Goodson

1

Local Water Quality Assessment

Kenneth Goodson

ENV 115

Dr. Blake Mathys

2 December 2016

Goodson

2

Abstract

The importance of the quality of water is essential to biodiversity. The methods

involved display diversity, richness and whether evenness is apparent. The results show facts

to what is happening with fish tendencies to preference of water quality. We gathered that

more intolerant fish in the less disturbed part of the stream. We found a correlation between

water and fish quality from implementing the scientific method of reasons to support

hypothetical study.

Introduction

The economic issue of water and fish quality has to do with methods used to sustain

the overall approach of aquaculture to be experienced diversely of cultures for years to come.

For instance the earth has some facts that cannot be undermined with the known

significance 71% of globe is covered with water and 97% of earth’s water in oceans. The

freshwater availability is 0.024% of the ocean parted into aquifers and surface waters which

then trickles down to creeks carrying the fish to their local habitat. (Miller Jr. and Spoolman

2010)

For a view on local quality of water’s contribution to the types of fish being able to

cope with their specific habitat we gathered and released fish from and back into the local

Alum Creek. The Alum Creek is 3,387-acre reservoir and 4,630 acres of fields and

woodlands providing sufficient recreational opportunities. The direction of the flow is south.

There is a dam on Alum Creek. From the scientific method we came up with two hypotheses.

We hypothesize that biodiversity will decrease from upstream to downstream due to

increased disturbance/human impact. The second hypothesis is that fish farther downstream

Goodson

3

will be generally more pollution tolerant, since we expect pollution and disturbance to increase

when moving downstream.

Public Drinking Water Supply Use

There is a sum of 119 public water areas using surface water. (Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency 2016)

Methods

We collected data on 8/31/16, 9/19/16, 10/5/16 and 10/12/16 throughout the semester of

over 10 kinds of diverse fish species in Columbus, OH USA. The findings took place within the

local backyard of the Ohio Dominican University of Alum Creek. The temperature settings of

the days were 68°F, 82°F, 70°F and 76°F. We focused gathering fishes in locals such as

farthest and intermediate upstream and farthest and intermediate downstream of Alum Creek.

The strategic gathering techniques applied was the successful seine nets which was

either by hand from the expert or from individuals on both ends letting the species flow into

the seine nets to gather the kinds of fish. We took heed to the implementation of making sure

the habitat remain sustainably controlled within their natural flow of prescribed habitat.

Majority of the class were able to wear recommended equipment for the capturing of

fish provided from the school for each day.

Goodson

4

Methods: Shannon Diversity Index

H = - Σ Pi ln Pi: Shannon Diversity Index equation

We use the equation to identify richness (how many species are there) and evenness. (how

equally individual species are spread amongst the species there) A narrow perspective of the

4 streams of 20 species the farthest upstream, on the day of 10/5/16, 8/31/16 intermediate

upstream, 10/12/16 intermediate downstream and 9/19/16 farthest downstream we seine:

Species Farthest

Upstream Intermediate

Upstream Intermediate Downstream

Farthest Downstream

Bluntnose Minnow 18 6 59 18

Sand Shiner 51 41 59 52

Silver Shiner 63 47 28 14

Spotfin Shiner 3 5 9 5

Brook Silverside 3 1 15 25

Johnny Darter 8 6 6 6

Greenside Darter 4 8 3 6

Banded Darter 33 21 1 9

Rainbow Darter 6 3

Central Stoneroller Minnow

1 1

2

Blackstripe Minnow 22 7

Bluegill 2 10

Green Sunfish 1 2

Northern Hogsucker 1 1

Largemouth Bass 2

Longear Sunfish 2

Golden Redhorse 1

Common White Sucker 1

Logperch 1

Scarlet Shiner 1 2

Goodson

5

To solve the Shannon Diversity Index for farthest upstream we take the negative summation

(Σ) PBluntnose Minnow = 18/190 the 190 is the total number of species of the farthest upstream. The

ln in between the Pi’s is the natural logarithm used to solve the Shannon Diversity Index.

H = -Σ (18/190)*ln (18/190) + (51/190) *ln (51/190)+(63/190)*ln (63/190) + (3/190)*ln

(3/190)... all the way to + (1/190)*ln (1/190) = A SDI of 1.728734722 for farthest upstream.

H = -Σ (18/154)*ln (18/154)+(52/154)*ln(52/154)+(14/154)*ln(14/154)... all the way to +

(2/154)*ln(2/154) = A SDI of 2.403007574 for farthest downstream. This same mechanism

goes for the middle upstream, which is a SDI of 1.761226694 and middle downstream, which is

a SDI of 1.934751224.

From the data gathered from the Shannon Diversity index of the 4 streams we can

conclude the diversity is more apparent within farthest downstream due to the fact that 2.403

is larger than the other 3 streams. The evenness aspect is not really good due to the fact that

there are all Sand Shiners within all 4 streams.

Results

We are going to take a look at our fine gathered quantitative and qualitative data.

There were exactly 664 fish of species of the same kind gathered throughout the entirety of

the research project. The average seine per day was 14. The farthest upstream had the most

species of individuals. The intermediate upstream had the least species of individuals. The

Goodson

6

range was from 1 to 63 with regard to minimum and maximum captured and release throughout

the allotted timeframe.

Figure 12 shows that there is a positive correlation between the Shannon Diversity Index and

that the trendline better fits the both hypothesis

Figures under the streams represent the total amounted species gathered for the dates

provided.

Weather and temperature speaks for themselves. Averages per day show how many species

were seine each of provided days.

y = 0.2196x + 1.4078 R² = 0.83214

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 1 2 3 4 5

Streams

Shannon Diversity Index

Shannon Diversity Index

Linear(Shannon Diversity Index)

Goodson

7

Figure 12-1 shows the number of species within a part of Alum Creek’s

stream. Includes averages, conditions, dates and tolerance codes.

Figure 12-1 shows the quality of water due to the school of same species within the type of

stream. Soil fertility is at its peak within the farthest upstream part with regard to the high

population of Silver Shiner.

Species Farthest

Upstream Intermediate

Upstream Intermediate Downstream

Farthest Downstream

Blackstripe Topminnow (IBI: 1, 10) 22 7

Bluntnose Minnow (IBI: 1, 7,

10)

18 6 59

18

Sand Shiner 51 41 59 52

Silver Shiner 63 47 28 14

Scarlet Shiner 1 2

Spotfin Shiner 3 5 9 5

Brook Silverside 3 1 15 25

Johnny Darter 8 6 6 6

Bluegill 2 10

Greenside Darter (IBI: 1, 2, 10) 4 8 3 6

Banded Darter (IBI: 1, 2, 5, 10)

33 21 1

9

Green Sunfish (IBI: 1, 3, 6, 10) 1 2

Rainbow Darter (IBI: 1, 2, 10) 6 3

Central Stoneroller Minnow

(IBI: 1, 10)

1 1

2

Northern Hogsucker (IBI: 1, 4,

5, 10)

1

1

Largemouth Bass (IBI: 1, 3, 9, 10)

2

Longear Sunfish (IBI: 1, 3, 10) 2

Golden Redhorse (IBI: 1, 4, 10) 1

Common White Sucker (IBI: 1, 4, 10)

1

Logperch (IBI: 1, 2, 10) 1

Conditions Sunny, 68°F Sunny, 82°F Sunny, 70°F Sunny, 76°F

Date 10/5/16 8/31/16 10/12/16 9/19/16

Average 19.111 14.555 12.5 10.538

Goodson

8

Tolerance Graphs

Figure 12-2 shows species of farthest downstream as “ moderately intolerant to tolerant”

4%

11%

31%

8%

1% 3%

15%

4%

6%

4%

5%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

Farthest Downstream

Blackstripe Topminow

Bluntnose Minnow

Sand Shiner

Silver Shiner

Scarlet Shiner

Spotfin Shiner

Brook Silverside

Johnny Darter

Bluegill

Greenside Darter

Banded Darter

Green Sunfish

Rainbow Darter

Central Stoneroller Minnow

Northern Hogsucker

Largemouth Bass

Goodson

9

Figure 12-3 shows species of intermediate downstream as “ moderately intolerant to

tolerant”

Figure 12-4 shows of species within farthest upstream as “ intolerant”

11%

29%

29%

14%

1%

4%

7%

3%

Intermediate Downstream

Blackstripe Topminow

Bluntnose Minnow

Sand Shiner

Silver Shiner

Scarlet Shiner

Spotfin Shiner

Brook Silverside

Johnny Darter

Bluegill

Greenside Darter

Banded Darter

9%

27%

33%

2%

2%

4%

2%

17%

3%

1%

Farthest Upstream

Blackstripe Topminow

Bluntnose Minnow

Sand Shiner

Silver Shiner

Scarlet Shiner

Spotfin Shiner

Brook Silverside

Johnny Darter

Bluegill

Greenside Darter

Goodson

10

Figure 12-5 shows of species within intermediate upstream as “intolerant”

We further gathered that biodiversity increased from upstream to downstream due to

increased disturbance/human impact. The farthest downstream location sampled on

September 9, 2016 has a species richness of 18 and a Shannon diversity value of 2.403. Since

this is the greatest of the other 3 stream quality types, the acknowledgement of farthest

downstream has more diversity than intermediate downstream, intermediate upstream and

farthest upstream.

According to the EPA perch are the species intolerant to pollutants and accordingly to

our research there was only a perch found in the pollutant areas. Another statement is that

some species have become tolerant to pollutants due to their overall genetics and adaptation

4%

29%

34%

4%

1%

4%

6%

15%

1% 1%

1%

1%

Intermediate Upstream

Blackstripe Topminow

Bluntnose Minnow

Sand Shiner

Silver Shiner

Scarlet Shiner

Spotfin Shiner

Brook Silverside

Johnny Darter

Bluegill

Greenside Darter

Banded Darter

Goodson

11

to the pollutants such as the Brook Silverside. EPA has acknowledged the fact that fish

farther downstream generally are more pollutant tolerant since we expect pollution and

disturbance to increase when moving downstream.

Discussion

We supported the hypothesis that fish farthest downstream are usually more pollution

tolerant, since we expect pollution and disturbance to increase when moving downstream.

The hypothetical statement that biodiversity will decrease from upstream to downstream due

to increased disturbance/human impact was not supported. From the study gathered we

found that the overall population of the local Alum Creek has an instrumental value of

biodiversity with regard to fish and the amount of them.

Similar to the mechanism used from the Shannon Index Diversity equation of American

Fisheries Society (2005) productive findings to water quality to fish preference was realized.

The diversity aspect of Alum Creek is significant along with the operation of harvest methods

applied. Akin to the concept of United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999)

protocols were enforced as inexpensive screening tools for interpreting if a stream is

supporting or not supporting a designated aquatic biotic use. Due to the strip cutting method

applied the fertility of the soil along with the known gain of habitat shows a local

sustainability approach towards Alum Creek natural capital.

Goodson

12

Standardized to the results of Miller Jr. and Spoolman (2010) reservoirs like Alum

Creek provided an economic income of Recreation to conduct this research. We gathered that

schools of species of fish were using the intermediate downstream of Alum Creek as a key

area for reproductive practices. Alike to the results of United States Environmental

Protection Agency (2008) some species of families possess long life spans; many fish species

are familiar to the general public and provide recreational opportunities. Study also show

that some species prefer the atmosphere or area of Alum Creek’s farthest upstream.

Diversity increased downstream due to the lazy ambience current over both coarse and fine

subtrates combined with the massage like vibrations of passing vehicles sent from the pillars

to stream.

A suggestive future research that could better support this situation is vibration

readers or recorders within the 4 types of streams to understand the type preferred whether it

be pulsating, constant, none or others. The strip cutting logging operation has impacted the

water quality of upstream and downstream due to enhanced soil fertility pouring into the

streams adding longevity life spans to Sand and Silver Shiners just to point out a few species.

Goodson

13

Literature Cited

American Fisheries Society. (2005). Changes in Fish Assemblage Status in Ohio’s

Nonwadeable Rivers and Streams over Two Decades. Ohio: Author.

Miller Jr., G. Tyler, Spoolman E. Scott. (2010). Environmental Science.

Australia_Brazil_Japan_Korea_Mexico_Singapore_Spain_United

Kingdom_United States: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Ohio Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and

Assessment Report. Columbus, OH: Author.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). An Introduction to Freshwater Fishes

As Biological Indicators. Washington, DC: Author.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for

Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers. Washington, DC: Author.