Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Lotic and Lentic Ecosystem Diversity 1
Measuring lotic and lentic ecosystem diversity in Lake Tamblyn and the McIntyre River to
determine water quality
Mary McDonald
0475277
BIOL–2210L-F4
Thursday 2:30
CB 3015
Barb Barnes
November 13, 2012
Lotic and Lentic Ecosystem Diversity 2
Abstract
The study was conducted at Lake Tamblyn and the McIntyre River located on Lakehead
University property in Thunder Bay, Ontario. The purpose of this study was to determine the
diversity and species richness of both the lentic and lotic ecosystems located on campus. Samples
of macroinvertebrates were taken from Lake Tamblyn and the McIntyre River, as well as
collecting data regarding temperatures, dissolved oxygen, pH, transparency, and rate of flow. The
samples and data were then analyzed in the lab. This study found that Lake Tamblyn had a lower
dissolved oxygen content of 7 ppm and supported a lower diversity of macroinvertebrates, having
a diversity index of 0.0963. The McIntyre River was found to have a higher dissolved oxygen
content of 132 ppm at the edge and 12.2 ppm in the centre, and it also had a higher species
diversity with a diversity index of 0.9 at the edge and 0.84 in the middle. These results suggest
that the lake has more pollutants and a poorer water quality, perhaps reaching premature
eutrophication. The river, however, has good water quality and is able to support a more diverse
population of macroinvertebrates, concluding that the lotic ecosystem is a healthier ecosystem
than the lentic ecosystem.
Key Words
Aquatic Sampling, Lake Tamblyn, McIntyre River, Lentic Ecosystem, Lotic Ecosystem,
Macroinvertebrates, Ecosystem Diversity
Lotic and Lentic Ecosystem Diversity 3
Introduction
Macroinvertebrates can be used to determine health and diversity of both lentic and lotic
ecosystems (Lenat, 1988). Macroinvertebrates include a variety of organisms that are classified
as grazers, shredders, gatherers, filterers, and predators; which are all critical in maintaining the
functional integrity of lentic and lotic ecosystems due to the key roles they play (Wallace &
Webster, 1996; Kagalou et al., 2006). Sampling and analyzing the presence of macroinvertebrates
can assist in assessing the health of both lentic and lotic ecosystems (Wallace & Webster, 1996).
Each group of macroinvertebrates are able to survive under differing conditions, therefore, the
presence of certain macroinvertebrates over others can suggest varying water qualities and can
assist researchers in proposing solutions. For example, shredder species are not tolerant of high
nitrogen areas; chronimids are tolerant of pollution and toxins; and Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,
and Trichoptera (EPT) are intolerant of toxins (Deacon & Lavoie, 2010; Heino, 2000; Lenat,
1988; Kagalou et al., 2006).
Various studies pertaining to characteristics of lentic and lotic ecosystems analyze the
presence of macroinvertebrates due to the response macroinvertebrates have to changing
environmental conditions. They adjust faster than any other organism to changing environmental
conditions, allowing researchers to determine varying water conditions more efficiently (Deacon
& Lavoie, 2010; Wallace et al., 1982; Kagalou et al., 2006); however, small differences may be
reflective of the physical habitat rather than water quality (Lenat, 1988). Multiple samples should
be taken to obtain the best possible results when doing macroinvertebrate studies. In studies of
lentic ecosystems, macroinvertebrates are found to be indicators of eutrophication (Kagalou et al.,
2006), where as, in streams, they are good indicators of pollutants and toxins (Wallace &
Webster, 1996). In studies done by Heino (2000) and Kagalou et al. (2006), it was found that an
Lotic and Lentic Ecosystem Diversity 4
abundance of invertebrates and species richness was positively linked to the amount of vegetation
in an area.
Two studies have been conducted by Deacon & Lavoie (2005; 2010) regarding the
physical condition of the McIntyre River in test areas close to the test area used in this study. The
first study conducted by Deacon & Lavoie (2005) found that the McIntyre River had a high
species richness, which indicated a healthy ecosystem. In the second study from Deacon &
Lavoie (2010), they tested two areas of the McIntyre River. The first site was just upstream of
our test site, and the second site was downstream of our test site. From their samples, it was
concluded that the first site was unimpaired, however, it could potentially become impaired due
to the high biotic index and moderately low EPT (Deacon & Lavoie, 2010). The second site,
however, was said to be impaired possibly due to eutrophication (Deacon & Lavoie, 2010).
Deacon & Lavoie (2010) came to this conclusion due to the high percentage of worms and
chironomids, which indicate the river has been impacted by nutrient enrichment.
The aim of this study was to collect samples of organisms to determine how adaptations
of organisms reflect habitat conditions, in both lentic and lotic ecosystems. The samples could
then be analyzed to determine species diversity and its relation to habitat characteristics, as well
as in determining water quality. Chemical and physical factors were also measured to distinguish
between lentic and lotic ecosystems. Research of this nature is important as it enhances general
knowledge of the health of the ecosystem. Studies conducted in the McIntyre River and Lake
Tamblyn can also be used to determine short-term stresses, which could ultimately influence the
aquatic community of Lake Superior (Deacon & Lavoie, 2010) since the McIntyre River flows
through Lake Tamblyn and into Lake Superior.
Lotic and Lentic Ecosystem Diversity 5
Study Area
The study took place on Lakehead University property in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.
The McIntyre River flows into the city from the north and flows through the city. It passes
through Lakehead University campus before joining the Neebing River on the east side of the
city which then flowing into Lake Superior. At Lakehead University the river flows through Lake
Tamblyn, which was constructed in the 1960s as a flood control (Braun & Tamblyn, 1987), and
is part of the McIntyre River Spillway and Fishway (Hartley, 1986). In 1988, an extension to the
McIntyre River Spillway and Fishway saw the construction of a dam adjacent to Lake Tamblyn
(LRCA, 1988). Located just outside the main building of the university, as seen in Figure 1, both
the river and lake are popular attractions for University students and community members alike.
Figure 1: Map of Lake Tamblyn and the McIntyre River at Lakehead University, modified from North Short Steelhead Association, 2012.
Lotic and Lentic Ecosystem Diversity 6
There are walking trails on both sides of the McIntyre River to the south of Lake Tamblyn, and
the river is a popular site for fishers. Both Lake Tamblyn and the McIntyre River are popular
locations for Lakehead University classes to have lab classes and collect samples and
observations. The lake is also a popular skating rink in the winter.
Materials and Methods
This study was conducted over two days, one day of collecting samples and one day
analyzing the samples. The first day was spent at Lake Tamblyn and the McIntyre River
collecting samples and data. At Lake Tamblyn canoes, paddles and lifejackets were used to
collect samples from the center of the lake. Three students paddled canoes to the middle of the
lake and one student took measurements, one student recorded, and one student paddled the
canoe. An Ekman Dredge was used to take samples of macroinvertebrates, as well as to measure
the depth of the water every 10 meters. Students in the canoes then took readings using a Secchi
Disk to determine the transparency of the water. A LaMotte Water Chemistry Kit and Kemmerer
bottle was then used to measure the dissolved oxygen content and the pH. Finally, a thermometer
was used to take both the ambient temperature and the water’s surface temperature. Along the
shore, some students wore hip waders and used D-nets to collect qualitative samples of
macroinvertebrates. The samples of macroinvertebrates from both the middle and edge of Lake
Tamblyn were placed in separate sorting trays and students used droppers and forceps to put
macroinvertebrates into collecting jars with some lake water. Each collecting jar was labeled with
the group number, the equipment used to collect the sample, and the location in which the sample
was taken from.
Next, students went to the McIntyre River and chose an area of the river to sample. A
transect line was chosen across the stream to take measurements in. Wearing hip waders, students
Lotic and Lentic Ecosystem Diversity 7
took depth measurements at every 1 metre, from bank to bank using a meter tape to measure
distance across and a meter stick to measure depth, to create a bottom profile. The students then
used a Surber Stream Bottom Sampler to take a quantitative sample of macroinvertebrates from
the middle and edge of the river. D-nets were used next to take samples from the river. Samples
were put in separate sorting trays to keep the edge Surber samples separate from center Surber
samples and D-net samples. Students used the LaMotte Water Chemistry Kits and Kemmerer
bottles to determine the dissolved oxygen content and pH of both the edge and center of the river.
The Secchi disk was used to measure transparency, velocity was calculated using a digital water
velocity device, and ambient, edge water, and center water temperatures were recorded. The
students then used forceps and droppers to place macroinvertebrates from the sorting trays into
collecting jars with some river water, labeling the jars with the group number, the equipment
used to collect the sample, and the location in which the sample was collected.
All of the samples and equipment were then taken to the laboratory. The collecting jars
were drained of any water and students poured alcohol into the jars to preserve the samples. The
samples were analyzed in the second day of the study. Using microscopes and resource materials
(Barnes, 2012) provided by the lab instructor, students were able identified the
macroinvertebrates and fill in data charts. The data charts were then analyzed to determine the
results.
Results
The study produced a variety of results regarding both Lake Tamblyn and the McIntyre
River. Our results showed that Lake Tamblyn and the McIntyre River had some differing
characteristics, as seen in Figure 2: Cross section of Lake Tamblyn and Figure 3: Cross section of
Lotic and Lentic Ecosystem Diversity 8
the McIntyre River. Lake Tamblyn was cooler than the McIntyre River in temperature and had a
lower dissolved oxygen content, but they had the same pH and velocity.
Figure 2: Cross section of Lake Tamblyn Temperature (ºC) Ambient - 11ºC
Surface - 8ºC Dissolved Oxygen Content
Bottom – 7 ppm
pH Bottom – 8 Transparency 125 cm Velocity (m/sec) - centre of lake
0
Figure 3: Cross section of the McIntyre River Temperature (ºC) Ambient - 11ºC
Edge - 12ºC Centre - 12ºC
Dissolved Oxygen Content
Edge – 13.2 ppm Centre – 12.2 ppm
pH Edge - 8 Centre - 8
Transparency 10 cm Velocity (m/sec) 0
Figure 4: Bottom Profile of Lake Tamblyn and Figure 5: Bottom Profile of the McIntyre River
show the differentiation of the lentic and lotic ecosystems. The lentic ecosystem has a greater
depth and the bottom contains a more muddy substrate, where as the McIntyre River was
shallower and rockier. The river contained more flat rock surface, and less organic matter.
Figure 4: Bottom Profile of Lake Tamblyn Distance (m) Depth Substrate Description (shore and centre)
0 10 cm Mud, organic matter; Small, round rocks 10 60 cm 20 110 cm 30 140 cm
40 130 cm Mud, organic matter Figure 5: Bottom Profile of the McIntyre River
Distance (m) Depth Substrate Description (every 2 metres) 0 16 cm 1 17 cm
Rocky & silty
2 16 cm 3 10 cm
Rocky & silty
4 8 cm 5 8.5 cm
Small flat rocks
6 13 cm 7 13.5 cm
Rocky (some flat)
8 13 cm 9 12 cm
Rocky (some flat)
10 20 cm 11 5.5 cm
Flat rocks & debris
Lotic and Lentic Ecosystem Diversity 9
Samples taken using D-nets at both Lake Tamblyn and the McIntyre River were identified
and placed in the following charts (Table 1 and Table 2) to analyze the trophic level and the
organisms tolerance to pollution.
Table 1: Organisms collected using the D-net at the edge of Lake Tamblyn Class Order Family Common Name Trophic Level Tollerance to
Pollution Chtellata Rhynochobdellida Glossiphoniidae Leech Carnivore Tolerant Insecta Hemiptera Belostromatidae Giant Water Bug Carnivore Tolerant
Malacostraca Decapoda Cambarridae Crayfish Omnivore Somewhat Tolerant
Insecta Plecoptera Pteronarcyidae Giant Stonefly Herbivore Sensitive Gastropoda Basommatophora Planorbidae Orb Snail Herbivore Tolerant
Insecta Odonata Gomphidae Dragonfly Clubtail Carnivore Somewhat
Tolerant
Malacostraca Isopoda Asellidae Aquativ Sow Bug
Detritivore / Herbivore
Somewhat Tolerant
Malacostraca Amphipoda Gammaridae Scud Omnivore Somewhat Tolerant
Insecta Hemiptera Corixidae Water Boatman Detritivore / Herbivore Tolerant
Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Fingernail / Pill Clam Herbivore Somewhat
Tolerant
Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Bloodworm Detritivore / Herbivore Tolerant
Insecta Hemiptera Nepidae Water Scorpion Carnivore Somewhat Tolerant
Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae Limpet Herbivore Tolerant
Insecta Odonata Calopterygidae Damselfly Broadwing Carnivore Somewhat
Tolerant
Clitellata Haplotaxida Lumbriculidoe Aquatic Earthworm
Detritivore / Herbivore Tolerant
Table 2: Organisms collected using the D-net in the McIntyre River
Class Order Family Common Name Trophic Level Tolerance to Pollution
Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Flat-Headed Mayfly Herbivore Sensitive
Insecta Odonata Gomphidae Clubtail Dragonfly Carnivore Somewhat
Tolerant
Insecta Hemiptera Corixidae Water Boatmen Detritivore / Herbivore Tolerant
Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Bloodworm Detritivore / Herbivore Tolerant
Insecta Diptera Athericidae Snipefly Carnivore Sensitive Insecta Coleoptera Elmidae Riffle Beetle Herbivore Sensitive
Lotic and Lentic Ecosystem Diversity 10
As seen in Table 1, Lake Tamblyn contains a majority of macroinvertebrates that are either
somewhat tolerant to pollutants or highly tolerant to pollutants. Only one species, the Giant
Stonefly, is sensitive to pollutants. The table also shows that more Detritivores/Herbivores
organisms are present, followed by Carnivore organisms and the least diverse is Omnivore
species. In Table 2, which details the findings from the McIntyre River D-net samples, half of the
macroinvertebrates are sensitive and half have a tolerance for pollutants. Only one
macroinvertebrate was carnivorous.
The quantitative sampling method, the Ekman Dredge, used in Lake Tamblyn showed a
high density of bloodworms, and a low density of leeches and Pill or Fingernail Clams. Table 3
details the findings, concluding a diversity index of 0.0963, using Simpons Diversity Index.
Table 3: Organisms collected using the Ekman Dredge in centre of Lake Tamblyn Class Order Family Common
Name Trophic Level (Pi)2 Pollution Tolerance
Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Bloodworm Detritivore / Herbivore 0.9025 Tolerant
Insecta Diptera Glossiphoniidae Leech Carnivore 0.0002 Tolerant
Insecta Diptera Sphaeriidae Pill or Fingernail Clam Herbivore 0.001 Somewhat
Tolerant
Simpsons Diversity Index: D = 0.0963
Table 4 details the findings of the sample collected using the Surber Stream Bottom Sampler in
the center of the McIntyre River. Out of the eight macroinvertebrates sampled, three were
sensitive to pollutants, two were somewhat tolerant of pollutants and three were fully tolerant of
pollutants. There was a high density of Common Netspinners, while the other macroinvertebrates
had the same low densities. Overall, the diversity index was 0.84 using the Simpons Diversity
Index.
Lotic and Lentic Ecosystem Diversity 11
Table 4: Organisms collected using Surber Stream Bottom Sampler in center of McIntyre River Class Order Family Common
Name Trophic
Level (Pi)2 Pollution Tolerance
Clitellata Haplotaxida Lumbriculidae True Earthworm
Detritivore / Herbivore 0.01 Tolerant
Insecta Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Common Netspinner Herbivore 0.09 Somewhat
Tolerant
Malacostraca Decapoda Cambaridae Fresh Water Crayfish Omnivore 0.01 Somewhat
Tolerant Clitellata Rhynchobdellae Glossiphoniidae Leech Carnivore 0.01 Tolerant
Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Flathead Mayfly Herbivore 0.01 Sensitive
Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Prong Gill Herbivore 0.01 Sensitive
Insecta Hemiptera Corixidae Water Boatmen
Detritivore / Herbivore 0.01 Tolerant
Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Small
Minnow Mayfly
Herbivore 0.01 Sensitive
Simpsons Diversity Index: D = 0.84 Table 5 shows the results found at the edge of the McIntyre River using the Surber Stream
Bottom Sampler. In total, six different macroinvertebrate species were found; three of which
were sensitive to pollutants, two of which were somewhat tolerant, and one that was fully
tolerant. The Flathead Mayfly was found in the highest density, followed by the Common
Stonefly, and then the rest of the macroinvertebrates were found in the same low density. Overall
the density for this sample site was 0.9, calculated using the Simpons Diversity Index.
Table 5: Organisms collected using Surber Stream Bottom Sampler in the edge of McIntyre River Class Order Family Common
Name Trophic
Level (Pi)2 Pollution Tolerance
Bivalvia Veneroida Sphaeriidae Pill Clam Herbivore 0.1 Somewhat Tolerant
Insecta Ephemeroptera Leptophebiidae Prong Gill Herbivore 0.1 Sensitive Ciitellata Rhynchobdellae Glossiphoniidae Leech Carnivore 0.1 Tolerant
Insecta Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Flathead Mayfly Herbivore 0.4 Sensitive
Malacostreca Decapoda Cambaridae Freshwater Crayfish Omnivore 0.1 Somewhat
Tolerant
Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae Common Stonefly Carnivore 0.2 Sensitive
Simpsons Diversity Index: D = 0.9
Lotic and Lentic Ecosystem Diversity 12
Discussion
The characteristic of lentic and lotic water systems vary, as seen in the results. The lentic
ecosystem of Lake Tamblyn had a warmer temperature, a lower dissolved oxygen content and a
muddier substrate than the McIntyre River, suggesting that varying organisms and life forms
would be able to survive and thrive in each ecosystem. This is similar to the finding in the study
by Kagalou et al. (2006), which concluded that habitat conditions are closely linked to the
composition of benthic communities. Although the velocity was measured as 0 m/sec for both
ecosystems, the velocity of the McIntyre River could have been affected due to our location of
the sampling site. Since we were just past a pool area, the flow of water was just beginning. The
presence of a non-existing velocity in the river could also account for a poor sample collection
using the D-nets and Surber Stream Bottom Sampler since there was no current to carry the
organisms into the nets.
The D-net sample taken from Lake Tamblyn contained a number of different organisms,
most of which were tolerant or somewhat tolerant to pollutants. This suggests that Lake Tamblyn
has poorer quality water, which corresponds with the measurement of a low dissolved oxygen
content. Perhaps the lake has been impacted by nutrient enrichment. The study done by Deacon
& Lavoie (2010), in which a low dissolved oxygen was associated with premature eutrophication,
showed similar results to those found in Lake Tamblyn regarding water quality.
The D-net samples obtained from the McIntyre River showed different and almost
opposite results as those found in Lake Tamblyn. The McIntyre River had a less diverse finding
of species, as only six different species were identified. Along with the rocky bottom substrate,
this data correlates to findings from Heino (2000) in which an abundance and richness of
invertebrate species is directly related to the amount of vegetation. The river has little vegetation,
and a low abundance and richness of species. The D-net samples also illustrate how species that
Lotic and Lentic Ecosystem Diversity 13
are sensitive to pollutants survive in good quality waters, as the majority of species found in this
sample were sensitive to pollutants and the river had a higher dissolved oxygen content.
The quantitative sampling methods from Lake Tamblyn and the McIntyre River conclude
that the highest density was found in the river. This validates the conclusion that the river has
better water quality since it can support a larger diversity of species. The low density in the lake
also supports the conclusion that Lake Tamblyn had a lower dissolved oxygen content and is
impaired. The individual organisms found in these sampling methods also support the idea since
the majority of the species found in Lake Tamblyn using the Ekman Dredge were tolerant of
pollutants and able to survive in an ecosystem with a lower dissolved oxygen content. The
species found in the Surber Stream Bottom Samplers were organisms that are somewhat tolerant
of pollutants, therefore, needing better water quality to survive.
It can be concluded that lentic and lotic ecosystems have different characteristics, such as
depth, bottom substrate, and temperatures, but they are also different in the organisms they can
support. At Lakehead Univeristy, the lentic ecosystem had a greater diversity index, higher
species richness and better water quality than the lotic ecosystem. These results coincide with the
objectives of the study.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank those who helped in making this study possible. First, I would like to thank
the ORPT Gear Depot for supplying canoes, lifejackets, paddles, and throw bags, which allowed
us to take samples on Lake Tamblyn. I would also like to thank the Biology Department for
supplying us with the rest of the equipment used. Next, I would like to thank my professor and
Teaching Assistants for the instruction, facilitation, and assistance during the study days. My
classmates are also to thank for their cooperation and teamwork in gathering and analyzing the
Lotic and Lentic Ecosystem Diversity 14
samples. I am grateful for the knowledge I acquired in my Ecological Literacy class that I took
last year as it assisted me in determining the pollution tolerance of the organisms. Finally, I
would like to thank my roommate, Katie McIntyre for her support and assistance in editing my
paper.
References
Barnes, B. 2012. Introductory ecology lab manual. Department of Biology, Lakehead University:
Thunder Bay, ON
Braun, H. S. & Tamblyn, W. G. 1987. A northern vision: The development of Lakehead
University. Friesen printers: Altona, MB
Deacon, K. & Lavoie, L. 2005. Benthic community reference condition sites in Thunder Bay,
2004. EcoSuperior Environmental Programs.
Deacon, K. & Lavoie, L. 2010. Aquatic benthic macroinvertebrate communities in streams on the
north shore of Lake Superior, 2009. EcoSuperior Environmental Programs.
Mauro, J. M. 1981. Thunder Bay: A history. Lehto printers limited: Thunder Bay, ON
Hartley, B. 1986. Annual report: Lakehead region conservation authority.
Heino, J. 2000. Lentic macroinvertebrate assemblage structure along gradients in spatial
heterogeneity, habitat size and water chemistry. Hydrobiologia. 418: 229-242
Kagalou, I., Economidis, G., Leonardos, I., & Constantinos, P. 2006. Assessment of a
Mediterranean shallow lentic ecosystem (Lake Pamvotis, Greece) using benthic
community diversity: Response to environmental parameters. Limnologica. 36: 269-278
Lakehead region conservation authority. 1988. Dedicated Ceremony for New spillway. Whisky
Jack reporter, 2(2)
Lotic and Lentic Ecosystem Diversity 15
Lenat, D. R. 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for
benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society.
7(3):222 – 233
North Shore Steelhead Association. 2012. The general location of the fish ladder. Retrieved from
http://www.northshoresteelhead.com/images/project1-1.jpg
Wallace, J. B. & Webster, J. R. 1996. The role of macroinvertebrates in stream ecosystem
function. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 41: 115-139
Wallace, J. B., Webster, J. R. & Cuffney, T. F. 1982. Stream detritus dynamics: Regulation by
invertebrate consumers. Oecologia. 53: 197-200
Weagle, K. V. & Ozburn, G. W. 1971. Observations on aspects of the life history of the crayfish,
Orconectes virilis (Hagen), in northwestern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 50:
366-370