Does the Macroinvertebrate Community of a Restored Delmarva Bay - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Elanor D. Stevens, Robert F. Smith, Lauren E. Culler, William O. Lamp, Adviser University of Maryland, College Park

Does the Macroinvertebrate Community of a Restored Delmarva Bay Mimic a Natural Bay?

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Bill Lamp Bob Smith Lauren Culler The Lamp Lab University of Maryland The Nature Conservancy

Wetland Restoration

Introduction

Photos by: Bill Lamp

Study Site

Introduction

Historic Site Restored Site A Restored Site B

Research Objectives

Introduction

• To compare macroinvertebrate community

similarity between historic and restored pools

• To identify taxa with strong associations to each pool

Field Work

Methods

• Four years of data: 2005-2007,

and 2012

• Samples collected monthly

between March and August

• Macroinvertebrate sampled

with 20 d-net sweeps in each pool

Photo by: Bill Lamp

Lab Work

Methods

Macroinvertebrates

• Sub-sampled to collect at

least 300 individuals

• Identified to lowest

practical taxonomic level Statistical Analysis

• Dufrene-Legendre

Indicator Analysis

• NMDS Ordination

4% 6% 5% 3% 53% 24% 3%

Restored Site B

Community Overview

Results

13% 54% 19% 9%

Historic Site

4%

9% 3% 6% 12% 29% 30% 6%

Restored Site A

Acari Coleoptera Diptera Gastropoda Hemiptera Isopoda Midge Larvae Nematoda/Oligochaeta Odonata Ephmeroptera

NMDS Ordination

Results

Restored B Restored A Historic Distance Matrix: Bray Curtis Stress: 0.16

I Indicator Taxa for each pool

Results

Historic Site Taxa p-value Caecidotea 0.001 Gammarus 0.001 Cambaridae 0.003 Palaemonidae 0.034 Restored Site A Taxa p-value Suphisellus 0.002 Lestes 0.007 Restored Site B Taxa p-value Caenis 0.001 Planorbidae 0.001 Physidae 0.001 Tanypodinae 0.001 Chironomini 0.001 Tanytarsini 0.001 Sigara 0.001 Oecitis 0.007 Berosus 0.022

Primary consumers, grazers Midge larvae predominant, other taxa variable Predators

Objectives Revisited

Conclusion

• To compare macroinvertebrate community

similarity between natural and restored pools

• To identify taxa with strong associations to each pool

Each pool had different key players Restored Site A appears to be in transition Groups indicate underlying ecology

Take-home Message

Conclusion

• Was wetland restoration successful?
• What caused the shift in macroinvertebrate

communities of Restored Site A? Using the historic site as bench mark, communities seem to be moving in the right direction. Let’s return to the isopods…

http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/115/sphagnumfallax.j pg

Sphagnum moss?

Questions?

Sphagnum ecology

Introduction

http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/115/sphagnumfallax.jpg

• Reduces available

nutrients

• Intercepts nutrient input
• Prevents microbial activity
• Increases vegetation

structure

• Grows in dense mats
• Fills the water column

Future Research

Conclusion

Genera of Dytiscidae found at Jackson Lane Acilius (L) Hydrovatus (A) Agabus (A&L) Hygrotus (A&L) Brachyvatus (A) Ilbius (A) Copelatus (A) Laccornis (A) Copotomus (A&L) Laccophilus Cybister (A&L) Liodessus (A) Desmoprachia (A) Matus (L) Dytiscus (L) Neoporus (A&L) Graphoderus (A&L) Rhantus (A&L) Hydaticus (L) Thermonectus (L) Hydroporus (A) Uvarus (A)

Exploring relationship between isopod abundance and the presence of Sphagnum Distinguish between sites with and without Sphagnum based

• n dytiscid beetle community

48% 51% 35% 74% 57% 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Relative Abundance

• f Isopods

JLL PPD Cell 2

Cell Size (ac) CWD added CWD amount Straw type Fish Hydroperiod Connected Ditched JLL 3.3 N M none Y 82 no no PPD 8.2 Y-slash VH wheat Y 66 to 19, 8, 7 medium 2 9.1 Y L wheat Y 94 no large

Detail of metrices Size= approximated in GIS using GPS boundary dta from Towson Univ., as modified by D. Samson (see map); values probably represent full-pool areas CWD added= Coarse woody debris added at time of construction; based on field notes provided by Rich Mason CWD amount= subjective assessment by D. Samson of amount (Low, Medium, High, Very High) or coarse woody debris in the main portion of the cell Staw Type= type added at time of construction; based on field notes provided by Rich Mason Fish= D. Samson's knowledge, based on Shelly's 2004 field work; THIS INFO SHOULD BE CHECKED BY UMD RESEARCHERS Hydroperiod= percent of the sample dates (Jan. 2005 to Feb. 2007) when the cell water level was at or above 1/2 the maximum level Connected= connectivity to other nearby cells at high water levels Ditched= D. Samson's assessment of whether or not the cell has an ag drainage ditch, and what size

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 2005 2006 2007 2012

Shannon-Weiner Diversity

SP SC SA

Ephmeroptera Diptera Coleoptera Baetidae Callibaetis Ceratopogonidae Bezzia-Palpomyia Dytiscidae Acilius2 Caenidae Caenis 3 Ceratopogon 3 Agabus Odonata Culicoides Copelatus2 Aeshnidae Anax Chaoboridae Chaoborus Cybister2 Aeshna Corethrella1 Desmoprachia Coenagrionidae sp. Chironomidae Chironomini Dytiscus3 Libellulidae Erythemis Orthocladiinae Heterostenuta2 Libellula Tanypodinae Hydroporine Pachydiplax Tanytarsini Hydroporus1 Plathemis sp. Hydrovatus Perithemis3 Culicidae Aedes Hygrotus Sympetrum Anopheles Laccophilus Tramea Culex2 Laccornis2 sp. Uranotaenia Matus Lestidae Lestes sp. Neoporus Hemiptera Dolichopodidae sp. Uvarus2 Belostomatidae Belostoma Sciaridae sp. Haliplidae Haliplus3 Corixidae Hesperocorixa Stratiomyidae

• sp. 2

Peltodytes2 Sigara3 Tabanidae Chrysops3 Hydrophilidae Anacaena1 sp. Tabanus Berosus Gerridae sp. Tipulidae Helius2 Enochrus Naucoridae sp.3 Limonia Hydrochus3 Nepidae Ranatra3 sp.2 Tropisternus Notonectidae Buenoa Trichoptera sp. Notonecta Hydroptilidae Orthotichia3 Noteridae Hydrocanthus sp. Oxyethira Suphisellus Veliidae Microvelia Leptoceridae Nectopsyche2 Scirtidae sp.2 Megaloptera Oecitis Lepidoptera Corydalidae Chauliodes1 Phryganeidae Agrypnia3 Crambidae sp. Nigronia1 Phryganea2 Ptilostomis2 Other Macroinvertebrates Acari Decapoda Isopoda Hydrachnidia sp. Cambaridae sp.1 Asellidae Caecidotea Amphipoda Palaemonidae sp.1 Microcrustacea Gammaridae Gammarus1 Gastropoda Cladocera sp. Collembola Ancylidae sp. Copepoda sp.

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 March April May June July August March April May June July August March April May June August April May June July

Temperature

SA SP SC 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 March April May June July August March April May June July August March April May June August

pH

SA SP SC 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 March April May June July August March April May June July August March April May June August April May June July

Conductivity

SA SP SC 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 March April May June July August March April May June July August March April May June August

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

SA SP SC

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 March April May June July August March April May June July August March April May

Total Nitrogen

SA SP SC 0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.800 2.000 March April May June July August March April May June July August March April May June August

Total Phosphorous

SA SP SC 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 March April May June July August March April May June July August March April May June

Total Dissolved Nitrogen

SA SP SC 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120

Total Dissolved Phosphorous

SA SP SC

Results

22% 16% 16% 15% 6% 25%

Cell 3 | Sphagnum Absent

Non-Arthopod Worms Tanytarsini Tanypodinae Chironomini Caenis

• ther

30% 12% 8% 8% 8% 5% 5% 24%

Cell 2 | Sphagnum Colonized

Non-Arthropod Worms Caecidotea Orthocladinae Chironomini Bezzia-Palpomyia Chironomidae Tanypodinae

• ther

52% 10% 10% 9% 19%

Cell 1 | Sphagnum Present

Caecidotea Chironomidae Bezzia-Palpomyia Non-Arthropod Worms

• ther

Results

Results

Introduction

Results

Introduction