Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 127, Issue 1–3, pp 409–417 | Cite as

Community analysis in stream biomonitoring: what we measure and what we don't

  • Sophia I. Passy
Original Article


Diatom assemblages from 83 epilithic samples taken from the Mesta River, Bulgaria, were regressed against three sets of predictor variables, i.e. environmental, spatial, and temporal. Redundancy analysis (RDA) of species and environmental data explained 36% of the diatom variance and extracted several important gradients of species distribution, associated with a downstream increase in nutrient levels, pH, temperature, and organic pollution. The inclusion of spatial and temporal variables in the RDA model captured additional 24% of the diatom variance and revealed three more gradients, a spatial gradient represented by higher order polynomial terms of latitude and longitude, and two temporal gradients of annual and seasonal variation. Partial RDAs demonstrated that the unique contribution of each predictor set to the explained diatom variance was the highest in the spatial dataset (16%), followed by the environmental (9%), and the temporal (7%) datasets. The remaining 28% of the variance was explained by the covariance of the predictor sets. This suggests that in biomonitoring of single stream basins, the cheap and simple account of space and time would explain most of the variance in assemblage composition obviating the necessity of expensive and time-consuming environmental assessments. The nature of the underlying environmental mechanisms can be easily inferred from the diatom composition itself.


Algae Diatoms Direct gradient analysis Epilithon River Variance partitioning Water quality 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., & Stribling, J.B. (1999). Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. D.C.: Washington.Google Scholar
  2. Borchard, D., Legendre, P., & Drapeau, P. (1992). Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology, 73, 1045–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. de Almeida, S.F.P., & Gil, M.C.P. (2001). Ecology of freshwater diatoms from the central region of Portugal. Cryptogamie Algologie, 22, 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eulin, A., & Le Cohu, R. (1998). Epilithic diatom communities during the colonization of artificial substrates in the River Garonne (France) – comparison with the natural communities. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 143, 79–106.Google Scholar
  5. Germain, H. (1981). Flore des diatomées Diatomophycées eaux douces et saumâtres du Massif Armoricain et des contrées voisines d'Europe occidentale. Société Nouvelle des Éditions Boubée. Paris.Google Scholar
  6. Krammer, K., & Lange-Bertalot, H. (1986–91). Bacillariophyceae, Teil 1–4. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Lobo, E.A., Katoh, K., & Aruga, Y. (1995). Response of epilithic diatom assemblages to water pollution in rivers in the Tokyo Metropolitan area, Japan. Freshwater Biology, 34, 191– 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Munn, M.D., Black, R.W., & Gruber, S.J. (2002). Response of benthic algae to environmental gradients in an agriculturally dominated landscape. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 21, 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Passy, S.I. (2001). Spatial paradigms of lotic diatom distribution: A landscape ecology perspective. Journal of Phycology, 37, 370–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Passy, S.I. (2006). Diatom community dynamics in streams of chronic and episodic acidification: The roles of environment and time. Journal of Phycology, 42, 312–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Passy, S.I., Bode, R.W., Carlson, D.M., & Novak, M.A. (2004). Comparative environmental assessment in the studies of benthic diatom, macroinvertebrate, and fish communities. International Review of Hydrobiology, 89, 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Passy, S.I., Pan, Y., & Lowe, R.L. (1999). Ecology of the major periphytic diatom communities from the Mesta River, Bulgaria. International Review of Hydrobiology, 84, 129–174.Google Scholar
  13. Potapova, M.G., & Charles, D.F. (2002). Benthic diatoms in USA rivers: distributions along spatial and environmental gradients. Journal of Biogeography, 29, 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sládeček, V. (1986). Diatoms as indicators of organic pollution. Acta Hydrochim. Hydrobiol., 14, 555–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Soininen, J. (2002). Responses of epilithic diatom communities to environmental gradients in some Finnish rivers. International Review of Hydrobiology, 87, 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Soininen, J. (2004). Determinants of benthic diatom community structure in boreal streams: the role of environmental and spatial factors at different scales. International Review of Hydrobiology, 89, 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Soininen, J., Paavola, R., & Muotka, T. (2004). Benthic diatom communities in boreal streams: community structure in relation to environmental and spatial gradients. Ecography, 27, 330–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stewart, P.M., Butcher, J.T., & Gerovac, P.J. (1999). Diatom (Bacillariophyta) community response to water quality and land use. Natural Areas Journal, 19, 155–165.Google Scholar
  19. Van Dam, H., Mertens, A., & Sinkeldam, J. (1994). A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Aquatic Ecology, 28, 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Vilbaste, S., & Truu, J. (2003) Distribution of benthic diatoms in relation to environmental variables in lowland streams. Hydrobiologia, 493, 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Whitton, B.A., & Rott, E. (1996). Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers II. Innsbruck, Austria: Institut für Botanik, Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
  22. Whitton, B.A., Rott, E., & Friedrich, G. (1991). Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers. Innsbruck, Austria: Institut für Botanik, Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations