WHEN IS ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION A SUCCESS? A COMPARISON OF MACROINVERTEBRATE DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE IN IMPAIRED, UNIMPAIRED, AND RESTORED STREAMS IN SOUTHEAST OHIO ____________________________________ A Thesis Presented to Honors Tutorial College Ohio University ____________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Graduation from the Honors Tutorial College with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciences ____________________________________ By Austin R. Miles April 2016 This thesis has been approved by The Honors Tutorial College and the Department of Biological Sciences _________________________________ Dr. Kelly Johnson Professor, Biological Sciences Thesis Advisor _________________________________ Dr. Soichi Tanda Honors Tutorial College, Director of Studies Biological Sciences _________________________________ Jeremy Webster Dean, Honors Tutorial College 1 Table of Contents List of Figures…………………………………………………………………….........3 List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………...3 Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………….4 Abstract………………………………………………………………………………...5 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………….......6 1.1 Origins of Acid Mine Drainage…………………………………………….6 1.2 Biological Effects of AMD………………………………………………...8 1.3 Restoration Background and Principles…………………………………..10 1.4 Efforts to Restore AMD Impaired Streams……………………………….12 1.5 Problems with Stream Restoration Efforts………………………………..15 1.6 Background on Biodiversity and Ecological Function……………….......16 1.7 Food Webs and Ecosystem Functioning………………………………….20 1.8 Acid Mine Restoration Practices………………………………………….21 1.9 Post-Remediation Management and Efficacy of Remediation…………...23 1.10 Background on the Study Watersheds………………………………..27 i. Sunday Creek……………………………………………………..27 ii. Monday Creek…………………………………………………….30 iii. Raccoon Creek…………………………………………………....32 1.11 Objectives……………………………………………………………..34 1.12 Significance…………………………………………………………...35 2. Methods…………………………………………………………………………...35 2.1 Study Sites……………………………………………………………......35 2 2.2 Field Work……………………………………………………………….36 2.3 Statistical Analyses………………………………………………………39 3. Results…………………………………………………………………………….40 3.1 Structural Metrics and Community Data………………………………...40 3.2 Functional Metrics……………………………………………………….46 4. Discussion………………………………………………………………………...51 4.1 Structural Metrics………………………………………………………..52 4.2 Functional Metrics……………………………………………………….59 5. Conclusions……………………………………………………………………….62 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………..64 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………...69 3 List of Figures Figure 1. An example of a stream impaired by acid mine drainage……………………...7 Figure 2. Examples of EPT taxa……………………………………………………………..9 Figure 3. Map of each study watershed’s location in Ohio……………………………...27 Figure 4. Structural metric boxplots……………………………………………………….42 Figure 5. NMDS ordination made using structural metrics……………………………...43 Figure 6. NMDS ordination made using raw community data………………………….44 Figure 7. Functional metric boxplots………………………………………………………48 Figure 8. NMDS ordination made using functional metrics…………………………….50 List of Tables Table 1. Descriptive statistics of structural metrics………………………………………41 Table 2. ANOVA output of structural metrics……………………………………………41 Table 3. Strength of correlations for structural metric ordination………………………44 Table 4. MRPP analysis of structural metrics…………………………………………….45 Table 5. MRPP analysis of raw community data………………………………………...45 Table 6. Descriptive statistics of functional metrics……………………………………...46 Table 7. Descriptive statistics of functional metrics……………………………………...47 Table 8. ANOVA output of functional metrics…………………………………………...49 Table 9. Strength of correlations for functional metric ordination……………………...50 Table 10. MRPP analysis of functional metrics…………………………………………..51 4 Acknowledgements This study would not be possible without the guidance and encouragement of Dr. Kelly Johnson, and I would like to express my sincere gratitude for her assistance. I would also like to thank Dr. Soichi Tanda for his continued support. I am appreciative to the Ohio University Honors Tutorial College for providing me with numerous academic and research opportunities during my undergraduate career. This study would also not be possible without the MAIS sampling data collected during the summer of 2014. I would like to thank Rural Action and the Monday Creek Restoration Project and the Sunday Creek Restoration Project, as well as the Raccoon Creek Partnership for carrying out this work. I would like to thank in particular the various coordinators and members of these organizations, including Michelle Shively, Nate Schlater, Tim Ferrell, Amy Mackey, and Sarah Landers. Without their work and the help of numerous volunteers each summer the MAIS sampling would not be possible. I would also like to thank Jen Bowman for her work creating and maintaining watersheddata.com, which has been an incredibly helpful resource throughout my time working on this thesis. I am also grateful for funding provided by the Jeanette G. Grasselli Brown Undergraduate Research Award, without which I would not be able to have the opportunity to present my research at the International Society for Ecological Monitoring conference this May. 5 Abstract In streams impaired by acid mine drainage (AMD), restoration usually improves water quality more rapidly than stream biota. Biological recovery of fish and macroinvertebrates may lag behind, sometimes taking up to five years. Our goal in this study was to compare several measures of diversity in streams categorized in different stages of macroinvertebrate recovery to assess the extent to which what we call restored sites actually are restored. Twenty-four sites in 4 watersheds in southeast Ohio were categorized as impaired, improved, restored, or unimpaired based on historical water chemistry and macroinvertebrate multimetric index scores. We calculated 7 structural metrics including macroinvertebrate abundance, taxa richness, percent composition of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (% EPT), and the Simpson, Shannon-Weiner, Margalef, and Brillouin diversity indices for each site. Using the classification of each macroinvertebrate family into one of five functional feeding groups, we also calculated functional metrics including the number of taxa belonging to each functional group at each site, and the abundance of individuals belonging to each functional group at each site. ANOVAs were used to compare the calculated scores of each metric among site categories, as well as non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordinations and multi-response permutation procedure (MRPP) analyses. Amongst all metrics analyzed, three patterns emerged—a gradient of improvement from impaired sites on up to unimpaired sites, increased variability of impaired and improved sites relative to unimpaired and restored sites, and consistent similarity between unimpaired and restored sites. Overall these patterns 6 suggest that restoration efforts in streams within these watersheds are successful in recovering degraded ecosystems. 7 1. Introduction 1.1 Origins of Acid Mine Drainage Rivers and streams are an integral component of the world’s environment. They play an important role in the water cycle and in the flux of minerals and nutrients down from the mountains and eventually to the ocean. They also contain a considerable number of species and habitat, which include some of the most threatened on Earth. Moreover, they provide humans with clean drinking water, harvestable plants and animals, navigable routes, waste removal, and renewable energy. Unfortunately, they are threatened by a number of disturbances, many anthropogenic in nature (Allan and Flecker 1993). Acid mine drainage, or AMD, is such an anthropogenic disturbance. It is a widespread and tenacious problem for streams in areas around the world that have been subject to mineral extraction. Following the end of mining operations AMD may continue to leach out for thousands of years. In Europe, for instance, AMD still occurs due to mines in dug by ancient Romans before 476 BCE (Edmonds and Peplow 2000). In the United States alone it is estimated that 500,000 inactive or abandoned mines exist in 32 states (Edmonds and Peplow 2000). These mines are all a potential source for AMD, and have impacted over 16,900 km of streams in the United States (Herlihy et al. 1990). In Appalachia abandoned coal mines are widespread, a pattern that may be traced back to the United State’s dependency on coal. In the U.S. coal has been the primary source of electricity for 60 years, and much of American coal production has come from Appalachia, including parts of Ohio (EIA 2013). During the economic 8 downturn following World War I, Ohio’s coal production declined because of a lack of demand. As a result, many mines in the Southeastern Ohio region closed down during the 1920’s. By the 1940’s most mines in the area had been abandoned. These abandoned mines have in turn contaminated a number of streams with AMD. The number of abandoned mines in Appalachia is estimated to range from 3000-5000. Because of AMD leaching out from these abandoned mines in the region, it is estimated that AMD has impacted 7000 to 13000 km of streams in the Appalachian region (USDA Forest Service 1993; Hill et al.; Herlihy et al 1990). Figure 1. A stream reach impacted by AMD. Metal hydroxide precipitates give the stream its orange color. 9 AMD occurs when pyrite-rich rock or coal is exposed to rain and air as a result