Grantee Research Project Results
2001 Progress Report: Stream Plethodontid Assemblage Response (SPAR) Index: Development, Application, and Verification in the MAHA
EPA Grant Number: R827640Title: Stream Plethodontid Assemblage Response (SPAR) Index: Development, Application, and Verification in the MAHA
Investigators: Brooks, Robert P. , Rocco, Gian L.
Current Investigators: Brooks, Robert P. , Rocco, Brian L. , Hite, Jeremy T.
Institution: Pennsylvania State University
EPA Project Officer: Packard, Benjamin H
Project Period: July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2002
Project Period Covered by this Report: July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001
Project Amount: $397,304
RFA: Ecological Indicators (1999) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Ecological Indicators/Assessment/Restoration , Aquatic Ecosystems
Objective:
The objectives of this research project are to:
(1) Describe the range and variability of stream plethodontid assemblage responses (SPAR) across commonly encountered gradients of anthropogenic degradation (stream acidification, forest and riparian corridor fragmentation and degradation, pollution, etc.) in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Area (MAHA).
(2) Develop and adjust SPAR for use in MAHA headwaters.
(3) Evaluate the reliability and resolution of SPAR by application and verification.
Forested headwater streams comprise 60-75 percent of the total stream length and watershed area in the Mid-Atlantic states and are impacted by a variety of environmental stressors. In general, amphibians are considered to be valuable response indicators. In the Appalachian Region, a diverse assemblage of plethodontid (lungless) salamanders thrive and reproduce in seeps, brooks, and small streams, and can exist in extremely high densities. Unlike vernal pool breeding species, populations of most stream dwelling salamanders tend to be remarkably be stable over time. Life histories within this group are highly variable and consist of aquatic and terrestrial egg-laying species with variable aquatic larval periods (8 months to 4.5 years). Previous studies indicate that early amphibian life stages (eggs, embryos, and recent hatchlings) are the most sensitive to low pH and metal toxicity. Interspecific differences in tolerance also exist within similar lifestages. If stream plethodontids show similar ontogenetic changes and interspecific differences, acidified or otherwise adverse stream conditions are likely to be important elements in shaping streambank salamander assemblages, either through direct toxicity or indirect ecological interactions among community members. By virtue of their diverse and complex life histories, and abundant, stable, and geographically widespread populations, stream plethodontids offer the opportunity of providing another biological tool to assess headwater impairment and degradation, especially where traditional species assemblages (macroinvertebrates, fishes) are poorly developed or absent. A pilot project conducted between 1997-1998, in 14 headwaters in the Allegheny Plateau, PA, shows that stream salamander assemblages do respond to stream impairment (Rocco and Brooks, 2000). A dramatic response was documented in three species.
Progress Summary:
The EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) in the MAHA wadeable stream sites originally were selected by a randomized, probability-based design (Herilhy, et al., 2000). Thus, measurements obtained at these 509 stream sites allow inference on environmental condition for 184,600 km of mapped, wadeable stream length in the region. Most importantly, streams sites cover a broad range of ecological conditions. A large body of ecological information also exists because of the extensive sampling efforts that took place at each site from 1993-1998. Geographic information system (GIS)-based land use metrics, stream chemistry, benthic and fish metrics, and fish tissue contaminants data (metals, organics) are readily available.
In this study, only headwaters draining watersheds less than 3 km2 were considered for selection. Additional constraints related to ecoregion, sub-ecoregion, spatial spread, and inferred ecological condition guided stream site selection in MAHA portions of MD, PA, VA, and WV.
Selected stream sites were sampled once and only at the stream locations corresponding to the EMAP stream site coordinates. U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps (1:24,000) and a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) were used to navigate to each site. Sampling along approximately 100 m of the stream channel entailed the collection of stream salamanders, stream channel physical characterization, and measurement of a number of climatic and water quality variables. Salamanders of all lifestages were captured from terrestrial and aquatic portions of three, 4 m2 rectangular plots (2 m x 2 m). Only riffle and run areas were sampled. Specimens of uncertain identity, or specimens showing limb deformities, supernumerary limbs, or possible disease were collected to allow future examination. Vouchers were obtained from about 15 percent of stream sites. Stream and bank habitat characteristics were measured according to Anderson, et al. (1999). Plots were photographed before searches began. Percent plot cover composition was determined in the laboratory from analysis of these photographs. Climatic variables measured at each plot included ambient, surface, soil temperature, and ambient and surface percent relative humidity. Stream water temperature, pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen were determined in the field. Grab samples were collected and analyzed according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved methodologies by the Penn State Water Quality Laboratory for the following attributes: pH, alkalinity, ANC, NO3-N, SO4, DOC, Fe, Mn, and Al. Grab samples were delivered under ice within 48 hours of sample collection, or were immediately frozen and analyzed within 10-14 days of collection. Samples for metals analysis were filtered (0.45 m) prior to acidification.
In 2002, sampling of stream sites began on May 23, and continued through August 13. A total of 49 stream sites were sampled during 55 days in the field (Figure 1). Stream sites were situated in six Level III ecoregions; Blue Ridge Mountains (n = 8), the Central Appalachians (n = 11), the Northern Appalachians (n = 9), the Ridge (n = 13), the Valley (n = 4), and the Western Appalachians (n = 4). These sampling sites also correspond to 21 Level IV sub-ecoregions (Woods, et al., 1996).
Therefore, during the 3-year study period, stream salamander assemblage data were obtained at 138 EMAP stream sites. Study watersheds varied from 0.1 to 3.05 km2 in size and from 0 to 100 percent forest cover (Figure 2). Agricultural and urban cover composed 0 to 100 percent and 0 to 41 percent, respectively. Stream site elevation ranged from 65 m in the Valley to 1,167 m in the Central Appalachians. Stream chemistry also was highly variable, as reflected by the following range of values: pH = 4.5 to 8.4; ANC = -37.2 to 4,071; Cl = 9 to 1,842 mg/l; SO4 = 6 to 13,175 mg/l; N (total) = 60 to 9,130 mg/l. Data entry and compilation for sites sampled in 2002 currently is in progress. Evaluation of potential SPAR metrics began in 2001, is ongoing, and will include validation.
Efforts to recruit individuals to assist with the volunteer phase of the SPAR project (a component of Phase II) began in March 2002. By June 15, 2002, 82 individuals representing 56 volunteer groups applied to participate. Training for the volunteers was conducted in late June. The 1-day training sessions were held at the Forest Resources Laboratory, University Park, on June 19-20, 2002, and at the Dauphin County Conservation and Natural Resources Center, on June 21-23, 2002. A total of five, 8-hours training sessions were offered during the last week of June. The training sessions were attended by 65 individuals representing 41 volunteer groups. The proposal called for the training of only 20 volunteer groups. The training program consisted of the following:
(1) Pre-training test, volunteers identified live stream salamanders (30 minutes).
(2) Powerpoint presentation, entitled "Stream Salamanders in Headwater Assessments: An Overview and the SPAR Index Project" (30 minutes).
(3) Presentation/discussion of 94 slides showing key distinguishing characteristics of larval, juvenile, and adult PA stream plethodontids. The Pfingsten and Downs (1989) keys to adult and larval stream salamander identification, along with selected material from other sources, also were presented (90 minutes).
(4) "Practical," period in which volunteers had the opportunity to examine live specimens of larval, juvenile, and adult PA stream plethodontids (120 minutes).
(5) Post-training test, volunteers identified live stream salamanders (30 minutes).
(6) Discussion of stream site selection, stream sampling and characterization, and specimen and voucher processing (75 minutes).
Volunteers were trained and tested with live specimens. Both tests were open book and each volunteer group completed only one test regardless of the number of individuals in the group.
The pre- and post-training tests were the same and were designed to test the effectiveness of the training. Volunteers were not always tested with the same specimens. Thus, specimens of the same species examined in the pre-training test may not have been the same examined in the post-training test, or by volunteer groups in different training sessions. On the other hand, because only a few individuals of several species and lifestages were available, some of the specimens examined in the training session also were the same used in all tests.
The tests required volunteer groups to identify specimens to species when one or more live animals were presented. The tests consisted of 15 questions and required volunteers to identify 15 sets of specimens. Each set consisted of one or more containers with one or more specimens.
Volunteer groups also were asked to sample for stream plethodontids at a stream site of their choice. This post-training activity was designed to evaluate the proficiency of volunteer groups in the field. Volunteers were trained to perform sampling and stream surveying techniques similar to those implemented by the Pennsylvania State University SPAR technicians, and were equipped with a sampling kit to assist with sampling, processing, and shipping of voucher specimens and completed field data forms. Sampling kits consisted of two dip nets, four plots flags, one plastic leak-proof container, large and small zip-lock bags, specimen labels, 200 ml of 10 percent formalin, and a self-addressed, pre-paid shipping box. The collection and shipping of vouchers (four specimens per species) allowed the identification of at least a portion of the specimens processed by volunteer groups. Volunteers also were provided with stream salamander identification keys, presentation notes, and a SPAR sampling manual. The sampling methods detailed all facets of SPAR stream site selection and measurement, stream salamander sampling, and specimen and voucher processing. An overview of the SPAR sampling manual was presented in the last hour of the training session.
Examination of the results indicates that scores for the 39 volunteer groups in the pre- and post-training tests ranged from 7.7 to 83.3 percent (mean 48.9 percent, range 75.6 percent) and from 53.6 to 100 percent (mean 81.3 percent, range 46.4 percent), respectively. (Note: Although 41 volunteer groups attended the training, only 39 completed both tests). Thus, training improved average test scores by 32.2 percent and narrowed the range of scores by 29.2 percent (Figure 3a). It also appears that volunteer groups consisting of greater than 1 individual performed more consistently than volunteer groups represented by only one person (Figure 3b). However, in this study, there were only three volunteer groups with more than 2 persons. Volunteer group baseline proficiency prior to training, as determined by the pre-training test scores, varied minimally across training sessions (F = 1.39, p = 0.258, Figure 3c). This suggests that training sessions were attended by individuals with relatively similar expertise; however, this condition did not remain consistent following the training (F = 4.52, p = 0.005). Post-training test scores from volunteer groups in later training sessions seemed to score higher and more consistently than volunteer groups exposed to earlier training sessions, suggesting perhaps an "instructor" effect and improvement in how the training material was presented over time.
As might be expected, some salamander species and lifestages were more difficult to identify than others. Volunteer proficiency also varied by salamander species and lifestage even after the training (Figure 4). As depicted in the bar graph, none of the volunteer groups had trouble correctly identifying an adult longtailed salamander (Eurycea longicauda) and most (79.5 percent) correctly identified larval Eurycea to genus (Question 5). On the other hand, identification of Desmognathus to species was the most challenging, especially when the northern dusky (Desmognathus f. fuscus) and the mountain dusky (Desmognathus ochrophaeus) were in the same set. In fact, Questions 10, 13, 11, and 4, which included one or both of the above Desmoganthus species, were answered correctly by only 21, 36, 49, and 51 percent of the volunteers, respectively. However, it should be noted, that while many groups failed to make the correct identification to species, most correctly identified Desmognathus specimens to genus. Ultimately, and depending on the goals of a given monitoring program, such distinction may not be needed.
These preliminary analyses suggest that volunteer training was beneficial, but that the level of proficiency attained even under these favorable testing conditions was highly variable across the volunteer groups tested and across salamander species likely to be found in PA. Evidently, future volunteer training efforts might benefit from further instruction and greater focus on the more difficult to identify species and lifestages.
The proficiency attained by the SPAR volunteers may be better, lower, or comparable to other volunteer-based training efforts. Such comparisons invariably will be needed to objectively evaluate the usefulness of a future volunteer-based, SPAR-type, sampling/monitoring program. Either way, the results, thus far, suggest that collection of stream salamander data by minimally trained volunteer crews may be most fruitful and reliable when such efforts are conducted in concert with appropriately designed quality assurance/quality control programs that allow confirmation of species identity by whatever methods available.
As of October 15, it appears that only 22 (53 percent) volunteer groups completed the post-training field sampling and identification activity. Efforts to process vouchers and related data from the above activity will occur over the next several months.
Future Activities:
Analysis related to the development, testing, and validation of potential SPAR metrics, initiated in 2001, will continue through 2002, and early 2003. A more complete description and analysis of the volunteer effort also is scheduled for the remainder of 2002, and early 2003. The final report will be submitted at the end of June 2003.
Journal Articles on this Report : 1 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
Other project views: | All 7 publications | 4 publications in selected types | All 1 journal articles |
---|
Type | Citation | ||
---|---|---|---|
|
Herlihy AT, Larsen DP, Paulsen SG, Urquhart NS, Rosenbaum BJ. Designing a spatially balanced, randomized site selection process for regional stream surveys: The EMAP mid-Atlantic pilot study. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2000;63(1):95-113. |
R827640 (2000) R827640 (2001) |
Exit Exit |
Supplemental Keywords:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, EMAP, Mid-Atlantic Highlands Area, MAHA, stream surveys, amphibian, salamander., RFA, Scientific Discipline, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Ecology, Hydrology, Ecosystem/Assessment/Indicators, Environmental Chemistry, Ecological Effects - Environmental Exposure & Risk, Microbiology, Ecological Risk Assessment, Ecological Indicators, ecological exposure, forested headwater ecosystems, aquatic biota , watersheds, amphibians, MAHA, stream ecosystems, salamander population, ecosystem indicators, aquatic ecosystemsRelevant Websites:
http://www.cas.psu.edu/docs/CASDEPT/FOREST/wetlands/Research/Survey.htm Exit
Exit
Progress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.