Assessment of Aquatic Biological Communities Along a Gradient of Urbanization in the Willamette Valley Ecoregion, Oregon and Washington
Ian Waite, Kurt Carpenter, Andrew Arnsberg, Frank Rinella, Steve Sobieszczyk, Ian Wigger,
Curt Hughes and Mike Sarantou
National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program
Urban Intensity IndexUrban Intensity IndexMultimetric index based on population density, infrastructure, socioeconomic factors, land-use, and land-cover variables (McMahon and Cuffney 2000)*. AFS Book “Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems” 2005Provides a consistent and objective indicator of urban intensity for site selection and data analysis.
*http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/ecology/pubs/index.html
Seattle
Sacramento
Raleigh
Atlanta
Portland
Denver
Dallas-Ft. Worth
Milwaukee-Green BaySalt Lake City Boston
Birmingham
NAWQA Urban Gradient Studies
Oregon
WillametteRiverValley
Willamette River Valley, Oregon
Urban Intensity Index Urban Intensity Index -- variablesvariables
Population density (people/sq km: 2000 census block)Household density (occupied housing units per sq. km)Percent impervious surface in basin (NLCD 2001)Road density (km/sq km: TIGER 2000 roads)Percent urban in basin (NLCD92e)Road Traffic IndexSocioeconomic Index
Willamette Urban Intensity IndexU
rban
Inde
xU
rban
Inde
x
Popu
latio
n D
ensi
ty
Popu
latio
n D
ensi
ty
per s
q m
ilepe
r sq
mile
0102030405060708090
100
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27Sites Ordered by Urban Index
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Willamette Urban and AgWillamette Urban and Ag
Willamette Valley Willamette Valley EcoregionEcoregion
Tickle Creek near Boring, Oregon
Urban Index = 32Urban Index = 32
Urban Streams
Claggett CreekAmazon Creek
Pringle Creek
Urban Index = 77 Urban Index = 77 -- 100100
Water chemistry
Habitat
Algal
Invertebrate
Fish assemblages
% Fish MetricIncludes 4 Metrics
% Salmonids% Native (other species)% Reticulate Sculpin% Introduced or Exotic
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Index
Fish
Met
ric (%
)
0
20
4060
80
100
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% Dissolved Oxygen
Fish
Met
ric (%
)
poor
con
ditio
npo
or c
ondi
tion% Fish Metric
Includes 4 Metrics% Salmonids% Native (other species)% Reticulate Sculpin% Introduced or Exotic
“What do you mean cooties, no cooties on
me.”FZ
Exotic Species
nMDS Ordination of Fish Abundance (Log X+1)with overlay of Population Density
popden00
600
2.4E3
4.2E3
6E3
Battle
Beaverton
Chehalem
Chicken
Claggett
Curtin
Deep
EFDairyFanno
Iler
Johnson
Kellogg
Lost Milk NF Deep
Nate
Nyamhill
Oak
Pringle
RockOR
RockWA
Salmon
Silk
Sscappoose
Tickle
TryonWhipple
Stress: 0.16
600
2400
4200
6000
per sq mile
Overview of Abundance and Taxonomy
Order No. Unique Taxa Most Abundant Taxa and their Maximum Abundance (m2) Ephemeroptera 19 Heptageniidae 2943Plecoptera 14 Zapada cinctipes 4851Trichoptera 26 Cheumatopsyche sp. 4208Diptera 67 Simuliidae 10584
Chironomidae 45 Cricotopus bicinctus 3226Coleoptera 11 Optioservus sp. 1546Noninsects (17 orders) 30 Fluminicola sp. 14274
Total 172
Overview of Abundance and TaxonomyOrder Taxa Percent of Sites PNW Tolerant Value
Noninsect - Water Mite Acari 96 6
Diptera Simuliidae 93 6
Noninsect - Snail Juga sp. 89 7
Ephemeroptera Baetis tricaudatus 82 7
Noninsect - Worm Naididae 79 8
Diptera - Chironomidae Orthocladiinae 75 5
Noninsect - Worm Lumbriculidae 71 7.5
Trichoptera Cheumatopsyche sp. 68 8
Diptera - Chironomidae Polypedilum sp. 68 6
Diptera - Chironomidae Paraleptophlebia sp. 64 5
Diptera - Chironomidae Chironominae 64 6
Diptera - Chironomidae Thienemannimyia group sp. 61 6
Diptera - Chironomidae Rheotanytarsus sp. 57 6
Diptera - Chironomidae Eukiefferiella sp. 57 8
Noninsect - Snail Ferrissia sp. 57 7
Coleoptera Optioservus sp. 57 9
Coleoptera Zapada cinctipes 54 4
Noninsect - Worm Tubificidae 54 10
Noninsect - Crayfish Pacifastacus leniusculus 54 7
Noninsect - Snail Fluminicola sp. 50 7
Trichoptera Ceratopsyche sp. 50 5
Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae 50 4
Trichoptera Hydropsychidae 50 6
Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae 50 2
Y-Axis % Ephemeroptera Plecoptera Trichoptera Richness
Y-Axis Invertebrate Tolerance (Weighted Abundance)Y-Axis Invertebrate Tolerance (Weighted Abundance)
ρ = 0.79
4
5
6
7
8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Index
ρ = 0.79
4
5
6
7
8
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Log(Sum_Pesticides*1000)
ρ = -0.72
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Index
ρ = -0.82
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Log(Sum_Pesticides*1000)
ρ = -0.72
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Index
ρ = -0.82
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Log(Sum_Pesticides*1000)
727Fluminicola sp.51291127Simulium canadense67322167Ferrissia sp.31391137Baetis tricaudatus34392468Cheumatopsyche sp.38452799Optioservus sp.16491038Cheumatopsyche sp.37511438Cheumatopsyche sp.51581238Cheumatopsyche sp.295936148Cheumatopsyche sp.16691767Baetis tricaudatus3072417Cricotopus bicinctus group35771757Simulium canadense49882178Cheumatopsyche sp.27881138Cheumatopsyche sp.57960010Tubificidae421001127Baetis tricaudatus27100
EPTRpEPTRTolerantDominant TaxaPercent DominantUrban Index
Dominance, Tolerance and EPT Richness along the Urban Gradient --Is Dominance all it’s cracked up to be?
441552515483747184Zapada cinctipes18037163Rhithrogena sp.26450163Rhithrogena sp.3063183Rhithrogena sp.20851185Ceratopsyche cockerelli36856188Cheumatopsyche sp.231250143Rhithrogena sp.301541147Baetis tricaudatus231754153Rhithrogena sp.272036156Paratanytarsus sp.142334127Simulium canadense2824
EPTRpEPTRTolerantDominant TaxaPercent DominantUrban Index
Ave. of sites > 25 Ur IndexAve. of sites < 25 Ur Index
nMDS Ordination of Invertebrate Density (Log X+1) w/ overlay of Population Density
Amazo
BattlBeave
Cheha
Chick
Clagg
Curti
Deep
EFDar
Fanno IlerJohns
Kello
LostMilk
Nate
NFDep
Nyamh
Oak
Pring
RocOR
RocWASalmo
Silk
Sscap
Tickl
Tryon
Whipp
2D Stress: 0.15
AXIS 1
AX
IS 2
Sites sorted by Urban Index (n = 28)
0102030405060708090
100
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
URBAN INDEX
% AGRICULTURE
Plot of Population Density vs.% AG+Urban Land Use (% disturbance)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Population Density
% A
G+U
rban
Lan
duse
Transition
High Pop.DenMed/High AG+Urb
Low/Med Pop.DenHigh AG+Urb
Low AG+Urb
nMDS Ordination of Invertebrate Density Sites coded by %AG+Urban
%AG+UrCategories
< 15 %
15 – 39
40 – 69
> 69 %
Invertebrate RTH (Density-Log(X+1)2D Stress: 0.15
AXIS 1
AX
IS 2
Multivariate Regression Tree (MRT: Primer) Linking Inverts to Environmental Data (coded by %AG+Urban)
A: DO > 3.4 (< 2.5)TEQ < 1080 (>1120)A
B
CH
D
TEQ, DOand Sum_PEST
B: Sum_PEST< 0.075 (> 0.087)
% AG+UrCategories
< 15 %
15 – 39
40 – 69
> 69 %
Nonparametric Regression Tree Linking Inverts to Environmental Data (coded by %AG+Urban)
C: TEQD & E: DO
F & G: Sum_PEST B
G
F
E
C
I
H
J
K
L
D
A
H: TEQI: DO
J: Sum_PESTK: TEQ
L: Sum_PEST
Preliminary CONCLUSIONS
Fish showed a linear response as urban intensity increases based on individual metrics
% E
PTRi
chne
ss
Invertebrates showed a threshold for some metrics (EPT Richness and % Richness) at Urban Index values of ~25 or < 1-4 % Impervious
Invertebrate RTH (Density-Log(X+1)2D Stress: 0.15
ρ = -0.72
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Index
Preliminary CONCLUSIONSThough statistically
significant, flashiness of urban stream flows that is usually associated with % impervious, does not seem to be the dominate factor affecting the biological assemblages in the Willamette Valley
Biotic assemblages were strongly related to differences in WQ among sites (e.g., TEQ, Pesticides, DO, and Water Temp.) likely due to Urban and AG land use disturbances – either singularly or in combination.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Population Density
% A
G+U
rban
Lan
duse High Pop.Den &
High AG+Urb
High AG+Urb & Low/Med Pop.Den
Low Pop.Den & Low AG+Urb
Little difference found in fish and inverts between High AG+Urban (% disturbance) and High Population Density sites
Preliminary CONCLUSIONS
Preliminary CONCLUSIONS1) WQ and Contaminants: strongest variables related to
the macroinvertebrate similarity matrix along the Urban Index 2) then habitat variables, water temperature, and finally hydrologic metrics
SUMMARY of BEST Variables Related to Inverts
Top TWO Variables:
TEQ (SPMD) 0.577 PRIMER
Sum of Total Pesticides ANOSIM R
then add in these three VARS
Embeddedness add .48
Percent Riffle add .48
Summer DO add .30
minor improvement with
Seven Day Ave. Temperature add .18
Percent Urban+AG add .13
Urban Index add .13
NEW PROJECT Develop Watershed Disturbance Predictive Models
for WA, OR and CA
Lead Authors: Ian Waite, Larry BrownJason May, Chris Konrad, Jim Orlando, Kim Jones, Tom Cuffney, Jonathan Kennen and Ann Brasher
Collaborating with EPA Corvallis and StatesFocus on Macroinvertebrate Metrics
What variables are related to the Ordination Axis 1?
ρ = -0.83
0
1
2
3
4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Index
Axi
s 1
Scor
es
ρ = 0.93
0
1
2
3
4
0 4 8 12 16 20
EPT Richness
Axi
s 1
Scor
es
Population Density% Impervious 0.98
% Urban 0.98Road Den. 0.95
Urban Index 0.98
Mean Watershed Elev. -0.88
Watershed Slope -0.81
3 Flow Stats 0.73
DOC 0.70, SO4 0.71
TN 0.81, TP 0.73
Pest. Tox. Index_Summer 0.70
Sum_Insecticide 0.70
TEQ 0.79
Environmental Variables usually surrogates for many
processes
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 20 40 60 80 100
Urban Intensity
Res
pons
e Va
riab
le
Hypothetical response to increasing urban intensity…..threshold or linear or none?
Minimum threshold
Maximum threshold
Resistance