The effects of riparian tree cover on the abundance and diversity of macroinvertebrates
Emily Harvey and Rachel McCuller
Abstract
Introduction
Aquatic macroinvertebrates (Fig.1) play a vital role in freshwater
ecosystems. Benthic species spend most of their juvenile life stages living
in the sediment, rock crevices, and woody debris of river bottoms (United
States National Park Service). With increased human development, land
use practices can modify both streamside vegetation and surficial
sediments; important determinants of food availability and habitat for
aquatic macroinvertebrates (Hawkins, Murphy, & Anderson, 1982). With
landscape changes of many freshwater rivers increasing due to human
development, understanding the role that tree cover and riparian
vegetation plays in the abundance and diversity of macroinvertebrate
organisms can become important for understanding patterns in community
structure of these species (Hawkins et al., 1982). Increased sedimentation
and embeddedness that occurs when the transformation of a previously
forested river bank becomes simplified, has been shown to decrease
overall macro invertebrate abundance and diversity (Ninslow & Lowe,
2006). However, some previous studies have shown that increased light
penetration and nutrient availability have yielded higher abundances of
macroinvertebrates. (Kiffney, Richardson & Bull, 2003). After comparing
the results of these previous studies, we hypothesized that
macroinvertebrate diversity and abundance would be higher near river
banks where tree cover and vegetation was present.
Fig. 1: Microscope
image of order
Odonata (Damselfly)
Materials and methods
Macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity was tested on three local
rivers near Bridgewater Virginia: North River at Wildwood Park, Cook’s
Creek at Monger Park, and Dry River near state routes 738 and 257.
These locations were chosen due to having one side with heavy riparian
tree cover and vegetation, and the opposite having large open spaces with
anthropogenic disturbances such as agriculture, mown lawns, and athletic
facilities. Each river was tested in two locations on both sides to assess
the effect of river edges with tree cover on the abundance and diversity of
macroinvertebrates. Both sides of the rivers were tested in the same
manner as a way to control for the natural differences between the
various rivers. Each collection site was 3m away from the bank and 5
meters away from other sites. This method was done to replicate the
study done by Orzetti et al., (2010) in which macroinvertebrates were
collected with a kick net at sites with at least 10m of riparian buffer.
Each of the kick net samples were obtained by scrubbing the bottom of
the river bed with our feet for 60 seconds to kick up debris (Fig. 1).
Found organisms were collected from the seine net and stored in a plastic
bag filled with ethanol for transportation back to the laboratory for
identification.
Dissolved oxygen and pH were
also recorded at each test site for general
information on stream health and water
quality. This accounted for any found
correlations between the amount of tree
cover on the river’s edge and river’s
Fig. 1. Kick-net method of collecting health. pH and dissolved oxygen were
macroinvertebrates at each test site. both measured with their respective test
The net was held at a slight angle to kits and recorded. The averages and
catch all floating debris. standard error from each site will be
compared. The depth of each river test sight was measured using a meter
stick and the averages and standard error was calculated. The abundance
of macroinvertebrates was measured by the average number of
individuals caught per side (with tree cover vs. without).
Macroinvertebrate diversity was calculated by comparing the averages of
species found per side. Diversity was also analyzed using the Shannon’s
index. The formula for this index was followed per the instructions
explained by Ricklefs and Relyea (2014). For this index, we multiplied
each of the relative abundances found for each species by the natural log
of the relative abundance value. The products were then summed and
then the negative of this sum was taken. The standard error was
calculated for average number of species and individuals
Department of Biology, Bridgewater College, Bridgewater, Virginia 22812
In order to analyze our data we looked at the abundance of
macroinvertebrates collected from the river communities. We then
compared absolute abundance and relative abundance for each species and
for each community type, with tree cover or without tree cover. Each
species was then ranked in order from most abundant to least abundant.
The graph shows ranked abundance on the x-axis and relative abundance
on the y-axis.
From this graph we can learn about species richness and species evenness
of the different communities. If a community has many species with the
same relative abundance, that community has high species evenness. If
there is a wide variety in the relative abundance then the species has low
species evenness. If a community has lots of species then you would say
that the community has high species richness and if the community has
few species then it has low species richness.
The communities that we looked at both have low species evenness but
the community with tree cover has higher species richness than the
community without tree cover.
1 error.
Relative Abundace
With Tree Cover
0.1
0.01
0.001
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Ranked Abundance
Fig. 3. Abundance of Macroinvertebrate Species by River Side. This graph
shows the relative abundance of each species by the ranked abundance for
both sides of the rivers, with tree cover and without tree cover. The y-axis is
a logarithmic scale.
In order to fully understand our data we chose to look at levels of diversity
on both sides of the rivers where we had collected macroinvertebrates. As a
measure of diversity of species we looked at both the average number of
species found (Fig. 4) and Shannon’s Index (Table I). Together these
calculations gave us a good idea of the diversity of the rivers.
Shannon’s Index
Without Tree Cover
2.091136558
With Tree Cover
2.242603007
Table I. The Shannon’s Index is a measure of diversity of a species.
𝐻 ′ = − σ𝑠𝑖=1(𝑝𝑖)(ln 𝑝𝑖 ). The values for this equation range from a
minimum of 0, only one species in a community to the maximum value of
the natural log of the number of species in the community. The maximum
value for the river side without tree cover is 2.89 and the maximum value
for the river side with tree cover is 2.71.
Our results showed that there was no statistical difference in the number
of species found based on tree cover on the sides of the river (Fig. 4.)
There was a statistical difference based on the river in which we were
collecting data, when comparing standard error bars (Fig. 4.). The total
number of species found on the side with tree cover was 15 and the total
number of species found on the side without tree cover was 18 all species
were identified to order.
Results Discussion
We found that the two communities in the rivers have some species with
10 high relative abundance and some species that have low relative
9
abundance. The side of the river with tree cover has higher species richness
than the side of the river without tree cover. Both sides of the river have
8
low species evenness (Fig. 3.).
7
Average Number of Species Caught
6
We found that there was no statistical difference between the number of
5
species found on either sides of the river, with tree cover or without tree
4
cover. However, there was a statistical difference in the number of species
3
that were caught between the rivers. Dry River had the greatest number of
2
species (31 total, 7.75 average) and Cook’s Creek had the fewest number of
1
species (7 total, 1.75 average). North River had a total of 20 species that
0
North River Cook's Creek Dry River were caught and an average of 5. North River and Dry River were not
found to be statistically different but both were higher and statistically
different than Cook’s Creek.
Without Tree Cover With Tree Cover
Our data showed that the individuals caught varied by the river more than
Fig. 4. Average Number of Species Caught by Side and River. This graph
they varied because of the side of the river. In two of the rivers, North
illustrates the wide variation in the number of species of
River and Dry River, there was a statistical difference in the number of
macroinvertebrates that were caught in each river. The differences are
individuals found (Fig. 5.) however, in Cook’s Creek, there was not a
also separated by the side of the river on which they were caught, with
statistical difference in the number of individuals found per side.
tree cover or without tree cover. The bars that are shown are standard
Patterns of distribution explain the differences in community structure at
least partially because of differences in food resources. (Anderson, 1992).
When looking at our results to compare the average number of individuals For sites without tree cover, Diptera, which are algal grazers, (Anderson
1992) was the most abundant order. For sites with tree cover Diptera was
Without Tree Cover
found we saw that there was no statistical difference in the number of
individuals found in Cook’s Creek when comparing the sides. However, for still the highest absolute abundance, however the orders Ephemeroptera,
both North River and Dry River there was a statistical difference between Plecoptera, and Trichoptera had higher relative abundance values. These
the tree cover and non-tree cover sides. The difference was greater for Dry species are considered dominant shredders and detritivores who prefer
higher-quality food (Hawkins et al. 1982). The higher abundance of
River than it was for North River (Fig. 5.).
shredder species on the sides with tree cover can be attributed to light and
nutrient limitations due to canopy cover, combined with leaf litter which
70
inputs large quantities of organic matter. (Nislow & Lowe, 2006).
60
Shifts in the species composition of different communities from what is
16 18 expected based on habitat and food preferences can be attributed to
50
environmental conditions when they differ significantly (Hawking et al.
Average Number of Individuals Caught
1982). We feel that the width of the river could have played a role as to
40
why grazers were still so abundant on the tree-cover sides. If sides without
tree cover are increasing nutrient levels in the rivers, this could lead to an
30
increase in algae and thus increases in grazer macroinvertebrates. From
our findings, it is important to note that tree cover and other riparian
20
vegetation or the lack there of will affect the community structure of
macroinvertebrates, based on the types of food sources found near the river
10
banks.
0
North River Cook's Creek Dry River
Without Tree Cover With Tree Cover
Fig. 5. Average Number of Individuals Caught by Side and River.
Literature Cited
This graph illustrates the variety in the number of individuals that Anderson, N. H. (1992). Influence of disturbance on insect communities in Pacific Northwest
streams. Hydrobiologia, 248(1), 79-92.
were caught in each river and on each side. There was more Hawkins, C. P., Murphy, M. L., & Anderson, N. H. (1982). Effects of canopy, substrate
variation between each river than between each side. The bars that composition, and gradient on the structure of macroinvertebrate communities in cascade
are shown are standard error. range streams of Oregon. Ecology, 63(6), 1840-1856.
Kiffney P.M., Richardson J.S. & Bull J.P. (2003) Responses of periphyton and insects to
experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width along forest streams. Journal of Applied
The environmental conditions that we measured were pH, dissolved oxygen Ecology, 40, 1060–1076.
and depth. All of these conditions effect the macroinvertebrates that can live
Nislow, K. H., & Lowe, W. H. (2006). Influences of logging history and riparian forest
in an area. There was little to no difference in the average environmental characteristics on macroinvertebrates and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in headwater
conditions on different sides of the river except for depth (cm). (Table II) streams (New Hampshire, U.S.A.). Freshwater Biology, 51(2), 388-397.
Orzetti, L. L., Jones, R. C., & Murphy, R. F. (2010). Stream Condition in Piedmont Streams with
Restored Riparian Buffers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Journal of the American
pH Dissolved Depth (cm)
Water Resources Association, 46(3), 473-485.
Oxygen (ppm)
Ricklefs, R. E., & Relyea, R. (2014). Ecology: The economy of nature. New York: W.H. Freeman
and Company
Without Tree 6.20 ± 0.39 11.35 ± 0.85 30.57 ± 5.00 United States National Park Service. (n.d.). Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. Retrieved December 01,
Cover 2016, from https://www.nps.gov/articles/aquatic-macroinvertebrates-habitat.htm
With Tree Cover 6.08 ± 0.30 11.35 ± 0.92 29.63 ± 3.46
Table II. Environmental conditions based on the side of the river Acknowledgments
where testing was done. This table contains the average pH, We would like to thank Dr. Tim Kreps, Jared Beuschlein and Jacob Thomas for their assistance in
dissolved oxygen and depth from the six tests sites across three the identification of the macroinvertebrates. Secondly, we would like to thank Kendall Swick,
different rivers for both sides, with tree cover and without tree cover. Brady Winter and Jeremy Bender for their assistance in the collection of our data and for their
superb videography skills.