1 / 26

Puget Sound EPA Benthos Grant: Comparison of Sampling Methods and Updated Taxa Attributes

Jo Wilhelm & Deb Lester, King County Leska Fore, Statistical Design Karen Adams, WA Department of Ecology Gretchen Hayslip, EPA Region 10. Puget Sound EPA Benthos Grant: Comparison of Sampling Methods and Updated Taxa Attributes.

halen
Télécharger la présentation

Puget Sound EPA Benthos Grant: Comparison of Sampling Methods and Updated Taxa Attributes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Jo Wilhelm & Deb Lester, King County Leska Fore, Statistical DesignKaren Adams, WA Department of EcologyGretchen Hayslip, EPA Region 10 Puget Sound EPA Benthos Grant: Comparison of Sampling Methods and Updated Taxa Attributes King County Water and Land Resources Science Seminar November 1, 2012

  2. Overview • Regional monitoring issues that initiated this project • Key Project Goals • Methods and Preliminary Results • Reconcile differences in sampling methods • Update taxa attributes • Next steps EPA Scientific Studies and Technical Investigation Assistance Program Support technical studies to guide and evaluate implementation of PSP’s Action Agenda

  3. Goal: Improved decision making to restore and protect streams

  4. Reconcile Differences in Sampling Methods • Ecology requires >=8ft2 samples for inclusion in State WQ Assessment • Reluctance to shift to 8ft2 - concern for orphaned data • Need for better understanding of data comparability or tool to allow data comparability

  5. Sample Collection Methods – 3ft2 vs. 8ft2

  6. Sampling Locations • 55 Sites • 9 Partners • Elevation 4-330 m • 0-93% Urban

  7. Results: Overall BIBI Score - 3 vs. 8 sq ft

  8. Overall BIBI Score: Residuals Mean = 1.2 p<0.05 Biologically meaningful?

  9. Individual BIBI Metrics

  10. Paired Sample Analysis Conclusions A little more analysis needed, but… No additional 2012 sampling No “cross-walk” required Data are comparable

  11. Strengthen Sensitivity of Taxa Attributes Update Using Published Literature Update with Existing Data

  12. Published Literature Updates

  13. Attribute Changes: 1998 vs. 2012

  14. Tolerant & Intolerant Taxa Testing • N = 784 sites (most recent) • Genus level or higher • >= 25 occurrences • 155 taxa tested 1.0 0.8 0.6 Cumulative % of Sites 0.4 0.2 Epeorus 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Urbanization in Watershed

  15. Example of an Intolerant Taxon 1.0 0.8 0.6 Cumulative % of Sites 0.4 Epeorus 0.2 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Urbanization in Watershed

  16. Example of a Tolerant Taxon 1.0 Erpobdellidae 0.8 0.6 Cumulative % of Sites 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Urbanization in Watershed

  17. Attribute Changes: 1998 vs. 2012

  18. BIBI Scores: Attributes Compared

  19. BIBI Metrics: Influence of Attributes * All mean residuals are significantly different than 0 (p<0.05)

  20. Taxa Attribute Conclusions • Significant changes to attribute lists, especially predator, long lived and tolerant/intolerant taxa • Many rare taxa dropped from tolerant and intolerant lists • No change to structure of B-IBI – all metrics highly correlated with % urbanization • Taxa attribute updates may require some recalibration

  21. Next Steps Finalize attributes Recalibrate BIBI and adjust scoring Reanalyze 3 vs. 8 with updated attributes Incorporate changes into PSSB Biological Condition Gradient process/Indicator refinement Ongoing collaboration

  22. Acknowledgements

  23. Deb Lester deborah.lester@kingcounty.govJo Wilhelmjo.wilhelm@kingcounty.gov www.pugetsoundstreambenthos.org

  24. Sample Processing

  25. Overall BIBI Score: Landcover

  26. Lab Methods WE ARE HERE

More Related