Transcript Aquatic Invertebrates in Pool and Riffle Habitats of

Aquatic Invertebrates in
Pool and Riffle Habitats of
Blackburn Fork
Michael Railling
Wildlife and Fisheries Science
Tennessee Tech
Project summary
Problem: Are the aquatic invertebrates the
same in pool and riffle habitats.
 Objective: Show that the two habitats
should be comparably different by scoring
the different taxa.
 Expected Results: In the pool more
tolerant taxa will be found. The Riffle will
support taxa that are more susceptible to
poor water quality.

Introduction/Background
Stream macroinvertebrate assemblage varies at
both regional and local scales (Heino et al.
2002). My experiment the samples are taken
only feet away from each other, however the
Taxa Richness and Percent EPT’s should be
different.
 Lower water quality is directly associated to
diversity (Heino et al. 2002). The water quality
of pool areas is lower than that of Riffles;
causing less diversity.

Objective/Hypothesis Statement

Hypothesis:
What different proportions of Genera can be
found in pool and riffle habitats of the Blackburn
Fork, and can the differences of genera be
linked to different water quality within theses
habitatats.

Objective:
To show that different genera are found in
different habitats. Using Taxa Richness and
Percent EPT’s
Methods




Using 6 Hester-Dendy
samplers Qualitatively, 3
in pools and 3 in riffles.
Scrubbing the bugs off
the substrate
Identifying the
invertebrates down to
genus.
Scoring the results using
data forms to show the
Taxa Richness and
Percent EPT’s (State of
Tennessee 2002).
Materials








Six Hester-Dendy Samplers with nine three inch
plates on each.
One pint Formalin
One pint Ethyl alcohol
One D-Frame net
12 bricks
One case of viles
One large cooler
24 freezer bags
Expected Results and Benefits
Expected Results: In the pool more
tolerant taxa will be found. The Riffle will
support taxa that are more susceptible to
poor water quality such as EPT’s.
 Benefits: Showing that invertebrates are
habitat specific.

Project Timeline
Title: 8/20/03-9/03/03
 Objective: 9/10/03-9/17/03
 Literature References: 9/17/03-present
 Data Form: 9/24/03-present
 Experiment: 8/9/03-present

Literature Cited














Adams, S.M., W.R. Hill, M.J. Peterson, M. G. Ryon, J. G. Smith, and A.J. Stewart. 2002. Assessing recovery in a stream ecosystem:
Applying chemical and biological endpoints. Ecological Applications 12: 1510-1527.
Battin, T.J., L.A. Kaplan, J.D. Newbold, and Susan Hendricks. 2003. A mixing model of stream solute dynamics and the contribution of a
hyporheic zone to ecosystem function. Freshwater Biology 48: 995- 1014.
Carter, J.L., and V.H. Resh. 2001. After site selection and before data analysis: Sampling, sorting, and labratory procedures used in
stream benthic macroinvertebrates monitoring programs by USA state agencies. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20:
658-682.
Dyer, S.D. and Xinhao Wang. 2002 A comparison of stream biological responses to discharge from wastewater treatment plants in high
and low population density areas. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21: 1065-1075.
Fairchild, M.P., and Joseph P. Holomuzki. 2002. Spatial variability and assemblage structure of stream hydrosychid caddisflies. Journal of
the North American Benthological Society 21: 576-590.
Heino, J., T. Muotka, and R. Paavola. 2003. Determinates of macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams: Regional and local
influences. 2003. Journal of Animal Ecology 72: 425-434.
Hoffman, A., and V.W. Resh. Oviposition in three species of limnephiloid caddisflies(Trichoptera): Hierarchical influences on site
selection. 2003. Freshwater Biology 48:1064-1077.
Hyne, R.V., and W.A. Maher. Invertebrate biomarkers: Links to toxicosis that predict population decline. 2003. Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety 54:366-374.
Kobayashi, S., and T. Kagaya. 2002. Differences in litter characteristics and macroinvertebrate assemblages between litter patches in
pools and riffles in headwater stream. Limnology 3:37-42.
Malmqvist, B. 2002. Aquatic invertebrates in riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47:679-694.
Negishi, J.N., M. Inoue, and M. Nunokawa. 2002. Effects of channelisation on stream habitat in relation to a spate and flow refugia for
macroinvertebrates in northern Japan. 2002. Freshwater Biology 47:1515-1529.
Parsons, M., M.C. Thoms, and R.H. Norris. 2003. Scales of macroinvertebrate distribution in relation to the hierarchical organization of
river systems. Journal of the Americam Benthological Society 22: 105-122.
State of Tennessee. 2002. Quality System Standard Operating Procedure for Macroinvertebrate Stream Surveys. Department of
Environment and Conservation.
Wymer, W.A., and S.B. Cook. 2003. Effects of Chironomidae (Diptera) taxanomic resolution on multivariate analysis of aquatic insect
communities. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 18:179-186.
Budget
Saleries and Wages
Professional
Technician
Secretarial
Year 1
$150.00
$65.00
$90.00
Year 2
$150.00
$65.00
$90.00
Subtotal
$305.00
$305.00
Benefits
Travel
Non- Expendables
$ $25.00
$100.00
$
$25.00
$100.00
Expendables
Computer
Supplies and Expenses
Copying and Telephone
$700.00
$278.13
$20.00
Subtotal
Indirect Cost
Direct Cost
Total Cost
$998.13
$125.00
$1303.13
$1428.13
$
$6.94
$20.00
$26.94
$125.00
$331.94
$456.94 =
1885.17