The questions are on the stream assess paper. I have no idea what this is.
abiotic data Physicochemical field data, March 28 and 29, 2015 specific DODOtemperaturepHConductivityTPTN Stream%saturationmg/LoCµSug/Lmg/L Little Falls9512.44.17.823718.53.26 Mingo Branch9912.54.97.651910.21.05 Little Gunpowder Falls10013.72.37.717128.02.99 Minebank Run10712.68.78.39337.81.99 Invertebrate data Invertebrates collected March 28 and 29, 2015 Trichoptera famliesEphemeroptera familiesPlecoptera familiesDiptera familiesMegalopteraColeoptera familiesOdonata worms SnailsBivalves FBITolerance 43404424147221222016636640544415968481.66total number #Stream HabitatHYDRPHILOPHRYGRHYACLIMNELEPTOCPSYCHHEPTEPHEMBAETSIPHLOOLIGONLEPTOPERLIDPERLODNEMOUTAENIOPTERONCHLORPCHIROSIMULTIPUEMPIDCERATODOLICHCORYDDYTISCELMIPSEPHGYRINGOMPHCALOPTCOENACAMBISOPAMPHIOLIGOPLEUROCORBICFBIorganisms 44L Gunpowder Fleaf pack400000000000000300040001100000000000500 48L Gunpowder Fleaf pack100000010010000020022000000000000000000 29L Gunpowder Fleaf pack100000000000010000001000000100000000000 39L Gunpowder Friffle300000000000020300121000000000000000000 41L Gunpowder Friffle610000012000000400005300000000000000000 45L Gunpowder Friffle13100000611000102200168410000000000000000 65L Gunpowder Friffle3100000010000000020061000000000000000000 64L Gunpowder Friffle6000010000000000000100210000000000000000 37L Gunpowder FRoot wad410010003000010110022000000000000000221 14L Gunpowder FRoot wad000000000020000000020000000000000000000 51L Gunpowder FRoot wad200000000000000000000000000000000000000 32L Gunpowder FRoot wad100010020000100520020000000003010000000 26.5L Gunpowder FRoot wad410000040002000220051000000000000000100 familycodeHYDRPHILOPHRYGRHYACLIMNELEPTOCPSYCHHEPTEPHEMBAETSIPHLOOLIGONLEPTOPERLIDPERLODNEMOUTAENIOPTERONCHLORPCHIROSIMULTIPUEMPIDCERATODOLICHCORYDDYTISCELMIPSEPHGYRINGOMPHCALOPTCOENACAMBISOPAMPHIOLIGOPLEUROCORBIC FFG=>FCFCSCPRSHSHGCSCGCGCGCFCGCPRPRSHSHSHPRGCFCSHPRPRPRPRPRGCSCPRPRPRPRSHSHSHGCSCFC total number FBIorganisms 9Little Fallsleaf pack4200100001000012200250200000000000000000 23Little Fallsleaf pack200010000000101000000000000000000502000 35Little Fallsleaf pack300000000000020090061000000000000000000 36Little Fallsriffle8200000120000200000331000000000000000000 6Little Fallsriffle400000000000010300000000000000000000000 25Little Fallsriffle000000008000100110000000000000000000000 26Little Fallsriffle0001000210020000200000000000000000000000 43Little FallsRoot wad810000012100010220003000000000000000000 5Little FallsRoot wad000000000000000000020000000000000001000 24Little FallsRoot wad000020000000001000000000000000000100000 20Little FallsRoot wad000000000000200000000000000000000100000 familycodeHYDRPHILOPHRYGRHYACLIMNELEPTOCPSYCHHEPTEPHEMBAETSIPHLOOLIGONLEPTOPERLIDPERLODNEMOUTAENIOPTERONCHLORPCHIROSIMULTIPUEMPIDCERATODOLICHCORYDDYTISCELMIPSEPHGYRINGOMPHCALOPTCOENACAMBISOPAMPHIOLIGOPLEUROCORBIC FFG=>total number FBIorganisms 40Minebank Rleaf pack1000000000000000000140000000000000000000 33Minebank Rleaf pack000000000000000000060000000000000000000 9Minebank Rleaf pack200000000000000000050000000100000001000 46Minebank Rriffle0000000000000000000400100000000000000000 66Minebank Rriffle101000000000000000007502310000100000000000 7Minebank Rriffle50000000000000000001331500000000000000000 30Minebank Rriffle000000000000000000030010000000000000000 8Minebank Rriffle2000000030000000000310100000000000000000 42Minebank RRoot wad000000000000000000020000001000010001000 38Minebank RRoot wad000000000000000000050000000000010003000 34Minebank RRoot wad000000000000000000040000000000000001000 28Minebank RRoot wad000000000000000000040000001000010010000 27Minebank RRoot wad0000000000000000000230000000000000003000 familycodeHYDRPHILOPHRYGRHYACLIMNELEPTOCPSYCHHEPTEPHEMBAETSIPHLOOLIGONLEPTOPERLIDPERLODNEMOUTAENIOPTERONCHLORPCHIROSIMULTIPUEMPIDCERATODOLICHCORYDDYTISCELMIPSEPHGYRINGOMPHCALOPTCOENACAMBISOPAMPHIOLIGOPLEUROCORBIC FFG=>FCFCSCPRSHSHGCSCGCGCGCFCGCPRPRSHSHSHPRGCFCSHPRPRPRPRPRGCSCPRPRPRPRSHSHSHGCSCFC total number FBIorganisms 3Mingo Brleaf pack100000001000000000100100000000000000000 17Mingo Brleaf pack000000000000010100110100010000000000000 15Mingo Brleaf pack000000001000000110000100000000000000000 19Mingo Brleaf pack1001011000010000300090400000010000000000 63Mingo Brleaf pack100010000000000000040100000000000000000 67Mingo Brriffle0000000017100020101001200000100000000000 22Mingo Brriffle200000001010010000000000000100111000000 11Mingo Brriffle7400001133000010000040300000600000000000 31Mingo Brriffle100000004200000000010300000200000000000 2Mingo Brriffle10000002920000004000100300000700000000100 12Mingo BrRoot wad000030000000002001000100000000000000000 16Mingo BrRoot wad6000000040000000000250300000000000000000 13Mingo BrRoot wad000000005200010100100100000100010000000 familycodeHYDRPHILOPHRYGRHYACLIMNELEPTOCPSYCHHEPTEPHEMBAETSIPHLOOLIGONLEPTOPERLIDPERLODNEMOUTAENIOPTERONCHLORPCHIROSIMULTIPUEMPIDCERATODOLICHCORYDDYTISCELMIPSEPHGYRINGOMPHCALOPTCOENACAMBISOPAMPHIOLIGOPLEUROCORBIC FFG=>FCFCSCPRSHSHGCSCGCGCGCFCGCPRPRSHSHSHPRGCFCSHPRPRPRPRPRGCSCPRPRPRPRSHSHSHGCSCFC StreamSCSHGCFCPRmean FBITotal number organisms Little Falls Mingo Branch Little Gunpowder Falls Minebank Run StreamAuto/HeteroCPOM/FPOM Stable Predator% P/RFPOMtransportChannelP/Tmean FBITotal organisms Little Falls Mingo Branch Little Gunpowder Falls Minebank Run landuse&habitat This information is available to help you interpret your results and formulate your discussion Land Use Data & Watershed characteristics %impervious area%agriculture% forest Little Falls26036 Mingo Branch3.52469 Little Gunpowder Falls~26336 Minebank Run227.119 Silt index:1= least --- 5 = most silty dominantBank % riffle%leaf pack% root wadsSilt indexsubstrateStability Little Falls8412172.5large cobbles and sandy poolslots of lg wood, some bank erosion on one side Mingo Branch791516Mean = 3sand, mud, cobbleslots of lg wood, some undercut banks, notable erosion Little Gunpowder Falls461024Mean = 3sand, cobble in riffles, some lg boulderssome bank erosion, some undercut banks, much vegetation, lg wood present Minebank Run6055Mean= 2.3 cobble, gravelstable, no undercut banks, no lg wood **Minebank R.: Very large amount of filamentous algae growing on rocks!! Codes CodeFamily nameFunction Feeding Groups (FFGs) HYDRHydropsychidaeSH =Shredder PHILOPhilopotamidaeGC=collector-gatherer ODONTOdontoceridaeFC = collector-filterer RHYACRhyacophilidaeSC =scraper LIMNELimnephilidaePR=predator LEPIDOLepidostomatidae POLYCNPolycentropodidae BRACHYBrachycentridae HEPTHeptageniidae EPHEMEphemerellidae SIPHLOSiphlonuridae OLIGONOligoneuridae BAETBaetidae LEPTOLeptophlebiidae POTOMPotamanthidae PERLIDPerlidae PERLODPerlodidae NEMOUNemouridae TAENIOTaeniopterygidae PELTOPeltoperlidae CHLORPChloroperlidae CHIROChironomidae SIMULSimuliidae TIPUTipulidae CORYDCorydalidae SIALIDSialidae ELMIElmidae HALIPHaliplidae HYDROPHydrophilidae GOMPHGomphidae COENACoenagrionidae CORDULCorduligastridae CALOPTCalopterygidae CAMBCambaridae ISOPAsellidae AMPHIGammaridae OLIGOOligochaete worms PLEUROPleuroceridae PLANOBPlanorbidae PHYSIDPhysidae CORBICCorbiculidae Submit_Tables Name ________________________ Table 1. Mean values of FFG Ratios and Family Biotic index, plus total organisms collected. StreamAuto/HeteroCPOM/FPOM Stable Predator% P/RFPOMtransportChannelP/TFBI Little Falls Mingo Branch Little Gunpowder Falls Minebank Run ** HIGHLIGHT best stream for each ratio and FBI in Yellow** Table 2. Streams ranked L-->R by FBI (heathliest--> less healthy) vs, water quality and land cover data Stream Stream Stream Stream FBI Conductivity % forest in watershed total phosphorus, ppb Total nitrogen, ppm Table 3. Streams ranked L-->R by**"best FFG Ratio" vs, water quality and land cover data Stream Stream Stream Stream Best Ratio? Conductivity % forest in watershed total phosphorus, ppb Total nitrogen, ppm Submit Answers Questions 1. Do all five of the FFG Ratios rank the streams in the same order: least impacted --> most impacted? Explain as necessary 2. What does the ratio of SC/SH or SH/(GC+FC) tell you about the foodweb of these streams? 3. in what circumstances would it be better to use the biomass of invertebrate taxa instead of the number of invertebrates per taxon? 4. Which FFG Ration do YOU think is the best at indicating stream "health"? What is your reasoning? 5. Do your "best FFG Ratio" and the Family Biotic Index (FBI) agree in their ranking of stream health? Explain as necessary 6. For Table 2: Do any of the water quality or land-use parameters rank the 4 streams in the same way as the FBI? Does this suggest a particular environmental impact affecting some of these streams? Explain. 7. For Table 3: Do any of the water quality or land-use parameters seem to show a pattern compared to the stream ranking according to the "best FFG Ratio"? If so, can you suggest a possible source of impact to some of these streams? BIOL 406 Limnology BIOL 406 Limnology Spring 2021 Function vs. Taxonomy: Benthic invertebrates as indicators of stream health Goals: The distribution and abundance of benthic invertebrates in streams are influenced by the physical habitat structure of streams, chemical water quality, and the biological community of food resources and predators that surround the invertebrates. Goals of your report on this sampling survey are to: 1) Compare how different methods of measuring stream health rank our four study streams, from best to worst. You will compare stream rankings by Functional Feeding Groups (FFG), and Hilsenhoff’s Family Biotic Index (FBI). 2) Interpret these stream health rankings using environmental variables and watershed land-use data. The data set we collected is posted on Blackboard: Week 10 Lab “Benthic dataset”. Note that there are multiple sheets (tabs) for abiotic data, invertebrate data, and land-use data. There is also a tab that you should use to format your Tables of calculations, and another tab with summary questions for you to answer. 1) Abiotic data: A table of class data collected in March of a previous year is given to see if any of these measurements of water quality suggest sources of impact to any of the study streams. With only 4 streams, studied in detail, we don’t have enough data for statistical analyses, but you will use rankings of these data to suggest patterns of relationship. 2) Analysis of Invertebrate Data: find this in the “invertebrate data” sheet of the Excel file. A) Functional Feeding Group Ratios: To make your life easier, the biotic data has been sorted by stream and habitat (riffle, leaf pack, root wad/cut bank). Click on the Tab for this sheet and make a COPY that you will use for your calculations. For each stream separately, add up the total number of organisms in each of the functional feeding groups (FFG). In other words, sum up the numbers from all of the samples (= rows) from a given stream. (Sum across the 3 habitat types: FFG analysis requires multi-habitat sampling). Remember the FFG’s are SH (shredders), SC (scrapers), FC (filtering collectors), GC (gathering collectors) and PR (predators). Record “T” = total number of ALL invertebrates. Excel hint: use the “SUM” function to get total numbers of organisms in a group. Type an “=” in a “destination cell” and then type the cell ID’s and “+”s to show which taxon totals to include for each FFG. Follow examples presented in lab. Indicator ratios based on the FFGs have been used to summarize different ecosystem-level characteristics of streams. Previous studies in minimally disturbed, forested streams have allowed researchers to propose ‘benchmark’ values of these ratios that are typical of “healthy” forested streams (Merritt and Cummins 1996). These benchmark values may not be in a realistic scale for our streams in the Maryland piedmont, but observe how the 5 FFG indicator ratios rank our 4 study streams. Focus on relative sizes of the indicator values across streams. If the indicator values are extremely different from the ‘benchmark’ values, then it suggests that a stream has been altered or disturbed from its natural forested state. The definitions of the ratios, and their “typical” values in “ideal” undisturbed forested streams are shown below (Table 1). Excel hint: in the Invertebrate data tab, “outlines” of two tables help you calculate the FFG Rations for these 4 streams. Use the formulas in Table 1, and apply the total numbers of organisms in each FFG group for a given stream (first outline table). Then you can insert more formulas in the second “outline table” to give your answers. Remember to COPY ( PASTE SPECIAL ( VALUES to copy your finished table to your report submission sheet. Table 1. Functional feeding group indicator ratios and their interpretation Indicator ratio FFG ratio formula benchmark ratio values ratio of autotrophy to SC / (SH + GC + CF) autotrophic if > 0.75 heterotrophy (P/R) ratio of CPOM:FPOM SH / (GC + CF) normal shredder association, with functional riparian buffer if > 0.25 FPOM in transport FC / GC unusually high particulate transport if > 0.50 Stable channel substrate (SC + FC) / (SH + GC) plenty of stable substrate if > 0.50 “top-down” predator PR / T normal predator – prey balance control of food web if < 0.15 b) hilsenhoff’s family biotic index (fbi): knowledge of the macroinvertebrate families present allows calculation of various numerical scores intended to represent the “health” of a stream, and the degree to which it may have been altered by human activity. the family biotic index (fbi) is a weighted average of the tolerance values of the families of invertebrates in a sample. hilsenhoff’s extensive field study compared invertebrate distribution in streams with water quality measurements to assign a tolerance value to each family, which ranges from 0 to 10. a zero tolerance value means the family is very sensitive to organic pollution, and 10 means the taxon is very tolerant to organic enrichment such as manure, sewage or excess fertilizer. the general formula for fbi of one sample is: fbi = (number of individuals per family) * (tolerance value of family) / (total # individuals) you will use this format to insert formulas in excel to calculate the fbi value for each sample. hint: insert the formula for the first sample in the first stream to the right of the data for each sample (fbi spaces are labelled for you, this will take some effort so be accurate). then “fill down” the formula for the rows below and see that the formula updates for each row! c. potential environmental stressors: use the environmental data in excel (abiotic sheet and the landuse&habitat sheets) to interpret the stream health indicators. create a table with columns that orders streams by their fbi value (lowest left ( highest to the right). the rows will be the values of water quality and landuse variables for each stream: a) conductivity b) % forest in the watershed c) phosphate concentration. d) total nitrogen concentration find templates for table 2 and table 3 in the “submit tables” sheet in excel. since we do not have enough replicate streams for statistical analyses, just compare the degree to which any of these environmental variables seem to have a positive (or negative) relationship to the fbi values. table 3 is set up the same way, except that “your best ffg ratio” will be used to rank order the streams in the table. d. see the “submit answers” tab for specific questions to answer: in general, interpret the “health” of each of 0.15="" b)="" hilsenhoff’s="" family="" biotic="" index="" (fbi):="" knowledge="" of="" the="" macroinvertebrate="" families="" present="" allows="" calculation="" of="" various="" numerical="" scores="" intended="" to="" represent="" the="" “health”="" of="" a="" stream,="" and="" the="" degree="" to="" which="" it="" may="" have="" been="" altered="" by="" human="" activity.="" the="" family="" biotic="" index="" (fbi)="" is="" a="" weighted="" average="" of="" the="" tolerance="" values="" of="" the="" families="" of="" invertebrates="" in="" a="" sample.="" hilsenhoff’s="" extensive="" field="" study="" compared="" invertebrate="" distribution="" in="" streams="" with="" water="" quality="" measurements="" to="" assign="" a="" tolerance="" value="" to="" each="" family,="" which="" ranges="" from="" 0="" to="" 10.="" a="" zero="" tolerance="" value="" means="" the="" family="" is="" very="" sensitive="" to="" organic="" pollution,="" and="" 10="" means="" the="" taxon="" is="" very="" tolerant="" to="" organic="" enrichment="" such="" as="" manure,="" sewage="" or="" excess="" fertilizer.="" the="" general="" formula="" for="" fbi="" of="" one="" sample="" is:="" fbi="" (number="" of="" individuals="" per="" family)="" *="" (tolerance="" value="" of="" family)="" (total="" #="" individuals)="" you="" will="" use="" this="" format="" to="" insert="" formulas="" in="" excel="" to="" calculate="" the="" fbi="" value="" for="" each="" sample.="" hint:="" insert="" the="" formula="" for="" the="" first="" sample="" in="" the="" first="" stream="" to="" the="" right="" of="" the="" data="" for="" each="" sample="" (fbi="" spaces="" are="" labelled="" for="" you,="" this="" will="" take="" some="" effort="" so="" be="" accurate).="" then="" “fill="" down”="" the="" formula="" for="" the="" rows="" below="" and="" see="" that="" the="" formula="" updates="" for="" each="" row!="" c.="" potential="" environmental="" stressors:="" use="" the="" environmental="" data="" in="" excel="" (abiotic="" sheet="" and="" the="" landuse&habitat="" sheets)="" to="" interpret="" the="" stream="" health="" indicators.="" create="" a="" table="" with="" columns="" that="" orders="" streams="" by="" their="" fbi="" value="" (lowest="" left="" (="" highest="" to="" the="" right).="" the="" rows="" will="" be="" the="" values="" of="" water="" quality="" and="" landuse="" variables="" for="" each="" stream:="" a)="" conductivity="" b)="" %="" forest="" in="" the="" watershed="" c)="" phosphate="" concentration.="" d)="" total="" nitrogen="" concentration="" find="" templates="" for="" table="" 2="" and="" table="" 3="" in="" the="" “submit="" tables”="" sheet="" in="" excel.="" since="" we="" do="" not="" have="" enough="" replicate="" streams="" for="" statistical="" analyses,="" just="" compare="" the="" degree="" to="" which="" any="" of="" these="" environmental="" variables="" seem="" to="" have="" a="" positive="" (or="" negative)="" relationship="" to="" the="" fbi="" values.="" table="" 3="" is="" set="" up="" the="" same="" way,="" except="" that="" “your="" best="" ffg="" ratio”="" will="" be="" used="" to="" rank="" order="" the="" streams="" in="" the="" table.="" d.="" see="" the="" “submit="" answers”="" tab="" for="" specific="" questions="" to="" answer:="" in="" general,="" interpret="" the="" “health”="" of="" each="">