TigerPrints. Clemson University. Michael Biondi Clemson University,

Transcription

1 Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses Comparison of caddisfly species (Insecta:Trichoptera) in the northern Saluda watershed over a thirty-seven year period, in correlation with land development and use. Michael Biondi Clemson University, streamsongs@gmail.com Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Biondi, Michael, "Comparison of caddisfly species (Insecta:Trichoptera) in the northern Saluda watershed over a thirty-seven year period, in correlation with land development and use." (2008). All Theses This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu.

2 COMPARISON OF CADDISFLY SPECIES (INSECTA: TRICHOPTERA) IN THE NORTHERN SALUDA WATERSHED OVER A THIRTY-SEVEN YEAR PERIOD, IN CORRELATION WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT AND USE. A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Entomology by Michael James Biondi II December 2008 Accepted by: Dr. John C. Morse, Committee Chair Dr. William R. English Dr. Peter H. Adler Dr. Hoke S. Hill i

3 ABSTRACT Land use and development in South Carolina has greatly increased in the last 50 years. This study focused on land cover change in Northern Pickens County and changes in caddisfly populations at three sites in three sub-watersheds in the South Saluda River watershed. I collected caddisflies from March 31 to October 20 in 2005 and 2006 and compared them to collections performed at the same sites in the same manner in 1969 by John C. Morse for his Master s thesis. I used a geographic information system to assess the land cover change over this thirty-seven year period and correlated the land cover change with change in caddisfly populations. I did not detect any significant differences in the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity coefficients but did detect significant differences in the feeding strategies, habitat selection measures and tolerance values of the caddisflies collected, which suggest there have been perturbations of the stream system at two of the three sites studied. ii

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor Dr. John Morse for his guidance and patience, my Advisory Committee: Dr. Rockie English, Dr. Peter Adler and Dr. Hoke Hill. I am grateful to Dr. Chris Post, Mr. Steve Hall, Ms. Lauren Harvey, Mr. Ian Stocks, and Dr. C.J. Geraci for their assistance, the faculty and staff of the Clemson University Entomology, Soils, and Plant Sciences Department for the opportunity to learn about insects and to conduct this research, and my family for their support. This research was underwritten by Clemson University s Changing Land Use and the Environment (CLUE) Project, Grant Agreement No , funded by the US Department of Agriculture s Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS), dated 3 July iii

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE...i ABSTRACT...ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...iii LIST OF TABLES...vi LIST OF FIGURES...vii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION...1 Water Quality...1 Trichoptera Larvae (Aquatic Assessment)...1 Trichoptera Adult Dispersal...2 Agricultural Impacts...2 Sedimentation...4 Land Cover Change Evaluation...4 Purpose...6 Objectives...7 Page II. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS...8 Study Area...8 Collecting Apparatus...9 Collecting Procedure...10 Identification...10 GIS Land Analysis...11 Statistical Analyses...12 III. RESULTS...14 GIS Analysis...14 Meteorological Conditions Analysis...14 Species Analyses...15 IV. DISCUSSION...18 iv

6 Table of Contents (Continued) Conclusions...20 APPENDICES...22 A: Species Assessment Analysis...23 B: GIS Land Analysis...28 C: Summarized Species Lists...35 D: Collection Data...51 E: References for Trichoptera Atlas REFERENCES v

7 LIST OF TABLES Table Page A.1 Mean Tolerance Values...23 B.1 GIS pixel analysis of refraction imagery...34 C.1 Site A33, 1969 species collection summary...35 C.2 Site A33, 2005 species collection summary...36 C.3 Site A33, 2006 species collection summary...38 C.4 Site A35, 1969 species collection summary...40 C.5 Site A35, 2005 species collection summary...41 C.6 Site A35, 2006 species collection summary...43 C.7 Site A36, 1969 species collection summary...45 C.8 Site A36, 2005 species collection summary...47 C.9 Site A36, 2006 species collection summary...49 D.1 Site A33, 1969 Collection Data...51 D.2 Site A33, 2005 Collection Data...59 D.3 Site A33, 2006 Collection Data...72 D.4 Site A35, 1969 Collection Data...81 D.5 Site A35, 2005 Collection Data...86 D.6 Site A35, 2006 Collection Data...95 D.7 Site A36, 1969 Collection Data D.8 Site A36, 2005 Collection Data D.9 Site A36, 2006 Collection Data vi

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page A.1 Mean tolerance values for caddisflies at all three sites across the three sampling years...24 A.2 Habitat Preference A A.3 Habitat Preference A A.4 Habitat Preference A A.5 Feeding Strategy A A.6 Feeding Strategy A A.7 Feeding Strategy A B.1 Collecting Sites in Northern Pickens County, SC...28 B.2 Total Watershed Area with River Systems and Sites Overlaid...28 B.3 Sub-watersheds defined B.4 Site A Digital Ortho-photograph...30 B.5 Site A Digital Ortho-photograph...30 B.6 Site A Digital Ortho-photograph...31 B.7 Site A Digital Ortho-photograph...31 B.8 Site A Digital Ortho-photograph...32 B.9 Site A Digital Ortho-photograph...32 B.10 Site A-33 Refraction Analysis...33 B.11 Site A-35 Refraction Analysis...33 B.12 Site A-36 Refraction Analysis...34 vii

9 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Water quality Across the world there are growing concerns for the health of streams and rivers. Assessing water quality has become a focus of many academic institutions, government agencies, and private companies (Houston et al., 2002). With rising populations, urbanization, agricultural run-off, and toxic chemicals in the streams of our country, many organizations are lobbying for stricter enforcement of laws and broader assessment of our natural resources (EPA, 1983, 1989, 1990). Assessing freshwater resources can be accomplished using aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling that is relatively easy and inexpensive (Lenat and Barbour, 1994). Other reasons macroinvertebrates make excellent biomonitors include the following: 1) they are affected by all relevant disturbances of the stream in which they dwell, 2) there are large numbers of species that are affected differently by different disturbances, 3) they have relatively long life cycles in the water, and 4) sampling protocols and identification literature have been thoroughly written in most developed countries for a diverse array of habitats (Resh et al. 1996, Barbour et al. 1999). Trichoptera Larvae (Aquatic Assessment) Trichoptera are the sister lineage of Lepidoptera (Triplehorn et al., 2005) and their aquatic larvae are caterpillar-like (Wiggins, 1996). They live in various aquatic environments and have a variety of feeding strategies but are relatively intolerant of poor 1

10 water quality (Barbour et al. 1999, Triplehorn et al. 2005, Wiggins 1996). They are among the freshwater macroinvertebrates most commonly used to assess impact of land use changes such as deforestation, urbanization, or agricultural development on streams and lakes (Gage et al. 2004) and substantial data can be produced quickly by sampling and identifying their communities (Barbour et al. 1999). Trichoptera Adult Dispersal Morse s (1970) study used ultraviolet light traps to capture caddisfly adults. Use of light traps for inventorying flying adult insects is problematic because of the possibility that captured specimens arrived from distant non-target habitats. According to various studies (Gothberg 1973, Griffith et al. 1998, and Peterson et al. 2004), Trichoptera species are capable of flying distances of several kilometers, but tend to remain close to the water source from which they emerged. At least some long distance flight can be explained by drift in wind blowing across open lands (Gothberg 1973). In the study by Peterson et al. (2004), larval abundance and taxon richness from selected sites indicated that the distribution of the adult insects coincided with the distribution of larval organisms sampled. Agricultural Impacts Agricultural land use, that is not properly managed, has been shown to have negative effects on the biodiversity and the health of streams and systems nearby (Lamberti and Berg, 1995). For example, deforestation to open land for agriculture 2

11 reduces density and diversity of both larvae and adults of freshwater macroinvertebrates and consequently the health of the stream (Gage, et. al., 2004). Larval density and species diversity is reduced by sedimentation and by removal of riparian vegetation (Hogg and Norris 1991). Sedimentation from deforestation reduces larval habitat by filling the interstitial spaces among stones where they usually live. Larvae also are affected by reduced shade from the loss of the riparian zone vegetation which causes an increase in temperature of the streams which in return causes a decrease in dissolved oxygen (Boulton and Suter 1986). Furthermore, the riparian vegetation also serves as a source for organic materials that supply nutrients for stream heterotrophs (DeCamps 1993); removal of that vegetation reduces the quantity of necessary nutrients for detritivores. Since adult caddisflies and other insects usually emerge from the water and find shelter in the vegetation surrounding the stream, a loss of this habitat through deforestation for timber and agricultural purposes exposes them to predation and desiccation and further reduces their numbers and species diversity (DeCamps 1993). The riparian zone functions as a buffer between anthropological effects and the stream (DeCamps 1993). For example, pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals absorbed into the soil can leak into the streams through groundwater transport. Riparian woods along a stream channel have been shown to act as a filter for nitrogen-based compounds (Lowrance et al. 1983, 1984; Peterjohn and Correll 1984). 3

12 Sedimentation Sediment is a major pollutant from land use changes in watersheds surrounding streams or rivers. Sedimentation causes habitat loss, suffocation of aquatic organisms, and decreases in plant biota from increased turbidity and resultant decreased light penetration of the water (Gage et al. 2004). Sediment movement through the stream bed has also been shown to increase channel erosion and stream structure instability (Gage et al. 2004), which leads to a further increase in sediments in the stream. Therefore, sedimentation can lead to a decrease in species diversity of aquatic organisms in stream channels. Land Cover Change Evaluation Deforestation and agricultural development in recent decades have led to a drastic change in the landscape in certain regions of northern Pickens County along the South Saluda River, while other regions have remained relatively untouched by anthropogenic activities. The degree of change and the effect these changes have had on the adult caddisfly (Insecta: Trichoptera) communities found in the South Saluda River have not been explored. This project combines historical aerial photography of the region and recent digital Geographic Information System maps to analyze the changes in land use of three sites in the northern portion of the Saluda River watershed over the last 37 years. After initial observations the three sites appear to exhibit different levels of land use from forested land to agricultural land. The first site, designated A-33, (Carrick Creek, located 4

13 within the Table Rock State Park boundaries) probably experienced little to no change in land use within the watershed boundaries over the last 37 years. The second site, designated A-35 (South Saluda River) is located at the outfall of the Greenville County Reservoir (part of the water supply for the City of Greenville) and appears to have undergone little change along the riparian zone but some change in the watershed boundaries. The third site, designated A-36 (South Saluda River, Townes land) is located km downstream of site A-35. This third site has agricultural activity along the banks of the river and appeared to have the most change within the watershed boundaries. I hypothesized that a change in species composition of caddisflies will correspond with the changes in land use within the boundaries of the watershed at each of the three sites. No research has documented effects of land use change on adult caddisfly populations but studies have shown that changes to land coverage surrounding streams can have negative effects on the river structure and the insects that inhabit the waters. Roy et al. (2003) showed that decreased riparian buffer zones along river banks, which led to an increased sedimentation load, increased the fine bed sediments of the streams. This increased sedimentationcaused a decrease in the abundance and richness of the insect community in riffles, the main productive habitat of streams (in comparison, for example, to pools and undercut banks). In a second study by Stone et al. (2005), the land cover estimates were measured using digital ortho-photo quadrangles surrounding streams that were found in predominantly agricultural sub-watersheds. The study showed that in areas of low forest cover due to diminished riparian zones, insect density was much lower in comparison to the medium and high forest cover sites. In two other 5

14 studies near Seattle, Washington (Kennedy and Spies 2004, and Robinson et al. 2005), change in land cover due to agricultural and urban development, respectively, was shown using GIS software after digitizing aerial photography from different years. Purpose The purpose of my investigation was to determine the change in diversity of Trichoptera species at three sites in the Saluda watershed in northern Pickens and Greenville counties that were originally investigated in I hypothesized that Carrick Creek (Site A-33) and South Fork Saluda River at County Road S113/S151 (Site A-35) would have little or no change in the biodiversity of caddisfly species since 1969 due to lack of development upstream from the collection sites. These two sites were used as controls to compare with South Fork Saluda River at Townes property (Site A-36). I hypothesized A-36 in contrast, to have had more residential and agricultural development upstream of the collection site on both banks. A series of hypotheses was tested to determine if there was a change in land use upstream of all sites during the past 37 years and to reveal any correlation between changes in land use and species diversity. Here I defined species diversity as the number and evenness of different species collected at each site and species composition as the particular species that compose the communities observed. I hypothesized that there would be an insignificant change in species diversity when comparing the 2005/2006 samples at each location, which would show an internal homogeneity at each site. Also, the differences in species diversity and species composition at sites A-33 and A-35 I 6

15 hypothesized to be more similar to one another than those of either site to those at site A- 36. Site A-36 I hypothesized to have the largest decrease in species diversity and greatest difference in species composition when comparing 1969 to 2005 and Objectives The objectives of this study were: 1) To make a comparison to the collections performed in 1969 by Dr. John Morse (1970) to observe any change in species diversity and species composition over the past 37 years. 2) To determine a range in species diversity and a percent difference in species composition in two successive years of relatively little land use change. 3) To determine present and past land use and the extent of the changes in land use over 37 years toward agricultural, residential, commercial, or industrial use. 4) To delineate and orthorectify aerial photographs of the watersheds under study (portions of the South Saluda River watershed in Pickens and Greenville Counties) from 1971 through ) To compare these historical photographs with the most recent county data available using GIS software to determine the changes in land use in the watershed, and 6) To associate changes in species diversity and composition with the changes in land use upstream of each site. 7

16 CHAPTER TWO RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Study Area The study sites were chosen from Morse s (1970) Master s thesis research in Three sites were chosen out of Morse s original ten sites because of their location in the Saluda River watershed, which coincided with work being undertaken by the CLUE (Changing Land Use and the Environment) Project. The first impressions of the three sites showed a variety of land uses upstream from the sites. The original descriptions and GPS coordinates were: Site 1 - A-33 Carrick Creek, Table Rock State Park, Pickens County N, W Elevation: 343 m above sea level Stream: Source of stream from site is 1.61 km upstream on south slope of ridge between Pinnacle Mountain and Table Rock Mountain; inlet of Pinnacle Lake (about 18 ha) backs to within 15 m downstream of site. Site 2 - A-35 South Saluda River, Table Rock, Pickens County (base of the Table Rock Reservoir dam, on the Pickens/Greenville County line where County Road S113/S151 crosses the headwaters of the South Saluda River.) N, W Elevation: 340 m above sea level 8

17 Stream: Table Rock Cove (about 150 ha) 460 m upstream; small island 6 m by 30 m tapers to a point in midstream opposite the collecting site; site on rock outcropping 3 m from south bank 2 m downstream from concrete bridge. Site 3 - A-36 South Saluda River, Cleveland, Pickens County (located off Talley Bridge Road - County Road S70 - in Pickens County on private land, owned by Mrs. Laura Townes) N, W, Elevation: 284 m above sea level Stream: Table Rock Cove km upstream; site on rock outcropping 2.5 m from east bank; junction with Duck Creek (sandy bottom, 1.5 m wide) 8 m downstream. Collecting Apparatus In conformity to Morse s (1970) technique, I used an ultraviolet light trap to collect the organisms. Dr. Morse used a 12 volt rechargeable automobile battery which was fastened to a 117 volt A.C. powerverter (Tripp Lite, model PV-200B, Trippe Manufacturing Company, Chicago, Illinois). Dr. Morse ran two 15 watt fluorescent tubes (General Electric 15 watt black light F15T8-BL) on this apparatus. I used a rechargeable 12 volt boat battery which was connected to a direct current collecting light (DC Collecting Light Model #2805, BioQuip Products, Rancho Dominguez, California) by 9

18 connecting the light to a DC Pigtaial Adapter (Model #2815A). A white enamel pan (5 cm deep by 35 cm wide by 59 cm long) was filled with 0.61 L of 80% ethanol. The 15- watt black light tube (General Electric 15 watt black light F15T8-BL) was laid directly across the pan and illuminated the pan attracting the insects. The insects were collected directly into the alcohol and fixed immediately. Collecting Procedure In conformity with Morse s (1970) technique, collecting took place once every five days at each site from 31 March until 19 October in each of 2005 and Collecting lasted for 30 minutes, beginning 20 minutes after sunset at the first site and 30 minutes after the arrival and set up of the instruments at the second site. The order is dependent on the site and date in congruence with Morse s (1970) thesis. See Appendix A and B for the collection schedule. In contrast to Morse's (1970) research, modifications of dates were made due to inclement weather conditions. Identification Identifications to species were made on each specimen based on the current literature available (Appendix E). To facilitate this identification work, an atlas of diagnostic drawings of male genitalia was compiled for species known from North and South Carolina. Voucher specimens have been deposited in the Clemson University Arthropod Collection. 10

19 GIS Land Analysis I used aerial photography from Pickens and Greenville County to assess any changes in land use. Pickens County aerial photographs were taken in 1965 along 4GG and 3GG flight paths. I retrieved them from the Pickens Soil and Water Conservation District office of the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) which is located at 144 McDaniel Avenue, PO Box 245, Pickens, SC I scanned the photographs into digital format at 300 dpi and I stored them in Tagged Image File Format (TIFFs). Greenville County aerial photographs were taken in 1971 along 4 mm and 6 mm flight paths. I retrieved these photographs from the Greenville County Geographic Information Systems Division office, located at 301 University Ridge Suite 100, Greenville, SC I also scanned these photographs into digital format and stored as TIFFs at the same resolution. I acquired orthorectified photos from 2006 from the SC DNR website in 10 quadrangles, that I assembled using the mosaic tool in ArcMap 9.1 (ESRI, 2005). I acquired a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) seamless data website. The data were all imported into ArcMAP 9.1 and used as follows: The old photographs were missing metadata, a projection, and coordinates, so I overlaid the old photographs onto the 2006 images and georeferenced, using at least 10 control points for each photograph, to create projection and coordinates. The images were forced into a United Transverse Mercator, NAD_83_17_North map projection. After the images were georeferenced, I assembled them into a digital mosaic using ArcMAP

20 I used the DEM to determine the flow accumulation, flow direction, and the drainage basins using the ArcMAP hydrology tool set. I then used these data sets and the pour points (site locations) to establish the sub-watersheds. I then cropped the previously built mosaics using the sub-watersheds as a mask. Land use changes were tested in ArcMAP using unsupervised classification with measurements of 10%, 20%, and 50% classification levels to determine the best fit method of classifying the images. I selected the 10% classification system because it produced a more detailed and accurate measurement. After land use classification was determined, I conducted a percent change analysis to determine an increase or decrease in land classification values. Statistical Analyses Statistical analyses were conducted by Dr. Hoke Hill and me over different aspects of the project, which included air temperature, water temperature, species diversity and composition within-site variation, species diversity and composition acrosssite variation, feeding-strategy variation, habitat-selection variation, and mean difference of tolerance values. Air and water temperature measurements were compared using ANOVA and mean separation technique at the 0.05 level. Raw species distribution data were transformed using the square root to increase the relative influence of rare species and decrease the relative influence of common and largely abundant species. Sitevariation measures were then compared using ANOVA at the 0.05 level after comparing the species composition of all three sites, using the Bray-Curtis (1957) dissimilarity 12

21 coefficient. The Bray-Curtis dissimilarity coefficient ranges from no similarity (BC=0) to highest similarity (BC=1). Samples for each site and year were combined by month and compared both across and within sites to minimize the effects that emergence patterns, which are based on temperature days and not calendar days, may have had on the sampling protocol. I also compared feeding strategy, habitat selection, and tolerance values using an ANOVA process at the 0.05 level. Measuring feeding strategies can provide a window for viewing the conditions of a stream system where unbalanced feeding strategy groups represent stressed conditions (Cummins and Klug 1979). In a similar manner, habitat selection measures represent the available environmental conditions for aquatic organisms to move about (Merritt et al. 1996) where unbalanced habitat selection measures represent stressed conditions. Tolerance values for the southeastern United States were developed by David Lenat (1993) and have been widely used to assign water quality ratings to stream systems. Lower mean tolerance values indicate better water quality. 13

22 CHAPTER THREE RESULTS GIS Analysis GIS analysis compared the refraction of the rectified digital photographs. This measurement produced a series of maps (Figures B-10 through B-12) which showed a decrease or increase in refraction in the three sub-watersheds at the 10% level. A decrease was interpreted as a change in forested land use to agricultural, urban or residential land use where an increase was interpreted as a form of growth or reforestation. Values for these changes are shown in Appendix A. The analyses showed that a higher percentage of land area in sub-watershed A-35 showed a refraction decrease in comparison to that of A-36 and A-33. However, the sub-watershed boundary that contains A-35 is nested within sub-watershed A-36 occupying 34% of the total area, which accounted for 87% of the total change in sub-watershed A-36. Analyses of A-33 resulted in a 0.256% decrease within the entire sub-watershed. This coincides with the hypothesis that a larger decrease in land cover would occur in sub-watersheds A-35 and A-36 in comparison to sub-watershed A-33. Meteorological Conditions Analysis Mean air temperature at site A-33 during 2006 significantly increased in comparison to those in years 1969 and Mean air temperatures at the other two sites were not significantly different among the three years. 14

23 Mean water temperature at site A-35 during 2006 significantly decreased in comparison with those in 1969 and This change could be attributed to the release of water from the upstream dam from a different section of the water column. Mean water temperatures at the other two sites were not significantly different among the three years. Species Analyses A total of 32,795 adult caddisflies were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, 4006 of these were originally identified by John Morse in The remaining 28,789 organisms were examined from 1969, 2005 and 2006 collections from all three sites. Analyses of the samples collected from the three sites have produced a total of 162 species from the three sub-watersheds over the three sampling years. Of these 162 different species, 95 species were collected from sub-watershed A-33, 104 species from sub-watershed A-35, and 117 species from sub-watershed A-36 across the three sampling years. When divided by sub-watershed, sites A-33 and A-35 each produced 18 unique species and site A-36 produced 32 unique species. The summarized list of the species collected at each site can be found in Appendix C: Tables 1-9 and the complete collection data can be found in Appendix D: Tables 1-9. Contrasting the differences in species composition among years at each site produced a different outcome. Sixteen of 60 species were unique to A-33 in 1969, 15 of 65 were unique to the site in 2005, and 5 of 55 were unique to the site in The average tolerance values that coincide with the species composition for each year at A-33 15

24 were as follows: 3.59 for 1969, 4.51 for 2005, and 4.63 for When comparing the differences between the species lost and gained from 1969 to 2005, the average tolerance value of the species lost was 3.11 and the average tolerance value of the species gained was In a similar trend, the average tolerance values of the species lost and gained between 2005 and 2006 was 3.48 and 4.44, respectively. I conducted an ANOVA on the Bray-Curtis similarity coefficients, which determined that there was no significant difference between the coefficients across the three years at site A-33. At site A-35, 17 of 64 species were unique in 1969, 9 of 63 in 2005, and 15 of 67 in The average tolerance values for the years were 5.70 for 1969, 5.29 for 2005, and 5.39 for As represented in A-33, A-35 s average tolerance values for species lost between the years are smaller than the average tolerance values for species gained: 2.01 for species lost since 1969 and 3.82 for species gained in 2005, and 2.88 for species lost since 2005 and 3.19 for species gained in This contrasts the general shift of the overall average tolerance values for the three years but can be attributed to the low numbers and frequencies of the species gained between 1969 and 2005 in comparison to the number of species lost. An ANOVA was also run on the Bray-Curtis similarity coefficients at this site and this test also determined that there were no significant differences among the coefficients across the three years at site A-35. At site A-36, 17 of 68 species were unique during 1969, 21 of 87 species during 2005, and 11 of 66 species during 2006, with average tolerance values being 4.08, 5.27, and 5.61 respectively. A-36 also followed the pattern of A-33 and A-35 in comparing the average tolerance values of species gained and lost. Comparing 2005 to 1969, the 16

25 average tolerance value of the species gained were 4.23 and the average tolerance value of the species lost were 3.44 and comparing 2006 to 2005 we see that the average tolerance value of the species gained were 4.14 and the average tolerance value of the species lost were A-36, although hypothesized to show a greater change in land cover and in return a greater change in species composition and diversity, also showed no significant change in the similarity coefficients between the three years. I also examined the habitat selection and feeding strategy measures of the caddisfly species to associate any patterns of change with year to year variance. At site A-33 the feeding strategies of the caddisflies collected did not show any significant differences between 1969 and 2005 but did show a significant difference in 2006 compared to the previous two years. This coincided with the habitat selection measurement analysis that also only showed a significant difference in 2006 compared to 1969 and Site A-35 differed significantly across all three years in both feeding strategy and habitat selection. This change was remarkably seen in the shift in habitat selection from clingers in 1969 to climbers in 2006 and a statistically significant shift in feeding strategies from collectors-filterers in 1969 to scrapers in The caddisfly community at A-36 showed that 1969 and 2006 were significantly different from 2005 in feeding strategies and that all three years were significantly different from each other in habitat selection. This change in 2005 is seen by a spike in predators and a decrease in sprawlers relative to 1969 and These results are shown in Appendix A, Figures

26 CHAPTER FOUR DISCUSSION The results support the hypotheses that there were no significant changes in species diversity and composition between the successive years of 2005 and 2006 at all sites. However, it does not support a significant change between 1969 and 2005 or 2006, which was hypothesized to be significantly different. The land cover change also resulted in low percentages, highest in the sub-watershed surrounding A-35, instead of A- 36 as hypothesized. The species diversity results coincided with the relatively low percentage land use change that occurred. Of the 162 species that occurred there were seven new state records for South Carolina, including Agapetus spinosus Etnier and Way 1973, Hydropsyche simulans Ross 1938, Hydroptila consimilis Morton 1905, Hydroptila latosa Ross 1947, Oxyethira dualis Morton 1905, Molanna ulmerina Navas 1934, and Rhyacophila mycta Ross Twenty-six species found at these sites in 1969, but not collected in the more recent study were Apatania praevolans (Morse, 1971), Agapetus jocassee (Morse, 1989), Hydropsyche (Ceratopsyche) bronta (Ross 1938), Hydropsyche carolina (Banks, 1938), Hydropsyche fattigi (Ross, 1941), Hydropsyche scalaris (Hagen, 1861), Hydropsyche simulans (Ross, 1938), Macrostemum carolina (Banks, 1909), Macrostemum zebratum (Hagen, 1861), Dibusa angata (Ross, 1939), Hydroptila delineata (Morton, 1905), Hydroptila grandiosa (Ross, 1938), Hydroptila latosa (Ross, 1947), Hydroptila strepha (Ross, 1941), Oxyethira zeronia (Ross, 1941), Stactobiella palmata (Ross, 1938), Oecetis 18

27 ditissa (Ross, 1966), Setodes stehri (Ross, 1941), Pycnopsyche antica (Walker, 1852), Pycnopsyche luculenta (Betten, 1934), Nyctiophylax vestitus (Hagen, 1861), Polycentropus carolinensis (Banks, 1905), Polycentropus clinei (Milne, 1936), Rhyacophila teddyi (Ross, 1939), Agarodes crassicornis (Walker, 1852), and Neophylax oligius (Ross, 1938). Appendix A shows the mean tolerance values for the three sites each year. The caddisflies captured at A-33 had the lowest mean tolerance values, indicating better water quality at this site compared to A-35 and A-36. This result was as hypothesized since A- 33 lies within Table Rock State Park and has seen little change in land cover over the last 37 years. A-35 has the lowest overall change in mean tolerance values, showing a relatively stable state of water quality, which may be attributed to the upstream dam that regulates the protected water reservoir used by Greenville County for drinking water and provides the source of water for A-35 and A-36 on the South Saluda River. A-36, although showing little land cover change, had the highest change in mean tolerance values from 1969 to 2005 and Although the mean tolerance values at each site show a trend of gradual decline in water quality over the years, there are insufficient data points to determine whether the trends are statistically significant. One or more additional years of data are needed to detect any significant trends. Feeding strategies and habitat selection measure changes can be an indicator of habitat alteration. The caddisfly community at Site A-33 remained relatively stable in both feeding strategies and habitat selection when comparing 1969 to However, when I compared 2006 to 2005 and 1969 I found a significant difference in both the 19

28 feeding strategies and the habitat selection. This difference may be an artifact of dynamic year to year differences documented by Morse and Kelley (1982). Although there was a significant difference in 2006, the lack of significant difference between 1969 and 2005 coincides with the lowest percent of land cover change and the smallest mean tolerance values. As previously mentioned the caddisfly community at A-35 (the site with the highest percent of land cover change and the most stable but highest overall average caddisfly mean tolerance values equaling the poorest water quality) showed a statistically significant shift in habitat selection and feeding strategies in all three years. These values suggest that there has been a change in habitat and food resources and is a relatively unstable habitat. The caddisfly community at A-36 showed a change in all three years, the most remarkable being in 2005, showing a small spike in sprawlers and a small decrease in climbers but staying relatively stable in the habitat preference of the other four groups. Feeding strategies were significantly different in 2005 which showed an increase in predators in 2005 and a decrease in scrapers, which can be regarded as an indicator of increased perturbation in the stream system. Conclusions Northern Pickens County in South Carolina has undergone land cover changes. However, the results of this study did not corroborate the hypothesis that a substantial land cover change occurred from forested land to agricultural land at site A-36 since The study suggested but could not demonstrate conclusively trends at the three study sites of a steady decline in water quality, but more research is needed to determine 20

29 any statistical significance for these trends and, if significant, what may be causing them. Even though their appears to have been a loss of certain intolerant caddisfly species, Trichoptera biodiversity in the area remains high, totaling 162 species out of 378 species known in North and South Carolina. The three study sites apparently are relatively unaffected by humans and their macroinvertebrate communities may serve as references for pollution assessments in the southern inner piedmont ecoregion. 21

30 APPENDICES 22

31 Appendix A Species Assessment Analysis Table A-1: Mean tolerance values for caddis flies at three locations in the headwaters of the South Saluda River, South Carolina. Site Year Average Tolerance Values Water Quality A Very Good A Good A Good A Fair A Good A Good A Very Good A Good A Fair 23

32 Figure A-1: Mean tolerance values for caddisflies at all three sites across the three sampling years. Figure A-2: Habitat selection for caddisflies at A

33 Figure A-3: Habitat selection for caddisflies at A-35. Figure A-4: Habitat selection for caddisflies at A

34 Figure A-5: Feeding strategies for caddisflies at A-33. Figure A-6: Feeding strategies for caddisflies at A

35 Figure A-7: Feeding strategies for caddisflies at A

36 Appendix B GIS Land Analysis Figure B-1: Collecting sites in northern Pickens County, South Carolina Figure B-2: Total watershed with river system and sites overlaid. 28

37 Figure B-3: Defined sub-watersheds in Northern Pickens County, SC, South Saluda River. 29

38 Figure B-4: Site A digital ortho-photograph. Figure B-5: Site A digital ortho-photograph. 30

39 Figure B-6: Site A digital ortho-photograph. Figure B-7: Site A digital ortho-photograph. 31

40 Figure B-8: Site A digital ortho-photograph. Figure B-9: Site A digital ortho-photograph. 32

41 Figure B-10: Site A-33 refraction analysis. Figure B-11: Site A-35 refraction analysis. 33

42 Figure B-12: Site A-36 refraction analysis. Table B-1: GIS pixel analysis of refraction imagery. A33 #pixels decreased 10 #pixels unchanged 3895 #pixels increased 4 #pix total 3909 A A Site 34 % % decreased unchanged % increased 0.102

43 Appendix C Summarized Species Lists Table C-1: Site A33, 1969 species collection summary Family Genus Species Apataniidae Apatania praevolans Brachycentridae Micrasema wataga Brachycentridae Micrasema sp Calamoceratidae Anisocentropus pyraloides Calamoceratidae Heteroplectron americanum Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus lucidus Glossosomatidae Agapetus sp Glossosomatidae Glossosoma nigrior Glossosomatidae Matrioptila jeanae Goeridae Goera calcarata Helicopsychidae Helicopsyche borealis Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche analis Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche ela Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche harwoodi enigma Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche harwoodi harwoodi Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche oxa Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche pinaca Hydropsychidae Diplectrona sp Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche betteni Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche bronta Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche morosa Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche sparna Hydropsychidae Macrostemum carolina Hydropsychidae Macrostemum zebratum Hydropsychidae Parapsyche cardis Hydroptilidae Hydroptila delineata Hydroptilidae Hydroptila gunda Hydroptilidae Hydroptila hamata Hydroptilidae Hydroptila remita Hydroptilidae Hydroptila sp Hydroptilidae Oxyethira sp Hydroptilidae Stactobiella sp Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma griseum latipenne 35

44 Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma togatum Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma sp Leptoceridae Oecetis ditissa Leptoceridae Oecetis inconspicua Leptoceridae Oecetis persimilis Leptoceridae Triaenodes ignitus Leptoceridae Triaenodes marginatus group Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche sonso Philopotamidae Chimarra aterrima Philopotamidae Dolophilodes distinctus Philopotamidae Dolophilodes major Philopotamidae Dolophilodes sp Philopotamidae Wormaldia moesta Phryganeidae Phryganea sayi Phryganeidae Ptilostomis ocellifera Polycentropodidae Cernotina spicata Polycentropodidae Cyrnellus fraternus Polycentropodidae Neureclipsis crepuscularis Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax denningi Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax vestitus Polycentropodidae Polycentropus carolinensis Polycentropodidae Polycentropus cinereus Polycentropodidae Polycentropus confusus Polycentropodidae Polycentropus maculatus Polycentropodidae Polycentropus sp Psychomyiidae Lype diversa Psychomyiidae Psychomyia flavida Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila carolina Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila fuscula Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila glaberrima Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila teddyi Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila torva Table C-2: Site A33, 2005 species collection summary Family Genus Species Brachycentridae Micrasema charonis Brachycentridae Micrasema wataga Calamoceratidae Anisocentropus pyraloides Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus lucidus Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus placidus 36

45 Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus sp Glossosomatidae Glossosoma nigrior Glossosomatidae Glossosoma sp Goeridae Goera calcarata Goeridae Goera fuscula Goeridae Goera townesi Goeridae Goera sp Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche analis Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche ela Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche harwoodi harwoodi Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche pinaca Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche rossi Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche sordida Hydropsychidae Diplectrona sp Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche betteni Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche sparna Hydropsychidae Parapsyche cardis Hydroptilidae Hydroptila armata Hydroptilidae Hydroptila gunda Hydroptilidae Hydroptila hamata Hydroptilidae Hydroptila remita Hydroptilidae Hydroptila sp Hydroptilidae Ochrotrichia transylvanica Hydroptilidae Orthotrichia aegerfasciella Hydroptilidae Oxyethira forcipata Hydroptilidae Oxyethira pallida Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma americanum Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma griseum Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma latipenne Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma ontario Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma sp Leptoceridae Ceraclea ancylus Leptoceridae Ceraclea cancellata Leptoceridae Ceraclea enodis Leptoceridae Ceraclea nepha Leptoceridae Ceraclea protonepha Leptoceridae Oecetis georgia Leptoceridae Oecetis inconspicua Leptoceridae Oecetis osteni Leptoceridae Oecetis persimilis Leptoceridae Oecetis porteri Leptoceridae Triaenodes dipsia 37

46 Leptoceridae Triaenodes ignitus Leptoceridae Triaenodes sp Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche sonso Molannidae Molanna blenda Molannidae Molanna ulmerina Molannidae Molanna sp Philopotamidae Chimarra aterrima Philopotamidae Chimarra obscura Philopotamidae Dolophilodes distinctus Philopotamidae Dolophilodes major Philopotamidae Dolophilodes sp Philopotamidae Wormaldia moesta Phryganeidae Ptilostomis ocellifera Polycentropodidae Cernotina spicata Polycentropodidae Cyrnellus fraternus Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax nephophilus Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax sp Polycentropodidae Polycentropus cinereus Polycentropodidae Polycentropus confusus Polycentropodidae Polycentropus maculatus Polycentropodidae Polycentropus sp Psychomyiidae Lype diversa Psychomyiidae Psychomyia flavida Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila carolina Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila fuscula Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila glaberrima Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila torva Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila sp Sericostomatidae Agarodes tetron Table C-3: Site A33, 2006 species collection summary Family Genus Species Brachycentridae Micrasema wataga Calamoceratidae Heteroplectron americanum Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus lucidus Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus placidus Glossosomatidae Glossosoma sp Goeridae Goera calcarata Goeridae Goera fuscula Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche analis 38

47 Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche gracilis Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche harwoodi harwoodi Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche oxa Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche pinaca Hydropsychidae Diplectrona sp Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche betteni Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche morosa Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche sparna Hydroptilidae Hydroptila gunda Hydroptilidae Hydroptila hamata Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma griseum Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma latipenne Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma tibiale Leptoceridae Ceraclea ancylus Leptoceridae Ceraclea cancellata Leptoceridae Ceraclea protonepha Leptoceridae Oecetis cinerascens Leptoceridae Oecetis georgia Leptoceridae Oecetis inconspicua Leptoceridae Oecetis nocturna Leptoceridae Oecetis osteni Leptoceridae Oecetis persimilis Leptoceridae Oecetis porteri Leptoceridae Triaenodes ignitus Leptoceridae Triaenodes marginatus Leptoceridae Triaenodes perna Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche sp Molannidae Molanna ulmerina Philopotamidae Chimarra aterrima Philopotamidae Chimarra obscura Philopotamidae Dolophilodes distinctus Philopotamidae Dolophilodes major Philopotamidae Wormaldia moesta Polycentropodidae Cernotina spicata Polycentropodidae Cyrnellus fraternus Polycentropodidae Neureclepsis sp Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax denningi Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax nephophilus Polycentropodidae Polycentropus cinereus Polycentropodidae Polycentropus confusus Polycentropodidae Polycentropus maculatus Polycentropodidae Polycentropus nascotius 39

48 Psychomyiidae Lype diversa Psychomyiidae Psychomyia flavida Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila carolina Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila fuscula Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila glaberrima Table C-4: Site A35, 1969 species collection summary Family Genus Species Brachycentridae Micrasema charonis Brachycentridae Micrasema rusticum Calamoceratidae Anisocentropus pyraloides Glossosomatidae Agapetus jocassee Glossosomatidae Glossosoma nigrior Glossosomatidae Matrioptila jeanae Goeridae Goera calcarata Helicopsychidae Helicopsyche borealis Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche analis Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche gyra Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche harwoodi enigma Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche harwoodi harwoodi Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche pinaca Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche sordida Hydropsychidae Diplectrona sp Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche betteni Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche sparna Hydropsychidae Macrostemum carolina Hydropsychidae Macrostemum zebratum Hydropsychidae Parapsyche cardis Hydroptilidae Hydroptila armata Hydroptilidae Hydroptila delineata Hydroptilidae Hydroptila grandiosa Hydroptilidae Hydroptila hamata Hydroptilidae Hydroptila remita Hydroptilidae Oxyethira michiganensis Hydroptilidae Oxyethira zeronia Hydroptilidae Stactobiella sp Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma latipenne Leptoceridae Ceraclea cancellata Leptoceridae Mystacides sepulchralis Leptoceridae Nectopsyche candida 40

49 Leptoceridae Oecetis inconspicua Leptoceridae Oecetis nocturna Leptoceridae Oecetis persimilis Leptoceridae Oecetis sphyra Leptoceridae Setodes incertus Leptoceridae Setodes stehri Leptoceridae Triaenodes ignitus Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche antica Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche lepida Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche luculenta Philopotamidae Chimarra augusta Philopotamidae Chimarra obscura Philopotamidae Dolophilodes distinctus Polycentropodidae Cernotina spicata Polycentropodidae Cyrnellus fraternus Polycentropodidae Neureclipsis crepuscularis Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax affinis Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax banksi Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax celta Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax denningi Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax nephophilus Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax vestitus Polycentropodidae Polycentropus clinei Polycentropodidae Polycentropus confusus Psychomyiidae Lype diversa Psychomyiidae Psychomyia flavida Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila carolina Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila fuscula Sericostomatidae Agarodes griseus Sericostomatidae Agarodes crassicornis Sericostomatidae Agarodes tetron Uenoidae Neophylax oligius Table C-5: Site A35, 2005 species collection summary Family Genus Species Brachycentridae Micrasema wataga Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus carolinus Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus placidus Glossosomatidae Agapetus sp Glossosomatidae Glossosoma sp 41

50 Glossosomatidae Matrioptila sp Glossosomatidae Protoptila lega Goeridae Goera calcarata Goeridae Goera fuscula Goeridae Goera townesi Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche analis Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche campyla Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche gyra Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche harwoodi enigma Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche harwoodi harwoodi Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche pinaca Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche sordida Hydropsychidae Diplectrona sp Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche betteni Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche sparna Hydropsychidae Parapsyche cardis Hydroptilidae Hydroptila armata Hydroptilidae Hydroptila gunda Hydroptilidae Hydroptila hamata Hydroptilidae Hydroptila remita Hydroptilidae Orthotrichia sp Hydroptilidae Oxyethira grisea Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma modestum Leptoceridae Ceraclea ancylus Leptoceridae Ceraclea cancellata Leptoceridae Ceraclea protonepha Leptoceridae Mystacides sepulchralis Leptoceridae Nectopsyche candida Leptoceridae Nectopsyche exquisita Leptoceridae Oecetis cinerascens Leptoceridae Oecetis inconspicua Leptoceridae Oecetis nocturna Leptoceridae Oecetis persimilis Leptoceridae Oecetis sphyra Leptoceridae Setodes incertus Leptoceridae Triaenodes dipsia Leptoceridae Triaenodes ignitus Leptoceridae Triaenodes perna Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche sp Molannidae Molanna blenda Molannidae Molanna ulmerina Philopotamidae Chimarra aterrima 42

51 Philopotamidae Chimarra obscura Polycentropodidae Cernotina spicata Polycentropodidae Cyrnellus fraternus Polycentropodidae Neureclipsis crepuscularis Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax affinis Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax celta Polycentropodidae Nyctiophylax nephophilus Polycentropodidae Polycentropus blicklei Polycentropodidae Polycentropus confusus Psychomyiidae Lype diversa Psychomyiidae Psychomyia flavida Psychomyiidae Psychomyia nomida Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila carolina Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila fuscula Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila mycta Sericostomatidae Agarodes griseus Table C-6: Site A35, 2006 species collection summary Family Genus Species Brachycentridae Micrasema charonis Brachycentridae Micrasema sprulesi Brachycentridae Micrasema wataga Dipseudopsidae Phylocentropus placidus Glossosomatidae Glossosoma nigrior Goeridae Goera calcarata Goeridae Goera fuscula Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche analis Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche gracilis Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche gyra Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche harwoodi enigma Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche harwoodi harwoodi Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche pinaca Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche sordida Hydropsychidae Diplectrona sp Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche betteni Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche mississippiensis Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche sparna Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche venularis Hydroptilidae Hydroptila armata Hydroptilidae Hydroptila gunda 43