comparing professional and volunteer stream assessment ......p=0.1003 p=0.0638 watershed mbss-genus...
Post on 23-Jun-2021
11 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Comparing Professional and Volunteer Stream Assessment Data: Implications for Watershed Management
Dan Boward and Chris MillardMaryland Department of Natural Resources
Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment DivisionAnnapolis, Maryland
Rita BrucklerMaryland Department of the Environment
Technical and Regulatory Services AdministrationBaltimore, Maryland
Volunteer Branch of the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS)
• Encourage local action
• Support grassroots efforts (e.g, non-profit and watershed groups)
• Educate and involve the public
• Fill data gaps
The Maryland Stream Waders...
YoughioghenyNorth Branch Potomac
Upper Potomac
Middle Potomac
Susquehanna
Gunpowder BushElk
Chester
Choptank
Pocomoke
Lower Potomac
Patuxent
$
$
$
Baltimore
Washington D.C.
Cumberland
Potomac Washington Metro
Patapsco
West Chesapeake
Nanticoke/Wicomico
KM
40200
E
Cen
tral
1995 1996 1997BasinW
est
East
!
!
!
!
!
!
YoughioghenyNorth Branch PotomacUpper PotomacMiddle PotomacPotomac Washington Metro
!!
!
!
!
!
!
Lower PotomacPatuxentWest ChesapeakePatapscoGunpowderBush
!
!
! !
!
!
!
SusquehannaElkChesterChoptankNanticoke/WicomicoPocomoke
MBSS sampling at each site consists of…
•• FishFish
•• Benthic MacroinvertebratesBenthic Macroinvertebrates
•• Amphibians and ReptilesAmphibians and Reptiles
•• Physical HabitatPhysical Habitat
•• Water ChemistryWater Chemistry
•• Land UseLand Use
Maryland Biological Stream Survey Sites, Maryland Biological Stream Survey Sites, 1995 1995 –– 20042004
Liberty Watershed, 2000Liberty Watershed, 2000
21 MBSS sites
Liberty Watershed, 2000Liberty Watershed, 2000
Liberty Watershed, 2000Liberty Watershed, 2000
17 (12-digit) sub-watershed
21 MBSS sites
Liberty Watershed, 2000Liberty Watershed, 2000
10 sub-watersheds have no sites
17 (12-digit) sub-watershed
21 MBSS sites
Add 40 Stream Waders sites
Only 3 sub-watersheds have no data
MBSS site
Stream Waders site
Liberty Watershed, 2000Liberty Watershed, 2000
10 subwatersheds have no sites
17 (12-digit) subwatershed
21 MBSS sites
Design
ScaleFish
Water Chemistry
Physical Habitat
BenthicMacroinvertebrates
Taxonomy
Land Use/Land Cover
MBSSRandom
70 mi2 watershedYes
Yes
Yes
Spring; D net; multihabitat; 20 ft2; lab
subsample and ID
Genus
Delineate upstream
Stream WadersTargeted
8 mi2 sub-watershed
NoNo
Depth and Width
Spring; D net; multihabitat; 20 ft2; lab
subsample and ID
Family
1 km radius circle
How do they Compare?How do they Compare?
Stream Waders TrainingStream Waders Training
Includes lots of professionals and “repeat customers”
Field session practice
Classroom review of protocols
• How comparable are Stream Waders and MBSS data (IBIs) at different scales?
QuestionsQuestions
• How comparable are Stream Waders and MBSS data (IBIs) at different scales?
QuestionsQuestions
• How do family and genus IBIs computed from the same site/taxadataset compare?
• What are differences in the two sets of IBIs by sample year?
• How do the two programs rate stream sites?
StatewideStatewide
Stream Waders – 2755 sites
MBSS – 1336 sites
Mean difference in Genus IBI less Family IBI = 0.12
MBSS Genus and Family IBISame Samples
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
<0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-1.5 1.5-2.0 >2
Genus IBI less Family IBI (Abs. Val.)
% o
f Site
s
r=0.84
SW Family IBI RatingsAll Years
Poor60%
Fair26%
Good14%
MBSS Family IBI RatingsAll Years
Good17%
Fair29%
Poor54%
MBSS Genus IBI RatingsAll Years
Fair35%
Very Poor49%
Good16%
% of sites
% of sites
% of sites
Non-Outlier MaxNon-Outlier Min75%25%Median
Tota
l Num
ber o
f Fam
ilies
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
SW MBSS
Stream Waders and MBSSStatewide – Number of Families per Sample
Non-Outlier MaxNon-Outlier Min75%25%Median
EP
T Fa
mili
es
-2
2
6
10
14
18
22
SW MBSS
Stream Waders and MBSSStatewide – Number of EPT Families per Sample
Non-Outlier MaxNon-Outlier Min75%25%Median
Num
ber o
f Grid
s
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
SW MBSS
Mean = 36 Mean = 17
Number of Grids100 Organism Subsample
WatershedWatershed
Stream Waders - mean = 26.6; range = 1 - 116
MBSS - mean = 9.2; range = 1 - 41
**124/137 watershed sampled by both programs
MBSS Genus IBI less Stream Waders IBI
0.290.22
0.57 0.62
0.17
0
1
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Diffe
renc
e in
Mea
n
P=0.0638P=0.1003
WatershedMBSS-genus IBI less Stream Waders IBI
Watershed
Degraded
Not Degraded
Degraded
71%
22%
29%
78%
NotDegraded
Stream Waders mean IBI
MBSS-Genus mean IBI
124 Watersheds; all years combined
73% agreement on degraded/not degraded
SubSub--watershedwatershed
Stream Waders - mean = 4.1; range = 1 - 26
MBSS - mean = 2.2; range = 1 - 31
**380 sub-watersheds sampled by both programs
Sub-watershed
Degraded
Not Degraded
Degraded
70%
30%
Stream Waders mean IBI
14%
86%
MBSS-Family mean IBI
MBSS-Genus mean IBI
23%
77%
NotDegraded Degraded Not
Degraded
82%
18%
374 sub-watersheds; all years combined
72% agreement on degraded/not degraded
84% agreement on degraded/not degraded
Stream ReachStream Reach
452 sites with at least one site from each program
16 reaches with two sites from each program
Non-Outlier MaxNon-Outlier Min75%25%Median
Mea
n D
iffer
ence
in S
ite P
air I
BIs
(Abs
. Val
ue)
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
SW/SW MBSS gen/MBSS gen.
N = 172 pairsGrand Mean=0.74
N = 118 pairsGrand Mean=0.53
Stream ReachesWithin Program Site Pairs
Stream ReachesAgreement on Degraded/Not Degraded
MBSS/Stream Waders Reach Pairs
76 7971
77
0
20
40
60
80
100
M BS S Ge nus/ S W M BS S Fa mi l y / S W M BS S Ge nus/ M BS SGe nus
S W/ S W
% A
gree
men
t on
Deg
rade
d/N
ot
Deg
rade
d
MBSS genus/SW MBSS family/SW SW/SWMBSS genus/MBSS genus
Between Programs Within Program
Duplicate SamplesDuplicate Samples
Stream Waders – 109 pairs
MBSS – 71 pairs
N=109r=0.76
83% agree on impairment
84% agree on "Degraded"
83% agree on "Degraded"
Original – Dup = -0.03
Original – Dup = -0.16
MBSS and Stream Waders Duplicate Samples
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5
Original SW Family IBI
Dup
licat
e Fa
mily
IBI
N=71r = 0.82
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5
Original MBSS (genus) Sample IBI
Dup
licat
e M
BSS
(gen
us) S
ampl
e IB
I
Stream Waders and MBSS data are comparable, especially at smaller scales.
Family IBIs tend to rate sites as more degraded than genus IBIs.
Stream Waders data should be used to support those collected by MBSS in watershed assessments.
Next steps….• Examine causes for differences
• D.E.: MBSS - CP = 87%NCP = 88%SW - CP = 71%
- NCP = 88%
• Do this all over again with revised IBIs!
ConclusionsConclusions
top related