Assessing the Sensitivity of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates to Acid Deposition in South African Headwater Streams
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Assessing the sensitivity of aquatic macroinvertebrates to acid deposition in South African headwater streams Londiwe Mandisa Khuzwayo 384746 2019 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Science, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Declaration I declare that this thesis, submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, is my own, unaided work. This work has not been submitted before for any degree or examination at any other University. Signature by Londiwe Mandisa Khuzwayo (384746) 10 October 2019. i Abstract GIS was used to identify three study regions in south Africa susceptible to acidification. These regions namely, Mpumalanga (HV), Waterberg (WB) and the south-western Cape (SWC) were identified and categorised to represent high, medium and low acid deposition loads respectively based on the distribution of coalfired power stations and acid sensitive soils and waters. A total of 80 headwater streams representing 84 sampling sites were identified, 21 in Mpumalanga, 33 from the Waterberg and 30 for the south-western Cape and measured for water chemistry. The project tried to identify sites that had no direct human influences on the water quality (i.e. mining and intensive agriculture) within their catchments in order to focus the study on impacts related entirely to atmospheric deposition. Macroinvertebrate samples were collected from a subset (n = 56) of these sites due to habitat suitability, and species response to changes in environmental variables were investigated. Geographically the three study regions differed significantly from each other and this difference was most apparent with the difference in altitude, biomes, ecoregions and species composition. When compared to the other study regions the Mpumalanga region had very high pH (Mean = 7.24, Minimum = 5.32, Maximum = 9.52) and electrical conductivity (Mean = 180, Minimum = 14, Maximum = 1827) that appeared to be mostly anthropogenically impacted, which meant that a large portion of the streams from this region were unsuitable for the purposes of this study. Furthermore, the region has been subjected to a high degree of environmental degradation attributed to coal mining, agricultural activity and general industrialisation that has led to abstraction from and deterioration of many aquatic ecosystems. During the course of this study the Waterberg experienced a major drought which appears to have influenced species assemblages. The naturally acidic streams of the south-western Cape as well as the overall heterogeneity of the three study regions made comparing species presence/absence across regions unfavourable. Thus, developing a national South African scoring system for acidification became equally implausible. Furthermore, in-depth analysis of species response to seasonal drought from the Waterberg and alkalinity of streams in the Mpumalanga region may have been ii feasible had other taxonomic Orders been included. However, for the purposes of this study taxonomic groups primarily associated with acidification were chosen and thus further investigations were only limited to these groups. Nonetheless several mayfly species were found to show acid intolerance or be moderately intolerant. iii I have strength for all things in Christ Who empowers me [I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Him Who [a] infuses inner strength into me; I am [b] self-sufficient in Christ’s sufficiency]. Philippians 4 vs 13 (AMPC) iv Acknowledgements • My Parents for constant unwavering patience, support and encouragement. Supervision and guidance • Prof. Christopher Curtis for affording me the opportunity to further my studies under his supervision and for going above and beyond the call of duty in trying to help me complete my studies. • Dr Kari Austnes for overseeing the overall project, your company during my trip to Sweden and for hosting me in Norway. • Dr Helen James for providing invaluable guidance. • Dr Nelson Odume for Chironomidae identification training and mentorship • Dr Ferdy de Moor for his invaluable time and knowledge Funding • The NRF for funding the project, my studies and conference attendance. Access to Protected areas and private property • SANPARKS for access to the National Parks in Limpopo (Marakele) and the South-western Cape (NMMU, Bergplaas, Diepwalle, Harkerville) o SANPARKS Staff and Rangers – Management (Hendrik Sithole, Nico Oosthuizen, Klaas Havenga, Nellie Grootendorst and Johan Baard) as well as Field rangers/ game guards (Clive, Wilfred, Hilton, Denzel, Kelvin, Stefan and Steven Khoza). • The owners of Taaibos (Vaalwater), Christo and Charmaine Pistorias as well as the Management at African Explorer (Vaalwater) and Ezemvelo (Mpumalanga). • Pezula Estate management, Leonard McLean, Nadia Grootboom and William Prinsloo. Driving and fieldwork assistance • Dr Thabiso Mokotjomela, Dr Eromose Ebhuoma, Thomas Bigala and Bab’ Joe (North-west University) v Friends and support system • My Lungile Nothando Ngcobo for my temporary home (Bryanston JHB) – You are such a treasure • My MishMish, Tantoh, EEE and Immaculate • The Ngubo’s for going out of their way on my behalf at all times • The NjongenHLE’s for everything and more Sample analysis • Chemistry lab, North-west University (Potch) • Umgeni Waters, Pietermaritzburg • Albany Museum, Grahamstown • Microscopy & Microanalysis Unit (MMU), University of the Witwatersrand • Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) • Czech Geological Survey (CGS) Overall project Last but not least, God for always bringing me back to my resting place at His feet. vi Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Processes that lead to the acidification of freshwater systems .......................... 2 1.1.1 Chemical weathering ................................................................................... 2 1.1.2 Acid deposition ............................................................................................ 4 1.2 Evidence of acid deposition in South Africa ....................................................... 8 1.3 Acid sensitive soils in South Africa ................................................................... 11 1.4 Naturally acidic waters in South Africa ............................................................. 14 1.5 Problem statement and Objectives .................................................................. 15 The key hypothesis .............................................................................................. 18 Study Aim .............................................................................................................. 18 Objectives ............................................................................................................. 19 1.6 Biomonitoring ................................................................................................... 20 1.7 Study relevance to Policy decision making ...................................................... 21 1.8 Thesis structure and chapter summaries ......................................................... 23 Chapter 2 Literature review ........................................................................................ 25 2.1 The use of macroinvertebrates in biomonitoring .............................................. 27 2.1.1 Indicator species ........................................................................................ 28 2.2 The South African River Eco-status Monitoring Programme (REMP) .............. 30 2.3 Acidification indices .......................................................................................... 33 2.3.1 The Raddum Index .................................................................................... 34 2.3.2 The Patterson and Morrison Key ............................................................... 35 2.3.3 The Wade Key ........................................................................................... 36 2.3.4 The University of Wales System ................................................................ 37 2.3.5 Species-level Acid Water Indicator Community (AWICsp)......................... 39 vii 2.4 Environmental variables that influence macroinvertebrate assemblage’s response to stream acidification ................................................................................. 42 2.4.1 Stream pH ................................................................................................. 42 2.4.2 Acid Neutralising Capacity (ANC) .............................................................. 43 2.5 Critical loads ..................................................................................................... 44 2.6 Most commonly used indicator groups in biological monitoring........................ 45 2.6.1 Ephemeroptera (Mayflies) ......................................................................... 47 2.6.2 Plecoptera (Stoneflies) .............................................................................. 48 2.6.3 Diptera (True flies) ..................................................................................... 50 2.6.3.1 Simuliidae (Blackflies) ......................................................................... 50 2.6.3.2 Chironomidae (non-biting midges) ...................................................... 52 2.6.4 Trichoptera (Caddisflies) ...........................................................................