STOCKTONIA

Stream Stick Sampling: A Study of Macroinvertebrates and Their Aquatic Homes

DANIEL HEMMERLIN, CHRIS MARTIN, MIKE POMYKACZ AND EMMANUEL JOHN

ABSTRACT Taking sticks out of the Moss Mill Creek and Clarks Mill Stream, research was done to see which types of macroinvertebrates were obtained in these samples. The data was compiled after a great deal of processing in the lab at Stockton College, and it was compared in a variety of ways. Compared to Aquatic Group IIs plate sampling at Zurich Avenue, the stick sampling method yielded higher densities for both caddisflies and midgeflies (Trichoptera and Chironomidae respectively). All of the samples were taken on or after March 24, 2011, as well as the data processed.

Introduction
The question What does a representative sample of macroinvertebrates show from freshwater streams using stick sampling? What will specimens from different samples show and how can they be compared? How will they compare to Aquatic Group II and past studies? What does this say about the quality of the streams? Previous studies Previous studies were conducted at different times of the year, for varying amounts of time. Most of the Stocktonia studies were done using stick or plate sampling. Not all of the studies occurred in the same areas we researched (The Moss Mill Creek and Clarks Mill Steam), but the majority of past Stocktonia studies were. Some of the studies pointed out dominant macro invertebrates in the studied streams. Also, the samples collected were carefully examined under a microscope, sorted and counted. For example, for the stream report in Stocktonia 2009, Chironomidae and Trichoptera were the only two types of macroinvertebrates found in all of the samples (2009). On the other hand, although their results showed a variety of macroinvertebrates in the stream, Stocktonia 2007 had no conclusion to make out of their results. Lastly and however, Stocktonia 2008 found that freshwater organisms do not like salt, leaving us not much to work with as far as obtaining information is concerned (2008). Besides Stocktonia 2008, most of the other reports proved to be helpful comparisons for what should be expected in new results. Hypothesis Using statistical analysis, we intend to demonstrate that using submerged sticks retrieved from freshwater streams as a method of surveying aquatic macroinvertebrate communities will yield specimens that are similar in species and relative abundance to those retrieved using traditional sampling techniques. Field results for pH and conductivity will be used as an indicator of aquatic conditions that could affect the relative yield from site-to-site. We will also consider the current and historical land use of properties adjacent to our sample sites to determine why yields may be less than expected. Will our results yield similar numbers of marcoinvertebrates to past studies and that of Aquatic Group II?

Experimental design To test the above stated hypothesis, the group processed the taken samples from the two streams to compare marcoinvertebrates from the other studies. With ten samples altogether, the group processed the debris that was cleaned off the sticks, as well as the bugs that fell of the sticks during drying. Although the samples were split up into these two sections, samples taken at the same time were counted together. For example, the Moss Mill Above Ditch sample contained two jars; one jar contained the bugs that were scrubbed off, while the other contained bugs that fell off the stick during drying (both preserved in ethanol). Also, the sample contained a bag of the dried out sticks for further evaluation. Our experimental controls will be the results and data of Aquatic Group II, and past studies. The variables we will measure will be the different samples we obtain from different sample sites along the two streams. The results we find will show how the quality of the stream has changed from past studies, or if our method of stick sampling was more efficient than Aquatic Group IIs plate and net sampling.

Study Areas
Our study areas were taken at the Moss Mill Stream at two different locations. Samples were taken at Zurich Avenue, and others were taken past Stockton Colleges Lake Fred dam (Ditch samples). Other samples were taken at Clarks Mill Stream

24

at the intersection of Liebig Street and Odessa Avenue. All of which were in the town of Pomona, New Jersey in Atlantic County. Moss Mill Ditch: Samples were taken on March 24, 2011 with overcast skies and about 45 degree temperatures (Fahrenheit). On the side where the samples were taken, the topography rose slightly and it was mainly a Pine-oak forest. On the opposite side of the stream was an Atlantic White Cedar forest with a peat moss forest floor. Around the stream on both sides was a saturated muddy ground. The stream itself was up to approximately four feet deep. Zurich Avenue (Moss Mill): Samples taken on April 7, 2011 with overcast skies and approximately 50 degree temperatures. Surrounding the Moss Mill Stream was a swampy lowland with peat moss covering the majority of the ground. Surrounding the stream were maples, holly, and oak trees with the underbrush consisting of mostly greenbrier. Clarks Mill: Samples were taken on April 7, 2011 with overcast skies and approximately 50 degree temperatures. The surrounding area consisted mostly of Atlantic White Cedars, with few gum and maple trees scattered around.

Methods
Data collection methods A. The stick assessment was used in order to assess the quality and health of a stream by the means of bio

indicators (in this case insects). We did one sampling collection from each of the five sites, consisting of two individual samples. We then compared these samples to the results from previous data.

B. Stick Method:
Field samples of old sticks that seemed to be in the water for a long period of time were collected at the sites. Each sample was about 1 foot long. The sticks were placed in labeled bags, and brought to the laboratory. After the sticks were collected, they were scrubbed under running water and put into a collection bucket. The stick samples were then put into the stick dryer to be dried. The pieces of debris are examined through a microscope to ensure all the bugs were collected from it. All of the collected bugs are then put in a jar with a label and preserved in a solution of 70% ethanol and 5% glycerin. The bugs are then identified and counted. This process is repeated for all samples.

Data analysis methods Taking the temperature, pH, and conductance along with the macroinvertebrates and their quantity found at a site can help to suggest the quality of the stream at different points. For example the pH and conductance of the stream may be higher near the road due to run off of road salt and other debris, and this may cause one species of macroinvertebrates to no longer exist in this particular sample area as another species may flourish. The goal of this was to create a table showing the dispersion of different species of macroinvertebrates in relation to temperature, pH, and conductance, and comparing this to data from group 1 and other previous studies.

Results
There are many aspects to our results: stick measurements, macroinvertebrate density on these sticks, pH, specific conductivity, temperature (C), macroinvertebrate totals, and comparative tables for selected sites with Aquatic Group II. Due to the complex and vast amount of data, many tables and graphs are going to be included to help illustrate support for our conclusion. 25

STOCKTONIA
First, here is a table of the macroinvertebrate totals out of all of the sites the group sampled using sticks.

Next, here are these counts turned into densities based off of the average size of all the sampled sticks. Also included is the pH, specific conductivity (measured in microsemens), and the temperature in degrees Celsius.

26

Our densities are based off the sizes of the sticks obtained, and this data is given here. Site Clarks Mill Sample #1 Clarks Mill Sample #2 Ditch #1 Ditch #2 Moss Mill Above Ditch #1 Moss Mill Above Ditch #2 Moss Mill Below Ditch #1 Moss Mill Below Ditch #2 Moss Mill Zurich Ave #1 Moss Mill Zurich Ave #2 Total Area Sampled Area Sampled M2 0.058 0.042 0.373 0.400 0.184 1.267 0.033 1.376 0.044 0.064 3.842 274.0mm 24.7mm

Average stick Length Average stick Diameter Avg. Surface Area of Plate Samplers

0.065 *Aquatic II used these plate samplers which are the basis for comparison against our stick samples (Densities in meters2). Here is a chart that shows Specific Conductivity of the sampled streams, and the Density of the macroinvertebrates found. 27

STOCKTONIA

*Note that Specific Conductivity is measured in microsemens, and Density is measured in meters2. Also, for samples in the Ditch #1 and #2, there is a possible correlation between the specific conductivity and the density of sampled macroinvertebrates. Here are the pH and temperature readings for the sampled areas.

Aquatic Group II sampled two of the same sites as us (Moss Mill Creek at Zurich Avenue, and Clarks Mill). Two samples were taken at each site, and here is how they were all compared. Macroinvertebrate Counts Macroinvertebrates Zurich 1 Zurich 2 Clarks 1 Clarks 2 Alderfly Group 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aquatic Worm Group 1 Aquatic Worm Group 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 Beetles Group 1 2 12 2 0 Black Fly Group 1 Black Fly Group 2 1014 410 0 54 0 3 1 0 Caddisfly Group 1 Caddisfly Group 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Crane Fly Group 1 0 0 0 0 Damsel/dragon Group 1 Damsel/dragon Group 2 2 0 0 0 Fishfly Group 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Leeches Group 1 28

Mayfly Group 1 Mayfly Group 2 Midgefly Group 1 Midgefly Group 2 Scud Group 1 Scud Group 2 Stone Fly Group 1 Stonefly Group 2 Surface Area of Plates M2 Surface Area of Sticks M2

0 2 26 2 0 0 0 0 0.065 0.044

0 8 24 3 0 1 0 0 0.065 0.064

0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.065 0.058

0 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0.065 0.042

Macroinvertebrate Densities (M2) Macroinvertebrates Zurich 1 Zurich 2 Clarks 1 Alderfly Group 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Aquatic Worm Group 1 Aquatic Worm Group 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.351 46.053 0.000 Beetles Group 1 30.702 184.213 30.702 Black Fly Group 1 Blackfly Group 2 23158.946 6381.451 0.000 0.000 46.053 15.351 Caddisfly Group 1 Caddisfly Group 2 0.000 15.565 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.351 Crane Fly Group 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 Damsel/dragon Group 1 Damsel/dragon Group 2 45.678 0.000 0.000 Fishfly Group 2 0.000 15.565 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Leeches Group 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 Mayfly Group 1 Mayfly Group 2 45.678 124.516 34.271 399.128 368.426 15.351 Midgefly Group 1 Midgefly Group 2 45.678 46.694 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Scud Group 1 Scud Group 2 0.000 15.565 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Stone Fly Group 1 Stone Fly Group 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 pH 4.25 4.25 4.09 67 9.5 Specific Conductivity 82.5 82.5 Temperature (Celsius) 11 11 *Group 1 refers to Aquatic I, while group 2 refers to Aquatic II.

Clarks 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1277.783 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 47.325 107.458 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.09 67 9.5

29

STOCKTONIA
The data that could be compared the best were at the Zurich site for Caddisflies and Midgeflies. Here are the results:

*The densities are in meters2 and it should be known that these bar graphs relate to one sample site only.

Discussion and Conclusions

Our data was able to tell a variety of things about the relationship between our methods and the methods of Aquatic Group II. The data also shows the types and amounts of macroinvertebrates that reside in the sampled streams. Based off the results for the compared studies at Zurich 2, the stick samples showed higher densities for both caddisflies and midgeflies (Trichoptera and Chironomidae respectively). Not only did both groups find these two types of flies in the streams, but they correlate with data from past studies. The Zurich 2 graphs, being the only sample site where both groups took samples and high macroinvertebrate yields were found, showed that the stick sampling method yielded higher densities. The plate samples, however, yielded way higher amounts of black flies (Simuliidae). The densities of black flies found by group II in their plate samples were magnitudes higher than most of the other densities found by both groups. The overall conclusions that can be reached about the given data are that different methods give different counts of various macroinvertebrates. Overall, the data shows that the Zurich Avenue site was cleaner than the Clarks Mill site since the yield for macroinvertebrates was generally higher in almost every comparable category at Zurich. The other sites, however, require more testing to check for stream cleanliness even though macroinvertebrate numbers were obtained, and some of which were high. 30

Questions for further Study

What if the tests were all done during the heat of summer or the dead of winter? How would the specific conductivity and pH vary? Do plate samples attract different species from that of stick samples? If so, why would this be the case? What is the best time of year to take these tests, or would it be better to keep testing year-round?

Acknowledgements
Water shed Fred came to help us on March 24th with the field sampling at the three ditch sites. He brought the equipment to read the pH, temperature, and specific conductivity at each site. Every group member helped in the sampling process at the stream. We also scrubbed the sticks and filtered the debris into sample jars together. Dan, Chris, and Manny collected all the samples at the off campus sites on April 7th with Jamie Cromartie. The entire group separated the detritus from the bugs that same day. On April 14th, Mike, Dan and Manny counted the bugs in each sample and Chris compiled the data into the Excel worksheet. After analyzing the data on April 21, we presented our PowerPoint document we all worked on. The group finished working on both the lab report and the final revision of the PowerPoint on May 2. Also, Aquatic Group II gave us much of their data for comparison

Literature Cited "Biological Indicators of Watershed Health | US EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 28 Apr. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/index.html>. Cromartie, Jamie.2002. Tutorial on Stick Sampling. http://www.stockton.edu/~cromartw/GEHR/GEHRhomepage.htm. Retrieved on April 28, 2011. Ackerman, Shannon. Carlo, Nick, Groettum, Justine. Michelotti, Patricia. & Savard, Peter. 2009. Stocktonia, Macroinvertebrate Analysis of Morses Mill Stream, 09: 18-22 Evans, Jamie. Gully, Jeremy. Liapis, Steve. Booty, Steve. 2008. Stocktonia, Aquatics, 08: 15-19 Schmidt, Joe. Dixon, Tiffany. Mason, Steven. Bergen, Adriene. 2007. Stocktonia, Aquatic Invertebrates, 07: 03-07

31

STOCKTONIA

32