HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA4155pt5by
Robert L. Newell
Aquatic Ecologist
Montana Dept. of Fish and Game
TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 5
conducted by the
Water Resources Division
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
32 S. EwinCJ
Helena, MT S960l
Bob Anderson, Project Administrator
Dave Lambert, Editor
for the
Old West Regional Commission
228 Hedden Empire Building
Billings, MT 59101
Kenneth A. Blackburn, Project Coordinator
July, 1977
1730 K Street, N. W.
Suite 426
The Old West Regional Commission is a Federal-State
partnership designed to solve regional economic
problems and stimulate orderly economic growth in
the states of Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota,
South Dakota and Wyoming. Established in 1972
under the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965, it is one of seven identical commissions
throughout the country engaged in formulating and
carrying out coordinated action plans for regional
economic development.
COMMISSION MEMBERS
State Cochairman
Gov. Thomas L. Judge of Montana
Alternate: Dean Hart
Federal Cochairman
George D. McCarthy
State Members
Gov. Edgar J. Herschler of Wyoming
Alternate: Steve F. Freudenthal
Gov. J_ James Exon of Nebraska
Alternate: Jon H. Oberg
Gov. Arthur A. Link of North Dakota
Alternate: Woody Gagnon
Gov. Richard F. Kneip of South Dakota
Alternate: Theodore R. Muenster
COMMISSION OFFICES
201 14a in Street
Suite D
Washington, D. C. 20006
202/967-3491
Rapid City, South Dakota 57701
605/348-6310
Suite 228
Heddon-Empire Building
Billings, Montana 5g101
406/657-6665
i i
FOREWORD
The Old West Regional Commission wishes to express its appreciation for
this report to the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation,
and more specifically to those Department staff members who participated
directly in the project and in preparation of various reports, to Dr. Kenneth A.
Blackburn of the Commission staff who coordinated the project, and to the
subcontractors who also participated. The Yellowstone Impact Study was one
of the first major projects funded by the Commission that was directed at
investigating the potential environmental impacts relating to energy develop-
ment. The Commission is pleased to have been a part of this important research.
George D. McCarthy
Federal Cochairman
ABBREV !A TI ONS USED IN THIS REPORT .
PREFACE . . . . . .
The River · .
The Conflict·
The Study · ·
Acknowledgments
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
s·cope ·
Study Area ·
METHODS .....
Sampling Methods and Materials.
Species Diversity Calculations.
Mean Diversity (d) . . . .
Equi tabil i ty ( Eml . · .
Redundancy (R) ... .
Evenness (J') .... .
Species Richness (SR).
AN INTRODUCTION TO FAUNAL ZONATION
EXISTING SITUATION . . . . . . . .
Macroinvertebrate Distribution.
Yellowstone River.
Tongue River
Insect Emergence·
Mayflies .... .
Stoneflies ... .
Caddisflies ... .
Bottom Fauna Population
Species Diversity ...
Feeding Mechanisms. . . . ..
Current and Depth Requirements for Invertebrates.
Data Collected ..... .
Environmental Requirements
IMPACTS OF WATER WITHDRAWALS
Chemical · ·
Silt
Temperature
Current and Bottom Habitat· • ' . ' '
SUMMARY . . . . .
LITERATURE CITED
iv
...
X
1
1
1
3
4
5
5
5
5
17
17
19
20
21
22
22
23
25
31
31
31
42
42
42
42
50
52
59
67
67
67
75
95
95
95
96
96
103
105
1. Yellowstone river sampling stations. . . . . . 6
2. Longitudinal profile of the Yellowstone River, showing
invertebrate sampling stations and probable fish distribution
zones. . . . . . 9
3. Tongue River sampling stations 10
4. Longitudinal profile of the Tongue River in Montana, showing
invertebrate sampling stations . 11
5. Sampling station 1, ~orwin Springs 12
6. Yankee Jim Canyon between sampling stations 1 and 2. 12
7. Near station 3 above Livingston. 13
8. Station 4 at Livingston. . . 13
9. Station 5 at Grey Bear fishing access. 14
10. Aerial view of Yellowstone River above Miles City. 14
11. The Yellowstone River about 10 miles upstream from Miles City. 15
12. Yellowstone River at Glendive during early winter. . . 15
13. Aerial view of the Intake diversion, sampling station 18 16
14. Yellowstone River at Intake diversion. . 16
15. Kick net and other data collecting gear. 18
16. Water's round bottom sampler . 18
17. Relationships between detritus, producers, and consumers in
different order streams -stream continuum . 28
18. Relationship between detritus and stream consumers 29
19. Ephemeroptera of the Yellowstone River . . . . 37
20. Number of species of the three major orders found
at each sampling station in the Yello~1stone River. 38
21. Mature nymph of the mayfly (Heptagenia elegantula) 39
22. Plecoptera of the Yellowstone River. 40
23. Trichoptera of the Yellowstone River 41
v
24. Larvae of the Caddisfly Hydropsyahe.
25. An adult of the genus Hydropsyahe.
26. Aquatic invertebrates of the Yellowstone River
27. Emergence of mayflies from the Yellowstone
River, 1974-76 .......... .
28. Adult Mayfly (TravereZLa aZbertana) ..
29. Adult Mayfly (Triaorythodes minutus) ..
30. Emergence of stoneflies from the Yellowstone
River, 1974-76 ......
31. Adult stonefly (IsoperZa Zongiseta).
32. Emergence of caddisflies from the Yellowstone
River, 1974-76 · · · .. · · · · · · · . · · · . . . . . . .
33. Population estimates for August 1975, mean and range of six
Water's samples at each station ............. .
34. Population estimates for September 1975, mean and range of six
Water's samples at each station. . ...... .
35. Population estimates for October 1975, mean and range of six
Water's samples at each station.
36. Population estimates for November 1975, mean and range of six
Water's samples at each station. . . . . . . . ...
37. Mean percentage composition of invertebrate orders from Water's
samples taken August-November 1975 .
38. Species diversity: range of six Water's samples and all six
pooled, August 1975. . . .
39. Species diversity: range of six Water's samples and all six
poo 1 ed, September 1975 . . . . .
40. Species diversity: range of six Water's samples and all six
pooled, October 1975 . . .
41. Species diversity: range of six l~ater's samples and all six
pooled, November 1975. .
42. Seasonal changes in Shannon-Weaver diversity indices
43. Proposed relationships between invertebrates and the factors
that determine their distribution and abundance. . . . . .
vi
43
43
44
48
48
49
49
50
51
53
54
55
56
57
60
61
62
63
64
68
i
I
I
I
44. Comparison of sampling methods, Water's and kick net at Glendive
using kick samples taken in depths less than 19.5 in. 77
45. Comparison of sampling methods, Water's and kick net at Intake
using kick samples taken in depths less than 19.5 in. . . . 78
46. Current/invertebrate relationships, Yellowstone River, Glendive,
October 9, 1975 . . . . . . • . . 79
47. Current/depth/invertebrate relationship, Yellowstone River, Intake
October 15, 1975. . . . . . . . . . . 80
48. Current/depth/invertebrate relationships, Yellowstone River,
Glendive, November 7-, 1975. . . . 81
49. Mayfly (Ephemeroptera)distribution at various currents, Intake,
August 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
50. Mayfly (Ephemeroptera)distribution at various currents, Intake,
October 1975. . . . . . . . . . . . 86
51. Mayfly (Ephemeroptera)distribution at various currents, Intake,
November 1975 . . . . . . . . . . 87
52. Mayfly(Ephemeroptera) distribution at various currents, Glendive,
October 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
53. Mayfly(Ephemeroptera) distribution at various currents, Glendive,
November 1975. . . . . . . . . . 89
54. Synopsis of Mayfly/current relationship from both stations and for
all sampling months . . . . . . . . . . 90
55. Distribution of Hydropsyahe larvae at various currents during
October 1975. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
56. Distribution of Hydropsyahe larvae at various currents during
November 1 g75 . . . . . . 93
57. Yellowstone River at Terry during late winter 97
58. Ice jam during late winter at Glendive 97
59. Cross section No. 5 at Intake, showing water depth at various
flows and the 15 subsections used in WSP calculations
60. Invertebrate population estimates at various discharges .
vii
99
99
1. Discharges of the Yellowstone River at Miles City and Sidney
during sampling periods .............. .
2. Checklist of aquatic macroinvertebrates of the Tongue River
and the Yellowstone River ..... .
3. Macroinvertebrate fauna of the Tongue River
4. Percentage composition of benthos from the Yellowstone River
using Water's samples, August 1975 ............. .
5. Percentage composition of benthos from the Yellowstone River
using Water's samples, September 1975 ........... .
6. Percentage composition of benthos from the Yellowstone.River
using Water's samples, October 1975 ............ .
7. Percentage composition of benthos from the Yellowstone River
using Water's samples, Novenber 1975 ........... .
8. Mean percentage composition of benthos from the Yellowstone
River using Water's samples, August-November 1975 .
9. Species diversity, range of six Water's samples all six pooled,
August 1975 . . . . • .
10. Species diversity, range of six Water's samples and all six
pooled, September 1975. . .
11. Species diversity, range of six Water's samples and all six
pooled, October 1975. . . . . .
12. Species diversity, range of six Water's samples and all six
pooled, November 1975 .
13. Yellowstone River aquatic invertebrate distribution based on
feeding mechanism . . . . . . .
14. Mean and standard deviation for four variables measured in the
invertebrate/current investigation in the Yellowstone River .
15. Population estimates from the August 6 and 7, 1975, invert-
abrate/current samples (24 pooled samples from each station).
16. Population estimates from the September 9, 1975 invertebrate/
current samples (24 pooled samples from each station) ..
17. Population estimates from the October 9
invertebrate/current samples (24 pooled
stati nn). . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
Viii
and 15, 1975
samples from each
19
32
46
58
58
58
59
59
65
65
66
66
69
70
71
72
73
' '
,.
18. Population estimates from the November 7 and 11, 1975
invertebrate/current samples (24 pooled samples from each
station) ........................ .
19. Invertebrate population estimates and percentage composition,
20.
21.
pooled Glendive and Intake sampling ........ .
Percentage composition of invertebrate orders derived from
kick samples taken at Glendive and Intake in 1975 .....
Synopsis of regression analysis on the current/depth data
(against number of taxa) showing significance for the three
models for both sampling stations ............ .
74
75
82
83
22. Synopsis of regression analysis on the current/depth data
{against number of organisms) showing significance for the
three models for both sampling stations . . . . . . . . . . 84
23. Invertebrate population estimates utilizing data from
Intake station 18, subsections from WSP (water surface profile)
and regression equation from November kick samples. . . . . . . 98
ix
af
cfs
CPOM
d
Em
FPOM
ft
ft/sec
in2
,) '
km
km2
m
'112
m/sec
max.
min.
mm
rrnna f /y
msl
11M
N
Ni
P/R
R
~1
SR
WSP
acre-feet
r.ubic feet per second
coarse particulate organic matter
mean diversity
equitability
fine particulate organic matter
feet
feet per second
square inches
evenness
kilometers
square kilometers
meter
square meters
meters per second
maximum
minimum
mi 11 imeter
million acre-feet per year
mean sea leveJ
megawatts (10 watts)
total number of individuals
number of individuals in the ith taxon
production/respiration ratio
redundancy
number of taxa in sample
tabulated value
species richness
Hater Surface Profile
X
THE RIVER
The Yellowstone River Basin of southeastern Montana, northern Wyoming,
and western North Dakota encompasses approximately 180,000 km2 (71 ,000 square
miles), 92,200 (35,600) of them in f~ontana. Montana's portion of the basin
comprises 24 percent of the state's land; where the river crosses the
border into llorth Dakota, it carries about 8.8 111ill ion acre-feet of 1-1ater per
year, 21 percent of the state's average annual outflow. The mainstem of the
Yell01·1stone rises in north~1estern !·lyoming and flows generally northeast to its
confluence with the ~lissouri River just east of the ~lantana-North Dakota
border; the river flows through f~ontana for about 550 of its 680 miles. The
major tributaries, the Boulder, Stilh1ater, Clarks Fork, Bighorn, Tongue, and
Powder rivers, all flow in a northerly direction. The western part of the
basin is part of the middle Rocky Mountains physiographic province; the
eastern section is located in the northern Great Plains (Rocky Mountain
Association of Geologists 1972).
THE COilFLI CT
Historically, agriculture has been Montana's most important industry. In
1975, over 40 percent of the primary employment in Montana was provided by
agriculture (i•lontana Department of Community Affairs 1976). In 1973, a good
year for agriculture, the earnings of labor and proprietors involved in
agricultural production in the fourteen counties that approximate the
Yellowstone Basin were over 5141 million, as opposed to $13 million for
mining and $55 million for manufacturing. Cash receipts for Montana's
agricultural products more than doubled from 1968 to 1973. Since that year,
receipts have declined because of unfavorable market conditions: some
improvement may be in sight, however. In 1970, over 75 percent of the
Yello~1stone Basin's land was in agricultural use (State Conservation Needs
Committee 1970). Irrigated agriculture is the basin's largest \·later use.
consuming annually about 1.5 million acre-feet (af) of water (Montana DNRC
1977).
There is another industry in the Yellowstone Basin \~hich, though it con-
sumes little water now, may require more in the future, and that is the coal
development industry. In 1971, the North Central P01·1er Study (llorth Central
P01·1er Study Coordinating Committee 1971) identified 42 potential p01·1er plant
sites in the five-state (Montana, North and South Dakota, 1-Jyoming, and
Colorado) northern Great Plains region, 21 of them in Montana. These plants,
all to be fired by northern Great Plains coal, ~1ould generate 200,000 mega~1atts
(mw) of electricity, consume 3.4 mill ion acre-feet per year (mmaf/y) of \'later,
and result in a large population increase. Administrative, economic, legal,
1
and technological considerations have kept most of these conversion facilities,
identified in the i·lorth Central Power Studv as necessary for 1980, on the
drawing board or in the courtroom. There is now no chance of their being
completed by that date or even soon after, which will delay and diminish the
economic benefits some basin residents had expected as a result of coal
development. On the other hand, contracts have been signed for the mining
of large amounts of Montana coal, and applications have been approved not
only for new and expanded coal mines but also for Colstrip Units 3 and 4,
twin 700-mw, coal-fired, electric generating plants.
In 1975, over 22 million tons of coal were mined in the state, up from
14 million in 1974, 11 million in 1973, and 1 million in 1969. By 1980, even
if no new contracts are entered, Montana's annual coal production will exceed
40 million tons. Coal reserves, estimated at over 50 billion economically
stri ppabl e tons {t-lontana Energy Advisory Council 1976), pose no serious con-
straint to the levels of development projected by this study, which range
from 186.7 to 452.8 million tons stripped in the basin annually by the year
2000. Strip mining itself involves little use of water. How important the
energy industry becomes as a water user in the basin will depend on: 1) how
much of the coal mined in Montana is exported, and by what means, and 2) by
what process and to ~that end product the remainder is converted within the
state. If conversion follows the patterns projected in this study, the energy
industry will use from 48,350 to 326,740 af of water annually by the year 2000.
A third consumptive use of water, municipal use, is also bound to
increase as the basin population increases in response to increased employment
opportunities in agriculture and the energy industry.
Can the Yellowstone River satisfy all of these demands for her water?
Perhaps in the mainstem. But the tributary basins, especially the Bighorn,
Tongue, and Pm~der, have much sma 11 er flows, and it is in those basins that
much of the increased agricultural and industrial water demand is expected.
Some impacts could occur even in the mainstem. Hhat would happen to
water quality after massive depletions? Ho~1 would a chan9e in water quality
affect existing and future agricultural ,industrial, and municipal users?
What would happen to fish, furbearers, and migratory waterfo1~l that are
dependent on a certain level of instream flow? Would the river be as
attractive a place for recreation after dewatering?
One of the first manifestations of Montana's growing concern for water
in the Yellowstone Basin and elsewhere in the state was the passage of
significant legislation. The Hater Use Act of 1973, which, among other
things, mandates the adjudication of all existing water rights and makes
possible the reservation of water for future beneficial use, was followed
by the 11ater Moratorium Act of 197 4, ~1hi ch de 1 ayed act ion on major
applications for Yello~tstone Basin water for three years. The moratorium,
by any standard a bold action, was prompted by a steadily increasing rush of
applications and filings for water (mostly for industrial use) which, in two
tributary basins to the Yellowstone, exceeded supply. The DNRC's intention
during the moratorium was to study the basin's water and related land
resources, as well as existing and future need for the basin's water, so that
2
a
I
~
, ,
I
I
the state would be able to proceed wisely with the allocation of that water.
The study which resulted in this series of reports was one of the fruits of
that intention. Severa 1 other Yell o~1stone water studies \"/ere undertaken
during the moratorium at the state and federal levels. Early in 1977, the
45th f•lontana Legislature extended the moratorium to allow more time to con-
sider reservutions of water for future use in the basin.
THE STUDY
The Yellowstone Impact Study, conducted by the Water Resources Division
of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and financed
by the Old West Regional Commission, was designed to evaluate the potential
physical, biological, and water use impacts of water withdrawals and water
development on the middle and l01-1er reaches of the Yellowstone River Basin in
Montana. The study's plan of operation was to project three possible levels
of future agricultural, industrial, and muncipal development in the
Yellowstone Basin and the streamflow depletions associated with that develop-
ment. Impacts on river morphology and water quality were then assessed,
and, finally, the impacts of altered streamflow, morphology, and water
quality on such factors as migratory birds, furbearers, recreation, and
existing water users ~1ere analyzed.
The study began in the fall of 1974. By its conclusion in December of
1976, the information generated by the study had already been used for a
number of moratorium-related projects--the EISon reservations of \"later in
the Yello~1stone Basin, for example (Montana DNRC 1976). The study resulted
in a final report summarizing all aspects of the study and in eleven
specialized technical reports:
Report No. 1
Report No. 2
Report No. 3
Report No. 4
Report No. 5
Report rio. 6
Report No. 7
Future Development Projections and Hydrologic Modeling in
the Yellowstone River Basin, Montana.
The Effect of Altered Streamflow on the Hydrology and
Geomorphology of the Yellowstone River Basin, Hontana.
The Effect of Altered Streamflow on the Water Quality of
the Yellowstone River Basin, Montana.
The Adequacy of f1ontana' s Regulatory Framework for Water
Quality Control
Aquatic Invertebrates of the Yellowstone River Basin,
f·lontana.
The Effect of Altered Streamflow on Furbearing Mammals of
the Yellowstone River Basin, Montana.
The Effect of Altered Streamflow on Migratory Birds of the
Yellowstone River Basin, Montana.
3
Report No. 3
Report ilo. 9
Report No. 10
Report No. 11
The Effect of Altered Streamflow on Fish of the
Yellowstone and Tongue Rivers, Montana.
The Effect of Altered Streamflow on Existing Municipal
and Agricultural Users of the Yellowstone River Basin,
11ontana.
The Effect of Altered Streamflow on Water-Based Recreation
in the Yellowstone River Basin, Montana.
The Economics of Altered Streamflow in the Yellowstone
River Basin, Montana.
ACKilOWLEDGI~ENTS
The author would like to thank all biologists and friends who contributed
time, effort, and specimens for this study. He would also like to thank the
Intake '~ater Company and the Old ~Jest Regional Commission for contributing
research funds.
The author also thanks the following experts who helped identify organisms:
Trichoptera (D.G. Denning);Plecoptera (R.W. Bauman, B. Stark); Coleortera-
Elmidae (H.P. Brown); Diptera-Chironomidae (L. Curry); Oligochaeta and Mollusca
(D. Klemm); Odonata and Hemiptera (G. Roemhild).
A special thanks is given to R. Berg, D. Workman, and D. Schwehr of the
Montana Department of Fish and Game for taking bottom samples on the middle and
upper Yellowstone River and to A. Elser and R. McFarland for taking samples on
the Tongue River. Mr. Burwell Gooch of the Systems Development Bureau, Data
Processing Division, Montana State Department of Administration was very helpful
in constructing computer programs for species diversity analyses and regression
analysis.
Carole Massman, Jim Bond, and Pam Tennis of the Montana Department of
Natural Resources and Conservation provided editorial assistance. Graphics
were coordinated and performed by Gary Wolf, with the assistance of June Virag ~
and Dan Nelson and of D. C. Howard, who also designed and executed the cover. ~
t
4
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
PURPOSE
Objectives of this research task were to gain insight into the environmental
requirements of the dominant macroinvertebrate genera and species of the
Yellowstone River and to describe the distribution of macroinvertebrates in
the Yellowstone and Tongue rivers.
SCOPE
Water velocity and depth were chosen as the independent variables that
would be examined. Since current affects invertebrate distribution in several
ways, e.g., distribution of food and size of substratum, and because current
and discharge are closely interrelated, studies of the effects of current on
invertebrate distribution are meaningful and permit predictions about changes
in invertebrate communities occurring because of altered flo~1s. Because of
the gently sloping morphology of the river channel, depth is also important;
both current velocity and depth are functions of discharge.
Species diversity and river zonation analyses were made in an attempt
to understand distributional patterns of invertebrates, provide baseline
data, and record differences and similarities among populations at different
sampling stations.
STUDY AREA
Almost all of the length of the Yellowstone River outside of Yellowstone
Park was included in the study. Of the 20 invertebrate sampling stations
employed in the study (figure 1), the uppermost, at Corwin Springs, is only
about seven river miles (11 km) below the park boundary, and the lo~1est, at
Cartwright, N.D., only about nine river miles (14 km) above the mouth of the
river. These stations are shown on a longitudinal profile of the river in
figure 2.
The Tongue River also was extensively studied since the macroinvertebrate
fauna there influence the fauna of the lower Yellowstone River. Figures 3
and 4 sho~1 sampling stations employed on the Tongue River.
Figures 5 through 14 illustrate selected samoling station locations and
characteristic views of the upper and lower Yellowstone River.
5
I
I
Elevation (msl) River
No. Location County in ft .Mil e3
Corwin Springs Park 5ll0 549
2 Mallard Rest Access Park 4620 515
3 above Livings ton Park 4490 501
4 above Shields River Park 4380 497
5 Grey Bear Access S~1eetgrass 4100 468
6 below Greycliff Sweetgrass 3880 444 ~
7 Columbus Stillwater 3566 4ll
8 Laurel Yellowstone 3294 391
9 Duck Creek Bridge Yellowstone 3140 360 ~
10 Huntley Yellowstone 3ll0 349
ll Custer Yellowstone 2720 300
12 Bighorn River Treasure 2700 296
13 Myers Treasure 2640 279
14 Forsyth Rosebud 2490 234
15 Miles City Custer 2335 184
16 Terry Prairie 2190 138 ~ 17 Glendive Dawson 2045 93
18 Intake Dawson 1998 71
19 Sidney Richland 1892 30 ~
20 Cartwright, N.D. McKenzie 1850 9
CONVERSIONS: lft = .305 m
l mile= 1.609 km
aMouth of the Yellowstone River is river mile 0.
6
YEllowsTONE RIVER BASIN
YEllOWSTONE RIVER SAMpliNG STATIONS
0 10 20 40 60 80 100 Miles
Ui.tU I I I I I
0 10 20 40 60 80 100 Kilometers
ltW--1 I I I I
! MUSSELSHELL
GOLDEN\
'
WHEATLAND I
' -------c--j VALLEY
' ~---~-L -__t.,l _.,..--._,_...,
_j CARBON
' rj
YELLOWSTONE
NATIONAL PARK
' )
' (
N
I
YELLOWSTONE
RIVER BASIN
GARFIELD
L--~ I COLSTRIP l---: -t •
, -----.---. r
McCONE
I
f
<:~
-;; POWDER I
ASHLAND INDIAN
I ----r--r
! l ----~
\ ronglJe Rit~er ~ Reservoir
------~--~-----
BIG HORN
RESERVATION ~
~-----------..._
WYOMING
_ ___,
I
DAWSON
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
~ I ~ k
~
~ ,;:,
' 'J
I
I
20...--
I
I lj
___ j \ g
' ~ 1 :c
I ,
GLENDIVE)
J
J
I
I L'.t-
IUl lg
\;
,~
0
--
FIGURE 1
-\~
~
I
I
I
t
5100
4800
4500
2
r-Livingston ·
\\.3
e4
__ .,, ---.........-
Figure 2. Longitudinal profile of the Yellowstone River, showing invertebrate
sampling stations and probable fish distribution zones.
--1600
1500
1400
1300
1200 E
c
0
1100 -0 >
"' w
1000
900
BOO
700
600
~
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
DECKER •
CITY
8
SAMPLING STATIONS T6 Y
''""' Dam Section ""'\
Hosford
Birney
/ t
Ashland
Viall
S-H
Orcutt
Keogh
~I c}(
~ I
) r
·~~ ~ ...
~~ q.•
I 1
~·
.!
/
L.
}
(
Btewarer'a
0 10 20 30 Miles
~~.t~.t~~t=======~~--------~1
0 10 20 30 Kilometers i......t=:::::i....~
'Ton;ue River Oom
(. <::>':. Tongu~ Ri.-~r R,~,voir \ ~
I
·-______ l __ ~NT~ __ ,-------
WYOMING
Figure 3. Tongue River sampling stations.
10
1050
1000
950
-900
~
c
.~
0 > ~ ..,
850
800
750
River Dam
Section
Creek
Creek
--Liscom Creek
S-H
·700 -L-----.---------.----------,---------.---------~---------.----------.---------,
175 150 125 100 75 50 25
River Miles
300 270 240 210 180 150 120 90 60
Kilometers
Figure 4. Longitudinal profile of the Tongue River in Montana, showing
invertebrate sampling stations.
0
30 0
·-----~--
Creek
Figure 5. Sampling Station 1, Corwin Springs.
·~·-.. . . -·~I'· -~ . . . , -----''"'_:._ --·"'-
Figure 6. Yankee Jim Canyon between stations 1 and 2.
12
'
,
t
'
,
Figure 7. Near Station 3 above Livingston.
:
---------· _ . ..:~ ---___:_
Figure 8. Station 4 at Livingston.
13
Figure 9. Station 5 at Grey Bear Fishing Access.
Figure 10. Aerial view of Yellowstone River above Miles City.
14
' ~
Figure 11. The Yellowstone River about 10 miles upstream
from Miles City.
Figure 12. Yellowstone River at Glendive during early winte~
15
Figure 13. Aerial view of the Intake diversion, sampling station
No. 18.
Figure 14. YellOI·Jstone River at Intake diversion.
16
SA~IPLING METHODS AND r~ATERJALS
' Sampling methods used to collect aquatic macroinvertebrates on the
Yellowstone River included kick nets (figure 15), Water's round samplers
(figure 16), and Hester-Dendy multiole plate artifical substrates.
The kick net, essentially a Surber Sampler on a pole, consisted of a
modified Turtox bottom net 10" deep with dimensions of 8" x 8", a six-foot
wooden handle used to hold the net perpendicular to the current, and wire
frame 17'' x 16'' attached to the bottom lip of the net frame perpendicular
to the net opening in such a way that the wir2 frame re2ted on the stream
bottom. The area within the frame was 272 in (0.175 m ). When the area with-
in the frame was disturbed, bottom organisms were carried into the number 20
(0. 70 mm) mesh net. Net material was added to each side of the wire frame
to minimize side washout of organisms.
This technique can be used as long as the wnter is shallow enough to
~lade. The bot tom out 1 i ned by the frame is merely stirred with the foot.
This sampler was used at the Glendive and Intake sampling stations during
1975 only. Water depth, and current speed at six-tenths total depth, were
determined in the center of each sampling site. A timed (2-minute) kick
sample without the 17" x 16" frame was taken at many stations during 1974
in the Yellowstone and Tongue rivers to determine relative abundance of
organisms.
A Water's round sampler was used to take six samples per month at ten
of the 20 sampling stations in the Yellowstone River from August to November
1975. The Water's sampler is 19.5 in (.495 m) in height and encloses an area
just slightly less than one ft2 (143.14 in2 or 0.093 m2). The area to be
sampled, randomly selected, is approached from downstream. After forcing
the sampler into the bottom, the investigator reaches down through the open
top and stirs the bottom with his hand. Water current carries the orqanisms
into the trailing, 20-mesh net. All organisms were preserved in the field
in 70-percent ethyl alcohol.
Hester-Dendy multiple-plate artificial samplers (Hester and Dendy 1962),
Fullner 1g71, Parsons and Tatum 1974) were used occasionally during 1g74 but
their use was discontinued when they proved to be unsatisfactorily colonized.
In the laboratory, all organisms were picked from bottom detritus and
gravel under a dissecting microscope. Immature invertebrates were identified
to genus and species (and, less commonly, only to family) using appropriate
taxonomic keys. Adult insects were used whenever possible to confirm species
identifications. Experts (identified on paqe 4 ) were consulted when
difficulties were encountered.
17
Figure 15. Kick net and other data collecting gear.
Figure 16. Water's round bottom sampler.
18
t
Measurements were made to determine velocity and depth preferences of
invertebrates. All velocity measurements were made with a Price model-.IV\-
type current meter at six-tenths total depth.
Discharge at the !1iles City and Sidney stations on dates sampling 1-1as
preformed is sho~m in Table 1 (USGS 1976).
Table 1. Discharges of the Yello~1stone River at Miles City and Sidney
during sampling periods (cfs).
Date Miles City
August 6, 1975 20,200
August 7 ' 1975 18.500
September 9. 1975 9,890
September 17, 1975 8,440
October 9, 1975 8,000
October 15, 1975 8,850
November 7, 1975 8,620
November 11, 1975 10,300
CONVERSIONS: 1 cfs = .0283 m3/sec
SPECIES DIVERSITY CALCULATIONS
Sidney
21 , 200
20,300
10,100
8,980
9,730
10,300
10,400
10,100
Aggregations or communities of aquatic organisms are subject~d to almost
continual stress due to environmental changes, some natural and others caused
by society. It is a generally accepted axiom in ecology that a gross
environmental stress exerted upon a diverse biological community (one
consisting of a large number of species) results in a simplication of the
system through a reduction of species diversity (i.e. number of species)
(Cairns 1969). Slobodkin and Sanders (1969) developed the stability-time
hypothesis to suggest the kinds of animals that must live in low-and high-
diversity places: all places of high diversity would have stable or predictable
environments, and all places of low diversity would either be places of
unpredictable hazard or would be short-lived. This theory was tested in one
widespread, stable environment--the ocean floor. Although this investigation
is far from complete, the theory appears to hold.
In low-diversity areas, the dangers of species extinction are great.
Populations of opportunistic animals must frequently be decreased by weather
to prevent it, and the possibility still exists of breeding failure. The
loss of several consecutive year-classes means extinction even for long-lived
19
animals. But such year-class failure is less likely in stable climates, and
a series of failures is unlikely. Extinction is thus more probable as
environmental stress increases.
The actual number of species present in any place is a product both of
the loss of species by extinction and nf their replacement with new species.
In a fe11 specialized organisms, such as birds, a limit to the number of species
that can accumulate is set by a restricted number of possible niches. For
most other kinds of antmals and plants, the number of possible niches is
much larqer than the number of existing species. The patterns of diversity
presently evident arc the products of different environments of the earth
(Colinvaux 1973}.
The use of species diversity indices to analyze biological communities
originates from efforts to apply information theory to complex biological
problems. Workers who have explored the theoretical use of diversity indices
in bioloqy, suggested refinements, or attempted studies include Brillouin
(1960), Lloyd and Ghelardi (1964), Wilhm and Dorris (1966, 1968} Lloyd et al.
(1968}, Margalef (1968), Pielou (1969}, Wilhm (1967, 1970abc, 1972), and
Cairns and Dicks~n (1971). Several indices have been generally accepted:
mean diversity (d), equitability (Em), redundancy (R}, evenness (J'), and
richness (SR).
FORTRAN computer programs for calculating species diversity indices are
available from the following sources: Wilhm (1970b). Cairns and Dickson (1971),
and Orr et al. (1973).
r~EAtl DIVERSITY (d)
In general, the fundamental objective of information theory is applied to
biology is to provide insight into community structure. The biological
information theorist asks how much new knowledge or "information" about
the species composition of a community can be obtained by drawing individuals
at random. If the community is composed of only one species, then no new
composition information is obtained after the first drawing. But if the
community is composed of numerous species, possibly with each individual being
a different species, then much new information is gained with each drawino.
Information theory attempts to quantify the information contained in the
community in terms of "bits" of information per individual.
Mathematically stated, "information" equals the uncertainty of correctly
predicting the identity of an individual randomly chosen from a community.
l•lhere uncertainty is high, information per individual is high. The mean amount
of uncertainty of prediction of any individual's identity equals the mean number
of bits of information per individual, and this number is referred to as the
species diversity index. Mean information per individual is commonly measured
using the function developed by and named after Shannon and l~eaver (1964).
The formula for the Shannon-Weaver function is:
(N./N) lon 2 (N./N) 1 ~ 1
where d ~ mean number of bits of information per individual, or the species
20
'·" \
\
'\
t
I
I
)
(
'
t
' l
diversity index.
s = number of taxa in the samole
N. = number of individuals in the taxon
1
N = total number of individuals
A few of the authors cited earlier in this sectinn and Hurlbert (1971)
have criticized the Shannon-\1eaver function as improperly used in m~ny studies.
However. the U.S. Environmental Protection Aqency (1973) has orovisionally
accepted and recommended the function for aquatic ma~rohenthos studies.
The index, d, possesses features that make it a useful method for
summarizing community diversit.v. The index is dimensiDnless and expresses
the relative importance of each species in the community. As samole size
is increased. the d of the pro<wessively oooled samples increases rapidly at
first and then levels off.· Since diversity of progressively pooled samples
asymptotically aporoaches the diversity of the population. and since diversity
of individual samples are highly variable, it is preferable to report the
diversity of the pooled samples. Diversity had leveled off hy the fifth poolerl
sample in most of the areas sampled by Wilhm (l970abc). The range of d varies
from zero to any positive number. A value of zero is obtained ~1hen all
individuals belong to the same species. The maximum value of d depends on the
number of individuals counted and is obtained when all individuals belong to
different soecies. The d usually varies between three and four in clean-water
stream areas and is usually less than one in polluted stream areas (Wilhm
l970abc).
A lol"l diversity index indicates a largely monotypic community dominated
by a fel"l abundant organisms. Often the total number of species is low. In
addition. a low diversity index often suggests that degraded environmental
conditions exist which favor the proliferation of a few tolerant species and
the removal of less tolerant forms. A high diversity index indicates a
hetero~eneous community in which abundance is distributed more evenly among
a number of species. The total number of species is generally high.
EQUITABILITY (Em)
As measured by Marqalef (1957) and Krebs (1972). equitability (E ) is
a retia of the observed.d to a maximum theoretical diversity (dmaxl c~mputed
as though all individuals ~1ere equally distributed among the species. Maxi-
mum diversity here is measured simply as log 2 s; therefore
Em = d ;1 oq 2 s
As equitability increases, the species become more evenly distributed
and their distributions conform more closely to perfect theoretical distri-
butions. Equitability may range from 0 to 1, except that in samoles containing
only a few specimens 1~i th several taxa represented, values of E greater than
l may occur. The estimates of Em and d improve with increased sWmple size. and
samples containing fewer than 100 specimens should he evaluated with caution if
21
at all (U.S. EPA 1973).
An improved equitability formula is presented below and must be used with
tables presented in Lloyd and Ghelardi (1964) and U.S. EPA (1973):
where sl = tabulated value
1 Em 2 =s /s
Because a table is required to calculate Em2 it is not easily applied to computer·
operations.
Equitability has been found to be sensitive to even slight levels of
environmental degradation. Equitability levels below 0.5 have not been
encountered in southeastern U.S. streams known to be unaffected by oxygen-
demanding wastes, and in such streams Em2 values are generally between 0.6
and 0.8. Even slight levels of degradation have been found to reduce Em2
below 0.5 and generally to a range of 0.0 to 0.3.
REDUNDANCY (R)
Redundancy (R), as measured by Wilhm and Dorris (1968) and Cairns and
Dickson (1971), gives the relative position of the observ~d diversity index
(d) between theoretical maximum and minimum diversities (d and d . )
It is calculated as follows: max mln ·
R = dmax -d
dmax -a . r.n n
Theoretical maximum and minimum diversities are calculated as follows:
d = ( l /N) [log 2 'l!-s log2 (N/s l!] max
dmin = ( 1 /N) {loq 2N! -log 2 [N-(s-ll] ! }
Redundancy measures the repetition of information within a community,
thereby expressing the dominance of one or more species, and is inversely
proportional to the wealth of species. It is maximal when no choice of
species exists and minimal when there is a greater choice of species.
EVENNESS ( J' )
If the numbers of individuals, N1, N2, ... Ns, in each of the s species
are portrayed in histogram form, s is the range of data or the width of the
histogram. The shape of the histogram is best described in what may be called
its ''evenness." Thus, the distribution has maximum evenness if all the species
abundances are equal; the greater the disparities among the different species
abundances, the smaller the evenness. Evenness (J') is calculated as follows:
(Pielou 1969):
J' = d log 2 s
22
'
1
i
~
Egloff and Brakel (1973) calculated evenness for a population of aquatic
macroinvertebrates in a stream receiving large inputs of domestic sewage.
Above the outfall, evenness values ranged from 0.6 to 0.7 and diversity was
3.0 and greater; below the outfall, evenness dropped to 0.4 and below and
diversi~y decreased to less than one. The number of species and evenness
appeared to be inversely related along the stream except at the outfall, where
both decrease.
The evenness index has not been widely used in aquatic studies.
SPECIES RICHNESS (SR)
A further component of diversity, richness, was calculated in the computer
program furnished by Orr et.al. (1973), but no reference to it could be found
in the literaturP.. It was calculated as follows:
SR = d-d/log 2 N
Species richness is more commonly calculated by summing the total number
of species present in a sample.
23
I
r
The classification of river zones is helpful in comparing studies of the
ecology of different rivers and is useful in fishery and river management.
Most attempts at river classification have been instigated by the needs of
fishery management. With an increasin~ need for conservation of water quantity
and quality, a system of river-zone classification is invaluable in predicting
the likely effect on the ecology of the river of project management policies
such as water removal and flow regulation.
River zonation studies began at the end of the last century with German
biologists who developed a system of classifying river zones on the basis
of the dominant fish species present, after which they named the zones--
trout, grayling, barbel, and bream. Similar methods of classification were
developed in other regions. Subsequent studies carried out throughout the
world to establish whether the German zonation scheme was generally applicable
attempted to characterize the different zones more precisely in physiographical,
physiochemical, and biotic terms (Whitton 1975).
Carpenter (1928), an early British researcher influenced by the earlier
German workers, attempted to classify the mountain streams of North Wales.
She described a typical river as arising from several sources at high altitude
and forming a stream characterized by swift current, steep gradient, and
extensive erosion. Downstream, as the gradient decreases, the current slows,
and the str~~m deepens and widens. With the reduction in current, stones,
gravel and sand are successively deposited on the streambed. Still farther
downstream, current is further reduced, the river widens and meanders, and
the bed is covered with deposited silt. Carpenter's classification of streams
included a taxonomic list of the flora and fauna of each zone. High altitude
zones included headstreams, trout becks, and minnow reaches. Lowland stream
zones included upper and lower reaches.
Huet (1949, 1954),using European stream data, refined the European system
which recognized four zones, each identified by key fish species. The trout
zone had a steep gradient, fast current, cool temperatures, and oxygenated
water. The grayling zone was deeper and had less gradient, a gravel bottom,
cool temperatures, and oxygenated water. The barbel zone had moderate gradient
with an alternating riffle-pool morphology and few trout still present. The
bream zone was characterized by slight current, high temperatures, and deep
turbid water. The four zones represent two fish faunistic regions--an upper,
cool water region containing salmonid fish, and the lower, warmer waters
containing cyprinids. From longitudinal profiles of many European streams,
Huet concluded that the fish fauna was directly related to the gradient
of the stream, and that, in nearly all rivers of comparable size, streches
with similar gradients have similar fish faunas. From these conclusions he
formulated his slope rule: in a given biogeographical area, rivers or
stretches of rivers of like breadth, depth, and slope have nearly identical
biological characteristics and similar fish populations.
25
It is necessary to realize the limitations of zone classiflication due
to historic, geo~raphic, and climatic influences, however. Generally, 'the
greater the distance from the original streams studied, the more the original
scheme of zonation needs to be modified to meet local conditions. Pollution
can change zonation in localized areas.
The zonal distribution of fish in North American rivers has been demonstrated
by a succession of workers. Shelford (1911) studied the distribution of fish
in a number of Lake Michigan tributaries and concluded that fish have definite
habitat preferences which cause them to be definitely arranged in streams
which have a graded series of conditions from source to mouth. Burton and
Odum (1945) and Funk and Campbell (1953) all report fish distributed in zones
in North American streams.
From these studies in different parts of the world, it is evident that
in general there is a longitudinal distribution of fish species in rivers
in which a succession of different fish populations occurs from source to
mouth. Other generalizations regarding the pattern of this distribution
are more difficult to make. Funk and Campbell (1953) report that succession
is by gradual transition; other workers report a zonal distribution in which
there is a sharp border between zones.
To what extent do fish zones represent different river biocoenoses?
Numerous studies have been conducted on the longitudinal distribution of
different benthic invertebrates in rivers. Again, the earliest research
occurred in Europe, but studies have taken olace throughout the world
(Beauchamp and Ullyott 1932, Carpenter 1928 , Chandler 1966). The longitudinal
distribution of several insect orders has been investigated (Dodds and Hisaw
1925, Ide 1935, Hynes 1941 and 1948, Macan 1957).
l
1
Past studies of the longitudinal distribution of aquatic insects have
found them be be disturbuted zonally along the length of rivers. It appears
that each taxon exhibits a zonal distribution of its different species along
the length of a river. Within taxa some species have a restricted distribution, 4
especially those in the upper reaches, while others extend over a long stretch
of river: therefore, over some distances, there may be little change in species
present. Relative abundance changes along the length of river, reflecting
a change in the ecological structure of the community (Hynes 1961).
The conclusion may be drawn that both fish and benthic invertebrates are
longitudinally distributed along rivers, with particular species occupying
particular sections of the river. One would expect a correlation among the
zones of fish species and of benthic invertebrates. Some authors have
concluded generally that biocoenoses associated with the fish zones can be
recognized. Thorup (1966) is critical of these studies and suggests that
pollution is responsible for the observed zonation of invertebrates and fish.
Maitland's work (1956) supports the views expressed by Thorup. It appears
from available evidence that, although fish zones can be recognized, the
association of benthic biocoenoses with them does not always exist.
A theory, known as the river continuum theory in Cummins ( 1975b),
has recently emerged to explain the distribution of groups of invertebrates
on the bottom of streams and rivers. This theory makes use of theoretical
26 I
I
•
'
,
relationships between stream order (Leopold et. al, 1964, Hynes 1970). size
of organic matter, and production-respiration (P/R) ratios. Stream order
employs an ordinal scale to describe stream characteristics. Streams of orders
1, 2, or 3, for example, are headwaters streams with few or no tributaries
(figure 17).
Head~1ater streams characteristically receive substantial terrestrial
contributions (allochthonous) of organic matter, especially coarse particulate
organic matter (CPOM) such as leaf litter, with little or no photosynthetic
production of organic matter. The two categories of dominant macroconsumers
are detritivores (collectors) feeding on fine particulate organic matter (FPOM)
and CPOM-feeding invertebrates (shredders). Thus, a headwaters food chain can
be described as: CPOM--fungi --shredders--FP0~1--bacteri a--co 11 ectors
(figures 17 and 13). ·
Food chains in intermediate-sized rivers are less dependent upon allochthonous
inputs and more on organic production by producer organisms along with input
of FPOM from upstream. The ratio of photosynthetic production to community
respiration is often greater than one (P/R >1) in contrast to headwater and
large rivers where P/R < 1 (figure 17).
Large rivers tend to be turbid with heavy sediment loads, the culmination
of all upstream processes .. These systems, which possess plankton communities,
could be characterized by their food chains: FPOM--bacteria--collectors (figure
17).
Fish populations generally show a downstream transition from cold-water
invertivores to warm-water invertivores and from piscivores to planktivores.
A more autecological approach to distribution of aquatic invertebrates
in aquatic ecosystems investigates the distribution and abundance of stream-
dwelling invertebrates as regulated by such factors as current speed, temp-
erature, substrata, vegetation, and dissolved substances (Hynes 1970); others
are competition, zoogeography, and food.
Temperature and water chemistry usually exert the greatest influence on
the composition of living communities considered over large areas, but because
of feeding and respiratory requirements, it is largely current that determines
how local communities actually are composed (Jaag and Ambuhl 1964, Chutter 1969).
In fact, some macroinvertebrate species are confined to fairly narrow ranges
of current speed. As an example, in the case of the net-building caddisflies
(e.g., Hydropsyche, Cheumatopsyche, Parapsyche), the nets require a definite
current in order for them to function properly (Philipson 1954). Many organisms
must function in proximity to a specific current but cannot tolerate being
actually in it. There is often great variation in current velocity for an
insect living on top of a rock compared with one living under that rock, yet
both may have current requirements. Because of the impossibility of taking
measurements at most places macroinvertebrates inhabit (such as under rocks),
current velocity is usually measured at some reproducible depth, e.g., mid-depth,
six-tenths of total depth, or near the bottom (Hynes 1970).
There are unmistakable high-current specialists (e.g., Baetis, Simulium,
and Hydropsyche), while some organisms find optimum habitat at low velocities
(e.g., Gammarus, Hyalella, TPicoPythodes). Each species prefers a certain range
of current velocity.
27
WIDTH
(0.!1 METERS)
-& .• :-irOBES
~ \.-
2 (1·2 METERS)
3 (4·6 METERS)
a::
1.&.14
0
a::
0
~5 <t
1.&.1 a::
I-
(/)
6
7
8
10
110 METERS)
.·~ J.., ....
PRODUCERS
(PERIPHYTON)
MICROBES -.-
*'PR±E!R<I
(PHYTOPLANKTON)
~ ~COLLECTORS
(ZOOPLANKTON)
SHREDDERS
-~,, .. ::::::
COLLECTORS ,,)
Figure 17. Relationships between detritus, producers, and consumers in
different order streams--stream continuum. Reproduced with permission from
Cummins l975b.
28
N
<D
~~.tiC ROBES
COARSE DISSOLVED
ORGANIC MAT TF.R
SHAEOD£AS
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 • ~
~
Fi(jure 18.
permission from
LICHT
MACROPRODUI.EAS
/
~~
... -' *'' MICROPROOUCEAS ... ,
,' .,.," . -~ ,' _ ...
rl ... -
DISSOLVED II'
/ORGANIC MATTER~
FLOCCU~ / FINE
PARTICULATE
ORGANIC MATTEA
l 1
COLLECTORS
... ...... ...
MICROBES
·-----------------------------------
PREDATORS
Helationship between detritus and stream consumers.
Cummins 1975b.
SCRAPERS
j
PPEDATOAS
Reproduced with
In every turbulent flowing system, marginal effects develop in the
boundary layers. Close to the substratum, movement of the water gradually
slows due to friction, and a boundary layer is formed in which the flow is
strongly retarded, until, close to the substratum, it is stagnant (Jaag
and Ambuhl 1964). The thickness of this boundary layer depends, among
other things, on the velocity of the current above and the shape and
roughness of the substratum. Extremely flattened organisms (e.g., Epeorus,
Rhithrogena) make use of the boundary layer to avoid the current.
Many species that live in flowing water (e.g.,most Plecoptera) can be
maintained only in such water, since they either possess no ventilating organs
or have changed or lost the function of those organs in the course of their
evolutionary development. They are extremely sensitive to still water and
quickly die in it.
Macrodistribution of aquatic invertebrates can be explained with increasing
difficulty as habitat gradually changes moving downstream. Cummins (l975a)
described food as the ultimate determinant of macroinvertebrate distribution
and abundance in nondisturbed running waters. The current regime, velocity, and
turbulence set the limits on the range of sediment particle sizes present
as well as controlling such features as the growth of periphyton and macrophytes
and accumulation of particulate detritus. The size of particles present decreases
in a downstream direction (Macan 1974, Hynes 1970), resultino in community
variation in primary producers, macroinvertebrates, and fish. These community
changes may be generally placed into three categories or habitat subsystems:
(1) erosional zone, (2) intermediate zone, and (3) depositional zone. Each
zone has a characteristic physical-chemical makeup and a characteristic fauna.
30
,,
, .. ....
MACROINVERTEBRATE DISTRIBUTION
A checklist of the macroinvertebrates found in the Tongue and Yellowstone
rivers is presented in table 2. This list is as complete as possible and
utilizes all published sources available, as well as data gathered during this
study. Distributional records were taken from Stadnyk (1971), Gaufin et al.
(1972), and Thurston et al. (1975).
For specimens for which a precise species identification was not possible,
the most probable species (considering the most recent available distribution
data) is listed in parentheses. In the order Diptera, several genera are
listed under the family Chironomidae; this is the only place these genera will
appear in this report because of unconfirmed identifications. Identifications
of this group are difficult both to make and to confirm.
YELLOWSTONE RIVER
Mayflies
The distribution of all mayflies (Ephemeroptera) known to occur in the
Yellowstone River (37 species variously distributed) is presented in figure 19.
Four species were collected.throughout the study area, and a fifth species
(EphemereZZa inermis) was missing only from the lower two sampling stations.
In this figure and in several others, stations 7-12 are shaded and
represent the probable location of the transition zone between the salmonid
and nonsalmonid zones. This transition zone also corresponds to the inter-
mediate zone between the erosional and depositional habitat subsystems outlined
by Cummins (1975b) for large rivers.
The number of mayfly species found at each station is illustrated in
figure 20. Station 5 yielded the largest number of species (19) and stations
19 and 20 the fewest with 10 species. No pattern of mayfly distribution is
apparent throughout the transition zone. Longitudinally, the community
exhibits a gradual shift from mountain fauna to prairie fauna more adapted to
slower flow, warmer temperatures, and a silty substratum, but the number of
species is reasonably constant along the entire river.
A mature Heptagenia eZegantuZa nymph is shown in figure 21.
31
TABLE 2.
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
Checklist of the aquatic macroinvertebrates of the Tongue River (t)
and the Yellowstone River (y).
Phylum Arthropoda
Order Ephemeroptera
Family Siphlonuridae
AmeZetus (Ol'egonensis r1c0.?)
Isonychia (sicca campestris McD.?)
Family Baetidae
t Baetis insignificans McD.
t Baetis parvus Dodds
Baetis (propinquus Halsh}
Baetis tricaudatus Dodds
CentroptiZum sp. A
t DactyZobaetis aepheus Traver & Edmunds
PseudocZoeon sp. A
Family Oligoneuriidae
LachZania poweZZi Edmunds
Family Heptageniidae
Epeorus (Iron) aZbertae (McD.)
Epeorus (Iron) Zongimanus (Eaton}
t Heptagenia eZegantuZa (Eaton)
t Rhithrogena unduZata (Bks.)
t Stenonema terminatum (Walsh)
Stenonema prob n. sp.
Family Ametropodictae
Ametr•opus (neavei McD.)?
Family Leptophlebiidae
t Choroterpes aZbiannuZata McD.
t LeptophZebia gravasteZZa Eaton
ParaZeptophZebia bicornuta (McD.)
ParaZeptophZebia heteronea (McD.)
t TravereUa albertana (14cD.)
Family Ephemerellidae
EphemereZZa (AttenuateZZa) margarita N.
EphemerelZa (Caudatella) h. heterocaudata McD.
i::phemereUa (CaudateUa) hystrix Traver
EphemereZZa (DrunelZa) doddsi Needham
EphemereZZa g. grandis Eaton
t EphemereZZa (EphemereZlaJ inermis Eaton
Ephemer>eUa (SerrateUa) tibialis McD.
EphemereUa (Timpanoga) h. hecuba (Eaton)
Family Tricorythidae
t Tricorythodes minutus Traver
TPicorythodes sp. A
Family Ephemeridae
Ephemera sp. A
Family Polymitarcidae
Ephoron album (Say)
Family Caenidae
t Brachyceraus (prudens McD. ?)
Caenis Zatipennis
32
'I 'J
'··
\j
'.~~ ·.\~ >I
:~
'
,.
,r
TABLE 2 (continued).
y t
Family Baetiscidae
Baetisea sp. A
Order Trichoptera
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
Family Rhyacophilidae
RhyaeophiLa bifiLa Bks.
Family Helicopsychidae
Helieopoyehe borealis (Hagen)
Family Glossosomatidae
Glossosoma sp. A
Glossosoma traviatum Bks.
Glossosoma velona Ross
Family Psychomyiidae
Polyeentropus einereus Hagen
Psyehomyia flavida Hagen
Family Hydropsychidae
Aretopsyehe grandis Bks
Cheumatopsyehe sp. A
Cheumatopsyehe analis (Bks.)
Cheumatopsyche eampyla Ross
Cheumatopsyehe lasia Ross
Cheumatopsyehe enonis Ross
Hydropsyehe sp. A
Hydrops yo he near a lhedra Ross
Hydropsyche eoekerelli Bks.
Hydropsyehe eorbeti Nimmo
Hydropsyehe oecidentalis Bks.
Hydropsyehe osla:J'i Bks.
Hydropsyche separata Bks.
Family Hydroptilidae
Hydroptila sp. A
Hydroptila waubesiana Betten
Agraylea multipunetata Curtis
Ochrotriehia potomas Denning
Neotriehia sp. A
Family Leptoceridae
Athripsodes sp. A
Leptoeella sp. A
Oeeetis sp. A
Oceetis avara (Bks.)
Oeeetis disjuneta (Bks.)
Triaenodes frontalis Bks.
Family Lepidostomatidae
Lepidostoma n. sp.
Lepidostoma pluvialis Milne
Lepidostoma veleda Denning
Family Brachycentridae
·Amioeentruo aspilus (Ross)
Braehyeentrus sp. A.
Braehyeentrus amerieanus (Bks)
Braehyeentrus oeeidentalis Bks.
33
\i
TABLE 2 (continued).
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
Order Hemiptera
Family Corixidae
Callieorixa utahcnsis (Hung.)
Cenocori:ca audeni (Hung. }
Sigara alter>wta Say
Trichocoi'ixa boi'ealis Sailer
Family Naucoridae
Ambrysis mormon Mont.
Family Veliidae
Rhagovelia distincta Champion
Family Gerridae
Gerris remigis Say
Family Nepidae
Ranatra jiwca P. B.
Order Odonata
Family Gomphidae
Gomphus sp. A
Ophiogomphus sp. A
Family Agrionidae
Calopteryx sp. A
Family Coenagrionidae
Argia sp. A
Amphiagrion sp. A
Ena llagma s p. A
Enallagma ebrium (Hagen)
Ischnura sp. A
Order Coleoptera
Family Dytiscidae
Oreodytes sp. A
Family Dryopidae
Helichus sp. A
Family Elmidae
Dubiraphia sp. A
Microcylloepus pusillus (LeConte)
Optioservus quadrimaculatus (Horn}
Stenelmis sp. A
Zaitzevia pai'vula (Horn)
Family Gyrinidae
Cyrinus sp. A
Order Diptera
Family Blepharoceridae
Agathon sp. A
Family Ceratopogonidae
Family Chironomidae
Subfamily Tanypodinae
Ablabesmyia sp. A
Clinotanypus sp. A
Cryptocladius sp. A
Procladius sp. A
34
,i
t
~
'
TABLE 2 (continued).
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
t
t
t
t
Family Limnephilidae
Hespe}'ophy lax incisw; Bks.
Lirmwphilus wloga Ross
Order Plecoptera
Family Nemouridae
1/emouY'a (Pmstoia! besametsa Ricker
ilemow'a (Zapada) cinetipes Bks.
ParaleuctY'a saY'a Claassen
Capnia (Capnia! corzfusa Claassen
Capnia (Capnia! gmCilaria Claassen
Caprzia (Capnia) limata Frison
Cap>~ia (/ltacap>lia! distinc:t.a Frison
Cap.:ia (Utacapnia) poda Nebeker & Gau fin
E'ucapnopsis vedderensis Ricker
lsoaapnia misaour'ii Ricker
Isocapnia veddeY'ensis (Ricker)
BY'achypteY'a (Taenionema) fosketti Ricker
Bmchyptem (Taeniorzema) nigY'ipe>mis Bks.
BY'achyptera (Taenionema) pacifica (Bks)
Family Pteronarcidae
PteronaY'cella badia (Hagen)
PteY'onaY'C!JG califoY'nica Ne~1port
Family Perlodidae
AY'cynopteY'yx (Skwala! pamllela (Frison)
Isogenus (Cultus) aestivalis (N & C)
lsonenus (Culous) tostonus Ricker
lsogenus Usogenoides) fY'ontalis colubY'inw; Ha~en
Isoge11us (Isogenoides) elongatus Hagen
IsopeY'la fulva Claasen
rsopeY'la mormona Bks.
lsopeY'la longiseta Bks.
Isoperla patY'icia Frison
Family Chloroperlidae
AllopeY'la (Suwallia) pallidula (Bks)
AllopeY'la (Sweltsa! coloY'adensis (Bks)
Alloperla (Alloperla) seve"t'a Hagen
Alloperla (TY'iznaka) signata (Oks)
Family Perlidae
AcY'oneuria abnormis
AcY'onew'ia (llesperoperla! pacifica Bks.
Claassenia sabulosa (Bks)
Order Jsopoda
Family Asellidae
Asellus rocovitzai Y'acovitzai Hill iams
Order Lepidoptera
Family Pyra 1 i dae
Cataclysta sp. A
35
TABLE 2 (continued).
Subfamily Chironominae
y Chi:f'Onomus s p. A
y C~yptoohi~onomus sp. A
y Mio~otendipes sp. A
y Pa~alaute~bo~niella sp. A
y t Rheotanyta~sus sp. A
y Stiotoohi~onomus sp. A
Subfamily Diamesinae
y t Diamesa sp. A
y Monodiamesa sp. A
Subfamily Orthocladiinae
y B~illia sp. A
y t Cardiooladius sp. A
y C~iootopus sp. A
y t Eukieffe~iella sp. A
y Met~ioonemua sp. A
y t Orthocladius sp. A
y Trichocladius sp. A
Family Dolochopodidae
Family Empididae
y Hemel'odromia s p. A
Family Muscidae
y Limnophora sp. A
36
Sampling Station
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Baetis ( pr•opinquus ?) f-
Ephemer•e lla hys tl'ix
Epeol'us longimamw
EphemeY'e lla he terocaudata -
" hecuba
Baetis t;•ieauda tus -Pseudocloeon sp. -Ephemerella tibialis
Ephemel'a sp. 1--
Ephemerella daddsi
EphemeY'e lla gY'andio
Pal'aleptophlebia
he taronea
Epeor•us alber•tae
PoY'aleptophlebia
bicoY'nuta
EphemeY'ella maY'gaY'ita
Stenonema prob. n. sp. r--
Ameletus (ol'egonensis ?)
Ephemel'ella inel'mis
Baetis insignificans
" pai'VUS
Heptagenia elegantula
RhithY'ogena undulata
Leptophlebia gi'aVastella
Dactylobaetis cepheus
TI'icol'ythodes minutus
TI'icoY'ythodes sp. A
ChoY'oteY'pes albianmdata
TI'aVei'ella albel'tana
BY'achycel'cus (pl'Udens ?)
Stenonema tel'mina tum
Cae>Jis latipennis
EphoY'on album
Baetisea sp. 1--
Isa>Jychia ( campestl'is ?)
Centmptilum sp. f-
LachLania poweZli 1-
AmetY'opus (>Jeavei ?)
Salmonid Transition Nonsolmonid
Zone --~~----··-.. Zone_. ~-·-----·-Zone
Figure 19. Ephemeroptera of the Yellowstone River.
37
25
20
.. .,
u 15 .,
c.
Vl -0
~
"' .c
E 10
::> z
w co
5
·---· ' ' ' ' '·· .... , ...... ..."':·'9;'
.......... • ·.' _A
···~·····Mayflies (Ephemeroptera)
• Caddisflies (Trichoptera)
--•---S tanef lies (Piecoptera)
.. ·· · .. ', .. ~· ...
t1 • •• , • ._· -~· . . .. .-Q-.. .1;>-. -~ ••• ·'¢-
• • • • •• '<} ••• ·-¢-·... • .. •-¢-. • • • .. •• A : ~ ' ..v. .. v ' . . . ·. . '
1::( •• •• ·--. . ··<:;
2 3 4 5 6 7
•,
' ' ' ' • \
\
\
\
\
\
\
"" ' ' '
Transition Zone
8 9 10
'-... ......
II
Sampling Station
·---·
12
', "' ' " ' ' " '•"
13 14 15
.
16 17 18
. . . . . . . •
• .
¢. ••• ·-¢-
19 20
Figure 20. Number of species of the three major orders found at each sampling station
in the Yellowstone River.
I '
•
"' \~
-~--~ -------------------,
;~
L-------~-~------------------'
Figure 21. Mature nymph of the mayfly (Heptagenia elegantula!.
Stonefl i es
The longitudinal distribution of the stoneflies lPlecopteraJ in figure 22
differs considerably from that of the Ephemeroptera (figure 19). Thirty-seven
species were identified in the study area. Data available for this order are
probably the most accurate because of the work of Stadnyk (1971) and Gaufin
et al. (1972). Only one species was collected at every station. Most of
the fauna are probably adapted to the conditions found in the upper river.
Twelve species drop out in the transition zone, and five could be classified
as prairie stream forms. Aaroneuria abnormis probably washed out of the
Tongue River, where it is abundant, and was collected only at station 15. The
number of Plecoptera species decreases steadily downstream (figure 20).
Generally the nonprairie stoneflies appear to have habitat requirements
similar to those of the salmonid fishes.
Caddis flies
Caddisfly (Trichoptera; distribution in the Yellowstone River is presented
in figure 23. The present list contains 36 species; more will probably be
collected if additional studies are performed. Distributional patterns are
less distinct than with the Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera. In most cases
caddisfly larvae cannot be identified to species; adult males are necessary.
The present distribution data are incomplete because all stations ~1ere not
sampled with equal frequency. For example, station 9, sampled more intensively,
39
Sampling Station
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Caprlic dishneta 1--
1 [;ogema; ae:;tivaliG 1--
Para lezu.: tJ•a fJOY'a 1--
Cap>zia gz•aei laria
Nemou1•a besamr;tsn
T.r:-opel'la j'l<lva
Capnia conj"u:;a
Carmia pod a
PtePonarcys
calij'or•>Ziea
A llopez•la co loPadens1:a
I.socaprzia vedde1'ensir:
;lllopel' la sevet•a
Eucapnopr;in vedder•enfJi:; ~
A llopel'la pallidula
AcroneuPia pacifica
NemoulYl cinctipes
A llopala Dig nata
Tsope>·la mol'mona
AI'cynopteJ•y::.: [Jal'a lle la
BPachypteJ>a nigr'ipen;1is
I Jsogemw cost;onun
PteY'onal'ce llo badia
Ir;ogenua e 7~onga tuo
Claassenia sabula sa
A llopel'la sp. --' -
Bmchyp te1•a paeij'iea
Isoperla pat1•ieia
I.9oeapnia miaaou:r>ii
Capnia s p.
Capnia Zimata
Act~oneu1~ia abnormis f-
IsopePl.a longiseto
Bmchyptem .fosketti
Isogenun }"l'a>Z tal is
Brachypwm s p.
Isogenus s [J.
IsopePla sp.
Salmonid Transition Nonsalmonid
Zone Zone. Zone
Figure 22. Pl ecoptera of the Yellowstone· River.
40
~
I
'
I I.
Sampling Station
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13
G'lossosoma tPa.viatwn -
Chewnatopsyehe petti ti -.
Amiocent1'U[; aspi Lus
Hespe"!'ophy l(L;l: ineisus -
Lepidnstoma pluvial is
Rhyacophila b·ij'ila
Chewnatopsyche campyla
Limnephilidae
Ath>'ipsodes sp.
Psyehomyia j'lavida
. ilelicopsyche bor•ealin !--
Arctopsyche iner·mis
Lepidostoma veleda
Brachyeentrus occidental is
liydmpsyclw coakere lli
A gray lea mu l tipwwta ta -Cheumatopsyche analia -
Lepidostoma n. sp. -
Potomyia j"lavida -
'/J~iaenodes fr•ontalir; -
Brachycen tr•us cuneY'icanus I ilydropsyehe OS laJ.1 i I I Po lycen tl'opua uiner·eus
Ochrotriehia potomas r--
G' lo.s SO!-;oma velona
I I liydropsyehe occidenr;alia I I Hydroptila sp.
I Oer..:etis avara
Oecetir; dir;,iuncta
Chrnlfna topsyehe enonis
NeotPichia sp.
Limnephilus ~i;aloga
LeptoceUa sp.
1/ydr·opsyche eo:Pbeti
1/ydropsyche separ•ata
Chewnatopsyehe lasia
Salmonid Transition
Zone Zone
Figure 23. Trichoptera of the Yellowstone River.
41
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
!---
lr-,_
Nonsalmonid
Zone
had the largest number of species. Generally caddisfly distribution is
similar to that of the Plecoptera with a steady downstream decline in species.
The genera Hydropsyche (figures 24 and 25) and Chewnatopsyche are abundant
throughout the river, but dominate in the lower 10 stations.
Other Orders
The distribution of the rema1n1ng aquatic orders is given in figure 26.
The order Diptera is widely distributed throughout the river, with the
family Chironomidae being the most abundant and diverse. PTotanydePus
mapgaPita, a Diptera species previously unreported from Montana, was captured
at several stations. Representatives of the remaining orders illustrated
no distributional trends and, with the exception of the Oligochaeta, were
never abundant.
TONGUE RIVER
The distribution of macroinvertebrates found in the Tongue River, shown
in table 3,is complex and not easily explained. The fauna is similar to
the Yellowstone fauna in many ways, but there are several differences. The
stonefly AcroneUPia abnoPmis, the elmid beetle Stenelmis sp. and the mussel
Lampsilis sp. are abundant in the Tongue but rare in the Yellowstone.
Odonates are more abundant and diverse in the Tongue River.
INSECT EMERGENCE
MAYFLIES
Emergence times were determined for only 13 species of mayflies (figure 27),
generally the species common in the lower reaches of the Yellowstone River.
Most mayfly adults emerge at dawn or dusk and live from a few hours to a
few days. Emergence of mayfly adults in the lower river is concentrated in
the June-September period. Adult EphoPon album emerged so late in the summer
that many adults, influenced by cold morning temperatures, were observed
fluttering on the beaches, unable to fly.
One of the largest mayfly emergences observed occurred in late August
1g74 at Huntley (station 11), where adult TPavePella albePtana (figure 28) were
emerging. The adults were so thick on the water surface (probably hundreds of
thousands of insects were involved) that carp were surface feeding on them.
It was a wet day, and the adults hovered over the wet highway from Huntley to
Miles City. The conspicuous emergences of TPicoPythodes minutus (figure 29)
and EphoPon album also involved large numbers of individuals.
STONE FLIES
The emergence of adult stoneflies, occurring from March to August (figure
30), covers a longer time span than does that of mayflies. Three species,
42
I
l
I
I
0
• L
• 0
, ! ~
' .
0 =
0 0
Figure 24. Larvae of the Caddisfly HydPopsyche.
1\
[,
o)
I
Figure 25. An adult of the genus HydPopsyche.
43
0
0
' 0
Sampling Station
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
DIPTERA
Ceratopogonidae
Dolichopodidae r-
,1(1athon sp.
ilemer•odr>omia sp.
P?'O tanyde1•ua sp.
,1 ther·i:r: sp.
Simulium sp.
DicPanota sp. r-
Hexatoma sp.
Holor•usia sp. 1--1--
Tip«l.a sp.
Limnophor>a sp. 1--I-
Chironomidae
ISOPODA
AHellus s fl.
LEPIDOPTERA
Cataclysta sp. t-1-
HEMIPTERA
Rhagovelia sp. r-
Ambi•ysir; sp. 1--
Call icor>iJ:a sp.
Cenocorixa sp. -
Tr•iehocor·ixa sp.
Sigar·a sp. 1--
GerPic sp. r--
Rana tr•a sp. 1--
COLEOPTERA
Or•eody tes s p.
1---Cyrinus s p. 1--1
Dubir•aphio. s p. ,...-
I :...-Miei'ocy lloepus sp. I I OptioDel'vus s p.
I Stenelmis sp. 1--
Zait;;:evia sp.
Helichus sp. r--
Solmonid Transition Nonsolmonid
Zone .•.... ~:.. .• Zone ... Zone
Figure 26. Aquatic invertebrates of the Yellowstone River.
44
Sampling Station
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
ODONATA
Gomphw; sp. ~
Ophiogomphus sr.
Amphiogr·ion sp. -
L i be 11 u 1 i dae
Ai~PH I PODA
Camnarus sp. ....._ I-
Hyalella sp. ....._ -....._
ACARI
Hyd rae a ri na
r~OLLUSCA
Fe1 1 1'issia sp.
Gyl1 aUl7As sp. -LampciliD sp.
Lynmaea s p. I--
Physa sp. I--I--
TURBELLARIA
Phcgocc.ta sp. -
OLI GOCHAETA I
Nais sp. I--
Ophidonais sp. I--
..
I
..
.
Salmonid Transition Nonsalmonid
Zone · ...................... Zone\ ... . -~-.~~-·" Zone
Figure 26. (Continued)
45
TABLE 3. Macroinvertebrate fauna of the Tongue River, Montana.
Station No.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
c:
0
·~ ... u "0 "C Q) ,_ >, c: ... Vl 0 Q) "' ... .c: .... c: ::::> "' E "' !.. .c: "' :I: u 0
Taxa "' 0 "' ·~ I !.. Q) Cl :I: co "'( :> Vl 0 ""
Ephemeroptera
Baetis spp. X X X X X
Baetisca sp. X
Brachycer>cus sp. X
Chor>o terpes s p. X X
Dactylobaetis sp. X
Ephemerella sp. X X X X X X X
Heptagenia sp. X X X X X
Leptophlebia sp. X X X
Rhithrogena sp. X X X X X X
Stenonema sp. X X
Tr>aver>e lla s D. X X X X X
Tricorythodes sp. X X X X X X X
Trichoptera
Brachycentrus sp. X X X X X X X
Cheumatopsyche sp. X X X X X X X X
Glossosoma sp. X X
Hydr'opsyche sp. X X X X X X X X
Hydmp ti la s p. X X X X X
Mystacides sp. X X X
Oecetis sp. X X X X
Plecoptera
Acroneuria sp. X X X X
Bmchyptera sp. X X X X X
Isogenus sp. X X X X X X
Co 1 eoptera
Dubimphia sp. X X
Microcy lloepus sp. X X X
Stenelmis sp. X X X X X X X
Mollusca
Fer>r>issia sp. X X X
Gyraulus sp. X
Lymnaea sp. X X
Lampsilis sp. X
Physa sp. X X X
Pisidium sp. X X
Sphaerium s p. X
46
TABLE 3 continued.
Station No.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
c::
0
+-' u "0 "0
C1! ,_ >-, c:: +-'
VI 0 C1! "' ~ +-' .s:: .... c:: ~ :;, Cl
E "' ,_ .s:: "' ::c u 0
Taxa "' 0 "' I ,_ C1!
0 ::c co <( > VI 0 ""
Odonata
Argia sp. X X
Calopteryx sp. X X X
EnaZZagma sp.
I schnura s p. X
Gomphus sp. X
Ophiogomphus sp. X X X X X X
Lepidoptera
Cataclysta sp. X X X X
Turbellaria
Dugesia sp. X X X X X X
Hani ptera
Corixidae X X X X X
Rhagovelia sp. X
Diptera
Chironomidae X X X X X X X X
Cardiocladius sp. X X
Diamesa sp. X X
Eukiefferiella sp. X X
OI'thocladius sp. X X
Rheolanytarsus sp. X
Simuliidae
Simulium sp. X X X X X X X
Tipulidae
Hexatoma sp. X X X X X
Oligochaeta X X
47
!1::/C le tu [:i -
RJri Uu·ogeno. unduloic:
CaeniD latipenni:;
S t,e;zonema tei•mirzatum
llcptaJcnia c 7 ro;a•J t~u l n
E:phernet•e llo ine"l'mis
Dar: tn Iohae r;ir; r..:epheur.:
Bae t:ir; tJ·icmtda ;;u:; ,___
7'J•r.vei•e Z la a Lbe1~ tc~no
'i'i'ir..:oi'!i t~hoder; minu tl!:;
E'plwr~o;z album
Ro8 tJn i1z:;igni{icann -toe h lcrdo pm.ie ZZ7: -
A M J J A s 0 N
Sampling Months
Figure 27. Emergence of mayflies from the Yellowstone River, 1974-76.
~ ~--~--------~
----~------~-----------
Figure 28. Adult Mayfly (TravereZZa aZbertana).
48
(
\
'
i '!
\ '.'
,/
Figure 29. Adult Mayfly (TPicoPythodes minutus).
Capnia limata -
Bl'aehyptel'Cl foske?;ti
BPachyptePa pacifica
Isogenus colubrinus
Isogenus elon.gatus -r-
Alloperla signata
1 sopel'Za Zongiseta
Isogenus tostonus
Isoperla patricia
Pter•onaY'eys eali[or'nica ~
PteronaPceZZa badia ~
Isoperla mormona
AZZoperZa paZZiduZa -CZaassenia sabulosa -
M A M J J
Sampling Months
A s
I
\
I
Figure 30. Emergence of stoneflies from the Yellowstone River, 1974-76.
49
Capnia Zimata, Brachypteroa fosketti, and B. pacifica, emerged when the river
was still essentially covered with ice. Stoneflies are not as abundant as
mayflies and spend less time in flight; they are therefore less conspicuous
when emerging. The most spectacular stonefly emergence is that of Pteroon.a:rcys
caZiforonica, the giant stonefly or the "salmonfly" of fly fishermen. This
species is confined to the upper river where adult insect sampling was less
intense. A small yellow stonefly, IsoperoZa Zongiseta (figure 31) emerges in
large numbers in the lower river.
Figure 31. Adult stonefly (IsoperoZa Zongiaeta).
CAODISFLIES
The emergence patterns of caddisflies are presented in figure 32. Emergence
and flight times ranged from ~lay to September. Caddis flies and stonefl i es can
live for several weeks as adults; therefore, the presence of an adult does not
necessarily signify recent emergence. The list of species presented in figure
32 is much larger than either the mayfly or stonefly lists (figures 27 and 30)
because the fauna is rich and because adult caddisflies, readily attracted to
lights, are easily collected.
so
Ag~aylea multipunctata
Polycent~opus cine~eus
Potomyia flavida
Hy~opsyche cocke~elli
Glossosoma velona
B~achycent~us occidentalis
Chewnatopsyche lasia
Hy~opsyche co~beti
Limnephilus taloga -
A~ctopsyche g~andis
Hy~opsyche occidentalis
Cheumatopsyche campyla -1--
Psychomyia flavida
Rhyacophila bifila
Oecetis av=a
Hy~opsyche osl~i
Cheumatopsyche enonis
Hy~optila waubesiana -
Lepidostoma pluvialis --
B~achycent~us ame~icanus I-
Cheumatopsyche analis -
Glossosoma t~aviatum -
Lepidostoma veleda -T~iaenodes f~ontalis -
Hespe~ophylax incisus -
Hy~opsyche sep=ata - -
Ochrot~ichia potomas I-
Oecetis disjuncta I-
Mic~asema aspilus -
M J J A s 0
Sampling Months
Figure 32. Emergence of caddisflies from the Yellowstone River, 1974-76.
51
The family Hydropsychidae dominates the caddisfly fauna of the Yellowstone
River. Representatives (13 species) of this family are all net spinners a~d
include the genera Chewnatopsyche, Hyd:ropsyche, a~d Arctop~yche. One spe~1es,
Hycb•opsyche cm•beti, was not known to be present 1 n the Un1 ted States unt 1 1
collected in the Yellowstone River.
BOTTOM FAUNA POPULATION
Bottom samples taken during the fall of 1974 were designed to survey the
bottom fauna and to test equipment. The data (available in Newell 1976 or
in the files of the Montana Department of tJatura 1 Resources and Conservation,
Helena) are, therefore, semiquantitative and difficult to compare with later
sampling.
Quantitative bottom fauna sampling began in the summer of 1975. No
sampling is possible in the lower river during the winter because of ice cover.
Shortiy after the ice is removed, spring runoff begins; bottom samples from
this period would be of little value. The data gathered by Schwehr (see
Report No. 8 in this series) were added here to compare the density of
invertebrates of the midriver (stations 5-11) to that of the lower river
(stations 12-20). Field data from samples taken at stations 15, 17, and
18 are presented in Newell 1976 and are on file at the Montana DNRC.
In August, bottom fau2a population estimates ranged from about 50/m2 at
station g to about 2,000/m at station 5 (figure 33). Station 19 exhibited
the lowest mean, 250/m2. Generally, there was a gradual downstream decrease
in mean population size.
September population estimates (figure 34) exhibited a greater range,
from 20fm2 at station 19 to 8,500/m2 (station 5). Estimates from the lower
river were much lower than those from upper river stations.
In October, less variation in range was observed (figure 35). The
minim~m population estimate was 250/m2 at station 18 and the maximum was
400/m (station 11). The trend again was a gradual downstream decrease in
the density of organisms.
In November samples, data from stations 1 and 3 were also available
(figure 36). Population estimates at stations 1 and 3 were similar and
were much higher than for the remaining sampling stations (range 4,500-12,000/m2).
The trend was a decrease in population downstream.
The percentage composition of all invertebrate orders collected in 1975
is presented in tables 4-7. The mean percentage composition of each order is
found in table 8. Ephemeroptera dominate the fauna in August, and
Trichoptera begin to dominate in September and October; the Diptera became
dominant in November. Plecoptera and others are a minor portion of the
fauna. Figure 37 graphically illustrates the longitudinal changes in
percentage composition of invertebrate orders.
52
-"' E ......
~
CD
.0
E
:::> z
CD -0
E -"' LIJ
c::
.2 -.2
:::> a.
0
0..
10,000
1,000
100
•
Range
Mean
10~------~--~--~---.---,r---.---.--------
5 1 9· II 17 18 19
Sampling Station
Figure 33. Population estimates for August 1975, mean and range of
six Water's samples at each station.
53
N
E ......
~ .,
..0
E
" z
., -" E -..
LtJ
" 0 -.2
" Q.
0
Cl.
10,000
1,000
100
•
t
Range
Mean
10~---.---,,---.---.---,----r---.---,,--------
5 7 9 II 15 17 18 19
Sampling Station
Figure 34. Population estimates for September 1975, mean and range of
six Water's samples at each station.
54
:1
'j
I
•
10,000
Range
• Mean
i
"' E
1,000
' ~
~ .c
E
::0 z
~ -0
E -"' UJ
c:
.!2 -0
::0 a.
0
Q.
100
101~--~--~r---r---T---,----r---,----~-------
5 7 9 II 15 17 18 19
Sampling Station
Figure 35. Population estimates for October 1975, mean and range of
six Water's samples at each station.
55
10,000
Range
• Mean
N 1,000
E .....
~ ..
.Q
E
:::t z .. -c
E
iii w
c::
0 :;:
.!:!
:::t a.
0 a.
100
10~--~----~--~--~--~~--~--~--~----r---~--
3 5 7 9 II 15 17 18 19
Sampling Station
Figure 36. Population estimates for November 1g75, mean and range of
six Water's samples at each station.
56
I
•
c:
0 -
100 l
80
.. 60 0 a.
E
0 u ..
"' 0
; 40
<.>
~ .,
a.
20
I
j
/ . :9-. / . . . .A: • • • • ..
• .. ,
I .
. \
•• •-¢-••• •• Mayflies (Ephemeroptera)
• Caddisflies (Trichoptera)
--• ---Stoneflies (Piecoptero)
-·A-·· True Flies (Dipiero)
--0--Others (see table 8)
• .¢;
fl-' •••
\ .
X
.-¢-· •• .·
• . \ / " :./. "
. .
••
. . . .
..... ___ j
I
,..,-· / /D----o,
.,..,..,. .. / 0/ ''o
o-L----~~~~,~--~--~----~--~~-~-::-=-~·=-=-~-~-~-~-~-~-·~-~-~-~-4-----
3 5 7 9 II 15 17 18 19
Sampling Station
Figure 37. Mean percentage composition of invertebrate orders from
Water's samples taken August-November 1975.
57
TABLE 4. Percentage composition of benthos from the Yellowstone River using
Water's samples, August 1975.
Station
Order 5 7 9 11 15 17 18 19
Ephemeroptera 24.4 40.1 67.4 84.7 52.3 49.7 68.8 75.2
Plecoptera 6.7 25.7 17.4 0.8 2.8 0.6
Trichoptera 4.3 22.4 5.8 8.6 31.9 48.7 30.1 19.7
Diptera 63.2 11.8 9.5 5.6 9.9 1.6 5. 1
Coleoptera 1.4 3. 1
Odonata 0.5
Oligochaeta 0.6
TABLE 5. Percentage composition of benthos from the Yellowstone River using
Water's samples, September 1975.
Station
Order 5 7 9 11 15 17 13 19
Ephemeroptera 18.2 71.1 50.4 50.7 37.4 30.1 37.8 28.8
Plecoptera 3. 1 5.0 1.7 0.1 0.2 2.0
Trichoptera 21.2 1.7 0.9 18.7 48.1 52. 1 57. 1 46.6
Diptera 56.5 21.8 47.0 30.3 14.2 14.6 3.0 19.2
Coleoptera 0.9 0.2 0.1
Hemiptera 0. 04
Turbe11aria 0.04
Odonata 1.4
01 i gochaeta 3.2 4.1
Acari 0. 1
TABLE 6. Percentage composition of benthos from the Yellowstone River using
l~ater' s samples, October 1 g75.
Station
Order 5 7 9 11 15 17 18 19
Ephemeroptera 8.3 35.6 50.8 26.1 35.0 19.8 22.9 21.8
Plecoptera 7.8 13.4 2.9 0.2 0.2
Trichoptera 12.2 12.0 14. 1 29.9 3g.7 47.4 17.9 44.8
Diptera 71.2 38.7 32.0 44.0 23.3 12.9 29.3 27.0
Coleoptera 0. 1 0.2 0. 1 0.2 0.5
Odonata 0.2
Oligochaeta 1.6 19.8 29.7 6.0
Acari 0.3 0. 1 0.2
58
)
/
TABLE 7. Percentage composition of benthos from the Yellowstone River using
Hater's samples, November 1975.
Station
Order 1 3 5 7 9 11 15 17 18
Ephemeroptera 14.5 25.4 33.4 22 0 9 24.8 12.7 7.4 19.6
Plecoptera 1.4 1.6 8.3 13.8 4.8 1.7 0.4 4.5
Tri choptera 62.3 43.5 26.3 20.3 16.5 24.7 24.5 29.4
Diptera 21.1 29.4 29.6 40.6 53.8 54.2 48.4 35.9
Co 1 eoptera 0 0 1 0.7 2.4 0.3 0.4
01 i gochaeta 0 0 1 0. 1 0.8 6.2 19.7 10.6
Acari 0.5 . 0.1
TABLE 8. Mean percentage composition of benthos from the Yellowstone River
using ~later's samples, August-November 1975.
Station
Order 1 3 5 7 9 11 15 17 18
' Ephemeroptera 14.5 25.4 21.1 42.4 48.4 53.8 34.4 26.8 37.3
P1 ecoptera 1.4 1.6 6.5 14.5 6.7 0.4 1.2 0.1 1.8
Trichoptera 62.3 43.5 16.0 14 0 1 9.3 19 0 1 36.1 43.2 33.6
Oiptera 21.1 29.4 55 0 1 28.2 35.6 26.6 25.4 19.4 17 0 1
Co 1 eoptera 0 0 1 0.8 0.7 0.1 1.0
Hemiptera 0. 01
Turbell aria 0.01
Odonata 0 0 1 0.1
Oligochaeta 0 0 1 0 0 1 2.0 10.7 10.2
Acari 0.5 0 0 1
SPECIES DIVERSITY
19
4.3
1.0
10.8
75.4
8.6
19
32.5
0.3
30.5
31.7
0.4
3.7
Species diversity indices were calculated from Water's samples taken
during August-November 1975 in order to begin a monitoring study of the
Yellowstone River. Mathematical indices are one way of condensing long
species lists to a single mathematical value that can be compared with those
from other stations and other time periods. Four diversity indices, based on
data collected for this study and presented in raw form in Newell 1976, are
graphed and presented in figures 38-41.
The Shannon-Weaver index (d), apparently the most sensitive to community
changes, is presented in figure 42. The Miles City and Sidney stations
exhibited the greatest seasonal change. The Glendive and Intake stations
were constant and similar (tables 9-12).
59
,.. -en
~ .,
>
c
,..
u c:
0 ..,
c:
::> .., .,
a::
en en
"' c: c:
"' >
UJ
,.. -
.Q
0
"= ::>
<T
UJ
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
.5
1.0
.5
1.0
.5
Range
• Pooled
r r i
t
l
l ~
15 17 18 19
Sampling Station
Figure 38. Species diversity: range of six Water's sampies and all
six pooled, August 1975.
60
"" -...
~ .,
>
0
"" u c c
'C c
" 'C .,
a:
"' "' .,
c c .,
>
ILl
"" -..,
c -" C'
ILl
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
.5
1.0
.5
1.0
.5
Range
• Pooled
i • • i
t l
+
15 17 18 19
Sampling Station
Figure 3g, Species diversity: range of six Hater's samples and all
six pooled, September 1975.
61
,., -·;;;
~
"' >
0
,.,
u c
0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
~ .5
:J ..,
"' a::
., ..
"'
1.0
~ .5
"' > w
,., -
~
0 -:J
0" w
1.0
.5
Range
• Pooled
T • •
l
• l
15 17 18 19
Sampling Station
Figure 40. Species diversity: range of six Water's samples and all
six pooled, October 1975.
62
r
~
r
I
,.. -"' ~ .,
>
0
,..
u c:::
0
"0 c:::
~
"0
CD
ct:
"' "' CD c::: c:::
CD > w
,.. -·-.Q
0 -~
0" w
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
.5
1.0
.5
1.0
.5
Range
• Pooled
r t • r
• t
• '
3 15 17 18 19
Sampling Station
Figure 41. Species diversity: range of six Water's samples and all six
pooled, November 197 5.
63
4.0
3.0
-..
·-------
• Miles City
--•---Sidney
··-Q-• • • • Intake
-&-·-Glendive
-------•• 1:1
\
\
& \ •• .A-·-·-·-·-·-·~· v• • • ••• • • • •-Q-•• • • • • • •••-Q-" \
~ 2.0 I
I
\ >
0 \
\
\
\
1.0
\
\
\
\
\
\
~
0~-------,--------.--------r--------r--------
Auo. Sept. Oct. Nov.
Figure 42. Seasonal changes in Shannon-Weaver diversity
indices (the result of pooling six Water's samples each month at
each station during 1975).
64
--------------------------------------------
TABLE 9. Species diversity, range of six Hater's samples and all six pooled,
August 1975.
Station
Index 5 7 9 11 15 17 lS w
Max 2.79 3.11 2.95 3. 17 3.22 2.70 2.27 2.43
Mean Diversity (d) Min 1.24 1.66 2.19 2.58 2.16 1. 51 1.59 1.69
Pooled 2.22 3.43 3.25 3.08 3.19 2. 15 2.12 2.49
Max . 72 .22 .94 .36 .50 .65 .52 .49
Redundancy (R) ~1i n . 27 .00 .02 . 01 .24 .23 .33 . 14
Pooled .49 .08 .28 .26 . 32 .44 .45 .30
Nax .78 . 96 1.00 . 92 .89 .90 . 81 .95
Evenness ( J ') Min . 18 .83 . 12 .70 .65 .62 .68 .76
Pooled .53 .88 .75 .74 .73 . 62 . 61 .75
r1ax . 52 .72 1.00 .65 .63 .60 .50 .60
Equitability (Em) Min . 18 .52 .45 .36 . 31 .27 .29 . 39
Pooled . 24 .47 .43 . 36 .38 .29 .28 .35
TABLE 10. Species diversity, range of six Water's samples and all six pooled,
September 1975.
Station
Index 15 17 18 19
Max 2.50 1.86 1.85 2.33
Mean Diversity (d) Min 1.84 1. 38 0.83 1.69
Pooled 2.49 2. 14 2.09 2.49
Max .55 .59 1.00 .49
Redundancy (R) Min .33 .25 .43 . 14
Pooled .39 .43 .48 .30
Max .72 .87 .95 .95
Evenness (J') Min .55 .61 .53 .76
Pooled .62 .62 .63 .75
Max .33 .49 .58 .60
Equitability (~) Min .26 .30 .20 .39
Pooled .25 .27 .32 .35
65
TABLE 11. Species diversity,range of six Water's sarnp 1 es and a 11 six pooled,
October 1975.
Station
Index 15 17 18 19
Max 2.50 1.86 1.85 2 0 33
Mean Diversity (d) Min 1.84 1. 38 0.83 0.99
Pooled 2.41 2 014 2.09 2.42
Max .55 .59 1.00 1.00
Redundancy ( R) 11i n .33 .25 0.43 .38
Pooled .39 .43 0.48 0.00
r~ax .72 .87 .95 1.00
Evenness ( J' ) Min .55 .61 .53 .62
Pooled .62 .62 .63 .73
Max .33 .49 .75 1.00
Equitability (Ern) r~i n .26 .30 .20 .31
Pooled .25 .29 .32 .39
TABLE 12. Species diversity, range of six Water's samples and all six pooled,
November 1975.
Station
Index 1 3 15 17 18 19
r~ax 2.88 2.82 1. 96 2.45 2.24 1.97
Mean Diversity (d) Min 2.01 2 018 1. 41 0.84 1.06 0.24
Pooled 2.64 2.81 2.00 2 0 11 2.46 1.30
Max .53 .44 .64 .82 1. 00 0 91
Redundancy (R) ~1i n 0 31 0 32 .26 0 33 .36 .32
Pooled .43 .39 .50 0 51 .33 .56
Max .72 0 70 .so .74 .75 0 76
Evenness ( J' ) f~i n .49 .59 0 54 0 32 0 61 0 15
Pooled .58 .62 0 54 .53 0 71 .46
f4ax .32 0 31 .35 .36 .39 .36
Equitability (Ern) Min .28 .25 .29 0 13 .28 .03
Pooled .23 .25 .23 .23 .33 014
66
The Shannon-Weaver index was near or below 3.0 for most stations.
Generally an index above 3.0 illustrates a healthy,.unstressed community,
while an index below 1.0 is indicative of a monospecific community under
stress. The index range of 1.0-3.0 seems to illustrate a community under
some stress (Wilhm l970bc). Stresses upon certain Yellowstone communities
might be due to large amounts of inorganic sediments and nondiverse, uniform
riverbottom substrate types in some areas.
FEEDING MECHANISMS
It is interesting to note that Egglishaw (1964), Macan (1974), and
Cummins (1975a) all believe that the microdistribution of a species is deter-
mined more by food preferences than by any other factor. Current distributes
allochthonous detritus and periphyton which in turn determine invertebrate
distribution (figure 43).
In attempting to determine if faunal zonation occurs in the Yellowstone
River, aquatic genera found in the Yellowstone River were grouped according
to feeding mechanisms (table 13). A grouping of organisms into zones is
difficult. It is necessary to go to a lower taxonomic level than family in
describing distribution; e.g., the family Chironomidae is listed under all
four feeding mechanism categories and is found at all 20 stations. Four
genera in the shredder category confined to the upper river represent, at
least in part, the erosional habitat of Cummins (1975a). Genera found in the
collector and scraper categories are variously distributed along the entire
river, thus obscuring the importance of the intermediate and depositional
zones for faunal zonation. It may be necessary to graph the abundance of each
genus or each species in order to separate the fauna into habitat zones. More
information on feeding habits of individual species is necessary before this
can be done.
CURRENT AND DEPTH REQUIREMENTS FOR INVERTEBRATES
DATA COLLECTED
Data from the current-depth studies at Glendive and Intake are summarized
in table 14. In general, current and depth means are similar for both stations
and all sampling times. Taxa and number of individuals varied greatly, however.
At Glendive the mean number of taxa increased from 3.g in August to 9.0 in
November; a similar trend was evident in the Intake samples. The mean number
of individuals increased from 9.1 to 149 at Glendive and from 37.9 to 65.8
at Intake. More taxa and more individuals were captured in the October and
November samples at both stations than during August and September. December
samples would have been valuable, but were unavailable because the lower river
froze on November 30, 1975.
Population estimates from 24 samples at each station are shown in
tables 15-18. In August (table 15) the fauna was dominated by TravereZZa and
Hydropsyche. There was a large difference in the total number of individuals
collected at Glendive (1222) and Intake (5199).
67
,--------------I11ACROMOVEMENTS --------,
t
Optimal range of physical and
chemical factors (current, sub-
strate, temperature, light,
dissolved oxygen)
I
t
Suboptimal range of physical-
chemical factors
141 CROf10VEf1ENTS
(orientation with respect to flow and turbulence)
t
LOl-l FOOD
t
Reduced feeding and
increased movement
t
Increased respiration
(reduced growth)
t
Mortality increased
t
LO\·J NUMERICAL AND/OR
BIOMASS DENSITY
MICROHABITAT SELECTION
(food quality, quantity)
I t
HIGH FOOD
t
Increased feeding
reduced movement
t
and
Decreased respiration
(increased growth)
t
Mortality decreased
t
HIGH NUMERICAL AND/OR
BIOMASS DENS lTV
Figure 43. Proposed relationships between invertebrates and the factors
that determine their distribution and abundance (from Cummins 1972).
68
I
I
~
"' •o
TABLE 13. Yellowstone River aquatic invertebrate distribution based on feeding mechanism.
Feeding Dominant
Mechanism Orders Family Genus
Shredders Tri choptera Leptoceridae LeptoceZZa
(large particle Oecetis
detrit i vores) Lepidostomatidae Lepidostoma
Plecoptera (Filipalpia) Nemoura
Capnia
Pteronarcella
Pteronarcys
Diptera Chironomidae
Co 11 ectors Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche
{fine particle Cheumatopayahe
detritivores) Arctopsyche
Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Leptophlebia
Baetidae Baetis
Ephemerellidae Ephemere lla
Heptageniidae Heptagenia
Diptera Simuliidae Simulium
Chironomidae
Scrapers Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Heptagenia
(grazers) Baetidae Baetis
Ephemerell idae Ephemere ZZa
Caenidae Caenis
Diptera Chironomidae
Predators Odonata Gomphidae
Plecoptera (Setipalpia) Arcynopteryx
Isogenus
Isoperla
A lloperla
Trichoptera Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila
Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche
Diptera Chironomidae
Rhagionidae Atherix
SOURCE: After Cummins 1973, 1975a
Distribution in
Yell01·1stone River
Stations
10-18
6-17
1-9
1-8
1-15
1-10
1-5
1-20
~ -18
2-18
1-9
3-18
1-20
1-18
1-20
1-20
1-20
1-20
1-20
1-18
10-20
1-20
1-9
1-19
1-20
1-12
1-6
1-18
1-20
1 -11
TABLE 14. Mean (upper number) and standard deviation (bottom number) for four
variables measured in the invertebrate/current investigation in the Yellowstone
River
0
Date Deoth Current Number of Number of
ft m ft/sec m/sec Taxa Individuals
GLENDIVE
August 7 l.B .55 1. 202 .36€ 3.9 9. 1
0.9 .27 0.575 . 175 1.6 8.2
September 17 1.2 .37 0.744 .226 6.5 21.7
0.9 .27 0.613 . 186 2.4 11. 1
October 9 1.4 .43 0. 786 .239 10.9 126.9
1.0 .30 0.570 . 173 2.2 86.6
November 7 1.6 .49 1. 029 .313 9.0 149.0
0.9 .27 0.678 .206 3.8 133.9
INTAKE
August 6 1.3 .4 1. 653 .505 4.8 37.9
0.6 . 18 0.782 .238 1.8 32.4
September 9 1.4 .43 0.970 .295 6.0 28.9
1.0 .3 0.623 .189 1.7 12.2
October 15· 0.8 .24 1 . 124 . 342 8.5 84.0
0.6 . 18 1 . 031 . 314 2.9 53.1
November 11 1.6 .49 1.477 .450 7.0 65.8
0.9 .27 o. 921 .280 3.2 44.8
70
TABLE 15. Population estimates from the August 6 and 7, 1975, invertebrate-
current samples (24 pooled samples from each station).
Taxa Glendive Intake
Baetis insignificans 17 6
Baetis pa:rvus 34 74
Brachycercus s p. 80 17
Chorote:rpes sp. 0 11
Dactylobaetis sp. 11 11
EphemereUa sp. 6 0
Heptagenia sp. 57 28
.Tsonychia sp. 11 40
Rhithrogena sp. 11 210
T:ravereUa sp. 193 3 , 111
Trico:rythades minutus 63 734
Hydropsyche spp. 569 751
Leptocella sp. 28 6
Isoperla sp. 6 46
Chironomidae 119 114
Simuliidae 11 23
Oytiscidae 0 6
Oligochaeta 6 11
Totals 1 ,222 5,199
Means of 24 samples 51 217
71
TABLE 16. Population estimates from the September 9, 1975, invertebrate-
current samples (24 pooled samples from each station).
Taxa Glendive Intake
Baetis insignificans 28 102
Baetis pal'vus 28 108
BI'achycel'CUS sp. 34 17
Caenis sp. 6 0
Chol'otel'pes sp. 23 57
Dactylobaetis sp. 28 97
Ephemel'elZa sp. 0 0
Ephomn s p. 28 17
Heptagenia sp. 131 14
Isonychia sp. 0 6
Ametl'opus sp. 0 6
TI'aVel'e Ua s p. 74 682
TI'icol'ythodes minutus 279 347
TI'icol'ythodes sp. 0 57
Stenonema sp. 0 6
Cheumatopsyche sp. 63 23
Hydmpsyche sp. 779 1 '763
LeptocelZa sp. 0 6
Acl'OncUl'is sp. 0 6
I sopel'la s p. 6 6
Micl'ocy lleopus sp. 6 0
Ranatl'a s p. 6 0
Certopogonidae 6 0
Chironomidae 1 ,314 239
Simuliidae 6 51
Oligochaeta 119 28
Totals 2,964 3,638
Means of 24 samples 124 152
72
I
TABLE 17. Population estimates from the October 9 and 15, 1975, invertebrate-
current samples (24 pooled samples from each station).
Taxa Glendive Intake
Baetis insignifiaans 1 ,772 1 ,490
Baetis parvus 142 182
BPaahyaePCUB sp. 28 11
Caenis sp. 0 6
CentPoptiZum sp. 11 0
ChoPotePpes sp. 46 11
DaatyZobaetis sp. 791 301
EphemePeZZa sp. 0 6
Heptagenia sp. 1,879 943
Isonyahia sp. 0 6
Rhi thmgena s p. 0 742
Stenonema sp. 6 0
TravereZZa sp. 165 642
Triaorythodes minutus 267 91
Triaorythodes sp. 11 0
Unknown 6 0
Gammarus sp. 6 6
HyaZeZZa sp. 0 6
Braahyaentrus sp. 11 0
Cheumatopsyahe sp. 199 51
Hydropsyahe sp. 9,845 4,448
HydroptiZa sp. 0 6
Oaaetis sp. 11 0
Gomphidae 17 0
Isogenua sp. 6 80
IsoperoZa sp. 6 23
Corixidae 23 0
Dolochopodidae 0 6
Empididae 11 0
Chironomidae 1 , 973 2,314
Simuliidae 11 154
SteneZmis sp. 6 0
Ferrissia sp. 23 0
Lymnaea sp. 6 0
Oligochaeta 2,776 1 , 104
Totals 20,037 12 ,640
Mean of 24 samples 835 527
73
TABLE 18. Population estimates from the November 7 and 11. 1975, invertebrate-
current samples (24 pooled samples from each station).
Taxa
Baetis insignificans
Baetis parvus
Brachycercus sp.
Caenis sp.
Dacty~obaetis sp.
EphemereUa sp.
Heptagenia sp.
Leptoph~ebia sp.
Rhithrogena sp.
Stenonema sp.
Travere Ua s p.
Tricorythodes minutus
Tricorythodes sp.
Cheumatopsyche sp.
HydPopsyche sp.
Hya~e~w sp.
Brachyptera sp.
I sogenus s p.
Corixidae
Chironomidae
Empididae
Ceratopogonidae
Simuliidae
Dytiscidae
Ferrissia sp.
Lymnaea sp.
Oligochaeta
Totals
Mean of 24 samples
74
Glendive
7 51
17
6
11
63
63
956
6
80
11
51
97
6
927
10,608
6
256
6
46
1 • 905
6
0
0
11
17
11
4,374
20,245
844
Intake
0
0
40
0
427
6
330
0
11
34
6
114
4,846
0
239
142
0
1 ,758
0
6
6
6
11
0
529
8,988
375
. i
In September (table 16) Hydropsyche were again abundant, as were
Chironomidae. Totals were comparable for Glendive (2g64)and Intake (3638).
Hydropsyehe and Chironomidae again dominated in the October samples
(table 17). Number of taxa and total number of individuals greatly increased
at both stations.
November samples showed Hydropsyche and Chironomidae dominant (table 18).
Totals were high at Glendive (20,245) but considerably reduced from October
at Intake (8988).
All 48 samples taken each month were pooled to illustrate which orders
dominate the fauna (table 19). The fauna was dominated by Trichoptera and
Ephemeroptera with Diptera third. Ephemeroptera monthly percentages ranged
from 11.7 to 73.6 while Trichoptera percentages varied from 21.1 to 56.3
percent of the total. The October and November samples contained more infor-
mation than the August-September samples, probably due to summer emergence
losses and the presence in August and September of very small larvae and
nymphs, most of which passed through the collecting net. Mean population
estimates varied from 138(m2 (August) to 681/m2 (October). Percentage com-
position of orders at each station is shown in table 20.
Results obtained with the kick net were compared with results of the
Water's sampler (figures 44 and 45). The Water's sampler is 19.5 in high;
thus only kick samples taken in depths less than 19.5 in were compared.
Results were similar, but the number of organisms obtained with the kick net
was always lower than numbers obtained with the Water's sampler. Several kick
samples were taken at the water's edge in water too shallow to sample with
the Water's sampler, tending to expand the range and reduce the mean. Results
from the two samplers followed the same trend over time at both stations, and
a line joining the means of both methods is almost parallel.
ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
Multiple regression analyses were performed on the current-depth data with
current and depth as independent variables and number of taxa and number of
individuals as dependent variables. Three models were applied: 1) untransformed;
2) semilog transformation (of dependent variables); and 3) log-log transformation.
The detailed results of these analyses, for all three models, are reported in
Newell 1976 and are on file with the Montana DNRC. The general results are
given in tables 21 and 22.
~umber of taxa and number of individuals yield similar results when
regressed against current velocity. Figures 46-48 show how these regression
equations can be used to predict the numbers of individuals at any particular
current or depth. The deviation of the data from the regression line is
demonstrated in figure 48, for example, where the regression coefficients (r)
are 0.774 for current and 0.808 for depth.
75
TABLE 19. Invertebrate population estimates and percentage composition, pooled Glendive and Intake sampling.
August September October
ORDER Total a xb Total a xb Total a
Ephemeroptera 4,725 73.6 2,175 32.9 9,555
Trichoptera 1 ,354 21.1 2,634 39.9 14,571
Plecoptera 52 0.3 18 0.3 115
Diptera 267 4.2 1 ,616 24.5 4,469
Oligochaeta 17 0.3 147 2.2 3,880
Others 6 0.1 12 0.2 87
Totals 6,421 6,602 32 ,677
Means 138 138 681
aTotals of 48 pooled samples, 24 from each station.
bPercentage of monthly pooled totals.
November
xb Total a xb Mean %a
29.2 3,449 11.7 36.9
44.6 16,495 56.3 40.5
0.4 643 2.2 0.8
13.7 3,681 12.6 13.8
11.9 4,903 16. 7 8.0
0.2 108 0.4 0.2
29,279
610
N
E
' ... ., ..,
E
::J z ..
E ..
c::
D
"' ...
0 -0 ... ., ..,
E
::J z
1,000
100
Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.
Water's
Range
e Mean
Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.
Kick net
Figure 44. Comparison of sampling methods, Water's and kick
net at Glendive using kick samples taken in depths less than 19.5 in.
77
N
E .....
~ .,
.a
E
:I z
en
E en
c
0
00
~
0 -0
~
"' .a
E
:I z
1,000
100
Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.
Water's
Range
e Mean
Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.
Kick net
Figure 45. Comparison of sampling methods, Water's and kick
net at Intake using kick samples taken in depths less than 1g.5 in.
78
"' 0
" ,
·;; ,
c:::
....
0
~ .. .c
E
" z
1,000
100
ln y = 3.893 + 0.875x
r = 0.644
0
0
10~--~r---~---r--~----r---~--~----r---~--~
0 0.~ 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Current Velocity ( ft/sec)
. Figure 46. Curre-nt/invertebrate relationships, Yellowstone River,
Glendive, October g;· 1975.
79
.,
D
::J ...,
> ...,
<: ...
0
~ .. ...
E
::J z
500
100
50
0
0
Current 0
Depth •
oe
0
--
------
• •
0 •
• 0 • ,,'' . ,' , ,
,
' ,
0
,.., _,.
,
1 n y = 3. 594
r = 0.635
ln y = 3.335
r = 0.676
•
~,/ ,
'
' /
' ,
' ,
' , ,
/ . , 0 •
,
o-'•
/
•
•
•
, ' ,
, , / '
eo ,..
0 ., ... Q
/
' '
•
0.5
/
•
0
1.0 1.5 2.0
Current Velocity ( ft/sec)
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Depth ( fl)
+ 0.512x
+ 1.006x
' ,-'
' ' ' ,'
' ' ' ' '
0
0
0
0
2.5
2.5
Fi9ure 47. Current/depth/invertebrate relationships, Yellowstone River,
Intake, October 15, 1975.
80
.,
0
" '0
>
'0
c;
.....
0
~ .,
.a
E
" z
500
100
Current o
Depth . ------
•
•
' ' ' '
•
' ' '
' ' •• ' 0
0
•
•
•• ' ' ' ' '
0
•
0
•
' ' ' '
ln y = 3.479 t 1 .039x
r=0.774
ln y = 3.255 + 0.843x
r = 0.308
• • •
'
' '
' '
' '
,;
' ' ' ' 0 o.
0
• ' 0 ' ., ' 0 • ' 0
' ' ' :o
I
• 0
0 0
0
0
0
10-T---.---.r---r---.----r---r---.r---r---.---,
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Current Velocity ( ft/sec)
0 1.0 . 2.0 3.0 4.0
Depth (ft)
Figure 48. Current/depth/invertebrate relationships,
Yellowstone River, Glendive, llovember 7, 1975.
81
2.5
5.0
TABLE 20. Percentage composition of invertebrate orders derived from kick
sa~ples taken at Glendive (17) and Intake(l8) in 1975.
Auqust Seotemoer October November
Order 17 18 17 18 17 18 17 18
Ephemeroptera 39.8 81.6 22.2 41.7 25.6 35.1 10.5 14.8
Trichoptera 48.9 14.6 28.4 49.3 50.2 35.6 57 .. 0 55.2
Plecoptera 0.5 0.9 o. 2 0.2 0.05 0.8 1.3 4.2
Diptera 10.6 2.6 44.7 8.0 10.0 19.6 9.4 19.7
Hempitera 0 0 0.2 0 9. 1 0 9.2 -
Coleoptera 0 0. 1 0.2 0 0.05 0 0.1 0.1
Odonata 0 0 0 0 0. 1 0 0 0
Amphi pod a 0 0 0 0 -0.2 o. 1 0
Mollusca 0 0 0 0 o. 1 0 0. 1 0. 1
Oligochaeta 0.5 0.2 4.0 0.8 13.9 8.7 21.6 5.9
Mayflies
Mayfly (Ephemeroptera) species diversity (d) was great, with as many
as 15 species present in some current-depth samples. Because Ephemeroptera
nymphs are much easier to identify to the species level, current preferences
were obtained for several abundant species. These data provide some insight
into niche separation in the mayfly community and how separation and current
preference change throughout the life cycle of several species.
Densities of Traverella albertana and Tricorythodes minutus are
presented in figure 49. In this figure and in figures 50-54, the exact
nature of the invertebrate/current relationships is not clear from the data;
the following conclusions record only how the data were interpreted by the
author. Peak densities in August at Intake for Traverella albertana
occurred at about 2.25 ft/sec. Nymphs ofT. albertana were more abundant
in August than in any other month. This species emerges in September and
October, and nymphs do not reappear in any number until November.
At the Intake station during the October samples, peak population
densities were determined for several species (figure 50). Heptagenia
elegantula were more abundant in slower currents and most abundant at 0.5
ft/sec. Tmver•ella alber•tana was abundant near 2.5 ft/sec as in the August
samples. Baetis insignificans was also most abundant at 2.5-3.0 ft/sec, but
there was no way to determine at what velocity this population would reach
its peak. A similar situation exists with Rhithrogena undulata, although the
population seems to reach its greatest density·at about 2.75 ft/sec. In
November, H. elegantula and B. insignificans exhibited low densities at
Intake, but peak densities appear to have occurred at 1.5 ft/sec and 2.5
ft/sec, respectively (figure 51).
Some current preferences were apparent for mayflies at the Glendive
station (figure 52). A population extreme was evident for H. elegantula
(0.5 ft/sec). In the November samples (figure 53), the highest density of
H. elegantula occurred at about 1.5 ft/sec.
82
TABLE 21. Synopsis of regressional analysis on the current-deptha data (against
number of taxa) showing significance for the three models for both sampling
stations.
Depth &
Model Depth Current Current Date Sta.
I tiS NS tiS Aug. 17
I I NS NS NS Aug. 17
I I I NS NS NS Aug. 17
I NS r~s NS Sept. 17
I I NS NS NS Sept. 17
III NS * * Sept. 17
I NS :~s * Oct. 17
I I NS NS * Oct. 17
III r~s * ** Oct. 17
I ** ** ** Nov. 17
I I ** ** ** Nov. 17
I I I ** ** ** Nov. 17
I NS NS NS Aug. 18
I I NS tiS NS Aug. 18
I I I NS ** ** Aug. 18
I NS NS NS Sept. 18
I I NS NS NS Sept. 18
III tiS tiS NS Sept. 18
I ** * ** Oct. 18
II ** * ** Oct. 18
III ** ** ** Oct. 18
I * NS ** r~ov. 18
I I * NS ** Nov. 18
I I I ** ** ** Nov. 18
NOTE: NS = not significant at p = .OS
* = significant at p = .OS
** = highly significant at p = .01
acurrent in ft/sec, depth in ft
83
TABLE 22. Synopsis of regression analysis on the current-deptha data (against
number of organisms) showing significance for the three models for both
sampling stations.
Model
I
I I
I I I
I
I I
III
I
I I
I I I
I
I I
III
I
I I
III
I
II
III
I
II
I I I
I
II
I I I
Depth
NS
NS
rlS
*
NS
*
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
*
**
*
**
** **
**
**
**
Current
NS
NS
NS
*
NS
**
**
**
*
**
**
*
*
**
**
**
**
NS
**
**
**
NS
**
**
NOTE: NS = not significant at p = .05
* = significant at p = .05
** = highly significant at p = .01
acurrent in ft/sec, depth in ft
84
Depth &
Current
NS
NS
NS
*
NS
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
** **
**
**
**
Date
Aug.
/lug.
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Sta.
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
o:>
U1
-~-~~-----
"' 0
" "0
-~
"0
.5 -0
~ .,
.c
E
" z
60 T1•averella albePtana ......................
Tricor~yUzode:; minutu.c • -·-·-·-·
.... ··•·
......
50
• • 40 •
30 •
20 • • •
•
10 ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-..-.-._. ·-.. ····
-a -~-·-·-· • .......... • 'i'"·-·-. ·-•... ······• .. ·--· ....... _ ... .................... ... -... • ························ .. --.... 0~------~~~~~r-~~--~--~~-----r---r--~~~--~--~
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Current Velocity (fl/sec)
Figure 49. Mayfly (Ephemeroptera) distribution at various currents, Intake,
August 1975.
3.0
..
" :I ..,
>
:0 c -0
~
co "' "' .0
E
:I z
60
50
40
30
20
10
Hep ta()enic. e legan tula • -----
Baeti,q ,:n.,igni_r,:cans
Rhi throrena undula t;a
Traver·e lla a lbertona.
•
•
a----
"'-·-·-·-
•....................
, ....
I ',
I • '
I ' ~I '
I I • •'
I• I • /<> .tT
,){. •
•
... ... ~· -9-I
I ,. ' .tT ............. ....
,, ............... /£ '~. ~··· . / "'
"'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•i A.
I
I *
I
I
• -p.
•
.. ~....... /' ... ............. ./ . ······ -... / .... --··············· 4_,_,·-------.L ___ .....__ 0~-----~~-r~~-;•~~·~···~···-· -···-·~~·~-r~"'~~·-~·~-,·---~--r-~·r--~-~
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Current Velocity (ft /sec)
Figur~ 50. Mayfly (Ephemeroptera) distribution at various currents, Intake,
October 1975.
'
3.0
25
20
(I)
0
::> 15
"0
>
"0
C:> .: ..... -0
~
Q)
.0 10
E
::> z
5
Heptagenia elegantula •
Baetis insignificans a
• •
•11
•
•.tr * • • • * • * ~ • ~
• ** • •
• * • 4
• ~ •
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Current Velocity (It/sec)
iiOTE: Because no apparent trends emerged in the points plotted, no attempt was made to
interpret current preference based on the data in this figure.
Figure 51. Mayfly (Ephemeroptera) distribution at various currents, Intake,
November 1975.
50
40
!!
" :::1 30
::!
> ..,
CD .!:
co -0
~ ., 20 .<>
E
:::1 z
10
.76
• Heptagenia elegantula • -----
,..-...... Baetis insignificanc ll ----
I '\
~ \
I \
I \
I \
I \
I \
\ ~
Dacty ~obaetis cepheus • ···················
I
I \
I \ -9-
I \
I \
\ I
I \
\ I ?
\ I l:l J1
\ I ~\ ~ .• , ... ....
• I .. . .... .... ....
I ~ . \ ····· ... ...
I .....•.... ,'\ ••
I • • • J ... ...
... ··· ... ' . I • • .. · • * .l:l. ~' • .=~·······:t;: • • l:l •
* ' • ......
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Current Velocity (ft /sec)
Figure 52. Mayfly (Ephemeroptera) distribution at various currents, Glendive,
October 1975.
3.0
25
20
!!!.
0 15 " "0 ·;;
"0
()) c:
"' -0
~
Q) 10 .c
E
" z
5
0
Heptagenia elegantula • . -----
Baetis insigni_ficans ll
• • • ...-, I ,. -¢-
I
I
I •
I
I
Jr
I
i
I ., -¢-
I -¢-
I -¢-/
/
/
/
/
\
\ -¢-\ • \
/ 9-/
/ • • / •* .,./e
' •
• ' " ...... -/ -¢--¢-........... • -¢-
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Current Velocity (ft /sec)
Figure 53. Mayfly (Ephemeroptera) distribution at various currents, Glendive,
November 1975.
3.0
CD <> c
0 ..,
c
::>
.0
ID " 0 "' > -0
CD a:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .·
I . _..
I .··
I .• ·• ,..
.·1
.·· I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
/ I
.· I
I
I
I
I .. ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .:--....
/I
.... ·· I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ... I
,
,,'' ····· ,.,. ····· ....
,
, , , ,
/
,;,~ ...
.,. ...... ····· / ~--... .·· ... -.w.
/
/
/
I ;
I
... ..
I
I
I
i
I
Heptagenia eZegantuZa
1'ravere ZZa a lbertana
Baetis insignificans
Rhithrogena undulata
Dactylobaetis cepheus
--""': ...... ---... ..-·· ••••• Tricorythodes minutus ~~----~~~~~'~'~----r-----------~~-·~·~,--------r----~·~·L---,------------,
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Current Velocity ( fl/sec)
••••••••••
Figure 54. Synopsis of mayfly/current relationships from both stations and for all sampling months.
r
All of the data on mayfly current preference were pooled and are
presented in figure 54. Several characteristics are evident. Current
pref~rence seems to change with different periods in the life cycle of a
species. Greatest population densities for Heptagenia eLegantuLa changed
from 0.5 ft/sec in October to 1.5 ft/sec in November. Populations of
Baetis insignificans exhibited a similar trend but at higher velocities.
The two samples of TravereLLa aLbertana, however, were similar (near 2.5
ft/sec).
Figure 54 gives some insight into niche separation of six species of
Ephemeroptera. Each of these species had its highest densities at slightly
different current velocities, thus reducing interspecific competition for
food and resting areas. The remaining mayfly species were present in numbers
too small to illustrate current preference and made up an insignificant part
of the fauna in the lower Yellowstone River.
Stoneflies
Stonefly (PlecopteraJ nymphs were not common in the lower Yellowstone
River, and little information on current preference was obtained. At Intake,
however, Plecoptera were found only at the fastest currents.
Caddisflies
Caddisfly (TrichopteraJ larvae, Hydropsyche in particular, exhibited
a distinct current preference, with the greatest number of larvae found at
the fastest currents sampled. Larvae could not be identified to species,
although at least three species of Hydropsyche have been collected at
Glendive and Intake. Samples taken in August and September were not
significant (p=.05) when relating numbers of individuals to current. Samples
taken in October and November at both stations were highly significant.
Regression lines varied little from October to November at Glendive and
at Intake (figures 55 and 56).
There is some evidence that Hydropsyche reached its greatest densities at
about 2.5 ft/sec at Intake in October (figure 55) and November (figure 56).
91
300
.!!?
" ::>
~
>
~
c: -50 0
~ .,
.0
E
::> z
0
Glendive o
Intake •
0.5
ln y = 0.146 + 3.3l~x
r = 0.90G
ln y = -5.909 + ~.470x
r=0.716
•
1.0 1.5
Current Velocity (It/sec)
' I
I
I
' I • ' I
I
' I
I
' I
I
' • ' I
' I
' • I
' ' • I
I
I
' I
' ' ' • ' ' ' ' I
' • ' I
I
' ' I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' ' ' ' I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
' ' I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 2.5 3.0
Fi~ure S5. Distribution of ilydropsyche larvae at various currents
during October 1975.
92
1
300
100
"' D
"' "D
>
"D c -50 0
~
CD .a
E
"' z
10
Glendive 0
ln y = -6.837
Intake • ln y = -8.590
0
0 0.5
Figure 56.
during ilovember
0
+ 7.17lx r = 0. 783 0
+ 5. 277x r = 0.637
0
0 ' ' ' ' ' ' 0 ' 0 ' • I
' ,
0 • • • ! • ' ' 0 ' ' •
0 0 • ' • • •
0 • • ' • • ' ' 0 ' ' • ' • • ' • • ' ' ' ' ' •• • • • ' • • • • ,
' • • ' • • ' ' ' • ,
' ' '
0
,
• ' ,
• ' ' , ,
' ,
' ,
0
, , , ,
'
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Current Velocity (ft/sec)
Distribution of iiyrh'ops•wile· larvae at various currents
1975.
93
t
It is difficult to predict the effects of flow reduction on the
invertebrate fauna because-of the large number of species involved and the
inability to discuss the environmental requirements and tolerances of a group
as large as the Ephemeroptera or Trichoptera. Even within genera there are
large variations in tolerance. The need to know environmental requirements of
a species is complicated i~ the west because few western species have been
intensively examined. Roback (1974) lists the habitat requirements of many
aquatic insects in terms of chemical concentrations, but few western species
are listed. Because of these problems, the following evaluation of effects
of reduced flows will be general.
The three levels of development projected for the Yellowstone Impact
Study (see Report tlo. 1 in this series) were not considered in this impact
assessment because of the lack of specific invertebrate data and because
this invertebrate study was completed before the final projections were
available.
(
CHEMICAL
Attempts to explain the distribution of species in terms of chemical
differences have not had much success except where conditions are extreme
(Macan lg74). At present in the Yellowstone River, dissolved oxygen
concentrations are sufficiently-high to sustain invertebrates and fish.
Di sso 1 ved oxygen could influence· ·i 11Vertebrate communities if reduced flows
are so low that the BOD of domestic sewage or decaying organisms taxes the
reaeration capacity of the river.
With reduced flows, increased concentrations of nutrients could result
in an increase in periphyton growth, especially of the present dominant alga
CLadophora. A large mat of ctadopho~ would increase the diversity of
benthic habitats, probably resulting in a larger standing crop of benthic
organisms and a shift in benthic species composition (Percival and
Whitehead 1929). ·
SILT
The Yellowstone River carries large amounts of suspended material, mostly
inorganic in nature. There is sufficient current to remove much of this
material, and silt deposits are not frequent along the river. The high
spring runoff is one factor that keeps the river flushed of inorganic sediment.
95
The macroinvertebrate fauna of the lower Yellowstone is predominantly silt
tolerant. Genera known to be silt tolerant include: Isonychia .• Tricorythodes,
CaeniH, Travere lla, Brachycercus, Stenonema, Dacty lobae tis, and Ephoron
(Bern~r 1959, Jensen 1966). It is not known how much silt the benthic fauna
of the lower river can tolerate. Sampling station 20 has the lm~est gradient,
greatest silt concentrations, and lowest benthic diversity of all sampling
stations. If station 20 is used as an example of what could happen at other
stations if a high level of development is achieved, the result will be a
fauna poorer in numbers and species.
TEr'PEPATUf:E
Reduced flows, resulting in a
higher summer water temperatures.
affecting dissolved oxygen levels,
egg hatching, and metabolism. The
the fauna.
shallower river, would probably result in
These increased temperatures, besides
would affect invertebrate growth, emergence,
net effect would probably be a reduction of
Another factor associated with temperature is ice. In the lower Yellowstone
River, a solid ice cover lasts for several months (figure 57). Ice cover at
Glendive lasted from late December to April during the winter of 1974-75 and
from late November to mid-March during 1975-76. Surface ice can act in several
ways to kill invertebrates (Brown et al. 1953). Low flows would permit thicker
ice conditions, freezing of large areas of shallow water, and increased
gouging and molar action during the time of ice break-up (figure 58).
CURRENT AND BOTTOM HI\B IT./\ T
Bottom samples taken at Glendive and Intake during 1975 revealed that
invertebrate densities are directly proportional to current velocity up to
velocities of 3.0 ft/sec (no samples were taken at velocities greater than
3.0 ft/sec).
Flow reductions in the Yellowstone would result in reduction in current
velocities across the river channel because of its ''U'' shaped configuration.
A general reduction in velocity would result in a faunal reduction because of
most species' preference for swift currents. Minshall and Winger (1968) found
that a reduction in flow caused a large increase in the percentage of organisms
drifting, exposing a greater number of invertebrates to predation by fish
which could result in species extinction in a section of stream.
It is possible to relate invertebrate densities to discharge if mean
current velocities across the river at several points are known. The Bureau
of Reclamation's Water Surface Profile (HSP) Computer Program (U.S. Department
of Interior 1968) utilizes current and depth measurements from several
transects to compute area and mean current velocity in several subsections of
all transects at any desired discharge. At the Intake station, the liSP Program
was used to predict mean current velocities in 15 subsections (shown in figure
59) at three discharges (table 23). The mean current velocity was placed in
the regression equation obtained from kick samples in November 1975 (sampling
96
r
I
'
f
f
~
"'·.
0
. ~---== ---.. '; ._ .
'
Figure 57. Yellowstone River at Terry during late winter.
Figure 58. Ice jam during late winter at Glendive.
97
data available in Newell 1976 or in Montana DNRC files), selected because it
was the last month bottom samples were obtained.
The population was summed for all subsections. At a discharge of 9000 cfs
(about mean low summer discharge), the population estimate is approximately
209,000 for a bank-to-bank, one-meter-wide strip of river bottom at Intake
(table 23). This number decreases to about 190,000 at 8,000 cfs and approximately
172,000 at 7,000 cfs, about a ten-percent reduction in population with each
1 ,000-cfs reduction in discharge.
TABLE 23. Invertebrate population estimates utilizing data from Intake
station 18, subsections from WSP (Water Surface Profile), and regression
equation from November kick samples.
at 9000 cfs at BOOO cfs at 7000 cfs
Sub-Mean Population Mean Population Mean Population
Sectiona Current Estimate Current Estimate Current Estimate
Velocity Velocity Velocity
(ft/sec) (ft/sec) (ft/sec)
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1.02 0 0.91 0 0.81 0
3 2. 53 20,819 2.32 18,640 2.15 16,704
4 3.42 39,563 3. 17 34,306 2.96 30.433
5 2.94 30,156 2.72 26.560 2.54 24,070
6 2.09 25,868 1. 90 22,825 I. 73 20,923
7 1.88 16,600 I. 70 14,940 I. 58 14,110
8 2.13 11 • 931 I. 94 10.721 1. 77 9,683
9 2.56 15,217 2.35 13 ,487 2.18 12,277
10 2. 39 16,600 2.66 19,297 2.49 17,430
11 2.85 17,983 2.68 16,254 2.45 14,352
12 I. 97 10,894 I. 79 9,856 1.62 8,819
13 0. 72 3,216 0.62 3,009 0.50 2,801
14 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 208,847 189,895 171,602
ashown in figure 59
Population estimates at 7,000, 8,000, and 9,000 cfs are graphed in
figure 60; a diagramatic representation of loss of habitat due to water with-
drawal is shown in figure 59. Stage at 9,000 cfs is 1985.30 ft at cross-section 5
(opposite the boat launch at Intake). Stage decreased to 1985.15 ft at 8,000 cfs
and 1984.90 ft at 7,000 cfs. Thus the river drops only a few inches as dis-
charges decrease by 1000 cfs, and only a small percentage of the river bottom
is exposed. All of these calculations apply to transect 5 at Intake; the river
bottom figuration changes at other locations, as do current and population.
98
~ --
c
.!:! -0 > .,
LLI
~
.§.
.c:; -:s!
3:
~ .,
>
0:: ..
"' E ...... ..
E ..
c
0
"' ~
0 -0
~ .,
.0
E
::J z
2010
2000
1990
9000 ·cfs 8000 cfs
7000 cfs
1980
0 100 200 300 meters
0 200 400 800 1000 feet
Width of River Channel
Figure 59. Cross section No. 5 at Intake, showing water depth at
various flows and the 15 subsections used in WSP calculations.
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
Calculated e
Hypothetical o
Low Flow 1975
........................ ___ ............. --
0 ··········• ........ a ................. o ............... ······
4000 5000 6000 7000
Discharge (cfs)
8000 9000
Figure 60. Invertebrate population estimates at various
discharges, cross-section No. 5 at Intake.
99
'.
''
When population estimates derived at 7,000, 8,000, and 9,000 cfs are
plotted against discharge, the following regression equation results (figure 60):
log population = 4.9384 + 0.000042 discharge (cfs)
This equation permits a prediction of population of invertebrates at any dis-
charge. One should remember that a regression equation is a mathematical
tool that may or may not predict a future biological event. Population
estimates may continue decreasing linearly as the regression equation
indicates. In this case the regression line is probably roughly accurate.
Because of the channel morphology in the Intake area, decreases in discharge
result in decreasing currents across the entire channel, and little bottom
habitat is exposed in the process. However, at some low discharge, large
amounts of river bottom would be exposed with resultant loss of habitat and
a dramatic decrease in fauna. The effects of reduced current velocity and
of loss of bottom habitat are separable in their effect on fauna. Reduced
current velocities (due to lowered streamflow) could adversely affect
bottom fauna even before a significant loss in bottom habitat occurred.
Using the regression equation (figure 60), population estimates in a
one-meter-wide strip at Intake can be calculated for lower discharges:
6000 cfs
5000 cfs
4000 cfs
3000 cfs
2000 cfs
1000 cfs
156,000 organisms
141,000 organisms
128,000 organisms
116,000 organisms
105,000 organisms
96,000 organisms
These estimates, based on data gathered in November, are higher than estimates
would be based on data gathered later in the winter or in the spring, because
of natural mortality and drift out of the study area.
As flows decrease, other factors--ice and silt--would undoubtedly result
in a higher-than-normal mortality of invertebrates. With decreased discharges,
ice cover would tend to be thicker than normal, thus freezing larger-than-
normal areas of river bottom and resulting in a greater amount of molar action
during spring ice break up. Low discharges and reduced currents during the
spring would permit greater amounts of silt to accumulate, resulting in a
detrimental effect to bottom-dwelling organisms.
Evidence confinning the "stream continuum" theory is apparent, although
not in large quantities. One major problem with implementing this theory
in the west involves stream order. With the multitude of tributaries to
every stream a large creek might be of order 10 to 15 by the time it
reaches a larger river. The Yellowstone River could conceivably be of order
20 or more, although this has never been calculated. Some of the basic tenets
of the theory are evident. The invertebrate fauna in stations 1-8 is
dominated by shredder-type organisms. The fauna in the middle and lower
river is dominated by collector organisms, e.g., the Trichoptera family
Hydropsychidae, which build small nets to collect small food particles and
100
organisms carried along by the current. Scraper or grazing organisms are
found throughout the river, and silt-tolerant organisms become abundant
in the low-gradient portions.
Faunal zones, both for fish and bottom-dwelling organisms, are broad and
not distinctly defined. Throughout the upper half of the river, the salmonid
community gradually decreases, as does the Plecoptera fauna. Ephemeroptera,
however, exhibit a gradual shift in species composition from one community
to another with the exception of several adaptable species that are present
throughout the entire river.
Wl
The invertebrate fauna of the Yellowstone River is rich in numbers and
species. The number of species and the population are greatest in the upper
river (stations 1-5), and both decrease downstream.
The invertebrate fauna is dominated by mayflies (Ephemeroptera),
caddisflies (Trichoptera), and true flies (Diptera). The stonefly
(Plecoptera) fauna is diverse but not abundant, and there is a steady
decrease in number of species downstream. The mayfly fauna is composed of
a mountain fauna and a prairie fauna, although several species are found
throughout the river. In the lower five sampling stations, mayflies are the
most diverse order. Caddisflies are abundant and diverse throughout the
Yellowstone River. The caddisfly family Hydropsychidae dominates the
invertebrate fauna in the lower half of the river. True flies, in
particular the midge family, Chironomidae, are abundant and diverse
throughout the river.
The invertebrate fauna of the Tongue River is similar to but distinct
from the fauna of the lower Yellowstone River.
Baseline species diversity calculations showed that the Shannon-Weaver
index was near or below 3.0 for most stations. Generally an index above
3.0 illustrates a healthy unstressed community, while an index below 1.0 is
indicative of a monospecific community under stress. The index range of 1.0-
3.0 seems to illustrate a community under some stress.
The current preferences. of many species and genera were examined. For
most species, increasing current (up to 3ft/sec) means a larger population.
At present, dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Yellowstone River
are high enough to sustain invertebrates and fish. Lack of dissolved oxygen
could influence invertebrate communities if reduced flows are so low that
domestic sewage or decaying organisms tax the capacity of the river. With
reduced flows, increased concentrations of nutrients could result in an
increase in periphyton (alga) growth which probably would result in a larger
standing crop of benthic organisms and a shift in benthic species composition.
Increased water temperatures as a result of reduced flows would
affect invertebrate growth, emergence, egg hatching, and metabolism. The net
effect would probably be a reduction of the fauna.
A reduction in flow which results in a reduction of current velocity will
result in a faunal reduction because most species prefer swift currents.
Flow reduction also decreases the river stage, exposing large amounts of
103
river bottom with a resultant loss of habitat and a dramatic decrease in
fauna.
The effects of reduced current velocity and of loss of bottom habitat
are separable in their effect of fauna. Reduced current velocities (due to
lowered streamflow) could adversely affect bottom fauna even before a
significant loss in bottom habitat occurred. Because of the shape of the
Yellowstone River channel, flow reductions would result in corresponding
reductions in water velocity. For each 1 ,000-cfs reduction in mean low
summer discharge in the lower Yellowstone, the aquatic invertebrate population
would be reduced by approximately ten percent because of reduced velocity.
Further reduction in invertebrate populations could result from other factors
related to reduced flow, such as exposure of bottom habitat, increased
freezing of the river bottom, and silt accumulation.
104
Beauchamp, R.S.A. and P. Ullyott. 1932. Competitive relationships between
certain species of freshwater triclads. Journal of ecology. 20:200-208.
Bergersen, E.P. and W. J. McConnell. 1973. Pollution investigations on
the Yellowstone River, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. Colorado
Cooperative fisheries Unit, 140 pp.
Berner, L. 1959. A tabular summary of the biology of North American mayfly
nymphs (Ephemeroptera). Bulletin of the Florida State Museum of
Biological Science. 4:1-58.
Brillouin, L. 1960. Science and information theory. Academic Press, New
York. 351 pp.
Brown, C. J. D., W. D. Clothier, and W. Alvord. 1953. Observations on ice
conditions in the West Gallatin River, Proceedings of the MJntana
Academy of Science. 13:21-27.
Burton, G. W. and E. P. Odum. 1945. The distribution of stream fish in the
vicinity of Mountain Lake, Virginia. Ecology 26:182-194.
Cairns, J., Jr. 1969. Rate of species diversity restoration following stress
in freshwater protozoan communities. University of Kansas Science
bulletin. 48:209-224.
----,,-.' and K. L. Dickson. 1971. A simple method for the biological assess-
ment of the effects of waste discharge on aquatic bottom-dwelling
organisms. Journal of the water pollution control federation. 43:755-772.
Carpenter, K. E. 1928. Life in inland waters. Sidgwick and Jackson, London.
267 pp.
Chandler, C. M. 1966. Environmental factors affecting the local distribution
and abundance of four species of stream dwelling triclads. Investigations
of Indiana Lakes Streams. 7:1-56.
Chutter, F. M. 1969.
to current speed.
54:413-422.
The distribution of some stream invertebrates in relation
Internationale revue der gesamten hydrobiologie.
Colinvaux, P. A. 1973. Introduction to ecology. John Wiley and Sons.
N.Y. 621 pp.
105
!
Cummins, K. W. 1972. What is a river? -Zoological description,
ecology and management. R. T. Oglesby, C. A. Carlson, and J.
eds. Academic Press, New York. pp, 33-52.
In: River
A, McCann,
1973. Trophic relations of aquatic insects. Annual review of
entomology. 18:183-206.
Cummins, K. W. 1975a. ~lacroinvertebrates. In: River Ecology.
ed. University of California Press, Berkley. pp. 170-198.
B. A. Whitton,
1975b. The ecology of running waters; theory and practice, Proceedings
of the Sandusky River basin symposium. Tiffin, Ohio. pp. 277-293.
Dodds, G. S. and F. L. Hisaw. 1925. Ecological studies of aquatic insects.
IV. Altitudinal range and zonation of mayflies, stoneflies and caddis-
flies in the Colorado Rockies. Ecology 6:380-390.
Egglisha, H. J. 1964. The distributional relationship between the bottom
fauna and plant detritus in streams. Journal of animal ecology.
33:463-476.
Egloff, D. A. and w. H. Brakel. 1973. Stream pollution and a simplified
diversity index. Journal of the water pollution control federation.
4S:2269-2275.
Fullner, R. W. 1971. A comparison of macroinvertebrates collected by
basket and modified multiple-plate samplers. Journal of the water
pollution control federation. 43:494-499
Funk, J. L. and R. S. Campbell. 1953. The population of large fishes in
Black River, Missouri. University of r~_issouri studies. 26:69-82.
Gaufin, A. R., W. E. Ricker, M. Miner, P. Milam, and R. A. Hays. 1g72.
The stoneflies (Plecoptera) of Montana. Transactions of the American
entomological society. 98:1-161
Hester, F. E. and J. S. Dendy. 1g62. A multiple-plate sampler for aquatic
macroinvertebrates. Transactions of the A~erican fisheries society.
91:420-421.
Huet, M. 1g49, Apercu,
des eaux courantes.
11:333-351.
des relations entre la pente et les populations
Schwelzerische zeitschrift fur hydrologic.
1954. Biologie, profils en long et en travers des eaux courantes.
Bulletin Francais de pisciculture. 175:41-53.
Hurlbert, S. H. 1971. The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique
and alternative parameters. Ecology. 52:577-586.
106
j
I
~
~
I
'
j
1
I
~
-I
Hynes, H. B. N. 1941. The taxonomy and ecology of the nymphs of British
Plecoptera with notes on the adults and eggs. Transactions of the royal
entomological society. London. 91:459-557.
1948. flotes on the aquatic Hemiptera-Heteroptera of Trinidad and
Tobago, B.W.I., with a description of a new species of Martarego B. White
(Notonectidae). Transactions of the royal entomological society. London.
99:341-360.
1961. The invertebrate fauna of a Welsh mountain stream. Archiv
fuerhydrobiologie. 57:344-388.
--.......,.-· 1970. The ecology of running waters. University of Toronto Press.
Toronto, Canada. 555 pp.
Ide, F. P. 1935. The effect of temperature on the distribution of the mayfly
fauna of a stream. Publications of the Ontario fish research laboratory.
SO:l-76.
Jaag, 0. and H. Ambuhl. lg64. The effect of the current on the composition
of biocoenoses in flowing water streams. Advancements in water pollution
research, proceedings of the international conference. 1962. pp. 31-49.
Jensen, S. L. 1966. The mayflies of Idaho. Unpublished m.s. thesis.
University of Utah. Salt Lake City.
Krebs, C. J. 1972. Ecology: the experimental analysis of distribution and
abundance. Harper and Row, N. Y. 696 pp.
Leopold, L. B., M. G. Gordon and J. P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial processes in
geomorphology. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco. 522 pp.
Lloyd, M., and R. J. Ghelardi. 1964.
component of species diversity.
A table for calculating the ''equitability''
Journal of animal ecology. 33:217-225.
Lloyd, M., J. H. Zar, and J. R. Karr. 1968. On the calculation of information
theoretical measures of diversity. American midland naturalist.
79:257-272.
Macan, T.T. 1957. The Ephemeroptera of a stony stream. Journal of animal
ecology. 26:317-342.
1974. Freshwater ecology. Longman, London.
Maitland, P. S. 1966. The fauna of the River Endrick. Studies on Loch
Lomond 2. Univers·ity of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland. 1g4 pp.
Margalef, D. R. 1957. Information theory in ecology. General systems.
3:36-71.
1968. Perspectives in ecological theory. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago, Illinois. 112 pp.
107
Minshall, G. W. and P. V. Winger. 1968. The effect of reduction in stream
flow on invertebrate drift. Ecology. 49:580-582.
Montana Department of Community Affirs. 1976 (December).
Information Systems Division. Economic Conditions in
to the Governor. Helena. 35 pp.
Research and
Montana: A Report
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 1975. Unpublished
results of mail survey of Soil Conservation Service offices in Montana
conducted late in 1974 and early in 1975.
Montana Department of Natura 1 Resources and Conservation. 1977 (January) Water
Resources Division. The Future of the Yellowstone River ... ? Helena.
107 pp.
Montana Energy Advisory Council. 1976 (June). Montana Energy Position Paper:
A Montana Energy Advisory Council Staff Report, by Theodore H. Clack, Jr.
Helena, MT 59601. 56 pp.
Newell, R. l. 1976 (August). Yello~1stone river study: final report. Montana
Department of Fish and Game, Helena. 356 pp.
Orr, H., J. C. Marshall, T. l. Isenhour, and P. C.
computer programming for biological sciences.
Boston. 396 pp.
Jurs. 1973. Introduction to
Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
Parsons, D. S. and J. W. Tatum. 1974. A new shallow water multiple-plate
sampler. Progressive fish culturist. 36:179-180.
Percival, E. and H. Whitehead. 1929. A quantitative study of some
types of streambed. Journal of ecology. 17:282-314.
Philipson, G. N. 1954. The effect of water flow and oxygen concentration on
six species of caddisfly (Trichoptera) larvae. Proceedings of the
zoological society of london. 124:547-564.
Pielou. E. C. 1969. An introduction to mathematical ecology. Wiley-
Interscience, John Wiley and Sons, N. Y. 286 pp.
Roback, S. S. 1974. Insects (Arthropoda: Insecta). In. Pollution
eco 1 ogy of freshwater invertebrates. C. W •. Hart, Jr. , and S. L. H.
Fuller, eds. Academic Press, New York. pp. 313-376.
Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists. 1972.
Mountain region: United States of America.
Geologic atlas of the Rocky
Denver. 331 pp.
Shannon, C.E. and W. Weaver. 1964. The mathematical theory of communication.
University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 125 pp.
Shelford, V. E. 1911. Ecological succession I. Stream fishes and the
method of physiographic analysis. Biological bulletin. 21:9-35.
Slobodkin, L. B. and H. L. Sanders. 1969. On the contribution of
environmental predictability to species diversity. Diversity and
stability in ecological systems, Brookhaven symposium in biology
No. 22:82-95.
108
Stadnyk, L. 1971. Factors affecting the distribution of stoneflies in the
Yellowstone River, Montana. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Montana
State University, Bozeman. 36 pp.
State Conservation Needs Committee. 1970. Montana soil and water conservation
needs inventory. Soil Conservation Service. Bozeman. 172 pp.
Thorup, J. 1966. Substrate type and its value as a basis for the
delimination of bottom fauna communities in running waters. Spec.
Publs. Pymatuning laboratory field biology. 4:59-74.
Thurston, R. V., R. J. Luedtke, and R. C. Russo. 1975. Upper Yellowstone
River water quality. August 1973-August 1974. Montana university
joint water resources research center. Bozeman, MT.
U.S. Dept. Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 1968. The Bureau of
Reclamation's Water Surface Profile Computation Method B. Engineering
research center, Denver, Colo. 17 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1973. Biological field and laboratory
methods for measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents.
National environmental research center. EPA-670/4-73-001, 176 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey.
division oersonnel.
1976. Personal communication with water resources
Helena, MT.
Whitton, B. A. (ed.) 1975. River ecology studies in Ecol., Vol. 2,
University of California Press. 725 pp.
Wilhm, J. L. 1967. Comparison of some diversity indices applied to
populations of benthic macroinvertebrates in a stream receiving organic
wastes. Journal of the water pollution control federation. 39:1673-1683.
1970a.
naturalist.
1970b.
populations.
42:R221-R224.
Effect of sample size on Shannons formula.
14:441-445.
Southwestern
Range of diversity index in benthic macroinvertebrate
Journal of the water pollution control federation.
1970c. Some aspects of structure and function of benthic
macroinvertebrate populations in a spring. American midland naturalist.
84:20-35.
1972. Graphic and mathematical analyses of biotic communities in
polluted streams. Annual review of entomology. 17:223-252.
Wilhm, J. L. and T. C. Dorris. 1966. Species diversity of benthic macro-
invertebrates in a stream receiving domestic and oil refinery effluents.
American midland naturalist. 76:427-449.
1968.
Bioscience.
Biological parameters for water quality criteria.
18:477-481.
109