Bioindicators for Environmental Monitoring: A Review

Dessalegn Ejigu , M. Balkrishinan and Afework Bekele

Bahir Dar University, Department of Biology

ABSTRACT

Bioindicators are organisms of species highly sensitive to the changes in the surroundings, which
can provide information about the health of the ecosystem. By sampling and studying population
dynamics of such organisms, it is possible to monitor ecological changes and reveal positive and
negative effects of human activities in the area. Bioindicators can be categorized into early
warning, diagnostic and compliance. A wide variety of organisms such as microorganisms, algae,
lichens, zooplanktons, insects, amphipods, isopods, polychaetes, mollusks, echinoderms, fish,
amphibians, reptiles, aves and mammals are known to serve as bioindicators. Changes in the
population levels, physiological processes and behavioral modifications of such organisms are
used to detect changes in the environmental health. DNA-based methods are effective to test the
presence of specific pollutants in the environment. Indicator value method (IndVal) is used to
quantify the bioindicator value of a species in a given site and time. This method combines the
relative abundance of a species with its relative frequency of occurrence in a group of sites.
Bioindicators can be considered as label for a specific environmental context, and can be used in
monitoring environmental changes and its effects on the ecosystem. They can act as indicators for
monitoring water and air quality, assessing the overall biodiversity and the progress of mitigative
measures implemented from time to time. They also play a significant role in nature conservation.

Keywords: Bioindicators, environmental health, environmental monitoring, indicator value

method (IndVal), population dynamics

1
 INTRODUCTION

Bioindicators are organisms or a species or a group of species, whose function and/or population
status can be used to monitor the status of health the environment in which they live. Changes in
the population status, behaviour and physiology of such organisms are used to predict the
occurrence of an environmental problem within a given ecosystem. Bioindicators provide
adequate information that would be difficult to obtain and quantify by other means, or at least not
as easily or quickly (Hopkin, 1990; Lindenmayer et al., 2000). Species are identified as
bioindicators when their abundance and population fluctuation clearly vary in response to any
environmental change in a particular habitat is sufficiently known (Mouillot et al., 2002).

Indicator species can be categorized into early warning, diagnostic and compliance. Early warning
indicators can reveal the first signs of disturbance in the environment before most other species are
affected. Diagnostic indicators are those used to investigate observed environmental disturbances.
Compliance indicators are those species, which are used to verify maintenance or restoration goals
have been achieved (Noss, 1990). Bioindicators are habitat specific, and react immediately in
response to environmental changes. Such species and their habitats are closely linked, and hence it
is impossible for such species to resist environmental changes (Celli and Maccagnani, 2003).

The reliability of bioindicators with their habitat could be assessed by sampling in different
weather conditions or seasons. It is the specific assemblage of organisms and their environment
that makes certain organisms’ make a preferable bioindicators (McGeoch et al., 2002, Celli and
Maccagnani, 2003). Species that cannot normally live outside forests, grasslands or cultivated
lands, those responding to a particular soil management practice and those supported by water
logging are examples of bioindicators (Hopkin, 1990; Paoletti, 1999). Therefore, by using
bioindicators, it is possible to assess areas of biochemical contamination; impacts monocultures,
disposal, industrial and urban settlements and areas neighbouring to power plants.

TYPES OF BIOINDICATORS

A wide range of species are known as potential bioindicators in both aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems (Burger and Gochfeld, 2001). Depending on the type of organisms used for
monitoring, they are classified into plants, animals and microbial. Plant indicators include algae,
mosses, lichens, grasses and tree bark; while animal indicators encompass different groups of
animals ranging from invertebrates to mammals. Diversified array of microorganisms are used as
microbial indicators.

Plant indicators

Algal communities, in wetlands and aquatic ecosystems, are used in estimating changes. Their
rates of photosynthesis, respiration and productivity often measured indirectly. Since they
reproduce quickly and are sensitive to a number of environmental pressures including changes in
salinity, metals, pH, turbidity, current strength, depth of water and substrate availability, they used

2
to monitor the health of aquatic ecosystems (Marianne and Natasa, 2002). Algal blooms are over-
production of algae, which are often considered as synonymous with eutrophication. Moreover,
algal species richness declines in acidified lakes, particularly in the presence of heavy metals, and
they are used as indicators of change in trophic state. A study in Lake Kuriftu, Ethiopia, indicated
that blue green algae, green algae and diatoms are the major algal groups in terms of species
richness and abundance, while the abundance of other algal species such as dianoflagellates,
cryptomonads and euglenoids are not significant (Zelalem, 2007). Thus, depletion of diatoms in
the community provides a strong evidence of phosphorus related changes in the aquatic
ecosystems. Periphytons (benthic algae) are used as effective bioindicators, because they have
large number of species and they show rapid response to both exposure and recovery. They are
also easy to sample and sensitive to specific environmental changes.

Zooxanthellae are symbiotic algae that live in coral tissues and assist the coral in supplying
nutrients and energy. They are more sensitive to temperature changes than are the corals
themselves. Because of climate change these indicator species are disappearing or leaving the
corals. The absence of zooxanthellae in the corals causes bleaching phenomenon and hence
indicates climate change impacts on coral reefs as they cannot survive by their own.

Lichens are mutualistic association of algae and fungi that are used as potential bioindicators. The
symbiotic associations between the photosynthetic algae (photobiont) and the heterotrophic fungi
(mycobiont) make the lichen body to have a stable ‘micro-ecosystem’. They are highly sensitive to
various environmental changes such as changes in forest structure, air quality and climate. If either
the production of nutrients or water is interrupted, lichens can show changes in their components
such as chlorophyll content or respiration level. Lichens show similar biological features with
mosses in their strong affinity on wet and dry deposition. Both lichens and mosses accumulate
metals passively. As a result, older mosses and lichens are greatly contaminated and show higher
metal levels. As a result, they are liable to changes at genetic, individual, population and
community levels. Thus, they can be used to estimate species diversity and habitat potential at any
times of the year (Eva, 2003).

Animal indicators
Changes in the species composition and distribution patterns of zooplanktons in aquatic habitats
can reveal human induced changes in their habitats (Radiziejewska et al., 1973). Woodlice are
important decomposers of leaf litter and may show a loss of biomass and a decrease in number of
species. Their diversity as grassland detritivores could thus be a potential guide to ecosystem
activity in natural and cultivated grasslands. They may be useful as easily identified bioindicators
of undisturbed and semi-natural conditions (Souty-Grosset et al., 2005).

Terrestrial insects with different combinations of habitat specificity and fidelity could fulfill
indicator roles to assess various types of ecological changes. They are used to detect changes in
the environment at spatial and temporal scales (McGeoch, 1998, McGeoch et al., 2002). For
example, bee is a suitable indicator. Their foraging movements from the hive to the surroundings,
suddenly picking up airborne particles with its body hairs, while busily harvesting nectar and

3
pollen from flowers and propolis from the buds of various plant species depend up on the
environmental quality (Crane, 1984; Celli and Maccanani, 2003).

When the bee larvae feed, accumulate residues in their bodies and hence can be used as potential
indicators by analyzing the levels of contaminants. The bee then acts as a detector of
environmental pollution. Higher levels of accumulation of residues result in higher levels of
mortality of the bees themselves. Further, the presence of toxic molecules and heavy metals and
chemicals such as fungicides and herbicides in the honey would indicate the environmental quality
(Celli and Maccanani, 2003). Most significant chemical pesticides responsible for mass death of
bees are dimethoate and parathion (each 15%), azinphos-methyl (12%), carbaryl (11%) and
methyl-parathion (10%) (Celli et al., 1988 as cited in Celli and Maccanani, 2003). Therefore, bees
are used as suitable indicators in determination of different types of pollutants caused by
pesticides.

Different types of toxic metals are accumulated in the body of bees. For example, lead and
cadmium are accumulated mainly inside bee’s body; zinc and cadmium are mainly found on its
surface, cadmium is also found in wax, propolis and pollen (Celli and Maccanani, 2003). Wax,
propolis, and pollen are efficient indicators of metal emission; metal content in honey is variable
with respect to polluted and unpolluted sites. However, absolute concentration of metals in honey
is low and at the area with very high metal emission has never been closer to the regulatory limit
recommended by the World Health Organization.

Some of the insects are considered as pests and as a result many professionals are trained to focus
more on pest problems related to insects than their potential uses. There is a need to know the
ecological roles of such undervalued small creatures in order to better appreciate the benefits
human derives from their existence (Paoletti, 1999). Dung beetles are also used as potential
indicators because they are sensitive to habitat changes (McGeoch et al., 2002). Patterns of
herbivorous insects in polluted areas, such as the abundance of aphids on trees have been
correlated with industrial pollution in particular with increased availability of nutrients of free
amino acids in the stressed trees.

Crustaceans are among the most successful groups of arthropods distributed in marine, freshwater
and terrestrial habitats, and therefore are often used as indicators to monitor changes in different
types of ecosystems. Their ubiquitous distribution, both in aquatic and terrestrial habitats, makes
them candidates for comparative studies (Rinderhagen et al., 2000). Some of the special features
of crustaceans, including their reproductive strategies are important for the interpretation of data
and for standard toxicity tests. This is because female crustaceans often carry eggs or juveniles in
specialized structures on their body (i.e. marsupium) and as a result, the reproductive behaviour
can be assessed in the laboratory as well as in the field (Rinderhagen et al., 2000). However, it is
not only the reproductive behaviour but also other responses of crustaceans such as changes in
feeding; drifting and locomotion have proved to provide sensitive endpoints with respect to their
capacity as bioindicators. Different groups of invertebrates especially polychaetes, mussels,
bivalves and echinoderms are used as indicators in marine habitats, while the majority of

4
crustaceans such as amphipods and isopods are commonly used in freshwater ecosystems
(Rinderhagen et al., 2000).

Fishes are excellent indicators of aquatic habitats. They are used to detect increasing pollution in
the downstream caused by various anthropogenic activities including industrial pollution.
Pollution in aquatic habitats causes profound alterations in physical and chemical characteristics of
the aquatic environment and aquatic food webs. For example, a study on the reproductive system
of the fish (Astyanax fasciatus) confirmed that there is a significant reduction in mean oocyte
diameter, gonadal indices (relation between weight of the gonad and volume of the fish) and
gonado-somatic relationships (relationships between weight of the gonad and weight of body) of
the fish specimens captured from polluted water compared with those captured from unpolluted
sites (Schulz and Martins-Junior, 2001). Such differences are caused due to high loads of organic
and industrial sewage in polluted water bodies.

Heavy metals may reduce volume of fish oocytes. Exposure of fish to zinc, cadmium, copper,
mercury, or chemical pesticides may cause up to 80% reduction in egg production. Low pH values
in polluted water bodies might enhance toxic effects on reproductive systems of the fish, and
bioaccumulation of contaminants leads to elevated heavy metal concentration in their body. It is
also suggested that the decline in reproduction potential in fish is associated with low
concentrations of dissolved oxygen, which interfere in yolk accumulation, and consequently alter
oocyte size (Schulz and Martins-Junior, 2001; Burger et al., 2005). An increased level of water
pollution leads to a reduction in visceral somatic index, which reflects lipid stored in viscera. A
decrease in energy commitment in the visceral lipid storage and reproduction could be explained
by a disruption in metabolic capability and altered energy allocation. The reduction of gonadal
indices and gonadal-somatic relationships showed that sufficient energy was not allocated to the
gonads on account to increased level of water pollution.

The bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) is a predator used as an ideal indicator for environmental
monitoring. Contaminants in bluefish are of great interest. They get contaminants from water and
food, which primarily include smaller fish. They, in turn, can be eaten by larger predators such as
shark or large bluefish. Therefore, by understanding the levels of contamination in the tissues of
the bluefish, it is possible to assess the effects of contaminants to the fish itself and the probability
to transfer contaminants to its predators including birds and humans (Burger and Gochfeld, 2001).

Population decline in different species of amphibians and reptiles justifies an effort to identify a
number of indicator species such as frogs, salamanders and turtles capable of determining the
health of herpetofauna and their ecosystems (Wilson and McCranie, 2003). Amphibians are well
known as bioindicators to detect changes in the environment. They absorb chemicals through
their moist skin and through the thin moist lining of their mouth and throat. As a result, toxins in
the environment could build up faster in their bodies than in other vertebrates sharing the same
habitat. This makes amphibians very sensitive to pollution in the environment. Turtle eggs can be
used as indicators of the pesticide polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) contamination. PCB
contamination in turtle eggs was associated with industrial sites, where pollution level is high
(King, 2008).

5
 Effects of agrochemicals on the population and structure of avian community was narrated by
Rachel Carson in her book Silent Spring more than five decades back (Carson, 1962). Silent
Spring exposed the hazards of the most powerful pesticide (DDT) the world had ever known,
eloquently questioned humanity’s faith in technological progress and helped set the stage for the
environmental movement. Birds are important indicators as they are easily visible and sensitive to
toxic chemicals. They occur at higher trophic levels and form important structural components of
a variety of ecosystems. They give early warning of environmental stress and are of general
interest to the public. The composition of aquatic bird communities has been used to assess the
nutrient impact in aquatic food web. Indicator aquatic birds such as the great crested grebe are the
species most closely dependent on local trophic conditions in the Mar Menor lagoon, southeast
Spain. The related black-necked grebe, which dominates the water bird community in the same
ecosystem plays a similar role but its more opportunistic response to changes in food resources
reduces its indicator value (Fernandez et al., 2005).

Various factors, which potentially influence the bird community, should be elucidated before the
indicator values of birds are assessed. These include the significance of annual variation in the
richness of avifauna and their total abundance, the habitat affinities of abundant bird species, the
influence of land-use on composition and abundance of avifauna, the significance of annual
variation in populations of abundant bird species and the identification of land-use variables that
have impacts on avifauna (Read et al., 2000; Palacio-Nunez et al., 2007). When the impacts
caused by mining and grazing on the ecosystem were assessed using birds as indicators, some
birds like crested-bell birds and small insectivorous birds were apparently disadvantaged by
mining and hence may be useful indicators of mining impacts. Nevertheless, no bird species or
community was identified, which could serve as useful early warning indicator of pastoral impacts
(Read et al., 2000).

One of the key habitat features influencing bird communities in ponds that dry out is the extent to
which the ponds are surrounded by vegetation and with reduction of this vegetation cover around
the water body, some bird species like the black vulture (Coragyps atratus) become more
dominant within the bird communities and used as indicators of dry season in water bodies.
Increasing population of black vulture in the dry pond is due to the attraction of the debris left by
fishermen, who clean and smoke fish on the exposed sand banks within the river system (Mistry et
al., 2008).

Mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) are useful indicators. Information on contaminant levels in
dove tissues can be used as an indication of the exposure to environmental contaminants. The
health of the dove populations as well as the potential well-being of organisms that consume the
doves such as hawks, predatory mammals and human hunters can be monitored using doves as
indicator species. Although mourning doves are relatively low on the food chain because they eat
primarily seeds, they can pick up pollutants in the soil they ingest as sand and gravel to aid in
digestion (Burger and Gochfeld, 2001). Piscivorous birds and their feathers are also used as
important tools in detecting mercury contamination in the surroundings (Frederik et al., 2002).

6
Bats and other small mammals are used as potential bioindicators to monitor the health of the
environment. Because of their diversity, their vital ecological contribution in seed dispersal and
pollination, their widespread distribution and capacity to associate with specific habitats, make
bats useful indicators. Small mammals such as cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), deer mouse
(Peromyscus maniculatus), hispid pocket mouse (Chaetodipus hispidus) and fulvous harvest
mouse (Reithrodontomys fulvescens) are used as indicators in assessing the disturbance of
grassland community. It is found that the abundance of deer mouse changes with short-term
disturbances in the area and increases by about one individual per 5% of additional track-cover. Its
abundance also increases by about three individuals per 1% increase in organic soil carbon (Leis
et al. 2008). Hispid pocket mouse and fulvous harvest mouse are found only in single soil types
and this limits their potential as general indicators. Abundance of deer mouse is positively related
to shifts in plant species composition and likely reflects changes in vegetation structure like litter
depth and forage availability that resulted from environmental disturbances.

Small mammals can respond quickly to habitat disturbances. They are sufficiently mobile and
disperse to suitable sites and leave unstable habitats. They are ubiquitous with high reproductive
rate, and hence are useful indicators to monitor changes in the ecosystem, including both short-
term and long-term habitat disturbances. They are also used as tools for land managers in
assessing conditions across landscapes (Clark et al., 1989, Leis et al., 2008).

Microbial indicators

Microbial indicators have major roles in the agro-ecological management of soil and for
application of nutritional improvements. They are considered as efficient ecosystem management
tools (Díaz, 2009). Microorganisms present in effluent treatment plants are responsible to improve
water quality. Different hazardous waste disposal sites could be monitored using target
microorganisms. For example, bioluminescent bacteria have been employed to assess the toxicity
of heavy metals in aquatic habitats.

Microorganisms can be used as indicators of aquatic or terrestrial ecosystem health. For example,
Cynobacteria in the Ethiopian Lake Beseka, are dominantly found throughout the dry period and
their abundance is associated with excess nutrient loads, particularly phosphate, and the relatively
high temperature that favours their growth in the area (Zelalem, 2007). Some microorganisms
produce stress proteins when exposed to contaminants like cadmium and benzene. Stress proteins
can be used as an early warning system to detect low levels of pollution.

IMPORTANCES OF BIOINDICATORS
Ecological Importance
Bioindicators are used to detect changes in the environment, monitor for the presence of pollution
and its effect on the ecosystem. Different types of bioindicators are useful and suitable for wide
range of applications. Coral bioeroders, especially sponges are used as indicators of increasing
eutrophication and/or organic loading on reefs. Coral mortality and broken corals are used as
indications of past stress (Linton and Warner, 2003).

7
Indicator species are used in assessing the health of the ecosystem in the context of human related
activities. Plant species composition varied across the disturbance gradient of the land and soil
type. Hence, species composition shifts in response to the disturbances in the environment (Leis et
al., 2008). Therefore, observing trends over time or across the disturbance gradients might allow
land and ecosystem managers to predict the probable changes in the ecosystem and to initiate
measures to mitigate such impacts on time.

Lichens have been used as a predictive tool for investigating land forming processes and rates of
environmental changes. They have been also used to resolve environmental issues involving
management of natural resources such as the effects of fragmentation and habitat alteration, the
effectiveness of conservation practices for rare or endangered species and the protection of genetic
resources in the ecosystem (Eva, 2003). Assessing landscape quality by using different indicator
species involves a substantial change in the perspective, not only by professionals but also by the
public and the society at large. Therefore, in order to maintain productive, clean and harmonious
landscape that can be sustainable for future generation, the diversity of life should be conserved.
The application of bioindicators as a tool in conservation and management of landscapes is
becoming more important in this context (Paoletti, 1999; Padoa-Schioppa et al., 2006).

Assessing Human and Ecological Health

Ecological health can be expanded to include many aspects of human health and well being, as
well as climate and food stability, water for sanitation, and existence and aesthetic values. As it is
often difficult to monitor aspects of health condition such as states of disease or longevity
bioindicators are often used as alternatives to assess health. Ecological health can be viewed in
terms of ecosystems where species diversity and populations, and functional characteristics such
as predatory or competitive interactions of the ecosystem are maintained. Healthy ecosystems
must be maintained to allow all organisms including human beings to receive goods and services
sustainably (Bongers and Ferris, 1999; Burger and Gochfeld, 2001).

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING USING BIOINDICATORS

Monitoring water quality

Bioluminescent bacteria, which emit light as a result of enzymatic mediated chemical reactions
involving phosphorus containing molecules, are being used to test water for environmental toxins.
When toxins are present in the water, the cellular metabolism of the bacteria is inhibited or
disrupted. This affects the quality or amount of light emitted by the bacteria. Analysis of
zooplankton community in aquatic habitats is used to monitor water quality. Therefore, relevant
properties of water quality can be determined in a fast, efficient, and cost effective way using
bioindicators.

Water quality has also been evaluated using macro-invertebrates like bugs, and their number is
used to indicate changes in the quality of water, i.e. the higher the number of indicators, the better
the water quality. Studies in some of the Ethiopian rivers indicate that some macro-invertebrates
such as Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera become less abundant if the habitat is

8
degraded and water quality is poor, while the abundance of Diptera and chironomids increases
when the habitat is degraded and water is polluted (Sitotaw, 2006). As pollution increases, oxygen
levels decrease. In response to this, more sensitive species would disappear from the habitat. On
the contrary, if a site has populations of “sewage worms” (Tubificidae), it indicates that water
quality has been degraded. Tolerant species such as red midge larvae and annelid worms, which
can breathe at the surface, can survive in polluted waters.

This shows that different species have their own specific responses to changes observed in the
environment (Dulic et al., 2006). Disappearance of most above indicators and dramatic increase of
blood-red chironomids in highly polluted rivers and streams indicate that the habitat has severe
environmental problem due to various anthropogenic disturbances (Sitotaw 2006). Some aquatic
birds are also used as indicators to monitor the impacts of nutrient load in the aquatic food web
and to assess water quality (Fernandez et al., 2005).

Some benthic macro-invertebrates are found in large numbers in aquatic ecosystems that are
generally clean or unpolluted by organic wastes. The west Ethiopian streams such as Baro, Abay
and Omo-Ghibe basins are known by diverse macro-invertebrate communities including more
sensitive taxa like mayflies, stoneflies and caddiflies. These streams are designated as reference
sites, all of which are located in forest areas with riparian zones and with little anthropogenic
disturbances (Sitotaw, 2006). Without too much organic matter, water usually possesses lots of
oxygen for the benthos. However, oxygen is only one factor affecting the population of benthic
macro-invertebrates. Other factors including toxic chemicals, nutrients and habitat quality should
also be considered.

Monitoring Air Quality

Bioindicators like lichens and mosses are used to monitor air quality because environmental
factors such as ozone content, fluoride and chloride content and radionuclide have effects on the
growth and propagation of lichens and mosses. Lichens are also used to measure specific
environmental pollutants such as heavy metals, and the disappearance of lichens in a forest
ecosystem may indicate environmental stress that might be caused due to high levels of SO2,
sulfur and nitrogen based pollutants. Therefore, severe damage to lichens is especially common in
cities with chronic air pollution, and near large point sources of toxic gases like metal smelters.
Lichens are considered as high-quality indicators of air pollution.

The use of bioindicators to assess atmospheric pollution provides an early warning of sites at risk
from air pollutant deposition. Different kinds of methods such as chemical analysis of mosses,
epiphytic macrolichen frequency and community composition are used to assess air pollution
(Leith et al., 2005). Lichen sensitivity to SO2 is well established. Species susceptibility determined
by the maximum level of SO2 that the species tolerate ranges from extremely sensitive species to
species that are able to adapt to pollution. If the ambient concentration of NH 3 is high, i.e.,
eutrophic environment, it results in an increase in bark pH, which is an unfavourable condition for
an acidophyte species growing on acidic barks. The decrease of SO 2 and the increase of NH3 allow
remarkable spread of nitrophytic species, which grow on nitrogen-rich barks with neutral to basic

9
pH. Therefore, the degree and extent of morphological changes such as change in colour and
shape and behavioural adjustments of the species and abundance at various levels of pollutants
within a given polluted background are the major parameters to monitor air quality (Batzias and
Siontorou, 2006; Leith et al., 2005).

Monitoring Biodiversity

The ongoing biodiversity crisis requires urgent conservation strategies and the identification of
priority sites that ensure the achievement of conservation goals. Bioindicators are potentially
useful tools in assessing sustainable forest management (Paoletti, 1999; Rondinni et al., 2006,
Kotwal et al., 2008). Some conspicuous animals like mammals, birds and butterflies are easier to
be seen and of greater interest to the public, media and even to scientists. As a result, their
disappearance and extinction often raises public concern and take more attention of the media.
Nevertheless, the inconspicuous invertebrates such as the majority of insects and nematodes are
overlooked regardless of their pivotal role in the ecosystem (Paoletti, 1999).

Despite its importance, biodiversity conservation is often hindered by lack of data and resources to
collect more information. To alleviate such problems, many conservationists argue that by
conserving some taxa or surrogate species, it is also possible to protect other species, taxa, or the
overall biodiversity (Margules and Pressey, 2000; Moreno-Rueda and Pizarro, 2007). Surrogate
species, which are targeted for conservation of biodiversity, can be subdivided into different
categories such as flagship, umbrella, keystone and indicator (Simberloff, 1998).

Key indicators species are those whose presence or diversity is associated with overall levels of
biodiversity (Dale and Beyeler, 2001). Bioindicators are slightly different from key indicators,
even though both of them are useful in deducing information about the environment. Bioindicators
tell us information about the environment through their population or particular response to
changes in the ecosystem, while key indicator species are those species, which are essential to the
ecosystem and if such species are affected, the whole ecosystem will perish. For example, key
indicators are easily observed in otters, sea urchins and kelp. If the otters disappear, there will be
an abrupt increase in the population of sea urchins and their food sources, than kelp will disappear
as a result of the cascade effect.

There are evidences that the richness of certain taxonomic groups is an indication of overall
species richness in the area and by measuring the relative abundance of the indicator species, it is
possible to assess the overall biodiversity (Hess et al., 2006). For example, by monitoring the
population of plateau pikas (Ochotona curzoniae), which is one of the small lagomorphs, it is
possible to regulate plant community dynamics, top predators and other trophic level species like
birds. This is possible because of the interaction of pikas with their environment through foraging,
used as a prey for predators and by constructing burrows that are used as shelter and nest sites by
other species. Therefore, removing pikas from the ecosystem or reduction of their abundance to
very low levels have serious consequences for the small birds that rely on burrows of pikas for
breeding (Arthur et al., 2008).

10
In the most rapidly changing habitat types, indicator species could be monitored to determine
whether population trends match variations in landscape composition and patterns. Hence,
indicator species can be used as a conservation tool to identify biodiversity hot spots, if spatial
patterns of species richness agree across taxa (Betts et al., 2003; Hess et al., 2006, Dalmir and
King, 2007; Dung and Webb, 2007).

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF BIOINDICATORS

Bioindicators are important in environmental monitoring because of various reasons. The effect of
pollutants on indicator species is clearly recognized, and its application is relatively cost effective
(Spiegel, 2002). Besides, bioindicator-based studies usually need simple techniques, which can be
easily repeated by different individuals from time to time. The method is feasible in different
ecosystems, and it is also suitable in assessing large areas (Paoletti, 1999). Indicator species are
important in monitoring the environment because they are easier to interpret and less ambiguous
than directly sampling and assessing all plant and animal communities found in a given ecosystem
(Dale and Beyeler, 2001).

Regardless of their advantages, the application of bioindicators in environmental monitoring has

its own limitations. Indicator species should be present at the given locality with sufficient number
of individuals, they have to be wide-spread in the locality under investigation, and the
physiological processes of uptake and retention of toxic substances or environmental contaminants
in indicators should be well known (MeGeoch et al., 2002; Mouillot et al., 2002).

ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATE INDICATOR SPECIES

Indicator Value Method

The indicator value method (IndVal), which is based on an indicator value index, is a new and
flexible method used to quantify the bioindicator value of a species in a given area within a
particular period of time (Mouillot et al., 2002). This method combines the relative abundance of a
species with its relative frequency of occurrence in a group of sites, referred to as an ‘area’
(McGeoch et al., 2002, Mouillot et al., 2002, Piratelli et al., 2008). Species with a high specificity
and high fidelity within a specific habitat will have a high indicator value (McGeoch et al., 2002).
This is because an indicator species must be found in an area and be present in the majority of the
sites within the area. For example, if one species is captured with high biomass in a single site of
one area and only in this area, it is possible to conclude that this species has a high specificity for
this area but it cannot be considered as an indicator species. Alternatively, if one species is present
in all sites of one area but with a low relative abundance, such species has a high fidelity for such
area but it also cannot be considered as an indicator species. To take into account this duality
(specificity and fidelity), the IndVal should be calculated for each species ‘j’ and for each area ‘k’
(Dufrene and Legendre 1977 as cited in Mouillot et al., 2002) as follows:

IndVal kj = A kj x Bkj x 100;

11
Where:

 A kj is a measure of specificity, and Bkj is a measure of fidelity

Specificity measure: A kj = N individuals kj / N individuals +j and

Fidelity measure: Bkj = N sites kj/ N sites k +N individuals,

Where:

 kjis the mean mass Capture Per Unit Effort (CPUE) of species j for the sites examined in
area k.

 N individuals +j is the sum of the mean mass CPUE of species j within the various areas k.

 N sites kj is the number of sites in area k where species j is present, and N sites k+ is the
total number of sites in that area.

The indicator value of species j for an area k (IndValkj) becomes maximum (100%), when all the
individuals of species j are observed in sites belonging to a single area. Species with IndVals of
greater than 70% (which is used as a benchmark) are regarded as reliable characteristic indicator
species for the habitat in question and remained comparatively consistent. Three reasons are likely
to be the case:

1. The fidelity value is calculated from relative, rather than absolute, differences in the
frequency of occurrence of a species across habitats. As a result, if the abundance of a
species changes in a similar direction across both habitat types, this may not affect a
change in its fidelity value.

2. The logistic nature of the relationship between fidelity and specificity means that a
substantial abundance change may not result in any change in fidelity.

3. There is likely to be some cross-compensation between fidelity and specificity values. A

decrease in the abundance of a species and a resulting decrease in its fidelity value may
result in an increase in its specificity value if that value was initially less than 1. Because
frequency of occurrence and abundance are positively related, a decrease in one can result
in a decrease in the other. Regardless of the mechanism, because of this resilience to
change in abundance, which is an inherent characteristic of the populations, IndVal method
has proven to be effective for bioindication of environmental changes in an area (McGeoch
et al., 2002).

One advantage of IndVal method is that it is applicable for each species independently from
others, and there are no restrictions on the way in which sites are categorized. The IndVal method
therefore, can identify indicator species with ‘characteristic’ of a particular habitat, i.e., with high

12
specificity and fidelity to the habitat, and thus has high percentage value (Mouillot et al., 2002,
McGeoch et al., 2002).

Relevance of Bioindicators

To be biologically relevant, bioindicator species should exhibit changes in response to a stress

(sensitivity), have low natural variability, exhibit persistent changes that are most likely
attributable to the stresses (specificity), encompass variations in scale and complexity and exhibit
biologically important and measurable changes. A useful indicator is one that responds to stresses
and it can serve as an early warning of potential adverse effects. However, the response should not
be so sensitive that it falsely indicates trivial or biologically unimportant variations. To be
maximally useful, the changes should be measurable before the damage is irreversible (Paoletti
1999; Burger and Gochfeld, 2001).

Organisms are subjected to a number and variety of stresses in the environment, and multiple
measures are needed to identify and separate anthropogenic effects of stress from those effects
caused by natural stresses. The measures include responses that represent different levels of
biological organization, time lag to respond, and sensitivity and specificity to stresses.

Bioassessment Evaluation

Bioassessment studies should include a combination of both rapidly responding sensitive

biomarkers and the more ecologically relevant bioindicators with a focus at the individual level.
Organism level responses provide a pivotal point through which levels of biological organization
and the ecological consequences of stresses can be linked. Increasing levels of biological
organization result in increasing levels of ecological significance.

Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of trace elements in organisms describe the pathways of

chemical pollutants from one trophic level to the other. Higher accumulation and magnification of
trace elements are detected in organisms related to the higher trophic levels. Increasing
concentration of pollutants through the food chain is caused by a higher retention time of toxic
substances than the general food components of the organism. This phenomenon may gradually
endanger the entire trophic system and affect the health of the ecosystem (Burger and Gochfeld,
2001; Spiegel, 2002). Rapid Bioassessment Protocols are technical references for conducting cost-
effective and scientifically valid biological monitoring programmes. Several biological
communities including plankton, periphyton, microphytobenthos, macrozoobenthos, aquatic
macrophytes and fish have been considered in assessing aquatic habitat quality. Nevertheless,
benthic macroinvertebrates are the most useful indicators in monitoring the health of streams and
rivers.

CONCLUSION

Bioindicators are biological tools to help in understanding various types of changes occurring in
the ambient environment. Different groups of organisms such as microorganisms, algae, lichens,

13
mosses, invertebrates and vertebrates are used as bioindicators to assess changes in the
environment. Bioindicator based studies must be simple and easily repeatable at different times
by different researchers in different environmental conditions and suitable in assessing large areas.
Indicator species can be identified from the locality if many species representing various taxa are
included in the monitoring programme, primarily based on a quantitative database (Carignan and
Villard, 2002).

Bioindicators of habitat quality and environmental change can be identified quantitatively, and
indicator value method is used to identify and analyse the indicator species in the given ecosystem.
Indicator species, which are useful for human and ecosystem health include species that are eaten
by people and other predators, those that have available information on their dietary patterns, those
which are relatively sedentary and can represent local exposure, as well as those species which are
sufficiently available in the area and ubiquitous enough to provide information over large
ecological areas (Burger and Gochfeld, 2001).

When species are used as bioindicators, it can indicate contaminant exposure, help in identifying
mechanisms of toxicity, provide early warning of future environmental damage, provide early
indications of environmental recovery, serve in linking cause or stresses to ecologically relevant
effects and it can be incorporated into ecological risk assessment programmes (McGeoch et al.,
2002). Using indicator species, various strategies should be designed for conservation of
biodiversity as well as for maintaining the health of the environment. These include protecting and
restoring freshwater, marine and estuarine ecosystems, habitats of threatened species and
ecological communities, rehabilitating the diversity of native ecosystems, restoring populations of
major species and ecological communities in the area and maintaining the ecosystem services and
functions.

REFERENCES
Arthur, A. D., Pech, R. P., Davey, C., Jiebu -Yanming, Z. and Hui, L. (2008). Livestock grazing,
plateau pikas and the conservation of avian biodiversity on the Tibean plateau. Biological
Conservation 141: 1972–1981.
Batzias, F. A. and Siontorou, C. G. (2006). A knowledge-based approach to environmental
biomonitoring. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 123: 167–197.
Betts, M., Franklin, S. E. and Taylor, R. G. (2003). Interpretation of landscape pattern and habitat
change for local indicator species using satellite imagery and geographic information
system data in New Brunswick, Canada. Canadian Journal of Research 33: 1821-1831.
Bongers, T. and Ferris, H. (1999). Nematode community structure as a bioindicator in
environmental monitoring. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14: 224–228.
Burger, J. and Gochfeld, M. (2001). On developing bioindicators for human and ecological
health. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 66: 23– 46.
Burger, J., Campbell, K. R., Campbell, T., Shukla, T., Dixon, C. and Gochfed, M. (2005). Use of
central stonerollers (Cyprinidae: Campostoma anomalum) from Tennessee as bioindicators
of metal contamination. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 110: 171–184.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Houghton-Miffin Co., Boston.

14
Carignan, V. and Villard, M. A. (2002). Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological integrity:
a review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 78: 45– 61.
Celli, G. and Maccagnani, B. (2003). Honey bees as bioindicators of environmental pollution.
Bulletin of Insectology 56: 137–139.
Clark, B. K., Kaufman, D. W., Fink, E. J. and Kaufman, G. A. (1989). Small mammals in tall
grass prairie: patterns associated with grazing and burning. Praire Naturalist 21: 177–184.
Crane, E. (1984). Bees, honey and pollen as indicators of metals in the environment. Bee World
55: 47- 49.
Dale, V. H. and Beyeler, S. C. (2001). Changes in the development and use of ecological
indicators. Ecological Indicators 1: 155–170.
Dalmir, M. and King, T. (2007). Habitat preferences of the forest birds on the Islands of Principe,
Gulf of Guinea. African Journal of Ecology 46: 258–266.
Díaz, D. T. 2009. Management of different indicators for the application of biological alternatives
in sialitic brown soils (loosened, typic, eutropept, cambisol). Advances in Biological
Research 3: 57-60.
Dulic, Z., Mitrovic-Tutundzic, V., Markovic, Z. and Zivic, I. (2006). Monitoring water quality
using zooplankton organisms as bioindicators at the Dubica fish farm, Serbia. Archives of
Biological Science Belgrade 58: 245–248.
Dung, N. T. and Webb, E. L. (2007). Combining local ecological knowledge and quantitative
forest surveys to select indicator species for forest condition monitoring in Central Viet
Nam. Ecological Indicators 8: 767–770.
Eva, B. (2003). Lichens as Bioindicators of Forest Health, Biodiversity and Ecological
Continuity. Universitate de Valencia, Valencia.
Fernandez, J. M., Selma, M.A. E., Aymerich, F. R., Saez, M. T. P. and Fructuoso, M. F. C. (2005).
Aquatic birds as bioindicators of trophic changes and ecosystem deterioration in the Mar
Menor lagoon (southeast Spain). Hydrobiologia 550: 221–235.
Hess, G., Bartel, R. A., Leidner, A. K., Rosenfed, K. M. Rubino, M. J. Snider, S. B. and Ricketts,
T. H. (2006). Effectiveness of biodiversity indicators varies with extent, grain, and region.
Biological Conservation 132: 448– 457.
Hopkin, S. P. (1990). Critical concentrations, pathways of detoxification and cellular
ecotoxicology of metals in terrestrial arthropods. Functional Ecology 4: 321– 327.
King, A. (2008). Hard-shelled bioindicators. Journal of Chemical Education 85: 174 – 177.
Leis, S. A., Leslie Jr., D. M., Engle, D. M. and Fehmi, S. J. (2008). Small mammals as indicators
of short-term and long-term disturbance in mixed prairie. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 137: 75–84.
Leith, I. D., Van-Dijk, N., Pitcairn, C. E. R., Wolseley, P. A., Whitfield, C.P. and Sutton, M. A.
(2005). Biomonitoring Methods for Assessing the Impact of Nitrogen Pollution:
Refinement and Testing. Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Report No. 386,
Peterborough.
Lindenmayer, D. B., Margules, C. R. and Botkin, D. B. (2000). Indicators of biodiversity for
ecologically sustainable forest management. Conservation Biology 14: 941-950.
Linton, D. M. and Warner, G. F. (2003). Biological indicators in the Caribbean coastal zone and
their role in integrated coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management 46: 261–276.
Margules, C. R., and Pressey, R. L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:

15
 243–253.
Marianne, D. and Natasa, D. (2002). Use of Diatoms as Bioindicators of Urbanization. The
Geographical Society of America (GSA). Paper No 171-8, University of Toronto, Ontario.
McGeoch, M. A. (1998). The selection, testing and application of terrestrial insects as
bioindicators. Biological Review 73: 181–201.
McGeoch, M., Rensburg, B.J. and Botes, A. (2002). The verification and application of
bioindicators: A case study of dung beetles in a savanna ecosystem. Journal of Applied
Ecology 39: 661–672.
Mistry, J., Berardi, A. and Simpson, M. (2008). Birds as indicators of wetland status and changes
in the northern Rupununi, Guyana. Biodiversity Conservation 17: 2383–2409.
Moreno–Rueda, G. and Pizarro, M. (2007). The relative influence of climate, environmental
heterogeneity and human population on the distribution of vertebrate species richness in
south-eastern Spain. Acta Oecologia 32: 50–58.
Mouillot, D., Culioli, J- M., and Chi, T. D. (2002). Indicator species analysis as a test of non-
random distribution of species in the context of marine protected areas. Environmental
Conservation 29: 385–390.
Németh-Katona, J. (2008). The environmental significance of bioindicators in sewage treatment.
Acta Polytech Hungary 5: 117-124.
Noss, R. F. (1990). Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation
Biology 4: 355–364.
Pado-Schioppa, E., Baietto, M., Massa, R. and Bottoni, L. (2006). Bird communities as
bioindicators: the focal species concept in agricultural landscapes. Ecological Indicator 6:
83–93.
Palacio-Nunez, J. Verdu, J. R., Galante, E., Jimenez- Garicia, D. and Olmos-Oropeza, G. (2007).
Birds and fish as bioindicators of tourist disturbance in springs in semi-arid regions in
Mexico: a base for management. Animal Diversity and Conservation 30: 29- 41.
Paoletti, M. G. (1999). Using bioindicators based on biodiversity to assess landscape
sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74: 1–18.
Piratelli, A., Sousa, S. D., Correa, J. S., Andrade, V. A., Ribeiro, R.Y., Avelar, L. H. and Olivera,
E. F. 2008. Searching for bioindicators of forest fragmentation: Passerine birds in the
Atlantic forest of southern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology 68: 259–268.
Read, J. L., Reid, N. and Venables, W. N. (2000). Which birds are useful bioindicators of mining
and grazing impacts in arid South Australia? Environmental Management 26: 215–232.
Rinderhagen, M., Ritterholf, J. and Zauke, G. P. (2000). Crustaceans as bioindicators.
Environmental Research Forum 9: 161-194.
Schulz, U. H. and Martins-Junior, H. (2001). Astyanax fasciatus as bioindicators of water
pollution of Rio dos sinos, R S, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology 6:113-117.
Simberloff, D. (1998). Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single species management passé in
the landscape era? Biological Conservation 83: 247–257.
Souty-Grosset, C., Badenhausser, I., Reynolds, J. D. and Morel, A. (2005). Investigations on the
potential of woodlice as bioindicators of grassland habitat quality. European Journal of
Soil Biology 41: 109–116.

16
Spiegel, H. (2002). Trace elements accumulation in selected bioindicators exposed to emissions
along the industrial facilities of Danube lowland. Turkish Journal of Chemistry 26: 815–
823.
Wilson, L. D. and McCranie, J. R. (2003). Herpetofaunal indicator species as measures of
environmental stability in Hunduras. Caribbean Journal of Science 39: 50-67.
Zelalem, D. (2007). Temporal Dynamics of Biomass and Primary Production of Phytoplankton in
Relation to Some Physico-Chemical Factors in Lake Kuriftu, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis.
Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa.

17