IN MARINE ENVIRONMENTS: A CRITIQUE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND COMMENTS ON THE USE OF AMPHIPODS AS BIOINDICATORS
James Darwin Thomas
Preoccupations with regulatory and legal liability issues in marine environmental monitoring have led to programs based on reductionist models that use non-biological parameters which are indirect measures of biotic condition. The ability to assess the effectiveness of current monitoring programs to protect the marine environment at regional and national scales does not currently exist. Current monitoring programs rarely serve the function for which they were intended: an accurate and sensitive source of information from which conditions and trends can be defined and recognized, and management decisions made. In addition, the natural variability of systems is problematic and must be documented in order to distinguish natural from anthropogenic changes in environmental conditions.
Due to their ecological importance, numerical abundance, and sensitivity to a variety of toxicants and pollutants, amphipod crustaceans have long been known as sensitive environmental indicators. However, application and use of amphipods in such programs is limited to the few regions where ongoing comprehensive taxonomic and natural history investigations have been undertaken.
Potential for amphipods as bioindicators exists in a wide variety of environments, especially in the tropics, but their incorporation into such programs is dependent upon completion of taxonomic surveys and inventories.
--------------------------------------- Keywords: amphipods,
biodiversity, biological criteria, coral reefs, index of biotic
integrity, marine monitoring
Environmental monitoring and regulatory programs in the United States are estimated to cost over $70 billion annually (EPA, 1990b). In the marine environment, more than $133 million is spent annually on monitoring programs to provide data and information for management decisions and to ensure protection of marine resources (National Research Council, 1990). Despite expenditures of money and resources, and participation by scientists, regulators, and resource managers, monitoring practitioners agree that monitoring programs are in need of vast improvements in design and implementation (NRC op. cit.).
In spite of recent concerns expressed about global biodiversity
by various authors, reports, and symposia, no clearly articulated
public policy on biodiversity exists (Soulé, 1991), nor
has any U.S. organization or agency put forth clear directives.
The need for action is especially acute in tropical ecosystems
because they house the great majority of the planet's biodiversity.
What progress has been made in this area comes from studies of
terrestrial moist forest systems. In coral reef systems, very
little is known regarding biodiversity, exclusive of corals and
reef fish .
The goal of all types of monitoring programs is the protection
of the environment and its resources. Data collected from monitoring
programs documents existing conditions, and helps document changes
in these conditions over time. Lacking prior knowledge of environmental
conditions, monitoring establishes a baseline for future comparisons
(NRC op. cit.).
In the U.S., regulatory monitoring in the marine environment is mandated by a variety of local, state, and federal statutes including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act; the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; and the National Ocean Pollution Research, Development and Monitoring Planning Act. Federal Agencies responsible for these various programs include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the Department of the Interior. Numerous state agencies, local authorities, utilities, and industries that discharge materials into coastal ocean waters are also required to conduct marine environmental monitoring programs.
While it was the perception of biological degradation of marine
environments that initially stimulated current state and federal
legislation on water quality, the biological focus appears to
have been lost in the search for easily measured physical and
chemical surrogates that are only indirect measures of biological
condition (Karr, 1991). The ability to assess the effectiveness
of current water quality monitoring programs to protect the marine
environment at regional and national scales does not currently
exist. By EPA's own estimates, current water quality monitoring
programs fail to show biological impairment when it does exist,
36% of the time, and indicates impairment where there is none,
6% of the time (EPA, 1990a). The implementation of a biological
criterion approach that directly measures biological integrity
is, therefore, essential to documenting the status and trends
in coastal marine and estuarine ecosystems.
Marine monitoring programs
Marine monitoring programs are usually long-term, data intensive programs that establishes points of reference for environmental conditions and then attempts to document and identify change in these conditions over time. Programs using macrobenthos and water quality measures are widely used in marine and estuarine settings. Assessment programs, smaller in scope and application, are generally more short-term and data-specific than typical monitoring programs. They are intended to measure specific parameters or conditions. Bioassay is a type of assessment program that uses live organisms to measure a variety of conditions or specific impacts.
Initially, marine environmental monitoring programs employed a variety of univariate indices to summarize environmental condition. The multivariate approach follows a tendency to move away from the univariate approach represented by reductionist univariate measures such as diversity indices or single indicator species (Nelson, 1990). A multivariate index for assessment of habitat quality and degradation called the "Index of Biotic Integrity" , or IBI, was developed for stream fish communities in the U.S. (Karr and Dudley, 1978; Karr et. al., 1986; Karr, 1991). The first IBI's used fish as the primary monitoring organisms because it was felt fish were easy to identify and had more public relevance than macrobenthos. The IBI uses a number of biological variables, or metrics, to assess environmental and habitat quality. Karr et. al, (1986) included 12 metrics in three categories; species richness and composition, trophic composition, and fish abundance and condition. An IBI developed for estuarine fish communities in coastal Louisiana included 13 metrics in similar categories (Thompson and Fitzhugh, 1986). A prototype IBI for estuarine waters proposed by Nelson (1990) included 11 metrics in four categories, and used benthic invertebrates and submerged aquatic vegetation instead of fish.
While the conceptual basis of the IBI appears theoretically sound, development of a marine and estuarine IBI must include modifications for at least two important reasons. Streams are spatially "captive" systems, while marine systems are spatially "open". Establishing monitoring programs in such spatially open systems using highly mobile organisms such as fish can impose formidable problems in implementing effective sampling criteria intended to measure local effects and changes. The two systems also differ dramatically in taxonomic diversity: in streams, the total number of taxa seldom reach more than 50-60 species, while the number of species in marine systems may easily reach 300-400.
Because it is sometimes not possible or practical to establish identical control areas in marine environments, information on baseline components and trend analysis are important sources of data. The value of such a database increases with time as information accumulates and is a process that once started, must remain an ongoing one to be effective. Because analyses are directed at the species level, efforts must be taken to insure that samples are collected, processed, sorted and identified in a consistent and taxonomically competent manner.
The author further suggests that organisms considered for inclusion in marine monitoring programs should be selected with regard to certain criteria. They should be: 1. ecologically and trophically important; 2. numerically dominant at the relevant community level; 3. exhibit a high degree of niche specificity; 4. have a documented sensitivity to a variety of pollutants and toxicants, and; 5. have relatively low dispersion and mobility capabilities. Gammarid amphipods meet these criteria and are already in use as primary biological monitors in several regions in the United States and overseas (EPA, 1990b; Meijering, 1991; Reish and Barnard, 1979).
Introduction to peracarid and amphipod crustaceans:
Approximately 40 percent of all crustaceans are peracaridans. Although smaller in size and less conspicuous than decapods, peracarids are more abundant and widespread than decapods in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial habitats. Because of their size, decapods often dominate faunal surveys of crustacean groups, but peracaridan diversity almost certainly exceeds that of decapods. Peracarids frequently exceed all other crustacean taxa (and often all other invertebrate groups) in numbers and diversity in marine shelf and slope environments. They are also a primary component in deep-sea macrobenthos. Because peracarids lack a pelagic larval stage and have specific habitat requirements, they exhibit low intrinsic rates of dispersal, thus making them excellent candidates for distributional and ecological studies. An exception are some fouling species capable of rafting long distances on flotsam and macroalgae.
Amphipods are the most abundant members of the superorder Peracarida,
a large assemblage of eight orders: Mysidacea (450 sp.); Cumacea
(900 sp.); Tanaidacea (1,500 sp.); Isopoda (4,000 sp.); Amphipoda
(6,000 sp.); Spelaeogriphacea (2 sp.); Mictacea (2 sp.); and
Thermosbaenacea (10 sp). Schram (1986) placed amphipods in the
Order Edriopthalma as the sister group of the Isopoda, while Watling
(1983) considers them to be a Superorder in itself. The Amphipoda
are composed of four suborders: Gammaroidea; Ingolfiellidea; Caprellidea;
Gammaridean amphipods are the dominant group of peracaridan
crustaceans in shallow seas of the world, including the tropics.
They are mostly small and free-living, and can be found nestling
in crevices, burrowing in sediments, hovering or swimming above
the substrate, and living in fixed or mobile domiciles (tubes).
Many species are surface nestlers among algae and seaweeds. Others
are cryptic, found tucked among numerous rocky crevices of live
coral and coral rubble. Invertebrate hosts (in particular, sponges,
tunicates, octocorals, and bryozoans) provide habitat for a variety
of commensal amphipods such as the Amphilochidae, Anamixidae,
Colomastigidae, Dexaminidae, Leucothoidae, and some Lysianassidae.
Amphipods in environmental monitoring:
Due to their ecological importance, numerical abundance, and sensitivity to a variety of toxicants and pollutants, amphipod crustaceans have long been known as sensitive environmental indicators (Hart and Fuller, 1979). Amphipods lack a pelagic larval stage and are benthic recruiters, thereby minimizing dispersal effects; they exhibit a high degree of habitat specificity and niche requirements; and they are one of the major benthic components in marine systems worldwide, both in terms of biomass and species diversity.
Application and use of amphipods in environmental monitoring has been limited to the few temperate regions where long-term taxonomic and natural history investigations have been undertaken. California currently uses amphipods as primary biological monitors at outfalls. Monitoring programs incorporating amphipods have been used to assess the environmental effects of oil spills in the Persian Gulf, Alaska, and Panama. California and The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have designated several species of amphipods as bioassay organisms for sediment toxicity tests in soft-bottom environments (EPA, 1990b). Amphipods are so useful as bioindicators that U.S. Government agencies now require their identification to species in permitting operations such as oil leases and outfalls. Potential for the use of amphipods as bioindicators exists in a wide variety of environmental settings. Their incorporation into such programs is dependent upon completion of comprehensive coastal resource inventories and taxonomic surveys.
Besides acute and chronic sensitivities to pollutants and toxicants,
amphipods exhibit a number of altered behavioral responses to
sublethal levels of a variety of compounds that can cause reduction
or elimination of the population (Baker, 1971; Sandberg et al,
1972; Percy, 1976; Lee et al 1977; Linden, 1976a,b). Amphipods
have been found to be more sensitive than other species of invertebrates
(decapods, polychaetes, mollusks, and asteroids) to a variety
of contaminants (Ahsanullah, 1976; Swartz, 1987; Swartz et al
1985). Furthermore, amphipods have been documented to show responses
to other parameters including dredging, shoreline alteration,
fishing practices, salinity, and dissolved oxygen (Barnard, 1958,
1961; Widdowson, 1971; McCluskey, 1967, 1970; Vobis, 1973). In
freshwater streams of Germany, the onset and recovery of "stream
souring" (acidification) has been documented since 1945 on
the basis of distribution patterns of three species of the amphipod
genus Gammarus (Meijering,1991). This biological model
has proved to be a more responsive and sensitive measure of environmental
conditions than standard water quality protocols (Meijering, 1991).
Such studies provide a compelling argument for the value of
long-term biological monitoring programs.
Benthic monitoring programs are more widely applied in soft-bottom environments because of the relatively uniform nature of sediments and the ease of obtaining quantifiable samples. Certain groups of amphipods may act as important structuring agents in some these soft-bottom benthic communities. Phoxocephalid amphipods from sandy bottom communities in California, New Zealand, and Antarctica consumed large numbers of soft-bodied invertebrate larvae (Oliver et al. 1982). A similar predation pattern was noted for the Platyischnopidae in Caribbean waters (Thomas and Barnard, 1982). Because these two families usually occur in large numbers on sandy bottoms, it is probable that they are disproportionately important in structuring communities by consuming settling larvae and juveniles of soft-bottom invertebrates. In southern hemisphere waters, Jim Lowry of the Australian Museum reports that lysianassoid amphipods are the dominant benthic scavengers (personal communication). Any pollution scenario that adversely affects population levels of these predatory and scavenging amphipods would ultimately alter long-term benthic community structure and possibly impact other groups such as fish that use them as a food source.
In some instances infaunal amphipods have become standard bioassay
organisms in coastal U.S. waters. The phoxocephalid, Rhepoxynius
abronius Barnard (1960), is used in California to determine
sediment toxicity levels (Swartz et al. 1985). Sediment toxicity
tests proposed by EPA along kthe east coast will use the amphipod,
Ampelisca abdita (EPA, 1990b), a species both acutely and
chronically sensitive to contaminated sediments (Bretler et al.
1989; Scott and Redmond 1989; DiToro et al. in press).
Bioassay programs target particular species as direct measures to determine contaminant-specific effects and toxicity levels, independent of chemical characterizations and ecological surveys (Chapman, 1988). In the marine environment, sediment toxicity testing has become an integral part of benthic assessment programs (Swartz, 1987).
To be effective, a well-conceived bioassay program must include
a thorough validation of the taxonomy and pertinent biotic and
abiotic factors that influence the bioassay organism. One approach
to selecting bioassay organisms would be to conduct comprehensive
benthic inventories to identify potential candidates for bioassay
using pre-selected criteria. When this stage is completed, a
bioassay profile could be developed for each species' response
to acute and chronic pollutant levels. Response profiles to physiological
and ecological factors could also be included.
Establishing monitoring programs in hard-bottom communities (rocky shorelines, coastal outcrops, kelp forests, coral reefs) has been difficult because of problems in establishing adequate and comparative sampling protocols in these hard-bottom areas. An emerging policy concern is the collection of material without the use of overly destructive sampling techniques. In response to this concern, statistically valid monitoring programs using artificial substrates have been developed along temperate rocky coastlines in response to major oil spills on the European coast from tanker accidents such as the Torrey Canyon and the Amoco Cadiz, and more recently, the Exxon Valdez in Alaskan waters. A variety of artificial substrates have been used in intertidal and sublittoral zones (Fager, 1971; Schoener,1974; Ghelardi,1960; Kensler & Crisp, 1965; Frank, 1965; Myers & Southgate, 1980). Myers and Southgate (op. cit.) demonstrated that communities from immersed artificial substrates (nylon pan scourers) were similar to those that developed naturally on red algal turfs in Bantry Bay, Ireland.
Based on the use of artificial substrates in temperate waters, there would appear to be justification for their use in tropical marine systems, especially coral reefs. Since amphipods are a dominant macrobenthic component of reef systems, they appear to be acceptable candidates for monitoring programs using artificial substrates.
Coral reefs offer several distinct advantages as sites for biological
monitoring programs. They are discrete systems that occur within
a narrow range of biological and physical parameters and exhibit
comparable habitats over a wide geographical range. While artificial
substrates can overcome some of the difficulties in sampling the
spatially complex habitats of coral reefs, comprehensive taxonomic
surveys and inventories on which monitoring programs are ultimately
based are almost completely lacking. Other constraints include
the lack of active field systematists and adequate lab facilities
in tropical countries. Without substantial long-term commitments
of facilities and personnel in tropical regions, these problems
will continue to restrict progress in implementing biological
monitoring and biodiversity programs in coral reef areas.
Amphipods as bioindicators:
Ecological factors must also be considered in evaluating the potential information value of various amphipod groups. Epifaunal nestlers and foulers (Aoridae, Ampithoidae, some Corophiidae, Ischyroceridae, Melitidae, Neomegamphopidae), exhibit different habitat requirements and dispersion capabilities than do infaunal burrowers (Haustoriidae, Platyischnopidae, Phoxocephalidae, Oedicerotidae, Melphidippidae), tube-builders (some Corophiidae, Ampeliscidae), and other cryptic and commensal groups (Anamixidae, Iphimidiidae, Leucothoidae, Sebidae, Colomastigidae). Epifaunal species, especially algal-dwellers, are capable of wide-scale secondary dispersion on flotsam and macroalgae. In contrast, cryptofaunal species exhibit highly restricted distributions and would seem to provide more explicit information about in-situ environmental change than epifaunal forms whose dispersive abilities could rapidly erase local spatial impacts by recolonization from adjacent or unaffected areas. Attributes such as these must be taken into account when considering biological subjects for monitoring and biodiversity programs. For example, in measuring the effects of an oil spill in a coral reef system, cryptofaunal and infaunal species of invertebrates may yield different patterns. Epifaunal forms could "raft" in, while infaunal and cryptofaunal forms would have to recruit along the bottom from unaffected or minimally-impacted areas. Thus, the observed recolonization rates of the two groups, and subsequent interpretation of effects, could be quite different. In an actual oil spill on a Panama coral reef, two infaunal peracarid crustaceans, (amphipods and tanaids) showed virtually no recovery after a nine-month period (Jackson et al,1989), while other groups, including other crustaceans (brachyurans and burrowing shrimp), showed significant recovery at the same sites.
On the basis of the available data, amphipods appear to be highly
informative regarding environmental condition in a variety of
habitats. In the future, use of amphipods in marine environmental
studies will continue to expand as new applications and research
programs are undertaken (Reish and Barnard, 1979; Hay et al. 1987).
The term "biodiversity" has become a buzzword for the 90's, and it seems that every report or committee provides yet another definition. This paper follows the National Science Board's (1989) usage of biodiversity as "the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur".
Estimates of living species on Earth range from 10-50 million (May, 1988). Ninety percent of species are concentrated on land primarily due to the speciose nature of the Insecta. Thus, the majority of what we know regarding biodiversity shows a strong terrestrial bias. According to the National Science Foundation (NSF,1989) Report, "Loss of Biological Diversity: A Global Crisis Requiring International Solutions" (NSF, op.cit.), our knowledge of tropical biodiversity has huge gaps, and the bulk of what is known concerning tropical biodiversity comes from studies in terrestrial moist forest systems. The NSF report further states that "inventories and ecological studies are needed in all oceans, with special emphasis on those habitats most immediately threatened. So little is known about the marine biota that rates of extinction are difficult to estimate..." (NSF, page 8).
If we look at biodiversity by ecosystem, tropical rain forests
and coral reefs constitute the greatest centers of biodiversity
with 55% and 15% of the total number species respectively. It
is, therefore, ironic that while coral reefs are one of the most
biologically diverse systems known, they are also one of the most
poorly understood and least studied in terms of biodiversity.
If, however, we compare diversity on the basis of numbers of
animal phyla, marine environments are more biologically diverse.
Marine habitats encompass 28 phyla (13 endemic), while terrestrial
systems include 11 phyla (1 endemic) (Ray and Grassle, 1991).
Conservation strategies in marine systems:
Current conservation strategies lack a unified scientific method
that addresses the nature and quality of biodiversity (Erwin,
1991). Instead, efforts are based on other considerations such
as protection of areas that support species of special human interest,
areas with novel biological features (endemics), areas of spectacular
natural beauty, and centers of endemism. This approach places
the highest priority on unique and unusual areas with little regard
to the nature and quality of biodiversity on a larger scale.
While this process brings attention and protection to the unusual
and spectacular, it does not bring attention to the more mundane
areas that may serve as sources of biodiversity. Recent insights
into conservation strategies based on phylogenetic analysis (cladistics)
and historical biogeography lead to advocating an evolutionary
basis for conservation strategies (Erwin, op.cit.). More specifically,
this means defining evolutionary centers that have served not
only as sources of current biodiversity, but are likely to contribute
to future biodiversity. The current practice of emphasizing
relict or unique areas does not address long-term evolutionary
implications. While the unique and aesthetic species and areas
are certainly worthy of protection, this approach alone does not
focus on the larger issue of sustaining biodiversity levels over
long temporal scales.
Most programs now in use to assess biodiversity incorporate the larger, more spatially obvious and socially relevant components of a system. Such an approach provides a static measure of biodiversity, but is capable of documenting change only after it has occurred. An example from coral reefs is the currently popular video or photo transect of coral cover over time. While public awareness is heightened, and visible changes in coral-algal dominance on the reef are documented, the possible or probable cause(s) remain the subject of speculation, supported by anecdotal evidence at best. While these types of assessment approaches are important in increasing awareness and focusing public attention, they rarely provide accurate insight to the causative agent(s). The author believes if we are to make informed decisions about the protection and management of marine resources we must develop programs that can identify the early manifestations of large-scale community change. Except in the most extreme cases of pollution or physical impact, current programs are insufficient to identify and interpret the early stages of change in marine systems. Also lacking is the ability to define limits of natural versus anthropogenic variability in coastal systems. Until natural variability patterns are documented, it will not be possible to identify those situations arising from either abnormal natural phenomena or anthropogenic effects.
Because of specific ecological attributes, certain groups of organisms are capable of providing information as both measures and monitors of biodiversity in tropical systems. In rainforest areas of South and Central America, bird populations are now being used to assess and compare biodiversity levels using the Rapid Assessment Program (RAP) approach (Roberts, 1991a). The RAP program uses "quick and dirty" inventories of birds and other select groups of the smaller and less obvious organisms that provide a representative picture of the system in a short period of time. It is based on the premise that the less obvious, ecologically important constituents of a system may provide a more accurate estimate of diversity than is available by merely recording the distribution of the primary floral or faunal representatives, (tree species in rainforests, coral species in coral reefs, etc.). In many cases, the subtle precursors of change in ecosystems are first heralded by these less obvious components. However, while RAP programs can be valuable tools, their accuracy depends on the taxonomic expertise of those conducting the assessment.
The use of ecologically important and numerically dominant invertebrate groups in RAP, or similar biodiversity assessment programs in tropical marine ecosystmes is constrained by three factors:
1. The high percentage of new taxa encountered in tropical marine systems that require formal description before they can be used in applied programs.
2. The lack of non-technical identification manuals and formalized assessment protocols for marine invertebrate groups.
3. The shortage of trained field systematists, support staff,
and facilities in tropical countries that can interact effectively
with organizations and programs engaged in documenting and conserving
biodiversity in marine ecosystems.
Program needs for coral reefs:
A recent NSF-sponsored meeting on global warming and coral bleaching concluded that to determine what is happening to the world's reefs would require the development of long-term biological and ecological monitoring programs that are related to physical processes over time, and could be compared among sites over time (Roberts, 1991b). The myriad groups of small benthic invertebrates that are in a sense "environmental integrators" of physical, chemical, and biological conditions, are optimal candidates for monitoring studies. Understanding the dynamics of selected groups of organisms will be more cost effective and will allow scientists to document and interpret spatial and temporal patterns in tropical marine ecosystems on a much finer scale than is now possible. There is a growing consensus among environmental researchers that biologically based monitoring programs can enhance our ability to interpret cause and effect relationships in the marine environment.
In the absence of long-term ecological research, serious misjudgements can occur in attempts to manage the environment (Magnuson, 1990). Worldwide, a number of coral reef areas have been established as protected areas, sanctuaries, preserves, and parks. However, resource inventories and taxonomic surveys, an essential first step in effective monitoring programs, has not been a priority, except in the case of corals and reef fishes. This lack of basic knowledge of system components precludes the development of sound resoruce management decisions based on information from effective monitoring and assessment programs. This deficiency is especially acute in coral reef ecosystems because of the relatively high levels biodiversity and new taxa.
Despite recent reports of changes occurring in reef systems worldwide (Roberts, 1988; Williams and Williams, 1990) only anecdotal data and explanations are available. Lack of reliable taxonomy at the species level in the Caribbean reef-building coral Montastrea annularis Ellis and Solander (1786), has jeopardized interpretation and comparison of past and current studies in paleoceanography, environmental degradation, and global climate change (Knowlton et. al., 1992).
Those in charge of coral reef management must acknowledge that
the intricate ecological workings of a coral reef includes more
than corals and fish. The management and research community
must work in concert to develop criteria and implement programs
that are accurate, sensitive, and capable of assessing resource
conditions over wide spatial and temporal scales. Mere designation
and administration of protected marine areas will not prevent
loss of biodiversity and environmental quality.
The following recommendations are put forth as considerations
in establishing biologically-based marine environmental monitoring
programs. While there is a need for efforts in all areas, the
demand is especially acute in the tropics.
1. A network of parataxonomists must be established to act as
local authorities on the taxonomy and identification of the various
groups of organisms used in monitoring programs. This group would
also be responsible for maintaining a scientifically valid taxonomic
database. A model for this approach can be found in California
in the Southern California Association of Marine Invertebrate
2. Estuarine and marine systems will require somewhat different
approaches in experimental design, but criteria for selecting
and implementing biologically based monitoring programs should
be identical in all coastal areas.
3. Coastal states should be compelled to initiate and complete
basic resource inventories, especially of the ecologically and
trophically important non-economic species. Few states have completed
detailed taxonomic inventories except for economically important
species. This step is crucial in providing a solid scientific
base for effective monitoring programs.
4. Once faunal/floral inventories are complete, tentative candidates
for use as bioindicators can be identified. Responses to an established
array of pollutants, toxicants, and other factors such as salinity,
pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature should be documented. This
phase would identify probable "keystone" species that
would be incorporated into the monitoring program. Periodic
updates (five years) are advised to check for major shifts in
5. For those groups designated as key components and possible
bioindicators, a complete taxonomic study and database should
be maintained by taxonomically competent personnel. A series of
simple, non-technical identification guides to the species involved
should be prepared and updated as needed. Currently, outside
consultants are often hired for this purpose; a time-consuming
and expensive process. Recent advances in computer imaging should
make production and distribution of regional keys and identification
manuals a reality.
6. A centralized reference collection of all species should be
maintained and curated for reference and research purposes.
7. Because the ultimate source of data for analysis is species-level
identifications, agencies should be required to provide competent
taxonomic personnel for the duration of biological monitoring
8. In an effort to insure credibility in program management,
agencies should establish technical qualifications criteria for
staff positions involved with experimental design, sampling,
sorting and taxonomic identification of both known and undescribed
9. Develop an information-sensitive decision-making process that
directly incorporates information from biological monitoring programs.
10. Develop reciprocity and interlocal agreements with various county, state, and federal agencies to share data and information as needed.
Ahsanullah, M. 1976. Acute toxicity of cadmium and zinc to seven invertebrate species from Western Port, Victoria. Australian Journal of Freshwater Research 27:187-196. Baker, J.M. 1971. Growth stimulation following oil pollution, in, The Ecological Effects of Oil on Pollution and Littoral Communities. E.B. Cowell, (ed.). Institute of Petroleum, London, pp-72-77. Barnard, J.L. 1958. Amphipod crustaceans as fouling organisms in Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbors, with reference to the influence of seawater turbidity. California Fish and Game 44:161-170. Barnard, J.L. 1961. Relationship of California amphipod faunas in Newport Bay and in the open sea. Pacific Naturalist 2:166-186. Bretler, R.J., K.J. Scott, and S.P. Shepurd. 1989. Application of a new sediment toxicity test using the marine amphipod Ampelisca abdita to San Francisco Bay sediments, in, Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment, U.M. Cowgill, and L.R. Williams, (eds.). Volume 12,304-314, American Society of Testing and Materials.. Chapman, P.M. 1988. Marine sediment toxicity tests, in, J.J. Lichtenberg, F.A. Winter, C.I. Weber and L. Franklin, (eds.). Chemical and Biological Characterization of Sludges, Sediments, Dredge Spoils, and Drilling Muds, 391-402, Philadelphia, PA: American Society of Testing and Materials. DiToro, D.M., J.D. Mahony, D.J. Hansen, K.J. Scott, M.B. Hicks, S.M. Mayr, M.S. Redmond. 1990. Toxicity of cadmium in sediments; The role of acid volatile sulfide. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Volume 9:1489-1504. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990a. Biological criteria: National program guidance for surface waters. EPA-440/5-90-004, April, 1990, Washington D.C., 57 pp. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1990b. Near Coastal Program Plan for 1990: Estuaries. EPA/600/4-90/033, November, 1990. Erwin, T.L. 1991. An evolutionary basis for conservation strategies. Science 253:750-752. Fager, E.W. 1971. Pattern in the development of a marine community. Limnology and Oceanography 16:241-253. Frank, P.W. 1965. The biodemography of an intertidal snail population. Ecology 46:831-844. Ghelardi, R. 1960. Structure and dynamics of the animal community found in Macrocystis pyrifera holdfasts. PhD Thesis, University of California, San Diego. Hart, B.H. and S.L.H. Fuller. 1979. Pollution Ecology of Estuarine Invertebrates. Academic Press, New York, 406pp. Hay, M.E., J.E. Duffy, and C.A. Pfister. 1987. Chemical defense against different marine herbivores: are amphipods insect equivalents? Ecology 68:1567-1580. Jackson, J.B.C., J.D. Cubit, B.D. Keller, V. Batista, K. Burns, H.M. Caffey, R.L. Caldwell, D.D. Garrity, C.D. Getter, C. Gonzalez, H.M. Guzman, K.W. Kaufmann, A.H. Knap, S.C. Levings, M.J. Marshall, R. Steger, R.C. Thompson, and E. Weil. 1989. Ecological effects of a major oil spill on Panamanian coastal marilne communities. Science 243:37-44. Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications 1(1):66-84. Karr, J.R., and Dudley, D.R. 1978. Biological integrity of a headwater stream: Evidence of degradation, prospects for recovery, in, J. Lake and J. Morison (eds). Environmental Impact of Land Use on Water Quality: EPA-950/9-77-007-D. pp.3-25. Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angemeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey, Special Publication 5:1-28. Kensler, C.B., and D.J. Crisp. 1965. The colonization of artificial crevices by marine invertebrates. Journal of Animal Ecology 34:507-516. Knowlton, N., E. weil, L.A. Weigt, and H.M. Guzmán. 1992. Sibling species in Montastrea annularis, coral bleaching, and the coral climate record. Science (255):330-333. Lee, W.Y., M.F. Welch, and J.A.C. Nicol. 1977. Survival of two species of amphipods in aqueous extracts of petroleum oils. Marine Pollution Bulletin 8:92-94. Linden, O. 1976a. Effects of oil on the reproduction of the amphipod Gammarus oceanicus. Ambio 5:36-37. Linden, O. 1976b. Effects of oil on the amphipod Gammarus oceanicus. Environmental Pollution 10:239-250. Magnusson, J.R. 1990. Long-Term ecological research and the invisible present. Bioscience 40(7):495-501. May, R. F. 1988. How many species are there on earth? Science (241):1441-1466. McLusky, D.S. 1967. Some effects of salinity on the survival, moulting, and growth of Corophium volutor (Amphipoda) Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 47:607-617. McLusky, D.S. 1970. Salinity preference in Corophium volutor. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 50:747-752. Meijering, M.P.D. 1991. Lack of oxygen and low pH as limiting factors for Gammarus in Hessian brooks and rivers. Hydrobiologia 223:159-161. Miller, D.L., P.M. Leonard, R.M. Hughes, J.R. Karr, P.B. Moyle, L.H. Schrader, B.A. Thompson, R.A. Daniels, K.D. Fausch, G.A. Fitzhugh, J.R. Gammon, D.B. Halliwell, P.L. Angemeier, and D.J. Orth. 1988. Regional applicationsof an index of biotic integrity for use in water resource management. Fisheries 13:12-20. Myers, A.A., and T. Southgate. 1980. Atrificial substrates as a means of monitoring rocky shore cryptofauna. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 60:963-975. National Research Council (NRC). 1990. Managing troubled waters: the role of marine environmental monitoring. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 125 pages. National Science Foundation (NSF). 1989. Loss of Biological Diversity: A Global Crisis Requiring International Solutions. A report to the National Science Board. Committe on International Science's task force on global biodiversity. Washington D.C., 19 pages. Nelson, W.G. 1990. Prospects for development of an index of biotic integrity for evaluating habitat degradation in coastal systems. Chemistry and Ecology:1-14. Oliver, J.S., J.M. Oakden., and P.N. Slattery. 1982. Phoxocephalid amphipod crustaceans as predators on larvae and juveniles in marine soft-bottom communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 7:179-184. Percy, J.A. 1976. Responses of arctic marine crustaceans to crude oil and oil-tainted food. Environmental Pollution 10:152-162. Ray, G.C., and J.F. Grassle. 1991. Marine biological diversity. Bioscience 41(7):453-469. Reish, D.R., and J.L. Barnard. 1979. Amphipods (Arthropoda:Crustacea:Amphipoda). In: Pollution ecology of estuarine invertebrates, C.W. Hart and S.L.H. Fuller, eds. Academic Press, New York. pp. 1-406. Roberts, L. 1988. Coral bleaching threatens Atlantic Reefs. Science 238:1228-1229. Roberts, L. 1991a. Greenhouse role in reef stress unproven. Science (253):258-259. Roberts, L. 1991b. Ranking the rain forests. Science (251):1559-1560. Sandberg, D.M., A.D. Michael, B. Brown., and R. Beebe-Center. 1972. Toxic effects of fuel oil on haustoriid amphipods and pagurid crabs. Biological Bulletin (Woods Hole, MA) 143:475-476. Schoener, A. 1974. Experimental zoogeography: colonization of marine mini-islands. American Naturalist 108:715-738. Schram, F.R. 1986. Crustacea. Oxford University Press, pp 1-606. Scott, K.J., and M.S. Redmond. 1989. The effects of a contaminated dredged material on laboratory populations of the tubificious amphipod Ampelisca abdita. in: Cougill and L.R. Williams, (eds.). Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment, Volume 12:289-303 Soulé, M.E. 1991. Conservation: Tactics for a constant crisis. Science (253):744-750. Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, J.K. Jones, J.O. Lamberson,, and F.A. Cole. 1985. Phoxocephalid amphipod bioassay for marine sediment toxicity, in, R.D. Cardwell, R. Purdy, and R.C. Bahner, (eds.). Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Seventh Symposium, 284-307. Philidelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Swartz, R.C. 1987. Toxicological methods for determing the effects of contaminated sediment on marine organisms. In: Fate and Effects of Sediment Bound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems, pp. 183-198. K.L. Dickson, A.W. Maki, and W.A. Brungs, eds. New York, Pergamon Press. Thomas, J.D., and J.L. Barnard. 1982. The Platyischnopidae of the Americas (Crustacea:Amphipoda). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 375:1-33. Thompson, B. A. and G. R. Fitzhugh. 1986. A use attainability study: an evaluation of fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages of the lower Calcasieu River, Louisiana Center for Wetlands Resources, Coastal Fisheries Institute, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LSU-CFI-29. pp. 1-143. Vobis, H. 1973. Rheotaktiches verhalten einiger Gammarus-arten bei verschiedenen sauerstoffgehald des Wassers. Helgol. Wiss. Meeresunters 25:495-508. Watling, L. 1983. Peracaridan disunity and its bearing on eumalacostracan phylogeny with a redefinition of eumalacostracan superorders. Crustaceana Issues 1:213-228. Widdowson, T.B. 1971. Changes in the intertidal algal flora of the Los Angeles area since the survey by E. Yale Dawson in 1956-1959. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Science 70:2-16. Williams, L.B., and E.H. Williams. 1990. Global Assualt on Coral Reefs. Natural History 4/90:47-54. Wilson. E.O. 1985. The biological diversity crisis. Bioscience 35(11)700-706.