Integrating Research in the Regular Biology Classroom
Grantsburg High School Research Biology, Summer 2005
St. Croix River of Life
by Kerissa Nelson - GHS
Why have Students do Research?
The boring answer:
• The state demands it! State Science Standards require that students engage in inquiry based activities.
The selfish answer:
• I like it! Anything I can do to get outside as a teacher is good!
Be Honest!
• A day on the St. Croix SCUBA diving and canoeing or….
• a day in a white walled building with periodic bells, raging hormones, and continual complaining about homework.
The Real Reasons
• Students learn best by doing.
The Real Reasons
• Students learn best by doing.
• You don’t learn much biology from a text book.
For example..
• A text book says that freshwater mussels use fish to reproduce.
A picture can show how they attract fish. (Just how many fish are in this
picture?)
But when I take my students to the river
They can see mussels luring for fish
And see fish taking the bait
The Real Reasons
• Students learn best by doing.
• You don’t learn much biology from a text book.
• Rivers are more than fish and water – they are ecosystems and this is a complex concept for students to understand.
The Real Reasons
• Students learn best by doing.
• You don’t learn much biology from a text book.
• Rivers are more than fish and water – they are ecosystems and this is a complex concept for students to understand.
• People don’t care about what they don’t understand.
The #1 Reason
• Ownership – It’s not just class, it’s not just a project – It becomes their class and their project.
The #1 Reason
• Ownership – It’s not just class, it’s not just a project – It becomes their class and their project.
• Ultimately, it becomes their river.
Summer of 2005
Summer of 2005
• A Longitudinal Survey of Dragonfly Communities on the St. Croix River and its Wisconsin Tributaries.
Summer of 2005
• A Longitudinal Survey of Dragonfly Communities on the St. Croix River and its Wisconsin Tributaries.
• A Quantitative Survey of the Unionid Mussels Below Four Dams on Three Wisconsin Tributaries of the St. Croix River
Dragonfly Study Objectives:
Dragonfly Study Objectives:• Increase Public
Awareness about Endangered Dragonflies of the St. Croix River
Dragonfly Study Objectives:• Increase Public
Awareness about Endangered Dragonflies of the St. Croix River
• Give Students an Understanding of Dragonfly Life Cycles and Habitat Associations
Dragonfly Study Objectives:• Increase Public
Awareness about Endangered Dragonflies of the St. Croix River
• Give Students an Understanding of Dragonfly Life Cycles and Habitat Associations
• Gain an understanding of species distribution and community ordination throughout the St. Croix River
Methods
We sampled 100 ft. segments of river bank for dragonfly
exoskeletons at 70 sites on the St. Croix River 1time/week.
After carefully labeling our specimen vials (rule of 3)
We sorted by species
And sorted
And sorted
And sorted
And sorted
And sorted
And sorted
After we had sorted for four weeks – things got a little crazy
We had identified and counted over 11,000 exoskeletons!
We had identified and counted over 11,000 exoskeletons!
• This included 43 species
We had identified and counted over 11,000 exoskeletons!
• This included 43 species
• A new Minnesota state record the Cyrano Darner (Nasiaeshna pentacantha)
We had identified and counted over 11,000 exoskeletons!
• This included 43 species
• A new Minnesota state record the Cyrano Darner (Nasiaeshna pentacantha)
• A few more mysteries that we continue to work on. >!< >!<
After all data was recorded and organized, we could produce
species distributionsSt. Croix Snaketail (Ophiogomphus susbehcha )
2005 Emergence on the St. Croix River
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51
Plot Number from St. Croix Mouth to Source
# o
f E
xuvi
ae
And phenograms showing when emergence had occurred
St. Croix Snaketail (Ophiogomphus susbehcha) 2005 Emergence on the St. Croix River
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Week
# o
f E
xu
via
e
Future Plans
Future Plans
• Complete Mathematical Analysis for all Species and Communities
Future Plans
• Complete Mathematical Analysis for all Species and Communities
• Complete Ordination Analysis using Habitat and Water Quality Variable Data that We Collected
Future Plans
• Complete Mathematical Analysis for all Species and Communities
• Complete Ordination Analysis using Habitat and Water Quality Variable Data that We Collected
• Publish Our Results
A Quantitative Survey of the Unionid Mussels Below Four Dams on Three Wisconsin
Tributaries of the St. Croix River
Study Objectives:
Study Objectives:
• Increase Public Awareness of Endangered Species
Study Objectives:
• Increase Public Awareness of Endangered Species
• Examine Mussel Community and Age Structure Below Dams
Study Objectives:
• Increase Public Awareness of Endangered Species
• Examine Mussel Community and Age Structure Below Dams
• Examine How Substrate Variables May Affect These Communities
Study Objectives:
• Increase Public Awareness of Endangered Species
• Examine Mussel Community and Age Structure Below Dams
• Examine How Substrate Variables May Affect These Communities
• Tag Mussels For Future Growth Analysis
Methods
At each site, we located areas with mussels and then, within this area, we randomly sampled the substrate
We snorkeled in shallow water.
And when water was over chest height, we put our SCUBA skills to
good used.
Substrate samples were run through a series of sieves
and weighed
Data Recorded
Data Recorded
• Species
Fluted-shell(Lasmigona costata)
Data Recorded
• Species• Length, Width, Height
Data Recorded
• Species• Length, Width, Height• Age
(Fusconaia flava)
4 and 5 Year Old Wood River Wabash Pigtoes
Data Recorded
• Species• Length, Width, Height• Age• GPS Site Coordinates
Creek Heelsplitter (Lasmigona compressa)
Study Sites:
Study Sites:
We sampled 100 (.25m2) quadrats at four sites below dams and one
high density non dam site.
The Clam Lakes Dam had high diversity with 15 live species
Mussel Community at Clam Lakes Dam at Clam Dam County Park
51%
22%
7%
7%
4%
2%2%
2%
1%0%0%1%1%
0%
0%
Mucket
Strange Floater
Fat Mucket
Fluted Shell
Wabash Pigtoe
Pocketbook
Giant Floater
Threeridge
White Heelspliter
Elktoe
Pimpleback
Black Sandshell
Cylinder
Hickorynut
Lilliput
The substrate was almost pure loose sand – not “typical” quality
habitatSubstrate Analysis
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
152 mm 81 mm 14 mm 6 mm .5 mm
Sieve Diameter
% C
om
po
sit
ion
Clam Lakes Dam
The Memory Lake Dam Site on the Wood River had the highest diversity with 18 live species.
Wood River Mussel Community Below Memory Lake Dam
37%
26%
13% 6%
3%
2%
1%1%
0%
0%0%
0%
2%
2%
1%
3%
1%
Species
Spike
Mucket
Threeridge
Fat Mucket
Pocketbook
Wabash Pigtoe
Fragile Papershell
Flutedshell
Strange Floater
Black Sandshell
Elktoe
Cylinder
Pimpleback
Creek Heelsplitter
Hickorynut
Purple Wartyback
Pink Heelsplitter
It also had the most heterogeneous substrate.Substrate Analysis
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
152 mm 81 mm 14 mm 6 mm .5 mm
Sieve Diameter
% C
om
po
sit
ion
Memory Lakes Dam
Comparison Analysis Between Sites
Substrate Summary
Summary of Substrate Analysis at All Sites
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
152 mm 81 mm 14 mm 6 mm .5 mm
Sieve Diameter
% C
om
po
sit
ion Beaver Dam Road
Spooner Dam
Clam Falls Dam
Clam Lakes Dam
Memory Lakes Dam
Species Richness Summary
Species Richness at Each Site
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Yellow River Beaver DamRoad
Yellow River Spooner Dam Clam River Clam FallsDam
Clam River Clam LakesDam
Wood River Memory LakeDam
Site
Nu
mb
er o
f S
pec
ies
Mussel Density Summary
Density of Mussels/m2 at Each Site
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Yellow RiverBeaver Dam
Road
Yellow RiverSpooner Dam
Clam RiverClam Falls
Dam
Clam RiverClam Lakes
Dam
Memory LakeDam Wood
River
Sites
De
ns
ity
in m
us
se
ls/m
2
Summary of the Community Age
Mean Age of Mussels at Each Site Based on Annular Ring Analysis
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Yellow RiverBeaver Dam Road
Yellow RiverSpooner Dam
Clam River ClamFalls Dam
Clam River ClamLakes Dam
Wood RiverMemory Lake Dam
Sites
Mea
n A
ge
in Y
ears
Conclusions:
Conclusions:
• Sites Below Dams Generally Hold Large and Diverse Mussel Communities
Conclusions:
• Sites Below Dams Generally Hold Large and Diverse Mussel Communities
• These Mussels Appear to Grow at a Faster Rate than Mussels Elsewhere in the River System
Conclusions:
• Sites Below Dams Generally Hold Large and Diverse Mussel Communities
• These Mussels Appear to Grow at a Faster Rate than Mussels Elsewhere in the River System
• Compact Substrate with Anoxic Conditions May Affect Reproduction at Some Sites (Such as the Spooner Dam)
Conclusions:
• Sites Below Dams Generally Hold Large and Diverse Mussel Communities
• These Mussels Appear to Grow at a Faster Rate than Mussels Elsewhere in the River System
• Compact Substrate with Anoxic Conditions May Affect Reproduction at Some Sites (Such as the Spooner Dam)
• Each Site Was Unique Making it Difficult to Generalize about “Below Dam Conditions”
Future Research :
• Return to sites within 5 years to analyze rate of growth for different species at different sites.
Future Research :
• Substrate Analysis at 40 Randomly Determined Sites
• Continue with Water Quality, Shoreline and Land Use Analysis
Future Research :
• Substrate Analysis at 40 Randomly Determined Sites
• Water Quality, Shoreline and Land Use Analysis
• Complete GIS and Mussel Community Ordination Analysis (NMDS) for our Dataset
Special Thanks to :Mark Hove, Dr. Dan Hornbach, Lisie Kitchel,
and St. Croix SCUBA for technical and logistical support.
Grantsburg School District, the Wisconsin DNR Citizen Science Grant Program, and the Wisconsin Environmental
Education Board for financial support.
In the end….
Research is Hard Work!
But that’s O.K!
‘Cuz we’ve got mussels!
Lots of mussels!
GHS 2005 >!<