Grantee Research Project Results
2000 Progress Report: Using bioindicators to develop a calibrated index of regional ecological integrity for forested headwater ecosystems
EPA Grant Number: R825866Title: Using bioindicators to develop a calibrated index of regional ecological integrity for forested headwater ecosystems
Investigators: Brooks, Robert P. , O'Connell, Timothy J. , Master, Terry L. , Mulvihill, Robert S.
Current Investigators: Brooks, Robert P. , Mulvihill, Robert S. , Master, Terry L. , OConnell, Timothy J. , Laubscher, Susan E.
Institution: Pennsylvania State University , Powdermill Nature Reserve , East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania
Current Institution: Pennsylvania State University , East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania , Powdermill Nature Reserve
EPA Project Officer: Packard, Benjamin H
Project Period: June 1, 1998 through May 31, 2001 (Extended to September 30, 2002)
Project Period Covered by this Report: June 1, 1999 through May 31, 2000
Project Amount: $850,000
RFA: Ecosystem Indicators (1997) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Ecological Indicators/Assessment/Restoration , Aquatic Ecosystems
Objective:
We are working to develop an integrated and calibrated indicator of ecological integrity for forested headwater streams in the Mid-Atlantic states. Ecological indicators provide a quick, objective, and relatively easy method to gauge the condition of a particular resource, and aid greatly in the establishment of conservation priorities and development of restoration goals. Headwater systems are degraded by point source stressors, like acid mine drainage, and also by more cumulative and insidious stressors that operate at large scales, such as forest fragmentation. Ecological indicators exist that respond to site-level attributes, like water quality. Recently, new indicators have emerged that respond to landscape-scale attributes, like bird communities. We are investigating the utility of a new indicator that would be sensitive to stressors at both the site and landscape scale in forested headwaters (i.e., integrated). This indicator is being developed through application of existing indicators such that the assessments of multiple indicators can be compared directly (i.e., calibrated). Primarily due to its dependence on both high stream water quality and large patches of mature forest, we see great potential in the Louisiana Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) to provide meaningful biological data to incorporate in our new indicator. Thus, our primary objective is to investigate aspects of Louisiana Waterthrush (a.k.a. LOWA) ecology as the basis for a calibrated and integrated indicator of forested headwater stream condition.
Progress Summary:
In 2000, we completed our third and final field season for this project. We studied LOWA on forested headwater streams in three physiographic provinces of Pennsylvania between March and July 2000. We studied 6 streams in northeastern Pennsylvania, 7 streams in central Pennsylvania, 10 streams in southwestern Pennsylvania. We selected these streams to represent either: (1) high water quality in large patches of interior forest, (2) high water quality in a relatively fragmented forest setting, or (3) low water quality in large patches of interior forest. Low water quality in our sample streams is due to low pH, primarily resulting from acid mine drainage in southwestern Pennsylvania.
We were particularly interested in documenting nest predation levels in 2000, for comparison to the apparently elevated levels we observed in 1999. Our observations in 2000 indicate that the high nest predation rates observed in 1999 were indeed anomalous. Figure 1 illustrates fledging success in all three study areas over the 3-year sampling period for this project.
Figure 1. Louisiana Waterthrush Fledging Success by Year, Across Regions.
The number reported above each bar is the percentage of nests that fledged at least one waterthrush. Note the relatively low success observed in 1999, when predation rates were high in all study areas. The overall fledging success of 68 percent is based on 274 nesting attempts. Our efforts to uniquely band individual birds for recognition in the field have been monumental (over 800 individuals banded) and instrumental to determining important aspects of LOWA biology. In 2000, we confirmed that nesting densities differ among the three study areas included in this project, with the lowest densities observed in central Pennsylvania (Figure 2). In addition, 3 years of banding have revealed important patterns of site fidelity and longevity (Figure 3).
In 2000, we also completed identification of stream macroinvertebrates collected in 1998 and 1999. We currently are working to develop modified indices of biotic integrity (IBIs) with these data to characterize the study streams with a biological indicator of site quality independent of LOWA biology.
Additional data collected in 2000 include: LOWA behavioral observations, bird community characterizations, and territory mapping of other riparian songbirds on our study streams, e.g., Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), Blue-headed Vireo (Vireo solitarius), Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis), Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina), Northern Waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis), and Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis). We also applied the LOWA Habitat Suitability Index to three systematic sampling locations along each stream. We determined wetted perimeter as an index to stream width at the instream macroinvertebrate sampling locations, applied EPA Rapid Bioassessment habitat assessment for high-gradient streams at the instream macroinvertebrate sampling locations, and applied EPA Physical Characterization/Water Quality assessment at the instream macroinvertebrate sampling locations.
Figure 2. Density of Louisiana Waterthrush Territories on Pennsylvania Streams Based on the Number of Territories Per Kilometer of Stream Reach, 1998-2000.
Figure 3. Site Fidelity of Adult Waterthrushes Banded in 1998 and 1999, Based on 252 Banded Males and 131 Banded Females. Overall site fidelity is approximately 37 percent.
To date, we are in the midst of analyzing data and preparing information to present in the Final Report for the project. In addition to LOWA biology and macroinvertebrate characterizations, we have applied the Bird Community Index to the sites, begun the plot-level habitat characterizations based on vegetation and rapid bioassessment data, and conducted a preliminary landscape-level land cover analysis relating land cover to LOWA productivity. Developments in these research areas have been presented at several high profile meetings in 2000, and will be presented in full in our pending Final Report.
Future Activities:
Future activities on this project will focus on Final Report generation and distribution. We also have begun work on several papers intended for submission to scientific journals.
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 39 publications for this projectSupplemental Keywords:
watersheds, animal, population, stressor, discharge, acid rain, particulates, pH, ecosystem, indicators, restoration, scaling, aquatic, habitat, integrated assessment, conservation, ecology, modeling, monitoring, surveys, Mid-Atlantic, EPA Region 3, Chesapeake Bay, Delaware River, Susquehanna River, Ohio River, Pennsylvania, PA, MAHA, MAIA, BCI, macroinvertebrate, bird, community, Louisiana Waterthrush, LOWA, Seiurus motacilla, riparian, mining, forest fragmentation, headwater streams, bird banding., RFA, Scientific Discipline, Water, Geographic Area, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Water & Watershed, Ecosystem/Assessment/Indicators, Ecosystem Protection, State, Ecological Effects - Environmental Exposure & Risk, Monitoring/Modeling, Ecological Risk Assessment, Watersheds, Ecological Indicators, bioindicator, forested headwater ecosystems, landscape indicator, stressors, avian productivity, biodiversity, macroinvertebrates, ecosystem indicators, regional scale, Louisiana (LA), aquatic ecosystems, water quality, forested watershedProgress 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.