Geological Survey of Alabama Calibration of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist WATER INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM CALIBRATION OF THE INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR THE SOUTHERN PLAINS ICHTHYOREGION IN ALABAMA OPEN-FILE REPORT 0908 by Patrick E. O'Neil and Thomas E. Shepard Prepared in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Introduction.......................................................... 1 Acknowledgments .................................................... 6 Objectives........................................................... 7 Study area .......................................................... 7 Southern Plains ichthyoregion ...................................... 7 Methods ............................................................ 8 IBI sample collection ............................................. 8 Habitat measures............................................... 10 Habitat metrics ........................................... 12 The human disturbance gradient ................................... 15 IBI metrics and scoring criteria..................................... 19 Designation of guilds....................................... 20 Results and discussion................................................ 22 Sampling sites and collection results . 22 Selection and scoring of Southern Plains IBI metrics . 41 1. Number of native species ................................. 42 2. Number of cyprinid species ............................... 43 3. Number of centrarchid species ............................. 43 4. Number of darter + madtom species . 47 5. Proportion as tolerant species.............................. 47 6. Proportion as green sunfish + yellow bullheads . 50 7. Proportion as insectivorous cyprinids . 50 8. Proportion as invertivores ................................. 52 9. Proportion as top carnivores ............................... 52 10. Catch per effort ........................................ 55 11. Number of lithophilic spawners . 55 12. Proportion with DELT+hybrids . 58 IBI development for the Southern Plains ichthyoregion . 58 Conclusions ........................................................ 68 References cited..................................................... 72 Appendix A. Habitat evaluation forms..................................... 76 Appendix B. Reproduction and trophic guild classifications for Alabama fishes . 79 Appendix C. Southern Plains ichthyoregion fish community sampling data . 90 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. IBI sampling sites in the Southern Plains ichthyoregion, 2008 . 24 Table 2. Rapid habitat assessment scores for sites in the Southern Plains ichthyoregion .................................................. 28 Table 3. Human disturbance parameters for sites in the Southern Plains ichthyoregion .................................................. 31 ii Table 4. LDI-weighted values for human disturbance parameters for sites in the Southern Plains ichthyoregion ..................................... 33 Table 5. Correlation coefficients between candidate IBI metrics and human disturbance parameters .......................................... 35 Table 6. Correlation coefficients between candidate IBI metrics and selected habitat assessment parameters.................................... 37 Table 7. Fish species collected in five river systems draining the Southern Plains ichthyoregion .................................................. 38 Table 8. Actual fish community scores for the Southern Plains ichthyoregion . 60 Table 9. IBI scores for the Southern Plains ichthyoregion . 62 Table 10. IBI integrity classes for the Southern Plains and Ridge and Valley/ Piedmont ichthyoregions ......................................... 64 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Preliminary ichthyoregion classification for Alabama . 5 Figure 2. Conceptual model illustrating the relationship between disturbance, stressor, and response. .......................................... 16 Figure 3. Location of IBI sampling sites and watersheds in the Southern Plains ichthyoregion .................................................. 23 Figure 4. Frequency distribution of sampling sites by watershed area and human disturbance ................................................... 27 Figure 5. Scoring criteria, relation of metric value to habitat quality, and a comparison of most to least disturbed sites for small and large watersheds for the IBI metric - number of native species . 44 Figure 6. Scoring criteria, relation of metric value to habitat quality, and a comparison of most to least disturbed sites for small and large watersheds for the IBI metric - number of cyprinid species . 45 Figure 7. Scoring criteria, relation of metric value to habitat quality, and a comparison of most to least disturbed sites for small and large watersheds for the IBI metric - number of centrarchid species . 46 Figure 8. Scoring criteria, relation of metric value to habitat quality, and a comparison of most to least disturbed sites for small and large watersheds for the IBI metric - number of darter+madtom species . 48 Figure 9. Scoring criteria, relation of metric value to habitat quality, and a comparison of most to least disturbed sites for small and large watersheds for the IBI metric - percent tolerant species . 49 Figure 10. Scoring criteria, relation of metric value to habitat quality, and a comparison of most to least disturbed sites for small and large watersheds for the IBI metric - percent green sunfish+yellow bullheads . 51 Figure 11. Scoring criteria, relation of metric value to habitat quality, and a comparison of most to least disturbed sites for small and large watersheds for the IBI metric - percent insectivorous cyprinids . 53 iii Figure 12. Scoring criteria, relation of metric value to habitat quality, and a comparison of most to least disturbed sites for small and large watersheds for the IBI metric - percent invertivores ................................. 54 Figure 13. Scoring criteria, relation of metric value to habitat quality, and a comparison of most to least disturbed sites for small and large watersheds for the IBI metric - percent top carnivores . 56 Figure 14. Scoring criteria, relation of metric value to habitat quality, and a comparison of most to least disturbed sites for small and large watersheds for the IBI metric - catch per effort .................................... 57 Figure 15. Scoring criteria, relation of metric value to habitat quality, and a comparison of most to least disturbed sites for small and large watersheds for the IBI metric - number of lithophilic spawners . 59 Figure 16. Frequency distribution of IBI integrity classes for sites in the Southern Plains ichthyoregion............................................. 64 Figure 17. Relationship between the IBI and habitat quality and a comparison of sites with poor and good habitat quality for small and large watersheds . 66 Figure 18. Comparison of the IBI and percent maximum habitat scores for ecoregions and river systems in the Southern Plains ichthyoregion . 67 Figure 19. Tiered aquatic life use relationship between the IBI and habitat quality for sites in the Southern Plains ichthyoregion . 69 Figure 20. Biological condition gradient models for the Southern Plains ichthyoregion .................................................. 70 iv ABSTRACT The Southern Plains ichthyoregion in southeast Alabama was sampled in May and June 2008 to develop data for creating and calibrating the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). Eighty sampling sites in 16 counties were selected to represent a range of watershed areas and levels of human disturbance. Watersheds ranged in area from 2.88 square miles (mi22) to 435 mi with 37 percent of the watersheds <20 mi2, 40 percent ranging from 21 to100 mi22, and 23 percent were >100 mi . Rapid habitat assessments were completed for each sampling site and eight measures of human disturbance in each watershed were derived from a geographic information system. Thirty-four candidate IBI metrics were screened for inclusion in the IBI by evaluating their relationship to the habitat assessment and human disturbance parameters. Human disturbance parameters were poorly related, whereas habitat parameters were correlated to IBI metrics. Twelve metrics were selected for the Southern Plains IBI: number of native species, number of cyprinid species, number of centrarchid species, number of darter+madtom species, proportion of tolerant species, proportion of green sunfish+yellow bullheads, proportion of insectivorous cyprinids, proportion of invertivores, proportion of top carnivores, catch per effort, number of lithophilic spawning species, and proportion with DELT+hybrids. The IBI was effective in discriminating sites with good habitat scores from sites with poor habitat scores. Thirty- two percent of the sites scored in the poor to very poor range, 41 percent in the fair range, and 27 percent in the good to excellent range. The Southern Plains IBI scoring criteria were adjusted slightly lower than criteria developed for the Valley and Ridge/Piedmont ichthyoregion. The Southern Plains IBI integrity classes were applied to the USEPA biological condition gradient concept for tiered aquatic life uses to model the response of biological condition to ecosystem stress in the region. This model can be used to better assess stream aquatic life use in the Southern Plains