Bioassessment in Water Resources Management

Transcription

1 Bioassessment in Water Resources Management Robert M. Hughes Past-President, American Fisheries Society Senior Scientist, Amnis Opes Institute Courtesy Associate Professor, Oregon State University Member, Oregon Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team

2 Background Monitoring Issues Appropriate Indicators Sampling Effort Reference Condition Regional Monitoring & Assessment Conclusions Overview

3 Ecological Monitoring & Resource Management (Quantitative Data) Modeling (Conceptual & Quantitative) Landscape Ecology (Theory & Pattern)

4 Cumulative Threats to Aquatic Biodiversity (Vorosmarty et al Nature)

5

6 Climate Change (American Fisheries Society 2010; IPCC 2013) Air temperature increase 2-5 C Water temperature increase 2-3 C Altered peak flow timing, frequency, duration, & size Increased flood frequency Altered climate regimes Altered fish assemblages

7 (Dai 2013 Nature Climate Change)

8 (Hughes et al Fisheries)

9 Multiple Environmental Factors Affect Aquatic Biota Human Activities (Disturbance, Land Use) Urbanization/ Residential Development Overpopulation Channelization Levees Revetments Roads/ Culverts Erosion MWTPs/CSOs Septic systems Imperviousness Fragmentation Silvicuilture Overpopulation Fertilizers Pesticides Roads & Culverts Compaction Erosion Fragmentation Agriculture/ Grazing/CAFOs Overpopulation Dams Channelization Diversions Levees Irrigation Revetments Roads/Culverts Erosion Fertilizer/Manure Pesticides Compaction Fragmentation Mining Drilling Recreation Industry/ Power Gen. Overpopulation Gravel Extraction Heavy Metals Liming Tailings Valley Fill Diversions Roads/Culverts Erosion Petroleum Pipelines Fragmentation Compaction Trails Construction Erosion Boating Fishing Fish introduction Trapping Fertilization Fish diseases CAFOs Overpopulation Dams Stacks Liming WTP/CSOs Roads/Culverts Channelization Revetments Imperviousness Fragmentation Stressors (Habitat Responses) Altered Habitat Structure Altered Flow Regimes Altered Water Quality Altered Energy Sources Altered Biotic Interactions Biological Responses Altered Biological Assemblages

10 Time (log scale) day season years centuries There is a Gap between Study & Management and Major Aquatic Stressors Most Major Anthropogenic Pressures? Most Aquatic Ecology Research & Management site reach lake basin ecoregion continent Spatial Extent (log scale) planet

11 Time (log scale) centuries Most Major Anthropogenic Pressures day season years We can narrow this knowledge & management gap by studying populations of sites in a rigorous standardized manner over large regions Most Aquatic Ecology Research & Management site reach lake basin ecoregion continent planet Spatial Extent (log scale)

12 Pattern Observed from Intensive Site-scale Study

13 Pattern Evident in More Spatially Extensive Study

14 % Eutrophic & Hypereutrophic Lakes Year Lake Eutrophication Estimates Hand Picked EMAP (Hughes et al Hydrobiologia)

15 Chemical Evidence, Aggregation of Existing Data Not Supporting 13% Supporting 87% % Delaware Stream Miles Suitable for Aquatic Life Not Supporting 87% Biological/Habitat Evidence, Probability Design Supporting 13% (Hughes et al Hydrobiologia)

16 Biological Condition The Biological Condition Gradient: Biological Response to Increasing Levels of Stressors Levels of Biological Condition Natural structural, functional, and taxonomic integrity is preserved. 1 Structure & function similar to natural community with some additional taxa & biomass; ecosystem level functions are fully maintained. 2 Evident changes in structure due to loss of some rare native taxa; shifts in relative abundance; ecosystem level functions fully maintained. 3 Moderate changes in structure due to replacement of sensitive ubiquitous taxa by more tolerant taxa; ecosystem functions largely maintained. 4 Sensitive taxa markedly diminished; conspicuously unbalanced distribution of major taxonomic groups; ecosystem function shows reduced complexity & redundancy. 5 Extreme changes in structure and ecosystem function; wholesale changes in taxonomic composition; extreme alterations from normal densities. Level of Exposure to Stressors 6 Watershed, habitat, flow regime and water chemistry as naturally occurs. (Davies & Jackson 2006 Ecological Applications) Chemistry, habitat, and/or flow regime severely altered from natural conditions.

17 Background Monitoring Issues Appropriate Indicators Sampling Effort Reference Condition Regional Monitoring & Assessment Conclusions Overview

18 Key Indicator Characteristics (Hughes & Peck 2008 Journal of the North American Benthological Society) Of interest to society Easily understood by decision-makers Responsive to anthropogenic disturbance Separable from natural variability Easily & inexpensively sampled & calculated Numerical (quantitative)

19 Applications of the Index of Biological Integrity (from J.R. Karr) Entire USA Entire EU at least 46 countries

20 Cumulative species captured Use the Most Cost Effective Sampling Gear (from A.Curry) Sample number Day Seine Night Seine Trap Net Minnow Trap Day Electrofishing Night Electrofishing Day Gill Net

21 What is an adequate number of macroinvertebrates? (Li et al. 2001)

22 Adequate Sampling Effort for Similarity Index Estimates? (median values from 1000 simulations) (Cao et al Journal of the North American Benthological Society) Sufficient sample

23 (Li et al Environmental Monitoring & Assessment)

24 Effect of Number of Stations per Site (Li et al EMAS) Sufficient sample

25 Raft Electrofishing Effort on Large Oregon Rivers (Hughes & Herlihy 2007 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society) Use Monte Carlo analysis (1000 samples) of each number of transects to assess central tendency & range Obtain 95% of the likely species at least 75% of the time Each transect is 10 times the mean wetted width of the channel (takes 1 day on rivers 100 m wide) (but what if more transects were sampled?)

26 [each box represents 1000 sample simulations] 75 th %ile 25 th %ile Day 1 Day 2 Day 3

27 How many individual fish should be collected?

28 What is an Adequate Number of Fish for IBI Calculation? (Hughes & Herlihy 2007 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society) Sufficient sample

29 EMAP/NARS Stream & River Site-Scale Sampling Design (Hughes & Peck 2008 JNABS)

30 How Many Sites Should be Sampled in Large River Mainstems to Estimate Species Richness?

31 How Many Bug Sites Should be Sampled per River? (Hughes et al Environmental Monitoring & Assessment)?

32 How Many Fish Sites Should be Sampled per River? (Hughes et al EMAS)

33 What Do We Use as Benchmarks for Assessing Condition? Different regions in any large area have different quality reference sites associated with covarying natural and land use gradients National Regional Basin Stream headwaters to lower reaches

34 Ecoregion 1 Ecoregion 2 Ecoregion 3 Historic Historic Historic Minimally Disturbed & Attainable Attainable Disturbed Least Disturbed Attainable? Impaired Least Impaired Highly Impaired

35 Increasing Disturbance Variable Quality Reference Catchment Condition Industrial Mines Dominant Urban/Commercial Dominant Untreated Wastes Common Extreme Flows Only Inter-basin Transfers Concrete Channels F Irrigated Rowcrops CAFOs; Crop Processors Few Riparian Trees Present Suburbs Dominant Mines Common Wastes Treated Regulated Flows Only Intra-basin Transfers Riprapped Channels E Rowcrops, Irrigated Forage Extensive Clearcutting Extensive Riparian Alteration Small Dispersed Cities Industrial Mines Present Wastes Treated High Dams Local Transfers Channelized D Constant Grazing Dryland/Pasture Agriculture Selective/Patch Logging Some Riparian Alteration Light/Rotated Grazing Dispersed Gardens & Logging Intact Riparian Zone Large Lot Residential Small Metal/Aggregate Mines Septic Fields Rural Residential Hand Mines Low Dams Slightly Flashier Some Snagging Natural Flow & Morphology C B Natural Vegetation Transients Natural Flow & Morphology A Agriculture/Silviculture Urbanization/Mining Flow/Morphology Tier

36 Filtering Sites to Yield Appalachian Mountain Reference Sites Excluded all sites with: sulfate > 400 µeq/l (mine drainage) acid neutralizing capacity < 50 µeq/l (acid rain) qualitative physical habitat score < 16 (physical habitat) total phosphorus > 20 µg/l (nutrient enrichment) total nitrogen > 750 µg/l (nutrient enrichment) chloride > 100 µeq/l (general watershed disturbance) riparian disturbance > 0.1 (quantitative physical habitat) relative bed stability (quant. physical habitat) watershed condition class A or B? (quantitative landscape)

37 What Constitutes Good Biological Condition? (Hughes et al TAFS) Seventy-fifth percentile of A&B or A-C reference sites First percentile (A&B, or A-C reference sites) (first %ile of A & B reference sites) (2 SD of RS mean)

38 Background Monitoring Issues Appropriate Indicators Sampling Effort Reference Condition Regional Monitoring & Assessment Conclusions Overview

39 Assessing Ecological Condition in USA Surface Waters: the USEPA Approach for Biological Assemblages

40 Karr s Original IBI Concept: Metric Classes & Scoring Species richness & composition Trophic composition Tolerance & sensitive composition Abundance & Anomalies No metric evaluation Metrics scored 1, 3, 5 IBI scored 12-60

41 EMAP Adjustments to IBI Habitat guilds Reproductive guilds Life history guilds Aliens Size classes Rigorous metric evaluation Scoring based on reference sites Metrics scored continuously 0-10 IBI scored 0-100

42 IBI Development Approach (Whittier et al Transactions of the American Fisheries Society) Develop Candidate Metrics (237) Determine Least Disturbed & Most Disturbed Sites from Environmental Data in Three Aggregate Ecoregions Range Test (< 4 species, or >75% of values identical Signal:Noise Test (S:N variance ratio > 3) Calibrate for Catchment Size if Needed (1-8 metrics) Metrics Eliminated 9-11 Metrics Eliminated Ecological Balance Evaluation (9 potential Ecological metric Balance classes) Evaluation Redundancy Test (Spearman coefficient from reference sites < 0.70) Responsiveness Test (highest F value for least disturbed vs. most disturbed) (5-7 Metrics Retained)

43 Estimating Ecological Condition of Mainstem PNW Rivers

44 Estimating Assemblage Condition in Raftable PNW Rivers Good Poor

45 IBI versus Catchment Disturbance of Large Oregon Rivers (Mebane et al Transactions of the American Fisheries Society) proximal logging & roads channelized urban r 2 = 0.36 P = 0.00 r 2 = 0.45 P = % watershed area mapped as disturbed % Catchment Area Mapped as Disturbed

46 (Jimenez et al Environmental Monitoring & Assessment) Guapiaçu-Macau Basin Assessment, Brasil

47 (Mulvey et al. 2009) 451 random sites 238 subjective sites

48 (Mulvey et al. 2009)

49 Distribution of 932 EMAP-West Sites 500 km

50 EMAP-West Results (Stoddard et al. 2005) 1000 km Biotic Integrity of Aquatic Vertebrates Biotic Integrity of Macroinvertebrates Loss of Macroinvertebrate Taxa West-wide (305,550 km) Plains (35,150 km) Xeric (48,800 km) Mountains (220,050 km) No Permit Most Disturbed Intermediate Least Disturbed Most Disturbed Intermediate Least Disturbed % of Stream Length in Region > 50% Loss 20-50% Loss < 20% Loss

51 EMAP-West Stressor Extent and Risk Assessment (Stoddard et al. 2005) Relative Risk = Probability of Poor IBI Score, given Poor Stressor Score Probability of Poor IBI Score, given Good Stressor Score

52 (USEPA 2013 National Rivers & Stream Assessment)

53 Macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Condition (USEPA 2013)

54 (USEPA 2013) National Stressor Extent and Risk Assessment

55 (USEPA 2013)

56 (USEPA 2013)

57 USEPA Master Sampling Schedule (1000 points per year; 20 revisits) 2007: lakes & reservoirs 2008: wadeable streams 2009: boatable rivers 2010: estuaries 2011: wetlands 2012: lakes & reservoirs 2013: wadeable streams 2014: boatable rivers

58 GeorgeBoxall Overview Background Monitoring Issues Appropriate Indicators Sampling Effort Reference Condition Regional Monitoring & Assessment Conclusions

59 Summary Size matters concerning: Extent of study Extent of site Number of random sites Number of reference sites Number of individuals identified per site Pattern detection Alternative applications of the data

60 (Limburg et al Fisheries)

61 Is it time to change traditional water monitoring & management practices in Brasil??

62 Muito Obrigado Perguntas? Comentários?