Species Diversity in Lentic and Lotic Systems of Lake Tamblyn and the McIntyre River on the

Thunder Bay Lakehead University Campus

Stephanie Finley

0549565

F1: Wednesday, 8:30 am

CB 3013

November 17, 2015

1
Abstract

This experiment was conducted on the Lakehead University campus in Thunder Bay,

Ontario, Canada at the sites of Lake Tamblyn and the McIntyre River. The experiment was

performed in attempt to prove the hypothesis that lotic ecosystems possess more species

diversity than lentic ecosystems. A variety of methods were done using an assortment of

equipment to collect environmental data such as pH and dissolved oxygen levels, temperatures,

and depths. A large assortment of macroinvertebrates were also collected and identified. The

results supported the hypothesis for the most part as the lotic ecosystem contained higher levels

of dissolved oxygen, a faster rate of flow, a higher number of family species, and a more

balanced trophic pyramid. After the experiment was completed and data was interpreted, it was

said that the hypothesis was proved, the lotic ecosystem was more diverse than the lentic

ecosystem.

Keywords: aquatic ecosystem; diversity; freshwater; Lake Tamblyn; Lakehead University;

lentic; lotic; macroinvertebrates; McIntyre River; qualitative; quantitative; trophic levels.

2
Introduction

All over the world there are so many different ecosystems, each with their own unique

characteristics and organisms. Each ecosystem relies on its special characteristics to support the

various life forms within it. If an ecosystem begins to change, even slightly, its species diversity

may suffer. Species diversity refers to the amount of different species that can be found in a

particular area or ecosystem. Some factors that influence species diversity are the stability of the

environment, the primary productivity, the predatory and competitive interactions between

species, and the environmental heterogeneity (Reed 1978). This is why it is especially important

for ecosystems to remain stable and not be continuously fluctuating. The more stable and

adapted an ecosystem is, the more diverse the species within the ecosystem will be.

One of the most abundant ecosystems in Ontario, Canada is the freshwater aquatic

ecosystem. Aquatic ecosystems rely heavily on the movement of water to generate chemical,

physical, and biological interactions and exchanges among ecosystems (Lamberti et al. 2010).

They have various features that allow them to contain such a diverse range of organisms,

particularly macroinvertebrates. These characteristics differ depending on the type of

environment setting; lentic or lotic. Lentic refers to a standing water ecosystem such as a pond or

a lake and lotic refers to a moving/flowing water ecosystem such as a stream or a river (Barnes

2015). Bodies of water are not only distinguished by their flow, but by many other factors as

well. Size/depth plays a large role in that a stream/creek is smaller than a river, and a pond is

smaller than a lake (Ricklefs et al. 2015). Aquatic biomes also have several other factors that

contribute to their diversity levels. One of these factors in the level of dissolved oxygen in the

water. Typically, there is a higher oxygen content in lotic systems than in lentic systems as their

flow allows for circulation which assists in obtaining oxygen. A higher level of dissolved oxygen

3
is favourable for ecosystems, especially to those that contain many organisms that rely on

aerobic respiration (Ricklefs et al. 2015). Another particularly important factor in aquatic

ecosystems is the pH level. The pH level is important because the hydrogen ions are essential to

make certain nutrients such as calcium which is required in many life processed of various

organisms. The normal pH level of lakes and rivers is between 5 and 9, however some water

bodies may be even lower which can be very harmful (Ricklefs et al. 2015). If the pH level gets

too low, the acidity can be dangerous towards the organisms that live in or near the water. Two

more factors that are important when examining aquatic ecosystems are depth and temperature.

Certain organisms need deep, still waters in order to reproduce, eat, and carry out the normal

functions of life. While other organisms thrive off of the flowing water to carry them to new

habitats which in turn means new sources of food. A factor often related to depth, is temperature.

Typically, temperature decreases as depth increases as sunlight cannot reach the profundal zone,

which is the bottom most layer of a water body beneath the littoral and limnetic zones (Ricklefs

et al. 2015). Once again, some organisms thrive off of this, as they are adapted to cooler

temperatures. On the other hand, some organisms need the shallow, warmer waters of a lotic

ecosystem to survive. Temperatures often fluctuate throughout seasons which requires special

adaptations in organisms in order to succeed. All of these factors combined provide the basis for

a freshwater ecosystem to support the various life forms they do.

This particular experiment takes place on the Lakehead University campus in Thunder

Bay, Ontario, Canada. The campus provides both a lotic and lentic environment to study. The

lentic environment is Lake Tamblyn, a man-made pool that was dredged out of the McIntyre

River, which is the lotic environment in this experiment. Previous work conducted at this site by

Ken Deacon in 1991 (Deacon and Barnes 2012) lead to the composition of a manual listing the

4
various macroinvertebrates found in these ecosystems. It compiles the classification of the

invertebrate along with information on the biology of the organism such as special adaptations it

may have and its trophic category. This information was especially helpful when conducting the

following experiment as it was very easy to identify the macroinvertebrates collected. The

following experiment will discuss the characteristics and differences between lentic and lotic

systems which is important to know when studying aquatic ecosystems. In order to maintain

healthy, functioning ecosystems, one must know the proper assets a lentic and lotic environment

should possess. After reading this report, one should be able to identify the factors necessary for

maintaining a suitable aquatic ecosystem and distinguish between lentic and lotic environments.

Study Area

We performed all work on the Lakehead University Thunder Bay campus (48.420621,

-89.263447) at two different sites. Lake Tamblyn was used as the lentic site and the McIntyre

River was used as the lotic site. Both sites had two locations, one on the edge and one at the

center. Previous work conducted at these sites provided general guidelines as to what to examine

at each location. A map of the study area is shown in Figure 1 with specific study sites indicated

using white squares. (Google Maps. 2015. Lake Tamblyn, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay

ON. https://www.google.ca/maps/@48.4203756,- 89.2632744,263m/data=!3m1!1e3. November

12, 2015.)

5
 N

scale: 50m |_______|

Figure 1: Map of lentic and lotic study sites on the Lakehead University campus.

Material and Methods

This lab involved two portions; the first portion consisted of visiting Lake Tamblyn and

the McIntyre River on the Lakehead University Campus to collect aquatic macroinvertebrate

samples and other environmental data. The second portion of this lab occurred two weeks later in

which the macroinvertebrates were identified. To begin collecting data at the lentic site of Lake

Tamblyn, individuals went out in a canoe with various equipment. First a transect was chosen

across the middle of the lake and a depth sounder (sonar gun) was used to measure the lake depth

every ten meters. Individuals also recorded substrate descriptions every ten meters. When the

canoe reached the middle of the transect, a 15cm by 15cm Ekman Dredge was sent into the

bottom of the lake to collect quantitative benthos samples. Next a Kemmerer or Van Dorn bottle

was sent near the bottom of the lake to collect water. A Secchi disk was also used to collect

transparency data and loggers were placed throughout the lake at a previous time by the

instructor to collect temperature data. Air temperatures were taken using an alcohol thermometer.

Individuals on the lake shore used the water collected in either the Van Dorn or Kemmerer bottle

6
to determine the dissolved oxygen content using the Winkler method and the pH level using a

LaMotte kit. The Ekman Dredge was also opened and the benthic sample was removed, rinsed,

and sieved. D-nets were also used to collect invertebrates at various points along the lake edge.

The next site, which was the lotic site of the McIntyre River, involved many of the same

procedures. A transect line was chosen across the river and a meter stick was used to measure

depth every meter from bank to bank, and a substrate description was recorded every meter also.

A Surber Stream Bottom Sampler was placed one meter from the river edge and also in the

middle of the river to collect macroinvertebrates. Additionally, a D-net was placed flat edge

down on the river bottom facing upstream and the substrate was kicked in attempt to collect

more macroinvertebrates. Loggers were also placed in various locations in the river at a previous

time to collect temperature data. Next water was collected in tubes from the river edge and center

to determine the pH and dissolved oxygen content using the Lamotte kit. Finally the velocity at

the edge and center of the river was determined by using a Global Water Flow Probe. From these

values rate of flow was calculated using the equation:

Rate of flow (m3/s) = width (m) X mean depth (m) X velocity (m/s) X a

*where a = a constant dependent on bottom type (0.8 for rough rock and 0.9 for smooth rock or

sand).

After all the data was recorded and macroinvertebrates were placed into jars, everyone headed

back to the laboratory where macroinvertebrates were dispatched into jars with a solution of 70%

ethanol to preserve them. Two weeks later, macroinvertebrates were identified using

microscopes and a simple taxonomic key and descriptions of organism information booklet

(Deacon and Barnes 2012). Data such as trophic level, density and diversity was also

recorded/calculated.

7
Results
In table 1 below we can see that pH levels for the lentic and lotic systems were very

similar to each other, regardless of ecosystem or location. All three pH levels were 8 or

marginally below 8 meaning they are slightly basic. The dissolved oxygen content was very

similar for the lotic edge and lentic environments, however it was a significantly higher value for

the lotic center.

Table 1: Dissolved Oxygen and pH Levels for Lake Tamblyn and the McIntyre River.
Ecosystem Parameter Average (n=10) Standard Deviation

Lotic Dissolved Oxygen Edge (ppm) 9.15 3.45

Dissolved Oxygen Center (ppm) 16.27 7.28

pH Edge 8.00 0.33

pH Center 7.97 0.31

Lentic Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 9.31 4.30

pH 7.95 0.28

8
 Table 2 below shows various data for the appearance and movement of the ecosystems.

The velocity and rate of flow for the river were substantially similar for the edge and center.

Table 2: Transparency, flow, and velocity data for Lake Tamblyn and the McIntyre River.

Ecosystem Parameter Average (n=10) Standard Deviation

Lotic Transparency(cm) Bottom NA

Velocity (m/s) Edge 0.19 0.18

Velocity (m/s) Center 0.18 0.08

Flow (m3/sec) Edge 47.30 43.74

Flow (m3/sec) Center 46.24 23.32

Lentic Transparency (cm)

(Secchi Reading) 102.78 42.65

*note: Velocity and flow data were not collected for Lake Tamblyn as lentic ecosystems are

standing water.

Table 3 on the following page records the depths across as a transect for both the lentic

and lotic systems. Both locations show a trend of beginning shallow, then increasing in depth as

the center of the transect is reached, and finally returning back to shallow as the other bank is

reached; omitting a possible error in the trend where the lentic system has a large increase in

depth at eighty meters.

9
Table 3: Depth recordings every meter across the McIntyre River and every ten meters across

Lake Tamblyn.

Environment Parameter Average (n=10) Standard Deviation

Lotic Depth (cm) at 1m 14.62 9.00

Depth (cm) at 2m 17.55 11.17

Depth (cm) at 3m 19.03 19.59

Depth (cm) at 4m 31.47 24.02

Depth (cm) at 5m 38.07 18.81

Depth (cm) at 6m 44.79 17.62

Depth (cm) at 7m 48.37 22.82

Depth (cm) at 8m 41.07 23.62

Depth (cm) at 9m 31.02 15.95

Depth (cm) at 10m 25.40 9.90

Lentic Depth (cm) at 10m 118 42.374

Depth (cm) at 20m 124 42.99871

Depth (cm) at 30m 126.5 34.96427

Depth (cm) at 40m 123 23.11805

Depth (cm) at 50m 121.1111111 38.55011

Depth (cm) at 60m 115 23.29929

Depth (cm) at 70m 105 25.88436

Depth (cm) at 80m 168 35.63706

10
 Table 4 on the following page records the descriptions of the substrate at the bottom of

both ecosystems. The lotic ecosystem begins rather course and rocky but at the end it becomes

more smooth. The lentic ecosystem mainly consists of organic matter with some silt and cobble

throughout.

11
Table 4: Substrate descriptions every meter across the McIntyre River and every ten meters

across Lake Tamblyn.

Ecosystem Parameter Average (n=10)

Lotic Substrate Description at 1m cobbles, coarse sand

Substrate Description at 2m cobbles, coarse sand

Substrate Description at 3m cobbles, coarse sand

Substrate Description at 4m cobbles, coarse sand

Substrate Description at 5m cobbles, coarse sand

Substrate Description at 6m coarse sand

Substrate Description at 7m coarse sand

Substrate Description at 8m shale bedrock

Substrate Description at 9m shale bedrock

Substrate Description at 10m shale bedrock

Lentic Substrate Description at 10m Organics, silt and cobble

Substrate Description at 20m Organics, silt and cobble

Substrate Description at 30m Organics, silt

Substrate Description at 40m Organics, silt

Substrate Description at 50m Organics, silt, gravel

Substrate Description at 60m Organics, silt

Substrate Description at 70m Organics, silt

Substrate Description at 80m Cobbles, gravel, silt

12
 Table 5 below shows temperatures recorded at various locations in the lentic and lotic

environments. The average air temperatures for all locations were quite similar, they did not vary

much and were all within the range of 8.6 ◦C and 9.7 ◦C. However the maximum and minimum

temperatures had a large range of variation within and between environments.

Table 5: Temperature data collected from Loggers at various locations in Lake Tamblyn and the

McIntyre River.

Average Maximum Minimum StdDev

Logger Locations Temperature (◦C) (◦C) (◦C) (◦C)

Lake 100 cm Depth 9.31 11.50 7.50 0.98

Lake 50 cm Depth 9.42 11.50 7.50 0.92

Lake Ambient/ Air Temperature 8.74 18.50 1.50 3.49

Lake Bottom 150 cm Depth 9.19 11.50 7.50 0.80

Lake Surface (5 cm depth) 9.70 12.00 7.50 0.98

River Ambient/ Air Temperature 8.60 20.00 1.00 3.71

River Edge (20 cm depth) 9.57 11.00 8.00 0.81

River Riffle (5cm depth) 9.48 11.00 8.00 0.81

Table 6 on the following page shows the various species of families found in the lentic

and lotic ecosystems using a D-Net. In Lake Tamblyn, 17 different family species were

collected, while 20 different family species were collected in the McIntyre River.

13
Table 6: Family species found using a D-Net in Lake Tamblyn and the McIntyre River.

Sample Family Sample Family

D-Net Lake Aeshnidae D-Net River Aeshnidae

D-Net Lake Baetidae D-Net River Athericidae
D-Net Lake Calopterygidae D-Net River Baetidae
D-Net Lake Chironimidae D-Net River Cambaridae
D-Net Lake Corixidae D-Net River Ceratopogonidae
D-Net Lake Gammaridae D-Net River Cordulegastridae
D-Net Lake Hydropsychidae D-Net River Corixidae
D-Net Lake Leptoceridae D-Net River Ephemeridae
D-Net Lake Lymnaeidae D-Net River Gammaridae
D-Net Lake Nepidae D-Net River Gomphidae
D-Net Lake Notonectidae D-Net River Heptagenidae
D-Net Lake Phryganeidae D-Net River Hydropsychidae
D-Net Lake Planorbidae D-Net River Leptoceridae
D-Net Lake Pteronarcyidae D-Net River Lumbricidae
D-Net Lake Sialidae D-Net River Nemouridae
D-Net Lake Tabanidae D-Net River Nepidae
D-Net River Notonectidae
D-Net River Polycentropdidae
D-Net River Pteronarcyidae
D-Net River Sialidae

14
 Table 7 on the following page shows quantitative data for macroinvertebrates found in

lentic and lotic ecosystems. It includes their family name, trophic level, the number of

individuals that were caught in each type of equipment, and the density of the family caught per

meter squared. Overall the Ekman Dredge caught the highest number of individuals, but the

Surber sampler caught the largest variety/diversity of family’s.

15
Table 7: Quantitative data for invertebrates found in Lake Tamblyn using an Ekman Dredge and
the McIntyre River using a Surber Stream Bottom Sampler.

Surber Edge
Ekman (n=11) Surber Center (n=11) (n=11)

Trophic # of # of # of
Family Level Indiv. #/m2 Indiv. #/m2 Indiv. #/m2

Asellidae detrit/herb 11 44.44444 0 0 0

Athericidae carnivore 0 0 1 1.010101 3 3.030303
Brachycentridae detrit/herb 0 0 0 0 1 1.010101
Calopterygidae carnivore 0 0 1 1.010101 0 0
Cambaridae omnivore 0 0 10 10.10101 13 13.13131
Chironomidae detrit/herb 81 327.2727 1 1.010101 2 2.020202
Corixidae detrit/herb 8 32.32323 2 2.020202 2 2.020202
Elmidae herbivore 1 4.040404 0 0 0 0
Ephemeridae herbivore 0 0 5 5.050505 1 1.010101
Gomphidae carnivore 1 4.040404 4 4.040404 0 0
Heptageniidae herbivore 1 4.040404 9 9.090909 6 6.060606
Hydropsychidae herbivore 0 0 0 0 3 3.030303
Nemouridae herbivore 0 0 2 2.020202 0 0
Perlidae carnivore 0 0 2 2.020202 0 0
Planorbidae herbivore 1 4.040404 0 0 0 0
Pteronarcyidae herbivore 0 0 1 1.010101 0 0
Sialidae carnivore 1 4.040404 1 1.010101 1 1.010101
Sphaeriidae herbivore 19 76.76768 0 0 0 0
Spongillidae Filter Feeder 1 4.040404 0 0 1 1.010101
Tipulidae detrit/herb 1 4.040404 0 0 0 0
Tubificidae detrit/herb 1 4.040404 0 0 0 0

16
 Table 8 below shows the calculated species diversity for the lentic and lotic ecosystems.
The McIntyre River shows a much higher level of diversity in both the edge and center location
than Lake Tamblyn.

Table 8: Species Diversity for Lake Tamblyn collected using an Ekman Dredge and for the
McIntyre River collected using a Surber Stream Bottom Sampler.

Sample Species Diversity

Ekman (lake) 0.55

Surber (river center) 0.84

Surber (river edge) 0.78

Discussion

In this lab we observed a lentic and a lotic ecosystem with varying characteristics. The

environmental and invertebrate data that was collected can be used to determine which

ecosystem has more species diversity. By looking at all the data that was collecting, it can be

said that the lotic ecosystem of the McIntyre River has more species diversity in this particular

experiment at this point in time. Starting with the pH and dissolved oxygen level data shown in

table 1, we observed that the pH levels were fairly consistent across all environments with a pH

of 8 or close to it. This information is able to tell us that although there is not much difference

between the lentic and lotic ecosystems, a level of 8 is a healthy pH for a freshwater ecosystem

(Ricklefs et al. 2015). As for the dissolved oxygen levels, the lotic center had the highest value,

nearly double the lotic edge and lentic values. This is due to the fact that the lotic system is

flowing and therefore oxygen is able to circulate. This is a positive characteristic for an

ecosystem to have as it allows organisms to breathe more efficiently if they rely on aerobic

17
respiration which will in turn increase the number of individuals (Ricklefs et al. 2015). This data

pairs well with the data found in table 2 which shows the velocity and rate of flow of the lotic

ecosystem to be quite fast. Data for the lentic ecosystem’s velocity was not collected as it is a

standing body of water and therefore moves little to not at all. This lack of movement is

appealing to some organisms, as they are more adapted to staying in one spot to do things such

as eat and reproduce, however plenty of organisms thrive off of the flow of lotic systems to carry

them to new locations to reproduce and find food. The transparency data that was collected did

not provide much proof towards the hypothesis.

The depth recordings for the lotic and lentic systems showed similar patterns. Both

ecosystems began shallow on one side, gradually became deeper as the middle was reached, and

then went back to shallow. The lentic ecosystem was of course deeper than the lotic ecosystem

as lakes are generally deeper than rivers. This data does not necessarily contribute towards the

hypothesis as the varying depths in the lentic system would allow for more species diversity as it

can accommodate various species which are adapted to the varying depths. However, the lotic

system does show some variability in its depths from bank to bank which could potentially allow

for diversity, but it would most likely not have as much as the lentic system could provide.

Along with the depth recordings that were taken at intervals from one side of the systems to the

other, substrate descriptions were also recorded. This data also does not contribute towards

proving the hypothesis as the lentic ecosystem contained more organics which are required in the

trophic pyramid as primary producers which supports all other organisms above it on the

pyramid (Barnes 2015). The lotic system consisted mainly of cobbles, sand, and shale which

does not necessarily help support life. However, since it is flowing, organisms within the system

are able to easily move to new habitats along the river where more organics may be present.

18
 The temperature data that was collected also does not provide much proof towards the

hypothesis. What can be said about this data is simply that the average temperatures across both

systems were similar. One thing that can be taken from this data is that for the most part, the

temperatures became cooler the deeper we went. This once again relates to adaptation of species;

some species are well adapted to adjust to the colder temperatures of a deep body of water, while

others are not.

Some of the most important data that was collected were the macroinvertebrates retrieved

from the lake and river using D-Nets. When the individuals were identified using the taxonomic

key constructed from previous work at the sites (Deacon and Barnes 2012), we were able to see

and count specifically which families were present in each ecosystems. This data supports the

hypothesis that there is more species diversity in the lotic system of the McIntyre River as 20

different family species were found in the river while only 17 were found in Lake Tamblyn.

Macroinvertebrates were also retrieved using an Ekman Dredge in the lake and a Surber Stream

Bottom Sampler in the river. This data, shown in table 7, not only provides the family name of

the individuals caught, but it also gives the trophic level, number of individuals caught, and the

density of the individual. In the lentic environment, detrivores/herbivores was the most common

trophic level which goes well with the data stated early that the lake possessed more organic

material in its substrate data. The lotic environment had a good balance of detrivores, herbivores,

omnivores, and carnivores which allows it to have a strong trophic pyramid and food chain

which is substantially important when it comes to species diversity. This is because if an

ecosystem does not have a well-balanced trophic pyramid, then some organisms may not be able

to find the appropriate nutrients to survive thus organisms will die and species diversity will

decrease.

19
 In the final table of the results, the actual measurements of species diversity are shown.

The lentic system only possessed a diversity of 0.55, while the lotic system had levels of 0.84

and 0.78 for the center and edge. This strongly supports the hypothesis that the lotic ecosystem

has a higher diversity.

Although most data throughout this report supports the hypothesis, some data did not

support it. This is most likely due to various sources of error. One source of error is that multiple

people were taking readings for the same data. This can result in error as everyone has a slightly

different way of performing specific tasks. Since multiple people collected the same data in

varying ways, when the averages were collected this could have produced a source of error.

Another possible source of error is that experiments were taken at different times in the day

which can effect values such as temperature. In order to avoid this data when conducting this

experiment, one person should be assigned to the collection of all the data of a certain type and

data should be collected at similar times for both ecosystems.

By looking at all of the data collected throughout this experiment it can be said that that

hypothesis was proved, the lotic ecosystem of the McIntyre River contains more species

diversity than the lentic ecosystem of Lake Tamblyn.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the Lakehead University Biology Department for providing the necessary

equipment to complete the experiments. A special thank you to Mr. Daniel Brazeau, Mrs. Barb

Barnes, and the teaching assistant for facilitating in the procedures of these labs. Thank you also

20
to Emily Tilbury for providing editing, motivation, and criticism for this report and to the

remainder of the students in this lab section for their effort in the field work.

References

Barnes, B. 2015. Introductory Ecology: Biology 2210 Lab Manual. Lakehead University,

Thunder Bay ON.

Deacon, K. and Barnes, B. 2012. Macroinvertebrates of the McIntyre River. Lakehead

University, Thunder Bay ON.

Hillebrand, H. 2005. Light regime and consumer control of autotrophic biomass. Journal of

Ecology 93: 758–769.

Lamberti, G.A., T. Dominic, and A.E. Hershey. 2010. Linkages among aquatic ecosystems.

Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29: 245-263.

Reed, C. 1978. Species diversity in aquatic microecosystems. Ecology 59: 481-488.

Ricklefs, R.E., R. Relyea, and C. Richter. 2015. Ecology: The Economy of Nature (Canadian

Edition), Seventh Edition. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, New York, USA.

21