Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Grant Hackworth
STOCKTON UNIVERSITY
Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Materials ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 4
Experiment Preparation ............................................................................................................................ 4
Leaf Pack Placement ................................................................................................................................. 4
Leaf Pack Removal and Analysis ............................................................................................................... 4
Results ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
Discussion...................................................................................................................................................... 6
Appendix I: Maps .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Historical Map ........................................................................................................................................... 7
ArcGIS Map ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Appendix II: Tables and graphs ..................................................................................................................... 9
Appendix III: Photographs........................................................................................................................... 19
References .................................................................................................................................................. 28
Abstract
This report was very valuable in the observation to the quality for a freshwater ecosystem
within close-proximity to an urbanized area, a zoo, and a city park. The aims were to study the
pollution sensitive macroinvertebrates, total biological richness, biodiversity, and the abiotic
water quality. Initial observations that the raceway, river, and lake would be in fair or poor health
seemed to hold true throughout the experiment. The lack of species richness and biodiversity, as
well as low EPT indices did not favor good or excellent habitat conditions. Water quality was
classified as good in regards to nitrogen, pH, and dissolved oxygen levels, but had very high
phosphate levels. Due to the number of other students involved there could have been error in
sampling or the samples did not pick up the pollution that was causing the lack of biodiversity
among the macroinvertebrate community. Ultimately the experiment established a starting point
for more research of similar nature to be carried out and will now have a base of indices and
standards to be compared to.
Introduction
The purpose of this experiment is to determine the health of the waterbodies using
macroinvertebrate counts within the benthic layer of the waterbody by method of leaf pack
sampling. Benthic macroinvertebrates are bottom dwelling organisms such as aquatic insects,
insect larvae, crayfish, clams, snails, aquatic worms, and diatoms They are categorized by the
four ecological roles they play in a freshwater system; shredders, filter-collectors, grazers, and
predators. These benthic macroinvertebrate species are an integral part of the freshwater
ecosystem by eating algae and other nutrients and decomposing leaf litter and other materials
while also serving as a food source to birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians in the ecosystem. The
benthic community also helps transport energy downstream in a watershed (Vannote et al., 1980)).
See Figure 1
Benthic macroinvertebrates serve as indicators for water quality because they are always
living within the water system and allow researchers to study the long-term health of the stream.
There have been many studies conducted using these organisms over the last few decades which
has allowed for researchers to thoroughly document the different pollution tolerances of the
many different species. Each species reacts to the biotic and abiotic factors in the system with
different sensitivity. The EPT index is based on three pollution intolerant species;
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera. The index is used as ecological indicator when
determining the impacts to freshwater sources like streams and lakes (Rios, 2006). There are
many types of EPT indices for evaluating water quality and for this report three were employed
on the collected data. EPT/C index is a ratio of the amount of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera individuals found versus the amount of Chironomidae (Mandaville, 2002).
Chironomidae are also known as midges and have high pollution tolerance so finding high
amounts of this insect is a sign ecosystem disturbance. The ratio is a quantitative example for
how many pollution intolerant flies there are compared to the amount of high pollution tolerant
midges. The EPT percentage index is a measurement of the total amount of EPT species found
versus the total number of macroinvertebrates found in the sample. The last EPT index is
calculated simply by adding the amount of families found out of each species and the total
number of different families corresponds to a numerical rating. All three of these tests illustrate
the species richness in these very sensitive insects (Mandaville, 2002).
Materials
YSI meter
Bucket
15 Mesh Bags
Nylon rope
6 Dissection trays
2 pairs of Tweezers
Sharpee
Magnifying glass
Rebar/Stones
Camera
3 Sorting buckets
Zip ties
6 Test Tubes
Scissors
Dissecting microscope
Methods
Experiment Preparation
Collected leaves from the nearby area and set them out to air dry before weighing them.
Weighed 30 grams of leaves for each bag to ensure all bags are the same weight, and placed the
leaves in their respective mesh bag. Tied off each mesh bag full of leaves with a zip tie and
secured a piece of 6-10 inch nylon rope for attachment at the sample location. Attach waterproof
labels/markers and assign each a number to be used for site map identification purposes.
Results
Cohansey River had a total EPT of 1.2%, the raceway with 0.3%, and Sunset lake with
3%, all well below the unhealthy urban standard (Figure 2). For EPT index involving number of
families counted only one EPT species was found in each site location. The raceway samples
only contained Trichoptera, Sunset Lake contained Ephemeroptera, and the Cohansey River
contained Plecoptera (Figure 2). For the EPT/C ratio, the Cohansey River had the highest with
9.1%, Sunset Lake with 6.7%, and the raceway with just 1.4% (Figure 2). Taxa richness for the
Sunset Lake and the raceway both saw a total of seven different species (Figure 4 & 6) The
Cohnasey River had the most overall species counts with 12 (Figure 5). The overall biodiversity
was weighted towards Chironomidae, Amphipoda, and Oligochaeta with these dominant species
making up 80% of the overall sample population (Figures 7-9). Comparison of EPT species,
other insect species, and non-insect species also show very low numbers of the highly sensitive
EPT species throughout all three waterbodies (Figures 14-16). Pollution tolerance values for the
Cohansey River were between 6.7-7.3 receiving a poor-quality rating at all four sample sites
(Figure 10 & 13) Pollution tolerance values for the raceway were between 6.6-7.1 receiving a
poor-quality rating at all six sample sites (Figure 11 & 13) Pollution tolerance values for Sunset
Lake were between 6.1-6.7 receiving a fair-quality rating at four sample sites and poor-quality at
the fifth site (Figure 12 & 13). When applying these indices to the metric criteria for rating water
quality, the canal scored a 12, the Cohansey River scored a 15, and Sunset Lake scored a 9 all
receiving a moderately impaired classification (Figures 17-19).
5
Discussion
Analysis of the experiment show that the water quality in the Bridgeton raceway,
Cohansey River, and Sunset Lake are moderately to severely impaired. Similar studies have
shown that healthy forested waterbodies contained close to 50% Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera (EPT) percentage index, whereas unhealthy urban waterbodies were less than 5%.
(Johnson, et al., 2013). The Cohansey River, raceway, and Sunset lake all contained less than 5%
making them all well below the unhealthy urban standard. The other indices involving EPT were
all very low finding only one species of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, or Trichoptera in the entirety
of each sample location. These low percentages signify that overwhelming abundance of
Chironomidae populations in comparison to all three EPT species populations. Healthy streams
have even distribution of all four of these species, so when the benthic community is
disproportionately weighted in favor of Chironomidae species it indicates environmental stresses
in the ecosystem (Mandaville, 2002).
There is a clear lack of species richness illustrated by the overall biodiversity observance
in both individual species and EPT, other insect and, non-insect species. Percent dominance
indices agree with this fact as well with the top three dominate species all be highly tolerant
worm and crustacean species. In fact, 80% of all the individuals counted were either midge,
scud, or aquatic worm. The biotic index showed fair water quality with a substantial amount of
organic pollution. The Cohnasey River and raceway scored poor water quality values in all
samples. Sunset Lake scored fair water quality values for the first four sample locations and poor
for the fifth. These values with the lakes average measured nitrogen levels being 3 mg/L and the
average phosphate concentration of 2.0 mg/L there is evidence to conclude the abundance of
biological pollution in the raceway and the river as well. Further supporting this conclusion is
that the dissolved oxygen and pH levels were not indicating poor water quality, therefore there
must be another source causing poor health within the benthic community (Mandaville, 2002).
Many studies of riparian vegetation have shown the lack thereof being the reason for an
influx of nutrients and suspended matter. In fact, riparian vegetation is essential to the health of a
freshwater ecosystem in a few ways. The first role it plays is to act as a buffer for the pond by
absorbing any nutrients or contaminants that would otherwise run directly into the water.
6
Appendix I: Maps
Historical Map Historical map of Bridgeton park, raceway, Sunset Lake and Cohansey River.
Figure 1
Figure 3. Graphical representation of total biodiversity in species found over all three locations
10
Figure 5. Individuals found in across all four sample locations in the Cohansey River.
Figure 6. Individuals found in across all five sample locations in the Sunset Lake.
11
12
13
Species
Midge
Scud
Snail
Aquatic Earthworm
Ribbon Worm
Leech
Springtail
Damselfly
Caddisfly
Sowbug
Black Beetle
Stonefly
Crab
Mayfly
Hellagrammite
Dragonfly
TOTAL
Chironomidae
Amphipoda
Gastropoda
Oligochaeta
Canal 1
Canal 2
Canal 3
Canal 4
Canal 5
Canal 6
Tolerance Value Count TTV Count TTV Count TTV Count TTV Count TTV Count TTV
Nemertea
Hirudinea
Collembola
Zygoptera
Trichoptera
Isopoda
Coleoptera
Plecoptera
Decopoda
Ephemeroptera
Megaloptera
Anisoptera
6
6
7
8
8
10
5
7
2.8
8
4.6
1
8
3.6
2
4
20
18
3
27
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
71
120
108
21
216
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
486
34
62
6
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
143
204
372
42
328
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
946
6.615
42
34
20
50
0
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
152
252
204
140
400
0
10
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1041
6.849
14
18
6
25
0
4
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
84
108
42
200
0
40
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
495
7.071
19
21
7
47
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
98
114
126
49
376
0
10
0
7
5.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
688
7.016
6.656
Figure 11. Cohansey River pollution tolerance value chart for biotic index
Pollution
Macroinvertbrate
Species
Midge
Scud
Snail
Aquatic Earthworm
Ribbon Worm
Leech
Springtail
Damselfly
Caddisfly
Sowbug
Black Beetle
Stonefly
Crab
Mayfly
Hellagrammite
Dragonfly
TOTAL
Chironomidae
Amphipoda
Gastropoda
Oligochaeta
Nemertea
Hirudinea
Collembola
Zygoptera
Trichoptera
Isopoda
Coleoptera
Plecoptera
Decopoda
Ephemeroptera
Megaloptera
Anisoptera
River 1
River 2
River 3
River 4
Tolerance Value Count TTV Count TTV Count TTV Count TTV
6
6
7
8
8
10
5
7
2.8
8
4.6
1
8
3.6
2
4
12
34
12
17
9
7
5
5
0
13
3
3
0
0
0
0
120
14
72
204
84
136
72
70
25
35
0
104
13.8
3
0
0
0
0
818.8
9
19
5
25
0
9
0
7
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
7.333
54
114
35
200
0
90
0
49
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
550
2
5
3
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
6.846
12
30
21
16
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
89
10
16
2
5
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
42
6.786
12
26
6
16
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
64
60
96
14
40
0
20
0
7
0
0
0
0
48
0
0
0
285
72
156
42
128
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
426
Species
Midge
Scud
Snail
Aquatic Earthworm
Ribbon Worm
Leech
Springtail
Damselfly
Caddisfly
Sowbug
Black Beetle
Stonefly
Crab
Mayfly
Hellagrammite
Dragonfly
TOTAL
Chironomidae
Amphipoda
Gastropoda
Oligochaeta
Nemertea
Hirudinea
Collembola
Zygoptera
Trichoptera
Isopoda
Coleoptera
Plecoptera
Decopoda
Ephemeroptera
Megaloptera
Anisoptera
Lake 1
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
22
102
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
3.6
0
0
133.6
Lake 2
Lake 3
Lake 4
60
108
0
0
0
10
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
185
10
12
0
0
0
1
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
32
6.144
60
72
0
0
0
10
0
49
0
0
0
0
0
3.6
2
0
197
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
8
6.075
15
12
12
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
3.6
0
0
48.6
Lake 5
Count TTV
6
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
10
6.7
36
0
0
0
0
20
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
67
Figure 15. Cohansey River ratio of EPT species, other insects, and non-insects.
16
Figure 17. DEP metric for water quality using the five indices for all three locations.
Category
Canal
Taxa Richness
EPT Index
% Dominance
EPT %
Biotic Index
Total Score
River
3
0
6
0
3
12
Lake
6
0
6
0
3
15
3
0
3
0
3
9
17
Metric Score
6
3
>10
10-5
0
4-0
>5
5-3
2-0
< 40
40-60
>60
>35
35-10
< 10
<5
5-7
>7
18
Photo 1
Photo 2
Photo 4
Photo 6
Photo 8
River sampling site 3 at retreival, low tide is approximately 5 feet lower and the leaf pack is shown here
being out of water, source of error
Photo 10
Photo 12
24
Photo 13
Sorted benthic macroinvertebrates from leaf pack. Scud (Amphipoda) bunched on the left and right,
midge (Chironomidae) bottom and top center and brown casings shown, aquatic earthworms
(Oligochaeta) mid center, and three damselflies (Zygoptera).
Photo 14
Photo 15
Photo 16
Close-up of sowbug (Isopoda) top, damselfly (Zygoptera) in middle, and scud (Amphipoda) on bottom
26
Photo 17
27
References
"Bureau of GIS." Bureau of GIS. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 29 Sept. 2016.
Web. 03 Oct. 2016.http://www.state.nj.us/dep/gis/stateshp.html
Johnson, R. C., Jin, H., Carreiro, M. M., & Jack, J. D. (2013). Macroinvertebrate community structure,
secondary production and trophic-level dynamics in urban streams affected by non-point-source pollution.
Freshwater Biology, 58(5), 843-857. doi:10.1111/fwb.12090
Mandaville, S. M. (2002, June). Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Freshwaters- Taxa Tolerance Values,
Metrics, and Protocols [Scholarly project]. Retrieved October 12, 2016.
"Resources." Leaf Pack Network: LPN Manual. Stroud Water Research Center, 2015. Web. 03 Oct.
2016.http://leafpacknetwork.org/lpn/resources/manual/
Rios, Sandra L., and Robert C. Bailey. "Relationship Between Riparian Vegetation And Pond Benthic
Communities At Three Spatial Scales." Hydrobiologia 553.1 (2006): 153-160. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 2 Nov. 2016
Tzilkowski, C. J. (2008, January). Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Programs Throughout the
Eastern Rivers and Mountains Network Region: Commonalities Among Regulatory Authorities. National
Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved October 14, 2016, from
https://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ermn/assets/docs/inventories/ERMN_651918_MacroinvertebrateB
ioassessment_Tzilkowski_NPS_NER_NRTR_2008_103.pdf.
Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall, K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell, and C. E. Cushing. 1980. River
Continuum Concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 130-137. Retrieved December 10, 2016.
<http://www.rivercontinuum.org/files/RCC.178151255.pdf>
28