# Presentation: 049624

## Incorporating Species Optima and Inference Models into Biological Assessments

**Tom Danielson**
**Maine DEP**

## Introduction

**Developing new algal biocriteria for streams and rivers based on:**
**Maine’s Water Classification System**
**EPA’s Biological Condition Gradient.**
**Need a way to calculate tolerance values for stream algae.**
**Want some metrics that can help diagnose potential stressors.**

## Stream Classes

**AA**
**A**
**B**
**C**

**Notes:**
In 1986, the state legislature assigned all river and stream segments to one of the four classes. 

These are the GOALS, not what they actually attain

Class AA and A have same environmental expectations, but fewer things are allowed on the AA rivers.

## Classes and Criteria

**Dissolved Oxygen**

**Bacteria (*****E. coli***)

_**Numeric Criteria**_

**Habitat**

**Aquatic Life (Biological)**

**Class AA**

- as naturally occurs

- free flowing and natural

- as naturally occurs

**Class A**

- natural

- as naturally occurs

**Class B**

- 7 ppm or
- 75% sat.

- 64 per 100 ml
- (geo. mean)
-  236 per 100 ml (instantaneous)

- unimpaired

- support all aquatic species indigenous to the receiving water;  no detrimental changes to the resident biological community

**Class C**

- 5 ppm or
- 60% sat.

- habitat for fish and other aquatic life

- maintain the structure and function of the resident biological community

- as naturally occurs

- as naturally occurs

- 7 ppm or
- 75% sat.

_**Narrative Criteria**_

**Non-attainment (NA)  stream does not meet minimum criteria**

**Classes and Criteria**

- 126 per 100 ml
- (geo. mean)
-  236 per 100 ml (instantaneous)

## Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) and Tiered Aquatic Life Use (TALU)

**Biological Condition**
**Gradient **

**Stressor**** ****Gradient**

- Low

- High

**1**

**  ****2**

**3**

**4**

**5**

**6**

- Natural

- Degraded

## Class A Stream (Tier 2)

- Babel Brook, T5 R9 NWP

**Class A Stream (Tier 2)**

**Notes:**
ACTUAL SAMPLE- intact watershed- CLASS A or “BEST” 
Predominance of BLUE- sensitive to disturbance/pollution

Some green- Intermediate tolerance
Many different kinds within each group

Greatly simplified just trying to get across major concepts

## Class B Stream (Tier 3)

- Eddy Brook, New Gloucester

**Class B Stream (Tier 3)**

**Notes:**
Total abundance is much greater
Lost some of the really sensitive species, but sensitive groups are still dominant

## Non-Attainment Stream(Tier 5)

- Penjajawoc Stream, Bangor

**Non-Attainment Stream****(Tier 5)**

**Notes:**
ACTUAL SAMPLE- Disturbed (paved) watershed
Non-Attainment- below minimum state WQ standards

Predominance of RED- highly tolerant groups

## What tolerance values do we use for stream algae?

**Tolerance values from Europe**
**van Dam, Mertens, and Sinkeldam (1994)**
**Numerous trophic and saprobic systems**
**Montana Pollution Tolerance Index (Bahls 1993)**
**Kentucky Pollution Tolerance Index (KDEP 2002)**
**Do they work for Maine?**

## Inference Models

**Species “optima” and inference models for stream algae:**
**NAWQA diatoms (Potapova and Charles 2002)**
**NAWQA soft algae (Potapova 2005)**
**Northern Piedmont diatoms (Potapova et al. 2004)**
**NJ diatom nutrient models (Ponander et al. 2005)**
**Comparisons have shown that locally derived species “optima” have worked better in models than national or international tolerance values.**

## Goals

**Use species optima to calculate a Maine Tolerance Value to help build a statistical model that predicts attainment of Class A, B, or C biocriteria.**
**Does the stream attain its assigned class?**
**Use inference models to help identify major stressors damaging the stream. **
**What’s damaging it and how do we target limited resources to try and fix it?**

## Species Optimum (θ)

**Courtesy Jan Stevenson**

## Weighted Average Optima

**Weighted Average Optima**

**where:        ***********k ******= *****optima of species k**
**                    *****y******ik***** = abundance of species *****k***** in sample *****i***
**                    *****x******i***** = value of environmental parameter in sample *****i***

## Example Calculation(Achnanthes conspicua)

| 
Sample | Abundance | TP (ppb) | Log (TP) | Log(TP)  x Abundance |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sucker Brook | 16,273 | 21 | 1.322 | 21,512.9 |
| Rocky Brook | 7,018 | 20 | 1.301 | 9,130.4 |
| Little Ossippee River | 1,048 | 10 | 1.000 | 1,048.0 |
| Togus Stream | 29 | 77 | 1.886 | 54.7 |
| Penjajawoc Stream | 6 | 21 | 1.322 | 7.9 |
| Carrabassett River | 5 | 6 | 0.778 | 3.9 |
|  | Sum = 24,379 |  |  | Sum = 31,757.8 |
|  |  |  |  |  |
|  | Optimum log(TP) =  | 31,758 | = 1.303 |  |
|  |  | 24,379 |  |  |
|  |  |  |  |  |
|  |   Optimum TP =  | 10(1.303)  | = 20ppb |  |

## Examples of Optima

***Brachysira microcephala***

***Reimeria   sinuata***

***Navicula gregaria***

## NMS Ordination of Diatom Relative Abundances

**Main axis correlated with the following:**
**Percent Developed Watershed ****	****	****	****(i.e., no longer forest or wetland)**
**Percent Impervious Surfaces in Watershed**
**Specific Conductance**
**Total N**
**Total P**
**(not pH, watershed size, width, depth, etc.)**

## Tabellaria flocculosa

| Percent of Watershed that is Forest or Wetland | 98% |
| --- | --- |
| Percent of Watershed that is Impervious Surface | 1% |
| Specific Conductance | 22 S/cm |
| Total Nitrogen | 14 ppm |
| Total Phosphorous | 8 ppb |

## Nitzschia amphibia

| Percent of Watershed that is Forest or Wetland | 16% |
| --- | --- |
| Percent of Watershed that is Impervious Surface | 40% |
| Specific Conductance | 475 S/cm |
| Total Nitrogen | 109 ppm |
| Total Phosphorous | 39 ppb |

## 

Axis 1 represents 86% of variance
Rescaled axis to 1 (most sensitive) to 100

**Axis 1 represents 86% of variance**
**Rescaled axis to 1 (most sensitive) to 100**

**PCA Ordination Identified Major Pattern in Species Optima**

***T. floculossa***

***N. amphibia***

## Relative Richness of Sensitive, Intermediate, and Tolerant Algae

- ≤ 36

- 35-67

- ≥68

- Maine Tolerance Value

## Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) and Tiered Aquatic Life Use (TALU)

**Biological Condition**
**Gradient **

**Stressor**** ****Gradient**

- Low

- High

**1**

**  ****2**

**3**

**4**

**5**

**6**

- Natural

- Degraded

## Relative Richness of Sensitive, Intermediate, and Tolerant Algae

- _Reference Criteria_
- >95% Forest or Wetland in Watershed
- No dams
- No point-source discharges

## Relative Biovolume of Sensitive, Intermediate, and Tolerant Algae

- _Reference Criteria_
- >95% Forest or Wetland in Watershed
- No dams
- No point-source discharges

## Goals

**Use species optima to calculate a Maine Tolerance Value to help build a statistical model that predicts attainment of Class A, B, or C biocriteria.**
**Does the stream attain its assigned class?**
**Use inference models to help identify major stressors damaging the stream. **
**What’s damaging it and how do we target limited resources to try and fix it?**

## Overlapping Species Response Curves

- From: McCune, B. & J. B. Grace. 2002.  *Analysis of Ecological Communities*.  MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, Oregon  _[http://](http://www.pcord.com/)__[www.pcord.com](http://www.pcord.com/)_

## Types of Ecological Inference Models

**Weighted averaging (WA)**
**Inferred TP = ****Σ**** (Rel. Abun. x TP Optimum)**
**with classical or inverse deshrinking**
**WA - tolerance downweighting**
**with classical or inverse deshrinking**
**WA - partial least squares**
**Maximum likelihood**
**based on Gaussian response curves**

## Diatom TP Inference Model

- RMSE		0.17097
- R2        		0.77027
- Ave_Bias 		0.02437
- Max_Bias		0.095575
- Boot_R2  		0.55407
- RMSEP        	0.24401

## Applications of Inference Models

**Assess condition of stream.**
**Diagnose potential stressors.**
**Target limited resources to more effectively fix the stream.**
**Measure incremental improvements in stream condition.**

## Putting it all together

- Penjajawoc Stream, Bangor

| Variable | Tier 2  | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| % Richness Sensitive Algae | 41 | 25 | 3 | 6 |
| % Biovolume Sensitive Algae | 92 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| % Richness Tolerant Algae | 9 | 25 | 48 | 54 |
| % Biovolume Tolerant Algae | 0 | 2 | 3 | 97 |
| % Rich. N-autotrophic diatoms | 41 | 52 | 0 | 3 |
| % Density Eutraphentic diatoms | 10 | 25 | 75 | 95 |
| % Density Motile diatoms | 7 | 22 | 64 | 40 |
| Diatom Developed Watershed Index | 6 | 21 | 52 | 81 |
| Diatom Conductivity Index | 17 | 102 | 321 | 939 |
| Diatom TP Index   | 8 | 22 | 22 | 38 |

## Putting it all together

- Penjajawoc Stream, Bangor

| Variable | Tier 2  | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| % Richness Sensitive Algae | 41 | 25 | 3 | 6 |
| % Biovolume Sensitive Algae | 92 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| % Richness Tolerant Algae | 9 | 25 | 48 | 54 |
| % Biovolume Tolerant Algae | 0 | 2 | 3 | 97 |
| % Rich. N-autotrophic diatoms | 41 | 52 | 0 | 3 |
| % Density Eutraphentic diatoms | 10 | 25 | 75 | 95 |
| % Density Motile diatoms | 7 | 22 | 64 | 40 |
| Diatom Developed Watershed Index | 6 | 21 | 52 | 81 |
| Diatom Conductivity Index | 17 | 102 | 321 | 939 |
| Diatom TP Index   | 8 | 22 | 22 | 38 |

## Putting it all together

- Penjajawoc Stream, Bangor

| Variable | Tier 2  | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| % Richness Sensitive Algae | 41 | 25 | 3 | 6 |
| % Biovolume Sensitive Algae | 92 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| % Richness Tolerant Algae | 9 | 25 | 48 | 54 |
| % Biovolume Tolerant Algae | 0 | 2 | 3 | 97 |
| % Rich. N-autotrophic diatoms | 41 | 52 | 0 | 3 |
| % Density Eutraphentic diatoms | 10 | 25 | 75 | 95 |
| % Density Motile diatoms | 7 | 22 | 64 | 40 |
| Diatom Developed Watershed Index | 6 | 21 | 52 | 81 |
| Diatom Conductivity Index | 17 | 102 | 321 | 939 |
| Diatom TP Index   | 8 | 22 | 22 | 38 |

## Putting it all together

- Penjajawoc Stream, Bangor

| Variable | Tier 2  | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| % Richness Sensitive Algae | 41 | 25 | 3 | 6 |
| % Biovolume Sensitive Algae | 92 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| % Richness Tolerant Algae | 9 | 25 | 48 | 54 |
| % Biovolume Tolerant Algae | 0 | 2 | 3 | 97 |
| % Rich. N-autotrophic diatoms | 41 | 52 | 0 | 3 |
| % Density Eutraphentic diatoms | 10 | 25 | 75 | 95 |
| % Density Motile diatoms | 7 | 22 | 64 | 40 |
| Diatom Developed Watershed Index | 6 | 21 | 52 | 81 |
| Diatom Conductivity Index | 17 | 102 | 321 | 939 |
| Diatom TP Index   | 8 | 22 | 22 | 38 |

## Putting it all together

- Penjajawoc Stream, Bangor

| Variable | Tier 2  | Tier 3 | Tier 4 | Tier 5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| % Richness Sensitive Algae | 41 | 25 | 3 | 6 |
| % Biovolume Sensitive Algae | 92 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| % Richness Tolerant Algae | 9 | 25 | 48 | 54 |
| % Biovolume Tolerant Algae | 0 | 2 | 3 | 97 |
| % Rich. N-autotrophic diatoms | 41 | 52 | 0 | 3 |
| % Density Eutraphentic diatoms | 10 | 25 | 75 | 95 |
| % Density Motile diatoms | 7 | 22 | 64 | 40 |
| Diatom Developed Watershed Index | 6 | 21 | 52 | 81 |
| Diatom Conductivity Index | 17 | 102 | 321 | 939 |
| Diatom TP Index   | 8 | 22 | 22 | 38 |

## Conclusions

**We are using optima to calculate a Maine Tolerance Value for algal taxa.**
**We are using the Maine Tolerance Values in determining the Class (A,B,C) and BCG tier.**
**We intend to use the inference models to help diagnose potential stressors, target restoration, and monitor recovery.**

## For More Information

**thomas.j.danielson@maine.gov**
**www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/docmonitoring/**
**	****biomonitoring/**

- Leon Tsomides
- Beth Connors
- Jeanne DiFranco
- Tom Danielson