lori dufour - flm
Post on 12-Jan-2017
111 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
THE USE OF BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND
CHEMICAL PARAMETERES IN THE ANALYSIS OF WATER QUALITY AT THREE
STREAMS WHERE A ROAD CROSSING IS PRESENT IN HALIBURTON FOREST
LORI DUFOUR
A FIELD RESEARCH REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF APPLIED SCIENCE
AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DIPLOMA OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICIAN –
SAMPLING AND MONITORING
DIPLOMA PROGRAM IN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
SENECA COLLEGE,
TORONTO, ONTARIO
MAY 2015
2
ABSTRACT Streams are an important aspect for watershed management as they are the initial
catchment for storm water runoff. It is important to monitor streams in order to
gain an understanding of the degree that organic pollution may have on an aquatic
ecosystem. This study examined two streams in Haliburton Forest where road
crossings are present using the control/impact study design. Results showed that
there was no indication of possible impairment at both streams between the
reference and exposure units. Because of time constraints, sampling three streams
for the purposes of statistical analysis could not be completed. Additional research
should be done to gain a clearer understanding of the impacts of organic pollution in
rural developments.
3
Acknowledgements I would like to thank my crew members, Hayley Tompkins and Alex Kosyakov, for
their hardwork, commitment, guidance and contributions to this report. I would
like to thank Nadia Kelton for her encouragement and allowing this trip to be able to
happen as I could not have asked for a better place to do my final project, to Carmen
Schlamb for her guidance and support throughout the entire ESM program, and to
Gary Pritchard for his vast knowledge of aquatic ecology that he has passed on with
great efficiency. Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for their
patience for the past 16 months while I have been completing this program
4
Table of Contents ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................................... 8 STUDY SITES ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 STUDY DESIGN ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 BIC INDICES ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Hilsenhoff Biological Index (HBI) ............................................................................................................... 10 %EPT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Equitability (ED) ................................................................................................................................................. 11 Diversity (D) ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.0 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... 12 4.0 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................... 13 5.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 14 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 16 GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................................. 18 APPENDIX I – DATA FIELD SHEETS ................................................................................................ 19 APPENDIX II – RAW DATA ................................................................................................................ 28
5
List of Tables Table 1 Results of the BIC indices from K-‐1 show that there is no impairment between the reference
and exposure site ............................................................................................................................................................ 30 Table 2 Results fromt he BIC indices at W-‐2 indicating no perceived impairment from organic
pollution .............................................................................................................................................................................. 31 List of Figures Figure 1 Map of Haliburton Forest and Wildlife Reserve trails and property boundary lines. Retrieved from http://www.haliburtonforest.com/directions/maps on May 1, 2015…………...32
Figure 2 Original plan for sampling sites. Site 3 remained as a sample site for this study Source: Google Maps (2015). [Haliburton Forest and WIldlife Reserve, Haliburton, ON][Satellite map]. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?authuser=0&hl=en&mid=zZdWUXWGitzk.k6MbgD2Jz5vQ …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...33 Figure 3 Map location showing both sampling sites. One original site was used as site K-‐1 and backup 2 was used as site W-‐2 Source: Google Maps (2015). [ Haliburton Forest & WIldlife Reserve, Haliburton, ON] [satellite map]. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?authuser=0&hl=en&mid=zZdWUXW…………………………..34 Figure 4 Upstream site photo of the exposure site at K-‐1. Author: Alex Kosyakov…………………………..35 Figure 5 Upstream site photo of the reference unit at site K-‐1. Author: Alex Kosyakov…………36
Figure 6 Upstream photo of the exposure unit at site W-‐2. Author: Alex Kosyakov………………………...37 Figure 7 Upstream photo of reference unit at site W-‐2. Author: Alex Kosyakov……………………………...38
6
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Watersheds are home to countless plants and animals that rely on the health
of these waters to survive. Watersheds are an important area of environmental
research because storm water runoff drains to other bodies of water, ultimately
carrying harmful substances that can alter the life histories of many aquatic species
(Panas, J., 2014). Considering these downstream impacts is important from a water
quality and restoration point of view. Streams are the initial catchment from
precipitation runoff and are ecologically important because of the goods and
services they provide to the environment (Kafle, et al., 2013). These services
include a source of clean drinking water, flood and erosion protection, groundwater
recharge, pollution reduction, and wildlife habitat.
Streams flow through industrialized area, cities, and towns where there are a
lot of road crossings. This gives the opportunity for pollution from automobiles and
agricultural practices to enter aquatic ecosystems (Delucchi, M.A, 2000). The most
common type of pollutants are oil, petroleum products, heavy metals, and nutrients
such as phosphorus (Vinodhini, R., & Narayanan, M., 2008). Heavy metals are
particularly concerning due to their toxicity, pervasiveness, and persistence. Metals
present in water are absorbed by fish and other aquatic organisms and tend to
bioconcentrate in the tissues of these organisms (Hsu, Selvaraj, & Agoramoorthy,
2006). This leads to metal toxicity and causes adverse biological effects on an
organism’s survival, activity, growth, metabolism, and reproduction (Blasius, B.J.,
2002). This diminishes the quality of the ecosystem as fish, birds, and aquatic plant
populations start to decline and ecosystem services are no longer being provided.
7
Streams are therefore the focus of a lot of environmental monitoring
research. Stream monitoring efforts are focused mainly on the assessment of the
benthic invertebrate community (Bailey, et al., 1998). Aquatic benthic invertebrates
play a significant role in understanding the health of streams, as they are universal,
species rich, sedentary, long lived, and they integrate conditions temporally .
Because of these reasons, benthic invertebrates are assigned different values based
on their tolerance to pollution in the water (Goodnight, C.J., 1973). Tolerance values
can be applied to the family level or the species level and ranges from 0.00 – 10.00,
where 0 indicates excellent water quality and 10.00 indicates very poor water
quality (Mandaville, 2012).
Using tolerance values can give an indication that a community is impacted,
but it should not be used to make decisions regarding management and
remediation. Instead, the most effective way to use the information available from a
community is to establish biocriteria, usually through testing a reference site to an
exposure site (Bailey, 1998). This involves testing a site exposed to a stressor
against a reference site that is not exposed to a stressor. For the purposes of this
study, only the control/impact approach will be used. The control/impact approach
focuses on a single reference site upstream of the stressor discharge and a test site
downstream of the stressor discharge (Jones, 2007).
This research project aimed to investigate if stream condition in Haliburton
Forest would be compromised due to pollutants from storm water runoff where
road crossings are present. Since Haliburton Forest is a property that is not
available to agriculture and heavy industrialization, it was hypothesized that stream
8
quality would not be compromised. Chemical analysis was also used as
supplementary data to explain any discrepancies between the reference site and the
test site.
2.0 METHODS
Study Sites
Research was conducted at Haliburton Forest and Wildlife Reserve located in
the Kennisis watershed (Figure 1). The Kennisis watershed is located in Haliburton
County, Ontario. Data was originally to be collected from three stream reaches at
road crossings within the watershed (shown as ‘preferred’ in figure 2) that were
previously identified before fieldwork commenced. However, due to time
constraints only two streams were sampled and only one stream was on the original
sampling plan (shown as preferred 3 and backup 2 in figure 3). The second sampling
site was identified as a backup site in the situation that any of the original sites were
not suitable for this study. For this reason, statistics applied to measures of central
tendency and one-‐way ANOVA was not completed.
Site reconnaissance was conducted on Monday April 27, 2015. Site 1 (figure
4 and 5) was located on Kennisis Lake Road and was picked on April 28, 2015, and
site 2 (figure) was located on Watts Road and was picked on April 29, 2015 (figure 6
and 7). Both of the stream names were unknown, so they were named based on the
road name. Therefore, the stream crossing at Kennisis Lake Road was named K-‐1
and the stream crossing at Watts Road was named W-‐2.
9
Study Design
Sample units for the reference and exposure sites was a stream reach and
was considered as the basic unit in which data was collected and followed the
control/impact study design specified in the Ontario Benthic Biomonitoring
Network (OBBN) protocol. Sample units were positioned in a longitudinal
configuration where the reference site was located 50 m upstream of a road
crossing and an exposure site immediately below the culvert outlet.
Data collected at each sample unit included water quality data, benthic
macroinvertebate community data, and physical habitat data, which included
substrate type, organic matter-‐areal coverage, riparian vegetative community,
aquatic macrophytes and algae, and tree cover.
Both the reference and exposure sampling unit consisted of three
subsamples, which consisted of a riffle, pool, riffle sequence. Each subsample was
measured for maximum depth (m), wetted width (m), and maximum hydraulic head
(mm). Maximum depth and wetted width were measured using a meter stick and
maximum depth was measured using a 30 m measuring tape. Water quality was
taken using a YSI 556 in the middle of the sample unit at both the reference and
exposure site. The YSI 556 was totally submerged into the water, but did not touch
the bottom of the streambed. The data taken from the YSI 556 were temperature
(oC), DO (mg/L), conductivity (µS/cm), and pH. Benthic macroinvertebrate
community was collected following the OBBN protocol. Invertebrates were collected
at each subsample by the travelling kick and sweep method using a 500-‐micron d-‐
net frame. Each subsample was kicked for 3 minutes and covered 10 m of sampling
10
area to meet the minimum 100-‐bug requirement at each subsample and 300 for
each sampling unit. Benthos were picked in the lab using the bucket sub-‐sampling
method (David et al., 1998) and were identified to the 27 family level as per the
OBBN standard.
BIC Indices
Hilsenhoff Biological Index (HBI) HBI, otherwise known as family biotic index (FBI), was used to calculate the water
quality of each stream sampling unit based on the benthos that were collected.
Tolerance values range from 0 – 10 where 0 would indicate excellent water quality
and 10 would indicate very poor water quality. The HBI is a single value for a
sampling unit and is based on the individual tolerance values for a taxon. HBI was
calculated using the following formula specified by Mandaville (2002):
𝐻𝐵𝐼 = Σ𝑥𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛
xi = # of individuals within a taxon ti = tolerance value of a taxon
n = total number of organisms in the sample
%EPT Individuals belonging to the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera families
are considered to be sensitive to pollution (Mandaville, 2002). Therefore, %EPT
was used because it considers the percentage of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and
Trichoptera in relation to the total number of animals in the sample and was
calculated as follows:
11
%𝐸𝑃𝑇 =Σ 𝐸,𝑃,𝑇
total individuals
Equitability (ED)
The Species Evenness Index (SEI), or equitability, is a measure of relative
abundance of the different taxa contributing to the richness in an area. The Species
Evenness Index quantifies how equal the community is. Species Evenness Index
values range from 0 to 1. Values closer to 0 indicate a community that is dominated
by only a few taxa, whereas values closer to 1 indicate that the community is more
evenly distributed. ED was calculated using the following formula adapted from
Beals, Gross, and Harrel (1999):
𝐸𝐷 =𝐷𝑠
D = Simpson’s diversity index s = total number of species in the community
𝐷 = 1/𝑝𝑖^2
pi = proportion of S made up of the ith species
Diversity (D)
The Simpson’s Diversity Index (D, or SDI) measures diversity within the
benthic invertebrate community and provides information about rarity and
commonness of species in a community. This index places a greater weight on
common species from the population rather than the rare species. Values range
from 0 to 1. Values of 0, or close to 0, indicate a low level of diversity, while values
ranging closer to or equal to 1 indicate a high level of diversity. The Simpson’s
Diversity Index was calculated using the following formula:
12
n = number of individuals from a sample site N = number of individuals in total from a station
S= richness
3.0 RESULTS From 12 subsamples collected in this study, a total of 981 benthic
invertebrates were identified representing 19 different families. At the K-‐1 stream,
HBI values did not differ significantly from the exposure-‐sampling unit, which was
3.19, to the reference sampling unit, which was 2.01 (Table 1). Both of the reference
and exposure areas are considered to have excellent water quality with organic
pollution unlikely. The same is true for the reference and exposure sampling unit at
the W-‐2 site. HBI values for the exposure and reference unit were calculated as 3.51
and 3.11 (table 2), respectively. Overall, K-‐1 had a higher richness as the exposure
had a richness value of 16 and the reference site had a richness value of 14 (table 1),
whereas the exposure unit at W-‐2 had a richness value of 10 and the reference unit
had a richness value of 12 (table 2). Although there is a difference in the richness
values, the diversity values remain consistent between the exposure and reference
units at both K-‐1 and W-‐2. Relevantly, ED values differed slightly between the K-‐1
and W-‐2 sites. ED for the exposure site was 0.30 at K-‐1 vs. 0.53 at W-‐2 and 0.18 for
the reference site at K-‐1 and 0.48 at W-‐2 (table 1 & 2).
At the reference and exposure sampling units from both of the study sites,
ephemeroptera, trichoptera, and plecoptera dominated the fauna. The exposure site
13
at K-‐1 had a %EPT of 50.22, but the reference site shows a %EPT value at 21.85
(table).
4.0 DISCUSSION Overall, these findings may suggest that organic pollution from road
crossings in a rural, remote location does not likely present a great risk to stream
quality. Likewise, benthic invertebrate community indices detected little or no
difference in the benthic assemblages between the exposure and reference units at
each site.
However, there is a discrepancy regarding the %EPT values at the K-‐1 site.
At the K-‐1 site the dominant substrate at the exposure site was classified as sand
and gravel, but had higher levels of silt as compared to the reference site. According
to Angradi (1999), and Hogg and Norris (1991), %EPT values decrease with
increased sedimentation. Additionally, only 223 organisms were counted at the
exposure site compared to 302 at the reference site. The higher %EPT value can be
attributed to the smaller ratio of EPT to total organisms. This suggests that
additional sampling needs to be conducted to make more accurate conclusions for
this discrepancy.
The exposure unit at the W-‐2 site yielded significantly less organisms than
the reference unit at the same site. This can possibly be explained by the high flow of
the water and the substrate type. The exposure site at W-‐2 was dominated by gravel
and coarse sand sediments and had very high flow as it exited the culvert.
Additionally, directly below the culvert, the substrate was bedrock. The high
14
velocity of the water may have caused the benthos to be dislodged and the coarse
sediments may not have provided optimal habitat for benthic invertebrates (Quinn
& Hickey, 1994; Jowett et al., 1991; Quinn, J.M., et. al, 1997).
HBI values for the exposure and reference sites at both K-‐1 and W-‐2 are low
and provide indication that the water quality is excellent and organic pollution is
unlikely (Mandaville, 2002). This is consistent with the finding that with increased
concentrations of organic pollution, DO decreases (Lenntech Inc., 2015).
The miniscule difference in the indices indicates that further sampling needs
to be completed in order to make an accurate conclusion regarding the stream
health at Haliburton Forest. The original plan to sample three streams was not
viable. Therefore, statistical analysis was not permissible for comparison purposes.
As a result, it is recommended that site reconnaissance be completed before any
type of fieldwork is completed. Additionally, the HBI values that were calculated for
the exposure and reference units did not consider organisms from the
ceratopogonidae family group or the miscellaneous diptera group as their tolerance
values were not indicated. In order to gain more accurate information for HBI
values, more time can be spent identifying organisms to the species level. However,
the correct laboratory equipment, and time is required to obtain a correct
identification.
5.0 CONCLUSION
From these results, it is shown rural streams do not show any indication of
impact from organic pollution coming from road crossings. Additionally, it is
15
recommended that more research needs to be completed in order to make accurate
and confident conclusions regarding the water quality of streams in a rural area. It
is also important to ensure that site reconnaissance is completed thoroughly to
ensure that the proper amount of sampling sites is available to conduct statistical
analysis.
16
REFERENCES Angradi, T.R. (1999). Fine sediment and macroinvertebrate assemblagesin
Appalocian streams: a field experiment with biomonitoring applications. Journal of North American Benthological Society 18(1): 49-‐66.
Bailey, R., et al. (1998). Biological assessment of freshwater ecosystems using a
reference condition approach: comparing predicted and actual benthic invertebrate communities in Yukon streams. Freshwater Biology 39: 765-‐774.
Beals, M., Gross, L., and Harrell, S. (1999). Diversity Indices: Simpson’s D and E.
Retrived from http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed/bealsmodules/simpsonDI.html
Blasius, B.J., Merritt, R.W. (2002). Field and laboratory investigations on the effects
of road salt (NaCl) on stream macroinvertebrate communities. Environmental Pollution 120 219-‐231.
David. S.M., Somers, K.M., Reid, R.A., Hall, R.J., and Girard, R.E. (1998). Sampling
Protocols for the rapid bioassessment of streams and lakes using benthic macroinvertebrates: second edition. Ontario Ministry of Environment, Queens Printer for Ontario, Toronto.
Delucchi, M.A. (2000). Environmental externalities of motor-‐vehicle use in the U.S.
Journal of transport Economics and Policy 34, 135-‐168 Goodnight, C.J. (1973). The use of aquatic macroinvertebrates as indicators of
stream pollution. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 92(1): 1-‐13.
Hogg, I.D. and R.H. Norris. (1991). Effects of runoff from land clearing and urban
development on the distribution and abundance of macroinvertebrates in pool area of a river. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 42:50718
Hsu, M. J., Selvaraj, K., & Agoramoorthy, G. (2006). Taiwan's industrial heavy metal
pollution threatens terrestrial biota. Environmental Pollution, 143(2), 327-‐334.
Jones, C., et. al. (2007). Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network: Protocol Manual,
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Retrieved on 1 May 2015 from http://www.saugeenconservation.com/download/benthos/2009/OBBN%20Protocol%20Manual.pdf
Jowett, I. G., et. al.(1991): Microhabitat preferences of benthic invertebrates and the development of generalised Deleatidium spp. habitat suitability curves,
17
applied to four New Zealand rivers. New Zealand journal of marine andfreshwater research 25: 187-‐200
Kafle, A., et. al. (2013). Assemblage structure of chironimidae (diptera: insect) from wadeable streams of the northern glaciated plains, south Dakota, USA. Proceedings of the South Dakota Academy of Science. Vol. 92.
Lenntech Inc. (2015). Organic Compounds in Freshwater. Retrieved from http://www.lenntech.com/aquatic/organic-‐pollution.htm
Mandaville, S.M. “Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Freshwater – Taxa Tolerance Values, Metrics, and Protocols” Soil & Water Conservation of Metro Halifax (2002). Web. 1 May 2015.
Panas, J., et. al. (2014). Bioassessment of benthic macroinvertebrates of the middle penns creek, Pennsylvania watershed. Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science 88(1): 57-‐62.
Quinn, J.M., et. al. (1997). Land use effects on habitat, water quality, periphyton, and benthic invertebrates in Waikato, New Zealand, hill country streams, New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 31(5), 579-‐597, DOI: 10.1080/00288330.1997.9516791
Quinn, J. M.; Hickey, C. W.; Linklater, W. (1996). Hydraulic influences on periphyton and benthic macroinvertebrates: simulating the effects of upstream bed roughness. Freshwater biology 35: 301-‐309.
Vinodhini, R., & Narayanan, M. (2008). Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in organs of fresh water fish Cyprinus carpio (Common carp). International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology, 5(2), 179-‐182.
18
GLOSSARY biomonitoring the process of sampling, evaluating and reporting on ecosystem condition using biological indicators (Jones, 2007)
pool a stream segment characterized by slow flow and a constant surface elevation; in alluvial systems, typically occur along the outside bend of a meander, where the thalweg is adjacent to the stream bank at bank-‐full discharge (Jones, 2007)
richness the number of taxa found (Jones, 2007)
riffle a stream segment having fast, sometimes turbulent flow and typically shallow depth; typically exibits an obvious local surface elevation change; in alluvial systems, typically occurs at a cross-‐over (Jones, 2007)
Sampling Unit sampling unit for streams; a segment of stream containing a minimum of 2 riffles and one pool; in alluvial streams, often defined as 1 meander wavelength, beginning and ending at a cross-‐over; where there is no discernable pool-‐riffle sequence, may be defined as 14-‐20 times the bank-‐full width (Jones, 2007)
sub-‐sample a benthos sample collected from either a pool or riffle transect in a stream Sampling Reach; a portion of a sample to be picked (Jones, 2007)
test site a site where biological condition or health is questioned (Jones, 2007)
30
Table 1 Results of the BIC indices from K-‐1 show that there is no impairment between the reference and exposure site
Kennisis Lake Road and K-‐1 stream
Exposure Reference
HBI 3.19 2.01 %EPT 50.22 21.85 D 0.80 0.61
ED 0.30 0.18 S 16 14
31
Table 2 Results fromt he BIC indices at W-‐2 indicating no perceived impairment from organic pollution
Watts Road and W-‐2 stream Exposure Reference
HBI 3.51 3.11
%EPT 44.85 32.19
D 0.82 0.82 ED 0.53 0.48
S 10 12
32
Figure 2 Map of Haliburton Forest and Wildlife Reserve trails and property boundary lines. Retrieved from http://www.haliburtonforest.com/directions/maps on May 1, 2015
33
Figure 2 Original plan for sampling sites. Site 3 remained as a sample site for this study Source: Google Maps (2015). [Haliburton Forest and WIldlife Reserve, Haliburton, ON][Satellite map]. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?authuser=0&hl=en&mid=zZdWUXWGitzk.k6MbgD2Jz5vQ
Zone: 17T N: 5012366 E: 688963 Elevation: 379 m
34
Figure 3 Map location showing both sampling sites. One original site was used as site K-‐1 and backup 2 was used as site W-‐2 Source: Google Maps (2015). [ Haliburton Forest & WIldlife Reserve, Haliburton, ON] [satellite map]. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?authuser=0&hl=en&mid=zZdWUXW
Zone: 17T N: 5012366 E: 688963 Elevation: 379 m
Zone: 17T N: 5013856 E: 690377 Elev: 382 m
top related