Stormy WeatherStormy Weather
SCI Results forSCI Results for 20042004--20052005
What is an SCI?What is an SCI?Index/metric
Total taxaEphemeroptera taxa
Trichoptera taxa% Filterer
Long-lived taxaClinger taxa
% Dominance % TanytarsiniSensitive taxa
% Very tolerant
SCI category SCI range
1 sample
Good [73–100]
Fair [46–73)
Poor [19–46)
Very poor [0–19)
2 samples
Excellent [81–100]
Good [62–81)
Fair [43–62)
Poor [24–43)
Very poor [0–24)
SCI ResultsSCI Results
Results so far show 65% Results so far show 65% of scores are of scores are ““PoorPoor”” or or ““Very PoorVery Poor”” (with 21% (with 21% ““Very PoorVery Poor””))Only 4% are Only 4% are ““GoodGood””Why?
0
20
40
60
80
SCI Scores
Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Why?
Hurricane TracksHurricane TracksCharley: August 13, Charley: August 13, 20042004Frances: September Frances: September 16, 200416, 2004Jeanne: September Jeanne: September 26, 200426, 2004Ivan: eye did directly Ivan: eye did directly cross a basin, but NW cross a basin, but NW received wind and received wind and rainrain
Canals and Streams in SFCanals and Streams in SF
Before addressing Before addressing hurricaneshurricanes……..Canals are very low Canals are very low scoringscoring……But so are streamsBut so are streamsQ #1: Are canals bad Q #1: Are canals bad because they are canals, because they are canals, or because everything in or because everything in SF scores low?SF scores low?Q #2: Are streams better Q #2: Are streams better than canals? Problem: than canals? Problem: very small sample size very small sample size (n=5)(n=5)
Natural vs. CanalNatural vs. Canal
Kruskal-Wallis Test: VALUE versus WATERBODY_TYPE
WATERBODY_TYPE N Median Ave Rank ZCANAL 11 12.00 42.0 -3.58STREAM 201 38.00 110.0 3.58Overall 212 106.5
H = 12.81 DF = 1 P < 0.0001H = 12.81 DF = 1 P < 0.0001 (adjusted for ties)
Conclusion: Streams, as a whole, are clearly better than canals
Canals vs. SF Canals vs. SF ““StreamsStreams””Kruskal-Wallis Test: VALUE versus WATERBODY_TYPE
WATERBODY_TYPE N Median Ave Rank ZCANAL 11 12.00 8.0 -0.62STREAM 5 20.00 9.6 0.62Overall 16 8.5
H = 0.39 DF = 1 P = 0.533H = 0.39 DF = 1 P = 0.532 (adjusted for ties)
Bootstrapped Population (n=1000)
Summary Statistics:Observed Bias Mean SE
Param 20.44 0.102 20.54 4.75
BCa Percentiles:2.5% 5% 95% 97.5%
Param 13.8125 14.625 31.75586 35.42755
Stream Min: 8.001st Qu.: 11.00Mean: 23.60Median: 20.003rd Qu.: 23.00Max: 56.00Total N: 5
Conclusion: it is difficult to separate these groups –both are very low scoring
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Value
Den
sity
Param
Stream mean of 23.6 does not exceed 95% range on simulation
By TMDL BasinBy TMDL BasinTMDL_BASIN N* Median Ave Rank ZAPALACHICOLA - CHIPOLA 2 40.50 108.0 0.17CALOOSAHATCHEE 1 23.00 56.0 -0.78CHOCTAWHATATCHEE –ST. ANDREWS 4 59.00 168.8 2.35FISHEATING CREEK 1 56.00 157.5 0.97LAKE OKEECHOBEE 3 11.00 21.7 -2.38OCHLOCKONEE - ST. MARKS 62 46.00 123.1 3.60OCKLAWAHA 56 37.00 96.8 -0.63PENSACOLA 4 58.50 157.6 1.97PERDIDO 1 34.00 84.5 -0.28SPRINGS COAST 1 38.00 98.5 -0.04SUWANNEE 45 37.00 93.0 -1.05TAMPA BAY 20 19.00 51.3 -4.03WITHLACOOCHEE 1 22.00 52.5 -0.84Overall 201 101.0
H = 41.90 DF = 12 P < 0.0001H = 41.92 DF = 12 P < 0.0001(adjusted for ties)
* N value includes both Trend and Status
Hurricanes vs. ResourceHurricanes vs. Resource
4 Main Basins Sampled:
Basin Name N Before Aug 13 After Aug 13
Ochlockonee-St. Marks 62 Small Streams (31) Large Rivers (31)
Ocklawaha 56 Large Rivers (30) Small Streams (26)
Suwannee 45 Small Streams (19) Large Rivers (26)
Tampa Bay 20 NA Small Streams (20)
Basins sampled before and after the hurricanes were sampled for different resources, making before and after comparisons difficult.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160HAB.TOTAL
30
70
30
70
SCI.S
CO
RE
NWSFSJSRSW
BeforeAfter: 1.00
BeforeAfter: 2.00
SCI Score vs. Habitat: Resource, Region, Before and After Hurricances
Large Rivers = Large Symbols
Small Streams = Small Symbols
Before
After
Dat
a
AfterBefore
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Individual Value Plot of Before, AfterD
ata
AfterBefore
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Boxplot of Before, After
Two-Sample T-Test: Before, After
N Mean StDev SE MeanBefore 82 44.8 20.9 2.3After 119 35.2 17.8 1.6
Difference = mu (Before) - mu (After)T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 3.38 P-Value = 0.001 DF = 155
Before and Before and AfterAfter
Point spread following August 2004 is denser than before
LARGE RIVER SMALL STREAMWATER.RESOURCE
40
90
40
90
SCI S
core
1.00
2.00
SCI Scores: Large and small streams before and after hurricanes
Before
After rank-sum normal statistic with correction Z = 1.114, p-value = 0.2653alternative hypothesis: true mu is not equal to 0
rank-sum normal statistic with correctionZ = -2.5665, p-value = 0.0103alternative hypothesis: true muis not equal to 0
How can we compare preHow can we compare pre-- and postand post--hurricane SCI results?hurricane SCI results?
4 Main Basins Sampled:
Basin Name N Before Aug 13 After Aug 13
Ochlockonee-St. Marks 62 Small Streams Large Rivers
Ocklawaha 56 Large Rivers Small Streams
Suwannee 45 Small Streams Large Rivers
Tampa Bay 20 NA Small Streams
Combine Ochlockonee and Suwannee into one population and resample…
40 45 50 55 60
0.0
0.05
0.10
0.15
Value
Den
sity
Param
Number of Replications: 10000
Summary Statistics:Observed Bias Mean SE
Param 50.78 0.06269 50.84 2.729
Empirical Percentiles:2.5% 5% 95% 97.5%
Param 45.36735 46.22449 55.18367 56.04082
BCa Percentiles:2.5% 5% 95% 97.5%
Param 44.67094 45.63265 54.69388 55.46939
Oklawaha following hurricanes Min: 4.00000
1st Qu.: 28.00000Mean: 38.55556Median: 37.00000
3rd Qu.: 52.00000Max: 82.00000Total N: 96.00000Std Dev.: 19.21204
Oklawaha small streams SCI mean (post-hurricane) falls outside the 1% lower tail of the simulated distribution for the combined Ochlockonee and Suwannee pre-hurricane values
Additional SCI QuestionsAdditional SCI Questions
What was the role of habitat?What was the role of habitat?Do scores cluster by region?Do scores cluster by region?Do large rivers and small streams Do large rivers and small streams evidence equal variability in habitat and evidence equal variability in habitat and SCI scores?SCI scores?Do some parts of the state score better Do some parts of the state score better because they because they areare better, or because they better, or because they were collected by different sampling were collected by different sampling agencies?agencies?
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160HAB.TOTAL
30
70
30
70
SCI.S
CO
RE
LRSS
SCI vs. Habitat: Large and Small Rivers
BeforeAfter: 1.00
BeforeAfter: 2.00
Before
After
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160HAB.TOTAL
30
70
30
70
SCI.S
CO
RE
Resource: LR
Resource: SS
NWSFSJSRSW
Large Rivers
Small Streams
NW SJ SR SWDistrict.1
40
60
80
100
120
140
HAB
.TO
TAL
Habitat Score by District for Small Streams
Kruskal-Wallis chi-square = 37.2306, df = 3, p-value < 0.0001alternative hypothesis: two.sided
Habitat ScoresHabitat Scores
The The ““PrimaryPrimary”” score (maximum 80 points)score (maximum 80 points)substrate diversity substrate diversity substrate availability substrate availability water velocity water velocity habitat smothering habitat smothering
The The ““SecondarySecondary”” score (maximum 80 points)score (maximum 80 points)artificial artificial channelizationchannelizationbank stability bank stability riparian buffer zone width riparian buffer zone width riparian zone vegetation quality riparian zone vegetation quality
Total high score of 160Total high score of 160
SW
SF
Habitat ScoresHabitat Scores
ConclusionConclusion
SF streams and canals score very lowSF streams and canals score very lowBefore and after comparisons for Before and after comparisons for hurricanes were inconclusive due to hurricanes were inconclusive due to differences in sampling before and after differences in sampling before and after (but it is (but it is possiblepossible scores were lowered)scores were lowered)SCI and habitat results show differences SCI and habitat results show differences across the stateacross the state