Calibration of the biological condition gradient in Minnesota streams: a quantitative expert-based decision system

The Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) is a conceptual model that describes changes in aquatic communities with increasing levels of anthropogenic stress. The gradient represented by the BCG has been divided into 6 levels of condition that biologists consider readily discernible in most areas of North America. We developed quantitative BCG models for 7 warm-water stream types in Minnesota for both fish and macroinvertebrates. Panels of aquatic biologists calibrated the general BCG model to Minnesota streams by assigning test samples (271 macroinvertebrate and 288 fish samples) to BCG Levels 1 to 6. From the panelists’ descriptions of their criteria for assigning sites to levels, a set of quantitative operational rules was developed for performing the same task. We developed a decision model based on fuzzy-set theory to account for discontinuities and to identify when BCG assignments might be intermediate between adjacent levels. This model captures the consensus professional judgment of the panel and uses panel-derived rules. Decisions based on the quantitative model for macroinvertebrates exactly matched 77% of the panel decisions, 89% within ½ BCG level, and 100% within 1 BCG level. Decisions based on the quantitative fish model exactly matched 70% of the panel decisions, 86% within ½ BCG level, and 99% within 1 BCG level. The BCG provides a tool to interpret aquatic biological condition along a gradient of naturalness and is consistent across stream types and political boundaries. It includes documentation of baselines to prevent inadvertent shifting, and the BCG logic rules are transparent, a desirable property for communicating condition, management goals, and water-quality criteria.

[1]  William Silvert,et al.  Fuzzy indices of environmental conditions , 2000 .

[2]  R. Hall,et al.  Fuzzy-logic modeling of land suitability for hybrid poplar across the Prairie Provinces of Canada , 2008, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[3]  Raj Nair,et al.  Methods of formal consensus in classification/diagnostic criteria and guideline development. , 2011, Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism.

[4]  John L Stoddard,et al.  Setting expectations for the ecological condition of streams: the concept of reference condition. , 2005, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[5]  Á. Borja,et al.  The European Water Framework Directive at the age of 10: a critical review of the achievements with recommendations for the future. , 2010, The Science of the total environment.

[6]  Wolf M. Mooij,et al.  Fuzzy modeling of cyanobacterial surface waterblooms: Validation with NOAA-AVHRR satellite images , 2003 .

[7]  C. Yoder,et al.  A novel approach for the development of tiered use biological criteria for rivers and streams in an ecologically diverse landscape , 2016, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.

[8]  Glenn W. Suter,et al.  A critique of ecosystem health concepts and indexes , 1993 .

[9]  J. Gerritsen,et al.  The biological condition gradient, a tool used for describing the condition of US coral reef ecosystems , 2017 .

[10]  Robert M. Hughes,et al.  A process for creating multimetric indices for large-scale aquatic surveys , 2008, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[11]  Mike T. Furse,et al.  Biological assessment of river quality: development of AUSRIVAS models and outputs. , 2000 .

[12]  Robert M. Hughes,et al.  A Structured Approach for Developing Indices of Biotic Integrity: Three Examples from Streams and Rivers in the Western USA , 2007 .

[13]  Richard H. Norris,et al.  DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF PREDICTIVE MODELS FOR MEASURING THE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY OF STREAMS , 2000 .

[14]  Didier Pont,et al.  A Predictive Index of Biotic Integrity Model for Aquatic-Vertebrate Assemblages of Western U.S. Streams , 2009 .

[15]  Orin C. Shanks,et al.  Towards establishing a human fecal contamination index in microbial source tracking , 2014 .

[16]  Peter M Chapman,et al.  Evaluating Consistency of Best Professional Judgment in the Application of a Multiple Lines of Evidence Sediment Quality Triad , 2007, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[17]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  Is there a need for fuzzy logic? , 2008, NAFIPS 2008 - 2008 Annual Meeting of the North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society.

[18]  G. Klir,et al.  Fuzzy logic in geology , 2004 .

[19]  Steven M Bay,et al.  Framework for interpreting sediment quality triad data , 2012, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[20]  D. Pauly.  Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. , 1995, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[22]  N. Sims,et al.  Anthropocene Baselines: Assessing Change and Managing Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Aquatic Ecosystems , 2015 .

[23]  G. Hose,et al.  Reproducibility of AUSRIVAS rapid bioassessments using macroinvertebrates , 2004, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[24]  B. Kondratieff.  An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. 4th edition , 2009, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[25]  Steven Degraer,et al.  Assessing coastal benthic macrofauna community condition using best professional judgement--developing consensus across North America and Europe. , 2010, Marine pollution bulletin.

[26]  M. Tegner,et al.  SLIDING BASELINES, GHOSTS, AND REDUCED EXPECTATIONS IN KELP FOREST COMMUNITIES , 1998 .

[27]  T. Belton,et al.  A diatom-based biological condition gradient (BCG) approach for assessing impairment and developing nutrient criteria for streams. , 2016, The Science of the total environment.

[28]  Wayne S. Davis,et al.  Biological assessment and criteria : tools for water resource planning and decision making , 1995 .

[29]  Emmanuel Castella,et al.  Knowledge representation using fuzzy coded variables: an example based on the use of Syrphidae (Insecta, Diptera) in the assessment of riverine wetlands , 1996 .

[30]  Wim J. Droesen,et al.  Formalisation of ecohydrological expert knowledge applying fuzzy techniques , 1996 .

[31]  Robert LIN,et al.  NOTE ON FUZZY SETS , 2014 .

[32]  John T. Finn,et al.  Perturbation Theory and the Subsidy-Stress Gradient , 1979 .

[33]  James R. Karr,et al.  Assessing biological integrity in running waters : a method and its rationale , 1986 .

[34]  M. Barbour,et al.  Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton , 1999 .

[35]  William W. L. Cheung,et al.  A Fuzzy Logic Expert System to Estimate Intrinsic Extinction Vulnerabilities of Marine Fishes to Fishing , 2004 .

[36]  Robert M. Hughes,et al.  Classification strengths of ecoregions, catchments, and geographic clusters for aquatic vertebrates in Oregon , 2000, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[37]  James R. Karr,et al.  Ecological perspective on water quality goals , 1981 .

[38]  S. Weisberg,et al.  The level of agreement among experts applying best professional judgment to assess the condition of benthic infaunal communities , 2008 .

[39]  D. Carlisle,et al.  Estimation and application of indicator values for common macroinvertebrate genera and families of the United States , 2007 .

[40]  T. Muotka,et al.  Temporal variability in taxonomic completeness of stream macroinvertebrate assemblages , 2012, Freshwater Science.

[41]  G. Klir.  Fuzzy Logic: A Specialized Tutorial , 2004 .

[42]  Susan K. Jackson,et al.  The biological condition gradient: a descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. , 2006, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.