Regional Applications of an Index of Biotic Integrity for Use in Water Resource Management

Abstract

The index of biotic integrity (IBI) integrates 12 measures of stream fish assemblages for assessing water resource quality. Initially developed and tested in the Midwest, the IBI recently was adapted for use in western Oregon, northeastern Colorado, New England, the Appalachians of West Virginia and Virginia, and northern California. The concept also was extended to Louisiana estuaries. In regions of low species richness, the IBI proved difficult to apply and often required extensive modification. Adapting the 1BI to those regions required that metrics be replaced, deleted, or added to accommodate regional differences in fish distribution and assemblage structure and function. Frequently replaced metrics include: proportion of individuals as green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), proportion of individuals as insectivorous cyprinids, proportion of individuals as hybrids, and number and identity of sunfish and darter species. The proportion of individuals as top carnivore metric was often deleted. Metrics added include total fish biomass and the number and identity of minnow species. These modifications generally followed the original IBI concept and its theoretical underpinnings. Problems remain in establishing tolerance rankings and scoring criteria, and adjusting scoring criteria for gradient differences in streams of similar size. The IBI holds promise for direct biological monitoring because of its strong ecological foundation and flexibility. Vermont, Tennessee Valley Authority, Ohio, Kentucky, and Illinois have incorporated the IBI into their monitoring or standards programs. The IBI thus serves as a quantitative, biological goal for water resource management.

Biological Integrity: A Long‐Neglected Aspect of Water Resource Management

“…Over 30 states and provinces and several federal agencies have used IBI (or modifications ofiBI; see How to measure biotic integrity: Adaptability of IBI, below). At least four states and the Tennessee Valley Authority have incorporated IBI into their standards and monitoring programs (Miller et aL 1988), and many others are expanding use of IBI and conceptually similar approaches into their routine monitoring programs.…”

“…Many advantages ofiBI have been cited (Karr 1981, Miller et aL 1988, Fausch et al 1990) including: ( 1) it is quantitative; (2) it gauges a stream against an expectation based on minimal disturbance in the region; (3) it reflects distinct attributes of biological systems, including temporal and spatial dynamics; (4) there is no loss of information from constituent metrics when the total index is determined because each metric contributes to the total evaluation; and (5) professional judgment is incorporated in a systematic and ecologically sound manner.…”

Effects of natural and anthropogenic environmental changes on riverine fish assemblages: a framework for ecological assessment of rivers

“…However, a new approach was used in French Guiana (South America), which selected the metrics to be used based on an empirical study of the interaction fish faunahabitat using taxonomical and functional descriptors (Tejerina-Garro, 2001). Karr et al, 1986;Miller et al, 1988).…”

A Preliminary Fishery Quality Index for Portuguese Streams

“…Indices of biotic integrity (IBIs) are commonly used for assessing the ecological health or condition of entire fish assemblages in North America (Miller et al 1988;Simon and Lyons 1995) and internationally (Hughes and Oberdorff 1999;Roset et al 2007) because they combine multiple variables into a single number easily comprehended by fishery administrators and the public. Despite the popularity of the multimetric IBI approach, few fishery managers have adopted comparable explicit multimetric indices for assessing key game fish assemblages, although they may consider such information implicitly and for specific populations.…”