Pilot Study to Evaluate the
Practicality of Aquatic Ecosystem
Monitoring
in Small Agricultural Streams in Alberta
/dlbcrla
Environment
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2015
https://archive.org/details/pilotstudytoevalOOande
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Aquatic
Ecosystem Monitoring in Small Agricultural
Streams in Alberta
Prepared by:
A.-M. Anderson, R. Casey, J. Willis, and S. Manchur
Environmental Assurance
Alberta Environment
March 2009
W0901
ISBN: 978-0-7785-8106-2 (Printed Edition)
ISBN: 978-0-7785-8107-9 (On-Line Edition)
Web Site: http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/home.asp
Any comments, questions, or suggestions regarding the content of this document may
be directed to:
Water Policy Branch
Alberta Environment
7th Floor, Oxbridge Place
9820- 106th Street
Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2J6
Phone: (780)427-2654
Fax: (780)422-6712
Additional copies of this document may be obtained by contacting:
Information Centre
Alberta Environment
Main Floor, Oxbridge Place
9820 - 106th Street
Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2J6
Phone: (780)427-2700
Fax: (780)422-4086
Email: env.infocent@gov.ab.ca
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Monitoring, evaluation and reporting on aquatic ecosystem health are implicit
requirements of the government of Alberta Water for Life commitment to assure "healthy
aquatic ecosystems " (HAE). In addition to water quality monitoring, an increasing
amount of monitoring of sediment quality and biological communities has occurred in
recent years on major rivers, but comparable monitoring efforts on small streams have
been very limited.
A pilot study was conducted on three streams from an existing water quality network of
agricultural streams (i.e., the Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture or AESA
network) to evaluate the feasibility and practicality of including sediment and non-fish
biota monitoring. In fall 2006 AESA sampling locations on Rose Creek, the Blindman
River and Strawberry Creek were sampled for benthic invertebrates (kick nets), epilithic
and planktonic algae (community analysis and chlorophyll-a) and bottom sediments
(nutrients and particle size) Field measurements and observations were taken of basic
water quality parameters, hydrometric features, and reach, stream and bank
characteristics.
The three watersheds are located in different, although adjacent ecoregions, and they are
farmed with a different level of intensity. The Rose Creek site is more erosional in
nature, and has lower dissolved nutrient levels and higher flows than the Blindman River
and especially Strawberry Creek. Riparian damage due to cattle access was particularly
evident at the Blindman River site.
Sampling of biological communities and sediments from small streams proved to be
feasible and practical. However, sampling techniques and the type of field information
differ significantly from those routinely obtained from larger provincial rivers. Therefore
it would be important to invest in staff training if stream sampling was to be carried out
routinely.
Benthic invertebrate and epilithic algal communities comprised many taxonomic groups
for which ecological requirements and responses to various forms of disturbance are
fairly well understood. The distribution of such organisms has been used elsewhere to
develop indicators which in turn have been used to assess the 'health' or 'integrity' of
aquatic ecosystems. Even at the scale of this pilot study it was possible to note
differences in biological communities among streams that were linked to the degree of
eutrophication (e.g., nutrient levels and dissolved oxygen conditions), and physical
habitat characteristics and disturbance. Phytoplankton communities were not very
diverse and appeared to have less potential for future monitoring programs.
One of the difficulties in assessing aquatic ecosystem health in Alberta lies in defining
'healthy' aquatic ecosystems. One approach is to use 'natural or least impacted'
conditions, to define 'background' or 'reference conditions' and use these as a depiction
of healthy conditions, for a given eco-region. To capture variability within an ecoregion,
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams »
in Alberta
researchers advocate sampling about 20 carefully selected sites for 2 to 3 years. Applied
to Alberta, 80 streams would have to be sampled to cover the four main ecoregions with
agricultural activity. The effort is substantial, but would allow the description of
expectations of 'healthy' conditions, which in turn would enable the definition of bio-
criteria. Such information is basic to health assessments of agricultural streams and
similar streams influenced by other types of human activities (e.g., forestry, mining,
urban development).
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams
in Alberta
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II
LIST OF TABLES VI
LIST OF FIGURES VI
LIST OF APPENDICES VI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS VII
1.0 BACKGROUND 1
2.0 OBJECTIVES 2
3.0 METHODS 3
3.1 SAMPLING SITES 3
3.2 SAMPLING METHODS 5
3. 2. 1 Field Measurements 5
3. 2. 2 Benthic Invertebrates 5
3. 2. 3 Epilithic Algae 5
3.2.4 Phytoplankton 6
3.2.5 Sediment 6
3.3 SAMPLE PROCESSING METHODS 6
3. 3. 1 Benthic Invertebrate Samples 6
3.3.2 Epilithic and Plankton Algal Taxonomy, and Chlorophyll-a
Analyses 7
3.3.3 Sediment Chemistry 8
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS 8
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 10
4.1 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION 10
4.2 PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT THE PILOT
SAMPLING 10
4.3 SEDIMENT ANALYSES 1 1
4.4 BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES 1 2
4.5 EPILITHIC ALGAE 16
4.6 PHYTOPLANKTON 21
5.0 GENERAL DISCUSSION 24
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams iv
in Alberta
5.1 SUITABILITY AND PRACTICALITY OF MONITORING
TECHNIQUES 24
5.2 SELECTION OF POTENTIAL INDICATORS OF HEALTH 24
5.3 CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE AEH MONITORING OF
AGRICULTURAL STREAMS 25
6.0 LITERATURE CITED 28
6.1 GENERAL LITERATURE 28
6.2 TAXONOMIC REFERENCES: BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES 31
6.3 TAXONOMIC REFERENCES: ALGAE 35
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams
in Alberta
V
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of background information on the three AESA streams selected
for the pilot study 3
Table 2 Sediment particle size and nutrient levels 1 2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Agricultural watersheds monitored under the Alberta Environmentally
Sustainable Agriculture (AES A) program 4
Figure 2 Benthic invertebrate data for three agricultural streams 14
Figure 3 Epilithic algae: major taxonomic groups in agricultural streams 17
Figure 4 Epilithic algal counts, biomass, chlorophyll-a and number of species in
agricultural streams 18
Figure 5 Diatom metrics for monitoring eutrophication in agricultural streams (after
Potapova and Charles, 2007) 20
Figure 6 Planktonic algal counts, biomass, chlorophyll-a, and number of species. 22
Figure 7 Planktonic algae: Major taxonomic groups in agricultural streams 23
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Summary of field observations 39
Appendix 2 Benthic invertebrate community composition recorded in three
agricultural streams in 2006 42
Appendix 3 Benthic invertebrate community composition recorded in three
agricultural streams in 2006 52
Appendix 4 Phytoplankton density (number of units/L) and biomass (milligram/m3) in
agricultural streams (2006) 55
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams vi
in Alberta
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Water for Life, Aquatic Ecosystem Health working group provided funding to process
sediment and biological samples.
Epilithic chlorophyll-*? and sediment chemistry samples were analyzed at the Analytical
Chemistry Laboratory of the Alberta Research Council in Vegreville under supervision of
Frank Skinner. Dr. Michael Agbeti (Bio-Limno Research & Consulting Inc.) Halifax,
Nova Scotia identified and enumerated epilithic algae. William J. Anderson, Spruce
Grove, Alberta sorted, identified and enumerated benthic invertebrates.
Mary Raven finalized figures and tables and formatted the report.
T. Hebben and R. Zurawell (Alberta Environment) provided valuable comments on the
algal monitoring and L.R. Noton (Alberta Environment) reviewed the report.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams vii
in Alberta
1.0 BACKGROUND
Monitoring, evaluation and reporting on aquatic ecosystem health are required to assure
the Government of Alberta Water for Life (WFL) commitment of "healthy aquatic
ecosystems. " Healthy aquatic ecosystems (HAE) can be defined as functioning and
diverse systems of biological communities (primary producers, invertebrates and
vertebrates) interacting with an adequate chemical (water and sediment quality) and
physical environment (hydrology, channel processes, riparian zones) (e.g., Whitford
2005).
In Alberta, provincial-scale monitoring of aquatic ecosystem health (AEH) has focused
primarily on surface water quality of rivers and lakes. Expansion of provincial networks
and programs to include sediment quality and non-fish biota (e.g., benthic invertebrates,
and other aquatic biota) of rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands is required to support WFL
goals. The development of such monitoring programs requires selection of practical and
efficacious sampling methods, sample processing and data management procedures, and
appropriate indicators of aquatic ecosystem health.
Monitoring, evaluating and reporting on the diverse range of aquatic ecosystems and
human influences on a provincial scale represent a complex and costly undertaking. To
maximize efficiencies and control costs, North South Consulting Inc. et al (2007)
recommend building on existing monitoring networks, which already provide information
on some AEH components.
The Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture (AESA) stream water quality
sampling program has involved monitoring of 23 streams and was designed to document
the effects of agriculture on stream water quality over time. The AESA network
comprised streams selected based on similarities in soils and landscapes attributes of their
watersheds and the range of agricultural intensities and practices in these watersheds
(Anderson et al. 1999). The AESA program focused on surface water quality indicators
known to be influenced by agricultural intensity (e.g., nutrients, pesticides, bacteria) (e.g.,
Anderson et al.1998), but did not include other measures of AEH.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 1
in Alberta
2.0 OBJECTIVES
The intent of this small pilot project was to scope the feasibility of adding sediment and
non-fish biota to AESA stream monitoring and to make a preliminary evaluation of the
data.
Specific objectives were to:
• Test the suitability and practicality of monitoring techniques at a few sites;
• Provide some preliminary information for sediment chemistry and biological
communities;
• Produce recommendations for future AEH monitoring of agricultural streams.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams
in Alberta
2
3.0 METHODS
3.1 Sampling Sites
The pilot study, which took place in August - September 2006, focussed on three
agricultural streams: Strawberry Creek and the Blindman River in the Boreal Transition
ecoregion and Rose Creek in the Western Alberta Upland. The original classification of
agricultural intensity relied on 1991 Statistics Canada census data (Anderson et al. 1998)
data pertaining to chemical and fertilizer expenses and manure production and the
drainage basins spanned the range of agricultural intensity: 'low" (Rose Creek),
"moderate" (Blindman River) and "high" (Strawberry) (Table 1, Figure 1). Census data
from 1996, 2001 and 2006 indicate that agricultural intensity in the Blindman River
drainage basin has fluctuated between "medium" and "high", while that in Strawberry
Creek has fluctuated between "high" and "medium" (Lorenz et al., 2008( draft).
Blindman retains a "medium" rating, but Strawberry Creek is now also rated as
"medium". Nutrient levels, particularly dissolved nutrients, for the period of record
(Table 1) are generally lowest in Rose and highest in Strawberry Creek, a situation which
has been documented in every year of monitoring (e.g., Anderson et al. 1998, Anderson
1997, 1998, Carle 2001, Depoe and Westbrook 2003, Depoe, 2004, Depoe 2006 a,b,
Lorenz et al., 2008( draft).
Sampling of sediments and biological community took place near the Water Survey of
Canada gauging station which has also been the marker for the water quality sampling
sites.
Table 1 Summary of background information on the three AESA streams
selected for the pilot study
ROSE CREEK
BLINDMAN RIVER STRAWBERRY CREEK
Drainage basin size (km2)
559
353
592
Ecoregion
Western Alberta Upland
Boreal Transition
Boreal Transition
Major watershed
North Saskatchewan River
Red Deer River
North Saskatchewan River
Agricultural Intensity
Anderson et al. (1999) based on 1991 census
Low
Medium
High
Lorenz and Depoe(2009). ('average' of 1996, 2001,2006 census)
Low
Medium
Medium
Mean daily discharge 2006 (cms)
1.372
0.559
0.326
Nutrient Concentrations (mg/L ) (Lorenz et al. draft)
Nutrient data from 1995 to 2006
Minimum-Median-Maximum
Minimum-Median-Maximum
Minimum-Median-Maximum
TP
0.062 0.234 0.955
0.136 0.297 0.536
0.189 0.692 1.249
TDP
0.018 0.030 0.058
0.058 0.152 0.338
0.047 0.0127 0.319
TN
0.900 1.332 2.551
1.305 1.973 3.495
1.186 3.296 4.628
TKN
0.862 1.276 2.453
1.079 1.702 2.857
0.894 2.516 3.203
(N02"+N03")-N
0.011 0.016 0.036
0.032 0.130 0.271
0.136 0.367 0.859
(NH4+)-N
0.023 0.054 0.084
0.061 0.227 0.560
0.075 0.387 0.756
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 3
in Alberta
AESA Stream Survey
Watershed Locations
Watershed
City #
L. Hines Creek
2. Grande Prairie Creek
3. Klesknn Drain
4. Paddle River
5. Wabash Creek
6. Tomahawk Creek
7. Strawberry Creek
8. Buffalo Creek
9. Stretton Creek
10. Blindman River
1 1 . Rose Creek
12. Ha\ nes Creek
13. Three hills Creek
14. Ray Creek
15. Renwick Creek
16. Crowfoot Creek
17. New West Coulee
18. Drain S-6
19. Battersea Drain
20. Prairie Blood Coulee
21. Trout Creek
22. Meadow Creek
23. Willow Creek
Watershed Type
Irrigation Stream
Low Agricultural Intensity
Moderate Agricultural Intensity f£>
High Agricultural Intensity ^
>23
Grande Prairie
Edmonton
11
©10
J2
Calgary
16
23
.21
J7
•19 «18
22 •
20
Lethhridge
Figure 1 Agricultural watersheds monitored under the Alberta
Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture (AESA) program
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams
in Alberta
4
3.2 Sampling Methods
3. 2. 1 Field Measurements
Field measurements and observations, based on Barbour et al. 1999, Jones et al. 2004,
and Stambaugh et al. 2006 protocols were carried out at each site. The sampling reach
was defined as 6 times bank full width, and three transects were established: Transect
(Tl) at the lower (downstream) end of the reach, T2 in the middle and T3 at the upper
(upstream) end. Wetted width, bank full width, depth, mean flow velocity were
measured along each transect; instantaneous discharge was estimated from these
measurements. Multi-probe readings of DO, percent DO saturation, conductivity, pH and
temperature were recorded along five points on Tl . Water samples were collected from
that reach. Reach characteristics such as stream nature (i.e., riffle, run, pool or pool/back
eddy), % macrophyte coverage and dominant taxa, substrate composition (e.g., % cobble,
gravel, sand based on visual estimates) and substrate embeddedness were recorded for
each transect. Bank characteristics such as bank stability, degree of undercutting,
dominant riparian vegetation and terrestrial canopy cover were recorded for a 1 0 m strip
centered on each transect. A summary of field observations recorded during the pilot is
provided in Appendix 1 .
3.2.2 Benthic Invertebrates
D-frame kick nets were used to collect invertebrates. One-minute kick samples were
collected at each of the three transects for the study reach. Sampling was carried out by
kicking the substrate, and moving in an upstream direction across the channel while
sweeping the net over the disturbed substrate. If the net appeared to clog, sampling was
interrupted; the net emptied and sampling resumed for the remainder of the time. The
three one-minute transect samples were combined to form one composite sample per
study reach. Although most of Alberta Environment's (AENV) benthic invertebrate
monitoring of large rivers has relied on nets of 210 u.m mesh size, rapid assessment
procedures which are popular in some Canadian and US monitoring programs of smaller
streams (e.g., Jones et al. 2004) use much coarser mesh sizes. To evaluate the relative
merits of invertebrate data obtained with different mesh sizes, two sets of nets (210 urn
and 400 u.m mesh size) were used at each site.
Samples were transferred to plastic bags and preserved with buffered formaldehyde
shortly after collection. Three replicate samples were collected with each net at the
Blindman River site to describe variability. Each replicate consisted of three one-minute
kicks collected along each transect and pooled to form a composite sample.
3.2.3 Epilithic Algae
Epilithic algae for chlorophyll-a determination were scraped from rocks using the
template method (Alberta Environment 2006). Scrapings from a 4 cm2 template were
taken from each of three rocks taken to form a replicate sample. A replicate sample was
generated along each transect, yielding three replicates per reach. Algal material was
placed on a GF/C filter, sprinkled with MgC03, and then wrapped in aluminum foil, kept
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 5
in Alberta
on ice until return to the field office and then frozen. Triplicate samples (two additional
replicates per transect) were taken at the Blindman River site for QA/QC purposes.
Epilithic algae for taxonomic analysis were also obtained using the template method, but
in this case scrapings (4 cm /scraping) from nine rocks (three per transect) were
combined to form one composite sample. The sample was preserved with Lugol's
solution and five drops of formaldehyde. Additional samples (three replicates, collected
as described) were obtained from the Blindman River to describe variability in taxonomic
data.
3.2.4 Phytoplankton
Water was collected from five cross channel points along the lower (Tl) transect and
pooled in a carboy. The sample was well mixed and poured off into 1L dark Nalgene
containers for Ch\-a analysis and 100 mL phytoplankton jars. Ch\-a samples were
filtered on GF/C filters in the laboratory; MgC03 was sprinkled on the filter before
freezing.
Phytoplankton samples for taxonomic analysis were preserved in the field with Lugol's
solution and a few drops of formaldehyde. Two additional samples were poured off from
cross sectional composite samples collected sequentially (over a period of approximately
half an hour) at the Blindman River site to assess variability over time.
3.2.5 Sediment
One composite sediment sample per site was collected from depositional areas along the
three transects, using the 'spoon method' as described in Alberta Environment (2006).
These composite samples, destined for particle size and nutrient analyses, were stored in
plastic bags and kept cool until delivery to the analytical laboratory.
3.3 Sample Processing Methods
3. 3.1 Ben thic In vertebra te Samples
The zoobenthic samples were washed over a 2, and a 0.210 mm sieve. The coarse
fraction was sorted in its entirety; the material washed onto the fine sieve was sub-
sampled using a Marchant Box (Marchant 1989). A minimum of 500 organisms were
sorted, or at least three of the 100 cells in the Marchant Box were processed. This was
needed to obtain a minimum level of precision deemed necessary for the (sub)sampling
invertebrates (see Elliott 1977, Wrona et al. 1982). All invertebrates were sorted under a
dissecting microscope (magnification range 6 to 50X).
Specimens were identified to genus or species where possible, according to Edmunds et
al (1976), Wiggins (1977), Merritt and Cummins (1996), Clifford (1991), Thorp and
Covich (2001), and others using the most current taxonomic designations available (See
Taxonomic References)
Benthic Invertebrate taxonomic analyses are presented in Appendix 2.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 6
in Alberta
3.3.2 Epilithic and Plankton Algal Taxonomy, and Chlorophyll-a
Analyses
Chlorophyll-^ was determined fluorometrically after acetone extraction at the Analytical
Chemistry Laboratory, Alberta Research Council, Vegreville. Phaeophytin-a, a
degradation product of chlorophyll was measured in epilithic samples. Results are
reported as mg/m2 for epilithic samples and mg/m3 for plankton samples.
Non-diatoms (soft algae) and diatoms were analyzed separately. Depending on their
concentration, non-diatoms samples were diluted first. To determine the appropriate
dilution, the original samples were screened to assess the densities of algae and non-algal
matter (debris and particulate matter). Aliquots of the appropriately diluted samples were
allowed to settle overnight in sedimentation chambers following Utermohrs procedure
described in Lund et al. (1958). Algal units were counted from a minimum of four
transects on a Zeiss Axiovert 40 CFL inverted microscope. Counting units were
individual cells, filaments, or colonies depending on the organization of the algae. Both
diatoms and non-diatoms were counted. For soft algae, between 250 and 300 units were
counted at 500X magnification; a number transects were scanned at 250X for larger
algae. For diatoms, a minimum of 250 was set as the target. At this stage, diatoms were
not identified to species or genus, but recorded as "diatoms", and were later identified to
species from prepared slides.
Preparation of diatom slides consisted of digesting sub-samples using concentrated nitric
acid and hydrogen peroxide and washing several times (by centrifuging) with distilled
water. A few drops of the diatom slurry were placed on a cover slip and allowed to
evaporate overnight. Once dry, the diatoms were mounted in Naphrax and identified
using 1000 to 1500 X magnifications (under oil immersion) on a Zeiss Axioskop 40
compound microscope. A minimum of 500 diatom frustules were counted on each slide.
The diatom counts on the slides were converted to density based on the number of
transects covered during the fresh (Utermohl) counts.
Biomass was calculated from recorded abundance and specific biovolume estimates,
based on geometric shapes (Rott 1981), assuming a specific gravity of one. The
biovolume (mm3/m3 fresh weight) of each species was estimated from the average
dimensions of 10 to 15 individuals. The biovolumes of colonial taxa were based on the
number of individuals in a colony. All calculations for cell concentration (units/cm ) and
biomass (|ug/cm ) were performed with Hamilton's (1990) computer program.
Taxonomic identifications of soft algae were based primarily on Anton and Duthie
(1981), Entwisle et al. (2007), Findlay and Kling (1976), Huber-Pestalozzi (1961, 1972,
1982, 1983), Tikkanen (1986), Prescott (1982), Whitford and Schumacher (1984),
Starmach (1985), Komarek & Anagnostidis (1998, 2005), and Wehr and Sheath (2003).
Diatom identifications were based primarily on the following texts and supplemented
with other publications: Krammer and Lange-Bertalot (1986, 1988, 1991a,b), Reavie and
Smol (1998), Cumming et al. (1995), Bahls (2004), Camburn and Charles (2000), Fallu
et al. (2000), Patrick and Reimer (1966, 1975), Siver and Kling (1997), and Siver et al
(2005).
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams
in Alberta
Results of epilithic and plankton algal community data are shown in Appendix 3 and 4,
respectively.
3.3.3 Sediment Chemistry
Particle size, organic carbon, total nitrogen (as TKN) and total phosphorus were analyzed
in sediments collected at each site. Method descriptions are outlined below.
Total Phosphorus: the sediment sample is digested with sulfuric acid, potassium sulphate
and a mercury catalyst at 360°C. All phosphorus species are converted to phosphate
which is determined colorimetrically in an automated system by the molybdate-antimony
tartrate-ascorbic acid method.
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen: sediment sample is digested with sulfuric acid, potassium
sulphate and a mercury catalyst at 360°C. Organic nitrogen is converted to ammonia,
which is determined colorimetrically in an automated system by the phenate method.
Organic Carbon in sediments is determined by the difference between total carbon and
inorganic carbon. Total carbon in sediments is obtained by placing a known amount of
sample in a crucible and combusting the sample at 950°C. The carbon dioxide formed is
measured in an infrared cell. Inorganic carbon in sediment samples is obtained by
acidifying a known amount of sample with excess sulphuric acid. The evolved CO2 is
trapped in sodium hydroxide. The partial alkalinity of samples is compared to CaC03
standards to determine total carbonate and inorganic carbon.
Particle size distribution in sediments is measured using the hydrometer method and is
based on M.R. Carter (1993) as described in Soils Sampling and methods of Analysis,
507:509. Lewis Publishers.
3.4 Data Analysis
This small dataset did not lend itself to statistical analyses (e.g., comparison among sites).
Therefore, evaluation of results relied primarily on visual appraisal of graphs and tables.
Simple metrics were calculated; these included taxonomic diversity (i.e., number of
major taxonomic groups, genera, or individual taxa) and absolute and proportional
(percent) abundance and biomass (algae, only) at various taxonomic levels. An extensive
exploration of merits of a broad range of 'metrics' was not justified here because of the
limited data set.
However, the applicability of recent work by Potapova and Charles (2007), involving the
development of a nutrient preference index for diatoms, was tested with the diatom data
from this pilot study. The authors compiled an indicator species list by defining the
nutrient preference range for riverine diatom species in the United States based on
species distribution and nutrient data. Data used in this process are those from the U.S.
Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment program. Species which had the
highest mean relative abundance and frequency of occurrence at TP<10 uL"1 were
designated as 'low TP or LP', those with TP >100 uL1 as 'high TP or HP', those with
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 8
in Alberta
TN< 0.2 mgL"1 were designated as Mow TN or LN\ those with TP >3 mgL"1 as 'high TN
or HN'. A high index value indicates that species which thrive under high nutrient
conditions prevail, and vice versa.
Indices for total phosphorus (P-preference index) and total nitrogen (N-preference index)
indicators were calculated as:
P-Preference index = 1QHP
HP+LP
N- Preference index = 1QHN
HN+LN
The indices for our stream data were calculated using species abundance data. In
addition, absolute and relative abundance of species with high, low, and unclassified
nutrient preferences were graphed. 'Unclassified' species were those which did not
appear or did not receive a rating in Potapova and Charles (2007).
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 9
in Alberta
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 General Site Description
As mentioned earlier (Table 1), the three watersheds are located in different ecoregions
and they drain lands that are farmed with different intensity. In part as a result of these
different features, there were some important site-specific differences which would be
expected to influence biological communities.
The Rose Creek site had mostly erosional substrate (cobble, gravel) with small
depositional patches (sand and fines); at the time of sampling there was measurable flow
(Appendix 1). The Blindman River held both types of habitat, although depositional
substrate was dominant at the sampling site. There was some flow at the site, but it was
not measurable. The Strawberry Creek site was dominated by depositional substrates and
there was no flow at the time of sampling.
At the time of sampling water was well oxygenated, alkaline, and conductivity ranged
from 316 jj.S.cm"1 in Rose Creek to 611 jiS.cm"1 in Strawberry Creek. Macrophytes were
present at all sites, but they were abundant (25-50% coverage) at only one transect on
Strawberry Creek. Bank stability was considerably affected by uncontrolled access of
cattle to the Blindman River. Livestock trails were visible, but to a much lesser extent at
the Rose Creek site. Strawberry Creek had unstable banks, including some steep banks
with no vegetation and erodable soils; there was no evidence of cattle activity at this site.
Riparian cover at Rose Creek was comprised of sedges, shrubs, deciduous and coniferous
trees, and a relatively small amount of bare soil. At the Blindman River site grasses,
sedges and shrubs dominated along with bare soil especially where cattle accessed the
stream. Strawberry Creek had a mix of grass, sedges and shrubs with some deciduous
trees. Terrestrial canopy cover over the wetted area was low at all sites. A beaver dam
was present about 1 00 m upstream of the upper transect on the Blindman River, and
about 1 km downstream of the lower transect on Strawberry Creek. No beaver dams
were observed in the immediate vicinity of the Rose Creek site.
4.2 Practical Considerations about the Pilot Sampling
Following are general observations regarding time commitment, training requirement,
and suitability/practicality of sampling techniques.
It took each of three staff approximately 6, 7 and 9 hours to perform field data and
sample collections at Rose Cr., Strawberry Cr., and the Blindman River, respectively.
Time estimates for this pilot study are probably in excess of what would be required if
sampling was part of routine monitoring. Note that the Blindman River, which took the
greatest amount of time, involved much additional sampling (triplicate sampling of
benthic invertebrates and algae).
Field measurements such as GPS readings, hydrometric measurements, and multi-probe
readings require familiarity with equipment and procedures, but was otherwise easy to
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 10
in Alberta
standardize. The documentation of the various reach and bank characteristics was
somewhat more difficult to standardize because it involves visual observations and
qualitative measures.
Collection of benthic invertebrates with kick nets was the most practical approach
considering the wide range of variability in depth, substrate type and flow conditions
expected in streams across Alberta. Both kick nets (210 and 400 |Jm mesh size)
performed well in Rose Creek which had coarse substrates. Clogging of the nets with
fines was an issue in the Blindman River and Strawberry Creek which are more
depositional in nature. Kick nets only allow qualitative sampling (i.e., not quantitative).
Fixed-time sampling (3 minutes per sample in this pilot study) is one way of
standardizing the samples. However, additional factors need to be standardized among
sites, samplers, and over time to achieve reasonably consistent sampling. These include
the intensity of kicking, the velocity with which the net is swept back and forth, and the
sampler's travel speed. Staff training and reliance on experienced staff are critical in the
collection of samples that can be compared over time and among sites.
Suitable rocks for epilithic algae sampling were eventually found at all 3 stream sites.
However, the time involved in finding rocks was greatest at the Strawberry Creek site
which was more depositional in nature than the two other sites. Alternative sampling
approaches are needed to sample sandy or muddy sites devoid of rocks. The use of a
small (2.5 cm diameter) core is currently being tested to sample such fine-grained
substrates.
Sampling of water quality, including phytoplankton and sediments was straightforward at
all sites.
If sampling of AEH indicators in small streams were to become part of a regular
program, staff training and consistent involvement of experienced staff would be critical
in achieving consistency in site assessments and acquisition of standardized samples.
Based on the experience of this pilot study it is estimated that sampling of water,
sediments, benthic invertebrates (one kick net), epilithic algae and conducting the field
measurements would require a minimum of 2 to 3 hours from a well-trained crew of
three.
4.3 Sediment Analyses
Sediment analyses are summarized in Table 2. Particle size distribution illustrates some
of the habitat differences described earlier. Sediment collected from Rose Creek was
mostly sandy, whereas sediment from the other two sites also contained a substantial
amount of silt and clay. Organic carbon was low at all sites.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 1 1
in Alberta
Table 2 Sediment particle size and nutrient levels
Rose Creek
Blindman River
Strawberry Creek
Sand %
98
66
73
Silt %
<1
17
13
Clay %
2
17
15
Organic Carbon %
<0.8
<0.8
0.8
Inorganic Carbon %
0.4
1.8
1.6
Total Carbon %
0.6
2.3
2.4
Sediment TKN mg/kg
259
1860
939
Sediment TP mg/kg
504
842
541
Consistent with the substrate type and level of agricultural intensity, Rose Creek had the
lowest levels of total phosphorus and nitrogen. Blindman River sediments had the
highest levels of nutrients, along with the highest percentage of silt and clay.
4.4 Benthic Invertebrates
Comparison of sites
Benthic invertebrates were abundant and diverse in the three streams (Appendix 2). In
total, 128 taxa belonging to a wide variety of invertebrate taxonomic groups were
recorded (e.g., Turbellaria, Nematoda, Oligochaeta, Hirudinea, Cladocera, Copepoda,
Ostracoda, Amphipoda, Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera,
Coleoptera, Odonata, Mollusca, and Acari). Based on collections with both nets, the
number of invertebrates was lower in Rose Creek than in Strawberry Creek and the
Blindman River, in particular. However, taxonomic diversity was greater in Rose Creek
and the Blindman River than in Strawberry Creek (Figure 2 a, b, and e); this trend is
likely related to differences in substrate sampled in the three streams (Appendix 1).
The invertebrates collected with the 210 um net at the Rose Creek site were dominated
numerically by Chironomidae, Trichoptera, Ephemeroptera and Oligochaeta; other
groups such as Plecoptera and small crustaceans (Cladocera, Copepoda, Ostracoda) were
also well represented (Figure 2 d and e). Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera,
often referred to as "EPT" are, for the most part, typical inhabitants of erosional
substrates, and relatively good water quality, and they were most abundant and diverse in
Rose Creek (Figure 2 c). Another typical inhabitant of hard bottom erosional substrates
only encountered in Rose Creek was the mollusc Ferrissia rivularis (Appendix 2).
Despite the dominance of erosional species, some typical inhabitants of depositional
substrates included the burrowing mayfly Ephemera and small numbers of Ilyocryptus
sordidus, a benthic cladoceran with special adaptations (haemoglobin) to low dissolved
oxygen levels (Appendix 2).
The fauna from the Blindman River and Strawberry Creek site was dominated by small
crustaceans, Oligochaeta, and Chironomidae. Although some of the crustaceans are
planktonic (e.g., Daphnia, Chydorus, cyclopoid copepods), the typically benthic
Ilyocryptus sordidus was abundant at these sites. Amphipoda {Hyallella azteca and
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 12
in Alberta
Gammarus lacustris) were fairly abundant in the Blindman River, but they occurred in
low numbers in Strawberry Creek. Ephemeroptera and Trichoptera were present at the
Blindman River and Strawberry Creek sites although they were less diverse and abundant
than in Rose Creek. Leptophlebiidae were the only Trichoptera found at the Strawberry
Creek site. No Plecoptera were found in the Blindman River or Strawberry Creek.
The fauna from Rose Creek was indicative of a well oxygenated, erosional habitat with
moderate nutrient levels; whereas the fauna from the Blindman River site suggested a
mixed habitat, potentially with areas of low dissolved oxygen and generally with higher
nutrient levels. Substrate, flow and dissolved oxygen conditions appeared to be even
more restrictive in Strawberry Creek.
Although the variability in the number of benthic invertebrates in the Blindman River
replicates was large, particularly in the 210 |um mesh kick samples, the total number of
taxonomic groups per sample and the relative contribution of major taxonomic groups to
total numbers were less variable (Figure 2). This is relevant as it suggests that the
manner in which kick samples were collected provided a repeatable indication of the
invertebrate community composition.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 13
in Alberta
a. Total Numbers
250000
200000
150000
S 100000
50000
0
♦ 210 ym
m 400 [im
1 2 3
1=Rose, 2=Blindman, 3=Strawberry
c.%EPT
♦ 210|jm
■ 400 urn
1 2 3
1=Rose, 2=Blindman, 3=Straw berry
b. Total Number of Taxa
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
♦ 210 urn
■ 400 urn
1 2 3
1=Rose, 2=Blindman, 3=Strawberry
Note three replicate samples collected in the Blindman River
80
70
60
•o 50
x
«j
*- 40
6
z 30
20
10
d. No. Taxa Per Major Taxonomic Group (210 urn)
0 -I— '
— — — m
o
to
E
■D
C
m
CD
E
T3
CO
E
CD
-O
5
en
□ Others
■ Mollusca
■ Coleoptera
□ Amphipoda
□ Diptera
□ Chironomidae
■ Plecoptera
□ Trichptera
□ Ephemera ptera
■ Oligochaeta
□ Small crustaceans
f. No. Taxa Per Major Taxonomic Group (400 urn)
□ Others
■ Mollusca
■ Coleoptera
□ Amphipoda
■ Diptera
□ Chironomidae
■ Plecoptera
□ Trichptera
□ Ephemera ptera
■ Oligochaeta
□ Small crustaceans
e. Percent Contribution of Major Taxonomic
Groups to Total Numbers (210 urn kick samples)
□ Others
■ M ollusca
■ Coleoptera
□ Amphipoda
■ Diptera
□ Chironomidae
■ Plecoptera
□ Trichptera
□ Ephemera ptera
■ Oligochaeta
□ Small crustaceans
100%
80%
c
o
1 60%
*C
| 40%
O
20%
g. Percent Contribution of Major Taxonomic
Groups to Total Numbers (400 urn kick samples)
0%
CD
</)
O
I
c
CO
E T_
T3 at
m
c
CD
I ™
I ^
CD
CO
00
=tfc
CD
I
CD
JO
<:
-t— •
co
□ Others
■ Mollusca
■ Coleoptera
□ Amphipoda
■ Diptera
□ Chironomidae
■ Plecoptera
□ Trichptera
□ Ephemera ptera
■ Oligochaeta
□ Small crustaceans
Figure 2 Benthic invertebrate data for three agricultural streams
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 14
in Alberta
Comparison of samples collected with the 210 and 400 um kick samples
Differences among sites were consistent in samples collected with the 210 or 400 um
kick net. However, as could be expected, total counts in the 2 1 0 um nets were
consistently higher, or much higher, than in the corresponding 400 um. The difference in
taxonomic diversity between nets was not as pronounced, but samples collected with the
finer net had 2 to 6 additional species, compared to those collected with the coarse net
(Figure 2 a and b, Appendix 2).
Overall abundance and taxonomic diversity were lower in 400 um kick samples, but not
all taxonomic groups were affected in the same way (Appendix 2):
• Many of the small crustaceans are small enough that they could pass through the
400 um mesh. As a result their number and diversity were considerably lower in
the coarse kick net samples. With the exception of Simnocephalus, a rather large
cladoceran, small crustaceans would have been missed altogether at the Rose
Creek site with the 400 urn mesh kick sampler.
• Interestingly, some molluscs (e.g., Valvatidae, Pisidium and Sphaeridae), were
more numerous in the 400 than 210 |um kick samples.
• Furthermore, some invertebrates were encountered only in the 400 um kick
samples. These include the caddis flies Argaylea (Blindman), and Mystacides and
Amphicosmoecus (Rose Creek) and the stoneflies Pteronarcys and Perlodidae
(Rose Creek).
The differences in results between the two nets are likely due to the greater filtering
capacity of the coarse net. The fine net clogs up faster and once this happens organisms
can escape actively, or they can easily be washed away with water that does not pass
through the net anymore.
Considering that general faunal differences among sites remained consistent regardless of
the net used (i.e., interpretation of the data would have been similar), there are some
advantages in using the coarse net. These include dealing with samples that have
somewhat fewer, but larger organisms and the fact that the response to environmental
disturbance of many larger organisms is often better understood that that of small
crustaceans.
In a comparison of Bow River benthic invertebrate samples collected with Neill cylinder
and the same two kick nets as in this study, Saffran and Anderson (2009) also noted the
similarity in general longitudinal patterns obtained regardless of sampler, or mesh size
used. However, because there is a historical invertebrate database that relied on Neill
samples, and also because of advantages offered by routinely replicated Neill cylinder
samples in statistical significance testing, recommendations were made to continue using
Neill samplers in large provincial rivers.
There is no historical database for benthic invertebrates in agricultural streams and,
hence, considering their apparent advantages, the use of 400um kick nets, could be
recommended in future sampling of small streams. Substrate can vary considerably in
agricultural streams and kick nets could be used in erosional or depositional type
substrates where Ekman grabs and Neill cylinders, respectively, would not be suitable.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 15
in Alberta
4.5 Epilithic Algae
Epilithic algae formed diverse species associations at the three sites. Diatoms
(Bacillariophyceae) were the most diverse group with a total record of 85 different taxa
belonging to 25 genera. Chlorophytes (Chlorophyceae) with 27 different taxa (12 genera)
were the second most diverse, followed by Cyanobacteria with 15 different taxa (11
genera). Xanthophyceae and Dinophyceae were minor groups in terms of taxonomic
diversity (one taxon each), abundance and biomass (Figure 3, Appendix 3).
Cell counts and biomass were greatest in Strawberry Creek (Figure 4 a, b) and taxonomic
diversity was lowest in Rose Creek (Figure 4 c). Diatoms and Cyanobacteria contributed
most to cell counts and biomass, but the chlorophytes Spirogyra sp. and Cladophora sp.
were important biomass contributors in one of the replicates taken at the Blindman River
site and at the Strawberry Creek site, respectively (Figure 3 a, b, d, Appendix 3).
Dominant diatoms in terms of biomass contribution were Cocconeis pediculus,
Cocconeis placentula (Rose Creek), Cocconeis placentuala (Blindman River),
Mastogloia smithii and Rhopalodia gibba (Strawberry Creek). Gloeotrichia
(Cyanobacteria) and Cladophora sp. and Pediastrum boryanum (Chlorophyceae)
dominated the biomass at Strawberry Creek (Appendix 3).
Replicates (each consisting of scraping from 3 rocks taken from each of the 3 transects)
taken at the Blindman River site show that there are differences in the diversity, cell
counts and calculated biomass (Figure 3), although the same major groups account for
most of the abundance and diversity (Figure 4). The largest differences among the three
replicates occur in biomass estimates and are due to the importance of one
Chlorophyceae taxon {Spirogyra sp.) in one of the replicates and not the other (Figure 3
d, Appendix 3). These differences are indicative of natural spatial heterogeneity, and
QA/QC samples need to be incorporated in further stream sampling to verify how
representative composite samples (3 rocks from each of 3 transects) are of the sampled
stream reach.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams
in Alberta
(ft
tn
re
E
o
CO
w
Q.
3
2
to
E
o
c
o
X
u
o
•5"
5
3
O
o
r
CD
.O
5
CD
l_
CO
CO
c
CD
E
CD
CM
C
CD
E
"O
m
c
CD
E
"O
c
CO
CD
O
o
o
O
O
o
o
O
O
in
o
in
O
CN
CM
o
o
in
CO
o
CL
o
CD
CO
CD
o
><
-C
CL
O
.C
c
CO
X
CD
CO
<D
o
>^
.c
CL
O
□
CO
o
CO
n
o
c
CO
>»
a
C/3
E
o
TO
b
□
Qiuo/Brl) sseiuojg
CO
E
cu
0
</)
15
o
o
"5
■*-»
o
I-
o
+->
(A
a
3
2
o
o
I
o
c
o
X
(0
o
're
S
o
c
o
3
.O
u
■*-*
C
o
o
0
CO
CO
%
c
CD
E
■o
c
CD
CM
C
CD
E
■o
_c
55
=8:
C
CD
E
■a
_c
S
CD
W
o
a:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1^
CO
m
CO
CM
CD
CO
a>
o
>.
-C
CL
o
c
CD
CO
CD
O
>»
.£=
CL
O
C
CO
X
CD
CO
CD
o
>%
-C
Cl
o
o
□
co
o
CO
o
c
CO
>,
o
U5
E
o
re
b
□
( ujo/'ou) sjunoo
O)
a
o
■ M
E
o
c
o
X
o
E
to
O)
o
a
LU
CO
£
Chlorophyll levels varied substantially among the three replicate samples collected at
each site and this illustrates the variability among transects (Figure 4d). In contrast with
biomass estimates based on cell volumes (Figure 4 b), chlorophyll-^/ levels, which also
are an indicator of biomass, were highest at the Blindman site and they were rather
similar between Rose and Strawberry creeks (Figure 4 d). Based on biomass calculated
from cell volumes, Strawberry Creek had the highest biomass, but not based on
Chlorophyll-a. The difference may be due to the dominance of Gloeotrichia at the site.
Gloeotrichia forms mucilaginous colonies which can become very abundant and coat the
substrate with a thick mucilaginous film. The chlorophyll-a content, however, may be
rather low as phycobilins, rather than chlorophyll-a, tend to be the dominant
photosynthetic pigment in cyanobacteria. Hence, taxonomic information is an insightful
complement to chlorophyll-a measurements and contributes to a better understanding of
biomass patterns in epilithic communities.
The relationship between diatom distribution and water quality is better documented than
that of soft bodied algae (Potapova 2005), and diatoms are widely used to monitor river
conditions in the United States and Europe (Potapova and Charles 2007, Tison et al.
2005).
Nutrient preference classes and N and P preference indices derived by Potapova and
Charles (2007) were applied, to determine if diatom metrics could be used to differentiate
among agricultural streams (Figure 5). This is one way in which relationships between
nutrient levels and diatom species composition can be established in agricultural streams.
Rose Creek had a lower index value for P (Figure 5 a) and N (Figure 5b) than the
Blindman River and Strawberry Creek. In Strawberry Creek, and especially the
Blindman River, species with high nutrient preference were considerably more abundant
than species with low nutrient preference (Figure 5 c to d). In Rose Creek, numeric
contributions of diatoms with high and low nutrient preferences were equivalent.
Total nutrient concentrations in our agricultural streams are rather high compared to the
threshold ranges defined by Potopova and Charles (2007) (Table 1). For TP and TN the
three pilot streams would all fall in the high nutrient range. If dissolved nutrients were
considered, Rose Creek would fit in an intermediate range for TDP, while the Blindman
River and Strawberry Creek still fit in the 'high' range. All streams would fall in the
intermediate range for dissolved nitrogen. The differences among sites in nutrient
preferences of diatoms are consistent with the differences in nutrient levels observed in
water and sediments. This suggests that diatoms may be potential indicators of the
trophic status of agricultural streams.
As noted by Potapova and Charles (2007), metrics derived from diatom-nutrient
relationships tend to be more useful when they are derived from, and employed in
regional-scale studies rather than continental or intercontinental studies. As more
epilithic algal taxonomy information is associated with water quality information, it will
become possible to refine such metrics for Alberta.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 19
in Alberta
a. Diatom Index Based on TP Preference
55
a.
>
x
<u
■D
c
10
o 4-
1 2 3
1=Rose, 2=Blindman; 3=Strawberry
45
40
2 35
55
S 30
« 25
« 20
g 15
= 10
5
b. Diatom Index Based on TN Preference
1 2 3
1= Rose, 2= Blindman, 3=Strawberry
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
c. Total Counts of Diatoms Linked to TP
Preference
♦
1 2 3
1=Rose, 2=Blindman; 3=Strawberry
♦ High
I Low
i Not Classified
900000
800000
,4- 700000
§ 600000
0 500000
^ 400000
1 300000
O 200000
100000
0
d. Total Counts of Diatoms Linked to TN
Preference
1 2 3
1= Rose, 2= Blindman, 3=Strawberry
♦ High
I Low
i Not Classified
2 100%
<u
n
E
3
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
e. % Diatoms Linked to TP Preference
o
a:
E ^
■D »
C *
55
c
nj
1 *
CD
□ % High P ■ % Low P □ % Not Classified
f. % Diatoms Linked to TN Preference
<« 100%
80%
"5 60%
40% —
5 20%
0%
o
E ^
"2 *
"2 %
2 =tt
jo
OJ
□ % High N
I % Low N □ % Not Classified
Figure 5 Diatom metrics for monitoring eutrophication in agricultural
streams (after Potapova and Charles, 2007)
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 20
in Alberta
4.6 Phytoplankton
A total of 50 individual taxa, comprising 35 different genera were recorded in
phytoplankton samples. These include Cyanobacteria (5 taxa, 5 genera), Chlorophyceae
(16 taxa, 12 genera), Chrysophyceae (5 taxa, 3 genera), Cryptophyceae (8 taxa, 3 genera),
Euglenophyceae (3 taxa, 3 genera), Dinophyceae (3 taxa, 1 genus), and Bacillariophyceae
(Diatoms: 10 taxa, 9 genera) (Appendix 4). The algal classes Chrysophyceae,
Cryptophyceae and Euglenophyceae which occurred in plankton were not found in the
epilithic algal samples (Appendix 3).
The three replicates collected sequentially at the lower transect in the Blindman River
showed a lot of variability in terms of cell counts, biomass, taxonomic diversity (taxa and
genera) and specific taxonomic compositions (Figures 6 and 7). The degree of variability
observed at the Blindman site encompassed the range of variability observed at the three
sites. On average, cell counts, biomass and diversity were slightly higher at the
Blindman site, but chlorophyll-a content (single sample) was noticeably higher (Figure
6). The high degree of variability observed in phytoplankton replicates from the
Blindman site may be an indication of heterogeneity in phytoplankton communities of
small streams. If this is the case, composite samples taken along the sampling reach
would likely be better indicators of site conditions than single grab samples.
Cryptophytes and Euglenophytes were numerically abundant at all sites (Figure 7).
Chlorophytes contributed most to the biomass and diversity of Rose Creek, and they were
diverse and important contributors to the biomass in one of the Blindman replicates, but
not the others. Chlorophytes were poorly represented at the Strawberry Creek site where
Cyanobacteria were more abundant and diverse and contributed more to the biomass than
at any other site. Cyanobacteria were not recorded in the phytoplankton from Rose
Creek. Although diatoms were present at all sites, their abundance, biomass and diversity
was rather low, especially compared to their importance in epilithic algal samples.
Individual species which were important biomass contributors at Rose Creek were
Mougeotia (Chlorophyceae) and Cocconeis (Bacillariophyceae). Cryptomonas marsonii
and Rhodomonas minuta (Cryptophyceae) and Euglena minuta were important at
Strawberry Creek. At the Blindman River site, Chlamidomonas (Chlorophyceae),
Cryptomonas erosa, Cryptomonas reflexa and Rhodomonas minuta (Cryptophyceae) and
Euglena minuta (Euglenophyta) contributed substantially to the biomass of each of the
three replicates. Other species were important in only one or two of the Blindman River
replicates (e.g., Cocconeis, Cryptomonas erosa, unidentified Chrysophytes, Pediastrum
boryanum, and Microspord).
The diversity of diatoms in phytoplankton samples was far too low to attempt to calculate
Potapova and Charles' nutrient indices, or to relate diatom nutrient preferences to trophic
status.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 21
in Alberta
m
ooooooooo
oooooooo
CD^tOsJOOOCO^TCN
(~|/6rl) ssewoig
c
3
O
o
o
w
a
3
O
o
E
o
c
o
X
ra
I-
k_
o
S
3
C
O
o
5
CO
CO
CD
c
CO
0)
W3
<d
CO
CO
ft
-C
Cl
o
o
o
□
J)
o
co
J3
o
c
5.
C_>
□
CO
<D
ft
sz
Q.
O
c
a)
CD
LU
□
CD
ca
<D
ft
.c
CL
o
O
<D
co
CD
ft
-C
Q.
O
8-
_c
O
□
o
O
O
o
o
o
O
o
o
o
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
IT)
o
in
o
CNJ
CM
(l/ ou) sjunoo
E
</>
3
3
O
(0
a
O
O)
o
E
o
c
o
X
(0
+■»
p
E
a>
TO
O)
03
o
'E
o
+■»
c
_ro
e
■ BB
LL
03
CD
-Q
CO
E
co
CD
L_
CO
"co
i_
"5
o
CJ)
<
"CO
E
(75
CJ)
c
c
o
CD
O
"CJ)
O
o
co
o
■4— I
y
o
CD
l_
Q_
0
■C
0)
03
CD
>
LU
O
>>
TJ
CO
o
5.0 GENERAL DISCUSSION
5.1 Suitability and Practicality of Monitoring Techniques
The pilot study has illustrated the practicality of collecting biological communities and
sediments from small Alberta streams.
• Kick net samples collected with a 400 urn mesh offer some advantages over those
collected with the 210 um and would be recommended for further sampling of
small streams.
• Sediment and epilithic algal sampling procedures described in AENV (2006) were
appropriate for agricultural streams. However, rocks suitable for epilithic algal
sampling are often difficult to find in streams where depositional habitats prevail.
The use of alternate sampling methods needs to be investigated further (e.g.,
"mini core" sampler).
• A critical goal of future sampling should be to ensure that samples and field
information are collected in a consistent manner by experienced staff so that data
are comparable over time and among sites. Although this is a general requirement
of any sampling program, it applies particularly to AEH-related sampling
components that are qualitative or semi-quantitative, or that rely, to some extent,
on value judgement (e.g., benthic invertebrate kick samples, field observations of
bank and reach characteristics). Sampling protocols need to be developed and
included in the field manual, and staff training ensured.
5.2 Selection of Potential Indicators of Health
Benthic invertebrate and algal communities were diverse and abundant and offer good
potential for further monitoring, along with water and sediment quality. Involvement of
trained field staff and diverse scientific expertise through the full monitoring, evaluation,
and reporting process is important. This expertise should complement and build on
existing information when appropriate. Examples of existing information for benthic
invertebrate and algal groups include:
• Benthic invertebrates have been used widely to document the ecological "health"
or "integrity" of surface waters and they have been used extensively in
biomonitoring programs (e.g., Klemm et al. 2003, Wright et al. 1995, Sylvestre et
al. 2005). Ecological requirements and responses to various forms of disturbance,
such as nutrient enrichment and toxicity, are relatively well understood (e.g.,
Hilsenhoff 1987, 1988, Mandaville, 2002, Carlisle et al. 2007). Biological criteria
have been developed for many states in the U.S. (e.g., Younos 2002). There is
obvious benefit to including benthic invertebrates in future biological monitoring
of small streams. The composition and abundance of aquatic communities, such
as benthic invertebrates, integrate changes in the chemical and physical
environment, unlike water quality samples which represent conditions at the time
of sampling.
• In addition, algal growth on bottom substrates is a very useful measure of the
influences of nutrient enrichment in streams. For example, diatoms have also
been widely used to assess various stressors on water quality (e.g., NAWQA data
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 24
in Alberta
set used in Potapova and Charles 2005), species specific responses to nutrient
enrichment, acidification, and discharge alterations have been documented and
many indices have been developed to summarize responses to environmental
changes (e.g., Soininen 2004,Potapova and Charles 2005, Tison et al 2005).
Some researchers believe that diatoms are a more sensitive indicator to nutrient
enrichment than benthic invertebrates (Steinberg and Schiefele 1988). The wealth
of species-specific ecological information and the numeric and taxonomic
dominance of diatoms in our epilithic algal samples, flags this group, in
association with other epilithic algal species, as a potentially powerful biological
indicator of eutrophication in small streams. This along with the relative ease to
standardize collection and, compared to benthic invertebrates, more moderate
sample processing cost makes epilithic algal communities a top candidate for
further monitoring in small streams.
• In contrast, phytoplankton communities were the least diverse and most variable
in terms of abundance and diversity. Diatoms were a relatively minor element of
the phytoplankton associations, which were dominated by so-called "soft algae".
Although soft algae are routinely monitored, their taxonomy and ecological
requirements are not as well known (Potapova 2005). The phytoplankton species
composition in our samples could be influenced, in part, by the time of year
samples were collected (e.g., diatoms would likely be more abundant and diverse
in spring e.g., Gamier et al. 1995). Overall phytoplankton in this pilot study
appeared to yield less easily interpretable information than either benthic
invertebrates or epilithic algae.
Information on sediment quality is needed to establish baseline conditions and further
sampling of sediments in agricultural streams is recommended. There is a need to
evaluate variables closely associated with agricultural activities, such as pesticides,
pharmaceuticals and feed additives used in the livestock industry. In some cases, the
evaluation of sediment quality data is hampered by the limited number of effects
guidelines or thresholds to assess the significance of contaminant detections.
5.3 Considerations for Future AEH Monitoring of Agricultural Streams
Currently, one of the difficulties in assessing AEH in Alberta lies in defining the
characteristics of 'healthy' aquatic ecosystems. Considerable progress has been made in
the United States over the last 20 years to narrow down the concepts of biological
"health" or 'integrity'. Following are key references extracted from Davis and Simon
(1995):
• Biological integrity is defined as ". . .the ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support
and maintain a balanced, adaptive community of organisms having a species
composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to natural habitats
of a region" (Karr and Dudley 1981).
• It is recognized that entirely natural or unimpaired habitats may no longer exist,
but an estimate of expected biological integrity in surface waters can be based
upon "least impacted conditions" or "reference conditions".
• Least impacted reference conditions form the basis for developing biological
goals, or biological criteria.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 25
in Alberta
The regional scale that is used to define biological criteria may vary among water body
types, but ecoregions have been favoured for small to medium-sized streams by many
researchers and agencies (e.g. Omernik 1995, Stoddard 2005, Tison 2005). Various
stream types may exist within an ecoregion and in order to maximise the relevance of
reference conditions, it is useful to classify streams based on natural hydrological features
(e.g., stream order, drainage basin size, discharge patterns, contributing areas), and man-
made features, in this case mostly related to non point sources (e.g., land use in watershed
and along riparian areas, road crossings).
According to Hughes (1995), the number of reference sites needed to characterize
reference conditions is a function of regional variability and size, the desired level of
detectable change, resources and study objectives. Hughes proposed that 20 randomly
selected sites from candidate reference sites in a given region provide a reasonable
estimate of reference conditions. These selected sites could be subdivided in groups that
account for different stream types.
The next and essential step is to acquire sufficient biological information from reference
sites and match it with relevant chemical and physical characteristics of streams and
watersheds. Such dataset would form the basis for developing biological criteria.
Biocriteria may differ in nature, and, or numerical value depending on the ecoregion and
type of stream (e.g., biocriteria based on Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera may
be relevant in Foothill stream, but not grassland streams where diversity and abundance
of these groups is low).
Following are some key implications for the development of an AEH monitoring
program on agricultural streams in Alberta.
• The AESA stream network offers a reasonable foundation in the sense that the 23
streams were selected from major ecoregions where agriculture is an important
land use; streams were ranked according to agricultural intensity in their basins.
There is a historical water quality database spanning a period of 8 to 13 years,
depending on the stream. Surface water quality sampling was interrupted for all
but 8 streams in 2008 and water quality sampling would need to resume.
• In order to define background conditions it would be necessary to expand the
network. Considering that most of the network encompasses 4 ecoregions this
could imply that a minimum of 80 (20 times 4) streams would need to be selected
and monitored to establish reference conditions. In some instances it may be
possible to select streams that are 'minimally' impacted, but in others, such as
grassland streams in central Alberta, or irrigation canals, the goal may be simply
to define current baseline conditions. Establishing background conditions can
require several years. Rosenberg et al. (1999) sampled 219 sites over a three year
period to establish reference conditions for benthic invertebrate monitoring in the
Fraser River catchment in British Columbia.
• Frequency and intensity of monitoring would be high initially (e.g., many streams
over a period of 2 to 3 years). Later on monitoring could be reduced to a selection
of representative streams (e.g., the established AESA network, every 5 years).
Periodic validation of a selection of reference sites would be useful to account for
temporal variability.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 26
in Alberta
• Timing of sampling would be particularly critical in ephemeral streams of
grassland and Parkland regions where late spring may be the only time with
flowing water and established biological communities. Sampling in Foothills and
Boreal plain streams could likely be postponed to early summer.
Although the financial commitment to such monitoring program is large, it is one of the
realities of meaningful monitoring and reporting on aquatic ecosystem health. In this
case, strong baseline information would be established and biocriteria could be developed
to report periodically on aquatic ecosystem health of agricultural streams.
It is expected that the value of biomonitoring of agricultural streams would extend well
beyond periodic reporting on aquatic ecosystem health of these streams.
• Establishing reference conditions for a variety of streams would be very helpful to
assess effects of other land uses (e.g., forestry or urban development).
• Another major application of biomonitoring information could be the assessment
of the effectiveness of beneficial management practices, including riparian
conditions, on aquatic ecosystem health (e.g., if nutrient control measures on land
are effective one would expect to see corresponding changes in epilithic algal and
benthic invertebrate communities).
• As nutrient and diatom association datasets for Alberta streams and rivers are
expanded, the possibility would exist to validate nutrient tolerance ranges (e.g., as
defined by Potapova and Charles 2007) for the range of regional conditions in
Alberta, thereby refining the value of diatoms in the assessment of stream
eutrophication in Alberta.
• Preference ranges for other species groups could also be investigated with
associated data sets (e.g., Carlisle et al. 2007 investigated the influence of water
quality on benthic invertebrate distribution).
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 27
in Alberta
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
6.1 General Literature
Alberta Environment. 2006. Aquatic Ecosystems Field Sampling Protocols.
Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation Branch, Environmental Assurance
Division, Alberta Environment. 137 pp.
Anderson, A.-M. 1998. Water quality Monitoring program 1997. Annual Technical
Report. Water quality monitoring of agricultural streams and lakes. Prepared for
the AESA Water Quality Committee. Published by Alberta Agriculture, Food and
Rural Development, Edmonton, AB.
Anderson, A.-M. 2000. Water quality Monitoring program 1998. Annual Technical
Report. Water quality monitoring of agricultural streams and lakes. Prepared for
the AESA Water Quality Committee. Published by Alberta Agriculture, Food and
Rural Development, Edmonton, AB.
Anderson, A.-M., D.O. Trew, R.D. Neilson, N.D. MacAlpine, and R. Borg. 1998.
Impacts of agriculture on surface water quality in Alberta. Part II. Provincial
stream survey. Prepared for the CAES A Water Quality Committee. Published by
AAFRD, Edmonton. 91 pp.
Anderson, A.-M., S.E. Cooke and N.MacAlpine 1999. Watershed selection for AESA
stream monitoring program. Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture,
Resource Monitoring, Water Quality. 159 p.
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyteon, Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Carle, N. 2001. Water Quality Monitoring Program 2000. Annual Technical Report:
Water Quality Monitoring of Small Streams in Agricultural Areas. Prepared for
the AESA Water Quality Committee. Published by Alberta Agriculture, Food and
Rural Development, Edmonton, AB.
Carlisle, D.M., M.R. Meador, S.R. Moulton II, P. M. Ruhl. 2007. Estimation and
application of indicator values for common macroinvertebrate genera and families
of the United States. Ecological Indicators 7: 22-33.
Davis, W.D. and T. P. Simon. Eds. 1995. Biological Assessment and Criteria tools for
water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton.
415p.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 28
in Alberta
Depoe, S. 2006a. Water Quality Monitoring Program 2004. Annual Technical Report:
Water Quality Monitoring of Small Streams in Agricultural Areas. Prepared for
the AESA Water Quality Committee. Published by Alberta Agriculture, Food and
Rural Development (AAFRD), Edmonton, Alberta. 59 pp.
Depoe, S. 2006b. Water Quality Monitoring Program 2003. Annual Technical Report:
Water Quality Monitoring of Small Streams in Agricultural Areas. Prepared for
the AESA Water Quality Committee. Published by Alberta Agriculture, Food and
Rural Development (AAFRD), Edmonton, Alberta. 55 pp.
Depoe, S. 2004. Water Quality Monitoring Program 2002. Annual Technical Report:
Water Quality Monitoring of Small Streams in Agricultural Areas. Prepared for
the AESA Water Quality Committee. Published by AAFRD, Edmonton, Alberta.
59 pp.
Depoe, S. and C.J.Westbrook, 2003. Water Quality Monitoring Program 2001. Annual
Technical Report: Water Quality Monitoring of Small Streams in Agricultural
Areas. Prepared for the AESA Water Quality Committee. Published by AAFRD,
Edmonton, AB. 58 pp.
Elliott, J.M. 1977. Some methods for the statistical analysis of samples of benthic
invertebrates. Freshwater Biological Association Scientific Publication No. 25.
160p.
Gamier, J. G. Billen and M. Coste. 1995. Seasonal succession of diatoms and
Chlorophyceae in the drainage network of the Seine River: Observation and
modeling. Limnol. Oceanogr. 40(4) 750-765.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great
Lakes Entomol. 20(1): 31-36.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level
biotic index. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 7(1): 65-68.
Hughes, R.M. 1995. Defining acceptable biological status by comparing with reference
conditions. P31-47. In: Davis, W.D. and T. P. Simon. Eds. 1995. Biological
Assessment and Criteria tools for water resource planning and decision making.
Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. 415p.
Jacques Whitford. 2005. Scope of work for the initiatl Assessment of aquatic ecosystem
health in Alberta. Prepared for Alberta Environment, Edmonton. 47 p.
Jones, C. Somers, K.M. Craig, B. and Reynoldson, T. 2004. Ontario Benthos
Biomonitoring Network protocol manual. Version 1. Ontario Minister of the
Environment, Environment Canada, Acadia Centre for Estuarine Research,
Ontario.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 29
in Alberta
Klemm, J. K.A. Bloksom, F.A. Fulk, A.T. Herlihy, R,M. Hughes, P.R. Kaufmann, D.V.
Peck, J.L. Stoddard, W. T. Thoeny and M.B. Griffith. 2003. Development and
evaluation of a macroinvertebrate biotic integrity index (MBII) for regionally
assessing Mid- Atlantic Highlands streams. Environmental Management Vol. 31
(5): 656-669.
Lorenz K., S. Depoe and C. Phelan. 2008 (Draft). Assessment of Environmental
Sustainability in Alberta's Agricultural Watershed Project. Water Resources
Branch, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development.
Mandaville, S.M. 2002. Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Freshwaters - Taxa Tolerance
Values, Metrics, and Protocols. Project H-l. Soil and Water Conservation
Society of Metro Halifax. 48 pp. + Appendices.
Marchant, R. 1989. A subsampler for samples of benthic invertebrates. Bulleting of the
Australian Society of Limnology 12: 49-52.
National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/
North South Consultants Inc., Clearwater Consultants Inc. and Patricia Mitchell
Environmental Consulting. 2007. Information synthesis and initial assessment of
the status and health of aquatic ecosystems in Alberta: Surface water Quality,
sediment quality and non-fish biota. Prepared for Alberta Environment,
Edmonton, Alberta, http : //environment, go v. ab . ca/ info/librarv/7 8 6 1 .pdf
Omnerik, J.M. 1995. Ecoregions: a spatial Framework for environmental management. P
49- 62. In: Davis, W.D. and T. P. Simon. Eds. 1995. Biological Assessment and
Criteria tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton. 415p.
Potapova, M. 2005. Relationships of soft-bodied algae to water quality and habitat
characteristics in U.S. rivers: Analysis of the National Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) program data set. Report No 05-08. The Academy of Natural
Sciences. Philadelphia. 28p.
Potapova, M. and D.F. Charles. 2007. Diatom metrics for monitoring eutrophication in
rivers of the United States. Ecological Indicators 7: 48-70
Saffran, K.A.S., and A.-M. Anderson 2009 (Draft). An assessment of benthic
invertebrates and epilithic algae at long-term river in the Bow River (Fall 2006).
Alberta Environment. 157p
Soininen, J. 2004. Benthic diatom community structure in Boreal Streams. Distribution
patterns along environmental and spatial gradients. Department of Biological and
Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. 46 p.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 30
in Alberta
Stambaugh, C. J. Schieck and B. Eaton. 2006. Stream and wetland field data eollection
protocols: Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring program. Alberta Research Council,
Vegreville, Alberta. 26p.
Steinberg, C. and S. Schiefele. 1988. Biological indication of trophy and pollution of
running waters, Z Wasser-Abwasser Forsch 21 : 227-234. Cited in Soininen, J.
2004
Stoddard, J.L. 2005. Use of ecological regions in aquatic assessments of ecological
condition. Environmental Management 34(1): 61-70.
Sylvestre, S. 2004. Invertebrate Biomonitoring Field and Laboratory Manual for running
water habitats. Enironment Canada, Pacific and Yukon Region.
Sylvestre, S. M. Fluegel and T. Tuominen. 2005. Benthic invertebrate assessment of
streams in the Georgia Basin using the reference condition approach: Expansion
of the Fraser River Monitoring Program. Environment Canada. Environmental
Conservation Branch. Vancouver, British Columbia.
Tison, J., Y.-S. Park, M. Coste, J.G. Wasson, L. Ector. F. Rimet and F. Delmas. 2005.
Typology of diatom communities and the influence of hydro-ecoregions: A study
on the French hydrosystem scale. Water Research 39:3 1 77-3 1 88.
Wright, LA., B.C. Chessman, P.G. Fairweather and LJ. Benson L.J. 1995. Measuring
the impact of sewage effluent on the macroinvertebrate community of an upland
stream: the effect of
Wrona, F.G., M.G. Culp and R.W. Davies. 1982. Macroinvertebrate subsampling: A
simplified apparatus and approach. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39: 1051-1054.
Younos, T. (Ed.) 2002. Advances in water monitoring research. Lavoisier Librairie. 230p
6.2 Taxonomic References: Benthic Invertebrates
Alexander, C. P. & G. W. Byers. 1981. Tipulidae. Pp. 153-190. IN: Manual of Nearctic
Diptera, Vol L Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Anonymous. 1997. A key to Cladocera (Crustacea) of British Columbia. Resources
Inventory Committee. Victoria, BC.
Anonymous. 2003. Buglab Key to Western Baetidae Nymphs.
www.usu.edu/buglab/proiects/Western%20Baetidae%20Nymphs.pdf
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 3 1
in Alberta
Anonymous. 2003. A image-based key to the zooplankton of the Northeast (USA).
Version 2.0. Center for Freshwater Biology, Department of Zoology, University
of New Hampshire. Dyrham: NH. http ://c fb . unh . edu/CFBke v/ind ex . html
Anonymous. 2005. The Mayflies of North America (Mayfly Central).
www.entm.purdue/entomologv/research/mavfry
Bednarik, A. F. & W. P. McCafferty. 1979. Biosystematic revision of the genus
Stenonema (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae). Government of Canada, Fisheries
and Oceans Bulletin 201. Ottawa, ON.
Balcer, M. D., N. L. Korda & S. I. Dodson. 1984. Zooplankton of the Great Lakes: A
guide to the identification and ecology of the common crustacean species.
University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI.
Baumann, R.W., A.R. Gaufin, and R.F. Surdick 1977. The stoneflies (Plecoptera) of the
Rocky Mountains. Mem. Am. Ent. Soc. 31: 1-208.
Brigham, A. R., W. U. Brigham & A. Gnilka (eds.). 1982. Aquatic insects and
oligochaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic Enterprises:
Mahomet, IL.
Brinkhurst, R. O. 1986. Guide to the freshwater aquatic microdile oligochaetes of North
America. Department of Fisheries and Oceans: Ottawa, ON.
Burian, S. K. 2001. A revision of the genus Leptophlebia Westwood in North America
(Ephemeroptera: Leptophlebiidae: Leptophlebiinae). Ohio Biological Survey
13(3). Columbus, OH.
Cannings, R. A. & K. M. Stuart. 1977. The dragonflies of British Columbia. British
Columbia Provincial Museum-Handbook No. 35. Victoria, BC.
Clarke, A. H. 1981. The freshwater mollusks of Canada. National Museum of Natural
Sciences. Ottawa, ON.
Clifford, H.C. 1991. Aquatic Invertebrates of Alberta. The University of Alberta Press.
Edmonton, Alberta. 538 pp.
Davies, R. W. 1971. A key to the freshwater Hirudinoidea of Canada. J. Fish. Res. Bd.
Canada. 28: 543-552.
Dillon, R. T., Jr. 2006. Key to freshwater gastropods of the Pacific Northwest. The
Xerces Society: Pacific Northwest Taxonomic Workshop - Gastropoda. Missoula,
MT. May 11-12,2006.
Dillon, R., Jr. no date. Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Committee on the
Status & Distribution of Gastropods. www.cofc.edu/%7Efwgna/fwgnahome.htm
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 32
in Alberta
Edmunds, G. F., S. L. Jensen & L. Brener. 1976. The mayflies of North America.
University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN.
Edmondson, W. T. 1959. Fresh-water biology (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, New York,
NY.
Epler, J. H. 2001. Identification manual for the larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of North
and South Carolina. A guide to the taxonomy of the midges of the southeastern
United States, including Florida. Special Publication SJ2001-SP13. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, Raleigh, NC and St. Johns River Water Management District. Palatka,
FL.
Jacobus, L. & R. P. Randolph. 2005. Mayflies in Moscow: Northwest Ephemeroptera
Nymphs. Northwest Biological Assessment Workshop. University of Idaho.
Moscow, ID.
Havel, J. & R. Rhodes 1998. The zooplankton project. Southwest Missouri State
University, http://science.smsu.edu/zooplankton/
Kathman, R. D. & R. O. Brinkhurst. 1999 (revised). Guide to the freshwater oligochaetes
of North America. Aquatic Resources Center, College Grove, TN.
Klemm, D. J. 1985. A guide to the freshwater Annelida (Polychaeta, Naidid and
Tubificid Oligochaeta, and Hirudinea of North America). Kendall/Hunt
Publishing. Dubuque, IA.
Korinek, V. 1981. Diaphanosoma birgei n.sp. (Crustacea, Cladocera). A new species
form America and its widely distributed subspecies Diaphanosoma birgei ssp.
Lacustris n.ssp. Can. J. Zool. 59: 1115-1121.
Korinek, V. 1987. Revision of three species of the genus Diaphanosoma Fischer, 1850.
Hydrobiologia 145: 35-45.
Larson, D. J.; Y. Alarie & R. E. Roughly. 2000. Predaceous diving beetles (Coleoptera:
Dytiscidae) of the Neartic region, with emphasis on the fauna of Canada and
Alaska. NRC Press. Ottawa, ON.
Lowen, R. G. & J. F. Flannagan. 1990. The nymph and male of Centroptilum infrequens
MCD (Baetidae). IN: Mayflies and Stoneflies: I.C. Campbell (ed.). pp. 31 1-321.
Kluwer Academic Publishers. Toronto, ON.
Lowen, R. G. & J. F. Flannagan. 1991. Four Manitoba species of Centroptilum Eaton
(Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) with remarks on the genus. IN: Overview and
strategies of Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera. J. Alba-Tercedor & A. Sanchez-
Ortega (eds.). Sandhill Crane Press. Gainesville, FL.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 33
in Alberta
Lowen, R. G. & J. F. Flannagan. 1992. Nymphs and imagoes of four North American
species of Procloeon Bengtsson with description of a new species
(Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Can. Ent. 124: 97-108.
May, M.L. & P.S. Corbet. 2001. Occurrence and taxonomic significance of a palpal
spine in larvae of Enallagma and other genera (Odonata: Coenagrionidae).
International J. Odonatology 4(1): 41-49.
Milligan, M. R. 1997. Identification manual for the aquatic oligochaeta of Florida.
Volume I: Freshwater oligochaeta. Sarasota, FL.
McCafferty, W. P. & R. D. Waltz. 1990. Revisionary synopsis of the Baetidae
(Ephemeroptera) of North and Middle America. Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc.
116(4): 769-799.
Merritt, R. W. & K. W. Cummins (eds.) 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of
North America (3rd ed.). Kendall/Hunt Publishing. Dubuque, IA.
Morihara, D. K. & W. P. McCafferty. 1979. The Baetis larvae of North America
(Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 105:139-221.
Nimmo, A. P. 1965. A new species of Psychoglypha Ross from western Canada, with
notes on several other species of Limnephilidae (Trichoptera). Can. J. Zool. 43:
781-787.
Pescador, M. L. & A. K. Rasmussen. 1995. Identification manual for the caddisfly
(Trichoptera) of Florida. Department of Environmental Protection, Division of
Water Facilities. Tallahassee, FL.
Poirrier, M. A. & Y. M. Arceneaux. 1972. Studies on southern Sisyridae (Spongilla-
flies) with a key to the third-instar larvae and additional sponge-host records.
Amer. Midland Nat. 88(2): 455-458.
Pupedis, R. J. 1980. Generic differences among new world Spongilla-fly larvae and a
description of the female of Climacia striata (Neuroptera: Sisyridae). Psyche 87:
305-314.
Ross, H. H. 1944. The caddisflies, of Trichoptera of Illinois. Illinois Natural History
Bulletin 23(1). Urbana, IL.
Sawyer, R. T. 1972. North American freshwater leeches, exclusive of the Pisciolidae,
with a key to all species. University of Illinois Press. Urbana, IL.
Smirnov, N. N. 1971. Fauna of the U.S.S.R. crustacean, Vol. 1(2): Chydoridae. Israel
Program for Scientific Translation. Jerusalem, Israel.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 34
in Alberta
Smith, D. G. 2001. Pennak's freshwater invertebrates of the United States (4th ed.). New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, NY.
Stephenson, J. 1972. The oligochaeta. Wheldon & Wesley Ltd. New York, NY.
Stewart, K. W. & B. P. Stark. 2002. Nymphs of North American Stonefly genera
(Plecoptera) (2nd ed.). The Caddis Press. Columbus, OH.
Steyskal, G. C. & L. V. Knutson. 1981. Empididae. Pp. 607-624. IN: Manual of
Nearctic Diptera, Vol 1. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Tennessen, K. 2007. Odonata larvae of the Pacific Northwest (An identification
Manual). Watutoma, WI.
Teskey, H. J. 1981. Key to the Families— Larvae. Pp. 125-147. IN: Manual of Nearctic
Diptera, Vol 1 . Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Thorp, J. H. & A. P. Covich. 2001. Ecology and classification of North American
freshwater invertebrates (2n ed.). Academic Press. San Diego, CA.
Usinger, R. L. (ed.) 1956. Aquatic insects of California. Berkeley: University of
California Press. Berkeley, CA.
Waltz, R. D. & W. P. McCafferty. 1987. New genera of Baetidae for some Nearctic
species previously included in Baetis Leach (Ephemeroptera). Ann. Entomol. Soc.
Am. 80(5): 667-670.
Wiersema, N. A. 1999. Two new species of Procloeon (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae) from
Texas. Ent. News 110(1): 27-35.
Wiederholm, T. (ed.). 1983. Chironomidae of the Holarctic region: Keys and diagnoses.
Part 1: Larvae. Ent. Scandinavica Supplement 19.
Wiggins, G. B. 1960. A preliminary systematic study of the North American larvae of
the caddisfly family Phryganeidae (Trichoptera). Can. J. Zool. 38: 1 153-1 170.
Wiggins, G. B. 1996. Larvae of the North American Caddisfly genera (Trichoptera) (2nd
ed.). University of Toronto Press. Toronto, ON.
Zimmerman, J. R. 1981. A revision of the Colymbetes of North America (Dytisicidae).
The Coleopterists Bui. 35(1): 1-52.
6.3 Taxonomic References: Algae
Anton, A. and H. C. Duthie. 1981. Use of cluster analysis in the systematics of the algal
genus Cryptomonas. Can J. Bot. 59: 992-1002.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 35
in Alberta
Bahls, L. 2004. Northwest Diatoms: A photographic catalogue of species in the
Montana Diatom Collection, with ecological optima, associates, and northern
distribution records for the nine northwestern United States.
Camburn, K. and D. F. Charles. 2000. Diatoms of low-alkalinity lakes in the
northeastern United States. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.
152 pp.
Cumming, B.F., Wilson, S.E. and J.P. Smol. 1995. Diatoms from British Columbia
(Canada) lakes and their relationship to salinity, nutrients and other limnological
variables. Bibliotheca Diatomologica. Band 3 1 . J. Cramer, Berlin, Stuttgart. 207
pp.
Entwisle, T. J., Skinner, S. Lewis, S. H. and H.J. Foard. 2007. Algae of Australia:
Batrachospermales, Thoreales, Odeogoniales and Zygnemacae. ABRS, Caberra;
CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. 191 pp.
Fallu, M.-A, N. Allaire and R. Pienitz. 2000 . Freshwater Diatoms from northern Quebec
and Labrador (Canada). Bibliotheca Diatomologica. Band 45. J. Cramer, Berlin,
Stuttgart. 200 pp.
Findlay, D. L. and H. J. Kling. 1976. A species list and pictorial reference to the
phytoplankton of central and northern Canada. Fisheries and Environment
Canada, Fisheries and Marine Service, Manuscript Report No. 1503. 619 pp.
Hamilton, P. 1990 . The revised edition of a computerized counter for plankton,
periphyton and sediment diatom analysis. Hydrobiologia. 194: 23-30.
Huber-Pestalozzi, G. 1961. Das phytoplankton des SiiPwassers. Systematik und
Biologic 5 Teil, Chlorophyceae (Griinalgen), Ordnung: Volvocales Die
Binnengewaser (Band XVI). - E. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung
(Nagele u Obermiller), Stuttgart. 728 pp.
Huber-Pestalozzi, G. 1972. Das phytoplankton des SiiPwassers. Systematik und
Biologic 6 Teil, Chlorophyceae (Griinalgen), Ordnung: Tetrasporales von B.
Fott. Die Binnengewaser (Band XVI). - E. Schweizerbart'sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung (Nagele u Obermiller), Stuttgart. 47 pp
Huber-Pestalozzi, G. 1982. Das phytoplankton des SiiPwassers. Systematik und
Biologic 8 Teil, 1 Halfte. Conjugatophyceae Zygnematales und Desmidiales von
Kurt Forster, Pfronten/Allgau Die Binnengewaser (Band XVI). - E.
Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung (Nagele u Obermiller), Stuttgart. 543
pp.
Huber-Pestalozzi, G. 1983. Das phytoplankton des SiiPwassers. Systematik und
Biologic 7 Teil, 1 Halfte. Chlorophyceae (Griinalgen), Ordnung: Chlorococcales
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 36
in Alberta
von J. Komarek und B. Fott. Die Binnengewaser (Band XVI). - E.
Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung (Nagele u Obermiller), Stuttgart. 1044
pp.
Juttner, I., S. Sharma, B.M. Dahal, S.J. Omerod, P.J. Chimonides and E.J. Cox. 2003.
Diatoms as indicators of stream quality in the Kathmandu Valley and Middle
Hills of Nepal and India. Freshwater Biol. 48:2065-2084.
Komarek J. and K. Anagnostidis. 1998. Cyanoprokaryota. 1. Teil: Chroococcales. In:
Ettl, H. et al. (eds.): Suswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Begrundet von A. Pascher.
Band 19/1. Gustav Fischer. 584 pp.
Komarek J. and K. Anagnostidis. 2005. Cyanoprokaryota. 2. Teil: Oscillatoriales.
Suswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Founded by A. Pascher. Edited by Burkhard
Biidel, Lothar Krientiz, Georg Gartner and Michael Schagerl. Volume 19/1 .
Elsevier Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. 759 pp.
Krammer, K. and H. Lange-Bertalot. 1986. Bacillariophyceae. 1. Teil: Naviculaceae. In:
Ettl, H. et al. (eds.): Suswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Begrundet von A. Pascher.
Band 2/1. Stuttgart- Jena. 876 pp.
Krammer, K. and H. Lange-Bertalot. 1988. Bacillariophyceae. 2 Teil: Bacillariaceae,
Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae. In: Ettl, H. et al. (eds.): Suswasserflora von
Mitteleuropa. Begrundet von A. Pascher Band 2/2. Stuttgart- Jena. 596 pp.
Krammer, K. and H. Lange-Bertalot. 1991a. Bacillariophyceae. 3 Teil: Centrales,
Fragilariaceae, Eunotiaceae. Unter Mitarbet von H. Hakansson & M. Norpel. In:
In: Ettl, H. et al. (eds.): Suswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Begrundet von A.
Pascher Band 2/3. Stuttgart- Jena. 576 pp.
Krammer, K. and H. Lange-Bertalot. 1991b. Bacillariophyceae. 4 Teil: Achnanthaceae
Kritische Erganzungen zu Navicula (Lineolatae) und Gomphonema. In: Ettl, H. et
al. (eds.): Suswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Band 2/4. Stuttgart-Jena. 437 pp.
Lund, J. W. G., Kippling, C. and E. D. le Cren. 1958. The inverted microscope method
of estimating algal numbers and the statistical basis for the estimation by
counting. Hydrobiol. 11:144-170.
Patrick, R. and C.W. Reimer. 1966. The Diatoms of the United States Exclusive of
Alaska and Hawaii. Vol. 1. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia.
688 pp.
Patrick, R. and C.W. Reimer. 1975. The Diatoms of the United States Exclusive of
Alaska and Hawaii. Vol. 2, Part 1. The Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia. 213 pp.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 37
in Alberta
Prescott, G. W. 1982. Algae of the western Great Lakes. Otto Koeltz Science
Publishers. 977 pp.
Reavie, E.D. and J. P. Smol. 1998. Freshwater diatoms from the St. Lawrence River.
Bibliotheca Diatomologica. Band 41. J. Cramer, Berlin, Stuttgart. 136 pp.
Rott, E. 1981. Some results from phytoplankton counting inter-calibrations. Schweiz Z.
Hydrol. 24: 15-24.
Siver, P. A. and H. Kling. 1997. Morphological observations of Aulacoseira using
scanning microscopy. Can. J. Bot. 75:1807-1835.
Siver, P.A., P.B. Hamilton, K. Stachura-Suchoples and J.P. Kociolek. 2005. Diatoms of
North America: The Freshwater Flora of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA.
Iconographia Diatomologica. 463 pp.
Starmach, K. 1985. Chrysophyceae und Haptophyceae. In: Ettl, H. et al. (eds.):
Siiswasserflora von Mitteleuropa. Begriindet von A. Pascher Band 1 . VEB
Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena. 515 pp.
Tikkanen, T. 1986 . Kasviplantonopas. Suomen Luonnosuojelun Tuki Oy. 278 pp.
Wehr, J. D. and R. G. Sheath. 2003. Freshwater Algae of North America. Academic
Press. 918 pp.
Whitford, L. A. and G. J. Schumacher. 1984. A manual of Freshwater Algae. Sparks
Press, N.C. 337 pp.
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 38
in Alberta
CD
9 m o
Q. O
W ° »
10
00
CO CO
co co
cu 5=
CD
cd
co
oo
co
cd
CM
CD
h-
CD
O
CM
O
CM
E
CN
S-
LO
o
Co
o
CN
■*t
o
o
o
CM
eg
CO
LO
Z
i
Z
i
< <
LO
p!
c ■
■B $
| %
1 1
"° CM
^ °
CD CU
a) co
q: c
03
CD
oo
00
cd
CO
CO
co
o
o
o
co
LO
z
i
22 <*»
*T _
O
O
LO
LO
CN
LO
LO
c P
o ,
CO
J t
CD CO
T3 „-
o <u
CD CO
or 2
CM
CD
g.
v/m
CD
LO
CD
i —
oo
o
CN
o
V
pi
pi
^t-
CD
LO
o
c\i
1^
o
o
LO •
00 CO
LO
CD
c
O)
CO
$
o
UL
CO
D.
o
CO CO
CD CD
c c
o ^
c
CO
p i
o
E
oo
c
'e
CD
>
_Q
CD
CO
k_
CO
L_
3
V
CO
k_
(0
CD
E
o
not
o
V
I- h-
00
o ° - o
H < o oo co
LO ^ , O
sod
o
£ S E
co
E,
>.
o
o
Q.
0
Q
TO
"to
Q
o
"55
E
o
\
TJ
>•
I
t- i- CM
LO N CD
CN S- 'tf CN LO
CN CN "3- CO
CD CD CD CD CD
CD t- -3- CN CO
r— t— CO CO ""3"
cd cd cd cd cd
2 g> £ I co
o ^
CD
E
O
Q
f N CO
O CD t- CO
CJ) CO O") CD
tO CM T ^ N
CN CO rj- CO rj-
O O O O O
CO S S -tf S-
t— O CO CO ^J"
o o o o o
CO x:
-0 CJ) CD
II 1
c
U=! CO
■6 *±
= CD
c
o
L_
00
co
O
Q
T- T- T~ T~ O
CD CD CD CD CD
CO CD CD O 00
O O O *- O
TJ" «f
CD CD LO CD LO
co co co co co
CJ) CD
CD 2
c
- _ CD
Cd S O
c
*i co
i£ CD
0
E
o
CO
>»
;3
o
T3
C
o
o
c
o
(J
</>
c
o
TO
(/>
o
o
E
E
3
CO
"O
e
Q.
QL
<
o
CN
o
o
Q
a, <
-Q
CO
CD
O
< O
o
O
0 O
'~ LO
o
CD
<
CO
9 lo
CD o
CO "
I
LO
CO
O
A W CD
CO ^ CO
< ^ £
o
CO
p p
CO co
CD c
*i cu
> 0
1p
in lo co n co
t t t t ^
CO CO CO CO CO
CM CM CO CM lO
CN CM t- t- T-
cd co cd cci co
CO LO
CN
CO CO . . ^
00 00 CO
CO CO
= J I m
!§2 1 2 <g
0£ ^ O ^ -J
X
Q.
CM t- S (D CO
CO CO CO CO
LO LO LO CO LO
CO
CO r-
cb CD
LO CO t- CM CD
O O CM CM CM
LO LO LO LO LO
o>2 §
O
3
-»— •
CD
a.
E
.CD
CD
CD
C
!c
c
3
CO
c
GO
_l
x>
c
CO
XI
CD
XI
CO
DO
p
CO
o
CO
CD
XJ
CO
_£Z
CO
_c
DO
or
c
3
co
CD
E
o
co
XI
c
CO
c
o
GO.
o
o
co
CO
c
XI
CO
CD
c
3
CO
_c
GO
CD
XJ
CO
_c
CO
c
CO
or
c
CD
E
E
o
O
X X
■XX'
>»
XJ
XI
CD
o
CO
GO
s §
or or
CO
o
CO
•c
0
-f— '
o
CO
o
CO
J=
CO
CO -o
g
CO
XJ
c
CO
3^
I i
ii
CD
E I
2 o
o
o_ o
§p
CO
c
o
CO
XI
CD
CD
XJ
c
o
CO-
CO
c
'Cl
co
_co
O
CO
*i_
CD
= ~°
.2 ro
o m co
Q. 2L O
co -5? o
CD CO c
XI 0 g
CO =
o
o _
co co y
c o fo
o Z ■§
CO - C
0 s 5
CO OT U
co o xj
co E £
3 CD CO
o E E
c § o
CD ^ C
£ 0
2 p-
c
CO
*;
_0
CO
c
o
CO
XI
CD
CD
§
XJ
£Z
o
Q.
C0
c
'o.
co
_co
o
CO
o
o
I—
_0
-O
TO
"(O
0
CO
CO
O
2
0
E
o
CO
c
o
0
CO
CO
CD
0
O
o
"co
o
tf)
c
0
E
E
o
o
0
CO
CO
o
o
0
■4— '
CL
2
o
CD
O O XJ
00 O t- c
^ <- jVj co
' co
- p
LO - O
i- LO CO -
p p p ~
£ ^ § ■§
o
o
o
O
T3:
T3:
T3:
T3:
and
LO
o
LO
o
CO
CO
LO
P
T2
T2
p
C
LO
o
LO
o
"o
CO
_c
h-
LO
LO O o
tO CM
CO CO P
o LO" o o
(D CO ^ CM
IP
CM
i P
= o o
CO ^
0
o
c
CO
jQ
l_
3
CO
XI
_0
-I— '
CO
o
2
0
$
d.
co
0
0"
E
o
CO
o
o
E 5
E v
8 o
A A
co
E
E
o
2
XJ
0 >_>
GO GO
0
XJ _^
3 JZ)
o o
E
If
lo E ~
CM CM
v S v
1 v '
(O Oj ° °
A A O O
CD A v
3 $ TJ »
-Q CO c jP.
o si: co .E
O O CO LL
c
CO
■° CO
>»
cbiS
c o
C XJ
xj ro
E w
CO «
2 o
5#
CD ro
o
0
O JD
X _
CO ^3
0
0
£ 3
O co
XJ
CO
o
c
0
E
E
o
o
CO
c oj
.2 CD
•- E
CO ■_=
§_ to
E
o co
0 -5
CO C
-t o
CO _
O CJ
3 03
C/J CO
p
xj £2
CO
P o
to "?
^ CO
lo
o
-J
OJ
X
p
XI ^
c -s
CO co
LO
co
LO
o 3
LO CO
O 0
CN XJ
^ o
1^
CO
co
0
I
tf) CO
X CD
3 C
co
0 c
p ~
■§
o 5
$v O
o
CO
CO
GO
cn CO
cd
m CO
od od
"J2 "g CO co
co co — i 0£
CO CO og c\i
co cm
P
-D £N
C I—
co i
r- CO
Cd
CO
CD
-O T3
TO O
5 5
T3
jo
co
CD
Q.
CO-
CO
C
CO
ST
_j
P
CD
It
O *
T3
C
co
£
CO
T3
CD
E
.§ £
co
CD
CO
ro
to
c
o
CD
Q
>> ° -a •- £
o
CO o
o
o
co
to
o
(A
CD
-Q
CO
to
c
D
■a 2
o ■£
.b "O
c CO
o J3J CD
O _ D)
C £ "3
=> co E
O P CO
i= T3
CD CO ^,
^ CD C
x: co
>> -°
111
to "CO CD
© o ®
c co
tt co
co
c
'co
co"
— JXL
CO c
£; CO
S c
C O
s ^
2 c
CD i
I °
iS -6
CO o
CD
c
"o
CD
Q
CO
-t — '
c
CD
E
E
o
o
CO
c
CD
E
CO
2
CO
■o
CO
CO
CO
cr
"O
c
CO
CO
CO
CO
"D
c
CO
CN
co to
Cd CN
CO
CO
CD
-t— '
CD
O § O
Z _J 2 X
_c
■J — 1
-* — '
E
CD
c
CO
CO
mo o o
, o o o
— I TJ" TJ" T-
3? CO CO CO
in Od Cd Cd
v , , ,
^ n n co
OQ I — i — i —
or
o
CO
o
CD
CO
Dd
o
' CO
to cd
TD
8 S
CO
CO
o
00
CO
Cd
CN
co 2
_l
CD
Od
fN
P CO
pi pi
in io
CO • •
Od g
CO
"O O
CO
CN
fN
or
CM
- o"
CO OO
qq DO CO CO
o
&
o
o
p
p
o"
CN
CD-
T3:
'S;
t —
1-
CO
cb
or
CO
a:
in
o
P
co
o
CD
pi
ns
CO
■o
c
CO
"co
CO
_J
CD
O)
T3
CD
CO
co co
CD CO
is CO
CO CD £
c
o
to
'
CD
$
c
CO
•c
CO
CL
•c
c
CO
c
"E
o
Q
o
up
A CN vO
!— i. cT- - — - o~
LD CD CD
$ CN ^ If)
0 CO 2 A,
^ CD
01 6 °
x
o
O
>s
Ql
O
c
CO
O
to
CO
T3
C C
CO CO
CN -°
. *;
t — CD
■ • O)
CO c
co £N
CD I-
CO
CO
S 2
CO
— T3
Q.
CO
JO
o
o
o
o
<
o
T3
c
CO
JO
o
o
o
s
00
<
co
"D
X
C
CD
a.
Q.
<
o
JU
c
CD
E
CO
CO
CD
E
TJ
C
CO
CO
CD
E
CD
CO
co
CD
E
o
c
o
"-4— *
CO
o
<^
CO
CO
CO
c
o
c
o
to
E
c
7=! q>
< 5
CO
o
o
CN
E
CO
CD
1_
-*-«
"ro
3
+■»
3
O
'5Z
U)
<0
CD
0)
T3
CD
"O
w.
O
o
o
c
o
CO
o
Q.
E
o
o
'E
E
E
o
o
CD
<*-»
i_
x>
a)
r
CD
>
C
o
IE
+»•
c
©
CQ
CM
X
c
o
CL
CL
<
-Q
CO
0
TO
TO
Cl
0
CO
Q_
0
0
0
<J
i—
0
>
be.
CD
O
O
CM
"55
= c
CO CO
<! .
« i I
£ i- K
3 £ c
O M ro
S 0 £
*; Q. "O
ro £ .£
ro cq
Cre
ick !
0
.c
erry
^
E
0
o
-O
3
C
c
ro
E
0
CO
ne-
ro
b*
o
o
cn
o
o
ro
3
ro
CNI
CD
i—
00
>
0
-a
co
c
3
00
<
0
o
CL
CO
i*:
sec
-sam
0
c
0
ro
-Q
i—
O
CO
SU
(D
U)
0
tn
Ro:
c
3
o
C
CO
E
CO
0
CD
kei
O
c
CNJ
ro
o
1
CO
CD
CO
-0
0
o
E
CL
cn
0
E
c:
a.
ro
00
0
CO
CO
J*
00
m
o
C
O
1st
O
c
0
o
£
3
c
ac!
3
_0
CD
E
CO
d>
0
ver a
c
o
CO
ampi
h£
M —
o
CO
c
0
0
CD
CD
E
so
o
T3
Cl
c
om
0
CQ
<x
o
io
ro
w
0
CO
o
aj
Da
0
ns<
o>
Cl
ro
E
c
ro
CO
Q.
CO
c
E
CD
o
ro
c
E
CO
O
ro
CD
.a 0
5 2!
ro o
CO
c
CN ^
co 13
c
CO -|
CNJ C
CN |
c
51
cv
CD
o £
a: o
CD
ro
E
o
oo
o
c
ro
ro
CL
"O
ro
CO
b
co
co
lo
o
CNJ
CNJ
CT>
CD
CT)
CO
CO
CO
CD
CD
CO
oo
o
CD
O
CNJ
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
CD
CNJ
r--
00
CO
■3-
o
oo
^1-
o
CNJ
Cn
CD
cn
CJ>
o
d
o
o
o
o
"Nt
o
cb
o
o
o
CO
o
CNJ
o
cb
o
CD
CO
CNJ
o
o
o
d
CNJ
CM
CO
O
CO
1^
CNJ
CN
CO
CO
CNI
CN
CT>
00
CO
CT>
CO
C3>
CT>
LO
CN
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
oo
o
CN
cn
d
o
CO
co
o
o
o
d
o
LO
CO
o
LO
o
o
CNJ
o
CO
LO
CO
CO
■3-
"3-
co
LO
co
co
CO
o
cb
CO
CO
cn
d
o
co
co
co
co
o
CO
co
co
CN
cn
o
CN
cn
cn
co
co
co
o
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
00
oo
X —
CNJ
o
CN
LO
o
LO
o
cn
LO
o
cn
LO
o
LO
o
o
a>
o
CN
00
q
T —
ITl
CO
oo
co
co
o
cm'
o
CO
o
o
CO
CO
co
oo
co
b
CO
CN
co
cb
CO
CN
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
b
CO
CO
CD
CO
CN
o
CN
0
CL
o
o
<
0
0
_o
ro
O
0
ro
-g
'c
CL
ro
Q
ro
'c
CL
ro
g
0
O
ro
"O
CO
ro
c
c
0
CL
1
0)
o
<
0
ro
0
0
E
0
CL
LU
0
CD
T3
C
0
CO
ro
Q-
0
X
0
ro
0
-C
Cl
O
Q.
0
c
o
o
.Q <D
5 Si
to
CO
c
CNI |
o
00 h-
a> a)
(V
N
</5
CNI |
CM
21
21
4) J£
O «
CO
X
CO
r-
U5
P CO
o o
-O i c
o ; co
£ La
OiQ
: co
CO ;t-
w a,
tn N
ID
co
u
0)
(7)
-*— >
O
a!
.a o)
5 2!
CD
CD
CN
C
co c-
CO
CO
c
CN |
o
CO
CO
CO
HI
o
Q.
CD
a:
CN
ID
CO
CD
CD
CO
CM
N
.c
10
CN |
CN ^
CN
O
CO
o
d
ID
co
o
o
o
q
o
o
in
a.
CD
cr
v -x
in $
o £
CN
O
CO
LU
CO
TO
Z3
!c
£
Q.
<D
TO
L_
O
JD
Q.
Q
o
CD
CD
"O
cd
CO
to
>.
>,
-C
.c
CL
Q.
CO
£ 2
O CD
c
.9- ig
CO Q.
CO c
o E
O 8
CD
C
Dl
CD
to
CD
CD
TJ
-O
O
q3
X
CD
CD
"CD
■o
-Q
O
Q_
LU
=3
O
CO
-Q
O
CO
CO
Q_
p
CD
-C
CL
CD
CD
■g
c
o
o
A Q)
5 2!
« o
53
3-3
(1 min)
3-2
(1 min)
3-1
(1 min)
CO
=tfc
CO
i cat
RepI
2-3
(1 min)
River
2-2
(1 min)
indman
2-1
1 min)
CO
CM
cal
RepI
1-3
(1 min)
1-2
(1 min)
1-1
(1 min)
5:
CD
icai
RepI
Rose
Creek
CO
l_
CD
I s
£ o
o
cm
o
c\i
o
CM
o
O
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
CO
o
o
CM
c
o
c
o
o
2 o
CO
c
<? I
o
o
o r-
o r--
o f-
o in
CD
O
Q.
CD
on
o
o
O T~
O Is-
cu
N
(75
0)
c
CN |
CN
O 00
o o
Q.
o
o oo
o o
c
2 I
O)
o
o
c
2 I
o
o
in
00 CD
CD in
oo m
^ o
o £
* 6
oo ^
~ 00
CD
S
Q. i_
O LU
0) *
_Q 0)
2 o
CM
00
uo
co
co
o
C\i
CO
co
m
CO
CO
CO
CD
CD
CD
CO
CD
CD
CD
CO
1^
(•»
o
CN
CD
CD
CD
CD
CO
CO
CD
oS
cd
CO
CD
CD
o
o
CO
o
o
CM
CN
o
CN
CD
CO
c
CN |
co c-
o
CN
CD
CD
CD
CD
Tt
co
CO
CM
CD
CD
co
o
CO
00
co
en
oo
CO
in
CO
CN
IT,
co
o
CO
o
o
o
o
oo
o
LO
CO
o
en
CO
CO
o
o
CO
o
Q.
CP
CO
CO
■st
CN
co
■st
CD
CO
CD
T—
CN
o
in
•st
CO
cd
CD
00
CO
oo
CD
00
00
co
in
co
<D
N
CO
<? I
CN
CN
CO
co
in
co
o
CN
CO
CO
CD
in
CO
CO
CO
co
CD
^t
cd
CN
oo
in
co
CO
oo
•st
CO
CN
CD
CO
CN
CO
CO
CO
CO
c
CN -g
CN
CD
oo
co
co
■st
CO
co
co
■st
CD
CN
co
CO
in
co
CN
CN
CO
co
CN
1^
CO
CD
oo
co
in
CN
CN
in
r-
m
in
CN
in
CN
o
co
CN
O
CM
CL
CD
oo
co
CN
•St
CD
CO
CD
co
oo
o
co
■st
CM
m
CD
CD
CD
•st
co
co
CM
CM
CD
■st
CO
in
m
CO
o
CM
co
CD
CD
o
00
CO
CN
o
in
CO
o
m
CM
■st
00
in
CO
in
CD
O
CN
O
in
r--
CM §
in
co
oo
co
oo
CD
CD
CM
•st
CO
CO
CO
■st
CO
1^-
CD
in
CM
CO
CO
CN
CO
o
oo
CM
O
CN
CN
CO
oo
CO
in
CN
co
CM
CO
■st
•st
st
CO
CO
CD
CM
O
co
in
o
00
o
CM
r--
CD
CN
■st
CO
CO
CD
o
CD
CO
in
in
■st
CD
co
CO
in
■st
•st
m
co
■st
■st
o
CM
CD
CM
CO
o £
DC O
m
c\i
CO
o
o
o
CO
CD
O
uo
00
in
■st
•st
CD
C\J
CO
E
o
o>
O
c
CO
-C
O.
CO
b
CO
o.
o
o
<
ro
T5
><
CP
CO
"D
C
-C
Q.
00
Q
CL
CO
TD
O
q3
o
ro
-g
O
o
00
c
c
a>
CL
CP
o
<
c
o
CO
o
u
o
a.
CP
ro
s
CO
CO
CO
T>
c
CO
ro
Q.
CP
X
CO
CO
15
ffl
.c
c
o
Q.
CD
5
lo
©
Cl
o
Q.
CO
c
o
o
oo
.Q 0)
5 2?
2 o
00
CO
co
o
CO
co
CD
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
CO
c
CN I
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
m
o
LO
o
o
CO
CD
CO
CD
CO
o
LO
o
CO
o
CO
in
CO
CN
CO
LO
LO
i--
N
CO
.c
CO
cu
c
2 E
o
CO
00
CO
o
CO
CO
CO
CO
o
CN
CO
CO
CN
c
CN g
CO
CO
o
c\i
o
CD
LO
o
CO
LO
LO
CO
LO
CN
o
CO
CO
CN
CO
Q_
CD
DC
CT>
C7>
o
CN
CO
in
o
CO
CO
CN
o
CO
LO
CO
cm !
CO
CO
CO
CO
00
CN
o
CD
CO
CO
CO
00
CN
o
CN
00
CO
CO
o
CO
CO
CD
CO
CU
o £
00
00
in
CO
CO
CD
•o
o
JC
CO
c
CD
o
>,
sz
u
CD
CD
CD
o
CO
a.
o
"O
>.
X
CD
CD
;g
CD
o
o
Q.
CD
to
D
o
CD
o
E
to
o
o
'jz
Q-
E
<
CD
CD
c
CD
O)
CD
CO
"D
TD
o
CL
o
c
CD
o
o
Q.
0
CO
•o
X)
o
CD
CL
in
CN
1^
CO
CD
E
o
2
0
E
CD
I
CO
c
o
o
0s
0) -x
5 £
</5
CM F
TO
o
CD
0)
N
55
21
o g
a 6
CD
CO
(0
"O
O
Q_
to
03
'■5.
X
Q
I CO
CD
2 £ .
CD CD o
>. LC Q.
X ; i- </)
CO
i -*-*
I o
c
o
o
o
5 2!
CO
c
CO
co
^
CM
CO
c
E
CO
— '
CO
%
CD
CO
o
CD
0£
CO
E
CNJ
c~
CD
CM
'E
>
CM
c
TO
E
_C
CM
E
CNJ
£
CO
o
Q.
CD
tr
CO
1
mi
CM
mi
c
mi
T —
£
"co
o
Q-
CD
cr
0) -*
o £
co
x
co
I-
co
■<f
cn
<o
CM
00
CM
o
CO
CO
o
CM
co
CO
in
oo
to
CM
CO
oo
cn
cn
CM
co
r-
<o
cn
cn
CM
o
co
CM
CM
CO
•<r
o
00
cn
oo
oo
co
o
in
CO
1^
E
3
o
CM
CO
CO
CO
T3
O
Q.
CD
Q.
O
O
CO
£
O
k_
CD
E
CD
_c
CL
LU
CO
c\i
co
o
o
in
CM
o
co
CO
CM
CO
CO
CD
CO
-q
E
o
c
o
O
CT>
CO
co
co
o
CM
co
CM
-a-
oi
m
co
o
d
q
in
q
in
o
c\i
co
oS
co
o
co
co
in
co
o
CO
o
o
o
c\i
o
o
co
cn
CO
o
c\i
o
CM
O
CM
O
CM
o
CM
o
CD
o
CO
o
CNJ
o
C\i
O
co
o
o
o
CO
o
o
o
o
o
r-'
o
in
o
co
o
o
CO
o
o
o
CD
o
CO
o
00
o
o
CO
o
o
o
CM
o
CM
O
CM
O
ih
o
CD
O
co
o
CM
o
o
o
o
o
CM
O
CM
O
CM
O
iri
o
CM
o
CM
o
CM
O
co
o
o
CM
o
CM
O
CM
O
CM
O
CM
O
CM
CD
E
z
co
"O
o
TO
E
CD
CO
L_
£
O
CD
E
0
.C
Q.
L1J
o
co
"O
O
Q-
x:
a
E
<
CD
C
O
U
0) *
_0 0)
5 £
re o
o
o
CSJ |
O TJ-
O T-
o uo
O 1-
00
2
o
"o.
CD
O CT>
O i-
d
N
V)
c
«? I
o
o
c
CN
O CD
O T-
o o
Cl
CD
c
21
o oo
O
d t-
j! 1
o o
CN
O CD
O ■<*
CD CNJ
2
TO
O
CD
o
o
CO
3> $
o £
oo in
oo d
re
O LU
Appendix 3 Epilithic algal community composition recorded in three
agricultural streams in 2006
Ollcdill INdlllt;.
Rose Creek
Blindman R. #1
Blindman R. #2
Blindman R. #3
Strawberry Creek
Plato QamnloH'
30-Aug-06
5-Sep-06
5-Sep-06
5-Sep-06
31-Aug-06
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Bacilarriophyceae (Diatoms)
Achananthes delicatula (Kuetzing)
Grunow
0
0
9884
3.203
3503
0.694
4170
1.52
1786
0.394
Achnanthes lanceolata (Brebisson)
Grunow
5530
0.553
34596
3.243
17517
1.752
20854
2.085
7147
0.715
Achnanthes minutissima Kuetzing
29496
0.995
98848
5.931
36202
1.14
46921
2.628
477070
16.101
Amphora lybica Ehrenberg
0
0
0
0
2335
0.2
3128
0.205
0
0
Amphora pediculus (Kuetzing) Grunow
11061
0.18
29654
0.483
2335
0.041
8341
0.116
0
0
Amphipleura pellucida Kuetzing
1843
2.301
9884
8.224
2335
2.616
0
0
17867
18.861
Caloneis bacillum (Grunow) Cleve
7374
0.83
9884
0.68
0
0
0
0
21441
2.144
Caloneis sp
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1786
0.335
Cocconeis pediculus Ehrenberg
36870
117.883
9884
58.123
9342
54.935
5213
30.656
0
0
Cocconeis placentula var lineata
(Ehrenberg) Van Heurck
134575
130.774
242178
102.926
162328
73.048
120953
51.405
0
0
Craticula halophila (Grunow et Van Heurck)
D. G. Mann
0
0
0
0
0
0
3128
3.363
0
0
Cyclotella meneghiniana Kuetzing
0
0
9884
15.9
2335
0.917
8341
5.661
0
0
Cyclotella ocellata Pantocsek
0
0
2471
0.97
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cymbella microcephala Grunow
0
0
0
0
1167
0.032
0
0
121501
3.313
Cymbella minuta Hilse
5530
0.394
0
0
0
0
0
0
8933
0.468
Cymbella perpusilla Cleve Euler
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cymbella silesiaca Bleisch ex.
Rabenhorst
1843
0.293
0
0
0
0
0
0
1786
0.299
Cymbella sinuata Gregory
0
0
0
0
5839
0.214
1042
0.03
0
0
Denticula kuetzingii Grunow
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35735
8.041
Denticula subtilis Grunow
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Diatoma moniliformis Kuetzing
129045
15.324
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Diatoma tenuis Agardh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Diatoma vulgaris Bory
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7147
12.865
Didymosphaeria geminata (Lyngyb.) M.
Schmidt
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Diploneis puella (Schumann) Cleve
0
0
0
0
3503
0.175
2085
0.13
7147
1.487
Epithemia adnata (Kuetzing)
Brebisson
97705
62.532
7413
7.414
26860
29.546
6256
6.256
0
0
Epithemia sorex Kuetzing
141949
84.034
39539
31.632
29195
23.357
18768
15.015
8933
5.289
Fragilaria vaucheriae (Kuetzing)
Petersen
14748
1.062
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Gomphonema acuminatum Ehrenberg
0
0
0
0
3503
5.132
0
0
1786
4.544
Gomphonema augur var sphaeophorum
(Ehrenberg) Lange-Bertalot
0
0
0
0
1167
1.737
0
0
0
0
Gomphonema olivaceum (Hornemann)
Brebisson
14748
6.4
32125
29.046
15181
10.295
9384
5.154
0
0
Gomphonema parvulum Kuetzing
0
0
7413
1.207
4671
0.95
5213
1.508
0
0
Gomphonema pumilum (Grunow) Reichardt
& Lange-Bertalot
5530
0.625
0
0
2335
0.264
0
0
0
0
Gomphonema sp
0
0
4942
0.559
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hantzschia amphioxys (Ehrenberg)
Grunow
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1786
0.858
Mastogloia smithii Thwaites ex. W. Smith
0
0
0
0
2335
0.934
0
0
112567
92.868
Melosira varians (Agardh)
3687
7.819
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Navicula lanceolata (Agardh) Ehrenberg
0
0
0
0
1167
1.46
0
0
0
0
Navicula agrestis Hustedt
0
0
27183
1.305
1167
0.065
0
0
0
0
Navicula bryophila Petersen
0
0
7413
0.741
0
0
0
0
0
0
Naviucula capitatoradiata Germain
14748
8.967
2471
1.463
12846
8.222
3128
2.407
7147
4.345
Navicula cincta (Ehrenberg) Ralfs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Navicula cryptocephala Kuetzing
3687
2.124
22240
11.743
29195
10.729
11469
5.873
1786
0.7
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 52
in Alberta
Appendix 3 Epilithic algal community composition recorded in three
agricultural streams in 2006 (con't)
Stream Name:
Rose Creek
Blindman R. #1
Blindman R. #2
Blindman R. #3
Strawberry Ck
Date Sampled:
30-Aug-06
5-Sep-06
5-Sep-06
5-Sep-06
31-Aug-06
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Navicula cryptotenella (Lange-Bertalot)
11061
3.794
24712
3.089
4671
0.584
12512
2.477
144729
18091
Navicula capitata Ehrenberg
0
0
4942
0.89
0
0
0
0
0
0
Navicula decussis Oestrup
5530
2.212
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Navicula gregaria Donkin
1843
0.431
7413
1.668
7006
2.232
3128
0.958
0
0
Navicula margalithii Lange-Bertalot
14748
18.435
0
0
3503
4.379
0
0
0
0
Navicula menisculus Schumann
1843
0.361
2471
0.712
0
0
1042
0.255
3573
0.447
Navicula miniscula Grunow
1843
0.115
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Navicula notha Wallace
0
0
0
0
2335
0.462
0
0
0
0
Navicula pseudanglica Lange-Bertalot
0
0
7413
1.816
3503
1.277
0
0
0
0
Navicula pupula Kuetzing
0
0
2471
0.909
2335
0.747
1042
0.367
3573
1.144
Navicula radiosa Kuetzing
1843
3.595
2471
1.977
0
0
1042
1.825
0
0
Navicula schroeterii Meister
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Navicula sp
0
0
4942
0.712
1167
0.841
0
0
3573
2.001
Navicula subminiscula Mangiun
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Navicula subhamulata Grunow
0
0
4942
0.463
0
0
0
0
0
0
Navicula veneta Kuetzing
3687
0.461
22240
2.78
7006
0.963
15640
1.955
8933
1.117
Navicula viridula (Kuetzing) Ehrenberg
0
0
4942
19.928
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nitzschia acicularis (Kuetzing) W. Smith
0
0
0
0
2335
0.654
0
0
0
0
Nitzschia calida Grunow
0
0
0
0
2335
1.202
0
0
0
0
Nitzschia constricta (Kuetzing) Ralfs
0
0
7413
3.136
14013
5.928
2085
1.602
0
0
Nitzschia dissipata (Hantzsch) Grunow
68209
14.068
29654
7.414
14013
4.379
9384
2.346
0
0
Nitzschia fonticola Grunow
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nitzschia frustulum (Kuetzing) Grunow
3687
0.461
27183
3.398
12846
1.445
6256
0.782
58963
7.37
Nitzschia gracilis Hantzsch
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14294
2.173
Nitzschia heufleriana Grunow
0
0
0
0
0
0
1042
1.126
0
0
Nitzschia inconspicua Grunow
0
0
2471
0.044
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nitzschia intermedia Hantzsch
0
0
4942
8.896
0
0
0
0
0
0
Navicula levidensis (W. Smith) Grunow
0
0
7413
15.43
10510
17.736
2085
0.547
0
0
Nitzschia linearis (Agardh) W. Smith
3687
2.65
0
0
0
0
2085
5.339
0
0
Nitzschia palea (Kuetzing) W. Smith
0
0
44481
9.452
7006
1.401
4170
0.667
7147
1.787
Nitzschia perminuta Lange-Bertalot
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nitzschia paleacae Grunow
5530
0.299
69193
6.366
8174
0.441
17725
1.702
0
0
Nitzschia recta Hantzsch
0
0
17298
33.732
5839
3.285
1042
2.369
0
0
Nitzschia sinuata vartabellaha (Grunow)
Grunow
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3573
1.144
Rhoicosphenia abbreviata (Agardh) Lange-
Bertalot
0
0
17298
2.815
14013
2.737
10427
1.867
0
0
Rhopalodia gibba (Ehrenberg) 0. Muller
7374
11.061
0
0
3503
6.131
0
0
35735
57.892
Rhopalodia musculus (Ketzing) 0. Muller
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3573
0.643
Stephanodiscus minutulus (Kuetzing) Cleve
& Mueller
0
0
12356
2.484
0
0
1042
0.088
0
0
Surirella angusta Kuetzing
0
0
2471
1.421
3503
4.557
1042
0.86
0
0
Surirella brebisonii Krammer & Lange-
Bertalot
0
0
0
0
1167
1.604
0
0
0
0
Surirella minuta Brebisson
0
0
0
0
1167
0.338
0
0
0
0
Synedra ulna (Nitzsch) Ehr.
1843
3.54
14827
16.681
3503
3.09
7298
16.35
1786
3.431
CYANOBACTERIA
Anabaena sp
0
0
32125
0.454
61895
2.074
46921
5.307
0
0
Anabaenopsis cunningtonii R. Taylor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
162597
5.449
Aphanocapsa elachista W. & G.S. West
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
142942
2.021
Chroococcus limneticus Lemmermann
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7147
0.808
Gloeotrichia sp
175132
46.216
0
0
46713
10.566
62562
14.151
2287079
517.325
Leibleinia sp
0
0
284189
3.571
0
0
0
0
0
0
Merismopedia elegans A. Braun
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50029
1.677
Mehsmopedia glauca (Ehrenberg)
Naegeli
0
0
158157
28.404
0
0
22939
2.594
0
0
Merismopedia tenusissima Lemmermann
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25014
0.105
Oscillatoria limnetica Lemmerman
9217
0.116
69193
0.87
0
0
0
0
35735
0.449
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 53
in Alberta
Appendix 3 Epilithic algal community composition recorded in three
agricultural streams in 2006
otlcdlll Mdnlt;
Rose Creek
Blindman R. #1
Blindman R. #2
Blindman R. #3
Strawberry Ck
Date Sampled:
30-Aug-06
5-Sep-06
5-Sep-06
5-Sep-06
31-Aug-06
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Phormidium sp1
110610
8.34
331142
24.968
159992
16.084
1 32423
13.313
62537
6.287
Phormidium sp2
18435
1 .853
405278
63.661
64230
14.529
o
0
o
o
Planktolyngya limnetica Lemmermann
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1786
0.022
Pseudanabaena limnetica Komarek
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
Tolypothrix sp
36870
14.826
197697
105.998
23356
7.191
93843
28.892
955927
216.226
Ankistrodesmus fasciculatus (Lundb.) Kom.-
Legn.
3687
0.261
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ankistrodesmus gracilis (Reinsch) Kors.
0
0
0
0
0
0
1042
0.049
0
0
Ankistrodesmus spiralis (Turner)
Lemmermann
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3573
50.52
Cladophora sp
0
0
0
0
4671
15.849
0
0
76831
486.609
Cosmarium granatum Brebisson
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3573
28.98
Cosmarium meneghinii Brebisson
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cosmarium sp
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5360
24.699
Elakatothrix genevensis (Reverdin)
ninaaK
3687
0.139
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Monoraphidium contortum (Thuret)
Komarkova-Legenerova
0
0
0
0
2335
0.077
0
0
0
0
Monoraphidium griff ithii (Berkeley)
Komarkova-Legenerova
1843
0.232
0
0
0
0
0
0
21441
0.909
Monoraphidium minutum (Nag.)
Komarkova-Legenerova
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Monoraphidium pusillum (Printz) Kom-
Legn.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
iviougeoua sp.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17867
37.82
Oocystis solitaria Wittrock
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pediastrum boryanum (Turpin) Meneghini
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7147
318.778
Pediastrum tetras (Ehrenberg) Ralfs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Scenedesmus acutiformis Schroeder
0
0
9884
1.863
28027
4.403
0
0
10720
1.078
Scenedesmus acutus Meyen
0
0
19769
1.987
0
0
0
0
7147
1.123
Scenedesmus bijuga (Turp.) Lagerheim
0
0
0
0
9342
1.223
0
0
0
0
Scenedesmus obliquus (Turpin)
Kuetzing
0
o
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
0
Scenedesmus opoliensis P. Richter
o
o
0
0
0
0
8341
1.118
0
0
Scenedesmus quadricauda (Turpin)
Brebisson
0
0
0
0
0
0
4170
1.957
14294
5.748
Scenedesmus sempervirens Chodat
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Scenedesmus sp
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spirogyra sp Link
0
0
0
0
4671
126.795
0
0
0
0
Stigeoclonium sp
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tatraedron caudatum (Corda) Hansgirg
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1786
0.936
XANTHOPHYCEAE
Characiopsis sp
0
0
0
0
2335
0.235
0
0
0
0
DINOPHYCEAE
Gymnodinium pusillum (Penard)
Lemmermann
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1786
8.981
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams
in Alberta
54
Appendix 4 Phytoplankton density (number of units/L) and biomass
(milligram/m3) in agricultural streams (2006)
Stream Name:
Date Sampled:
Rose Creek
30-Aug-06
Blindman R. #1
5-Sep-06
Blindman R. #2
6-Sep-06
Blindman R. #3
5-Sep-06
Strawberry Creek
31-Aug-06
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Density Biomass
CYANOBACTERIA
Anabaenopsis cunningtonii R. Taylor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
zodZd
Cylindrospermum sp
0
0
0
0
0
0
12762
3 248
0
0
Merismopedia tenusissima
Lemmermann
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12762
2.165
Oscillatoria limnetica Lemmerman
0
0
12762
2.245
0
0
0
0
0
0
Snowella lacustris (Chodat) Komarek et
Hindak
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12762
25.661
CHLOROPHYCEAE
A n^ic^mWo cm/ /c rimc'ili^ /Rt^inQph^
Aw fniolf UUtroi //L/o yicJKslllo \ r\cil loL-i l /
Kors.
u
u
u
O 1 uou
1 DP.Q
n
u
u
0
0
Ankyra judayi (G.M. Smith) Fott
0
0
12762
0.301
0
0
0
0
0
0
\^nianiyuufiiViiao bp. i
12762
1.069
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Chlamydomonas sp. 2
0
0
25525
23.095
76576
69.285
25525
13.365
0
0
Crucegenia tetrapedia (Kirchner) W. &
O.O. Vvobl
0
0
12762
1.711
0
0
0
0
12762
1.711
( »C#r»UC7iCl *-✓/ Ut/OL/i /t?i i IL.CI l II 1 1 . ^ W.IVI.
Smith
1 97fi9
I Z 1 DZ
u.ooo
u
u
u
u
n
u
u
0
0
IVIIlslUapUta bp
U
u
1 97R9
I c. 1 Oil
u
u
u
n
0
0
IVIUI IUI ajjl IIUIUI 1 1 LfUl ILUI LUI II \ \ \l\J\ &l )
Komarkova-Legenerova
0
0
12762
0.601
0
0
0
0
u
u
Monoraphidium griffithii (Berkeley)
Komarkova-Legenerova
12762
0.902
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
Mougeotia sp.
12762
357.249
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
Oocystis parva W. & G.S. West
0
0
12762
2.406
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pediastrum boryanum (Turpin)
Meneghini
0
0
12762
262.651
0
0
0
0
0
0
Scenedesmus acutiformis Schroeder
12762
2.406
0
0
0
0
12762
0.481
u
u
Scenedesmus acutus Meyen
0
0
25525
1.925
12762
5.132
0
0
o
0
Scenedesmus opoliensis P. Richter
12762
4.811
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tetraedron minimum (A. Braun)
Hansgirg
12762
1 1 .547
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CHRYSOPHYCEAE
Chromulina sp.
25525
8.554
0
0
63813
21.384
0
0
51050
17.107
Mallomonas sp
0
0
0
0
12762
8.554
0
0
n
o
Ochromonas sp
12762
4.277
25525
8.554
25525
8.554
0
0
4 ?77
Unidentified naked Chrysophyte sp
(Ochromonas 1 Chromulina )-large
76576
25.661
140389
52.725
102101
34.215
76576
30.793
102101
34.215
Unidentified naked Chrysophyte sp
(Ochromonas 1 Chromulina )-small
25525
0.214
25525
0.601
38288
0.902
0
0
25525
0.601
CRYPTOPHYCEAE
Cryptomonas erosa Ehrenberg
0
0
12762
6.843
76576
72.171
0
0
0
0
Cryptomonas marsonii Skuja
12762
13.365
38288
40.095
25525
21.384
38288
102.644
63813
171.073
Cyrptomonas phaseolus Skuja
0
0
12762
5.132
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cryptomonas reflexa Skuja
0
0
114864
259.817
63813
125.097
12762
14.702
0
0
Cryptomonas rostratiformis Skuja
0
0
0
0
12762
40.416
0
0
0
0
Katablepharis ovalis Skuja
0
0
51050
4.277
63813
5.346
0
0
12762
0.855
Rhodomonas minuta Skuja
153152
34.642
625373
141.456
612610
138.569
408407
92.379
331830
75.058
Rhodomonas minuta var.
nanoplanctonica Skuja
51050
3.421
63813
4.277
38288
3.208
38288
2.566
38288
4.01
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 55
in Alberta
Appendix 4 Phytoplankton density (number of units/L) and biomass
(milligram/m3) in agricultural streams (2006)
Stream Name:
Rose Creek
Blindman R. #1
Blindman R. #2
Blindman R. #3
Strawberry Creek
Date Sampled:
30-Aug-06
5-Sep-06
6-Sep-06
5-Sep-06
31-Aug-06
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
Density
Biomass
EUGLENOPHYCEAE
Euglena cf. minuta Prescott
293542
157.387
561559
301.089
472220
253.188
255254
136.859
204203
109.487
Euglena sp
0
0
0
0
12762
57.737
0
0
0
0
Phacus sp
0
0
0
0
0
0
12762
21.384
0
0
DINOPHYCEAE
Gymnodinium ordinatum Skuja
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
12762
8.019
Gymnodinium pusillum (Penard)
Lemmermann
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12762
34.054
R&rn i ADinpuvrPAP fniATniui^
DHUILLAKIUrn Il/CME ( U 3M 1 <JiV\0)
Amphora sp
U
u
I Z / OZ
O A^'X
Z.4 I O
U
U
U
n
U
U
U
Navicula sp
O 1 UOU
1 1 OA R
occon
ZOOZD
z.ooo
1 T7CO
-1 A C77
14. Of 1
Zo.4oD
QQOQQ
oozoo
o.Zl
Neidium sp
o
0
o
0
12762
4.084
o
o
o
0
Nitzschia or Fragilaria sp
0
0
25525
1.723
25525
4.39
0
0
0
0
Rhoicosphenia abbreviata (Agardh)
Lange-Bertalot
0
0
0
0
12762
2.077
0
0
0
0
Synedra sp
0
0
0
0
12762
2.553
0
0
12762
1.149
Centric diatom
12762
1.283
63813
25.06
38288
15.036
25525
2.165
0
0
Cocconeis sp
76576
117.621
38288
68.612
51050
20.42
76576
44.012
0
0
Diatoma moniliformis Kuetzing
25525
1.838
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fragilaria capucina Desmazieres
12762
0.517
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pilot Study to Evaluate the Practicality of Biological Monitoring of Small Agricultural Streams 56
in Alberta
LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES CANADA
Bibliotheque et Archives Canada
3 3286 54141357 7
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11