Development of a Macrophyte-based IBI Development of a Macrophyte-based IBI for Minnesota Lakesfor Minnesota Lakes
Marcus Beck University of Minnesota
Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Hodson Hall, 1980 Folwell Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108
Project Background
• Identification of a set of indicatorsresponsive to changes in lake quality
“To develop an ecological assessment method for Minnesota lakes that meets the requirements of the CWA through the vehicle of the SLICE program.”
• Literature Review• Data Search• Index Development
http://www.mndnr.gov/fisheries/slice/index.html
Today’s Talk
Developing the index
• Methods and analyses• Initial results• Project culmination
Today’s Talk
• Literature review and data search suggested one thing…
• Development of aMacrophyte-basedlake IBI
Why use aquatic plants?
• Relation to fish community• Immobile• Ease of identification• Available data• Lessons from Wisconsin
0102030405060708090
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
%Watershed Disturbance
IBI S
core
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 20 40 60 80 100
% Watershed Disturbance
Num
ber o
f D
arte
r Spe
cies
Collect Data Analyze Biological Attributes
Abundance/Condition
Number per meter
DELT (deformities, eroded fins, lesions, tumors)
Select, Verifyand Score Metrics
Interpretation of IBI Score
Sum of Metric
Scores = IBI
025
7
10
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
MetricScores
Species Richness
Taxa Richness
Number of darter species
Trophic Function
Number ofinsectivore species
Number ofomnivore species
Very Poor
Development Methods
• DNR Point Intercept surveys (Madsen 1999)
• 82 lakes, 105 surveys• Lake classes same as fish
IBI
23 24 25 29 31 34 35 38 39 43
Co
un
t
05
10
15
20
Distribution of lake classes within dataset. Lake classes are defined by size, depth, chemical fertility, and length of growing season (Schupp 1992).
Location of lakes by ecoregion used for IBI development.
AMCI (Weber et al. 1995; Nichols et al. 2000)
“…a multipurpose, multimetric tool to assess the biological quality of aquatic plant communities in lentic systems.” Nichols et al. 2000
– Maximum depth of plant growth– Percentage of littoral zone vegetated– Simpson’s Diversity Index– Relative frequency of submersed species– Relative frequency of sensitive species– Relative frequency of exotic species– Taxa number
Regional Adaptation?
Development Methods
• Regional adaptations– Exotic, submersed, sensitive spp. in MN
– MPCA wetland FQA, appendix Ahttp://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/wetlandassessment-guide.html
Index Analysis
• Correlations to measured levels of disturbance– TSI, watershed land use
• Ecoregion differences• Metric sensitivity analysis • Metric redundancy analysis • Effect of variable sampling effort on IBI score
010
20
30
40
Depth
(ft)
MDPG
020
40
60
80
100
Perc
ent V
egeta
ted
%LV
020
40
60
80
100
Index S
core
SDI
010
20
30
40
Specie
s R
ichness
TN
020
4060
8010
0
% F
eque
ncy
RFSU
020
4060
8010
0
% F
requ
ency
RFSE
020
4060
8010
0
% F
requ
ency
RFEX
Distributions of seven raw metric scores for a sample of MN lakes (n=105).
Standardized metric scores for Simpson’s Diversity metric plotted against raw metric scores.
0 20 40 60 80
02
46
81
0
Raw SDI Metric
Sta
nd
ard
ize
d S
DI M
etr
ic10987654321
Scaled/standardized raw metricsMDPG
<4.2 1
>=4.2, <6 2
>=6, <8 3
>=8, <10 4
>=10, <11.3 5
>=11.3, <14.5 6
>=14.5, <16 7
>=16, <19 8
>=19, <21.6 9
>=21.6 10
%LV
0 1
>0, <15.15 2
>=15.15, <17.33 3
>=17.33, <21.82 4
>=21.82, <23.08 5
>=23.08, <30.92 6
>=30.92, <33.92 7
>=33.92, <40.92 8
>=40.92, <50 9
>=50 10
SDI
<43.69 1
>=43.69, <65.04 2
>=65.04, <73.46 3
>=73.46, <76.58 4
>=76.58, <79.29 5
>=79.29, <83.37 6
>=83.37, <87.98 7
>=87.98, <89.43 8
>=89.43, <91.49 9
>=91.49 10
RFSU
<13.32 1
>=13.32, <44.57 2
>=44.57, <57.57 3
>=57.57, <60.88 4
>=60.88, <67.74 5
>=67.74, <70 6
>=70, <72.59 7
>=72.59, <73.66 8
>=73.66, <75 9
>=75, <85 10
>=85, <88.96 9
>=88.96, <92.24 8
>=92.24, <95.96 7
>=95.95, <98.53 6
>=98.53 5
RFSE
<0.47 1
>=0.47, <1.27 3
>=1.27, <2.82 4
>=2.82, <4.49 5
>=4.49, <5.56 6
>=5.56, <6.74 7
>=6.74, <11.31 8
>=11.31, <18.41 9
>=18.41 10
RFEX
<0.12 10
>=0.12, <2.27 6
>=2.27, <8.33 5
>=8.33, <16.11 4
>=16.11, <24.86 3
>=24.86, <37.35 2
>=37.35 1
TN
<4 1
>=4, <6 2
>=6, <8 3
>=8, <9 4
>=9, <12 5
>=12, <16 6
>=16, <19.8 7
>=19.8, <23.2 8
>=23.2, <27.6 9
>=27.6 10
Initial Results
Least-squares regression of IBI scores against Trophic State Index (Carlson 1977) for a sample of MN lakes (n=105). Results of the regression model are significant.
40 50 60 70 80 90
010
20
30
40
50
60
70
TSI
IBI
Sco
re
R² 0.6364P<0.0001
Least-squares regression of IBI scores against TSI separated by ecoregion (n=105). Results of the regression models are significant for the NLF and NCHF ecoregions.
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
0
TSI
IBI S
core
*NLF R-squared 0.317 P<0.001
*NCHF R-squared 0.656 P<0.0001
NGP, WCP R-squared 0.127 P=0.1925
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
20
30
40
50
60
% Agriculture
IBI S
core
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
20
30
40
50
60
% Urban
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
20
30
40
50
60
% Forest
IBI scores plotted against the proportion of land use within a lake’s watershed (N=65). Land use proportions were arcsine square root transformed to better approximate normality.
R² 0.3827P<0.001
R² 0.1475P<0.01
R² 0.4555 P<0.001
Sensitivity Analysis
• Methods in Minns et al. (1994)• Remove metric, recalculate score• Difference of original and recalculated• Variance of difference indicates sensitivity
MDPG % LV SDI RFSU RFSE RFEX TN17.31 10.71 7.83 11.68 13.90 35.22 5.93
Redundancy Analysis
• Stepwise comparison between raw metrics using Pearson Correlation Coefficients (ρ)
• No correlations exceed 0.8, -0.8
%LV SDI RFSU RFSE RFEX TN
MDPG 0.279 0.512 0.334 0.058 0.095 0.687
%LV 0.498 0.312 0.273 0.13 0.432
SDI 0.276 0.251 -0.136 0.702
RFSU -0.208 0.256 0.079
RFSE -0.255 0.32
RFEX -0.173
IBI at reduced sampling effort
• Lakes oversampled at point density ~3.3 pts/acre
• Scores calculated for 10% to 90% at 10% intervals for three lakes
• Points randomly selected from surveys at specified level of effort
• Scores calculated from means of 100 iterations for each level of effort
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
52
54
56
58
60
62
Points/Acre
IBI
sco
re
Christmas
Jane
Square
IBI scores and 95% confidence intervals for three lakes (Jane, Square, and Christmas) plotted against varying levels of sampling intensity. Sampling intensity is shown for 10% intervals from 10% to 100% effort. Mean IBI scores were obtained using 100 estimates of IBI scores for each level of sampling intensity.
Conclusions
• IBI shows predictable responses to changes in water quality for a variety of lake classes that differed by ecoregion
• Sensitivity analysis suggests index is most influenced by presence of exotic species and least influenced by species richness
Conclusions
• Metrics provide unique information about ecosystem health (not redundant)
• The IBI is not heavily influenced by sampling effort and any effects should be considered negligible dependant upon desired management goals
Additional Analyses
• Examine each metric• Relationships to determinants of WQ• Effects of seasonal, annual variability• Management questions, e.g. sampling
differences/taxonomic resolution?
Project Culmination• Inclusion of SLICE vegetation surveys• Index modification
– Metric additions/modifications– Metric scoring
• Comparisons to fish IBI
• Future work?
Acknowledgements• Minnesota Department of Natural Resources• DNR:Dave Wright, Ray Valley, Melissa Drake, Cindy Tomcko, Donna Perleberg, Nicole Hansel-
Welch, Nick Proulx• PCA: Steve Heiskary, Joe Magner• U of M: Ray Newman, James Johnson, Susan Galatowitsch, Christy Dolph, Statistics
Counseling/Statistics Department• Data sources• Field personnel
ReferencesCarlson, R.E. 1977. Trophic State Index for Lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr. 22: 361-369.
Madsen, J.D. 1999. Point intercept and line intercept methods for aquatic plant management. APCRP Technical Notes Collection (TN APCRP-M1-02). U.S. Army Enginee Center, Vicksburg, MS, U.S.A.
Minns, C.K., Cairns, V., Randall, R. and Moore, J. 1994. An index of biotic integrity (IBI) for fish assemblages in the littoral zone of Great Lakes' Areas of Concern. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51: 1804-1822.
Nichols, S. 1999. Floristic quality assessment of Wisconsin lake plant communities with example applications. Lake Reserv. Manage. 15: 133-141.
Nichols, S., Weber, S. and Shaw, B. 2000. A proposed aquatic plant community biotic index for Wisconsin lakes. Environ. Manage. 26: 491-502.
Schupp, D.H. 1992. An ecological classification of Minnesota lakes with associated fish communities. Investigational Report 41, Section of Fisheries, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Weber, S., Nichols, S.A. and Shaw, B. 1995. Aquatic macrophyte communities in eight northern Wisconsin flowages. Final report to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A. pp. 60.
NLF NCHF NGP, WCP
2030
4050
60
IBI S
core
s
Five number summary boxplots of IBI scores separated by ecoregion (n=105).
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
010
2030
4050
6070
SDF
IBI
Sco
re
Least-squares regression of IBI scores against Shoreline Development Factor for a sample of MN lakes (n=105). Results of the regression model are significant.
R² 0.1036P<0.001