INVERTEBRATE FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUP ANALYSIS FOR FRESHWATER CREEK BASIN

1
INVERTEBRATE FUNCTIONAL FEEDING GROUP ANALYSIS
FOR FRESHWATER CREEK BASIN

• Institute for River Ecosystems
• Ken Cummins
• John Matousek
• April Shackelford
• with support by
• Dana McCanne
• Angie Brown
• Bethany Reisberger
• David Gibney
• Seth Ricker
• Brigitte VandenEeden

• Acknowledgements
• Pacific Lumber Company
• CA Cooperative Fish Research Unit, HSU
• Redwood Community Action Agency
• California Department of Fish and Game
  Fisheries Restoration Grant Program

2

• Ecosystem Function attributes Most Conclusive
  Bioassessment of Stream Health
• These Attributes Difficult and Costly to Measure
  Directly over Appropriate Time Scales
• Grab Samples dont cut it
• Invertebrates Integrate Ecosystem Conditions
  Attributes Over seasonal and Longer Time Scales
• Taxonomic Approach Less Useful as Indicator of
  Ecosystem Attributes Better for Specific Water
  Quality Parameters
• Invertebrate Functional Classifications Feeding,
  Habits, Drift Behavior, Life History Can Serve
  as Surrogates for Ecosystem Attributes Function
• Invertebrate Functional Feeding Group (FGG)
  Analysis on Live Animals Leave the Field with
  the Data
• Laboratory Taxonomic Analysis not Closed Out Put
  the Bottles on the Shelf, Spend the Time and
  Money if You Have It

3

• Table 1. Functional group categorization and food
  resources (from Merrit and Cummins 1996a). CPOM
  Coarse Particulate Organic Matter FPOM Fine
  Particulate Organic Matter.
• Functional Particle Size Dominant
  Food Particle Size
• Groups Feeding Mechanisms Resources
  Range of Food (mm)
• Shredders Chew conditioned
  CPOM-decomposing gt 1.0
• litter or live vasculer (or living
  hydrophyte)
• plant tissue or gouge vascular
  plants
• wood
• Filtering Suspension feeders-
  FPOM-decomposing 0.01-1.0
• Collectors filter particles from
  detrital particles algae,
• the water column bacteria, and feces
• Gathering Deposit feeders-
  FPOM-decomposing 0.05-1.0
• Collectors ingest sediment or detrital
  particles algae,
• gather loose particles bacteria, and
  feces
• in depositional areas

4
Table 2. Summary of the number of locations and
invertebrate samples taken from the six
tributaries and two Main-stem stream sections in
the Freshwater Creek Basin.
5
FFG Methods
D-Frame, 250ìm Mesh Net 30 s collection
Sample Each of 4 Habitats Cobbles (riffle/run),
Litter Accumulations, Fine Sediments (pools,
edges), Large Woody Debris
FOR EACH SAMPLE
Rinse Sample in Net in Stream
Wash Net Contents into Sorting Tray
Separate Invertebrates by Functional Feeding
Group (FFG) into Compartmentalized Tray
Data Sheet Enumerate each FFG and Record
Recognizable Taxa
OFFICE
LAB
Label and Preserve (70 ETOH) Sample in Whirl-Pak
Calculate FFGs FGG Ratios for Ecosystem
Attributes
Taxonomic Identifications Measurements
Conversion to Biomass Estimates with INVERTCALC
6
(No Transcript)
7
Taxa Included in FFG Invertebrate categories

• Mollusca
• Gastropoda (Snails) SCRAPERS
• Crustacea
• Isopoda (Aquatic Pill Bugs) SHREDDERS
• Amphipoda (Side Swimmers) SHREDDERS
• Ostracoda (Seed Shrimp) GATHERING COLLECTORS
• Arachnoidea
• Hydracarina (Aquatic Mites) PREDATORS
• Oligochaeta GATHERING COLLECTORS
• Insecta
• Odonata
• Anisoptera (Dragonflies) PREDATORS
• Plecoptera (Stoneflies)
• Setipalpians
• Perlidae PREDATORS
• Chloroperlidae PREDATORS
• Perlodidae PREDATORS
• Filipalpians
• Nemouridae SHREDDERS

8

• Heteroplectron SHREDDERS
• Limnephilidae default SHREDDERS
• Hydatophylax SHREDDERS
• Ecclisomyia SHREDDERS early instars
• SCRAPERS late instrs
• Apataniidae
• Apatania SCRAPERS
• Sericostomatidae
• Gumaga SCRAPERS
• Uenoidae
• Neophylax SCRAPERS
• Neothremma SCRAPERS
• Lepidostomatidae SHREDDERS
• Brachycentridae
• Micrasema SHREDDERS
• Trichoptera undetermined default SHREDDERS
• Megaloptera (Helgrammites)
• Sialidae (Alderflies) PREDATORS
• Coleoptera (Beetles)

9
(No Transcript)
10

Summary of Invertebrate Functional Feeding Group
(FFG) Composition, Freshwater Creek Basin (Summer
2004)


11

Invertebrate Functional Feeding Group (FFG)
Average Percentages Cloney Gulch, Freshwater
Basin (Summer 2004)
Juvenile Salmonids per Meter 2.58 Length of
Cloney Gulch 2.7 km

Leaf Litter Samples
3.4
0.6
6.3

1.9
87.8
n9


12
Invertebrate Functional Feeding Group (FFG)
Average Percentages Upper Freshwater Creek,
Freshwater Basin (Summer 2004)
Juvenile Salmonids per Meter 3.01 Length of
Upper Freshwater 4.5 km

Leaf Litter Samples
36.3
3.8

6.8
11.9
41.2
n13

13
Invertebrate Functional Feeding Group (FFG)
Average Percentages McCready Gulch, Freshwater
Basin (Summer 2004)
Juvenile Salmonids per Meter 0.90 Length of
McCready Gulch 2.7 km

Leaf Litter Samples
43.6
4.5

9.82
31.4
10.8
n13

14
Invertebrate functional feeding group (FFG)
ratios as surrogates for stream ecosystem
attributes
15
Comparison of fish abundance ranking and FFG
characteristics in six tributaries and two
sections of the Mainstem of the Freshwater Creek
basin.
Fish per m (mean fish per linear meter of
stream) Fish rank (ranking of fish per m)
Dominant FFG () (dominant group and its mean
relative ) P/R (ratio of Scrapers to total
collectors shredders, a surrogate for ratio of
gross primary production to community
respiration) Heterotrophy vs Autotrophy based on
a P/R threshold of gt 0.75 autotrophic).
16
Table 5. Juvenile salmonid gut analyses from
Cloney Gulch. SH steelhead trout, n 10 CT
cutthroat trout, n 14 CO coho salmo, n
11.
Empty stomachs not included in calculation
17

Freshwater Creek Basin Gathering Collector
Percentages and Juvenile Salmonids per Meter


18
Freshwater Creek Basin Gathering Collector
Percentages and Juvenile Salmonids per Meter


19
Table 6. Ratio of behavioral drifter to
accidental drifter invertebrates in juvenile
salmonid stomach samples collected in Cloney
Gulch. (Threshold for adequate food supply of
behavioral drifters for drift-feeding fish taken
as gt 0.50.)
Lepidostoma with organic case and lt 4 mm length
included as behavioral drifters
20
(No Transcript)