Assessment of Aquatic Animal Biodiversity of Shades Creek

Foundations of Biology  (Biol 203-02)
Spring 2003, Samford University

---

Introduction
In recent years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other environmentally concerned organizations have begun to revitalize the ecology of urban streams.  Although many of these streams appear to be healthy and clean at first glance, upon further study one will find that this is far from the case.  In 1972 the Clean Water Act was passed in order to maintain “an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protections and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water” (Clean Water Act, 1972).  Although the original goal was to achieve this by July 1, 1983, the EPA is continuing the battle of cleaning up America’s lakes, rivers, and streams.  Shades Creek of Birmingham, Alabama, is an example of the effects that sediment runoff from adjacent construction sites can have on the surrounding ecosystems.  Samford University has been researching Shades Creek as a general field study to provide information to the environmental community groups such as Friends of Shades Creek (FOSC) and the Alabama Rivers Alliance (ARA).  With this information, environmental agencies will hopefully provide further grant money for the preservation of the creek.  Samford University, community environmental groups and the citizens Birmingham want to purify the water, replace invading plant species with those native to Alabama, and ultimately restore biodiversity.  Freshwater biodiversity conservation is important for the support of human society and is a good indicator of uncontaminated drinking water.  Since freshwater covers less than one percent of the Earth’s surface, the preservation of this resource is vital.   Shades Creek is important to the residents of Birmingham because it adds aesthetic appeal as well as furthering education and contributing to Jefferson County’s drinking water supply.                                                                                     

---

Methods
Participants began the assessment with the collection of vertebrates at Shades Creek.  Students gathered all vertebrate specimens in a designated 100 foot section of the stream. A barricade was formed using seines in which students paired up and each pair took a seine net.

Teams lined up at opposite ends of the 100 foot site.  After seines were stretched across the entire width of the creek, the two groups of seiners walked toward each other in an attempt to trap all fish and other vertebrates between the nets.  An additional group of students seined in the center of the designated area.  As the students seined, maximum effort was afforded to ensure that fish were swept from under the banks into the nets. 

Any specimens caught were placed in a container and photographed individually by species.  A special V-shaped glass tank was utilized in the photographing of most species.  All vertebrate wildlife was returned to the creek after identification.

After an initial pass of the creek, another barricade was formed approximately fifteen feet downstream from small rapids.  Some students held seines while others walked downstream towards the barricade, kicking over rocks as they moved along to push remaining fish into the nets. These species were also identified and photographed.

---

After all vertebrate species had been accounted for; the students began the collection of invertebrates.  First, approximately ten large rocks were amassed and washed with alcohol.  The runoff was collected in a bucket for future microscopic investigation. 

Next, kick nets were utilized to collect one square meter of sediment from the bed of the creek.  Two nets were placed on the bottom of the creek and packed with sediment.  Then the deposit was transferred to a container and the nets were washed into the container so that all the sediment was preserved. 

After all samples were gathered, the students headed back to the lab where they traded in their waders for microscopes.  The sediment samples containing invertebrate life were allowed to soak in alcohol for a few days.  Then the contents of the containers from both the kick sample and the rock washing were divided into small amounts and poured into Petri dishes.  Students used microscopes to pick out all invertebrates.  The invertebrates were identified and separated into containers by species.  An overall count was performed to assess the population density of these invertebrates.

One student also tested the water quality of the creek.  Three water samples were obtained in both the upper and lower portions of the creek, as well as at the foot of the rapids.  He combined these samples, left them overnight to cool to room temperature and tested the levels of pH and phosphate.  He also compared these results with the results from tap water.

Results

Section 1 - Invertebrates

The results of Shades Creek Experiment were not as expected.  A moderate amount of biodiversity was found in the creek, although the number of chironomids was heavily abundant.                                

---

The pollution tolerant chironomids vastly outnumber the other species, no matter which method is used, as seen below.

Fig. 2.  The charts above show a comparison of the chironomids with the other species. 

One species dominating over an entire habitat is unhealthy.  Diversity in a habitat is necessary for a healthy environment.

Using the rock washing method, 93.92 percent of invertebrates were chironomids.  However, with the kick sample method, more invertebrates that are not chironomids were found; in this test, only 72.46 percent were chironomids. 

*These are a few examples of the invertebrate species found in Shades Creek..

Fig. 1.  The chart above shows each animal, excluding chironomids, found by rock washing and the kick sample method. 

It is important to note the findings of the beetles and the caddis flies.  While there were 107 beetles found in the kick sample, only 2 were found in the rock washing method.  An opposite finding occurred with the caddis flies, indicating different microhabitats.

---

Section 2 - Chemical Analysis

By collecting water samples from Shades Creek, we were able to conduct chemical analysis tests to research any hazardous contaminants.  Luckily no harmful evidence was found.  The results of Nitrates were 0.15ppm MO₃-N, which are slightly more than what is found in tap water.  Phosphates were immeasurably small amounts, not even enough to record.  There was no Ammonia Nitrogen.  The final tested pH results were 6.84, which were tested at 14.6 degrees Celsius.  In conclusion, there are not any dangerous amounts of chemicals found in Shades Creek.  However, we did discover visible deposits of silt from construction that could later harm the creek.

Section 3 – Vertebrates and Macro-Crustaceans

The vertebrate field analysis conducted on Tuesday, April 15^th and included seining a one-hundred foot section and riffles of lower Shades Creek as mentioned in Methods.  From this habitat the following species were observed and photographed.

Cyprinella venusta

The blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venusta), primarily indigenous of southeastern America, can be found in diverse environments such as swift riffles and sessile reservoirs (Mettee 175).  It proved to be the most abundant vertebrate species present in the slower-moving habitat, accounting for greatest number of any single species total population observed.  Because Cyprinella venusta can be found in abundance throughout Alabama streams, this comes as no surprise.

Blacktail shiner population vs. total other species population – 100ft. seining

The riffles yielded greatly differing results in population density.  While a prevalent species in the hundred foot seine, only five blacktail shiners could be accounted for in this habitat.  This comes as a bit of a surprise because the species is generally concentrated in and around riffle and fast-moving water in streams of this nature: “Our most successful collections of Cyprinella venusta have been in impoundments, large rivers, and large streams in swift chutes below riffles” (Mettee 175). 

Blacktail shiner population vs. other species population - riffles

However, every blacktail shiner observed/collected in all parts of Shades Creek had visible presence of numerous metacecaria: secondary larvae of a parasitic liver fluke (Class Trematoda).  On many of the blacktail shiners two to four inches in length, nearly one hundred metacecaria could be found!  The abundance of these parasites on the blacktail shiner and the largescale stoneroller were surprising, and the first indication among species analysis of overall stream health.

Metacecaria cyst shown magnified

Campostoma oligolepis with metacecaria

The largescale stone roller (Campostoma oligolepis) is primarily found in riffles and swift–moving areas of streams containing rocky beds (Mettee 147).   This analysis is supported by our observations, which record only five largescale stonerollers in the one-hundred foot seine, and thirteen in the riffles.  While they comprised 5% of the primary population of Shades Creek, they account for 35% of the riffles’ population.   In Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin, Maurice Mettee explains why this may not necessarily be a good indication of stream health: “Stonerollers are considered ‘pollution tolerant’ because they persist in streams that contaminants have made unsuitable for other species” (147).   Because of this characteristic, a large presence of Campostoma oligolepis could indicate poor stream health.  However, the largescale stoneroller represents only 13% of the total aquatic species observed.

Lepomis megalotis

The longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis) can be found throughout Alabama streams and reservoirs, making its home near the shoals and banks of each (Mettee 543).  Initially, two were collected in the one-hundred foot seine and none in the riffles.  However, upon seining around and underneath the banks of some slow-moving water, a substantial number were observed.  Lepomis megalotis represents 16% of the total species population of the one-hundred foot section.  It is not surprising that none could be accounted for in the riffles, because this is simply not a typical sunfish habitat.

Gambusia affinis

The western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) represented the fourth largest total species population, the majority of which located in shallow, sessile areas observed.  Only one western mosquitofish was found in the riffles, while thirteen were collected in the one-hundred foot section.  It’s a very resilient species: “Able to swallow atmospheric oxygen, mosquitofish can lie in poorly oxygenated environments that are marginal for many other species” (Mettee 479).  Furthermore, every collected Gambusia affinis was shorter than 1.5 inches in length.

Lythrurus bellus from Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin

The pretty shiner (Lythrurus bellus) can be found in very diverse habitats, from stream pools to riffles (Mette 211).  This is supported through our observations, fining eight pretty shiners in the one-hundred foot seine and thirteen in the riffles.  Overall, this species represents the second highest total number of the aquatic vertebrate population, next to the blacktail shiner.  Like the largescale stoneroller, Lythrurus bellus is also a very pollution tolerant species: “The pretty shiner seems to tolerate a variety of degraded stream conditions, including siltation and enrichment” (Mettee 211).  These two pollution tolerant fish combined occupy nearly one third (30.4%) of the total vertebrate population, alerting the possibility of poor stream health. The blackbanded darter (Percina ngrofasciata) is, according to Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin, “the most widespread and abundant percid species of Alabama” (711).  However, only two (1.5% of the total population) were found in all observed areas of lower Shades Creek.  This may be a result of a prolonged low availability of its primary food source(s): mayflies, caddisflies, and microcrustaceans.  Since its food sources are pollution sensitive, one could hypothesize that pollution is a possible cause for this low number of blackbanded darter.

Percina nigrofasciata

Along with the blackbanded darter, only two Alabama hogsuckers (Hypetelium etowanum) were found, and both were located in the riffles of lower Shades Creek.  This species is the most unique of all those observed, containing a U-shaped mouth of which its name derives.  It too, represents merely 1.5% of the total species population found in this analysis.

Hypetelium etowanum

Mouth of Hypetelium etowanum

Bufo americanus

In addition to these species of fish, several other vertebrates and crustaceans were observed/collected including two American toads (Bufo Americanus), one brown water snake (Neradi taxispilata), nine Asiatic clams (genus – Corbiculla), six crayfish (genus - Procambrius), one Florida cooter (Pseudemys Floridiana), and one amphipoda.  Observed in the air and on the banks surround Shades Creek are two bluejays (Cyanocitta cristata), one killdear (Charadrius vociferous), one barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), one morning dove (Zenaida macroura), one roughwing swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), and one swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana).  The total population results are outlined in table 1 below.

Neradi taxispilata	Asiatic clam
Crayfish	Pseudemys floridiana

(Table 1) Final Population Analysis Table for Shades Creek 4/15/03

---

Discussion     
The results indicate that Shades Creek either at one time or presently has a pollution problem.  This assumption stems from the increased construction and sediment run-off, channelization, minimal animal diversity, and other variables of pollution not factoring into the equation, such as acid rain and chemical run-off.

According to Katherine Bouma of Birmingham News, Birmingham leads the nation in pollution and acid rain.  However, Shades Creek is outside of the industrial center of the city (Bouma).  Thus, Homewood experiences far less acid rain fall than the greater Birmingham area; these results are verified by the pH levels of the water tested.  The lack of these acidic pH levels proves the absence of heavy acid rain fall; therefore air pollution cannot be blamed for the pollution problems of Shades Creek.  After eliminating this perceived pollution problem, the next logical assumption would be that of chemical and /or sediment run-off.

The effects of chemical run-off would certainly cause the adverse affects on the creek that have been noticed, but once again this proves to be an inaccurate theory.  Using the water test of the phosphate, nitrates, and ammonia levels which came out to be normal, the water aspect of the creek seems to be healthy.  This cleanliness of the water alleviates many fears of chemical pollutants such as those from golf courses, yards, and street run-off.  The possibility of this problem results from the high use of fertilizer from both golf courses and normal yards that reside up stream.  The normal street pollution of Lakeshore Drive , which runs along side the creek, also seems not to have disturbed the creek’s health.  However, since the creek does not possess a large amount of pollution sensitive animals, the question remains, what affects the creek’s health? The logical answer to this question exists as the sediment resulting from the construction of nearby businesses.

Brookwood Village’s revitalization project was a recent example of this construction. According to Ouida Fritsch, President of the Homewood Citizen Association, four different notices have been posted against construction companies working near Shades Creek. Included in this list of notices is Brasfield and Gorrie Construction Co. which received a “sixty-day letter of intent” when they did not properly buffer Shades Creek at Somersby, a home for the elderly, and when the construction company impounded Shades Creek at Brookwood Mall. In addition, Holiday Express in Irondale was forced to pay $40,000 for impounding Shades Creek, and at Wild Canyon, Forest and Ford Waters Company settled with the Alabama Environmental Council for $150,000 (Fritsch). Fritsch says these notices were necessary because the construction companies did not use buffers to protect the stream from their sedimentary run-off.

The prolonged deposits of sediment into Shades Creek would most likely cause extended damage to its habitat. An example of the problems created from construction near creek beds appeared in the February 2001 edition of the Birmingham News. In this situation a Jefferson County resident fought a construction company due to improper methods of blocking pollution, which allowed “silt, sand, and clay and dirt,” to accumulate in the river (Walton). This related instance suggests that run-off from development of Brookwood Village could certainly cause the problems that are occurring in the creek. Since the water tested in normal ranges, the deposits are the most likely reason for the abundance of pollution tolerant invertebrates. 

Another reason for the problems in the creek is channelization.  This is the process in which a creek is forced to run in a straight line instead of in its curved natural formation.  The map in the introduction shows how Shades Creek runs parallel to Lakeshore, Drive, which was the consequence of its channelization.  Unfortunately, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne says a byproduct of channelization is an increase in the water velocity which “deepens the channel which means the banks are higher and often unstable.  Huge chunks of the bank can suddenly crumble into the stream,” (University).  This effect would then add sedimentation to the creek, and can also decrease the vegetation of the surrounding habitats (University).  These occurrences would hamper the diversity of animal life.

Clearly, the EPT ratios demonstrate the necessity for continued clean up of Shades Creek.  Although the results of the chemical water testing were at normal levels, the abundance of chronomids juxtaposed against the non-pollution tolerant animals such as mayflies and caddisflies shows considerable evidence that construction along the creek and channelization was at fault.  Channelization, however, is an irreversible process and no amount of clean-up effort will negate its effects.  In contrast, the problem of sediment run-off from construction can be eliminated.  This group’s solution states that the city of Birmingham must take action against negligent developmental companies and encourages responsible building near water reservoirs, which means that buffers near creeks are required.  Although a lot of work is necessary in order to complete these initiatives, Shades Creek must be revitalized.  Humans should be good stewards of their environment, and therefore must preserve the habitats in his or her particular region.

---

References

Bouma, Katherine. Birmingham News. June, 2002. Wilsonville ‘Crown Jewel’Power

Plant Turns Coal Into Clean Gas. <http://ezproxy.samford.edu: 3049/universe/document? _d006893eaalff9 ceae688198d936d>

Mettee, Maurice, Patrick O’Neil, and J. Malcolm Pierson.  Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin.  Birmingham: Oxmoor House: 1996.

Ouida, Fritsch. Personal Interview. Birmingham, AL.  5 May 2003.

University of Illinois Urbana-Champagne. The Fallbacks Of  Channelization. 2001.

<http://www.thisland.uiuc.edu/60ways/60ways_25.html>.

Walton, Val. Birmingham News. February 2001. Suit Targets Cahaba Pollution.

<http://ezproxy.samford.edu:3049/universe/document?_m=98ee8557b920a6682a3186768fl34>