1. By: Sarah, Kevin, Joe, John and KC
Macroinvertibrates and Bioassessment: The Use of Biological Indicators to Assess Stream Health
By: Sarah, Kevin, Joe, John and KC

2. Questions:
Can stream quality be assessed on the basis of macroinvertebrate populations?
Based on the biotic index, has the quality of the streams studied in 2012 (Zurich Avenue and Lower Moss Mill) changed?
What is the best method for collecting macroinvertebrate samples?
Does the Pinelands Macroinvertebrate Index give a more accurate assessment of stream quality than the “Save Our Streams” multimetric index used in 2012?  

3. Hypothesis:
Using the Pinelands Macroinvertebrate Index as opposed to Virginia Save Our Streams index, will give us a more appropriate health score for local streams.
Based on past research, we believe that macroinvertibrates can be used to accurately indicate stream health in the Pinelands.
We believe using pH and conductivity readings as additional information, we will have supporting evidence for our conclusion.

4. How it works:
Biological assessments are employed to evaluate the health of a stream. Organisms, like macroinvertebrates, can provide information about a stream’s condition which chemical and physical data cannot provide.
Macroinvertebrate assessment integrates the effects of multiple stressors on the stream, like the longterm effects of habitat degradation and the short term effects of toxic substances in the water column (Jessup et al. 2005).
A multimetric index is one which uses the aggregate results of many metrics to assess the stream, because multiple factors can affect stream quality.
PMI- richness and diversity of the insect and non-insect tax, the percent plecoptera and trichoptera (stoneflies and caddisflies), percent diptera (true flies; midges and black flies), percent mollusca and amphipoda (snails and sowbugs), Hilsenhoff index (most sensitive to most tolerant taxa), and percent filterers. V SOS- Percent pollution tolerant, percent non-insect, percent ephemeroptera, plecoptera, trichoptera (EPT), percent coleoptera, and percent lunged-snails.

6. Lower Moss Mill on Stockton’s Campus
Sample Locations:
Lower Moss Mill on Stockton’s Campus
Cedar swamp to hardwood swamp. Soft, sandy bottom. Full canopy.
Below Ditch
Above Ditch

7. Clarks Mill at the intersection of Liebig and Odessa
Sample Locations:
Clarks Mill at the intersection of Liebig and Odessa
Cedar swamp, gravel bottom. Full canopy.

8. Moss Mill at Zurich Avenue
Sample Locations:
Moss Mill at Zurich Avenue
Based on appearance, we assumed Moss Mill at Zurich Avenue would have a very low score for each index. Hard wood black gum, maple swamp. Mucky bottom. Dead deer. Appeared to have flooded

9. Methods: Field Methods Multihabitat Sampling Plate Sampling
Water Samples
Lab Methods
Specimen Count and Classification
pH Test
Data Analysis

10. Specific Conductivity, pH and Temperature Results:
Location
SC (S) pH
Temp (C)
Clarks Mill Liebig & Odessa
76.5
4.52
16.3
Moss Mill Zurich
101.0
4.83
18.8
Lower Moss Mill above ditch
93.4
4.98
19.9
Lower Moss Mill below ditch
92.6
5.06
19.2
Lower Moss Mill ditch
118.0
4.39
13.4

11. Pollution Tolerant
Pollution Sensitive
Pollution Intolerant

12. Results using Pine Barrens Index:
Pinelands Macroinvertebrate Index (PMI) is based on a multimetric index. This is a combination of metric scores that indicates a degree of biological stress in the stream community. It is specific to the Pinelands streams.
Multihabitat Technique
Plate Sampling Technique
Site
Score 1-100
Clarks Mill Liebig & Odessa
94 Excellent
Moss Mill Zurich
82 Excellent
Lower Moss Mill above ditch
71 Good
Lower Moss Mill below ditch
65 Good
Site
Score 1-100
LMM above ditch plate 1
79 Excellent
LMM above ditch plate 2
62 Good
LMM above ditch plate 3
83 Excellent
LMM below ditch plate 1
92 Excellent
LMM below ditch plate 2
81 Excellent
LMM below ditch plate 3

13. Results using Save our Streams:
Virginia Save Our Streams is also a multimetric index. However, Pine Barrens streams are unlike other streams due to their acidic nature. Therefore, scores for the streams we tested using the SOS index could be artificially low.
Acceptable Unacceptable 0-5
Multihabitat Technique
Plate Sampling Technique
Site
Score 1-10
Clarks Mill at Liebig 7
Moss Mill at Zurich 3
Lower Moss Mill above ditch
Lower Moss Mill below ditch 9
Site
Score 1-10
LMM above ditch plate 1 4
LMM above ditch plate 2
LMM above ditch plate 3
LMM below ditch plate 1 3
LMM below ditch plate 2 7
LMM below ditch plate 3 5

14. Results:

15. Results for Plate Sample:
Results from a representative plate sample from Moss Mill Above ditch:
Results from a representative plate sample from Moss Mill Below ditch:
Discuss how this result is strange because the ditch, which runs through Atlantic White Cedar Swamp and collects runoff from Stockton’s parking lot, does not seem to make Moss Mill Below ditch more polluted.

16. Comparison of 2012 study:
Time series comparing Zurich Ave and Moss Mill , PMI scores. Zurich ave improved. Moss Mill also improved. However, they used SOS to analyze their data, so we had to use PMI to analyze their data to compare it to ours.

17. Comparison of sampling techniques:
We found that plate samplers are not as accurate in determining stream health from macroinvertebrates because they only contained mainly 1 species.
Other macroinvertebrates did not utilize the plates as frequently, and so plate samples did not have diversity.
Multihabitat sampling methods took into account all of the habitats that macroinvertebrates would be found. This gives a more accurate estimate for the diversity found in the streams.

18. Effects of the ditch:
Oddly enough, the water flowing in from the ditch did not adversely affect LMM below ditch. The ditch receives runoff water from the campus parking lots and lawns.
The ditch had much higher conductivity at 118 µS, was colder at 13.4°C, and had lower pH than all of the other sites at 4.39, and yet neither of these chemical differences appeared to change LMM below ditch.
We are unsure of why the impaired water of the ditch did not have an effect on the below ditch site.

19. Conclusions:
The PMI is more suitable for determining the quality of Pine Barrens streams, because it has been made specifically for the unique chemical qualities of the Pine Barrens.
PMI cannot accurately judge a sample using the plate sampling technique because there are often too many individuals in the sample and because only one habitat is being sampled.
It is possible that if the plate samplers were kept in the water for a longer period of time, there would have been more diversity.
We believe the use of plate sampling and stick sampling is the reason that previous stream studies had low diversity, and low numbers of pollution intolerant and pollution sensitive taxa.

20. Literature Cited
Benke, A. C. T. C. Van Arsdall, Jr., D. M. Gillespie and F. K. Parrish Invertebrate Productivity in a Subtropical Blackwater River: The Importance of Habitat and Life History. Ecological Monographs. 54:
Clapp, M “Aquatic Worms.” Image. <
Department of Environmental Conservation “Caddisflies (Trichoptera).” Image. <
Engel, S. R. and J. R. Voshell, Jr Volunteer Biological Monitoring: Can It Accurately Assess the Ecological Condition of Streams? American Entomologist. 48:
Flickr “Banded Demoiselle Larvae.” Image. <
Jessup, B., S. Moegenburg, D. Bryson, and V. Poretti Development of the New Jersey Pinelands Macroinvertebrate Index (PMI). New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
Ohio Sea Grant and Stone Laboratory “Amphipod.” Image. < 1d711f79f6_m.jpg>.
Zampella, R. A Characterization of Surface Water Quality Along a Watershed Disturbance Gradient. Water Resources Bulletin. American Water Resources Association. 30:

21. Questions?