Draft Multimetric Indices for Colorado

1. Draft Multimetric Indices for Colorado

2. Data Preparation • Established reference and stressed criteria • Identified reference and stressed sites • Classified sites – mountains, plains, xeric

3. Ecoregions 20 Colorado Plateaus 21 Southern Rockies 22 Arizona/New Mexico Plateau 25 Western High Plains 26 Southwestern Tablelands

4. Bioregions 1 Mountains 2 Plains 3 Xeric

5. Data Preparation • Established reference and stressed criteria • Established reference and stressed sites • Classified sites – mountains, plains, xeric • Established consistent taxonomic rules (OTU) • Assembled metrics • Removed site duplicates and replicates

6. Metric Evaluation • Looked at metric range and variability by region • Considered metric ecological “sense” • Investigated metrics discrimination efficiency (DE) • Ability to discriminate a priori reference from stressed (percent stressed < 25th % reference) • Examined metric redundancy • First principles (ie E taxa and EPT taxa) • Pearson product-moment correlation

7. Metric Scoring • Scored candidate metrics from 0-100 based on 5th and 95th percentiles • Decreaser scores = 100*(value/95th) • Increaser scores = 100*[(Max-value)/(95th-5th)]

8. Index Construction • Constructed at least 10 potential indices using variable combinations of candidate metrics for each region • Minimized redundancy • Maximized categorical representation • Composition, richness, tolerance, habit, and functional feeding • Calculated index DE

9. Mountains

10. Mountains – Draft Indices • Index 2 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Richness • Total Taxa Tolerance • HBI • Percent Tolerant • Percent Trichoptera which are Hydropsychidae • Index 1 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Richness • Diptera Taxa • EPT Taxa Tolerance • Percent Tolerant • Percent Trichoptera which are Hydropsychidae

11. Mountains – Draft Indices Index 1 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Richness • Diptera Taxa • EPT Taxa Tolerance • Percent Tolerant • Percent Trichoptera which are Hydropsychidae DE = 85% CV = 8%

12. Mountains – Draft Indices Index 2 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Richness • Total Taxa Tolerance • Percent Tolerant • Percent Trichoptera which are Hydropsychidae DE = 90% CV = 8%

13. Mountains • Richest dataset • Reference and stressed sites variable • Discrimination Efficiencies were good • 3/5 categories represented

14. Plains

15. Plains – Draft Indices • Index 1 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus • Percent Diptera • Percent Oligochaete Richness • EPT Taxa Tolerance • HBI Habit • Clinger Taxa • Index 2 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus • Percent Diptera • Percent Oligochaete • Percent EPT Tolerance • HBI Trophic • Percent Predators • Index 3 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus • Percent Diptera • Percent Oligochaete Richness • EPT Taxa Tolerance • HBI Habit • Percent Sprawlers

16. Plains – Draft Indices Index 1 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus • Percent Diptera • Percent Oligochaete Richness • EPT Taxa Tolerance • HBI Habit • Clinger Taxa DE = 100% CV = 20%

17. Plains – Draft Indices Index 2 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus • Percent Diptera • Percent Oligochaete • Percent EPT Tolerance • HBI Trophic • Percent Predators DE = 100% CV = 19%

18. Plains – Draft Indices Index 3 Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus • Percent Diptera • Percent Oligochaete Richness • EPT Taxa Tolerance • HBI Habit • Percent Sprawlers DE = 100% CV = 17%

19. Plains • Fewer reference and stressed sites • Discrimination Efficiencies 100% • 3/5 to 4/5 categories represented

20. Xeric

21. Xeric – Draft Indices • Index 1 Composition • Percent Coleoptera • Percent Ephemeroptera Richness • EPT Taxa Tolerance • Percent Dominant • Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit • Sprawler Taxa Trophic • Percent Filterers • Index 2 Composition • Percent Coleoptera • Percent Ephemeroptera Richness Tolerance • Percent Dominant • Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit • Sprawler Taxa Trophic • Percent Filterers • Index 3 Composition • Percent Coleoptera • Percent Ephemeroptera Richness Tolerance • HBI • Percent Dominant • Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit • Percent Sprawler Trophic • Percent Filterers

22. Xeric – Draft Indices Index 1 Composition • Percent Coleoptera • Percent Ephemeroptera Richness • EPT Taxa Tolerance • Percent Dominant • Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit • Sprawler Taxa Trophic • Percent Filterers DE = 72% CV = 13%

23. Xeric – Draft Indices Index 2 Composition • Percent Coleoptera • Percent Ephemeroptera Richness Tolerance • Percent Dominant • Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit • Sprawler Taxa Trophic • Percent Filterers DE = 94% CV = 8%

24. Xeric – Draft Indices Index 3 Composition • Percent Coleoptera • Percent Ephemeroptera Richness Tolerance • HBI • Percent Dominant • Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit • Percent Sprawler Trophic • Percent Filterers DE= 94% CV = 7%

25. Xeric • Fewer reference sites • Discrimination Efficiencies were very good • 4/5 to 5/5 categories represented

26. Review Mountains MMI Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus Richness • Diptera Taxa • EPT Taxa Tolerance • Percent Tolerant • Percent Trichoptera which are Hydropsychidae Plains MMI Composition • Percent Chironomidae which are Cricotopus and Chironomus • Percent Diptera • Percent Oligochaete Richness • EPT Taxa Tolerance • HBI Habit • Percent Sprawlers Xeric MMI Composition • Percent Coleoptera • Percent Ephemeroptera Tolerance • HBI • Percent Dominant • Percent EPT which are Hydropsychidae Habit • Percent Sprawler Trophic • Percent Filterers