Fatima Saavedra

Biology Laboratory 142 Section 60

Simpsons Biodiversity Index and Hilsenhoffs Biotic Index in Benthic Macroinvertebrates Used to
Predict Water Pollution Levels in Raquette River and Woodstock Pond

Saavedra Fatima, Breen Zachary

Abstract

Biodiversity indexes and biotic indexes in benthic macroinvertebrates help predict the water quality.
Many benthic macroinvertebrates can be classified as being sensitive to pollution, semi-sensitive to
pollution, semi-tolerant of pollution, and tolerant of pollution. By using the benthic macroinvertebrates
tolerance, one can form a Hilsenhoffs Biotic Index Score that can be used to determine the water
quality. On the other hand, Simpsons Biodiversity Index analyzes the number of all individual species
and each individual species in order to determine which of the two bodies of water have a greater
diversity. In this experiment the water quality that was sampled was from Raquette River and
Woodstock Pond. According to Hilsenhoffs Biotic Index both the river and the pond have very similar
water qualities; however, in the Simpsons Biodiversity Index, the river had the biggest diversity, which
interprets to the best water quality.

Introduction

Benthic macroinvertebrates are suitable for this experiment because their low mobility cause them to
be directly affected by the substances that enter the environment (Wilhm R221). This means that
pollution affects them directly because they really have nowhere else to go. Biotic indexes give
numerical scores to specific indicator organisms at a particular level (Mandaville 3). These indexes
can then determine whether the water quality is poor or excellent. Meanwhile biodiversity indexes
measure the chance that two individuals randomly selected would be from the species. This measures

Fatima Saavedra
Biology Laboratory 142 Section 60
the biodiversity within that certain habitat. Taking this into consideration, the Raquette River would
have the best water quality.

Materials and Methods

To begin the experiment one member of the team was designated to go in the river/pond (he or she
wore chest waders), and the other was designated to write/draw any of the organisms that surfaced
(observer). After deciding the roles, both members of the team headed down to either the pond or the
river. The team members noted the conditions, the weather, and temperature of the day in order to
better understand the culminating factors in the organisms habitat.

The member that went into the water jabbed four times with the net and scooped three times
with the net in order to make sure that there wasnt too much mud in the dip net or to dislodge the
organisms from their respective homes. After that, the dip net was emptied into a bucket. After
transferring the organisms/water/mud collected and writing down/drawing the approximate location
and the terrain of the sampling site the observer slowly poured water from the bucket into the sorting
tray. Once in the tray, the members of the team tried finding organisms that were recovered. The
observer would then observe the water/mud/organisms collected by using a magnifying glass and
tweezers to investigate the sample. Once an organism was found, the team members used tweezers to
put the organism in the petri dishe for further classification and identification. Afterwards the observer
tried to identify the organism by using the macroinvertebrate identification key and a magnifying glass.
Then the observer drew it/described it by writing/drawing all the information on that certain species
down in their respective laboratory notebook. Once the examination of all the organisms found was
complete, the organisms/water/mud was returned to the river/pond. This concluded the sampling of
the first site.

Fatima Saavedra
Biology Laboratory 142 Section 60
After finishing the process for the first sampling site, the process would be repeated 4 more
times on the river/pond. After one location was taken care of, whether it was the pond or the river, the
same thing was done for the other following sampling sites. (If one started with the river, then the pond
was done afterwards and vice versa). After collecting all the data and writing all the species collected
from each sampling site (river or pond), the data was compared in order to find which sites water quality
was better.

Results

3.1
3.05

3.1

Woodstock Pond
Raquette River

2.95
Hilsenhoff's Biotic Index Score

Figure 1. Hilsenhoffs Biotic Index Score for Section 60 and Section 10 only shows a .1 difference
between Woodstock Pond and the Raquette River. A 2.6-3.5 biotic index score indicates that the water
quality is good.

10
9.5

Woodstock Pond

9.62

9
8.5

8.54

8
Simpson's Biodiversity Index

Raquette River

Fatima Saavedra
Biology Laboratory 142 Section 60
Figure 2. Simpsons Biodiversity Index for Woodstock Pond and the Raquette River for Sections 10 and
60 shows a 1.08 difference. A higher value indicates a greater biodiversity.

25

20

25
15

Woodstock Pond
Raquette River

10

3.33 2.63

4.45

0
Hilsenhoff's Biotic Index
Score

Simpson's Biodiversity Index

Figure 3. In the class data for Section 60 Hilsenhoffs Biotic Index score was higher in Woodstock pond;
however, in Simpsons Biodiversity Index Raquette River has a higher biodiversity level. The data
concludes that Woodstock pond had a higher quality water, but it wasnt the body of water with the
highest diversity.

Discussion

The Raquette River had a greater biodiversity according to Figure 2, and it also had a higher biotic index
score according to Figure 1. The results correctly fit the hypothesis because the Raquetter River was the
water with the highest quality and the greatest diversity; therefore, the hypothesis is accepted. Our
team results were almost nonexistent, and our class data was bigger, as seen in Figure 3, but the
combined section data brought the most conclusive results because there were more organisms. When

Fatima Saavedra
Biology Laboratory 142 Section 60
one has more samples in an experiment, the less likely it is to have skewed data. Sections 60 data is
inconclusive by itself because there were just not enough organisms found to conclude which body of
water had the best water quality. In order to gather conclusive data an array of representative samples,
accurate taxonomy, and some system to convert invertebrate data into water quality (Lenat 279) is
needed.

References

1. Wilhm J.L. 1970. Range of Diversity Index in Benthic Macroinvertebrate Populations. Water
Pollution Control Federation Vol. 42 No. 5: R221-R224.
2. Mandaville S.M. Benthic Macroninvertebrates in Freshwaters-Taxa Tolerance Values, Metrics,
and Protocols. 2002. Pp.3-20.
3. Lenat D.R. 1993. A Biotic Index for the Southeastern United States: Derivation and List of
Tolerance Values, with Criteria for Assigning Water-Quality Ratings. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society. Vol.12 No. 3: 279-290.