A. Project Title:
Ecological integrity of prairie streams as influenced by patch-burn grazing and
riparian protection
MDC Project Leader: Kevin Sullivan- Resource Science Field Station Supervisor,
Missouri Department of Conservation Grasslands Field Station, PO Box 368, Clinton MO
64735
Team members and affiliations:
Dr. Walter Dodds- Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Dr. Matt Whiles- Department of Zoology and Center for Ecology, Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale, IL 62901-6501
Kyle Winders – Graduate Student, Kansas State University
Jody Vandermyde – Graduate Student, Southern Illinois University
Project Collaborators:
Brent Jamison, Missouri Department of Conservation
Jason Persinger, Missouri Department of Conservation
Bob Hrabik, Missouri Department of Conservation
Len Gilmore, Missouri Department of Conservation
Dr. Keith Gido, Kansas State University
File name: PatchBurnGrazeStreamsFY11.doc
Executive Summary: The influence of cattle grazing on prairie stream integrity is
poorly documented in the scientific literature. While large native ungulate grazers such
as bison were historically an integral part of tallgrass prairie ecology and may have had
moderate effects on stream biota and chemistry, how well this is emulated by grazing
cattle is still an open question. Recently, patch-burn grazing, a 3 year rotational burn
treatment, has been implemented on grasslands managed by the state of Missouri as
well as regionally by cattle producers. We will compare the biotic integrity of streams
without grazing to those with patch-burn grazing. We will also test the effects of riparian
fencing in patch-burn grazed areas on stream integrity. Each treatment will occur in its
own watershed, and 6 watersheds (2 of each treatment at Osage Prairie) will be studied.
We will use a before-after, control impact design with 2 years of before treatment data, 3
years of treatments, and 2 years post treatment data. Response variables will include
geomorphologic characteristics, nutrients, primary production, and invertebrate
assemblage structure.
B.
Information Need and Justification
1
Missouri is suggesting managing some of their remaining prairie lands using a
rotational burn approach accompanied by unrestricted cattle grazing, also referred to as
patch-burn grazing. This proposal is constructed to answer two management questions
to guide management decisions:
1) What is the effect of patch-burn grazing on water quality and stream biotic integrity?
2) If there are negative effects of patch-burn grazing, can they be mitigated by riparian
fencing?
Prairie streams are some of the most endangered habitats in North America
because human activities have heavily degraded and diminished the grasslands they
drain. Less than 5% of the original tallgrass prairie remains in North America and less
than ½ of 1% remains in Missouri. Most remaining patches are too small to encompass
functional watersheds (Dodds et al. 2004). It is imperative to conserve biota and water
quality in remaining prairie streams, but some factors potentially influencing these
streams are not well understood.
Bison historically grazed the Central Plains, and they influenced stream quality
and biotic characteristics. However, some information suggests that behavior of these
large herbivores leads to minimal impacts on prairie streams (Fritz et al. 1999). Cattle
differ from bison in that they require more water and tend to use water to cool off in hot
weather. While cattle effects on terrestrial vegetation in grasslands may be similar to
those of bison (Collins et al. 1998), there is little information on the influences of cattle on
native tallgrass prairie streams.
Research in Oklahoma suggests that moderate cattle densities have only modest
effects on N transport in streams (Olness et al. 1975), and this is similar to the effects of
bison (Dodds et al. 1996, Kemp and Dodds 2001). Nitrogen cycling rates in tallgrass
prairie streams near moderate numbers of cattle are similar to those measured for
prairie streams with modest numbers of bison (O’Brien et al. 2007). Research in the
Central Plains indicates that downstream nutrient quality is dependent upon riparian
characteristics of intermittent first order streams (Dodds and Oakes 2006), so the
potential for cattle to influence downstream water quality is substantial.
Patch-burn grazing is becoming a more common management technique for
grasslands. In general, this is a rotational system where 1/3 of the grazing area is
burned each year. The cattle tend to graze on the most recently burned area, and
thereby allow the area burned longest ago to return to pre-grazing conditions. Diversity
of vegetation is maintained under this management regime, as is wildlife habitat. This
method is commonly used to manage restored or conserved tracts of prairie such as at
the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve, the largest protected remnant of tallgrass prairie in
Oklahoma and the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve in the Flint Hills region of Kansas.
Konza Prairie Biological Station is initiating research on patch-burn grazing as part of
their NSF-funded Long Term Ecological Research grant. How the patch-burn grazing
method affects water quality and stream biotic integrity is not established.
One way to mitigate the effects of grazing on streams is to fence riparian areas to
exclude cattle. While such approaches have been successful in many areas, there are
few data available on the potential effects on prairie streams. Most research on this
technique has been done on more arid streams in the western United States.
The relationships among grazing, stream biotic integrity and water quality lead us
to propose a project to answer the following questions:
2
1. Do cattle in patch-burn watersheds significantly influence water quality, invertebrate,
or amphibian community structure in small intermittent or ephemeral streams as
compared to patch-burn watersheds with no grazing?
2. Does riparian fencing in cattle-grazed, patch-burn watersheds significantly protect
water quality or invertebrate and amphibian community structure in small intermittent or
ephemeral streams to the point where they are similar to patch-burn watersheds with no
grazing?
C.
Decision Elements
Objective- the overall objective of this project is to quantify the effects of patch-burn
grazing on water quality and biotic integrity of streams. Specifically, we will monitor
elements of riparian and in-stream physical habitat quality (bank morphology, channel
morphology, flow, substrata), water quality (nutrient levels, dissolved oxygen, pH,
conductivity), biotic integrity (invertebrate abundance, biomass, and diversity; algal
biomass; amphibian abundance and diversity; riparian and in-stream plant abundance
and structure), and ecosystem function (primary production, metabolism) in streams
before, during, and after implementation of patch-burn grazing, including sites with and
without fences to keep cattle from within 15 m of the channel, and compare them with a
BACI experimental design.
Management Alternatives- burning (required to maintain prairie) with no grazing, patchburn grazing, and patch-burn grazing with fencing to keep cattle out of stream channels.
Predictions- cattle will have modest, negative impacts on water quality and biotic
integrity of streams relative to ungrazed systems; riparian fencing will mitigate most of
the negative effects.
Monitoring- water quality (suspended solids, total nitrogen and phosphorus), ecosystem
function (primary production and respiration) and biotic integrity (macroinvertebrate
community structure and amphibian populations) under the three treatment effects. We
will also monitor distribution of cattle in the various treatments and simple channel
shading surveys will be used to characterize riparian vegetation. We will not make
management recommendations per-se, but rather provide the data so the managers of
the sites can determine what is acceptable and provide data in a fashion that is
comparable to Missouri Department of Conservation data collected elsewhere so biotic
integrity effects can be extrapolated regionally.
D.
Expected Benefits (including direct effects on management or policy
decisions)
Results of this investigation will increase our understanding of how patch-burn cattle
grazing influences headwater prairie streams. The vast majority of research on cattle
impacts on streams has taken place in more arid regions, particularly in the Western
United States. Little is known about the potential influences of cattle in tallgrass prairie
systems. Our results will not only help Missouri manage its remaining prairie lands, but
also help other managers in the region determine how to maintain water quality and
biotic integrity of streams on their lands. Finally, management of private lands used for
grazing could be influenced by our results.
3
E.
Approach
Experimental design- The proposed research will require six small watersheds. The
watersheds will, as far as possible, be completely under control of the experimenters to
avoid complication of upstream activities in the watershed. Sites will be chosen to have
maximal similarity of riparian shading across treatments. Osage Prairie will be adequate
for all 6 watersheds. We have done the first two rounds of sampling and indentified the
study watersheds.
We will use a before-after, control-impact design (BACI) so each site can be
analyzed separately (Snedcor and Cochran 1980, Stewart-Oaten et al. 1986, 1992).
This approach allows the experiment to be run with 1 replicate per treatment if
necessary (e.g. if samples are lost for one of the replicate watersheds), and to be run
even when the history of individual treatment units varies. Thus, we will monitor 2 years
before treatments are initiated, initiate treatments and monitor for 3 years, and then after
treatments monitor for 2 more years (pending additional funding). General descriptions
of the BACIP design and Welch t test can be found in (Snedcor and Cochran 1980,
Stewart-Oaten et al. 1986, 1992).
The 6 small watersheds will make up duplicates of three treatments (Fig 1). The
control watersheds will have no grazing but approximately 1/3 burned rotationally over a
3 year cycle. The first treatment duplicate watersheds will have cattle at densities typical
of grazing levels used in restored Missouri prairie lands by the Missouri Department of
Conservation with grazing as a management option. These first treatments will be
burned in the same fashion as the control. The second treatment watersheds will be the
same as the first treatment, but with all stream channels fenced with a 15 m on each
side (30 m wide) buffer. The fences will crossover points where damage to the stream
will be minimal to allow complete access to the pasture (probably at the top and at the
bottom of each watershed (below the lowermost sampling point). The cattle density will
be the same as in the first treatment per unit area (taking into account differences in
watershed areas and the area of fenced buffer). Water will be provided to cattle in all
grazed treatments in a similar fashion to avoid bias in the where the cattle receive water.
Initial baseline sampling will be required to assess similarity of watersheds and to
account for legacies of prior management procedures that may vary across watersheds.
This sampling is mostly complete. Cattle may impact streams in a variety of direct and
indirect ways, depending upon their movements in the watershed (Figure 2). Thus, we
will quantitatively sample a variety of stream physical, chemical, and biological features,
as well as primary production and metabolism using standard, quantitative approaches
(Table 1, Figure 2).
We will attempt to find additional funding for fecal coliform sampling and determination of
additional chemical parameters, as well as more detailed sediment sampling.
Results will be compared to those obtained using similar protocols at Konza Prairie
Biological Station and the same protocols used by MDC. At Konza, patch-burn will be
implemented on a substantially larger scale. It will be implemented on a 300 ha
watershed with approximately 1/3 burned each year. A second smaller set of
watersheds containing two ephemeral streams will be subject to patch-burn treatment
and these ephemeral streams will also be sampled. Also, ungrazed and bison grazed
watersheds on Konza will be used for comparison.
4
Figure 1. Experimental watersheds at Osage Prairie.
5
Figure 2. Experiment, measured parameters, and modeled effects.
6
Data collection techniques and analytical procedures
We will use standard, quantitative techniques to monitor physical, chemical, biological, and functional aspects of the streams before,
during, and after grazing treatments (Table 1).
Table 1. Data Collection techniques, response metrics, measurement frequency
Measurement
Method/ analytical procedure
Frequency
Physical
Once per year at
Stream channel
Longitudinal profiles, widths
baseflow
morphology (SIU)
every 10m, sinuosity, bank
slope every 10 m, macrohabitat
composition
Substrate composition
Pebble count & modified
Two times per
(SIU)
Wentworth scale
year
3 storm events
Total suspended solids Filtration of discreet water
(bankfull flow or
(sediment) (KSU)
samples Analysis for ash and
greater) per year
ash free dry mass (organic and
sampled,
inorganic sediments)
Total suspended solids Continuous turbidity logging with 3 storm events
(sediment) (KSU)
optical sensor
(bankfull flow or
greater) per year
per site
Aeration for metabolism SF6 / rhodamine release
Once per year at
estimates (KSU)
baseflow
Light (KSU)
PAR logging meter
Coincident with
O2 measurements
Temperature, stage
Hobo loggers
Continuous,
(SIU)
bottom of each
treatment
Chemical
Reference
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/monitoring/techmon.html
USEPA Phy hab
USEPA Phy hab
APHA 1995, Whiles and Dodds 2002
Note this will be coupled to discharge data and used
to extrapolate TSS trends across storm events.
Mulholland et al. 2001
Discharge monitored to use for water yield and other
calculations (e.g. sediment transport)
7
Total nitrogen and
phosphorus (KSU)
Ammonium (KSU)
Nitrate (KSU)
Soluble reactive P
(KSU)
Dissolved oxygen,
diurnal trends (KSU)
pH, conductivity (KSU)
Additional ions
Biological
Benthic chlorophyll
(KSU)
Water column
chlorophyll
Macroinvertebrate
abundance & biomass
(SIU)
Macroinvertebrate
diversity (SIU)
Cattle use in various
treatments (MDC)
Persulfate digestion followed by
nitrate and srp analyses on
autoanalyzer
Phenol-hypochlorite,
autoanlayzer
Cadmium reduction,
autoanalyzer
Phosphomolybdate,
autoanalyzer
Logging DO sensor (YSI 6000)
Logging sensor
Weekly when on
site
Ameel et al. 1993
Weekly when on
site
Weekly when on
site
Weekly when on
site
Two sunny days
at baseflow per
year
Coincident with
O2 measurements
APHA 1995
Samples stored
5 rocks per riffle and per pool,
extracted directly with ethanol,
analyzed fluorometrically
Water column filters analyzed as
above
5 benthic samples per stream
collected with a stovepipe corer
or mini Surber sampler
(depending on flow)
1 multihabitat kick net sample
per stream
GPS collars
APHA 1995
APHA 1995
Mulholland et al. 2001
APHA 1995
Samples will be stored for potential future analyses of
other ions (e.g. Ca, Mg, Na) if additional funds are
secured
Three times per
year during times
of stable flow
Sartory & Grobbelaar 1984, Welschmeyer 1995
4-6 sampling
events per year
(depending on
flow)
2 times in spring
Stagliano and Whiles 2002, Stone et al. 2005
During peak
grazing season
Barbour et al. 1999, MDNR 2001a & 2001b, Sarver et
al. 2002,
MDC
8
F. Duration and Schedule:
Timeline- Year 1 starts Fall 2008.
Task
Recruit students/ personnel
Preliminary sampling
Finalize experimental sites
Pre-treatment sampling
Experiment and sampling
Post treatment sampling
Sample analyses
Meeting presentations
Publish results
* we have accomplished
most of the FY09 and FY10
tasks except for the later
season sampling and
analyses
FY09* FY10* FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FY15
X
X
X
X
9
References
Ameel, J. J., R. P. Axler and C. J. Owen. 1993. Persulfate digestion for determination of
total nitrogen and phosphorus in low-nutrient waters. Am. Environ. Lab. 10:7-10.
American Public Health Association (APHA). 1995. Standard Methods for the
examination of water and wastewater, 19th edition. American Public Health
Association, Washington, D.C.
Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder, and J. B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid
bioassessment protocols for use in wadeable streams and rivers: periphyton,
benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish (2nd edition). Washington DC, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
Collins, S.L., A. K. Knapp, J. M. Briggs, J. M. Blair and E. M. Steinauer. 1998.
Modulation of diversity by grazing and mowing in native tallgrass prairie. Science
280:745-747.
Dodds, W. K., J. M. Blair, G. M. Henebry, J. K. Koelliker, R. Ramundo, C. M. Tate. 1996.
Nitrogen transport form tallgrass prairie watersheds. J. Environ. Qual. 25:973981.
Dodds, W. K., M. A. Evans-White, N. Gerlanc, L. Gray, D. A. Gudder, M. J. Kemp, A. L.
López, D. Stagliano, E. Strauss, J. L. Tank, M. R. Whiles and W. Wollheim. 2000.
Quantification of the nitrogen cycle in a prairie stream. Ecosystems 3:574-589.
Dodds, W. K., K. Gido, M. Whiles, K. Fritz and W. Mathews. 2004. Life on the edge:
ecology of Great Plains prairie streams. Bioscience 54:202-216.
Dodds, W. K. and R. M. Oakes. 2006. Controls on nutrients across a prairie stream
watershed: Land use and riparian cover effects. Environmental Management
37:634-646.
Fritz, K. M., W. K. Dodds and J. Pontius. 1999. The effects of bison crossings on the
macroinvertebrate community in a tallgrass prairie stream. Am. Midl. Nat.
141:253-265.
Heyer, W. R., M. A. Donnelly, R. W. McDiarmid, L. C. Hayek, and M. S. Foster. 1994.
Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians.
Washington, D. C., Smithsonian Institution Press
Kemp, M. J. and W. K. Dodds. 2001. Spatial and temporal patterns of nitrogen in prairie
streams. Biogeochemistry 53:125-141.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2001a. Semi-Quantitative Macroinvertebrate
Stream Bioassessment Project Procedure. Air and Land Protection Division,
Environmental Services Program, Jefferson City, MO. 24 pp.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2001b. Taxonomic Levels for
Macroinvertebrate Identifications. MDNR-WQMS-209. Air and Land Protection
Division, Environmental Services Program, Jefferson City, Missouri. 30 pp.
Mulholland, P. J., C. S. Fellows, J. L. Tank, N. B. Grimm, J. R. Webster, S. K. Hamilton,
E. Marti, L. Ashkenas, W. B. Bowden, W. K. Dodds, W. H. McDowell, M. J. Paul,
B. J. Peterson and J. R. Webster. 2001. Inter-biome comparison of factors
controlling stream metabolism. Freshwat. Biol. 46:1503-1517.
O’Brien, J. M. , W. K. Dodds, K. C. Wilson, J. N. Murdock and J. Eichmiller. 2007. The
saturation of N cycling in Central Plains streams: 15N experiments across a broad
gradient of nitrate concentrations. Biogeochemistry 84(8):31-49.
10
Olness, A., S. J. Smith, E. D. Rhoades and R. G. Menzel. 1975. Nutrient and sediment
discharge from agricultural watersheds in Oklahoma. J. Environ. Qual. 4(3):331336.
Sartory, D. P. and J. U. Grobbelaar. 1984. Extraction of chlorophyll a from freshwater
phytoplankton for spectrophotometric analysis. Hydrobiologia 114:177-187.
Sarver, R., S. Harlan, C. Rabeni, and S. P. Sowa. 2002. Biological Criteria for
Wadeable/Perennial Streams of Missouri, Missouri Department of Natural
Resources, Jefferson City, MO.
Snedcor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran. 1980. Statistical methods: 7th edition. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, IA, USA.
Stagliano, D. M., and M. R. Whiles. 2002. Macroinvertebrate production and trophic
structure in a tallgrass prairie headwater stream. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 21: 97-113.
Stewart-Oaten, A., J. R. Bence, and C. W. Osenberg. 1992. Assessing effects of
unreplicated perturbations: no simple solutions. Ecology 73:1396-1404.
Stewart-Oaten, A., W. W. Murdoch, and K. R. Parker. 1986. Environmental impact
assessment: "pseudoreplication" in time? Ecology 67:929-940.
Stone, M. L., M. R. Whiles, J. A. Webber, and K. W. J. Williard. 2005.
Macroinvertebrate communities in agriculturally impacted Illinois streams:
patterns with riparian vegetation, water quality, and in-stream habitat. Journal of
Environmental Quality: 34: 907-917.
Welschmeyer, N. A. 1995 Fluorometric analysis of chlorophyll a in the presence of
chlorophyll b and pheopigments. Limnol. Oceanogr. 39(8):1985-1992.
Whiles, M. R. and W. K. Dodds. 2002. Relationships between stream size, suspended
particles, and filter-feeding macroinvertebrates in a Great Plains drainage
network. Journal of Environmental Quality 31:1589-1600.
11