Upload
usdmri
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
1/57
Backwaters Along The
Mississippi and MissouriRivers
D A N I E L L E Q U I S T
U S D B I O L O G Y G R A D S T U D E N T
O C T O B E R 2 1 S T , 2 0 1 0
R I V E R S T U D I E S L E C T U R E
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
2/57
What are backwaters?
Floodplain aquatic habitats that are usuallyconnected by a downstream opening to the main
channel and seasonally or periodically connected atan upstream opening.
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
3/57
Role of Backwaters
Backwaters Provide Productive and ProtectiveHabitats for Many Organisms
Lower flows provide protection and decrease turbidity
Increase in photosynthesis
Higher abundance of food sources for many organisms
Primary Producers, Macroinvertebrates, Zooplankton
An important fish nursery
Protected from flow
High amounts of zooplankton
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
4/57
Aquatic Food Web Example
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
5/57
Backwaters as Wetlands
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
6/57
Backwaters
Come in all Different Shapes and Sizes
Can Make them Difficult to Study and Compare
Lets Look at Some Backwaters Along the MississippiRiver and Missouri River
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
7/57
Mississippi River Watershed
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
8/57
Upper Mississippi Backwaters
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30794476&id=458062438/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
9/57
Landsat 7 Satellite ImagesSouth of Lacrosse, WI
South of Prairie Du Chien, WI
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
10/57
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=33578973&id=458062438/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
11/57
Mississippi River Watershed
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
12/57
Missouri River Backwaters
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
13/57
Missouri River Near HWY 19 Bridge
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
14/57
View from Missouri River Backwaters
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
15/57
Graphics Courtesy of Watersheds.org(1) and USACE (2)
2
11
35% impounded
32% channelized
33% unchannelized
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
16/57
Headwaters of Missouri River
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
17/57
Dammed Reaches
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
18/57
Dammed Reaches
500-755 miles of MissouriRiver were inundatedunder reservoirs
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
19/57
Dammed Reaches
Missouri River has beengreatly altered by dams
Altered flow regime
Channel Incision
This has lead to reduced
connectivity to thefloodplain and a decrease inshallow water habitat
Graphics Courtesy of USACE
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
20/57
Decrease in Shallow Water Habitat Along the 59-mile MNRR Pre and Post Dam
460 ha
261 ha
0
50100
150200250
300350
400450500
1941 2008
Area(ha)
Year
Shallow Water Habitat Area Changes Post DamAlong the 59-mile Reach of the MNRR
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
21/57
Channelized Reach
Photo courtesy of USGS
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
22/57
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
23/57
735 miles arechannelized
(Sioux City , IA to St. Louis, MO)
Aquatic habitat was lost as 168,000acres of sediment accreted behind the
wing dikes, forming new land.
Nearly 354,000 acres of meander belthabitat were lost to urban andagricultural floodplain development.
Channelization shortened the river72 miles, resulting in a loss of 127miles of river shoreline habitat.
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
24/57
Current Backwater (SWH) Restoration Along theMissouri River
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
25/57
Floodplain Connectivity
Many rivers are disconnected totheir floodplain Loss of floodplain functionality
Decreased numbers off-channelhabitats
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
26/57
Habitat Restoration
Restoring Shallow Water Habitat along the MissouriRiver
USACE has been working to restore shallow water habitat (SWH),including backwaters, along the Missouri River south of Ponca, NEas a response to the reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA)
outlined in the 2000 Biological Opinion (amended in 2003). Recent purchase of land by USACE may lead to future backwater
and chute construction along the 59-mile MNRR
3 Reconstructed backwaters along the 59-mile
MNRRYankton Backwater (RM 806) Gunderson Backwater (RM 777)
Ponca Backwater (RM 754)
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
27/57
Photo b USACE 2008
The Gunderson BackwaterRM 777
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
28/57
Gunderson Property 1953Pre-construction of Gavins Point Dam
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
29/57
Gunderson Property 2004
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
30/57
Gunderson Backwater 2009(Restored 2008)
777
778
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
31/57
Yankton Backwater Pre-restoration 1997RM 806
Photo by NPS 2005
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
32/57
Yankton Backwater Pre-restoration 2000RM 806
Y kt B k t P t R t ti
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
33/57
Yankton Backwater Post Restoration 2010(Restored 2007-08)
Photo by NDOR 2005
k k
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
34/57
Yankton BackwaterJune 2011
k i
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
35/57
Ponca Backwater Pre-restoration 1997RM 754
P B k P i
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
36/57
Ponca Backwater Pre-restoration 2000RM 754
P B k P C i
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
37/57
Ponca Backwater Post Construction 2010(Restored 2004)
Photo by USACE 2005
Ri Dik N hi
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
38/57
River Dike NotchingBelow the 59-mile
Missouri River Recovery Program
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
39/57
Missouri River Recovery ProgramESH and SWH Site Locations, 2010
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
40/57
D A N I E L L E Q U I S T 1 , T I M C O W M A N 2 , D A N S O L U K 1 , M A R K D I X O N 1 1 D E P A R T M E N T O F B I O L O G Y , U N I V E R S I T Y O F S O U T H D A K O T A , V E R M I L L I O N , S D 2 M I S S O U R I R I V E R I N S T I T U T E , U N I V E R S I T Y O F S O U T H D A K O T A , V E R M I L L I O N , S D
Chlorophyll a Concentration and
Water Quality Trends
Within the Main Channel, Reconstructed and NaturallyOccurring Backwaters of the 59-mile Reach of the
Missouri National Recreational River (MNRR)USD River Studies Course
October 2011
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
41/57
59-mile MNRR
Graphics Courtesy of Watersheds.org(1) and USACE (2)
2
11
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
42/57
View of the 59-mile MNRR
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
43/57
Primary Objectives
Spatially and temporally compare various water qualityparameters and Chl a concentrations of the restored and naturalbackwaters and the main channel of the 59-mile reach of theMNRR
Investigate relationships between Chl a concentrations and waterquality parameters
RM 757 NBW
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
44/57
RM 806 RBW RM 777 RBW RM 774 NBW RM 766 NBW RM 754 RBW
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
45/57
Methods
Samples were collected monthly in June-Sept. 2010 from the 3 reconstructed(RM 806, 777, and 754) and 3 natural backwaters (RM 774, 766, and 757) aswell as adjacent main channel sites
Samples were collected at 1/3 depth to bottom with VanDorn bottle andshipped to the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (SDDENR) Water Quality Lab
In situ measurements (e.g., temperature, pH, conductivity, DO, and turbidity)were taken with a compound YSI probe
Chl a was determined using EPAs Standard Operation Procedure with Chl aconcentrations calculated from measurements taken with a Beckman CoulterDU 640 Spectrophotometer to estimate phytoplankton biomass.
Repeated Measures ANOVA and Multiple/Linear Regression analyses wererun on SAS 9.2
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
46/57
Water Quality Parameters
In Situ Temperature
Specific Conductivity
pH
Turbidity
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
InorganicsAlkalinity
Ammonia
Nitrate
Total Phosphorus
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
47/57
Results: Spatial and Temporal Comparisons
Results indicate significant temporal trends in nitrate,ammonia, TSS, phosphorus, TDS, temperature,turbidity, and Chl a concentration (p
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
48/57
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
June July Aug Sept
Phosphorus
(mg/L)
0
50
100
150
200
June July Aug Sept
TSS
ReconstructedNatural
Main Channel
400
450
500
550
600650
700
750
June July Aug Sept
TDS(mg/L)
0
10
20
30
40
June July Aug Sept
Chla
concentration
Results: Spatial and Temporal Comparisons
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
49/57
Results: Spatial and Temporal Comparisons
01
2
3
4
5
June July Aug Sept
Nitrate(mg/L)
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
June July Aug SeptAmmonia(mg/L) Reconstructed
Natural
Main Channel
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
June July Aug Sept
TempC
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
8
8.2
June July Aug
pH
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
50/57
Discussion
Temporal trends in TSS, TDS, and nutrients are linked with seasonalpatterns in runoff, discharge, and land use.
The restored backwaters show lower levels of TSS, TDS, and
turbidity, which is highly likely due to the lower connectivity
compared to the natural occurring backwaters
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
51/57
Natural Backwater RM 774
2009 2010
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
52/57
Natural Backwater RM 766
2009 2010
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
53/57
Results: Chlorophyll a Regression Analysis
ChlaConcentra
tion
TSS
Fit 95% Confidence Interval 95% Prediction Interval
Fit Plot for Chl a
Figure 12: Linear Regression Plot for Chlorophyll a (Chl a) and TotalSuspended Solids (TSS); n = 42 & R-square = 0.3104
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
54/57
Discussion
Evidence points to the possibility of a more light limited thennutrient limited system, but more samples would be necessary to
determine the correlations within the different habitats Most lake studies have shown phytoplankton (Chl a) to be phosphorus limited (e.g.
Dillion & Rigler 1974; Schindler 1977), as well as nitrogen limited (Downing &
McCauley 1992).
Rivers have also shown positive relationships with nutrients and Chl a (Basu and Pick
1995).
Discharge and turbidity have also been correlated withphytoplankton abundance more than nutrient concentrations in
rivers (e.g. Jones 1984; Krogstatd and Lovestad 1989) which may
be similar to what is seen in the 59-mile reach of the MNRR.
Current Project: Long-term Channel Morphology
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
55/57
Current Project: Long-term Channel MorphologyDynamics of the Missouri River
Mesohabitats: Backwaters
Natural Backwaters Recreated Backwaters Floodplain lakes/Oxbow lakes Backups
Other Channels
Chutes Side Channel Chutes (2) Secondary Channels (2)
Islands Sandbars
Un-vegetated Sandbars Vegetated Sandbars Constructed Sandbars
Wetted Perimeter Displaced Land
Land to Water Water To Land
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
56/57
8/3/2019 DanielleQuist Backwaters River Studies 10-20-11
57/57
THE END