Table 5 |
|||
| Taxa | Stations2 | ||
| 2SC | R1PC | R2SBFC | |
| Ephemeroptera (mayflies) | |||
| Baetidae; Baetis | 2 | 1 | - |
| Ephemerellidae; Ephemerella | - | 18 | - |
| Heptageniidae; Epeorus | 5 | 21 | - |
| Rhithrogena | - | 3 | - |
| Stenonema | - | 3 | 6 |
| Leptophlebiidae; Paraleptophlebia | - | 11 | - |
| Oligoneuriidae; Isonychia | - | 1 | - |
| Siphlonuridae; Ameletus | 1 | 2 | - |
| Plecoptera (stoneflies) | |||
| Chloroperlidae; Sweltsa | 17 | - | - |
| Nemouridae; Prostoia | 9 | 21 | - |
| Perlidae; Acroneuria | - | - | 2 |
| Perlodidae; Isoperla | 1 | - | - |
| Taeniopterygidae; Taeniopteryx | - | - | 32 |
| Tricoptera (caddisflies) | |||
| Brachycentridae; Micrasema | - | - | 4 |
| Hydropsychidae; Diplectrona | - | 1 | - |
| Cheumatopsyche | - | - | 14 |
| Hydropsyche | - | 2 | 10 |
| Limnephilidae; Goera | - | - | 2 |
| Philopotamidae; Dolophilodes | - | 1 | - |
| Polycentropodidae; Polycentropus | - | - | 3 |
| Rhyacophilidae; Rhyacophila | - | 7 | 2 |
| Uenoidae; Neophylax | - | - | 2 |
| Diptera (true flies) | |||
| Athericidae; Atherix | - | - | 3 |
| Simuliidae; Prosimulium | 57 | 7 | - |
| Simulium | - | - | 2 |
| Tipulidae; Hexatoma | 2 | 2 | - |
| Tipula | - | - | 1 |
| Chironomidae | 5 | 4 | 14 |
| Other Insect Taxa | |||
| Megaloptera (dobson-, alder-, fishflies) | |||
| Corydalidae; Nigronia | - | 1 | - |
| Coleoptera (aquatic beetles) | |||
| Elmidae; Dubiraphia | - | - | 1 |
| Optioservus | - | - | 13 |
| Stenelmis | - | - | 3 |
| Psephenidae; Psephenus | - | 1 | 2 |
| Non-Insect Taxa | |||
| Oligochaeta Lumbricidae | 2 | - | 10 |
| Ancylidae; Laevapex | - | 3 | - |
| Sphaeriidae | - | - | 1 |
| Cambaridae; Orconectes | - | - | 1 |
| Total Number Individuals | 101 | 110 | 128 |
| 1Semi-quantitave based on randomly selected
subsample (100+ individuals) from qualitative samplings. 2Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for station locations. |
|||
Table 5 continued |
||||
| Stations2 | ||||
| Station 2SC Compared to: | R1 | R2 | R1PC | R2SBFC |
| Taxa Richness | 10 | 10 | 19 | 21 |
| candidate/reference | 53% | 48% | - | - |
| biological condition score | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| Modified EPT Index | 5 | 5 | 11 | 7 |
| candidate/reference | 45% | 71% | - | - |
| biological condition score | 0 | 4 | 6 | 6 |
| Modified Hilsenhoff Index | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 4.3 |
| candidate - reference | 0.4 | -2.3 | - | - |
| biological condition score | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| % Dominant Taxon | 56 | 56 | 19 | 25 |
| candidate - reference | 37 | 31 | - | - |
| biological condition score | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| % Modified Mayfly | 6 | 6 | 54 | 5 |
| reference - candidate | 48 | -1 | - | - |
| biological condition score | 0 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Total Biological Condition Score | 6 | 16 | 30 | 30 |
| % Comparability to Reference Station3 | 20% | 53% | -- | -- |
| Designation | NC | NC | EV | HQ-TSF |
| Notes: 1 Semi-quantitave based on randomly selected subsample (100+ individuals) from qualitative samplings. 2 Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for station locations. 3 Reference stations were selected based on documented ecological |
||||
Return to the Smithtown Creek Page