Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, 1542 Old Whitfield Rd., Pearl, MS 39208. ^Mississippi ..... habitat, and aquatic life, the NAWQA Program aims.
i COMPARISON OF MULTI-HABITAT AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING METHODS IN STREAMS OF THE MISSISSIPPI ALLUVIAL PLAIN ECOREGION National Water-Quality Assessment Study Units
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4216
Mississippi Embayment Study Unit
. -. *- *.-. .-. _ -. .- . -. . -. -.
VICKSBURG
National Water-Quality Assessment Program
COMPARISON OF MULTI-HABITAT AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING METHODS IN STREAMS OF THE MISSISSIPPI ALLUVIAL PLAIN ECOREGION byB.G., Justus 1, D.G. Bray2, A Dossett2, M. Hicks3, R. Sarver4, and M. Rogers5
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4216
National Water-Quality Assessment Program 'U.S. Geological Survey, 401 Hardin Rd., Little Rock, AR 72211 Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, 1542 Old Whitfield Rd., Pearl, MS 39208 ^Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 10385, Jackson, MS 39289 4Missouri Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65109 5 Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 8913, Little Rock, Ar 72219-8913
Pearl, Mississippi 2001
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director
For additional information write to:
Copies of this report can be purchased from:
District Chief U.S. Geological Survey, WRD 308 South Airport Road Jackson, Mississippi 39208-6649
U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Box 25286 Denver, Colorado 80225
Information regarding the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program is available via the Internet at: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/nawqa_home.html
CONTENTS Abstract......................................................................................................_ Introduction............................................................................._^ Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................................ Description of the Study Area and Sampling Sites....................................................................... Methods............................................................. Methods Overview........................................................................................................................ Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Methods........................................................... Missouri Department of Environmental Quality Methods............................................................ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Methods........................................................ USGS Methods.............................................................................................................................. MISE Sampling and Processing Methods............................................................................ NWQL Processing Methods ...............................................................:................................ Metrics Selected for Data Analysis............................................................................................... Results and Discussion.......................................................................................................................... Comparison of Metrics Results..................................................................................................... Processing Differences between Subsampling and Field Picking ................................................
1 1 2 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10
Focus of Future Work.................................................................................................................... 15 Summary................................................................................................................................................ 15 References Cited.................................................................................................................................... 16
FIGURES
Figure 1. Map showing location of sites sampled for macroinvertebrate methods comparison in the northern part of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion............................................ 2. Graphs showing metrics least affected by sample size for macroinvertebrate samples collected from three streams in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion......................... a. Biotic index values......................................................................................................... b. Ephemeroptera and trichoptera taxa.............................................................................. c. Percent non insect.......................................................................................................... d. Mean tolerance values.................................................................................................... 3. Graph showing diversity values (d/dMax) for macroinvertebrate samples collected from three streams in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion................................................. 4. Graphs showing metrics most affected by sample size for macroinvertebrate samples collected from three streams in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion......................... a. Number of taxa collected............................................................................................... b. Number of individuals collected.................................................................................... c. Percent of total macroinvertebrate taxa collected.......................................................... d. Number of chironomid taxa...........................................................................................
Contents
3 12 12 12 12 12 13 14 14 14 14 14
iii
TABLES
Table 1 . Summary of methods used to sample three streams in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion ..... 2. Habitats sampled and standardization measures used by three teams to sample three streams in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion .........----------..--------.i~ i~ & 3. Details of sampling and processing effort used to sample three streams in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion 4. Macroinvertebrate metric results for five sampling and processing teams and three streams in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion .......-..---.----.--------.-...-.-.5. Averaged macro invertebrate metric results for five sampliing and processing teams and three streams in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregioiQ. ............................................... f IT
&
CONVERSION FACTORS AND ABBREVIATIONS Multiply
By
inch (in.)
2.54
foot (ft)
0.3048
mile (mi)
1.609
^ square inch (in )
centimeter meter kilometer
6.4516
square centimeter
square foot (ft2) ^ square mile (mi )
0.09290
square meter
2.590
square kilometer
acres
0.4047
hectare
ounce (oz)
29.57
milliliter
quart (qt)
0.9464
liter
The following acronyms are used in this report: MAP Mississippi Alluvial Plain MISE Mississippi Embayment Study Unit NAWQA National Water-Quality Assessment USGS U.S. Geological Survey
iv
To obtain
Contents
i O) en
A A
TAXA OF NUMBER i
A B
i *
*
Mam Ditch
* Cockle Burr Slough Ditch
*
Vllla9e Creek
Figure 4. Metrics most affected by sample size for macroinvertebrate samples collected from three streams in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion. 14
Comparison of Aquatic Macroinverebrate Sampling Methods in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain Ecoregion
sissippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion without sacrificing any discriminating ability. In contrast, the ADEQ method could lose some intersite discriminating ability for some metrics that are related to sample size (the number of taxa, and the number of individuals) because the team sampled only about 100 organisms and spent less effort. Differences in diversity values indicate that some variability exists between samples subsampled in the laboratory and samples that were field picked. Diversity values were comparable within each processing method (laboratory subsampling and field picking), but were slightly different between the two processing methods~for all sites subsampled, the highest diversity values were at Main Ditch, and for all sites fieldpicked, the highest diversity values were at Cockle Burr Slough Ditch and the lowest diversity values were at Main Ditch (fig. 3). Some of this variability may be attributed to subjectivity of field pickers as they determined when an appropriate number of organisms had been picked. Processing a standard number of organisms at all sites, as was the case for samples that were subsampled, may serve to reduce variability for some diversity indices because subjectivity (concerning the appropriate number of organisms to be sampled) is eliminated. No differences in the data could be associated with different net-mesh sizes. Because typically less effort is expended the larger the net-mesh size (fewer small organisms are collected), a large mesh size (about 800 um) may be the most appropriate for use in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion.
Focus of Future Work Biological metrics and biocriteria need to be developed specifically for streams of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion. Compared to upland ecoregions, few biological metrics have been developed specifically for lowland ecoregions, and the application of metrics developed specifically for upland ecoregions to lowland ecoregions is not always appropriate. Metrics developed for upland ecoregions can produce falsenegative results for biotic integrity in lowland streams, even under reference conditions, because upland metrics favorably weight organisms that require high dissolved oxygen concentrations. Streams in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion that have the most intact riparian zones typically have low stream velocities and high organic content. As a result, dissolved
oxygen concentrations commonly exhibit dramatic diurnal shifts placing natural limitations on some biota. For example, the biotic integrity of Village Creek is probably nearer that of a reference site for a leastimpacted Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion stream than the biotic integrity of Main Ditch. However, organisms collected at Main Ditch are more intolerant to organic pollution than organisms collected at Village Creek. Differences in pollution tolerance at the two sites may reflect the positive influence of ground water on surface-water quality at Main Ditch (as a result of the hydraulic connection to the underlying alluvial aquifer).
SUMMARY Results for each sampling team and the average metric values for all teams were comparable, which implies that site assessments by individual teams are in good agreement. Because the team assessments were comparable, the collection and processing methods used are considered effective in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion. Macroinvertebrate data collected by any of the sampling teams should have value for increasing existing macroinvertebrate databases and establishing biological criteria for the ecoregion. Some factors that were observed, which could influence monitoring efficiency and accuracy in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion include: some intersite discriminating ability may be lost when a small sample size (of about 100 organisms) is used; conversely, there may be no gain of intersite discriminating ability associated with a large sample size (between 500 and 1,000 organisms); processing a standard number of individuals at all sites may reduce variability because subjectivity of the field picker is reduced; and a large net-mesh size (about 800 um) may be the most practical size for use in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion. Results from this study may be useful to those who monitor low-gradient streams in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion and elsewhere. The similarities between the methods used in this study and the USEPA multi-habitat protocols established for wadeable, low-gradient streams in other ecoregions, implies that the USEPA protocols may also be applicable to nonwadeable streams and to streams of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain ecoregion. Summary
15
REFERENCES CITED Arkansas Agricultural Statistics Service, 1995: Arkansas agricultural statistics for 1995. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Report Series 334, 60 p. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, 1987, Physical, chemical and biological characteristics of least-disturbed reference streams in ArkansasQ ecoregions, p. 6. Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., and Stribling, J.B., 1999, Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish: EPA 841-B-99-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Bode, R.W., 1988, Methods for rapid biological assessment of streams. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation report, Albany, New York. Bode, R.W., Novak, M.A., and Abele, L.E., 1991, Quality assurance work plan for biological stream monitoring in New York State: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation report, Albany, New York. Brown, D.A., Nash, VE., Caldwell A.G., Bartelli, L.J., Carter, R.C. and Carter, O.R., undated, A monograph of the soils of the southern Mississippi River Valley Alluvium: Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 178, 262 p. Cuffhey, T.F., Gurtz, M.E., and Meador, M.R., 1993, Methods for collecting benthic invertebrates samples as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-406, 66 p. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 1997, Standard operating procedures for bioRecon and the stream condition index: Excerpts from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection biology sectionQs biological assessment SOP manual. Frey, D.G., 1977, Biological integrity of water Q an historical approach. In The integity of water. Edited by R.K.Ballantine and L.J. Guarraia. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. p. 127-140. Gurtz, M.E., and Muir, T.A., 1994, Report of the interagency biological methods workshop. U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-490, p. 85. Muggins, D.G., andMoffett, M.F., 1988, Proposed biotic and habitat indices for use in Kansas streams: Report #35 of the Kansas Biological Survey, Lawrence, Kansas, 128 p.
16
Lenat, D.R., 1993, A biotic index for the southeastern United States: derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water-quality ratings: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v.!2(3): p. 279-290. Lenz, N.L., and Miller, M.A., 1996, Comparison of aquatic macroinvertebrate samples collected using different field methods: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS216-96, 4 p. Missouri Agricultural Statistics Service, 1997, 1997 Missouri farm facts. Missouri Agricultural Statistics Service, 86 p. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life: Volume II. UserQs manual for biological assessment of Ohio surface waters: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, Ohio. Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States: Annual Association of American Geographers, v. 77(1): p. 118-125. Pennak, R.W., 1978, Freshwater invertebrates of the United States (2d ed.): J. Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 803. Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., and Hughes, R.M., 1989, Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers; benthic macroinvertebrates and fish: EPA/440/4-89-001. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Plafkin, J.L., 1989, Rapid Bioassessment: An overview of applications, methods, and assessment approach: Workshop Manual, Office of Water, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Sarver, R.J., and Humphrey, S., 1998, Taxonomic levels for macroinvertebrate identification, SOP # MDNR-FSS209: Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Quality, Jefferson City, MO, 26 p. Tyler Industrial Products, 1976, Testing sieves and their uses. Handbook 53. p. 48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Field and laboratory methods for macroinvertebrate and habitat assessment of low gradient nontidal streams: MidAtlantic Coastal Streams Workgroup, Environmental Services Division, Region 3, Wheeling, WV, 23 p. Zar, J.H., 1984, Biostatistical analysis (2d ed.). Chapter 4. Measures of dispersion and variability, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. 27-39.
Comparison of Multi-Habitat Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain Ecoregion
Justus and others COMPARISON OF MULTI-HABITAT AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATE WRIR 00-4216 SAMPLING METHODS IN STREAMS OF THE MISSISSIPPI ALLUVIAL PLAIN ECOREGION
