A Survey of the Metrics Utilized to Determine Macroinvertebrate Indices in Eight Southeastern States Don Lane, MS Senior Environmental Scientist Doss Engineering, Inc. dlane@dei-wv.com or laneds@suddenlink.net
Introduction Benthic macroinvertebrates ( benthos ) provide reliable and comprehensive information on water and habitat quality. It may be difficult to identify pollutants and stressors in streams with chemistry data alone, which only provides information pertinent to the precise time of sampling.
Introduction (cont d) The presence of fish may not be indicative of the status of a stream because fish can swim away to avoid polluted water or unfavorable habitat conditions and then return when conditions improve. Many benthic macroinvertebrates are not as mobile as fish and cannot move to avoid pollution. Therefore, the community of benthos living in a stream may indicate the water quality conditions of the past.
Introduction (cont d) Additionally, benthos are excellent tools for assessing water quality because they are extremely diverse, allowing for a wide range of sensitivity and responses to stressors such as metals, nutrients and sediments. Finally, they are ubiquitous and relatively easy to collect and identify, which makes them attractive to agencies and organizations searching for a practical means of assessing water quality in streams.
Background In order to understand the information presented by a benthic macroinvertebrate sample, a commonly used tool known as an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is utilized. An IBI is a summary score that is comprised of several biological indicators called metrics.
Background (Cont d) A metric is a characteristic of the biological community that changes in some predictable way with increases in human disturbance. For example, taxa richness (sometimes called diversity) generally exhibits a marked decrease as human disturbance increases. Therefore, it is one of the most commonly utilized component metrics of IBI's. Metrics are broken down into six broad categories: Richness Composition Tolerance / Intolerance Functional Feeding Group Habit Life History
Background (Cont d) Richness: The total number of distinct taxa (classifications of organisms, such as species, genus, family, or order) in a sample. Composition: A percent of a given taxa. Tolerance / Intolerance: Expressed as a percentage or number of tolerant /intolerant taxa or as an index. Index is usually calculated as a tolerance value X number of taxa.
Background (Cont d) Functional Feeding Group: Scrapers Consume algae and associated material. Shredders Consume leaf litter or other CPOM (Coarse Particulate Organic Matter), including wood. Collectors Collect FPOM (Fine Particulate Organic Matter) from the stream bottom. Filterers Collect FPOM from the water column using a variety of filters. Predators Feed on other consumers.
Background (Cont d) Habit Clingers Have physical adaptations that allow them to hold onto smooth substrates in fast water. Burrowers Use hydromechanical and mechanical digging mechanisms to move through the sediment. Sprawlers Inhabit surfaces of floating leaves or on the surface of fine sediments. Swimmers Benthic dwellers that exhibit frequent minnowlike swimming in the water column.
Background (Cont d) Life History Invertebrates that require more than one year to complete their life cycles; thus, they are exposed to all the human activities that influence the waterbody throughout one or more years.
Example (or skip)
Order Family Genus Count Tolerance Value Functional Feeding Group Habit Baetidae Baetis 6 5.39 CG SW Ephemeroptera (mayflies) Ephemerellidae Ephemerella 1 1.66 CG CN Heptageniidae Heptagenia 1 2.80 SC CN Capniidae Allocapnia 33 2.80 SH SP Chloroperlidae Haploperla 2 1.30 PR CN Plecoptera (stoneflies) Leuctridae Leuctra 74 0.70 SH SP Peltoperlidae Peltoperla 4 1.40 SH CN Peltoperlidae Tallaperla 2 1.40 SH CN Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 6 3.99 CF CN Trichoptera (caddisflies) Limnephilidae Limnephilus 2 4.00 SH UN Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 3 0.80 PR CN Athericidae Atherix 2 2.10 PR UN Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogon 12 6.00 PR BU Chironomidae 47 5.79 CG BU Diptera (true flies) Tabanidae Chrysops 3 7.30 CG UN Tabanidae Tabanus 1 9.70 PR UN Tipulidae Antocha 2 4.60 CG CN Tipulidae Tipula 1 7.70 SH BU Coleoptera (beetles) Elmidae Optioservus 1 2.70 SC CN Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) Gomphidae Gomphus 1 6.20 PR UN Decapoda Cambaridae Cambarus 3 8.10 UN UN Oligochaeta (Subclass) 4 8.27 CG UN Total 211 PR=predator CG=collector/gatherer CF=collector/filterer SC=scraper SH=shredder SW=swimmer CN=clinger SP=sprawler BU=burrower UN=average value or unknown
Richness (EPT)
EPT 134 Order Family Genus Count Baetidae Baetis 6 Ephemeroptera (mayflies) Ephemerellidae Ephemerella 1 Heptageniidae Heptagenia 1 Capniidae Allocapnia 33 Chloroperlidae Haploperla 2 Plecoptera (stoneflies) Leuctridae Leuctra 74 Peltoperlidae Peltoperla 4 Peltoperlidae Tallaperla 2 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 6 Trichoptera (caddisflies) Limnephilidae Limnephilus 2 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 3
Composition (% Chironomidae )
Order Family Genus Count Baetidae Baetis 6 Ephemeroptera (mayflies) Ephemerellidae Ephemerella 1 Heptageniidae Heptagenia 1 Capniidae Allocapnia 33 Chloroperlidae Haploperla 2 Plecoptera (stoneflies) Leuctridae Leuctra 74 Peltoperlidae Peltoperla 4 Peltoperlidae Tallaperla 2 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 6 Trichoptera (caddisflies) Limnephilidae Limnephilus 2 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 3 Athericidae Atherix 2 Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogon 12 Chironomidae 47 Diptera (true flies) Tabanidae Chrysops 3 Tabanidae Tabanus 1 Tipulidae Antocha 2 Tipulidae Tipula 1 Coleoptera (beetles) Elmidae Optioservus 1 Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) Gomphidae Gomphus 1 Decapoda Cambaridae Cambarus 3 Oligochaeta (Subclass) 4 Total 211 % Chironomidae 22
Tolerant / Intolerant [The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI)]
Ephemeroptera (mayflies) Plecoptera (stoneflies) Trichoptera (caddisflies) Diptera (true flies) Order Family Genus Count Tolerance Value BI Score Baetidae Baetis 6 5.39 32.34 Ephemerellidae Ephemerella 1 1.66 1.66 Heptageniidae Heptagenia 1 2.80 2.80 Capniidae Allocapnia 33 2.80 92.40 Chloroperlidae Haploperla 2 1.30 2.60 Leuctridae Leuctra 74 0.70 51.80 Peltoperlidae Peltoperla 4 1.40 5.60 Peltoperlidae Tallaperla 2 1.40 2.80 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 6 3.99 23.94 Limnephilidae Limnephilus 2 4.00 8.00 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 3 0.80 2.40 Athericidae Atherix 2 2.10 4.20 Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogon 12 6.00 72.00 Chironomidae 47 5.79 272.13 Tabanidae Chrysops 3 7.30 21.90 Tabanidae Tabanus 1 9.70 9.70 Tipulidae Antocha 2 4.60 9.20 Tipulidae Tipula 1 7.70 7.70 Coleoptera (beetles) Elmidae Optioservus 1 2.70 2.70 Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) Gomphidae Gomphus 1 6.20 6.20 Decapoda Cambaridae Cambarus 3 8.10 24.30 Oligochaeta (Subclass) 4 8.27 33.08 Total 211 689.45 HBI 3.27
Functional Feeding Group (% Shredders)
Order Family Genus Count Number of Functional Shredders Feeding Group Baetidae Baetis 6 CG FALSE Ephemeroptera (mayflies) Ephemerellidae Ephemerella 1 CG FALSE Heptageniidae Heptagenia 1 SC FALSE Capniidae Allocapnia 33 SH 33 Chloroperlidae Haploperla 2 PR FALSE Plecoptera (stoneflies) Leuctridae Leuctra 74 SH 74 Peltoperlidae Peltoperla 4 SH 4 Peltoperlidae Tallaperla 2 SH 2 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 6 CF FALSE Trichoptera (caddisflies) Limnephilidae Limnephilus 2 SH 2 Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 3 PR FALSE Athericidae Atherix 2 PR FALSE Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogon 12 PR FALSE Chironomidae 47 CG FALSE Diptera (true flies) Tabanidae Chrysops 3 CG FALSE Tabanidae Tabanus 1 PR FALSE Tipulidae Antocha 2 CG FALSE Tipulidae Tipula 1 SH 1 Coleoptera (beetles) Elmidae Optioservus 1 SC FALSE Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) Gomphidae Gomphus 1 PR FALSE Decapoda Cambaridae Cambarus 3 UN FALSE Oligochaeta (Subclass) 4 CG FALSE Total 211 116 % Shredders 55
Habit (% Clingers)
Order Family Genus Count Habit Number of Clingers Baetidae Baetis 6 SW FALSE Ephemeroptera (mayflies) Ephemerellidae Ephemerella 1 CN 1 Heptageniidae Heptagenia 1 CN 1 Capniidae Allocapnia 33 SP FALSE Chloroperlidae Haploperla 2 CN 2 Plecoptera (stoneflies) Leuctridae Leuctra 74 SP FALSE Peltoperlidae Peltoperla 4 CN 4 Peltoperlidae Tallaperla 2 CN 2 Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche 6 CN 6 Trichoptera (caddisflies) Limnephilidae Limnephilus 2 UN FALSE Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila 3 CN 3 Athericidae Atherix 2 UN FALSE Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogon 12 BU FALSE Chironomidae 47 BU FALSE Diptera (true flies) Tabanidae Chrysops 3 UN FALSE Tabanidae Tabanus 1 UN FALSE Tipulidae Antocha 2 CN 2 Tipulidae Tipula 1 BU FALSE Coleoptera (beetles) Elmidae Optioservus 1 CN 1 Odonata (dragonflies and Gomphidae Gomphus 1 damselflies) UN FALSE Decapoda Cambaridae Cambarus 3 UN FALSE Oligochaeta (Subclass) 4 UN FALSE Total 211 22 % Clingers 10
South Eastern EEA Biotic Index (SE3ABI) Metric Score EPT 134 % Chironomidae 22 HBI (X 10) 33 % Shredders 55 % Clingers 10 SE3ABI (Average of Scores) 51
Research Question: How do the states determine their respective benthic indices and what are the similarities and differences?
Methodology Eight States Were Surveyed Information was gathered from publically available internet sources
Findings
A Total of 66 Metrics Are Utilized by at Least One State 10 5 1 12 Richness Metrics Composition Metrics Tolerance/Intolerance Metrics Functional Feeding Group Metrics Habit Metrics Life History 13 25
Number of Individual Metrics Used by State 51 20 7 7 7 10 2 2 MS KY NC SC TN AL FL GA
9 Richness Metrics by State 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 MS KY NC SC TN AL FL GA
18 Composition Metrics by State 9 2 1 2 1 0 0 MS KY NC SC TN AL FL GA
9 Tolerance / Intolerance Metrics by State 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 MS KY NC SC TN AL FL GA
Functional Feeding Group Metric by State 10 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 MS KY NC SC TN AL FL GA
Habit Metrics by State 5 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 MS KY NC SC TN AL FL GA
Discussion All states utilized at least one Richness Metric to Calculate their Benthic Index EPT was the most popular of the Richness Metrics (6) NC and SC did not utilize a Composition Metric to Calculated their Benthic Index Percent Tanytarsini was the most popular of the Composition Metrics (3) All states utilized at least one Tolerance / Intolerance Metric to Calculate their Benthic Index Hilsenhoff s Biotic Index was the most popular of the Tolerance / Intolerance Metrics (4) KY, NC, SC, and TN did not utilize a Functional Feeding Group Metric to Calculate their Benthic Index Percent Filterer was the most popular Functional Feeding Group Metric (4) NC, SC, and AL did not utilize a Composition Metric to Calculated their Benthic Index Percent Clinger was the most popular Habit Metric (4)
Discussion (Cond t) Metrics unique to MS: % Ephemeroptera (no Caenidae) # Chironomidae % Tanytarsini Taxa # Trichoptera % Caenidae Metrics unique to KY: % Ephemeroptera NC, SC, TN and AL had no unique metrics
Discussion (Cond t) Metrics unique to FL: Life History Metric ( Long-Lived Taxa ) Trichoptera Taxa % Very Tolerant Individuals GA has 28 unique metrics 5 Richness 12 Composition 5 Tolerance / Intolerance 5 functional Feeding Groups 1 Habit
Questions?