1

Macroinvertebrate distribution between riffles and pools of rural and urban temperate forested streams in West Michigan.

Zach Leinonen

BIO 215-905

November 20, 2012

2

Introduction

Rapid bio assessment is used to determine long term ecological stresses on lotic stream

and water function. This is the basis of the microhabitats that the benthic macroinvertebrates

populate. Rapid bio assessment detects the species of macroinvertebrates that inhabit certain

areas of a stream ecosystem to determine the health of the stream. Macroinvertebrates are such

good bioindicators of stream health for a few simple reasons. They have little mobility which

makes them easy to catch, generally abundant, making it easy to get a large sample size, primary

food source for many fish, and good indicators of localized conditions, because of their pollution

tolerance. A large diversity makes for a health functioning stream just like environment. The

distribution of these benthic macroinvertebrates may depend on differences in flow velocity,

amount of organic material in the stream, amount of dissolved oxygen and amount of chemical

disturbance. (Linke et al. 1999).

These factors are influenced by the environment surrounding the streams due to the flow

of storm water runoff from agriculture and urbanized communities. Sources of nitrogen from

fertilizers and manure flow into the rural stream ecosystem from the agriculture that surrounds

the area. But in urbanized areas, there are more threats to the stream ecosystem such as chemical

substances from lawn fertilizers and pollutants of paved roads and industrial communities

(Mallin et al. 2008). Some species are adapted to tolerate this influence of human activity. Any

observance of these species would give indication of a poor functioning stream (Selvakumar et

al. 2010).

Species distribution is also dependent on the type of microhabitat it encounters. Some

collector species are adapted to fast flowing high erosion microhabitats in streams called riffles

and filter out food as it flows by them. Riffles also have high amounts of dissolved oxygen so the

demand for it is much lower than in pools. Grazers and shredder species must be in the slow flow

3

and thick sediment streambed of pools to hide from predators and collect food (Vannote et al.

1980). Pools also contain large collections of leaves called eddies that many macroinvertebrates

inhabit to find good food and hiding places. Lotic forested streams receive most of their energy

from the macroinvertebrate detrital food web instead of by autotrophic primary producers of

photosynthesis (Selvakumar et al. 2010). This represents the importance macroinvertebrates have

on the food webs of forested stream ecosystems.

The objectives of this study were to assess the water quality of the rural and urban lotic

stream ecosystems based on the species of macroinvertebrates found in each habitat. Species of

macroinvertebrates are designated into three groups based on their level of tolerance to pollution.

Pollution intolerant species represented streams with high water function and overall health

while pollution tolerant species represented streams with very low quality health. A group of

species that were designated as somewhat intolerant to pollution served as the mid-point of water

quality (Selvakumar et al. 2010). The second objective was to compare the differences of

macroinvertebrate species between riffle and pool microhabitats. This is to simply follow up on

previous studies by other conveyors on the idea that species have adapted to the physical

characteristics of their desired microhabitat (Vannote et al. 1980, Brooks et al. 2005).

Methods

Site Descriptions

We studied two 4th order streams that were chosen based on the environment surrounding

their ecosystems on October 23rd 2012 and October 30th 2012. The first river we studied was in

Muskegon County, MI and is a mostly rural based city. Corn fields, cattle grazing, minimal

paved roads, and housing development make up for most of the area surrounding the Little Rio

4

Grande Creek (Figure 1). Giving the location of this river we also took one water sample and

turned it into AWRI, GVSU; Muskegon MI for a variety of water test.

Patterson Park’s landscape consists of the stream, forestry and trails for bikers, hikers and

fishers alike. 64.37 km away Grandville, MI seems opposite of Muskegon. Highways, shopping

centers, and suburbs make up the city almost entirely. Wedgewood Park places itself right in the

middle of the urbanized community with Buck Creek running along the edge of the park and into

the neighborhoods nearby. Children’s play areas and duck feedings represent how much human

activity takes place along this stream. Housing development surrounds this area of the creek,

running though suburban back yards.

Rapid Bio Assessment

We sampled four stream reaches that included riffle, run, and pool microhabitats.

Physical data was collected in each section using a thermometer, yard stick, conductivity meter:

YSI model Pro 30, mini lab pH meter model 10120, and YSI model 55 dissolved oxygen meter.

Water flow velocity was recorded between riffles and pools using a measuring tape to measure

out five meter, a timer and an orange to float along a certain length in each microhabitat of each

stream. Over 15 minute intervals macroinvertebrates were collected from riffles and pools using

D-frame nets and kick screens. During sampling times, we approached each habitat type from

downstream to minimize disturbance prior to positioning the D-frame net. At riffles, we

positioned the D-frame net on the stream bottom and vigorously disturbed the substrate just

upstream from the net by kicking the floor of the river. This process dislodged

macroinvertebrates, allowing them to be washed into the net (Stepenuck et al. 2008).

Macroinvertebrate distribution and physical data was compared to determine each streams

5

ecological function. Observations of the stream bank, stream bed and surrounding area were

made and recorded on site.

Data Analysis

Data was analyzed by the collection of macroinvertebrates in four riffle reaches and four

pool reaches in each stream (Table 1). The pH, dissolved oxygen, and velocity of the stream was

all collected and calculated into a mean of each category with the standard deviation describing

the accuracy of the number produced (Table. 4). Distribution of the macroinvertebrates was

summarized using relative frequency (RF= frequency of individual species / ∑ total species in

the community). All of these methods were calculated using Microsoft Excel. Total number of

individuals from urban and river stream compared to their pollution tolerance levels was also

collected, which was done so by hand counting each macroinvertebrate.

Results

Stream Ecosystem Function

Overall, the diversity of macroinvertebrate species in Little Rio Grande Creek is much

greater than the diversity in Buck Creek (Table 1). Majority of the pollution intolerant species

collected in this study were found in the Little Rio Grande Creek. Buck Creek had mostly

somewhat pollution intolerant species. 1% of the macroinvertebrates found in Buck Creek and

18% of the macroinvertebrates found in Little Rio Grande were considered pollution tolerant

species. 26% of the macroinvertebrates found in Little Rio Grande and 50% of the

macroinvertebrates found in Buck Creek were considered pollution intolerant (Table 2).

Little Rio Grande Creek had a lot more erosion along the stream bank than Buck Creek

which explains the overall width of the stream being about 2/3 greater (Tables 3 and 4). The pH

of Buck Creek is more acidic compared to the pH of Little Rio Grande Creek. Streambeds were

6

not significantly different with the exception of the amount of gravel found in pools of the two

creeks and the amount of silt found in pools and riffles between the two creeks (Table 4 and 5).

Combining submerged logs, log jams and amount of allochthonous input of fallen leaves

suggest a lot more organic matter in the Little Rio Grande Creek (Table 6). The differences

between the surrounding areas of each stream are obvious as shown in the maps provided (Figure

1). We discovered more road and housing development around sections of Buck Creek and more

forestry and agriculture by Little Rio Grande. The more agriculture area resulted in a large

amount of E-coli found in the water sample that we sent in to AWRI, GVSU; Muskegon MI

(Table 4).

Macroinvertebrates between riffles and pools

Between riffles and pools, the relative frequencies of each species were much closer

together in Little Rio Grande Creek than Buck Creek (Figures 2 and 3). Riffles contained almost

two times more macroinvertebrates than pools in Little Rio Grande Creek and about one and a

half times more than pools in Buck Creek (Figure 2 and 3). Overall it seems that riffles are more

diverse in species than in pools. The midgefly larvae, mayfly larvae, damselfly larvae and

dragonfly larvae were all found mostly in the pools of both streams. Macroinvertebrates found in

mostly riffles consisted of the non-casebuilding caddisfly, stonefly, cranefly, and beetle (Figure 2

and 3).

Discussion

The qualities of both the rural and urban stream ecosystems reflected the environments

surrounding them. Little Rio Grande Creek was overall slightly under good quality but in much

better shape than the urbanized stream Buck Creek. Since most of the macroinvertebrates found

7

in Little Rio Grande Creek were considered pollution intolerant, this suggests that the water has

low amounts of pollution by the nearby agriculture. However, the E-coli found in Little Rio

Grande Creek was enough to be concerned about (Table 4). Our predictions are that the high

amount isn’t always this high, or most of the pollutant intolerant species could not exist in this

stream. It was more due to the fact that we examined this stream after a great rain fall. The other

streams, Buck Creek had mostly somewhat intolerant species and secondly pollution tolerant

species, therefore the water may have a significant amount of disturbance from the urbanized

community surrounding it (Table 2) (Stepenuck et al. 2008, Selvakumar et al. 2010).

For example, our study area on Buck Creek was placed in a community park. Being

surrounded by household; most of the watersheds from these properties run right into Buck

Creek. This amount of surface runoff only increases as the wet months persist throughout the

year. The stream even runs underneath a busy road, Wilson Ave. which limits ground water

absorption even more. The stream bank of Buck Creek consists mostly of cut grass and rocks.

Our study supports this hypothesis by showing a more basic pH for the water of this stream and

more erosion along the stream bank and streambed (Table 4).

The Little Rio Grande Creek runs through a forest with a high abundance of natural plant

life and minimal human activity. Rocks and woody plants take up most of the stream bank. Most

of this watershed runs through the forest and is absorbed into ground water, picking up organic

matter for the macroinvertebrates to convert into useable energy (Selvakumar 2010). However, it

is not purely organic matter that runs into the Little Rio Grande Creek. Agriculture nearby also

influences the quality of the stream water by allowing some fertilizer runoff into the rural

watershed (Mallin et al. 2009).

8

The distribution between shredder and collector species is dependent on the velocity,

thickness of the streambed sediment layer of the stream microhabitats. Shredder species were

found mostly in pool microhabitats because of the course organic matter that leaf litter supplies.

Collectors were found mostly in the riffles because of their adaptation to hold on to the

streambed and filter food out of the water that flows by (Vannote et al. 1980). There were more

macroinvertebrates found in the riffles of Buck Creek possibly because of the hypothesis Robin

L. Vannote suggests in his well-known paper, The River Continuum Concept. As the amount of

pollution increases, the width of the stream increases with erosion along with the rate in which

organic matter breaks down into smaller pieces. Collectors have a higher advantage to this

stream and will dominate over shredder species (Vannote et al. 1980).

Understanding the water quality of streams that run though a rural and urban area is

important due to our dependence on the fresh water they are supposed to provide to our

communities. Addressing the overall quality of these streams brings to light what our rural and

urban developments are doing to the environmental resources we depend on. To further

understand the impact we would study these streams in different times of the year, comparing

environmental changes throughout the seasons and the macroinvertebrate distribution that

responds. We may also study the rates in which streams may recover from certain amounts and

frequencies of disturbance. This will help us understand what may happen if we have to take

certain measures to help improve our local lotic stream ecosystems.

9

Literature Cited

Blocksom, K A., Autrey, Bradley C., Passmore, M. Reynolds, L. 2008.  A Comparison of Single

and Multiple Habitat Protocols for Collecting Macroinvertebrates in Wadeable Streams1. 

Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 44 (3). 577-593.

Brooks, A J., Haeusler, T., Reinfelds, I., W, Simon. 2005.  Hydraulic microhabitats and the

distribution of macroinvertebrate assemblages in riffles.  Freshwater biology. 

50 (2). 331-344.

Cummins, K W. 1979. Feeding Ecology of Stream Invertebrates. Annual Review of Ecology and

Systematics. 10. 147-172.

Linke, S. Bailey, R C., Schwindt, J. 1999. Temporal variability of stream bioassessments using

benthic macroinvertebrates. Freshwater biology. 42 (3). 575-584.

Mallin, M., Johnson, V., Ensign, S. 2009. Comparative Impacts of Storm Water Runoff on Water

Quality of an Urban, a Suburban, and a Rural stream. Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment. 159(1-4). 475-91. 

Selvakumar, A.,O’Connor, P., Struck, D. 2010.  Role of Stream Restoration on Improving

Benthic Macroinvertebrates and In-Stream Water Quality in an Urban Watershed: Case

Study.  Journal of environmental engineering (New York, N.Y.). 136 (1). 127-139.

Stepenuck, K.F. Crunkilton, Ronald L., Bozek, Michael A., Wang, Lizhu. 2008. Comparison of

Macroinvertebrate-Derived Stream Quality Metrics Between Snag and Riffle Habitats1. 

Journal of the American Water Resources Association.  44(3). 670-678.

Vannote, Robin L., Minshall, G. Wayne., Cummins, Kenneth W., Sedell, James R., Cushing,

Colbert E. 1980. The River Continuum Concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37. 130-137.

Wolf, Steven A., Klein, Jeffrey A., 2007. Enter the working forest: Discourse analysis in the

Northern Forest. Geoforum. 38(5). 985-998.

10

Figure 1. Buck Creek (an urban stream) located in Grandville, Michigan and the Little Rio Grande (a rural stream) located in Muskegon, MI.

11

Water P

enny

Mayfly

Stonefl

y

Case Buil

ding Cad

disfly

Sc

ud

Cranefl

y

Crayfis

h

Sowbu

g

Beetle

Larva

Non-C

ase Buil

ding C

addis

fly

Freshw

ater C

lam

Midge L

arva

Watersn

ipe

Dragon

fly

midgefly

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

RifflePool

Macroinvertebrate species

Rel

ativ

e Fr

eque

ncy

(RF)

Figure 2. Relative frequency for macroinvertebrates from the riffles Little Rio Grande Creek (rural river), October 2012.

12

Mayfly

Case Buil

ding Cad

disfly

Sc

ud

Crayfis

h

Sowbu

g

Non-C

ase Buil

ding C

addis

fly

Damsel

fly Nymph

Midge L

arva

Dragon

fly

Watersc

orpion

Isopo

d

Bivalve

0

5

10

15

20

25

Riffle Pool

Macroinvertebrate species

Rel

ativ

e Fr

eque

ncy

(RF)

Figure 3. Relative frequency for macroinvertebrates from the riffles Buck Creek (urban river), October 2012.

13

Table 1. Macroinvertebrate species (indicator #) sampled from an urban and rural stream in

western MI in October 2011 and November 2011.

Little Rio Grande in Muskegon, MI (rural) Buck Creek in Grandville, MI (urban)Water Penny Psephenidae (1) Mayfly Ephemeridae (1)Mayfly Ephemeridae (1) Case Building Caddisfly Hydropsychidae (1)Stonefly Perlidae (1) Non-Case Building Caddisfly Limnephilidae (2)Case Building Caddisfly Hydropsychidae (1) Scud Amphipoda (2)Scud Amphipoda (2) Dragonfly Anisoperta (2)Cranefly Tipulidae (2) Sow Bug Isopoda (2)Crayfish Decapoda (2) Crayfish Decapoda (2)Sowbug Isopoda (2) Damselfly nymph Coengrionidae (2)Beetle Larva Elimidae (2) Midge larva Chironomes (3)Non-Case Building Caddisfly Limnephilidae (2) Waterscorpion Nepidae (3)Freshwater Clam Chiondae (2) Bivalve Bivalvia (3)Midge Larva Chironomes (3)Watersnipe Arthericidae (3)Leech Hinurdinea (3)

14

Table 2. Mean and standard deviation of the total number of macroinvertebrate individuals at recorded pollution tolerance levels sampled from an urban and rural stream in western Mi in October 2012.

Little Rio Grande in

Muskegon County,

MI (rural)

Buck Creek in Grandville,

MI (urban)

Indicator Group I (Pollution

Intolerant)

10.75±7.37 17.00±16.87

Indicator Group II (Somewhat

Intolerant)

23.25±12.53 17.00±14.07

Indicator Group III (Pollution

Tolerant)

7.50±7.72 0.25±0.50

15

Table 3. Physical characteristics taken from an urban and rural stream in western MI in October

2012.

  Buck Creek (urban) Little Rio Grande (rural)

Water Appearance Clear Muddy

Odor None None

% Coverage 30-70% >70%

% Shade 20-49% 20-49%

% Erosion 20-49%   50-80%    

16

Table 4. Mean and Standard Deviation of the quantitative physical measurements taken from an

urban and rural stream in western MI in October 2012.

 Buck Creek

(Urban)

Little Rio Grande (Rural)  

Temperature ( C)⁰ 7.842±0.051 13.088±0.031

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 10.856±1.210 9.338±0.201

pH 7.700±0.758 7.813±0.035

Width (m) 5.464±2.297 5.838±2.638

Depth (m) 0.324±0.168 0.378±0.221

Velocity (m/s) 0.638±0.165 0.827±0.183

Discharge (m3/s) 5.904±8.627 3.610±1.836

E-Coli (CFU/100mL) >2420 57

17

Table 5. Environmental composition taken from an urban and rural stream in western Michigan

in October 2012.

% Substrate Composition Urban Riffle Urban Pool

Rural Riffle Rural Pool

Sand 2.5 35 2.5 30

Silt 27.5 20 7.5 60

Cobble 67.5 5 85 7.5

Gravel 2.5 40 5 2.5

Conductivity (seamans) 0.715 0.713 0.441 0.449

Habitat Length (m)15.285±9.99

111.430±0.09

914.05±7.9

913.05±4.87

9

18

Table 6. Mean and standard deviation of the environmental composition taken from an urban

and rural stream in western MI in October 2012.

Area Environment

Buck Creek in Grandville, MI (urban)

Little Rio Grande in Muskegon, MI (rural)

Submerged Logs (total) 5.0±5.657 10.5±14.849

Log Jams (total) 2.5±2.121 4.0±0.0

% Area CompositionWoody Plants 75 33Grass/Forbs 10 33Rocks 10 33Bare Soil 5 0Other 0 0