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

2. (1974!)

3. Ecosystem health, qu’est-ce que c’est? - a concept that’s been around a long time, currently enjoying a comeback maintenance of “biotic integrity” resistance and/or resilience of systems in the face of disturbance absence of factors that degrade ecological population, community, and ecosystem structure and function

4. Assessing watershed health: The idea: organisms and ecosystems integrate and reflect the insults (or lack thereof) resulting from watershed-level processes Some techniques have proven robust after 25+ years of testing; others in development

5. Low Human influence High Metric B Metric A Ecosystem indicators of human disturbance should ideally be sensitive to these factors, and not confounded by natural ones (or at least possible to tease out the differences)

6. Indicators of ecosystem health can (should?) evaluate changes at levels of Population Community/habitat Whole-system Metrics may not all be additive, although many schemes designed that way

7. What we looked at: physical habitat characterizations water chemistry biotic community structure (fish and bugs) ecosystem function  Total of 33 sites

8. tributary mainstem

9. Physical habitat – involved making many measurements of flow, stream dimensions, substrate types, vegetative cover, bank characteristics, riparian zone, etc

10. Water chemistry: four synoptic surveys conducted May - August – get high and low flow conditions The idea: to characterize the nutrient environment that indicates whether or nor an ecosystem will be eutrophic or just “well balanced” (very few, if any, sites here expected to be oligotrophic…)

11. Water chemistry parameters we measured: Dissolved O 2, pH, temperature, conductivity in the field Chlorophyll, TSS, particulate C & N, total N & P, NO 3, NH 4, TDN, SRP, TDP, DSi, DOC, TDS in the lab

12. Indexes of biotic integrity (IBI): collected fish by electrofishing 100 m of stream – Noted species, abundances, lengths & weights, obvious diseases, etc.

14. Macroinvertebrate (stream insect) IBIs: collected 3 representative kick-samples, identified insects to lowest “reasonable” taxonomic unit

15. Ecosystem-level measurements: Community metabolism Food web linkages

19. Some results: how “healthy” are the Wappingers and Fishkill Creek watersheds? Let’s look at a few diagnostics… Land use patterns Environmental quality patterns Biological indicators …includes changes over time

20. Assessments at different spatial scales (relates to the degree of influence)

21. Amount of land in different uses varied at different spatial scales Percent

24. Conductivity – a measure of the ionic strength of water Correlates strongly with human disturbance (population density, road density, nitrates, etc.) Getting recognition as a bellwether of aquatic disturbance

29. Presence of “threshold effects”?

30.  ”under-built” ”overbuilt” 

31. Last bits: some time trends. Land use change, 1992 vs. 2001 Changes in Fishkill biotic indexes Some projections about % impervious surfaces (from models)

34. Comparing bio-indicator scores in Fishkill: across the board improvement since 1988!

35. Percent impervious surface: Current conditions in Wappingers watershed

36. A simulated look at the future, with new housing generated, but classified as “low intensity” (i.e., with relatively low percent impervious surface)

37. Simulated future, with new housing, but with it classified as “high intensity”  Lots more impervious surface

38. Can also begin to make crude forecasts of effects, too…

39. Summary: how is the “health” of the two watersheds? Land use cover: similar at large scale, but Fishkill seems more developed near the sites of stream studies Stream quality indicators: Fishkill worse off Biological indicators: Fishkill worse off Yet, Fishkill in 2001 has better bio-scores than in 1988

40. Finally, future development will likely increase things like impervious surfaces and thus increase stream degradation

41. Thank you! Funded by Hudson River Foundation and National Science Foundation