SFS Annual Meeting

6/06/2024  |   15:30 - 15:45   |  Salon 10

infraFADA: Upgrading the taxonomic backbone of global freshwater animal biodiversity research infrastructures The current Freshwater Animal Diversity Assessment (FADA) comprises an extensive set of global taxa lists for freshwater animal groups. At present, more than 125 thousand described freshwater animal species in more than 11 thousand genera have been documented. However, taxonomy is a living scientific discipline, where new taxa are continuously being described, and existing taxa are being placed in new taxonomic positions. Therefore, after a period of relative inactivity, the BELSPO (Belgian Science Policy) project “infraFADA” (2023-2026) re-establishes the global FADA consortium of taxonomic experts, so that all taxa lists will be brought up to date, both technically and in terms of content. infraFADA will develop a living, updated, and global FADA database, fully in open access and according to the FAIR principles. The infraFADA database is intended for use and consultation by the scientific freshwater community, as well as for interested stakeholders, for example, freshwater ecosystem managers, biodiversity conservationists, and others. Most importantly, FADA will also serve as a taxonomic backbone for other global biodiversity data infrastructures, such as the Catalogue of Life (CoL), the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), the Freshwater Information Platform (FIP), and others. As such, FADA will provide a digital and living heritage of freshwater data, building bridges between science and society and helping to sustainably maintain freshwater resources.

Géraldine Mertens (Primary Presenter/Author), Institute of Naturals Sciences, gmertens@naturalsciences.be;

Astrid Schmidt-Kloiber (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, BOKU Vienna, Austria, ask@boku.ac.at;

Koen Martens (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), RBINS Brussels, Belgium, darwinula@gmail.com;

Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.

6/06/2024  |   15:45 - 16:00   |  Salon 10

BOTHERED BUGS: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF DISTURBANCES USING EDNA Aquatic ecologists have long used aquatic macroinvertebrates water quality indicators. Many indices exist to quantify the diversity of invertebrates sensitive to contamination based on local taxa. In the Neotropical Andes, scientists and community groups use the Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) index and the Andean Biotic Index (ABI). Applying such indices requires expertise of taxonomic identification, a skill that is unfortunately declining throughout the scientific community. Recent advances in molecular methods and sequencing technology have provided exciting opportunities for aquatic ecologists to utilize environmental DNA (eDNA) to conduct biotic water quality assessments. To test eDNA as a water quality assessment method in the Neotropics, we selected 18 rivers in the Andean Chocó of Ecuador, calculated the percent land use in the watershed of each sampling site, and sampled both eDNA and kick samples monthly. An initial comparison revealed that the biodiversity metrics, such as richness and faith’s alpha-diversity, and the biological index scores of the traditional methods and eDNA don’t align. However, further analysis using raw sequences revealed clear correlations between aquatic biodiversity and natural land cover in the sampled watershed, relationships that were not significant when using taxonomic assignments of DNA sequences to calculate diversity metrics. Based on these findings we conclude that reference databases for aquatic macroinvertebrates in the neotropics are currently too incomplete for eDNA to be used for biological monitoring using biological indices, but has potential to be incredibly effective once reference databases are improved.

Isabella Errigo (Primary Presenter/Author), CORNELL UNIVERSITY, ime25@cornell.edu;

Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.

6/06/2024  |   16:00 - 16:15   |  Salon 10

Algal biofilms as indicators of pesticide contamination in agricultural streams Stream monitoring programs, such as those for monitoring pesticides in surface waters, have traditionally relied on water sampling which may not accurately represent actual pesticide exposure concentrations nor their bioaccumulation potential in aquatic organisms. Algal biofilms are useful biomonitoring tools for assessing stream biological integrity and provide complementary information to water chemistry measurements. However, they are rarely used to monitor pesticide contamination. The objectives of this research were to 1) establish the relationship between pesticide concentrations in biofilms and in the water to use biofilm pesticide content as a proxy for pesticide contamination and to 2) analyze biofilm microbial communities (bacteria, fungi, algae, and micro-meiofauna) to determine the extent to which pesticides shape community structure. To achieve these objectives, we sampled biofilms and water in 26 stream sites in the province of Quebec for several years. Pesticides were extracted from the biofilms and analyzed by HPLC-MS/MS. Pesticides in the water samples were analysed by the Quebec ministry of the environment (Ministère de l’Environnement, de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques, de la Faune et des Parcs, MELCCFP). Biofilm community structure was assessed by metabarcoding sequencing of the 16S (prokaryote) and 18S (eukaryote algae) rRNA genes, ITS (fungi), and CO1 (metazoa). Preliminary results indicate that the biofilm accumulated several pesticides of interest, sometimes at concentrations higher than those obtained by water sampling. Further analyses will enable us to determine contamination patterns based on the type of crops near the study sites.

Laura Malbezin (Primary Presenter/Author), Institut national de la recherche scientifique, lmalbezin@outlook.fr;

Jérémy Mainville-Gamache (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Institut national de la recherche scientifique, jeremy.mainville-gamache@inrs.ca;

Stéphane Moïse (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Institut national de la recherche scientifique, stephane.moise@inrs.ca;

Jérôme Comte (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Institut national de la recherche scientifique, jerome.comte@inrs.ca;

Soizic Morin (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Unité de recherches « Ecosystèmes Aquatiques et changements globaux », INRAE, soizic.morin@inrae.fr;

Isabelle Lavoie (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre Eau Terre Environnement, isabelle.lavoie@inrs.ca;

Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.

6/06/2024  |   16:15 - 16:30   |  Salon 10

Effects of Grazing and Burning on Stream Water Chemistry for Tallgrass Prairie Watersheds Fire and grazers were historically pivotal for preserving tallgrass prairie, but how they influence stream water quality currently is not understood. We used long-term (1985-2022) water chemistry data for nitrogen and phosphorus from sites within the Kings Creek and Shane Creek watersheds at Konza Prairie Biological Station, KS, with different combinations of grazing (cattle or bison) and fire frequencies. MANCOVA analysis of yearly mean concentrations of NO3-, total P (TP), and soluble reactive P (SRP) across sub-watersheds revealed significant temporal variations only for NO3- (F = 6.548, Sig. = 0.013) and notable spatial distinctions among watersheds (F = 27.239, Sig. = 0.000). Years since burning significantly influenced NO3- levels (F = 5.247, Sig. = 0.003), and the interaction between the watershed and the years since burning was significant (F = 4.319, Sig. = 0.017). Paired samples over 37 years on bison-grazed and ungrazed watersheds revealed NO3- was 2.03 times, SRP about 1.19 times, and TP approximately 1.41 times greater in bison relative to ungrazed watersheds. In our low grazing density cattle-grazed, patch-burned watershed, concentrations of NO3-, SRP, and TP were substantially higher (1.99 times, 3.34 times, and 2.66 times, respectively) when cattle were present compared to periods of absence. Bison and cattle had similar nutrient concentration effects, but cattle were present only half the year. The water quality impact of controlled burning was comparatively weaker than the effects attributable to grazing activities. Both had less impact than the presence of fertilized cropland.

Abu Raihan (Primary Presenter/Author), Kansas State University, aburaihan@ksu.edu;

Walter Dodds (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Kansas State University, wkdodds@ksu.edu;

Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.

6/06/2024  |   16:30 - 16:45   |  Salon 10

Is mussel assemblage health correlated with indicators of biotic integrity or stream impairment? Freshwater mussels have declined dramatically worldwide, but the causes of those declines are poorly understood. Macroinvertebrate (mainly insects) and fish assemblage health, as assessed with the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), is used widely to make inferences about stream health. Along with direct measurements of water quality, those assessments inform designations of stream impairment under Section 303(d) of the US Clean Water Act. Mussel assemblages are assumed to respond to stream impairment similarly to other macroinvertebrates and fishes, but this assumption has not been examined because objective methods for assessing mussel assemblage health did not exist. We assessed mussel assemblage health in over 50 streams in the eastern US using the recently developed Mussel Assemblage Health Index (MAHI). We examined relationships between MAHI scores and IBI scores and Section 303(d) impairment designations. MAHI scores were negatively correlated with macroinvertebrate IBI scores, but this relationship explained little of the variation in MAHI scores (R 2 = 0.14). MAHI scores were not correlated with fish IBI scores. MAHI scores did not differ across five categories of stream impairment, ranging from impaired to meeting all designated uses, and each category included both high and low MAHI scores. The lack of correlation between MAHI scores and other measures of stream health suggests that mussel declines cannot be attributed consistently to general stream degradation; instead, other, unrecognized factors may be responsible for mussel declines, particularly in otherwise healthy streams.

Traci DuBose (Primary Presenter/Author), ORISE Post-doctoral Scholar, US Forest Service, tracipdubose@gmail.com;

Eric Chapman (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, echapman@paconserve.org;

Gerry Dinkins (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), University of Tennessee, gdinkins@utk.ed;

Sarah Douglass (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Illinois Natural History Survey, sabales@illinois.edu;

Kevin Eliason (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, kevin.m.eliason@wv.gov;

Anakela Escobar (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Georgia Department of Natural Resources, anakela.escobar@dnr.ga.gov;

Luke Etchison (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), NC Wildlife Resources Commission, luke.etchison@ncwildlife.org;

Scott Faiman (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Missouri Department of Conservation, john.faiman@mdc.mo.gov;

Brant Fisher (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife, BFisher@dnr.IN.gov;

Michael Fisk (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), NC Wildlife Resources Commission, michael.fisk@ncwildlife.org;

Trisha Gibson (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Ohio State University, gibson.458@osu.edu;

Rachel Hoch (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), NC Wildlife Resources Commission, rachael.hoch@ncwildlife.org;

Michael Hoggarth (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Otterbein University, mhoggarth@otterbein.edu;

Andrew Ibach (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), University of Kentucky, andrew.ibach@uky.edu;

Paul Johnson (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, paul.johnson@dcnr.alabama.gov;

Tim Lane (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources, Tim.Lane@dwr.virginia.gov;

Erin Singer McCombs (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), American Rivers, emccombs@americanrivers.org;

Monte McGregor (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, monte.mcgregor@ky.gov;

Stephen McMurray (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Missouri Department of Conservation, Stephen.McMurray@mdc.mo.gov;

Michael Perkins (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), NC Wildlife Resources Commission, michael.perkins@ncwildlife.org;

Steven Price (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), University of Kentucky, steven.price@uky.edu;

TR Russ (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), NC Wildlife Resources Commission, thomas.russ@ncwildlife.org;

Bernard Sietman (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, bernard.sietman@state.mn.us;

Alison Stodola (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Illinois Natural History Survey, alprice@illinois.edu;

Mary Walsh (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Western Pennsylvania Conservancy, mwalsh@paconserve.org;

Jason Wisniewski (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency, jason.wisniewski@tn.gov;

Wendell Haag (Co-Presenter/Co-Author), US Forest Service, Center for Bottomland Hardwoods Research, whaag@fs.fed.us;

Presentation:
This presentation has not yet been uploaded.