Aquatic Insect Populations of the Middle Provo River: Mitigation as Compared to Natural and Channel
Abstract
The Provo River in the Heber Valley is composed of naturally meandering sections, human channelized sections and human meandering sections. Historically the river was channelized which has led to some biological losses. After the construction of Jordanelle Reservoir sections of the stream were restored to their meandering state in an attempt to help restore the diversity and aquatic habitat that had been damaged from channelization. I collected aquatic insects from a channel site, a natural site and a restored site to determine the effect that mitigation and channelization had on aquatic insect populations. I determined that diversity was greatest in the channel, followed by the mitigation site and then by the naturally meandering site.
Keywords: macroinvertebrates, First 100, biodiversity
Introduction
The Provo River is a valuable waterway for a variety of reasons, including a major water source for the Wasatch Front with storage in the form of two large dams on either side of the Heber Valley (Bio-West 2004). During the mid-20th century the river in the Heber Valley was channelized to decrease evaporation and increase the efficiency of water transfer across the valley floor (Belk, pers. comm.). With the construction of the Jordanelle Reservoir came concerns of biologists about the negative effects of regulation of streams for biodiversity, which can have a negative effect on biological systems downstream (Dietrich, 1996). Funding was appropriated to restore the natural meandering of the river system. The Provo River Restoration
2
Project (PRRP) was designed to “enhance biological productivity and diversity of aquatic habitat, riparian areas, and other environmental resources” (Bio-West 2009).
Various biological surveys have been taken in response to mitigation efforts such as those of Belk (2000), Ellsworth (2003) and Shiozawa (2002). Belk’s study of fish populations concluded that the mitigation efforts had been effective in increasing fish diversity as compared with the channelized locations (Belk, personal contact). Shiozawa (2003) studied macrobenthos populations. Macrobenthos are relatively large organisms that live at the bottom of a water column. He found that in general the channelized site generally contained lower biodiversity than the mitigated or natural sites, although this varied from year to year (Shiozawa, 2003 and Table 1). Ellsworth, like Belk, surveyed fish populations. He found that the naturally meandering site had the greatest species diversity followed by a mitigated study site and finally followed by the channelized site from which he extracted his samples (Ellsworth, 2003).
With the knowledge that the PRRP was designed to better aquatic habitat and diversity, I was interested in assessing the effects of mitigation on macroinvertebrate population diversity in the Heber Valley (Bio-West 2009). In many ways my study shadowed the structure used by Ellsworth in his 2003 study of Provo River fish populations.
The Heber Valley is flat-bottomed and therefore the Provo River which runs through it naturally was structured with meanders, not straight channels like those typical of constrained canyon streams (Gillum, 2006). Bio-West’s 2009 Final Environmental Impact report of 2006 notes that the river was channelized during the mid-1900s; subsequently efforts have been taken to undo the channelization in various sections of the river. I selected one of these restored sites, a channel site and a site in a 1.3 mile section of the river that wasn’t ever straightened. This study
3
compares the macroinvertebrate populations in these sites to assess the effectiveness of mitigation on restoring biodiversity in aquatic insect populations.
Materials and Methods
Site Selection
Three sites were chosen for aquatic insect population sampling from the Provo River in the Heber Valley between Jordanelle Reservoir and Deer Creek Reservoir (Table 2). The Provo River in the Heber Valley was historically channelized to increase efficiency in water transfer from an engineering perspective. A natural river meanders, when traveling across a flat valley, making large loops which from an engineering point of view is inefficient because it increases the time of water transfer and is prone to flooding (Gillum, 2006). When the Jordenalle Dam was constructed a compromise had to be reached between environmental interests and the dam advocates. The Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission received funding to restore the meanders and natural environment of the river in the Heber Valley (Bio-West, 2009).
Channeling rivers decreases time of water transfer and probability of flooding (Gillum, 2006); however, there are serious biological losses in the channelization of a river system such as the loss of habitat area, increased velocities resulting in elimination of species adapted to lower velocities, and general decrease in aquatic fish and macroinvertebrate populations (Brooker, 1985). Mitigation attempts to restore the biological health that is damaged in channelization (Bio-West, 2009). I was interested in comparing the aquatic insect populations in areas that were channelized and then mitigated, currently channelized, and naturally meandering.
The first site chosen was located in a mitigated area slightly downstream from Jordanelle Reservoir (Table 2 and Figure 1). This site was chosen as a representation for aquatic insect populations in mitigated areas of the Provo River.
4
The second site was chosen in an area that was never channelized and had retained the natural meanders of the river (Table 2 and Figure 1). This site was chosen to examine the effects of channelization and mitigation as compared to the natural stream (Figure 2).
The third site was chosen from an area that was channelized (Table 2, Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Sampling
I used an aquatic insect net to collect samples from the stream. The net was approximately 30 cm x 15 cm and had solid fabric on the sides from the opening until the bottom. The bottom was constructed from extremely fine mesh so that water could go through but small insects like midges could be caught. My net motions included running the net through submerged vegetation, setting the net downstream while disturbing vegetation, setting the net downstream while I disturbed the bed of the stream (rocks, silt, sand) and finally simply sweeping through the stream flow. The insects collected were deposited in a white tray, partially filled with water, from which they were placed in test tubes filled with 70% ethanol using forceps. 110 invertebrates were collected from each site in this manner.
This type of sample is known as a “First 100 Sample.” It is important to emphasize the “first” because no special effort was taken to maximize the diversity of specimens collected while sampling. Rather I attempted to quantitatively match the proportions of insects collected from the stream. Ten extra insects were sampled to insure that at least 100 invertebrates were sampled from each site, with the knowledge that counting errors can and do occur, whether from undercounting, incorrect identification of what is an insect and what is plant mass, or losing the organism while attempting to transfer it from the tray to the vial.
5
After samples from the three Heber Valley sites were collected macroinvertebrates were taken to the lab of Dr. Nelson of the Brigham Young University Biology Department. Specimens were identified to the family with aid from computer identification software (Nelson, 2006), a field guide book (Borror, 1970), and help from Dr. Nelson. Specimens were examined under a stereo dissecting microscope (Olympus SZX-ILLB100) and some were photographed on a microscope (Olympus SZX-ILLB100 with Olympus DP111 camera) as well.
The results were then organized graphically using Microsoft Excel for visual representation of data.
Results
After sampling and lab identification I reached these results. Of the three sites the channel site had the greatest biodiversity, as far as number of families collected. I collected specimens from 11 different families: Trichoptera brachycentridae, Chironomidae (midges), Elmidae Elmina Optioservus, Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae, Perlodidae Isoperla, Trichoptera limnephilidae, Dytiscidae, Asellidae Asellus aquaticus, Coleoptera Elmidae Baetidae, Hydropsychidae hydropsyche, Ephemerellidae Drunella grandis (Table 3 and Figure 4). Chironomidae dominated the sample numerically, composing 28% of the specimens collected in the sample (Table 3).
The mitigation site sample contained 7 families: Chironomidae, Trichoptera hesperophylax, Trichoptera brachycentridae, Hydropsychidae hydropsyche, Ephemerellidae Drunella grandis, Perlodidae Isoperla, Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae. The most common family numerically was the Trichoptera brachycentridae, which was 41% of the sample (Table 3 and Figure 4).
6
The site with the fewest number of families collected was the site taken from the 1.3 miles that were never channelized and had retained their natural meanders. Six families were collected at this site: Asellidae Asellus aquaticus, Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae, Chironomidae, Trichoptera brachycentridae, Physidae Physella, Perlodidae Isoperla. Ephemeroptera Ephemerellidae is the most common numerically, 39% of the sample (Table 3 and Figure 4).
Discussion
Mitigation efforts were undertaken to attempt to revitalize diversity and ecosystem health. My results run contrary to the studies of the Provo River commissioned by the mitigation committee (Bio-West 2009 and 2004) and Ellsworth (2003). Dr. Belk is a fish specialist. In his survey of the Provo River in 2000 in the Heber Valley he discovered that areas that were mitigated contained greater fish diversity than channelized locations (Belk, pers. comm.). A similar study was conducted in 2003 by Ellsworth that shared similar results regarding greater fish biodiversity in mitigated and natural sites when compared to channel sites (Ellsworth, 2003). Fish subsist on insect populations; therefore it follows that insect populations should correlate with fish populations (Belk, Personal Contact). My study results run contrary to Belk’s judgment that insect population diversity should correlate with fish populations. My sampling also ran contrary to the study conducted by Shiozawa of Macrobenthos (Shiozawa, 2002). There are several reasons why this seeming discrepancy between other studies and my study may have occurred. One explanation would be human impacts, urbanization, agriculture, or land development to name a few (Bilby et al., 2003). For example both the mitigation site and the natural site are very close to fairly busy automobile highways. A study could be conducted to test the effect of a nearby highway on insect populations. One other explanation is that insect
7
diversity is actually better in channelized sections and the reason that fish populations seem to counter this may be due to other factors like the gross number of insects present, biomass of insects in a stream section, or some other factor. I suspect that other factors like biomass and insect concentrations would provide a better insight into the effectiveness of mitigation efforts, because I noticed that sampling at the channel site took more sweeps and time in order to obtain first 100 samples. An interesting study to further understand the effects of mitigation and channelization on insect populations would be a study assessing the concentration of insects and/or the biomass of insect population samples in different stream locations


Literature Cited
13
Belk, Mark C. Personal Contact. Brigham Young University Biology Department.
Bilby et al, 2003. Sources of Variability in Aquatic Ecosystems: Factors Controlling Biotic Production and Diversity. Strategies for restoring River Ecosystems: Sources of Variability and Uncertainty in Natural and Managed Systems. Editors: Bisson and Wissmer. 2003.
Bio-West Inc., 2004. Oborny E., Olsen D., Stamp M.; Addley C, Watershed Systems Group. Provo River Flow Study 2004. Submitted to Mark Holden, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission 1063 West 1400 North
102 West 500 South, Suite 315, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101.
Bio-West Inc., 2009. Olsen D. Middle Provo Monitoring Report, 2006. Submitted to Mark Holden, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission,
230 South 500 East Suite 230, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
Borror and White, 1970. Peterson Field Guides: Insects. Houghton and Mifflin Publishing Company.
Brooker, M.P., 1985. The Ecological Effects of Channelization. The Geographical Journal Vol. 151, No. 1 pp. 63-66. Blackwell Publishing Co.
Dietrich et al 1996. Dams and Downstream Aquatic Biodiversity: Potential Food web consequences of hydrologic and geomorphic change. Environmental Management Volume 20, Number 6 (1996).
Ellsworth, C.M. 2003. Response of the fish Community and Age Class Structure to Channelization and Habitat Restoration in the Provo River Between Deer Creek and Jordanelle reservoirs. Thesis submitted to the faculty at Brigham Young University, Department of Integrative Biology.
14
Gilluum and Stafford, 2006. Stream Channelization in the Saratoga Lake Watershed. Senior Capstone Project in Enviornmental Studies. Environmental Studies Program Skidmore College. Advisors: Kellog and McMillan.
Nelson, C. R. 2006. Freshwater Aquatic Invertebrate Identification Guide: electronic keys to explore the diversity of animals in the freshwaters of western North America. Center for Instructional Design, Brigham Young University (BYU), Provo Utah, USA. CD software, BYU Creative works. http://creativeworks.byu.edu/catalog/ViewItem.aspx?item=IB002
Shiozawa D.K., B.J. Weibell, and E. McLaughlin. 2002. The investigation of the macrobenthos of the Provo River between Jordanelle and Deer Creek Reservoirs: A report to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. 45 p.

You may be wondering why I posted a really exciting science paper. I'm wondering the same thing. Please let me know if you actually read this, because if you did you must be really bored. Plus if you read the whole thing you just made my day infinitely more hilarious!!! I'm so funny sometimes. I love being me some days (evil laughter)!

Turkey and Mustard

 

For three weeks I attempted to ignore the ominous reality that freedom from increasing intelligence only lasts for so long. Like a microcosmic summer for a brief moment I stripped out of my restrictive responsible student persona and the nudity of foolish adolescence once again streaked freely for a short moment (figurative nudity, naturally). As the clock ticked toward the impending doom of winter semester I made a feeble attempts to prepare my body and mind for the storm ahead. I bought books and carefully examined my class schedule and made minor modifications; however despite these feeble efforts to prepare myself some childish rebel part of my personage that hasn't yet been completely decimated by years of planning and reason still fought to convince myself that the day of doom wouldn't ever arrive.

The books and the schedules couldn't convince that minor sector of my persona that breaks always come to a rude ending; the summers and the Christmases last only for a brief moment and then they vanish and reality ensues. As the first day of class rolled onto the calendar this foolish sub-person was still in denial that school could really be starting. The harsh ring of my alarm before the break of dawn, the packing of my backpack, and the high stress level, didn't seem to do the trick. It wasn't until the scent of mustard and turkey, my daily sandwich combo, wafted into my nostrils that the chimerical imp within put up the white flag and admitted that like all good things (youth, green foliage on the mountain side, cake, Michael Jackson), breaks always come to an end. The scent that entered my nostrils on the day of January 4 symbolized the truth that I still have up to 10 years of schooling and the slavery of an occupation looming ahead. All I can say is thank heavens for good food, like turkey and mustard which makes it all worth it.

Wishing you and yours a very happy semester or life (for those who haven’t sold it a institution for higher education!

Mine truly,

Seth Cannon the beautiful, the conceited etc.

Obtaining a Healthy Life

                I was recently talking to a very dear friend about the attainment of a healthy life. They commented that there were several categories that had to be maintained in order to obtain a healthy and complete life. The categories were kind of cute and fit nicely into a quartered pie chart which only could have looked more appetizing if it had been a literal layer of lemon coated in a nearly excessive layer of meringue. These cute classifications included things like spiritual life, social life, academic life, and the kind of life that occurs prior to inevitable death (physical). All sounded so delectable and delicious that I was practically drooling just imagining my healthy life pie with its four wonderfully tasty sections.

                I immediately decided to organize my life in a way that I could exploit all of the categories like the architect of a ponzy scheme carefully siphons money from investors. I set about allocating equal chunks of time to devote to the four all encompassing categories of the healthy life pie. This worked wonderfully for a short period of time, but then I discovered a hideous truth.

                Though the healthy life pie looked so delicious, it was simply too big. There was simply not enough time to devote to all of the categories. Running with the pie comparison that has already been run into the ground the pie was just too large for a single person to consume all the sections. If you eat too much pie you increase your chances of purging. One could either gorge themselves on a single piece almost exclusively or sample each section at a minimal level. Although the sampling would appear to be the best option one couldn’t devote enough to each category through equal sampling to consume a single section at a healthy level. To obtain success in any category of the pie one must devote a significant amount of time and effort. In other words sampling only amounted in failure in every category.

                Recently I have been focusing on academics (garnished by spirituality, courtesy of BYU), almost entirely. I did occasionally grab a bite from the social or physical pie pieces, but it wasn’t really a feasting by any means. Now that finals have come to a close I realize that neglecting the social and physical pie pieces has basically served to destroy my abilities in those categories. I attempted to go running with my father and felt like I was going to die. I am currently sitting at home wondering where my entire social network and life has been placed; I can’t seem to find it (angst as requested…children pictures coming soon).

                In short the moral of this dessert description is that health in life probably should be sought after in healthy foods like a salad, not dessert.

Romance of Angles

With all the angles involved in geometry it is easy to get caught up in the romance of angles. But seriously, angles are the first step in a romance. I was naive to this phenomenon until a couple months ago. At campus I have the unique pleasure of being able to watch the blossoming of freshman love right before my very eyes in virtually every class which I do not sit in the front row for. In other words in my two classes which I occupy a middle range or back seat location I get the wonderful pleasure of watching innocent victims fall for Cupid and his subtle arrow piercings. And believe me I enjoy nothing more than watching the slow process of student relations burgeoning as two complete strangers fall for each other and slowly begin the romance of angles.

As a reader you are probably not actually very interested in anything that I have to say and therefore should probably use your computer rodent to locate the x icon and free yourself from the pain of realizing how much math there is in romance; however, if you insist on reading the rest of this post I can't stop you.

The angles of romance are the best trace for relations. Strangers will initially exhibit certain angles, whereas couples will exhibit starkly different angles. As a qualifier I must first point out the location of angles which I am interested in. I will focus on sitting angles. Sitting angles are the angles created by two individuals who occupy adjacent seats on a row. At first contact two individuals (if they are part of the normal human population) will angle apart from one another. For example when attending a movie theater and when forced to sit in a seat immediate next to a stranger an individual will make a conscious effort to avoid contact with that person. Anyone who has had the misfortune of sitting in a location like the one described above will not that the arm rest between the two sitters becomes no man’s land. I personally would rather die that place my limb on that treacherous location for fear of contact with a human outside of my comfort bubble. Arm placement on that boundary runs the high risk of accidental human contact (AHC). With only one arm rest and two people there is a risk that the other individual will accidentally place his or her arm in contact with you and therefore violate your personal bubble. To avoid this potentially awkward incident of AHC people act like similar magnets and angle their body away from the contact zone. This remains true for some time in most relations, occasionally forever. However in most relations (especially cross-gender) as the level of comfort increases the angles begin to change. This is typically a very slow process, although some individuals who seem to have no shame in bubble violation will rapidly decrease the angle of difference. People are so predictable. I watched several couples slowly trim their angles throughout the semester. The process shifted from angled repulsion to in some cases the lack of angle (human contact). Once lack of angle is reached you have reached the proper time to pursue romance. So perhaps I should rephrase my statement about angles being romance, in reality it is the lack of angles.

Investing in Social Stock

There is always a certain amount of liability when investing in the stock market. Fluctuating graphs of returns and losses testify of this supreme law of the investing world. This fact makes investing risky. Generally the more risky the investment the more potential return/loss is available. When investing in social stock keep this in mind. Social stock is at a very basic and limited investing levels fairly risk free. Acquiring a select few stocks in which a limited amount of resources are allocated in a responsible and frugal manner is fairly low risk. An individual will avoid entangling alliances and generally reap modest return on a fairly insignificant investment. For example if an individual acquires a professional acquantance he or she can obtain professional advice or aid if the need for such assistance presents itself. The risk of an investment such as this one only occurs in the case that favors begin to be exchanged in an irresponisible and risky manner. In short investing in a couple professional acquantances can be very beneficial if such stock is only frugally invested in.

Naturally not all stock is as low risk and by association low reward as acquantances. A barely friend can also be a fairly responsible yet slightly more risky and rewarding social investment. A barely friend requires limited time and resource investment outside of the professional sector of one's life. A barely friend still runs a low risk like a proffesional acquantance with a modest return potential. A barely friend can provide birthday well wishes and potentially a person to ask a small (never large) favor of like borrowing a dollar when going out for a lunch (another potential bonus, although never offer to pay for a barely friend that is pooling too many resources in one stock). The risk for a barely friend are that this individual might attempt to be more than a barely friend. This might initially seem like an acceptable move but there are severe risks in that kind of social investment.

This brings us to the next level of social stock, the friend. Friends are a fairly risky investment. They require more time and effort than either of the previous categories although there is a substantially higher return on such an investment. Returns could be as high as recieving invitations to particiate in activities or even as high as having a good time. Given the returns one would have to be an idiot not to invest heavily in a certain friend or friend group, right? Wrong. Returns on friends can be glamorous but they are often fickle. One must be careful in overinvestment in friends because friends are often fickle. A friend investment requires significant upkeep fees and can easily stop providing postive interest without constant care. A friend can turn into a burdon either by attempting to become more than a friend or by becoming far less than one becoming an enemy. Because of the risky nature of friend stock a wise individual will diversify friend investments with the knowledge that friend stock is high risk. The risk rate is lowered substantially by avoiding high concentration of investment into a single friend stock or stock group. Although the potential returns are also lowered the risk becomes manageable. Individuals who over-invest in a single stock often find themselves without any social stock and consequentially find themselves investing in blogging or other activities that don't require social capital.