SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Ecological risk assessment;
  • Watershed impairment;
  • Clean sediment;
  • Contamination

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. WHAT IS THE EXPOSURE?
  5. CLEAN SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  6. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  7. OTHER COMMON STRESSORS AND THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH SEDIMENTS
  8. APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING STRESSOR IMPORTANCE
  9. IMPLICATIONS FOR REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES

Sediments have a major role in ecosystem functioning but can also act as physical or chemical stressors. Anthropogenic activities may change the chemical constituency of sediments and the rate, frequency, and extent of sediment transport, deposition, and resuspension. The importance of sediments as stressors will depend on site ecosystem attributes and the magnitude and preponderance of co-occurring stressors. Contaminants are usually of greater ecological consequence in human-modified, depositional environments, where other anthropogenic stressors often co-occur. Risk assessments and restoration strategies should better consider the role of chemical contamination in the context of multiple stressors. There have been numerous advances in the temporal and spatial characterization of stressor exposures and quantification of biological responses. Contaminated sediments causing biological impairment tend to be patchy, whereas more pervasive anthropogenic stressors, such as alterations to habitat and flow, physical disturbance, and nutrient addition, may drive large-scale ecosystem responses. A systematic assessment of relevant ecosystem attributes and reference conditions can assist in understanding the importance of sediments in the context of other stressors. Experimental manipulations then allow for the controlled study of dominant stressors and the establishment of causal links. This approach will result in more effective management of watersheds and waterways. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010;29:2625–2643. © 2010 SETAC


INTRODUCTION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. WHAT IS THE EXPOSURE?
  5. CLEAN SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  6. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  7. OTHER COMMON STRESSORS AND THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH SEDIMENTS
  8. APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING STRESSOR IMPORTANCE
  9. IMPLICATIONS FOR REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES

The science and approaches used to assess sediment and ecosystem quality have progressed dramatically over the past three decades, but uncertainties that prevent us from establishing stressor causality still exist. Understanding the cause-and-effect relationship between stressors and biota is crucial for the effective management, restoration, and preservation of aquatic systems. It is generally understood that sediments can act as stressors in ecological systems because of both their quantity and their quality. Methods for assessing site-specific ecological impairments resulting from the physical stress of excessive sediments are not highly developed, whereas methods for assessing the links between sediment quality and ecological impairment are more varied and defined 1.

Sediment quality assessments are usually conducted in response to a regulatory driver, and tend to use standardized toxicity and bioaccumulation tests and comparisons with sediment quality guidelines (SQG) 24. Determining the impact of sediments on an ecosystem requires more than asking whether sediment quality guidelines (e.g., probable no-effect concentrations) are exceeded, whether a chemical-specific (or sediment mass) clean-up goal is met, or whether sediment toxicity exists 1, 4. Accurate assessments of ecosystem and sediment quality integrate multiple methods, each with their strengths and limitations 1, 510. Even when a weight-of-evidence (WoE)-based environmental quality assessment has been conducted using multiple lines-of-evidence, study designs are often disjointed and do not produce powerful tests of stressor causality 8, 11. For example, sampling for physicochemistry of sediments and water, benthic communities, and toxicity is not done simultaneously, from the same sample or at the same time, nor are high-flow/storm events considered. This confounds exposure-and-effect linkages, and then leads to ineffective decisions and actions on how to improve, restore, and/or remediate the ecosystem 4, 12.

Many comprehensive publications and reviews have addressed sediment quality and benthic community health, most of which focus on sediment quality guidelines and WoE-based approaches 1, 5, 68, 13. Research and regulatory activities dealing with contaminated sediments have been primarily directed towards chemical contamination and a single exposure route (bedded sediments), rather than suspended solids, resuspended sediments, food, pulse events, or effects in the context of nonchemical stressors. A great deal of research into sediment processes, movement, and geomorphology has also been done, but less focus has been directed on identifying biological effects of clean sediment (e.g., smothering, clogging, and abrasion), particularly in the presence of other stressors. As a consequence, gaps exist in our understanding of when and why sediments are important anthropogenic stressors in aquatic systems.

Given the large economic cost of remediating and restoring contaminated sediments and stream habitat in human-dominated systems, it is both surprising and disconcerting that very few cases have demonstrated improvement in ecosystem quality 4, 14, 15. With the tremendous degree of spatial and temporal heterogeneity of ecosystems and their associated sediments, determining appropriate reference conditions from which to evaluate ecological impairment and recovery is paramount 16. Sediment remediation and restoration projects often fail to adequately establish baseline conditions, the role of other stressors in ecosystem responses, possible sources of contamination to the system other than the targeted sediments, and follow-up monitoring of important ecological receptors 4.

The extensive state and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA) biannual surveys of U.S. waterways have consistently ranked siltation, loss of habitat, and nutrient addition as common and important stressors in human-dominated waterways (17, 18; http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/sediment/pdf/sab-discussion-paper.pdf, 19). A threats analysis for the Great Lakes ecosystems (open lake, coastal shore, coastal marsh, lake plains, tributaries, uplands, and wetlands) ranked lake levels/dynamics, stream flow, nuisance invaders, and habitat destruction as high threat stressors in terms of severity and scope, with toxics, nutrients, and water tables ranking as medium threats (20; http://www.epa.gov/ecopage/glbd/issues/). While not all other nation states have gone through a process of ranking waterway stressors, they certainly acknowledge a range of potential changes to environmental conditions that may result in ecological deterioration such as altered pH, physical disturbance, flow, habitat removal, pest species, pathogens, and altered connectivity (21; http://www.ozcoasts.org.au/pdf/CRC/69_estuary_assessment_final_screen.pdf). For example, the primary objective of Australia's Great Barrier Reef Water Quality Protection Plan is to reduce clean sediment and contaminant inputs from nonpoint source broadscale land use 22. Despite the prevalence and importance of a range of stressors, their risk and interactions in relation to contaminated sediments needs to be strengthened to provide for more accurate ecological risk assessments. Indeed, Suedel et al. 23 have recommended the formal consideration of nonchemical stressors in the risk-informed decision framework for dredging projects.

A number of excellent reviews and studies have recently highlighted the importance of ecological responses resulting from interactions between benthic communities and various ecosystem attributes and drivers 2427. These drivers of ecological responses must be considered when assessing site conditions in order to determine stressor causality. This critical review will focus on some of the key issues that are important considerations when assessing sediment contamination.

WHAT IS THE EXPOSURE?

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. WHAT IS THE EXPOSURE?
  5. CLEAN SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  6. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  7. OTHER COMMON STRESSORS AND THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH SEDIMENTS
  8. APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING STRESSOR IMPORTANCE
  9. IMPLICATIONS FOR REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES

A principal source of uncertainty in predicting ecological risk lies in characterizing exposure to a stressor or stressors 11. Ideally this would consist of measuring and integrating the multiple routes of exposure to multiple stressors, both spatially and temporally. In human-dominated ecosystems, this is a daunting task, given the many stressors and possible interactions. To address this complex issue in the context of sediments as stressors, it is useful to classify waterways and consider the major ecosystem attributes that influence the relative importance of each stressor.

The European Union's Assessment System for the Ecological Quality of Streams and Rivers throughout Europe Using Benthic Macroinvertebrates system for assessing ecological quality in European streams is an example of an ecosystem “type-specific” approach 28. For each stream, a different set of calculations of ecosystem quality is used and comparisons are made with different reference conditions 29. In locations where an ecosystem classification process has not yet been conducted and suitable reference conditions have not been described, it is still productive to contrast broad ecosystem categories such as low- versus high-energy waters (Table 1, Fig. 1), natural versus human-dominated, marine versus freshwater, tropical versus temperate, polar versus temperate, shallow versus deep, vegetated versus unvegetated, and water column versus bedded sediment. Within each dichotomy, there are fundamental differences that drive exposure scenarios and the bioavailability of contaminants. These realities can assist in better focusing the risk assessment process and relative ranking of which stressors often dominate the system (Fig. 1). For example, in a high-energy system, such as a mountainous stream, contaminated depositional sediments or siltation are likely not stressors, however, suspended solids may be (Table 1, Fig. 1). Conversely, in a low-energy, human-dominated system, siltation and embeddedness may be degrading habitat and smothering eggs and adults. These same sediments are likely to accumulate contaminants that exert toxicity to infauna, and to water column animals if the sediments are resuspended.

Table 1. Effects of clean and contaminated sediments on benthic and water column species in low- and high-energy environmentsa
Low-energy environmentsHigh-energy environments
Increased input of clean sedimentIncreased input of contaminationIncreased input of clean sedimentIncreased input of contamination
Benthic fauna and infaunaWater column speciesBenthic fauna and infaunaWater column speciesBenthic fauna and infaunaWater column speciesBenthic fauna and infaunaWater column species
Severe permanent consequencesSevere permanent consequencesSevere and permanent consequencesMinor temporary consequencesMinor temporary consequencesSevere consequencesModerate consequences(severe consequences)
  • a

    TSS = total suspended sediment; DOC = dissolved organic carbon.

Smothering of benthic fauna; reduced habitat availability through loss of heterogeneity and increased embeddednessAltered predator–prey relationships, loss of food, potential smothering of eggsHistorical legacy of contamination causing toxicity and bioaccumulation(unless frequently resuspended by human activity such as dredging or shipping)Increased abrasion and scouring of benthic faunaBlinding predators, clogging filter feeding apparatusOngoing input of contamination will increase benthic sediment contamination via embeddednessOngoing input of contamination causing toxicity to filter feeders and pelagic species
Loss of biodiversityLoss of biodiversity? Selection for tolerance to high TSSLoss of biodiversity; selection for tolerance to contaminantsSubject to bioaccumulation and altered food sources if frequentSmothering of infauna likely to be temporary, but frequency an issueImpact will depend on intensity, frequency, and duration of suspension eventMore contamination exported— issue for off-shore or catchment habitatToxicity may be reduced by addition of TSS and/or DOC with contamination
thumbnail image

Figure 1. The frequency of occurrence of common aquatic stressors in high- to low-energy environments. Habitat alterations may consist of a range of physical, chemical, and biological factors, including flow alterations, siltation, and suspended solids. The pathogens and disease stressor relates to the impairment of aquatic life. Rankings are a subjective compilation of several sources (17, 19, 304; http://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/pdf/EPA-822-R-05-001UseofBiologicalInformationtoBetterDefineDesignatedAquaticLifeUses-TieredAquaticLifeUses.pdf); 305; http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/results/pdf/aug_7_introduction_to_clean.pdf).

Download figure to PowerPoint

The spatial extent of any disturbance event is of critical importance in determining organism exposure. This issue must be related to the scale of both habitat and benthic community patches and will determine the ecological significance of any impacts (discussed below). Stressor exposures also vary in frequency and intensity 30. Pulse exposures to physical and chemical stressors are common in human-dominated systems, yet predicting the risk of pulse exposures is very difficult and largely dependent on organism sensitivity, the duration and frequency of the pulse 3133, and the site and season of contaminant release 34.

Understanding the life history, movement, and feeding patterns of an organism can help determine which exposure routes and stressors are likely to be most important to that particular species. For example, ingestion of contaminated sediment particles and overlying waters are important routes of contaminant exposure for some benthic organisms 35, 36. Stressor exposure via overlying waters and food will be strongly influenced by habitat and flow, two factors that also exert direct control over benthic assemblages 3739. Dissolved and colloidal phases of contaminants associated with interstitial waters are affected by upwelling and downwelling and must also be considered. Standard sediment toxicity test methods rarely assess the role of overlying water exposures from contaminants that desorb from the sediments 40, so that static or static renewal exposures may be measuring water column toxicity and erroneously interpreting it as sediment-related toxicity.

CLEAN SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. WHAT IS THE EXPOSURE?
  5. CLEAN SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  6. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  7. OTHER COMMON STRESSORS AND THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH SEDIMENTS
  8. APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING STRESSOR IMPORTANCE
  9. IMPLICATIONS FOR REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES

Unlike many chemical contaminants, both suspended and bedded sediments are a natural part of marine and freshwater ecosystems. Natural sediments are physically and chemically dynamic; they move downstream or across the seafloor and they change oxidative state and carbon content with depth. They are uplifted by many natural and anthropogenic processes such as tidal flow, bioturbation, dredging, vessel activity, storms, and waves 41. Sediment movement and dynamic chemical cycling within sediments is critical to the healthy functioning of aquatic ecosystems. However, anthropogenic activities may change the chemical constituency of sediments and the rate, frequency, and extent of sediment transport, deposition, and resuspension. In these environments, sediments may function as both physical and chemical stressors. Hence, it becomes important to define the baseline environmental conditions, and the dominant flux processes for sediments in each aquatic system, so that deviations from reference conditions can be clearly identified, measured, and managed 42. In many ecosystems, for example, fine-grained sediments are both natural and essential, such as in freshwater and coastal wetlands and marshes. The determination of whether sediments are a stressor is particularly driven by whether or not the ecosystem is high- versus low-energy, if a high-suspended solids concentration predominates, and the expectation of reference condition for that ecosystem.

Clean suspended and deposited sediments have been identified as a major stressor of aquatic ecosystems 18, 19, 4347. Natural disturbances are important processes that contribute to maintaining biotic diversity 48, so we must be careful only to attempt to manage clean sediment processes in locations where anthropogenic change has clearly modified them (e.g., construction-related erosion, agricultural erosion, dredging, locks, and dams). The manner in which clean sediments act as a pollutant/stressor will differ from site to site, but frequently occurs in the form of an increase in the mean total suspended sediment (TSS) load, more frequent resuspension events, or greater scouring, erosion, and deposition 18. Baseline rates of sediment deposition, erosion, and suspension under natural and disturbed conditions can be crudely established by comparing impacted water bodies with suitable reference locations at multiple times. Sediment stability and flux is site-specific, variable, and complex 49, 50, and should be characterized using field and/or laboratory evaluations of resuspension 5154, otherwise, the accuracy of estimates of resupension may be off by orders of magnitude. At times, natural sediment processes will be extreme and represent a natural disturbance or turbid flow period 55; guidelines for suspended sediment concentrations during these periods may be less restrictive than during clear flow periods.

Excessive deposition of fine-grained sediments in larger-grained sediment ecosystems can have adverse ecological impacts. This may relate to the smothering of benthic flora and fauna 56, 57, reduced light penetration, organism abrasion, clogging of filtering mechanisms, or the loss of habitat complexity 18, 43, 45, 46, 58, 59. Multiple deleterious impacts associated with fine sediments have been reviewed and widely documented to habitat, primary producers, macroinvertebrates, and fisheries 45.

A vital physical characteristic of aquatic habitats, particularly lotic systems, is the degree of substrate embeddedness that occurs as fine sediment fills interstitial spaces in streambeds. Lotic environments are typically heterogeneous, with a wide range of sediment grain-size distribution which may be mixed or have variable patchiness. Habitat-specific microdistributions and patch dynamics are particularly important for invertebrate diversity 6062. Small-grained sediments (clays) may become embedded between larger grained sands, gravels, and cobble, or settle in depositional areas and become compacted to varying degrees. This not only results in a loss of habitat to species that require interstitial space, such as mayflies and stoneflies, but increases the susceptibility of certain invertebrates to predation by fish 3. Elevated fine sediment loadings have different effects on hyporheic exchange and associated ecological processes (e.g., nitrogen and carbon cycling) depending on local hydrologic and geomorphic conditions 60, 6365. Although alteration of streambed habitat is recognized as one of the most important stressors of benthic organisms, the reliability of findings from existing embeddedness methodologies have been questioned due to substantial variation in their quantification and assumptions 66.

Increased suspension, delivery, and deposition of clean fine sediments also causes problems in estuarine and marine ecosystems. Strong links exist between infaunal ecology and sediment grain size, such that changes to grain size through deposition or erosion can have biological consequences 60, 67, 68. Sandy habitats are transformed to muddy ones in human-dominated environments, and the rate at which this happens is predicted to increase with global climate change. High-flow events and wave activity during intense storms allow suspended sediment to breach natural filters such as sandbars, mangroves, and marshes. Under these conditions, sediment is transported further out into bays and the open coast. When resuspended, the fine particles reduce light availability to organisms such as macroalgae, seagrass, phytoplankton, and animals hosting algal symbionts such as corals 69. When the sediment settles, this can result in short-term, catastrophic smothering events, but also long-term habitat change, as has already been observed in many human-dominated watersheds 70. Sediment- and flow-related stress in human-dominated harbors, lakes, and large rivers may also be driven by navigation activities. Navigation-induced physical forces resuspend sediments and affect fish swimming performance and the filter feeding capacity of invertebrates 46, 71.

The suspension of clean sediments can cause serious effects through mechanical damage or clogging of the breathing or respiring organs of aquatic invertebrates 72, 73. Laboratory-based experiments have been used to assess the effects of resuspension of uncontaminated sediments on aquatic biota, predominantly fish 72. These studies have found that the duration, intensity, and frequency of exposure to suspended sediment are important and have resulted in the development of water quality guidelines for total suspended solids 55. Daphnia magna and some other daphnid species have been found to be some of the more sensitive species to elevated TSS concentrations 9, 7476. However, these lentic species are less commonly found in lotic systems and may be an inappropriate surrogate for stream environments. River flow indexing using benthic invertebrates was recommended in Britain for setting hydroecological objectives 38. Community structure in limestone streams was predicted well by summer flow, the amount of impervious area, and the degree of regulated or augmented flow. All of these factors influence sediment exposures for benthic organisms in particular.

Long-term exposure to elevated levels of sediment deposition and suspension due to activities such as agriculture or mining, often result in permanent changes to the stream or seabed geomorphology and ecology 45. While uncontaminated sediments are usually more biologically diverse than contaminated sediments 77, human activities that modify sediment regimes may still result in selection for a small group of sediment-tolerant species. It is likely that many estuarine organisms in low-flow depositional environments are adapted to high-frequency deposition of small volumes of sediment. In a mesocosm study, nematodes were more affected by single large deposits of sediment than by frequent small deposits, regardless of whether the sediment was contaminated or clean 57. The relative ecosystem impact and recovery following fine sediment exposures may be largely dependent on the duration of exposure 45, 75. Robinson et al. 75 observed a dose-dependent decrease in survival of Daphnia magna with continuous exposure to suspended clays; however, when exposures were reduced from 24 h to 12 h, there were no detectable effects on survival or reproduction.

Increased input of organic matter associated with fine sediments often represents the addition of a food source that may result in the domination of communities by a few opportunistic species. The increased organic matter may also lead to increased sediment oxygen demand and ammonia production. Sediment can also be extensively modified using ecosystem engineering processes that directly and indirectly impact food webs and chemical processes. For example, the proliferation of Dreissena mussel clusters in lakes has increased benthic algal primary productivity, microbial and benthic diversity, and submerged aquatic vegetation due to the presence of their shell habitat and filtering of plankton 7880.

CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. WHAT IS THE EXPOSURE?
  5. CLEAN SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  6. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  7. OTHER COMMON STRESSORS AND THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH SEDIMENTS
  8. APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING STRESSOR IMPORTANCE
  9. IMPLICATIONS FOR REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES

Bed sediments and contaminant flux

Streams, rivers, and coastal areas that are characterized as nondepositional environments due to high flows and currents (i.e., high energy; Fig. 1, Table 1) are less likely to be impacted by contaminated sediments. An exception to this is directly below mining operations where larger grained mine tailings may exist, or where periphyton have accumulated high metal concentrations from the overlying water 8184. The dominant contaminant exposure pathways for aquatic organisms in high-energy systems will tend to be runoff, outfalls, upwellings and downwellings, and food 9, 75, 8592. In low-energy, depositional environments, bed sediments become a major route of exposure for many benthic organisms. A number of reviews have been written regarding methods for assessing contaminated sediments, including sediment toxicity and bioaccumulation tests of single species, indigenous benthic community indices, and the use of sediment quality guidelines 5, 13. However, these reviews have not emphasized the importance of better characterizing exposures to bioavailable fractions of chemical contaminants that are dictated by a number of flux processes. The primary flux processes are resuspension and deposition, bioturbation, advection, upwelling/downwelling, diagenesis reactions, and diffusion.

Metal flux out of sediment has been shown to be a dominant process (Cd > Zn > Co = Ni = Cu > Pb) in marine harbors over periods of days and related to benthic oxygen demand for some metals 93. Carbonaro et al. 94 created a one-dimensional reactive and transport model on metal fate in sediment that incorporates metal-sulfide formation/oxidation and partitioning to organic carbon and Fe oxyhydroxides. Nickel and Zn fluxed into overlying water, followed by slow decreases, and were related to the initial pore water concentrations that overwhelmed sulfide complexation. They suggest a further need to incorporate Mn cycling and Mn oxyhydroxide sorption, and binding to pyrite with metal speciation calculations as a logical extension of their model. Similar results have been observed in the field with Ni spiked freshwater sediments with rapid loss of sediment Ni during the initial one to two weeks of exposure 95. The loss varied from 11 to 89% depending on the sediment's complexation capacity. The rapid scavenging and complexation of potentially toxic metals by Fe and Mn oxyhydroxides reduces their bioavailability during resuspension or bioturbation events 9698. In a marine harbor, overlying water pH and sediment mixing were found to be the dominant processes controlling metal (Cd, Cu, Pb, Zn) release and sequestration rates 99. As pH decreased, oxidative precipitation of released Fe and Mn greatly influenced sequestration rates of released Pb and Zn. Additionally, sequestration was reduced at lower dissolved oxygen levels.

A rapidly growing body of literature documents the common occurrence of the diurnal flux of metals and organometals between sediments, biofilms, and overlying fresh and marine waters due to a number of processes 82, 83, 100107. Diurnal concentration ranges of several hundred percent have been documented 107. Fluctuation varies by metal type and site conditions, and are driven by processes such as bioturbation, surface water and hyporheic flow, redox and photochemical reactions, precipitation/dissolution of solid mineral phases, and sorption processes. Many of these are interlinked with photosynthesis, pH, and temperature. Most of these processes are not accounted for in sediment transport models or in assessments of organism exposures and related ecotoxicity. However, 96-h in situ exposures of cutthroat trout to nightly increases of Cd and Zn (originating from sediments and periphyton) by as much as 61 and 125%, respectively, did not affect survival 108. The authors speculated this was due to the short-term nature of the exposure and the lower temperatures reducing uptake.

Significant ground water–surface water interactions commonly occur near the banks of riverine systems and intertidal areas. These may be upwellings of groundwater or advection through sediments into overlying surface waters or vice versa. While such exposure routes tend to occur in larger grained sediments, they have also been shown to be important in some depositional areas, for example, New Bedford Harbor, Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, USA 93, 109. Quantifying ground water–surface water interaction exposures improves stressor-causality linkages with benthic macroinvertebrates 10, 110. Ecosystems with altered flow conditions may also experience periodic rewetting of metal contaminated soils and sediments. Rewetting of oxidized acid-sulfate soil produces acidic pulses that alter sediment metal bioavailability 111, 112. Lower pH exposures can both increase and reduce exposure 111, whereas reoxidation can result in the release of metals and increased exposure 112. Heavy rains also result in the release of dissolved Cu and Zn from sediments into overlying waters. Such dynamic responses may be reflected in periphytic algae concentrations that followed free Zn and exchangeable Cu concentrations in the water 113.

Factors affecting chemical sequestration

It is apparent from the above discussion that predicting metal bioavailability and toxicity in sediments is difficult, given their complex and often dynamic interactions with organic and inorganic compounds. Therefore, it would seem that the idea of equilibrium partitioning as a foundation for sediment metal and organic chemical criteria would be flawed. Nevertheless, many laboratory and field studies have been performed since the 1990s, describing the role of the organic carbon and the procedurally defined acid volatile sulfide (AVS) fraction in the binding of nonpolar organics and metals in depositional sediments and their relationship to benthic macroinvertebrate toxicity 95, 114, 115. Acid volatile sulfides are found only in anoxic, depositional sediments, which are the sediments of greatest concern because these are where chemicals accumulate. Significant focus has been directed on why the AVS to simultaneously extracted metal (SEM) relationship might not be predictive of toxicity levels in benthic organisms 36, 116127. For example, most burrowing animals have oxygenated burrows and would rarely interact with the sulfide-rich anoxic sediment component 128. Given the limitations, it is interesting that such a wealth of laboratory and field studies have shown AVS to SEM relationships (e.g., SEM:AVS ratio and SEM-AVS) to be a very effective predictor of the absence of toxicity to diverse benthic communities where depositional sediments exist 114. Two possible explanations for this growing body of evidence, despite the reality that AVS does not exist at the sediment–water interface where many organisms are residing, are the upward flux of metals through diffusion and advection, and the AVS-SEM acid extraction process which will also extract surficial Fe- and Mn-oxides that have metals associated with them. In high-energy oxic environments, where larger grained sediments exist, AVS will be absent and not useful for predicting benthic organism exposures.

The bioavailability of metals that are complexed readily by dissolved organic matter, such as Cu and Ni, is affected by sunlight. Photo-oxidation of dissolved organic matter may release free metal. The extent and significance of this phenomenon is not known, but may increase in significance due to climate change alterations in ultraviolet and runoff-terrestrial dynamics 129.

Marine sediment toxicity is influenced by several factors that control chemical bioavailability, particularly for testing of metals, as compared to freshwater sediments. In general, the higher ionic strength of marine waters will reduce metal ion activity with more chloride complexation, and higher sulfate concentrations 130, 131. However, protons are known to compete with some metals for uptake, so under the more alkaline conditions of seawater, metal ion activity might increase. Potentially, a larger fraction of the metals are associated with Fe and Mn oxides in easily reducible fractions in sandy and tidally influenced sediments. The principles governing geochemical processes controlling metal exposure from marine sediments to resident benthic organisms would not be fundamentally different from those that affect exposure in freshwater. However, the factors affecting metal toxicity and bioaccumulation may well be different 132, depending also on the different ion-regulatory physiologies of marine, estuarine, and freshwater organisms 133. Among the geochemical constituents affecting metal toxicity that change from freshwater to seawater are Ca, Ng, and Na—the cations known to compete with metals for uptake at the gill surface. Binding of metals to DOC may also change, given the varying types and concentrations of DOC that exist throughout aquatic ecosystems.

Microbial biofilms (periphyton) are increasingly recognized as an important compartment in aquatic ecosystems 83, 101, 104, 134, 135, and they are a prime site of nutrient and contaminant concentration in streams. The rate of contaminant uptake by biofilms is largely related to their biomass which is strongly affected by streambed morphology, flow, and nutrient availability 134. Streamside flow-through mesocosms containing Ni-spiked sediments showed Ni rapidly fluxed out of sediments into overlying periphyton mats where the Ni remained trapped in the periphyton, apparently complexed with organic matter and Fe- and Mn oxyhydroxides 95. This Ni exposure did not appear to cause adverse effects on benthic fauna associated with the periphyton 95. For some benthic communities, biofilms are a source of contamination to grazing invertebrates 136. In marine systems, microbial biofilms may act as a source of contaminants to grazing invertebrates through adsorption of metals by extracellular polymeric substances that the microorganisms excrete 137.

Suspended solids and resuspended sediments

Much of the loading of chemical contaminants in aquatic systems is from diffuse sources 138, and suspended sediments have been identified as a major vector for the transport of contamination. Annual suspended sediment and trace metal fluxes were followed in several major drainage basins of the United States, and more than 70% of Zn, Cu, and Ni were transported in association with suspended sediment 139, 140. In Boston Harbor, regular (tidal) low-energy resuspension events contributed up to 60% of the metal flux per year. Some monitoring programs even use measurements of suspended sediments as a surrogate for trace metal movements in contaminated locations 141. Organic contaminants are also transported with resuspended sediments. Lake Michigan is regularly subjected to intense storms that result in sediment plumes responsible for the redistribution of large amounts of organic contaminants 142.

During sediment resuspension events, toxicity may result both from aqueous contaminant exposure (contaminants released from particulates) and from contaminants associated with suspended sediments that are ingested by organisms 143. Resuspension-related release of metals and organic compounds has been shown to increase bioaccumulation in freshwater and marine benthic species and caged fish 4, 144. Laboratory studies have also observed increased rates of contaminant (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon [PAH] and metals) uptake when sediments are resuspended 46, 145147. Daphnia mortality was increased through ingestion of resuspended contaminated particles and the internal release of bound contaminants 76, 145, 148. In situ exposures of amphipods and daphnids during agricultural runoff events showed that TSS-associated pesticides caused acute toxicity, whereas clean TSS or low-flow conditions were not toxic 149. However, some resuspended sediments may reduce the toxicity of contaminants by rendering them biologically unavailable 150. In laboratory studies, resuspended clean sediments reduced the toxicity of pyrethroids to Cerodaphnia151 and mayfly nymphs 152. Field exposures found that photoinduced toxicity related to PAHs was reduced during high-flow events due to suspended solids 153. So, in summary, suspended/resuspended solids can both increase and decrease the bioavailability and toxicity of contaminants. This creates the difficult issue of determining when suspended solids are beneficial (reducing toxicity) or harmful (physical stress or release of contaminants), and both could be occurring in the same ecosystem. Currently, the science to accurately predict the interaction is limited.

A wealth of literature 86, 102, 105, 154160 documents the significant and widespread alterations that bioturbation can have on biogeochemical and contaminant flux. In low-energy, depositional environments, bioturbation and diffusion processes are likely to be important, along with episodic resuspensions due to large high-flow events, dredging and vessel activity 161. Some areas will have dense benthic macroinvertebrate communities, comprised of species (e.g., crayfish, bivalves, Annelids) that can mobilize sediment contaminants through bioturbation from several centimeters depth (or meters in marine systems) to overlying waters. Bioturbation can increase the resuspension rates of contaminated sediments; however, this does not necessarily increase the bioavailability of contaminants 154, 162. For example, mayfly (Hexagenia rigida) and Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) had less uptake of Cd and Zn in bioturbated systems than in unbioturbated systems 163. However, bioturbation by amphipods significantly increased TSS concentration in the overlying water and, consequently, the total aqueous concentration of sediment-bound fluoranthene, which was subsequently accumulated by filter-feeding mussels 164.

The importance of resuspension events on contaminant release will be a function of several factors. For metals, some of the key controls on release rate will be the length of oxidation period, the occurrence of fresh Fe or Mn oxyhydroxides, and the SEM to AVS ratio and other physico-chemical parameters 96, 165167. Only a small fraction of the metal or ammonia may be released during resuspension events, but it may be toxic 147, 163, 168171. Some challenges to current paradigms have arisen from models of contaminant release in aquatic systems. The kinetic model of Birdwell et al. predicted that dissolved concentrations of metals will be highest at some distance (2.5–7 km) downstream from a point of dredging 172. Several field, laboratory, and modeling studies have investigated organic contaminant release under various resuspension scenarios 142. However, Birdwell et al. 172 argue that there is currently no tool to predict the release rates of organic contaminants from particulates during a resuspension event.

OTHER COMMON STRESSORS AND THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH SEDIMENTS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. WHAT IS THE EXPOSURE?
  5. CLEAN SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  6. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  7. OTHER COMMON STRESSORS AND THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH SEDIMENTS
  8. APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING STRESSOR IMPORTANCE
  9. IMPLICATIONS FOR REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES

Stressor interactions and stressor dominance

As noted above, several important sediment properties and processes influence benthic and pelagic communities, whether or not chemical contamination exists. In addition, increasing evidence suggests important physical, biological, and chemical linkages aside from the traditional upstream–downstream and benthic–pelagic couplings that act through a range of interfaces including terrestrial–aquatic, surface–subsurface, lake–stream, river–floodplain, and marine–freshwater 26. Human activities may interfere with these linkages causing changes to hydrological processes that affect the balance between groundwater and surface water, the permanence of water bodies, nutrient cycling, acidification, and runoff 173176. Modifications to these processes may result in cascading effects from multiple stressors 177, 178. Unless these various ecosystem linkages are understood, then protecting and restoring impaired ecosystems will be fraught with uncertainty 26.

One assumes that known stressors to aquatic ecosystems would behave in a cumulative manner, with exposures to additional stressors resulting in additional adverse effects. For example, clean sediment resuspension reduced algal growth, but this was accentuated when irgarol antifouling paint particles were included in the sediment 179. However, stressors may behave in additive, antagonistic (less than the sum of effects), or synergistic (greater than the sum of the effects) manner. This means the widely used assumption by regulatory programs of additivity based on single chemical thresholds may be flawed in some situations. Hill et al. 180 found that exposure to dissolved Zn reduced the toxicity of dissolved Cu to an Antarctic polychaete. Clements 181 demonstrated causal relationships between metal contamination (Zn, Cd, Cu) and benthic macroinvertebrate community responses. The combination of the three metals produced synergistic effects impacting the mayfly and stonefly populations to the greatest degree, with highly significant effects on macroinvertebrate drift and community respiration. Chemical and physical interactions that increased effects were observed on Daphnia magna between Ni and TSS, but not DOC 182. Conversely, PAH-related photo-induced toxicity was reduced in the presence of TSS 153. Mayflies exposed to pyrethroids had increased drift, unless there was high flow or the insecticide was associated with particles and drift was reduced showing an antagonistic response 152. Strongly synergistic effects were observed between metal and PAH mixtures on marine meiobenthic copepods 183. Kashian et al. 184 showed that ultraviolet-B radiation reduced community metabolism and other benthic indices. When there were simultaneous exposures to metals, synergistic effects and decreased community tolerance were observed. A mix of chemical contaminants is quite common in urban contaminated sediments and suggests that sediment quality guidelines based strictly on empirical guidelines for single contaminants may not be protective, unless safety factors are used.

The importance of effects due to stressor interactions, however, may be lessened when individual stressors have large effects 185. In Hokkaido (Japan) streams, extensive experimentation of deforestation, channelization, erosion-control dams, biological invasions, and climate change revealed that most of these stressors caused 30 to 90% declines in foraging, growth, or abundance of aquatic or terrestrial predators 184. In addition, the indirect effects of stressors crossed the aquatic-terrestrial boundary and cascaded throughout the terrestrial food web. Each stressor alone dramatically reduced food web components, whereas additional stressors had little effect. It may be that in heavily human-dominated watersheds, one stressor dominates the system, such as habitat or flow, or many stressors are tightly linked, such as impervious area, flow flashiness, and contaminated runoff 186, 187. For example, note the widely reported relationship between degraded aquatic communities in watersheds where impervious areas are greater than 8 to 20% of the landscape 174, 175, 188192. These areas are subject to multiple dominant stressors of habitat degradation, flashy flows, and elevated temperature, sunlight, solids, metals, and synthetic organics. Sciera et al. 174 demonstrated that, in urban and agricultural watersheds where development was occurring, hydrology and habitat were the most important stressors to monitor. Benthic community impairment was best predicted using a Normalized Disturbance Index quantitatively linked to an increase in the percentage of impervious cover, stormwater runoff, storm-event total suspended solids, and the benthic index of biotic integrity.

Weston et al. 193 and Ding et al. 194 have shown that most of the toxicity to Hyalella azteca in urban sediments can now be attributed to pyrethroids and their increasing prevalence. So the question arises, are pyrethroids such a dominant stressor that other stressors in urban depositional sediments are inconsequential? This can only be answered by addressing the tolerance of the resident benthic communities that exist in these urban streams (likely more tolerant than H. azteca) and whether or not pollution-sensitive communities could exist in the absence of the pyrethroids. Chironomus riparius responded more than a mayfly to the sediment nutritional levels than associated contaminants, suggesting that in human-dominated systems they would not be an appropriate surrogate for benthic species protection 195. The question of which organism or community is the most appropriate test species will exist in any human-dominated ecosystem when attempting to rank the relative importance of the existing stressors. We therefore reiterate the call for a more prescriptive, experimental approach to establishing stressor importance that links controlled laboratory studies with field-based ecological manipulations and studies of exposure and response relationships between key physical, biological, and chemical conditions 14, 24, 181, 185, 196198.

Climate change

It is difficult to predict how sediment stressor activities will interact with climate change. Climate change is likely to have location-specific effects on sediment processes that are strongly related to rainfall and storm activity. In general, where rainfall is predicted to decrease, we would expect reduced TSS loads, and where storm activity is set to increase, we would predict greater and more frequent sediment resuspension events. Altered flows due to drought or more frequent and severe weather will change harbor and estuarine salinity patterns, lake and marine hypoxia episodes, nutrient inputs, food availability, and reproductive windows of opportunity 129, 185, 197, 199202. In addition, climate-related changes to ecosystems (temperature, precipitation patterns, ocean acidification, nutrient cycling, food inputs, migration patterns, range expansions and contractions, pathogens, and disease) will result in novel communities, which may lead to changes in ecosystem functioning and other unexpected biological feedbacks or ecological surprises14, 25, 197.

Climate change will also alter exposures to chemical contaminants in water, food, and sediments through a variety of mechanisms of which many documented examples are unfolding 200. Exposures will be altered through changes in physicochemical and biological fate processes, such as fugacity, biodegradation, and metabolism 203. Some of these changes will result in increased exposures to some species or life stages, whereas others are decreased such as noted in metal type, concentration, and temperature interactions on fish 204. Temperature has been shown to increase and decrease toxicity in the presence of fungicides and insecticides to some marine and freshwater amphipods 200, 205, whereas a complex, concentration-dependent phenomenon has been observed with temperature and metal toxicity 204, 206.

APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING STRESSOR IMPORTANCE

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. WHAT IS THE EXPOSURE?
  5. CLEAN SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  6. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  7. OTHER COMMON STRESSORS AND THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH SEDIMENTS
  8. APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING STRESSOR IMPORTANCE
  9. IMPLICATIONS FOR REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES

Assessment methods and limitations

There are a number of assessment methods and approaches that more effectively characterize exposure, effects, and identify stressor importance. These include field-based species sensitivity distributions for both chemical contaminated sediments, noncontaminated TSS, temperature, salinity, and sediment burial 207213, improved exposure models of clean and contaminated soils and sediments 214, 215, stressor toxicity identification and interactions 9, 184, 216, 217, in situ experimental exposures including biomimetic monitoring 4, 218, biological trait-based analysis 219, and data analyses methods for discerning reference versus impairment and stressor-effect relationships 16, 220.

It is easy to highlight the limitations of any assessment method, whether they are from ecological or methodological perspectives 1, 116. Nevertheless, all of the popular assessment methods have been used effectively to assess ecosystem quality, when they are used judiciously. While the science has improved, the judicious use of the various methods with suitable acknowledgement of their limitations is not altogether common. In addition, a growing body of recent literature is showing the importance of new chemical stressors, their accumulation in sediments, and their interactions showing greater than additive effects 221224. The often common and significant stressors are frequently not characterized from an exposure-and-effects (risk) perspective. So, if the goal is restoring ecosystem quality, beneficial uses, or ecosystem services, how can that occur if the dominant stressors are not identified?

Few studies have actually evaluated the accuracy of assessment methods; however, previous studies usually document large error rates. In Ohio (USA), evaluation of indigenous biota showed 36% of the impaired stream segments could not be detected using water chemical criteria alone 225. Evaluations of sediment quality guidelines have been better, with prediction rates of 70 to 75% 226, 227. However, error rates of 25 to 30% (and higher for metals) seem unacceptable given the ecological and economic implications of some of the resulting risk management decisions. A comparison of multiple assessment methods (lines-of-evidence) at several sites with metal and organic contaminants, showed accuracy rates ranged from 50 to 60% 40. This suggests that no one method is adequate and points toward the use of multiple methods to best characterize whether or not sediments are significantly contaminated and the aquatic ecosystem is impaired 1, 8.

Tools for experimental designs

Recently, Downes 228 noted that sorting out the effects of multiple stressors would be best accomplished by using the basic components of good experimental design. Experimental designs are available to determine the effects of suspended and deposited clean and contaminated sediments under controlled laboratory conditions 180. Such studies help identify sensitive species and the causal stressor(s). The experimental designs should include exposing multiple species to different levels and types of suspended or depositional solids alone and in combination with other factors (such as contamination, salinity, and temperature) to determine direct effects of clean sediments versus other stressors. Ideally the frequency and duration of sediment exposures is also investigated 57. In addition, it is important to consider the connectivity between organism traits (see below) and their exposure, because this is essential when establishing actual exposures and casuality.

Mesocosms can be used in the laboratory or field to determine effects on populations and communities. Stream-side mesocosms and artificial streams with multiple interaction stressor treatments provide another way to discern which stressors are dominating. Culp et al. 229 constructed a portable mesocosm system that contains 16 circular streams. Here, indigenous benthic biota were introduced to the streams, and natural stream water was combined with pulp mill effluent to simulate discharge dilution effects and separate nutrient-related stress from other factors. Many simple mesocosm designs have been used to assess the role of bioturbation on sediment resuspension and contaminant flux to filter-feeding organisms 119. It is more difficult to create sustained sediment resuspensions within mesocosms without substantially affecting relevant physico-chemical parameters such as dissolved oxygen.

Sublethal effects or subtle interactions that occur in the field are not easily measured in standardized sediment toxicity tests 230, 231. Laboratory toxicity testing can result in artifacts that may alter exposures found in situ, such as changes in: oxidation, redox, pH, sorption and complexation, microbial activity and their by-products (e.g., ammonia), nonequilibrium conditions, organic material via sieving, predation, food availability, ultraviolet light, flow, and suspended solids 5, 9, 40, 232235. For example, seasonal complexation of Cu to DOC was affected by solar irradiation, causing dissolved organic matter to photochemically degrade and release Cu2+129, 236.

Many have called for more population- and community-based approaches looking at food chain-based effects, integrating key ecological factors beyond laboratory-based, single-species testing 6, 237, 238. This includes a greater focus on ecologically relevant endpoints not traditionally used in ecotoxicology, such as predator–prey interactions, drift, preference-avoidance, and other behavioral measures. These endpoints have been shown to be more sensitive than mortality, growth, or reproduction measures of sediment toxicity and habitat degradation due to uncontaminated fine sediments 3, 6, 181, 239242. In food webs with organisms interacting strongly through predatory or competitive relationships, indirect effects of contamination will arise 6, 243. Manipulative experiments conducted in the field can be used to test for effects of metal-contaminated sediments on multiple components of an ecosystem simultaneously. When sediment fauna are negatively affected by metal contamination, the recruitment of invertebrates to patches of hard substrate directly above the sediments may increase (N.A. Hill, personal communication). This is likely due to a reduction in infaunal predators such as annelids and crustaceans.

Hence, another useful approach for discerning sediment, habitat, and water quality stressors and factors that control bioavailability is by using caging, colonization, and transplant experiments 9, 181, 244246. Because sediments are usually altered chemically, physically, and biologically when they are sampled, there is a growing science that uses in situ observations, which can accurately document exposure and effects. The exposure of caged organisms has been recommended for fish and benthic macroinvertebrates to better characterize site and source exposures, thereby allowing for improved risk predictions or measures of remediation effectiveness 4, 15. Field-based tissue residues have been one of the oldest and most common assessment methods 247. For sediment quality assessments, both fish and benthic macroinvertebrates, particularly bivalves, have been commonly collected and tissue levels compared to sediment concentrations. This technique was used in a before–after, control–impact experimental design to establish that dredging increased the bioavailability of sediment contaminants 248. By separating sediment and water exposure compartments and documenting upwelling versus downwelling conditions using mini-piezometers, exposure sources and related toxicity can also be established 9, 10.

Some excellent papers on methods for determining free metal ion concentration, labile species fraction, metal complexation capacity in waters, and sediment flux have been published 218, 249262. A wide range of biomimetic approaches exists 263. These include organic/plastic fibers, tubes, bags and sheets, gel probes, micro-ion selective electrodes, voltammetric electrodes, and optodes. These methods have provided new insights into controls on organic matter mineralization, benthic fluxes, impacts of redox alterations on metal fate, and geochemical reaction pathways 263. As nanotechnology improves, electrodes will become smaller and more sensitive, and provide a way to determine chemical speciation of metal (organic and inorganic metal complexes and free metal) in situ by encasing microelectrodes into diffusive gradients in thin film- or diffusive equilibrium in thin film-type membranes 263.

In contaminated sediment scenarios, new stressor toxicity identification methods include whole sediment manipulations or in situ exposures with various stressor partitioning methods and substrates that may reduce the likelihood of artifacts 9, 245, 264. The phase I type toxicity identification evaluations use similar resins to those used in the U.S. EPA methods, however organisms and benthic communities are exposed directly to pore or surface waters for 24 to 96 h directly in the field. These methods have been shown to be more sensitive than side-by-side laboratory-based toxicity identification evaluation tests, suggesting manipulation artifacts are causing a loss of toxicity. They effectively identified which stressors dominated at contaminated field sites by separating nonpolar organic, metal, and ammonia fractions. In addition, when combined with modified cages to restrict suspended solids or remove solar ultraviolet radiation, adverse effects from turbidity and photo-induced toxicity are possible 9. Recent lab-based toxicity identification evaluations have effectively documented the importance of sediment-associated PAHs and pyrethroids as dominant sediment stressors in urban watersheds, and chlorpyrifos dominated in agricultural watersheds 205, 265, 266. The importance of sediment metals in urban lakes is declining, as evidenced by a nationwide survey of cores from 1970 to 2001 267. Median changes ranged from −3% (Hg, Zn) to −46% (Pb), but remained elevated over undeveloped watersheds. These declines suggest that insecticides, such as the pyrethroids and PAHs will increasingly be the toxicants of concern in urban sediments.

A promising new assessment tool, particularly for benthic invertebrate-based ecosystem quality assessments, is the use of biological traits (morphological or functional) to develop geographically broad (continental) lotic ecosystem assessments of dominant stressors 196, 219, 268271. This approach may assist in discerning effects that are due to the physical presence of solids, as opposed to solids-associated chemicals. Proponents of this approach caution against the blind use of excessive traits for the indication of too may stressors and recommend a focus on mechanistic a priori predictions. In addition, one stressor may affect many traits, thus confounding other stressor-specific relationships 271. For this field to progress, larger databases and poorly studied taxonomic groups are needed 270, 271.

Perhaps the most important aspect of an experimental design aimed at assessing when sediments are stressors, is establishing the appropriate reference conditions. In a regulatory sense, this may be straightforward, whereby impairment is simply based on exceedance of environmental quality benchmarks. However, determining what constitutes ecologically significant impairments from a high-quality state is not simple. Hawkins et al. 16 noted that researchers have become increasingly more sophisticated in their approaches for determining reference conditions using site-specific modeling. These approaches have been based on ecological, thermal, hydrologic geomorphic, and chemical benchmarks. These advances have better linked the spatial and temporal dynamics of biota and their natural environment, and are inextricably linked to how well their environments are characterized in terms of accuracy and precision. Useful approaches that have emerged include variations of the River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System 272274, ecoregions 275, landscape and typological classifications 276, 277, the Benthic Assessment of Sediment 278, 279, and others 16. Similar approaches in marine and estuarine systems are not as advanced, particularly where taxonomic clarity is not well established. However, extensive efforts are being made around the world to develop integrative tools and methods to assess the ecological health of estuaries, and substantial advances have been made by U.S. and European researchers 280, 281.

A large number of landscape approaches to studying aquatic ecosystems have established causal linkages between landscape variables and biota 62, 282. These have ranged from microhabitat patches to regional in scale, with high to low resolution, respectively. As noted by Allan 283 in a review of land use effects on streams, there has only been moderate success in quantifying the underlying mechanisms due to covariation of natural and anthropogenic factors over multiple scales, and due to legacy and nonlinear responses. Hawkins et al. 16 suggest that these schemes tend to produce overly coarse estimates that are lacking in accuracy and precision, and should be replaced by predictive modeling approaches. These will be based on a better understanding of natural variability of ecological, physical, and chemical characteristics, which then allows one to discern significant effects (impairment) from sampling and prediction error.

By using data-rich models that are statistically based, the decision of reference versus impaired areas along with stressor rankings is possible and can enhance the decision-making process. Two such ecoepidemiological approaches were independently applied to the same environmental monitoring dataset of biological, physical, and chemical variables for the State of Ohio. The methods are the effect-and-probable-cause pie diagram method and the WoE-weighted logistic regression method 173, 220. Both methods yield predictions of local impacts and their probable causes, which provided a statistical ranking of the dominant stressors.

Cross-validation of these models demonstrated that the methods yield significantly similar results in the identification of stressors impacting local fish communities and their relative influence 173. However, key differences were also observed between the methods that reflected the variance in objectives and sensitivities of each. The findings show that scientific interpretation of eco-epidemiological analysis output requires understanding of method distinctiveness, and suggest the potential value of utilizing multiple methods as lines of evidence in an environmental assessment 173. Marine studies of sediment contamination using the sediment quality triad found that salinity and grain size, not contamination, predicted benthic community responses best 284. Obviously greater amounts of colocated physical, chemical, and biological data will provide stronger spatial and temporal characterizations, thus a greater certainty of which parameters have the most significant stressor–response relationships.

Another useful eco-epidemiological model is SPEARorganic (average community sensitivity to organic toxicants) that has been demonstrated to distinguish between the effects of natural longitudinal lotic and organic toxicants using principal components analysis 285. Benthic richness and diversity responses were linked to petrochemical and synthetic surfactant exposures and separated from natural factors (altitude, velocity, temperature width, nitrate, macrophytes, periphyton cover, substrate size, and habitat heterogeneity). Another study using SPEAR found that runoff potential, stream width, and the presence of clay and dead wood in sediments predicted benthic assemblages 286. This approach provides another useful tool for separating natural and anthropogenic stressor responses.

Role of biota tolerance

Many aquatic organisms live, eat, and breed within contaminated sediments, and hence they experience chronic exposure over multiple generations. Adaptation to contaminants has been observed after only a few generations in aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates 287. Estuarine benthic fish that display high site fidelity are chronically exposed to contaminated sediments and may develop tolerance 288. One such fish, the Atlantic mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus), has been extensively studied and a recent review summarizes the knowledge we have gained from this species 289. Sediment dwelling annelids have also displayed the ability to evolve tolerance. Vidal and Horne 290 investigated variable resistance to Hg among five populations of the sediment dwelling oligochaete Sparganophilus pearsei. Worms collected from contaminated sediments were eight to 10 times more tolerant to Hg exposure in the laboratory than reference site worms. For another sediment dweller, the oligochaete Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri, genetic adaptation to Cd-contaminated sediments was shown to occur after only a few generations 287 and is thought to be controlled by a single gene 291; however, resistance was rapidly lost in nine to 18 generations 292. Tolerance to contamination can have ecological consequences resulting in structural shifts from tolerant to intolerant communities that may be dominated by nonindigenous species 293. Moreover, it is crucial that we understand the extent to which resistance to contaminated sediments modifies organism responses to stressor exposure because empirically based sediment guidelines (e.g., effects range low derived from sites where chemicals co-occur), which may be partially based on adapted populations, may be either under- or overprotective. This would depend on the area to which the guidelines are being applied and the chemical of focus 294.

Role of sediment and biota patchiness

A recent review of the benthic community patchiness literature stated that the theories have outpaced experimentation 62, which suggests that while we know patchiness is important, we do not know how to measure its significance. It has been posited that if disturbed community patches are smaller than one meter and benthic invertebrate generation times are less than a year, then recovery from disturbance will be rapid 295. However, as generation times and patch size disturbance increases, recovery times lengthen. Nevertheless, patchy sediment (or biofilm) contamination at a small scale may be ecologically significant for some communities and driven by habitat matrix retention 296. Roberts et al. 297, 298 found that storm water impacts were highly ephemeral, whereas bioaccumulation of stormwater contaminants by macroalgae had ongoing chronic toxic effects on herbivorous epifauna. Moreover, different macroalgal species accumulated contaminants to different degrees within the same site, creating a patchwork of varying contamination loads that organisms could choose from. We will advance our ability to predict the effects of heterogeneously distributed contaminants as we develop the field of landscape ecotoxicology 299, and this may be possible with existing data sets.

The U.S. EPA performed a national sediment quality survey that reviewed data for 19,398 stations in 5,695 river reaches. Sampling bias tended to occur towards stations that likely had sediment contamination 300. They identified areas of probable concern for sediment contamination where the exposure of benthic and fish communities would occur frequently. These watersheds had 10 or more sampling stations classified as having probable adverse effects. We reanalyzed this dataset using a much higher spatial resolution (1:100,000) compared with reach file version 1 (RF3) used in the U.S. EPA report (RF3 at 1:250,000 to 1:500,000) to better delineate local spatial variation. The patchiness of Cu- and Zn-contaminated sediments exceeding sediment quality guidelines in the United States was conducted for river reaches (16-digit reach level RF3, National Hydrology Dataset) on which four or more samples occurred (Figs. 2 and 3). River reaches that had one or more samples with SQG exceedances for Cu and Zn, were primarily within the lowest sample exceedance ranges (1–40%), indicative of more localized, patchy, sediment contamination. An exception was observed at the highest range (80–100% sample exceedance), in which approximately 10% of river reaches had high rates of threshold effect levels exceedances for both Cu and Zn, and 1 and 3% of river reaches had high rates of probable effect levels exceedances for Cu and Zn, respectively. These river reaches are examples of waterbodies potentially dominated by sediment contamination, with a more widespread spatial extent of contaminated sediment as compared to other river reaches. While localized sediment contamination may dominate ecological status on a highly local level, other environmental stressors acting on a wider spatial extent, including habitat quality, flow regime, water chemistry, and point and nonpoint sources of other contaminants, can play a major role in ecological status at the watershed (reach) level. Identification of contaminated sediment as a major (dominant) watershed stressor is, therefore, more convincing for river reaches with high rates (widespread) of SQG exceedances compared with river reaches having low rates (localized) of SQG exceedances. Where contaminated sediments are patchy in their distribution, this will lower their potential to be a dominant stressor in aquatic systems.

thumbnail image

Figure 2. Distribution of copper sediment quality guidelines (SQG) exceedance rate (per river reach) for all reaches evaluated. Low percentages of samples exceeding an SQG indicate localized (or absence of) contaminated sediment within a given river reach; high percentages indicate more widespread contamination within a given river reach. TEL = threshold effect level; PEL = probable effect level.

Download figure to PowerPoint

thumbnail image

Figure 3. Distribution of zinc sediment quality guidelines (SQG) exceedance rate (per river reach) for all reaches evaluated. Low percentages of samples exceeding an SQG indicate localized (or absence of) contaminated sediment within a given river reach; high percentages indicate more widespread contamination within a given river reach. TEL = threshold effect level; PEL = probable effect level.

Download figure to PowerPoint

IMPLICATIONS FOR REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. WHAT IS THE EXPOSURE?
  5. CLEAN SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  6. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  7. OTHER COMMON STRESSORS AND THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH SEDIMENTS
  8. APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING STRESSOR IMPORTANCE
  9. IMPLICATIONS FOR REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES

In terms of aquatic ecosystem quality assessment and management, ecotoxicologists, ecologists, and regulators too often have trouble seeing the forest for the trees, with a rather singular, one-at-a-time, focus on individual stressor types (chemical benchmark exceedances, physical disturbance, riparian alteration, flow) or media (sediment). While this can be effective in rather simplistic systems in which one stressor source dominates, it is not practical in complex human-dominated systems where multiple stressors and sources occur. In these multiland use systems, a large number of physical, chemical, and biological stressors are present, with varying exposure regimes, resulting in complex interactions that affect biota directly and indirectly. The biota in these areas may have evolved tolerance to certain stressors (unless development has recently occurred) and refugia areas may be limited. Significant difficulties exist in these systems regarding the choice of appropriate reference conditions, spatial-exposure extrapolations, and dominant versus cumulative stressor assessment. Highly focused approaches have not allowed for reliable predictions of how populations and communities will recover if a particular stressor or source is removed from among a plethora of stressor exposures. Yet, it is in these complex environments that billions are being spent on remediation.

Most restoration/remediation efforts in urban dominated watersheds are unsuccessful because important stressors are not removed and/or inadequate refugia exist 4, 14, 301, 302. Current restoration efforts are directed at single stressor categories and do not take a holistic approach to restoring the biological integrity of our waterways. In many cases, small-scale experimental studies could be used to identify situations in which the reducing the stress associated with physical and chemical attributes of the system are a prerequisite for biological restoration 303. This process should improve the success of ecosystem restoration efforts, by directing resources towards the most important stressors.

CONCLUSIONS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. WHAT IS THE EXPOSURE?
  5. CLEAN SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  6. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  7. OTHER COMMON STRESSORS AND THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH SEDIMENTS
  8. APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING STRESSOR IMPORTANCE
  9. IMPLICATIONS FOR REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES

The ecological risk assessment process for sediments is chemical-centric and does not easily account for major nonchemical stressors in human-dominated aquatic systems or indirect effects. Environmental quality standards or trigger values for chemical contaminants may well be protective of ecological impacts. However, habitats that meet these guidelines will not necessarily have good ecosystem quality if other stressors are acting. Increasingly, the importance of co-occurrence of other stressors, both natural and anthropogenic, and their interactions is being realized. Multiple anthropogenic and ecological stressors exert nonadditive effects and unexpected responses. These complex interactions create a high degree of uncertainty surrounding current forecasts of the importance of sediments as stressors.

So when are sediments significant ecosystem stressors? This difficult question is best answered by considering clean versus contaminated sediments in the context of reference conditions and coexisting stressors. This allows for a development of a conceptual model of likely stressors and key populations/communities and sediment properties. If data are missing for possibly important stressors, such as habitat, flow, TSS, or nutrients, then monitoring will be required before appropriate reference conditions can be selected or before accurate decisions can be made regarding the primary causes of ecosystem impairment. If reference conditions cannot be ascertained due to widespread impairment, or there is missing data, it may be possible to use statistical extrapolations, such as Geographic Information System (GIS)-based kriging as a surrogate. Once the key attributes are described, then a stressor ranking analysis (e.g., WoE-GIS) can be performed to guide further experimental manipulations to better establish causality. This, in turn, will allow for more effective decision-making regarding remediation and restoration activities.

For clean sediments, their role as stressors is primarily due to habitat degradation (excessive siltation and scouring) and physical abrasion or clogging (suspended solids). In this review, we do not advocate the management or mitigation of clean sediment stressors unless they are clearly anthropogenically altered in intensity, frequency, or spatial scale. Clean, fine-grained sediments certainly are not stressors in many ecosystems and are useful for restoration purposes. Assessment of anthropogenic influence on these processes is difficult and requires the establishment of suitable well-studied reference locations. In human-dominated watersheds, the erosion of unvegetated or farmed areas often results in increased suspended sediments, while flow energy and flashiness are amplified, affecting large areas of receiving waters. Climate change effects will shift the environmental baseline further and make it increasingly difficult to assess anthropogenic changes to sediment regimes.

Determining when contaminated sediments are significant ecosystem stressors that require management intervention is complex because they usually occur in locations subject to varied levels of anthropogenic modification. We posit that contaminated sediments are more likely to represent a threat to aquatic biota in low-energy, depositional environments. The extent of the impact will be substantially increased if anthropogenic or natural disturbance events act to temporarily resuspend contaminated sediments. In high-energy environments, rapid mixing and dilution of contaminants will result in less intense exposure regimes. The patchiness and relative spatial scale of the contamination needs to be considered in the context of the patchiness and connectivity of the endemic biota. Consideration of the appropriate ecohydraulics is also required to establish the availability of refugia and the likelihood of siltation, deposition, and resuspension.

The relative magnitude and preponderance of contaminated sediments is of particular importance for determining their importance as stressors. Given that we cannot yet quantitatively determine what spatial degree of sediment contamination is significant, it is perhaps more important to establish realistic reference conditions for comparisons and to rank the sediments in terms of coexisting stressors. These many issues and findings all point to the fact that exposures change through space and time, and need to be understood in order to assign causality and determine which stressors pose the greatest risk. Aquatic communities cannot be restored without adequate habitat and food, so these must be considered first in the restoration process. Other stressors (Fig. 1) should be ranked in terms of their relative impact to the receptors and assessment endpoints of concern.

The wide ranging chemically and biologically based methods for assessing when sediments are substantially contaminated have been reviewed elsewhere 58, 13. These useful approaches each have their own unique strengths and limitations 1. Despite the scientific consensus that WoE-based approaches are needed to reliably assess the importance of chemical contamination, regulators continue to rely heavily on point estimates of single chemical exceedances of sediment quality guidelines or probable no-effect concentrations 13. While this approach is desirable as an easy regulatory bright line of good versus bad, it is flawed in many ways, assuming that: interactions with other nonmetal/synthetic organic stressors are not important; stressor interactions are always additive; resident organisms are continuously exposed to a single chemical concentration (that which is exceeding the SQG) over a chronic period; fluctuating environmental factors do not alter bioavailability or stressor interactions; indirect effects do not occur; and, if the concentration of the chemical of concern is reduced below the guideline, the sediment ecosystem will be clean and ecosystem quality will improve. This latter assumption was recently shown to be erroneous in a National Research Council report documenting the uncertainty of dredging effectiveness at Superfund mega-sites 4, 15. For the same reason that WoE methods are recommended to assess sediment chemical contamination, they must be simultaneously employed to put the sediment contamination in the context of other ecosystem stressors. New lines-of-evidence should be incorporated into ecological risk assessment conceptual models and assessments of human-dominated watersheds and coastal areas. These essential lines-of-evidence should address not only clean and contaminated sediments, but interactions between biota, and critical temporal and spatial threshold conditions for potentially coexisting physical and biological stressors.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. WHAT IS THE EXPOSURE?
  5. CLEAN SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  6. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  7. OTHER COMMON STRESSORS AND THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH SEDIMENTS
  8. APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING STRESSOR IMPORTANCE
  9. IMPLICATIONS FOR REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES

We appreciate the data analysis of U.S. sediment quality guideline exceedances by Katherine Kapo, Montani Run, and reviews by David Costello and Graeme Clark. During the writing of this manuscript, E.L. Johnston was funded by an Australian Research Council Fellowship. The comments of two anonymous reviewers greatly improved the manuscript.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. INTRODUCTION
  4. WHAT IS THE EXPOSURE?
  5. CLEAN SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  6. CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AS STRESSORS
  7. OTHER COMMON STRESSORS AND THEIR INTERACTIONS WITH SEDIMENTS
  8. APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING STRESSOR IMPORTANCE
  9. IMPLICATIONS FOR REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION
  10. CONCLUSIONS
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. REFERENCES
  • 1
    Adams WJ, Green AS, Ahlf W, Brown SS, Burton GA, Chadwick B, Crane M, Gouget R, Ho KT, Hogstand C, Reynoldson TB, Ringwood AH, Savitz JD, Sibley PK. 2005. Using sediment assessment tools and a weight of evidence approach. In WenningRJ, BatleyGE, IngersollCG, MooreDW, eds, Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines and Related Tools for the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments. SETAC, Pensacola, FL, USA, pp 163226.
  • 2
    Wenning RJ, Sorensen M, Magar VS. 2006. Importance of implementation and residual risk analyses in sediment remediation. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2:5965.
  • 3
    Cover M, May C, Dietrich W, Resh V. 2008. Quantitative linkages among sediment supply, streambed fine sediment, and benthic macroinvertebrates in northern California streams. J North Am Benthol Soc 27:135149.
  • 4
    National RC. 2007. Sediment Dredging at Superfund Megasites. National Academies Press, Washington DC.
  • 5
    Burton GA Jr. 1991. Assessing the toxicity of freshwater sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 10:15851627.
  • 6
    Clements W, Rohr J. 2009. Community responses to contaminants: Using basic ecological principles to predict ecotoxicological effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:17891800.
  • 7
    Burton GA Jr, Chapman PM, Smith EP. 2002. Weight-of-evidence approaches for assessing ecosystem impairment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 8:16571673.
  • 8
    Burton GA Jr, Rowland CD, Greenberg MS, Lavoie DR, Nordstrom JF, Eggert LM. 2002. A tiered, weight-of-evidence approach for evaluating aquatic ecosystems. In MunawarM, ed, Sediment Quality Assessment: Approaches, Insights and Technology for the 21st Century. Monograph Series. Backhuys, Leiden, The Netherlands.
  • 9
    Burton GA Jr, Greenberg MS, Rowland CD, Irvine CA, Lavoie DR, Brooker JA, Moore L, Raymer DFN, McWilliam RA. 2005. In situ exposures using caged organisms: A multi-compartment approach to detect aquatic toxicity and bioaccumulation. Environ Pollut 134:133144.
  • 10
    Greenberg MS, Burton GA Jr, Rowland CD. 2002. Optimizing interpretation of in situ effects of riverine pollutants: Impact of upwelling and downwelling. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:289297.
  • 11
    Dale VH, Biddinger GR, Newman MC, Oris JT, Suter GW, Thompson T, Armitage TM, Meyer JL, Allen-King RM, Burton GA, Chapman PM, Conquest LL, Frernandez IJ, Landis WG, Master LL, Mitsch WJ, Mueleer TC, Rabeni CF, Rodewald AD, Sanders JG, Heerden IL. 2008. Enhancing the ecological risk assessment process. Integr Environ Assess Manag 4:306313.
  • 12
    National RC. 2001. A Risk-Management Strategy for PCB-Contaminated Sediments. National Academies Press, Washington DC.
  • 13
    Wenning RJ, Batley GE, Ingersoll CG, Moore DW. 2005. Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines and Related Tools for the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments. SETAC, Pensacola, FL, USA.
  • 14
    Palmer M, Menninger H, Bernhardt E. 2010. River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: A failure of theory or practice? Freshw Biol 55:205222.
  • 15
    Gustavson KE, Burton GA, Francingues NR, Reible DD, Vorhees DJ, Wolfe JR. 2008. Evaluating the effectiveness of contaminated-sediment dredging. Environ Sci Technol 42:50425047.
  • 16
    Hawkins C, Olson J, Hill R. 2010. The reference condition: Predicting benchmarks for ecological and water-quality assessments. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:312343.
  • 17
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. National water quality inventory. 1994 Report to Congress. EPA813-R- 96-001. Office of Water, Washington DC.
  • 18
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Developing water quality criteria for suspended and bedded sediments (SABS). Draft. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
  • 19
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. National water quality inventory: Report to Congress. 2004 Reporting Cycle. EPA-841-R- 08-001. Office of Water, Washington DC.
  • 20
    The Nature Conservancy. 1994. Conservation of biological diversity in the Great Lakes basin ecosystem: Issues and opportunities. Final report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL.
  • 21
    Moss A, Cox M, Scheltinga D, Rissik D. 2006. Integrated estuary assessment framework. Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone Estuary and Waterway Management, Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia.
  • 22
    Queensland Government. 2009. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan 2009: For the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and adjacent catchments. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat, Brisbane, Australia.
  • 23
    Suedel BC, Kim J, Clarke DG, Linkov I. 2008. A risk-informed decision framework for setting environmental windows for dredging projects. Sci Total Environ 403:111.
  • 24
    Townsend C, Uhlmann S, Matthaei C. 2008. Individual and combined responses of stream ecosystems to multiple stressors. J Appl Ecol 45:18101819.
  • 25
    Holomuzki J, Feminella J, Power M. 2010. Biotic interactions in freshwater benthic habitats. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:220244.
  • 26
    Lamberti G, Chaloner D, Hershey A. 2010. Linkages among aquatic ecosystems. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:245263.
  • 27
    Stanley E, Powers M, Lottig N. 2010. The evolving legacy of disturbance in stream ecology: Concepts contributions, and coming challenges. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:6783.
  • 28
    Hering D, Moog O, Sandin L, Veerdonschot PFM. 2004. Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia 516:121.
  • 29
    Nijboer RC, Johnston RK, Verdonschot PFM, Sommerhauser M, Buffagni A. 2004. Establishing reference conditions for European streams. Hydrobiologia 516:94107.
  • 30
    Reice SR, Wissmar RC, Naiman RJ. 1990. Disturbance regimes, resilience, and recovery of animal communities in lotic ecosystems. Environ Manag 14:647659.
  • 31
    Reinert KH, Giddings JM, Judd L. 2002. Effects analysis of time-varying or repeated exposures in aquatic ecological risk assessment of agrochemicals. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:19771992.
  • 32
    Ashauer R, Boxall A, Brown C. 2006. Predicting effects on aquatic organisms from fluctuating or pulsed exposure to pesticides. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:18991912.
  • 33
    Zhao Y, Newman MC. 2006. Effects of exposure duration and recovery time during pulsed exposures. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:12981304.
  • 34
    Johnston EL, Keough MJ. 2005. Reduction of pollution impacts through the control of toxicant release must be site- and season-specific. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 320:933.
  • 35
    Hare L, Shooner F. 1995. Do aquatic insects avoid cadmium-contaminated sediments? Environ Toxicol Chem 14:10711077.
  • 36
    Hare L. 2003. Metal sources for freshwater invertebrates: Pertinence for risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 9:779793.
  • 37
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Wadeable streams assessment: A collaborative survey of the nation's streams. EPA 841-B- 06-002. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
  • 38
    Extence CA. 1999. River flow indexing using British benthic macroinvertebrates: A framework for setting hydroecological objectives. Regul Rivers Res Manag 15:543574.
  • 39
    Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC. 1997. The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47:769784.
  • 40
    Burton GA, Denton DL, Ho K, Ireland DS. 2003. Sediment toxicity testing: Issues and methods. In HoffmanDJ, RattnerBA, BurtonGAJr, CairnsJJr, eds, Handbook of Ecotoxicology, 2nd ed. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 111150.
  • 41
    Eggleton J, Thomas KV. 2004. A review of factors affecting the release and bioavailability of contaminants during sediment disturbance events. Environ Int 30:973980.
  • 42
    Reynoldson TB, Thompson SP, Milani D. 2002. Integrating multiple toxicological endpoints in a decision-making framework for contaminated sediments. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 8:15691584.
  • 43
    Newcombe CP, MacDonald DD. 1991. Effects of suspended sediments on aquatic eosystems. North Am J Fish Manag 11:7282.
  • 44
    Waters TF. 1995. Sediment in Streams-Sources, Biological Effects and Control. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
  • 45
    Wood P, Armitage P. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environ Manag 21:203217.
  • 46
    Wilber DH, Clarke DG. 2001. Biological effects of suspended sediments: A review of suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish with relation to dredging activities in estuaries. North Am J Fish Manag 21:855875.
  • 47
    Lemly A. 1982. Modification of benthic insect communities in polluted streams: Combined effects of sedimentation and nutrient enrichment. Hydrobiologia 87:229245.
  • 48
    Connell JH. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199:13021310.
  • 49
    Ziegler CK, Nisbet BS. 1995. Long-term simulation of fine-grained sediment transport in large reservoir. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering—ASCE 121:773781.
  • 50
    Roberts AL, Arnold WA, Eykholt GR. 1998. Role of environmental chemistry in designing permeable barriers for containment of chlorinated organic solvents in groundwater. Abstr Pap Am Chem Soc 216: 118-ENVR.
  • 51
    Tsai CH, Lick W. 1986. A portable device for measuring sediment resuspension. J Gt Lakes Res 12:314321.
  • 52
    Thomsen L, Gust G. 2000. Sediment erosion thresholds and characteristics of resuspended aggregates on the western European continental margin. Deep-Sea Res Part I—Oceanogr Res Pap 47:18811897.
  • 53
    Tsai C-H, Lick W. 1986. A portable device for measuring sediment resuspension. J Gt Lakes Res 12:314321.
  • 54
    Gust G, Muller V. 1997. Interfacial Hydrodynamics and Entrainment Functions of Currently Used Erosion Devices. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
  • 55
    Singleton H. 2001. Ambient water quality guidelines (criteria) for turbidity, suspended and benthic sediments. British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, BC, Canada.
  • 56
    Wood P, Toone J, Greenwood M, Armitage P. 2005. The response of four lotic macroinvertebrate taxa to burial by sediments. Arch Hydrobiol 163:145162.
  • 57
    Schratzberger M, Rees H, Boyd S. 2000. Effects of simulated deposition of dredged material on structure of nematode assemblages—The role of contamination. Mar Biol 137:613622.
  • 58
    Hynes HBN, Greib BJ. 1970. Movement of phosphate and other ions from and through lake muds. J Fish Res Board Can 27:653668.
  • 59
    Oschwald W. 1972. Sediment-water interactions. J Environ Qual 1:360366.
  • 60
    Taulbee WK, Nietch CT, Brown D, Ramakrishnan B, Tompkins MJ. 2009. Ecosystem consequences of contrasting flow regimes in an urban effects stream mesocosm study (1). Journal of the American Water Resources Association 45:907927.
  • 61
    Verdonschot P. 2009. Impact of hydromorphology and spatial scale on macroinvertebrate assemblage composition in streams. Integr Environ Assess Manag 5:97109.
  • 62
    Winemiller K, Flecker A, Hoeinghaus D. 2010. Patch dynamics and environmental heterogeneity in lotic ecosystems. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:8499.
  • 63
    Donohue I, Molinos JG. 2009. Impacts of increased sediment loads on the ecology of lakes. Biol Rev 84:517531.
  • 64
    Brunke M, Gonser T. 1997. The ecological significance of exchange processes between rivers and groundwater. Freshw Biol 37:133.
  • 65
    Rehg KJ, Packman AI, Ren JH. 2005. Effects of suspended sediment characteristics and bed sediment transport on streambed clogging. Hydrological Processes 19:413427.
  • 66
    Sylte T, Fischenich C. 2002. Technique for measuring substrate embeddedness. ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-36. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, USA.
  • 67
    Snelgrove P, Butman C. 1994. Animal–sediment relationships revisited: Cause versus effect. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 32:111177.
  • 68
    Bond N, Downes B. 2003. The independent and interactive effects of fine sediment and flow on benthic invertebrate communities characteristic of small upland streams. Freshw Biol 48:455465.
  • 69
    Rogers CS. 1990. Responses of coral reefs and reef organisms to sedimentation. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 62:185202.
  • 70
    Thrush S, Hewitt J, Norkko A, Nicholls P, Funnell G, Ellis J. 2003. Habitat change in estuaries: Predicting broad-scale responses of intertidal macrofauna to sediment mud content. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 263:101112.
  • 71
    Wolter C, Arlinghaus R. 2003. Navigation impacts on freshwater fish assemblages: The ecological relevance of swimming performance. Rev Fish Biol Fish 13:13:6389.
  • 72
    Berry W, Rubinstein N, Melzian B, Hill B. 2003. The biological effects of suspended and bedded sediment (SABS) in aquatic systems: A review. U.S. Environment Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
  • 73
    Airoldi L. 2003. The effects of sedimentation on rocky coast assemblages. Oceanogr Mar Biol Annu Rev 41:161236.
  • 74
    McCabe G, O'Brien W. 1983. The effects of suspended silt on feeding and reproduction of Daphnia pulex. Am Midl Nat 110:324337.
  • 75
    Robinson S, Capper N, Klaine S. 2010. The effects of continuous and pulsed exposures of suspended clay on the survival, growth, and reproduction of Daphnia magna. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:168175.
  • 76
    Weltens R, Goossens R, Van Puymbroeck S. 2000. Ecotoxicity of contaminated suspended solids for filter feeders (Daphnia magna). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39:315323.
  • 77
    Johnston EL, Roberts D. 2009. Contaminants reduce the richness and evenness of marine communities: A review and meta-analysis. Environ Pollut 157:17451752.
  • 78
    Cecala R, Mayer C, Schulz K, Mills E. 2008. Increased benthic algal primary production in response to the invasive zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in a productive ecosystem, Oneida Lake, New York. J Inter Plant Biol 50:14521466.
  • 79
    Lohner R, Sigler V, Mayer C, Balogh C. 2007. A comparison of the benthic bacterial communities within and surrounding dreissena clusters in lakes. Microb Ecol 54:469477.
  • 80
    Zhu B, Fitzgerald D, Hoskins S, Rudstam L, Mayer C, Mills E. 2007. Quantification of historical changes of submerged aquatic vegetation cover in two bays of Lake Ontario with three complementary methods. J Gt Lakes Res 33:122135.
  • 81
    Clements WH. 1999. Metal tolerance and predator-prey interactions in benthic macroinvertebrate stream communities. Ecol Appl 9:10731084.
  • 82
    Gray BR, Hill WR. 1995. Nickel sorption by periphyton exposed to different light intensities. J North Am Benthol Soc 14:299305.
  • 83
    Meylan S, Behra R, Sigg L. 2003. Accumulation of copper and zinc in periphyton in response to dynamic variations of metal speciation in freshwater. Environ Sci Technol 37:52045212.
  • 84
    Lawrence JR, Chenier MR, Roy R, Beaumier D, Fortin N, Swerhone GDW, Neu TR, Greer CW. 2004. Microscale and molecular asssessment of impacts of nickel, nutrients, and oxygen level on structure and function of river biofilm communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:43264339.
  • 85
    Crunkilton R, Kleist J, Ramcheck J, DeVita W, Villeneuve D. 1997. Assessment of the response of aquatic organisms to long-term in situ exposures to urban runoff. In RoesnerLA, ed, Effects of Watershed Developments and Management on Aquatic Ecosystems Conference. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY, USA, pp 95–111.
  • 86
    Leppanen M, Kukkonen J. 1998. Relationship between reproduction, sediment type, and feeding activity of Lumbriculus variegatus (Muller): Implications for sediment toxicity testing. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:21962202.
  • 87
    Leppänen MT, Kukkonen JVK. 1998. Relative importance of ingested sediment and pore water as bioaccumulation routes for pyrene to oligochaete (Lumbriculus variegatus, Muller). Environ Sci Technol 32:15031508.
  • 88
    Alexander AC, Culp JM, Liber K, Cessna AJ. 2007. Effects of insecticide exposure on feeding inhibition in mayflies and oligochaetes. Environ Toxicol Chem 26:17261732.
  • 89
    Ashauer R, Boxall ABA, Brown CD. 2007. Modeling combined effects of pulsed exposure to carbaryl and chlorpyrifos on Gammarus pulex. Environ Sci Technol 41:55355541.
  • 90
    Leppanen M, Kukkonen J. 2006. Evaluating the role of desorption in bioavailability of sediment-associated contaminants using oligochaetes, semipermeable membrane devices and Tenax extraction. Environ Pollut 140:150163.
  • 91
    Curtis LR, Seim WK, Chapman GA. 1985. Toxicity of fenvalerate to developing steelhead trout following continuous or intermittent exposure. J Toxicol Environ Health 15:445457.
  • 92
    Brent RN, Herricks EE. 1998. Postexposure effects of brief cadmium, zinc, and phenol exposures on freshwater organisms. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:20912099.
  • 93
    Shine JP, Ika R, Ford TE. 1998. Relationship between oxygen consumption and sediment-water fluxes of heavy metals in coastal marine sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:23252337.
  • 94
    Carbanaro RF, Mahoney JD, Walther AD, Halper EB, Di Toro DM. 2005. Experimental and modeling investigation of metal release from metal-spiked sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 12:30073019.
  • 95
    Burton GA, Custer K, Taulbee K, Anderson P, Cloran C, Kochersberger J. 2009. Examining the effects of sediment nickel in a streamside mesocosm. Final Report. Nickel Producers Environmental Research Association, Durham, NC, USA.
  • 96
    Simpson SL, Apte SC, Batley GE. 1998. Effect of short-term resuspension events on trace metal speciation in polluted anoxic sediments. Environ Sci Technol 32:620625.
  • 97
    Saulnier I, Mucci A. 2000. Trace metal remobilization following the resuspension of estuarine sediments: Saguenay Fjord, Canada. Appl Geochem 15:191210.
  • 98
    Simpson SL, Apte SG, Batley GE. 2000. Effect of short-term resuspension events on the oxidation of cadmium, lead, and zinc sulfide phases in anoxic estuarine sediments. Environ Sci Technol 34:45334537.
  • 99
    Atkinson C, Jolley D, Simpson S. 2007. Effect of overlying water pH, dissolved oxygen, salinity and sediment disturbances on metal release and sequestration from metal contaminated marine sediments. Chemosphere 69:14281437.
  • 100
    De Haas EM, Van Haaren R, Koelmans AA, Kraak MHS, Admiraal W. 2005. Analyzing the causes for the persistence of chironomids in floodplain lake sediments. Arch Hydrobiol 162:211228.
  • 101
    Beck AJ, Janssen F, Polerecky L, Herlory O, de Beer D. 2009. Phototrophic biofilm activity and dynamics of diurnal Cd cycling in a freshwater stream. Environ Sci Technol 43:72457251.
  • 102
    Benoit JM, Shull DH, Harvey RM, Beal SA. 2009. Effect of bioirrigation on sediment-water exchange of methylmercury in Boston Harbor, Massachusetts. Environ Sci Technol 43:36693674.
  • 103
    Morris JM, Nimick DA, Farag AM, Meyer JS. 2005. Does biofilm contribute to diel cycling of Zn in High Ore Creek, Montana? Biogeochemistry 76:233259.
  • 104
    Nimick DA, McCleskey BR, Gammons CH, Cleasby TE, Parker SR. 2007. Diel mercury-concentration variations in streams affected by mining and geothermal discharge. Sci Total Environ 373:344355.
  • 105
    Point D, Monperrus M, Tessier E, Amouroux D, Chauvaud L, Thouzeau G, Jean F, Amice E, Grall J, Leynaert A, Clavier J, Donard OFX. 2007. Biological control of trace metal and organometal benthic fluxes in a eutrophic lagoon (Thau Lagoon, Mediterranean Sea, France). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 72:457471.
  • 106
    Tercier-Waeber ML, Hezard T, Masson M, Schafer J. 2009. In situ monitoring of the diurnal cycling of dynamic metal species in a stream under contrasting photobenthic biofilm activity and hydrological conditions. Environ Sci Technol 43:72377244.
  • 107
    Nimick DA, Gammons CH, Cleansby TE, Madison JP, Skaar D, Brick CM. 2003. Diel variations in dissolved metal concentrations in streams: Occurrence and possible causes. Water Resour Res 39:12471264.
  • 108
    Nimick DA, Harper DD, Farag AM, Cleasby TE, MacConnell E, Skarr D. 2007. Influence of in-stream diel concentration cycles of dissolved trace metals on acute toxicity to one-year-old cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus Clarki Lewisi). Environ Toxicol Chem 26:26672678.
  • 109
    Liu CH, Jay JA, Ford TE. 2001. Evaluation of environmental effects on metal transport from capped contaminated sediment under conditions of submarine groundwater discharge. Environ Sci Technol 35:45494555.
  • 110
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Evaluating groundwater/surface-water transition zones in ecological risk assessments. EPA-540-R- 06-072. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington DC.
  • 111
    Peck M, Klessa D, Baird D. 2002. A tropical sediment toxicity test using the dipteran Chironomus crassiforceps to test metal bioavailability with sediment pH change in tropical acid-sulfate sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:720728.
  • 112
    Carvalho P, Zanardi E, Buratini S, Lamparell M, Martins M. 1998. Oxidizing effect on metal remobilization and Daphnia similis toxicity from a Brazilian reservoir sediment suspension. Water Res 32:193199.
  • 113
    Meylan S, Behra R, Sigg L. 2003. Accumulation of copper and zinc in periphyton in response to dynamic variations of metal speciation in freshwater. Environ Sci Technol 37:52045212.
  • 114
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Procedures for the derivation of equilibrium partitioning sediment benchmarks (ESBs) for the protection of benthic organisms: Metal mixtures (cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc). EPA 600-R-02011. Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.
  • 115
    Burton GA Jr, Nguyen LTH, Janssen C, Baudo R, McWilliam R, Bossuyt B, Beltrami M, Green A. 2005. Field validation of sediment zinc toxicity. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:541553.
  • 116
    Rickard D, Morse JW. 2005. Acid volatile sulfide (AVS). Mar Chem 97:141197.
  • 117
    Van den Berg GA, Loch JPG, Van der Heijdt LM, Zwolsman JJG. 1998. Vertical distribution of acid-volatile sulfide and simultaneously extracted metals in a recent sedimentation area of the river Meuse in the Netherlands. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:758763.
  • 118
    van Griethuysen C, de Lange HJ, van den Heuij M, de Bles SC, Gillissen F, Koelmans AA. 2006. Temporal dynamics of AVS and SEM in sediment of shallow freshwater floodplain lakes. Appl Geochem 21:632642.
  • 119
    Van Griethuysen C, Meijboom EW, Koelmans AA. 2003. Spatial variation of metals and acid volatile sulfide in floodplain lake sediment. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:457465.
  • 120
    Van den Berg G, Meijers G, van der Heijdt L, Zwolsman J. 2001. Dredging-related mobilisation of trace metals: A case study in the Netherlands. Water Res 35:19791986.
  • 121
    Poot A. 2007. Effects of flow regime and flooding on heavy metal availability in sediment and soil of a dynamic river system. Environ Pollut 148:779787.
  • 122
    Besser J, Ingersoll C, Giesy J. 1996. Effects of spatial and temporal variation of acid-volatile sulfide on the bioavailability of copper and zinc in freshwater sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:286293.
  • 123
    Griscom S, Fisher N. 2002. Uptake of dissolved Ag, Cd, and Co by the clam, Macoma balthica: Relative importance of overlying water, oxide pore water and burrow water. Environ Sci Technol 36:24712478.
  • 124
    Burton GA, Green A, Baudo R, Forbes V, Nguyen LTH, Janssen CR, Kukkonen J, Leppanen M, Maltby L, Soares A, Kapo K, Smith P, Dunning J. 2007. Characterizing sediment acid volatile sulfide concentrations in European streams. Environ Toxicol Chem 26:112.
  • 125
    Grabowski LA, Houpis JLJ, Woods WI, Johnson KA. 2001. Seasonal bioavailability of sediment-associated heavy metals along the Mississippi River floodplain. Chemosphere 45:643651.
  • 126
    van den Hoop M, den Hollander HA, Kerdijk HN. 1997. Spatial and seasonal variations of acid volatile sulphide (AVS) and simultaneously extracted metals (SEM) in Dutch marine and freshwater sediments. Chemosphere 35:23072316.
  • 127
    Griscom SB, Fisher NS, Luoma SN. 2000. Geochemical influences on assimilation of sediment-bound metals in clams and mussels. Environ Sci Technol 34:9199.
  • 128
    Luoma SN, Rainbow PS. 2008. Metal Contamination in Aquatic Environments—Science and Lateral Management. Cambridge University Press, London, UK.
  • 129
    Brooks ML, McKnight DM, Clements WH. 2007. Photochemical control of copper complexation of dissolved organic matter in Rocky Mountain streams, Colorado. Limnol Oceanogr 52:766779.
  • 130
    Millero FJ, Hawke DJ. 1992. Ionic interactions of divalent metals in natural-waters. Mar Chem 40:1948.
  • 131
    Abril G, Nogueira M, Etcheber H, Cabecadas G, Lemaire E, Brogueira MJ. 2002. Behaviour of organic carbon in nine contrasting European estuaries. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 54:241262.
  • 132
    Stauber JL, Benning RJ, Hales LT, Eriksen R, Nowak B. 2000. Copper bioavailability and amelioration of toxicity in Macquarie Harbour, Tasmania, Australia. Mar Freshw Res 51:110.
  • 133
    Van Ginneken L, Beervoets L, Blust R. 2001. Bioavailability of Cd to the common carp. Aquat Toxicol (Amst) 52:1327.
  • 134
    Bottacin-Busolin A, Singer G, Zaramella M, Battin TJ, Marion A. 2009. Effects of streambed morphology and biofilm growth on the transient storage of solutes. Environ Sci Technol 43:73377342.
  • 135
    Decho AW. 2000. Microbial biofilms in intertidal systems: An overview. Continental Shelf Research 20:12571273.
  • 136
    Courtney LA, Clements WH. 2002. Assessing the influence of water and substratum quality on benthic macroinvertebrate communities in a metal-polluted stream: An experimental approach. Freshw Biol 47:17661778.
  • 137
    Yebra DM, Kill S, Weinell CE, Dam-Johansen K. 2006. Effects of marine microbial biofilms on the biocide release rate from antifouling paints—A model-based analysis. Progress in Organic Coatings 57:5666.
  • 138
    Burton G, Pitt R. 2002. Stormwater Effects Handbook: A Tool Box for Watershed Managers, Scientists and Engineers. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
  • 139
    Horowitz AJ, Elrick KA, Smith JJ. 2001. Annual suspended sediment and trace element fluxes in the Mississippi, Columbia, Colorado, and Rio Grande drainage basins. Hydrological Processes 15:11691207.
  • 140
    Horowitz AJ, Stephens VC. 2008. The effects of land use on fluvial sediment chemistry for the conterminous US—Results from the first cycle of the NAWQA Program: Trace and major elements, phosphorus, carbon, and sulfur. Sci Total Environ 400:290314.
  • 141
    Schoellhamer DH, Mumley TE, Leatherbarrow JE. 2007. Suspended sediment and sediment-associated contaminants in San Francisco Bay. Environ Res 105:119131.
  • 142
    Bogden JJ, Budd JW, Eadie BJ, Hornbuckle KC. 2002. The effect of a large resuspension event in Southern Lake Michigan on the short-term cycling of organic contaminants. J Gt Lakes Res 28:338351.
  • 143
    Hill N, King C, Perrett L, Johnston E. 2009. Contaminated suspended sediments toxic to an Antarctic filter feeder: Aqueous and particulate phase effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:409417.
  • 144
    Hedge LH, Knott NA, Johnston EL. 2009. Dredging related metal bioaccumulation in oysters. Mar Pollut Bull 58:832840.
  • 145
    de Carvalho PSM, Zanardi E, Buratini SV, Lamparelli MC, Martins MC. 1998. Oxidizing effect on metal remobilization and Daphnia similis toxicity from a Brazilian reservoir sediment suspension. Water Res 32:193199.
  • 146
    Borretzen P, Salbu B. 2009. Bioavailability of sediment-associated and low-molecular-mass species of radionuclides/trace metals to the mussel Mytilus edulis. J Environ Radioact 100:333341.
  • 147
    Burton GA Jr, Landrum P. 2003. Toxicity of sediments. In MiddletonGV, ChurchMJ, ConiglioM, HardieLA, LongstaffeFJ, eds, Encyclopedia of Sediments and Sedimentary Rocks. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 748751.
  • 148
    Bosch C, Olivares A, Faria M, Navas JM, del Olmo I, Grimalt JO, Pina B, Barata C. 2009. Identification of water soluble and particle bound compounds causing sublethal toxic effects. A field study on sediments affected by a chlor-alkali industry. Aquat Toxicol (Amst) 94:1627.
  • 149
    Schulz R. 2003. Using a freshwater amphipod in situ bioassay as a sensitive tool to detect pesticide effects in the field. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:11721176.
  • 150
    Pyle GG, Swanson SM, Lehmkuhl DM. 2002. The influence of water hardness, pH, and suspended solids on nickel toxicity to larval fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). Water Air Soil Pollut 133:215226.
  • 151
    Yang WC, Spurlock F, Liu WP, Gan JY. 2006. Inhibition of aquatic toxicity of pyrethroid insecticides by suspended sediment. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:19131919.
  • 152
    Dabrowski J, Bollen A, Schulz R. 2005. Combined effects of discharge, turbidity, and pesticides on mayfly behavior: Experimental evaluation of spray-drift and runoff scenarios. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:13951402.
  • 153
    Ireland DS, Burton GA Jr, Hess GG. 1996. In situ toxicity evaluations of turbidity and photoinduction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:574581.
  • 154
    Hedman JE, Tocca JS, Gunnarsson JS. 2009. Remobilization of polychlorinated biphenyl from Baltic Sea sediment: Comparing the roles of bioturbation and physical resuspension. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:22412249.
  • 155
    Simpson SL, Batley GE. 2003. Disturbances to metal partitioning during toxicity testing of iron(II)-rich estuarine pore waters and whole sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:424432.
  • 156
    Leppänen MT, Kukkonen JVK. 1998. Relationship between reproduction, sediment type, and feeding activity of Lumbriculus variegatus (Muller): Implications for sediment toxicity testing. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:21962202.
  • 157
    Campbell P, Tessier A. 1988. Geochemical partitioning and bioavailability of inorganic lead in aquatic sediments. ENVR Part 1. Proceedings, 3rd Chemical Congress of North America and 195th ACS National Meeting, Toronto, Canada. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, Vol 28, pp 396399.
  • 158
    Matisoff G, Robbins J. 1987. A model for biological mixing of sediments. Journal of Geological Education 35:144149.
  • 159
    Peterson GS, Ankley GT, Leonard EN. 1996. Effect of bioturbation on metal-sulfide oxidation in surficial freshwater sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 15:21472155.
  • 160
    Klerks PL, Fraleigh PC, Lawniczak JE. 1997. Effects of the exotic zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) on metal cycling in Lake Erie. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 54:16301638.
  • 161
    Knott N, Aulbury J, Brown T, Johnston EL. 2009. Contemporary ecological threats from historical pollution sources: Large scale resuspension of contaminated sediments. J Appl Ecol 46:770781.
  • 162
    Ciutat A, Gerino M, Boudou A. 2007. Remobilization and bioavailability of cadmium from historically contaminated sediments: Influence of bioturbation by tubificids. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 68:108117.
  • 163
    Ciutat A, Boudou A. 2003. Bioturbation effects on cadmium and zinc transfers from a contaminated sediment and on metal bioavailability to benthic bivalves. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:15741581.
  • 164
    Ciarelli S, van Straalen NM, Klap VA, van Wezel AP. 1999. Effects of sediment bioturbation by the estuarine amphipod Corophium volutator on fluoranthene resuspension and transfer into the mussel (Mytilus edulis). Environ Toxicol Chem 18:318328.
  • 165
    Cantwell M, Burgess R, Kester D. 2002. Release and phase partitioning of metals from anoxic estuarine sediments during periods of simulated resuspension. Environ Sci Technol 36:53285334.
  • 166
    Gillis P, Wood C, Ranville J, Chow-Fraser P. 2006. Bioavailability of sediment-association Cu and Zn to Daphnia magna. Aquat Toxicol (Amst) 77:402411.
  • 167
    Cardoso PG, Lillebo AI, Lopes CB, Pereira E, Duarte AC, Pardal MA. 2008. Influence of bioturbation by Hediste diversicolor on mercury fluxes from estuarine sediments: A mesocosms laboratory experiment. Mar Pollut Bull 56:325334.
  • 168
    Bonnet C, Babut M, Ferard JF, Martel L, Garric J. 2000. Assessing the potential toxicity of resuspended sediment. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:12901296.
  • 169
    Forstner U. 1995. Risk assessment and technological options for contaminated sediments—A geochemical perspective. Mar Freshw Res 46:113127.
  • 170
    Zhuang Y, Allen H, Fu G. 1994. Effect of aeration on cadmium binding. Environ Toxicol Chem 13:717724.
  • 171
    Maddock JEL, Carvalho MF, Santelli RE, Machado W. 2007. Contaminant metal behaviour during re-suspension of sulphidic estuarine sediments. Water Air Soil Pollut 181:193200.
  • 172
    Birdwell JE, Thibodeaux LJ. 2007. A kinetic model of short-term dissolved contaminant release during dredge-generated bed sediment resuspension. Environ Eng Sci 24:14311442.
  • 173
    Kapo KE, Burton GA, De Zwart D, Posthuma L, Dyer SD. 2008. Quantitative lines of evidence for screening-level diagnostic assessment of regional fish community impacts: A comparison of spatial database evaluation methods. Environ Sci Technol 42:94129418.
  • 174
    Sciera K, Smink J, Morse J, Post C, Pike J, English W, Karanfil T, Hayes J, Schlautman M, Klaine S. 2008. Impacts of land disturbance on aquatic ecosystem health: Quantifying the cascade of events. Integr Environ Assess Manag 4:431442.
  • 175
    Burton GA, Pitt R, Clark S. 2000. The role of traditional and novel toxicity test methods in assessing stormwater and sediment contamination. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 30:413447.
  • 176
    Davis J, Sim L, Chambers J. Multiple stressors and regime shifts in shallow aquatic ecosystems in antipodean landscapes. Freshw Biol 55:518.
  • 177
    Strayer D. 2010. Alien species in fresh waters: Ecological effects, interactins with other stressors, and prospects for the future. Freshw Biol 55:152174.
  • 178
    Tockner K, Pusch M, Borchardt D, Lorang M. 2010. Multiple stressors in coupled river-floodplain ecosystems. Freshw Biol 55:135151.
  • 179
    Tolhurst LE, Barry J, Dyer RA, Thomas KV. 2007. The effect of resuspending sediment contaminated with antifouling paint particles containing Irgarol 1051 on the marine macrophyte Ulva intestinalis. Chemosphere 68:15191524.
  • 180
    Hill NA, King CK, Perrett LA, Johnston EL. 2009. Contaminated suspended sediments toxic to an Antarctic filter feeder: Aqueous- and particulate-phase effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:409417.
  • 181
    Clements W. 2004. Small-scale experiments support causal relationships between metal contamination and macroinvertebrate community responses. Ecol Appl 14:954967.
  • 182
    Cloran CE, Burton GA, Hammerschmidt CR, Taulbee WK, Custer KW, Bowman KL. 2010. Effects of suspended solids and dissolved organic carbon on nickel toxicity. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:17811787.
  • 183
    Fleeger JW, Gust KA, Marlborough SJ, Tita G. 2007. Mixtures of metals and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons elicit complex, nonadditive toxicological interactions in meiobenthic copepods. Environ Toxicol Chem 26:16771685.
  • 184
    Kashian DR, Zuellig RE, Mitchell KA, Clements WH. 2007. The cost of tolerance: Sensitivity of stream benthic communities to UV-B and metals. Ecol Appl 17:365375.
  • 185
    Fausch K, Baxter C, Murakami M. 2010. Multiple stressors in north temperate streams: Lessons from linked forest-stream ecosystems in northern Japan. Freshw Biol 55:120134.
  • 186
    Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM, Morgan RP. 2005. The urban stream syndrome: Current knowledge and the search for a cure. J North Am Benthol Soc 24:706723.
  • 187
    Burton GA Jr, Pitt R, Clark S. 2000. The role of whole effluent toxicity test methods in assessing stormwater and sediment contamination. CRC Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 30:413447.
  • 188
    Fitzpatrick F, Diebel M, Harris M, Arnold T, Lutz M, Richards K. 2005. Effects of urbanization on the geomorphology, habitat, hydrology, and fish index of biotic integrity of streams in the Chicago area, Illinois and Wisconsin. Am Fish Soc Symp 47:87115.
  • 189
    Fitzpatrick FA, Harris MA, Arnold TL, Richards KD. 2004. Urbanization influences on aquatic communities in northeastern Illinois streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40:461475.
  • 190
    Robson M, Spence K, Beech L. 2006. Stream quality in a small urbanized catchment. Sci Total Environ 357:194207.
  • 191
    Booth DB, Jackson CR. 1997. Urbanization of aquatic systems: Degradation thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33:10771090.
  • 192
    Roy SP, Quigley MM, Danos S. 2003. A retrofit for Long Lake. Civil Engineering 73:7479.
  • 193
    Weston DP, Holmes RW, You J, Lydy MJ. 2005. Aquatic toxicity due to residential use of pyrethroid insecticides. Environ Sci Technol 39:97789784.
  • 194
    Ding Y, Harwood A, Foslund H, Lydy M. 2010. Distribution and toxicity of sediment-associated pesticides in urban and agricultural waterways from Illinois, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:149157.
  • 195
    De Hass E, Reuveers B, Moermond CTA, Koelmans AA, Kraak MHS. 2002. Responses of benthic invertebrates to combined toxicant and food in floodplain lake sediments. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:21652171.
  • 196
    Doledec S, Statzner B. 2010. Responses of freshwater biota to human disturbances: Contribution of J-NABS to developments in ecological integrity assessments. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:286311.
  • 197
    Moss B. 2010. Climate change, nutrient pollution and the bargain of Dr. Faustus. Freshw Biol 55:175187.
  • 198
    Steinman A, Silver P, Fisher S, Meyer J. 2010. The J-NABS 25th anniversary issue: Reflecting on the past, synthesizing the present, and projecting into the future. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:372380.
  • 199
    Scavia D, Donnelly KA. 2007. Reassessing hypoxia forecasts for the Gulf of Mexico. Environ Sci Technol 41:81118117.
  • 200
    Schiedek D, Sundelin B, Readman J, MacDonald R. 2007. Interactions between climate change and contaminants. Mar Pollut Bull 54:18451856.
  • 201
    Strayer D, Dudgeon D. 2010. Freshwater biodiversity conservation: Recent progress and future challenges. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:344358.
  • 202
    Lehtonen KK, Leinio S, Schneider R, Leivuori M. 2006. Biomarkers of pollution effects in the bivalves Mytilus edulis and Macoma balthica collected from the southern coast of Finland (Baltic Sea). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 322:155168.
  • 203
    Sokolova I, Lannig G. 2008. Interactive effects of metal pollution and temperature on metabolism in aquatic ectotherms: Implications of global climate change. Clim Res 37:181201.
  • 204
    Cairns J Jr, Buikema AL Jr, Heath AG, Parker BC. 1978. Effects of temperature on aquatic organism sensitivity to selected chemicals. Virginia Water Resources Research Center Bulletin 106:970.
  • 205
    Weston DP, You J, Harwood AD, Lydy MJ. 2009. Whole sediment toxicity identification evaluation tools for pyrethroid insecticides: III. Temperature manipulation. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:173180.
  • 206
    Cairns J, Sparks R, Waller W. 1973. Use of fish as sensors in industrial-waste lines to prevent fish kills. Hydrobiologia 4:151167.
  • 207
    de Vries P, Tamis JE, Murk AJ, Smit MGD. 2008. Development and application of a species sensitivity distribution for temperature-induced mortality in the aquatic environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:25912598.
  • 208
    Hewitt JE, Anderson MJ, Hickey CW, Kelly S, Thrush SF. 2009. Enhancing the ecological significance of sediment contamination guidelines through integration with community analysis. Environ Sci Technol 43:21182123.
  • 209
    Hickey G, Kefford B, Dunlop J, Craig P. 2008. Making species salinity sensitivity distributions reflective of naturally occurring communities: Using rapid testing and Bayesian statistics. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:24032411.
  • 210
    Kwok KWH, Bjorgesaeter A, Leung KMY, Lui GCS, Gray JS, Shin PKS, Lam PKS. 2008. Deriving site-specific sediment quality guidelines for Hong Kong marine environments using field-based species sensitivity distributions. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:226234.
  • 211
    Smit M, Jak R, Rye H, Frost T, Singaas I, Karman C. 2008. Assessment of environmental risks from toxic and nontoxic stressors: A proposed concept for a risk-based management tool for offshore drilling discharges. Integr Environ Assess Manag 4:177183.
  • 212
    Smit M, Holthaus K, Trannum H, Neff J, Kjeilen-Eilertsen G, Jak R, Singsaas I, Huijbregts M, Hendriks A. 2008. Species sensitivity distributions for suspended clays, sediment burial, and grain size change in the marine environment. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:10061012.
  • 213
    Leung K. 2005. Deriving sediment quality guidelines from field-based species sensitivity distributions. Environ Sci Technol 39:51485156.
  • 214
    Long S, Reichenberg F, Lister L, Hankard P, Townsend J, Mayer P, Wright J, Holmstrup M, Svendsen C, Spurgeon D. 2009. Combined chemical (fluoranthene) and drought effects on Lumbricus rubellus demonstrate the applicability of the independent action model for multiple stressor assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:629636.
  • 215
    Rye H, Reed M, Frost T, Smit M, Durgut I, Johansen O, Ditlevsen M. 2008. Development of a numerical model for calculating exposure to toxic and nontoxic stressors in the water column and sediment from drilling discharges. Integr Environ Assess Manag 4:194203.
  • 216
    Kosian PA, Makynen EA, Monson PD, Mount DR, Spacie A, Mekenyan OG, Ankley GT. 1998. Application of toxicity-based fractionation techniques and structure-activity relationship models for the identification of phototoxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediment pore water. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:10211033.
  • 217
    Kashian DR, Prusha BA, Clements WH. 2004. The influence of total organic carbon and UV-B radiation on Zn toxicity and bioaccumulation in aquatic communities. Environ Sci Technol 38:63716376.
  • 218
    Tercier-Waeber ML, Taillefert M. 2008. Remote in situ voltammetric techniques to characterize the biogeochemical cycling of trace metals in aquatic systems. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 10:3054.
  • 219
    Baird D, Van den Brink P. 2007. Using biological traits to predict species sensitivity to toxic substances. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 67:296301.
  • 220
    Kapo KE, Burton GA. 2006. A geographic information systems-based, weights-of-evidence approach for diagnosing aquatic ecosystem impairment. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:22372249.
  • 221
    Ramil M, El Aref T, Fink G, Scheurer M, Ternes T. 2010. Fate of beta blockers in aquatic-sediment systems: Sorption and biotransformation. Environ Sci Technol 44:962970.
  • 222
    Babu T, Marder J, Tripuranthakan S. 2001. Synergistic effects of a photoxidized PAH and Cu on photosynthesis and plant growth: Evidence that in vivo formation of ROS is a mechanism of Cu toxicity. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:13511358.
  • 223
    Norwood W, Borgmann U, Dixon D, Wallace A. 2003. Effects of metal mixtures on aquatic biota: A review of observations and methods. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 9:795811.
  • 224
    Hagopian-Schlekat T, Chandler GT, Shaw TJ. 2001. Acute toxicity of five sediment-associated metals, individually and in a mixture, to the estuarine meiobenthic harpacticoid copepod Amphiascus tenuiremis. Mar Environ Res 51:247264.
  • 225
    Plafkin JL, Barbour MT, Porter KD, Gross SK, Hughes RM. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. PB95-194759. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, USA.
  • 226
    MacDonald DD, Dipinto LM, Field J, Ingersoll CG, Long ER, Swartz RC. 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment effect concentrations for polychlorinated biphenyls. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:14031413.
  • 227
    MacDonald DD, Ingersoll CG, Berger TA. 2000. Development and evaluation of consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 39:2031.
  • 228
    Downes B. 2010. Back to the future: Little-used tools and principles of scientific inference can help disentangle effects of multiple stressors on freshwater ecosystems. Freshw Biol 55:6079.
  • 229
    Culp JM, Lowell RB, Cash KJ. 2000. Integrating mesocosm experiments with field and laboratory studies to generate weight-of-evidence risk assessments for large rivers. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:11671173.
  • 230
    Luoma SN. 1995. Prediction of metal toxicity in nature from bioassays: Limitations and research needs. Metal speciation and bioavailability. In TessierA, TurnerD, eds, Aquatic Systems. John Wiley & Sons, London, UK, pp 609659.
  • 231
    Schindler DW. 1987. Detecting ecosystem responses to anthropogenic stress. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 44 (Suppl 1): 625.
  • 232
    Solomon KR, Ankley GT, Baudo R, Burton GA, Ingersoll CG, Lick W, Luoma SN, MacDonald DD, Reynoldson TB, Swartz RC, Warren-Hicks WJ. 1997. Methodological uncertainty. In IngersollCG, DillionT, BiddingerGR, eds, Ecological Risk Assessment of Contaminated Sediments. SETAC, Pensacola, FL, USA, pp 271296.
  • 233
    Day KE, Clements WH, DeWitt T, Landis WG, Landrum P, Morrisey DJ, Reiley M, Rosenberg DM, Suter GW. 1997. Critical issues of ecological relevance in sediment risk assessment. In IngersollCG, DillionT, BiddingerGR, eds, Ecological Risk Assessment of Contaminated Sediments. SETAC, Pensacola, FL, USA, pp 167198.
  • 234
    Sarda N, Burton GA Jr. 1995. Ammonia variation in sediments: Spatial, temporal and method-related effects. Environ Toxicol Chem 14:14991506.
  • 235
    Hulbert P. 1975. Carbonium ion as ultimate carcinogen of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Nature 256:146148.
  • 236
    Brooks M, Meyer J, McKnight D. 2007. Photooxidation of wetland and riverine dissolved organic matter: Altered copper complexation and organic composition. Hydrobiologia 579:95113.
  • 237
    Clark JL, Clements WH. 2006. The use of in situ and stream microcosm experiments to assess population- and community-level responses to metals. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:23062312.
  • 238
    Baird D, Burton G Jr. 2001. Ecosystem Variability: Separating Natural from Anthropogenic Causes of Ecosystem Impairment. SETAC, Pensacola, FL, USA.
  • 239
    Clements WH, Carlisle DM, Courtney LA, Harrahy EA. 2002. Integrating observational and experimental approaches to demonstrate causation in stream biomonitoring studies. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:11381146.
  • 240
    Brooks A, Gaskell P, Maltby L. 2009. Sublethal effects and predator-prey interaction: Implications for ecological risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:24492457.
  • 241
    Pestana J, Loureiro S, Baird D, Soares A. 2009. Fear and loathing in the benthos: Responses of aquatic insect larvae to the pesticide imidacloprid in the presence of chemical signals of predation risk. Aquat Toxicol (Amst) 93:138149.
  • 242
    Beketov M, Liess M. 2008. Potential of 11 pesticides to initiate downstream drift of stream macroinvertebrates. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 55:247253.
  • 243
    Johnston EL, Keough MJ. 2002. Direct and indirect effects of repeated pollution events on marine hard-substrate assemblages. Ecol Appl 12:12121228.
  • 244
    Clements WH, Kiffney PM. 1994. Integrated laboratory and field approach for assessing impacts of heavy metals at the Arkansas River, Colorado. Environ Toxicol Chem 13:397404.
  • 245
    Custer KW, Burton GA Jr, Coelho RS, Smith PR. 2006. Determining stressor presence in streams receiving urban and agricultural runoff: Development of a benthic in situ toxicity identification evaluation method. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:22992305.
  • 246
    Kiffney PM, Clements WH. 1994. Effects of heavy metals on a macroinvertebrate assemblage from a Rocky Mountain stream in experimental microcosms. J North Am Benthol Soc 13:511523.
  • 247
    Rainbow PS. 2006. Biomonitoring of trace metals in estuarine and marine environments. Australas J Ecotoxicol 12:107122.
  • 248
    Hedge L, Knott N, Johnston EL. 2009. Dredging related metal bioaccumulation in oysters. Mar Pollut Bull 58:832840.
  • 249
    Buffle J, Tercier-Waeber ML. 2005. Voltammetric environmental trace-metal analysis and speciation: From laboratory to in situ measurements. TRAC—Trends Anal Chem 24:172191.
  • 250
    Van Der Veeken PLR, Pinheiro JP, Van Leeuwen HP. 2008. Metal speciation by DGT/DET in colloidal complex systems. Environ Sci Technol 42:88358840.
  • 251
    Pesavento M, Alberti G, Biesuz R. 2009. Analytical methods for determination of free metal ion concentration, labile species fraction and metal complexation capacity of environmental waters: A review. Anal Chim Acta 631:129141.
  • 252
    Sigg L, Black F, Buffle J, Cao J, Cleven R, Davison W, Galceran J, Gunkel P, Kalis E, Kistler D, Martin M, Noel S, Nur Y, Odzak N, Puy J, Van Riemsdijk W, Temminghoff E, Tercier-Waeber ML, Toepperwien S, Town RM, Unsworth E, Warnken KW, Weng LP, Xue HB, Zhang H. 2006. Comparison of analytical techniques for dynamic trace metal speciation in natural freshwaters. Environ Sci Technol 40:19341941.
  • 253
    Vrana B, Mills G, Greenwood R, Knutsson J, Svenssone K, Morrison G. 2005. Performance optimisation of a passive sampler for monitoring hydrophobic organic pollutants in water. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 7:612620.
  • 254
    Warnken KW, Davison W, Zhang H. 2008. Interpretation of in situ speciation measurements of inorganic and organically complexed trace metals in freshwater by DGT. Environ Sci Technol 42:69036909.
  • 255
    Slaveykova VI, Karadjova IB, Karadjov M, Tsalev DL. 2009. Trace metal speciation and bioavailability in surface waters of the Black Sea coastal area evaluated by HF-PLM and DGT. Environ Sci Technol 43:17981803.
  • 256
    Devries CR, Wang FY. 2003. In situ two-dimensional high-resolution profiling of sulfide in sediment interstitial waters. Environ Sci Technol 37:792797.
  • 257
    Jezequel D, Brayner R, Metzger E, Viollier E, Prevot F, Fievet F. 2007. Two-dimensional determination of dissolved iron and sulfur species in marine sediment pore waters by thin-film based imaging. Thau lagoon (France). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 72:420431.
  • 258
    Teasdale PR, Hayward S, Davison W. 1999. In situ, high-resolution measurement of dissolved sulfide using diffusive gradients in thin films with computer-imaging densitometry. Anal Chem 71:21862191.
  • 259
    Howell KA, Achterberg EP, Braungardt CB, Tappin AD, Worsfold PJ, Turner DR. 2003. Voltammetric in situ measurements of trace metals in coastal waters. TRAC—Trends Anal Chem 22:828835.
  • 260
    Dunn RJK, Teasdale PR, Warnken J, Arthur JM. 2007. Evaluation of the in situ, time-integrated DGT technique by monitoring changes in heavy metal concentrations in estuarine waters. Environ Pollut 148:213220.
  • 261
    Widerlund A, Davison W. 2007. Size and density distribution of sulfide-producing microniches in lake sediments. Environ Sci Technol 41:80448049.
  • 262
    Ferrier KL, Kirchner JW. 2008. Effects of physical erosion on chemical denudation rates: A numerical modeling study of soil-mantled hillslopes. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 272:591599.
  • 263
    Viollier E, Rabouille C, Apitz SE, Breuer E, Chaillou G, Dedieu K, Furukawa Y, Grenz C, Hall P, Janssen F, Morford JL, Poggiale JC, Roberts S, Shimmield T, Taillefert M, Tengberg A, Wenzhofer F, Witte U. 2003. Benthic biogeochemistry: State of the art technologies and guidelines for the future of in situ survey. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 285:531.
  • 264
    Burton GA Jr, Nordstrom JF. 2004. An in situ toxicity identification evaluation method. Part II: Field validation. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:28512855.
  • 265
    Anderson BS, Hunt JW, Phillips BM, Nicely PA, Gilbert KD, De Vlaming V, Connor V, Richard N, Tjeerdemat RS. 2003. Ecotoxicologic impacts of agricultural drain water in the Salinas River, California, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:23752384.
  • 266
    Mehler WT, Maul JD, You J, Lydy MJ. 2010. Identifying the causes of sediment-associated contamination in the Illinois River (USA) using a whole-sediment toxicity identification evaluation. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:158167.
  • 267
    Mahler BJ, Van Metre PC, Callender E. 2006. Trends in metals in urban and reference lake sediments across the United States, 1970–2001. Environ Toxicol Chem 25:16981709.
  • 268
    Baird D, Rubach M, Van den Brink P. 2008. Trait-based ecological risk assessment (TERA): The new frontier? Integr Environ Assess Manag 4:23.
  • 269
    Horrigan N, Baird D. 2008. Trait patterns of aquatic insects across gradients of flow-related factors: A multivariate analysis of Canadian national data. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65:670680.
  • 270
    Rubach MN, Baird DJ, Van den Brink PJ. 2010. A new method for ranking mode-specific sensitivity of freshwater arthropods to insecticides and its relationship to biological traits. Environ Toxicol Chem 29:476487.
  • 271
    Statzner B, Beche L. 2010. Can biological invertebrate traits resolve effects of multiple stressors on running water ecosystems? Freshw Biol 55:80119.
  • 272
    Van Sickle J, Hawkins CP, Larsen DP, Herlihy AT. 2005. A null model for the expected macroinvertebrate assemblage in streams. J North Am Benthol Soc 24:178191.
  • 273
    Davy-Bowker J, Clarke RT, Johnson RK, Kokes J, Murphy JF, Zahradkova S. 2006. A comparison of the European Water Framework Directive physical typology and RIVPACS-type models as alternative methods of establishing reference conditions for benthic macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia 566:91105.
  • 274
    Hawkins CP, Vinson MR. 2000. Weak correspondence between landscape classifications and stream invertebrate assemblages: Implications for bioassessment. J North Am Benthol Soc 19:501517.
  • 275
    Omernik JM. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77:118125.
  • 276
    Snelder TH, Biggs BJF. 2002. Multiscale river environment classification for water resources management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38:12251239.
  • 277
    Hawkins CP, Norris RH, Gerritsen J, Hughes RM, Jackson SK, Johnson RK, Stevenson RJ. 2000. Evaluation of the use of landscape classifications for the prediction of freshwater biota: Synthesis and recommendations. J North Am Benthol Soc 19:541556.
  • 278
    Reynoldson TB, Norris RH, Resh VH, Day KE, Rosenberg DM. 1997. The reference condition: A comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. J North Am Benthol Soc 16:833852.
  • 279
    Reynoldson TB, Bailey RC, Day KE, Norris RH. 1995. Biological guidelines for freshwater sediment based on BEnthic Assessment SedimenT (the BEAST) using a multivariate approach for predicting biological state. Aust J Ecol 20:198219.
  • 280
    Borja A, Bricker S, Dauer DM, Demetriades NT, Ferreira JG, Forbes AT, Hutchings A, Jia X, Kenchington R, Marques JC, Zhu C. 2008. Overview of integrative tools and methods in assessing ecological integrity in estuarine and coastal systems worldwide. Mar Pollut Bull 56:15191537.
  • 281
    Hyland J, Balthis W, Engle V, Long ER, Paul J, Summers J, Van Dolah R. 2003. Incidence of stress in benthic communities along the US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts within different ranges of sediment contamination from chemical mixtures. Environ Monit Assess 81:149161.
  • 282
    Johnson L, Host G. 2010. Recent developments in landscape approaches for the study of aquatic ecosystems. J North Am Benthol Soc 29:4166.
  • 283
    Allan JD. 2004. Landscape and riverscapes: The influence of land use on river ecosystems. Annual Reviews of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35:257284.
  • 284
    Hartwell S, Claflin L. 2005. Cluster analysis of contaminated sediment data: Nodal analysis. Environ Toxicol Chem 24:18161834.
  • 285
    Beketov M, Liess M. 2008. An indicator for effects of organic toxicants on lotic invertebrate communities: Independence of confounding environmental factors over an extensive river continuum. Environ Pollut 156:980987.
  • 286
    Schriever CA, Ball MH, Holmes C, Maund S, Liess M. 2007. Agricultural intensity and landscape structure: Influences on the macroinvertebrate assemblages of small streams in northern Germany. Environ Toxicol Chem 26:346357.
  • 287
    Klerks PL, Levinton JS. 1989. Rapid evolution of metal resistance in a benthic oligochaete inhabiting a metal-polluted site. Biol Bull 176:135141.
  • 288
    Wirgin I, Waldman JR. 2004. Resistance to contaminants in North American fish populations. Mutation Research—Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 552:73100.
  • 289
    Burnett KG, Bain LJ, Baldwin WS, Callard GV, Cohen S, Di Giulio RT, Evans DH, Gómez-Chiarri M, Hahn ME, Hoover CA, Karchner SI, Katoh F, Maclatchy DL, Marshall WS, Meyer JN, Nacci DE, Oleksiak MF, Rees BB, Singer TD, Stegeman JJ, Towle DW, Van Veld PA, Vogelbein WK, Whitehead A, Winn RN, Crawford DL. 2007. Fundulus as the premier teleost model in environmental biology: Opportunities for new insights using genomics. Comp Biochem Physiol D Genomics Proteomics 2:257286.
  • 290
    Vidal DE, Horne AJ. 2003. Mercury toxicity in the aquatic oligochaete Sparganophilus pearsei: I. Variation in resistance among populations. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 45:184189.
  • 291
    Martinez D, Levinton JS. 1996. Adaptation to heavy metals in the aquatic oligochaete Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri: Evidence for control by one gene. Evolution 50:13391343.
  • 292
    Levinton J, Suatoni E, Wallace W, Junkins R, Kelaher B, Allen B. 2003. Rapid loss of genetically based resistance to metals after the cleanup of a Superfund site. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:98899891.
  • 293
    Piola R, Johnston EL. 2008. Pollution reduces endemic diversity and increases invader dominance in hard-substrate communities. Divers Distrib 14:329342.
  • 294
    Johnston EL. 2010. Evidence from chronically exposed populations of aquatic organisms. In RomeoM, RainbowPS, Amiard-RriquetC, eds, Tolerance to Contaminants. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp 2546.
  • 295
    Lancaster J, Belyea LR. 1997. Nested hierarchies and scale-dependence of mechanisms of flow refugium use. J North Am Benthol Soc 16:221238.
  • 296
    Roberts D, Johnston EL, Poore AGB. 2008. Contamination of marine biogenic habitats and effects upon associated epifauna. Mar Pollut Bull 56:10571065.
  • 297
    Roberts D, Poore AGB, Johnston EL. 2008. Biomonitors and the assessment of ecological impacts: Distribution of herbivorous epifauna in contaminated macroalgal beds. Environ Pollut 156:489503.
  • 298
    Roberts D, Mueller S, Johnston E, Poore A. 2008. Field and laboratory simulations of storm water pulses: Behavioural avoidance by marine epifauna. Environ Pollut 152:153162.
  • 299
    Ares J. 2003. Time and space issues in ecotoxicology: Population models, landscape pattern analysis, and long-range environmental chemistry. Environ Toxicol Chem 22:945957.
  • 300
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. The incidence and severity of sediment contamination in surface waters of the United States. EPA 823R04007. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
  • 301
    Booth DB. 2005. Challenges and prospects for restoring urban streams: A perspective from the Pacific Northwest of North American. J North Am Benthol Soc 24:724737.
  • 302
    Ludwig DF, Iannuzzi TJ. 2005. Incremental ecological exposure risks from contaminated sediments in an urban estuarine river. Integr Environ Assess Manag 1:374390.
  • 303
    Johnston EL, Clark GF. 2007. Recipient environment more important than community composition in determining the success of an experimental sponge transplant. Restor Ecol 15:638651.
  • 304
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Use of biological information to better define designated aquatic life uses in state and tribal water quality standards: Tiered aquatic life uses. Draft. Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
  • 305
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Introduction to Clean Water Act section 303(d) impaired water lists. Office of Water, Washington, DC.