Rapid Bioassessment of Macroinvertebrate Communities and Stream Condition in the American

Rapid bioassessment of macroinvertebrate communities and stream condition in the American Fork River, Utah.

C. Riley Nelson and Field Biology Class, Department of Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602. [email protected] Version 1, 2006: rapid bioassessment american fork river 2006 3.doc

Abstract The importance of rapid bioassessment of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in lotic environments is briefly reviewed in a context of stream condition monitoring and resource management. We outline a streamside protocol for sampling these animals which is rather quick, efficient, and accurate. Our specimen results, biological metrics, and bioassessment recommendations are anticipated and will be summarized in individual reports.

Introduction Streams are complex ecosystems which attract human attention for both utilitarian and aesthetic reasons. The importance of stream quality in culinary water uses, as habitat for fishes, and as recreation sites is well-known. A growing interest in stream ecosystems as indicators of environmental health has spurred an immense number of ecological studies by biologists examining population dynamics, predator-prey interactions, physiological and trophic ecology, as well as competition (Cummins & Merritt 1984; Resh & Rosenberg 1984). In our study we outlined basic protocols for quickly documenting the benthic macroinvertebrate community of the American Fork River, and its smaller tributaries in Utah. The American Fork River has two major tributaries, the North Fork and the South Fork. The North Fork has a significant impoundment, Tibble Fork Reservoir, xx miles upstream from its confluence with the South Fork. The South Fork has no significant impoundments, but both upper forks have campgrounds and roads near them that can introduce human impacts. The combined forks flow through the canyon near the road and more campgrounds and pass over an old impoundment that is filled with alluvium and no longer serves as a dam. This old dam is scheduled for removal in the summer of 2006. The river continues through an old hydroelectric facility (still active?) halfway down the canyon. At the canyon mouth the river is dammed then makes its way with several major diversions across the low gradient valley to enter Utah Lake. The undammed portions of the South Fork and main stem American Fork River have been monitored for adult insect activity along an altitudinal gradient in my lab since 2003. We are seeking minimal effort ways to continue with this monitoring in the aquatic environment.

Materials and Methods Sites for sampling macroinvertebrates were chosen by spacing them along an altitudinal gradient on the American Fork River from the mouth of the canyon to high on Mount Timpanogos. Photographs of sites, equipment, and participants should be taken. We sketched a simple map and photographed each site sampled and noted from where on the site macroinvertebrates were sampled. We used dipnets (note sizes) to collect the macroinvertebrates. We used a combination of stationary and sweeping actions to collect the invertebrates. We held the nets stationary downstream while the substrate was disturbed immediately upstream and the

1 invertebrates floated into the net. We also swept the net through submerged streamside habitats (root masses and some macrophytes) to get an idea of the composition of these communities. All net contents from each of the microhabitats was combined and transferred to white photo trays for streamside sorting. The net contents were submerged in enough water to allow swimming invertebrates to be seen. Each person worked indivdually during the exercise. All vertebrates, fish, were immediately released uncounted back into the stream. The first 110 invertebrates seen were collected by hand, with forceps, or with pipettes anad transferred to vials containing 70% (by volume) ethanol. We refer to a sample of this sort as a “First 100 sample”. The extra 10 organisms counted were taken to guarantee that there were 100 organisms in the sample because past experience with collectors has shown that counts typically made in the field actually undercount what makes it into the collecting vial. Reasons for this undercounting are probably related to losing the organism before it gets in the vial, destroying small organisms before they are examined in the laboratory, and blatant miscounting. Instructions were given to all participants not to bias the sample by taking only the large or slow organisms first, but rather to capture organisms in the order they were observed. This requires patience, especially if the sample contains significant numbers of small, fast swimming taxa like baetid mayflies. The smallest organisms typically counted in the First 100 samples were greater than 1 mm and usually greater than 2 mm. No attempts were made to maximize the diversity of organisms collected, but rather to sample quantitatively to match the proportions of any macroinvertebrate seen in the kick sample. If fewer than 100 organisms were captured in the first kick sample additional kicks and samples were made until the tally of 110 was reached. Each person participating in the sampling took 3 individually segregated First 100 samples, with each persons samples coming from a segment of stream not previously disturbed by that or other persons, at least on the day the samples were taken. No control over sites disturbed at other times was attempted or probably possible. Preserved samples labeled with locality (including GPS), date, collector, site, and sample information and were returned to the laboratory. There they were sorted to the lowest taxonomic category possible, often genus or species but sometimes only family. We sorted and identified specimens with the aid of stereo dissecting microscopes (usually Olympus SZ60 with up to 63X magnification). Keys to aquatic invertebrates from Nelson (2005) and Merritt and Cummins (1996) were used for Order, Family, and Genus level identification. All sorted invertebrates were retained as vouchers in individual 5 mm plastic vials with tight-fitting lids. Deposition in the collections at the M. L. Bean Life Science Museum on the Brigham Young University Campus is anticipated. A variety of diversity and monitoring metrics were calculated, including taxon richness; richness of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT richness); abundances of these three taxa. Other metrics mentioned in Barbour et al. 1999 were considered and used by individual researchers.

We analyzed the data using what software on what computer using what sort of presentation? What other equipment did we use? How could the use of all types of equipment be minimized? Why would you seek to minimize equipment? To what did we compare our samples from the American Fork River? What is the basic condition, or environmental health, of the American Fork River, at least based on our samples?

2 Why were the three orders of insects mentioned above particularly targeted?

Results Refer to data extensively. Consider other metrics in Barbour et al. 1999 and determine whether their use in the American Fork River is desired or justified. The raw Results of these collections could easily be summarized on a sorting sheet (Microsoft Excel spreadsheets work well) with taxa in column one and samples in subsequent columns. Fields in the columns should be large enough to accommodate the actual number of specimens of a particular taxon in the sample. All collecting and label information should be noted on the sorting sheet as well as both the collector’s and sorter’s names.

How many taxa were encountered in the sample? How many individuals of each taxa were encountered in the sample? What is the proportion of EPT in the sample compared to total numbers in the sample?

Discussion Why are biological data so important for biological systems? Create your own list of reasons for gathering these types of data. Some examples of the formats and ideas which could be expressed using the data collected during this laboratory could be found in various chapters in Barnes & Mann (1991), Hauer & Lamberti (1998), Merritt and Cummins (1996) and Hackney et al. (1992) and by judicious searching of the Internet. Concentrate on the chapters related to streams. I know there is much more information in these volumes than you will use immediately, but I am including the citations for your future use, after you leave the course. Use applicable information. Individuals papers particularly relevant to this study could include Vannote et al. (1980), Flannagan & Cobb (1991), and Eaton & Lenat (1991. Make suggestions concerning what other parameters could be effectively measured by future classes which show promise in helping us all gain an understanding of the processes governing stream ecology. What information would be more valuable? How might the American Fork River be different from other sites used as comparison? The published literature of bioassessment often refers to “reference sites”. What is a reference site and how does it gain such status? How is it unique and how might it be similar? How would you present these in a scientific report or publication? What problems might arise in comparing sites from distant locations and varying geology, urbanization, and ecoregions? How might thesee problems be remedied or minimized? We ask for a very brief report at the end of this exercise, probably consisting of a Table showing the key metrics for the compared stream reaches. A more detailed report may be required, so keep thinking.

Acknowledgments Thanks to all, including John Hendricks of the Pleasant Grove, Utah office of the USDA Forest Service and Jon Jasper of Timpanogos Cave National Monument. Additional thanks to whom? Always show sincere gratitude.

3 Literature Cited

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, D.C.

Barnes, R. S. K. and K. H. Mann. 1991. Fundamentals of aquatic ecology. Blackwell Sci. Publ., London. 270 pp.

Cummins, K. W. and R. W. Merritt. 1984. Ecology and distribution of aquatic insects. pp. 59-65. In Merritt, R. W. and K. W. Cummins, An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Kendall/Hunt Publ. Co., Dubuque, Iowa. 722 pp.

Eaton, L. E. and D. R. Lenat. 1991. Comparison of a rapid bioassessment method with North Carolina’s qualitative macroinvertebrate collection method. J. North Amer. Benthol. Soc. 10: 335-338.

Flannagan, J. F. and D. G. Cobb. Emergence of stoneflies (Plecoptera) from the Roseau River, Manitoba. Amer. Midl. Natur. 125: 47-54.

Hackney, C. T., S. M. Adams, W. H. Martin. 1992. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: aquatic communities. Wiley & Sons Co., New York. 779 pp.

Hauer, F.R. and G.A. Lamberti. 1998. Methods in Stream Ecology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 674 pp.

Merritt, R. W. and K. W. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, second edition. Kendall/Hunt Publ. Co., Dubuque, Iowa. xxx pp.

Nelson, C. R. 2005. Freshwater Aquatic Invertebrate Identification Guide. xxxxxx.

Resh, V. H. and D. M. Rosenberg (eds.) 1984. The ecology of aquatic insects. Praeger Publ., New York. 625 pp.

Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell, and C. E. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum concept. Canad. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 130-137.