DOCSLIB.ORG

The Impact of Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) Fish Communities Upon the Invertebrate Food Base of Waterfowl

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Impact of Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) Fish Communities Upon the Invertebrate Food Base of Waterfowl The Impact of Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) Fish Communities Upon the Invertebrate Food Base of Waterfowl by P. Kelly McDowell A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF SCIENCE College of Natural Resources UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN Stevens Point, Wisconsin February, 1989 APPROVED BY THE GRADUATE COMMITTEE OF: Dr. E. Nauman, Committee Chairman Professor of Wildlife Dr. James W. Hardin Professor of Wildlife Dr. Fredrick A. Copes Professor of Fisheries i PREFACE This paper is part of study 316 entitled "Duck and Pheasant Management in the Pothole Region of Wisconsin." Study 316 was initiated in 1982 by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to determine methods of increasing waterfowl and pheasant production on private and public lands. As a part of study 316, 2 experiments were conducted to evaluate impacts of fish communities on waterfowl food resources. A paired pen study was conducted to evaluate impacts of fathead minnows on waterfowl invertebrate foods. Two paired pond experiments were conducted to further evaluate impacts of minnow and other wetland fish species which occur on federal and state Waterfowl. Production Areas. Pen study data are included in the first paper and appendix A. Paired-pond data are included in appendices B-K. ii ACDONLEDGEMENTS This project was multi-disciplinary by design. In the same manner, assistance to complete this project was multi­ disciplinary. I thank my advisor Dr. Lyle E. Nauman and Richard A. Lillie, for help in all stages of this project. Eldon McLaury facilitated and encouraged research in this area. Drs. Fredrick A. Copes and James W. Hardin provided editorial assistance and were members of my graduate committee. Gerry Wegner and Greg Quinn constructed and installed enclosures. Hannibal Bolton and Jim Milligan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, provided the original fish stock and recommended stocking rates. Special thanks to Thomas Neuhauser and Dr. Robert Rogers for statistical and computing assistance. Dr. Robert Freckmann verified aquatic plant samples and Jeff Demick identified unknown aquatic insects. Labor, logistical, and technical support was provided by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Research and Management Staff, including James Evrard, Scott Stewart-, Cindy Swanberg, Bill Fannucchi, and Bruce Bacon. I also extend a special thanks to the many University work study students who spent endless hours sorting invertebrates, particularly Bob Brua, Shelly Thilleman, and Gene Klees for laboratory and field assistance. A special word of appreciation is extended to my wife, Sandy, for her interest, support, labor, and help in the preparation of this report. Principle funding was provided by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration iii Act under Pittman-Robertson project W-141-R. Additional support was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Wetlands Conservation League of Stevens Point. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE--------------------------------------------------------- ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS----------------------------------------------- iii TABLE OF CONTENTS------------------------------------------------ v LIST OF TABLES-------------------------------------------------- vi LIST OF APPENDICES-------------------------------------------- viii ABSTRACT--------------------------------------------------------- 1 INTRODUCTION----------------------------------------------------- 2 OBJECTIVES------------------------------------------------------- 5 STUDY SITE------------------------------------------------------- 5 MEHTODS ---------------------------------------------------------- 5 Enclosures-------------------------------------------------- 6 Fish Collections--------------------------------------------- 7 Aquatic Invertebrate Sampling-------------------------------- 8 Taxa Composition--------------------------------------------- 9 Water Chemistry and Select Physical Measurements------------- 9 Aquatic Plant Sampling-------------------------------------- 10 Data Analysis----------------------------------------------- 10 RESULTS--------------------------------------------------------- 11 Invertebrate Composition------------------------------------ 14 Vegetation-------------------------------------------------- 23 Fathead Minnow Food Habits---------------------------------- 23 Water Chemistry--------------------------------------------- 28 DISCUSSION------------------------------------------------------ 32 MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS----------------------------------------- 39 LITERATURE CITED------------------------------------------------ 41 APPENDICES------------------------------------------------------ 47 V LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Student t-tests between stocked and control enclosure invertebrates (numbers and biomass) in 96 water column and benthic samples in Oakridge WPA, 1985. Values for 1 and probabilities represent results of nonparametric tests after ln conversions. -------------------------------------- 12 Table 2. Paired t-tests between stocked and control enclosure invertebrates (numbers and biomass) in 107 water column and benthic samples in Oakridge WPA, 1986. Values for 1 and probabilities represent results of nonparametric tests after .ln conversion. ------------- 13 Table 3. Comparison of percentage similarity of community (PSC) and coefficient of similarity (B) indices of taxa composition (numbers) in stocked and control enclosures in Oakridge WPA, 1986. ------------ 15 Table 4. Comparison of percentage similarity of community (PSC) and coefficient of similarity (B) indices of taxa biomass (mg) in stocked and control enclosures in Oakridge WPA, 1986. ------------ 16 Table 5. Percentage similarity of community (PSC) indices of taxa in stocked and control enclosures at depths (18-48 cm) in Oakridge WPA, 1986. ------------- 17 Table 6. Percentage similarity of community (PSC) indices of taxa in stocked and control enclosures at depths (49-59 cm) in Oakridge WPA, 1986. ---------- 18 Table 7. Percentage similarity of community (PSC) indices of taxa in stocked and control enclosures at depths of >59 cm in Oakridge WPA, 1986. ----------- 19 Table 8. Paired t-test results of midge (Chironomidae), mayfly (Caenidae), and gastropod (Planorbidae, Lymneadae, and Physidae) populations between stocked and control enclosures in Oakridge WPA, 1986. ---·--------------------------------------------- 20 Table 9. Paired t-test results of midge (Chironomidae), mayfly (Caenidae), and gastropod (Planorbidae, Lymneadae, and Physidae) biomass between stocked and control enclosures in Oakridge WPA, 1986. ------------------------------------------- 21 vi Table 10. Paired t-test results between stocked and control enclosures of midge (Chironomidae) and mayfly (Caenidae) average biomass (mg) in Oakridge WPA, 1986. -------------------------------- 22 Table 11. Results of· 1985 t-test, and 1986 paired t-test analysis of mean total vegetation stem numbers and biomass/m2 in stocked and control enclosures in Oakridge WPA. ------------------------ 24 Table 12. Frequency of occurrence and aggregate\ dry weight of plant taxa in stocked and control enclosures in Oakridge WPA, 1985. ------------------ 25 Table 13. Frequency of occurrence and aggregate\ dry weight of plant taxa in stocked and control enclosures in Oakridge WPA, 1986. ------------------ 26 Table 14. Paired t-test results of dominant vegetation taxa/m2 between stocked and control enclosures in Oakridge NPA, 1986. ----------------------------- 27 Table 15. Fathead minnow food habits during May-August 1985 at Oakridge WPA, northwest Wisconsin, (D = 62). ----------------------------------------- 29 Table 16. Fathead minnow food habits during May-August 1986 at Oakridge WPA, northwest Wisconsin, (D = 114). ---------------------------------------- 30 Table 17. Limnological analysis from 6 stocked and control enclosures in May and July on Oakridge WPA, 1985. ---------------------------------------------- 31 Table 18. Student t-test results from weekly water chemistry data from Oakridge WPA, 1985. Values for 1 were not·significant at the P < 0.05 level. ------------------------------------ 33 Table 19. Limnological analysis from 6 stocked and control enclosures on Oakridge WPA, May 1986. -------------- 34 Table 20. Student t-test results from weekly water chemistry data from Oakridge WPA, 1986. Values for~ were not significant at the ~ < 0.05 level. ------------------------------------ 35 vii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Number of undesired central mudminnows and pumpkinseeds in stocked and control enclosures in Oakridge WPA, 1986 ---------------- 47 2 Appendix B. Mean number and biomass (g/m) of invertebrates collected from fish complex (FC) and fathead minnow (FM) stocked and control ponds on Kostka WPAs in northwest Wisconsin, 1986. ---------------------- 55 Appendix c. Mean biomass (mg) of Chironomidae from fish complex {FC) and fathead minnow (FM) stocked and control ponds on Kostka WPAs in northwest Wisconsin, 1986. -------------- 56 2 Appendix D. Mean Diptera and non-Diptera emergence (#/m) from fish complex stocked and control Kostka ponds in northwest Wisconsin, 1986, (N = 3). ---- 57 2 Appendix E. Mean Diptera and non-Diptera emergence (#/m) from fathead minnow stocked and control Kostka ponds in northwest Wisconsin, 1986, (N = 3). 58 Appendix F. Mean number of invertebrates/liter in 3 zooplankton samples collected from stocked and control fish complex ponds on Kostka WPA in northwest Wisconsin, 1986. -------------------
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bioindicators of Water Quality
    Ephemeroptera | Mayflies ACE-11 Coleoptera | Beetles Using this guide Coleoptera with the data sheets Bioindicators of Water Quality Beetles Quick–Reference Guide Coleoptera (Beetles) Authors: Julie Speelman and Natalie Carroll | Photographer (unless otherwise noted): Julie Speelman | Design and Layout: Purdue Agricultural Communication Family Tolerance Number Family Tolerance 4 3 7 Value Found Score 5 5 5 Dryopidae 5 0 0 Dryopidae (larvae) Baetidae Baetiscidae Dytiscidae Dytiscidae (adult) Caenidae Dytiscidae 5 2 10 This publication shows aquatic insects that can be used as Long-toed Water Beetle Predaceous Diving Beetle Predaceous Diving Beetle Small Minnow Mayfly Armored Mayfly Small Square-gill Mayfly Biotic Water Quality Degree of Organic Elmidae 5 0 0 bioindicators of water quality in Indiana waterways. Bioindicators 5 are biological systems that are sensitive to environmental changes Index Rating Pollution Gyrinidae 4 0 0 organic pollution Dryopidae and, therefore, can indicate when pollution is present in the water. 0.00–3.75 excellent Long-toed Water Beetle Haliplidae 7 0 0 unlikely A tolerance score is included for each insect in this publication. Hydrophilidae 5 3 15 slight organic The tolerance score, ranging from 0–10, represents the insect’s 3.76–4.25 very good Psephenidae 4 0 0 sensitivity to pollution and can be used to estimate the quality of pollution possible the water in which the insect was found. Insects with a score of some organic Order Total 5 25 4.26–5.00 good 0 are intolerant to pollution, meaning they cannot tolerate any pollution probable water pollution, while insects with a score of 10 are very tolerant of fairly substantial 5 5 4 1 polluted water.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of Two Seed Bugs, Geocoris
    A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TWO SEED BUGS, GEOCORIS BULLATUS (SAY) AND G. DISCOPTERUS STAL (HEMIPTERA: LYGAEIDAE) IN THE YUKON. By JENNIFER J. ROBINSON B.Sc. Trent University, 1980 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY We accept this thesis as conforming te trie required standard June, 1985 (c) Jennifer J. Robinson, 1985 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 )E-6 C3/81) Abstract Geocoris bullatus (Say 1831), (Henriptera: Lygaeidae) has been collected and studied across North America but the present work is the o first detailed study of western North American CL discopterus Stal 1874. In fact, it has been claimed that 6^. discopterus is solely a species of the east. As the two species are taxonomically difficult to separate, when they were apparently discovered together at several localities in the southwestern Yukon, a detailed investigation of their systematics and distribution seemed necessary. Species status of Yukon Q. bullatus and iG.
    [Show full text]
  • Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 2011-2016
    Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan 2011-2016 April 1981 Revised, May 1982 2nd revision, April 1983 3rd revision, December 1999 4th revision, May 2011 Prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce Ohio Department of Natural Resources National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Division of Wildlife Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management 2045 Morse Road, Bldg. G Estuarine Reserves Division Columbus, Ohio 1305 East West Highway 43229-6693 Silver Spring, MD 20910 This management plan has been developed in accordance with NOAA regulations, including all provisions for public involvement. It is consistent with the congressional intent of Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, and the provisions of the Ohio Coastal Management Program. OWC NERR Management Plan, 2011 - 2016 Acknowledgements This management plan was prepared by the staff and Advisory Council of the Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve (OWC NERR), in collaboration with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources-Division of Wildlife. Participants in the planning process included: Manager, Frank Lopez; Research Coordinator, Dr. David Klarer; Coastal Training Program Coordinator, Heather Elmer; Education Coordinator, Ann Keefe; Education Specialist Phoebe Van Zoest; and Office Assistant, Gloria Pasterak. Other Reserve staff including Dick Boyer and Marje Bernhardt contributed their expertise to numerous planning meetings. The Reserve is grateful for the input and recommendations provided by members of the Old Woman Creek NERR Advisory Council. The Reserve is appreciative of the review, guidance, and council of Division of Wildlife Executive Administrator Dave Scott and the mapping expertise of Keith Lott and the late Steve Barry.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010-11-08-HA-FEA-Connections-Charter-School
    Final Environmental Assessment For the CONNECTIONS PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL MASTER PLAN Kaumana, South Hilo, Hawai‘i Tax Map Key: (3)2-5-006:141 Prepared for: Connections Public Charter School 174 Kamehameha Avenue Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720 Prepared by: Wil Chee – Planning & Environmental October 2010 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Connections Public Charter School, Kaumana, South Hilo, Hawaii Table of Contents ACRONYMS...............................................................................................................................................................iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY......................................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT PROFILE ........................................................................................................................................1 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................2 1.2.1 Revised Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) ..........................................................................................2 1.3 SCOPE AND AUTHORITY ..............................................................................................................................3 1.4 PROPOSED ACTION......................................................................................................................................3 1.5 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Macroinvertebrates of the Strawberry River System in North-Central Arkansas George L
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 60 Article 9 2006 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates of the Strawberry River System in North-Central Arkansas George L. Harp Arkansas State University, [email protected] Henry W. Robison Southern Arkansas University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Fresh Water Studies Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Harp, George L. and Robison, Henry W. (2006) "Aquatic Macroinvertebrates of the Strawberry River System in North-Central Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 60 , Article 9. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol60/iss1/9 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 60 [2006], Art. 9 Aquatic Macroinvertebrates of the Strawberry River System inNorth-central Arkansas 13' 2 George L.Harp and Henry W. Robison i Department ofBiological Sciences, Arkansas State University, State University, AR 72467 Department ofBiology, Southern Arkansas University, Magnolia, AR 71754-9354 3 Correspondence: [email protected] — Abstract.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Insects: Bryophyte Habitats and Fauna
    Glime, J. M. 2017. Aquatic Insects: Bryophyte Habitats and Fauna. Chapt. 11-3. In: Glime, J. M. Bryophyte Ecology. Volume 2. 11-3-1 Bryological Interaction. Ebook sponsored by Michigan Technological University and the International Association of Bryologists. Last updated 19 July 2020 and available at <http://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/bryophyte-ecology2/>. CHAPTER 11-3 AQUATIC INSECTS: BRYOPHYTE HABITATS AND FAUNA TABLE OF CONTENTS Aquatic Bryophyte Habitat and Fauna ..................................................................................................................... 11-3-2 Streams .............................................................................................................................................................. 11-3-4 Streamside ......................................................................................................................................................... 11-3-7 Artificial Bryophytes ......................................................................................................................................... 11-3-7 Preference Experiment ...................................................................................................................................... 11-3-8 Torrents and waterfalls ...................................................................................................................................... 11-3-9 Springs .............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Brazoria NWR (Big Slough and Crosstrails Pond) Nov
    Aquatic Macroinvertebrates Brazoria NWR (Big Slough and Crosstrails Pond) Nov. 2015 - Nov. 2016 Photos by Pete and Peggy Romfh SCUD (SIDE-SWIMMERS) Arthropoda, Sub-Phylum Crustacea, Class Malacostraca, Order Amphipoda Size 3 - 10 mm Sowbugs have bodies that are flattened from side to side, giving them the name side-swimmers. They have two pairs of antennae and lack a carapace. Their compound eyes are not on stalks. They have 7 pairs of walking legs, one on each segment of the thorax, and short appendages on the abdominal segments. Their gills are located on the thorax. CRAWFISH Arthropoda, Sub-Phylum Crustacea, Class Malacostraca, Order Decapoda Pygmy Crawfish - Cambarellus spp. Size 18 - 25 mm One morph (pattern) shows dark blotches from back of carapace to to tail fin. Second morph shows two dark, parallel stripes from behind the eyes to the pre-fan segment. Both show a slightly bowed, dark stripe that spans the tail from side to side. AQUATIC SOWBUGS (ISOPODS) Arthropoda, Sub-Phylum Crustacea, Class Malacostraca, Order Isopoda Bottom Right: ventral view of sowbug (note that sowbug is missing parts of appendages) Size <15 mm Sowbugs have 7 pairs of long walking legs, one on each segment of the thorax. They have two pairs of antennae with one set much longer than the other. At the end of the abdomen, there are two forked, tail-like appendages. Sowbugs absorb oxygen using gills located on the underside of the abdomen. OSTRACODS (SEED SHRIMP) Arthropoda, Sub-Phylum Crustacea, Class Ostracoda Top image photographed from projection microscope video view. Size <2 mm; bi-valve crustaceans found in fresh water.
    [Show full text]
  • Mosquito Management Plan and Environmental Assessment
    DRAFT Mosquito Management Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Great Meadows Unit at the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge Prepared by: ____________________________ Date:_________________________ Refuge Manager Concurrence:___________________________ Date:_________________________ Regional IPM Coordinator Concured:______________________________ Date:_________________________ Project Leader Approved:_____________________________ Date:_________________________ Assistant Regional Director Refuges, Northeast Region Table of Contents Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................................... 5 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Refuge Location and Site Description ............................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................................................ 7 1.3.1 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action ............................................................................................................ 7 1.3.2 Historical Perspective of Need .......................................................................................................................... 9 1.3.3 Historical Mosquito Production Areas of the Refuge ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Insects
    Aquatic Insects (Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Trichoptera, Diptera) of Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site on the Great Plains of Colorado Author(s): Boris C. Kondratieff and Richard S. Durfee Source: Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 83(4):322-331. 2010. Published By: Kansas Entomological Society DOI: 10.2317/JKES1002.15.1 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2317/JKES1002.15.1 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is an electronic aggregator of bioscience research content, and the online home to over 160 journals and books published by not-for-profit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. JOURNAL OF THE KANSAS ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 83(4), 2010, pp. 322–331 Aquatic Insects (Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, Trichoptera, Diptera) of Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site on the Great Plains of Colorado 1,2 3 BORIS C. KONDRATIEFF AND RICHARD S. DURFEE ABSTRACT: The Great Plains of Colorado occupies over two-fifths of the state, yet very little is known about the aquatic insects of this area. This paper reports on the aquatic insects found in temporary and permanent pools of Big Sandy Creek within the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site, on the Great Plains of Colorado.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre- Restoration Biomonitoring of Six Mile Slough
    Integrated Ecological Research Pre- restoration biomonitoring of Six Mile Slough Prepared for BC Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development and Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area Prepared by: Darcie Quamme, MSc., R.P.Bio., Integrated Ecological Research Rhia MacKenzie, MSc. Candidate, BArch., BIT And Ryan Durand, MSc., R.P.Bio., EcoLogic July 10, 2020 Wetland Invertebrate Assessment Tool Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3 2 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 5 2.1.1 Geospatial measures ............................................................................................................. 8 2.1.2 Macroinvertebrate collection and processing ...................................................................... 8 2.1.3 Water and sediment physiochemistry ................................................................................ 11 2.1.4 Quality Control .................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 12 2.2.1 Geospatial measures ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix H: Invertebrates of the Lake Tahoe Basin
    APPENDIX H INVERTEBRATES OF THE LAKE TAHOE BASIN APPENDIX H INVERTEBRATES OF THE LAKE TAHOE BASIN Erik M. Holst and Matthew D. Schlesinger Table H-1—Documented and potential invertebrates of the Lake Tahoe basin. Species endemic to Lake Tahoe are noted with an “X”. Reliability codes: 1 = high-documented occurrence; 2 = moderate-potentially occurring based on at least two sources or identified in areas adjacent to the basin; 3 = low-potentially occurring based on a single source. Sources consulted: Frantz and Cordone (1966, 1996), Kimsey (pers. comm.), Manley and Schlesinger (in prep), NAMC (1999), and Storer and Usinger (1963). Other sources: H = Hampton (1988); S = SFSU (1999a); USFW = USFWS (1999) Basin Storer & Frantz- Manley & Other Phylum Class Order Family Scientific name Common name endemic Reliability Kimsey Usinger Cordone Schlesinger NAMC sources Annelida Clitellata Haplotaxida Haplotaxidae Haplotaxis 1 X Haplotaxida Naididae Arcteonais lomondi 1 X Haplotaxida Naididae Uncinais uncinata 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Ilyodrilus frantzi typica 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Rhyacodrilus brevidentus X 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Rhyacodrilus sodalis 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Spirosperma beetoni X 1 X Haplotaxida Tubificidae Varichaetadrilus minutus X 1 X Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae Kincaidiana freidris 1 X Lumbriculida Lumbriculidae Rhynchelmis rostrata 1 X Hirudinea Pharyngobdellida Erpobdellidae Erpobdella punctata 1 X Pharyngobdellida Erpobdellidae Helobdella stagnalis 1 X Rhynchobdellida
    [Show full text]
  • Macroinvertebrate Sensitivity
    Macroinvertebrate sensitivity index Macroinvertebrates are used to monitor the health of rivers and wetlands because of their differing sensitivity to changes in water quality. They are good indicators of river and wetland health because they are abundant, widely distributed and complete part, if not all of their life cycle within aquatic habitats. The macroinvertebrate species presence or absence in a Caddis flies sample will give an indication of the health of the Order: Trichoptera river or wetland, generally, a greater diversity with numerous representatives of Description: May be free swimming or sensitive species indicates case dwelling retreat dwellers. Larvae better health. Stoneflies spin silk and attach debris to form cocoon like structures for protection. Order: Plecoptera The larvae dominate the life cycle. The Description: Two thin tails and adults are nocturnal and are short lived. gills extending from the abdomen. Habitat: The larvae live in all types of Very SensitiveMayflies bugs Habitat: Stoneflies prefer inland water environments. freshwater habitats. Adults can be Order: Ephemeroptera Maximum size: Up to 20mm found resting during the day on tree Description: Three long tails and trunks alongside streams. Larvae gills along the sides of their bodies. are found on stones and plants in Habitat: Commonly found under fast moving waters. rocks or among plants and leaf litter Maximum size: 7–40mm in standing water and fast flowing streams. Adult mayflies are found near freshwater environments. Maximum size: Up to 15mm Water mite Order: Acarina Description: Adults have a wide range of body shapes, typically Riffle beetle and larva round bodies with eight legs. Parasitic as larvae.
    [Show full text]