Posts Tagged ‘benthic macroinvertebrates’

Yellowstone River Oil Spill- Redeux

Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011

Well, you may have noticed that I have not said anything about the Yellowstone River Oil Spill since our original entry. Yet, in truth, we have been busily working on the project in-house.  The experience has not been all-together positive; quite the contrary. This entry deals with how the public loses because of bureaucracy; bureaucracy of the corporate breed, not the  governmental red tape I’d expected.

After the oil spill, we contacted Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MT DEQ) for information, they put us in contact with Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, who deferred us to ExxonMoble’s contact, who put us in touch with a consultant. We discussed my qualifications and my previous work and he reckoned they could use me and my team for the aquatic insect assessments to describe the impact and the recovery of the Yellowstone ecosystem. He sent me an email about once a week to say, they were still trying to bring us on board. After several weeks, he said I better get an OSHA hazardous materials certification and that there was no way around the requirement if I want to work on the Yellowstone River. Several hundred dollars and 3 working-days later (per trainee), we completed the certification.  I informed the contact that we had completed OSHA training as required and didn’t hear back from him for over a week. He said, sorry, “Sorry don’t think its going to work out.” I wrote him a scathing letter; which he apparently passes along to ARCADIS (Exxon’s Primary firm for everything), the next thing I know, I received an 158-page listing of ExxonMoble’s contracting requirements and several 6-9 page contract specifics and insurance requirements.   Again, these were corporate regulations, not governmental regulations.  I had my insurance agent looking into the extra coverages required and it was apparent that it was going to be very costly to bring our $2-million insurance coverage up to the “required” $9-million; just to collect insects by the riverside.

We were working on finalizing their insurance needs when I recieved the following note (today).

“Brett,
It looks like the clock has run out. We have had to mobilize a small field effort to obtain representative macroinvertebrate samples from the spill area. We needed to get out there before fall influenced the life stages we are sampling. Apologies to you if I was in any way misleading regarding your potential role, but we simply did not comprehend the bureaucratic log jams we ran into. Best of luck in the future.”

Ok. So, I am a little embarrassed by my trusting nature and the way I let the corporate dudes string me along.  And, I have always been critical of critics, even when I am the critic.  It is easy to criticize a process or organization, but unless you offer a viable alternative, it amounts to nothing but whining.  My way of dealing with this is to turn it in to something positive.

I reckon that, in preparation for this project it has cost me time, materials, and training fees, totaling nearly $7,300. Interesting that for just another 3o hours of my staff’s time, vehicle costs, and motel lodging, we can collect the samples in a scientifically relevant way.  Therefore, I am proud to announce that we are initiating the Yellowstone Biological Assessment Project, independently, as a community service. There will be laboratory time as well, but hey, that’s what winter nights are for, right…. (?)

If we do not ante up, and get this done right, there will be lots of paper pushed, but the world will be no closer to understanding the impacts of Exxon’s Oil spill on the Yellowstone River ecosystem. Our survey will not be able to cover everything, but it will provide more information than either the state, or Exxon will gather.

We will be sampling this week.   I’ll keep you posted. Full-speed ahead!

I have to screen comments to keep the spam out, but please, I do appreciate them. Click the link below to comment :)

Biological Monitoring Covariates

Thursday, August 5th, 2010

When monitoring environmental impacts of anthropogenic activities, it is useful to collect ancillary data to use as covariates. These variables can help account for natural variation in the communities studies, which helps prevent their confounding of observations. In our work with benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages, we always collect flow measures for this purpose (near-substrate flow measures can account for much of the variation in simple benthic communities (e.g., Hart & Finelli 1999). With a sufficiently rigorous sampling design, the effects of flow on the community can be “teased” out of the analysis, so that the effects of anthropogenic stressors on benthic communities changes can be more accurately assessed–assuming, of course, that flow is not part of the anthropogenic impact in the study area.

Moss, macrophytes, and filamentous algae can also alter the abundance of certain types of macroinvertebrates. Moss, is not palatable to most macroinvertebrates because of the presence of protective chemicals. However, it does offer refuge from the sheer-forces of fast water. It also traps detritus (food), and can increase the amount of surface area available for colonization. Thus the presence of moss can have a strong influence on the structure of macroinvertebrate assembleges sampled in an assessment. When we want to account for this variation, we have found that the simplest (and effective) way, is to take a known amount of alcohol from the preserved samples and rank their Greenness. The Rank can be a very useful covariate when the data are analyzed. Other important covariates usually include a particle index, velocity, and depth.

The assumption is that the “Greenness” of the sample’s preservative is proportional to the amount of material soaking in alcohol for a given amount of time.  Thus, more greenness indicates there is more living plant material collected in the sample. Samples of similar greenness were probably influenced by living plants similarly, whereas the community composition of a very pale sample was probably influenced less by plant material than a sample with deep green preservative.

There are other nuances as well. For example, periphyton may cause a different kind of green tint to preservative than moss does–and it is likely to have a different influence on the benthic assemblage. Fortunately, for our purposes, moss seems to have much stronger effect on the sample’s color than periphyton. Also, you need to ensure that all samples are preserved with the same type and strength of preservative (95% ethanol, or 90% Isopropanol, or 90% denatured ethanol, not some of all three). Samples preserved in formalin would need to be transferred to alcohol before analysis–and even then should not be compared with samples preserved only with ethanol because of formalin’s ability to “fix” pigments.

Odonata: Montana & Wyoming Aquatic Entomology Notes

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

the mona lisaSo I started with one of my favorite little beetles, the Haliplids, but really, honestly… the aquatic insect with which the general public is most fascinated is probably the Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies). This seems to exclude fly-fisher-persons from the category of general public (because of their obsession with mayflies, caddisflies, and stoneflies). But, lets just consider fly-fishers exceptional members of the general public, that are out numbered by people with a certain nostalgia for the lazy summer days of their childhood. So powerful is the connection of Odonata with these memories, that many sylized dragonflies are emblazoned on many house items are commonly available (Wal Mart, k-Mart, Tiffany & Co.).   I believe most people associate these images with some un-nameable inner peace, but maybe that’s just me.  I do know one woman, who thinks dragonflies are nothing more than sexual predators, but she has issues (which may or may not be justified; who am I to judge?).

The images associated with this post are from the Wyoming Educational Benthic Imaging Project, funded by the Wyoming Assoication of Conservation Districts, who along with EcoAnalysts, retains a limited copy right to the images. As the artist I retain full copy rights. if you’d like to use them, please let me know. Just please be sure to give credit where credit is due.

This dragonfly family is the Gomphidae; known as club-tails or Snake-tails because of the adult’s expanded abdomen, somewhat resembling the “hood” of a cobra. Honestly, it was so long ago when I examined these specimens, I don’t remember their genus. Still, there are generalizations about the gomphids that can be drawn from discussing these specimens–some of which apply to most (or all) dragonflies and damselflies.  For those curious specifically about dragonflies in Montana and Wyoming, I cam tell you that the most commonly collected genus of Gomphidae in the region appears to be Ophiogomphus sp.; this could be largely because of where people are sampling (riffle areas in valley streams).gomphid head

The fact that these dragonflies covered with bits of fine detritus tells something about their way of life. The gomphid dragonflies are burrowers; they burrow into sand or silt and wait just below the surface for a prey animal to wriggle into striking range.  The complete and total coating of this nymph with sediments probably reflects the the nature its habitat. Specifically, the sediment were this critter was collected is probably much more organic than the habitats used by the upper specimens.  Seeing this specimen with hairs, antennae and even its eyes coated with a layer of “dirt” might suggest this critter was in a habitat that is somewhat inhospitable. However, this specimen was very large–nearly complete larval development–suggesting that this degree of sediment did not affect the    Other species very likely could not survive this amount of organic sediment. For example, the function of mayfly gills would very likely be impeded by a similar coating; resulting in suffocation.

Educators: here is a thought question to ask your students: Why do you think the dragonfly did not suffocate, where many mayflies would?

This specimen gave me a nice chance to photgraph something that is usually a little hard to photograph: the feeding structures of larval dragonflies. [NOTE: larval dragonflies are sometimes incorrectly called "nymphs," but this term refers to animals with "incomplete metamorphosis" (e.g., true bugs, grasshoppers, cockroaches) not those that are paurometabolus (mayflies, stoneflies, dragonflies, damselflies).] The principle adaptation of dragonfly larvae to the predatory life style is the modified labium (lower lip). This structure takes many forms in different insect species, but in dragonflies it is greatly elongated and hinged. The picture here shows the structure, viewed from under the head.  Often, the details of these structures do not photograph well, becasuse of a lack of contrast (yellow-white, on yellow-while, with low depth of field= poor photo). however, the sediment on this specimen allowed for a wide range of contrasts. Imagine this large plate-like structure folded at the lower-right corner of the photo, so that its total length is about 2 times what you see here.  Larval dragonflies, are slow movers; they are lie-in-wait predators. Unlike predatory stoneflies which chase down their prey dragonflies slowly stalk prey and wait for it to come into range.  Although, dragonflies are slow movers, they can rapidly compress their body, resulting in a brief increase in hydrostatic pressure, that cause the labium to launch forward with amazing speed–hardly visible.  The hooks (upper left of picture) puncture the prey and pull it back to mouth where it is held to be chewed and eaten at leisure.

This feeding style is ubiquitous among the Odonata (both dragonflies and damselflies).   Different species and families have different modifications of the labium and this one of the predominant structures used to differentiate larvae taxonomically and systematically.

Educators: here is a thought question to ask your students: How would growth of larval dragonflies change the kinds of food available to them?