The Effects of Chemical and Physical Factors of Streams on Aquatic Invertebrates

1. The Effects of Chemical and Physical Factors of Streams on Aquatic Invertebrates Carissa Fisher Winter Ecology Spring Semester 2010

2. Introduction The goal of the study was to look at the different numbers and species of Aquatic Invertebrates living in winter streams in the Rocky Mountains.

3. Questions Does the Stream Morphology and Chemical Composition play a huge roll to the life of Aquatic Invertebrates living there through the winter? Do many Aquatic Insects inhabit the Streams throughout the winter season? Hypothesis: How do factors of dissolved O2, pH, temperature, elevation, and TOC (Total Organic Carbon) affect the species richness, and species density of aquatic invertebrates in fresh water streams during the winter? I was really interested in comparing the kind of insects found in the different elevations of the two streams specifically in the winter season, to see if they were different in species or general numbers and then try to correlate this to the other morphological and chemical changes seen in the stream. I was really interested in comparing the kind of insects found in the different elevations of the two streams specifically in the winter season, to see if they were different in species or general numbers and then try to correlate this to the other morphological and chemical changes seen in the stream.

4. Stream Selection Streams Located on Same Mt. in Similar areas Known and similar elevation between streams Known Order of Stream Similar Stream Morphology Similar Slope I took samples from two different streams: West Chicago Creek (WCC) and Chicago Creek (CC), both located on Mt. Evans. The two streams have different orders, four small headwater creeks form West Chicago Creek before the location where I took Samples. While Chicago Creek comes from two headwater streams a small lake and Idaho Springs Reservoir. I found the two streams similar in elevation with (WCC) samples taken at 3050� and 2900�, and (CC) samples taken at 2800� and 2700�. Originally I thought of looking at two streams that were even more similar: Same Elevations, Same Order, Same Morphology, Same Slope. The amount of data I could collect and have processed became limited, to samples only collected at 4 sites (This was due to time constraints of chemicals testing of the water). Due to this constraint I decided to focus more on the location of the streams in the same general area of Mount Evans. I felt that this would allow for testing with more variation while having similar weather conditions effecting the streams. I took samples from two different streams: West Chicago Creek (WCC) and Chicago Creek (CC), both located on Mt. Evans. The two streams have different orders, four small headwater creeks form West Chicago Creek before the location where I took Samples. While Chicago Creek comes from two headwater streams a small lake and Idaho Springs Reservoir. I found the two streams similar in elevation with (WCC) samples taken at 3050� and 2900�, and (CC) samples taken at 2800� and 2700�. Originally I thought of looking at two streams that were even more similar: Same Elevations, Same Order, Same Morphology, Same Slope. The amount of data I could collect and have processed became limited, to samples only collected at 4 sites (This was due to time constraints of chemicals testing of the water). Due to this constraint I decided to focus more on the location of the streams in the same general area of Mount Evans. I felt that this would allow for testing with more variation while having similar weather conditions effecting the streams.

5. Location of Streams I collected samples from these four sites. I collected at two locations on the West Chicago Creek (WCC) and two locations on the Chicago Creek (CC). The Numbers Below the site # is the Elevation in feet.I collected samples from these four sites. I collected at two locations on the West Chicago Creek (WCC) and two locations on the Chicago Creek (CC). The Numbers Below the site # is the Elevation in feet.

6. Sample Site 1 West Chicago Creek The stream was more narrow here and it was much more protected by the snow. There was rich sediment in the bottom of the stream here.

7. Sample Site 2 West Chicago Creek This site was closer to peoples personal land and that may have affected the water quality. The stream here begins to get wider and is still protected by snow.

8. Sample Site 3 Chicago Creek Here the Stream is wider, pebbles and rocks make up the bottom. There is much less organic Material here, and the vegetation is Conifers instead of predominantly willow. Ice dominates the stream.

9. Sample Site 4 Chicago Creek Here again the dominant vegetation is willows. The stream is at its widest and the bottom is covered with rocks. The stream is covered with ice.

10. Sample Collecting Techniques pH Probe Temperature Probe Water Sample Collection Strainer to collect Aquatic Inverts Send the Samples to Louisville Water Lab Techniques: 1. Arrive at site 2. If necessary break the ice covering the stream with large metal pole. 3. Insert pH / Temp Probe into stream, Record reading 4. In same area collect 33.8 oz of stream water into a plastic container leaving no oxygen in the bottle, This may require filling the bottle completely under the water and fastening on the top under water as well. Then collect a water sample into a 1.4 oz glass container also leaving no air inside Place both collected samples into a cooler filled with ice or snow Finally I used a strainer to collect aquatic specimens floating in the water, I held the strainer perpendicular to the water flow for about 1 min then looked for specimens inside of the strainer any specimens found were transported into another plastic container filled with stream water. Then I used the strainer to mix up the sediment at the bottom while being careful that the sediment then ran through the strainer, I was looking for sedimentary aquatic invertebrates. Once again any specimens found were transported into another plastic container filled with stream water Next I took pictures at every site of the surroundings Leave site with samples Techniques: 1. Arrive at site 2. If necessary break the ice covering the stream with large metal pole. 3. Insert pH / Temp Probe into stream, Record reading 4. In same area collect 33.8 oz of stream water into a plastic container leaving no oxygen in the bottle, This may require filling the bottle completely under the water and fastening on the top under water as well. Then collect a water sample into a 1.4 oz glass container also leaving no air inside Place both collected samples into a cooler filled with ice or snow Finally I used a strainer to collect aquatic specimens floating in the water, I held the strainer perpendicular to the water flow for about 1 min then looked for specimens inside of the strainer any specimens found were transported into another plastic container filled with stream water. Then I used the strainer to mix up the sediment at the bottom while being careful that the sediment then ran through the strainer, I was looking for sedimentary aquatic invertebrates. Once again any specimens found were transported into another plastic container filled with stream water Next I took pictures at every site of the surroundings Leave site with samples

11. Data Analysis Toolsat Louisville Laboratory TOC Analyzer Multifunctional Probe : Chlorophyll, Dissolved O2, TDS Turbidimeter The Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Analyzer was able to detect the TOC from the 1.4oz glass sample containers. The multifunctional probe and turbidimeter tested the samples in the 33.8 oz plastic containers. All samples were chilled on ice prior to testing. The Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Analyzer was able to detect the TOC from the 1.4oz glass sample containers. The multifunctional probe and turbidimeter tested the samples in the 33.8 oz plastic containers. All samples were chilled on ice prior to testing.

12. Results I was able to collect 2 samples from each stream. These are represented on the graphs on the next page. Each sample was tested for: Temp, pH, TOC, DO, Chlorophyll, and Turbidity

13. Results � o Summarize your field data with tables, figures, and descriptive text. Use graphics instead of tables to display data whenever feasible. Justify all tables and figures by discussing their content and labeling them clearly. o Do not include raw data. o Make sure all calculations and analyses are relevant to the hypotheses you are testing and the overall objectives of the study. o Describe your data and the patterns, trends, and relationships observed. Summarize these points in text on the slide or at least orally (and in notes). o Proceed from most general features of the data to more specific results. o Use and evaluate all the data you report and do not be discouraged if your results differ from published studies or from what you expected. There may be confounding factors that you weren�t able to account for in your experimental design, or underlying stochastic variability (i.e., natural random noise) may be stronger than the signal you are trying to detect, especially if you have a small number of replicates. o End the results section with a slide summarizing your findings � use bullets. o Do not interpret (i.e., draw conclusions from) your data until the discussion section.Results � o Summarize your field data with tables, figures, and descriptive text. Use graphics instead of tables to display data whenever feasible. Justify all tables and figures by discussing their content and labeling them clearly. o Do not include raw data. o Make sure all calculations and analyses are relevant to the hypotheses you are testing and the overall objectives of the study. o Describe your data and the patterns, trends, and relationships observed. Summarize these points in text on the slide or at least orally (and in notes). o Proceed from most general features of the data to more specific results. o Use and evaluate all the data you report and do not be discouraged if your results differ from published studies or from what you expected. There may be confounding factors that you weren�t able to account for in your experimental design, or underlying stochastic variability (i.e., natural random noise) may be stronger than the signal you are trying to detect, especially if you have a small number of replicates. o End the results section with a slide summarizing your findings � use bullets. o Do not interpret (i.e., draw conclusions from) your data until the discussion section.

14. Similarities Between Graphs Temperature goes down by less than a degree as elevation drops in both streams The TOC goes up a fraction as elevation goes down, this is almost negligible.

15. Differences Between Graphs In Chicago Creek there is no chlorophyll or insects found. While in WCC both the chlorophyll and # of insects found increased with elevation. In WCC the DO is lower at higher elevations, while in CC it is stable throughout Turbidity decreases with elevation in CC but increases with elevation in WCC

16. Insects Found: I wasn�t able to identify this insect however if slightly resembles beetle larvae. Found at Site 1. This Insect is likely a Stonefly Larvae � They feed on plant matter and TOC. They live in the benthic area of streams. Found at Site 1. This insect began to decompose before I was able to identify it. However it is likely a Stonefly Larvae or a Mayfly Larvae- They cling onto rocks in the bottom of streams and also eat detritus and plants. Found at Site 2.

17. Discussion and Conclusions The main question I was looking at is pretty inconclusive. I didn�t collect enough data to show aquatic insect species diversity in CC. I did find that CC had less Chlorophyll and I didn�t find any insects there. So it is possible that there is a correlation but more testing is necessary to find out for sure. Overall I believe that I would need to collect more data to really find any conclusive correlations. It may be easier next time to just look at one stream in many different locations. The West Chicago Creek was a much slower creek and had significantly more snow coverage as well as more silt in the bottom. As compared to the Chicago Creek that had only rock and sand on the bottom and no insect life detected. Overall I believe that I would need to collect more data to really find any conclusive correlations. It may be easier next time to just look at one stream in many different locations. The West Chicago Creek was a much slower creek and had significantly more snow coverage as well as more silt in the bottom. As compared to the Chicago Creek that had only rock and sand on the bottom and no insect life detected.