Structure and Function of Fish Assemblages in the Coastal Plain Watershed: Rebekah Moore: October 29, 2008 Introduction: Pollution from nonpoint sources is becoming a global concern in water quality management (Bennett et al., 2004). A majority of contaminated runoff and excessive sediment that disturb physical habitats worldwide are the results of silviculture, agriculture, mining, and urbanization produce (Barbour et al., 1996). These activities have severely altered and damaged natural streams and landscape significantly. Stream fish assemblages are shaped by environmental factors such as geography, topography, riparian buffers, and soil type and quality (Grubbs et al., 2007). Assessing water quality by traditional methods such as habitat evaluation and chemical analysis today is inadequate due to habitat alterations and nonpoint source pollution (Barbour et al., 1996). Methods must be repeatable under different conditions due to the diverse responses of fish assemblages (Adams et al., 2004). Environmental indicators are effective because they are precise, rapid, repeatable and cost effective (Herricks and Schaeffer, 1985; Rothrock et al., 2007). The Choctawhatchee-Conecuh River watershed in southeastern Alabama has undergone extensive anthropogenic impact. Urban development and agricultural activities, including chicken farming, and clear cutting of timber to the edge of streams, have greatly increased the impacts of non-point source pollution (Grace, 2000). These activities have caused significant alterations in the natural streams and landscapes. The Coastal Plains ecoregion has extremely erodible soils and a tendency for nonpoint source pollution due to the altered landscape and periodic heavy rainfall, (Morris et al., 2007). 1 The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) was developed to measure the conditions of rivers and streams and overall health (Karr 2000). It is a multimetric approach using numerous aspects of the function and structure of communities, which reflects existing conditions accurately (Bennett et al., 2004). Karr’s 1981 (IBI) was the first successful multimetric index based on fish assemblages; a version of the IBI is currently used by almost every state in the U.S. Objective: The purpose of this research is to assess the structure and function of the Choctawhatchee-Conecuh River watershed in the coastal plains ecoregion. Indicator species will be collected and used to judge the water quality of the five sites sampled. We will also establish an IBI for the sites sampled (Table 1). Methods: Five sites were sampled to evaluate fish community structure. All sites were wadeable streams in the Choctawhatchee and Conecuh River of the Coastal Plain Ecoregion of Southeastern Alabama (Table 2). Sampling was conducted upstream from the bridge for approximately 150 to 500 m or about 35 times mean stream width. All sampling was conducted with a Smith-Root Model 12-B battery electro-backpack shocker and a seine net. All fish were collected using a mesh net (Table 3). Common fish were identified in the field and all others were identified in the laboratory. After identification, fish were preserved for one week in 10% formalin. After one week, the fish were preserved in 70% ethanol. Any abnormalities such as deformities, eroded fins, lesions, and tumors (DELTs) were noted. To analyze the data, total number of species, and abundance were calculated for each site (Table 3). Shannon-Wiener index (H′) and IBI were also calculated for each site (Table 2 and 4). Tolerance levels and feeding preferences (Table 4) were also used to help develop the IBI. 2 Results: Twenty-four fish species were collected from five sites in the Choctawhatchee-Conecuh River watershed in Southeast Alabama (Table 2 and 3). Semotilus thoreauianus (Dixie chub) and Lepiomis macrochirus (bluegill) were the most abundant species throughout all of the sites (Table 2). Bluegill and Aphredoderus sayanus (pirate perch) were the most common species found; both species were found at four of the five sites sampled (Table 2). Twelve metrics were used to analyze the data and to calculate the IBI for each site (Table 1). Final IBI scores for the entire watershed were based on a scale of 12-60 and our results ranged from 28 to 54 (Karr, 1981). Karr (1981) also discussed that scores that ranged from 58 to 60 were considered to be of excellent biotic integrity (none found in this study), scores of 48-52 as good integrity, 40-44 as fair, 28-34 as poor, and 12-22 as very poor. Site 1 was significantly less polluted than the other sites according to the IBI and species richness (Tables 1 and 3). Shannon-Wiener found Site 4 to be the least polluted with Site 1 significantly close in score (Table 2). Site 2 had the lowest quality demonstrated by the lowest species richness and lowest abundance (Table 3). No tolerant species were found in Site 2 (Table 4). Site 5 had the most abundance (Table 3), considerably low H′ and IBI scores (Table 1), and the highest percent of tolerant species, 61% (Appendix A-5). Discussion/Conclusion: The instability of highly erodible substrates has caused extensive deposition from erosion and sedimentation in the southeastern coastal plain. Sedimentation in the streams may have drastically affected the quantity of darter and madtom species found. Two individuals were the highest abundance of darter and madtom species found at any one site (Appendix A). However, none of the collected fish had any deformities, erosions, lesions, or tumors (DELTs). 3 Site 1, Unnamed Tributary to Walnut Creek (Table 2), had the highest species diversity and moderate abundance (Table 3) indicating a healthy ecosystem. Intolerant species such as the Etheostoma davisoni (weed shiner), Noturus leptacanthus (Choctawhatchee dater), and Ameirus natalis (speckled madtom) were also found (Table 4). The IBI and H′ scores also indicated a healthy site (Table 1). There was too few of species to assess the IBI for Site 2, since only four total species were collected. However, in Site 2, two of the fish collected were intolerant species (Table 4) and 50% of the fish collected were simple lithophils (Appendix A-2). H-bar score was somewhat high, H′=0.60 (Table 1) indicating less polluted water. Several darters and sunfish were also found at this site (Table 3). Site 3 had an extremely high abundance and a low number of species compared to the other sites sampled (Table 3). This indicates polluted water. This site also had the lowest H′ and IBI scores (Table 1). Tolerant organisms such as the Notemigonus crysoleucas (golden shiner) and the Ameirus natalis (yellow bullhead) were also collected at the site (Table 4). However, bluegill and other moderately tolerant species were collected. Site 4, Walnut Creek (Table 2), was a less polluted site according in to H′ and number of species found (Table 1 and 3). The IBI ranked it as having fair integrity (Table 1). Many fish with a moderate tolerance value such as Gambusia holbrooki (mosquito fish) were also collected (Table 4). At Site 5, the unnamed tributary to Conecuh River (Table 2), the highest abundance was collected, mainly due to collecting 106 individuals of the tolerant species Dixie chub (Table 3 and 4). However, intolerant species such as the speckled madtom were also collected (Table 4). The H′ and IBI indicated moderately polluted water. 4 The results from this study show that significant erosion and sedimentation problems exist in the southeastern Alabama coastal plains. Many of these problems are due greatly to anthropogenic effects (Morris et al., 2007). By using a multimetric approach to calculate specific indices for a particular body of water, we can compare data over a period of time. This will allow us to better understand the changes that pollution has on the local structure and function of fish assemblages and watershed. 5 Literature Cited 1. Adams, S.B., Warren, M.L., Jr., Haag, W.R., 2004. Spatial and temporal patterns in fish assemblages of upper coastal plain streams, Mississippi, USA. Hydrobiologia 528, 45-61. 2. Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Griffith, G.E., Frydenborg, R., McCarron, E., White, J.S., and Bastian, M.L., 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15(2):185-211. 3. Bennett, H. H., Mullen, M. W., Stewart, P. M., Sawyer, J. A., Webber, E. W., 2004. Development of an invertebrate community index for an Alabama coastal plain watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 40(1), 43-51. 4. Grace, L.M., 2000. Forest road sideslopes and soil conservation techniques. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55,96-101. 5. Grubbs, S.A., Meier, O.W., Meier, A.J., 2007. Longitudinal patterns of fish assemblages in small unregulated subbasins: evaluating reach- and watershed-scale parameters. Hydrobiologia 592, 211-223. 6. Herricks, E.E., Schaeffer, D.J., 1985. Can we optimize biomonitoring? Environ. Manage. 9, 487–492. 7. Karr, J.R., 1981. Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities.Fisheries 6:21-27 8. Karr, J.R., and Chu, E.W., 2000. Sustaining living rivers. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 1–14. 9. Morris, C.C., Stewart, P.M., Simon, T.P., 2007. Development of an index of biotic integrity for a southeastern coastal plan watershed, USA. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 43(2), 1-13. 10. Rothrock, P.E., Simon, T.P., Stewart, P.M., 2007. Development, calibration, and validation of a littoral zone plant index of biotic integrity (PIBI) for lacustrine wetlands. Ecological Indicators 8, 70-88. 6 Table 1. This table displays the Shannon-Wiener results and the IBI results from the 5 sites sampled in October and November 2008 in the Choctawhatchee and Conecuh watersheds. Site 1 2 3 4 5 H′ 0.83 0.60 0.34 0.84 0.57 IBI 54 N/A 36 39 48 7 Table 2. Detailed site location information for five sites sampled in October and November 2008 in the Choctawhatchee and Conecuh watersheds. Site 1 2 3 4 5 Location Pike County; unnamed tributary to Walnut Creek, 7.84 km southeast of Hwy. 231/87 intersection in Troy on CR 3307; Lat:31º43’33.21” Long: 85º56’18.91” Pike County; unnamed tributary to Walnut Creek, 15.04 km southeast of Hwy. 321/87 intersection in Troy on CR 3306 Lat: 31º41’8.95” Long: 85º55’30.40” Pike County; Persimmon branch, 4.4 km north of Troy at TU Golf Course; Lat: 31º58.44’ Long: 85º57.09’ Pike County; Walnut Creek, 4 km east on CR 26 from George Wallace/CR 26 intersection in Troy; Lat: 31º47’55” Long: 85º54’38” Pike County; unnamed tributary to Conecuh River, 3.84 km northwest of Hwy. 29/CR 7755 intersection in Troy on CR 7755; Lat: 31º51’19” Long: 85º54’59 8 Table 3. Fish collected among 5 sites sampled in October and November 2008 within the Choctawhatchee and Conecuh watershed. Total abundance and species richness of fish collected among 5 sites sampled in October and November 2008 in the Choctawhatchee and Conecuh watersheds. Species Found Scientific Name Common Name Ameirus natalis Aphredoderus sayanus Chaenobrattus gulosus Elassoma zonatum Ericymba buccata Erimyzon tenuis Esox americanus Etheostoma davisoni Etheostoma edwini Etheostoma swaini Fundulus olivaceus Gambusia holbrooki Icthymyzon gagei Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis marginatus Lepomis megalotis Lepomis miniatus Micropterus salmoides Notemigonus crysoleucas Notropis maculatus Notropis texanus Noturus leptacanthus Pteronotropis hypselopterus Semotilus thoreauianus Abundance Species Richness Yellow bullhead Pirate perch Warmouth Banded pygmy sunfish Silverjaw minnow Sharpfin chubsucker Redfin pickerel Choctawhatchee darter Brown darter Gulf darter Blackspotted topminnow Eastern mosquitofish Southern brook lamprey Bluegill Dollar sunfish Longear sunfish Redspotted sunfish Largemouth bass Golden shiner Taillight shiner Weed shiner Speckled madtom Sailfin shiner 1 Site 2 3 2 1 1 4 Total 4 5 2 1 3 4 2 13 2 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 19 2 1 79 2 5 35 2 1 9 7 2 4 7 21 1 1 1 9 7 3 10 5 2 34 2 3 2 1 2 3 25 35 84 2 1 17 2 4 7 30 8 32 32 Dixie chub 99 4 118 22 15 4 8 10 106 106 177 420 9 24 9 Table 4. This table shows the tolerance values and feeding guilds for species collected in October and November 2008 in the Choctawhatchee and Conecuh watersheds. Species Ameirus natalis Aphredoderus sayanus Chaenobrattus gulosus Elassoma zonatum Ericymba buccata Erimyzon tenuis Esox americanus Etheostoma davisoni Etheostoma edwini Etheostoma swaini Fundulus olivaceus Gambusia holbrooki Lampetra aepytrera Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis marginatus Lepomis megalotis Lepomis miniatus Micropterus salmoides Notemigonus crysoleucas Notropis maculatus Notropis texanus Noturus leptacanthus Pteronotropis hypselopterus Semotilus thoreauianus Tolerance T M M M M I M I I I M M M T M M M M Feeding I I I I I I P I I I I I D I I I I P T M I I O O I I M T I I Abundance 3 10 5 2 34 2 3 2 1 2 3 25 35 84 2 1 17 2 4 7 28 8 32 106 Tolerance Values: T= tolerant; M= moderately tolerant; I= intolerant Feeding guilds: I= insectivore; P= piscivore; O= omnivore; D= detritivore 10 Appendix A - 1 Appendix A. The following appendix shows the metrics used to calculate IBI and the IBI score for the following site. Choctawhatchee-Conecuh Watershed Site Number: 1 Drainage area: 0.623 Site: Pike County; unnamed tributary to Walnut Creek, 7.84 km southeast of Hwy. 231/87 intersection in Troy on CR 3307; Lat:31º43’33.21” Long: 85º56’18.91” Actual IBI Observation Score Metric 1. Number of species 15 5 2. Number of darter and madtom species 2 5 3. Number of sunfish species 4 1 4. Number of minnow species 4 3 5. Number of intolerant species 7 5 6. Percent individuals as tolerant species 3% 5 7. Percent individuals as generalist feeders 0% 5 8. Percent individuals as insectivorous minnow species 80% 5 9. Percent individuals as top carnivore species 1% 5 10. Percent individuals as simple lithophils 4% 5 11. Number of individuals 99 5 12. Percent DELT 0% 5 TOTAL IBI SCORE: 54 11 Appendix A - 2 Appendix A continued Choctawhatchee-Conecuh Watershed Site Number: 2 Site: Pike County; unnamed tributary to Walnut Creek, 15.04 km southeast of Hwy. 321/87 intersection in Troy on CR 3306 Lat: 31º41’8.95” Long: 85º55’30.40” Drainage area: 0.623 Actual IBI Score Observation Metric 1. Number of species 4 N/A 2. Number of darter and madtom species 1 N/A 3. Number of sunfish species 1 N/A 4. Number of minnow species 0 N/A 5. Number of intolerant species 2 N/A 6. Percent individuals as tolerant species 0% N/A 7. Percent individuals as generalist feeders 0% N/A 8. Percent individuals as insectivorous minnow species 0% N/A 9. Percent individuals as top carnivore species 25% N/A 10. Percent individuals as simple lithophils 50% N/A 4 N/A 0% N/A 11. Number of individuals 12. Percent DELT TOTAL IBI SCORE: N/A 12 Appendix A - 3 Appendix A continued Choctawhatchee-Conecuh Watershed Site Number: 3 Drainage area: 0.322 Pike County; Persimmon branch, 4.4 km north of Troy at TU Golf Course; Lat: 31º58.44’ Long: 85º57.09 Actual IBI Score Observation Metric 1. Number of species 8 5 2. Number of darter and madtom species 0 1 3. Number of sunfish species 2 1 4. Number of minnow species 1 1 5. Number of intolerant species 0 1 6. Percent individuals as tolerant species 4% 5 7. Percent individuals as generalist feeders 3% 5 8. Percent individuals as insectivorous minnow species 0% 1 9. Percent individuals as top carnivore species 2% 5 10. Percent individuals as simple lithophils 0% 1 11. Number of individuals 118 5 12. Percent DELT 0% 5 TOTAL IBI SCORE: 36 13 Appendix A - 4 Appendix A continued Choctawhatchee-Conecuh Watershed Station Number: 4 Drainage area: 1.100 Site: Pike County; Walnut Creek, 4 km east on CR 26 from George Wallace/CR 26 intersection in Troy; Lat: 31º47’55” Long: 85º54’38” Actual Observation IBI Score 1. Number of species 10 5 2. Number of darter and madtom species 0 0 3. Number of sunfish species 4 1 4. Number of minnow species 3 3 5. Number of intolerant species 2 3 6. Percent individuals as tolerant species 9% 5 7. Percent individuals as generalist feeders 0% 5 8. Percent individuals as insectivorous minnow species 59% 5 9. Percent individuals as top carnivore species 5% 5 10. Percent individuals as simple lithophils 0% 1 11. Number of individuals 22 1 12. Percent DELT 0% 5 Metric TOTAL IBI SCORE: 39 14 Appendix A - 5 Appendix A continued Choctawhatchee-Conecuh Watershed Site Number: 5 Drainage area: 1.277 Site: Pike County; unnamed tributary to Conecuh River, 3.84 km northwest of Hwy. 29/CR 7755 intersection in Troy on CR 7755; Lat: 31º51’19” Long: 85º54’59 Actual Observation IBI Score 1. Number of species 9 5 2. Number of darter and madtom species 2 5 3. Number of sunfish species 1 5 4. Number of minnow species 2 1 5. Number of intolerant species 2 3 6. Percent individuals as tolerant species 61% 1 7. Percent individuals as generalist feeders 0% 5 8. Percent individuals as insectivorous minnow species 67% 5 9. Percent individuals as top carnivore species 0% 5 10. Percent individuals as simple lithophils 5% 3 11. Number of individuals 177 5 12. Percent DELT 0% 5 Metric TOTAL IBI SCORE: 48 15 Running head: STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF FISH CONGLOMERATION IN THE COSTAL PLAIN WATERSHED Structure and Function of Fish Conglomeration in the Coastal Plain Watershed Introduction The conglomeration of fish in water bodies is determined by the nature of the landscape, soil type, riparian vegetation and also the quality of the water in the water catchment area. The water bodies can be improved to attain the standard measures that fish require to live in water. For instance; many people like freshwater fish than saltwater fish; therefore, the salinity of the water can be controlled by ensuring that the water inlets populated by fish are free of chemical depositions that contain sodium chloride. Water pollution is a significant problem that affects fish assemblages in water catchment areas (Rothrock et al., 2007). The chemical waste released by industries is harmful to the fish habitat. This waste contains harmful elements that result in the massive loss of fish in catchment areas. The nature of the landforms in Choctawhatchee-Conecuh River watershed (CCRW) has been dramatically affected by the recent soil erosion. The soil erosion resulted from deforestation conducted by humankind along the river banks. The soil erosion alters the topography of the river; hence leading to the change in the direction of the river, which might affect fish accumulation points. The suitable method to apply in this research is conducting an assessment of the environmental factors such as landscape and riparian buffers because they are economical, accurate and reliable (Grace, 2000). This river has also been affected by extensive agricultural activities such as farming of wheat, cotton, corn, millet, potatoes, and cucumbers. These farming activities along the watershed lead to pollution of the Choctawhatchee-Conecuh River watershed and also encourage deforestation that is done to clear land for farming. These coastal plains are 1 STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN THE COASTAL PLAIN WATERSHED 2 associated with gently rolling hills and related floodplains. Therefore, these landforms affect the number of fish present in a particular site of the watershed. The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) was applied to determine and classify water pollution problems or humankind hindrance in the watershed. Six different sites were used to obtain the samples for measuring the amount of pollution. This scientific tool (IBI) focuses on biological communities such as plants because they guarantee current and accurate data. Different samples from different sites indicated varying Indexes of Biotic Integrity. The objective of the Research The significance of this study is to examine the structure and operation of the Choctawhatchee-Conecuh River watershed in the coastal plains ecological area. The research will involve sampling six sites within the environmental area and samples are obtained from six sites within the ecological area along the CCRW and assessing the samples using the IBI technology to identify the water condition. The IBM value of the six sites is recorded for comparison. Methods Applied Please include we used the hydrolab to determine the DO, pH, conductance, temperature, turbidity, alkalinity, and hardness of certain waterbody before catching fishes. While catching fishes we used LR-24 backpack electric shocker. After catch fish record them in a datasheet called Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers. After identification, fish were preserved for one week in 10% formalin. After one week, the fish were preserved in 70% ethanol. Any abnormalities such as STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN THE COASTAL PLAIN WATERSHED 3 deformities, eroded fins, lesions, and tumors (DELTs) were noted. Then calculated Shannon-Wiener index (H′) and IBI. Then did the habitat parameters and scores(table 4) Samples were taken from six sites to assess the fish accumulation structure. The research used a Geographical Information System (GIS)-based program developed to identify the hydrological relationships in the six places selected. A net was used to catch the fish from the watersheds (Grace, 2000). Many kinds of fish were common, and the few others that were unfamiliar to the researchers were taken to the laboratory for screening. The Index of the Biotic Integrity tool was also used to determine humanity’s damage to the water bodies scientifically. To enhance the accuracy of data collected, all fish from the sites were preserved using a traditional method of salting. The values of IBM and Shannon-Wiener index (H′) were also calculated from the samples collected from all the sites. They were recorded at different tables. Results Results were obtained from the fifteen fish collected from the sites in CCRW in Northwest Alabama as shown in the tables. The low H bar indicated that the location was suitable for fish growth. There were abundant species in site four because the H bar was small. When the H bar is low, the landscape is ideal for fish accumulation. The overall IBI used a scale of 1.40 – 55. Using this scale, we found that the final results ranged from 1.40 – 53 (Table 1). The best range was considered to be fifty to fifty-five, and the reduced scale of scores was found to range from zero to five. STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN THE COASTAL PLAIN WATERSHED 4 Site three was less influenced by humankind compared to the other places as provided by the IBI and fish abundance (Bennett et al., 2004). Site one was highly polluted because the IBI and the species richness was higher than in the other places. Location five was the second best site, and it had fifty percent IBI indicating that it had good species abundance (Table D). Site two had the lowest species abundance and the lowest IBM suggesting the most inferior quality of the species in the place. Site one also had the lowest H bar further indicating the reason why the species abundance is low (Table 1 and Table 3). Discussion/ Conclusion Please at least mention different habitat parameter scores, don’t have to be too much the troy gulf course has the highest IBI what is that mean. Northwest coastal plains have been highly affected by the soil erosion caused by deforestation that was done to acquire land for agriculture. This affects the abundance of species in a particular watershed. However, most of the watersheds in the coastal plain of Alabama are accessible by fishing boats due to the suitable landscape down the river (Adams et al., 2004). The good landscape in the Walnut Greek was suitable for fish community structure; hence the high abundance of species in the area. Walnut Greek was the best site with the highest number of species compared to the other sites (Table A). The Troy Golf Course site had the least number of species. In site two, only one darter/ madtom species was available for IBI sampling, while native species had the highest number that was assessed by the IBI (Table B). STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN THE COASTAL PLAIN WATERSHED 5 Site three and four had the same Index of Biotic Integrity score and a relatively good species abundance and richness. However, the number of intolerant species in location four was zero compared to site three, which had three intolerant species. The Percentage of insectivorous minnow species in location three had the highest percentage than the entire site. Site five was the most affected site by humankind activities as suggested by the low IBI score of forty percent. This might be as a result of floodplains in the coastal plain resulting from the increased cutting of trees on the river banks (Morris at al., 2007). However, this site had the highest number of intolerant species compared to the other places (Table E). Site six had the highest Percentage of individuals as insectivorous minnow species than all other places in the Alabama coastal plain. This site had an average percentage of fifty-three percent of the individual as insectivorous minnow species. Additionally, site six had the second highest accumulation of individuals as generalist feeders (Table F). References Adams, S.B., Warren, M.L., Jr., Haag, W.R., 2004. Spatial and temporal patterns in fish assemblages of upper coastal plain streams, Mississippi, USA. Hydrobiologia 528, 45-61. Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Griffith, G.E., Frydenborg, R., McCarron, E., White, J.S., and Bastian, M.L., 1996. A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthicmacroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15(2):185-211. Bennett, H. H., Mullen, M. W., Stewart, P. M., Sawyer, J. A., Webber, E. W., 2004. Development of an invertebrate community index for an Alabama coastal plain STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN THE COASTAL PLAIN WATERSHED 6 watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 40(1), 43-51. Grace, L.M., 2000. Forest road sideslopes and soil conservation techniques. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55,96-101. Grubbs, S.A., Meier, O.W., Meier, A.J., 2007. Longitudinal patterns of fish assemblages in small unregulated subbasins: evaluating reach- and watershed-scale parameters. Hydrobiologia 592, 211-223. Herricks, E.E., Schaeffer, D.J., 1985. Can we optimize biomonitoring? Environ. Manage. 9, 487–492. Karr, J.R., 1981. Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities.Fisheries 6:21-27 Karr, J.R., and Chu, E.W., 2000. Sustaining living rivers. Hydrobiologia 422/423: 1–14. Morris, C.C., Stewart, P.M., Simon, T.P., 2007. Development of an index of biotic integrity for a southeastern coastal plan watershed, USA. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 43(2), 1-13. Rothrock, P.E., Simon, T.P., Stewart, P.M., 2007. Development, calibration, and validation of a littoral zone plant index of biotic integrity (PIBI) for lacustrine wetlands. Ecological Indicators 8, 70-88. TABLES This table displays the Shannon-Wiener results and the IBI results from the six sites sampled in October and November 2008 in the Choctawhatchee and Conecuh watersheds. Site 1 2 3 4 H′ 1.29 2.46 1.73 1.12 IBI 52 48 46 40 STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN THE COASTAL PLAIN WATERSHED 5 6 7 2.71 2.38 50 46 Table 1 Detailed site location information for six sites sampled in October and November 2008 in the Choctawhatchee and Conecuh watersheds Site Location 1 31.806998ºN, 85.951598ºW, W 250m on Elm Street from intersection of George Walllace and Elm Street 2 31.798894ºN, 85.910901ºW, E 4km on Elm Street from intersection of George Wallace and Elm Street 3 31.788876ºN, 85.944983ºW, N 900m on S Franklin Dr from US231 and S Franklin Dr intersection 4 31.788923ºN, 85.945084ºW, N 900m on S Franklin Dr from US231 and S Franklin Dr intersection 5 31.893368ºN, 86.031325ºW, W 1.98km on County Road 1124 from intersection of County Road 1124 and US231. 6 31.661665ºN, 85.505716ºW, E 1.24 km on Hwy 10 from intersection of Hwy 10 and Hwy 33. Table 2 Fish collected among six sites sampled in October and November 2008 within the Choctawhatchee and Conecuh watershed. Total abundance and species richness of fish collected among six sites sampled in October and November 2008 in the Choctawhatchee and Conecuh watersheds. STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN THE COASTAL PLAIN WATERSHED Scientific name Ameriurus natalis Aphredoderus sayanus Chaenobrattus gulosus Cyprinella venusta Ericymba amplamala Erimyzon sucetta Esox americanus Etheostoma colorosum Etheostoma davisoni Etheostoma edwini Etheostoma swaini Fundulus olivaceus Gambusia holbrooki Hybopsis sp. Cf. winchelli Icthyomyzon gagei Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis megalotis Lepomis miniatus Lythrurus atrapiculus Micropterus punctatus Micropterus salmoides Moxostoma poecilurum Notropis harperi Notropis longirostris Notropis texanus Noturus funebris Noturus leptacanthus Percina nigrofasciata Pteronotropis hypselopterus Pteronotropis merlini Semotilus thoreauianus Total Fish Total species 8 Common Name yellow bullhead Site 1 1 Site 2 7 Warmouth blacktail shiner Longjaw minnow lake chubsucker redfin pickerel coastal darter Choctawhatchee darter brown darter gulf darter blackspotted topminnow eastern mosquitofish Clear Chub southernbrook lamprey green sunfish Bluegill longear sunfish redspotted sunfish blacktip shiner spotted bass largemouth bass blacktail redhorse redeye chub longnose shiner weed shiner black madtom speckled madtom blackbanded darter Sailfin shiner Orangetail Dixie chub 1 8 2 6 Site 3 7 3 21 Site 4 22 4 Site 5 8 9 2 2 4 1 1 Site 6 8 6 1 1 1 1 1 7 37 12 1 37 77 5 2 24 9 5 9 3 1 4 7 11 22 3 5 14 7 10 8 17 2 8 4 9 1 73 9 13 96 14 11 86 202 9 52 156 5 7 115 19 Total 38 27 2 7 44 3 7 1 1 1 1 2 2 9 163 5 16 6 6 5 11 21 2 11 31 1 36 1 1 1 4 3 3 6 6 1 1 30 60 8 2 27 1 7 9 2 27 145 91 733 20 31 STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN THE COASTAL PLAIN WATERSHED 9 Table 3 Table A: Site 1 Troy Golf Course Site: 31.806998ºN, 85.951598ºW, W 250m on Elm Street from intersection of George Walllace and Elm Street Metric Actual Observation IBI Score STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF FISH ASSEMBLAGES IN THE COASTAL PLAIN WATERSHED 10 1. Number of species 9 5 2. Number of darter and madtom species 2 5 1 3 4 3 5 5 1.4% 5 1.4 % 5 3. Number of sunfish species 4. Number of minnow species 5. Number of intolerant species 6. Percent individuals as tolerant species 7. Percent individuals as generalist feeders 8. Percent individuals as insectivorous minnow species 34% 9. Percent individuals as top carnivore species 10. Percent individuals as simple lithophils 11. Number of individuals 12. DELT % 3 0.00% 5 32.90% 5 73 5
Purchase answer to see full attachment