DOCSLIB.ORG

Sample Collection, Sorting, and Taxonomic Identification of Benthic Macroinvertebrates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sample Collection, Sorting, and Taxonomic Identification of Benthic Macroinvertebrates WQPBWQM-009 Rev#: 02 Date: 9/8/2006 Page 1 of 32 Sample Collection, Sorting, and Taxonomic Identification of Benthic Macroinvertebrates Water Quality Planning Bureau Standard Operation Procedure WQPBWQM-009 Approvals: [Signature on File] [09/08/06] Dave Feldman, Water Quality Specialist, WQ Standards Date [Signature on File] [09/08/06] Mark Bostrom, QA Officer, Water Quality Planning Bureau Date [Signature on File] [09/06/06] Bob Bukantis, Environmental Program Manager, Water Quality Standards Date WQPBWQM-009 Rev#: 02 Date: 9/8/2006 Page 2 of 32 This page left intentionally Blank WQPBWQM-009 Rev#: 02 Date: 9/8/2006 Page 3 of 32 Table of Contents Macroinvertebrates..................................................................................................5 1. Scope and Applicability................................................................................................ 6 1.1. General Considerations ........................................................................................................6 1.1.1. Index Period...........................................................................................................................6 1.1.2. Site Selection..........................................................................................................................6 1.1.3. Sample Collection Methods..................................................................................................7 1.1.4. Checklist of Recommended Field Supplies .........................................................................7 2. Sample Collection Procedures ..................................................................................... 8 2.1. Quantitative Sampling Protocol (Hess Sampler)................................................................8 2.1.1. Protocol Summary ..............................................................................................................8 2.1.2. Equipment ...........................................................................................................................8 2.1.3. Sample Collection...............................................................................................................8 2.1.4. Precautions .........................................................................................................................9 2.1.5. Sample Labeling .................................................................................................................9 2.1.6. Sample Containers and Preservation ................................................................................9 2.1.7. Sampling Quality Control.................................................................................................10 2.2. Semi-Quantitative Sampling Protocols (Traveling Kick Net and Jab Techniques)......10 2.2.1. Sampling Protocol Summaries..........................................................................................10 2.2.2. Equipment .........................................................................................................................10 2.2.3. Sample Collection.............................................................................................................10 2.2.4. Other sampling methods and protocols ............................................................................12 2.2.5. Precautions .......................................................................................................................12 2.2.6. Sample Labeling ...............................................................................................................12 2.2.7. Sample Containers and Preservation ...............................................................................12 2.2.8. Sampling Quality Control.................................................................................................12 2.3. Supporting Field Data.........................................................................................................13 3. Subsampling & Sorting .............................................................................................. 14 3.1. Pre-subsampling methods...................................................................................................14 3.1.1. Picking detritus.................................................................................................................14 3.1.2. Elutriation.........................................................................................................................14 3.2. Sub-sampling and Sorting ..................................................................................................15 3.2.1. Sorting QC ........................................................................................................................15 4. Taxonomy .................................................................................................................... 16 4.1. Taxonomic Identification....................................................................................................16 4.2. Quality Control for Taxonomy ..........................................................................................16 4.2.1. Accuracy ...........................................................................................................................16 4.2.2. Precision ...........................................................................................................................17 4.2.3. Corrections to database....................................................................................................18 5. Data Analysis and Interpretation.............................................................................. 19 5.1. Transfer sample data ..........................................................................................................19 5.2. Reduce sample data.............................................................................................................19 5.2.1. OTUs.................................................................................................................................19 5.2.2. Excluded Taxa...................................................................................................................19 5.2.3. Rarefaction........................................................................................................................20 5.2.4. Re-Sampling......................................................................................................................20 WQPBWQM-009 Rev#: 02 Date: 9/8/2006 Page 4 of 32 5.3. Identify site classes ..............................................................................................................20 5.3.1. Predictor Variables...........................................................................................................20 5.3.2. Determine Site Class.........................................................................................................21 5.4. Calculate the MMI ..............................................................................................................22 5.5. Calculate RIVPACS............................................................................................................22 5.6. Validating Model Outputs..................................................................................................23 5.7. Interpret the Indices ...........................................................................................................23 5.7.1. Reconciling Differences in MMI and RIVPACS Results...................................................24 5.8. Determine degrees of Impairment .....................................................................................26 6. Reporting Results........................................................................................................ 27 7. Glossary of Metrics..................................................................................................... 28 List of Appendices Appendix A Master Taxa List Appendix B Taxa List Template Appendix C Rarefaction Appendix D Example Output for the MMI and RIVPACS List of Attachments Attachment 1 - Montana DEQ Site Visit Form Attachment 2 - Photo Points Form Attachment 3 - Site Sketch Form WQPBWQM-009 Rev#: 02 Date: 9/8/2006 Page 5 of 32 Macroinvertebrates This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) describes methods that have been developed for determining the health of macroinvertebrate communities for use in water quality assessments. This SOP will be reviewed annually. Before using this SOPs, please confirm the revision number that is presently in use by contacting the following individuals (or their replacements): David Feldman Water Quality Standards Section Montana Department of Environmental Quality PO Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 (406)-444-6764 Mark Bostrom Data Management Section Montana Department of Environmental Quality PO Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 (406)-444-2680 WQPBWQM-009 Rev#: 02 Date: 9/8/2006 Page 6 of 32 1. Scope and Applicability The methods described herein are used in wadeable streams (2nd order or higher). These methods may be used in a first-order stream but special care needs to be taken in data analysis and interpretation. Benthic macroinvertebrate data collected on large rivers is beyond the scope of this method. 1.1. General Considerations Before conducting a benthic survey, determine specific data quality objectives (DQOs) and clearly define the information
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks Bioblitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks BioBlitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event Natural Resource Report NPS/GOGA/NRR—2016/1147 ON THIS PAGE Photograph of BioBlitz participants conducting data entry into iNaturalist. Photograph courtesy of the National Park Service. ON THE COVER Photograph of BioBlitz participants collecting aquatic species data in the Presidio of San Francisco. Photograph courtesy of National Park Service. The 2014 Golden Gate National Parks BioBlitz - Data Management and the Event Species List Achieving a Quality Dataset from a Large Scale Event Natural Resource Report NPS/GOGA/NRR—2016/1147 Elizabeth Edson1, Michelle O’Herron1, Alison Forrestel2, Daniel George3 1Golden Gate Parks Conservancy Building 201 Fort Mason San Francisco, CA 94129 2National Park Service. Golden Gate National Recreation Area Fort Cronkhite, Bldg. 1061 Sausalito, CA 94965 3National Park Service. San Francisco Bay Area Network Inventory & Monitoring Program Manager Fort Cronkhite, Bldg. 1063 Sausalito, CA 94965 March 2016 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Orden TRICHOPTERA Manual
    Revista IDE@ - SEA, nº 64 (30-06-2015): 1–21. ISSN 2386-7183 1 Ibero Diversidad Entomológica @ccesible www.sea-entomologia.org/IDE@ Clase: Insecta Orden TRICHOPTERA Manual CLASE INSECTA Orden Trichoptera Carmen Zamora-Muñoz1, Marta Sáinz-Bariáin1 & Núria Bonada2 1 Departamento de Zoología. Facultad de Ciencias. Universidad de Granada. Campus de Fuentenueva, 18071 Granada (España). [email protected] 2 Grup de Recerca Freshwater Ecology and Management (FEM), Departament d’Ecologia, Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona (UB), Diagonal 643, 08028 Barcelona, Catalonia (España). Imagen superior: Óleo con larva y adulto de tricóptero. Autora: Ana Sánz. 1. Breve definición del grupo y principales caracteres diagnósticos Los tricópteros o frigáneas (Trichoptera, del griego trichos, "pelo" y pteron, "ala") son artrópodos de la Clase Insecta cuyos adultos portan alas cubiertas de pilosidad. Casi todas sus especies dependen del medio acuático para su desarrollo. La mayoría habitan en ríos y arroyos de aguas limpias y bien oxigena- das, aunque también se pueden encontrar en ambientes lénticos, terrestres e incluso marinos. Forman un grupo natural y están cercanamente emparentados con las mariposas y polillas (Lepi- doptera), que tienen escamas en sus alas y, como ellos, son capaces de producir seda. Ambos forman el superorden Amphiesmenoptera. De hecho, el grupo es sobre todo conocido por la habilidad de sus larvas para fabricar, con seda y diversos materiales, una gran variedad de construcciones como estuches portáti- les (Figura 1), refugios fijos, redes para la recogida de alimento y galerías, por lo que también se les ha denominado “arquitectos subacuáticos” (Mackay & Wiggins, 1979; Wiggins, 2004). Aunque para la cons- trucción de los estuches los tricópteros utilizan el material disponible en el lecho del río, el tipo y disposi- ción de las piezas que usan suele tener un marcado carácter filogenético (https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=3vr6Z54LJtM&spfreload=10).
    [Show full text]
  • Data Quality, Performance, and Uncertainty in Taxonomic Identification for Biological Assessments
    J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 2008, 27(4):906–919 Ó 2008 by The North American Benthological Society DOI: 10.1899/07-175.1 Published online: 28 October 2008 Data quality, performance, and uncertainty in taxonomic identification for biological assessments 1 2 James B. Stribling AND Kristen L. Pavlik Tetra Tech, Inc., 400 Red Brook Blvd., Suite 200, Owings Mills, Maryland 21117-5159 USA Susan M. Holdsworth3 Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Mail Code 4503T, Washington, DC 20460 USA Erik W. Leppo4 Tetra Tech, Inc., 400 Red Brook Blvd., Suite 200, Owings Mills, Maryland 21117-5159 USA Abstract. Taxonomic identifications are central to biological assessment; thus, documenting and reporting uncertainty associated with identifications is critical. The presumption that comparable results would be obtained, regardless of which or how many taxonomists were used to identify samples, lies at the core of any assessment. As part of a national survey of streams, 741 benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected throughout the eastern USA, subsampled in laboratories to ;500 organisms/sample, and sent to taxonomists for identification and enumeration. Primary identifications were done by 25 taxonomists in 8 laboratories. For each laboratory, ;10% of the samples were randomly selected for quality control (QC) reidentification and sent to an independent taxonomist in a separate laboratory (total n ¼ 74), and the 2 sets of results were compared directly. The results of the sample-based comparisons were summarized as % taxonomic disagreement (PTD) and % difference in enumeration (PDE). Across the set of QC samples, mean values of PTD and PDE were ;21 and 2.6%, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Report110
    ~ ~ WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES A Survey of Rare and Endangered Mayflies of Selected RESEARCH Rivers of Wisconsin by Richard A. Lillie REPORT110 Bureau of Research, Monona December 1995 ~ Abstract The mayfly fauna of 25 rivers and streams in Wisconsin were surveyed during 1991-93 to document the temporal and spatial occurrence patterns of two state endangered mayflies, Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex. Both species are candidates under review for addition to the federal List of Endang­ ered and Threatened Wildlife. Based on previous records of occur­ rence in Wisconsin, sampling was conducted during the period May-July using a combination of sampling methods, including dredges, air-lift pumps, kick-nets, and hand-picking of substrates. No specimens of Anepeorus simplex were collected. Three specimens (nymphs or larvae) of Acanthametropus pecatonica were found in the Black River, one nymph was collected from the lower Wisconsin River, and a partial exuviae was collected from the Chippewa River. Homoeoneuria ammophila was recorded from Wisconsin waters for the first time from the Black River and Sugar River. New site distribution records for the following Wiscon­ sin special concern species include: Macdunnoa persimplex, Metretopus borealis, Paracloeodes minutus, Parameletus chelifer, Pentagenia vittigera, Cercobrachys sp., and Pseudiron centra/is. Collection of many of the aforementioned species from large rivers appears to be dependent upon sampling sand-bottomed substrates at frequent intervals, as several species were relatively abundant during only very short time spans. Most species were associated with sand substrates in water < 2 m deep. Acantha­ metropus pecatonica and Anepeorus simplex should continue to be listed as endangered for state purposes and receive a biological rarity ranking of critically imperiled (S1 ranking), and both species should be considered as candidates proposed for listing as endangered or threatened as defined by the Endangered Species Act.
    [Show full text]
  • “Two-Tailed” Baetidae of Ohio January 2013
    Ohio EPA Larval Key for the “two-tailed” Baetidae of Ohio January 2013 Larval Key for the “two-tailed” Baetidae of Ohio For additional keys and descriptions see: Ide (1937), Provonsha and McCafferty (1982), McCafferty and Waltz (1990), Lugo-Ortiz and McCafferty (1998), McCafferty and Waltz (1998), Wiersema (2000), McCafferty et al. (2005) and McCafferty et al. (2009). 1. Forecoxae with filamentous gill (may be very small), gills usually with dark clouding, cerci without dark band near middle, claws with a smaller second row of teeth. .............................. ............................................................................................................... Heterocloeon (H.) sp. (Two species, H. curiosum (McDunnough) and H. frivolum (McDunnough), are reported from Ohio, however, the larger hind wing pads used by Morihara and McCafferty (1979) to distinguish H. frivolum have not been verified by OEPA.) Figures from Ide, 1937. Figures from Müller-Liebenau, 1974. 1'. Forecoxae without filamentous gill, other characters variable. .............................................. 2 2. Cerci with alternating pale and dark bands down its entire length, body dorsoventrally flattened, gills with a dark clouded area, hind wing pads greatly reduced. ............................... ......................................................................................... Acentrella parvula (McDunnough) Figure from Ide, 1937. Figure from Wiersema, 2000. 2'. Cerci without alternating pale and dark bands, other characters variable. ............................
    [Show full text]
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • Check List 4(2): 92–97, 2008
    Check List 4(2): 92–97, 2008. ISSN: 1809-127X NOTES ON GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION Insecta, Ephemeroptera, Baetidae: Range extensions and new state records from Kansas, U.S.A. W. Patrick McCafferty 1 Luke M. Jacobus 2 1 Department of Entomology, Purdue University. West Lafayette, Indiana 47907 USA. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Biology, Indiana University. Bloomington, Indiana 47405 USA. The mayfly (Ephemeroptera) fauna of the U.S.A. other central lowland prairie states as well state of Kansas is relatively poorly documented (McCafferty et al. 2001; 2003; Guenther and (McCafferty 2001). With respect to small minnow McCafferty 2005). Some additionally common mayflies (family Baetidae), only 16 species have species will be evident from the new data we been documented with published records from present herein. Kansas. Those involve Acentrella turbida (McDunnough, 1924); Acerpenna pygmaea Our examination of additional unidentified (Hagen, 1861); Apobaetis Etowah (Traver, 1935); material of Kansas Baetidae housed in the Snow A. lakota McCafferty, 2000; Baetis flavistriga Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, McDunnough, 1921; B. intercalaris McDunnough, Kansas, and collected mainly by the State 1921; Callibaetis fluctuans (Walsh, 1862); C. Biological Survey of Kansas, has led to the pictus Eaton, 1871; Centroptilum album discovery of 19 additional species of Baetidae in McDunnough, 1926; C. bifurcatum McDunnough, Kansas, resulting in a new total of 35 species of 1924; Fallceon quilleri (Dodds, 1923); Baetidae now known from the state. The records Paracloeodes minutus (Daggy, 1945); P. given alphabetically below also represent the first dardanum (McDunnough, 1923); P. ephippiatum Kansas records of the genera Camelobaetidius, (Traver, 1935); P.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 1 Table 1. Current Taxonomic Keys and the Level of Taxonomy Routinely U
    Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Table 1. Current taxonomic keys and the level of taxonomy routinely used by the Ohio EPA in streams and rivers for various macroinvertebrate taxonomic classifications. Genera that are reasonably considered to be monotypic in Ohio are also listed. Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Species Pennak 1989, Thorp & Rogers 2016 Porifera If no gemmules are present identify to family (Spongillidae). Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Cnidaria monotypic genera: Cordylophora caspia and Craspedacusta sowerbii Platyhelminthes Class (Turbellaria) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nemertea Phylum (Nemertea) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Phylum (Nematomorpha) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Nematomorpha Paragordius varius monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Ectoprocta monotypic genera: Cristatella mucedo, Hyalinella punctata, Lophopodella carteri, Paludicella articulata, Pectinatella magnifica, Pottsiella erecta Entoprocta Urnatella gracilis monotypic genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Polychaeta Class (Polychaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Annelida Oligochaeta Subclass (Oligochaeta) Thorp & Rogers 2016 Hirudinida Species Klemm 1982, Klemm et al. 2015 Anostraca Species Thorp & Rogers 2016 Species (Lynceus Laevicaudata Thorp & Rogers 2016 brachyurus) Spinicaudata Genus Thorp & Rogers 2016 Williams 1972, Thorp & Rogers Isopoda Genus 2016 Holsinger 1972, Thorp & Rogers Amphipoda Genus 2016 Gammaridae: Gammarus Species Holsinger 1972 Crustacea monotypic genera: Apocorophium lacustre, Echinogammarus ischnus, Synurella dentata Species (Taphromysis Mysida Thorp & Rogers 2016 louisianae) Crocker & Barr 1968; Jezerinac 1993, 1995; Jezerinac & Thoma 1984; Taylor 2000; Thoma et al. Cambaridae Species 2005; Thoma & Stocker 2009; Crandall & De Grave 2017; Glon et al. 2018 Species (Palaemon Pennak 1989, Palaemonidae kadiakensis) Thorp & Rogers 2016 1 Ohio EPA Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Level December 2019 Taxon Subtaxon Taxonomic Level Taxonomic Key(ies) Informal grouping of the Arachnida Hydrachnidia Smith 2001 water mites Genus Morse et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Invertebrate Monitoring at Hot Springs National Park, 2009
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Aquatic Invertebrate Monitoring at Hot Springs National Park, 2009 Natural Resource Data Series NPS/HTLN/NRDS—2012/241 ON THE COVER Stream at Hot Springs National Park Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network file photo Aquatic Invertebrate Monitoring at Hot Springs National Park, 2009 Natural Resource Report NPS/HTLN/NRDS—2012/241 Jessica A. Luraas Department of Biology Missouri State University 901 South National Avenue Springfield, MO 65897 David E. Bowles National Park Service Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Network Wilson’s Creek National Battlefield 6424 West Farm Road 182 Republic, MO 65738 February 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Data Series is intended for the timely release of basic data sets and data summaries. Care has been taken to assure accuracy of raw data values, but a thorough analysis and interpretation of the data has not been completed. Consequently, the initial analyses of data in this report are provisional and subject to change. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 4: EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies)
    Guide to Aquatic Invertebrate Families of Mongolia | 2009 CHAPTER 4 EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies) EPHEMEROPTERA Draft June 17, 2009 Chapter 4 | EPHEMEROPTERA 45 Guide to Aquatic Invertebrate Families of Mongolia | 2009 ORDER EPHEMEROPTERA Mayflies 4 Mayfly larvae are found in a variety of locations including lakes, wetlands, streams, and rivers, but they are most common and diverse in lotic habitats. They are common and abundant in stream riffles and pools, at lake margins and in some cases lake bottoms. All mayfly larvae are aquatic with terrestrial adults. In most mayfly species the adult only lives for 1-2 days. Consequently, the majority of a mayfly’s life is spent in the water as a larva. The adult lifespan is so short there is no need for the insect to feed and therefore the adult does not possess functional mouthparts. Mayflies are often an indicator of good water quality because most mayflies are relatively intolerant of pollution. Mayflies are also an important food source for fish. Ephemeroptera Morphology Most mayflies have three caudal filaments (tails) (Figure 4.1) although in some taxa the terminal filament (middle tail) is greatly reduced and there appear to be only two caudal filaments (only one genus actually lacks the terminal filament). Mayflies have gills on the dorsal surface of the abdomen (Figure 4.1), but the number and shape of these gills vary widely between taxa. All mayflies possess only one tarsal claw at the end of each leg (Figure 4.1). Characters such as gill shape, gill position, and tarsal claw shape are used to separate different mayfly families.
    [Show full text]
  • Empirically Derived Indices of Biotic Integrity for Forested Wetlands, Coastal Salt Marshes and Wadable Freshwater Streams in Massachusetts
    Empirically Derived Indices of Biotic Integrity for Forested Wetlands, Coastal Salt Marshes and Wadable Freshwater Streams in Massachusetts September 15, 2013 This report is the result of several years of field data collection, analyses and IBI development, and consideration of the opportunities for wetland program and policy development in relation to IBIs and CAPS Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI). Contributors include: University of Massachusetts Amherst Kevin McGarigal, Ethan Plunkett, Joanna Grand, Brad Compton, Theresa Portante, Kasey Rolih, and Scott Jackson Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management Jan Smith, Marc Carullo, and Adrienne Pappal Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Lisa Rhodes, Lealdon Langley, and Michael Stroman Empirically Derived Indices of Biotic Integrity for Forested Wetlands, Coastal Salt Marshes and Wadable Freshwater Streams in Massachusetts Abstract The purpose of this study was to develop a fully empirically-based method for developing Indices of Biotic Integrity (IBIs) that does not rely on expert opinion or the arbitrary designation of reference sites and pilot its application in forested wetlands, coastal salt marshes and wadable freshwater streams in Massachusetts. The method we developed involves: 1) using a suite of regression models to estimate the abundance of each taxon across a gradient of stressor levels, 2) using statistical calibration based on the fitted regression models and maximum likelihood methods to predict the value of the stressor metric based on the abundance of the taxon at each site, 3) selecting taxa in a forward stepwise procedure that conditionally improves the concordance between the observed stressor value and the predicted value the most and a stopping rule for selecting taxa based on a conditional alpha derived from comparison to pseudotaxa data, and 4) comparing the coefficient of concordance for the final IBI to the expected distribution derived from randomly permuted data.
    [Show full text]