Changes in Aquatic Invertebrate Community Diversity during Supra-Seasonal Drought Conditions

By Briana AlbiniUniversity of Hawaii at HiloMentor: Ayesha BurdettNew Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science

DroughtsSeasonal

droughts◦ Occur

periodically/ seasonally

Supra-seasonal droughts◦ Random & longer

than normal seasonal conditions

◦ Considered a ramp disturbance Due to increase of

disturbance over time

Drought Conditions of NM

Drought Conditions of NM

InvertebratesInverts evolved

adaptations to seasonal drought

Extreme conditions produced by supra-seasonal drought may be too much for invertebrates to handle

Diptera Chironomidae

Hemiptera Corixidae

Water and droughtIncrease in

temperature, nutrient and chemical loads

Decrease in D.O., surface area and volume of water body

• Lotic and lentic habitat ratio change

• Refugia can be pockets of standing water

Past Study on InvertebratesStudied

differences in invertebrate composition in drinkers & springs

Using data from 2010

QuestionsIs there a

difference between the diversity levels of invertebrate communities in the springs and drinkers due to drought conditions between 2010 and 2013?

Additional Questions:◦ Can drinkers be

considered refugia?

◦ Do some inverts stay dormant in dried sediments until area is wet again?

MethodsExperiment was conducted on

Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge

Wet SitesCollection of

aquatic invertebrates ◦Left sponges in

water sources for 10 days

◦Took a 15x15cm quadrate sample from bottom of water source

Dry SitesTotal of 3 dry

sites◦Rio Salado◦Bronco◦Cibola

Collection of sediment samples◦Took top soil or

sediment from drinkers or springs

Methods – Lab Analysis

Wet Sites Lab Methods Dry Sites Lab Methods

Separate invertebrates from sediment

Identify & count amount of each taxa

Place sediment into clear containers & add water

After 10 days, go through sample to see what emerges

Identify any emergent taxa

Methods – Vegetation & Scat SurveySame methods for

both surveys4 transects going

in cardinal directions

Each transect is 50 m

10 - 1 m quadrates spaced 5 m apart◦Surveyed for %

coverage of vegetation and scat

Results

Taxonomic Richness (S)0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Taxonomic Richness for Wet SitesCanyonEsquivalSan Lorenzo W. W. Mesa E.Goat DrawSan Lorenzo E.W. Mesa S. McKenzieTule (222)NunnGibbs

# o

f Taxa

Total abundance0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Total Abundance for Wet Sites

CanyonEsquivalSan Lorenzo W.W. Mesa E.Goat DrawSan Lorenzo E. W. Mesa S.McKenzieTule (222)NunnGibbs#

of

Invert

ebra

tes

Ostracoda

Results

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

2

4

6

8

10

12

f(x) = − 0.522233638793134 x + 5.06270455928802R² = 0.0353028842694666

Animal Use vs Richness

Mean % Scat

Taxonom

ic R

ichness (

S)

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 500

2

4

6

8

10

12

f(x) = 0.253302530964599 x − 2.84628004990635R² = 0.353645657729198

Vegetation vs Richness

Mean % Vegetation

Taxonom

ic R

ichness

(S)

No correlation

Positive correlation

Results for Dry SamplesNo emergent

taxa found May indicate that

the environment is too harsh to keep ‘seedbanks’

Results

Bronc

o '1

0

Bronc

o '1

3

Canyo

n '1

0

Canyo

n '1

3

Gibbs

'10

Gibbs

'13

Goat D

raw '1

0

Goat D

raw '1

3

McKen

zie

'10

McKen

zie

'13

Tule

222

'10

Tule

222

'13

Wes

t Mes

a '1

0

Wes

t Mes

a'13

San

Lore

nzo

E. '1

0

San

Lore

nzo

E. '1

3

Cibol

a '1

0

Cibol

a '1

30

2

4

6

8

10

12

Change in Diversity between 2010 & 2013

Dytiscidae (Col) Uvarus (Col, Dyt) Tenebrionidae (Col) Laccophilius (Col, Dyt)

Hydrochus (Col, Hydr) Hydrophilidae (Col) Hydrocolus (Col, Dys-Hydro) Derallus (Col, Hydr)

Curculionidae (Col) Carabidae (Col) Diptera Culicidae (Dipt)

Chironominae (Dipt, Chird) Ceratopogonidae (Dipt) Ephydridae (Dipt) Simuliidae(Dipt)

Tanypodinae (Dipt, Chird) Sciomyzidae (Dipt) Stratiomyidae (Dipt) Caloparyphus (Dipt, Strat)

Euparyphus (Dipt, Strat) Hemiptera Notonectidae (Hem) Notonecta Linnaeus (Hem, Not)

Coricidae (Hem) Corixidae (Hem) Corixinae (Hem, Corixidae) Corisella (Hem, Corix)

Trichorixa (Hem, Corix) Veliidae (Hem) Baetisca (Eph, Baet) Physa (Gast, Phys)

Trichoptera Cyclopoida (Cop) Ostracoda Hydrachna (Trom, Hyd)

Drinkers and Springs

# o

f Taxa

Results

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

  2010 2013

Mean 3.714 3.428

Variance 8.238 12.285

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.818

t Critical two-tail 2.446

2010 20130

5

10

15

20

25

30

Taxa Richness

Taxa Richness

Turnover

Bronco 2010 S=3

Bronco 2013 S=0

Total Species

Pool

0

3

0

3

San Lorenzo E. 2010

S=7

San Lorenzo E. 2013

S=11

Total Species

Pool

0

7

11

7

Goat Draw 2010 S=1

Goat Draw 2013 S=2

Total Species

Pool

1

1

1

0

McKenzie 2010 S=1

McKenzie 2013 S=2

Total Species

Pool

1

1

1

0

Cibola 2010 S=10

Cibola 2013 S=0

Total Species

Pool

0

10

0

10

TurnoverCanyon

2010 S=6

Canyon 2013 S=1

Total Species

Pool

0

6

1

6

Gibbs 2010 S=1

Gibbs 2013 S=1

Total Species

Pool

0

1

1

1

Tule 222 2010 S=7

Tule 222 2013 S=3

Total Species

Pool

1

7

2

6

West Mesa 2010 S=3

West Mesa 2013 S=4

Total Species

Pool

1

3

3

2

DiscussionThere is no difference in taxa

richness between 2010 and 2013Not enough springs to answer

refugia questionDry springs have no invertebrate

‘seedbanks’

Improvements?More springs to compare to

drinkers◦Need wetter conditions◦Couldn’t look into refugia question

Switch methods ◦Sponge removed and quadrate

sample taken on same dayAbundance numbers from past

study

Future StudyResample wet

drinkers and springs ◦Use additional

points to see how turnover changes

◦How diversity of drinkers and springs change

AcknowledgementThank you all very much!

◦NSF, Sevilleta LTER Program and the US Fish & Wildlife

◦Research Mentor: Ayesha Burdett◦Past Data: Amanda Martinez & Scott Collins◦Field Partner: Brennan Davis◦Sevilleta Coordinator: Amaris Swann◦Becky Bixby (UNM) & Bob Verb (ONU)◦And to everyone else who helped &

supported me this summer!

QUESTIONS????

Thank You!!!

Trombidiformes Hydrachnidae Hydrachna