Considerations for Assessments of Wadable Drainage Systems in the Agriculturally Dominated Deltas of Arkansas and Mississippi

  • W. W. Stephens
  • M. T. Moore
  • J. L. Farris
  • J. L. Bouldin
  • C. M. Cooper
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The watershed approach, currently used to assess regional streams in the United States, emphasizes least-disturbed reference conditions. Consideration of extensive wadable drainage systems found in Arkansas and Mississippi deltas challenges concepts of disturbance within a landscape of historic agricultural land use. Seventeen wadable drainage ditch sites in Arkansas and Mississippi deltas were characterized using water quality parameters and rapid bioassessment protocols. In all, 19 fish and 105 macroinvertebrate taxa were identified. Macroinvertebrate assemblages were dominated by coleopteran, dipteran, and hemipteran taxa at most drainage sites. Predominance of mobile, early colonists in ditches limits applicability of some metrics for assessment of stream integrity beyond prevalent conditions of ephemeral water quantity and habitat maintenance. This study provides evidence of considerable variability of physical characteristics, water quality, and fish and invertebrate metrics in wadable drainage systems. It indicates a disparity in usefulness of the watershed approach, emphasizing least-disturbed reference conditions, in assessing ecological integrity for a region with ditches as dominant landscape features.

Keywords

Fish Assemblage Fecal Coliform Water Quality Condition Macroinvertebrate Assemblage Total Ammonia Nitrogen 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank M. Barnett, D. Feldman, J. Maul, C. Milam, M. Scott, R. Winterringer, C. Woods, and the staff at the ASU ERF. We also thank B. Ashcraft, J. Maul, M. Scott, J. Trauth, and B. Walker for reviewing the manuscript and offering helpful comments. We appreciate Baxter Fish Farms, Coldstream Fisheries, Top Cat Fisheries, the USDA-NRCS, and Hiram Boone for allowing us access to their facilities.

References

  1. American Public Health Administration (APHA) (1998) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 19th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Arkansas Pollution Control, Ecology Commission (APC&EC) (2001) Regulation 2. Regulation establishing water quality standards for surface waters of the state of Arkansas. APC&EC, Little RockGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbour MT, Diamond JM, Yoder CO (1996) Biological assessment strategies: applications and limitations. In: Grothe DR, Dickson KL, Reed-Judkins DK (eds) Whole effluent toxicity testing: an evaluation of methods and prediction of receiving system impacts. SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL, pp 245–270Google Scholar
  4. Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB (1999) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA /841-B-99–002. 2nd ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Cather MR, Harp GL (1975) The aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna of an Ozark and a Deltaic stream. Proc Ark Acad Sci 29:30–35Google Scholar
  6. Chordas SW III, Harp GL, Wolfe GL (1996) The aquatic macroinvertebrates of the White River National Wildlife Refuge, Arkansas. Proc Ark Acad Sci 50:42–51Google Scholar
  7. Cochran BG, Bacon EJ, Harp GL (1993) Larval chironomids of the St. Francis Sunken Lands in northeast Arkansas. Proc Ark Acad Sci 47:31–33Google Scholar
  8. Cooper CM, Knight LA (1978) Fishes and water quality conditions in Six-Mile Lake, Bear Creek drainage. Proc Annu Meet Miss Chap Am Fish Soc 2:27–36Google Scholar
  9. Cooper CM, Knight LA, Herring J (1982) Fish composition in a sediment-laden Mississippi Delta stream system. J Miss Acad Sci 27:163–175Google Scholar
  10. Coupe RH (2002) Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and fluxes of streams in the Mississippi Embayment Study Unit, 1996–98. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4024Google Scholar
  11. Fulmer RF, Harp GL (1977) The fishes of Crowley’s Ridge in Arkansas. Proc Ark Acad Sci 31:42–45Google Scholar
  12. Gibson GA, Barbour MT, Stribling JB, Gerritsen J, Karr JR (1996) Biological criteria: technical guidance of stream and rivers. EPA/822-B-94–001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Grumbles BH (1991) Wetlands, drainage ditches, and the Clean Water Act. J Soil Water Cons 46(3):174–177Google Scholar
  14. Holt A, Harp GL (1993) Ichthyofauna of the Village Creek system. Proc Ark Acad Sci 47:54–60Google Scholar
  15. Hughes RM (1995) Defining acceptable biological status by comparing reference conditions. In: Davis WS, Simon TP (eds) Biological assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Press, Boca Raton, FL pp 31–48Google Scholar
  16. Jeffries M, Mills D (1990) Freshwater ecology: principles and applications. Belhaven Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Karr JR, Fausch KD, Angermeier PL, Yant PR, Schlosser IJ (1986) Assessment of biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Special Publication 5. Illinois History Survey, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  18. Knight SS, Cooper CM, Cash B (2001) Effects of agricultural system practices on Mississippi Delta MSEA lake water quality. In: Mississippi Delta management systems evaluation areas project, 1995–99. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Information Bulletin 37, pp 128–138Google Scholar
  19. Mauney M, Harp GL (1979) The effects of channelization on fish populations of the Cache River and Bayou DeView. Proc Ark Acad Sci 33:51–54Google Scholar
  20. Merritt RW, Cummins KW (1996) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. 2nd ed. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IAGoogle Scholar
  21. Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) (2002) State of Mississippi water quality criteria for intrastate, interstate and coastal waters. MDEQ, JacksonGoogle Scholar
  22. Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) (2003) Development and application of the Mississippi Benthic Index of Stream Quality (M-BISQ). MDEQ, JacksonGoogle Scholar
  23. Moore MT, Rodgers JH Jr, Cooper CM, Smith S Jr (2000) Constructed wetlands for mitigation of atrazine-associated agricultural runoff. Environ Pollut 110:393–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moore MT, Cooper CM, Smith S Jr, Knight SS, Steinriede RW, Farris JL, Stephens WW (2003) Drainage ditch monitoring of the Delta Conservation Demonstration Center (DCDC), Mississippi, USA. In: Abstracts of SETAC 24th Annual Meeting in North America, November 9–13, 2003, Austin, TX, p 200Google Scholar
  25. Mueller DK, Hamiltion PA, Helsel DR, Hitt KJ, Ruddy BC (1995) Nutrients in ground water and surface water of the United States—an analysis of data through 1992. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 95–44Google Scholar
  26. NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service), U.S. Department of Agriculture (2003) Catfish production. Available at: http://www.usda.gov/nass/
  27. Omernik JA (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77:118–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pennak R (1991) Freshwater invertebrates of the United States. 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Peterson RC (1992) The RCE-a riparian, channel, and environmental inventory for small streams in the agricultural landscape. Fresh Biol 27:295–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pflieger WL (1975) Fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson CityGoogle Scholar
  31. Rao PV (1998) Statistical research methods in the life sciences. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CAGoogle Scholar
  32. Rebich RA (2001) Quality of runoff in the Mississippi Delta management systems evaluation areas project, 1996–99. In: Mississippi Delta management systems evaluation areas project, 1995–99. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Information Bulletin 377, pp 154–168Google Scholar
  33. Robison HW, Buchanan M (1988) Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press, FayettevilleGoogle Scholar
  34. Ross ST (2001) Inland fishes of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi, JacksonGoogle Scholar
  35. Shields FD Jr, Knight SS, Cooper CM (2000) Cyclic perturbation of lowland river channels and ecological response. Regul Rivers Res Manage 16:307–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith S Jr, Schreiber JD, Cooper CM, Knight SS, Rodrigue P (2001) Water quality research in the Beasley Lake forested wetland/riparian area of the Mississippi Delta MSEA. In: Mississippi Delta management systems evaluation areas project, 1995–99. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Information Bulletin 377, pp 193–201Google Scholar
  37. Stephens WW, Farris JL (2004) Instream community assessment of aquaculture effluents. Aquaculture 231:149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. ToxCalc (1996) Tidepool scientific software. User’s guide. Version 5.0. McKineyville, CAGoogle Scholar
  39. Tucker CS, Hargreaves JA (2003) Management of effluents from channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) embankment ponds in the southeastern United States. Aquaculture 226:5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2003) An index of ecological integrity for the Mississippi Alluvial Plain Ecoregion: index development and relations to selected landscape variables. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4110Google Scholar
  41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (1993) Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater and marine organisms. EPA-600/4–90/027F. 4th ed. U.S. EPA, National Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  42. United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (1994) Short-term methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving water to freshwater organisms. EPA-600-4-91-0023rd ed. U.S. EPA, National Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
  43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (2001) Ambient water quality criteria recommendation for rivers and streams in nutrient Ecoregion X. EPA 822-B-01-016. Office of Water, U.S. EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (2003) Correction of significant figures in aggregate ecoregional criteria recommendations. Office of Water, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/ecoregions/correction.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. W. Stephens
    • 1
  • M. T. Moore
    • 2
    • 5
  • J. L. Farris
    • 3
  • J. L. Bouldin
    • 4
  • C. M. Cooper
    • 2
  1. 1.ENSRHoustonUSA
  2. 2.USDA-ARS, National Sedimentation LaboratoryOxfordUSA
  3. 3.College of Science and MathematicsArkansas State UniversityState UniversityUSA
  4. 4.Environmental Sciences ProgramArkansas State UniversityState UniversityUSA
  5. 5.USDA-ARS NSLOxfordUSA

Personalised recommendations