Post on 13-Jan-2016
description
Development of a Phytoplankton Index of Biotic Integrity for
Chesapeake Bay
• Richard V. Lacouture – MSUERC
• Claire Buchanan – ICPRB
• Harold G. Marshall – ODU
• Jacqueline Johnson – ICPRB
• Lots of others
“Biological Integrity”
• Biological Integrity- “the capability of supporting and maintaining a balanced,
integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of the natural (minimally impaired) habitat...”
(Karr and Dudley 1981)
• Index of Biotic Integrity - a set of metrics devised for a specific assemblage of
organisms which describes habitat condition for that assemblage
- serves as an integrative approach to resource or ecosystem management
Steps in the Development of the PIBI
• Data compilation and standardization• Classification of reference and degraded
habitat conditions• Metric selection – power to discriminate• Establish scoring criteria for individual
metrics - thresholds• Aggregate and score multimetric index• Validate the index using independent data
Potential Reference Community
Habitat Classification THE WATER QUALITY BINNING TECHNIQUE
Most Degraded Least Degraded Water Quality Conditions
Water Quality
Conditions
DIN
PO4
SECCHI DEPTH
Habitat Classification - A Look at the Real Data
Reference Condition CriteriaPhytoplankton
• Must Pass All Criteria to Be Reference• Must Fail All Criteria to Be Impaired
Spring Summer
Secchi Depth (meters)
TF >0.9 > 0.8
OH >0.7 > 0.6
MH > 1.8 > 1.45
PH > 2.15 > 1.85
PO4 (mg liter-1)
TF < 0.038 < 0.027
OH < 0.028 < 0.074
MH < 0.011 < 0.007
PH < 0.007 < 0.007
DIN (mg liter-1)
TF < 2.11 < 1.91
OH < 1.77 < 1.22
MH < 0.96 < 0.07
PH < 0.07 < 0.07
Metric Selection
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
VALUE OF IBI SCORES
FR
EQ
UE
NC
Y
DEGRADED SITES
REFERENCE SITES
ALL DATA
The Ideal Metric
Metric Discrimination
Metric Discrimination
Meets Expectations
Establishing Metric Scoring Thresholds
Parameters Selected for PIBI - SpringMETRIC TF OH MH PH
C:Chl Ratio X X X X
Surface Chlorophyll a X X X X
% Cryptophyte Biomass X
Cyanophyte Biomass X
Diatom Biomass X
Dinoflagellate Biomass X
DOC X X X X
Pheophytin X X X X
P. minimum abundance X X
Total Biomass X X X X
Parameters Selected for PIBI - Summer
METRIC TF OH MH PH
C:Chl Ratio X X
Surface Chlorophyll a X X X X
% Cryptophyte Biomass X
Cyanophyte Biomass X X
Diatom Biomass X X X
Dinoflagellate Biomass X X
DOC X X X X
M. aeruginosa Abundance X
Pheophytin X X X X
Picoplankton Abundance X X
Total Biomass X X
PIBI Scoring Criteria – Spring Polyhaline
METRIC 1 3 5
C:Chl <71.0 71.0 & 107.5
>107.5
Surf. Chl a >4.0 2.8 & 4.0 <2.8
% Crypto Biom >7.1 4.9 & 7.1 <4.9
DOC >2.61 2.50 & 2.61 <2.50
Pheophytin >0.90 0.55 & 0.90 <0.55
P. min. Abund >7,488 672 & 7,488
<672
Total Biomass >1,062 NULL NULL
Discrimination Efficiencies of Individual PIBI Metrics Summer - Percentage of Correct Classifications
TF
Deg
Ref
C:Chl S. Chl a
80.2
76.6
CyanC
62.2
63.6
DiatC
68.4
71.2
DinoC DOC
90.7
91.4
Pheo
72.6
81.3
TotC
68.4
74.2
OH
Deg
Ref
69.0
70.1
63.7
63.9
72.9
75.6
72.0
70.0
71.8
75.9
MH
Deg
Ref
57.9
58.7
76.1
75.2
60.0
64.0
61.7
68.0
71.4
74.6
PH
Deg
Ref
77.4
79.6
59.3
66.7
66.7
61.4
71.9
54.9
64.3
66.7
74.1
73.2
63.2
63.2
Cell chlorophyll content adjusts to
ambient light levels. In turbid waters, cells
have high chlorophyll -biomass ratios which
are indicative of sediment pollution
PROCESS INDICATOR Chlorophyll : Carbon
High concentrations of Prorocentrum minimum cause mortality and minimal growth rates in juvenile oysters. The frequency of these high concentrations (>3,000 cells/ml) increases as chlorophyll levels increase.
SPECIES INDICATOR Prorocentrum minimum
Validation - Classification EfficienciesThis was run on 2003 Monitoring data and 1998-
2002 Pfiesteria Monitoring data
SPRING SUMMER
TF 70.0% TF 78.4%
OH 70.5% OH 75.5%
MH 78.1% MH 77.8%
PH 84.4% PH 79.8%
Application of the P-IBI
• Spatial look at Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program’s phytoplankton sampling stations, 2004
• Temporal look at mainstem Chesapeake Bay stations – spring and summer
• Establishing a Restoration Goal based on the P-IBI
CB5.2LE2.2
RET2.2
TF2.3
TF1.5
TF1.7
LE1.1
CB4.3C
ET5.2 ET5.1
CB3.3C
W T5.1
CB2.2
CB1.1
CB6.2
LE3.6
RET3.1
TF3.1
CB6.4
CB7.3EW E 4.2
RET4.3
TF4.2
CB7.4LE5.5
RET5.2TF5.5
SBE 2
SBE 5
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERQUALITY MONITORING PROGRAMPHYTOPLANKTON STATIONS
Overall Scoring CriteriaAdd Up, Average and Scale
1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5
Good
Fair-Good
Fair
Fair-Poor
Poor
Goal
Marginal
Degraded
Severely Degraded
Pla
ntkt
on &
Zoo
plan
kton
Ben
thos
PHYTOPLANKTON IBI SPRING 2004
BAD (1 - 2.0)
FAIR-BAD (>2.0 - 2.67)
FAIR (>2.67 - 3.33)
FAIR-GOOD(>3.33-4.0)
GOOD (>4.0 - 5)
1.9
2.4
2.1
2.4
2.5
1.5
3.3
1.6
2.3
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.9
3.8
2.2
3.4
4.6
2.3
2.5
2.9
1.7
2.6
2.32.1
2.73.0
2.7
PHYTOPLANKTON IBI SUMMER 2004
BAD (1- 2.0)
FAIR-BAD (>2.0- 2.67)
FAIR (>2.67- 3.33)
FAIR-GOOD(>3.33- 4.0)
GOOD (>4.0- 5)
2.5
3.5
1.6
2.5
1.1
1.9
3.3
1.9
3.1
3.0
2.4
1.2
1.7
2.0
2.7
2.6
3.0
1.7
3.21.7
2.2
1.2
1.0
2.7
3.8
1.62.3
MEAN SPRING PHYTOPLANKTON IBI SCORES MD MAINSTEM CHESAPEAKE BAY 1985-2004
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
P-IB
I SCO
RE
CB2.2 CB3.3C CB4.3C CB5.2
MEAN SPRING PHYTOPLANKTON IBI SCORES VA MAINSTEM CHESAPEAKE BAY 1985-2004
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
P-IB
I SC
OR
E
CB6.1 CB6.4 CB7.3E CB7.4
MEAN SUMMER PHYTOPLANKTON IBI SCORES MD MAINSTEM CHESAPEAKE BAY 1985-2004
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
P-IB
I SCO
RE
CB2.2 CB3.3C CB4.3C CB5.2
MEAN SUMMER PHYTOPLANKTON IBI SCORES VA MAINSTEM CHESAPEAKE BAY 1985-2004
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
P-IB
I SCO
RE
CB6.1 CB6.4 CB7.3E CB7.4
MEAN SPRING PHYTOPLANKTON IBI SCORES POTOMAC RIVER 1985-2004
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
P-IB
I SCO
RE
LE2.2 RET2.2 TF2.3
MEAN SUMMER PHYTOPLANKTON IBI SCORES POTOMAC RIVER 1985-2004
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
P-IB
I SCO
RE
LE2.2 RET2.2 TF2.3
Establishing a P-IBI Goal Relative to Chlorophyll a Criteria
P-IBI > 4.0 - typically associated with chlorophyll a levels lower than those in P-IBI > 3.0 (*, p<0.05; **, p<0.01)
- median levels overlap model-simulated mean chlorophyll a levels that support attainment of all Chesapeake dissolved oxygen criteria
Establishing a P-IBI Goal Relative to Water Clarity Criteria
PIBI > 4.0 - typically associated with Secchi depths greater than those in PIBI > 3.0 (*, p<0.05; **, p<0.01)
- more closely overlaps Secchi depths habitat requirements of SAV and attainment of Chesapeake Bay water clarity criteria
Establishing a P-IBI Goal Relative to Dissolved Oxygen Criteria
PIBI > 4.0 and PIBI > 3.0- no significant differences in above-pycnocline (AP) waters & spawning/nursery areas; both meeting
DO criteria in these areas- low tails of DO distributions in PIBI > 4.0 are slightly higher (better) than those for PIBI > 3.0.
Future Directions for the Phytoplankton Monitoring Programs
• Continue to refine and lobby for using P-IBI as a viable indicator of habitat quality by state and Federal managers of Chesapeake Bay
• Ultimately, use the P-IBI results in an Ecosystem Index of Biotic Integrity
• Document taxonomic changes in the phytoplankton populations of Chesapeake Bay relative to changing water quality conditions, introduced taxa, etc. and the impact that these shifts may have on higher trophic levels
• Continue to serve as a sentinel for HAB species and to maintain a historical record of bloom events in Chesapeake Bay