Adopting and adapting macroinvertebrate ...

th

7 Australian Stream Management Conference - Full Paper

Adopting and adapting macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems: a review 1

2

3

Stitz, L , Fabbro, L and Kinnear, S

1 Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, [email protected] 2. Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, [email protected] 3. Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, [email protected]

Key Points • Climate change trends may result in changes to flow in all streams • Knowledge of the ecology of ephemeral streams is lacking compared to permanent streams • Using bioindicators to assess the health of permanent streams is widely used • Macroinvertebrate studies in ephemeral streams is understudied • It is not yet clear whether macroinvertebrates can be reliably used to assess stream health, with further research needed.

Abstract Ephemeral streams are waterways with poorly defined channels and episodic flow. Globally, the occurrence of ephemeral streams appears to be increasing due to drying trends driven by climate change, as well as a result of increased water abstraction. Simultaneously, these pressures result in increased vulnerability of ephemeral streams, as flow rates decline from intermittent to entirely absent. Despite this, ephemeral waterways are broadly neglected by ecologists, and no tailored measures are available to study the health of these systems. Traditional assessment methods applied to lotic or lentic environments include physicochemical analyses, often paired with the use of biological indicators. Due to abundance and diversity, sensitivity to changes in flow, water quality and toxicity aquatic macroinvertebrates are widely used as indicators of ecological condition. However, the theoretical base underpinning the use of macroinvertebrate protocols to assess waterway condition has generally been developed from studies of temperate, permanent waterways with few studies specific to tropical or subtropical ephemeral environments. To address the knowledge gap, this review examines the current state of knowledge regarding the health of ephemeral systems, focussing on Australian freshwaters. It also examines the applicable ecosystem health measures that may be transferable to ephemeral systems, with a focus on macroinvertbrates as bioindicator species.

Keywords Ephemeral, stream, bioindicators, macroinvertebrates, subtropical, Central Queensland, Australia.

Introduction The differences in limnological processes between outer tropical and temperate areas were first examined by Lewis during the 1980’s (Lewis Jr, 1987, 1996). Since then, research on tropical limnology has expanded and become more readily available. However, the literature is constrained by a focus on perennial streams which is problematic given that a substantial proportion of the total number, length and discharge of the world’s rivers are represented by systems that periodically cease to flow (Boulton & Brock, 1999; Boulton & Lake, 1992; Boulton et al., 1992; Bunn & Arthington, 2002; Steward et al., 2012). A lack of understanding therefore exists regarding the functioning of ephemeral streams, especially in outer tropical regions (Carmichael et al., 2001; Chessman & McEvoy, 2012; Hart et al., 2008; Horrigan et al., 2005; Steward et al., 2012). This gap must be addressed if the ecological condition or health of these streams is to be maintained and protected (Hart et al., 2008; Jones & Moss, 2011). Climate change forecasts for parts of eastern Australia indicate that in the coming decades, average temperatures will increase and rainfall will decrease (IPCC, 2007). Research has suggested that low flows have no detectable effect on perennial stream macroinvertebrate communities; however flow cessation, pool formation and streambed drying may alter community composition (Young et al., 2011). Whilst biotic Stitz, L., Fabbro, L. & Kinnear, S. (2014). Adopting and adapting macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems: a review, in Vietz, G; Rutherfurd, I.D, and Hughes, R. (editors), Proceedings of the 7th Australian Stream Management Conference. Townsville, Queensland, Pages 469-477. 469

7ASM Full Paper Stitz et. al. –Macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems components of ephemeral systems have evolved to cope with natural periods of no flow, anthropogenic induced changes to stream hydrology may place ephemeral ecosystems under additional pressure. Whilst water abstraction places pressures on stream ecosystems, increased water input, such as discharge from mining operations present added pressure to ephemeral streams. Receiving increased flow during periods of otherwise dry spells can alter macroinvertebrate community composition and encourage invasion by non-native species resulting in further degradation to communities that have adapted their life cycles to periods of low or no flow (Bunn & Arthington, 2002; Larned et al., 2010). Larned (2010) reported that temporary streams are a distinct class of ecosystem, rather than hydrologically challenged perennial rivers and therefore a management objective should be the preservation or restoration of natural flow regimes where possible (Steward et al., 2012). As a result there is a need for waterway managers to identify and prioritise values of ephemeral waterways as ecological flow requirements for perennial rivers have been studied and refined for decades, but comparable studies of temporary rivers are at an early developmental stage (Hughes, 2005; Larned et al., 2010).

Defining Ephemeral Streams Terms used to classify streams and rivers based on hydrological patterns are: • • •

Permanent streams and rivers: those that have perennial flow in most years, but may cease flowing during extreme droughts (Bêche et al., 2006; Bonada et al., 2007; Bond et al., 2008). Intermittent streams: generally having a defined channel, these flow predictably for more than several months each year, or year-round in the case of a wet annum. Some authors further divide this category based on the length of the flow period (Boulton & Brock, 1999) Ephemeral streams: those waterways with typically poorly defined channels that flow unpredictably and only after heavy rainfall (Bêche et al., 2006; Bonada et al., 2007; Bond et al., 2008).

For the purposes of this review, ephemeral streams are those which are affected by seasonal rainfall and flow events. Streams that periodically cease to flow comprise a substantial proportion of the total number, length and discharge of the world’s rivers (Steward et al., 2012). In Australia, most ephemeral streams are found in tropical areas, although first order or headwater streams of temperate southern regions are also prone to intermittent flow (Bond et al., 2008). The degree of flow permanency varies greatly with climate; streams in the Australian wet tropics almost always flow seasonally, following wet season rainfall. Larned et al ( 2010) has been suggested, that globally, there will be greater future pressures placed on ephemeral and intermittent streams due to climate change. Whilst historic data regarding changes in flow has not been considered, predictions have suggested a trend towards lower flows in many waterways at lower latitudes and not just at higher altitudes. Increased awareness of the importance of understanding ephemeral streams has become apparent with a greater understanding of the ecological importance of these systems.

Increased Occurrence of Ephemeral Streams Increasing pressures on surface water resources from climate change and human population growth are driving new issues surrounding water security, and the need to better understand and manage freshwater systems. This is particularly true of regional limnological processes, as different regional zones experience unique challenges due to climatic differences and seasonal rainfall pressures. Historically, much limnological work has been on temperate rather than tropical environments (Bond et al., 2008; Boulton & Brock, 1999) Studies of outer tropical regions such as those on the tropics of Capricorn and Cancer have received little attention despite these being hydrologically dynamic freshwater systems (Bêche et al., 2006; Bonada et al., 2007; Sheldon, 2005). For example, studies relating to Australian dryland rivers and streams have been completed in the central, arid zones but are almost non-existent in outer tropical regions such as the Fitzroy Catchment, the second largest catchment on the east coast (Chessman et al., 2010; Chester & Robson, 2011; Robson et al., 2011; Sheldon, 2005).

Stitz, L., Fabbro, L. & Kinnear, S. (2014). Adopting and adapting macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems: a review, in Vietz, G; Rutherfurd, I.D, and Hughes, R. (editors), Proceedings of the 7th Australian Stream Management Conference. Townsville, Queensland, Pages 469-477. 470

7ASM Full Paper Stitz et. al. –Macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems

Dry river beds created by the wetting cycles of temporary streams are ecologically important due to their unique diversity of aquatic, amphibious and terrestrial biota (Steward et al., 2012). Some authors suggest that drying of pools in temporary river networks could have driven the evolution of aquatic organisms onto land through providing the opportunity to develop desiccation resistance and dormancy as survival mechanisms (Bonada et al., 2007; Steward et al., 2012).

The Hydrology of Ephemeral Streams Ephemeral streams alternate between varying states of flow and periods of drying. In Northern Australia, the winter dry season features low to no rainfall and many streams cease to flow. Periods of prolonged dry conditions often results in the streams contracting to a series of isolated pool sections which reconnected during high flow periods linked to the wet summer season. As ephemeral streams are rewetted, the initial flow pulse is described as an advancing front. This brings with it not only water, but a pulse of nutrient enrichment from upstream (Bond et al., 2008) which triggers a range of biological processes that shift streams from heterotrophic to autotrophic systems (Boulton & Brock, 1999). Once ephemeral streams are rewetted, flow periods can be maintained from several weeks to several months depending on the amount of rainfall catchments receive during this time, in stream processes typically remain relatively stable (Boulton & Brock, 1999) are more dependent on what is occurring within the immediate stream reach, rather than from upstream processes (Bunn & Arthington, 2002). Inevitably however, stream water begins to soak into sediments, the groundwater table begins to dry out and evaporation occurs (Boulton & Brock, 1999) signalling the onset of the drying phase. This flux between wetting and drying has led to a range of biota uniquely adapted to these changing conditions (Bêche et al., 2006; Bonada et al., 2007; Bond et al., 2008).

The Biology of Ephemeral Streams Biological communities within streams and rivers are driven by energy resources derived from outside the stream itself and from within the water channel through photosynthesis of microscopic (algae) and macroscopic plants (Boulton & Brock, 1999). Energy resources obtained from outside the stream include dissolved organic substances, present in surface and subsurface flows and groundwater, and particulate organic matter, especially detritus of plant origin (Boulton & Brock, 1999). Flow dynamics are important in influencing the structure of biological aquatic ecosystems. It has been suggested that aquatic biota are often adapted to the natural low-flow regime in the areas in which they occur. A summary of the processes and effects of these processes on driving changes in macroinvertebrate populations is found in Table 1. This contrasts with the impacts of low flows within more perennial systems where biota is not as well adapted to low flows (Boulton & Brock, 1999). However, few studies have focused on the adaptation of macroinvertebrates to reduced flow in ephemeral streams (Boulton & Lake, 1992; Leigh, 2013; Stubbington et al., 2009; Young et al., 2011).

Stitz, L., Fabbro, L. & Kinnear, S. (2014). Adopting and adapting macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems: a review, in Vietz, G; Rutherfurd, I.D, and Hughes, R. (editors), Proceedings of the 7th Australian Stream Management Conference. Townsville, Queensland, Pages 469-477. 471

7ASM Full Paper Stitz et. al. –Macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems Table 1. Expected seasonal processes in temporary streams and their impact on instream biota (Variables as for wetlands and dryland rivers). Information summarised from Bonada et al., 2007; Boulton & Brock 1999; Boulton & Lake 1992; Larned et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2004). Advancing flow front

Nutrient concentrations Water temperature Dissolved Oxygen pH Conductivity Salinity phytoplankton Macrophytes Invertebrates Invertebrate Taxa present

Main flow

Drying

Dry /pools

High from runoff and sediment release

Decline

Increases possible(high N P, low Nitrate Nitrite SRP)

sediment bound

cooler

ambient

warmer

hottest

supersaturated

remains high

Becomes lower

Low(est)

increases

remains stable

begins to decrease

Low(est)

decreases

remains low

begins to increase

highest

decreases Reproduce

remains low may reach bloom proportions

begins to increase Dominated by nitrogenfixing cyanobacteria

highest Appearance of resistant spores, propagules

Germinate, grow,

reproduce, seed bank

seed bank, tubers

Seed banks only or absent

Pioneer Species

Core species Trichoptera, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Odonata etc

Tolerant lotic species

absent

Hemiptera, Diptera, Coleoptera

absent

Diptera, Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera

Existing freshwater health assessment methods for streams The application of guidelines to ephemeral waters is problematic. The ANZECC Guidelines highlight the lack of data on these stream types, but offer little advice on how to address the issue (2000). Regional water quality guidelines have been set in some ephemeral stream regions (e.g. Isaac Catchment) and these documents confirm the requirement for further investigation due to a lack of baseline data (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2009 & 2011). A healthy waterway can be described as one that is similar to an unimpacted waterway of the same type in its natural state (in terms of its water quality, biological diversity and ecological functioning), has a stable condition which changes seasonally but has the capacity for self-repair when disturbed. River health assessment is a way of examining waterways using tools such as water quality, habitat descriptions, biological monitoring, and flow characteristics to create an overall picture of the ecological health of that waterway. The concept of using aquatic macroinvertebrates as indicators of disturbance and biomonitoring the health of freshwater streams dates from early 1900s, but has evolved in the past 20 years to the point where it has been adopted by most countries (Chessman & McEvoy, 2012; Hellawell, 1986; Li et al., 2010). Ephemeral streams are only now emerging as important components of overall catchment health, and to date have been largely absent from waterway management plans (Steward et al., 2012). For example, the ANZECC water quality guidelines (ANZECC, 2000) do not address the difficulties associated with monitoring temporary or ephemeral streams, and default trigger values provided by ANZECC are based on steady state water conditions. There are recommendations for regional guidelines to be developed and this has recently occurred in Central Queensland. Unfortunately the use of macroinvertebrates as bioindicators in Central Queensland has not yet been adopted as a useful tool and further studies are recommended (Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2009; Hart et al., 2008). The European Union Water Framework Directive requires rivers to be classified in order to apply appropriate management plans, but temporary rivers are not recognised in Water Framework classifications (Logan & Furse, 2002). In the United States, litigants have sought to exclude temporary rivers from the protection afforded by the Clean Water Act (Nadeau & Rains, 2007). Failed efforts to improve temporary rivers are indicative of the poor state of knowledge about them (Larned et al., 2010). For example, flow augmentation has been used to improve intermittent (ephemeral) rivers by creating perennial flow (Cluett, 2005; Wolff et al., 1989).

Stitz, L., Fabbro, L. & Kinnear, S. (2014). Adopting and adapting macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems: a review, in Vietz, G; Rutherfurd, I.D, and Hughes, R. (editors), Proceedings of the 7th Australian Stream Management Conference. Townsville, Queensland, Pages 469-477. 472

7ASM Full Paper Stitz et. al. –Macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems Considering ephemeral rivers and streams play an important role as a source of biodiversity, the management of these waterways is an important priority. Recent research has indicated that ephemeral and temporary streams and dry river beds have unique environmental diversity and should be recognised as important elements and be included in catchment health assessments and biodiversity and conservation planning (Steward et al., 2012). Although several studies have indicated that ephemeral and temporary systems require unique protocols (Larned et al., 2010) waterway managers generally apply perennial river management principles to temporary rivers. At the local scale ephemeral streams are poorly represented in existing river health monitoring programs used in Victoria and inclusion of ephemeral streams in monitoring programs requires modifications to existing sampling protocols (Eaton et al., 2005).

Macroinvertebrates as bio-indicators of stream health Freshwater macroinvertebrates are widely used as bioindicators in perennial freshwaters as they have limited mobility are sensitive to disturbances and changes in water quality and different species have different degrees of stress tolerance (Molozzi et al., 2012). The concept of macroinvertebrates as indicators of disturbance and other ecological processes dates from early 1900s (Hellawell, 1986) but has varied in popularity. Macroinvertebrates continue to be used in waterway assessment as community structure often adequately reflects many stream processes, particularly in permanent stream systems (Kaller & Hartman, 2004; Usseglio-Polatera et al., 2000). The effects on populations of flow disturbance in temperate regions in Australia have indicated that there are specific patterns in population shifts. Boulton and Lake (1992) reported that a few weeks after stream flow resumed, species richness increased steadily over time and peaked in stream riffle sections just before flow ceased. Boulton and Lake (1992) reported maximum species richness occurred in the pools shortly after stream flow stopped, implying emigration from drying riffle zones. Additional peaks in total numbers were recorded in autumn when flow commenced and again in late summer as flow diminished. In contrast Acuña et al. (2005) reported macroinvertebrates were more abundant in Brazilian tropical streams during the late wet phase and in the drying phase and Rocha et al.(2012) found in Mediterranean streams highest biotic diversity was recorded from low water levels as the stream dried and contracted. Further studies are required in order to understand the dynamics of macroinvertebrate population changes in ephemeral streams. Bunn & Arthington (2002) state that there is some recognition of the relationships between drying and macroinvertebrate populations, despite this, ecologists still struggle to predict and quantify biotic responses to altered flow regimes. Evidence about how rivers function in relation to flow regime and the flows that aquatic organisms require exists largely as a series of untested hypotheses (Bunn & Arthington, 2002).

A summary of Australian Assessment Methods Several methods of analyses using aquatic macroinvertebrates are commonly applied to assess stream biodiversity, health and impacts of pollution and land use change with analyses ranging from simple abundance measures to more complex multi-metric approaches. Macroinvertebrate diversity indices combine richness, dominance and/or evenness of taxa distribution and whilst these offer a relatively quick method of assessment application of diversity indices may summarise community structure to such an extent that much useful information is lost (Winterbourn, 1999). Another approach for assessment is the use of similarity indices which make comparison of assemblage composition (qualitative or quantitative) between sites. This multimetric approach involves application of a variety of indices simultaneously, to summarise environmental and biological conditions of a site (Bailey et al., 2004). Most biomonitoring methods of aquatic systems are based on the Reference Condition Approach (reference) which compares macroinvertebrate community structure observed at site to an expected community structure that would likely be present in the absence of anthropogenic disturbances (Bailey et al., 2004; Norris & Hawkins, 2000;Winterbourn, 1999). However this approach is limited when there is a lack or absence of reference sites for which comparison is based upon (reference).

Stitz, L., Fabbro, L. & Kinnear, S. (2014). Adopting and adapting macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems: a review, in Vietz, G; Rutherfurd, I.D, and Hughes, R. (editors), Proceedings of the 7th Australian Stream Management Conference. Townsville, Queensland, Pages 469-477. 473

7ASM Full Paper Stitz et. al. –Macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems

Biological traits as a monitoring and assessment tool Aquatic macroinvertebrates are generally classified taxonomically, but they can also be classified according to biological traits. For example, this might include functional feeding groups, which are classed according to feeding habits (e.g. scrapers, shredders, filter feeders, predators) as well as by the type of diet they consume (herbivores, detritivore, omnivores and carnivores)(Bonada et al., 2007; Winterbourn, 1999). Other methods of classification can include by size, locomotion, respiration, reproduction and life cycle stage (Bêche, et al., 2006; Bonada et al., 2007; Robson et al., 2011; Verberk et al., 2010). Chessman (2010) states that “current macroinvertebrate-based methods for assessing the 'condition' or 'health' of Australian dryland rivers are inadequate”, and that such assessments might be improved with: • • • • •

reference data that take adequate account of antecedent hydrological conditions, consideration of long-term taxonomic richness as well as richness on individual sampling occasions, evaluation of invertebrate population sizes, analysis of assemblage data by trait composition and adoption of the genus as the default level of taxonomic resolution (Chessman et al., 2010).

In terms of biological trait groups, in temperate streams it was found that generalist feeders were usually abundant throughout the year and scraper densities rose in late spring-early summer in conjunction with enhanced periphyton growth; predator numbers steadily increased during the year, peaking in all habitats just before they dried (Boulton & Lake, 1992). In Brazil, Chironomid larvae were the most abundant group of insects in the intermittent (ephemeral) streams studied and their response to flow was similar to the macroinvertebrate fauna as a whole (Rocha et al., 2012). Once remnant pools remain, the environment within refuges becomes increasingly harsh, with only tolerant generalists being able to survive (Young et al., 2011). Analysis of macroinvertebrate assemblage data by trait composition rather than taxonomic composition might be useful for assessment of impacts of altered hydrology on Australian dryland rivers (Chessman et al., 2010). As documented by Chessman (2010) in the Northern Hemisphere, trait composition was found to vary with differences in hydrology, both among rivers (Bonada et al., 2007; Bonada et al., 2007; Horrigan & Baird, 2008) and between wet and dry periods within rivers (Bêche et al., 2006). A potential constraint on the use of traits in Australian studies is that many Australian freshwater invertebrate species are endemic, and their traits are not well documented. However, many Australian genera and families also occur in the Northern Hemisphere, and it is possible that traits are sufficiently conservative within these higher taxa that compilations of their traits in North America or Europe could be transferable to Australia. A possible advantage of trait-based analysis is that it might provide insight into the mechanisms by which hydrological alteration impacts on invertebrate assemblages, for example by highlighting the traits that make particular taxa vulnerable to such alteration (Chessman et al. 2010). Bonada et al. (2007) state that using biological traits to characterise environmental conditions has advantages because traits are independent of current taxonomic constraints and this may allow for global predictions of stream health.

Further research Larned et al (2010) states that although there has been an increase in ephemeral stream research it now needs to be supported by new models that generate hypotheses and stimulate further research. The proposed framework given in figure 1 demonstrates the key information gaps and the linkages between those knowledge gaps, based on the review of literature provided above. This demonstrates that future research areas on the topic of ephemeral stream health should focus on better understanding of the ecology of ephemeral streams in order to provide further understanding of these systems. This will lead to a better management practices with tailored models and tests to assess the health of ephemeral streams.

Stitz, L., Fabbro, L. & Kinnear, S. (2014). Adopting and adapting macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems: a review, in Vietz, G; Rutherfurd, I.D, and Hughes, R. (editors), Proceedings of the 7th Australian Stream Management Conference. Townsville, Queensland, Pages 469-477. 474

7ASM Full Paper Stitz et. al. –Macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems Freshwater Streams Ecology Tropical ephemeral streams understudied, poorly understood

Increasing pressures from industry, abstraction and natural dynamics

e.g. higher or lower water quality

Health Assessment

Management

Increase of ephemerality expected in permanent flowing streams worldwide

Model the effects of drying on ecology and WQ

Management based on steady state systems and from studies of southern sites in Australia

Lack of information regarding biological indicators of ephemeral streams

Chemical and physical assessment

Biological Indicators Macroinvertebrates Methods of assessment

Trait composition e.g. feeding groups

Inform managers Research effects on biological communities

Traditional analyses and indices using taxonomy (PET, SIGNAL, AUSRIVAS)

Development of new models and tools for ephemeral streams

Don’t work well in ephemeral streams?

Better management practice and sustainable ephemeral stream ecosystems!

Figure 1: A conceptual model examining the knowledge gaps (blue boxes) existing in freshwater ephemeral streams and health assessment of those systems.

Acknowledgements The Authors wish to thank the Coal Minesite Rehabilitation Trust Fund (QRC) and CQUniversity for funding and support.

References Acuña, V., Muñoz, I., Giorgi, A., Omella, M., Sabater, F., & Sabater, S. (2005). Drought and postdrought recovery cycles in an intermittent Mediterranean stream: Structural and functional aspects. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24(4), 919-933.

ANZECC 2000, Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000, Australian and New Zealand Environment Council, National Water Quality Management Strategy, Canberra. Bailey, R., Norris, R., & Reynoldson, T. (2004). Bioassessment of Freshwater Ecosystems Using the Reference Condition Approach. USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bêche, L. A., McElravy, E. P., & Resh, V. H. (2006). Long-term seasonal variation in the biological traits of benthicmacroinvertebrates in two Mediterranean-climate streams in California, U.S.A. Freshwater Biology, 51(1), 56-75.

Bonada, N., Dolédec, S., & Statzner, B. (2007). Taxonomic and biological trait differences of stream macroinvertebrate communities between mediterranean and temperate regions: Implications for future climatic scenarios. Global Change Biology, 13(8), 1658-1671. Bonada, N., Prat, N., Resh, V. H., & Statzner, B. (2006) Developments in aquatic insect biomonitoring: A comparative analysis of recent approaches. Vol. 51 (pp. 495-523). Bonada, N., Rieradevall, M., & Prat, N. (2007). Macroinvertebrate community structure and biological traits related to flow permanence in a Mediterranean river network. Hydrobiologia, 589(1), 91-106. Bond, N. R., Lake, P. S., & Arthington, A. H. (2008). The impacts of drought on freshwater ecosystems: An Australian perspective. Hydrobiologia, 1-14. Boulton, A., & Brock, M. (1999). Australian Freshwater Ecology: Processes and Management. South Australia: Gleneagles Publishing. Boulton, A., & Lake, P. (1992). Benthic organic matter and detritivorous macroinvertebrates in two intermittent streams in south-eastern Australia. Hydrobiologia, 241(2), 107-118. Boulton, A. J., & Brock, M. A. (1999). Australian Freshwater Ecology, Processes and Management. South Australia: GLeneagles Publishing. Boulton, A. J., & Lake, P. S. (1992). Benthic organic matter and detritivorous macroinvertebrates in two intermittent streams in south-eastern Australia. Hydrobiologia, 241(2), 107-118. Boulton, A. J., Peterson, C. G., Grimm, N. B., & Fisher, S. G. (1992). Stability of an aquatic macroinvertebrate community in a multiyear hydrologic disturbance regime. Ecology, 73(6), 2192-2207.

Stitz, L., Fabbro, L. & Kinnear, S. (2014). Adopting and adapting macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems: a review, in Vietz, G; Rutherfurd, I.D, and Hughes, R. (editors), Proceedings of the 7th Australian Stream Management Conference. Townsville, Queensland, Pages 469-477. 475

7ASM Full Paper Stitz et. al. –Macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems Bunn, S. E., & Arthington, A. H. (2002). Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management, 30(4), 492-507. Carmichael, W. W., Azevedo, S. M. F. O., An, J. S., Molica, R. J. R., Jochimsen, E. M., Lau, S., Eaglesham, G. K. (2001). Human fatalities form cyanobacteria: Chemical and biological evidence for cyanotoxins. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(7), 663-668. Chessman, B. C. (2003). New sensitivity grades for Australian river macroinvertebrates. Marine and Freshwater Research, 54(2), 95-103. Chessman, B. C., Jones, H. A., Searle, N. K., Growns, I. O., & Pearson, M. R. (2010). Assessing effects of flow alteration on macroinvertebrate assemblages in Australian dryland rivers. Freshwater Biology, 55(8), 1780-1800. Chessman, B. C., & McEvoy, P. K. (2012). Insights into human impacts on streams from tolerance profiles of macroinvertebrate assemblages. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 223(3), 1343-1352. Chester, E. T., & Robson, B. J. (2011). Drought refuges, spatial scale and recolonisation by invertebrates in nonperennial streams. Freshwater Biology, 56(10), 2094-2104. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2011.02644.x Cluett, L. (2005). The role of flooding in morphological changes in the regulated Lower Ord River in tropical northwestern Australia. River Research and Applications, 21(2-3), 215-227. Department of Environment and Resource Management. (2009). Queensland Water Quality Guidelines, Version 3. Department of Environment and Resource Management (2011), Environmental Protection (water) Policy 2009, Isaac River Sub-basin Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives, Basin No 130 (part), including all waters of the Isaac River Subbasin (including Connors River). Dunlop, J. E., Horrigan, N., McGregor, G., Kefford, B. J., Choy, S., & Prasad, R. (2008). Effect of spatial variation on salinity tolerance of macroinvertebrates in Eastern Australia and implications for ecosystem protection trigger values. Environmental Pollution, 151(3), 621-630.

Eaton, A, Clesceri, L, Rice, E & Greenberg, A (eds) 2005, Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 21st edition, American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Environmental Federation, Washington. Hart, B., Greenfield, P., & Pascoe, M. (2008). Review of the Fitzroy River water quality issues. Clayton, Australia: Water Science Pty Ltd and Water Studies Centre, Monash University, University of Queensland, & International Water Centre.

Hellawell, J. M. (1986). Biological Indicators of Freshwater Pollution and Environmental Management. Elsevier, London, 546. Horrigan, N., Choy, S., Marshall, J., & Recknagel, F. (2005). Response of stream macroinvertebrates to changes in salinity and the development of a salinity index. Marine and Freshwater Research, 56(6), 825-833. Hughes, D. A. (2005). Hydrological issues associated with the determination of environmental water requirements of ephemeral rivers. River Research and Applications, 21(8), 899-908.

IPCC 2007, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Climatic Change, Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ publications_and_data_reports. html Jones, M-A., & Moss, A. (2011). Developing water quality guidelines for the protection of the freshwater aquatic ecosystems in the Fitzroy Basin. Brisbane.

Kaller, M. D., & Hartman, K. J. (2004). Evidence of a threshold level of fine sediment accumulation for altering benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Hydrobiologia, 518(1-3), 95-104. Kefford, B. J., Schäfer, R. B., & Metzeling, L. (2012). Risk assessment of salinity and turbidity in Victoria (Australia) to stream insects' community structure does not always protect functional traits. Science of The Total Environment, 415(0), 61-68. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.056 Larned, S. T., Datry, T., Arscott, D. B., & Tockner, K. (2010). Emerging concepts in temporary-river ecology. Freshwater Biology, 55(4), 717-738. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02322.x Leigh, C. (2013). Dry-season changes in macroinvertebrate assemblages of highly seasonal rivers: Responses to low flow, no flow and antecedent hydrology. Hydrobiologia, 703(1), 95-112. Lewis Jr, W. M. (1987). Tropical limnology. Annual review of ecology and systematics. Vol. 18, 159-184. Lewis Jr, W. M. (1996). Tropical lakes: how latitude makes a difference. Perspectives in tropical limnology, 4364. Li, L., Zheng, B., & Liu, L. (2010). Biomonitoring and bioindicators used for river ecosystems: Definitions, approaches and trends.

Stitz, L., Fabbro, L. & Kinnear, S. (2014). Adopting and adapting macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems: a review, in Vietz, G; Rutherfurd, I.D, and Hughes, R. (editors), Proceedings of the 7th Australian Stream Management Conference. Townsville, Queensland, Pages 469-477. 476

7ASM Full Paper Stitz et. al. –Macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems Logan, P., & Furse, M. (2002). Preparing for the European Water Framework Directive - Making the links between habitat and aquatic biota. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 12(4), 425437. Molozzi, J., Feio, M. J., Salas, F., Marques, J. C., & Callisto, M. (2012). Development and test of a statistical model for the ecological assessment of tropical reservoirs based on benthic macroinvertebrates. Ecological Indicators, 23, 155-165. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.03.023 Nadeau, T. L., & Rains, M. C. (2007). Hydrological connectivity between headwater streams and downstream waters: How science can inform policy. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 43(1), 118133. Norris, R. H., & Hawkins, C. P. (2000). Monitoring river health. Hydrobiologia, 435(1), 5-17. doi: 10.1023/a:1004176507184 Prasad, R., Vink, S., Mann, R., Nanjappa, V., & Choy, S. (2012). Assessing the Ecotoxocology of Salinity on Organisms in Seasonally Flowing Streams in the Fitzroy Catchment: ACARP Project C18033 Extension. Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Queensland Government. Robson, B. J., Chester, E. T., & Austin, C. M. (2011). Why life history information matters: Drought refuges and macroinvertebrate persistence in non-perennial streams subject to a drier climate. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62(7), 801-810. doi: 10.1071/mf10062 Rocha, L. G., Medeiros, E. S. F., & Andrade, H. T. A. (2012). Influence of flow variability on macroinvertebrate assemblages in an intermittent stream of semi-arid Brazil. Journal of Arid Environments, 85, 33-40. Sheldon, F. (2005). Incorporating natural variability into the assessment of ecological health in Australian dryland rivers. Hydrobiologia, 552(1), 45-56. Steward, A. L., von Schiller, D., Tockner, K., Marshall, J. C., & Bunn, S. E. (2012). When the river runs dry: human and ecological values of dry riverbeds. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(4), 202-209. doi: 10.1890/110136 Stubbington, R., Wood, P. J., & Boulton, A. J. (2009). Low flow controls on benthic and hyporheic macroinvertebrate assemblages during supra-seasonal drought. Hydrological Processes, 23(15), 22522263. doi: 10.1002/hyp.7290 Usseglio-Polatera, P., Bournaud, M., Richoux, P., & Tachet, H. (2000). Biomonitoring through biological traits of benthic macroinvertebrates: How to use species trait databases? Hydrobiologia, 422-423, 153-162. Winterbourn, M. J. (1999). Monitoring for sustainable river ecosystem management and the role of macroinvertebrates. In: The Use of Macroinvertebrates in Water Management: Recommendations of the New Zealand Macroinvertebrate Working Group. . Wellington: Ministry for the Environment. Wolff, S. W., Wesche, T. A., & Hubert, W. A. (1989). Stream channel and habitat changes due to flow augmentation. Regulated Rivers - Research & Management, 4(3), 225-233. Young, B. A., Norris, R. H., & Sheldon, F. (2011). Is the hyporheic zone a refuge for macroinvertebrates in drying perennial streams? Marine and Freshwater Research, 62(12), 1373-1382. doi: 10.1071/mf11060

Stitz, L., Fabbro, L. & Kinnear, S. (2014). Adopting and adapting macroinvertebrate measures for health assessments of ephemeral freshwater systems: a review, in Vietz, G; Rutherfurd, I.D, and Hughes, R. (editors), Proceedings of the 7th Australian Stream Management Conference. Townsville, Queensland, Pages 469-477. 477