Advertisement

Hydrobiologia

, Volume 669, Issue 1, pp 105–117 | Cite as

Relationships among rotational and conventional grazing systems, stream channels, and macroinvertebrates

  • Kara L. RaymondEmail author
  • Bruce Vondracek
Primary Research Paper

Abstract

Cattle grazing in riparian areas can reduce water quality, alter stream channel characteristics, and alter fish and macroinvertebrate assemblage structure. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services has recommended Rotational Grazing (RG) as an alternative management method on livestock and dairy operations to protect riparian areas and water quality. We evaluated 13 stream channel characteristics, benthic macroinvertebrate larvae (BML), and chironomid pupal exuviae (CPE) from 18 sites in the Upper Midwest of the United States in relation to RG and conventional grazing (CG). A Biotic Composite Score comprised of several macroinvertebrate metrics was developed for both the BML assemblage and the CPE assemblage. Multi-Response Permutation Procedures (MRPP) indicated a significant difference in stream channel characteristics between RG and CG. Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling indicated that RG sites were associated with more stable stream banks, higher quality aquatic habitat, lower soil compaction, and larger particles in the streambed. However, neither MRPP nor Mann–Whitney U tests demonstrated a difference in Biotic Composite Scores for BML or CPE along RG and CG sites. The BML and CPE metrics were significantly correlated, indicating that they were likely responding to similar variables among the study sites. Although stream channel characteristics appeared to respond to grazing management, BML and CPE may have responded to land use throughout the watershed, as well as local land use.

Keywords

Bank stability Grazing management Chironomid pupal exuvia Benthic macroinvertebrate 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the members of the research group: Nick Jordan, Steve Manson, and Kristen Nelson for their contributions to the formation of this project. We also thank Brandon Wiarda and Sonya Ewert for their help collecting field data, Rebecca Jacobson for insect identification, Adam Berland for GIS analysis, and Leonard Ferrington Jr. for his wealth of knowledge about Chironomidae. An earlier draft of this manuscript was improved thanks to reviews by Shaun Moore, Eric Romaniszyn, and Brian Weigel. This research was funded by the National Science Foundation under the Biocomplexity in the Environment Priority Area, Award ID 0709613. Reference to trade names does not imply endorsement by authors or the U.S. Government.

References

  1. Allan, J. D., 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35: 257–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angradi, T. R., 1999. Fine sediment and macroinvertebrate assemblages in Appalachian streams: a field experiment with biomonitoring applications. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18: 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbour, M. T., J. L. Plafkin, B. P. Bradley, C. G. Graves & R. W. Wisseman, 1992. Evaluation of EPA’s rapid bioassessment benthic metrics: metric redundancy and variability among reference stream sites. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 11: 437–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder & J. B. Stribling, 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, 2nd ed. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. Barden, V., K. R. Mankin, D. M. Ngandu, W. A. Geyer, D. L. Devlin & K. McVay, 2003. Assessing the Effectiveness of Various Riparian Buffer Vegetation Types. SRL 137. Kansas State University, Agricultural Experimental Station and Cooperative Extension, Manhattan.Google Scholar
  6. Beeson, C. E. & P. F. Doyle, 1995. Comparison of bank erosion at vegetated and non-vegetated channel bends. Water Resources Bulletin 31: 983–990.Google Scholar
  7. Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke & S. Uselman, 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54: 419–431.Google Scholar
  8. Bevenger, G. S. & R. M. King, 1995. A Pebble Count Procedure for Assessing Watershed Cumulative Effects. Research Paper RM-RP-319. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO: US.Google Scholar
  9. Bishop, P. L., W. D. Hively, J. R. Stedinger, M. R. Rafferty, J. L. Lojpersberger & J. A. Bloomfield, 2005. Multivariate analysis of paired watershed data to evaluate agricultural best management practice effects on stream water phosphorus. Journal of Environmental Quality 34: 1087–1101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blocksom, K. A., B. C. Autrey, M. Passmore & L. Reynolds, 2008. A comparison of single and multiple habitat protocols for collecting macroinvertebrates in wadeable streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 44: 577–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boody, G., B. Vondracek, D. A. Andow, M. Krinke, J. Westra, J. Zimmerman & P. Welle, 2005. Multifunctional agriculture in the United States. BioScience 55: 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Braccia, A. & J. R. Voshell Jr., 2006. Environmental factors accounting for benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage structure at the sample scale in streams subjected to a gradient of cattle grazing. Hydrobiologia 573: 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Braccia, A. & J. R. Voshell Jr, 2007. Benthic macroinvertebrate responses to increasing levels of cattle grazing in Blue Ridge Mountain streams, Virginia, USA. Environmental Monitor Assessment 131: 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brezonik, P. L., K. W. Easter, L. Hatch, D. Mulla & J. Perry, 1998. Management of diffuse pollution in agricultural watersheds: lessons from the Minnesota River basin. Water Science and Technology 39: 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarke, K. R., 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18: 117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coler, B. G., 1984. Community responses of Chironomidae (Diptera) to organic enrichment in a small Kansas stream. Masters thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas: 81 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Cuffney, T. F., M. R. Meador, S. D. Porter & M. E. Gurtz, 2000. Responses of physical, chemical and biological indicators of water quality to a gradient of agricultural land use in the Yakima River basin, Washington. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 64: 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeShon, J. E., 1995. Development and application of the invertebrate community index (ICI). In Davis, W. S. & T. P. Simon (eds), Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL: 217–243.Google Scholar
  19. Ferrington, L. C. Jr. & N. H. Crisp, 1989. Water chemistry characteristics of receiving streams and the occurrence of Chironomus riparius and other Chironomidae in Kansas. Acta Biologica Debrecina Oecologica Hungarica 3: 115–126.Google Scholar
  20. Ferrington, L. C. Jr., M. A. Blackwood, C. A. Wright, N. H. Crisp, J. L. Kavanaugh & F. J. Schmidt, 1991. A protocol for using surface-floating pupal exuviae of Chironomidae for rapid bioassessment of changing water quality. In: Sediment and Stream Water Quality in a Changing Environment: Trends and Explanations. IAHS Publication Number 203: 181–190.Google Scholar
  21. Fore, L. S., J. R. Karr & R. W. Wisseman, 1996. Assessing invertebrate response to human activities: evaluating alternative approaches. Journal of North American Benthological Society 15: 212–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haan, M. M., J. R. Russell, W. J. Powers, J. L. Kovar & J. L. Benning, 2006. Grazing management effects on sediment and phosphorous in surface runoff. Rangeland Ecology and Management 59: 607–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harding, J. S., E. F. Benfield, P. V. Bolstad, G. S. Helfman & E. B. D. Jones III, 1998. Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95: 14843–14847.Google Scholar
  24. Hayford, B. L. & L. C. Ferrington Jr., 2005. Biological assessment of Cannon Creek, Missouri by use of emerging Chironomidae (Insecta: Diptera). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 78: 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hilsenhoff, W. L., 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. The Great Lakes Entomologist 20: 31–39.Google Scholar
  26. Holechek, J. L., R. D. Pieper & C. H. Herbel, 2001. Range Management: Principles and Practices, 4th ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  27. Kaller, M. D. & K. J. Hartman, 2004. Evidence of a threshold level of fine sediment accumulation for altering benthic macroinvertebrate communities. Hydrobiologia 518: 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karr, J. R. & E. W. Chu, 1999. Restoring Life in Running Waters: Better Biological Monitoring. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  29. Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant & I. J. Schlosser, 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5, 28 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Kauffman, J. B., W. C. Krueger & M. Vavra, 1983. Effects of late season cattle grazing on riparian plant communities. Journal of Range Management 36: 685–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kerans, B. L. & J. R. Karr, 1994. A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee Valley. Ecological Applications 4: 768–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knapp, R. A. & K. R. Matthews, 1996. Livestock grazing, golden trout & streams in the Golden Trout Wilderness, California: impacts and management implications. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 805–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kosinicki, E. & R. W. Sites, 2007. Least-desired index for assessing the effectiveness of grass riparian filter strips in improving water quality in an agricultural region. Community and Ecosystem Ecology 36: 713–724.Google Scholar
  34. Lyons, J., B. M. Weigel, L. K. Paine & D. J. Undersander, 2000. Influence of intensive rotational grazing on bank erosion, fish habitat quality, and fish communities in southwestern Wisconsin trout streams. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55: 271–276.Google Scholar
  35. Magner, J. A., B. Vondracek & K. N. Brooks, 2008. Grazed riparian management and stream channel response in southeastern Minnesota (USA) Streams. Environmental Management 42: 377–390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCune, B. & J. B. Grace, 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Glenden Beach, Oregon.Google Scholar
  37. McCune, B. & M. J. Mefford, 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 5. MjM Software, Glenden Beach, Oregon.Google Scholar
  38. Meehan, W. R. & W. S. Platts, 1978. Livestock grazing and the aquatic environments. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 33: 274–278.Google Scholar
  39. Merritt, R. W. & K. W. Cummins (eds), 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America, 3rd ed. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa.Google Scholar
  40. Miltner, R. J., D. White & C. Yoder, 2004. The biotic integrity of streams and suburbanizing landscapes. Landscapes and Urban Planning 69: 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. MPCA, 2007. MPCA Stream Habitat Assessment (MSHA) Protocol for Stream Monitoring Sites. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Biological Monitoring Program.Google Scholar
  42. Nerbonne, B. A. & B. Vondracek, 2001. Effects of local land use on physical habitat, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish in the Whitewater River, Minnesota, USA. Environmental Management 28: 87–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. NRCS, 2005. Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard: Prescribed Grazing, Code 528. NE-T.G. Notice 559. Section IV.Google Scholar
  44. Olness, A., S. J. Smith, E. D. Rhoades & R. G. Mensel, 1975. Nutrient and sediment discharge from agricultural watersheds in Oklahoma. Journal of Environmental Quality 4: 331–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Omernik, J. M. & A. L. Gallant, 1988. Ecoregions of the Upper Midwest States. EPA/600/3-88/037, U.S. EPA. Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR: 56.Google Scholar
  46. Owens, L. B., W. M. Edwards & R. W. Van Keuren, 1996. Sediment losses from a pastured watershed before and after stream fencing. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 51: 90–94.Google Scholar
  47. Pfankuch, D. J., 1975. Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability Evaluation. USDA-FS/Northern Region, R1-75-002. Government Printing Office #696–260/200, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  48. Ranganath, S. C., W. C. Hession & T. M. Wynn, 2009. Livestock exclusion influences on riparian vegetation, channel morphology, and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 64: 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rankin, E. T., 1989. The Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI): Rationale Methods, and Application. Division of Water Quality Monitoring & Assessment, Surface Water Section, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  50. Richards, C., L. B. Johnson & G. E. Host, 1996. Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and biota. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 53: 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rios, S. L. & R. C. Bailey, 2006. Relationship between riparian vegetation and stream benthic communities at three spatial scales. Hydrobiologia 553: 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scrimgeour, G. J. & S. Kendall, 2003. Effects of livestock grazing on benthic invertebrates from a native grassland ecosystem. Freshwater Biology 48: 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simonson, T. D., J. Lyons & P. D. Kanehl, 1994. Guidelines for evaluating fish habitat in Wisconsin streams. US Forest Service General Technical Report NC-164.Google Scholar
  54. Sovell, L. A., B. Vondracek, J. A. Frost & K. G. Mumford, 2000. Impacts of rotational grazing and riparian buffers on physicochemical and biological characteristics of southeastern Minnesota, USA, Streams. Environmental Management 26: 629–641.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sponseller, R. A., E. F. Benfield & M. Valett, 2001. Relationships between land use, spatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communities. Freshwater Biology 46: 1409–1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. StatSoft, Inc., 2009. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 9.0. www.statsoft.com.
  57. Stepenuck, K. F., R. L. Crunkilton, M. A. Bozek & L. Wang, 2008. Comparison of macroinvertebrate-derived stream quality metrics between snag and riffle habitats. Journal of American Water Resources Association 44: 670–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stonehouse, D. P., 1999. Economic evaluation of on-farm conservation practices in the Great Lakes region of North America. Environmetrics 10: 505–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tate, K. W., E. R. Atwill, J. W. Bartolome & G. Nader, 2006. Significant Escherichia coli attenuation by vegetative buffers on annual grasslands. Journal of Environmental Quality 35: 795–805.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thorn, W. C., C. S. Anderson, W. E. Lorenzen, D. L. Hendrickson & J. W. Wagner, 1997. A review of trout management in southeast Minnesota streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 860–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Trimble, S. W. & A. C. Mendel, 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent, a critical review. Geomorphology 13: 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Undersander, D. J., B. Albert, P. Porter, A. Crossley & N. Martin, 1993. Pastures for Profit: A Guide to Rotational Grazing. University of Wisconsin–Extension, Madison, Wisconsin. Publications A3529.Google Scholar
  63. Vondracek, B., K. L. Blann, C. B. Cox, J. F. Nerbonne, K. G. Mumford, B. A. Nerbonne, L. A. Sovell & J. K. Zimmerman, 2005. Land use, spatial scale, and stream systems: lessons from agricultural region. Environmental Management 36: 775–791.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wang, L. & P. Kanehl, 2003. Influences of watershed urbanization and instream habitat on macroinvertebrates in cold water streams. Journal of American Water Resources Association 39: 1181–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wang, L. Z., J. Lyons, P. Kanehl & R. Bannerman, 2001. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish across multiple spatial scales. Environmental Management 28: 255–266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wang, L. Z., J. Lyons & P. Kanehl, 2002. Effects of watershed best management practices on habitat and fish in Wisconsin streams. Journal of American Water Resources Association 38: 663–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weigel, B. M., J. Lyons, L. K. Paine, S. I. Dodson & D. J. Undersander, 2000. Using stream macroinvertebrates to compare riparian land use practices on cattle farms in southwestern Wisconsin. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 15: 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wiederholm, T. (ed.), 1986. Chironomidae of the Holarctic region. Keys and diagnoses. Part 2 – Pupae. Entomologica Scandinavica Suppl 28: 1–482.Google Scholar
  69. Wilson, R. S. & P. L. Bright, 1973. The use of chironomid pupal exuviae for characterizing streams. Freshwater Biology 3: 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wilson, R. S. & L. P. Ruse, 2005. A Guide to the Identification of Genera of Chironomid Pupal Exuviae Occurring in Britain and Ireland (Including Common Genera from Northern Europe) and Their Use in Monitoring Lotic and Lentic Fresh Waters. Special Publication No 13. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, Cumbria, UK.Google Scholar
  71. Zaimes, G. N., R. C. Schultz & T. M. Isenhart, 2008. Streambank soil and phosphorus losses under different riparian land-uses in Iowa. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 44: 935–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zweig, L. D. & C. F. Rabeni, 2001. Biomonitoring for deposited sediment using benthic invertebrates: a test on 4 Missouri streams. Journal of North American Benthological Society 20: 643–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Park Service, Sonoran Desert NetworkTucsonUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological Survey, Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research UnitUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations