Benthic invertebrate distribution, abundance, and diversity in Rosebud Creek, Montana
by Steven Francis Baril
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE
in Entomology
Montana State University
© Copyright by Steven Francis Baril (1977)
Abstract:
Rosebud Creek, Montana, was sampled monthly during 1976 and 1977 to provide baseline data on
macroinvertebrate abundance, distribution, and diversity in relation to potential effects from nearby
coal development. Introduced substrate in baskets, an Ekman dredge, and a modified Hess sampler
were used to sample runs, pools, and riffles, respectively. Faunal variation among sampling stations
was due to physical factors including turbidity, water temperature, current velocity, and substrate, and
not to impacts from coal mining and combustion. Rosebud Creek supported a diverse bottom fauna
with high population numbers and adapted to turbid, silty conditions common in a transition prairie
stream; i.e., originating in the mountains then flowing onto the plains.
Intact riparian vegetation was presumed important in stream bank stability and in providing an energy
source to compensate for limitations imposed on primary production by high turbidity. STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO COPY
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the require­
ments for an advanced degree at Montana State University, I agree that
the Library shall make it freely available for inspection.
I further
agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholar­
ly purposes may be granted by my major professor, or, in his absence,
by the Director of Libraries.
It is understood that any copying or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed
without my written permission.
Signature
BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE, AND
DIVERSITY IN ROSEBUD CREEK, MONTANA
by
STEVEN FRANCIS BARIL
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Entomology
Approved:
Graduate Bean
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
October, 1977
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The writer wishes to express appreciation to those who helped in
this study. As major professor. Dr. Roemhild directed the study,
assisted in identification of specimens, and reviewed the paper. Mr.
Robert J. Luedtke gave technical advice, assisted in establishing the.
field stations and in sampling, carefully reviewed the paper, and gave
kind encouragement. Dr. Robert V. Thurston provided support and reviewed
the paper. Dr. Norman L. Anderson gave advice and thoroughly reviewed
the paper. Rosebud area residents, Mr. Don Polich, Mrs. Patti Kluver»
Mr. Wallace McRae, Mr. John Bailey, and their families, provided access
to Rosebud Creek. Dr. Saralee Visscher kindly loaned equipment. Mr.
Dalton Burkhalter aided in statistical analysis of the data and Dr. John
Rumely identified grass specimens. Identifications of specimens were
checked by Dr. Oliver S. Flint (Trichoptera), Dr. D.G. Denning
(Trichoptera), Dr. Harley P. Brown (Coleoptera), Dr. C. Dennis Hynes
(Tipulidae), Dr. Dennis M. Lehmkuhl (Ephemeroptera), Dr. George Roemhild
(Hemiptera and Zygoptera), and by theU.S.D.A. Agricultural Research
Service. The Ms. Sandy Hawk Emery, Kathrin Guderian, Mary Maj, and Cory
Sheldon, and Mssrs. Bruce Collins and Joseph Masek assisted in sample
sorting.
Special thanks are deserved by Cindy, Chris, and Aaron Baril for
their patience and support.
This research was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Duluth, Minnesota, Research Grant No. R803950 awarded to the Fisheries
Bioassay Laboratory of Montana State University.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
VITA...........................................
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
TABLE OF C O N T E N T S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iv
LIST OF T A B L E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
v
LIST OF F I G U R E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ix
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
..........................
9
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING STATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
MATERIALS AND METHODS
.............................
21
RESULTS........................................
24
Macroinvertebrate Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ■ 24
Macroinvertebrate Wet Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
Macroinvertebrate Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
Diversity and Redunda ncy . . . . . . .
64
D I S CUSS ION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water C h e m i s t r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Physical Conditions . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Macroinvertebrate Abundance and Composition . . . . . . . . . . .
Sampling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
71
71
72
79
81
84
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
85
APPENDIX .
94
V
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Page
Sampling stations, locations and descriptions,
Rosebud Creek, M o n t a n a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
Physical measurements of Rosebud Creek sampling.
locations in 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Physical measurements of riffle sites on Rosebud
Creek in 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Water chemistry, means and ranges (in parentheses),
of Rosebud Creek, Montana, March 1976 to March 1977
(collected and determined by the Fisheries Bioassay
Laboratory, Montana State University, Bozeman,
Montana, and the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado) , . . .
18
Average total numbers, wet weight, and number of
taxa of benthic macroinvertebrates. Rosebud Creek,
Montana, March 1976 to March 1977 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
25
Total number of samples from each station by three
sampling methods. Rosebud Creek, Montana, March 1976
to March 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
Mean total numbers per taxon and average percent of
the sample (introduced substrates) for aquatic
macroinvertebrates of Rosebud Creek, Montana,
May 1976 to March 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Mean total numbers of aquatic macroinvertebrates
per m^ and average percent of the sample. Rosebud
Creek, Montana, March 1976 to March 1977 . . . . . . .
34
Mean wet weight per taxon per introduced substrate
sample and average percent of the sample for aquatic
macroinvertebrates of Rosebud Creek, Montana,
May 1976 to March 1977 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
vi
Table
10.
11.
Page
2
Mean wet weight per m per taxon and average percent
of the sample for aquatic macroinvertebrates of
Rosebud Creek, Montana, March 1976 to March 1977 . . . . . .
39
Checklist and distribution of aquatic macroinver­
tebrates of Rosebud Creek, Montana, March 1976 to
March 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
• .
12.
13.
14.
15.
■
Number of occurrences and average number per
occurrence for aquatic macroinvertebrates collected
in introduced substrate samplers, Rosebud Creek,
Montana, May 1976 to March 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
Number of occurrences and average number per
occurrence for aquatic macroinvertebrates collected
in Ekman dredge samples, Rosebud Creek, Montana,
March 1976 to October 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
52
Number of occurrences and average number per
occurrence for aquatic macroinvertebrates collected
in modified Hess samples. Rosebud Creek, Montana,
March 1976 to March 1977 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
Mean macroinvertebrate diversity and redundancy per
sample. Rosebud Creek, Montana, March 1976 to
March 1977
...............................
69
Appendix Tables
16.
Mean current velocity 7.5 cm from the substrate and
15 cm upstream of introduced substrate samplers.
Rosebud Creek, Montana, May 1976 to March 1977 . . . . . . . • 95
17.
Adult aquatic insects from near Rosebud Creek,
Montana, during 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
96
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1. Monthly mean discharges for Rosebud Creek at the
mouth and near Co!strip for water years 1975
and 1976
............
11
2.
Rosebud Creek benthic invertebrate sampling stations . . .
15
3.
Mean number per' sample and range of aquatic macro­
invertebrates, Rosebud Creek, Montana, March 1976
to March 1977
26
Mean wet weight per sample and range of aquatic
macroinvertebrates. Rosebud Creek, Montana, March 1976
to March 1977
27
Mean number of aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa per
sample and range. Rosebud Creek, Montana, March 1976
to March 1977
28
Significantly similar station means for average total
macroinvertebrates, taxa, and wet weight, NewmanKeuls sequential comparison test, Rosebud Creek,
Montana, March 1976 to March 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
Average number of aquatic macroinvertebrates per
introduced substrate sample. Rosebud Creek, Montana,
May 1976 to March 1977 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
Average wet weight (grams) of aquatic macroinverte­
brates per introduced substrate sample. Rosebud
Creek, Montana, May 1976 to March 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
Average number of selected taxa per introduced
substrate sample. Rosebud Creek, Montana, May 1976
to March 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61
10. Seasonal variations in mean total numbers of Hydropsyohe
sp. B per introduced substrate sample at stations I,
5, and 7, Rosebud Creek, Montana, May 1976 to
November 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
viii
Figure
11.
Page
Seasonal variations in mean total numbers of Dubiraphia
per introduced substrate sample at stations I,
5, and 7, Rosebud Creek, Montana, May T976 to November
1976 . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
66
Seasonal variations in mean total numbers of
per introduced substrate
sample at stations I, 5, and 6, Rosebud Creek,
Montana, May 1976 to November 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
67
Total taxa per station and number of taxa collected
by each of three sampling methods from Rosebud
Creek, Montana, March 1976 to March 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . .
68
minima
12.
Choroterpes albiannulata
13.
ix
ABSTRACT
Rosebud Creek, Montana, was sampled monthly during 1976 and 1977
to provide baseline data on macroinvertebrate abundance, distribution,
and diversity in relation to potential effects from nearby coal devel­
opment. Introduced substrate in baskets, an Ekman dredge, and a modi­
fied Hess sampler were used to sample runs, pools, and riffles,
respectively. Faunal variation among sampling stations was due to
physical factors including turbidity, water temperature, current
velocity, and substrate, and not to impacts from coal mining and com­
bustion. Rosebud Creek supported a diverse bottom fauna with high
population numbers and adapted to turbid, silty conditions common in a
transition prairie stream; i .e ., originating in the mountains then
flowing onto the plains.
Intact riparian vegetation was presumed important in stream bank
stability and in providing an energy source to compensate for limita­
tions imposed on primary production by high turbidity.
INTRODUCTION
Development of large scale coal mining and combustion for elec­
trical generation is underway in eastern Montana.
Two 350 megawatt
coal-fired generators became operative at Colstrip, Montana, in 1976;
two 750 megawatt power plants are in the final planning stages.
The
Colstrip power complex has potential for massive utilization of, and
intense impact on, water resources of southeastern Montana.
Conse­
quently, the need to document the status of existing and changes in
water quality is important in this region where water resources are
limited.
Information obtained may be useful for the planning of
future power generators elsewhere in the northern Great Plains.
Rosebud Creek flows approximately 13 km east of Colstrip and is
of interest since it may be a prime recipient of effluents from coal
development.
Groundwater flows eastward from the mining and power
plant area through aquifers that include the coal seam being mined
(Montana State Department of Natural Resources 1974) and may carry
leachates from mining or combustion spoils.
In addition, the prevail­
ing wind direction is southeasterly (Thurston et al. 1976) which may
result in the deposition of smokestack emissions in the Rosebud Creek
drainage.
Finally, Cow Creek, a small, intermittent stream originating
in strip-mined areas, may carry effluents by seepage or runoff into
Rosebud Creek (Thurston et al. 1976).
These factors may result in
2
an influx of complex inorganic salts and trace metals which could alter
the composition of the aquatic macroinvertebrate community of Rosebud
Creek.
A study of the toxic effects of coal and oil shale development
to the aquatic biota was started in 1975 (Thurston et a l . 1976).
As a
sub-project of this study, a one-year survey of the aquatic macroinver­
tebrate fauna of Rosebud Creek was begun in 1976 with the objective of
providing baseline data on existing macroinvertebrate abundance and
distribution.
This data will also provide information for current
taxonomic studies and give a description of the fauna of a southeastern
Montana prairie stream.
Very little is known concerning the benthic invertebrate fauna
of prairie streams in southeastern Montana.
Recently, interest in
these streams has grown due to proposed use of water resources for coal
development.
Preliminary results from an invertebrate study on the
Powder River indicate low population numbers (Rehwinkel et al. 1976).
Work by Newell (1976) on the Yellowstone River and by Gore (1975) on
the Tongue River provide information on the composition and abundance
of benthic invertebrates.
The benthic fauna of Sarpy Creek, a small
ephemeral stream, has also been surveyed (Clancy 1977).
Literature on the physical and biological characteristics of
prairie streams is limited.
Traditionally, streams of the mid-
continent (Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota) have been considered typical
3
of the prairie.
Jewell (1927) described the aquatic biology of the
prairie and presented a description of a typical prairie stream.
McCoy
and Hales (1974) surveyed the physical, chemical, and biological char­
acteristics of eight eastern South Dakota streams.
Limnology of major
lakes and drainages was summarized for the mid-continent states by
Carlander et a l . (1963) and for Minnesota and the Dakotas by Eddy
(1963).
Limnology of these regions may be similar in many respects to
that of eastern Montana due to similar topographies and climates.
Basic techniques for stream surveys have been presented by
Cairns and Dickson (1971) and Cummins (1962).
These researchers
recommended that similar habitats with respect to substrate, current
velocity, depth, width, and bank cover be sampled at each station.
Hence, sample variability is reduced by standardizing these variables
and fewer samples give reliable results (Dickson et a l . 1971).
In
addition, Cummins (1962) suggested that faunal surveys should include
year-round sampling of all habitat types.
The use of introduced artificial substrates in stream surveys
reduces sample variability by providing a uniform sample size and
similar substrate for colonization by aquatic invertebrates.
They
reduce the subjectivity involved in selecting similar habitats and in
the amount of sampling effort involved at each station (Crossman and
Cairns 1974).
Several types of samplers have been developed ranging
from the "brush box" sampler of Scott (1958) and the hardboard
4
multi plates (Hester and Dendy 1962) to the limestone and spherical por­
celain filled barbecue baskets of Mason et al. (1967).
Moon (1940)
imbedded gravel-filled trays into the substrate for later removal and
enumeration of colonized organisms.
Stanford and Reed (1974) buried
samplers in the natural substrate and concluded that this technique
probably gives optimum quantitative results.
This conclusion is sup­
ported by Coleman and Hynes (1970) who found that 80% of the organisms
collected were deeper than 7.5 cm in the substrate.
Mason et al. (1973)
suspended samplers in the water column of the Ohio River and found that
depth of placement and length of exposure time influenced species
diversity, composition, and total numbers. Thus, consistent sampler
installation with regard to physical variables is necessary to make
benthic sample comparisons between stations in stream surveys.
Several workers have compared the efficiencies of artificial
substrate samplers with conventional sampling methods.
Anderson and
Mason (1968) found that suspended samplers collected greater numbers
and variety than a Peterson dredge but were not efficient in collection
of burrowing invertebrates including oligochaetes, burrowing mayflies,
and molluscs.
Mason et a l . (1973) found that limestone-filled baskets
collected a greater variety and number of aquatic invertebrates than
the hardboard multiplates of Hester and Dendy (1962).
Crossman and
Cairns (1974), in placing artificial substrates on the stream bottom,
collected a more diverse fauna than conventional Surber or kick screen
5
samplers.
Floating samplers tended to be selectively colonized by
beetles, mayflies, and caddisflies.
Changes in benthic community structure due to stress, and the
presence or absence of indicator organisms are used to aid in the
classification of stream health.
maggots
{Eristalis
Certain organisms, e.g., rattail
spp.), sludgeworms
{Chironomus tentans) ,
(Tubifex tubifex) ,
and bloodworms
are tolerant of organic enrichment and may reach
high population numbers (Bartsch 1948).
Conversely, many intolerant
organisms, including certain stoneflies, mayflies, and caddisfl ies, may
be conspicuously absent.
The addition of toxic wastes, i .e ., certain
metals, acids, and salts, usually affects all species and causes an
overall decrease in the number of benthic organisms (,'Surber 1,953).
When using indicator organisms to classify streams, the relative
abundance of all species collected should be considered because toler­
ant forms often inhabit unpolluted waters in low numbers (Gaufin and
TarzwelI 1952).
Indicator organisms should be recognized at the
species level since a single genus may tolerate a variety of conditions
(Patrick 1949).
Diversity indices based on information theory have enjoyed pop­
ularity in the past few decades as a tool to summarize data concerning
the aquatic biota.
Patten (1962) used a formula derived from infor­
mation theory (Shannon 1948) to measure species diversity (H) of
marine phytoplankton.
He concluded that Shannon's formula permitted
.6
summarization of large amounts of data concerning numbers and kinds of
organisms and reflected the distribution of individuals among the
species.
Two components are inherent to Shannon's formula:
species
richness and evenness of distribution of individuals among the species
(Lloyd and Ghelardi 1964); both of these components can influence H.
Despite the development of other indices (Simpson 1949, Margalef 1957),
the Shannon Index has been the most widely used in aquatic work.
The use of diversity indices to summarize faunal changes result­
ing from pollution or other stress has been recommended.
Wilhm and
Dorris (1966) correlated low benthic invertebrate diversity with
enrichment from a sewage effluent.
Wilhm (1970) surveyed several
streams subject to various industrial or urban impacts and concluded
that H was a reasonable measure to describe benthic communities; values
of less than I indicated communities under pollutional stress and
values of 3 to 4 were found in streams of high water quality.
Cairns
and Dickson (1971) summarized that stress to a stream lowers inverte­
brate diversity; conversely, clean streams supported diverse, more
stable faunas.
Ransom and Prophet (1974) used the Shannon Index to
describe benthic invertebrate diversity and generalized on water
quality from these observations.
It has been proposed that highly diverse communities are more
stable than less diverse ones (Elton 1958, Odum 1971).
This concept
may be related to a function (S = Zpi- log p^) proposed to, measure
7
community stability in terms of energy passing through trophic levels
(MacArthur 1955); hence stability was related to the number of links
in the food web.
This function resembles the Shannon equation for
diversity with the exception that units of energy are replaced by
numbers and species.
The concept of community diversity and diversity-stability has
been criticized.
Sager and Hasler (1969) stated that the indices are
insensitive to rare species which may be biologically important.
Hurlbert (1971) called species diversity a non-concept without biolog­
ical relevance whose use should be at least restricted to measuring
species richness and evenness.
cized, however.
These two components have been criti­
Low numbers of individuals evenly distributed among
a few taxa can result in high diversity and the term evenness may be
misleading since most communities are dominated by a few successful
species at each trophic level (Hocutt 1975).
Goodman (1975) reviewed
the stability-diversity theory and concluded that there was no scien­
tific proof yet to support this concept.
The inherent physical nature of a stream influences the faunal
composition and should be at least qualitatively evaluated in stream
surveys. Substrate may be the most important factor affecting inver­
tebrate distribution and standing crop (Pennak 1971).
Larger substrate
sizes and bedrock have been shown to support a greater standing crop
and different species composition than finer substrates (Pennak and
8
Van Gerpen 1947,
Barber and Kevern 1973).
However, certain insects
may preferentially select habitats on the basis of small substrate
particles (Cummins and Lauff 1969).
Substrate composition is often
related to the sorting action of current (Macan 1961); however, current
velocity itself may influence invertebrate distributions.
Dodds and
Hisaw (1925a) noted that certain caddisflies were selective to current
velocity in their choice of habitat.
larva,
Simuliwn o m a t u m
The distribution of the blackfly
Mg., is related to current speed (Phillipson
1956) and the distribution of net spinning caddisflies is influenced
by current velocity (Edington 1968).
Temperature influences the range of aquatic insects by limiting
the success of sensitive stages or by influencing emergence (Macan
I960).
Dodds and Hisaw (1925b) related the altitudinal zonation of
aquatic insects to gradations in water temperature.
Other physical factors including stream width and vegetation
affect invertebrate distributions.
Narrow streams generally support a
less diverse fauna (Pennak 1971), and riparian vegetation influences
water temperature and primary production by shading, is an energy
source, and provides oviposition sites for certain aquatic organisms.
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
Rosebud Creek originates on the east slope of the Wolf Mountains
in Bighorn County, Montana, then flows northeast for approximately 370
stream kilometers before joining the Yellowstone River near Rosebud,
Montana.
The total area drained is near 3,372 km . (U.S. Geological
Survey 1975).
A sparsely populated alluvial plain about 0.8 km wide
supports the agriculturally oriented domiciles.
Alfalfa, wild hay,
and grains are cultivated and livestock are pastured on the flood plain
and the stream provides water for irrigation and livestock.
Near the
headwaters Rosebud Creek flows through the Northern Cheyenne Indian
Reservation and past the town of Busby, Montana.
Riparian vegetation consists of mixed grasses, boxelder (Acer
negundo
L.), green ash
{Prunus
sp.), rose
{Fraxinus pennsylvanioa
(Rosa
spp.), willow
(Shepherdia
sp.).
arundinacea
L.), prairie cordgrass
brome
(Salix
Marsh), chokecherry
spp.), and buffaloberry
Grasses include reed canarygrass
(Bromus inermis
(Pkalaris
(Spartina peotinata
Leys.), and American bulrush
Link.), smooth
(Scirpus amevioanus
Pers.), all.rhizomatous in character and especially important in streambank stability.
Streamside vegetation is generally intact providing
good wildlife habitat and aiding in soil stabilization.
The shallow valley of Rosebud Creek is cut in sedimentary layers
of the tertiary period.
Relief is composed mainly of strata from the
pal eocene epoch, specifically sandstones, shales, and coal of the Fort
10
Union formation which erode at moderate rates.
Coal outcrops have
burned in the middle and upper Rosebud drainage and have metamorphically altered adjacent layers producing red to lavender beds of highly
fractured cl inker often incorrectly called scoria (Renick 1929).
This
material is highly resistant to weathering and forms much of the sub­
stratum of Rosebud Creek.
Alluvial soils of the floodplain and adjacent low terraces gen­
erally consist of Havre and Glendive loams, Harlem silty clay loams,
and aerie fluvaquents.
These form deep, calcareous soils of good
water-holding capacity subject to moderate erosion.
Areas of moder­
ately saline soil are present along the floodplain (L. Daniels, U.S.
Soil Conservation Service, personal communication).
Mean monthly flows for Rosebud Creek during water years 1975 and
1976 are shown in Figure I. Rapid fluctuations in discharge can occur
during spring and summer rainfall.
The mean annual flow is 35.8 cfs;
mean flow for March, the month of maximum flow, is 84.3 cfs, and the
mean flow for September, the month of minimum flow, is 6.4 cfs.
There
are records of approximately 3000 cfs in March and periods of no.flow
occur in dry years (U.S Geological Survey 1975).
Water temperatures in July and August range from 21°C to the
maximum on record of 26.7°C.
Minimum temperatures are freezing for
many days during winter months (Aagaard 1969) and the stream is frozen
over from December to mid-February.
DISCHARGE, CUBIC FE E T PER SECOND
Figure I.
Monthly mean discharge for Rosebud Creek at the mouth and near Colstrip
for water years 1975 and 1976a (U.S. Geological Survey 1975).
.
1974
NEAR MOUTH
NEAR COLSTRIP
O N D J
F M A M J
J A S O N
DJ
F M A M J J
MONTH
a 1976 data are provisional and subject to change
AS
12
The headwaters of Rosebud Creek are erosional in nature due to
the steep gradient (4.8 m/km) and a riffle-pool system exists that is
similar to a mountain stream.
On leaving the mountains near Busby,
Montana, and flowing onto the plains; however, the gradient decreases
(2.5 m/km) and the stream becomes depositional in nature.
Long, slow
reaches with sand or gravel bottoms predominate and silted areas are
common.
Turbidity and suspended sediments also increase downstream.
The last 80 km of Rosebud Creek could be called a transition
prairie stream.
A typical prairie stream has been described as having
high turbidity and being depositional in nature.
Rapid fluctuations
in discharge result in removal of humus or organic material from the
I
substrate which is generally unstable and composed of shifting clay,
sand, or gravel. In addition, streamside vegetation is sparse (Jewell
1927).
Carlander et al. (1963) described a true prairie stream as
being nearly devoid of benthic life and having substrates practically
free of organic deposits.
Certain of these criteria, notably, high
turbidity, areas of shifting substrate, and rapid fluctuations in dis­
charge, are true of Rosebud Creek.
However, the banks are heavily
vegetated, there are extensive organic deposits in the substrate, and a
moderately diverse benthic fauna with high population numbers exists.
Consequently, Rosebud Creek would not be called a typical prairie
stream according to either of the classifications given above.
DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLING STATIONS
Seven benthic invertebrate sampling stations were established
in February 1976 and numbered consecutively upstream (Table I and
Figure 2).
Selection was made on the basis of concurrent chemical
studies (Thurston et a l . 1976), physical similarity, access, and
potential for evaluating impacts from coal development.
An attempt was
made to include three habitat types (riffles, runs, and pools) at each
station.
Station I is downstream from direct effluents from coal develop­
ment.
Stations 2 through 5 are within the projected plume fallout area
from generator stack emissions. In addition, stations 3 and 4 bracket
Cow Creek to evaluate potential effluents from that source.
As a con­
trol, station 6 was established upstream from the plume fallout area.
Rosebud Creek, at station 7, is similar in nature to a mountain stream;
this aided in describing the composition and distribution of benthic
invertebrates.
In addition to other physical parameters (Table 2), a subjective
evaluation of the predominant substrate type at each station was made
utilizing the classification of Cummins (1962).
Station I is unique in
having a substrate of washed rubble and boulder from Yellowstone allu­
vium and a riffle-pool habitat caused by an increase in gradient as
Rosebud Creek enters the Yellowstone Valley.
Typical substrate at
station 2 consists of flocculent clay or silt with gravel common only
I
Table I.
Sampling stations, locations and descriptions. Rosebud Creek, Montana.
Station
Elevation
(meters)
Kilometers from
Yellowston R.
Legal
Description
I
756
0.7
NE1/4 Sec 21 R42E T6N
U.S.G.S. gauging Station
near 1-90
2
814
15.4
SWl/4 Sec 30 R43E T4N
Polich ranch
3
869
29.7
NEl/4 Sec
5 R43E TIN
Kluver ranch, 480 m
downstream of Cow Creek
4
869
30.0
SE1/4 Sec
5 R43E TIN
Kluver ranch, 680 m
upstream of Cow Creek
5
896
36.8
NWl/4 Sec 34 R42E TIN
W. McRae ranch
6
960
51.4
SWl/4 Sec
Bailey ranch, border of
N. Cheyenne Reservation
7
1195
85.8
NWl/4 Sec 29 R39E T6S
8 R41E T2S
Description
Near Kirby at Highway
314 culvert
15
Reservation
Spring Cr
Indian Cr
K ilom eters
Figure 2.
Rosebud Creek benthic invertebrate sampling stations
Table 2.
Physical measurements of Rosebud Creek sampling locations in 1976.
Station
I
Mean width (meters)
Mean depth (meters)
Valley gradient
(m/km to next site)
Stream gradient
(m/km to next site)
Mean turbidity
(nephelometric units)
Temperature, °C
Mean Aug. max.
Mean Aug. min.
Mean Oct. max.
Mean Oct. min.
7.5
0.4
2.46
1.32
11.4
3
4
5
6
7
5.0
0.7
2.38
4.2
5.5
0.8
6.1
0.6
2.5
0.4
2.39
3.6
0.7
2.39
2.74
4.80
1.09
0.99
0.99
1.01
1.60
9.5
4.9
4.7 .
4.5
4.9
2
0.6
23.4
19.3
4.1
20.4
3.7
2.1
2.8
Substrate3
40,60,0,0,0
0,40,10,10,40
10,60,10,20,0
Vegetationb
0,1,99
73,5,22
18,5,77
2o.o
19.5
17.4
22.0
0,70,0,20,10
10,50,20,20,0
6,4,90
^Composition (percent) in the following sequence:
rubble, gravel, sand, silt, clay
^Composition (percent) in the following sequence:
trees, shrubs, grass
18,20,62
5.5
15.9
5.2
3.5
30,30,30,10,0
13,41,46
10,40,30,20,0
28,33,39
;
17
in meanders at the valley edge.
Stations 3, 4, and 5 have long mean­
dering stretches with slow current velocity and a substratum of gravel,
sand, and silt.
Station 6, in addition to long, slow stretches, has
sections of clean, rubble-bottomed, riffles alternating with sandbottomed pools.
The substrate at station 7 consists mainly of gravel
and rubble in riffles and sand in pools.
Shallow riffles for bottom sampling were not common at stations
2 through 5; however, riffle sampling sites were established at
stations I, 3, 5, 6, and 7; physical parameters are given in Table 3.
The riffle at station 3, due to depth, was sampled only during periods
of low flow.
Table 3.
Physical measurements of riffle sites on Rosebud Creek in
1976.
Station
I
3
5
6
7
Mean current
velocity (m/sec)
0.52
0.35
0.39
0.51
0.46
Mean depth (m)
0.18
0.31
0.16
0.17
0.09
rubble,
boulder
rubble
gravel
rubble
rubble
Substrate
As shown in Table 4, Rosebud Creek waters are alkaline with a
very basic pH and a high concentration of electrolytes.
The water is a
hard, bicarbonate-sulfate-magnesium type and unique due to the higher
Table 4.
Water chemistry, means and ranges (in parentheses), of Rosebud Creek, Montana, March 1976 to March 1977
(collected and determined by the Fisheries Bioassay Laboratory, Montana State University, Bozeman,
. Montana, and the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado).
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8.45
(8.12-8.80)
8.49
(8.17-8.81)
8.49
(8.09-8.70)
8.51
(8.08-8.76)
8.52
(8.17-8.91)
8.47 '
(8.12-8.85)
8.47
(8.15-8.81)
Spec. Cond.
(mmhos)
1364
(558-1798)
1282
(539-1531)
1281
(856-1496)
1274
(967-1437)
1241
(954-1435)
1164
(978-1325)
911
(846-979)
Alkalinity
(mg/1 CaCO3)
409
(215-687)
396
(225-682)
398
(421-659)
402
(426-654)
412
(435-626)
383
(400-481)
267
(10.1-1494.0)
99
(9.8-459.0)
100
(10.8-463.0)
154
(7.7-629.0)
129
(5.4-573.0)
26
(6.3-68.0)
Station
pH
534
Susp. solids
(7.9-4308.0)
(mg/1)
404
• (426-659)
Diss. solids
(mg/1)
965
(431-1367)
878
(697-1335)
845
(610-980)
316
(591-1000)
814
(586-1080)
744
(598-960)
572
(500-780)
Diss. oxygen
(mg/1)
9.8
(7.4-12.1)
9.8 .
(6.9-12.3)
9.6
(6.7-11.6)
9.8
(7.0-12.3)
9.6
(7.1-12.4)
9.7
(7.3-12.9)
11.2
(9.2-12.2)
Ca2+(mg/I)
84.3
(45 -150)
82.8
(37-140)
88.4
(56-140)
90.4
(56-140)
89.3
(56-140)
87.4
(55-130)
100.3
(75-110)
NOg (mg/1)
0.18
(0.14-0.21)
0.13
(0.12-0.13)
0.09
(0.08-0.09)
0.08
(0.06-0.10)
0.05
(0.05-0.05)
0.05
(0.05-0.05)
—
P03_4 (mg/1)
0.53
(0.02-5.00)
0.25
(0.02-1.70)
0.14
(0.02-0.40)
0.12
(0.02-0.30)
0.13
(0.02-0.30)
0.16
(0.02-0.75)
0.09
(0.04-0.15)
336
(250-405).
325
(180-375)
336
(204-540)
■ 270
(155-400)
151
(110-260)
So” (mg/1)
404
(160-605)
358
■
(160-515)
Cl' (mg/1)
8,2
(2.1-28.0)
5.8
(2.7-10.0)
5.2
(2.8-8.0)
5.1
(3.0-8.0)
5.0
(3.0-8.5)
5.0
(3.0-11.0)
3.4
(I.5-7.0)
As (ug/1)
2.7
(1.1-9.5)
1.77.
(1:0-3.6)
1.64
(0.9-3.2)
1.92
(0.4-4.4)
1.95
(0.6-5.2)
1.3
(0.9-2.4)
Cu (mg/1)
0.007
(0.005-0.010)
2.64
(I.0-8.4)
0.015
(0.003-0.074)
0.012
(0.003^0.046)
0.010
(0.003-0.059)
0:008
(0.003-0.027)
0.008
(0.003-0.043)
0.005
(0.003-0.006)
Dissolved
Fe (mg/1)
0.04
(0.01-0.11)
0.04
(0.01-0.13)
0.06
(0.01-0.16)
0.06
(0.01-0.18)
0.05
(0.01-0.13)
0.03
0.04 '
(0.01-0.10) •• (0.02-0.05)
Table 4 (continued)
3
4
5
Station
I
2
Undissolved
Fe (mg/1)
6.88'
(0.25-44.0)
2.97
(0.24-17.0)
1.34
(0.16-4.3)
1.26
(0.20-3.7)
1.88
(0.18-7.6)
L94
(0.20-7.6)
0.52
(0.23-1.1)
Hg (ug/1)
1.68
(0.07-10.3)
1.75
(0.12-9.4)
3.08
(0.05-16.0)
2.40
(0.05-18.3)
1.65
(0.10-15.0)
1.07
(0.05-9.0)
0.36
(0.05-0.29)
K (mg/1)
13.3
(7.4-23.0)
13.2
(8.5-23.0)
13.0
(7.8-22.0)
12.9
(7.7-22.0)
12.7
(7.6-21.0)
11.9
(7.3-19.0)
7.0
(5.0-9.2)
Mg .(mg/1).
115
(30-190)
no
(30-190)
117
(69-170)
116
(79-170)
112
(86-180)
108
(78-160)
67
(61-74)
Mn (mg/1)
0.014
(0.001-0.05)
0.036
(0.001-0.32)
0.014
(0.001-0.05)
0.012
(0.001-0.05)
0.016
(0.001-0.05)
0.020
(0.001-0.056)
0.028
(0.003-0.05)
Na (mg/1)
166
(60-740)
80
(45-100)
66
(58-85)
53
(44-66)
22
(17-25)
Ni (mg/1)
0.004
(0.003-0.005)
0.005
(0.003-0.011)
0.007
(0.005-0.030)
0.008
(0.003-0.040)
0.005
(0.002-0.010)
0.006 ■
(0.002-0.020)
0.005
(0.005-0.005)-
Se (ug/1)
0.48
(0.3-0.8)
0.49.
(0.3-0.7)
0.43
(0.3-0.6)
0.49
(0.3-0.6)
0.43
(0.03-0.7)
Zn (mg/1)
0.012
(0.001-0.032)
0.012
(0.001-0.050)
0.045
(0.001-0.380)
. .0.011
(0.001-0.048)
0.014
(0.001-0.090)
.
72
(45-90)
71 .
(43-87)
6
0.51
. (0.4-0.7)
0.007
(0.001-0.017)
7
0.44
(0.3-0.5)
0.011
(0.001-0.034)■
20
concentration of magnesium than calcium.
ration throughout the year.
Dissolved oxygen is near satu­
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sampling was initiated in March 1976, using a modified Hess •
sampler (Waters and Knapp 1961) and an Ekmandredge to sample
and pools, respectively.
riffles
Introduced substrate in baskets was used to
sample deep, hard bottom runs, a common habitat of Rosebud Creek.
Baskets, constructed from 1.27 cm hardware cloth, had dimensions
of 15 x 15 x 30 cm and were filled with 40 pieces of hand-sorted
cl inker measuring 5 to 3 cm along the longest axis.
At each station
two samplers were anchored on the bottom at similar depth and current
velocity and allowed to colonize for 6 weeks initially.
Samples were
then collected monthly; the procedure involved placing a nylon dip net
(I mm mesh ) immediately downstream to catch organisms dislodged as the
sampler was lifted.
Debris on the anchoring stake or basket handle
was discarded but that clinging to the sampler was collected. Sub­
strate was removed and scrubbed with a brush. Foreach sample, current
velocity 15 cm in front of the basket was determined using a Gurley
(Model 625-F) current meter and depth was recorded.
A subjective eval­
uation was made concerning the amount of sediment and debris in the
sampler.
Baskets were sampled monthly from May to November 1976, and
in March 1977.
Due to continuous ice cover the samplers were removed
from December 1976 to February 1977.
Two 0.023 m
?
Ekman dredge samples were taken at each station
2
during March, June, August, and October 1976. Two 0.093 m Hess
22
samples were taken at stations I, 5, 6, and 7 in March, June, August,
and November 1976, and in February and March 1977.
Samples were col- .
Iected at station 3 in August and November 1976 and March 1977, using
a modified Hess sampler.
Qualitative samples were collected at various
locations at each station using a dip net.
All samples were preserved
initially in 10% formal in.
Samples were later screened through a No. 30 U.S.A. Standard
sieve and organisms were hand-sorted and stored in 70% ethanol.
Inver­
tebrates were identified to genus or species where feasible and possible
using keys by Brown (1972), Edmunds et al. (1976), Gaufin et al. (1972),
Jensen (1966), Johannsen (1934,1935), Needham and Westfall.(1955),
Pennak (1953), Roemhild (1975,1976), Ross (1944), and Usinger (1971).
Speciments were sent to experts for confirmation of identifications.
To aid in identifications,, emerging adult insects were collected and
some naiads were reared.
Wet weight of the collections was determined
with a Mettler Type B5 analytical balance and following the procedure
of Slack et aI . (1973).
Species diversity was calculated using the Simpson Index
(Simpson 1949), the Margalef Index (Margalef 1957), and the Shannon
Index (Patten 1962) modified by Hamilton (1975).
Calculations were
performed using the Montana State University Sigma 7 computer.
In August 1976, stream width and thalweg depth at each station
were recorded at 10 locations 50 m apart.
In addition, a subjective
23
evaluation was made concerning substrate and riparian vegetation com­
position at each location.
At the riffle sites, depth and current
velocity 5 cm from the substrate was recorded at 30 cm intervals along
transects spaced 2 m apart.
Water samples were collected in October and November 1976 and
February 1977 for turbidity analysis.
Determinations were made using a
nephelometric turbidimeter (HF Instruments, Model DRT 200) and follow­
ing the procedure given by the American Public Health Association
(1976).
Continuous recording 15-day Ryan thermographs were placed at
stations I, 3, 5, and 7 during August and October 1976.
RESULTS
Aquatic macroinvertebrate abundance in terms of total numbers of
individuals, wet weight, and number of taxa is shown in Table 5 and
Figures 3, 4, and 5.
Analysis of variance of these parameters showed
that means were significantly different (a = .01) in all cases.
Sig­
nificantly similar means were grouped according to the Newman-Keuls
sequential comparison test (Figure 6).
Results from modified Hess
samples for station 3 were not considered by this test due to the small
sample size.
The total number of samples collected by each sampling
method is given in Table 6.
Pool habitats in Rosebud Creek supported a smaller standing crop
2
than riffles. Average wet weight per m was 10.8 g in riffles and
2.9 g in pools. The mean number of individuals per m2 was 6007 in
riffles and 4993 in pools; close agreement here is due tothe abundance
of low-mass individuals; e.g,., Chironomidae and Oligochaeta, in pools.
Macroinvertebrate Numbers
Results indicate that invertebrate numbers are generally greater
at stations 5, 6, and 7 relative to stations 2, 3, and 4.
Station I
normally has higher numbers than stations 2, 3, and 4.
Introduced Substrate Samplers
Analysis of introduced substrate samples gave results (Table 5)
consistent with the trends mentioned above.
Average,number of
25
Table 5.
Average total numbers, wet weight, and number of taxa of
benthic macroinvertebrates. Rosebud Creek, Montana,
March 1976 to March 1977.
Introduced
Substrates3
Ekman ,
Dredge0
Modified
Hessb
I
2
3
. 4
5
6
7
1090
830
994
953
1633
1317
1029
4402
2077
4779
4876
7664
3073
8076
6852
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.92
3.25
1.72
1.84
2.75
2.29
3.17
2.20
1.98
0.95
3.23
2.07
1.03
8.74
Stati on
Average
Total
Numbers
Average
Wet
Weight
(grams)
5278
2081
8690
7134
12.49
6.24
2.15
9.15
24.11
Average
Total
Vaxa
6.5
20.9
I
7.1
16.3
2
5.6
19.0
3
8.8
18.9
4
10.5
5
22.4
5.8
6
23.9
22.9
.
5.4
7
a average total numbers and wet weight per sample
2
b average total numbers and wet weight per m
15.4 '
13.5
•
)
10.7
18.6
19.1
26
Figure 3.
Mean number per sample and range of aquatic
macroinvertebrates, Rosebud Creek, Montana,
March 1976 to March 1977.
3783
3498
INTRODUCED SUBSTRATES
IOOO
EKMAN DREDGE
400
200
&
NUMBER
OF
INVERTEBRATES
PER
SAMPLE
AND
RANGE
2000
MODIFIED HESS
2000
IOOO
2
a
3
4
5
SAMPLING STATIONS
6
7
27
Figure 4.
Mean wet weight per sample and range of aquatic
macroinvertebrates. Rosebud Creek, Montana,
March 1976 to March 1977.
IOMASS PER SAMPLE AND RANGE (GRAMS
INTRODUCED SUBSTRATE
8.81
%68
802
EKMAN DREDGE
ti- -Q-
-B6.47
MODlFlED HESS
SS
CD
-BS A M P L IN G
S T A T IO N S
LJ
28
Figure
. Mean number of aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa per sample and
range, Rosebud Creek, Montana, March 1976 to March 1977.
MEAN NUMBER OF TAXA PER SAMPLE AND RANGE
INTRODUCED SUBSTRATE
EKMAN DREDGE
IO
MODIFIED HESS
20
•
I
2
3
4
S A M P L IN G
5
S T A T IO N S
6
7
29
Figure 6.
Significantly similar station means3 for average total
macroinvertebrates, taxa, and wet weight, Newman-Keuls
sequential comparison test. Rosebud Creek, Montana,
March 1976 to March 1977.
I
IN T R O D U C E D
2
SAMPLING STATIONS
3
4
5
6
7
SUBSTRATE:
M A C R O IN V E R T E B R A T E S
W ET
W E IG H T
—
TAXA
EKM AN
DREDGE:
M A C R O IN V E R T E B R A T E S
W ET
W E IG H T
—
TAXA
M O D IF IE D
HESS:
\ \
M A C R O IN V E R T E B R A T E S
\ \
W ET
W E IG H T
\ \
TAXA
X
x
\ \
a Significantly similar stations connected by a bar or denoted by bars
on similar levels.
30
macroinvertebrates per sampler was greatest at stations 5 and 6 and
lowest at station 2.
7.
Numerical abundance was similar at stations I and
Likewise, stations 3 and 4 were similar and supported low numbers
of individuals.
Table 6.
Total number of samples from each station by three sampling
methods. Rosebud Creek, Montana, March 1976 to March 1977.
Station
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
Introduced
Substrates
13
15
15
15
15
15
15
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
12
O
6
O
12
12
12
Ekman
Dredge
Modified
Hess
Average total numbers per taxon and relative average percent of
the total sample is presented in Table 7 and Figure 7.
Trichoptera,
comprised mainly of Hydropsychidae, were the most common invertebrates
at most stations, constituting from 22 (station 3) to 55 (station 5)
percent of the total sample.
stations;
Cheumatopsyohe lasia
Cheumatopsyahe
spp. were abundant at all
(Ross), adults of which were commonly
collected at all stations, was probably the dominant species.
Hydropsyohe
stations.
and 4.
A
spp. complex of at least 4 species was abundant at most
Lower numbers of Trichoptera were present at stations 2, 3,
Diptera, particularly Chironomidae, were the next most abundant
‘
Table 7.
Mean total numbers per taxon and average percent of the sample6 (introduced
substrates) for aquatic macroinvertebrates*3 of Rosebud Creek, Montana,
May 1976 to March 1977.
Introduced substrates:
Odon./
Station
Ephem. Zygop. Plecop.
Trich.. Coleop.
Dipt.
Oli go.
Mollusc.
Hemip .
587.1
(53.9)
66.8
(6.1)
331.8
(30.4)
12.7
(1.2)
2.3
(0.2)
0.2
(<0.1)
I
85 .
(7.8)
3.1
(0.3)
2
65.3
(7.8)
0.5
(<o.i)
0.5
(<0.1)
363.8
(43.9)
22.2
(2.7)
349.5
(42.1)
2.4
(0.3)
17.3
(2.1)
8.1
(1.0)
3
191.7
(19.3)
0.5
(<0.1)
0.6
(0.1)
214.5
(21.6)
35.2
(3.5)
539.9
(54.3)
4.7
(0.5)
1.2
(0.1)
4.4
(0.4)
4
. 161.7
(17.0)
1.1
(0.1)
0.6
(0.1)
394.1
(41.4)
51.6
(5.4)
328.7
(34.5)
5.5
(0.6)
3.4
(0.4)
4.1
(0.4)
5
203.3
(12.5)
1.5
(0.1)
0.1
(<0.1)
902.3
(55.3)
77.1
(4.7)
430.5
(26.4)
3.1
0.7
(0.2) . (<o.i)
6.1
(0.4)
6
185.2
(14.1)
7.7
(0.6)
1.3
(0.1)
521.0
(39.6)
79.4
(6.0)
496.2
(37.7)
18.7
(1.4)
0.6
(<0.1)
4.5
(0.3)
7
82.9
(8.1)
1.5
(0.1)
13.8
(1.3)
506.4
(49.2)
15.1
(1.5)
377.9
(36.7)
26.7
(2.6)
2.6
(0.3)
0.7
(0.1)
ain parentheses
^Ephem = Ephemeroptera, Odon = Odonata, Zygop = Zygoptera, Plecop = Plecoptera,
Coleop = Coleoptera, Dipt = Diptera, Oligo = Oligochaeta3 Mollusc = Mollusca,
Hemip = Hemiptera.
32
Figure 7.
Average number of aquatic macroinvertebrates per
introduced substrate sample. Rosebud Creek, Montana,
May 1976 to March 1977.
NUMBER
PER
INTRODUCED
SUBSTRATE
------------Trichoptera
------------Diptera
-------------Ephemeroptera
------------Coleoptera
SAM PLING STATIONS
33
taxon; highest numbers were collected at stations 3 and 6; fewer were
present at stations I, 2, and 4.
stations 3 and 4 where
Ephemeroptera were most common at
Choroterpes albiannulata
was. the major species.
Coleoptera appeared to increase in numbers from station 2 through 6,
then declined at station 7. Plecoptera were uncommon in basket samples
and were numerous only at station 7.
Molluscs were most abundant at
stations 2, 6, and 7, and Hemiptera were most common in the mid-Rosebud
(stations 2 through 6).
Oligochaeta appeared to increase in abundance
progressively upstream.
Ekman Dredge Samples
Mean numbers of aquatic macroinvertebrates collected with an
Ekman dredge from pools are given in Table 5. Macroinvertebrate popu2
lations per m were most dense at stations 5 and 7 while stations 2 and
6 supported the lowest numbers.
Stations 3 and 4 supported similar
populations.
Average total number per taxon is presented in Table 8.
Diptera
were most prevalent comprising 50 to 84 percent of the total sample;
numbers were highest at stations 5 and 7 and lowest at station 2.
Oligochaetes, the next most common group, were found in high concen­
trations at stations I and 7; stations 5 and 6 supported lower numbers.
Molluscs were collected in significant numbers only at stations 2, 3,
and 4.
Coleoptera, particularly
Diibiraphia minima,
comprised a. large
Table 8.
Station
i
2
CU
i
3
4
rce? 5
JLU
6
Ephem.
5.4
(<0.1)
21.5
(i.o)
59.2
(1.2)
182.9
(3V7)
204.4
(2.7)
37.7
(1.2)
30.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hemip .
37.7
(0.9)
0.0
5.4
(0.1)
5.4
(0.1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.3
0.0
11
CU
Moll us.
10.8
(0.2)
53.8
(2.6)
48.4
(1.0)
43.0
(0.9)
0.0
I
I
I
I
II
Il
Il
Il
Il
Il
Il
Il
Il
Il
Il
'■'— ' - I I
C M II
•II
O i l
-— -II
CU
•
C O M
oil11
r-sii
iiii
Il
Il
1.8
2908.8 760.4
615.1
1.8
(42.5) (11.1)
(9.0)
(<o.i)
(o.i)
to
to 3
362.3 77.1
2505.3 1.8
3.6
=C
(47.5) (<0.1) (0.1)
(6.9)
(1.5)
-o 5
294.1
0.0
350.6
125.5
0.0
(16.9) (6.0)
(14.1)
ii•
6
1246.4
16.1
2308.9
626.8
96.8
iOO
(14.3)
(0.2)
(26.6)
(7.2)
(0.1)
s:
7
581.9 107.6 32.3
4616.9 275.3
(0.5)
(64.7) (3.9)
(8.2)
(0.1)
BEphem=Ephemeroptera, Odon=Odonata, Zygop=Zygoptera,
Coleop=Coleoptera, Dipt=Diptera, Oligo=Oligochaeta,
°in parentheses.
Il
^ - I l
O O II
•11
r — Il
C M Il
'— 'll
Il
Il
Dipt. PT igo.
2178.9 1124.4
(49.5) (25.6)
1129.8 344.3
(54.4) (16.6)
3190.3 780.1
(66.8) (16.3)
2905.2 699.4
(59.6) (14.3)
5901.9 247.5
(77.0) (3.2)
2577.0 145.3
(83.9) (4.7)
5896.5 1721.6
-— 'l l
Coleop.
963.0
(21.9)
419.6
(20.2)
651.0
(13.6)
850.0
(17.4)
672.5
(8.8)
123.7
(4.0)
289.0
IsO Il
• Il
C O M
Il
Il
Il
sd-i
•ili
Il
ii
Il
Il
I!
Il
Il
Il
Il
Il
Il
Il
• II
i l
BI
BI
BI
I
Trich.
69.9
(1.6)
86.1
(4.1)
32.3
(0.7)
129.1
(2.6)
602.6
(7.9)
150.6
(4.9)
116.8
Plecop.
• 0.0
O
^—
Odon./
Zyqop.
10.8
(0.2)
16.1
(0.8)
5.38
(0.1)
32.3
(0.7)
10.8
(0.1)
32.3
(1.1)
6.1
61
nBI
sd-ii91
•
O B l
" — Il
BI
BI
BI
BI
Al
BI
BI
BI
BI
BI
7
Mean total numbers of aquatic macroinvertebrates9 per
and average percent
of the s a m p l e , b Rosebud Creek, Montana, March 1976 to March 1977.
2185.2 348.8 5.4
1.8
(31.9) (5.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
2248.8 39.5
17.9
5.4
(42.6) (0.7)
(0.3)
(0.1)
1163.0 128.2 0.0
7.2
(55.9) (6.2)
(0.3)
4321.0 117.5 0.9
9.0
(49.7) ( 1 . 4 )
(<o.i)
(0.1)
1311.8 278.0
14.3
0.0
(18.4) (3.9)
(0.2)
Plecop=PTecoptera, Trich=Trichoptera,
Mqllus-MolIusca, Hemip=Hemiptera.
35
portion of the benthic population in pools and were common at stations
I through 5.
Trichoptera were found in highest numbers at station 5.
Other taxa were uncommon and Plecoptera were absent from Ekman. dredge
samples.
Modified Hess Samples
Macroinvertebrates were most abundant at station 6 and least
numerous at station 5 (Table 5).
population densities.
Stations I and 7 were similar in
Average total numbers per taxon and relative
percent of the total sample are presented in Table 8.
Diptera were
numerically the most abundant taxon collected by this method and high­
est numbers were present at station 6.
Trichoptera, the next most
numerous taxon, were most common at station 7 and least at stations 3
and 5.
Taxa were often found in low numbers at station 5.
Macroinvertebrate Wet Weight
Wet weight usually reflected numbers of individuals; however,
certain species contributed disproportionately to the sample weight.
For example, at station 2 numerous Mollusca,
Ambrysus mormon,
and
Hydropsychidae, due to the size of these organisms, resulted in high
average wet weight per introduced substrate sample even though numbers
were low.
Although general trends for distribution of wet weight were
not evident, station 7 consistently supported high biomass.
36
Introduced Substrate Samples
Wet weights (Table 5) were greatest at station 2 and lowest at
station 3.
Wet weight per sample was also high at stations 5 and 7.
Average wet weight and percent of the total sample for certain
taxa are presented in Table 9 and Figure 8.
Trichoptera comprised the
majority of most samples; however, in contrast to numbers, weight was
low at station 6 and high at station 2 indicating differences in aver­
age larval size, state of development, or species composition.
Wet
weight per sample for Odonata and Zygoptera appeared to increase pro­
gressively upstream to station 6.
Ephemeroptera biomass was low at
station 2 and high at stations 3 through 6 due mainly to large numbers
of
Choroterpes albiannulata
and
Baetis
spp:
Wet weights for Diptera
were relatively high at all stations, especially 3 and 6.
Coleoptera
biomass was higher at stations 5 and 6 and Plecoptera comprised a
"measurable" portion of the wet weight only at stations 6 and 7.
Ekrnan Dredge Samples
P
Macroinvertebrate wet weight per m was greatest at station 7
(Table 5).
ent.
All other stations were lower and not significantly differ
Average wet weight and relative percent of the total sample for
certain taxa is given in Table 10.
Diptera and Oligochaeta consti­
tuted the majority of the total wet weight; Diptepa biomass was high
at stations 5 and 7 and Oligochaeta at stations I and 7.
Table 9.
Mean wet weight3 per taxon per introduced substrate sample and average .
percent*3 of the sample for aquatic macroinvertebratesc of Rosebud Creek,
Montana, May 1976 to March 1977.
Station
Ephem.
Odon./
Zygop. Plecop.
0.15
(7.6)
0.04
(1.8)
0.07
(2.1)
0.05
(1.7)
0.23
(13.6)
I
2
3
4
.5
6
7
Trich.
Coleop.
Dipt.
Oligo.
Moll us.
Hemip.
1.26
(65.4)
0.05
(2.4)
0.40
(21.1)
<0.01
(0.2)
0.03
<0.01
(<0.1)
<0.01
(0.1)
1.95
(60.0)
0.03
(0.8)
0.54
(16.8)
<0.01
(<0.1)
0.28
0.06
(3.6)
<0.01
0.50
(29.3)
0.03
(1.5)
0.74
(43.3)
<0.01
(<0.1)
0.03
(<o.i)
(2.0)
0.12
(6.7)
0.27
(14.6)
0.11
(5.9)
<0.01
(0.1)
0.65
(35.3)
0.04
(2.2)
0.46
(24.7)
<0.01
(0.1)
0.25
(13.5)
0.06
(3.3)
0.26
(9.5)
0.22
(8.0)
<0.01
(0.1)
1.51
(54.9)
0.14
(4.9)
0.43
(15.5)
<0.01
(<0.1)
0.01
(0.3)
0.18
(6.5)
0.37
(16.0)
0.01
0.35
(15.4). (0.5)
0.58
(25.3)
0.14
(5.9)
0.67
(29.4)
<0.01
(0.1)
0.03
(1.3)
0.12
(5.4)
0.08
(2.4)
2.26
(71.2)
0.04
(1.3)
0.37
(11.5)
0.01
(0.2)
0.05
(1.7)
0.01
(0.4)
" 0.11
(3.6)
0.23
(7.4)
0.00
(1.5)
(8.7)
0.32
(9.7)
^in grams
bin parentheses
cEphem = Ephemeroptera, Odon = Odonata, Zygop = Zygotpera, Plecop = Plecoptera,
Trich = Trichoptera, Coleop = Coleoptera, Dipt = Diptera, Oligo = Oligochaeta,
Mollus - Mollusca, Hemip = Hemiptera.
38
Average wet weight (grams) of aquatic macroinvertebrates
per introduced substrate sample. Rosebud Creek, Montana,
May 1976 to March 1977.
Trichoptera
Diptera
Ephemeroptera
Coleoptera
I 20 -
0.60
0.20
0.00
-g'
A V E R A G E W E T WEIGHT (GRAMS) PER INTRODUCED S U B S T R A T E
Figure 8.
SAMPLING
STATIONS
Table 10.
Station
I
Mean wet weight per m per taxon and average percent of the sample3
for aquatic macroinvertebrates^ of Rosebud Creek, Montana, March
1976 to March 1977.
Ephem.
0.0
Odon./
Zygop.
0.06
Plecop.
0.0
(2.9)
'2
3
4
5
0.02
0.55
(0.8)
(28.1)
0.03
0.02
(2:8)
(2.2)
0.28
(8.7)
0.05
0.52
(2.6)
6
0.05
(4.8)
7
. I
3
0.01
(0.1)
0.88
(7.0)
1.64
(26.1)
5
6
7
0.34
(16.1)
0.99
(10.8)
0.56
(2.3)
0.0
0.0
0.0
(16.1)
0.19
(9.1) .
0.51
(49.7)
0.01
(<0.1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Trich.
0.18
(8.4)
0.17
Coleop.
0.12
Dipt.
0.53
(24.3)
0.45
(8.7)
(6.3)
(22.6)
0.69
0.13
(13.4)
0.22
0.33
(34.1)
0.23
(7.2)
1.12
(54.2)
0.18
(18.0)
5.20
0.0
0.28
(12.8)
(21.6)
(6.9)
0.43
(20.6)
0.16
(15.9)
0.65
(8.4)
0.18
0.05
9.03
0.33
(72.3)
(2.6)
0.65
(8.9)
(5.3)
0.05
(0.6)
0.24
(1.9)
0.07
(1.1)
0.0
0.03
(0.2)
0.06
0.92
(10.1)
1.40
0.07
3.89
0.03
(0.4)
0.04
(1.8)
0.23
(0.8)
(42.7)
(2.5)
0.07
(5.8)
(0.3)
16.85
(69.8)
0.16
(0.7)
(i.o)
0.0
(10.3)
0.60
(27.9)
Oligo.
1.10
(50.1)
0.28
(14.2)
0.35
(36.3)
0.35
(10.9)
0.09
(4.4)
0.06
Mol I us. Hemip.
0.01
0.03
(<0.1)
0.38
(1.2)
0.0
(19.1)
0.09
0.0
0.01
(1.1)
0.01
(0.3)
0.0
0.0
0.0
(9.5)
0.87
(27.0)
(6:3)
1.37
0.30
(67.9)
(17.9)
(3.9)
1.13
(9.0)
2.03
0.33
0.22
(1.7)
1.64
(26.1)
0.0
(2.7)
0.01
(32.4)
(0.2)
1.05
(49.2)
2.77
(30,4)
4.47
(18.5)
0.05
(2.4)
0.04
(0.4)
0.14
(0.6)
0.0
0.28
0.0
0.07
(0.6)
0.13
(2.1)
0.04
(1.7)
0.16
(0.7)
0.0
(1.2)
ain parentheses
^3Ephem = Ephemeroptera, Odon = Odonata, Zygop = Zygoptera, Plecop = Plecoptera,
Trich = Trichoptera, Coleop = Coleoptera, Dipt = Diptera, Oligo = Oligochaeta,
Mollus = Mollusca, Hemip = Hemiptera.
40
Modified Hess Samples
2
Macroinvertebrate wet weight per m for modified Hess samples
was highest at station 7 followed by station I (Table 5); the lowest
average wet weight was found at station 5.
Average wet weight and
percent of the total sample for certain taxa is presented in .Table 10.
The largest portion of most samples was comprised of Trichoptera with
the exception of stations 3 and 5 where total numbers were also low.
Wet weights for many taxa were low at station 5.
Macroinvertebrate Distribution
A checklist of total taxa collected from Rosebud Creek and
their respective distributions with regard to sampling stations is
given in Table 11.
The number of occurrences and average number per
occurrence for individual taxa is listed for each sampling method in
Tables 12, 13, and 14.
Average numerical abundance per introduced
substrate sampler for common macroinvertebrates is shown in Figure 9.
Average numbers and occurrences often tended to be lowest at station
2, then increased progressively upstream, often declining at station
7.
Numbers were usually greater at station I relative to station 2.
Organisms with this pattern of distribution included
gravastella, Trioorythodes minutus, Baetis
Stenelmis Oregonensis 3 Heliohus Striatus 3
Other macroinvertebrates; e.g.,
sp. B,
and
Lepto-phlebia
Eydroptila
spp.,
Eeptagenia elegantula.
Choroterpesalbiannulata 3 Braahyptera
41
Table 11.
Checklist and distribution of aquatic macroinvertebrates
of Rosebud Creek, Montana, March 1976 to March 1977.
I
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeridae
Ephoron album
(Say)
Heptageniidae
Heptagenia elegantula (Eaton)
Heptagenia sp. A
Stenonema termination (Walsh)
Rhithrogena sp.
Baetidae
Baetis sp. A
Baetis sp. B
Centroptilum sp.
Pseudocloeon sp.
Callibaetis sp.
Isonyehia sieea
(Walsh)
Leptophlebiidae
Choroterpes albiannulata McDunn.
Leptophlebia gravastella (Eaton)
Traverella albertana (McDunnough)
Ephemerellidae
Ephemerella inermis
Eaton
Caenidae
Caenis sp.
Tricorythidae
Trieorythodes minutus
Traver
Odonata
Gomphidae
Gomphus sp. A
Gomphus S p . B
Ophiogomphus sp.
(near
severus)
Libellulidae
Sympetrum sp.
Zygoptera
Calopterygidae
Hetaerina amerieana
(Fabricius)
2
3
4
5
6
7
42
Table 11 (continued)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
Zygoptera (continued)
Coenagrionidae
Amphagrion abbreviatum (Selys)
Argia fumipennis-violaoea (Hagen)
Enallagma sp.
X
X X
X. X
Plecoptera
Nemouridae
Braohyptera
Nemoura sp.
Capnia sp.
sp. (prob.
fosketti}
■ X
X
X
X
Perlodidae
Isoperla patrioia
X
Prison
X
X
X
Hemiptera
Corixidae
Palmaoorixa gilleti
Triohooorixa sp.
Abbott
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Naucoridae
Ambrysus mormon
Montandon
X
X
Megaloptera
Sialidae
Sialis Sp.
Trichoptera
Psychomyiidae
Polyoentropus oinereus ?
X
Hydropsychidae
Hydropsyohe bronta Ross
■Hydropsyohe sp. A
Hydropsyohe sp. B
Hydropsyohe sp. C
Cheumatopsyohe spp.
Hydroptilidae
Hydroptila sp. A
Hydroptila sp..B ■
Mayatriohia sp.
Ithytriohia sp.
Phryganeidae
Ptilostomis sp.
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
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
X
X
X
X
X
I.
X
' X
43
Table 11 (continued)
Trichoptera (continued)
Limnephilidae
Limnephilus sp.
Onocosmoeous sp.
Andbolia sp.
Leptoceridae
Oecetis avara (Banks)
Triaenodes sp. (near tarda)
Neetopsyehe Sp.
[Leptoeella)
I
2
3
4
5
6
,7
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Brachycentridae
Braehyeentrus
sp.
Lepidoptera
Pyralidae
' Cataelysta
X
sp.
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae
Liodessus affinis
(Say)
Hydrophilidae
Helophorus spp.
Dryopidae
Heliehus striatus LeConte
Heliehus suturalis LeConte
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
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ETmidae
Stenelmis oregonensis
Dubiraphia minima
Mieroeylloepus pusillus (LeConte)
Optioservus divergens (LeConte)
Diptera
Tipulidae
Tipula spp.
Holorusia sp.
Ormosia spp.
Dieranota spp.
Limnophila {Eloeophilq)
Hexatoma [Erioeera) sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
sp.
X
X
X
X
:X
X X
X
44
Table 11 (continued)
1
Diptera (continued)
Psychodidae
Pevicoma sp. A
Peviaoma sp. B
Psyahoda sp.
Culicidae
Chaobovus sp.
Simuliidae
Simutiim spp.
Chironomidae
Heleidae
Palpomyia spp.
Dasyhelea spp.
Stratiomyidae
Tabanidae
Chvysops spp.
Tabanus sp.
Dolichopodidae
Eydvophovus sp.
Empididae
sp. A
sp. B
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
X
X
X
X
Turbellaria
Nematomorpha
X
Oligochaeta
X
Hirudinea
Glossiphoniidae
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Amphipoda
Talitridae
Eyalella azteoa
Acari
(Saussure)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
45
Table 11 (continued)
Basommatophora
Physidae
Physa spp.
Lymnaeidae
Lymnaea sp.
Ancylidae
Ferr-issia sp.
Planorbidae
Gyraulus sp.
1
2
3
X
X
X
4
X
5
X
X
6
X
7
X
X X
X
Heterodonta
Sphaeriidae
Sphaerium sp.
Pisidium sp.
Eulamellibranchia
Unionidae
Total taxa
X X X X X X X
X X X
X
X X X X X
60 42
50
50 60 59 60
Table 12.
Number of occurrences9 and average number per occurrenceb for aquatic
macroinvertebrates collected in introduced substrate samplers, Rosebud
Creek, Montana, May 1976 to March 1977.
Sampling Stations
5
4
I
2
3
11(3)
3(3)
2(1)
--
7(2)
13(5)
——
KD
6
7
15(15)
-—
T
12(13)
—
1(3)
13(6)
—
——
—
7(24)
10(50)
2(6)
6(12)
——
—
1(1)
15(31)
-1(5)
——
—
15(84)
9(9)
6(3)
7(9)
KD
1(2)
——
—
—
—
10(5)
Ephemeroptera
Heptageniidae
E e p t a g e n i a elegantula
E e p t a g e n i a sp. A
S t e n o n e m a termination
R i t h r o g e n a sp.
(Eaton)
(Walsh)
—
—
—
13(7)
—
—
—
Baetidae
B aetis sp. A
B a e t i s sp. B
C e n troptilim sp.
P s e u d o e l o e o n sp.
Cdllibaetis sp.
I s o n y e h i a sicca
6(24)
7(11)
1(4)
K D
K D
KD
5(19)
9(6)
—
3(2)
—
—
8(32)
10(4)
3(1)
3(17)
—
—
6(36)
8(3)
3(2)
4(7)
—
—
8(29)
11(18)
2(4)
5(23)
McDunn. 13(46)
3(12)
(Eaton)
15(54)
KD
15(138)
6(3)
15(114)
5(4)
15(118)
3(13)
(Walsh)
—
—
Leptophlebiidae
Choroterpes a l b i a n n u l a t a
Leptop h l e b i a gravas t e l l a
Ephemerel Iidae
E p h e m e r e l l a inermis
Eaton
—-
—
KD
2(1)
—
-
12(17)
6(2)
13(28)
12(27)
11(43)
12(45)
15(38)
KD
7(1)
—
2.(1)
7(2)
—
4(2)
6(3)
1(1)
1(1)
10(2)
9(1)
Caenidae
sp.
'Iricorythidae
Caenis
Trieorythodes minutus
Traver
'
Odonata
Gomphidae
Gomphus sp. A
Gomphus sp. B
Ophiogomphus sp,
UD
—
(near
severus)
KD
. 3(1)
—
--
-3(1)
Table 12 (continued)
I.
Odonata (continued)
Libellulidae
S y m p e t r i m sp.
3
2
1(1)
-
5(3)
—
-
Sampling Stations
4
5
--
—
—
6
--
Zygoptera
Calopterygidae
Eetaer-Lna a m e r i c a n a
(Fabricius)
1(2)
Coenagrionidae
A m p h a g r i o n abbreviation (Selys)
A r g i a fwnipennis-violacea- (Hagen)
E n a l l a g m a sp.
1(3)
6(2)
4(3)
K D
2(1)
1(1)
K D
4(3)
K D
4(2)
2(2)
K D
K D
-M n
2(2)
3(2)
3(2)
4(2)
—
—
—
- -
7(7)
4(1)
3(1)
4(5)
KD
5(2)
Plecoptera
Nemouridae
Braehyptera
sp, (prob.
fosketti)
—
Perlodidae
I s o perla p a t r i a i a
2(1)
Prison
10(21 )
Hemiptera
Corixidae
P a l m a e o r i x a gilleti
T r i ehoeorixa sp.
Abbott
—
—
—
2(1)
KT)
2(4)
K D
Naucoridae
A m b rysus m o r m o n
Megalpptera
Sialidae
Sialis sp.
10(12)
Montandon
—
9(7)
—
6(10)
—
9(9)
—
— —
.K D
7(9)
7(1)
KD
5(1)
Table 12 (continued)
I
2
Sampling Stations
3
4
5
6
7
KD
3 CD
. 7(7)
9(3)
15(37)
13(5)
KD
15(197)
Trichoptera
Psychomyiidae
Polyoentvopus oineveus ?
Hydropsychidae
Hydvopsyohe bvontd RoSS
Hydvopsyohe sp. A
Hydvopsyohe sp. B
Hydvopsyche sp. C
Cheumatopsyehe spp. ,
Hydroptilidae
Hydvoptila sp. A
Hydvoptila sp. B
Mayatviohia Sp .
Ithytviohia Sp .
13(136)
9(20)
11(155)
7(11)
13(234)
4(24)
4(5)
KD
7(13)
9(10)
11(5)
10(3)
10(9)
14(123) 12(52)
— —
— —
15(196) 15(62)
3(7)
7(3)
— —
— —
KD
3(4)
3(2)
6(3)
11(4)
13(18)
13(43)
— —
15(177)
15(14)
13(26)
15(125)
— —
15(609)
4(6)
KD
KD
6(4)
5(5)
KD
2(1)
KD
5(4)
— —
— —
15(390) 15(193)
10(17)
5(18)
2(1)
3(5)
14(58)
— —
— —
Phryganeidae
Ptilostomis
sp.
1(3)
Limnephilidae
Limnephilus sp.
Onoeosmoeous sp.
Anabolia sp.
Leptoceridae
Oeoetis avava (Banks)
Tviaenodes sp. (near tavda)
Neotopsyche sp. [Leptocella)
Brachycentrfdae
Bvaohyoentvus S p .
KD
KD
—
---- .
2(2)
—
1(4)
— —
—
- -
--
9(14)
1(2)
8(8)
8(4)
11(28)
12(24)
—
KD
10(5)
— —F
1(1)
—
2(6)
3(5)
—
8(5)
9(6)
— —
— —
— —
2(2)
2(2)
7(1)
6(211)
6(237)
6(130)
—
. 3(3)
2(2)
2(2)
2(1)
3(2)
6(6)
2(1)
13(7)
1(4)
9(12)
9(1)
6(29)
14(22)
— —
2(2)
Table 12 (continued)
Sampl
I
2
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae
Liodessus affinis
(Say)
Hydrophilidae
Uetoiphorus sp.
Dryopidae
Uetiohus striatus LeConte
Uetiohus suturatis LeConte
Elmidae
Stenetmis.oregonensis
Dubiraphia minima
Miorooyttoepus pusittus (LeConte)
Optioservus diver gens (LeConte)
1(1)
KD
2(2)
5(4)
Stations
4
5
6
7
—
KD
—
2(1)
- -
4(3)
4(3)
—
8(29)
11(11)
13(39)
9(10)
8(3)
12(17)
11(10)
10(6)
13(27)
10(17)
12(22)
13(25)
7(15)
--
7(14)
1(1)
14(31)
13(11)
15(32)
13(50)
13(17)
11(21)
KD
"
Diptera
Tipulidae
Tiputa [lamato.tiputa) spp.
Uotorusia sp. ■
Ormosia spp.
Dioranotg spp.
Lirmophita (Etoeophita) sp.
Uexatoma (Eriooera) sp.
Psychodidae
Feriooma sp. A
PerioOma sp. B
Simuliidae
Simutium spp.
Chironomidae
7(6)
—
7(1)
11(8)
10(4)
10(5) ^
CD
“
'
KD
--
1(1)
2(4) .
4(2)
3(5)
—
—
1(1)
8(11)
—
1(1)
—
■— —
—
10(217) 14(304) 15(390)
13(165) 15(63) 15(147)
—
14(238)
15(104)
3(1)
—
3(2)
—-
8(3)
1(1)
—
.— ■
mm
--
—
15(246)
15(173)
5(1)
2(1)
»
1(1)
KD
14(281) 9(9)
15(228) 15(363)
Table 12 (continued)
Diptera (continued)
Heleidae
P a l p o m y i a spp.
D a s y helea spp.
Stratiomyidae
Tabanidae
C k r y sops spp.
Dolichopodidae
H ydrophorus sp.
Empididae
sp. A
sp. B
Turbellaria
2
3
1(2)
2(3)
3(2)
—
—
—
—
— ■
—. «■
■ —
■ *.
KD
—
—
Nernatomorpha
10)
Oligochaeta
10(17)
HirudTnea
Glossiphoniidae
Sampling Stations
.4
.5
I
—
—
3(1)
—
—
6
6(2)
MO
MO
11(5)
—
—
7
5(4)
1(44)
MO
KD
_ _
M D
6(2)
1(6)
8(5)
2(1)
5(3)
1(1)
7(7)
2(8)
6(3)
3(2)
--
2(4)
5(4)
6(19)
3(6)
—
--
MO
—
"-
—
11(6)
12(8)
11(4)
14(20)
—
--
8(5)
KD
—
-“
8(4)
4(1)
13(31)
—
Malacostraca
Amphipoda
Talitridae
H y a l e l l a a z teca
Acari
(Saussure)
5(2)
:-
3(4)
-“
MO
2(3)
— —
3(1)
. M2).
3(4)
. 3(1)
2(0
2(1)
Table 12 (continued)
Basommatophora
Physidae
Physa spp.
Lymnaeidae
Lyrmaea sp.
Ancylidae
Ferrissia sp.
Sampling Stations
4
5
I
2
3
8(4)
12(21)
4(3)
4(1)
KD
—
—
--
1(1)
2(1)
-—
6
7
6(1)
4(2)
8(3)
—
KD
KD
—
—
—
--
5(3)
3(2)
7(7)
1(1)
2(2)
1(3)
—
Heterodonta
Sphaeriidae
Sphaerivm
spp.
adash indicates absence from samples
^in parentheses
Table 13.
Number of occurrences3 and average number per occurrence*3 for aquatic
macroinvertebrates collected in Ekman dredge samples, RoSebud Creek,
Montana, March 1976 to October 1976.
I
2
Sampling Stations
3
4
5
6
7
1(2)
—
—
Ephemeroptera
Heptageniidae
(Eaton).
E e y t a g e n i a elegantula
-
1(1)
—
Baetidae
B a etis sp. B
CentroptiZion
1(1)
KD
- -
sp.
Leptophlebiidae
C horoterpes a l biannulata
—
—
——
KD
—
2(6)
McDunn.
—
3(2)
2(2)
1(3)
Caenidae
Caenis S p .
Tricorythidae
—
- -
Traver
T r i o o r y t h o d e s m i n utus
K D
1(1)
—
1(1)
1(1)
2(1)
KD
—
— “
KD
2(2)
3(8)
6(6)
2(2)
3(1)
■
1(2)
4(1)
KD
——
—
Odonata
Gomphidae
Gomphus sp. A
Ophiog o m p h u s sp.
(near
severus).
—
—
----
— —
—
—
--
1(1)
——
--
——
—
—•—
——
—
r
Zygoptera
Coenagrionidae
A r g i a fumip e n n i s - v i o Z a o e a
E n a Z Z a g m a sp.
(Hagen)
—
Hemiptera
Corixidae
P a l m a o o r i x a giZZeti
T r i o h o o o r i x a spp.
Abbott
1(1)
2(3)
KD
-
——
—
--
——
1(1)
——
. K D
.
Table 13 (continued)
Megaloptera
Sialidae
Sialis sp.
Sampling Stations
4
5
2
3
-
--
—
—
KD
--
—
—
KD
—
—
K U
3(2)
4(2)
—
I
-
6
7
--
—
KD
—
——
—
—
—
———
Trichoptera
Psychomyiidae
P o l ycentvopus eineveus
?
Hydropsychidae
E ydvopsyehe b v o n t a
Hydvopsyehe sp. A
Hydvopsyehe sp. B
Cheumatopsyehe spp.
RoSS
Hydroptilidae
Hydvop t i l a sp. A
Limnephilidae
Lirmephilus sp.
Leptoceridae
Oeeetis a v a v a (Banks)
N eetopsyehe
[Leptoeella)
2(1)
2(3)
3(1)
5(2)
—
—
—
—
1(2)
—
--
—
sp.
—
__
1(1)
2(1)
5(2)
7(10)
KD
2(12)
2(5)
2(2)
1(1)
——
1(4)
1(1)
2(1)
—
KD
KD
—
—-
—
—
2(1)
3(4)
——
——
—
—
2(3)
3(3)
4(2)
1(1)
1(3)
.1(1)
8(15)
2(2)
.3(3)
7(21)
3(1)
5(3)
8(13)
3(2)
3(1)
7(2)
1(3)
7(7)
Brachycentridae
Bvaehy c e n t v u s
sp.
Coleoptera
Elmidae
S t e n elmis o vegonensis
Dubivgphia minima
Mievoeylleopus pusillus
(LeConte)
2(2).
KD
8(21) • 6(12)
4(2)
3(1)
Table 13 (continued)
Sampling Stations
I
3
2
4
5
6
1(1)
1(3)
4(3)
1(2)
- -
— -
7
Diptera
Tipulidae
O r mosia spp.
D i o r a n o t a spp.
_ _
—
Psychodidae
P s y c h o d a $p.
Simuliidae
S i m u l i u m spp.
Chironomidae
Heleidae
P a l p o m y i a spp.
Tabanidae
Chrysops spp.
Empididae
sp. B
- “
3(3)
—
, %
KU
—
1(7)
8(61)
1(3)
8(42)
4(2)
8(132)
1(1)
8(48)
1(11)
7(134)
5(3)
4(2)
5(19)
4(40)
6(4)
3(31)
2(4)
1(1)
--
2(2)
1(1)
8(6)
7(4)
-
-
1(1)
—
8(26)
H y a l e l l a a zteea
Basommatophora
Physidae
P h y s a spp.
—
—
7(9)
—
8(18)
—
8(16)
KU
(Saussure)
—
' 10)
—
I\ U
Hirudinea
Glossiphoniidae
MalacostracaAmphipoda
Talitridae
-
3(2)
8(24)
~~
Ol igochaeta
-
2(4)
8(48)
—
Turbellaria
—
— —
—
—
2(2)
2(2)
—
7(40)
—
—
—
-
-
Table 13 (continued)
Sampling Stations
4
5
I
2
Sphaevium sp.
Pisidiim sp.
2(2)
1(2)
—
3(2)
3(2)
Eulamellibranchia
Unionidae
KD
—
—
3
6
7
Heterodonta
Sphaeriidae
adash indicates absence from samples
^in parentheses
2(1)
2(2)
----
1(1)
—
----
—
KD
—
Table 14.
Number of occurrences3 and average number per occurrence^ for aquatic
macroinvertebrates collected in modified Hess samples, Rosebud Creek,
Montana, March 1976 to March 1977.
1
Sampling Stations
3
5
6
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeridae
Ephoron album
(Say)
2(2)
Heptageniidae
(Eaton)
Eeptagenla eleganula
1(4)
1(1)
2(42)
9(8)
3(8)
2(5)
2(1)
KD
—
—
7
—
3(1)
3(3)
2(11)
12(39)
4(13)
12(35)
Baetidae
Baetie sp. A
Baetis sp. B
Pseudocloeon
sp.
Leptophlebiidae
Choroterpes albiannulata McDunn.
Leptophlebiagravastella (Eaton)
Traverellaalbertana (McDunnough)
11(42)
1(2)
1(1)
2(2)
5(270)
KD
§
11(25)
KD
12(45)
2(4)
__
Caenidae
Caenis sp.
Tricorythidae
— —
Triaorythodes minutus
Traver
7(6)
3(9)
2(1)
KD
Odonata
Gomphidae
Ophiogomphus
sp. (near
severus)
—
4(3)
Coenagrionidae
Enallagma sp.
(Fabricius)
11(28)
1(3)
10(21)
5(2)
—
7(1) .
— —
— —
KD
— —
— —
— —
— —
1(2)
Zygoptera
Calopterygidae
Hetaerina ameriaana
—
Table 14 (continued)
Sampling Stations
5
6
I
3
1(2)
2(1)
Plecoptera
Nemouridae
Nemouva sp.
Bvaohypteva
Capnia sp.
sp. (prob.
fosketti)
—
3(3)
HD
HD
8(4)
Perlodidae
Isopevla patvioia
Prison
- -
—
—
5(1)
— —
— —
—
HD
2(1)
2(2)
Hemiptera
Corixidae
Palmaoovixa gilleti
Abbott
Naucoridae
Ambvysus movmon
Montandon
2(4)
3(3)
Megaloptera
Sialidae
Sialis sp.
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
Hydvopsyohe bvonta Ross
Hydvopsyche sp. A
Hydvopsyohe sp. B
Hydvopsyohe sp. C
Cheumatopsyohe spp.
Hydroptilidae
Hydvoptila sp. A
Hydvoptila sp. B
Mayatviohia sp.
7
1(3)
12(71)
3(10)
11(105)
2(6)
12(84)
4(3)
2(2)
3(8)
4(4)
2(1)
7(4)
12(36)
— —
— —
— —
6(25)
6(4)
3(2)
2(8)
— —
2(1)
—
6(5)
10(3)
3(2)
12(162)
10(34)
12(149)
12(231)
HD
9(24)
3(1)
1(15)
11(32)
HU)
1(1)
1(1)
Table 14 (continued)
I
Trichoptera (continued)
Limnephilidae
LvmnephiVus sp.
Onocosmoeous sp.
Leptoceridae
OeeetLs avara (Banks)
Neetopsyehe sp. (LeptoeelZa)
Brachycentridae
Braehyeentrus sp.
3
Sampling Stations
5
6
__
—
—
--
5(2)
2(1)
—
KD
7
KD ■
—
1(2)
2(4)
—
4(6)
1(1)
1(2)
——
4(30)
—
4(7)
3(8)
7(4)
5(4)
—
—
—
—
Lepidoptera
Pyralidae
Cataelysta
sp.
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
EelLehus strLatus
LeConte
KD
1(2)
Elmidae
StenelmLs oregonensLs
DubLraphLa mLnLma
MLcrooylloepus pusLllus (LeConte)
OptLoservus dLvergens (LeConte)
8(15)
5(5)
8(3)
11(64)
2(3)
3(5)
--- _
—
—
9(9)
3(4)
4(13)
12(33)
10(4)
8(2)
10(4)
12(8)
12(14)
8(31)
—
4(3)
——
——
1(2)
KD
——
——
——
4(4)
—-
7(7)
--
7(6)
11(4)
—
2(2)
Diptera
Tipulidae
TLpula (YamatotLpula) spp.
EolorusLa sp.
OrmosLa spp.
DLeranota sop.
LLrmophLla (EloeophLla) sp.
Ku
5(4)
—
4(4)
■
——
.
3(3)
Table 14 (continued)
I
Diptera (continued)
Culicidae
Chaoborus sp.
Simuliidae
SimuZium spp.
Chironomidae
Heleidae
Fdlpomyia spp.
Tabanidae
Chrysops spp.
Tdbanus sp.
Empididae
sp. A
sp. B
3
Sampling Stations
5
6
7
1(1)
12(51)
12(150)
4(225)
5(66)
11(63)
12(44)
12(132)
12(253)
8(6)
12(108)
7(2)
8(13)
6(4)
4(2)
KD
KD
—
—
—
—
KD
3(1)
3(2)
—
—
2(4)
1(4)
5(9)
2(2)
7(2)
3(2)
——
2(4)
.3(4)
6(6)
—
Nematomorpha
KD
—
—
—“
--
Oligochaeta
11(35)
4(6)
10(13)
12(26)
1(1)
2(1)
2(2)
2(1)
Turbellaria
9(16)
5(1)
Amphipoda
Talitridae
HyaZeZZa azteoa'
Acari
Basommatophora
Physidae
Physa spp.
(Saussure)
' 1(1)
--
-- '
2(1)
Table 14 (continued)
I
3
Sampling Stations
5
6
Basommatophora (continued)
Ancylidae
Fevrissia sp.
„
7
1(2)
Heterodonta
Sphaeriidae
Sphaevium sp.
Pisidivm sp.
adash indicates absence from samples
^in parentheses
3(2)
1(10) -
K D
4(3)
1(5)
61
AVERAGE NUMBER OF MACROINVERTEBRATES PER SAMPLE
Figure 9.
Average number of selected taxa per introduced
substrate sample. Rosebud Creek, Montana, May
1976 to March 1977.
-- S le n e lm ls o re gon ensis
--- O u b ira p h la m in im a
--- M lcro c y llo e p u s pusIllu s
--- HeUchus s tr/o tu e
---O a e tis sp B
-- B o e tis sp. A
-- T rlc o ry th o d e s m /nutus
-- H e p ta g e n la e le g o n tv la
--- H yd rcpsych e sp. B
--- C h o ro te rp e s ep.
--- B rochyce ntrus sp
- — H y d ro p e y c h e b r o n ta
S A M P L IN G
S T A T IO N S
62
AVERAGE NUMBER OF MACROINVERTEBRATES PER SAMPLE
Figure 9.
continued:
--- Is o p tr la p o t r id a
-- O e c o lla o v o ro
--- Hydropaycho sp. A
--- H y d ro p tH o ap A
--- P a oudoclooon sp.
-- L e p to p h le b io g ro v o s to llo
--- Ambryoua m orm on
-- Hoctopaycho app.
--- C houm otopsycho
-- Sfmullum spp
app . ggg
S A M P L IN G
S T A T IO N S
63
sp.,
Ambrysus mormon^ Simulium
spp. , and
Sphaerium
,
appeared to be
most abundant in the mid-Rosebud and did not increase in. numbers pro­
gressively upstream.
Pseudocloeon
Hydropsyche
sp. A,
Cheumatopsyche
spp., arid
sp., common in Rosebud Creek, were most abundant at
station 5.
, Restricted distribution patterns were evident in less common
taxa (Table 11).
Optiaservus divergens
and absent from stations I through 4.
rarely and only at stations 3 and 5.
was common only at station 7
Ephoron album
Caenis
was collected
spp. was common at station
7, rare at station I, and absent from intervening stations.
albertana
Traverella
was collected only once at station I although it was found to
be abundant in the Yellowstone River in this vicinity (Newell 1976).
Sialis
sp. was collected in silted substratum at stations 6 and 7 but
absent from stations I through 5.
Holorusia
and 7.
sp., and
Periaoma
Limnophila
Certain Tipulidae; e.g.,
Tipula
spp.,
sp., were collected only at stations 5,6,
spp. was collected only at station 7; however, this
genus is abundant further upstream in Rosebud Creek.
rare; however, nymphs of a winter stonefly,
Plecoptera were
Braahyptera
spp., were
present at stations I through 6 possibly corresponding to adult
Braahyptera fosketti
collected in March, 1976. . Isoperla
patricia
was present in greatest numbers at station 7 and was absent from
stations I, 2, and 4.
Certain taxa were collected only from the unique
\
64
habitat present at station I; e .g .,
Cataotysta
sp., and
Sympetvum
Isonyohtd S-Looa3 Hydvopsyche
sp. C,
sp.
A temporal pattern of emergence appeared to be present for cer­
tain taxa.
minima
Population cycles for
Hydvopsyohe
sp. B and
Duhivaphia
reached numerical peaks during different months depending on
the station (altitude) (Figures 10 and 11).
Chovotevpes albiannulata
In contrast, numbers of
appeared to peak bimodally and simultaneously
at all stations (Figure 12).
Diversity and Redundancy
A total of 92 taxa were collected in Rosebud Creek.
Stations I,
5, 6, and 7 had similar numbers of species although the composition
varied.
Fewer taxa were found at stations 2, 3, and 4 (Figure 13).
Average species diversity and redundancy per sample is presented in
Table 15.
Introduced Substrate Samples
The average number of taxa per sampler (Table 5) is highest at
stations 5, 6, and 7 in concordance with trends for average numbers .
and biomass.
Ekman Dredge Samples
The average number of taxa in pools was highest at stations 4
and 5 and lowest at stations 6 and 7, a condition contradictory to
65
Figure 10.
Seasonal variations in mean total numbers of
sp. B per introduced substrate
sample at stations I, 5, and 7, Rosebud Creek,
Montana, May 1976 to November 1976.
Hydropsyche
AVERAGE NUMBER
PER SAMPLER
STATION I
STATION 5
STATION 7
MONTH
66
Figure 11.
Seasonal variations in mean total numbers of
per introduced substrate
sample at stations I, 5, and 7, Rosebud Creek,
Montana, May 1976 to November 1976.
Dubiraphia minima
67
AVERAGE NUMBER PER SAMPLER
STATION I
STATION 5
STATION 7
MONTH
67
Figure 12.
Seasonal variations in mean total numbers of
per introduced substrate
sample at stations I, 5, and 6, Rosebud Creek,
Montana, May 1976 to November 1976.
Choroterpes aibiannuiata
--------- STATION I
--------- STATION 5
---------STATION 6
CE
200
MONTH
Figure 13.
Total number of taxa per station and number of taxa collected by each of three
sampling methods from Rosebud Creek, Montana, March 1976 to March 1977.
TO TAL
OTAL NUMBER OF
IN T R O D U C E D
SUBSTRATE
M O D IF IE D
HESS
SAMPLING STATIONS
69
Table 15.
Station
I
2
Mean macroinvertebrate diversity and redundancy per sample,
Rosebud Creek, Montana, March 1976 to March 1977.
Shannon's
Index
Margalef
Index
Simpson
Index
Redundancy
"Si 5
6
^^7
2.20
2.30
2.42
2.40
2.61
2.55
2.95 .
2.37
2.70
2.72
2.95
3.40
3.22
0.21
0.36
0.32
0.31
0.33
0.30
0.25
0.47
0.46
■ 0.49
0.46
0.46
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.66
1 .81
1.73
2.11
1.92
1.30
1.11
1.28
1 .64
1.11
1 .85
2.05
1.25
0.87
0.42
0.38
0.37
0.31
0.41
0.53
0.58
0.47
0.55
0.36
0.42
0.49
0.66
0.58
I
3
5
6
7
2.48
1.90
1.99
2.82
2.43
2.36
2.26
1.91
2.79
2.84
0.28
0.38
0.39
0.21
0.26
0.41
0.57
0.48
0.35
0.44
TJ (S) O
CU CU °
CU
C7>
TJ
CU
s_
TJ
C
CO
UJ
2 .89
0.36 ■
0 .48
in
<S)
CU
ZC
"O
CU
£
TJ
s:
70
results from introduced substrate and modified Hess samples.
Station
3 was also low for average number of taxa per sample.
Modified Hess Samples
Average number of taxa per sample was highest at stations I , 6,
and 7 (Table 5).
Lowest numbers of taxa were found at station
station 3 was also low in comparison to stations 6 and 7.
Si
DISCUSSION
Basic information concerning the composition of the macroinver­
tebrate community of Rosebud Creek in terms of distribution, diversity,
and abundance was gathered during this study.
Longitudinal variations
in the benthic macroinvertebrate fauna are, at this time, attributable
to influences from the intrinsic physical-chemical nature of Rosebud
Creek and to impacts from domestic and agricultural practices.
Vari­
ations' in.the benthis community among sampling stations are not due to
effluents from coal mining or combustion.
Water Chemistry
Concentrations of selected metals in Rosebud Creek (Table 4)
are generally below criterion levels recommended by the U.S. Environ­
mental Protection Agency (1976).
Average copper and zinc concentra­
tions are highest at stations 3 and 4 but probably do not present a
threat to the benthic fauna.
Present levels are far less than the
TLgQ values (14 day) presented by Nehring (1976) for
californica
copper on
or
Ephemerella grandis
Ephemerella suhvaria
Pteronarays
or the 48-hr TL^ determined for
(Warnick and Bell 1969).
Average total mercury was generally low but sporadic influxes ,
occurred which exceeded the criterion concentration of 0.05 pg/l total
mercury recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (1976).
Aquatic insects vary widely in their sensitivities to mercury but
present concentrations in Rosebud Creek (Table 4) are less than the
72
2.0 mg/1 and 33.5 mg/I toxic concentrations (96-hr TLm ) of mercury
(HgClg) for
Ephemerella suhvaria
Warnick and Bel I (1969).
and
Aeroneuria lyeorias
given by
Although 96 hour tests are not representative
of stream conditions, present mercury concentrations will probably haveno apparent influence on the macroinvertebrate fauna at this time.
Physical Conditions
Physical conditions of Rosebud Creek are typical of eastern
Montana transition prairie streams; i .e ., originating in the mountains
then flowing onto the plains.
Notable conditions include extreme
turbidity, high suspended load, and warm water temperatures all of
which increase progressively downstream.
These factors, and indirect
effects from low stream gradient, influence the abundance and distri­
bution of the benthic macroinvertebrate fauna.
Turbidity
Rosebud Creek is extremely turbid even during low flows, partic­
ularly at stations I and 2 (Table 13).
Turbidity results, in a tra­
ditional sense, from suspended particles or dissolved inorganic or
organic substances.
Measured by the nephelometric method turbidity is
a gross reference to non-filterable colloidal or dissolved substances;
however, high turbidity,,by any sense, causes a decrease in euphotic
zone depth due to light extinction and a consequential reduction in
primary production (Bartsch 1959).
Production from photosynthesis is
73
exceeded by respiration in most temperate streams; hence, alTochthanous
material is an important source of energy (Boling et al. 1975).
The
turbid state of Rosebud Creek may result in allochthanous detritus
becoming more significant as an energy source.
It is conceivable that
the benthic community may be composed of organisms utilizing primarily
detrital food sources.
Many benthic insects are opportunists using
existing food supplies (Cummins et al. 1966).
For example, Hydro-
psychidae and Simuliidae, both common in Rosebud Creek, are omnivorous
collectors filtering fine particles from the water column (Ross 1944).
Leptophlebiidae, the dominant mayfly family encountered, are also
omnivores and detritivores (Berner 1959) and the larvae and adults of
Elmidae ingest decaying wood and encrusting algae (Brown 1972).
Temperature
Extreme summer water temperatures occur in Rosebud Creek and
influence the distribution of aquatic macroinvertebrates.
Dodds and
Hisaw (1925b) concluded temperature to be the main climatic cause for .
altitudinal zonation of aquatic organisms.
Altitudinal distribution of
Plecoptera is due to the maximum water temperature the nymphs can tol­
erate (Knight and Gaufin 1966).
Of four taxa of Plecoptera collected
from Rosebud Creek, two were collected only at station 7 and
patrioia
Isoperla .
was common only at stations 6 and 7. This distribution is
probably due to cooler summer water temperatures near the headwaters.
.CL
74
Braohyptera
sp., collected at stations I through 6, undergoes rapid
development during fall and winter and emerges during late winter or
early spring.
Naiads of
Braahyptera
undergo summer diapause to escape
warm water temperatures at that time (Harper and Hynes 1970).
In
addition, water temperature is a factor in timing the emergence of
aquatic insects (Nebeker 1971) and may cause the apparent temporal
patterns of emergence in
Hydropsyohe
sp. B and
Dubiraphia minima
(Figures 10 and 11).
Substrate, Current Velocity, and Gradient
A complex interaction among stream gradient, discharge, sus­
pended load, and current velocity exists which influences the quality
of the benthic habitat.
The longitudinal profile or gradient of most
streams is typically concave, decreasing downstream (Mackin 1948) and
is usually accompanied by a downstream reduction in substrate size
(Leopold and Maddock 1953).
Headwaters typically have boulder or
gravel substrates and steep slopes; downstream the size of bed material
is smaller and sand may be common.
predominate.
Near the mouth silt or clay may
This generalized description of stream substrate applies
well to conditions found in Rosebud Creek.
Near the headwaters gravel
and cobble substrates are common; sand and gravel bed material is more
abundant downstream as the slope decreases.
At station 2, long, deep
reaches with flocculent clay or silt bottoms are prevalent.
At
75
station I the slope increases as Rosebud Creek approaches the Yellow­
stone River and there is a corresponding increase in pool-riffle peri­
odicity with rubble and boulder substratum in the riffles.
Riffles
are uncommon at stations 2, 3, and 4 due to the low stream gradient.
Two consequences of reduced gradient include diminished overall
current velocity (Reid 1961) and lowered carrying capacity which
>
results in deposition of part of the suspended load (Morisawa 1968).;
The ultimate factor influencing sediment transport relates to the
supplied load; i.e ., input from erosion.
;
If supplied load exceeds >
' I
competence or capacity then deposition or change in stream morphology
will occur.
In Rosebud Creek the increasing sediment load downstream .
coupled with low gradient (stations 2 through 5) results in deposition
of sediments on the substratum.
Substrate conditions, i .e ., size and degree of sedimentation,
have been termed the most important single factor influencing macro­
invertebrate habitat quality (Pennak 1971).
Large substrates such as
rubble and cobble support larger invertebrate populations than sand and
gravel (Pennak and Van Gerpen 1947).
Riffles composed of stable
' substrates are the most productive type of bottom in streams (Patrick
1949).
Consequently, a longitudinal decrease in substrate size and
frequency of riffles as occurs in Rosebud Creek will result in lower
macroinvertebrate production and standing crop downstream.
76
Deposition of inorganic sediment can turn otherwise suitable
substrate into poor macroinvertebrate habitat (Cordone and Kelley
1961).
Stable substrates are covered and, more important, interstitial
spaces in the substrate where much of the secondary production occurs
are filled.
Many aquatic organisms seek refuge from swift current and
the abrasive effect of bed load by inhabiting spaces between or
under rocks.
Further, much of the secondary production in streams
occurs deep within the substratum.
Coleman and Hynes (1970) found, in
Canada, that 83 percent of the benthic community lived below 5 cm in
the substrate.
Poole and Stewart (1976) reported that 33.6 percent of
the total number of organisms were deeper than 10 cm in the bed of a
Texas river.
It is evident that occlusion of interstitial spaces with
inorganic sediment will eliminate habitat and decrease diversity a n d .
secondary production.
Conversely, deposition of organic sediments at slow current
velocities may increase benthic production (Ruttner 1952).
Also, at
slow current speeds gravel and sand substrates become more stable and
create an enriched environment suitable for many invertebrates.
In
Rosebud Creek, the predominant long reaches with slow current veloci­
ties ranging from approximately 0. to 0.6 m/sec support productive
bottom faunas, e.g., Oligochaeta and Chironomidae, dependent on
allochthanous detritus.
77
Sedimentation and a decrease in overall substrate size probably
results in lower benthic diversity and population numbers at stations
2, 3, and 4 due to occlusion of interstitial spaces and decrease in
habitat variety.
Lower diversities, in comparison to other sampling
sites, were found at stations 2, 3, and 4 with introduced substrate
samplers, at stations 3 and 5 with modified WaterlSr round samplers, and
at station 3 using an Ekman dredge.
Introduced substrates showed low
numbers at stations 2, 3, and 4 which, although variables of substrate
and current are accounted for, may be due to low populations of benthic
macroinvertebrates in these sections of Rosebud Creek.
Substrate conditions at the point of sampling influence results
from modified Hess and Ekman dredge samplers.
fles in Rosebud
location.
The infrequence of rif­
Creek at many stations precludes a choice of sampling
For example, the existing riffle at station 5 consists of
unstable gravel which may be the cause for low standing crop, numbers,
and diversity from modified Hess samples taken at this station.
Con­
versely, introduced substrates showed station 5 to have a high popu­
lation and diversity relative to other sampling sites.
Low numbers, standing crop, and diversity encountered in Ekman
dredge samples can likewise be attributed to the influence of sand
substratum common in pools at station 6.
Sand supports notoriously
small populations of benthic invertebrates due to its unstable, grind­
ing, nature and lack of available food.
78
Current Velocity
Many stream dwelling aquatic organisms are morphologically or
behavioralIy adapted to. select habitats on the basis of current
velocity.
In streams, rapid flowing portions are usually more produc­
tive in terms of benthic invertebrates than lentic stretches with the
same substrate.
Long, slow stretches in Rosebud Creek may reduce
numbers or eliminate various species.
For example, Hydropsychidae,
encountered in lower numbers at stations 2, 3, and 4, are generally
found in rapid portions of streams and depend on current for proper
functioning of their nets (Ross 1944).
Elmidae, known to inhabit
rapidly flowing portions of streams (Brown 1972), were found in lower
numbers at stations 2, 3, and 4.
mormon,
Chor o t e r p e s a l b i a n n u t a t a
and
Amb r y s u s
both abundant at stations 2, 3, and 4, are tolerant of slow ■
flowing situations (Edmunds et al. 1976, Roemhild 1976).
Current
velocity may influence the distribution of these and other taxa
(Figures 9 and 10) but probably has a more profound effect by influ­
encing substration composition.
The tendency for various taxa to be low in abundance at stations
2, 3, and 4 is influenced by any one or a combination of the physical
conditions imposed by extreme turbidity, sediment deposition, substrate
size, slow current velocity, and high temperature in Rosebud Creek.
Certain of these conditions culminate at station 2 (low gradient,
silted substratum, and slow current velocity) and impose unfavorable
79
conditions for many macroinvertebrates. Conversely, Upstream sections,
because of increased gradient, and decreased turbity and temperature,
support more productive macroinvertebrate populations.
Macroinvertebrate Abundance and Composition
The benthic fauna of Rosebud Creek is similar in composition to
that found in Sarpy Creek, approximately 40 km west (Clancy 1977).
The Yellowstone River, in this area, and the Powder River support
faunas similar to Rosebud Creek and also decrease in diversity down­
stream (Newell 1976, Rehwinkel et al. 1976).
Despite an extreme environment. Rosebud Creek supports a sur­
prisingly abundant and diverse fauna that is adapted to the prevailing
conditions.
In terms of numbers of benthic invertebrates, it could be
described as a rich stream.
Very little quantitative data exists on
comparable streams in eastern Montana; however, population estimates of
4993 and 6007 invertebrates per m
2
from pools and riffles, respec­
tively, in Rosebud Creek are greater than the average 2809 inverteO
brates per m
for the middle Yellowstone River (Thurston et a l . 1975).
In comparison with a typical western Montana mountain trout stream of
similar size, Roemhild (1971) collected data showing the West Fork of
the Gallatin River and its tributaries to average 1877 invertebrates
per m 2 .
80
Among important conditions conducive to high population numbers
of benthic macroinvertebrates in Rosebud Creek is the intact riparian
vegetation which keeps the stream within its banks preventing extreme
erosion, scouring, siltation.
In addition, this vegetation provides
an important energy source, a prime factor determining microdistribu­
tion of aquatic organisms (Egglishaw 1964), and significant in Rosebud
Creek where turbidity limits primary production.
Many of the commonly encountered macroinvertebrates of Rosebud
Creek are adapted to live in turbid, s i l t laden, or slow flowing habi­
ta ts.
Chewnatopsyche spp. is reported to be tolerant of a wide range of
ecological conditions; Cheimatopsyehe la sia is commonly found in heavily
silted streams.
Trieovythodes minutus, Caenis s p ., Choroterpes a lb i-
annulata, Leptophlebia g ra va stella and Isonychia sieea occur in silted
or slow flowing streams (Edmunds et a l . 1976).
M icroeylloepuspusillus
is tolerant of siltation and turbidity (Brown 1972). Is o p e r la p a trie ia
inhabits prairie streams that originate in the mountains (Ricker 1946).
Dubiraphia minima, collected abundantly from pools and r i f f l e s , can be
classified as tolerant of siltation and slow current velocity.
Taxa
that are numerically most abundant in the mid-Rosebud are, interest­
ingly, those thay may have wide tolerances to ecological conditions,
e . g . , Simulium spp., Choroterpes albiannulata, Sphaerium spp., and
Ambrysus mormon.
As a generalization, aquatic invertebrates present in
81
large numbers in Rosebud Creek could be classed as tolerant of turbid,
sil ty conditions.
Sampling Considerations
To describe accurately the aquatic fauna, i t is necessary to
sample as many habitat types as possible.
Benthic organisms select
habitat on the basis of various physical and chemical conditions, i .e .,
substrate, current velocity, depth, dissolved oxygen, temperature, etc.
Three habitat types including r i f f l e s ; pools, and long, gravel bottomed
runs were sampled semi-quantitatively during this study.
Analysis of
results indicated that species composition varied with habitat and
sampling device.
Modified Hess and Ekman dredge samplers collected 62
and 46 percent of the total taxa found, respectively.
Introduced sub­
strates were most efficient in collection of numbers and taxa; 89 per­
cent of the total taxa collected including 22 not collected by other
methods was found in introduced substrate samples.
Certain organisms,
e . g . , Ephoron album and Cataolysta sp„, were collected in modified Hess
samples but absent from other methods.
Chironomidae and Oligochaeta
composed the majority of the pool fauna; Trichoptera, Diptera, and
Ephemeroptera predominated in r if f le s and in introduced substrate
samples.
The long, hard bottomed runs that are the most common habitat
in Rosebud Creek were efficiently sampled by introduced substrates.
82
Variables of sample size, substrate, and current velocity were con­
trolled to some degree making quantitative comparisons between stations
more valid than with conventional grab type samplers.
In addition, the
proficiency for collecting the endemic taxa was remarkable.
However,
because introduced substrates offer an ideal habitat for selective
colonization by certain macroinvertebrates, they did not represent the
existing standing crop, population numbers, or distribution of indi­
viduals among the species.
For example, they may be attractive for
colonization by various organisms that prefer clean substrates exposed'
to the current; e . g . , ' Simuliidae, Hydropsychidae and Baetidae.
Yet,
because the samplers rest on the substrate, a degree of sedimentation
occurs and invertebrates including Chironomidae, Oligochaeta, Odonata,
and Sphaeriidae that dwell in fine substrates also colonize the
samplers.
For these reasons the number of taxa collected and their
distributions among sampling stations were representative of the faunal
composition and conditions at the sampling sites.
To assess population
numbers and standing crop, i t would be necessary to sample and analyze
cores of existing substrate at each station.
Year round sampling is necessary to describe macroinvertebrate
distribution and abundance.
Benthic organisms vary in population num­
bers from week to week depending on details of lif e histories (Pehnak
and Van Gerpeq 1947).
In Rosebud Creek, for example, Braohyptera spp.
83
is present in winter and spring but not summer samples.
Various taxa,
i . e . , S-imuli-um spp, and Choroterpes albiannulata exhibit tremendous
peaks in population numbers and form a substantial portion of the
standing crop at that time.
Their numbers may be an insignificant por­
tion of,the total aquatic population at other phases of the l i f e cycle
(egg and adult).
Life histories also influence accuracy of macroinver­
tebrate identification.
Early instars are often d if fic u lt to identify
and collection of later stages is needed for accurate identification in
many cases.
CONCLUSIONS
1.
Longitudinal variations’j'in abundance, distribution, and
r
composition of the benthic invertebrate fauna in Rosebud Creek are
attributed to the intrinsic physical-chemical characteristics of the
stream; i .e ., temperature, turbidity, substrate, and current velocity,
and not to influences from coal mining and combustion.
2.
Common macroinvertebrates of Rosebud Creek are adapted to
the conditions of a transition prairie stream; i.e., high turbidity,
slow current velocity, warm summer water temperature, and silted sub­
stratum; however, these conditions caused decreased numbers and
diversity at downstream stations (2-4).
3.
High turbidity probably interferes with primary production
in Rosebud Creek making allochthanous detritus important as a food
source for the benthic community.
4.. Intact riparian vegetation, particularly grasses, stabilizes
the banks of Rosebud Creek and prevents serious erosion, sedimentation,
and the consequential unproductive, shifting substrate common in many
prairie streams.
5.
Rosebud Creek supports high numbers of benthic invertebrates
in comparison with some other Montana streams.
6.
Introduced substrate samplers were efficient in sampling the
long, slow runs common in Rosebud Creek.
LITERATURE CITED
LITERATURE CITED
Aagaard, F. C. 1969. Temperature of surface waters in Montana. .. U.S.
Dept, of the Interior Geological Survey and !Montana Fish and Game
Commission. 613 pp.
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association,
and Water Pollution Control Federation. 1976. Standard methods
for the examination of water and wastewater. American Public
Health Association, Washington, D.C. 1193 pp.
Anderson, J. B. and W. T. Mason, Jr. 1968. A comparison of benthic
macroinvertebrates collected by dredge and basket sampler.
J. Wat. Poll. Contr. Fed. 40:252-259.
■ .
Barber, W . E . and N. R. Kevern. 1973. Ecological factors influencing
macroinvertebrate standing crop distribution. HydrobioTogia
43:53-75.
Bartsch, A. F. 1948. Biological aspects of stream pollution.
Sew. Works Journal 20:292-302.
Bartsch, A. F. 1959. Settleable solids, turbidity, and light pene­
tration as factors affecting water quality.' Pages 118-127
.
Tarzwell,.C. M. Biological problems in ’water pollution. Robert A
Taft Sanitary Engineering Center Technical Report W60-3, U.S. Dept
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.
Berner, L. 1959. A tabular summary of the biology of.North American
mayfly nymphs (Ephemeroptera). Bull. Fla. State M u s . 4:1-58.
Boling, R. H., Jr., E. D. Goodman, J. A. Van Sickle, J . 0. Zimmer,
K. W. Cummins, R. C. Petersen, and S. R. Reice. 1975. Toward a
model of detritus processing in a woodland stream. Ecology
56:141-151.
Brown, H. P. 1972. Aquatic Dryopoid beetles (Coleoptera) of the
United States. Biota of freshwater ecosystems identification
manual No. 6, Water pollution control research series 18050 ELD,
Environmental Protection Agency. 81 pp.
Cairns, J., Jr. and K. L. Dickson. 1971. A simple method.for the
biological assessment of the effects of waste discharge on aquatic
bottom-dwelling organisms. J . Wat. Poll. Contr. Fed. 43:755-772.
87
Carlander, K. D., R. S. Campbell, and W. H. Irwin. 1963. Mid­
continent states. Pages 317-348 in_ Frey, D.; G. (ed.). Limnology
in North America. University of Wisconsin Plress, Madison.
Clancy, C. 1977. The aquatic invertebrates and fish fauna of Sarpy
Creek, Montana. Unpublished M. S. Thesis. jMontana State Univer­
sity, Bozeman (in press).
■
Coleman, M. 0. and H. B. N. Hynes. 1970; The vertical distribution of
the invertebrate fauna in the bed of a stream. Limnol. Oceanog.
.15:31-40.
Cordone, A.. J. and D. W. Kelley. 1961. - The influences of inorganic
sediment on the aquatic life of streams. California Fish and Game
47:189-228.
Crossman, J . S. and J. Cairns, Jr. 1974. A comparative study between
two different artificial substrate samplers and regular sampling
techniques. Hydrobiologia 44:517-522.
Cummins, K. W. 1962. An evaluation of some techniques for the collec­
tion and analysis of benthic samples with a special emphasis on
lotic waters. A m e r . Midi. Nat. 67:477-504.
Cummins, K. W., W. P. Coffman, and P. A. Roff. 1966. ' Trophic rela­
tionships in a small woodland stream. Verb. int. Verein. Limnol.
16:627-638.
Cummins, K. W. and G. H. Lauff. 1969. The influence of substrate
particle size on the microdistribution of stream macrobenthos.
Hydrobiologia 34:145-177.
Dickson, K. L . , J. Cairns, Jr., and J. C. Arnold. 1971. An evaluation
of the use of basket-type artificial substrate for sampling macro­
invertebrate organisms. Trans. A m e r . Fish. S o c . 100:553-559.
Dodds, G- S . and F. L. Hi saw. 1925a. Ecological studies on aquatic
insects. III. Adaptations of caddisfly larvae to swift streams.
Ecology 6:123-137.
Dodds, G. S. and F. L. Hi saw. 1925b. Ecological studies on aquatic ..
insects. IV. Altitudinal range and zonation of mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies in the Colorado Rockies.■ Ecology
6:380-390.
88
Eddy, S. 1963. Minnesota and the Dakotas. Pages 301-315 jm Frey,
D. G. (ed.). Limnology in North America. University of Wisconsin
Press, Madison.
Edington, J. M. 1968. Habitat preferences in net-spinning caddis
larvae with special reference to the influence of running water.
J . Anim. Ecol. 37:675-692.
Edmunds, G. F., Jr., S. L. Jensen, and L. Berner. 1976. The mayflies
of North and Central America. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis. 330 pp.
Egglishaw, H. J. 1964. The distribution relationships between the
bottom fauna and plant detritus in streams. J. Animv Ecol.
33:463-476.
Elton, C. S. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants.
Methuen, London. 181 pp.
Gaufin, A. R. and C. M. TarzwelI. 1952. Aquatic invertebrates as
indicators of stream pollution. Pub. Health Rep. 67:57-64.
Gaufin, A. R., W. E. Ricker, M. Miner, P. Milam, and R. A. Hays. 1972
The stoneflies (Plecoptera) of Montana. Trans. A m e r . Ent. Soc.
98:1-161.
Goodman, D. 1975. The theory of diversity-stability relationships in
ecology. Quart. Rev. Biol. 50:237-266.
Gore, J. A. 1975. Fall-winter composition of the benthic macroinver­
tebrates of the Tongue River, Montana. Pages 212-225 i_n Proceed­
ings of the Fort Union Coal Field Symposium! V o l . 2 (sponsored by
Mont. Acad. Sci.).
Hamilton, M. A. 1975. Indexes of diversity and redundancy.
Poll. Contr. Fed. 47:630-632.
J. Water
Harper, P. P. and H. B. N. Hynes. 1970. Diapause in the nymphs of
Canadian winter stoneflies. Ecology 51:925-927.
Hester, F. E. and J. S. Dendy, 1962. A multiple-plate sampler for
aquatic macroinvertebrates. Trans. Ame r . Fish. S o c . 91:420-421.
Hocutt, C. H. 1975. Assessment of a stressed macroinvertebrate
community. Water Resources Bull. 11:820-835.
89
Hurlbert, S. H. 1971. The nonconcept o f 'species diversity: A
critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52:577-586.
Jensen, S. L. 1966. The mayflies of Idaho (Ephemeroptera).
M. S. Thesis, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 365 pp.
Jewel I , M. E. 1927.
8:289-298.
Aquatic biology of the prairie.
Ecology
Johannsen, 0. A. 1934. Aquatic Diptera. Part I . Nemocera, exclusive
of Chironomidae and Ceratopogonidae. M e m . Cornell U niv. Agric.
Exp. S t a , 164:1-71,
Johannsen, 0. A. 1935. Aquatic Diptera. Part II. OrthorrhaphaBrachycera and Cyclorrhapha. Mem. Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. S t a .
177:1-62.
Knight, A. W. and A. R. Gaufin. 1966. Altitudinal distribution of
stoneflies (Plecoptera) in a rocky mountain drainage system.
J . Kans. Entomol: S o c . 39:668-675.
Leopold, L. B. and T. Maddock, Jr. 1953. The hydroIic geometry of
stream channels and some physiographic implications. Geol. •
Survey Professional Paper 252:1-56.
Lloyd, M. and R. J. Ghelardi. 1964. A table for calculating the
equitability component of species diversity. J . Anim. Ecol.
33:217-225.
Macan, T. T.
1960. The effect of temperature on Rhitkrogena
(Ephemeroptera), Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 45:197-201.
semicolorata
Macan, T. T.
animals.
1961. Factors that limit the range of freshwater
Biol. Rev. 36:151-198.
MacArthur, R. H. 1955. Fluctuations of animal populations and a
measure of community stability. Ecology 36:533-536.
Mackin, J. H. 1948. Concept of the graded river.
A m e r . 59:463-512.
Margalef, R.
3:37-71.
1957.
Information theory in ecology.
Bull. Geol. S o c .
Gen. Syst.
90
Mason, W. T., Or., 0. B. Anderson, and G. E. Morrison. 1967.
A limestone-filled artificial substrate sampler-float unit for
collecting macroinvertebrates in large streams. Prog. Fish. Cult.
29:74.
Mason, W. I., J r . , C. I. Weber, P. A. Lewis, and E. C. Julian. 1973.
Factors affecting the performance of basket and multiplate macro­
invertebrate samplers. Freshw. Biol. 3:409-436.
McCoy, R. W. and D. C. Hales. 1974. A survey of eight streams in
Eastern South Dakota: physical and chemical characteristics,
vascular plants, insects, and fishes. Proc. S. D. Acad. S c i .
53:202-219.
Montana State Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Energy
Planning Division. 1974. Draft environmental impact statement
on Colstrip electric generating units 3 and 4, 500 kilovolt trans­
mission lines, and associated facilities, volume 3-A, power plant.
Mont. Dept, of Natural Resources and Conservation. 626 pp.
Moon, H. P. 1940. An investigation of the movements of freshwater
invertebrate faunas. J. A n im. Ecol. 9:77-83.
Morisawa, M. 1968. Streams: their dynamics and morphology.
McGraw-Hill C o . , New York. 175 pp.
Nebeker, A. V. 1971. Effect of temperature at different altitudes
on the emergence of aquatic insects from a single stream. J. Kans.
Ent. S o c . 44:26-35.
Needham, J. G. and M. J. Westfall, Jr. 1955. A manual of the dragon­
flies of North America (Anisoptera). U. of California Press,
Berkeley. 615 pp.
Nehring, R. B. 1976. Aquatic insects as biological monitors of heavy
metal pollution. Bull. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
15:147-154.
Newell, R. L. 1976. Yellowstone River study: final report,
Dept, of Fish and Game and Intake Water Co. 97 pp.
Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology.
Philadelphia. 574 pp.
Montana
W. B, Saunders C o . ,
91
Patrick, R. 1949. A proposed biological measure of stream conditions
based on a survey of the Conestoga Basin, Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania. Proc. Acad. Nat. S c i . Philadelphia 101:277-341.
Patten, B. C. 1962. Species diversity in net phytoplankton of
Raritan Bay. J. Mar. Res. 20:57-75.
Pennak, R. W. 1953. Freshwater invertebrates of the United States.
Ronald Press C o . , New York. 769 pp.
Pennak, R. W. 1971. Toward a classification of lotic habitats.
Hydrobiolpgia 38:321-334.
Pennak, R. W. and E. D. Van Gerpen. 1947. Bottom fauna production
and physical nature of the substrate in a Northern Colorado
stream. Ecology 28:42-48.
Phillipson, J. 1956. A study of the factors determining the distri­
bution of the larvae of the blackfly, Simulium omatwn (Mg).
Bull. Ent. Res. 47:227-238.
Poole, W. C. and K. W. Stewart. 1976. The vertical distribution of
macrobenthos within the substratum of the Brazos River, Texas.
Hydrobiologia 50:151-160.
Ransom, J . D. and C. W. Prophet. 1974. Species diversity and relative
abundance of benthic macroinvertebrates of Cedar Creek Basin,
Kansas. Am. Midi. Nat. 92:217-222.
Rehwinkel, B. J., M. Gorges, and J. Wells. 1976. Powder River aquatic
ecology project, Annual report. Montana Dept, of Fish and Game.
35 pp.
Reid, G. K. 1961. Ecology of inland waters and estuaries.
Van Nostrand Reinhold C o . , New York. 375 pp.
Renick, B. C. 1929. Geology and groundwater resources of central and
southern Rosebud County, Montana. U. S. Geological Survey, Water
Supply Paper 600:1-140.
Ricker, W- E. 1946. Some prairie stoneflies (Plecoptera). Trans.
Royal Canadian Institute 26:3-8.
RoemhiId, G. 1971. Aquatic invertebrates and water quality: The
effect of human ingress in a semi-primitive area. Unpub. paper.
k
92
Roemhild, G. 1975. The damsel flies (Zygoptera) of Montana. Mont.
Agric . Exp. S t a . Research Rep. No. 87, Montana State University,
Bozeman. 53 pp.
Roemhild, G. 1976. Aquatic Heteroptera (true bugs) of Montana.
Mont. Agric . Exp. S t a . Research Rep. No. 102, Montana State
University, Bozeman. 69 pp.
Ross, H. H. 1944. The caddisflies, or Trichoptera., or Illinois.
Bull. Illinois Nat. Hist. Survey Div. 23:1-326.
Ruttner, F- 1952, Fundamentals of limnology.
Toronto, Canada. 295 pp.
Univ. Toronto Press,
Sager, P. E. and A. D. Hasler. 1969. Species diversity in lacustrine
phytoplankton. I . The components of the index of diversity from
Shannon's formula. A m e r . Nat. 103:51-59.
Scott, D. C. 1958.
30:1169-1173.
Biological balance in streams.
Sew. Ind. Wastes
Shannon, C. E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication.
Syst. Tech. j. 27:379-423.
Simpson, E. H.
1949.
Measurement of diversity.
Bell
Nature 163:688.
Slack, K. V., R. C. Averett, P. E. Greeson, and R. G. Lipscomb. 1973.
Techniques of water resources investigations of the United States
Geological Survey, Chapter A4, Methods for collection and analysis
of aquatic biological and microbiological samples. U.S. Government
Printing Office. 165 pp.
Stanford, J . A. and E. B. Reed. 1974. A basket sampling technique
for quantifying riverine macrobenthos. Water Res. Bull. 10:470-477.
Surber, E. W. 1953. Biological effects of pollution in Michigan
waters. Sew. Ind. Wastes 25:79-86.
I
Thurston, R. V., R. J. Luedtke, and R. C. Russo. 1975. Upper Yellow­
stone River water quality, August 1973-August .1974. Montana Uni­
versity Joint Water Resources Research Center, Report No. 68.
57 pp.
93
Thurston, R. V., R. K. Skogerboe, and R. C. Russo. 1976. Toxic
effects on the aquatic biota from coal and oil shale development:
progress report - year I. Internal project rep, no. 9, Natural
Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, and Fisheries Bioassay Laboratory, Montana State
University, Bozeman. 448 pp.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
water. In press.
1976.
Quality criteria for
U. S . Geological Survey. 1975. Water resources data for Montana,
water year 1975. U,S. GeoT. S u r . water-data rep. MT-75-1. 604 pp.
Usinger, R. L. (ed.) 1971. .Aquatic insects of California.
of California Press, Berkeley. 508 pp.
University
Van Voast, W. A. and R. B. Hedges. 1975. Hydrogeologic aspects of
existing and proposed strip coal mines near Decker, Southeastern
Montana. Bull. Mont. Bur. Mines and Geol. 97:1-31.
Warnick, S. L. and H. L. Bell. 1969. The acute toxicity of some
heavy metals to different species of aquatic insects. J. Wat.
Poll. Contr. Fed. 41:280-284.
.
Waters, T. F. and R. J. Knapp. 1961. An improved stream bottom fauna
sampler. Trans. A m e r . Fish. S o c . 90:225-226.
Wilhm, J. L. and T. C. Dorris. 1966. Species diversity of benthic
macroinvertebrates in a stream receiving domestic and oil refinery
effluents. A mer. Midi. Nat. 76:427-449.
Wilhm, J. L. 1970. Comparison of some diversity indices applied to
populations of benthic macroinyertebrates in a stream receiving
organic waste. J . Wat. Poll. Contr. Fed. 39:10-16.
I
APPENDIX
95
Table 16.
Mean current velocity 7.5 cm from the substrate and 15 cm
upstream of introduced substrate samplers. Rosebud Creek,
Montana, May.1976 to.March.1977.
. .
Station
. .
Current
Velocity (m/sec)
I.
■ 0.36
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.42
0.46
0.38
0.50
0.38
0.41
96
Table 17.
Adult aquatic insects from near Rosebud Creek, Montana,
during 1976.
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Baetis (near propinquus)
Leptophlebiidae
Chovotevpes atbiannutata'
Mcdunnough
Odonata
Gomphidae
Gomphus ext'evnus
Hagen
Libellulidae
Sympetvum oecidentale
Walker
Zygoptera
Coenagrionidae
Avgia fumipennis-violaoea
Isahnura pevparva (Selys)
(Hagen)
Calopterygidae
Hetaevina amevioana
(Fabricius)
Hemiptera
Gerridae
Gevvis vemiges
Say
Veliidae
Rhagovelia distinata
Champion
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
Hydvopsyohe bvonta Ross
Hydvopsyohe sepavata Banks
Avotopsyohe sp.
Cheumatopsyohe lasia Ross
Cheumatopsyohe analis (Banks)
Cheumatopsyohe oampyla Ross
Psychomyiidae
.
Polyoentvopus oineveus
Hagen
Leptoceridae
Oeoetis avava (Banks) .
Leptooella albida
Leptooella (near oandida)
Brachycentridae
'Bvaohyoentvus ocoidentalis
Banks
97
Table 17 (continued)
Plecoptera
Nemouridae
Braahypteva fosketti
Ricker
Perlodidae
Isopevla patviaia
Prison
Diptera
Tabanidae
Chvysops pvacl-ivts
Osten Sacken
MONTANA
N3T8
B238
cop.2
DATE
Baril, Steven F
Benthic invertebrate
distribution, abundance
and diversity ...
ISSUED T O
QjUjjUbfa-Ulji. o m a u B M t f
/2/27f