Biotic Integrity

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY LAB

PREPARATION: 1. Read: Haslouer et al. 2005. Current status of native fish species in Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 108: 32-46. 2. Read: Dodds et al. 2004. Life on the Edge: The Ecology of Great Plains Prairie Streams. BioScience 54: 205-216 4. Familiarize yourself with Kansas fish at: “Great Plains Nature Center: Fish” http://www.gpnc.org/fish.htm “Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism” http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/Fishing/Fish-ID-Gallery 5. View the following videos on biological monitoring: Stream monitoring-Introduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAqLj3rHuLU Stream monitoring-Sampling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB7EZcJ408E Stream monitoring-Equipment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59ftiITxpEc

MATERIALS (* indicates bring this to class): 1 10’ Seine Dip nets 1-2 White trays 4 Buckets GPS Datasheets and clipboards Dry erase board with grid for voucher images Measuring tape Fish identification guides Water Quality Kit (thermometer, especially) Digital camera* Shoes and clothing that can get wet (NOTE: Shoes are required in aquatic areas)*

GOAL: In this laboratory, we will assess of the 'ecological status’ of the Ninnescah River at the Ninnescah Biological Station using the Index of Biological Integrity.

RATIONALE: Biological monitoring approaches are essential to assessing ecological sustainability, protecting of biodiversity, and maintaining essential ecological processes that life support systems. Aquatic vertebrates and macro-invertebrates are extensively used as indicator groups in monitoring studies of streams. We will focus on vertebrate species in this lab. Numerous bioassessment methods exist, and we will use one method, the Index of Biological Integrity, that is commonly used in Kansas.

BACKGROUND: The Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) compiles information about fish or macro-invertebrate communities from a sampling site into a series of metrics to give a single rating of ecosystem quality. We will use fish in our assessment. Fish serve as good indicators for the following reasons: a) extensive life history information is available b) species represent a range of trophic levels c) species are relatively easy to identify d) fish are usually present in all but the most polluted water e) acute toxicity and stress effects can be evaluated f) fish are recognized as valuable by fishermen, recreationists, and the general public

Site selection is essential. Careful site selection and is critical to insure that data collected are not biased, and that the differences noted between sites are not due to some artifact of the monitoring program design. We are interested in two types of sites: study sites and reference sites. Study sites are selected to answer specific questions such as the effects of certain land uses, improvement following restoration work, and effectiveness of conservation efforts. Reference sites reflect the best available conditions present within a specific stream, watershed, basin or eco-region. An ideal reference site is in a pristine, natural condition. A realistic reference site represents the best attainable conditions, but it has experienced some level of human affect. Ideally, more than one reference site is used. Physiographic characteristics like vegetation, soils, geology, land use, gradient, riparian characteristics, and substrate frequency need to be considered to assure that sample sites are representative of the larger stream population. For example, sample sites should not be directly downstream from anomalies such as culverts, bridges, roads, landslides, or waterfalls unless these are the conditions that the monitoring program is evaluating. We will use a paired stream approach in which a single, or few, site(s) per stream are used. A study stream is paired with a nearby unimpacted reference stream where several sites are also selected. In this study, we will examine one area in the river adjacent to the hedgerow road (the reference site), and compare it with an area undergoing degradation due to the installation of a new bridge on 263rd Street. Twelve metrics are used in three broad categories: species richness, trophic composition, and fish abundance and condition.

Species Richness Metrics: 1. Total number of fish species: Total number of species supported by a given stream size and given region decreases with environmental degradation. No hybrids or subspecies are used in this count. 2. Number of Darter species: Measured because darters are sensitive to habitat degradation and because of specificity for reproduction and feeding. In other aquatic systems, another taxon of benthic fishes can be used (e.g., sculpins). 3. Number of Sunfish species: Measured because species are responsive to degradation of habitat and instream cover. In other aquatic systems, another taxon of pool dwelling fishes can be used. 4. Number of Sucker species: Measured because species are intolerant to chemicals and habitat degradation. Longevity of these species provides a multi-year, integrative metric. 5. Number of intolerant species: Measured because these species are the first to be decimated due to habitat perturbation. Compare present-day to historical data to see if the distributions or abundance has changed dramatically. 6. Proportion of individuals that are Green Sunfish: Measured because this species increases with habitat degradation. This metric evaluates the degree to which tolerant species dominate the community. In other aquatic systems, fish such as Carp or Bullheads can be used.

Trophic Composition Metrics: 7. Proportion of individuals that are omnivores. Omnivores are defined as species that eat at least 25% plant material and 25% animal material. This metric varies inversely with #8. 8. Proportion of individuals that are insectivores. Insectivores are defined as species that eat more than 75% insects. This metric varies inversely with #7. 9. Proportion of individuals that are piscivores. Piscivores are defined as species that eat more than 75% fish. These are the top predators in the community.

Fish Abundance and Condition: 10. Number of individuals in sample expressed as catch per unit of sampling effort (i.e., area, per length of seine, per unit of time spent collecting). 11. Proportion of individuals that are hybrids. This metric assesses the extent to which habitat degradation has altered reproductive isolation among species. This is difficult to assess from historical data because hybrids were not often recognized. 12. Proportion of individuals with disease, tumors, fin damage, and skeletal anomalies.

Rating the Metrics After the data have been collected, an IBI expected value is assigned. Expected values are based on historical sampling and are estimated for each of the 12 metrics. These criteria are assigned 5, 3, or 1 (5 is highest, 1 is lowest). Lacking these data for this area in the Ninnescah River, use the IBI scoring criteria based on data for northeastern Illinois (Table 1). Add the IBI score (5, 3, 1) for all of the recorded metrics to determine the total IBI score. Compare this value with the integrity class in Table 2. This provides basic community attributes for the calculated integrity class. A similar example is provided in Table 3.

PROCEDURE: Fish Familiarization. With the help of your classmates and Joshua Perkins (KSU PhD Candidate), become familiar with the fish and vertebrate fauna of the Ninnescah River. Learn at least the families of fish that you are likely to encounter (see the datasheet for species we are likely to find). Site Selection. Select two site locations within the river. Record with the GPS. Depth, flow and substrate type should be similar for the sites. Begin sampling downstream and proceed upstream for the two replicates. Record all of the data on the Site Selection data sheet (for Site 1 and Site 2). Collecting. Work as a team. Use proper seining techniques. Two strong people should be stationed on opposite sides of the seine (“seine conductors”). “Collectors” should be stationed ahead of the seine to assist in trapping fish in the seine. “Seine conductors” should walk at a good pace toward the “collectors” being certain to hold the seine on the bottom of the river/pond substrate and pulling the seine taught. “Seine conductors” should pull the seine to an agreed distance and location, and then simultaneously pull the seine’s bottom upwards so that the “collectors” can immediately place fish and other vertebrates and in buckets for data collection. Immediately place similar species or morpho-species in buckets so that animal lives are not endangered animal. Dip nets should be used to collect minnows and fishes from edges, the base of trees, vegetation, and shallows. Collected material should be placed in a bucket for data collection. When collecting begins, seine and use the dip nets for a total of 15 minutes (one person should take charge of timing the collecting event). Data Collection. Work as a team. Team leaders should assign two people to record data, two people to take voucher images, two people to count individuals of each species, and two people to identify species. The remaining two people will hold the seine (attempting to keep the fish cooled and watered). Record all data on the Site Selection datasheet and the Species List. Digital Images. Two people should be assigned to take voucher images. Voucher images allow for repeatability of your reseach, and repeatability if the cornerstone of the scientific method. Additionally, an expert may be able to identify species based on voucher images. Use the dry erase clipboard as a background for digital images. Using a dry erase pen, write the species name or morpho- species name (e.g., “morpho-species C”) on the board. Place the specimen near the ruler, and then photograph it. Repeat for each species or morpho-species. Be certain that the data collectors are using the same naming system.

RESULTS (to be completed by the Research Presenters): Be certain to record all of the necessary data on the “Index of Biological Integrity Species List”. Once this is completed (including number of individuals for each species), complete the “IBI Integrity Calculation”. Use Table 1 to decide on the IBI Scoring Criteria (5, 3, or 1) for each category. Add the IBI score. Use Table 2 to discern the integrity class. Compare your results with data presented in Figure 1.

DISCUSSION and SIGNIFICANCE: Research Presenters should consider the following discussion questions. 1. If no IBI metric is available, it is recommended that a value of 5 be assessed (rather than allowing missing data). How might this score affect the overall IBI? 2. Does the IBI value allow for comparison of streams from different geographic areas? Why or why not? 3. How might samples taken near dams or bridges affect results of the IBI? 4. It is recommended that stream channels that are at least 100 m be used to IBI. Smaller streams, according to protocol, are not suitable for IBI. How might a smaller channel affect the IBI score? 5. According to IBI protocol, a major advantage of IBI is its ability to “integrate and summarize the collective wisdom of biologists”. The protocol warns against integrating the data into statistical packages because these programs “overemphasize numerical data and minimize evaluation and interpretation”. Discuss the pros and cons of the IBI sampling method (a rapid assessment technique) as compared to diversity indices.

ASSIGNMENT: Turn in data sheets. Be certain that you have completed all data fields and that you include your name and your role (“seine conductor”, “collector”, “data recorded”, “species identifier”, or “image taker”). Read field laboratory for the next class, and bring the materials listed in the “Materials” section.

Figure 1. See legend above. From Karr et al. 1986.

Table 1. Scoring criteria for streams in southeastern Illinois used in calibrating the Index of Biological Integrity. From Gerking 1946.

Table 2.Total IBI Scores, Integrity Class, and attributes of those classes. From Karr 1981.

Table 3. Summary worksheet for IBI calculation at stream sites on the Embarras River in Illinois. From Karr et al. 1986.

Index of Biological Integrity Species List: Site 1

Family Trophic Intolerant Number of Individuals Species Guild (#) Species (N/YY) Site 1 Site 2 Catostomidae (Suckers) River Carpsucker (Carpoides carpio)^ O N ______Black Redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei)^ I YY ______Smallmouth Buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus)+ I/P N ______Centrarchidae (Sunfishes) Black Crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus)+ I/P N ______White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis)+ I/P N ______Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)+ I N ______Green Sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus)+ I/P N ______Warmouth (Lepomis gulosus)+ I N ______Orangespotted Sunfish (Lepomis humilis)+ I N ______Clupeidae (Herrings & Shads) Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)+ O N ______Cyprinidae (Minnows & Carps) Bullhead Minnow (Pimephales vigilax)+ O N ______Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio)* O N ______Golden Shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas)+ O N ______Red Shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis)+ ? ? ______Plains Minnow (Hybognathus placitus)< H YY ______Sturgeon Chub (Macrhybopsis gelida)< ? ? ______Shoal Chub (Macrhybopsis hyostoma)< ? ? ______Silver Chub (Macrhybopsis storeriana)< ? ? ______River Shiner (Notropis blennius)< I N ______Flathead Chub (Platygobio gracilis)< ? ? ______River Redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum)< ? ? ______Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema)> ? ? ______Blacknose Shiner (Notropis heterolepis)^ I YY ______Sand Shiner (Notropis stramineus)^ I N ______Suckermouth Minnow (Phenacobius mirabilis)^ I N ______Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas)^ O N ______Bluntnose Minnow (Pimephales notatus) O N ______Southern Redbelly Dace (Chrosomus erythrogaster)^ H YY ______Fundulidae (Topminnows) Northern Plains Killifish (Fundulus kansae)< I N ______Ictaluridae (North American Catfishes) Brindled Madtom (Noturus miurus)< I N ______Freckled Madtom (Noturus nocturnus)^ I N ______Lepisosteidae (Gars) Short-Nosed Gar (Lepisosteus platostomus)+ ? ? ______Long-Nosed Gar (Lepisosteus osseus)^ ? ? ______Moronidae (Bass) White Bass (Morone chrysops)+ I/P N ______Percidae (Perches) Walleye (Sander vitreus)+ P N ______Texas Logperch (Percina carbonaria)^ I ? ______Channel Darter (Percina copelandi)^ I ? ______Ohio Logperch (Percina caprodes)^ I N ______Ozark Logperch (Percina fulvitaenia)^ I ? ______Blackside Darter (Percina maculata)^ I N ______Slenderhead Darter (Percina phoxocephala)^ I YY ______River Darter (Percina shumardi)^ ? ? ______Arkansas Darter (Etheostoma cragini)^ I N ______Poeciliidae (Poecilids) Western Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis)+ I N ______

Other Species / Family ______

+ Fish Species recorded at the Ninnescah Reserve Checklist (By Don Distler) < Recorded in Kansas (Haslouer et al. 2005) > Personal communication (Joshua Perkins 2011, KSU) ^ Recorded in Database at FishNet2 (URL: http://www.fishnet2.net/search.aspx), last accessed June 2011 * Introduced Species

# Trophic Guild indicated with following abbreviations I = Insectivore. Adult diet consists of more than 75% insects P= Piscivore. Adult diet consists of more than 75% fish H= Herbivore. Adult diet consists of more than 75% plant material obtained by grazing off substrate or feeding on vascular plants O= Omnivore. Adult diet consists of more than 25% plant material and more than 25% animal material P= Planktivore. Adult diet consists of more than 75% zooplankton and/or phytoplankton

Fish Resources: http://www.nanfa.org/checklist.shtml, http://www.fishbase.org/search.php, http://www.fishnet2.net/search.aspx

Index of Biological Integrity Calculation

Calculation of Data Site 1 IBI Score Site 2 IBI Score Species Diversity and Composition Total Number of Species ______Number of Suckers Species ______Number of Sunfish Species ______Number of Darter Species ______Number of Intolerant Species ______Proportion of Green Sunfish ______

Trophic Composition Proportion of Omnivores ______Proportion of Insectivores ______Proportion of Piscivores (top predators) ______

Fish Abundance and Condition Number of Fish in a Sample* ______Proportion of Hybrids ______Proportion with disease, tumor, damage, anomalies ______

IBI Total Score (add IBI score) ______

Integrity Class (correlate IBI score with Table 2) ______

*Based on fish per seining event

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY LAB DATASHEET: SITE 1 SELECTION

Date: ______(day/month/year)

Site Evaluators: Seine conductors ______Collectors ______

Data recorders ______Species identifiers ______

Image takers ______

Site Location: Location______State______

Watershed______Stream______

Longitude: ______Latitude: ______

Air Temperature ______(C) Water Temperature ______(C) (at site)

Channelized: __ Yes __ No Stream Shading: ______(%)

Stream Width : ______(Meters) (at sampling site) Water Depth: ______(Meters)

Water Appearance (color): ______

Weather __ Sunny __ Cloudy __ Partly Cloudy __ Raining __ Foggy

Land Uses __ Agricultural __ Urban/Suburban __ Industrial __ Mining __ Logging __ Grazing __ Forest __ Other______

Culverts Upstream __ No __ Yes Approx. distance from sampling site ______(Meters) Downstream __ No __ Yes Approx. distance from sampling site ______(Meters)

Dams Upstream __ No __ Yes Approx. distance from sampling site ______(Meters) Downstream __ No __ Yes Approx. distance from sampling site ______(Meters)

Organic substrate __ Mud/Muck __ Detritus __ Logs/Limbs __ Pulpy Peat Percent Organic Substrate: ______(%)

Bank Slope __ Steep __ Moderate __ Slight __ Other ______

Bank Stability __ Stable __ Slightly Eroded __ Moderately Eroded __ Severely Eroded

Bank Material __ Clay __ Rock __ Dirt __ Mud __ Stones __ Other______

Bank Vegetation __ Barren __Grasses __ Herbaceous __ Brush __ Deciduous trees __ Coniferous trees __ Other______

Undercut Banks __ No __ Yes

Channel Cross-Section __ Rectangular __ U-Shaped __ V-shaped __ W-Shaped __ Other______

Surface Oils __ None __ Some __ Lots

Water Odors __ Normal __ Sewage __ Petroleum __ Chemical __ Other______

Additional Notes: Document below any information or observations you made that are not included on this form.

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY LAB DATASHEET: SITE 2 SELECTION