Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Michael Railling

Biology 3920

10/8/03

 

Research Proposal

 

Taxonomic Differences of Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Pool and Riffle Habitats of Blackburn Fork

Michael Railling

Wildlife and Fisheries Science

Tennessee Tech

 

 

Table of Contents

Project Summary

Introduction/Background

Methods

Materials

Expected Results and Benefits

Timelines

Resume

Literature Cited

Budget

 

 

Project Summary

Problem: Are the aquatic invertebrates the same in pool and riffle habitats.

Objective: Show that the two habitats should be comparably different by scoring the different taxa.Taxa Richness and Percent EPTís will be measured

Expected Results:In the pool, more tolerant taxa will be found.The Riffle will support taxa that are more susceptible to poor water quality.

 

 

Introduction/Background

Stream macroinvertebrate assemblage varies at both regional and local scales (Heino et al. 2002).My experiment the samples are taken only feet away from each other, however the Taxa Richness and Percent EPTís should be different.Lower water quality is directly associated to diversity (Heino et al. 2002).The water quality of pool areas is lower than that of Riffles causing less diversity.††

 

Methods

Three Hester-Dendy samplers were placed in pool habitats and three in riffle habitats.

Bugs will be scrubed off the substrate with brushes individually, while keeping the pool and riffles separate.

Bugs are identified to the genus level and then scored on data forms.

The results will be compared using using Taxa Richness and Percent EPTís(Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 2002).

 

 

Data Form

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location:

Blackburn Fork

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date:

9/14/2003

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Observer:

Michael Railling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pool

 

 

 

 

Riffle

 

 

 

Genus

 

Score

 

 

Genus

 

Score

1

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

 

4

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

8

 

 

 

 

8

 

 

 

9

 

 

 

 

9

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

11

 

 

 

 

11

 

 

 

12

 

 

 

 

12

 

 

 

13

 

 

 

 

13

 

 

 

14

 

 

 

 

14

 

 

 

15

 

 

 

 

15

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Taxa

 

Score Taxa

 

 

Total Taxa

 

Score Taxa

 

Total EPT's

 

Score EPT's

 

 

Total EPT's

 

Score EPT's

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taxa Richness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% EPT's

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Materials

Six Hester-Dendy Samplers with nine three inch plates on each.

One pint Formalin

One pint Isopropyl alcohol

One D-Frame net

12 bricks

 

 

 

Expected Results

Expected Results: In the pool more tolerant taxa will be found.The Riffle will support taxa that are more susceptible to poor water quality.

Benefits: Showing the importance of habitat specific invertebrates.

 

 

Project Timeline

Title: 8/20/03-9/03/03

Objective: 9/10/03-9/17/03

Literature References: 9/17/03-present

Data Form: 9/24/03-present

Experiment:8/9/03-present

 

 

Resume

 

Michael A. Railling

347 West 12th Street

Cookeville, TN 38501

MARailling21@tntech.edu

931-252-4339

 

 

OBJECTIVE: Seeking a challenging position which will utilize my interests and talents in the areas of fisheries and environmental biology.

 

 

QUALIFICATIONS:

Dedicated individual possessing both lab and field experience in the environmental biology.

 

EDUCATION

1991-1995      Marshall County High School

1998-2003†† Bachelor of Science, Wildlife/Fisheries Science Concentration: Fisheries

††††††††††††††††††† Minor: Biology

††††††††††††††††††† Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN

RELATED COURSE WORK

Fish Management, Limnology, Biostatistics, Ecology, Botany, Genetics, Invertebrate Zoology, Aquaculture, Systematic Botany, Ichthyology, Phycology, and National Wildlife Policy

 

ORGANIZATIONS

Tennessee Technological University Student Fisheries Association

Tennessee Technological University Wildlife Society

Tau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity

Tennessee Technological University Interfraternity Council, Vice President Risk Management

Structured Athletics for Challenged Children Volunteer

Special Olympics Volunteer

 

 

WORK EXPERIENCE

 

2003†††† Lab Technician, Pennington & Associates Inc., Responsibilities include

†††††††††††† separating invertebrates from stream samples; constructing substrates used to†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

†††††††††††† collect invertebrate animals and algae; invertebrate collection using D-frame kick

†††††††††††† nets, kick screens, and Hester-Dendy artificial substrates; experience in fisheries

†††††††††††† including, electrofishing and fish identification.††††††††††††

 

 

Literature cited

 

  • Adams, S.M., W.R. Hill, M.J. Peterson, M. G. Ryon, J. G. Smith, and A.J. Stewart. 2002. Assessing recovery in a stream ecosystem:Applying chemical and biological endpoints. Ecological Applications 12: 1510-1527.
  • Battin, T.J., L.A. Kaplan, J.D. Newbold, and Susan Hendricks. 2003. A mixing model of stream solute dynamics and the contribution of a hyporheic zone to ecosystem function. Freshwater Biology 48: 995- 1014.
  • Carter, J.L., and V.H. Resh. 2001. After site selection and before data analysis: Sampling, sorting, and labratory procedures used in stream benthic macroinvertebrates monitoring programs by USA state agencies. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 658-682.
  • Dyer, S.D. and Xinhao Wang. 2002 A comparison of stream biological responses to discharge from wastewater treatment plants in high and low population density areas.Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21: 1065-1075.
  • Fairchild, M.P., and Joseph P. Holomuzki. 2002. Spatial variability and assemblage structure of stream hydrosychid caddisflies. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 21: 576-590.
  • Heino, J., T. Muotka, and R. Paavola. 2003. Determinates of macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams: Regional and local influences. 2003. Journal of Animal Ecology 72: 425-434.
  • Hoffman, A., and V.W. Resh.Oviposition in three species of limnephiloid caddisflies(Trichoptera): Hierarchical influences on site selection. 2003. Freshwater Biology 48:1064-1077.
  • Hyne, R.V., and W.A. Maher. Invertebrate biomarkers: Links to toxicosis that predict population decline. 2003. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 54:366-374.
  • Kobayashi, S., and T. Kagaya. 2002. Differences in litter characteristics and macroinvertebrate assemblages between litter patches in pools and riffles in headwater stream. Limnology 3:37-42.
  • Malmqvist, B. 2002. Aquatic invertebrates in riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47:679-694.
  • Negishi, J.N., M. Inoue, and M. Nunokawa. 2002. Effects of channelisation on stream habitat in relation to a spate and flow refugia for macroinvertebrates in northern Japan. 2002. Freshwater Biology 47:1515-1529.
  • Parsons, M., M.C. Thoms, and R.H. Norris. 2003. Scales of macroinvertebrate distribution in relation to the hierarchical organization of river systems. Journal of the American Benthological Society 22: 105-122.
  • Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2002. Quality System Standard Operating Procedure for Macroinvertebrate Stream Surveys.Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. Nashville, TN.
  • Wymer, W.A., and S.B. Cook. 2003. Effects of Chironomidae (Diptera) taxanomic resolution on multivariate analysis of aquatic insect communities. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 18:179-186.

 

 

Budget

 

Research Budget

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Salaries and Wages

Year 1

 

Year 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Professional

 

$†† 150.00

 

$ 150.00

Technician

 

$†††† 65.00

 

$†† 65.00

Secretarial

 

$†††† 90.00

 

$†† 90.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subtotal

 

 

$†† 305.00

 

$ 305.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benefits

 

 

$††††††††† -††

 

$††††††† -††

 

 

 

 

 

 

Travel

 

 

$†††† 25.00

 

$†† 25.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-Expendables

 

$†† 100.00

 

$ 100.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expendables

 

 

 

 

Computer

 

 

$†† 700.00

 

$††††††† -††

Supplies and Expenses

$†† 278.13

 

$†††† 6.94

Copying and Telephone

$†††† 20.00

 

$†† 20.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subtotal

 

 

$†† 998.13

 

$†† 26.94

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indirect Costs

 

$†† 125.00

 

$ 125.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

Direct Costs

 

$1,303.13

 

$ 331.94

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Cost

 

$1,428.13

 

$ 456.94

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Research Cost

$1,885.07