Assessment of Aquatic Biological Communities Along a Gradient of Urbanization in the Willamette...
-
Upload
juliana-boone -
Category
Documents
-
view
235 -
download
0
Transcript of Assessment of Aquatic Biological Communities Along a Gradient of Urbanization in the Willamette...
Assessment of Aquatic Biological Communities Along a Gradient of Urbanization in the Willamette Valley Ecoregion, Oregon and Washington
Ian Waite, Kurt Carpenter, Andrew Arnsberg, Frank Rinella, Steve Sobieszczyk, Ian Wigger,
Curt Hughes and Mike Sarantou
National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program
Seattle
Sacramento
Raleigh
Atlanta
Portland
Denver
Dallas-Ft. Worth
Milwaukee-Green Bay
Salt Lake City Boston
Birmingham
NAWQA Urban Gradient Studies
Oregon
WillametteRiverValley
Willamette River Valley, Oregon
Willamette Urban Intensity IndexU
rban
In
dex
Urb
an I
nd
ex
Po
pu
lati
on
Den
sity
P
op
ula
tio
n D
ensi
ty
per
sq
mil
ep
er s
q m
ile
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
Sites Ordered by Urban Index
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Willamette Urban and Willamette Urban and AgAg
Willamette Willamette Valley Valley Ecoregion Ecoregion
Tickle Creek near Boring, Oregon
Urban Index = 32Urban Index = 32
Urban Streams
Claggett CreekAmazon Creek
Pringle Creek
Urban Index = 77 - 100Urban Index = 77 - 100
Water chemistry
Habitat
Algal
Invertebrate
Fish assemblages
Y-Axis Invertebrate Tolerance (Weighted Abundance)
Y-Axis Invertebrate Tolerance (Weighted Abundance)
R2 = 0.79
4
5
6
7
8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Index
R2 = 0.79
4
5
6
7
8
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Log(Sum_Pesticides*1000)
Y-Axis % Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Trichoptera Richness
R2 = -0.72
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Index
R2 = -0.82
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Log(Sum_Pesticides*1000)
nMDS Ordination of Invertebrate Density (Log X+1) w/ overlay of
Population Density
Amazo
BattlBeave
Cheha
Chick
Clagg
Curti
Deep
EFDar
Fanno Iler
Johns
Kello
LostMilk
Nate
NFDep
Nyamh
Oak
Pring
RocOR
RocWASalmo
Silk
Sscap
Tickl
Tryon
Whipp
2D Stress: 0.15
AXIS 1
AX
IS 2
What variables are related to the Ordination Axis 1?
R2 = 0.93
0
1
2
3
4
0 4 8 12 16 20
EPT Richness
Axi
s 1
Sco
res
R2 = -0.83
0
1
2
3
4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Index
Axi
s 1
Sco
res
Plot of Population Density vs.% AG+Urban Land Use (%
disturbance)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Population Density
% A
G+
Urb
an
La
nd
us
e
Transition
High Pop.Den Med/High AG+Urb
Low/Med Pop.Den High AG+Urb
Low AG+Urb
Multivariate Regression Tree (MRT: Primer) Linking Inverts to Environmental Data (coded by
%AG+Urban)
A: DO > 3.4 (< 2.5) TEQ < 1080 (>1120)
A
B
CH
D
TEQ, DO
and Sum_PEST
B: Sum_PEST
< 0.075 (> 0.087)
% AG+UrCategories
< 15 %
15 – 39
40 – 69
> 69 %
Nonparametric Regression Tree Linking Inverts to Environmental Data (coded by %AG+Urban)C: TEQ
D & E: DO F & G: Sum_PEST B
G
F
E
C
I
H
J
K
L
D
A
H: TEQ
I: DO
J: Sum_PEST
K: TEQ
L: Sum_PEST
% Fish Metric Includes 4 Metrics
% Salmonids % Native (other species) % Reticulate Sculpin % Introduced or Exotic
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Index
Fish
Met
ric
(%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% Dissolved Oxygen
Fis
h M
etri
c (%
)
po
or
co
nd
itio
np
oo
r c
on
dit
ion% Fish Metric Includes 4 Metrics
% Salmonids % Native (other species) % Reticulate Sculpin % Introduced or Exotic
“What do you mean cooties, no cooties on
me.”FZ
Exotic Species
nMDS Ordination of Fish Abundance (Log
X+1) with overlay of Population Density
popden00
600
2.4E3
4.2E3
6E3
Battle
Beaverton
Chehalem
Chicken
Claggett
Curtin
Deep
EFDairyFanno
Iler
Johnson
Kellogg
LostMilk
NF Deep
Nate
Nyamhill
Oak
Pringle
RockOR
RockWA
Salmon
Silk
Sscappoose
Tickle
TryonWhipple
Stress: 0.16
600
2400
4200
6000
per sq mile
Preliminary CONCLUSIONS
Fish showed a linear response as urban intensity increases based on individual metrics
% E
PT R
ich
ness
Invertebrates showed a smooth threshold for some metrics at Urban Index values of ~25 or < 5-10% Impervious
R2 = -0.72
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Index
Invertebrate RTH (Density-Log(X+1)
2D Stress: 0.15
Preliminary CONCLUSIONS Flashiness of urban stream flows usually related to % impervious does not seem to be the dominate factor affecting the biological assemblages in the Willamette Valley
Biotic assemblages were strongly related to differences in WQ among sites (e.g., TEQ, Pesticides, DO, and Water Temp.) likely due to Urban and AG land use disturbances – either singularly or in combination.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Population Density
% A
G+
Urb
an
La
nd
us
e
High Pop.Den & High AG+Urb
High AG+Urb & Low/Med Pop.Den
Low Pop.Den & Low AG+Urb
Little difference found in fish and inverts between High AG+Urban (% disturbance) and High Population Density sites
Preliminary CONCLUSIONS
Preliminary CONCLUSIONS
Prediction of invertebrate metrics at unsampled sites using the urban index will be attempted using EPA and/or ODEQ sites in Willamette Valley – still amassing the data
% E
PT R
ich
ness
R2 = -0.72
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Index
Evaluating the Effects of Urbanization on Water Quality I – II
Concurrent Session F & G: Tues. 1 – 5 pm
Panel DiscussionEffects of Urbanization on Streams
Tuesday 7:00-9:00 pm Meeting Room A8, SJ Convention Center
Contact Info: Ian Waite [email protected], 503-251-3463
nMDS Ordination of Invertebrate Density Sites coded by %AG+Urban
%AG+UrCategories
< 15 %
15 – 39
40 – 69
> 69 %
Invertebrate RTH (Density-Log(X+1)
2D Stress: 0.15
AXIS 1
AX
IS 2
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Intensity
Res
po
nse
Va
riab
le
Hypothetical response to increasing urban intensity…..threshold or linear or none?
Minimum threshold
Maximum threshold
Resistance
Population Density% Impervious 0.98
% Urban 0.98
Road Den. 0.95
Urban Index 0.98
Mean Watershed Elev. -0.88
Watershed Slope -0.81
3 Flow Stats 0.73
DOC 0.70, SO4 0.71
TN 0.81, TP 0.73
Pest. Tox. Index_Summer 0.70
Sum_Insecticide 0.70
TEQ 0.79
Environmental Variables usually surrogates for
many processes