The College at Brockport: State University of New York Digital Commons @Brockport
Biology Master’s Theses Department of Biology
12-1998 Chironomid (Diptera: Chironomidae) Larvae as Indicators of Water Quality in Irondequoit Creek, NY George E. Cook The College at Brockport
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/bio_theses Part of the Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons
Repository Citation Cook, George E., "Chironomid (Diptera: Chironomidae) Larvae as Indicators of Water Quality in Irondequoit Creek, NY" (1998). Biology Master’s Theses. 77. https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/bio_theses/77
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Biology at Digital Commons @Brockport. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biology Master’s Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @Brockport. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Chironomid Chironomid
Presented Presented
of of
(Diptera: (Diptera:
the the
Quality Quality
to to
State State
the the
in in
University University
Partial Partial
Faculty Faculty
Irondequoit Irondequoit in
Chironomidae) Chironomidae)
Fulfillment Fulfillment
Master Master
George George
December December
of of
of of
the the
A A
New New
Thesis Thesis
Department Department
by by
of of
E. E.
Science Science
for for
York York
Cook Cook
1998 1998
Creek, Creek,
Larvae Larvae
the the
College College
Degree Degree
of of
New New
Biological Biological
as as
at at
of of
Indicators Indicators
York York
Brockport Brockport
Sciences Sciences
of of Water Water
APPROVED APPROVED
Chairman, Chairman,
(~~)~· (~~)~·
~· ~·
Graduate Graduate
I I
NOT NOT
Committee Committee
APPROVED APPROVED
THESIS THESIS
DEFENSE DEFENSE
Chairman, Chairman,
Sciences Sciences
TER'S TER'S
I(/~ I(/~
DEGREE DEGREE
Department Department
ADVISORY ADVISORY
of of
Biological Biological
COMMITTEE COMMITTEE
( (
I I
7,,11 7,,11
c(l c(l
Date Date
'--(( '--((
rt rt <:;tf <:;tf Abstract
indicators
Differences
passes assessed
assessed observed highest
pollution lower
substrates.
Due lower
deformity
to
deformity
also sites.
detect
Chironomid
be
to
locations
creek.
This
through
the
in necessary.
in upper,
in
impacts
were
changes
the
of
rates
comparisons
high
vegetation,
study
Diversity
in
pollution
Abundance
gravel
Simpson's
not
increasingly
as
oflrondequoit
variance
community
brings
on
in
middle,
indicators
due
chironornid
habitats
the
and
or
mud,
to
were
into
creek
in
degradation
diversity,
was
taxa
differences
and
chironornid
populated
structure
question
and
of
inconclusive and
highest
richness
lower
were
Creek
water
communities.
gravel
lowest
taxa
indicated
creek
in
the
and
in
of
quality
and mouthpart
areas.
were
distributions,
habitats
richness,
chironornid
the
in
water
feasibility
by
because
the
locations
middle
highest
community
changes
Differences in
by
vegetation
quality
Other
in
lower
and
affected
order
creek.
of
community
in
to
a
deformities
chironomid
changes
in
in
using
the
larger
diversity
determine
the
to the
structure
habitats.
upper
All
taxa
assure
the
Irondequoit
chironornid
Irondequoit
number
in
three
structure
same
were
and richness
sampling
creek
were
abundance
changes
that
differences.
Slight
measures
measures
not
of
any
examined
and
communities
samples
Creek
Creek
in
present
organic
methods
as
changes
lowest
dissimilar
were
the
values
were
Mouthpart
system.
also
watershed.
is
as
creek
at
in
needed
may
all
were
in
the
and
the Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Dr. James Haynes, my major advisor, for his support, encouragement, assistance, and faith during the preparation of this thesis and during my graduate student experience. My loving wife, Vicki, who never expected to have a 47 year-old in graduate school, deserves a particular thanks for enduring this whole procedure. Dr. Joseph Makarewicz and Dr. John Hunter served on my graduate committee and helped me through my graduate education. My fellow invertebrate researcher, graduate student, and friend, Nichelle Bailey, shared the burden of collecting, sorting, and identifying innumerable tiny stream creatures. Robert Bode, with the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and Wease Bollman, from the
University of Montana, helped me with chironomid identifications. A number of undergraduates, including Alan Boekhout, David Young, Bill Allgeier, and Jason Tatarski, assisted in the mind-numbing process of sorting aquatic invertebrates.
11 ·
Biographical
graduated his
earning
College.
fisherman.
Sciences,
undergraduate
George
a
In
Bachelor
SUN--Y'"
in
the
Edward
spring
Sketch
College
education
from
of
Cook
Arts
of
Westlake
1996,
at
(B.A.) was
Brockport.
(begun
born
he
High
from
enrolled
in
1968
the School
Mr.
State
in
at
Cook
111
the
the
in
University
Thomwood,
M.S.
University
is
an
program,
avid
of
amateur
of
New
New
Rochester)
Department
York,
York.
aquarist
Empire
He in
of
and
1995,
completed
Biological
.
fly State
He ABSTRACT Table
BIOGRAPHICAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS
STUDY
RESULTS
LITERATURE
DISCUSSION
TABLES
CONCLUSIONS
FIGURES
DATA
HABITAT SAMPLE
SELECTION
HABITAT CHIRONOMID
TABLE CHIRONOMID TABLE TABLE TABLE CHIRONOMID FIGURE CHIRONOMID SAMPLE
FIGURE TABLE SAMPLING FIGURE
TABLE FIGURE
Diversity
Deformity
Differences Power
Differences Community
Simpson's
Ecological Coefficient
AREA
Differences Differences
Differences Differences
of
ANALYSIS
......
2.
3.
4.
6.
5. 1.
4.
2.
3.
......
1.
COLLECTION
......
SIZE
COMPARABILITY
COMPARABILITY
Contents
and
......
KRUSKAL-W
KRUSKAL-W
HABIT
SAMPLE
CHIRONOMID
SUMMARY
AND
RELATIVE
LOWER MIDDLE
UPPER
OF
AND
Indices
......
DIFFERENCES
OF
ABUNDANCE
IRONDEQUOIT CREEK.
IRONDEQUOIT CREEK
......
CONSIDERATIONS
DEFOR1v1ITIES
DEFOR1v1ITIES COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
Calculations
Diversity,
CITED
Minimum
SAMPLING
Indicators
of
Among
Similarity
in
SAMPLE
COMMUNITY
......
......
AT
......
by
by
by by
SKETCH
Community
CREEK
Chironomid
METHODS
SIZES
CREEK
Location Habitat
Location
:MEASUREMENTS Habitat
CREEK
......
OF
AND
LOCATIONS
......
ALLIS
ALLIS
Locations
SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
CHIR.ONOMID
......
REQUIRED
Taxa
SITES
Detectable
......
SAMPLING
of
PREPARATION
......
...... SAMPLING Measures
COMPARISONS
......
...... STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
SAMPLING
......
COMPARISONS
COMPARISONS
......
......
......
......
Community
CONSIDERATIONS
TEST
TEST
and Richness,
......
......
......
Distributions
OF
......
and
......
RESULTS
RESULTS
Percent
TO
SITES
LOWER,
FOR
......
Differences
SITES
SITES
DEFOR1v1ITIES
:MEET
IN
Habuats
COMPARISONS
COMPARISONS
......
......
ALL
Differences
·-
andAbundance
ALL
IN
......
......
......
IN
Similarity
IN FOR
FOR
IRONDEQUOIT
DEFINED
MIDDLE,
,,
......
IRONDEQUOIT
SAMPLING
SAMPLING
IRONDEQUOIT
......
......
..
SIMPSON'S
COEFFICIENT
......
""
lV
FOR
......
......
......
......
LEVELS
AND
of
SUSCEPTIBLE
_
SITES
SITES
Community
,
......
......
......
CREEK.
UPPER
DIVERSITY,
CREEK.
CREEK.
OF
OF
IN
IN
COMMUNITY
IRONDEQUOIT
POWER
IRONDEQUOIT CREEK.
CREEK
......
......
......
T
......
AXA
T
AND
AXA
SAMPLING
AT
RICHNESS,
MlNIMuM
AND
ALL
CREEK.
""
""
PERCENT
SAMPLING
......
SITES
......
......
......
DETECT
AND
IN
SIMILARITY
SITES
ABLE
IN
. . . . .
13
20 17 18 21 14 13 21 14 iii 16
44 38 23 26 44 29 23 23 45 23 35 19 46 31 18 47 19
50 49 20 51 20 21 48
50
52
53 19
ii
6
7 7
8
1
i APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
FIGURE
FIGURE
5.
6.
IRONDEQUOIT
HABITAT
CREEK
B.
A.
D.
C.
CHIRONO:MID
CHIRONO:MID
CREEK
CREEK
DESCRIPTIVE
DISTRIBUTIONS
NUMBERS
CIDRONOMID
......
......
......
......
DISTRIBUTION
DISTRIBUTION
OF
CREEK
CHIRONOMID
MEASURES
DISTRIBUTIONS
OF
......
INDIVIDUAL
IN
IN
LOWER,
MUD,
FOR
LARVAE
VEGETATION,
V
CIDRONOMIDS
IN
MIDDLE,
CIDRONOMID
IRONDEQUOIT
FOUND
AND
AND
UPPER
BY
GRAVEL
IN
TAXA
SITE
IRONDEQUOIT CREEK
CREEK
SITES
IN
AND
SITES
BY
IRONDEQUOIT
IN
STATION
LOCATION
IRONDEQUOIT
IN
IRONDEQUOIT
CREEK.
IN
AND
••••••
56
60
61
54
73
55 Introduction
Biological methods for determination of water quality in freshwater systems have become common and the techniques are well-documented (Bode et al. 1991; Warwick
1991, 1990b, 1989, 1985; Seidman et al. 1986; McCafferty 1981). Biological methods, rather than chemical or biological assay methods, are preferred because biological methods indicate long-term trends in water quality, instead of short-term results that reflect conditions only at the time that samples are coilected (Warwick 1991). The increased complexity of the contaminant burden makes it difficult to determine water quality effects on organisms through chemical analysis alone (Warwick 1989; Warwick and Tisdale
1988). The number of chemicals, changes in individual chemicals over time, substances present at levels too low for detection (Bode et al. 1991 ), and interactions of many chemicals may make the effect of the total contaminant burden impossible to estimate by traditional chemical analysis (Warwick 1988). Warwick (1991) suggested that there are too many toxic compounds, degradation products, and synergistic and antagonistic effects for complex chemical analysis to be a reasonable option. Biological communities allow direct observation of the wide variety of environmental impacts of contaminants, without the necessity of carrying out complex chemical analyses (Hudson and Ciborowski 1996b).
Biological communities are good indicators of aquatic conditions because they are subject to the sum total of chemical, physical, and biological processes over the length of organisms' life cycles (Warwick 1991).
Benthic invertebrate communities are excellent indicators of water quality conditions in freshwater systems (Bode et al. 1991 ), in part because of the wide variation in their
1
life life
place place
McCafferty McCafferty
prevalent prevalent
because because
their their
span span
(Mason (Mason
they they individuals individuals
marginal marginal chironomids chironomids
habitat habitat alone alone
bogs, bogs,
representing representing
sensitivity sensitivity
area area
shallow shallow
(Mason (Mason
(Seidman (Seidman abundant abundant
cycle cycle
Armitage Armitage
(Hudson (Hudson
are are
guarantees guarantees
presence presence
(Warwick (Warwick
can can
within within
(Timmermans (Timmermans
margins, margins,
1998). 1998).
of of
1998; 1998;
possibly possibly
areas areas
and and
family family
at at
be be
et et
to to
their their
collected collected
the the
1981) 1981)
al. al.
underwater underwater
are are
used used
all all
contaminants contaminants
generally generally
et et
and and
in in
along along
Seidman Seidman
functional functional
time time
1986). 1986).
Chironomids Chironomids
that that
relatively relatively
1988). 1988).
of of
al. al.
important important
virtually virtually
the the
moderate moderate
to to
Blackbum Blackbum
and and
aquatic aquatic
1995). 1995).
in in
characterize characterize
any any
most most
of of
bodies bodies
et et
are are
They They
is is
a a
sampling. sampling.
The The
al. al.
et et
vegetation, vegetation,
morphological morphological
particular particular
the the
all all
large large
groups groups
widely widely
common common
indicators indicators
al. al.
insects) insects)
(Clements (Clements
and and
In In
1992; 1992;
of of
larvae larvae
freshwater freshwater
can can
only only
are are
(1985) (1985)
1986). 1986).
particular, particular,
freshwater, freshwater,
swift swift
size size
be be
also also
stream stream
adapted adapted
Warwick Warwick
ofbenthic ofbenthic
stage stage
The The
have have
are are
area area
found found
inhabitants inhabitants
(Hudson (Hudson
on on
suggested suggested
currents), currents),
of of
et et
sensitive sensitive
Chironomids Chironomids
larval larval
sessile, sessile,
or or
environments, environments,
during during
the the
responses responses
can can
al. al.
been been
sites. sites.
chironomids chironomids
in in
of of
within within
tree tree
1992). 1992).
overall overall
1990a; 1990a;
be be
2 2
invertebrates invertebrates
streams streams
all all
stage stage
and and
advocated advocated
thus thus
to to
which which
assumed assumed
As As
holes, holes,
of of
freshwater freshwater
that that
aquatic aquatic
freshwater freshwater
Ciborowski Ciborowski
environmental environmental
polluted polluted
observed observed
dominant dominant
is is
Warwick Warwick
biological biological
exposure exposure
They They
inhabit inhabit
chironomid chironomid
rivers rivers and
the the
feeding feeding
and and
(the (the
chironomids chironomids
insects insects
to to
for for
longest longest
are are
plant plant
(Warwick (Warwick
ponds, ponds,
freshwater freshwater
largest largest
virtually virtually
represent represent
reflect reflect
use use
benthic benthic
invertebrates, invertebrates,
relatively relatively
1988; 1988;
to to
and and integrity integrity
1996b). 1996b).
(McCafferty (McCafferty
(in (in
cups cups
contaminants contaminants
community community
as as
factors factors
stage stage
energy energy
lakes, lakes,
and and
pools, pools,
indicator indicator
Pinder Pinder
conditions conditions
make make
every every
organisms, organisms,
1991). 1991). holding holding
conditions conditions
environments environments
frequently frequently
of of
in in
sedentary, sedentary,
and and
pools, pools,
the the
storage storage
watersheds watersheds
slow slow
good good
type type
1986; 1986;
or or
structure structure
their their
1981 1981
organisms organisms
In In
chironomid chironomid
water. water.
in in
at at
that that
waters, waters,
of of
marshes, marshes,
addition addition
subjects subjects
in in
wet wet
the the
the the
take take
), ),
aquatic aquatic
short short
so so
that that
are are
Thus, Thus,
most most
still still
life life to to
Warwick Warwick
( (
Hamilton Hamilton
deformities deformities
contaminants contaminants
differences differences
(genus (genus Warwick Warwick
and and
water water
deformities deformities
mud/water mud/water
deformities deformities
Most Most
invertebrates invertebrates
freshwater freshwater
of of chironomids chironomids
point point
often often
1992; 1992;
1985) 1985)
contaminants contaminants
Blackbum Blackbum
Chironomid Chironomid
There There
in in
comprise comprise
aquatic aquatic
Warwick Warwick
quality. quality.
Chironomus) Chironomus)
had had
their their
et et
1990a, 1990a,
and and
are are
sediments sediments
to to
interface interface
found found
indicating indicating
in in
of of
al. al.
are are
life life
and and
in in
predators predators
industrial industrial
Saether Saether
chironomid chironomid
the the
two two
The The
1985; 1985;
(1987) (1987)
the the
freshwater freshwater
1990a). 1990a).
from from
valuable valuable
larvae larvae
cycles cycles
1988, 1988,
fishes fishes
an an
mentum, mentum,
major major
aspects aspects
incidence incidence
this this during
increased increased
in in
Wiederholm Wiederholm
and and
responses responses
sediments sediments
1971). 1971).
found found
contaminated contaminated
1985, 1985,
also also
feed feed
(Merritt (Merritt
and and
(Dickman (Dickman
indicators indicators
portion portion
are are
larvae larvae
of of
ecosystems, ecosystems,
antennae, antennae,
agricultural agricultural
represent represent
extensively extensively
an an
and and
often often
chironomid chironomid
1980a; 1980a;
Warwick Warwick
incidence incidence
part part
increased increased
to to
to to
and and
as as
ofbenthic ofbenthic
severity severity
et et
1984a; 1984a;
higher higher
environmental environmental
a a
a a
of of
of of
Cummins Cummins
al. al.
significant significant
Warwick Warwick
measure measure
versus versus
and and
an an
both both
their their
(1989) (1989)
with with
contamination. contamination.
1992; 1992;
on on
of of
important important
Winner Winner
ecology ecology
mandibles) mandibles)
incidence incidence
trophic trophic
of of
antenna! antenna!
chironomids chironomids
organic organic
invertebrate invertebrate
life life
3 3
uncontaminated uncontaminated
morphological morphological
increases increases
oflong-term, oflong-term,
Seidman Seidman
et et
1996). 1996).
advocated advocated
portion portion
cycle cycle
al. al.
et et
levels levels
contamination. contamination.
that that
transfer transfer
and and
ofmouthparts ofmouthparts
al. al.
deformities deformities
1987; 1987;
and and
is is
in in
prove prove
1980; 1980;
et et
of of
toxic toxic
direct direct
(Dickman (Dickman
Also Also
(larvae, (larvae,
biomass biomass
both both
community community
al. al.
the the
the the
Seidman Seidman
vector vector
deformities deformities
chronic chronic
sites sites
useful useful
using using
1986; 1986;
Hare Hare
pollution pollution
use use
the the
diet diet
and and
in in
pupae, pupae,
associated associated
of of
Earlier, Earlier,
numbers numbers
and and
et et
certain certain
of of
deformities deformities
chironomid chironomid linking linking
and and
Chironomus Chironomus
McCafferty McCafferty
in in
toxicity toxicity
et et
morphological morphological
al. al.
predatory predatory
structure structure
the the
attributed attributed
al. al.
(Lenat (Lenat
Carter Carter
(primarily (primarily
or or
1992). 1992).
Warwick Warwick
(Clements (Clements
determination determination
the the
1986; 1986;
adults) adults)
and and
with with
of of
movement movement
in in
1993; 1993;
1976; 1976;
larvae larvae
of of
severity severity
1981). 1981).
They They
Armitage Armitage
larvae, larvae,
the the
more more
at at
et et
some some
al. al.
of of of of between heavily
industrial
known
incidences
larvae domestic
deformities structure. Populations
richness,
al. reduced
indicators chironomid
morphological
pollution
useless
In quality
addition,
1992;
Population
This
collected
to
polluted
in
(Warwick
frequency
by
diversity, and pollution
Dermott
occur
levels
study
Irondequoit
of
of
Urban
are
contaminants,
abundance,
of
it
deformities
the
industrial
provides a
individual
deformities.
often
areas densities
was in at
become
effects
and
other pristine
1991). of
(van
1991;
and
designed
accompanied
mentum
of
industrial
Creek
shifts
sewage
Urk
diversity,
Port of
insect taxa. too
in of
Warwick
chironomid
baseline
changing
sites
coal
antennae,
chironomids
Measures
et
high
in
Hope
and
to
deformities
al.
outfall,
species pollution
oil
(Donald
examine
and
changes
biomass,
description
1992).
by
on
1990a).
Harbour,
community
Plecoptera
taxa
maxillae, loss
changes
experimental
of
while
dominance
are
1980).
cause
the community
Deformities
and
of
in
particularly
and
Cushman
also
water
sensitive
Lake
deformities
use
4
of
severity
in
labra,
number
drops
structure
larvae
chironomid
population indicators
of
Ontario.
and
quality
organisms
chironomid
composition
and
in (1984)
species
sensitive
in
of
have
composition
of
abundance,
have response
(Clements
contamination
cerci
taxa
through
of
been
levels
There
community
found
makes
toxic
been
than
were
at
to
larvae
observed
sites
also
pollutants
to
and
the is
were
absent
that
stress.
et
(Wiederholm
biomass,
actually
deformity
contamination also
al.
to
downstream
creek's are community
measures
by
structure
measures
determine
a
1992;
useful
or
with
organic
Chironomid
correlation
may
better
infrequent
species
watershed.
indices
van
high
when
1984a).
of and be
of
and
from
water
are
Urk
in
et mouthpart deformity rates that may be used to detect changes in water quality over time.
The specific questions addressed were:
• Are there differences among upper, middle, and lower creek sampling locations, as evidenced by differences in chironomid community structure and mouthpart deformity rates? • Are there differences among mud, vegetation, and gravel habitats, as evidenced by differences in chironomid community structure and mouthpart deformity rates? • Is there evidence of pollution or degradation of water quality in the Irondequoit Creek watershed, and which chironomid taxa are the best indicators of such degradation? • Are current sampling designs adequate to obtain statistically reliable values for differences in chironomid communities in the watershed?
5
East East been been the the
quality quality (Sutton (Sutton
outlet outlet
both both maintenance maintenance
through through
public public
section section development. development.
County County
Creek Creek
development. development.
Study Study
public public
For For
Irondequoit Irondequoit
Rochester). Rochester).
warm warm
replaced replaced
for for
flows flows
parks. parks.
that that
of of
Area Area
north north
1998). 1998).
agricultural agricultural
many many
town town
Ellison Ellison
through through
water water
resulted resulted
through through
lawn lawn
to to
by by
years, years,
It It
These These
and and
the the
Creek Creek
is is
the the
and and
Park Park
Most Most
and and
county county
an an
village village
has has
southern southern
and and
Monroe Monroe
Irondequoit Irondequoit
increasingly increasingly
parks parks range
cold cold
important important
picnic picnic
north north
flows flows
of of
largely largely
lightly-developed lightly-developed
and and
the the
water water
sewage sewage
facilities facilities
ofBrowncroft ofBrowncroft
County County
from from
end end
remaining remaining
town town
been been
recreational recreational
fish. fish.
Creek Creek
from from
more more
of of
treatment treatment
southeast southeast
parks parks
Irondequoit Irondequoit
corrected corrected
Pure Pure
(e.g., (e.g.,
Much Much
untouched untouched nearly
populated populated
was was
shade shade
that that
rural rural
Waters Waters
the the
Boulevard Boulevard
6 6
used used
resource resource
of of
Monroe Monroe
plants. plants.
vary vary
tree tree
since since
remainder remainder
the the
areas. areas.
Bay. Bay.
to to
suburban suburban
Van Van
cover cover
creek's creek's
considerably considerably
those those
provide provide
The The
County County
and and
Near Near
As As
and and
Lare Lare
natural natural
for for
serious serious
of of
supports supports
it it
sewage sewage
Linear Linear
length length
areas areas
its its
continues continues
sewage sewage
Ellison Ellison
power power
the the
and and
source, source,
surroundings surroundings
in in creek creek
degradation degradation
with with
Ontario Ontario northwest
is is
Park, Park,
treatment treatment
their their
numerous numerous
for for
Park Park
readily readily
treatment treatment
light light
north, north,
is is
the the
mills mills
Penfield) Penfield)
degree degree
found found
and and
creek creek
industrial industrial
accessible accessible
and and
plants plants
Irondequoit Irondequoit
of of
Ayer Ayer
(e.g., (e.g.,
species species
plant plant
in in
of of
water water
as as
flows flows
to to
these these
have have
Park, Park,
an an
the the
high
of of to to Materials because:
sections Selection
watershed.
substrates was substrates
Irondequoit quality as
was access
allowed sandy
1985).
areas
Irondequoit This
1997.
Sampling
Three
wadeable
An
selected
site,
was carried out
areas,
(Mason
Mud,
area
access oflrondequoit
1)
and
the
of
must
(Pinder
sections
some
Important
Creek
Creek and
Sampling
and net
vegetation, of
as
creek
sites
sites
for
by
1998;
Irondequoit
be
the
chironomid
Methods
kick
pontoon
1986;
sampled
in
(in were
were
of
site
moves
sweeps
the
Bode
in
Irondequoit
the
criteria
samples
Creek.
Sites
farthest
September,
Minshall
chosen
chosen and
middle
wetlands
through
boat
et
in
Creek
of
gravel
taxa
al.
order
in
The
submergent
and
downstream
in
to
for
and
site
1991).
1984;
demonstrate
Powder
Creek flowing
include
agricultural,
sampling
that
of
habitat
Ekman
to
1996
upper
selection
Ellison
compare
Barber
collectors
The
were
(Haynes
three
through
Mill
reaches
sites
and
grab
that
7
of
Park, slow
for
sampled
preferences
and
different
Park
emergent
different suburban,
from
substrates
sampling
represented
stream
were
and
currents
of
Ellison
at
Kevern
(Figure
the
the
the
McNamara
to
assured
habitats
assessment
sites
middle,
vegetation.
creek,
south
in
evaluate
and
Park
of
for
in
1973);
mud
2).
a
chironomid
the
(Armitage
urban
particular
gravel
end
of
south
were
was
Similar
suburban
areas,
lower
safe
and
1998).
changes
oflrondequoit
were
areas
deemed
sampled
substrate
Sampling
of
2)
and
kick
section
habitats
Blossom
and
types
habitat
similar
that
of
area
convenient
in
sampling
Biackburn
its
necessary
water
the
in
of
(Figure
in
of
of
for
in
May,
Road these
stream
Bay)
three
in
1
). the
sampling
location Figure
habitat
was
be current
Table
1991)). width, three Sample
aquatic
substrate
mud
as
vegetation
Five gravel
Creek.
relative
composed
At
similar
locations
1,
4.
diversity
current
speed,
the
replicate
vegetation
where
Habitat
Collection
and
were
embeddedness, temperature,
In
(Numbers
locations
time
as addition
the
selected
substrate
velocity,
the
of
(25%, possible
and
of measurements
sampling
samples
five
1
1
1
creek
present
sampling,
and
size
of
to
1-5
upper adjacent
50%,
2
2
2
in
the
percentage
for
embeddedness,
considerations
flows Preparation
(
represent
were
Mendon,
each
design
were
three
3
3
3
community
and
creek
stream
under
location
replicate
collected
for
4
4
4
the 75%
collection
is
the
New
these
shown
of
variables
habitat
5
5 Cheese 5
of
overhead
Irondequoit
conductivity,
of
comparisons
consisted
canopy
stations)
stream
York,
in
replicates.)
accessibility,
1
1
2 3 2 1
below.
each
sites
variables
8
Factory
examined.
middle
2
2
immediately
width)
cover,
canopy,
location/habitat
on
and
of
Creek
3
Irondequoit
3
three
dissolved
to
Road
creek
were
habitat
and
at
sites
be
4
4
4
substrate
Stream
the
sampling
types
meaningful
substrate
measured.
(Figure
upstream
were
comparability
downstream 5
1 2 1 5
5
oxygen,
of
Creek
unit
depth
selected
phi
1
1
habitat,
sites
3).
particle
of
value, (south)
(Bode
Stream
lower
may
2
pH,
was 2
A
Irondequoit
are
map
limit
on
each
(temperature,
and
be
measured 3
4 3
3
summarized
percentage
size
et
creek
the
of
depth,
seen
showing
of
al.
type
of
the
4
4
should
basis
each
which
1993,
in
of
5
5
5
at
of
of
in site, where stream width, stream current, and percentage of overhead canopy were also measured. Substrate embeddedness (a measure of the amount of fine particles in the
substrate, determined by observing the proportion of individual rock and rubble items
buried in the substrate) and phi value ( a measure of substrate composition determined by
multiplying the percentage of each particle size of boulders, rubble, gravel, sand, silt, and
clay found at the site by a value assigned to each particle size) were estimated (Bode et al.
1993). Temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH were measured at the
farthest upstream and downstream stations at each site.
Samples were collected in a standardized manner so that quantitative comparisons
could be made among sites (APHA 1995). In areas of silt, muck, and fine sand, an Ekman
grab was pushed by hand to a depth of about 15 cm into the substrate. At gravel and
coarse sand sites, the standardized traveling kick method was used (Bode et al. 1991).
The stream bottom was disturbed by kicking and shuflling the feet so that dislodged
organisms were carried into a triangular dip net with an opening bottom width of 3 3 cm,
height of 26 cm, and a 1 mm mesh size. This procedure was carried out over a distance of twenty feet during a two minute time interval. Vegetation samples were taken with the
same triangular dip net. The net was swept through submergent, emergent, and drowned terrestrial vegetation until the net was half full of vegetation. During this procedure,
collectors attempted to leave the underlying substrate undisturbed to minimize
contamination of vegetation samples with organisms from the substrate.
Samples were immediately screened in the field with 0.5 mm mesh sieves to reduce the volume of fine sediments and mud. Large rocks, sticks, and plants were discarded
after all organisms were removed and added to the sample (Bode et al. 1991). Screened
9 organisms
a bengal
and
a
surrounding in
and
separated at
(Mason marked
that
chironomids each the completed,
process organisms were help
100
preservative.
rectangular,
70%
lOX
graduate
preservative
total
Any
consisted
A
in
were
reduce
dye
to
second
the ethanol
on
1998).
and
numbers
samples
from
were
45X.
was
removed
plastic
the
the
debris
this
is
were
students.
flat-bottomed
of
sort
bottom. Within
one
added
the
in
placed
percentages
Samples
solution time investment, removed
fewer
in
labeled
pan)
oflarvae
placed
with
other
of was
until which
(APHA
the
48
in
were selected Samples
than
jewelers'
performed
Compartments
organisms were
labeled
for
vials
100
hours, in
drawbacks
in
over
found
white
of 70%
the
100
a
chironomids
1995).
and placed
taxa second
100 were
first
samples
plastic
organisms.
ethanol forceps.
the
in
plastic
the
on
found
and
chironomid
those
sorting.
to
randomly
in second sort rinsed
Sorting
each
sort
remaining
were
containers
invertebrate
counted
a
were
pan
in
rectangular
in
samples. had
at After
site's
labeled
in
the
10
When
selected
a
and
Sorting
was
transferred
tap
been selected.
later
and
larvae sub
by
this
substrate
sample
organisms was
carried water
and
vials
identification
examination
the
sampled
date.
sampling
first
is at
pan
subsampled.
4% were
organisms
an
random and
to
of
to
sorting,
to with
out
Chironomid
was
formalin
expensive,
be
material
remove
found were
collections
70%
(Hudson
by
These
identified
a returned
under
100-compartment
a
of
organisms
picked ethanol
found
team
were
alcohol
Ten specimens solution
left
the
sub
time-consuming
a
larvae
et
were
after
to with sampled
of
rectangles
subsampled chironomids stereomicroscope
were
out
al.
to
the
undergraduate
and
were was
which
1995). the
the
of
multiplied
were
removed.
was original
placed
the
samples added
placed
(of
grid rose
To
in
the
jar
in
as
by Chironomid larvae found in samples that had been subsampled were counted and that number was multiplied by ten and added to the total count from the first sorting.
Chironomid larvae found in samples that had first-sort totals of less than 100 larvae were identified and the counts (multiplied by ten) were added to the taxa totals.
Identification of chironomid larvae, even to the sub-family level, and observation of morphological deformities of mouthparts and antennae require examination at magnifications of lOOX to 450X under a compound microscope (Mason 1998; Merritt and
Cummins 1996; Peckarsky et al. 1990; Beckett and Lewis 1982; Warwick 1980b). Before such examination is possible, the chironomid larvae must be mounted on glass slides.
Each organism was first dissected to remove the head from the rest of the body. The head and body were then mounted in CMCP 9. Beckett and Lewis (1982) recommended a mixture of 2/s CMCP 9 and 1h CMCP 9AF, the latter containing acid-fuschia red for staining hard to distinguish details. This wasn't necessary. A problem in chironomid larvae identification occurs when head and mouthpart structures obscure other structures that need to be observed for identification or morphological deformities. Mounting requires that the head capsule be placed with the ventral side up, so that mouthparts are clearly visible. The head capsule must be flattened by exerting gradually increasing pressure (sometimes not so gently (Merritt and Cummins 1996)) and rotating the coverslip. This procedure spreads the head and mouthparts, preventing the mouthparts from obscuring important diagnostic features and aberrant mouthparts (Beckett and Lewis
1982; Warwick 1980b). Some authors (Warwick 1980b) recommend that a pencil eraser be used to apply pressure to the coverslip, but this conceals any rolling of the head
11
to to
identification identification
Warwick Warwick
limited limited experience experience
because because
identification identification
fourth-instar fourth-instar
do do
capture capture
identification identification
mouthparts mouthparts
noted noted (most (most
Cummins Cummins same same
careful careful
microscope. microscope. position position
capsule. capsule.
Simpson Simpson
the the
not not
Prepared, Prepared,
After After
structures structures
"Do "Do
several several
species species
fit fit
to to
preparation preparation
or or
of of
and and
and and
If If
and and
the the
larvae larvae
(1996), (1996),
the the
mounting; mounting;
Not Not
problems problems
(Mason (Mason
two two
of of
orientation orientation
larvae larvae
Bode Bode
of of
Identification Identification
and and
description description
still still
Tisdale Tisdale
reasons reasons
have have
problems problems
the the
mounted mounted
Exceed" Exceed"
when when
insects insects
probes probes
and and
deformity deformity
can can
Peckarsky Peckarsky
larvae larvae
been been
(1980). (1980).
of of
1998)), 1998)),
( (
earlier earlier
involved involved
pupae pupae
and and
(1988) (1988)
be be
for for
described described
specimens specimens
is is
are are
of of
specimens specimens
of of
Rule Rule
described described
difficult. difficult.
were were
for for
difficulty difficulty
sometimes sometimes
worn worn
obscured obscured
the the
used, used,
was was
identification identification
instars instars
(Waterhouse (Waterhouse
analysis analysis
While While
their their
et et
made made
in in
( (
described described
do do
head head
al. al.
structures structures
carried carried
by by
the the
(Merritt (Merritt
can can pressure
own own
not not
Diagnostic Diagnostic
may may
specimens specimens
(1990), (1990),
only only
no no
were were in in
different different
capsule capsule
identification identification
can can
structures structures
difficult, difficult,
larval larval
exceed exceed
attempt attempt
taxon); taxon);
differ differ
out out
in in
be be
examined examined
and and
and and
of of
and and
the the
may may
Bode Bode
using using
abraded abraded
identification: identification:
chironomid chironomid
12 12
is is
authors; authors;
recorded. recorded.
Farrell Farrell
so so
the the
were were
features features
unreliable, unreliable,
Cummins Cummins adult adult
be be
to to
observed observed
structures structures
have have
be be
much much
(1983), (1983),
identify identify
limits limits
safely safely
keys keys
of of
present present
at at
being being
stage); stage);
by by
been been
1985; 1985;
immature immature
keys keys
450X 450X
in in
by by
are are
feeding feeding
of of
spread spread
larvae larvae
at at
1996). 1996).
structure structure
and and
Simpson Simpson
identified, identified,
may may
chironomid chironomid
Mason Mason
resolved, resolved,
(mouthparts (mouthparts
there there
available available
often often
and and
McCafferty McCafferty
32X 32X
different different
under under
occasionally occasionally
have have
for for
diagnoses diagnoses
stages. stages.
over over
and and
under under
is is
Peckarsky Peckarsky
difficult difficult
(1998), (1998),
a a
this this
a a
et et
and and
coarse coarse taxonomic taxonomic
chironomid chironomid
been been
compound compound
lack lack
deformities deformities
the the
names names
al. al.
larvae larvae
a a
study study
size size
Even Even
important important
1981). 1981).
coverslip coverslip
stereomicroscope. stereomicroscope.
(1983), (1983),
to to
of of
damaged damaged
are are
Merritt Merritt
impossible impossible
substrates). substrates).
et et
exist exist
see see
ratios ratios
larval larval
to to
was was
family family
based based
al. al.
keys keys
Adhering Adhering
species species
even even
larval larval
in in
and and
for for
( (
limited limited
and and
in in
that that
while while
keys keys
1990) 1990)
the the
during during
on on
and and
the the
after after
when when
they they
the the to to
present. present.
identity identity
particular particular
random random
seen seen
the the
picking picking diversity diversity
Bollman Bollman
the the
sample sample
chironomid chironomid
(Appendix (Appendix
Data Data
creek) creek)
distinguish distinguish
Diversity Diversity
1977). 1977).
expert. expert.
The The
generic generic
structure structure
Chironomid Chironomid
"Confirmation" "Confirmation"
as as
Analysis Analysis
habitats habitats and
ni ni and
an an
The The
a a
of of
from from
Specimens Specimens
index index
It It
1998). 1998).
particular particular
taxon taxon
Indices Indices
expression expression
a a
A). A).
that that is is
level. level.
communities communities
second second
randomly randomly
of of
the the
a a
= =
[d
useful useful
Biological Biological
they they
the the
the the
at at
larva larva
5 5
entire entire
Two Two
= =
random random
were were
(gravel, (gravel,
total total
chironomid chironomid
taxon taxon
index, index,
Rule Rule
were were
N(N-I)n:::ni(ni-1), N(N-I)n:::ni(ni-1),
of of
tool tool
picked picked
numbers numbers
genera genera
aggregation aggregation
the the
number number
sent sent
in in
by by
at at
combined combined
for for
taxa taxa
indices indices
is is
Irondequoit Irondequoit
mud, mud,
number number
random. random.
Mason Mason
high, high,
to to
individual individual
indicating indicating
(Cricotopus (Cricotopus
richness, richness,
for for
communities communities
two two
oftaxon oftaxon
vegetation). vegetation). and
were were
but but
each each
to to
(1998) (1998)
of of
into into
experts experts
In In
high high
find find
times times
where where
selected selected
Creek Creek
(Smith (Smith
replicate replicate
differences differences
is is
a a
a a
i] i]
site site
"Cricotopus/Orthocladius "Cricotopus/Orthocladius
simply simply
a a
and and
diversity diversity
states states
13 13
is is
for for
(Diggins (Diggins
pair pair
one one
N N a a
of of
across across
1992). 1992).
Orthocladius) Orthocladius)
measure measure
in in
identification identification
= =
would would
low low
from from
were were sample
a a
that that
an an
the the
Three Three
count count
in in
makes makes
locations locations
effort effort
diversity, diversity,
and and
communities communities
specimens specimens total total
the the
This This
have have
of of
indices indices
of of
Stewart Stewart
same same
the the
it it
to to
number number
diversity diversity
the the
to to
difficult difficult
confirmations confirmations
are are
describe describe
entered entered
(upper, (upper,
degree degree
the the
take take
taxon taxon
number number
were were
should should
so so
1993). 1993).
certainty certainty
(Canfield (Canfield
of of
difficult difficult
pairs pairs
index index
complex" complex"
to to
chosen chosen
(Brower (Brower
organisms organisms
into into
of of
middle, middle,
and and
be be
of of
predict predict
uncertainty uncertainty
of of
Simpson's Simpson's
a a
different different
may may
sent sent
distinguish distinguish
(Bode (Bode
of of
spreadsheet spreadsheet
individuals individuals
to to
et et
to to
and and
picking picking
and and
category. category.
al. al.
to to
also also
the the
describe describe
in in
an an
lower lower 1995b; 1995b;
1998; 1998;
Zar Zar
a a
taxa taxa
be be
of of
the the
a a at at Wiederholm
habitat
habitat, diversity,
the Community
were and Used coITu-non
(mud,
community about in absence. samples similarity chironomid Differences
similarity
different
percentage
b'
Sorensen's
Comparisons
measures
together,
the
vegetation,
are
was
is
is
to
taxa
values
of
The
same
presented
the
due
habitats
the
does
both
community
community
Among
1984a).
Similarity
respective
coefficient
richness
not
similarity
used
third
these
proportions
coefficient
are
not communities
were and
only
(mud,
in
summarized
to
index
consider
Locations
coefficients
The
gravel)
Appendix
and
compare
made to
structure
minimizes
Measures
percentages of
of
number
vegetation,
sharing
value
of
chironomid
community
(Smith
community
to community
the
within
and
and
locations
determine
chosen
in
B.
can
in
relative
of
of
S1
this
Appendix
1992;
different
the
Habitats
and chironomids
most taxa,
help
for
and
by
abundance
[PSc
overvalues
to
creek
each
s2
[CC=
Johnson
abundance
taking
in
determine
gravel)
compare
differences
=
14
Irondequoit
=
creek
number
B.
taxon
to
100
but
2c/(s1+s2),
the
one
found
across creek across
values,
and
locations
rarer
-
also
sites.
of
abundance
whether
0.5
of
another.
oftaxa
in
Brinkhurst
the
taxa,
at
to
2:Ja'
species,
chironomid
Creek
by
A
total
each
the
where
(lower,
summary
sampling
only
in
a
-
locations occurrence
high
The
b'
and
of
communities
taxa
location
while
i=
their
1971).
c
taxa
coefficient
=
different
affinity
middle,
2:(a',b'),
in
community
the
location
of
the
presence into
samples
and
and
Simpson's
number
Community
of percentage
of
account.
and
in
differences
habitats
1
these
where
two
of
and
and
each
A
upper
or
structure
of
and
taxa
2]
taxa
a'
and
B]
in
in
Wallis Wallis
the the
community community
3, 3,
compare compare
Field Field Simpson's Simpson's
have have and
analysis. analysis.
field field
discontinuities discontinuities
relationships relationships
The The
habitat, habitat,
field field
creek creek
chironomids) chironomids)
evaluate evaluate
analyze analyze
diversity diversity
n = = n
use use
The The
linear linear roughly
samples samples
samples samples
To To
and and
sections) sections)
15). 15).
distribution distribution
of of
and and
the the
establish establish
whether whether
nonparametric nonparametric
values values
index, index,
unequal unequal
created created
two two
diversity, diversity,
similarity similarity
The The
data data
CC CC
that that
was was
were were
were were
different different
over over
across across
taxa taxa
among among
Kruskal-Wallis Kruskal-Wallis
and and
concerning concerning
indicated indicated
differences differences
data data
variances variances
the the
normality, normality,
were were
regression regression
created created
computed computed
parts parts
PSc PSc
taxa taxa
richness richness
comparisons comparisons
parameter parameter
habitat habitat
received received
stream stream
Kruskal-W Kruskal-W
statistical statistical
by by determined
values values
richness, richness,
of of
for for
lack lack
(Zar (Zar
the the
chironomid chironomid
sets sets
existed existed
(the (the
relationships relationships
for for
types. types.
Simpson's Simpson's
locations locations
a a
distribution distribution
relationships relationships
were were
of of
closest closest
1996; 1996;
of of
Z-score Z-score
each each
tables tables
number number
(number (number
normality normality
and and
allis allis
random random
among among
Several Several
computed computed
replicate replicate
using using
abundance abundance
APHA APHA
test test
to to
(Zar (Zar
and and
distribution distribution
diversity, diversity,
transformation transformation
oftaxa), oftaxa),
a a
observed observed
of of
table table
for for
15 15
numbers numbers
the the
normal normal
habitats. habitats.
the the
(Sokal (Sokal
and and
statistical statistical
1996). 1996).
groups= groups=
1995; 1995;
samples samples
sample sample
various various
for for
x2 x2
was was
for for
measures, measures,
and and
taxa taxa
each each
distribution, distribution,
and and
approximation approximation
and and
were were
Brower Brower
In In
curved curved
with with
used used
Differences Differences
procedures procedures
within within
abundance abundance
testing testing
that that
3, 3,
locations locations
Rohlf Rohlf
richness, richness,
community community
pair pair
were were and
the the
examined examined
n = = n
in in
are are
tails tails
critical critical
and and
testing testing
of of
same same
each each
3). 3).
1995). 1995).
hypotheses hypotheses
not not
habitat/location habitat/location
was was and
at at
Zar Zar
and and
and and
in in
A A
(the (the
analyzed analyzed
were were
(number (number
stream stream
mean mean
the the
normally normally
values values
for for
structure structure
hypotheses hypotheses
sample sample
conservative conservative
1977), 1977),
habitats. habitats.
abundance abundance
Taxa Taxa
number number
ends ends
sharp sharp
employed employed
used used
and and
regarding regarding
location location
of of
richness richness
by by
sizes sizes
of of
of of
was was
distributed distributed
the the
variance variance
in in
for for
groups= groups=
regression. regression.
the the
of of
Simpson's Simpson's
regarding regarding
statistics. statistics.
order order
data. data.
used used
Kruskal
required required
a a
a a
to to
and and
power power
of of
of of
to to
to to as as for 0.025
comparisons
(Zar Power
must
were tests
communities
analyzed
when between
were had
taxa stream 30%, using needed
multiple
an
A
1996).
richness
does
be
not
made
was
real the
50%,
major
approximately and
locations
to
taken
minimum
by
normally
formula:
not
differences
selected
determine
for
Minimum comparisons
and
parametric
were
objective at
(i.e.,
in
allow
different
a
f3
a
and
defined
is
responsible
habitat
distributed,
detectable
10, for
analyses
the
power
habitats
exist)
normal
statistical
30,
of
Detectable
procedures.
probability
power
(Rice
level
this
or
50%
and from
at
of
to
distribution, differences,
study
for
even
of
levels 1989).
a
differences
power
provideapproximate
for
significance
location
the
statistical
significant
Differences
of
was
different
when
However,
statistical
(90%,
finding no finding
Nemenyi
(Zar
to
to
variance,
transformed,
so
determine
between
power.
1996).
70%,
detect 16
differences
levels
in
one-way
the
graph
consideration
tests
differences
50%;
log-transformed
of
a
power,
For The
observed
defined
how
in were
data
minimum
ANOVA
and
most
Zar
found
power use
needed
many
and
used
therefore
(1996) of
between
difference
of
of
means).
in
nonparametric
=
sample
detectable
tests
the
the
to
replicate
the
1
to
determine -
was taxa
Bonferroni
variables,
Kruskal-Wallis
j3,
evaluate
were
could
treatment
The
size.
where
between
first
richness
samples
differences
performed
phi
not
Calculations
calculated
which
relationships
statistical
data
f3
value
be
correction
means
=
data
(n)
10%,
sets
tests
()
for
set
in (where n = the number of samples (15) in each group, µ i- µ=the difference between the mean of each group and the overall mean, k = the number of groups, and s2 = the error
MS). The sample sizes (n) necessary for different selected minimum detectable differences (10%, 30%, and 50%) at different selected power levels (90%, 70%, and 50%) were then calculated using the formula:
q>= ~ \j2ks 2
(where values of were taken from the graph for selected power levels, n = the number of samples, b = the minimum detectable difference (expressed in number oftaxa), k = the number of groups, and s2= the error MS).
Deformity Calculations
Two values were calculated for the chironomid deformities within each taxon. The percentage of deformed chironomids was calculated, based only on the presence or absence of mouthpart deformities. In addition, a toxic score was calculated that was based on the incidence and severity ofmouthpart deformities (Lenat 1993). Class I deformities were slight deformities. Class II deformities were more conspicuous and included extra teeth, missing teeth, large gaps, and distinct asymmetry. Class III deformities were severe and included at least two Class II characters. A toxic score was computed by adding the number of Class I deformities to twice the number of Class II
deformities and triple the number of Class 3 deformities, then dividing by the total number
of chironomid larvae[((# Class 1)+(2*#Class 11)+(3*#Class III)) /total# larvae= Toxic
Score].
17
upper upper
revealed revealed
upper upper
for for
differences differences
canopy canopy
difference difference
four four
This This
habitat habitat
habitat habitat
Habitat Habitat sites. sites.
particle particle Results Results
additional additional
Creek Creek
summary summary (Bode (Bode
the the
Examination Examination
In In
For For
values values
indicated indicated
creek creek
The The
creek creek
is is
et et
the the
lower lower
criteria criteria
characteristics characteristics
cover cover
size, size,
biotic biotic
presented presented
differences differences
Comparability Comparability
al. al.
of of
suggested suggested
monitors monitors
lower lower
gravel gravel
were were
for for
mud mud
gravel gravel
physical physical
1993). 1993).
substrate substrate
creek creek
in in
that that
indices indices
important important
those those
the the
greater greater
creek creek
collecting collecting
of of
habitats, habitats,
the the
in in
by by
middle middle and
of of
upper upper
the the
greater greater
Measures Measures
by by
habitat habitat
criteria criteria
the the
within within
3. 3.
from from
notable notable
embeddedness, embeddedness,
sites sites
gravel gravel
Bode Bode
site site
4 4
than than
upper upper
in in
phi phi
creek creek
there there
site's site's
sampled sampled
site site
different different
than than
comparability comparability
measurements measurements
within within
the the
the the
units, units,
et et
phi phi
water water
of of
creek creek
portion portion
comparability, comparability,
al. al.
were were
gravel gravel
three three
recommended recommended
50% 50%
dissolved dissolved
current current
value value
the the
(1991). (1991).
a a
were were
quality quality
sites sites
gravel gravel
value value
only only
current current
maximum maximum
gravel gravel
collecting collecting
guidelines guidelines
of of
for for
speed speed
to to
generally generally
criteria criteria
Table Table
two two
particle particle
oxygen, oxygen,
collected collected
slightly slightly
sites sites
changes changes
The The
be be
18 18
sites sites
speed, speed,
each each
exceptions exceptions
for for
of79.8 of79.8
compared, compared,
1. 1.
difference difference
other other
were were
site site
for for
proposed proposed
and and
current current The The
greater greater
substrate substrate
pH, pH,
comparable. comparable.
pair pair
at at
among among
and and
the the
was was
within within
60% 60%
exception exception
the the
cm/sec cm/sec
lower lower
and and
oflocations oflocations
mud mud
canopy canopy
6%, 6%,
to to
water water
than than
speed speed
sampling sampling
suggested. suggested.
and and
by by
sites sites
conductivity conductivity
size size
the the
complete complete
portion portion
substrate substrate
was was
canopy canopy while
Bode Bode
the the
45%, 45%,
three three
temperature, temperature,
was was
cover cover
(Bode (Bode
and and
differed differed
more more
3 3
in in
sites sites
et et
unit unit
canopy canopy
canopy canopy
of of
respectively. respectively.
mud mud
the the
comparability comparability
al. al.
should should
collecting collecting
et et
Table Table
than than
are are
from from
in in
maximum maximum
al. al.
(1993, (1993,
creek creek
sites. sites.
Irondequoit Irondequoit
cover cover
used used
cover. cover.
cover. cover.
1991). 1991).
50% 50%
substrate substrate
be be
that that
1 1
compares compares
had had
Of Of
similar similar
1991). 1991).
sites sites
as as
values values
greater greater
of of
These These
the the
The The
The The
A A
at at
of of
the the
least least
the the five five than both the lower creek and middle creek mud sites (23.5 cm/sec and 20.2 cm/sec).
However, collections were made in the upper creek immediately after a major rain event, suggesting that typical current speeds are more similar to those of the middle and lower reaches of the creek. Canopy cover in the middle creek mud site was 45%, much greater than the lower creek mud site's 1% and the upper creek mud site's 6%.
Chironomid Community Structure Comparisons
Simpson's Diversity, Taxa Richness, and Abundance
A total of 46 chironomid taxa were identified in this study, 24 of which comprised more than 1% of at least one habitat/location unit (Appendix A). Differences in chironomid community structure were found among locations and habitats in Irondequoit Creek (Table
2). Simpson's diversity and taxa richness values were higher in the upper creek than in the lower creek, but chironomid abundance was highest ih the middle creek. Simpson's diversity, taxa richness, and chironomid abundance values were all highest in the gravel habitats.
Differences by Location
Simpson's diversity and taxa richness values were different between the lower creek and upper creek locations (Table 2), but neither differed from the middle creek. The Kruskal
Wallis statistics were H = 7.35, P = 0.0253 for Simpson's diversity and H = 7.73, P =
0.0209) for taxa richness. Simpson's diversity and taxa richness values were both highest in the upper creek and lowest in the lower creek. Chironomid abundance was significantly higher in the middle creek (Kruskal-Wallis statistic H = 13.58, P = 0.0011), but there was no difference between the lower creek and the upper creek.
19
pairs pairs
habitat habitat
Irondequoit Irondequoit
Differences Differences
three three
values values
Coefficient Coefficient
each each
richness, richness,
Differences Differences
highest highest
the the
statistics statistics
different different
mud mud
For For
There There
Simpson's Simpson's
habitat habitat
in in
location location
(mud/vegetation, (mud/vegetation,
pairs pairs
the the
in in
the the
habitats habitats
between between
were were
and and
the the
were were
lower lower
by by
by by
Creek Creek
tests tests
of of
type type
in in
H H
gravel gravel
pairs pairs
H H
Location Location
Habitat Habitat
Community Community
the the
diversity, diversity,
= =
no no
were were
= =
were were
of of
creek creek
the the
8.39, 8.39,
upper upper
(Table (Table
7.44, 7.44,
significant significant
of of
community community
habitats habitats
gravel gravel
similarity similarity
never never
compared compared
P P
showing showing
mud/gravel, mud/gravel,
P P
creek creek
taxa taxa
= =
3). 3).
= =
0.0151 0.0151
and and
and and
different different
and and
0.0243) 0.0243)
The The
richness, richness,
differences differences
showing showing
similarity similarity
values values
vegetation vegetation
the the
Percent Percent
lowest lowest
(Table (Table
trends trends
for for
least. least.
and and
for for
than than
(lower/middle, (lower/middle,
abundance. abundance.
and and
the the
in in
3). 3).
vegetation/gravel) vegetation/gravel)
were were
Simpson's Simpson's
by by
for for
Similarity Similarity
the the
the the
abundance abundance
habitats habitats
highest highest
location, location,
20 20
either either
other other
vegetation vegetation
the the
same same
All All
CC CC
degree degree
(Table (Table
diversity, diversity,
two two
of of
the the
lower/upper, lower/upper,
measures measures
the the
or or
Community Community
for for
habitats. habitats.
habitats. habitats.
three three
PSc PSc
measures measures
of of
2), 2),
both both
within within
similarity similarity
H H
whereas whereas
for for
habitat habitat
= =
all all
sets sets
The The
7.56, 7.56,
different different
each each
middle/upper) middle/upper)
were were
were were
of of
Kruskal-Wallis Kruskal-Wallis
pairs pairs
these these
and and
location location
data, data,
P P
significantly significantly
found found
= =
the the
locations locations
of of
0.0228 0.0228
measures measures
with with
similarity similarity
three three
and and
to to
within within
the the
be be
for for
the the
habitat habitat
of of
three three
for for taxa taxa Differences by
vegetation Irondequoit
in Sample it
treatment
respectively).
probability
Most Chironomid detect
habitats The
7.6%,
than
Creek
clear
the
There
In
No
Few
deformity
Chironomus
following
deformities
with a
in this
that
Size
deformities
(range:
10%
sites
Chironomus
means
were
or
study,
of30%
fifteen
Class
Creek.
Considerations
mud
Deformities
difference
Habitat
other
To
rate
no
analysis).
2.
90%
II
were five
detect
9-9.
(Table
habitats.
replicates
(power= significant
of
The
and
were
than
replicate
Chironomus
of
5%
larvae
observed
90% ill trend
the a
the
5).
observed
chironomids
Because
30%
Comparisons
:frequency
time
provide
lower
0.7)
(none
The
of
differences
was
samples
difference
the
in
or
would
deformity
for
in
creek in
chironomids
of
of
time
a
enough
the
chironomids
of0.3%
very
30%
which gravel
deformed).
were
require
would
mud.
lower
for
between
high
difference
rate
information was
either
habitats
collected
21
and
Deformities
creek
require at
variability
collected
at
for
deformed)
collected
a least
treatment
No CC
all
toxic
to
mud
50%
in
taxa
Class
or
22
be
to
each
in
least
PSc
score
among
habitat
more
of -
detect
were
known
the in
were
24
III
means
the
habitat/location
the for
3
replicate
middle
of
deformities
31
similar
found
time
replicates,
found
oflrondequoit
different
upper
a
10.61
to
-
with
50%
3
be
52
(power=
and
in
than
in
creek
samples,
susceptible
(Table
a
replicates.
difference
eight
Irondequoit
Type
habitat
lower
were
Table
either
unit
(Table
taxa
5).
0.9
II
Creek
observed.
creek
and
types
4
(n
error
the
in
and
to
makes
other
=
5).
to
was
mud 15
0.5,
in mentum deformities in the lower creek location was 5.3% (toxic score= 6.5). The middle
creek location deformity rate was 4.5%, with a toxic score of 5.6 (Table 5).
22
Ecological Ecological
industrial industrial
in in
diversity diversity
larvae) larvae)
the the
Chironomid Chironomid
during during
Habitat Habitat
habitat habitat
Discussion Discussion
May, May,
locations locations
study study
together. together.
particular particular
of of
due due
sites sites
the the
adult adult
following following
to to
Simpson's Simpson's
Comparison Comparison
was was
that that
1997. 1997.
lower lower
different different
sample sample
comparability comparability
at at
chironomids. chironomids.
Comparability Comparability
(Wiederholm (Wiederholm
performed performed
were were
pollution, pollution,
the the
chironomid chironomid
In In
the the
Indicators Indicators
creek. creek.
Water Water
this this
Community Community
particular particular
spring, spring,
relative relative
during during collection
generally generally
diversity diversity
seasons. seasons.
study, study,
of of
temperatures temperatures
Lower Lower
both both
important important
in in
but but
criteria criteria
taxa taxa
proportions proportions
There There
1984a). 1984a).
of of
September, September,
time time
sample sample
and and
comparable. comparable.
of of
complications complications
Comparisons Comparisons
This This
Community Community
at at
values values
Structure Structure
which which
taxa taxa
of of
is is
are are
a a
habitat habitat
may may
particular particular
no no
year year collection collection
This This
different different
based based
were were
richness richness
in in
can can
information information
among among
1996. 1996.
not not
the the
sampling sampling that
suggests suggests
criteria criteria
Comparisons Comparisons
Although Although
cause cause
no no
be be
Differences Differences
on on
may may
lower lower
seasons seasons
developmental developmental
in in
taxa taxa
different different
Samples Samples
the the
values values
the the
the the
have have
decreases decreases
23 23
indicated indicated
that that
case. case.
assumption assumption
creek creek
available available
and and
lower lower
no no
were were
was was
arisen arisen
as as
was was
for for
from from
numbers numbers
mention mention
could could
Irondequoit Irondequoit
found found
creek creek
the the
highest highest
in in
carried carried
that that
concerning concerning
due due
all all
stage stage
abundance, abundance,
that that
samples samples
be be
other other
habitats habitats
of of
of of
in in
to to
mud mud
an an
(in (in
in in
out. out.
collection collection
the the
chironomid chironomid
differences differences
unknown unknown
indication indication
the the
sites sites
Creek Creek
and and
this this
literature, literature,
taken taken
the the
It It
in in
upper upper
taxa taxa
lower lower
case, case,
is is
were were
different different
presence presence
passes passes
assumed assumed
during during
dates dates
emergence emergence
richness, richness,
in in
larvae larvae
creek creek
of of
the the
collected collected
creek creek
it it
biotic biotic
organic organic
are are
is is
through through
fourth-instar fourth-instar
creek creek
the the
of of
that that likely
and and
are are
in in
vegetation vegetation
close close
indices indices
and and
fall fall
this this
patterns patterns
similar similar
lowest lowest
in in
or or and and
positively positively related
found found
stated stated
in in
chironomid chironomid
capable capable Euldefferiella Euldefferiella
availability, availability,
vegetation vegetation taxon taxon
The The
taken. taken.
the the
lowest lowest
creek creek in in differences
emergent emergent
The The
mud, mud, increasingly increasingly
diversity diversity
the the
nature nature
reason reason
Chironomid Chironomid
vegetation vegetation
There There
vegetation, vegetation,
chironomid chironomid
areas areas
in in
that that
that that
in in
In In
of of
vegetation vegetation
in in
vegetation. vegetation.
macrophytes macrophytes
the the
using using
the the
of of
chironomid chironomid
consisted consisted were were
for for
similar similar
larvae, larvae,
were were
habitat habitat
suburbanized suburbanized
the the
lower lower
vegetation vegetation
also also
nature nature
the the
in in
also also
a a
abundance abundance
vegetation vegetation
taken taken
to to
and and
this this
literature literature
variety variety
habitats habitats
large large
but but
showed showed
requirements, requirements,
samples samples
the the
creek, creek,
of of
differences differences
of of
gravel gravel
The The
section section
numbers numbers
that that
(mostly (mostly
in in
drowned drowned
existence existence
the the
number number
types, types,
of of
the the
and and
low low
vegetation vegetation
declines. declines.
its its
many many
gives gives
substratum substratum
was was
throughout throughout
and and
habitats. habitats.
substrates. substrates.
same same
consisted consisted
highest highest
urbanized urbanized
values values
Typha). Typha).
Cricotopus!Orthocladius Cricotopus!Orthocladius
are are
in in
very very
in in
of of
terrestrial terrestrial
species, species,
and and
specific specific
of of
the the
Simpson's Simpson's
areas areas
chironomids chironomids
not not
macrophyte macrophyte
high high
chironomid chironomid
for for
samples samples
Both Both abundance abundance
substrates substrates
was was
related related
of of
the the
To To
Vegetation Vegetation
areas areas
as as
vegetation vegetation
information information
even even
in in
beds beds
vegetation vegetation
measures measures
creek creek
gravel gravel
an an
add add
24 24
the the
diversity diversity
were were
of of
to to
important important
those those
of of
to to
in in
beds. beds.
middle middle
above above
in in
its its
numbers numbers
substrate substrate
(Figure (Figure
rooted rooted
the the
samples. samples.
the the
vegetation vegetation
taken taken
samples samples
watershed, watershed,
were were
with with
were were
relating relating
and and
middle middle
confusion, confusion,
This This
and and
which which
creek creek
complex complex
factor factor
6, 6,
submergent submergent
consistent consistent in in
a a
leaf leaf
(Bass (Bass
highest highest
composition, composition,
taxa taxa
distinct distinct
was was
Appendix Appendix
In In
:from :from
the the
creek creek
feeding feeding
compared compared
vegetation vegetation
habitats habitats
litter. litter.
both both
in in
chironomid chironomid
same same
richness richness
not not
1986). 1986).
Barber Barber
the the
was was
limiting limiting
in in
substrate substrate
sites sites
of of
the the
despite despite
gravel gravel
Despite Despite
middle middle
habits, habits,
(mostly (mostly
area area
D-5), D-5),
the the
these these
C-16). C-16). (Appendix
case case
to to
Pinder Pinder
but but
is is
values values
and and
samples samples
the the
most most
as as
unknown. unknown.
other other
community community
substrates substrates
differences differences
that that
and and
areas, areas,
food food
and and
Kevern Kevern
in in
preference, preference,
mud mud
these these
Elodea) Elodea)
distribution distribution
this this
(1986) (1986)
among among
abundant abundant
they they
locations. locations.
upper upper
were were
samples. samples.
the the
study, study,
(1973) (1973)
are are
Little Little
and and
and and
the the
in in
are are
of of in in
two two
for for
mostly mostly
the the
muddy, muddy,
(Simpson's (Simpson's
humans humans sites sites
stream stream
the the
which which
creek creek
of of
without without
gravel gravel
differences differences
creek creek
(Wiederholm (Wiederholm
Chironominae, Chironominae, sites sites
does does
those those
comparison comparison
middle middle
location location
Bass Bass
sites sites
In In
than than
(depositional (depositional
favor favor
vs. vs.
sites sites
macrophyte macrophyte
sites sites
fine fine
bottom," bottom,"
comparing comparing
while while
become become
displacing displacing
sites. sites.
(Table (Table
leaf leaf
(1986) (1986)
for for
creek creek
to to
organisms organisms
probably probably
sand sand
diversity, diversity,
in in
in in
the the
litter litter
provide provide
other other
1984b). 1984b).
the the
the the
There There
tribe tribe
of of
quite quite
and and
1) 1)
and and
mud mud
vegetation vegetation
observed, observed,
three three
biotic biotic
community community
in in
creek creek
beds beds
any any
and and
were were
sections sections
Chironomini Chironomini
were were
silt silt
this this
the the
taxa taxa
were were
such such
site site
an an
significant significant
It It
taxa taxa
submerged submerged
locations locations
were were
mixed mixed
with with
indices. indices.
within within
lower lower
is is
adequate adequate
may may
was was
reflected reflected
richness, richness,
differences differences
as as
possible possible
"Differences "Differences
that that
and and
of of
the the
found found
deposit-feeding deposit-feeding
account account
similarity similarity
different different
with with
the the
and and
the the
prefer prefer
mud mud
from from
oflrondequoit oflrondequoit
However, However,
lowest lowest
that that
food food
terrestrials terrestrials
lower lower
three three
middle middle
in in
and and
that that
decaying decaying
only only
sites. sites.
the the
were were
the the
for for
in in
conditions conditions
than than
abundance). abundance).
values values
supply supply
there there
in in
number number
the the
phi phi
in in
creek creek
higher higher
differences differences
perspective perspective
creek creek
current current
the the
present present
parts parts
the the
vegetation vegetation
units units
25 25
vegetation vegetation
chironomids, chironomids,
in in
was was
for for
for for
lower lower
and and
lower lower
the the
Creek Creek
vs. vs.
community community
of of
of of
that that
difference difference
habitat habitat
enough enough
a a
and and
chironomid chironomid
in in
all all
the the
middle middle
erosional erosional
variety variety
The The
observed observed
creek creek
the the
of of
lean lean
of of
creek creek
reflects reflects substrate substrate
sites sites
lower lower
and and
the the
the the
middle middle
phi phi
pairs, pairs,
organic organic
more more
including including
and and
(associated (associated
of of
invertebrates invertebrates
similarity similarity
that that
mud mud
(macrophytes (macrophytes
leaflitter. leaflitter.
middle middle
values values
in in
creek creek
detritivorous detritivorous
the the
in in
larvae. larvae.
upper upper
the the
the the
which which
toward toward
Bode Bode
creek creek
this this
site site
higher higher
enrichment enrichment
higher higher
upper upper
mud mud
creek creek
for for
many many
in in
study. study.
creek) creek)
values values
et et
mud mud
seem seem
Mild Mild
with with
In In
substrate substrate
all all
oligotrophy. oligotrophy.
site site
al. al.
physical physical
occupying occupying
mud mud
the the
creek). creek).
similarity similarity
in in
of of
measures measures
chironomid chironomid
site site
For For
mud mud
eutrophication eutrophication
(1991) (1991)
insignificant insignificant
for for
and and
the the
were were
the the
upper upper
in in
site site
the the
example, example,
the the
lower lower
in in
substrate), substrate),
size size
subfamily subfamily
similarity similarity
These These
very very
were were
the the
of of
suggest suggest
gravel gravel
middle middle
creek creek
the the
for for
the the
mud mud
taxa taxa
the the to to
Chironomus Chironomus
habitats habitats
bottom bottom
represented represented
organic organic
versatile versatile
toxic toxic
habitat habitat
shortages, shortages,
preferences preferences
conditions conditions
are are
Differences Differences
and and
individual individual mud mud
mud mud
difference, difference,
samples samples
1996a), 1996a),
adapted adapted
this this
Differences Differences
The The
than than
samples samples
pollutants, pollutants,
considerations considerations
substrates substrates
detritus detritus
burrowing burrowing
and and
was was
were were
in in
lower lower
for for
taxa. taxa.
although although
(Simpson (Simpson
community community
terms terms
by by
a a
to to
was was
in in
as as
not not
the the
were were
very very
collected collected
warm, warm,
selecting selecting
Chironomid Chironomid
creek creek
inhabitants inhabitants
(Dermott (Dermott
While While
in in
but but
unexpected. unexpected.
a a
lower lower
of of
in in
significant significant
small small
chironomid chironomid
collected collected
in in
larval larval
water water
they they
silk-lined silk-lined
and and
mud mud
soft soft
standing standing
that that
this this
similarity similarity
in in
creek creek
gravel, gravel,
proportion proportion
Bode Bode
may may
depositional depositional
sediments sediments
growth growth
1991; 1991;
sample sample
conditions, conditions,
may may
of of
study study
in in
Distributions Distributions
proportion proportion
mud mud
highly highly
Many Many
also also
tubes tubes
water water
community community
areas areas
1980). 1980).
be be
mud, mud,
Warwick Warwick
values values
has has
was was
ceases ceases
responsible responsible
compared compared
be be
of of
eutrophic eutrophic
(Mason (Mason
genera genera
(Simpson (Simpson
where where
and and
attempted attempted
and and
due due
prefer prefer
dominated dominated
the the
substrate substrate
C. C.
were were
of of
(Butler (Butler
some some
vegetation vegetation
anthracinus anthracinus
to to
1985; 1985;
chironomid chironomid
distributions distributions
only only
the the
of of
depositional depositional
differing differing
26 26 1998). 1998).
higher higher for
to to
for for
waters waters
Chironominae, Chironominae, subfamily
and and
can can
stream stream
to to
either either
in in
Wentsel Wentsel
the the
1984). 1984).
by by
variations variations
account account
the the
Bode Bode
even even
lower lower
Warwick Warwick
Chironomus Chironomus
habitats, habitats,
and and
environrnental environrnental
the the
populations populations
lower lower
had had
survives survives
the the
may may
stand stand
Chironomus, Chironomus,
1980) 1980)
et et
habitats habitats
filter-feeding filter-feeding
middle middle
creek creek
for for
eroded eroded
middle middle
al. al.
in in
be be
and and
are are there
(1990b) (1990b)
long long
chironomid chironomid
community community
1977). 1977).
where where
low low
due due
mud, mud,
middle middle
or or
(Appendices (Appendices
(Hudson (Hudson
its its
in in
creek creek
periods periods
to to
oxygen oxygen
upper upper
requirements requirements
any any
banks, banks,
they they
lower lower
although although
impacts impacts
Chironomus Chironomus
described described
also also
consumers consumers
tribe tribe
creek. creek.
mud/upper mud/upper
of of
habitat habitat
creek creek
structure. structure.
live live
and and
of of
levels levels
more more
the the
whereas whereas
creek creek
Chironomini Chironomini
anaerobic anaerobic
of of
D-1, D-1,
in in
Ciborowski Ciborowski
gravel gravel
ecologically ecologically
Despite Despite
mud. mud.
organic organic
subtle subtle
or or
and and
of of
of of
D-4), D-4),
creek creek
on on
food food
this this or or vegetation,
the substrate
sampling.
(Figures
(Figure tolerant large pollution
behavioral habitats
inhabit
of
live include diverse substrates)
Cricotopus!Orthocladius
dominated
(Appendices
extent
the
specimens
Cricotopus!Orthocladius
closely
Subfamily
number
substrate),
in
the
6,
chironomid
microphages,
in
of
5,
samples
(Simpson
the
Appendix
streams
adaptations organic
and middle
surface 6)
the
represented
associated
gravel D-1
of
and was
of
vegetation
Diamesinae (represented
species
Chironomus
were
and
through
of
range
and
and
subfamily.
and
D-5).
floating
burrowers
leaf
the
creek
with
for taken
inorganic contamination
Bode
(Merritt
with
vegetation
from
complex
miners,
and
most
D-6).
attachment
Cricotopus/Orthocladius
algae
mud
a
at
found
leaves complex 1980).
gravel
erosional
wide
From
the
abundant
and
(both
and
communities.
predators,
was
same
samples,
there
range
or
Cummins
habitats the
Cricotopus
aquatic
to
miners
was
fine
virtually
to
here
surfaces
location perspective
taxon
were
of
depositional
the
sediments,
but
and
tolerances
in
27 by
vegetation
in
1996).
most
actually
in (Canfield the
vascular
absent
was Since
Diamesa
parasites
is
in
in
vegetation
typically
lower,
stream
Irondequoit
prevalent
complex of almost
the
Subfamily
with
from
feeding
conditions dislodged for
(Mason
hydrophytes
et
lower
and
(Simpson
middle,
riftles),
environmental
modifications
al.
entirely lacking
considered
any
samples
includes
Pagastia)
taxon
1995a).
styles,
creek
Creek,
of
Orthocladiinae
1998).
from
with
and
sprawlers
the
and
found
throughout
and
Orthocladiinae mud
two
upper
the
mud
clingers
it
one
Their
Bode
was
for staying for is
tube conditions
mud in
genera
and vegetation
in possible
of
samples,
(those found creek
this
preferred
the
1980). the
builders
(
during
is
those
the
study
mud
the
taxa
and
to
that
that
and on
creek but
most
Many
some
with
a
most
in
top samples (Figure 6). Simpson and Bode (1980) describe the Diamesinae as mostly clingers or burrowing tube builders that prefer cold, fast streams. Members of subfamily Diamesinae did not dominate any sample, but were responsible for some community structure differences, particularly the lower creek gravel site versus the lower creek mud and vegetation sites (Appendix D-1), the middle creek mud site versus the middle creek vegetation and gravel sites (Appendix D-2), and the middle creek vegetation site versus the lower and upper creek vegetation sites (Appendix D-5).
Subfamily Tanypodinae was represented almost entirely by Procladius (Appendix C-20) and was found almost exclusively in mud samples in the lower and upper creek locations (it was also found in the lower creek vegetation site, where it might have been dislodged from the underlying mud). Procladius are found in a wide range of environmental conditions
(Simpson and Bode 1980), but their presence in the mud samples reflect their predacious nature and prey preference. Procladius use their ligulae, flexibly mounted, stabbing adaptations of the mentum (Warwick and Tisdale 1988), to spear soft-bodied prey (such as oligochaetes and early-instar chironomids) (Baker and McLachan 1979). It is more the presence or absence of prey that determine the distribution ofTanypodinae than water quality (Warwick 1980b). The substrate in the middle creek mud site was composed more of fine sand and silt than of organically rich mud. This may explain the absence of
Procladius there.
In both the lower and middle creek mud sites, chironomid populations were composed primarily of members of subfamily Chironominae: tribe Chironomini. The lower creek mud's most abundant taxon was Chironomus, which was virtually absent from the middle creek mud site (Appendices C-1, D-4). The upper creek and middle creek mud sites shared
28 Paratendipes as the most abundant taxon (Paratendipes accounted for> 50% of the chironomids in the upper creek mud) (Appendices C-5, D-3). The rest of the middle creek mud sample was composed mainly of Cryptochironomus, Phaenopsectra, Polypedilum, and
Tribelos (Appendix D-2). All these taxa are described by Simpson and Bode (1980) as tolerant of a wide range of ecological conditions.
Cryptochironomus larvae live within loose unconsolidated bottom sediments (Mason
1998) and, along with Chironomus, are commonly found in eutrophic conditions (Burt et al.
1991). Paratendipes exhibit their greatest abundance in areas of slack current where fine detritus (on which the larvae feed) accumulates (Simpson and Bode 1980). Polypedilum larvae are filter feeders whose occurrence is governed more by current speed and the amount of suspended food particles than by water quality (Simpson and Bode 1980). Polypedilum prefer mesotrophic conditions and are probably intolerant of heavy organic pollution (Burt et al. 1991). In a study of chironomid gut contents in a Pennsylvania stream, one species of
Polypedilum contained 85% algae and 15% detritus (Cummins 1973). Dickman and Rygiel
(1993) observed thatPolypedilum live in dense stands ofmacrophytes, but that was not the case in this study. Both the lower creek and middle creek mud sites would seem to provide similar environmental conditions in terms of substrate particle size and current velocity
(Table 1). The conditions present seem favorable to members of tribe Chironomini, so the differences in the chironomid communities between these two sites remain unexplained.
Sampling and Sample Size Considerations
It is clear from the data presented in Table 4 that the variability in the replicate samples collected in this study has important implications for the feasibility of using chironomids as
29 reliable indicators of water quality changes over time in Irondequoit Creek. Fifteen samples per treatment were collected (i.e., 15 samples in each habitat across the upper, middle, and lower creek locations and 15 samples in each creek location across mud, vegetation, and gravel habitats). Standard benthic macroinvertebrate sampling protocols suggest four to six replicate samples per treatment, which in this data set would permit detection of only 50% differences in treatment means 50% of the time (i.e., power= 0.5; Table 4). In terms of biomonitoring, five replicates per treatment probably do not provide adequate resolution to make water quality management decisions. In this data set, to detect a 30% difference in treatment means 70% of the time would require 20 - 25 replicates per treatment; to detect a
10% difference 90% of the time would require over 3 00 replicates per treatment. The number of replicate samples suggested in Table 4 is the minimum number of samples necessary and is based on an assumption that the log-transformed taxa richness data had a perfect normal distribution. Since the distribution was not perfectly normal, the actual number of replicate samples required to achieve a given level of power and minimum level of detection is probably somewhat higher.
Clearly, given current sampling protocols, collecting and processing 300 replicate samples would be prohibitively expensive. A compromise can be reached between the need for statistical accuracy ( small samples are statistically inaccurate due to large variations in the distributions of natural populations) and the reduction of labor (Elliott 1977). Smaller samples may be collected in order to increase sample size without increasing the time and effort involved in processing specimens. More, smaller samples in a given location help to minimize the influence of patchy benthic invertebrate distribution and produce a better
30 sample across any gradients of contamination concentrations and microhabitat types
(Canfield et al. 1995a).
Chironomid Deformities Comparisons
Several questions arise when examining the chironomid deformity data that were collected. The first has to do with defining and recognizing the deformities. Included in the box below are types of deformities of the menta (for subfamilies Chironominae and
Orthocladiinae) and the ligulae (for subfamily Tanypodinae) of chironomids (Warwickl991,
1989). Not included (and not used for this study) are deformities of the antennae, mandibles, and hypopharyngeal pecten. For the purposes of this study, the menta and ligulae deformities were determined to be the most clear-cut and most easily observed of the deformities known to be caused by exposure to organic and toxic contaminants.
menta ligulae number of teeth number of teeth asymmetry asymmetry massive disorganization of teeth massive disorganization absence of teeth absence of teeth overlapping teeth overlapping teeth reduction in size of teeth reduction in size of teeth super positioning of teeth modifications to outer teeth configuration of individual teeth presence of accessory teeth presence of forked teeth fusing between ligula and paraligulae
Warwick (1991, 1990) observed that uneven wear (due to normal feeding and abrasion by coarse sediments) and breakage of the teeth of the menta and ligulae are easy to detect and easy to distinguish from morphological deformities. This is not necessarily true, particularly for the novice chironomid researcher. As part of the data collection and classification, a toxic score that included three levels of mouthparts deformity severity was
31 Bird
calculated.
classes),
considered
Identifying taxon Shield
reading taxa
and pollution
Cryptochironomus,
Cricotopus/Orthocladius (1989)
or
Stewart
and specimens
deformities, Tribelos, creek
Tanypodinae.
polluted
Stewart
Determining
Studies
that
(1994)
that
gravel).
Lakes
found
some
1993; "included
commonly
is
and
most
of
these
a
Lenat
another
found
that
only
1993;
deformed
sites
(
Polypedilum
that Rheotanytarsus.
of
considered
Pettigrove
frequently
the
have deformities
the
Cryptochironomus
This
(1993)
have
all
deformity
slight
Warwick
important
Polypedilum,
published
demonstrate
level
chironomid
compared
study
chironomid
compared
deformities
acknowledged to
complex,
1989;
of
were
shows
be
found
to
1990,1985;
rates
chironomid
question.
research.
pristine
Of
be
Warwick
found
deformity
taxa
deformities
deformities
rates
Stictochironomus,
among
natural
the
deformities may
Endochironomus,
which
(Appendix
exhibiting
taxa
at
sites,
only
not
that
Chironomus
Warwick
deformities
more
chironomids
1989,
abnormalities
rates
in
were
be
within
unimpacted
Class
include
32
in
which
as
in
than
response
C-2),
1988;
deformities
of
difficult
Chironomus,
straightforward
et
I
taxa.
chironomid
one
deformities
deformities
Procladius,
al.
and
that
is
Polypedilum,
Polypedilum
Wiederholm
as
generally
and
1987;
site
by
Phaenopsectra
to
Of
to
high
actually
separate
organic
to
environmental
were
the
(middle
as
Wiederholm
Procladius, be
larvae
were
taxa
(the
Micropsectra,
16%
acknowledged
as
signifies
subfamily
of
(Appendix
1984a).
Phaenopsectra,
or
it
creek
common
least from
that
found,
taken
in
would
toxic
(Diggins
remote
commonly
severe
'chipped'
a
mud
impacts
Microtendipes,
1984a).
from
Chironominae
response
Pettigrove
pollution)
only
seem
occurrence.
C-
and
Tanytarsus,
Canadian
to
of
7),
unpolluted
deformed
and
after
be
(Diggins
the
middle
teeth."
Other
and
display
to
the
and
three Tanytarsus
and sampling taxon
and
significant
distributed deformities,
deformity
Estimates rates
degradation;
structures Tanytarsini
sites
subfossil
water extremely 1.8% mentum
exhibited
two
Tanytarsus
In
Using
and that
that showed
(unpolluted
quality,
addition,
sites,
sites,
deformities
Chironomus
17.5%
are
rate
vary
numbers
evidence
(Ciborowski
taxon,
polluted (Appendix
mentum
found
and
this
a
respectively
with
calculations.
while
result accounted as
its
there
at
partly
Cricotopus/Orthocladius
to
at the
sites),
extremely
rate
only only
sites).
of
deformity
what
incidences unpolluted
in
of
C-14) is
highest
toxic
(>
susceptible
et reflects
of
the
Polypedilum
in
considerable
4.1
30
for al.
incidence (Table
deformities
the
Ciborowski
natural
% pollution
were
years)
1995). polluted more
rate
middle
rates,
and
the
of
sites
6),
widely
of
6%
genera
10. of subjective variability than
of
none
and
deformities Wiederholm of
variation
or present
creek
0.8%
in 7%
sites.
or
deformities
et
0.3%.
5% organic
this
no
distributed more could
al.
of
(slightly of3%
complex,
mud
and
deformities
of
The (1995)
the
study
in
33
nature
of
in
a This
significant
present
impact three chironomid
in sample
site.
or
the same
(1984a)
implies
polluted was
this
less
number
determined
through
of
estimation
does be
locations
The
study
interpreting 0.45%.
study
were effects.
rates implied
expected
site's
significant
not
noted
numbers. most
sites),
rose
morphological
the cited
found
(two (Phaenopsectra)
total
commonly
that
of oflrondequoit It
no
The abundant
Irondequoit
deformity
to
at
was
and
deformity
background
sites
significant
abundance
deformities 3.8%
in
contaminated baseline
deformity
environmental
Cryptochironomus
either
8.3%
not
each)
demonstrate
at
and
included
rates
structures.
slightly
and
taxon.
rates
levels
Creek
of
degradation
most
in
was
Creek
deformity
rates
in
for 25%
1.6%
only
some for
locations.
of
found
in
widely
polluted
tribe
The
for
(at
one
and
in
of
the the
found found
with with
rates rates
site site
at at
to to adequate adequate
Lenat's Lenat's (1993), (1993),
deformities deformities
Studies Studies loading loading
chironomid chironomid
quality quality Lenat's Lenat's
deformities; deformities;
susceptible susceptible
(5.4% (5.4%
scores scores
susceptible susceptible
least least
have have
number number
and and
Another Another
two two
to to
in in
for for
were were
is is
330 330
be be of of
however, however,
rather rather
combined combined
(1993) (1993)
observations observations
18 18
all all
exceptions. exceptions.
spatial spatial
sample sample
all all
chironomid chironomid
made. made.
specimens specimens
taxa taxa
taxa taxa
of of
habitats habitats
of of
larvae larvae
specimens specimens
less less
middle middle
deformities deformities
consideration consideration
specimens specimens
than than
a a
figures figures
genus genus
from from
(lower (lower
scale scale
than than
size. size.
calculated calculated
Class Class
per per
toxic toxic
creek: creek:
and and
indicated indicated
the the
the the
Only Only
(Hudson (Hudson
of of
site site
deformities deformities
over over
oflarvae oflarvae
Ciborowski Ciborowski
for for
creek: creek:
II II
stream stream
Endochironomus Endochironomus
pollution) pollution)
and and
found found
8.0 8.0
lower lower
was was
Chironomus Chironomus
4.5% 4.5%
and and
when when
35 35
background background
statistics statistics
clean-water clean-water
2.0% 2.0%
5.3% 5.3%
specimens specimens
III III
that that
necessary necessary
and and
locations locations
at at
and and
oftaxa oftaxa
and and
using using
deformity deformity
each each
are are
et et
for for
deformity deformity
were were
Ciborowski Ciborowski
middle middle
for for
1.2%; 1.2%;
al. al.
for for
hindered hindered
Class Class
chironomid chironomid
site site
clean-water clean-water from
in in
all all
levels levels
(1995) (1995)
is is
to to
11 11
sites sites
of of
mean mean
which which
were were
defonnities defonnities
is is
and and needed needed
creek creek
%, %,
Procladius Procladius
demonstrate demonstrate
rates rates
II II
34 34
enough enough
rates rates
if if
would would
and and
and and
toxic toxic
by by
upper upper
concluded concluded
1996a). 1996a).
found found
at at
deformities deformities
were were
< <
small small
least least
for for
for for
that that
larvae larvae
III III
6% 6%
score score
be be
for for
creek: creek:
in in
deformities). deformities).
a a
and and
stressed stressed
6.5 6.5
were were
nontoxic nontoxic
with with
sample sample
15 15
reliable reliable
significant significant
However, However,
that that
the the
analysis, analysis,
sites sites in
deformities deformities
that that
and and
reported reported
1.2% 1.2%
Chironomus Chironomus
were were
no no
middle middle
a a
found found
a a
toxic toxic
doubling doubling
5.6, 5.6,
a a
nontoxic nontoxic
sizes sizes
deformities) deformities)
comparison comparison
North North
for for
sample sample
streams streams
found found
a a
80% 80%
in in
respectively. respectively.
in in
taxon taxon suitable
creek creek
by by
score score
Class Class
Toxic Toxic
and/or and/or
to to
this this
the the
Lenat Lenat
Carolina Carolina
larvae larvae
determine determine
in in
of of
in in
size size
streams streams
should should
lower lower
study, study,
mud mud
< <
II II
the the
each each
the the
scores scores
the the
25. 25.
of of
were were
and and
of of
(1993) (1993)
incidence incidence
were were
time. time.
deformity deformity
site. site.
at at
lack lack
sample sample
creek creek
be be
streams streams
there there
III III
(organic (organic
Both Both
for for
similar similar
least least
that that
water water
expected expected
found. found.
.. ..
While While
of of
Lenat Lenat
were were
mud mud
is is
125 125
site, site,
of of to to
watershed watershed
identifying identifying
taxa taxa
distribution distribution
impacts. impacts.
chironomid chironomid
gravel gravel
differences differences
diversity diversity
Conclusions Conclusions
and and
Simpson's Simpson's
Differences Differences
lowest lowest
Examination Examination
Differences Differences
This This
across across
habitats habitats
• •
• •
• •
indices. indices.
study study
showed showed
diversity, diversity,
differences differences
locations, locations,
Are Are
structure structure
in in
(e.g., (e.g.,
sites. sites.
of of
abundance abundance
best best
Is Is
Irondequoit Irondequoit
evidenced evidenced
mouthpart mouthpart
Are Are
the the
deformed deformed
and and
there there
was was
were were
there there
were were
there there
the the
indicators indicators
lower lower
of of
Using Using
Simpson's Simpson's
no no
lowest lowest
designed designed
chironomid chironomid
taxa taxa
and and
predominance predominance
evidence evidence
found found
differences differences
also also
evidence evidence
among among
as as
differences differences
in in
deformity deformity
creek. creek.
by by
deformity deformity
taxa taxa
mouthpart mouthpart
the the
Creek Creek
richness, richness,
in in
evidenced evidenced
found found
differences differences
among among
of of
the the
diversity diversity
middle middle
to to
across across
locations locations
such such
of of
Chironomid Chironomid
of of
mentum mentum
answer answer
watershed, watershed,
vegetation vegetation
among among
pollution pollution
among among
rates? rates?
toxic toxic
among among
rates rates
and and
the the
of of
degradation? degradation?
deformity deformity
sites sites
creek creek
and and
Chironomus Chironomus
by by
sampling sampling
chironomid chironomid
or or
in in
or or
four four
for for
the the
deformity deformity
upper, upper,
made made
mud, mud,
taxa taxa
habitats, habitats,
differences differences
organic organic
location) location)
chironomid chironomid
or or
habitats. habitats.
all all
35 35
abundance abundance
sampled sampled
and and
questions: questions:
degradation degradation
rates? rates?
susceptible susceptible
richness richness
vegetation, vegetation,
direct direct
locations locations
middle, middle,
which which
degradation. degradation.
abundance abundance
data data
due due
in in
might might
habitats habitats
Some Some
the the
comparisons comparisons
was was
in in
community community
to to
were were
proved proved
chironomid chironomid
and and
lower lower
in in
the the
taxa, taxa,
have have
chironomid chironomid
of of
and and
highest highest
of of
Irondequoit Irondequoit
lower lower
using using
highest highest
water water
lack lack
were were
the the
gravel gravel
the the
inconclusive inconclusive
been been
creek creek
The The
community community
of of
impossible. impossible.
the the
in in
Irondequoit Irondequoit
structure structure
creek creek all all
quality quality
non-uniform non-uniform
taxa taxa
in in
due due
shared shared
the the
mud mud
habitats, habitats,
highest highest
same same
the the
community community
Creek Creek
to to
middle middle
are are
sampling sampling
and and
upper upper
in in
organic organic
deformed deformed
for for
measures. measures.
and and
structure structure
the the
the the
in in
the the
as as
There There
using using
Creek Creek
creek. creek.
the the
creek creek
high high was was
Because Because
comparing comparing
one one
habitat habitat future future
chironomid chironomid
to to
in in found
susceptible susceptible
was was involved involved
chironomid chironomid
each each
no no
in in
different different
a a deformities. deformities.
study, study,
better better
Irondequoit Irondequoit
22 22
precedent precedent
habitat habitat
found found
One One
of of
of of
to to
deformed deformed
had had
the the
choice choice
the the
there there
each each
taxa. taxa.
• •
in in
provide provide
of of
primarily primarily
chironomid chironomid
tribe tribe
is is
the the
habitats habitats
collecting, collecting,
taxa taxa
community community
the the
24 24
values values
Are Are
Although Although
to to found found
of of
is is
Creek Creek
greatest greatest
Cryptochironomus, Cryptochironomus,
for for
taxa taxa
goals goals
be be
Chironomini Chironomini
subfamilies subfamilies across
no no
the the
Polypedilum Polypedilum
current current
comparable comparable
deformity deformity
sampled sampled
for for
evidence evidence
(mud, (mud,
in in
that that
three three
in in
ofthis ofthis and and
sorting, sorting,
chironomid chironomid
the the
deformity deformity
no no
differences differences
structure structure
diversity diversity
comprised comprised
sampling designs designs sampling
are are
habitats. habitats.
deformed deformed
vegetation, vegetation,
lower lower
in in
study study
of of
comparisons comparisons
among among
is is
indices indices
were were
the the
preparing, preparing,
more more toxic toxic
and and
creek creek
(Simpson's (Simpson's
rates, rates,
future, future,
was was
deformity deformity
in in
and and
Tanytarsus, Tanytarsus,
more more
found found
Thus, Thus,
Cryptochironomus Cryptochironomus
the the
of of
and and abundance
chironomid chironomid
pollution pollution
commonly commonly
and and
to to
mud mud
sampling sampling
ecological ecological
chironomid chironomid
taxa taxa
than than
identifying, identifying,
the the
find find
only only
in in
in in
gravel) gravel)
adequate adequate
36 36
habitat. habitat.
two two
literature literature
Irondequoit Irondequoit
diversity, diversity,
gravel gravel
that that
ways ways
1 1
one one
in in
% %
and and
found found
in in
communities communities
sites. sites.
the the
commonly commonly
was was
requirements. requirements.
of of
habitat habitat
the the
community community
Polypedilum Polypedilum
to to
habitat habitat
provides provides
to to
at at abundance
Irondequoit Irondequoit
and and
for for
found found
reduce reduce
taxa taxa
mud mud
in in
obtain obtain
One One
or or
Creek Creek
the the
counting counting
comparing comparing
needs needs
Tanytarsus Tanytarsus
is is
richness, richness,
habitats habitats
of of
to to
exhibit exhibit
mud mud
probably probably
the the
the the
in in
statistically statistically
these these
structure. structure.
have have
than than
the the
to to
The The
were were
broadest broadest
time time
Creek Creek
habitat. habitat.
any any
specimens. specimens.
be be
mouthpart mouthpart
would would
watershed? watershed?
taxa taxa
Chironomus, Chironomus,
differences differences
and abundance), abundance), and
deformities deformities
deformity
were were
sampled sampled
widely widely
and and
the the
one one
watershed, watershed,
may may
reliable reliable
The The
distribution distribution
best best
expense expense
Thus, Thus,
site site
be be
found found
distributed distributed
better. better.
prove prove
gravel gravel
Although Although
were were
in in
choice. choice.
in in
in in
when when
the the
in in
which which
if if
to to
this this
only only
21 21
of of be be
would would
to to
power power
transects transects
time, time,
replicates replicates
structures. structures.
specimens, specimens,
5 5
Also, Also,
feet feet
and and
reduce reduce
to to
along along
(e.g., (e.g.,
validly validly
may may
can can
the the
by by
the the
be be
number number
reducing reducing
save save
a a
multiple multiple
recognize recognize
standard standard
increased, increased,
amount amount
time time
of of
the the
traveling traveling
in in
replicate replicate
20 20
of of
identification identification
changes changes
spatial spatial
without without
gravel gravel
transect). transect). foot
kick kick
samples samples
extent extent
and and
in in
greatly greatly
chironomid chironomid
samples samples
detritus detritus
of of
of of
needs needs
by by specimens
increasing increasing
37 37
samples samples
Also, Also,
in in
entering entering
to to
the the
communities communities
more more
be be
by by
gravel gravel
the the
increased increased
subsampling subsampling
caution caution
collecting collecting
reducing reducing
time time
habitat habitat
and and
over over
during during
in in
damage damage
nets, nets,
order order
could could
effort effort
along along
time. time.
kick kick
reduce reduce
to to
be be
of of
standard standard
to to
The The
have have
processing processing
taken taken
sampling sampling
delicate delicate
number number
sorting sorting
sufficient sufficient
every every
of of 2 2 Literature Cited
APHA. 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (19th Ed.). American Public Health Association. Washington, DC.
Armitage, P.D. and J.H. Blackburn. 1985. Chironomidae in a Pennine stream system receiving mine drainage and organic enrichment. Hydrobiologia 121: 165-172.
Baker, AS. and A.J. McLachan. 1979. Food preferences ofTanypodinae larvae (Diptera: Chironomidae). Hydrobiologia 62: 283-288.
Barber, W.E. and N.R. Kevern. 1973. Ecological factors influencing macroinvertebrate standing crop distribution. Hydrobiologia 43: 53-75.
Bass, D. 1986. Habitat ecology of chironomid larvae of the Big Thicket streams. Hydrobiologia 134: 29-42.
Beckett, D.C. and P.A. Lewis. 1982. An efficient procedure for slide mounting larval chironomids. Trans. Amer. Microsc. Soc. 101:96-99.
Bird, G.A. 1994. Use of chironomid menta deformities to assess contaminant effects. Bulletin NABS 11: 155.
Bode, R.W. 1983. Larvae ofNorth AmericanEukiefferiella and Tvetenia (Diptera: Chironomidae). The University of the State ofNew York. The State Education Department. Albany, New York.
Bode, R.W. 1998. Personal communication concerning chironomid identification. Stream Biomonitoring Unit. NYS DEC. 50 Wolf Road. Albany, New York 12233-3503.
Bode, R.W., M.A. Novak, and L.E. Abele. 1991. Methods for Rapid Biological Assessment of Streams. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water. Albany, New York.
Bode, R.W., M.A. Novak, and L.E. Abele. 1993. 20 Year Trends in Water Quality of Rivers and Streams in New York State Based on Macroinvertebrate Data 1972- 1992. NYS Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, Division ofWater. Albany, NY. 196 pp.
Bollman, W. 1998. Personal communication concerning chironomid identification. 1845 S 12th West. Missoula, MT 59801.
Brower, J.E. and J.H. Zar. 1977. Field and Laboratory Methods for General Ecology. Wm. C. Brown Publishers. Dubuque, Iowa. 226 pp. 38 Burt, A.J., P.M. McKee, D.R. Hart, and P.B. Kauss. 1991. Effects of pollution in benthic invertebrate communities of the St. Marys River, 1985. Hydrobiologia 219:63-81.
Butler, M.G. 1984. Life histories of aquatic insects, in The Ecology of Aquatic Insects, eds V.H. Resh and D.M. Rosenberg, Praeger, New York, pp. 24-55.
Canfield, T.J., F.J. Dwyer, J.F. Fairchild, P.S. Haverland, C.G. Ingersoll, N.E. Kemble, D.R. Mount, T.W. La Point, G.A. Burton, and M.C. Swift. 1995a. Assessing contamination in Great Lakes sediments using benthic invertebrate communities and the sediment quality triad approach. J. Great Lakes Res. 22: 565-583.
Canfield, T.J., F.J. Dwyer, J.F. Fairchild, C.G. Ingersoll, and N.E. Kemble. 1995b. Using an integrated field and laboratory approach for assessing contaminated sediments. Bulletin NABS 12:76.
Ciborowski, J.J.H., L.D. Corkum, and L.A. Hudson. 1995. The use ofbenthic invertebrates for monitoring contaminated sediments. Eighth Annual NABS Technical Information Workshop. "The Use ofBenthic Ecology in Assessing Sediment Contamination." 43rd Annual Meeting North American Benthological Society. Keystone, Colorado. May 1995.
Clements, W.R., D.S. Cherry, and J.H. Van Hassel. 1992. Assessment of the impact of heavy metals on benthic communities at the Clinch River (Virginia): evaluation of an index of community sensitivity. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 1686-1694.
Cummins, K.W. 1973. Trophic relations of aquatic insects. Annual Review of Entomology 18: 183-206.
Cushman, RM. 1984. Chironomid deformities as indicators of pollution from a synthetic, coal-derived oil. Freshwater Biology 14: 179-182.
Dermott, RM. 1991. Deformities in larval Procladius spp. and dominant Chironomini from the St. Clair River. Hydrobiologia 219: 171-185.
Dickman, M., I. Brindle, and M. Benson. 1992. Evidence ofteratogens in sediments of the Niagara River watershed as reflected by chironomid (Diptera: Chironomidae) deformities. J. Great Lakes Res. 18:467-480.
Dickman, M.D. and G. Rygiel. 1993. Benthic invertebrate deformities near a vinyl chloride discharge point source in the Niagara River watershed, in Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment: 2nd Volume, ASTM STP 1173, J. Gorsuch, F.J. Dwyer, C.G. Ingersoll, and T.W. La Point (Eds.), American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
39
Mason, Mason,
Lenat, Lenat,
Johnson, Johnson,
Hudson, Hudson,
Hudson, Hudson,
Hudson, Hudson,
Haynes, Haynes,
Hare, Hare,
Hamilton, Hamilton,
Elliott, Elliott,
Donald, Donald,
Diggins, Diggins,
L. L.
D.R. D.R.
269. 269.
Support. Support.
effects effects
macroinvertebrates macroinvertebrates
Press, Press, 28: 28:
Biomarkers Biomarkers
larval larval of of
sediment. sediment.
Health Health
Can. Can.
ofmouthpart ofmouthpart
the the
with with
environmental environmental
W.T. W.T.
(salinarius (salinarius
J.M. J.M.
Invertebrates. Invertebrates.
Titus Titus
Can. Can.
Great Great
(Chironomidae: (Chironomidae:
J.M. J.M.
D.B. D.B.
L.A., L.A.,
L.A. L.A.
L.A. L.A.
M.G. M.G.
and and
T T
ecosystem ecosystem
1683-1697. 1683-1697.
AL. AL.
.P. .P.
chironomid chironomid
particular particular
J. J.
1993. 1993.
J. J.
J.C.H. J.C.H.
Wilson Wilson
Jr. Jr.
Chironomus Chironomus
1977. 1977.
New New
and and
Lakes Lakes
and and and and
of of
and and
Laboratory. Laboratory.
J.J.H. J.J.H.
Fish. Fish.
and and
1980. 1980.
Zool. Zool.
and and
toxicity toxicity
Gainesville, Gainesville,
1998. 1998.
J.M. J.M.
Env. Env.
K.M. K.M.
J.J.H. J.J.H.
J.J.H. J.J.H.
group) group)
York. York.
RD. RD.
as as
Using Using
O.A. O.A.
Carter. Carter.
Aquat. Aquat.
Some Some
Res. Res.
health health
& &
Ciborowski, Ciborowski,
deformities deformities
58:682-686. 58:682-686.
Deformities Deformities
Indicators Indicators
health health
Freshwater Freshwater
reference reference
McNamara. McNamara.
larvae larvae
Toxic. Toxic.
Son Son
Diptera) Diptera)
Watershed Watershed
Stewart. Stewart.
Brinkhurst. Brinkhurst.
Ciborowski. Ciborowski.
Ciborowski. Ciborowski.
and and
Saether. Saether.
19:648-659. 19:648-659.
mentum mentum
In In
larvae larvae salinarius salinarius
Methods Methods
of of
in in
Monroe Monroe
Sci. Sci.
Ltd. Ltd.
1976. 1976.
in in
press. press.
Florida. Florida.
organic organic
Bay Bay
of of
the the
and and
the the
53:297-304. 53:297-304.
to to
several several
of of
in in
in in
(Diptera: (Diptera:
Kendal, Kendal,
Great Great
and and
of of
in in
1993. 1993.
Biological Biological
Chem. Chem.
deformities deformities
Irondequoit Irondequoit
1971. 1971.
structural structural
midge midge
the the
Environmental Environmental Assessments Assessments
The The
for for
1998. 1998.
County County
Capniidae Capniidae
Quinte Quinte
group group
loading loading
1971. 1971.
Z.E. Z.E.
1996b. 1996b.
158 158
1996a. 1996a.
sediments sediments
the the
Lakes Lakes
distribution distribution
Canadian Canadian
Deformities Deformities
England. England.
15: 15:
larvae larvae
The The
pp. pp.
Chironomidae) Chironomidae)
Kovats. Kovats.
Indicators Indicators
40 40
Statistical Statistical
(Diptera: (Diptera:
Associations Associations
and and
Department Department
Association Association
1375-1381. 1375-1381.
in in
deformities. deformities.
Teratogenic Teratogenic
Spatial Spatial
Areas Areas
ofChironomus ofChironomus
occurrence occurrence
(Plecoptera) (Plecoptera)
Creek Creek
streams. streams.
Lake Lake
with with
(Diptera: (Diptera:
of of
lakes. lakes.
Change, Change,
of of
160 160
the the
1995. 1995.
of of
Chironomidae) Chironomidae)
of of
Chironomidae: Chironomidae:
of of
Analysis Analysis
and and
Ontario. Ontario.
wetland wetland
Chironomus Chironomus
Concern, Concern,
Buffalo Buffalo
aquatic aquatic
change change
pp. pp.
of of
Can. Can.
J. J.
and and
Scientific Scientific
taxonomic taxonomic
of of
in in
Chironomidae: Chironomidae:
Can. Can.
and and
Aquatic Aquatic
Health. Health.
F. F.
N. N.
from from
Parry Parry
characteristic characteristic
species species
larvae larvae
Butterworth Butterworth
Ent. Ent.
complex. complex.
Am. Am.
of of
genotoxic genotoxic
J. J.
J. J.
larval larval
in in
River, River,
in in
the the
Samples Samples
Fish. Fish.
Zool. Zool.
water water
Sound, Sound,
103:363-368. 103:363-368.
Publication Publication
Benthol. Benthol.
insects insects
(s.s.)? (s.s.)?
Biomonitors Biomonitors
Rochester, Rochester,
to to
to to
Diptera. Diptera.
variation variation
Bow Bow
diversity diversity
midges midges
New New
Res. Res.
evaluate evaluate
contaminated contaminated
54:2129-2134. 54:2129-2134.
quality quality
Environmental Environmental
responses responses
Chironomini) Chironomini)
cucini cucini
ofBenthic ofBenthic
Georgian Georgian
River, River,
deformities deformities
as as
(Ed.), (Ed.),
Bd. Bd.
York. York.
Soc. Soc.
biomonitors biomonitors
Ecology Ecology
in in in in
No. No.
NY. NY.
and and
the the
Canada Canada
and and
incidence incidence
benthic benthic
Alberta. Alberta.
Plenum Plenum
12:265-
J. J.
25. 25.
of of
Bay, Bay, in in
Sutton, Sutton,
Sokal, Sokal,
Smith, Smith,
Simpson, Simpson,
Rice, Rice,
Simpson, Simpson,
Pinder, Pinder,
Seidman, Seidman,
Pettigrove, Pettigrove,
Peckarsky, Peckarsky,
Minshall, Minshall,
Merritt, Merritt,
McCafferty, McCafferty,
R.R. R.R.
R.R. R.R.
R.L. R.L.
Avon, Avon,
Tributaries, Tributaries,
State State
York. York.
Company, Company,
York. York.
from from
New New (Diptera, (Diptera,
The The
cadmium cadmium
W.L. W.L.
23. 23.
Macroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrates
18: 18:
(Diptera: (Diptera:
Ithaca, Ithaca,
L.C.V. L.C.V.
North North
Mass. Mass.
179: 179:
eds. eds.
R.W. R.W.
K.W., K.W.,
K.W. K.W.
L.A., L.A.,
G. G.
395-405. 395-405.
B.L., B.L.,
V. V.
and and
1989. 1989.
State State
V.H. V.H.
W. W.
''Revision ''Revision
York York
Department Department
1992. 1992.
111-118. 111-118.
W.P. W.P.
NY. NY.
1998. 1998.
617 617
America. America.
The The
and and
New New 448 448
G. G.
1989. 1989.
and and
F. F.
1986. 1986.
R.W. R.W.
Chironomidae)" Chironomidae)"
1984. 1984.
by by
from from Chironomidae)
P.R. P.R.
Education Education
Resh Resh
New New
Analyzing Analyzing
Bergstrom., Bergstrom., State State
J. J.
pp. pp.
K.W. K.W.
State State
Thomas Thomas
26 26
pp. pp.
Elements Elements
1981. 1981.
R.W. R.W.
the the
York. York.
Biological Biological
Rohlf Rohlf
Bode, Bode,
Fraissinet, Fraissinet,
La.rval La.rval
pp. pp.
Biology Biology
der der
York. York.
and and
Life Life
fourth fourth
streams streams
Education Education
Kendall/Hunt Kendall/Hunt
Cummins. Cummins.
of of
Bode. Bode.
Aquatic Aquatic
Gattung Gattung
442 442
D.M. D.M.
of of
and and
Environmental Environmental
histories histories
Department. Department.
1995. 1995.
and and
Tables Tables of of
mouthpart mouthpart
Northeastern Northeastern
887 887
instar instar
D.J. D.J.
of of
Stream Stream
Allen Allen Ecology. Ecology.
pp. pp.
and and
P. P.
M.A. M.A.
1980. 1980.
by by
Rosenberg, Rosenberg,
freshwater freshwater
Entomology. Entomology.
pages. pages.
Biometry Biometry
Department. Department.
Cricotopus Cricotopus
Albu. Albu.
Gingrich, Gingrich,
1996. 1996.
M. M. of of
larva larva
rivers. rivers.
of of
Creeks, Creeks,
the the
Publishing Publishing
Penton, Penton,
Statistical Statistical
Assessment Assessment
Hirvenoja. Hirvenoja.
aquatic aquatic
Common Common
deformities deformities
Murray/Darling Murray/Darling
Albany, Albany,
HarperCollins HarperCollins
of of
1983. 1983.
An An
Conservation. Conservation.
41 41
North North
The The
the the
Chironomidae. Chironomidae.
Praeger, Praeger,
(3rd (3rd
and and
Monroe Monroe
Introduction Introduction
van van
and and
insects, insects,
fly fly
University University
Albany, Albany,
Science Science
Keys Keys
Tests. Tests.
Company. Company.
larvae larvae
C.C. C.C.
NY. NY.
America. America.
Edition). Edition).
der der
D.J. D.J.
oflrondequoit oflrondequoit
Chironomus Chironomus
The The
in in
New New
Procladius Procladius
County, County,
for for
Wulp Wulp Remsen. Remsen.
in in
105 105
University University
Conklin, Conklin,
ofChironomidae ofChironomidae
Evolution Evolution
Publishers. Publishers.
Books Books
New New
rivers, rivers,
Division Division
The The
the the
of of
to to
York, York,
pp. pp.
W.H. W.H.
Cornell Cornell
Dubuque, Dubuque,
Ann. Ann.
und und
the the
Genus Genus
the the
Ecology Ecology
York. York.
New New
International. International.
thummi. thummi.
Australia. Australia.
1986. 1986.
Jr. Jr.
ihrer ihrer
paludicola paludicola
State State
Aquatic Aquatic
pp. pp.
Rev. Rev.
Creek Creek
Freeman Freeman
43:223-225. 43:223-225.
of of of of
York. York.
New New
University University
Cricotopus Cricotopus
1990. 1990.
the the
Fish Fish
358-400. 358-400.
Verwandten Verwandten
Iowa. Iowa.
of of
of of
Entomol. Entomol.
Accumulation Accumulation
and and
State State
(Diptera) (Diptera)
York, York,
Tissue Tissue
Aquatic Aquatic
New New
Insects Insects
and and
New New
Hydrobiologia Hydrobiologia
Freshwater Freshwater
and and
Two Two
Skuse Skuse
862 862
Wildlife. Wildlife.
Boston, Boston,
ofNew ofNew
Press. Press.
York. York.
New New
adapted adapted
York York
& &
31:1-
of of
Insects, Insects,
pp. pp.
from from
Cell Cell of of
Warwick, Warwick,
Warwick, Warwick,
Warwick, Warwick,
Warwick, Warwick,
Warwick, Warwick,
Warwick, Warwick,
Warwick, Warwick,
Warwick, Warwick,
Warwick, Warwick,
van van
Timmermans, Timmermans,
Urk, Urk,
of of
J. J.
Great Great
(Diptera: (Diptera:
biological biological
Institute. Institute.
the the
Great Great
Chironomidae) Chironomidae)
A A
biological biological
York, York,
1255-1270. 1255-1270.
Chironomus Chironomus
D.A. D.A.
measures measures
the the
(Diptera), (Diptera),
:frequency :frequency
influence: influence:
assessment assessment
eutrophication, eutrophication,
contaminated contaminated
in in
effects. effects.
Fish. Fish.
G., G.,
deformities deformities
W.F., W.F.,
Great Great
W.F. W.F.
W.F. W.F.
W.F. W.F.
W.F. W.F.
W.F. W.F.
W.F. W.F. Chironomus Chironomus
W.F. W.F.
W.F. W.F.
Lac Lac
7th 7th
Murray), Murray),
Lakes Lakes
F.C.M. F.C.M.
Lakes Lakes
pp. pp.
KR., KR.,
Aquat. Aquat.
International International
St. St.
Lakes Lakes
J. J.
Hydrobiologia Hydrobiologia
1991. 1991.
1990b. 1990b.
1990a. 1990a.
1989. 1989.
1988. 1988.
Chironomidae), Chironomidae),
1985. 1985.
1980b. 1980b.
1980a. 1980a.
of of
Saskatoon, Saskatoon,
effects effects
281-320. 281-320.
indicators indicators
a a
in in
of of
Fitchko, Fitchko,
Louis Louis
of of
paleolimnological paleolimnological
Res. Res.
toxic toxic Res. Res.
Meigen. Meigen.
W. W.
Chironomidae: Chironomidae:
deformities deformities
Kerkum, Kerkum,
in in
sediment sediment
trophic trophic
Sci. Sci.
Pergamon Pergamon
Focus, Focus,
and and
Indexing Indexing
riparius riparius
Morphological Morphological
and and
Morphological Morphological
Morphological Morphological
Chironomus Chironomus
Peeters, Peeters,
Morphological Morphological
The The
monitoring. monitoring.
Pasqua Pasqua
Chironomidae Chironomidae
and and
13: 13:
16: 16:
stress stress
48: 48:
their their
P.M. P.M.
contamination contamination
of of
Symposium Symposium
88-92. 88-92.
use use
185-208. 185-208.
Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan.
LaPrairie LaPrairie
status status
Can. Can.
(M.S. (M.S.
1151-1166. 1151-1166.
and and
toxic toxic
gradient. gradient.
241: 241:
in in
(Meigen) (Meigen)
biomonitoring biomonitoring
deformities deformities
Lake, Lake,
in in
and and
McKee, McKee,
of of
to to application
Press, Press,
:freshwater :freshwater
H. H.
Chironomus Chironomus
J. J.
morphological morphological
Ecology, Ecology,
and and
Evans, Evans,
stress, stress,
119-134. 119-134.
M. M.
spp. spp.
Fish. Fish.
NHRI NHRI
study study
Smit. Smit.
deformities deformities
deformities deformities
southeastern southeastern
abnormalities abnormalities
Basins Basins
(Diptera) (Diptera)
deformities deformities
Elmsford, Elmsford,
contamination contamination
Tonkes. Tonkes.
on on
Can. Can.
D.R. D.R.
from from
larvae larvae
processes. processes.
Aquat. Aquat.
42 42
in in
ed.), ed.),
with with
Chironomidae, Chironomidae,
Paper Paper
in in
1992. 1992.
ecosystems: ecosystems:
Systematics, Systematics,
Toxic Toxic
of of
J. J.
ligulae ligulae
Hart, Hart,
potential. potential.
Port Port
contaminant-stressed contaminant-stressed
larvae larvae
(Diptera, (Diptera,
Fish. Fish.
the the
John John
special special
responses responses
1992. 1992.
New New
Sci. Sci.
in in
No. No.
in in
deformities deformities
Life Life
in in
Hope Hope
Saskatchewan: Saskatchewan:
Contaminants Contaminants
and and
St. St.
in in
larvae larvae
Chironomidae Chironomidae
and and Can. Can.
Chironomidae Chironomidae
Wiley Wiley
Aquat. Aquat.
42: 42:
(Diptera: (Diptera:
based based
43. 43.
Chironomidae Chironomidae
York, York,
Lawrence Lawrence
cycle cycle
reference reference
Cadmium, Cadmium,
A.J. A.J.
Can. Can.
Chironomidae): Chironomidae):
indexing indexing
Harbour, Harbour,
antennae antennae
and and
1881-1914. 1881-1914.
Entomol. Entomol.
Dublin, Dublin,
National National
of of
to to
and and
on on
Burt. Burt.
Sci. Sci.
patterns, patterns,
Procladius Procladius
pp. pp.
in in
2800 2800
Physiology, Physiology,
J. J.
the the
Chironomidae) Chironomidae)
chironomid chironomid
Sons, Sons,
Fish. Fish.
49:2291-2299. 49:2291-2299.
to to
255-267. 255-267.
River, River,
and and
antenna! antenna!
August August
of of
a a
zinc, zinc,
Lake Lake
(Diptera) (Diptera)
years years
1987. 1987.
Chironomidae Chironomidae
Hydrology Hydrology
(Diptera) (Diptera)
environments. environments.
sedimentation, sedimentation,
112: 112:
preliminary preliminary
(Diptera) (Diptera)
Procladius Procladius
Aquat. Aquat.
Ecosystem Ecosystem
New New
density, density,
lead, lead,
Canada. Canada.
Ontario. Ontario.
1193-1238. 1193-1238.
of of
Skuse Skuse
uptake uptake
Proceedings Proceedings
The The
1979, 1979,
deformities deformities
York, York,
cultural cultural
larvae larvae
larvae larvae
Sci. Sci.
and and
larvae larvae
and and
incidence incidence
larvae larvae
Research Research
over over
(Diptera: (Diptera:
(ed. (ed.
and and
larvae larvae
Health: Health:
46: 46:
copper copper
J. J.
New New
J. J.
for for
Can. Can.
as as
from from
a a
as as
in in of of
Zar, Zar,
Winner, Winner,
Wiederholm, Wiederholm,
Wentsel, Wentsel,
Warwick, Warwick,
Waterhouse, Waterhouse,
Wiederhohn, Wiederhohn,
J.H. J.H.
Ecology Ecology
York, York,
index index
45: 45:
662 662
heavy heavy
Avoidance Avoidance
37:647-655. 37:647-655.
42:406-413. 42:406-413.
Chironomidae) Chironomidae)
Cryptochironomus, Cryptochironomus,
differentially differentially
chironomid chironomid
R.W., R.W.,
D.F., D.F.,
1996. 1996.
W.F. W.F.
1123-1144. 1123-1144.
pp. pp.
J.C. J.C.
T. T.
of of
T. T.
metals. metals.
pp. pp.
M.W. M.W.
A A
and and
heavy-metal heavy-metal
of of
Biostatistical Biostatistical
1984b. 1984b.
1984a. 1984a.
and and
508-557. 508-557.
McIntosh, McIntosh,
response response
Aquatic Aquatic
communities communities
N.A N.A
stressed stressed
Boesel, Boesel,
M.P. M.P.
Hydrobiologia Hydrobiologia
in in
Responses Responses
Incidence Incidence
Tisdale. Tisdale.
Swedish Swedish
Farrell. Farrell.
and and
Insects Insects
of of
pollution pollution
W.P. W.P.
sites sites
and and
Analysis. Analysis.
midge midge
Procladius Procladius
as as
W.P. W.P.
in in
1988. 1988.
lakes. lakes.
McCafferty, McCafferty,
(eds. (eds.
of of
a a
1985. 1985.
of of
Tobin Tobin
function function
55: 55:
larvae larvae
deformed deformed
in in
aquatic aquatic
Farrell. Farrell.
V.H. V.H.
171-175. 171-175.
Prentice Prentice
lotic lotic
Morphological Morphological
Hydrobiologia Hydrobiologia
Identifying Identifying
Lake, Lake,
larvae larvae
43 43
(Chironomus (Chironomus
ecosystems. ecosystems.
of of
Resh Resh
insects insects
G. G.
1980. 1980.
chironomid chironomid
taxonomic taxonomic
Hall. Hall.
Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan.
(Diptera: (Diptera:
Atchison, Atchison,
and and
to to
pollution pollution
Insect Insect
Upper Upper
D.M. D.M.
deformities deformities
109:243-249. 109:243-249.
environmental environmental
tentans) tentans)
Can. Can.
Chironomidae) Chironomidae)
rank. rank.
larvae larvae
and and
community community
Rosenberg), Rosenberg),
Saddle Saddle
related related
J. J.
V. V.
Can. Can.
Can. Can.
Fish. Fish.
(Diptera: (Diptera:
to to
Anderson. Anderson.
in in
sediments sediments
River, River,
Chironomus, Chironomus,
J. J.
changes changes
J. J.
pollution, pollution,
Aquat. Aquat.
Fish. Fish.
structure structure
Fish. Fish.
Praeger, Praeger,
from from
New New
Aquat. Aquat.
Aquat. Aquat.
Sci. Sci.
1977. 1977.
in in
containing containing
two two
in in
Jersey. Jersey.
as as
New New
The The
an an
Sci. Sci. Sci. Sci. Table 1. Habitat Measurements for All Sampling Sitesinfrondequoit Creek. ~ Phvsical habitat data for comparability of habitats sampled. Data presented as mean (std. dev., std. error C"' ~ Lower Creek I Middle Creek I Upper Creek r,,- Site lower site
Habitat Comparability Criteria (Bode et al. 1991 ): Substrate Particle Size - phi not to differ by more than 3 units t Substrate Embedness - % not to differ by more than 50% (unless % values are w/in 20) Current Speed - not to differ by more than 50% (unless w/in 20 cm/sec) Canopy Cover - % not to differ by more than 50% (unless % values are w/in 20)
aravel Lower Creek . Middle Creek Urn:ler Creek Particle size (phi) -4.6 -2.9 -1.2 LC/UC differ by 3.4 phi units Embeddedness (%) 43 24.0 30.0 all are within 20 percentage units Current (cm/s) 81 52.0 79.8 aH are within 50% Canopy(%) 60 45.0 6.0 UC differs from other sites by more than 50% Temperature (°C) 12.3 13 10.9 none differ by more than 50%
mud Lower Creek Middle Creek Uooer Creek Particle size (phi) 4.3 3.4 4.8 all are within 3 phi units Embeddedness (%) 94 85.0 80 none differ by more than 50% Current (cm/s) 23.5 20.2 79.8 UC differs from other sites by more than 50% * Canoov (%) 1 45.2 6.0 MC differs from oth1er sites by more than 50% Temperature (°C) 12.65 12.2 10.9 none differ by more than 50% * Upper Creek sampled after major rain event Simpson's Diversity Kruskal-Wallis one-way nonparametric test for diversity by location location mean rank N lower 15.6 15 middle 25.6 15 upper 27.8 15 total 23 45 Kruskal-Wallis statistic 7.353 1p-value usina chi-squared approximation 0.0253 Kruskal-Wallis one-way nonparametric test for diversity by habitat habitat mean rank N mud 20.6 15 vegetation 18 15 gravel 30.4 15 total 23 45 Kruskal-Wallis statistic 7.4365 p-value using chi-squared approximation 0.0243 Taxa Richness Kruskal-Wallis one-way nonparametric test for taxa richness by location location mean rank N lower 15.5 15 middle 25.6 15 upper 28 15 total 23 45 Kruskal-Wallis statistic 7.7322 p-value using chi-sauared approximation 0.0209 Kruskal-Wallis one-way nonparametric test for taxa richness by habitat habitat mean rank N mud 23.4 15 vegetation 16.2 15 gravel 29.3 15 total 23 45 Kruskal-Wallis statistic 7.5635 o-value using chi-squared approximation 0.0228 Abundance Kruskal-Wallis one-way nonparametric test for abundance by location location mean rank N lower 17.8 15 middle 33.2 15 upper 18 15 total 23 45 Kruskal-Wallis statistic 13.578 p-value usina chi-squared aooroximation 0.0011 Kruskal-Wallis one-way nonparametric test for abundance by habitat habitat mean rank N mud 19.5 15 vegetation 18.5 15 gravel 31 15 total 23 45 Kruskal-Wallis statistic 8.3885 p-value usina chi-squared approximation 0.0151
Table 2. Kruskal-Wallis Test Results for Simpson's Diversity, Taxa Richness, and Abundance.
45
Table Table
3. 3.
Community. Community.
Kruskal-Wallis Kruskal-Wallis
Kruskal-Wallis Kruskal-Wallis
p-value p-value
p-value p-value
Kruskal-Wallis Kruskal-Wallis
Kruskal-Wallis Kruskal-Wallis
Kruskal-Wallis Kruskal-Wallis
Kruskal-Wallis Kruskal-Wallis
p-value p-value
Kruskal-Wallis Kruskal-Wallis
Kruskal-Wallis Kruskal-Wallis
p-value p-value Kruskal-Wallis Kruskal-Wallis
vegetation vegetation
vegetation vegetation
location location
location location
habitat habitat
gravel gravel
habitat habitat middle middle
middle middle
gravel gravel
upper upper
upper upper
lower lower
lower lower
total total
mud mud
total total
total total
total total
mud mud
(Zar (Zar
(Zar (Zar
(Zar (Zar
(Zar (Zar
Test Test
1996) 1996)
1996) 1996)
1996) 1996)
1996) 1996)
statistic statistic
statistic statistic
statistic statistic
statistic statistic
one-way one-way
one-way one-way
one-way one-way
one-way one-way
Results Results
Percent Percent
mean mean
mean mean
mean mean
mean mean
Coefficient Coefficient
2.7 2.7
5.3 5.3
2.3 2.3
7.7 7.7
2.7 2.7
5.3 5.3
5 5
7 3 3 7
7 3 3 7
5 3 3 5
3 3 3 3
5 9 9 5
5 5
5 9 9 5
7 3 3 7
5 9 9 5
nonparametric nonparametric
nonparametric nonparametric
nonparametric nonparametric
nonparametric nonparametric
for for
Similarity Similarity
rank rank
rank rank
rank rank
rank rank
Coefficient Coefficient
of of
N N
N N
9 9 46 46
N N
3 3
N N
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
Community Community
of of
Community Community
ANOVA ANOVA
ANOVA ANOVA
ANOVA ANOVA
ANOVA ANOVA
of of
Community Community
(CC) (CC)
for for
for for
for for
for for
(PSc) (PSc)
PSc PSc
PSc PSc CC CC
CC CC
> >
0.02 0.02 3.2 3.2
> >
3.8222 3.8222
5.6889 5.6889
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
3.822 3.822
> >
by by
by by
and and
by by
by by
0.1 0.1
< <
location location
habitat habitat
p p
habitat habitat
location location
Percent Percent
< <
0.05 0.05
Similarity Similarity of of
Table Table
4. 4.
Sample Sample
Differences. Differences.
Sizes Sizes
Required Required
power power
power power
Taxa Taxa
Taxa Taxa
By By
By By
Location Location
Habitat Habitat
to to
Richness Richness
Richness Richness
Meet Meet
0.7 0.7
0.9 0.9
0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5
0.7 0.7
0.9 0.9
Defined Defined
minimum minimum
minimum minimum
10% 10%
10% 10%
352 352 212 212
200 200
331 331
121 121
129 129
47 47
Levels Levels
detectable detectable
detectable detectable
of of
30% 30%
30% 30%
22 22
40 40
24 24
37 37
14 14
15 15
Power Power
difference difference
difference difference
and and
50% 50%
50% 50%
15 15
14 14
9 9
8 8
6 6
5 5
Minimum Minimum Detectable Detectable Table 5. Summary of Chiron<:>r.tiid Deformities fol" Susceptible Taxa at All Sam.piing Sites in Irondequoit Creek. site taxon Class I Class II Class Ill # organisms % Class II & flt .deformities % deformities Toxic Score Lower Creek Mud Chironomus sp 15 10 330 0.30 7.58 10.61 Procladius sp. 1 35 2.86 2.86 5.71
Microtendi es s . 23 556 0.00 4.14 4.14 Endochironomus sp. 1 18 5.56 5.56 Po/ljpedilum sp. 6 Phaenopsectra sp. 64 I 6 .j::. 00 Tribelos s . 31 30
Lower Creek total 38 11 921 1.19 5.32 6.51 Middle Creek total 105 37 3186 1.16 4.46 5.62 Upper Creek total 0 0 0 0.00 Total 143 48 4107 1.17 4.65 5.82
Table Table
;_ ;_
Legend Legend
Diamesinae Diamesinae
Tanypodinae Tanypodinae
Tanytarsini Tanytarsini
Orthocladiinae Orthocladiinae
Chironomini Chironomini
Chironominae Chironominae
______
6. 6.
Chironomid Chironomid
· ·
• •
o o
Procladius Procladius
Ablabesmyia Ablabesmyia
Pagastia Pagastia
Diamesa Diamesa
Rheocricotopus Rheocricotopus
Clinotanypus Clinotanypus
Parorthocladius Parorthocladius
Paraphaenocladius Paraphaenocladius Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus
Nilotanypus Nilotanypus Parametriocnemus Parametriocnemus
Nanocladius Nanocladius
Natarsia Natarsia
Heterotrissoc/adius Heterotrissoc/adius
Eukiefferiella Eukiefferiella
Sub/ettea Sub/ettea
Brillia Brillia
Stempellinella Stempellinella
Cladotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus
Polypedilum Polypedilum Thienemannimyia Thienemannimyia
Phaenopsectra Phaenopsectra Cric/Orth Cric/Orth Tanypus Tanypus
Paratendipes Paratendipes
Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus
Cryptotendipes Cryptotendipes
Smittia Smittia
Saetheria Saetheria
Endochironomus Endochironomus
Glyptotendipes Glyptotendipes
Paracladopelma Paracladopelma
Micropsectra Micropsectra
Stictochironomus Stictochironomus
Microtendipes Microtendipes
Cryptochironomus Cryptochironomus Stenochironomus Stenochironomus
Cladopelma Cladopelma
Chironomus Chironomus
Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes Thienemanniella Thienemanniella
Tanytarsus Tanytarsus
Tribelos Tribelos
= =
= =
Distribution Distribution
1 - 1
< <
1% 1%
sp. sp.
5% 5%
sp. sp.
of of
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
complex complex
of of
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
site site
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
site site
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
total total
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
in in
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
total total
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
All All
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
Site Site
Sampling Sampling
Mud Mud
LC LC
D D
• •
• •
• •
• •
D D
• •
• •
D D
D D
• •
D D
D D
D D
= =
= =
5 5
> >
Veg Veg
-10% -10%
Sites Sites
10% 10%
49 49
LC LC LC LC
• •
• •
• •
l!!!I l!!!I
• •
• •
• •
D D
D D
D D
II II
D D
of of
Gravel Gravel
in in
of of
site site
• •
• •
• •
• •
D D
• • • •
• •
D D
D D
• •
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
site site
Irondequoit Irondequoit
total total
total total
Mud Mud
MC MC
• •
• • • •
• •
D D
D D
D D
D D
• •
D D
D D
D D
D D • •
D D
D D
D D
Veg Veg
MC MC
• •
D D
l!!!I l!!!I
D D
D D
D D
D D
• •
D D
• •
D D
D D
D D
• •
Creek. Creek.
Gravel Gravel
MC MC
• •
D D
• •
D D D D
• •
• •
D D
D D
D D
• •
D D D D
• • • •
D D
D D
Mud Mud
UC UC
• •
• •
D D
• •
• • • •
D D
D D
D D
• •
• • • • • •
• •
D D
D D
D D D D
• •
D D
Veg Veg
UC UC UC UC
• •
D D
• •
• •
D D
• •
• • D D
• •
• •
D D
D D
• •
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
Gravel Gravel
• • • •
• •
D D
D D
D D
D D
• •
D D
• •
• •
D D
D D
• •
D D
D D
D D
• •
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D
D D D D
Figures Figures
Vegetation Vegetation
Figure Figure
Lower Lower
Mud Mud
and and
1. 1.
Creek Creek
Sites Sites
Lower Lower
Creek Creek
Sampling Sampling
50 50
Sites Sites
in in
Irondequoit Irondequoit Creek. Creek.
Figure Figure
2. 2.
Middle Middle
Creek Creek
Sampling Sampling
51 51
Sites Sites
in in
Irondequoit Irondequoit Creek. Creek.
Figure Figure
'' ''
'· '·
. .
\ \
3. 3.
C C
Upper Upper
Creek Creek
Sampling Sampling
52 52
Sites Sites
in in
Irondequoit Irondequoit
Creek. Creek.
......
,. ,.
'-..../--~-- -.-/~. -.-/~.
Figure Figure
4. 4.
Relative Relative
Irondequoit Irondequoit
Locations Locations
Creek. Creek.
of of
Lower, Lower,
Middle, Middle,
53 53
and and
Upper Upper
Creek Creek
Sampling Sampling
Sites Sites in in Lower, Middle, and Upper Creek taxa > 1% of any site total
percentage of creek location total
0 10 20 30 40 50
Chironorrus sp.
Cryptochironom,s sp.
Dicrotendipes sp.
Microtendipes sp.
Paratendipes sp.
Phaenopsectra sp.
Po/ypedilurri sp.
Tribe/os sp.
C/adotanytarsus sp.
Micropsectra sp.
Paratanytarsus sp. I lower
(0 Rheotanytarsus sp. X D middle .l!l Sterrpellinel/a sp.
Tanytarsus sp. Ill upper
Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius corrp/ex
Eukiefferiella sp.
Heterotrissoc/adius sp.
Nanocladius sp.
Clinotanypus sp.
Proc/adius sp.
Tanypussp.
Thienemannim;a sp.
Diamesa sp.
Pagastia sp.
Figure 5. Chironomid Distribution in Lower, Middle, and Upper Creek Sites in Irondequoit Creek.
54 Mud, Vegetation, and Gravel Habitats taxa > 1 % of any site total
percentage of habitat total
0 20 40 60
Chironorr,.;s sp.
Cryptochironomus sp.
Dicrotendipes sp.
Microtendipes sp.
Paratendipes sp.
Phaenopsectra sp.
Polypedilum sp.
Tribe/os sp.
Cladotanytarsus sp.
Micropsectra sp.
Paratanytarsus sp. Rheotanytarsus sp. •mud Sterrpe/linella sp. oveg Tanytarsus sp.
11Dgravel Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius corrplex ••••IDllll•llllllllli•IDlllllllil!llllllllllllm•------• Eukiefferiella sp.
Heterotrissocladius sp.
Nanoc/adius sp.
Clinotanypus sp.
Procladius sp.
Tanypussp.
Thienemannimya sp.
Diamesa sp.
Pagastia sp.
Figure 6. Chironomid Distribution in Mud, Vegetation, and Gravel Sites in Irondequoit Creek.
55
:>endix :>endix
>familv >familv
··································t--1i_n_·b_el_o_s_s.._p_. ··································t--1i_n_·b_el_o_s_s.._p_.
mesinae.. mesinae..
nytarsini) nytarsini)
ronominae ronominae
ronominae ronominae
ironomini) ironomini)
. .
A. A.
Numbers Numbers
·,. ·,.
Diamesa,sp. Diamesa,sp.
P.agastia P.agastia
Procladius Procladius Nilotanypus Nilotanypus
Unidentified Unidentified Natarsia Natarsia
Coe/otanypus Coe/otanypus
Tanypussp. Tanypussp.
Taxon.. Taxon..
Thienemannimyia Thienemannimyia
Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus
Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus
Micropsectra Micropsectra
Stempellinella Stempellinella
Phaenopsectra Phaenopsectra
Paracladopelma Paracladopelma
Stictochironomus Stictochironomus Cryptotendipes Cryptotendipes
Parachironomus Parachironomus
Stenochironomus Stenochironomus
Microtendipes Microtendipes
Saetheria Saetheria
Sub/ettea Sub/ettea
Endochironomus Endochironomus
Einfeldia Einfeldia
Cladotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus
Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes
Po/ypedi/um Po/ypedi/um
Paoe Paoe Paratendipes Paratendipes
Cryptochironomus Cryptochironomus
Cladopelma Cladopelma
Chironomus Chironomus
Glyptotendipes Glyptotendipes
of of
1 1
Chironomid Chironomid
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
------1---+---+---+--t---+---+---t---+---1-----t ------1---+---+---+--t---+---+---t---+---1-----t
Chironomidae Chironomidae
sp. sp.
so. so.
sp. sp.
sp. sp. ,, ,,
·· ··
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
Totals Totals
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
•·· •··
> >
sp. sp.
.·.·. .·.·.
.. ..
sp. sp.
··.•• ··.••
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
·. ·.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
: :
Larvae Larvae
·.··· ·.···
< <
' '
· ·
Found Found
station'EJ't station'EJ't
·•· ·•·
Site Site
•• ••
• •
· ·
by by
·• ·•
' '
..•...... •....
126 126
Site Site
100 100
56 56
• •
1 O 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 O
1 1
8 8
4 4
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1
····• ····•
'> '>
•·. •·.
and and
Lower Lower
......
:2::>3\··~·· :2::>3\··~··
24 24
16 16
2 2
3 3
< <
......
1 1
Station Station
< <
,. ,.
·•• ·••
Creek Creek
43 43
31 31
8 8
1 1
'. '.
in in
··.. ··..
156 156
Irondequoit Irondequoit
127 127
Mud Mud
10 10
4 4
5 5
1 1
3 3
1 1 1 1
: :
.. ..
·:e.·1·1/. ·:e.·1·1/.
·., ·.,
67 67
.•... .•...
56 56
4 4 4 4
6 6
1 1
..• ..•
'' ''
·· ··
1•• 1•• i i
Creek. Creek.
13 13
.•.... .•....
11 11
<> <>
1 1
Lower Lower
·.· ·.·
1·· 1··
1··········,········ 1··········,········
121 121
15 15
3 3
4 4
2, 2,
·.· ·.·
Creek Creek
•.. •..
,··., ,··.,
•.a< •.a<
1 1
1 1
.. ..
Veaetation Veaetation
•·4 •·4
2 1 1 2
5 5
2 2
1,>5 1,>5
13 13
2 2
7 7
1 1 1 1 ....~ ..:•,,i,;;. ·~•• 1J:::;;,. Page2 ,,,.,.,. ... :,:·:'.:'·I·; ltj!!,);. /. "''· ·"·'(:' ,.. ,',C( iu, •: I.: ... ~· - .. .. '·" ;2/!<$:I:'''4'}':'S;'i Chironomus sp. 8 9 1 8 Cladopelma sp. Cryptochironomus sp. 26 131 53 158 20 1 15 17 38 173 22 Cryptotendipes sp. 6 Dicrotendipes sp. 12 9 6 Einfe/dia sp. Endochironomus sp. 4 14 12 6 Glyptotendipes sp. 31 Microtendipes sp. 9 143 97 287 20 Parachironomus sp. Paracladope/ma sp. 2 8 Paratendipes sp. 44 24 29 247 126 193 183 204 6 Phaenopsectra sp. 6 24 43 7 2 75 134 23 502 Polypedilum sp. 49 60 106 244 65 53 96 47 289 235 95 155 237 75 90 Saetheria sp. 36 8 16 Stenochironomus sp. Stictochironomus sp. Tribe/os sp. 1 5 6 7 330 Cladotanytarsus sp. 6 12 43 12 146 70 152 47 19 6 329 Micropsectra sp. 10 5 7 Paratanytarsus sp. Rheotanytarsus sp. 6 7 19 88 53 6 959 Stempellinella sp. Sublettea sp. 45 6
i··1f•:•~,en~mir@~11ifl~tif'
<::!1:,;;::::·ta,am~~ai.spt' · ·::t1:::4:::, \tss/ '441:\1:1:s:: ;33i \/<<:1:•, l::'t .•.,•. : ; .:<:uJ9i• \tai· :132,i ;;31( i2~9: ·.. ··;;:.:"!i·:1P~gilstia'wt•·····;:i;i\~·1::,:::':ae .. ,, < >:·r":<;::i'tl> .../1 : :,.••,··t ?.;;> ,:::· 1ss:.:•a:a:•J:·:9o• Unidentified Chironomidae 1 Totals 190 1195 885 1435 651 373 503 584 761 1569 636 2206 2636 621 2996
57
Unidentified Unidentified
·.· ·.·
········· ·········
•.·····••· •.·····••·
Cryptochironomus Cryptochironomus
Thienemannimyia Thienemannimyia
Stenochironomus Stenochironomus
Stictochironomus Stictochironomus
Endochironomus Endochironomus
Parachironomus Parachironomus
Paracladopelma Paracladopelma
Cladotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus
Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus
Phaenopsectra Phaenopsectra
Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus
Cryptotendipes Cryptotendipes
Glyptotendipes Glyptotendipes
Stempellinella Stempellinella
Coe/otanypus Coe/otanypus
Microtendipes Microtendipes
Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes
Clinotanypus Clinotanypus
Paratendipes Paratendipes
Micropsectra Micropsectra
Po/ypedilum Po/ypedilum
Nilotanypus Nilotanypus
Chironomus Chironomus
C/adopelma C/adopelma
>Qic1,ni>sa:$p) >Qic1,ni>sa:$p)
Procladius Procladius
Pagastia;$pi· Pagastia;$pi·
Saetheria Saetheria
Sub/ettea Sub/ettea
Appendix Appendix
Tanypussp. Tanypussp.
Natarsia Natarsia
Einfeldia Einfeldia
Tribelos Tribelos
Page Page
Totals Totals
Chironomidae Chironomidae
3 3
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
A A
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
sp. sp.
·,.•••.•· ·,.•••.•·
sp. sp.
· ·
......
: :
,. ,.
·
550 550
1
22· 22·
33 33
44 44
44 44
83 83
11 11
6 6
5 5
5 5
Middle Middle
.. ..
•\i/ •\i/
ato ato
90 90
21 21
41 41
3 3
1 1
58 58
·s23· ·s23·
1157 1157
•••46 •••46
Creek Creek
255 255
185 185
127 127
23 23
23 23
58 58
•·••i45E).:J54'.4' •·••i45E).:J54'.4'
2681 2681
:21<1···•·,.••••·· :21<1···•·,.••••··
161 161
509 509
107 105 105 107
Gravel Gravel
27 27
418 418
121 121
21 21
17 17
4 4 4 4
4 4
...... • ...... •
36 36
10 10
1 1
2 2
5 5
1 1
1 1
1 1
Upper Upper
;1>:<... ;1>:<...
.. ..
/ /
67 67
20 20
31 31
2 2
1 1
······.•.[7\7[TG: ······.•.[7\7[TG:
Creek Creek
98 98
79 79
•···•.•i
5 5
1 1 1 1
2 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1
1
177 177
•·.·:< •·.·:<
1 1
20 20
74 74
14 14
11 11
1 1
1 1
1 1
o o
Mud Mud
1 1
•10· •10·
61 61
J( J(
27 27
10 10
2 2 1 1 Appendix A Upper Creek Vegetation Upper Creek Gravel Page4 Chironomus sp. 6 Cladopelma sp. Cryptochironomus sp. 1 1 13 12 49 2 Cryptotendipes sp. Dicrotendipes sp. 2 2 1 31 1 88 1 Einfeldia sp. Endochironomus sp. G/yptotendipes sp. Microtendipes sp. 3 10 158 1 157 29 Parachironomus sp. Parac/adope/ma sp. Paratendipes sp. 30 11 15 125 20 49 Phaenopsectra sp. 10 Polypedilum sp. 3 4 1 5 112 44 98 18 Saetheria sp. Stenochironomus sp. Stictochironomus sp. 10 Tribe/as sp. 6 Cladotanytarsus sp. 2 1 1 39 1 Micropsectra sp. 4 2 2 62 50 29 1 Paratanytarsus sp. 7 6 1 Rheotanytarsus sp. 2 13 2 1 13 6 Stempel/inella sp. 10 19 Sublettea sp.
Clinotanypus sp-. 1 Coelotanypus sp. Natarsia sp. 2 Ni/otanypus sp. 7 Procladius sp. 1 Tanypussp. Thienemannimyia sp. 1 13 13 10
·.· pagasti,i$p; ;: ····.... ;; •• ; • ...... •········• ). •.·13 I .•..• •· > ~ J = • • ·.••• Unidentified Chironomidae Totals 130 136 15 58 13 837 623 123 980 189
59 Coefficient of Percentage Simpson's taxa chironomid Community (%) Similarity of site replicate diversity richness abundance Community (%) LCM 1 1.559 8 126 sites 2 2.118 6 24 within lower creek 3 1.713 4 43 LCM/LCV 50.0 18.2 4 1.402 9 156 LCM/LCK 46.7 6.8 5 1.251 3 67 LCV/LCK 33.3 40.0 LCV 1 1.374 3 13 within middle creek 2 2.038 6 121 MCM/MCV 45.2 16.3 3 1.000 1 1 MCM/MCK 56.3 28.5 4 1.800 2 5 MCV/MCK 75.9 71.8 5 2.571 5 13 within upper creek LCK 1 6.233 13 190 UCM/UCV 71.4 51.1 2 3.968 12 1195 UCM/UCK 75.6 41.6 3 3.598 8 885 UCV/UCK 65.3 56.6 4 5.505 11 1435 3 mud sites 5 2.931 9 651 LCM/MCM 62.1 7.0 MCM 1 2.143 12 373 LCM/UCM 51.6 9.3 2 4.789 10 503 MCM/UCM 66.7 41.8 3 5.082 12 584 3 vegetation sites 4 4.049 13 761 LCV/MCV 38.5 72.7 5 5.003 9 1569 LCV/UCV 40.0 38.0 MCV 1 3.154 9 636 MCV/UCV 59.5 40.8 2 1.690 6 2206 3 gravel sites 3 1.864 6 2636 LCK/MCK 72.7 62.0 4 2.042 10 621 LCK/UCK 63.6 67.7 5 4.309 9 2996 MCK/UCK 68.3 54.9 MCK 1 3.747 12 550 2 3.403 7 90 Sites Legend 3 5.403 10 1157 LCM: Lower Creek Mud 4 3.307 8 2681 LCV: Lower Creek Vegetation 5 4.882 11 418 LCK: Lower Creek Gravel UCM 1 5.311 11 36 MCM: Middle Creek Mud 2 2.924 5 67 MCV: Middle Creek Vegetation 3 1.524 11 98 MCK: Middle Creek Gravel 4 3.775 11 177 UCM: Upper Creek Mud 5 3.840 10 61 UCV: Upper Creek Vegetation ucv 1 4.563 12 130 UCK: Upper Creek Gravel 2 5.835 18 136 3 2.103 5 15 4 5.175 10 58 5 3.756 6 13 UCK 1 3.512 12 837 2 7.783 18 623 3 2.800 6 123 4 6.554 15 980 5 2.927 10 189
60
Appendix Appendix
Appendix Appendix
Appendix Appendix
- J J
c c ~ ~
-
~ ~
c c
~ ~
.E .E
E E
Q) Q)
c.. c..
a, a,
m m
Q) Q)
C) C)
0 0
If) If)
Q) Q)
c.. c.. m m C) C) Q) Q) 0 0 If) If) Q) Q) 0 0 Q) Q) C. C. 10 10 100 100 0 0 2 2 4 4 6 6 8 8 80 80 40 40 60 60 20 20 Distributions Distributions 0 0 C-2. C-2. C-1. C-1. LC LC LC LC Mud Mud Mud Mud Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution LC LC of of LC LC Veg Veg Veg Veg Individual Individual LC LC of of of of LC LC Kick Kick Cryptochironomus Cryptochironomus Chironomus Chironomus Kick Kick Chironomid Chironomid MC Mud MC MC MC Mud MC MC Mud I I Cryptochironomus Cryptochironomus j j Chironomus.sp. Chironomus.sp. 61 61 sp. sp. MC MC site site site site Taxa Taxa Veg Veg Veg Veg in in sampling sampling sp. sp. MC MC in in MC MC s~J s~J Ji Ji in in Irondequoit Irondequoit Kick Kick Kick Kick sampling sampling sites. sites. UC UC UC UC Mud Mud Mud Mud sites. sites. Creek. Creek. UC UC UC UC Veg Veg Veg Veg UC UC UC UC Kick Kick Kick Kick !Dicrotendipes_ sp. _!l LC Mud LC Veg LC Kick MC Mud MC Veg MC Kick UC Mud UC Veg UC Kick site Appendix C-3. Distribution of Dicrotendipes sp. in sampling sites. !Microtendipes sp. ~ LC Mud LC Veg LC Kick MC Mud MC Veg MC Kick UC Mud UC Veg UC Kick site Appendix C-4. Distribution of Microtendipes sp. in sampling sites. 62 Appendix Appendix - ~ ""' 0 ""' c iii ~ :§ 0 rn Q) Cl (0 rn Q) Q) Q. Q) Cl Q) ~ Q) Q. Q) ~ Q) 40 20 15 10 25 20 5 0 C-6. C-5. LC LC Mud Mud Distribution Distribution LC LC Veg Veg LC LC of of Kick Kick Phaenopsectra Paratendipes MC MC Mud Mud I ! ... Phaenopsectra ••••n••~••••-•l,~~•••nH,.,,,.,,,> Paratendipes 63 MC MC ·="""' site site sp. sp. Veg Veg in in sp. sampling sp. MC MC sampling J. ~ Kick Kick UC UC sites. sites. Mud Mud UC UC Veg Veg UC UC Kick Kick j Polypedilum. sp. ~ "iii 15 :§ Q) ""u, .... 0 Q) 10 Cl cro Q) 0 lii a. 5 LC Mud LC Veg LC Kick MC Mud MC Veg MC Kick UC Mud UC Veg UC Kick site Appendix C-7. Distribution of Polypedilum sp. in sampling sites. j Tribelos iJ 10 8 "iii :§ Q) ""u, 6 0 -Q) Cl cIll 4 Q) 0 liia. 2 0 LC Mud LC Veg LC Kick MC Mud MC Veg MC Kick UC Mud UC Veg UC Kick site Appendix C-8. Distribution of Tribelos sp. in sampling sites. 64 Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix ""' ""' I I 0 0 m m c. c. - ""' ""' :s :s c c lii lii "' "' c.. c.. Ill Ill lii lii Cl Cl Ill Ill Q) Q) ~ ~ Q) Q) "' "' c.. c.. 0 0 Cl Cl Q) Q) 0 0 Q) Q) Q) Q) 2 2 4 4 25 25 20 20 10 10 15 15 5 5 0 0 C-10. C-10. C-9. C-9. LC LC LC LC Mud Mud Mud Mud Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution LC LC LC LC Veg Veg Veg Veg LC LC LC LC of of of of Kick Kick Kick Kick Cladotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus Micropsectra Micropsectra MC MC MC MC Mud Mud !_Cladotanytarsus_sp._!; !_Cladotanytarsus_sp._!; Mud Mud ! ! ...... Micropsectra Micropsectra 65 65 MC MC MC MC site site site site , , ...... sp. sp. Veg Veg Veg Veg sp. sp. in in sp. sp. MC MC in in MC MC sampling sampling ,. ,. ...... !I !I . . sampling sampling Kick Kick Kick Kick UC UC UC UC sites. sites. Mud Mud Mud Mud sites. sites. UC UC UC UC Veg Veg Veg Veg UC UC UC UC Kick Kick Kick Kick IParatanytarsus sp. ,~ •~uo•••••~••••••••••H•••••••M•••••} m :§ Q) 2 ""(/) 0 Q) g> c ~ 1 cii0. LC Mud LC Veg LC Kick MC Mud MC Veg MC Kick UC Mud UC Veg UC Kick site Appendix C-11. Distribution of Paratanytarsus sp. in sampling sites. !Rheotanytarsus sp. ~ e. •~= .=,-- . mm>/ 14 12 m :§ 10 Q) ""(/) 8 0 -Q) C) 6 cm Q) 0 4 0.cii 2 0 LC Mud LC Veg LC Kick MC Mud MC Veg MC Kick UC Mud UC Veg UC Kick site Appendix C-12. Distribution of Rheotanytarsus sp. in sampling sites. 66 Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix - "" "" :s :s iii iii 'E 'E "" "" '5 '5 ~ ~ 'E 'E "' "' C) C) Q) Q) ijj ijj Ill Ill a. a. 0 0 Cl) Cl) 0 0 Cl) Cl) ijj ijj Ill Ill a. a. 111 111 C) C) Q) Q) ~ ~ Cl) Cl) 10 10 3 3 2 2 12 12 1 1 0 0 6 6 2 2 4 4 8 8 C-14. C-14. C-13. C-13. LC LC LC LC Mud Mud Mud Mud Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution LC LC LC LC Veg Veg Veg Veg LC LC LC LC of of of of Kick Kick Kick Kick Stempe!linella Stempe!linella Tanytarsus Tanytarsus MC MC MC MC Mud Mud Mud Mud l l Stempel/ine/1~ Stempel/ine/1~ l l =.,_,.';c'_..=, =.,_,.';c'_..=, T T anytarsus anytarsus 67 67 MC MC MC MC sp. sp. site site site site Veg Veg -rr>-·~~·"-'•=· -rr>-·~~·"-'•=· Veg Veg sp. sp. in in sampling sampling sp. sp. in in sp. sp. fulp,_,,.,. fulp,_,,.,. MC MC MC MC sampling sampling tl tl I'. I'. Kick Kick Kick Kick sites. sites. UC UC UC UC Mud Mud Mud Mud sites. sites. UC UC UC UC Veg Veg Veg Veg UC UC UC UC Kick Kick Kick Kick j Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius complex l. =· ' 80 tii 60 £ Q) ""Ul 0 40 -Q) Cl cm Q) ...0 Q) C. 20 LC Mud LC Veg LC Kick MC Mud MC Veg MC Kick UC Mud UC Veg UC Kick site Appendix C-15. Distribution of Cricotopus!Orthocladius complex in sampling sites. j Eukiefferiel/a sp. j] ~...... :z;;;;; ~ 12 10 tii .B Q) 8 ""Ul 0 Q) 6 Cl m cQ) 0 4 cii C. 2 0 LC Mud LC Veg LC Kick MC Mud MC Veg MC Kick UC Mud UC Veg UC Kick site Appendix C-16. Distribution of Eukiefferiella sp. in sampling sites. 68 Appendix Appendix "" "iii 0 c :§ - "" "iii :§ c lii Cl Q) (ti C. ~ "' Q) "' lii Cl Q) 0 (ti Q) 0 C. Q) 25 20 2 15 10 4 5 0 C-17. C-18. LC LC Mud Mud Distribution Distribution LC LC Veg Veg LC LC of of Kick Kick Nanocladius Heterotrissocladius MC MC j •'•'•T,,.- Heterotrissocladius Mud Mud j :::;q: ... Nanocladius ,.,.. - .;.;;:....,;.,;;:;;:;;:.,,.,..=,·n=.,_.,,. ,.,• 69 MC MC •• site -~.•-•ah•,~·~,·,""., sp. site Veg Veg in sp. sampling MC MC .. sp. ,. f sp. ,.,., Kick Kick in I! - sampling UC UC sites. Mud Mud sites. UC UC Veg Veg UC UC Kick Kick Appendix Appendix m m .... ·""" :§ :§ - 'E "" 'E lii (0 C) Q) 0 Q) U) C. Q) (0 0 U) Q) 0 lii C) Q) 0 Q) C. 0.5 10 4 2 0 8 6 C-19. C-20. LC LC Mud Mud Distribution Distribution LC LC Veg Veg LC LC of of Kick Kick Procladius Clinotanypus MC MC Mud Mud I Proc/adius 70 sp. MC MC site site sp. Veg Veg in in sampling sp. MC MC sampling ~ Kick Kick sites. UC UC sites. Mud Mud UC UC Veg Veg UC UC Kick Kick l_ranypus' sp._J 2 m 1.5 :§ Q) ""'u, 'o Q) Cl ro 1: Q) 0 [ 0.5 0 LC Mud LC Veg LC Kick MC Mud MC Veg MC Kick UC Mud UC Veg UC Kick site Appendix C-21. Distribution of Tanypus sp. in sampling sites. IThienemannimyia sp. [~ 1.5 m :§ ....Q) u, 'o Q) Cl ro 1: ~ 0.5 a; c.. 0 LC Mud LC Veg LC Kick MC Mud MC Veg MC Kick UC Mud UC Veg UC Kick site Appendix C-22. Distribution of Thienemannimyia sp. in sampling sites. 71 !Diamesa sp. H •.-,._,_,$ cc·~·-•:TC.,-.;,t·•r ••• 20 ~ 15 Q) .1= (/) 0 a, 10 0) ~ Q) E :g_ 5 LC Mud LC Veg LC Kick MC Mud MC Veg MC Kick UC Mud UC Veg UC Kick site Appendix C-23. Distribution of Diamesa sp. in sampling sites. IPagastia sp. f, iii :§ Q) 2 ""'(/) 0 Q) i ~ 1 ....0 Q) c.. LC Mud LC Veg LC Kick MC Mud MC Veg MC Kick UC Mud UC Veg UC Kick site Appendix C-24. Distribution of Pagastia sp. in sampling sites. 72 Appendix Appendix Appendix Appendix D. D. - ~ ~ ro ro Chironornid Chironornid Cricotopus/Orthoclad/us Cricotopus/Orthoclad/us Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius D-1. D-1. Cryptochironom,s Cryptochironom,s Cryptochironom,s Cryptochironom,s Cryptochironom,s Cryptochironom,s Chironornid Chironornid Cladotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus C/adotanytarsus C/adotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Phaenopsectra Phaenopsectra Phaenopsectra Phaenopsectra Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus Microtendipes Microtendipes Paratendipes Paratendipes Microtendipes Microtendipes Paratendipes Paratendipes Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes Clinotanypus Clinotanypus Clinotanypus Clinotanypus Eukiefferie/Ja Eukiefferie/Ja Eukiefferie/Ja Eukiefferie/Ja Nanocladius Nanocladius Nanocladius Nanocladius Lower Lower Polypedi/umsp. Polypedi/umsp. Polypedi/umsp. Polypedi/umsp. Po/ypedilumsp. Po/ypedilumsp. Distributions Distributions Chironom,s Chironom,s Chironom,s Chironom,s Chironom,s Chironom,s Proc/adius Proc/adius Procladius Procladius Proclad/us Proclad/us Lower Lower Lower Lower Tanypussp. Tanypussp. Tanypussp. Tanypussp. Dianesa Dianesa Dianesa Dianesa corrplex corrplex corrplex corrplex corrplex corrplex Creek Creek sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Creek Creek sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Distribution Distribution Creek Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 I=== I=== l=====::i l=====::i r======::::::i r======::::::i ---• ---• l!!!!==:::::i l!!!!==:::::i l===:::i l===:::i r======::::i r======::::i in in Vegetation Vegetation Mud Mud Irondequoit Irondequoit Mud Mud taxa taxa 20 20 20 20 taxa taxa taxa taxa and and > > in in percentage percentage percentage percentage and and > > percentage percentage > > 1% 1% 20 20 73 73 1% 1% Lower Lower 1 1 % % 40 40 of of Lower Lower 40 40 of of of of and and Lower Lower site site site site Creek Creek site site total total of of of of of of Creek Creek total total total total Lower Lower site site site site 60 60 site site 60 60 Creek Creek Creek Creek by by total total 40 40 total total total total Sites. Sites. Location Location Creek Creek 80 80 Vegetation Vegetation 80 80 Gravel Gravel Gravel Gravel 100 100 60 60 and and 100 100 Habitat. Habitat. D D -LCMud -LCMud DLCGravel DLCGravel -LCVeg -LCVeg CJLCVeg CJLCVeg -LCMud -LCMud LCGravel LCGravel , , Middle Creek Mud and Middle Creek Vegetation taxa > 1% of site total percentage of site total 0 20 40 60 80 CryptochironoTTKJs sp. Paratendipes sp. Phaenopsectra sp. la•••• Polypedilum sp. Tribelos sp. ro C/adotanytarsus sp. -MCM.ld j X 2l Rheotanytarsus sp. DMCVeg Tanytarsus sp. Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius cofrf)Jex ~:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=::J Eukiefferie/Ja sp. Diamesa sp. Pagastia sp. Middle Creek Mud and Middle Creek Gravel taxa > 1% of site total percentage of site total 0 10 20 30 40 50 CryptochironoTT1.Js sp. Paratendipes sp. Phaenopsectra sp. Polypedilum sp. Tribelos sp. - MGM.Id ro X C/adotanytarsus sp. D MC Gravel 2l la••-----, Rheotanytarsus sp. ~:=::::J Tanytarsus sp. Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius COTrf)lex ~~======::::::i Diamesa sp. i-----~ Pagastia sp. Middle Creek Vegetation and Middle Creek Gravel tax a > 1% of site total percentage of site total 0 20 40 60 80 CryptochironofTl.Js sp. Po/ypedilum sp. C/adotanytarsus sp. i-1...----, Rheotanytarsus sp. ro -MCVeg x Tanytarsus sp. 2l DMCGravel Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius cofrf)lex 1------~ Eukiefferie/Ja sp. Diamesa sp. Pagastia sp. Appendix D-2. Chironomid Distribution in Middle Creek Sites. 74 Appendix .s .s m X .s m X X m Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius D-3. Upper Heterotrissoc/adius Heterotrissocladius upper Heterotrissocladius Cryptochirononus Cryptochirononus Cryptochirononus Thienensnnieya Chironomid Thienensnnieya C/adotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus C/adotanytarws Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Sterrpellinella Paratendipes Microtendipes Sterrpellinella Dicrotendipes Microtendipes Paratendipes Dicrotendipes Paratendipes Microtendipes Eukiefferiella Dicrotendipes Upper Micropsectra Nanoc/adius Eukiefferiel/a Micropsectra Nanocladius Nanoclsdius Micropsectra Po/ypedifumsp. Polypedifumsp. Po/ypedilum Tanytarsus Proc/adius Tanytarsus Proc/adius Tanytarsus Creek Pagastia Pagastia t.;reeK corrplex corrp/ex corrplex Creek sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Distribution Vegetation 0 0 0 ~~!!!!:====:::i ~======::i ~!::::::::::i jill,------ 1v1ua Mud taxa taxa taxa ana 10 > > in percentage percentage 1 % percentage > 1 % and 20 20 75 1 Upper % upper of of and of site site site Upper 20 total of total of Creek of Upper total site site site t.;reeK 40 total total total 40 Creek Sites. 30 Creek vegetauon Gravel 60 40 60 Gravel • ...... • CJ i·~· • D • CJ ...... UC ucMJd ucveg UC • •. UCM.ld UC , Gravel •• , ...... Gravel Veg , ... , ..... ::: .:i Appendix Appendix 2 2 ~ ~ 2 2 .. .. X X 2 2 ~ ~ Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius D-4. D-4. Chironomid Chironomid Cryptochironomus Cryptochironomus Cryptochironomus Cryptochironomus Cryptochironomus Cryptochironomus Cladotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Phaenopsectra Phaenopsectra Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus Phaenopsectra Phaenopsectra Paratendipes Paratendipes Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes Paratendipes Paratendipes Micropsectra Micropsectra Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes Nanocladius Nanocladius Paratendipes Paratendipes Micropsectra Micropsectra Nanocladius Nanocladius Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes Polypedilum Polypedilum Tanytarsus Tanytarsus Polypedilum Polypedilum Procladius Procladius Chironomus Chironomus Tanytarsus Tanytarsus Polypedi/um Polypedi/um Proc/adius Proc/adius Tanytarsus Tanytarsus Chironomus Chironomus Procladius Procladius Pagastia Pagastia Tanypussp. Tanypussp. Pagastia Pagastia Tanypussp. Tanypussp. Tribelossp. Tribelossp. Tribelos Tribelos --··-· --··-· complex complex complex complex Lower Lower complex complex sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Middle Middle sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Distribution Distribution sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. 0 0 ~==:::i ~==:::i 0 0 0 0 -·--·, -·--·, Creek Creek Creek Creek 20 20 taxa taxa ···-- 20 20 taxa taxa Mud Mud in in > > percentage percentage taxa taxa percentage percentage percentage percentage Mud Mud 76 76 > > 20 20 1 1 Mud Mud ...... % % 1 1 and and % % 40 40 of of > > 40 40 - of of 1 1 % sie sie and and ····--·'- si:e si:e Sites. Sites. Upper Upper of of of of total total of of of of total total si:e si:e si:e si:e site site Upper Upper si:e si:e 60 60 60 60 total total total total total total 40 40 total total "" "" Creek Creek ...... ...... Creek Creek 80 80 80 80 , , ...... Mud Mud - Mud Mud 100 100 100 100 60 60 h••·-··- .1 .1 D D 11111 11111 aLCMud aLCMud DUCMud DUCMud D D -LCMud -LCMud MC MC UCMud UCMud MC MC Mud Mud Mud Mud Appendix Appendix .l!! .l!! ffl ffl X X .l!! .l!! ~ ~ - ., ., 1,; 1,; Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius Cricotopus/Orthocladius Cricotopus/Orthocladius D-5. D-5. Heterotrissoc/adius Heterotrissoc/adius Heterotrissocladius Heterotrissocladius Chironomid Chironomid Middle Middle a..vvwc1 a..vvwc1 Lower Lower Cladotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Paratanytarsus Paratanytarsus C/adotanytarsus C/adotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Paratendipes Paratendipes Microtendipes Microtendipes Sterrpellinella Sterrpellinella Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes Paratendipes Paratendipes Micropseotra Micropseotra Clinotanypus Clinotanypus Nanoc/adius Nanoc/adius Microtendipes Microtendipes Sterrpel/inella Sterrpel/inella Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes Eukiefferielfa Eukiefferielfa Micropsectra Micropsectra Nanocladius Nanocladius Eukiefferiel/a Eukiefferiel/a Clinotanypus Clinotanypus Polypedilum Polypedilum Tanytarsus Tanytarsus Polypedilum Polypedilum Tanytarsus Tanytarsus Eukiefferielfa Eukiefferielfa Chironomus Chironomus Proc/adius Proc/adius Polypedilum Polypedilum Chironomus Chironomus Tanytarsus Tanytarsus Proc/adius Proc/adius Pagastia Pagastia Diamesa Diamesa Pagastia Pagastia Diamesa Diamesa ..,,,:;:,:;:I'\ ..,,,:;:,:;:I'\ Creek Creek Creek Creek complex complex complex complex complex complex sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Distribution Distribution sp. sp. sp. sp. sp sp sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp sp sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. . . Vegetation Vegetation 0 0 Vegetation Vegetation . . v,:;:l:fCLaLIVII v,:;:l:fCLaLIVII 0 0 l======i l======i 0 0 taxa taxa taxa taxa taxa taxa 'percentage 'percentage 20 20 > 1 1 > 20 20 in in > > > > 1 1 1% 1% 77 77 CIIIU CIIIU % % and and percentage percentage % % and and 20 20 Vegetation Vegetation percentage percentage of of of of of of site site site site site site IVIIUUIC IVIIUUIC Upper Upper Upper Upper total total total total total total 40 40 40 40 of of of of of of site site site site site site Creek Creek Sites. Sites. Creek Creek \JICCI'\ \JICCI'\ total total total total 40 40 total total 60 60 60 60 Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation VCl:fCLaLIVII VCl:fCLaLIVII 60 60 80 80 80 80 D D - D D -LC -LC OUCVeg OUCVeg -LCVeg -LCVeg UC UC rvlCVeg rvlCVeg rvlCVeg rvlCVeg Veg Veg Veg Veg Appendix Appendix .l!! .l!! .l!! .l!! .l!! .l!! co co X X ~ ~ co co X X Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius Cricotopus/Orthoc/adius D-6. D-6. Heterotrissoc/adius Heterotrissoc/adius Heterotrissoc/adius Heterotrissoc/adius - Cryptochironorrus Cryptochironorrus Cryptochironorrus Cryptochironorrus Cryptochironorrus Cryptochironorrus Thienerrsnnimya Thienerrsnnimya Thienerrsnnimya Thienerrsnnimya C/adotanytarsus C/adotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus Cladotanytarsus C/adotanytarsus C/adotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Chironomid Chironomid Rheotanytarsus Rheotanytarsus Phaenopsectra Phaenopsectra Phaenopsectra Phaenopsectra Paratendipes Paratendipes Paratendipes Paratendipes Microtendipes Microtendipes Microtendipes Microtendipes Paratendipes Paratendipes Microtendipes Microtendipes Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes Dicrotendipes Nanoc/adius Nanoc/adius Micropsectra Micropsectra Nanocladius Nanocladius Nanoc/adius Nanoc/adius Micropsectra Micropsectra Polypedilumsp. Polypedilumsp. Po/ypedi/umsp. Po/ypedi/umsp. Polypedi/ Polypedi/ Tanytarsus Tanytarsus Tanytarsus Tanytarsus Tanytarsus Tanytarsus Middle Middle Pagastia Pagastia Pagastia Pagastia Diarresa Diarresa Diarresa Diarresa Diarresa Diarresa Lower Lower Lower Lower co17JJ/ex co17JJ/ex COflJJ/ex COflJJ/ex COflJJ/ex COflJJ/ex um um sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp sp sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp sp sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp sp sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp sp sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Creek Creek Distribution Distribution . . . . vreeK vreeK . . . . Creek Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,. ,. 0 0 l:::::l l:::::l 0 0 1-1 1-1 c--, c--, ~ ~ ~ ~ p p ~ ~ - l:J l:J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • • ~ ~ - :::J :::J ;!._ ;!._ ~ ~ .. .. 11111 11111 Gravel Gravel urave1 urave1 taxa taxa 10 10 10 10 Gravel Gravel I I taxa taxa 10 10 taxa taxa I I > > in in percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage percentage 1 1 % > > 78 78 Gravel Gravel and and > > 1 1 ano ano % % 1 1 % 20 20 of of 20 20 and and I I of of site site of of Upper Upper site site 20 20 I I 1v11001e 1v11001e site site of of total total of of of of Sites. Sites. Upper Upper total total site site site site site site 30 30 30 30 total total I I total total total total total total Creek Creek vreeK vreeK 30 30 Creek Creek I I 40 40 40 40 I I Gravel Gravel urave1 urave1 Gravel Gravel 50 50 40 40 50 50 DM:Gravel DM:Gravel •LC •LC .M:Gravel .M:Gravel Dl.JCGravel Dl.JCGravel •LCGravel •LCGravel DUCGravel DUCGravel Gravel Gravel : : ' '