Macroinvertibrates and Bioassessment: The Use of Biological Indicators to Assess S tream Health

1. Macroinvertibrates and Bioassessment: The Use of Biological Indicators to Assess Stream Health By: Sarah, Kevin, Joe, John and KC

2. Questions: • Can stream quality be assessed on the basis of macroinvertebrate populations? • Based on the biotic index, has the quality of the streams studied in 2012 (Zurich Avenue and Lower Moss Mill) changed? • What is the best method for collecting macroinvertebrate samples? • Does the Pinelands Macroinvertebrate Index give a more accurate assessment of stream quality than the “Save Our Streams” multimetric index used in 2012?  

3. Hypothesis: • Using the Pinelands MacroinvertebrateIndex as opposed to Virginia Save Our Streams index, will give us a more appropriate health score for local streams. • Based on past research, we believe that macroinvertibrates can be used to accurately indicate stream health in the Pinelands. • We believe using pH and conductivity readings as additional information, we will have supporting evidence for our conclusion.

4. How it works: • Biological assessments are employed to evaluate the health of a stream. Organisms, like macroinvertebrates, can provide information about a stream’s condition which chemical and physical data cannot provide. • Macroinvertebrateassessment integrates the effects of multiple stressors on the stream, like the longterm effects of habitat degradation and the short term effects of toxic substances in the water column (Jessup et al. 2005). • A multimetric index is one which uses the aggregate results of many metrics to assess the stream, because multiple factors can affect stream quality.

6. Sample Locations: • Lower Moss Mill on Stockton’s Campus Below Ditch Above Ditch

7. Sample Locations: • Clarks Mill at the intersection of Liebig and Odessa

8. Sample Locations: • Moss Mill at Zurich Avenue

9. Methods: • Field Methods • Multihabitat Sampling • Plate Sampling • Water Samples • Lab Methods • Specimen Count and Classification • pH Test • Data Analysis

10. Specific Conductivity, pH and Temperature Results:

12. Results using Pine Barrens Index: Pinelands Macroinvertebrate Index (PMI) is based on a multimetric index. This is a combination of metric scores that indicates a degree of biological stress in the stream community. It is specific to the Pinelands streams. Multihabitat Technique Plate Sampling Technique

13. Results using Save our Streams: Virginia Save Our Streams is also a multimetricindex. However, Pine Barrens streams are unlike other streams due to their acidic nature. Therefore, scores for the streams we tested using the SOS index could be artificially low. Acceptable 6-10 Unacceptable 0-5 Plate Sampling Technique Multihabitat Technique

14. Results:

15. Results for Plate Sample: Results from a representative plate sample from Moss Mill Below ditch: Results from a representative plate sample from Moss Mill Above ditch:

16. Comparison of 2012 study:

17. Comparison of sampling techniques: • We found that plate samplers are not as accurate in determining stream health from macroinvertebrates because they only contained mainly 1 species. • Other macroinvertebrates did not utilize the plates as frequently, and so plate samples did not have diversity. • Multihabitat sampling methods took into account all of the habitats that macroinvertebrates would be found. This gives a more accurate estimate for the diversity found in the streams.

18. Effects of the ditch: • Oddly enough, the water flowing in from the ditch did not adversely affect LMM below ditch. The ditch receives runoff water from the campus parking lots and lawns. • The ditch had much higher conductivity at 118 µS, was colder at 13.4°C, and had lower pH than all of the other sites at 4.39, and yet neither of these chemical differences appeared to change LMM below ditch. • We are unsure of why the impaired water of the ditch did not have an effect on the below ditch site.

19. Conclusions: • The PMI is more suitable for determining the quality of Pine Barrens streams, because it has been made specifically for the unique chemical qualities of the Pine Barrens. • PMI cannot accurately judge a sample using the plate sampling technique because there are often too many individuals in the sample and because only one habitat is being sampled. • It is possible that if the plate samplers were kept in the water for a longer period of time, there would have been more diversity.

20. Literature Cited • Benke, A. C. T. C. Van Arsdall, Jr., D. M. Gillespie and F. K. Parrish. 1983. Invertebrate Productivity in a Subtropical Blackwater River: The Importance of Habitat and Life History. Ecological Monographs. 54: 25-63. • Clapp, M. 2010. “Aquatic Worms.” Image. <http://www.nwnature.net/macros/images/2.jpg>. • Department of Environmental Conservation. 2012. “Caddisflies (Trichoptera).” Image. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/images/water_images/hydropsychidae.jpg>. • Engel, S. R. and J. R. Voshell, Jr. 2002. Volunteer Biological Monitoring: Can It Accurately Assess the Ecological Condition of Streams? American Entomologist. 48: 164-177. • Flickr. 2010. “Banded Demoiselle Larvae.” Image. <http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1437/4730753535_c8d6e16d82_z.jpg>. • Jessup, B., S. Moegenburg, D. Bryson, and V. Poretti. 2005. Development of the New Jersey Pinelands Macroinvertebrate Index (PMI). New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. • Ohio Sea Grant and Stone Laboratory. 2007. “Amphipod.” Image. <http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5305/5589068964_ 1d711f79f6_m.jpg>. • Zampella, R. A. 1994. Characterization of Surface Water Quality Along a Watershed Disturbance Gradient. Water Resources Bulletin. American Water Resources Association. 30: 605-611.

21. Questions?