DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Assessment of Iowa's Wadeable Streams

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Assessment of Iowa's Wadeable Streams Biological Assessment of Iowa’s Wadeable Streams Iowa Department of Natural Resources Jeffrey R. Vonk, Director October 2004 Cover Photo: Little Cedar River, Floyd County (John Olson, IDNR) BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF IOWA’S WADEABLE STREAMS PROJECT REPORT Prepared by Thomas F. Wilton TMDL and Water Quality Assessment Section Environmental Services Division Iowa Department of Natural Resources Des Moines, Iowa October 2004 Acknowledgements This project could not succeed without the sample collection and analysis capabilities of the University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory (UHL). IDNR is particularly indebted to staff of the UHL Limnology Section for spending long days in the field and countless hours processing samples. The following UHL staff (current and former) are recognized for their contributions: Kyle Ament, Tom Atkinson, Jennifer Baker, Mike Birmingham, Katie Brehm, Brandon Cole, Matt Coleman, Jen Ender, Mary Freitag, Dennis Heimdahl, Todd Hubbard, Jack Kennedy, Melanie Kruse, Julie Leonard, Jim Luzier, Travis Morarend, John Miller, Shannon Murphy, Mark Oglesby, Nathan Ohrt, Heidi Rantala, Mark Schneebeck, Mike Schueller, Lisa Swenson, Ryan Thompson, Jason Veldboom, Pete Wagner, Lee Wagner, Matt Watters, Seth Zimmerman. The following IDNR staff have also made valuable contributions to the project: Maggie Clover, Connie Dou, Chris Ensminger, Janet Gastineau, Greg Gelwicks, Andy Gorn, Ken Krier, Jamie Mootz, John Olson, Adam Schneiders, Greg Simmons, Ralph Turkle, Calvin Wolter. Database development and management by Jamie Mootz and Ken Krier have greatly improved the ability to utilize sampling data. Comments provided by Robert Hughes, Jim Luzier, John Olson, Randy Sarver and Christine Schwake helped improve the final version of this report. Funding for this project has been provided through various federal and state water quality programs. Federal appropriations were authorized under Sections 104(b)(3), 106, 319, and 604(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act, and through the Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP). Administration of federal grants was provided by the Region VII office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Kansas City, Kansas. State funding support has been provided through the Ambient Water Monitoring Program with allocations from the Infrastructure (Environment First) Fund. Biological Assessment of Iowa’s Wadeable Streams Table of Contents Part Page 1. Executive Summary.................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1. Biological Assessment Components................................................................... 1-1 1.2. Sampling Results and Data Analysis.................................................................. 1-9 1.3. Aquatic Life Use Support Assessments............................................................ 1-12 1.4. Recommendations............................................................................................. 1-14 2. Introduction................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1. Project Objectives............................................................................................... 2-2 2.2. Historical Perspective ......................................................................................... 2-2 3. Biological Assessment Framework............................................................................ 3-1 3.1. Ecoregions .......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2. Stream Reference Sites....................................................................................... 3-7 3.3. Reference Site Selection..................................................................................... 3-7 3.4. Data Collection ................................................................................................. 3-18 4. Sampling Results and Data Analysis ......................................................................... 4-1 4.1. Stream Environmental Characteristics ............................................................... 4-1 4.2. Stream Biota and Environmental Relationships............................................... 4-15 4.3. Stream Classification........................................................................................ 4-49 5. Biological Data Metrics and Indexes......................................................................... 5-1 5.1. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (BMIBI) .......................... 5-2 5.2. Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (FIBI) ................................................................ 5-39 6. Applications ............................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1. Aquatic Life Use Support ................................................................................... 6-1 6.2. Problem Investigation......................................................................................... 6-6 6.3. Status and Trend Monitoring............................................................................ 6-11 6.4. Watershed Assessment and TMDL Development............................................ 6-14 7. References.................................................................................................................. 7-1 8. Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................... 8-1 9. Glossary .....................................................................................................................9-1 Appendices: A1 Example Calculations of the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (BMIBI)................................................................................................. A1-1 A1.1 BMIBI Metric Scoring Formulas ................................................................ A1-1 Biological Assessment of Iowa’s Wadeable Streams Table of Contents A1.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa and Data Metric Classifications (2001).. A1-2 A1.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data and Taxa Classifications Used in BMIBI Example Calculation .................................................................... A1-17 A1.4 BMIBI Metric Instructions and Raw Metric Values from Example Data Sets................................................................................................... A1-20 A1.5 Calculating the BMIBI .............................................................................. A1-22 A2 Example Calculation of Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (FIBI).............................. A2-1 A2.1 Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (FIBI) Metric Scoring Instructions and Formulas ..................................................................................................... A2-1 A2.2 FIBI Metric Classifications for Fish Species Sampled in IDNR/UHL Stream Biocriteria Project........................................................................... A2-2 A2.3 Example Data and FIBI Metric Classifications........................................... A2-7 A2.4 FIBI Metric Values from Example Data ..................................................... A2-8 A2.5 Calculating the FIBI .................................................................................... A2-9 A3 1994-1998 Data Used in the Development and Calibration of the BMIBI and FIBI................................................................................................................. A3-1 A3.1 1994 – 1998 Sample Sites ........................................................................... A3-1 A3.2 Metric Values and BMIBI Scores from 1994 – 1998 Sample Sites........... A3-8 A3.3 Metric Values and FIBI Scores from 1994 – 1998 Sample Sites............. A3-14 Tables: Table 1-1. Data metrics of the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (BMIBI) and the Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (FIBI)................... 1-5 Table 1-2. Qualitative scoring guidelines for the BMIBI and FIBI................................ 1-6 Table 3-1. Generalized characteristics of Iowa ecoregions ............................................ 3-5 Table 3-2. Wadeable reference stream sites: 1994 – 2000 ........................................... 3-15 Table 3-3. Watershed characteristics calculated for stream bioassessment sites.......... 3-24 Table 3-4. Land cover / use and soil loss variables included in GIS watershed analysis ....................................................................................................... 3-25 Table 4-1. Statistical ranges of stream physical habitat parameters sampled at 98 candidate reference sites: 1994-1998 ........................................................... 4-3 Table 4-2. Statistical ranges of water quality parameters sampled at 98 candidate reference sites: 1994-1998.......................................................................... 4-10 Table 4-3. Nine most-commonly sampled fishes from Iowa’s wadeable rivers and streams: 1994-1998 .................................................................................... 4-16 Table 4-4. Fish species abbreviations used in DCA and CCA ordination.................... 4-19 Table 4-5. Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) results using various classification schemes as explanatory variables of fish assemblage composition ................................................................................................ 4-27 Table 4-6. Stream
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Genus-Level Supertree of Adephaga (Coleoptera) Rolf G
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Organisms, Diversity & Evolution 7 (2008) 255–269 www.elsevier.de/ode A genus-level supertree of Adephaga (Coleoptera) Rolf G. Beutela,Ã, Ignacio Riberab, Olaf R.P. Bininda-Emondsa aInstitut fu¨r Spezielle Zoologie und Evolutionsbiologie, FSU Jena, Germany bMuseo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain Received 14 October 2005; accepted 17 May 2006 Abstract A supertree for Adephaga was reconstructed based on 43 independent source trees – including cladograms based on Hennigian and numerical cladistic analyses of morphological and molecular data – and on a backbone taxonomy. To overcome problems associated with both the size of the group and the comparative paucity of available information, our analysis was made at the genus level (requiring synonymizing taxa at different levels across the trees) and used Safe Taxonomic Reduction to remove especially poorly known species. The final supertree contained 401 genera, making it the most comprehensive phylogenetic estimate yet published for the group. Interrelationships among the families are well resolved. Gyrinidae constitute the basal sister group, Haliplidae appear as the sister taxon of Geadephaga+ Dytiscoidea, Noteridae are the sister group of the remaining Dytiscoidea, Amphizoidae and Aspidytidae are sister groups, and Hygrobiidae forms a clade with Dytiscidae. Resolution within the species-rich Dytiscidae is generally high, but some relations remain unclear. Trachypachidae are the sister group of Carabidae (including Rhysodidae), in contrast to a proposed sister-group relationship between Trachypachidae and Dytiscoidea. Carabidae are only monophyletic with the inclusion of a non-monophyletic Rhysodidae, but resolution within this megadiverse group is generally low. Non-monophyly of Rhysodidae is extremely unlikely from a morphological point of view, and this group remains the greatest enigma in adephagan systematics.
    [Show full text]
  • Plecoptera: Perlidae), with an Annotated Checklist of the Subfamily in the Realm
    Opusc. Zool. Budapest, 2016, 47(2): 173–196 On the identity of some Oriental Acroneuriinae taxa (Plecoptera: Perlidae), with an annotated checklist of the subfamily in the realm D. MURÁNYI1 & W.H. LI2 1Dávid Murányi, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Ehime University, Bunkyo-cho 3, Matsuyama, 790-8577 Japan, and Department of Zoology, Hungarian Natural History Museum, H-1088 Budapest, Baross u. 13, Hungary. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 2Weihai Li, Department of Plant Protection, Henan Institute of Science and Technology, Xinxiang, Henan, 453003 China. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. The monotypic Taiwanese genus Mesoperla Klapálek, 1913 is redescribed on the basis of a male syntype specimen, and its affinities are re-evaluated. The single female type specimen of further two Oriental monotypic genera, Kalidasia Klapálek, 1914 and Nirvania Klapálek, 1914, are confirmed to be lost or destroyed respectively; both genera are considered as nomina dubia. The Sichuan endemic Acroneuria grahami Wu & Claassen, 1934 is redescribed on the basis of male holotype. Distinctive characters of the genus Brahmana Klapálek, 1914 consisting of five, inadequately known Oriental species are discussed. Flavoperla needhami (Klapálek, 1916) and Sinacroneuria sinica (Yang & Yang, 1998) comb. novae are suggested for an Indian species originally described in Gibosia Okamoto, 1912 and a Chinese species originally described in Acroneuria Pictet, 1841. At present, 62 species of Acroneuriinae, classified in 10 valid genera are reported from the Oriental Realm but 29 species are inadequately known. A key is presented to distinguish males of the Asian Acroneuriinae genera. Asian distribution of each genera are detailed and depicted on a map.
    [Show full text]
  • Invertebrate Prey Selectivity of Channel Catfish (Ictalurus Punctatus) in Western South Dakota Prairie Streams Erin D
    South Dakota State University Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2017 Invertebrate Prey Selectivity of Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) in Western South Dakota Prairie Streams Erin D. Peterson South Dakota State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Peterson, Erin D., "Invertebrate Prey Selectivity of Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) in Western South Dakota Prairie Streams" (2017). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1677. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd/1677 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Open PRAIRIE: Open Public Research Access Institutional Repository and Information Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INVERTEBRATE PREY SELECTIVITY OF CHANNEL CATFISH (ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS) IN WESTERN SOUTH DAKOTA PRAIRIE STREAMS BY ERIN D. PETERSON A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree for the Master of Science Major in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences South Dakota State University 2017 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks provided funding for this project. Oak Lake Field Station and the Department of Natural Resource Management at South Dakota State University provided lab space. My sincerest thanks to my advisor, Dr. Nels H. Troelstrup, Jr., for all of the guidance and support he has provided over the past three years and for taking a chance on me.
    [Show full text]
  • Herpetofauna and Aquatic Macro-Invertebrate Use of the Kino Environmental Restoration Project (KERP)
    Herpetofauna and Aquatic Macro-invertebrate Use of the Kino Environmental Restoration Project (KERP) Tucson, Pima County, Arizona Prepared for Pima County Regional Flood Control District Prepared by EPG, Inc. JANUARY 2007 - Plma County Regional FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT MEMORANDUM Water Resources Regional Flood Control District DATE: January 5,2007 TO: Distribution FROM: Julia Fonseca SUBJECT: Kino Ecosystem Restoration Project Report The Ed Pastor Environmental Restoration ProjectiKino Ecosystem Restoration Project (KERP) is becoming an extraordinary urban wildlife resource. As such, the Pima County Regional Flood Control District (PCRFCD) contracted with the Environmental Planning Group (EPG) to gather observations of reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic insects at KERP. Water quality was also examined. The purpose of the work was to provide baseline data on current wildlife use of the KERP site, and to assess water quality for post-project aquatic wildlife conditions. I additionally requested sampling of macroinvertebrates at Agua Caliente Park and Sweetwater Wetlands in hopes that the differences in aquatic wildlife among the three sites might provide insights into the different habitats offered by KERF'. The results One of the most important wildlife benefits that KERP provides is aquatic habitat without predatory bullfrogs and non- native fish. Most other constructed ponds and wetlands in Tucson, such as the Sweetwater Wetlands and Agua Caliente pond, are fuIl of non-native predators which devastate native fish, amphibians and aquatic reptiles. The KERP Wetlands may provide an opportunity for reestablishing declining native herpetofauna. Provided that non- native fish, bullfrogs or crayfish are not introduced, KERP appears to provide adequate habitat for Sonoran Mud Turtles (Kinosternon sonoriense), Lowland Leopard Frogs (Rana yavapaiensis), and Mexican Gartersnakes (Tharnnophis eques) and Southwestern Woodhouse Toad (Bufo woodhousii australis).
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment of the Patapsco River Tributary Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland
    Biological Assessment of the Patapsco River Tributary Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland Spring 2003 Index Period and Summary of Round One County- Wide Assessment Patuxtent River April, 2005 Final Report UT to Patuxtent River Biological Assessment of the Patapsco River Tributary Watersheds, Howard County, Maryland Spring 2003 Index Period and Summary of Round One County-wide Assessment Prepared for: Howard County, Maryland Department of Public Works Stormwater Management Division 6751 Columbia Gateway Dr., Ste. 514 Columbia, MD 21046-3143 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 400 Red Brook Blvd., Ste. 200 Owings Mills, MD 21117 Acknowledgement The principal authors of this report are Kristen L. Pavlik and James B. Stribling, both of Tetra Tech. They were also assisted by Erik W. Leppo. This document reports results from three of the six subwatersheds sampled during the Spring Index Period of the third year of biomonitoring by the Howard County Stormwater Management Division. Fieldwork was conducted by Tetra Tech staff including Kristen Pavlik, Colin Hill, David Bressler, Jennifer Pitt, and Amanda Richardson. All laboratory sample processing was conducted by Carolina Gallardo, Shabaan Fundi, Curt Kleinsorg, Chad Bogues, Joey Rizzo, Elizabeth Yarborough, Jessica Garrish, Chris Hines, and Sara Waddell. Taxonomic identification was completed by Dr. R. Deedee Kathman and Todd Askegaard; Aquatic Resources Center (ARC). Hunt Loftin, Linda Shook, and Brenda Decker (Tetra Tech) assisted with budget tracking and clerical support. This work was completed under the Howard County Purchase Order L 5305 to Tetra Tech, Inc. The enthusiasm and interest of the staff in the Stormwater Management Division, including Howard Saltzman and Angela Morales is acknowledged and appreciated.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Wildlife Notebook
    ARIZONA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ARIZONA WILDLIFE NOTEBOOK GARRY ROGERS Praise for Arizona Wildlife Notebook “Arizona Wildlife Notebook” by Garry Rogers is a comprehensive checklist of wildlife species existing in the State of Arizona. This notebook provides a brief description for each of eleven (11) groups of wildlife, conservation status of all extant species within that group in Arizona, alphabetical listing of species by common name, scientific names, and room for notes. “The Notebook is a statewide checklist, intended for use by wildlife watchers all over the state. As various individuals keep track of their personal observations of wildlife in their specific locality, the result will be a more selective checklist specific to that locale. Such information would be vitally useful to the State Wildlife Conservation Department, as well as to other local agencies and private wildlife watching groups. “This is a very well-documented snapshot of the status of wildlife species – from bugs to bats – in the State of Arizona. Much of it should be relevant to neighboring states, as well, with a bit of fine-tuning to accommodate additions and deletions to the list. “As a retired Wildlife Biologist, I have to say Rogers’ book is perhaps the simplest to understand, yet most comprehensive in terms of factual information, that I have ever had occasion to peruse. This book should become the default checklist for Arizona’s various state, federal and local conservation agencies, and the basis for developing accurate local inventories by private enthusiasts as well as public agencies. "Arizona Wildlife Notebook" provides a superb starting point for neighboring states who may wish to emulate Garry Rogers’ excellent handiwork.
    [Show full text]
  • Microsoft Outlook
    Joey Steil From: Leslie Jordan <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 1:13 PM To: Angela Ruberto Subject: Potential Environmental Beneficial Users of Surface Water in Your GSA Attachments: Paso Basin - County of San Luis Obispo Groundwater Sustainabilit_detail.xls; Field_Descriptions.xlsx; Freshwater_Species_Data_Sources.xls; FW_Paper_PLOSONE.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S1.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S2.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S3.pdf; FW_Paper_PLOSONE_S4.pdf CALIFORNIA WATER | GROUNDWATER To: GSAs We write to provide a starting point for addressing environmental beneficial users of surface water, as required under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA seeks to achieve sustainability, which is defined as the absence of several undesirable results, including “depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial users of surface water” (Water Code §10721). The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is a science-based, nonprofit organization with a mission to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Like humans, plants and animals often rely on groundwater for survival, which is why TNC helped develop, and is now helping to implement, SGMA. Earlier this year, we launched the Groundwater Resource Hub, which is an online resource intended to help make it easier and cheaper to address environmental requirements under SGMA. As a first step in addressing when depletions might have an adverse impact, The Nature Conservancy recommends identifying the beneficial users of surface water, which include environmental users. This is a critical step, as it is impossible to define “significant and unreasonable adverse impacts” without knowing what is being impacted. To make this easy, we are providing this letter and the accompanying documents as the best available science on the freshwater species within the boundary of your groundwater sustainability agency (GSA).
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin's Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need
    Prepared by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources with Assistance from Conservation Partners Natural Resources Board Approved August 2005 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Acceptance September 2005 Wisconsin’s Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need Governor Jim Doyle Natural Resources Board Gerald M. O’Brien, Chair Howard D. Poulson, Vice-Chair Jonathan P Ela, Secretary Herbert F. Behnke Christine L. Thomas John W. Welter Stephen D. Willet Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Scott Hassett, Secretary Laurie Osterndorf, Division Administrator, Land Paul DeLong, Division Administrator, Forestry Todd Ambs, Division Administrator, Water Amy Smith, Division Administrator, Enforcement and Science Recommended Citation: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Wisconsin's Strategy for Wildlife Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Madison, WI. “When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.” – John Muir The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides equal opportunity in its employment, programs, services, and functions under an Affirmative Action Plan. If you have any questions, please write to Equal Opportunity Office, Department of Interior, Washington D.C. 20240. This publication can be made available in alternative formats (large print, Braille, audio-tape, etc.) upon request. Please contact the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Endangered Resources, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or call (608) 266-7012 for copies of this report. Pub-ER-641 2005
    [Show full text]
  • Palo Pinto Creek and Tucker Lake Aquatic Survey; Stephens and Palo Pinto Counties, Texas, Within Palo Pinto Mountains State Park
    Palo Pinto Creek and Tucker Lake Aquatic Survey; Stephens and Palo Pinto Counties, Texas, within Palo Pinto Mountains State Park Jennifer M. Bronson Warren Water Quality Program Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744 March 2019 Water Quality Technical Series WQTS‐2019‐01 Suggested citation for this report: Warren, J.B.M. 2019. Palo Pinto Creek and Tucker Lake Aquatic Survey; Stephens and Palo Pinto Counties, Texas, within Palo Pinto Mountains State Park. Water Quality Technical Series Publication WQTS‐2019‐01. PWD RP V3400‐2725 (5/19). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas. 2 Table of Contents Tables ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Figures ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Megaloptera, and Trichoptera of Great Smoky Mountains National Park
    The Great Smoky Mountains National Park All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory: A Search for Species in Our Own Backyard 2007 Southeastern Naturalist Special Issue 1:159–174 Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Megaloptera, and Trichoptera of Great Smoky Mountains National Park Charles R. Parker1,*, Oliver S. Flint, Jr.2, Luke M. Jacobus3, Boris C. Kondratieff 4, W. Patrick McCafferty3, and John C. Morse5 Abstract - Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP), situated on the moun- tainous border of North Carolina and Tennessee, is recognized as one of the most highly diverse protected areas in the temperate region. In order to provide baseline data for the scientifi c management of GSMNP, an All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory (ATBI) was initiated in 1998. Among the goals of the ATBI are to discover the identity and distribution of as many as possible of the species of life that occur in GSMNP. The authors have concentrated on the orders of completely aquatic insects other than odonates. We examined or utilized others’ records of more than 53,600 adult and 78,000 immature insects from 545 locations. At present, 469 species are known from GSMNP, including 120 species of Ephemeroptera (mayfl ies), 111 spe- cies of Plecoptera (stonefl ies), 7 species of Megaloptera (dobsonfl ies, fi shfl ies, and alderfl ies), and 231 species of Trichoptera (caddisfl ies). Included in this total are 10 species new to science discovered since the ATBI began. Introduction Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP) is situated on the border of North Carolina and Tennessee and is comprised of 221,000 ha. GSMNP is recognized as one of the most diverse protected areas in the temperate region (Nichols and Langdon 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio USA Stoneflies (Insecta, Plecoptera): Species Richness
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys 178:Ohio 1–26 (2012)USA stoneflies (Insecta, Plecoptera): species richness estimation, distribution... 1 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.178.2616 RESEARCH ARTICLE www.zookeys.org Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Ohio USA stoneflies (Insecta, Plecoptera): species richness estimation, distribution of functional niche traits, drainage affiliations, and relationships to other states R. Edward DeWalt1, Yong Cao1, Tari Tweddale1, Scott A. Grubbs2, Leon Hinz1, Massimo Pessino1, Jason L. Robinson1 1 University of Illinois, Prairie Research Institute, Illinois Natural History Survey, 1816 S Oak St., Cham- paign, IL 61820 2 Western Kentucky University, Department of Biology and Center for Biodiversity Studies, Thompson Complex North Wing 107, Bowling Green, KY 42101 Corresponding author: R. Edward DeWalt ([email protected].) Academic editor: C. Geraci | Received 31 December 2011 | Accepted 19 March 2012 | Published 29 March 2012 Citation: DeWalt RE, Cao Y, Tweddale T, Grubbs SA, Hinz L, Pessino M, Robinson JL (2012) Ohio USA stoneflies (Insecta, Plecoptera): species richness estimation, distribution of functional niche traits, drainage affiliations, and relationships to other states. ZooKeys 178: 1–26. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.178.2616 Abstract Ohio is an eastern USA state that historically was >70% covered in upland and mixed coniferous for- est; about 60% of it glaciated by the Wisconsinan glacial episode. Its stonefly fauna has been studied in piecemeal fashion until now. The assemblage of Ohio stoneflies was assessed from over 4,000 records accumulated from 18 institutions, new collections, and trusted literature sources. Species richness totaled 102 with estimators Chao2 and ICE Mean predicting 105.6 and 106.4, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Title
    AWWQRP Special Studies Report: Use of the EPA Recalculation Procedure with the Copper Biotic Ligand Model and Relative Role of Sodium and Alkalinity vs. Hardness in Controlling Acute Ammonia Toxicity Prepared for Pima County Wastewater Management 201 N. Stone, 8th Floor Tucson, AZ 85701-1207 Prepared by Parametrix Environmental Research Lab 33972 Texas Street SW Albany, OR 97321-9487 541-791-1667 www.parametrix.com In Collaboration with GEI Consultants, Chadwick Ecological Division 5575 S. Sycamore St., Suite 101 Littleton, CO 80123 303-794-5530 www.geiconsultants.com April 2007 │ 07-03-P-139257-0207 CITATION Pima County Wastewater Management. 2007. AWWQRP Special Studies Report: Use of the EPA Recalculation Procedure with the Copper Biotic Ligand Model, and Relative Role of Sodium and Alkalinity vs. Hardness in Controlling Acute Ammonia Toxicity. Prepared by Parametrix, Albany, Oregon. April 2007. AWWQRP Special Studies Report Pima County Wastewater Management TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD.............................................................................................................VII REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. X EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................XI EVALUATION OF SITE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS USING BIOTIC LIGAND MODEL ADJUSTED COPPER AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA/USE OF THE USEPA RECALCULATION PROCEDURE TO DEVELOP SITE-SPECIFIC BLM-BASED COPPER CRITERIA........................XI
    [Show full text]