J. M. C. K Jayawardhana1, W. D. T. M Gunawardhana 1, E. P

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Action Effectiveness Monitoring in the Upper Columbia (Chapter 4) Karl M. Polivka, Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service.

Advertisements

Information Needs for the Integrated F&W Program (ESA and Power Act) Jim Geiselman - BPA.

Riparian Thinning: Logic Paths for Silvicultural Prescriptions

David McCormick & Simon Harrison

Biological Response of Two North Central PA Streams After Flood of September 2011 Fred Rogers CWI, Supervisor Dr. Mel Zimmerman Introduction: Within Pennsylvania,

Effects of Land Use and Associated Factors On Biological Communities of Small Streams in the Illinois River Basin of Arkansas by James C. Petersen, Billy.

Riparian Zone Habitat Assessment Vegetation and More.

What’s Mud Got to Do With It? Stephen J. Klaine, Ph.D. Department of Biological Sciences Clemson University

Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment

Lec 12: Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP’s)

Riparian Buffers for Water and Stream Protection Hal O. Liechty Arkansas Forest Resources Center School of Forest Resources, UAM Hal.

Watershed System Physical Properties Stream flow (cfs) Stream Channel Pattern Substrate Chemical Properties pH Dissolved Oxygen Temperature Nutrients Turbidity.

Conclusion -Velocity affects the temperature, pH and DO of a stream; the greater the velocity, the greater the water quality -The positive correlation.

Final stuff: n Lab practical –Coleoptera, Hemiptera n Final exam: Fri May 2:15 –Assessment with Invertebrates n Lecture material (IDEM protocol) n.

The relationship between riparian areas and biological diversity A comparison of streams in eastern Colorado and southwestern Virginia By Ann Widmer

Common Monitoring Parameters. Step 1 Consider purpose/objectives of monitoring Assess use attainment Characterize watershed Identify pollutants and sources.

A landscape perspective of stream food webs: Exploring cumulative effects and defining biotic thresholds.

Bioassessment 1.0. Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 1. Turbidity 2. Plant growth 3. Channel Condition 4. Channel Flow Alteration 5. Percent Embeddedness.

Assessing Aquatic Ecosystems & Measurement. Aquatic Ecosystem Assessment The health of an aquatic ecosystem can be determined by examining a variety of.

Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP). Background to RBP changes in community/assemblage composition used to evaluate existence and degree of impact.

Monitoring activities of running waters in Sweden Leonard Sandin Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala, Sweden.

“Habitat Assessment Using the QHEI “ Edward T. Rankin June 6 City of Columbus, Level 3 Training Course Columbus, Ohio Senior ResearchScientist

Hydrosapiens GIV eSAT of Vermont: Water Group 2013 Ben DeJong, Nina Brundage, Caitlin Beaudet, Julie Rickner, Mariah Ollive, Hannah VanGuilder, Heather.

Site Classification for Re-calibration of the Alabama Index of Stream Macroinvertebrate Condition Ben Jessup and Jen Stamp Tetra Tech, Inc. SWPBA November.

Drinking Water, Wastewater & Water Quality Special emphasis on NC streams.

Watershed Assessment and Planning. Review Watershed Hydrology Watershed Hydrology Watershed Characteristics and Processes Watershed Characteristics and.

Effects of Human Activity on Water Quality Studies on the Upper Paint Creek Watershed By Emily Daniels Mary Estock and Ashley Hooper.

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Quantifying tolerance indicator values for common stream fish species of the United States Michael.

PNAMP Habitat Status and Trends Monitoring Management Question: Are the Primary Habitat Factors Limiting the Status of the Salmon and Steelhead Populations.

Kentucky’s comprehensive Water Monitoring and Assessment Program addresses water quality management objectives outlined in the Clean Water Act, as well.

Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay Donna Marie Bilkovic*, Carl H. Hershner, Kirk J. Havens,

National Aquatic Resource Surveys Wadeable Streams Assessment Overview November, 2007.

 Sustainability Master Plan  Effect of Runoff on Stream  Negative Effect on Lake Carnegie  Final Pre-Restoration Assessment  Why this first order.

 Riparian vegetation includes trees, shrubs and wetlands; not grasses  Select one width or two and average for each bank, then average banks together.

Effects of Multi-scale Environmental Characteristics on Agricultural Stream Biota in the Midwestern USA 5th National Monitoring Conference May 9, 2006.

Price Creek Watershed Project A joint project of the Iowa & Benton County Soil and Water Conservation Districts IOWATER Meeting – November 13, 2007.

Fish Assemblages of the Wabash River Mark Pyron. Wabash River Fishes 1.Large river 2.High diversity 3.History of human impact 4.Fish assemblages respond.

Stream macroinvertebrate responses to landscape variables; an evaluation of rapid bioassessment techniques using a statistical modeling approach. Declan.

Stream Ecosystem Assessment Group 1 Camp Caesar August 2003.

WaterQuality Water Quality What does it mean?. Water quality is the ability of a water body to support all appropriate beneficial uses. Beneficial uses.

Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for low gradient streams) for species richness, composition and pollution tolerance, as well as a composite benthic macroinvertebrate.

Volunteer-collected data can provide important baseline information to assist with decision making and improve watershed management. In this study, data.

Identifying Changes to Stream Condition caused by Urbanization How understanding the responses can improve ecological risk characterization

National Monitoring Conference May 7-11, 2006

Riparian Areas: Functions and Conditions Authors: Gene Surber, MSU Extension Natural Resources Specialist Bob Ehrhart, Research Specialist, RWRP, Univ.

Habitat Mapping of High Level Indicators at Multiple Scales for Fish and Wildlife.

The use of the Pinkham-Pearson index for the comparison of community structure in Biosim2 to identify statistically-valid sectors of taxa By Carlos Pinkham.

Water Assessment Data Lab Assignment # 5 Land Use The first thing you notice when field sampling is the area around your site. What type of land use.

Comparison of Aquatic Invertebrates in Pool and Riffle Habitats of Blackburn Fork Comparison of Aquatic Invertebrates in Pool and Riffle Habitats of Blackburn.

EPA HWI Comments on CA Assessment June 26, 2013 HSP Call 2 major categories of comments: – Report writing (we will work on this) – Content/Analysis/Discussion.

Stream Health: biotic integrity variation in Owasco Lake watershed Susan F. Cushman Hobart and William Smith Colleges 2007 Finger Lakes Research Conference.

Detecting Ecological Effects of Development in the Wappingers and Fishkill Watersheds Karin Limburg, Karen Stainbrook, Bongghi Hong SUNY College of Environmental.

A Tool to Evaluate the Health of Streams and Rivers within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Katie Foreman 1, Claire Buchanan 2, Adam Griggs 2, Andrea Nagel.

Using Regional Models to Assess the Relative Effects of Stressors Lester L. Yuan National Center for Environmental Assessment U.S. Environmental Protection.

Sites were selected based on landowner relations and potential for restoration by The Nature Conservancy. They were then grouped based on level of impact:

Macroinvertebrate responses to flow and thermal variability associated with impoundments James. C. White 1, Paul. J. Wood 1, David. M. Hannah 2 and Andy.

Effects of Stream Restoration: A Comparative Study of Pine Run in Felton, Pennsylvania Luke Mummert, Department of Biological Sciences, York College of.

COMPARING BIOINDICATORS TO MEASURE THE EFFICACY OF RESTORATION IN MIDDLE FORK JOHN DAY RIVER, OR Robin M. Henderson & James R. Pratt.

EVALUATING STREAM COMPENSATION PERFORMANCE: Overcoming the Data Deficit Through Standardized Study Design Kenton L. Sena (EPA VSFS Intern), Joe Morgan,

Tools for Tracking Healthy Watersheds

Watershed Health Indicators

Creating and Managing Watershed Stewardship Programs Session 5

Using Benthic Macroinvertebrate Populations to Assess Campus

Water Testing Project for the North Fork River

Module 10/11 Stream Surveys

Acknowledgements Dr. Peter Tschaplinski, MOE

Summary of Case Studies Designed to Determine the Influence of Multiple Stressors on Benthic Communities in Urban California Streams Lenwood W. Hall, Jr.

The Index of Biotic Integrity (the BI or IBI)

Little River Ditches Watershed Monitoring

IBI’s: An Introduction

Presentation transcript:

Effect of catchment disturbance on river health in two agricultural catchments in Sri Lanka. J.M.C.K Jayawardhana1, W.D.T.M Gunawardhana 1, E.P.N Udayakumara1, M. Westbrooke2 1Department of Natural Resources, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka 2 Centre for Environmental Management, Faculty of Science and Technology, Federation University Australia, Office Y147/Y Building/Mt. Helen Campus, Ballarat, Australia BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 MANAGED BY

Sri Lanka BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 MANAGED BY

Topography of Sri Lanka MANAGED BY BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017

LAND USE OF UPPER CATCHMENTS BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 MANAGED BY

Catchment impacts on rivers and tools of impact assessment…… Land cover and land use impact on river health? Spatial scale? (Aguiar et al., 2009; Richards et al., 1996; Marzin et al.,2013; Johnson et al., 2007) Responses River health Physical Habitat quality Riparian Quality Index (RQI) Channel Quality Index (CQI) Water Quality pH, conductivity, Nitrate, Nitrite, Phosphate, Ammonia, TDS, TSS Biological Indicators Species Richness %Chironomidae EPT taxa BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 MANAGED BY

How the catchment landuse affect river health of Uma oya & Badulu oya? Stream Health? - Physical Habitat Quality - Water Quality - Bio indicators At which spatial scales? BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 MANAGED BY

Micro-catchments of Badulu oya BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 MANAGED BY

Land cover quantification Catchment scale Riparian corridor Site scale (200m upstream) 300m Catchment Catchment 300m Riparian corridor Riparian corridor 200m Quantification of land cover using ArcGIS 9.1 Sampling site BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 MANAGED BY

Physical Habitat Quality Assessment Riparian Quality Index (RQI) Channel physical Habitat Quality Index (CQI) [Rapid Bio Assessment Protocol for use in streams and wadeable rivers (Barbour et al., 1999)] Riparian Quality Index (RQI) Channel Physical Habitat Quality Index (CQI) Riparian vegetation zone width % overhead canopy Riparian composition (% woody/ trees/ grass/ bare) Riparian continuity % Cobble Velocity Embeddedness Bank/ Channel alteration Sediment deposition Riffle characteristics Condition of the stream (% Eroded) Bank vegetation BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 MANAGED BY

Water quality Analysis On-site Measurements Water flow Flow meter (Global Water FP111) Temperature pH Conductivity Multiparameter Salinity (HACH sensION MM156) TDS Laboratory Measurements Nitrate-N Spectrophotometer Nitrite-N (HACH DR2700) Ammonical-N Phosphate Sulphate DO BOD5 Winkler’s Method Heavy Metals Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer(AAS) (Varian AA240FS)

Biological parameters Macroinvertebrates sampling and analysis family richness % EPT taxa % Chironomidae Shannon Diversity Index (SDI) BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 MANAGED BY

Analysis Effect of catchment land cover on river physical, chemical and biological attributes Principal Component analysis (PCA) Pearson’s correlation test BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 MANAGED BY

RESULTS PCA analysis

Pearson’s correlation between % forest cover and water quality variables Temp pH Cond TS TDS TSS BOD NO3-N NO2-N NH4-N PO4-P SO4- CQI RQI %Cat. Forest -.370** .018 -.186** -.219** -.198** -.149* -.108 -.057 -.228** -.172* .006 -.152* .265** .414** %Rip. -.260** .233** -.061 -.196** -.071 -.179** -.123 -.235** -.002 -.301** .379** .512** %200m. -.056 .360** .027 .026 -.255** -.132* -.242** -.312** -.189* -.055 -.338** .815** .822** **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 MANAGED BY

% Forest cover

Pearson’s correlation between % forest cover (catchment/riparian corridor/site scale ) and biotic indices Family Richnesss % EPT % Chironomidae SDI %Cat.forest .207 .150 -.220 -.006 % Riparian forest .346** .081 -.112 .192 % 200m forest .607** .061 .507** BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 MANAGED BY

Why %EPT does not respond to forest cover change?

Why %EPT does not respond to forest cover change?

Conclusion Catchment Forest cover at all spatial scales tested, improved the stream physical habitat quality, water quality and stream’s resilience to natural forces. Riparian and site scale forest cover had a more pronounced impact on biological matrices. The findings of the study suggest that land use impacts on river health could be better predicted when appropriate spatial arrangement of land cover is considered. BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 MANAGED BY

Conclusion River physical habitat quality indices & selected biological indices in conjunction with chemical water quality proved to be effective in assessing river health and possible tools for the future river health assessment programmes in Sri Lanka. BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 MANAGED BY

Acknowledgement National Research Council of Sri Lanka Grant No: 13-160 BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 MANAGED BY

BRISBANE, AUSTRALIA | 18 - 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 MANAGED BY