ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS OF RESTORATION SUCCESS: FISH COMMUNITY DISTRIBUTION, COMPOSITION, AND SAMPLING STRATEGIES WITHIN THE PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION PROJECT A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences Florida Gulf Coast University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Science in Environmental Science By Ryan C. Young May 2013 ii APPROVAL SHEET This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Science __________________________________________ Ryan C. Young Approved: May 2013 ___________________________________________ Edwin M. Everham, III, Ph.D. Committee Chair ___________________________________________ David W. Ceilley, M.S. Committee Co-chair __________________________________________ Michael Duever, Ph.D. Committee Member The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to genuinely thank the Florida Fish and Wildlife Service for granting me access and the necessary permits to conduct this research; the Florida Gulf Coast University and the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs for providing funding to conduct this study; the Inland Ecology Research Group for providing sampling equipment and guidance; my professors who provided me with the core knowledge necessary to understand complex concepts and give me the background knowledge necessary to have a fulfilling graduate experience; Jennifer Nelson for her encouragement; my faithful volunteers including Geoffrey Rosenaw and Garrett Coe who gave their time and energy to help make my field sampling possible; and my loving family Shane, Donna, and Steve Young who came to my rescue whenever I needed assistance, provided endless support and encouragement, and stood behind me every step of the way. This project would not have been possible without these generous aids, tremendous support, and continuous encouragement. I would also like to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to my committee chair Dr. Edwin Everham with Florida Gulf Coast University for always giving me the push I needed, the wise words of advice that helped to organize and bring together my thoughts and focus, teaching me to think like a scientist, and sharing with me his passion and love for making a difference in the world; my co-chair David Ceilley with Florida Gulf Coast University for teaching me about experimental design and methodology, helping me to identify my fish samples, teaching me about the Picayune, helping me understand the most current scientific data on inland freshwater fish research in Florida, showing me how to analyze the data I collected, and how fun data analysis can be by letting the information tell a story about the natural world; and Dr. Michael Duever with the South Florida Water Management District for assisting in project design and analysis, critically reviewing my text, sharing his expertise about the area of the Picayune and the great stories about his time in the beautiful area, and providing guidance and encouragement through the project. Their edifying assistance and research experience was the backbone of this study My heartfelt thanks and endless appreciation goes out to everyone who helped me to complete this project because I could not have done it alone!! iv ABSTRACT Increasing awareness of the damage inflicted upon natural systems by human beings has brought environmental and ecological restoration to the forefront of environmental research and monitoring efforts of the 21st century. Florida leads the country with some of the largest restoration and monitoring projects in our nation’s history. This study was designed to evaluate the success of restoration activities within the Picayune Strand Restoration Project, part of one of the world’s largest restoration efforts the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. This study was conducted by collecting and analyzing data on fish community structure, species diversity, and species abundance in relation to various restoration phases. These restoration phases included two treatments (impacted unrestored areas, transitional recently restored areas), and reference wetlands (non-impacted natural wetland). Fish community data was collected monthly through the period of inundation with passive sampling using Breder traps as well as active dip net sampling. Based on the abundance and diversity data, results indicated that species richness, abundance, and diversity was lowest in impacted areas, increased in transitional recently restored areas, and was highest in both abundance and diversity in natural reference areas. Fish community data also indicated distinct groupings and similarities within each restoration phase and indicated varied species distribution among sites of different restoration phases. This analysis confirmed that fish community assemblages differed significantly among all three restoration treatments. Several indicator species were identified including Gambusia holbrooki, Jordonella floridae, and Fundulus confluentus which helped to drive the dissimilarity between different phases of restoration. In addition, the majority of species captured were only found in reference wetlands. These findings serve as an indicator that the restoration activities in the Picayune Stand are effective, and that several fish species may be used as indicators of hydrologic restoration success in ephemeral wetlands of Southwest Florida. Further analysis v was conducted to observe patterns in sampling effort and temporal changes in community structure in order to determine the sampling frequency required to obtain a robust signal, the time of year most appropriate for collecting samples of a mature fish community, and patterns of dispersion over multivariate space through the period of inundation. Based on this one-year study, community data suggested that the months of October and November provided the best examples of a mature fish community and that sampling at a frequency of every third month (September, December, and March) provided sufficient community data to obtain a robust signal. These findings serve as indication that a sampling frequency of every second month is required to obtain the information necessary to make informed decisions about restoration activities, and that the optimal time period for sampling a mature fish community occurs during the months of October and November. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Approval Sheet……………………………………………………………………………………ii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………iii Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………...iv Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………vi List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1 The Florida Everglades……………………………………………………………………1 Study Site – The Picayune Strand Restoration Project…………………………………...3 Ecological Indicators…………………………………………………………………….10 Fish as Indicators………………………………………………………………………...13 Fish Sampling Methods………………………………………………………………….16 Objectives………………………………………………………………………………………..18 Hypothesis……………………………………………………………………………………….19 Methods………………………………………………………………………………………….20 Experimental Design…………………………………………………………………….20 Sample Regions………………………………………………………………………….20 Deep Cypress…………………………………………………………………….21 Cypress Gramminoid…………………………………………………………….21 Gramminoid……………………………………………………………………...22 Restoration Phases……………………………………………………………………….22 Miller Canal……………………………………………………………………...22 Prairie Canal……………………………………………………………………...22 Fakahatchee Strand………………………………………………………………23 Survey Techniques……………………………………………………………………….23 Breder Traps……………………………………………………………………..24 Dip-Netting………………………………………………………………………24 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………25 Results……………………………………………………………………………………………28 Fish Community Data…...……………………………………………………………….29 Species Richness…………………………………………………………………30 Relative Abundance……………………………………………………………...33 Potential Indicator Species…………………………………………..…………...38 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Sampling Frequencies……………………………………………………………………42 Temporal Community Structure…………………………………………………44 Fish Community Structure………………………………………………………….……46 Temporal Dispersion ..............................................................................................49 Restoration Success .......................................................................................................................51 Discussion ......................................................................................................................................53 Potential Indicator Species .................................................................................................59 Sampling Frequency ..........................................................................................................60 Temporal Sampling ............................................................................................................61 Fish Community Structure .................................................................................................61 Temporal Dispersion ..........................................................................................................62