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

Does the Macroinvertebrate Community of a Restored Delmarva Bay Mimic a Natural Bay? Elanor D. Stevens, Robert F. Smith, Lauren E. Culler, William O. Lamp, Adviser University of Maryland, College Park

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

Photos by: Bill Lamp Wetland Restoration Introduction

Historic Site Restored Site A Restored Site B Study Site Introduction

To compare macroinvertebrate community • similarity between historic and restored pools To identify taxa with strong associations to each pool • Research Objectives Introduction

• Four years of data: 2005-2007, and 2012 • Samples collected monthly between March and August • Macroinvertebrate sampled with 20 d-net sweeps in each Photo by: Bill Lamp pool Field 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 Lab Work Methods

Historic Site Restored Site A Restored Site B 3% 4% 6% 5% 6% 4% 13% 9% 9% 3% 3% 24% 19% 6% 30% 12% 54% 53% 29% Acari Coleoptera Diptera Gastropoda Hemiptera Isopoda Midge Larvae Nematoda/Oligochaeta Odonata Ephmeroptera Community Overview Results

Historic Restored B Restored A Distance Matrix: Bray Curtis Stress: 0.16 NMDS Ordination Results

Historic Site Restored Site A Restored Site B Taxa p-value Taxa p-value Taxa p-value Caecidotea 0.001 Suphisellus 0.002 Caenis 0.001 Gammarus 0.001 Lestes 0.007 Planorbidae 0.001 Cambaridae 0.003 Physidae 0.001 Palaemonidae 0.034 Tanypodinae 0.001 Chironomini 0.001 Tanytarsini 0.001 Sigara 0.001 Oecitis 0.007 Berosus 0.022 Primary consumers, Predators Midge larvae grazers predominant, other taxa variable I Indicator Taxa for each pool Results

To compare macroinvertebrate community • similarity between natural and restored pools Each pool had different key players Restored Site A appears to be in transition To identify taxa with strong associations to each pool • Groups indicate underlying ecology Objectives Revisited Conclusion

• Was wetland restoration successful? Using the historic site as bench mark, communities seem to be moving in the right direction. • What caused the shift in macroinvertebrate communities of Restored Site A? Let’s return to the isopods… http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/115/sphagnumfallax.j pg Sphagnum moss? Take-home Message Conclusion

Questions?

• Reduces available nutrients • Intercepts nutrient input • Prevents microbial activity • Increases vegetation structure • Grows in dense mats • Fills the water column http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/115/sphagnumfallax.jpg Sphagnum ecology Introduction

Relative Abundance Genera of Dytiscidae of Isopods found at Jackson Lane Distinguish between sites with Acilius (L) Hydrovatus (A) JLL PPD Cell 2 and without Sphagnum based Agabus (A&L) Hygrotus (A&L) on dytiscid beetle community Brachyvatus (A) Ilbius (A) 80% 74% Copelatus (A) Laccornis (A) 57% Copotomus (A&L) Laccophilus 60% 51% Cybister (A&L) Liodessus (A) 48% Desmoprachia (A) Matus (L) 40% 35% Exploring relationship between Dytiscus (L) Neoporus (A&L) isopod abundance and the Graphoderus (A&L) Rhantus (A&L) presence of Sphagnum 20% Hydaticus (L) Thermonectus (L) 5% Hydroporus (A) Uvarus (A) 0% Future Research Conclusion

CWD CWD Straw Cell Size (ac) added amount 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

Shannon-Weiner Diversity 3 2.5 2 SP 1.5 SC 1 SA 0.5 0 2005 2006 2007 2012

Ephmeroptera Diptera Coleoptera Acilius 2 Baetidae Callibaetis Ceratopogonidae Bezzia-Palpomyia Dytiscidae Caenidae Caenis 3 Ceratopogon 3 Agabus Odonata Culicoides Copelatus 2 Aeshnidae Anax Chaoboridae Chaoborus Cybister 2 Aeshna Corethrella 1 Desmoprachia Dytiscus 3 Coenagrionidae sp. Chironomidae Chironomini Libellulidae Erythemis Orthocladiinae Heterostenuta 2 Libellula Tanypodinae Hydroporine Pachydiplax Tanytarsini Hydroporus 1 Plathemis sp. Hydrovatus Perithemis 3 Culicidae Aedes Hygrotus Sympetrum Anopheles Laccophilus Tramea Culex 2 Laccornis 2 sp. Uranotaenia Matus Lestidae Lestes sp. Neoporus Uvarus 2 Hemiptera Dolichopodidae sp. Belostomatidae Belostoma Sciaridae sp. Haliplidae Haliplus 3 Corixidae Hesperocorixa Stratiomyidae sp. 2 Peltodytes 2 Sigara 3 Tabanidae Chrysops 3 Hydrophilidae Anacaena 1 sp. Tabanus Berosus Helius 2 Gerridae sp. Tipulidae Enochrus Naucoridae sp. 3 Limonia Hydrochus 3 Nepidae Ranatra 3 sp. 2 Tropisternus Notonectidae Buenoa Trichoptera sp. Notonecta Hydroptilidae Orthotichia 3 Noteridae Hydrocanthus sp. Oxyethira Suphisellus Veliidae Microvelia Leptoceridae Nectopsyche 2 Scirtidae sp. 2 Megaloptera Oecitis Lepidoptera Corydalidae Chauliodes 1 Phryganeidae Agrypnia 3 Crambidae sp. Nigronia 1 Phryganea 2 Ptilostomis 2 Other Macroinvertebrates Acari Decapoda Isopoda sp. 1 Hydrachnidia sp. Cambaridae Asellidae Caecidotea sp. 1 Amphipoda Palaemonidae Microcrustacea Gammaridae Gammarus 1 Gastropoda Cladocera sp. Collembola Ancylidae sp. Copepoda sp.

10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0.0 5.0 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 March April March May April June May July Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) June August July August Temperature March April SA March May April SA June May July June SP August July SP August March SC April March May SC April June May August June August April May June July 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 March April March May April June May June July July August August SA SA March March Conductivity pH April April May May SP June SP June July August July SC August SC March April May March June April August May June April May August June July

Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorous 4.0 2.000 1.800 3.5 1.600 3.0 1.400 2.5 1.200 SA SA 2.0 1.000 0.800 SP SP 1.5 0.600 SC SC 1.0 0.400 0.5 0.200 0.0 0.000 March April May June July August March April May June July August March April May March April May June July August March April May June July August March April May June August Total Dissolved Nitrogen Total Dissolved Phosphorous 3.5 0.120 3.0 0.100 2.5 0.080 2.0 SA SA 0.060 1.5 SP SP 0.040 1.0 SC SC 0.020 0.5 0.000 0.0 March April May June July August March April May June July August March April May June

Cell 1 | Sphagnum Cell 3 | Sphagnum Cell 2 | Sphagnum Present Absent Colonized 30% 22% 24% 52% 25% 19% 5% 9% 5% 6% 8% 8% 8% 15% 12% 10% 16% 16% Non-Arthropod 10% Worms Caecidotea Non-Arthopod Orthocladinae Worms Caecidotea Tanytarsini Chironomini Chironomidae Tanypodinae Bezzia-Palpomyia Bezzia-Palpomyia Chironomini Chironomidae Non-Arthropod Caenis Tanypodinae Worms other other other Results

Results

Results

Introduction

Results

Introduction