Illinois Department of Natural Resources Paper

NIU BIOS 316 Fall 2019 Burgess Aquatic Paper Guidelines (50 points) Overview • In our first lab field trip, we sampled aquatic macroinvertebrates from a local stretch of river. Later in lab, we discussed aquatic macroinvertebrate identification and diversity estimation. The data were pooled and you calculated various parameters. • Your paper will be written in response to a request from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to check if a chemical spill upstream of MacQueen Forest Preserve in 2017 has had lasting effect on the overall health of the Kishwaukee River in 2019. Because aquatic macroinvertebrates are a good indicator of river health, we are going to use our samples to assess the condition of the Kishwaukee River. • PAPER GUIDELINES: • Your introduction should address 1.) A fictional explanation of a 2017 chemical spill has caused damage to the Kishwaukee River. You can be creative, but don’t be ridiculous. Use 1 primary research source to explain how a chemical spill or agricultural runoff can have a negative effect on a river 2.) How aquatic invertebrates can be used to measure water quality. Use 1 primary research source to cite this statement. 3.) A formal statement of your intent to measure the Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI) of the Kishwaukee River at MacQueen Forest Preserve. • Your methods should address 1.) Where you went. 2.) How you sampled for water chemistry parameters 3.) How you sampled for the aquatic macroinvertebrates. 4.) What calculations were done to calculate and MBI. Include explanations of all the intermediate calculations, but don’t include equations (please). • Your results should include a filled-out summary table of the “Stream Quality Indexes” on the “Macroinvertebrate Identification” handout on Blackboard (Organisms Sampled, Taxa Richness, EPT Taxa Richness, MBI, and what “Tentative Quality Rating” you came to for both 2017 and 2019). I will provide you with a Word-compatible table that you should fill out and copy/paste into your paper. • Your discussion should address 1.) How the water quality differed from 2017 to 2019 in terms of “Tentative Quality Rating”. 2.) Give a reason why the river may or may not have “bounced back” so quickly. 3.) Consult the bottom of this guideline for more ideas on what to talk about in the discussion. • Remember, you are writing this paper like you are informing the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) on the water quality of the Kishwaukee River at MacQueen Forest Preserve post 2013 chemical spill! • Your paper must appropriately cite these two sources listed as well as the two sources outlined in the above paper guideline: • Brower JE, JH Zar, and CN von Ende. 1998. Field and laboratory methods for general ecology. 4th Ed. McGraw-Hill: New York. 273pp. • Nixon CP, DB Stoeckel, and MR Jeffords. 2006. Stream quality indicators of Illinois for use by the Illinois River Watch Program. Illinois Natural History Survey. EcoWatch Network. Illinois Department of Natural Resources. • Suggested search keywords: Stream insect diversity, substrate size, disturbance, flow velocity, EPT index, stream water quality. • First, you will submit a complete first draft (25 points) for review and grading. This draft will be returned to you with constructive comments. You’ll then improve your paper according to these comments and submit a final draft (25 points) for grading. Refer to the grading rubric (below) for specific details. 1 NIU BIOS 316 • • Fall 2019 Burgess Papers must be submitted electronically (.doc, .docx, .pdf) on Blackboard. Late work will receive a zero. Important Dates: Field trip Tuesday, Sep. 3 and Thursday, Sep. 5 Macroinvertebrate identification Tuesday, Oct. 8 and Thursday, Oct. 10 Aquatic sampling data available on BB Friday, Oct. 11 First draft due (25 points) Friday, Nov. 1 by 10:00 pm First draft returned w/ comments Friday, Nov. 15 Final draft due (25 points) Friday, Dec. 6 by 10:00 pm Some things to keep in mind when you’re writing your discussion: (these aren’t necessary, but something to help you “flesh out” your discussion a little bit more) Is it likely or unlikely that some species are absent due to seasonal fluctuations in population? (hint: look up “seasonal aquatic insect hatches”) What other types of aquatic macro-invertebrates might you find in water of similar quality to that of MacQueen Forest Preserve sampled from this year? (Use the “TI” values from the “Macroinvertebrate Identification” sheet to make logical comparisons. Large TI values represent a species that is very tolerant to pollutants, whereas a small TI value represents a pollutant-intolerant species. Example: Bloodworm Midges are TI 11 and thus very tolerant to pollution, Stoneflies are TI 1.5 and thus very intolerant to pollution, etc.) What is a likely abiotic factor that could cause low populations of EPT families? (hint: think of what we talked about in class in regards to what an EPT index is used to measure.) Grading Rubric Section Introduction (4 pts.) Methods (6 pts.) Results (7 pts.) Requirements Provide background information. Cite relevant primary literature. Identify the objectives and hypotheses of this research. Identify and briefly describe the sampling locations. Describe the sampling methods. How were the data collected? Describe the data analysis. How were the data analyzed? Report your results in a summary table. Interpret the results here. Summarize the most striking similarities and differences between the two sampling locations. Discussion (8 pts.) Relate the results back to the information presented in the introduction. Identify plausible explanations for the results. Total Score: Note: This assignment is worth a total of 50 points: 25 per draft. 2 Points /2 /2 /2 /2 /2 /7 /4 /4 / 25 Code FLW AQW LEE SBG SCD DGF DM1 DM2 HLL ALF MF1 MF2 MF3 MF4 MF5 MF7 MF6 STF CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 RFB WHB WPB CRF BIM BLW MID BLF SNF OTF LHS RHS PLS LIM OPS MOT Organism Flatworm Aquatic Worm Leech Sowbug Scud Dragonfly Broadwinged Damselfly Narrowwinged Damselfly Dobsonfly (Hellgrammite) Alderfly Torpedo Mayfly Swimming Mayfly Clinging Mayfly Crawling Mayfly Burrowing Mayfly Armored Mayfly Other Mayfly Stonefly Hydropsychid Caddisfly Snail Case Caddisfly Saddle Case Caddisfly Other Caddisfly Riffle Beetle Whirligig Beetle Water Penny Beetle Crane Fly Biting Midge Bloodworm Midge Midge Black Fly Snipe Fly Other Fly Left-Handed Snail Right-Handed Snail Planorbid Snail Limpet Operculate Snail Moth (Pyralidae) N (Number of organisms) 33 2 3 20 12 1 49 2 4 3 4 TI (Tolerance Rating) 6.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 7.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 5.5 5.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 5.5 3.0 0.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 11.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 10.0 9.0 7.0 6.5 7.0 6.0 5.0 TV (Tolerance Value) 0 330 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16.5 0 0 0 0 110 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 5 539 12 24 0 30 36 0 0 0 0 0 Code FLW AQW LEE SBG SCD DGF DM1 DM2 HLL ALF MF1 MF2 MF3 MF4 MF5 MF7 MF6 STF CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 RFB WHB WPB CRF BIM BLW MID BLF SNF OTF LHS RHS PLS LIM OPS MOT Organism Flatworm Aquatic Worm Leech Sowbug Scud Dragonfly Broadwinged Damselfly Narrowwinged Damselfly Dobsonfly (Hellgrammite) Alderfly Torpedo Mayfly Swimming Mayfly Clinging Mayfly Crawling Mayfly Burrowing Mayfly Armored Mayfly Other Mayfly Stonefly Hydropsychid Caddisfly Snail Case Caddisfly Saddle Case Caddisfly Other Caddisfly Riffle Beetle Whirligig Beetle Water Penny Beetle Crane Fly Biting Midge Bloodworm Midge Midge Black Fly Snipe Fly Other Fly Left-Handed Snail Right-Handed Snail Planorbid Snail Limpet Operculate Snail Moth (Pyralidae) N (Number of organisms) 2 1 12 9 1 2 5 19 7 9 9 6 1 20 171 7 34 2 11 13 1 1 1 3 3 TI (Tolerance Rating) 6.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 5.5 5.5 7.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 5.5 5.0 3.0 3.0 1.5 5.5 3.0 0.0 3.5 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 11.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 10.0 9.0 7.0 6.5 7.0 6.0 5.0 TV (Tolerance Value) 0 20 8 0 48 40.5 3.5 11 0 37.5 57 28 31.5 49.5 30 3 60 0 940.5 0 0 24.5 170 8 0 0 55 0 78 0 4 0 9 7 0 0 18 15 Team Number: Names: BIOS 316 Fall 2019 Definitions: N: Number of organisms sampled Taxa Richness: the total number of taxa identified EPT: acronym stands for Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies). These are 3 orders of aquatic insects that are found in high-quality streams. TV: Tolerance Value. I will calculate these for you. They will be available on Blackboard on 10/11/19 Stream Quality Indexes: 2017: Total Organisms Sampled = ΣN 133 Taxa Richness = ΣTAXA 11 EPT Taxa Richness = (# of taxa mayfly 2 + # of taxa stonefly + # taxa caddisfly) Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI) = ΣTV ÷ ΣN 8.8609 2019: Total Organisms Sampled = ΣN 350 Taxa Richness = ΣTAXA 25 EPT Taxa Richness = (# of taxa mayfly 9 + # of taxa stonefly + # taxa caddisfly) Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI) = ΣTV ÷ ΣN 5.0186 Tentative Quality Ratings: Grade Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Taxa Richness ≥ 14 12 – 13 9 – 11 7–8 ≤6 EPT Taxa Richness ≥5 4 3 2 0−1 2017: Taxa Richness Grade Fair EPT Taxa Richness Poor MBI EPT Taxa Richness Excellent MBI Very Poor 2019: Taxa Richness Grade Excellent Fair MBI ≤ 4.35 ≥ 4.36 − ≤ 5.00 ≥ 5.01 − ≤ 5.70 ≥ 5.71 − ≤ 6.25 ≥ 6.26 Macroinvertebrate identification worksheet solving process To calculate the number of organisms sampled within both cases, the formula ΣN was applied as follows: Because Σ means sum, the SUM function was appropriate. The range (C2:C39) is the range of cells containing the data of the number of organisms (N) sampled for each taxon (column C). The SUM function adds on the value of each cell and displays the accumulated sum of values within the selected range, as it is shown above. The Taxa Richness is calculated through the expression ΣTaxa, which means it represent the number of different taxa present in the sample. This can be computed by the COUNT function, which is a sum of the number of cells that contain any figure within the selected range: It can be seen from the image above that the selected range remains the same as the one used for calculate the total of organisms sampled. While the SUM function adds on the value of each cell for computation, the COUNT function only adds on a value of 1 when the cell contains any figure (i.e., is not empty). For example, in the image above, the corresponding cell to the Saddle Case Caddisfly (C22) has no numerical value so the COUNT function will assign automatically a value of 0 to this cell; in contrast, the cell corresponding to the Other Caddisfly taxon (C23) has a value of 7, the COUNT function will assign this cell a value of 1 rather than its actual numerical value. Hence, the sum of all the values assigned by the function to each cell is computed to give the total amount of cells with a numerical value different than zero. In this case, the number of taxa is directly related with this sum. To calculate the EPT Taxa Richness, it is needed a combination of both the SUM and the COUNT functions. The formula of the EPT Taxa Richness is the following: # of taxa(mayfly) + # of taxa(stonefly) + # taxa(caddisfly); hence, a COUNT function is needed to count the number of taxa for each required Major Group and a SUM function is needed to add on the values obtained after the COUNT function. One form to do this is combining both functions into a single cell, then the command would look something like this (the selection of the cell ranges is explained in the next page): EPT Taxa Richness = SUM(COUNT(C12:C18)+COUNT(C19)+COUNT(C20:C23)) Alternatively, the functions may be written in different cells as it is shown below: In the image above, the required three different cells contain the COUNT function for each of the required Major Groups, namely Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies). How the ranges for these functions were selected is explained next. The following table shows the different taxa considered for this study and their corresponding Major Groups. Code FLW AQW LEE SBG SCD DGF DM1 DM2 HLL ALF MF1 MF2 MF3 MF4 MF5 MF7 MF6 STF CF1 CF2 CF3 CF4 RFB WHB WPB CRF BIM BLW MID BLF SNF OTF LHS Organism Flatworm Aquatic Worm Leech Sowbug Scud Dragonfly Broadwinged Damselfly Narrowwinged Damselfly Dobsonfly (Hellgrammite) Alderfly Torpedo Mayfly Swimming Mayfly Clinging Mayfly Crawling Mayfly Burrowing Mayfly Armored Mayfly Other Mayfly Stonefly Hydropsychid Caddisfly Snail Case Caddisfly Saddle Case Caddisfly Other Caddisfly Riffle Beetle Whirligig Beetle Water Penny Beetle Crane Fly Biting Midge Bloodworm Midge Midge Black Fly Snipe Fly Other Fly Left-Handed Snail Major Group Platyhelminthes Annelidae Hirudinea Isopoda Amphipoda Odonata Odonata Odonata Megaloptera Megaloptera Ephemeroptera Ephemeroptera Ephemeroptera Ephemeroptera Ephemeroptera Ephemeroptera Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Trichoptera Trichoptera Trichoptera Trichoptera Coleoptera Coleoptera Coleoptera Diptera Diptera Diptera Diptera Diptera Diptera Diptera Mollusca RHS PLS LIM OPS MOT Right-Handed Snail Planorbid Snail Limpet Operculate Snail Moth (Pyralidae) Mollusca Mollusca Mollusca Mollusca Lepidoptera The selected range for each required Major Group will comprise all the cells corresponding to the taxa within that specific Major Group. For example, the selected range for the Ephemeroptera Major Group consists of all cells with the MF code (from MF1 to MF6). In the spreadsheet, Major Groups for the EPT Taxa Richness correspond with the following cell ranges: Ephemeroptera (C12:C18) Plecoptera (C9) Trichoptera (C20:C23) Next, the results from all three COUNT functions are summed with the SUM function as it is shown below: The Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index is calculated through the formula: MBI = ΣTV ÷ ΣN. Since the value of ΣN is already known (total organisms sampled), the only required value remaining is the sum of the Tolerance Values (ΣTV), which can be obtained using the SUM function to sum all the values of TV. Thus, the command used to calculate MBI may be written as follows: Here, the range (E2:E39) represent the TV of all the taxa considered in the study. These values were previously calculated, by multiplying the number of organisms for each taxa times its Tolerance Rating (TI). Since the format for both years 2017 and 2019 is the same, the exact same formulas (i.e. with the same cell ranges) can be used for both cases. The last step consists in the assignation of a qualitative grade to the results from each year based on the tentative quality ratings provided in the worksheet. For instance, the number of Taxa Richness sampled in 2017 is given a Fair grade because it resulted to be 11, which falls within the Fair range of Taxa Richness (9-11).