Assessment of macroinvertebrate communities within Buell Brook
at the Rutgers University Ecological Preserve
By: Julia Cancro, Sheyla Casco, Stephanie Guillen-Padilla, Melissa Tucker
Abstract
The presence of particular macroinvertebrate taxa in an aquatic ecosystem often provides insight
into the water quality in that region (Oliveira and Castillo, 2010). In this study, we assess the
abundance and richness of macroinvertebrate species at four sites within Buell Brook at the
Rutgers University Ecological Preserve (RUEP). In doing so, we hope to gain an understanding
of macroinvertebrate community assemblages at different temporal and spatial scales, and
ultimately, what this may mean in regards to the water quality of this ecosystem. Water quality
was separately evaluated based on the following parameters: temperature, salinity, conductivity,
and velocity. Additionally, data was collected regarding macroinvertebrate abundance and
richness at two time points: more than 3 days after a major rain event, and within 24 hours of a
major rain event. The results of our study provide some evidence of increased pollution traveling
upstream (toward Livingston Campus), though, we recommend conducting further analyses
regarding water quality and macroinvertebrate assessments prior to making management
recommendations.
Introduction
Considering the expansion of urbanization, many aquatic ecosystems are becoming closer to
developed lands, and subsequently, to sources of pollution. One of the first efforts made by the
government to address the pollution of our waterways was the implementation of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act in 1948 (“History of Clean Water Act”, 2023). In 1972, as
awareness of water pollution and its effects on aquatic ecosystems grew, this Act was amended
and is known today as the Clean Water Act (CWA). Among these amendments included a more
stringent policy on regulating discharge, whether it is from industrial, or individual sources. The
effects of pollution, however, are not always felt directly. As such, these amendments also
included plans to address non-point source pollution, which has no discrete origin. Non-point
source pollution may include nutrients from livestock waste, atmospheric deposition, and
fertilizers. These man-made pollutants are typically carried into aquatic ecosystems via runoff
(“History of Clean Water Act”, 2023).
Typical sources of pollution in aquatic systems include discharge from agricultural, industrial,
and domestic sources (Xu et al., 2013). Over the years, in an effort to determine the degree to
which aquatic ecosystems are affected by pollution, surveys of water quality have been
conducted. In the Raritan River in particular, measures of water quality have been taken for
many years in an attempt to quantify the effects of pollution influx across varying spatial and
temporal scales (Rodenburg, 2012). Numerous tributaries, including Buell Brook, flow into the
Raritan River. Because of the large area of land that is developed in New Jersey, these tributaries
are typically within close proximity to urbanized areas. As such, they tend to contain
concentrations of dissolved oxygen, nitrate, phosphate, chlorophyll a, dissolved organic carbon,
etc. that differ significantly from those that might be measured from a very healthy stream
(distant from urbanized lands). Water quality assessments, in which we measure the
aforementioned parameters, are often useful to conduct along with macroinvertebrate
assessments. As Xu et al. (2013) discuss, doing such chemical and biological assessments
together is important, as the results of each may not always be in agreement.
The biota that are present in aquatic ecosystems are reflective of the stressors that plague their
environments. In particular, macroinvertebrates serve as useful bioindicators, in that, the
presence of particular taxa within a stream provides insight into the health of this aquatic
ecosystem (Oliveira and Castillo, 2010). Macroinvertebrates typically feed on living or
decomposing organics in the water column and may be consumed by other invertebrates, as well
as vertebrates (Oliveira and Castillo, 2010). As such, they play an important role in community
function and trophic structure (Oliveira and Castillo, 2010). They are useful as bioindicators for
the following reasons: they typically spend most of their lives in water, they are not very mobile,
and they are easy to identify (“Indicators: Benthic macroinvertebrates”, 2023). In healthy
waterways, we typically find a high abundance and richness of macroinvertebrates (“Indicators:
Benthic macroinvertebrates”, 2023). Alternatively, in areas with high levels of pollution, there
tends to be homogenization of the macroinvertebrate community, with primarily the
pollution-tolerant species being those that dominate the community here (Xu et al. 2013).
The objectives of this study include: 1) determine the water quality parameters present at all
sites, 2) assess the correlations between proximity to urbanization and macroinvertebrate
community assemblage, and 3) evaluate the effects of rainfall on macroinvertebrate community
assemblage. We hypothesize the following: 1.) Macroinvertebrate communities at sites farther
upstream, will have a lower species richness, and a greater abundance of pollution-tolerant
species than those at sites farther downstream, and 2.) Macroinvertebrate species abundance and
richness will be lower at all sites after a major rainfall event.
Methods
One of the first steps taken in this study was to establish four sites within Buell Brook at the
RUEP (Figure 1). This was done using ArcGIS, and the coordinates were recorded for each
location (Table 5). Each site was designated a letter (A-D), with A being the site farthest
downstream, and D being the site farthest upstream). Site D, farthest upstream, was the most
proximate to Livingston Campus at Rutgers University. Materials needed for sampling included:
a water quality meter, kick net, fine sifting net, measuring tape, empty water bottle, stopwatch,
USDA SVAP protocol, and a field datasheet (Figure 3). These materials were obtained from Dr.
Richard Lathrop of Rutgers University. Data were collected at two different time points: >3 days
after a rain event, and ≥24 hours after a rain event. On each day of data collection, the site
farthest downstream was sampled first. This was done to prevent data collection at one site from
interfering with that of another site, farther downstream. On the first day of data collection,
images of each site were taken (Figure 2).
The methods of data collection were the same on both days of sampling and at each site. Upon
arriving at each site, a 6-foot reach was established. Then, the following data was recorded: the
time, weather conditions, air temperature, river appearance, adjacent land use, width and depth of
the reach, velocity, water temperature, salinity, conductivity, stream substrate, canopy cover, and
hours since last rain (Figure 3). The Weather Channel App was used to measure the air
temperature. To measure the width, depth, and velocity of the water, a tape measure was used.
The width of the active water channel was measured at the center of our 6-foot reach and the
depth was measured in the center of the active channel. For the velocity of the water, the tape
measure was stretched out to 4 feet and the empty water bottle was placed on one end. This
water bottle was released, and a stopwatch started. The stopwatch was stopped once the bottle
reached the end of the 4-foot stretch: the velocity was then recorded on the datasheet in feet per
second (Figure 3). A YSI water quality meter was used to measure water temperature, salinity,
and conductivity.
To measure macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity, the kicknet was dragged roughly 1 inch
below the bottom substrate in the stream reach, for a total of 10 seconds. This was done twice at
each site: once in the center of the stream, and once within the portion of the stream that
appeared to have the lowest velocity (i.e. where there was less significant adjacent bank erosion).
We then took this kicknet from the water and sifted through the substrate to see which
macroinvertebrates we could find. The fine sifting net was used if the substrate was too difficult
to sift through by hand. The USDA (1998) protocol was used to identify macroinvertebrates
within the stream. Using the protocol recommended by Stark et al. (2001), macroinvertebrates
were observed by two samplers at each site, and on each day of data collection, and classified
accordingly. This was done so that macroinvertebrates did not lose their integrity by handling (as
compared to doing two successive identifications), and also to ensure the highest possible
accuracy of identification (Stark et al., 2001). Data were recorded on the datasheet (Figure 3).
This sediment was deposited back into this stream reach, and the kicknet was cleaned completely
before sampling at the next site. Upon collecting all data, data was input into a Google Sheets
spreadsheet (Figures 4-7). Data were analyzed to determine if differences in macroinvertebrate
abundance and diversity were present between sites and between both days of sampling.
Results
In regards to water quality parameters, on both of our visits, the water temperature increased
with decreasing distance to the culvert on Livingston Campus (Tables 1 & 2). On the first
sampling trip, which took place >3 days after a major rain event, Site A had a temperature of
13.8 oC, and Site D, of 20.9 oC (Table 1). On the second sampling trip, which took place within
24 hours of a major rain event, Site A had a temperature of 15.4 oC, and Site D, of 18.3 oC.
Percent of the canopy that was covered does not appear to be a factor in this temperature
increase, as the percentages varied widely between the sites, whereas there was a steady increase
in temperature from Site A to Site D on both visits (Tables 1 & 2).
On the first sampling trip, salinity increased from 0.15 ppt at Site A to 0.30 ppt at Site D (Table
1). On the second sampling trip, salinity increased from 0.10 ppt at Site A to 0.20 ppt at Site D
(Table 2). Salinity was lower at every site on the second sampling trip (≤24 hours of a major rain
event) as compared to the first sampling trip (>3 days after a major rain event) (Tables 1 & 2).
The opposite can be observed with velocity. From Site A to Site D for both sampling trips,
velocity decreases, overall (Tables 1 & 2). For instance, on the first sampling trip, the water
velocity at Site A was 0.364 feet per second, and the water velocity at Site D was greater than
0.069 feet per second (Table 1).
On the first sampling trip, conductivity increased from Site A to Site D: the value increased from
208.0 us to 614.0 us at each respective site (Table 1). On the second sampling trip, conductivity
was quite uniform across all sites (Table 2). At Site A, conductivity was measured at 244.3 us,
and at Site D, it was measured at 212.7 us (Table 2).
Table 1: Water quality parameters within four sites at Buell Brook in the RUEP from the first sampling trip (>3 days
after a major rain event).
Parameters SITE A SITE B SITE C SITE D
Water Temperature 13.8 oC 14.3 oC 15.7 oC 20.9 oC
Salinity 0.15 ppt 0.15 ppt 0.15 ppt 0.30 ppt
Conductivity 208.0 us 382.2 us 374.6 us 614.0 us
Velocity 0.364 ft/sec 0.809 ft/sec 0.575 ft/sec >0.069 ft/sec
Table 2: Water quality parameters within four sites at Buell Brook in the RUEP from the second sampling trip (<24
hours of a major rain event).
Parameters SITE A SITE B SITE C SITE D
Water Temperature 15.4 oC 15.9 oC 16.5 oC 18.3 oC
Salinity 0.10 ppt 0.10 ppt 0.10 ppt 0.20 ppt
Conductivity 244.3 us 201.5 us 203.7 us 212.7 us
Velocity 20.833 ft/sec 11.905 ft/sec 11.905 ft/sec 4.167 ft/sec
There were noticeable differences in macroinvertebrate abundance and richness at each site and
between both sampling trips. On the first sampling trip, At all sites except for Site B, the
abundance of macroinvertebrates on the side of the stream was higher than in the middle of the
stream (Table 3). For instance, at Sites A and C, macroinvertebrate abundance in the middle of
the stream was 5 and 6, respectively, compared to 22 along the side of the stream, at both sites
(Table 3). In comparison to the other sites, few individuals were observed at Site B on the first
sampling trip (Table 3).
Aside from an abundance of macroinvertebrates, there was a high species richness at each site.
For example, at Site A, there were 6 species present, namely the aquatic worm, scud, crane fly,
leech, dobsonfly, and one other unidentified beetle. There was a very low species abundance and
richness, however, on the second sampling trip. One damselfly was observed at Site C in the
middle of the stream, though no other species observations were made at any of the other sites
(Table 4). The observed species were quite different between Site A and Site D: while the former
had a greater presence of aquatic worms, scud, and dobsonflies, the latter had a greater presence
of damselflies, midge fly larvae, and water pennies (Table 3).
Table 3: Macroinvertebrate data from the first sampling trip (>3 days after a major rain event) at four sites within
Buell Brook. Species abundance is noted in each cell.
Species Site A Site A Site B Site B Site C Site C Site D Site D
(middle) (side) (middle) (side) (middle) (side) (middle) (side)
Aquatic Worm 2 2 3 1
Scud 2 11
Crane Fly 1 1 2 2
Leech 1 1
Dobsonfly 2
Damselfly 1 5 3 4
Midge Fly 1 7 2 1
Larvae
Pouch Snail 1 5
Water Penny 5 3
Other 5
(unidentified)
TOTAL 5 22 3 0 6 22 6 10
Table 4: Macroinvertebrate data from the second sampling trip (≥24 hours after a rain event) at four sites within
Buell Brook. Species abundance noted in each cell.
Species Site A Site A Site B Site B Site C Site C Site D Site D
(middle) (side) (middle) (side) (middle) (side) (middle) (side)
Damselfly 1
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Discussion
The goal of this study was to use macroinvertebrates as bioindicators to tell us more about the
water quality, over spatial and temporal scales, within Buell Brook at the RUEP. Based on our
water quality assessment alone, there were considerable differences between Site D (most distant
from the culvert on Livingston Campus), and Site A (farthest downstream). The water at Site D
was warmer, more saline, and flowing at a slower velocity than the water at Site A, which
remained consistent during both sampling trips (Table 1, 2).
Percent of the canopy that was covered does not appear to be a factor in this temperature
difference between sites, as the percentage at Site A was 30%, and that at Site D was 65%. If this
were a determining factor of temperature, we would likely observe a higher temperature at Site A
than at Site D. The observed increase in temperature may be due, in part, to thermal pollution
(Verones et al., 2010). Thermal pollution typically originates from buildings and industrial
facilities that utilize a cooling system (Verones et al., 2010). The heat produced by urbanized
areas—originating from buildings, roads, or cars—could also leach into aquatic ecosystems, thus
heating the water in this manner. Considering the proximity of Site D to Livingston Campus,
these could be plausible explanations as to why we are observing higher temperatures here than
at Site A. High temperatures can affect organisms directly, altering their behavioral and
physiological processes, but they can also do so indirectly: as water temperatures increase, gas
solubility, particularly of oxygen, decreases (Verones et al., 2010). According to Verones et al.
(2010), increases in temperature can speed up an organism's metabolism, thus increasing its
demand for food. If temperatures get too high, however, tissues within these organisms can begin
to break down (Verones et al., 2010). Different thermal and dissolved oxygen requirements for
different macroinvertebrate taxa could be a cause for the observed differences in community
assemblages between Sites A & D. Like temperature, salinity increased as we moved farther
upstream (Table 1, 2). Some potential sources of salts include industrial discharge, effluents from
sewage treatment plants, reduction in river discharges as a result of dam construction, or road
salt. (Cañedo-Argüelles et al., 2013).
Velocity was also noticeably different across all sites and between sampling trips. We noticed
that the water, for the most part, picked up in speed as it meandered downstream, with more
stagnant water being present upstream. Additionally, the velocity of the water was higher at all
stations shortly after the major rain event. As discussed previously, velocity was measured in the
center of the stream at each site, though, the velocity of the water was noticeably higher here
than on the side of the stream. We sampled macroinvertebrates in both locations at each site, and
there were noticeable differences in macroinvertebrate abundance at both locations: for Sites A,
C, and D, macroinvertebrate abundance was considerably higher on the side of the stream than in
the middle of the stream (Figure 8). One reason for these differences could have to do with
available refugia. In the center of the stream, as compared to the side of the stream, there were
fewer biotypes available. Similarly, the difference in biotypes available between sites could also
provide an explanation for the low relative diversity of macroinvertebrates at Site B. Sites A, C,
and D had a wide variety of substrates present: boulders/cobble, root mats, logs/woody debris,
macrophyte beds, etc. On the other hand, at Site B, the primary substrate—large bedrock—was
the only substrate aside from a thin layer of silt.
In comparison to Sites A and C, Site D had about the same abundance in the center of the stream,
but roughly half of the abundance on the side of the stream. We noticed that the substrate here
was primarily silt. According to a study conducted by Xu et al. (2013), substrate composed
primarily of silt was not a very suitable macroinvertebrate habitat. Silt may be present in some
ecosystems if water flow is too slow to carry this substrate farther downstream, which,
considering the low velocity at this site, is likely the reason for the presence of silt. Typically,
areas of the stream with gravel and cobble substrate are suitable refuges for macroinvertebrates
during flooding events due to their stability (Xu et al., 2013). With that said, flooding, if too
extreme in frequency and intensity, can affect macroinvertebrate assemblages regardless of the
stability of the substrate they are found within.
Kennen et al. (2009) conducted a study in the northeastern US, during which they looked at how
landscape alterations affected macroinvertebrate assemblages within 67 upland streams (Kennen
et al. 2009). Five aspects of water flow were considered: timing, frequency, magnitude, duration,
and rate of change (Kennen et al., 2009). Before conducting their study, they suggested that any
observed declines in biotic integrity would be correlated to at least one of the five
aforementioned aspects (Kennen et al., 2009). What they found, however, was that these declines
were related to all five aspects (Kennen et al., 2009). Noticeable changes in macroinvertebrate
diversity, trophic composition, and the presence of tolerable species were observed (Kennen et
al. 2009). They also made note of the fact that an increasing frequency of high flow events
combined with extended periods of low flow can result in a “highly simplified trophic structure
with low-taxonomic diversity and a dominance of relatively few tolerant taxa” (Kennen et al.,
2009). This is precisely what was observed on the second sampling trip, which was done
following nearly 2 days of consistent rainfall. The velocity, as well as active channel width, was
much faster and larger, respectively from the first sampling trip to the second (Figure 4, 6).
Rainfall events such as this one are expected to worsen in the Northeast United States, thus we
may see an increasing negative effect on macroinvertebrate communities within our aquatic
ecosystems. It is important to note, however, that the low macroinvertebrate diversity observed
on the second trip could be due to sampling error.
Typically, once water quality assessments are complete, waterways are assigned a grade based on
numerous factors (Xu et al., 2013). The State Environmental Protection Administration in China
considers the concentration of 30 substances in the water in order to assign these grades (Xu et
al., 2013). Grades range from I to V, “ indicating very good, good, moderate, poor, and very poor
water quality, respectively” (Xu et al., 2013). The substances that factor into these grades include
dissolved oxygen (DO), total phosphorus, total nitrogen, heavy metals, trace metals, and toxic
organic materials (Xu et al., 2013). While we did not have equipment to directly measure the
aforementioned water quality parameters, and thus assign these grades, our macroinvertebrate
assessment can provide some insight into the condition of the water present in Buell Brook.
Species composition differed significantly between sites (Figure 9). On the first sampling trip, at
Site A, aquatic worms, scud, crane flies, leeches, and dobsonflies were present (Table 3).
According to the Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP) produced by the USDA (1998),
dobsonflies are considered sensitive to pollution, thus they are likely to be found in good-quality
water. Scud and crane flies are somewhat pollution tolerant and can be found in water of good or
fair quality (“Stream Assessment Visual Protocol, 1998). Some pollution-tolerant taxa, namely
leeches and aquatic worms, were also found at this site. At Site D, we mostly found damselflies,
midge fly larvae, crane flies, and some water pennies (Table 3). Like at Site A, there were
organisms with a variety of pollution tolerance: from the water pennies—pollution-sensitive—to
midge fly larvae—pollution tolerant (“Stream Assessment Visual Protocol, 1998). When
analyzing the results of macroinvertebrate assessments, we are often concerned with the taxa that
are sensitive to pollution, as their existence indicates the presence of healthy stream conditions
(“Stream Assessment Visual Protocol, 1998). One plausible explanation for why we are not
seeing such an increase in pollution-sensitive organisms downstream could be that Sites A and D
were not distant enough from one another for us to notice groups of species with different levels
of pollution tolerance; it is possible that their proximity to one another meant that pollutants were
carried from the culvert down to Site A.
Based on observation alone, Sites C & D had the most algae present. As such, we might expect
to see a considerable amount of scrapers and grazers in this location. This is, in fact, what we
observe: at these sites, we see water pennies, pouch snails, and midge fly larvae, all of which can
be characterized, to some extent, as grazers. These taxa, however, are absent at Sites A & B,
where there was very little observed algae. At Site A, we instead saw more filter-feeders, namely
scud and aquatic worms. According to Xu et al. (2013), the presence of these different feeding
groups can tell us more about the concentrations of nutrients and heavy metals present in the
water column. While we have not collected enough data to draw conclusions in this regard, it is
important to consider their study.
In the study by Xu et al. (2013), they find that in areas polluted with organic material and
nutrients, oligochaetes dominate. Alternatively, Mollusca and Crustacea are more typical of
water containing high concentrations of heavy metals (Xu et al., 2013). In regards to different
feeding groups, sites with high concentrations of total phosphorus were dominated by
collector-gatherers, as opposed to scrapers and collector-filterers (Xu et al., 2013). Looking at
total nitrogen concentrations, collector-gatherers also appeared to dominate, either competing
out, or decreasing the abundance of the shredders, scrapers, predators, and collector-filterers (Xu
et al., 2013). Under typical, healthy stream conditions, flow regimes tend to signal reproductive
events in many taxa (Kennen et al. 2009). Some individuals rely on reproductive synchronicity
with low and high flows, thus changes in this as a result of land alteration may interfere with the
timing of reproduction in some systems (Kennen et al. 2009). What makes one particular taxa
more pollution-tolerant than another often has to do with the taxa’s life history, but there can be
some influence of the abiotic conditions present in that aquatic ecosystem: bottom substrate and
hydrology (Xu et al., 2013).
Considering the data we have collected, we can deduce that the observed differences in
temperature, salinity, and velocity may not have been sufficient between our sites to cause shifts
in community assemblage and the presence of different functional feeding groups. The
similarities between sites, as mentioned before, may be due to the proximity of these sites to one
another combined with the increased frequency of rain events, thus carrying pollutants
downstream to all sites. It is important to conduct more assessments of water quality and
macroinvertebrate assemblages over long time scales prior to developing management plans
specific to Buell Brook, if necessary. With that said, it is useful to consider the results obtained
from a study conducted by Al-Zakana et al. (2020) in which they investigate whether certain
efforts toward river restoration have proven to be effective.
After looking into 379 projects, Al-Zakana et al. (2020) found that in some river restoration
projects, the objective of the study was unclear, thus leading to muddling of the problem itself.
As such, the management and restoration practices employed as a result of their respective
studies were not as effective as they could have been (Al-Zakana et al., 2020). Some important
factors to consider when sampling include, ensuring surveys are conducted at varying spatial and
temporal scales, taking a more in-depth approach to investigating community assemblage, and
using a standard study design (Al-Zakana et al., 2020). They discuss the “field of dreams”
hypothesis, which postulates that if habitat heterogeneity is restored, the biota will just come to it
(Al-Zakana et al., 2020). However, the relationship between the two is not as direct, as research
has implied (Al-Zakana et al., 2020).
The results of their analyses reveal that rehabilitation projects to restore rivers should focus on
enhancing the diversity of biotopes (Al-Zakana et al., 2020). These biotopes are “distinct
ecological units; each providing a unique physical and biological environment and supporting a
characteristic assemblage of macroinvertebrates” (Al-Zakana et al., 2020). Having such distinct
niches increases the likelihood that, if a severe disturbance were to sweep through, populations
of certain species could persist and distribute themselves following the disturbance (Al-Zakana et
al., 2020). As discussed before, macroinvertebrates require different substrates at different points
in their life. Having habitat heterogeneity within a small reach of a stream or river would
increase an organism’s chance of survival by reducing its need to disperse to find more suitable
substrate, for example (Al-Zakana et al., 2020). Of the projects themselves, widening the course
of water and adding artificially constructed riffles immediately improves stream features
(Al-Zakana et al., 2020). Projects that involved the installation of woody material had a greater
positive effect on macroinvertebrate community assemblages than did other methods of
rehabilitation (Al-Zakana et al., 2020).
Aside from directly promoting macroinvertebrate abundance and richness, efforts have been
taken to do so indirectly as well (Al-Zakana et al., 2020). Particularly, re-vegetation has
decreased water temperature, increased the stability of adjacent banks, increased the presence of
terrestrial food, and alleviated water pollution (Al-Zakana et al., 2020). As evidenced by the
work done by Al-Zakana et al. (2020), it is vital to consider all abiotic and biotic factors that
affect a stream's health, and ultimately, macroinvertebrate success. Analyzing these factors at
varying temporal and spatial scales can help us gain a better understanding of stream health, and
thereby implement appropriate management and/or restoration techniques.
Figure 8: Stacked bar chart showing macroinvertebrate richness from the first sampling trip (>3 days after a rain
event) at four sites within Buell Brook. Sampling was done in the center of the stream (middle) and on the bank of
the stream with the slowest velocity water (side).
Figure 9: Pie chart of the species present along the side of the stream at Site A (left) and Site D (right).
Conclusions
The data obtained in this study provides support for our second hypothesis: macroinvertebrate
abundance and richness were lower after a major rain event. This may provide some insight as to
how we can expect macroinvertebrate communities to be affected by intense rain events in the
future. On the other hand, the data does not provide sufficient support for the first hypothesis. As
discussed above, the proximity of our sites to one another could be the reason why we did not
see differences in pollution tolerance of macroinvertebrate taxa. It is important to replicate this
study and to do so over longer spatial and temporal timescales. With that said, our general
understanding of the importance of habitat heterogeneity allows us to recommend the
implementation of artificial riffles and woody debris. By doing so, we can provide support for
this macroinvertebrate community. With further studies and an enhanced understanding of how
pollutants are affecting this ecosystem, we can make more targeted management
recommendations for Buell Brook at the RUEP.
Bibliography
Al-Zankana, A. F., Matheson, T., & Harper, D. M. (2020). How strong is the evidence – based on
macroinvertebrate community responses – that river restoration works? Ecohydrology
& Hydrobiology, 20(2), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2019.11.001
Cañedo-Argüelles, M., Kefford, B. J., Piscart, C., Prat, N., Schäfer, R. B., & Schulz, C.-J. (2013).
Salinisation of rivers: An urgent ecological issue. Environmental Pollution, 173,
157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.10.011
History of the Clean Water Act. US EPA. (2023).
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/history-clean-water-act
Indicators: Benthic macroinvertebrates. US EPA. (2023).
https://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-surveys/indicators-benthic-macroinverteb
rates
Kennen, J. G., Riva-Murray, K., & Beaulieu, K. M. (2009). Determining hydrologic factors that
influence stream macroinvertebrate assemblages in the northeastern US. Ecohydrology.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.99
Oliveira, A., & Callisto, M. (2010). Benthic macroinvertebrates as bioindicators of water quality
in an Atlantic Forest fragment. Iheringia. Série Zoologia, 100(4), 291–300.
https://doi.org/10.1590/s0073-47212010000400003
Rodenburg, L. A. (2012). Raritan River Water Quality Monitoring Final Report.
Stark, J. D.; Boothroyd, I. K. G; Harding, J. S.; Maxted, J. R.; Scarsbrook, M. R. (2001).
Protocols for sampling macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams. New Zealand
Macroinvertebrate Working GroupReportNo.1.
PreparedfortheMinistryfortheEnvironment.Sustainable Management Fund Project No.
5103. 57p.
Stream Visual Assessment Protocol - USDA. (1998).
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/Public/OK/NWCC_99-1_Stream_Visual_Asses
sment_Protocol.pdf
Verones, F., Hanafiah, M. M., Pfister, S., Huijbregts, M. A., Pelletier, G. J., & Koehler, A.
(2010). Characterization factors for thermal pollution in freshwater aquatic environments.
Environmental Science & Technology, 44(24), 9364–9369.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es102260c
Xu, M., Wang, Z., Duan, X., & Pan, B. (2013). Effects of pollution on macroinvertebrates and
water quality bio-assessment. Hydrobiologia, 729(1), 247–259.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1504-y
