DOCSLIB.ORG

Description of the Bois Brule River Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Description of the Bois Brule River Watershed AQUAT~CTSOFTHE BOIS BRULE RIVER SYSTEM, WISCONSIN Technical Bulletin No. 1 85 Department of Natural Resources Madison, Wisconsin 1993 ABSTRACT Noticeable kills of some species of aquatic insects have accompanied periodic iampricide treatments (3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol; TFM) within the Bois Brule River (Brule River) drainage since 1959. These kills prompted concern among trout anglers and Department of Natural Resources fisheries personnel about the long-term effects of TFM on the aquatic insect community. This concern was heightened during the early 1980s by declines in several of the river's trout popula­ tions that use aquatic insects as a food resource. Hence, benthos collections throughout the drain­ age basin, and drift-net samples from 3 tributaries, were made between November 1983 and July 1988 to document and assess the status of the aquatic insect fauna of this relatively undisturbed, predominantly spring-fed river system. Relative abundance and distribution of aquatic insects, and physical and chemical data, are provided for 15 biotic areas, which include 6 mainstem reaches and 9 tributaries. One hundred thirty species were identified; in terms of species richness Trichoptera (35 species) and Ephemer­ optera (27 species) were best represented. However, Diptera would.have contained the most species had it been possible to identify them (59 genera identified). Ephemeroptera co.r:ttained the greatest number of individuals in benthos samples; Diptera were predominant in drift-net sam­ ples. The drift fauna in tributaries was overwhelmingly dominated by several species each of Baetis and Simulium. No threatened or endangered species were found; however, a population of Brachycentrus lateralis, a caddisfly that is rare in Wisconsin, was identified. Biotic index values in mainstem and tributary areas indicated excellent water quality and no apparent organic pollution. Although TFM treatments probably have caused short-term reductions in abundance of some aquatic insect taxa, no evidence was found to indicate persistent damage to the aquatic insect community. The Brule River is a unique resource in terms of the aquatic insect habitat it provides. Conse­ quently, strong efforts should continue to protect water and structural habitat quality. I recommend: (1) periodic water quality monitoring using Hilsenhoff's biotic index at some of the sites sampled in this study, (2) maintenance of adequate buffer strips along riparian areas to protect against ero­ sion from logging, and (3) an investigation into the possibility of increased sand sedimentation in the river system. · Key Words: aquatic insects, drift, ·benthos, biotic index, Bois Brule River. Aquatic Insects of the Bois Brule River System, Wisconsin by Robert B. DuBois Technical Bulletin No. 185 Department of Natural Resources P. 0. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707 1993 CONTENTS 2 INTRODUCTION 14 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE Distribution and Relative Abundance, 14 BOIS BRULE RIVER WATERSHED Plecoptera, 14 Ephemeroptera, 16 5 METHODS Odonata, 18 Sampling Locations, 5 Trichoptera, 18 Lower River, 7 Megaloptera, 22 Ledges Area, 7 Aquatic and Semi-aquatic Hemiptera, 22 Meadows Area, 7 Aquatic Coleoptera, 22 Midsection Transition Area, 8 Aquatic Diptera, 22 Big Lake, 8 Community Composition, 24 Stone's Bridge Area, 8 I)i!fereJ1ces Amo11g ]3igtic Areas, 24 TraskC-reek, 9 Biotic Index Values, 28 Pine Tree Tributary, 9 Effects of TFM on the Rocky Run, 9 Aquatic Insect Community, 29 Little Brule River, 10 Nebagamon Creek, 10 31 SUMMARY Blueberry Creek, 11 31 MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS North Fork of Blueberry Creek, 11 AND RECOMMENDATIONS Wilson Creek, 11 32 LITERATURE CITED West Fork, 11 Sampling Gear and Techniques, 12 Benthos Samples, 12 Biotic Index Samples, 12 Drift-net Samples, 12 Aquatic Insect Identification, 12 Data Presentation, 12 The Brule Rm·r Cflll{l('/mulill...; nl /In• DNR Rn11xa Stntiou duri11S sum­ mer f/1:(1 J 11111fllt1' rtW I' m wm/1'1', dcni'IISircnmfrom llnn•C'}tl~md (right J INTRODUCTION The 13oi:. Brule River (Brule Rive r) in eastern Douglns used ns food by trout (Hunt 1965) for which identifications C\)unly i:. one llf the longest and best-known b·out strCJms generally were limited to taxonomic ordt'r. nnd cnnoe trnils in the Midwest. The value of the Brule In 19R3 thL' Wisconsin Department of Naturul Resources River a:-. a study strenm, because of its ecological divers ity (0 I ~) initiatl!d " research project to inves tignte appnrent nnd relntivcly pri:.tinc condition, has been recognized for decli nes in several of the salmonid populations found many ycnrs (Schneberger and Hasler 1944). lts value for In the Brule River .:~nd identify remedial mnnagemcnt s t·udy is furthe r L'nhanced by the wealth of descriptive strntegics. P ;:nt of this effort focused on an assessment information nv<Jil.1b le about many of its physical and bio­ of the s tntus of the aquatic insect food base, particularl y logical clttributcs. in light of the potentially severe negative impac ts o f The m.1jnr factor responsible for maintaining the Brule 3-tri Auorom<.'th y l-4-n it rophenol (TFM) lnm pricide trea l­ l~i\ cr \'illll'Y in its re latively unspoiled state has been the mcnts, a~ deduced from the laboratory and fie ld result!> continuing protl!ction afforded by public acquisition of that were available at that time (Smith 1967, Torblaa 196R, lnnd bordNing the river and by the commendable preser­ Haas 1970, Ch<~ndk- r nnd Marking 1Y75, Fremling 1975, V<l tion efforts of privClte interests. The entire mainstem is Maki el al. 1975, Rye <md King 1976, Maki and Johnson now encompassed within the Brule Ri ver State Forest, and 1977). The Brule River system had been thoroughly dwelling~ <1rc !>tcndily being removed as the state policy treated pcriodicillly (usually at 3-year intervals) ~ince 1959 of land Clcquisition within forest bow1daries continues. by the Sea L1mprey Control Unit of the U.S. Fish .:~nd In tht' cilrh 19-IOs, the Brule River and its watershed Wildlife Service. Anecdotal angler reports suggested were the focus of one of the most comprehensive intcr­ thai some of the m,1jor aquati c insect hatches that usually di ... ciplin,uy c,tlldit•<; <'Ver doaw on a Wisconsin <;trPnm. prO\ idc·d gnod nyfi<;hing npporhmities (e.g., the Ht>Xfl~l'llitl Tt•chnic<~l papers subsequently \·vere published on the limbnln hatch) .lppcarcd to be smaller than cw~·rngl' thl' topngraph). geology, and aquatic and terrestrial vegeta­ year of, or the y('nr following, lampricide treatment. tion, a~ well ,1!> information on bottom deposits, physi­ During 1QR3 cllld lYR..J, bentho!> samples were collected Cill/chcmicill aspl'Cis, and fishery topics (T/1e Brule Ric•er, through0ut the mainstem of the Brule River and in sev­ Wi .... Cono.,crv. Dep. 19t)4; papers listed individuaJly in the eral tributaries usin~ a vnriety of qualitative nnd !>Cmi­ dcc;cription of lht• watershed). However, the only infor­ quanlitntive samplers. Although these sa mples were miltion about the aquatic insect community of this unique taken rrom J variety or hilbitat types, most ~am piing resource con~ i st~ of a study of s urface-drift aqu.:~tic insect.., focused 1)11 riffle ;1reas w ith g ravel substrates, which a rc 2 usually the most important aquatic insect-producing aquatic insects in those watersheds (Hilsenhoff et al. 1972). areas in trout streams. In 1986 and 1988, drift-net collec­ Further descriptions of lotic insect taxa in northern tions added distributional information on aquatic insects Wisconsin were included in publications on statewide from 3 tributaries. During the preliminary study phase distributions of Baetidae (Bergman and Hilsenhoff 1978), of the project, aquatic insect drift in Blueberry Creek was Heptageniidae (Flowers and Hilsenhoff 1975), Baetiscidae - examined-before;-during; and after TFM treatment in ·-(Hilsenhoff1984bj;-Brachycentrida-e(Hilsenhoff l-9-85), 1986 (DuBois and Plaster 1993). aquatic and semi-aquatic Hemiptera (Hilsenhoff 1984a, Although the primary initial impetus for assessing the 1986), Perlodidae (Hilsenhoff and Billmyer 1973), Haliplidae status of the aquatic insect community of the Brule River (Hilsenhoff and Brigham 1978), and Hydropsychidae was the concern generated by TFM lampricide treatments, (Schmude and Hilsenhoff 1986). A preliminary survey of a literature review and preliminary field testing revealed Ephemeroptera nymphs by Krueger (1969) shed light on that a definitive evaluation of TFM impacts on aquatic their statewide distributions. Several species identifica­ insects in a large and diverse watershed such as the Brule tions were available for Bear Creek, a warmwater stream River system would be time-consuming, expensive, and in Barron County (Narf 1985). Additionally, Steven and unnecessary. For these reasons, and because published Jacobi (1978) and Nelson (1979) provided generic identi­ evaluations on other aquatic systems are available fications and biotic index values for the aquatic inverte­ (Torblaa 1968, Gilderhus and Johnson 1980, Merna 1985, brate communities of 40 streams within the Chequamegon Dermott and Spence 1984, Jeffrey et al. 1986, Kolton et al. National Forest in Ashland County. However, distribu­ 1986, MacMahon et al. 1987, Lieffers 1990), I made few tion information for many families still was not available. efforts beyond the preliminary study phase to further The purpose of this report is to: (1) describe the distri­ investigate this issue. bution, relative abundance, and community composition Documentation of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 PBRIA a Newsletter for Plecopterologists
    No. 10 1990/1991 Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 PBRIA A Newsletter for Plecopterologists EDITORS: Richard W, Baumann Monte L. Bean Life Science Museum Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 84602 Peter Zwick Limnologische Flußstation Max-Planck-Institut für Limnologie, Postfach 260, D-6407, Schlitz, West Germany EDITORIAL ASSISTANT: Bonnie Snow REPORT 3rd N orth A merican Stonefly S ymposium Boris Kondratieff hosted an enthusiastic group of plecopterologists in Fort Collins, Colorado during May 17-19, 1991. More than 30 papers and posters were presented and much fruitful discussion occurred. An enjoyable field trip to the Colorado Rockies took place on Sunday, May 19th, and the weather was excellent. Boris was such a good host that it was difficult to leave, but many participants traveled to Santa Fe, New Mexico to attend the annual meetings of the North American Benthological Society. Bill Stark gave us a way to remember this meeting by producing a T-shirt with a unique “Spirit Fly” design. ANNOUNCEMENT 11th International Stonefly Symposium Stan Szczytko has planned and organized an excellent symposium that will be held at the Tree Haven Biological Station, University of Wisconsin in Tomahawk, Wisconsin, USA. The registration cost of $300 includes lodging, meals, field trip and a T- Shirt. This is a real bargain so hopefully many colleagues and friends will come and participate in the symposium August 17-20, 1992. Stan has promised good weather and good friends even though he will not guarantee that stonefly adults will be collected during the field trip. Printed August 1992 1 OBITUARIES RODNEY L.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in New York State, 2019
    NYSDEC SOP #208-19 Title: Stream Biomonitoring Rev: 1.2 Date: 03/29/19 Page 1 of 188 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water Standard Operating Procedure: Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in New York State March 2019 Note: Division of Water (DOW) SOP revisions from year 2016 forward will only capture the current year parties involved with drafting/revising/approving the SOP on the cover page. The dated signatures of those parties will be captured here as well. The historical log of all SOP updates and revisions (past & present) will immediately follow the cover page. NYSDEC SOP 208-19 Stream Biomonitoring Rev. 1.2 Date: 03/29/2019 Page 3 of 188 SOP #208 Update Log 1 Prepared/ Revision Revised by Approved by Number Date Summary of Changes DOW Staff Rose Ann Garry 7/25/2007 Alexander J. Smith Rose Ann Garry 11/25/2009 Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 1.0 3/29/2012 Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 2.0 4/18/2014 • Definition of a reference site clarified (Sect. 8.2.3) • WAVE results added as a factor Alexander J. Smith Jason Fagel 3.0 4/1/2016 in site selection (Sect. 8.2.2 & 8.2.6) • HMA details added (Sect. 8.10) • Nonsubstantive changes 2 • Disinfection procedures (Sect. 8) • Headwater (Sect. 9.4.1 & 10.2.7) assessment methods added • Benthic multiplate method added (Sect, 9.4.3) Brian Duffy Rose Ann Garry 1.0 5/01/2018 • Lake (Sect. 9.4.5 & Sect. 10.) assessment methods added • Detail on biological impairment sampling (Sect.
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy 2
    Developed for: The State of Indiana, Governor Mitch Daniels Department of Natural Resources, Director Kyle Hupfer Division of Fish and Wildlife, Director Glen Salmon By: D. J. Case and Associates 317 E. Jefferson Blvd. Mishawaka, IN 46545 (574)-258-0100 With the Technical and Conservation information provided by: Biologists and Conservation Organizations throughout the state Project Coordinator: Catherine Gremillion-Smith, Ph.D. Funded by: State Wildlife Grants U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy 2 Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy 3 Indiana Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy 4 II. Executive Summary The Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) working with conservation partners across the state, developed a Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy (CWS) to protect and conserve habitats and associated wildlife at a landscape scale. Taking advantage of Congressional guidance and nationwide synergy Congress recognized the importance of partnerships and integrated conservation efforts, and charged each state and territory across the country to develop similar strategies. To facilitate future comparisons and cross-boundary cooperation, Congress required all 50 states and 6 U.S. territories to simultaneously address eight specific elements. Congress also directed that the strategies must identify and be focused on the “species in greatest need of conservation,” yet address the “full array of wildlife” and wildlife-related issues. Throughout the process, federal agencies and national organizations facilitated a fruitful ongoing discussion about how states across the country were addressing wildlife conservation. States were given latitude to develop strategies to best meet their particular needs. Congress gave each state the option of organizing its strategy by using a species-by-species approach or a habitat- based approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Life History and Production of Mayflies, Stoneflies, and Caddisflies (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) in a Spring-Fe
    Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen 1083 Life history and production of mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) in a spring-fed stream in Prince Edward Island, Canada: evidence for population asynchrony in spring habitats? Michelle Dobrin and Donna J. Giberson Abstract: We examined the life history and production of the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) commu- nity along a 500-m stretch of a hydrologically stable cold springbrook in Prince Edward Island during 1997 and 1998. Six mayfly species (Ephemeroptera), 6 stonefly species (Plecoptera), and 11 caddisfly species (Trichoptera) were collected from benthic and emergence samples from five sites in Balsam Hollow Brook. Eleven species were abundant enough for life-history and production analysis: Baetis tricaudatus, Cinygmula subaequalis, Epeorus (Iron) fragilis,andEpeorus (Iron) pleuralis (Ephemeroptera), Paracapnia angulata, Sweltsa naica, Leuctra ferruginea, Amphinemura nigritta,and Nemoura trispinosa (Plecoptera), and Parapsyche apicalis and Rhyacophila brunnea (Trichoptera). Life-cycle timing of EPT taxa in Balsam Hollow Brook was generally similar to other literature reports, but several species showed extended emergence periods when compared with other studies, suggesting a reduction in synchronization of life-cycle timing, pos- sibly as a result of the thermal patterns in the stream. Total EPT secondary production (June 1997 to May 1998) was 2.74–2.80 g·m–2·year–1 dry mass (size-frequency method). Mayflies were dominant, with a production rate of 2.2 g·m–2·year–1 dry mass, followed by caddisflies at 0.41 g·m–2·year–1 dry mass, and stoneflies at 0.19 g·m–2·year–1 dry mass.
    [Show full text]
  • A REVIEW of the MAYFLY FAMILY METRETOPODIDAE' Some Years
    A REVIEW OF THE MAYFLY FAMILY METRETOPODIDAE' BY LEWIS BERNER 2 Department of Zoology University of Florida Some years ago, I collected nymphs of a species of Siphloplecton from the Withlacoochee River near Valdosta, Georgia, from which I was able to rear adults. As I worked with them, it appeared that they were Siphloplecton basale (Walker), but further study .con­ vinced me that they represented a new species. Dr. W. L. Peters, collecting in northwestern Florida, also reared adults, which at first inspection seemed to be S. basale, but he, too, concluded that his specimens represented a new species and he asked that I add his col­ lections to mine. As I attempted to understand the relationships of these two new forms to species earlier described, I realized that it would be well to review the entire genus. Among the specimens loaned to me for study by Dr. G. F. Edmunds, Jr., I found a collec­ tion of nymphs from Alaska which had been identified as Siphloplecton. It soon became apparent to me that they had been misidentified, but the similarities of the nymphs to those of Siphloplecton were so great that the misidentification was no sur­ prise. The nymphs were those of Metretopus (probably borealis [Eaton]). I concluded that such close similarities required that I in­ clude a study of Metretopus along with my review of Siphloplec­ ton. My examination of the immatures of the two genera has revealed morphological characteristics that now permit ready separation. These differences are detailed below and are included in the key. The genus Siph/oplecton was erected by W.
    [Show full text]
  • TB142: Mayflies of Maine: an Annotated Faunal List
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Technical Bulletins Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station 4-1-1991 TB142: Mayflies of aine:M An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian K. Elizabeth Gibbs Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/aes_techbulletin Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Burian, S.K., and K.E. Gibbs. 1991. Mayflies of Maine: An annotated faunal list. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 142. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Technical Bulletins by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ISSN 0734-9556 Mayflies of Maine: An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian and K. Elizabeth Gibbs Technical Bulletin 142 April 1991 MAINE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Mayflies of Maine: An Annotated Faunal List Steven K. Burian Assistant Professor Department of Biology, Southern Connecticut State University New Haven, CT 06515 and K. Elizabeth Gibbs Associate Professor Department of Entomology University of Maine Orono, Maine 04469 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial support for this project was provided by the State of Maine Departments of Environmental Protection, and Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; a University of Maine New England, Atlantic Provinces, and Quebec Fellow­ ship to S. K. Burian; and the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Dr. William L. Peters and Jan Peters, Florida A & M University, pro­ vided support and advice throughout the project and we especially appreci­ ated the opportunity for S.K. Burian to work in their laboratory and stay in their home in Tallahassee, Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • Stoneflies^ Or Plecoptera, of Illinois
    STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION DIVISION OF THE NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY THEODORE H. PRISON. Chiij Vol. XX BULLETIN Article IV The Stoneflies^ or Plecoptera, of Illinois THKODORE H. FRISON PRINTED BY AUTHORITY OP THE STATE OF ILLINOIS URBANA, ILLINOIS JANUARY 1935 STATE OF ILLINOIS Honorable Henry Horner, Governor DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION Honorable John J. Hallihan, Dirertor BOARD OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION - ! Honorable John J. Hallihan, Chairman William Trelease, D. Sc, LL. D., Biology William A. Noyes, Ph. D., LL. D., Chemistry Henry C. Cowles, Ph. D., D. Sc, Forestry Chem. D., D. Sc, John W. Alvord, C. E., Engineering Edson C. Bastxn, Ph. D., Geology Arthur Cutts Willard, D. Eng., LL. D., President of the University of Illinois NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY DIVISION URBANA, ILLINOIS Scientific and Technical Staff Theodore H. Prison, Ph. D., Chief SECTION OF economic ENTOMOLOGY SECTION OF INSECT SURVEY W. P. Flint, B. S., Chief Entomologist H. H. Ross, Ph. D., Systematic En- C. C. CoMPTON, M. S., Associate En- tomologist tomologist Carl O. Mohr, Ph. D., Associate En- M. D. Farrar, Ph. D., Research E.n- tomologist, Artist tomologist L. H. TowNSEND, M. S., Assistant En- tomologist S. C. Chandler, B. S., Sontheni Field Entomologist J. H. Bigger, B. S., Central Field SECTION OF APPLIED BOTANY AND Entomologist PLANT PATHOLOGY L. H. Shropshire, M. S., Northern L. Ph. D., Botanist Field Entomologist R. Tehon, C. Carter, Ph. D., Assistant Bota- E. R. McGovran, Ph. D., Research J. nist Fellow in Entomology G. H. BoEWE, M. S., Field Botanist W. E.
    [Show full text]
  • An Updated List of Type Material of Ephemeroptera Hyatt & Arms, 1890, Deposited at the Zoological Museum of Hamburg (ZMH)
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 607: 49–68An (2016) updated list of type material of Ephemeroptera Hyatt & Arms, 1890... 49 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.607.9391 CATALOGUE http://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research An updated list of type material of Ephemeroptera Hyatt & Arms, 1890, deposited at the Zoological Museum of Hamburg (ZMH) Michel Sartori1,2, Martin Kubiak2, Hossein Rajaei2,3 1 Museum of zoology, Palais de Rumine, Place Riponne 6, CH-1005 Lausanne, Switzerland 2 Zoologisches Museum, Centrum für Naturkunde (CeNak), Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3, 20146 Hamburg, Germany 3 Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart, Rosenstein 1, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany Corresponding author: Michel Sartori ([email protected]) Academic editor: E. Dominguez | Received 31 May 2016 | Accepted 6 July 2016 | Published 26 July 2016 http://zoobank.org/F2D11E9A-5AC0-4309-BB04-B83142605624 Citation: Sartori M, Kubiak M, Rajaei H (2016) An updated list of type material of Ephemeroptera Hyatt & Arms, 1890, deposited at the Zoological Museum of Hamburg (ZMH). ZooKeys 607: 49–68. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.607.9391 Abstract The type specimens of Ephemeroptera (Insecta) housed at the Zoological Museum of Hamburg (ZMH) are compiled in this document. The current nomenclature of all species is given. In total, Ephemerop- tera type material of ZMH encompasses 161 species. Fifty-one holotypes and five lectotypes are present. Forty-one species are represented by syntypes, 85 by paratypes and five by paralectotypes. Material of two species (Cinygma asiaticum Ulmer, 1924 and Pseudocloeon klapaleki Müller-Liebenau, 1982) is missing. The present catalogue is an updated version of Weidner (1964a).
    [Show full text]
  • Development of an Aquatic Toxicity Index for Macroinvertebrates
    DEVELOPMENT OF AN AQUATIC TOXICITY INDEX FOR MACROINVERTEBRATES By Lucky Nhlanhla Mnisi (Student Number: 972672) Supervisor: Dr Gavin Snow A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Science. School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences of the University of the Witwatersrand DECLARATION I declare that this thesis is my own, unaided work. It is being submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in School of Animal Plant and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science of the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. It has not been submitted before for any degree or examination in any other university. Signed:……………… ……………………………. Date:……18 May 2018…………………………………………. i ABSTRACT Rapid biomonitoring protocols employing riverine macroinvertebrates in South Africa utilise the South African Scoring System version 5 (SASS5). The SASS5 was developed as part of the then River Health Programme (RHP) [now River Eco-status Monitoring Programme (REMP)]. The SASS5 index is a cost-effective procedure (utilising limited sampling equipment) that enables speedy evaluation of a riverine ecosystem’s health using macroinvertebrates as biological indicators of water quality and ecosystem health. As a result, the SASS5 (including earlier versions) has been widely accepted by water quality practitioners and is increasingly incorporated into Ecological Reserve determinations. However, the SASS is widely criticised for being a ‘red flag’ indicator of water quality and ecosystem health because it has the ability to show only whether a river is polluted (including the extent of pollution) or not, but cannot differentiate between pollutant types (whether chemical or physical). To trace the pollutants responsible for changes in water quality, practitioners are therefore required to conduct chemical-based water quality assessments.
    [Show full text]
  • SOP #: MDNR-WQMS-209 EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2005
    MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AIR AND LAND PROTECTION DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROGRAM Standard Operating Procedures SOP #: MDNR-WQMS-209 EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 2005 SOP TITLE: Taxonomic Levels for Macroinvertebrate Identifications WRITTEN BY: Randy Sarver, WQMS, ESP APPROVED BY: Earl Pabst, Director, ESP SUMMARY OF REVISIONS: Changes to reflect new taxa and current taxonomy APPLICABILITY: Applies to Water Quality Monitoring Section personnel who perform community level surveys of aquatic macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams of Missouri . DISTRIBUTION: MoDNR Intranet ESP SOP Coordinator RECERTIFICATION RECORD: Date Reviewed Initials Page 1 of 30 MDNR-WQMS-209 Effective Date: 05/31/05 Page 2 of 30 1.0 GENERAL OVERVIEW 1.1 This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is designed to be used as a reference by biologists who analyze aquatic macroinvertebrate samples from Missouri. Its purpose is to establish consistent levels of taxonomic resolution among agency, academic and other biologists. The information in this SOP has been established by researching current taxonomic literature. It should assist an experienced aquatic biologist to identify organisms from aquatic surveys to a consistent and reliable level. The criteria used to set the level of taxonomy beyond the genus level are the systematic treatment of the genus by a professional taxonomist and the availability of a published key. 1.2 The consistency in macroinvertebrate identification allowed by this document is important regardless of whether one person is conducting an aquatic survey over a period of time or multiple investigators wish to compare results. It is especially important to provide guidance on the level of taxonomic identification when calculating metrics that depend upon the number of taxa.
    [Show full text]
  • 100 Characters
    40 Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation: Final Report Leon C. Hinz Jr. and James N. Zahniser Illinois Natural History Survey Prairie Research Institute University of Illinois 30 April 2015 INHS Technical Report 2015 (31) Prepared for: Illinois Department of Natural Resources State Wildlife Grant Program (Project Number T-88-R-001) Unrestricted: for immediate online release. Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Brian D. Anderson, Interim Executive Director Illinois Natural History Survey Geoffrey A. Levin, Acting Director 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 217-333-6830 Final Report Project Title: Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation. Project Number: T-88-R-001 Contractor information: University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability Illinois Natural History Survey 1816 South Oak Street Champaign, IL 61820 Project Period: 1 October 2013—31 September 2014 Principle Investigator: Leon C. Hinz Jr., Ph.D. Stream Ecologist Illinois Natural History Survey One Natural Resources Way, Springfield, IL 62702-1271 217-785-8297 [email protected] Prepared by: Leon C. Hinz Jr. & James N. Zahniser Goals/ Objectives: (1) Review all SGNC listing criteria for currently listed non-mollusk invertebrate species using criteria in Illinois Wildlife Action Plan, (2) Assess current status of species populations, (3) Review criteria for additional species for potential listing as SGNC, (4) Assess stressors to species previously reviewed, (5) Complete draft updates and revisions of IWAP Appendix I and Appendix II for non-mollusk invertebrates. T-88 Final Report Project Title: Review and Update of Non-mollusk Invertebrate Species in Greatest Need of Conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix Page
    NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Water Quality Environmental Sciences Section August 2004 This page was intentionally left blank NCDENR, Division of Water Quality Basinwide Assessment Report – Cape Fear River Basin - August 2004 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF APPENDICIES ........................................................................................................................ 5 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 11 OVERVIEW OF THE WATER QUALITY OF THE CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN.....................................17 EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES BY PROGRAM AREA.................................................................................27 FISHERIES ...................................................................................................................................... 27 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES............................................................................................. 30 LAKE ASSESSMENT....................................................................................................................... 32 PHYTOPLANKTON MONITORING................................................................................................. 33 AMBIENT MONITORING................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]