the sampled component exhi-
bits changes, then so must the other interdependent components of the en-
vironment. For example, a clean stream with a wide variety of desirable
bottom organisms would be expected to have a wide variety of desirable
fishes; if pollution reduces the number of bottom organisms, a comparable
reduction would be expected in the number of fishes. Moreover, it would
be logical to conclude that any factor that eliminates all bottom organisms
would probably eliminate many other aquatic forms of life.
Even though biologists often speak of "pollution indicator" macro-
benthic organisms, the presence of these organisms is not a true indica-
tion of pollution. Most so-called "indicators" were present in the natural
environment long before man began to dump his wastes into the world's
waterways. Evolution has not produced species specifically adapted to
live in "sewers." The sludgeworm evolved and subsisted in areas (such
as an eddy behind a rock) where natural organics accumulated long before
man created a habitat where sludgeworms could flourish over many acres.
The extent and degree of pollution are better indicated by the absence or
reduced number of organisms associated with clean water.
FACTORS INVOLVED I> DATA INTERPRETATION
Two very important factors in data evaluation are a thorough
knowledge of the conditions under which the data were collected and a
critical assessment of the reliability of the data's representation of the
situation. For example, in Figures 9 and 10 one interpretation of the data
could be that relatively poor watershed utilization by agriculture and
forestry causes the situation illustrated. This material is, however,
from a stream that flows through arid desert country; record flash floods
sweeping down barren desert arroyos had "degraded" this stream with
silt and sand.
MINIMUM-MAXIMUM VALUES
The evaluation of physical and chemical data to determine their
effects on aquatic organisms is primarily dependent on maximum and
minimum observed values. The mean is useful only when the data are
relatively uniform. Figure 3 shows data that, if averaged, would indicate
that enough dissolved oxygen was present to support a desirable fauna,
but in fact, the short-term dissolved oxygen minimum would suffocate
those organisms that were not able to "hold their breath" for the duration
of its -absence. The minimum or maximum values usually create the acute
conditions in the environment.
FOOD SUPPLY
A moderate quantity of microscopic food particles in the water can
produce large populations of black flies, biting midges, nonbiting midges,
MACROFAUNA 15
-------
and mosquitoes. The amount of food required is that which will permit
a delicate adjustment in the biota. Enough organic food must be added to
suppress the more sensitive predators and competitors, but the quantity
and quality of waste cannot be such that they suppress moderately tol-
erant forms.
IDENTIFICATION
Precise identification of organisms to species requires a specialist
in limited taxonomic groups. Many of the immature aquatic forms have
not been associated with the adult species. Therefore, one who is certain
of the genus but not the species should utilize the generic name, not a
potentially incorrect species name. The method of interpreting biological
data on the basis of numbers of kinds and numbers of organisms will
typically suffice. For example, Figures 2, 5, and 10 are based on identi-
fications to genera, family, and suborder respectively.
LAKE AND STREAM INFLUENCE
Physical characteristics of a body of water also affect animal
populations. Lakes or impounded bodies of water support different faunal
associations than do rivers. Major taxonomic groups of organisms are
present in both, but there is generally a change in species composition.
The number of kinds present in a lake may be less than that found in a
stream because of a more uniform habitat. A lake is all pool, but a river
is composed of both pools and riffles. The nonf lowing water of a lake
exhibits a more complete settling of particulate organic matter that
naturally supports a higher population of detritus consumers. For these
reasons, the bottom fauna of a lake or impoundment cannot be directly
compared with that of a flowing stream.
Nor can the fauna of a tributary rivulet be directly compared with
that found in its much larger receiving stream. As streams become
larger and the ilow slower, their physical characteristics become more
uniform and approach those of a lake. This is especially evident where
the water's velocity has been further reduced by the addition of dams and
locks for navigation. Therefore, the smaller streams may contain more
species than larger receiving streams.
CONCLUSION
The final step in treating a pollution problem, providing an answer,
involves persuading the polluter to eliminate or control the cause of
pollution. If persuasion is not successful, then findings must be presented
to the public and the alleged polluter at a conference, hearing, or, if nec-
essary, in formal litigation. In this confrontation the data accumulated
from the study of bottom-dwelling macrofauna as to degree and extent of
water pollution may prove determinative of the issue.
16 BOTTOM-DWELLING
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The theory and application of bottom-dwelling macrofauna analyses
as a useful tool in pollution prevention and abatement have evolved 'rom
the work of innumerable people. Their ideas have been transmitted both
orally and in the literature; no one individual or group is solely respon-
sible for any concept outlined in this paper. For this reason, no literature
has been cited. The bibliography that follows will enable pollution
analysts to obtain information on the ecology of waters that is pertinent
to the protection of aquatic organisms.
MACKOFAUNA 17
-------
-------
BIBLIO<;RAFH\
Ayers, J. C. Ocean currents, pollution - and fish. New York State
Conservationist. 9(4):2-3. 1955.
Baker, F. C. The molluscan fauna of the Big Vermillion River, Illinois,
with special reference to its modification as the result of pollution
by sewage and manufacturing wastes. Illinois Biol. Monographs.
7(2): 105-224. 1922.
The changes in the bottom fauna of the Illinois River due to pollutional
causes. Ecology. 7(2):229-230. 1926.
Bartsch, A. F. Biological aspect of stream pollution. Sewage Works
Journal. 20(2):292-302. 1948.
Bartsch, A. F., and W. S. Churchill. Biotic responses to stream pollu-
tion during artificial stream reaeration. Limnological aspects of
water supply and waste disposal. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Wash-
ington, D.C., pp. 33-48. 1949.
Bartsch, A. F., and W. M. Ingram. Stream life and the pollution environ-
ment. Public Works. 90(7): 104-110. 1959.
Beak, T. W. Biological survey of the St. Clair River. Industrial Wastes.
4(5): 107-109. 1959.
Biglane, K. E., and R. A. Lafleur. Biological indices of pollution
observed in Louisiana streams. Bull. Louisiana Eng. Expt. Sta.
43:1-7. 1954.
Brinley, F. J. Biological studies, Ohio River Pollution. I. Biological
Zones in a Polluted Stream. Sewage Works Journal. 14(1):147-152.
1942.
Relation of domestic sewage to stream productivity. Ohio Journal
of Science. 42(4):173-176. 1942.
Sewage, algae and fish. Sewage Works Journal.
15(l):78-83. 1943.
Campbell, M. S. A. Biological indicators of intensity of stream pollution.
Sewage Works Journal. 11(1):123-127. 1939.
Cawley, W. A. An effect of biological imbalance in streams. Sewage and
Industrial Wastes. 30(9): 1174-1182. 1958.
Claassen, P. V,'. The biology of stream pollution. Sewage Works Journal.
4(1): 165-172. 1932.
19
-------
Cormack, J. F., and H.R. Amberg. The effect of biological treatment of
sulfite waste liquor on the growth of Sphaerotilus natans. Proc.
Fourteenth Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ. 44(5): 16-25. 1959.
Dimick, R. E. The aquatic biology of industrial pollution. Wastes
Engineering. 24(3):66-67, 87-88. 1953.
Dymond, J. R., and A. V. Delaporte. Pollution of the Spanish River.
Ontario Dept. of Lands and Forests, Research Report No, 25. pp.
1-112. 1952.
Eliassen, R. Stream pollution. Scientific American. 18(3): 17-21. 1952-
Erikssn, A., and L. D. Townsend. The occurrence and cause of pollution
in Grays Harbor. State Pollution Commission, State of Washington,
Pollution Series Bulletin No. 2. pp. 1-100. 1940.
Filice, F. P. The effect of wastes on the distribution of bottom inverte-
brates in the San Francisco Bay Estuary. The Wasmann Journal of
Biology. 17(1): 1-17. 1959.
Galtsoff, P. S., W. A. Chipman, J. B. Engle, and H. N. Calderwood.
Ecological and physiological studies of the effect of sulfate pulp
mill wastes on oysters in the York River, Virginia. Fisheries
Bulletin of the U. S Fish and Wildlife Service. No. 43. pp. 59-186.
1947.
Gaufin, A. R., and C. M. Tarzwell. Aquatic invertebrates as indicators of
stream pollution. Public Health Reports. 67(l):67-64. 1952.
Environmental changes in the polluted stream during winter. American
Midland Naturalist. 54(l):78-88. 1955.
Aquatic macro-invertebrate communities as indicators of organic
pollution in Lytle Creek. Sewage and Industrial Wastes.
28(7):906-924. 1956.
Gaufin, A. R. The effects of pollution on a midwestern stream. Ohio
Journal of Science. 58(4): 197-208. 1.958.
Gunter, G. Pollution problems along the Gulf Coast. Biological Prob-
lems in Water Pollution - Transactions of the 1959 Seminar,
Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, U. S. Public Health
Service, Cincinnati, Ohio. pp. 184-188. 1960.
Henderson, C. Value of the bottom sampler in demonstrating the effects
of pollution on fish food. Progressive Fish Culturist.
11(10):217-230. 1949.
Ide, F. P. Pollution in relation to stream life. Papers presented at the
First Ontario Industrial Waste Conference, Ontario Agricultural
College, Guelph, Ontario, pp. 86-108. 1954.
20 BOTTOM-DWELLING
-------
Ingram, W. M., and A. F. Bartsch. Graphic expression of biological
data in water pollution reports. Journ. Water Pollution Control
Federation. 30(3):297-310. 1960.
Ingram, W. M., and K. M. Mackenthun. Water pollution control, sewage
treatment, water treatment, selected biological references. U. S.
Dept. HEW, PHS, Pub. No. 153. pp. vi-142. 1963.
Jones, J. R. E. A study of the zinc-polluted River Ystwyth, in North
Cardiganshire, Wales. Annals of Applied Biology. 27:368-378. 1940.
McKee, J. E., and H. W. Wolf. Water quality criteria. The Resources
Agency of California, State Water Quality Control Board.
Publication No. 3-A. xiv + 548 pp. 1963.
Mills, K. E. Some aspects of pollution control in tidal waters.
Sewage and Industrial Wastes. 24(9):1150-1158. 1952
Neel, J. K. Certain limnological features of a polluted irrigation stream.
Transactions of American Microscopical Society. 72(2):119-135.
1953.
Nelson, T. C. Some aspects of pollution, parasitism, and inlet re-
striction in three New Jersey estuaries. Biological Problems
in Water Pollution - Transactions of the 1959 Seminar,
Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, U. S. Public
Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio. pp. 203-211. 1960.
Newton, L. Pollution of the rivers of West Wales by lead and zinc
mine effluent. Annals of Applied Biology. 31(1):1-11. 1944
Odum, E. P. Fundamentals of Ecology: Chapter 12; No. 7, Stream
Pollution, pp. 330-334. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, pp. 1-384. 1954.
Olson, T. A. Some observations on the interrelationships of sunlight,
aquatic plant life and fishes. Read at Sixty-second Annual
Meeting, American Fisheries Society, Baltimore, Maryland.
pp. 1-11. 1932.
Paine, G. H., Jr., and A. R. Gaufin. Aquatic diptera as indicators of
pollution in a midwestern stream. Ohio Journal of Science.
56(6):291-304. 1956.
Paloumpis, A. A., and W. C. Starrett. An ecological study of benthic
organisms in three Illinois River flood plain lakes. American
Midland Naturalist. 64(2):406-435. 1960.
Patrick, R. A proposed biological measure of stream conditions
based on a survey of the Conestoga Basin, Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, pp. 1-64. 1950.
MACROFAUNA 21
-------
Biological measure of stream conditions. Sewage and Industrial
Wastes. 22(7):926-938. 1950.
Aquatic organisms as an aid in solving waste disposal. Sewage
and Industrial Wastes. 25(2):210-214: Discussion by A. R. Gaufin
and C. M. Tarzwell. pp. 214-217. Discussion by R. Patrick.
p. 217. 1953.
Certain species predominate in the fauna and flora which establish
aquatic life in a new stream. Water and Sewage Works.
106(12):531-535. 1959.
Pennak, R. W., and E. D. Van Gerpen. Bottom fauna production
and physical nature of the substrate :n a northern Colorado trout
stream. Ecology, 28(l):42-48. 1947.
Pentelow, F. T. K. The biology of rivers in relation to pollution.
Journ. Institution of'Public Health Engineers. 55:85-101. 1956.
Purdy, W. C. The biology of polluted water. Journ. Amer. Water
Works Assoc. 16(l):45-54. 1926.
Ricker, W. E. Industrial and domestic wastes in relation to the
aquatic life of Indiana streams. Proc. Second Industrial
Waste Conference, Purdue University, pp. 90-96. 1946.
Scott, D. C. Biological balance in streams. Sewage and Industrial
Wastes. 30(9):1169-1172. 1958.
Southgate, B. A. Treatment and Disposal of Industrial Waste Waters.
Chapt. I, Polluting Effects of Industrial Waste Waters.
pp. 1-13. Dept. of Scientific and Industrial Research, His
Majesty's Stationery Office, London, pp. 1-327. 1948.
Sublett, J. E. The ecology of the macroscopic bottom fauna in
Lake Texoma (Denison Reservoir), Oklahoma and Texas.
American Midland Naturalist. 57(4):371-402. 1957.
Surber, E. W. Biological effects of pollution in Michigan waters.
Sewage and Industrial Wastes. 25(l):79-86. 1953.
Sutter, R., and E. Moore. Stream pollution studies. State of
New York Conservation Commission, Albany, N. Y.
pp. 3-27. 1922.
Tarzwell, C. M., and A. R. Gaufin. Some important biological
effects of pollution often disregarded in stream surveys.
Purdue University Engineering Bulletin, Proc. 8th Ind.
Waste Conf. May 4-6, 1953. pp. 295-316. 1953.
22 BOTTOM-DWELLING
-------
Tarzwell, C. M. Aquatic biological investigation as a method of
evaluating the self-purification of a stream. TAPPI.
41(10):40A-58A. 1958.
Tebo, L. B., Jr. Effects of siltation, resulting from improper
logging on the bottom fauna of a small trout stream in the
southern Appalachians. Progressive Fish Culturist.
17(2):64-70. 1955.
Van Horn, W. M. A study of kraft pulping wastes in relation to the
aquatic environment. Limnological Aspects of Water Supply and
Waste Disposal, American Association Advancement Science,
Washington, D. C. pp. 49-55. 1949.
Using biology as a tool in stream pollution work. Sewage Works.
23(2):71-73. 1952.
Westlake, D. F. Effects of organisms on pollution. Proc. Limn. Soc.
170:171-172. Journ. of the Science of Food and Agriculture.
10:ii-104. 1959.
Wilson, J. N. Effect of kraft mill wastes on stream bottom fauna.
Sewage and Industrial Wastes. 25(10):1210-1218. 1953.
Wurtz, C. B. Freshwater mollusks and stream pollution.
The Nautilus. 69(3):96-100. 1956.
Young, F. N. Effects of pollution on natural associations of water
beetles. Proc. 15th Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue University.
15(2):373-380.1960.
MACROFAUNA 23
HEW-Lex
------- |