Linking Stream Sediment Metrics and Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Status in East Tennessee Streams

106 Pages·2016·2.58 MB·English

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff TTeennnneesssseeee,, KKnnooxxvviillllee
TTRRAACCEE:: TTeennnneesssseeee RReesseeaarrcchh aanndd CCrreeaattiivvee
EExxcchhaannggee
Masters Theses Graduate School
8-2013
LLiinnkkiinngg SSttrreeaamm SSeeddiimmeenntt MMeettrriiccss aanndd AAqquuaattiicc MMaaccrrooiinnvveerrtteebbrraattee
SSttaattuuss iinn EEaasstt TTeennnneesssseeee SSttrreeaammss
Grant Thomas Lynch
[email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes
Part of the Environmental Monitoring Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Lynch, Grant Thomas, "Linking Stream Sediment Metrics and Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Status in East
Tennessee Streams. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2013.
https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/2431
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and
Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE:
Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected].
To the Graduate Council:
I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Grant Thomas Lynch entitled "Linking Stream
Sediment Metrics and Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Status in East Tennessee Streams." I have
examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be
accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a
major in Geography.
Carol P. Harden, Major Professor
We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance:
John S. Schwartz, Liem T. Tran
Accepted for the Council:
Carolyn R. Hodges
Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School
(Original signatures are on file with official student records.)
Linking Stream Sediment Metrics and Aquatic
Macroinvertebrate Status in East Tennessee
Streams

A Thesis Presented for the
Master of Science Degree
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Grant Thomas Lynch
August 2013
ii

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Carol Harden, not only for providing me the
opportunity to pursue my Master’s degree, but also for her advice and guidance
throughout the process. I would also like to thank my committee, Dr. John Schwartz
and Dr. Liem Tran, for their help and knowledge over the past two years. I owe
thanks to Larry Everett of TDEC and James Terrell for their help in identifying
sampling locations. Thank you to Alex Pilote, Derek Martin, and Julie McKnight for
their help in the field. Finally, I am forever grateful for the love, support, and
encouragement from my family and close friends.
iii

Abstract
Excess sediment is one of the leading causes of impairment of the rivers and
streams of Tennessee and in the United States. Sediment acts as a pollutant by
degrading the quality of habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) currently assesses the quality
of streams in Tennessee by conducting benthic macroinvertebrate surveys. These
surveys use seven biometrics to calculate Tennessee Macroinvertebrate Index (TMI)
scores. This method is well tested and reliable, but it has not been shown to directly
link changes in stream sediment characteristics to macroinvertebrate status.
Finding a stream sediment metric that could indicate water quality with the same
reliability would be valuable for watershed management. The purpose of this study
was to investigate the relationship between channel-bed sediment in riffles and
benthic macroinvertebrate status in East Tennessee streams in order to determine
whether fine sediment metrics might be useful indicators of stream health. This was
accomplished by comparing bed sediment characteristics to the status of aquatic
macroinvertebrates as reported by the TMI and by the seven biometrics used to
derive the index. Research focused on channel bed sediment in riffle areas in 20
streams within the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion. Channel bed sediment size was
characterized using a modified Wolman pebble count. Additional pebble count data
from previous studies by Terrell (2011) and Williams (2005) were also added to the
data set. Fine (<2 mm) sediment was collected and its composition was determined
through laser particle size analysis. No signficant correlation was found between
iv

fine sediment size classes and TMI biometrics. Metrics for channel bed sediments
significantly correlated with nearly all TMI biometrics. The highest correlations
were between TMI scores and sediment metrics for larger particle sizes (D
50
[diameter at which 50% of the sample was smaller] and D [diameter at which 84%
84
of the sample was smaller]) rather than fine sediment. Statistical tests for
differences in sediment metrics between levels of TMI impairment suggest that the
D and D of bed sediments could potentially be used to determine whether a
50 84
stream is considered to be impaired.
v

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Justification for Research .................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Background .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.2.1. Benthic Macroinvertebrates as Stream Quality Indicators ....................... 3
1.2.2. Fine Sediment Deposition and its Effects on Aquatic Life ......................... 5
1.2.3. Fine Sediment Size Classes .................................................................................... 6
1.3. Objectives and Hypotheses ................................................................................................ 8
1.4. Notes on Previous Research .............................................................................................. 9
1.5. Thesis Organization............................................................................................................ 10
2. Methods ........................................................................................................................................... 12
2.1. Study Area .............................................................................................................................. 12
2.2. Site Selection ......................................................................................................................... 13
2.3. Field Procedure .................................................................................................................... 16
2.3.1. Pebble Count Procedure ...................................................................................... 17
2.3.2. Fine Sediment Sample Collection ..................................................................... 17
2.4. Pebble Count Calculations ............................................................................................... 18
2.5. Laboratory Procedure ....................................................................................................... 19
2.5.1. SS Sample Processing…………………………………………………………………... 19
2.5.2. Sample Preparation Procedure…………………………………………………….. 19
2.5.3. Particle Size Analysis…………………………………………………………………… 22
2.6. Statistical Analysis .............................................................................................................. 24
3. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 26
3.1. Results from Pebble Count Data .................................................................................... 26
3.1.1. Collected Data……………………………………………………………………………... 26
3.1.2. Results from Combined Dataset…………………………………………………… 26
3.2. Fine Sediments ..................................................................................................................... 34
3.3. Differences in Substrate Metrics between Impairment Groups ....................... 38
3.3.1. MANOVA/ANOVA and Post Hoc Test Results………………………………… 38
3.3.2. Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U Results…………………………….. 48
4. Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 51
4.1. Discussion of Results from Correlation Analysis .................................................... 51
4.1.1. Bed Sediments and TMI Metrics…………………………………………………… 51
4.1.2. Fine Sediment Size Classes and TMI Metrics…………………………………. 58
4.2. Discussion of Results from Impairment Group Comparisons ........................... 60
4.3. Combination of Pebble Count Data .............................................................................. 62
5. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 64
List of References ................................................................................................................................ 68
vi

Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 73
Appendix 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 74
Appendix 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 85
Vita ............................................................................................................................................................ 96
vii

List of Tables
Table 1. Sampling Locations ........................................................................................................ 16
Table 2. Wolman Pebble Count Combined Dataset, with TMI metrics ....................... 27
Table 3. Shapiro-Wilk Test for Sediment Metrics D , D , and % <2 mm................... 32
50 84
Table 4. Correlations between Sediment Size Metrics and TMI Metrics .................... 33
Table 5. Particle Sizes from Laser Particle Size Analysis, with TMI Metrics ............. 35
Table 6: Shapiro-Wilk Test for % Sand, % Silt, and % Clay ...............................................36
Table 7. Correlations between Fine Sediment Size Classes and TMI Metrics ........... 37
Table 8. Correlations between D , D , and % <2 mm...................................................... 41
50 84
Table 9. Box’s Test for Homogeneity of Variance-Covariance ........................................ 42
Table 10. MANOVA Summary Table ......................................................................................... 42
Table 11. Univariate ANOVA Summary Table ....................................................................... 43
Table 12. LSD Post-Hoc Tests for Sediment Metrics and Impairment Groups ......... 44
Table 13. Box’s Test for Homogeneity of Variance-Covariance ..................................... 45
Table 14. MANOVA Summary Table ......................................................................................... 45
Table 15. Univariate ANOVA Summary Table ....................................................................... 46
Table 16. LSD Post-Hoc Tests for Sediment Metrics and Impairment Groups ......... 47
Table 17. K-W Test Summary Table ......................................................................................... 49
Table 18. Mann-Whitney U Test between Non and Slightly Impaired Groups ........ 49
Table 19. Mann-Whitney U Test between Non and Moderately Impaired ................ 49
Table 20. Mann-Whitney U Test for Slightly and Moderately Impaired Groups ..... 50
viii

List of Figures
Figure 1. Site Locations ..................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2. Stainless Steel Sediment Sampler and Metal Plate ............................................. 18
Figure 3. Reaction of 35% H O and Organic Matter in Sediment Samples ................. 21
2 2
Figure 4. Cilas Laser Particle Size Analyzer 1190 .................................................................. 22
Figure 5. Box Plots for D and D over Impairment Groups ............................................ 40
50 84
Figure 6. Box Plot for % <2 mm over Impairment Groups ................................................. 41
Figure 7. Scatter Plot for D and TMI Scores.................................................................................... 57
50
Figure 8. Scatter Plot for D and TMI Scores ..................................................................................... 58
84