The effect of the velocity of a stream on

the abundance of Flattened Mayfly

Nymphs (Ephemoptera Heptageniidae)
Name:
Location:

Abdel Darwish
Court Field, Nettlecombe Courte, The Leonard Wills Field Centre, Willition, Taunton,
Somerset TA4 4HT

Abstract
Freshwater ecosystems can be easily and unknowingly polluted by the surroundings, this can cause detrimental damage to
the ecosystem. Mayflies are a biological indicator and are an effective yet simple way of measuring an ecosystems health.
I collected data on the distribution of Flattened Mayfly Nymphs in order to further inform other related ecological studies. I
used a kick sampling method at multiple areas to collect 15 samples and measuring the flow velocity using an impellor and
hydro prop at every site. My final results showed a positive correlation of abundance to flow velocity of (dA/dV = 15.62)
and using a spearmans rank test found there is a 99.5% chance my data has true correlation.

Research and Rationale

The mayfly belong the one of the oldest order of insects, the Ephemoptera with an evolutionary
history dating back to up to 300 million years. There are up to 50 species of Ephemoptera in the UK, I
will be focusing on the genus Ecdyonurus however I am unsure of the species as it is difficult to
identify the four main UK species of Ecdyonurus nymphs. The Flattened mayfly nymph does not
tolerate polluted water so its presence indicates a relatively pristine habitat, making them a good
biological indicator for mesotrophic conditions (3). They are considered an ecological keystone
species linking detrital energy resources directly to higher trophic levels containing many species of
fish which feed on the nymphs(4). Meaning the
expiration in an area of Mayflies could lead to
ecological collapse(4). Mayflies are useful
indicators as they are relatively easy to sample,
highly visible and provide evidence of effective
water quality control. I will be basing my study on
them as the implications of monitoring their
distribution and abundance allows the ability to
further inform studies regarding Flattened Mayfly
Nymphs and pollution.
The life of a mayfly begins once it's hatched from
it's egg, spending up to 2 years in this Nymph form
at the river bed feeding on algae and detritus,
they have a very hydrodynamic form and
relatively large tarsal claws, the combination of
the two makes them better adapted to fast
flowing currents and are found clinging to rocks or
algae(1).

May Fly Life Cycle (3)

After their nymph stage is finished, at about June or October time they rise to the surface and break
through the surface tension. Once there, they shed their nymphal skin becoming an emerger until
their wings dry and they take flight, they are then considered a dun as they are not able to
reproduce. The dun will then undergo its second metamorphosis becoming a spinner where its only
purpose it to mate. The females then dip in and out of the water dropping its eggs off, these are
named Ovipositing spinners(2).
The name of the order Ephemoptera is derived from "ephemeros" meaning literally "lasting a day",
this is because their adult stage lasts only a day. From their first metamorphosis they lose their
digestive tracts and are replaced with their sex organs and they have no functioning mouth parts.
Their entire adult stage is limited by their energy reserves created as a nymph hence their short
adult life span(1).
Flattened mayfly nymphs prefer stony substrata such as riffles; this is because
of the faster flowing current and larger stony substrata where they are better
adapted to, allowing them to cling onto rocks also hiding themselves from
predators. A study published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology in 1997
explored the effect of flow velocity and light on mayfly nymphs, the result
showed a preference to faster flowing darker waters(5). They have obvious
adaptations allowing them to inhabit faster flowing water unlike other
organisms in a similar habitat which dwell in slower currents.
The adaptations which lead them to preferring riffles include their tarsal
(1)
claws which are very pronounced allowing them to cling on to stones and
Tarsal Claw of Heptageniidae
their flat hydrodynamic form reducing the resistance from the current, both
of which stop them being swept downstream(1). They have a very dark/transparent camouflage
reducing the chance of preditation especially when they are relatively idle when clinging. All of
these adaptations expand their niche to faster shallower areas such as riffles. This presents the
advantages of a reduction in competition for nutrition and space.
Another study conducted in Oregon published 1984 explored the effect of substrate type on
distribution of deferent species of Mayfly(6). The samples present data from large stony substrata to
small sediment (<1mm) also containing data on moss and algaes effect. This study shows me that
Substrata and moss growth do have an effect on the Mayfly nymphs distribution and clarifies that
different species abundance is affected differently. This study also shows flow velocity and sediment
type are correlated as only larger heavier rocks are able to remain in higher currents. Relating back
to the Canadian Study above.
Food availability is also another factor, the above study shows a slight influence of Algae and Moss
on certain species of mayfly. I know the flattened mayfly nymph feeds on Algea, moss and detritus,
however in faster flowing currents, where the studies suggest a higher concentration in distribution
of flattened mayflies, there will be a lack detritus so I can say that Algae and Moss will affect their
distribution. As theyre both photosynthesizing I can therefore predict that light will also have an
effect on their distribution.
Taking all into account I can come to the following Hypothesis:

Hypothesis
H1: There will be a positive correlation between the velocities of the site on the river.

Planning
Pilot
For my pilot test I need to measure my confounding variables to ensure they do not affect the
distribution of Flattened Mayfly Nymphs and test my biotic and abiotic collection methods for the
most effective and efficient methods.
In my pilot I will find the following:

The most efficient method for biotic sampling, kick sampling or Dragnet sampling.
Measure the confounding variables, Temperature, PH and dissolved O2.
The most appropriate method of collecting flow velocity.

To do the above I will use the following equipment:

For the Biotic sampling I require a D framed net, tray, bucket, spoon and wide opening
pipette.
For my Velocity measurements I will require an impellor and hydro prop to compare to the
float method.
Electronic PH metre and a universal PH indicator kit.
Electric thermometer.
A dissolved oxygen metre.

Risk Assessment
Risk
Slipping on rocks/muddy surface
Drowning
Sun Burn
Hypothermia
Trampling by cows
Biological Hazards
Working alone

Potential Hazards

Slipping on
rocks/muddy surface
Drowning
Sun Burn
Hypothermia
Trampling by cows
Biological Hazards
Working alone

Step Taken To Reduce Risk

Wearing appropriate foot wear
Keep in couples and being cautious
Sun lotion and a hat
Appropriate warm clothing
Keeping a safe distance
Washing hands on return
Do not work alone

Worst Case Scenario

Probability

Minor Injury Major Crippling Fatality Very Rarely

Injury
(2)
Injury
Injury
(5)
Rarely
(2)
(1)
(3)
(4)
(1)
/
/

Infrequently
(3)

Sometime
s (4)

/
/

/
/

Risk
Rating

Often
(5)

5
4
4
4
6
4

Risk Rating = Worst Case Scenario * Probability

My total risk is 33 out of a total of 175, I consider this relatively low risk and conclude my experiment
is safe enough to continue.

Method
I will collect biotic data working upstream, from pools and riffles as a method to represent velocity
of the stream; this will allow me to find if there is a correlation between the velocity and the
abundance of Flattened Mayfly Nymphs.
In order to decide between my two collecting methods I will kick sample in a pool and riffle for
10/20/60 seconds then I will drag sample for 0.5/1.0/1.5 metres. This will allow to compare the
methods against each other and the most efficient time of disturbance or distance dragged. This will
give me a total of 12 biotic readings. I will measure the streams velocity in the same place using both
an impellor and a float to give me an idea on the best method to use for my main investigation. I will
do the same with the electronic PH metre and the universal indicator.
The temperature and dissolved oxygen levels will be measured throughout the stream to find if they
fluctuate and therefore be measure in my main investigation.

Results

Kick Sampling Method vs Dragnet Method

Time to Perform Task
(min)

Time to Perform Task

(min)

Dragnet (Pool)
Distance Dragged
(m)

Dragnet (Riffle)
Distance Dragged
(m)

Number
Found

Found Per
Minute

Time to Perform Task

(min)

Kick Sample (Pool)

Time of Disturbance
(s)

Number
Found

Found Per
Minute

10

0.67

20

0.67

60

0.25

Number
Found

Found Per
Minute

Number
Found

Found Per
Minute

Time to Perform Task

(min)

Kick Sample (Riffle)

Time of Disturbance
(s)

0.5

0.57

16

10

19

1.19

1.0

0.38

22

20

25

1.14

1.5

0.88

13

60

14

1.08

Pool

Riffle

P.H.
P.H. Universal
Temperature
Metre
Indicator
(C)
Dissolved O2 (mg/l)
8.49
7.50
13.10
5.00
8.25
7.50
12.50
5.20
Average
8.37
7.50
12.80
5.10

P.H.
P.H. Universal
Temperature
Metre
Indicator
(C)
Dissolved O2 (mg/l)
8.31
7.50
12.60
5.20
8.20
7.50
12.40
5.30
Average
8.26
7.50
12.50
5.25

Review

For the biotic methods, I found that the dragnet method didnt work in the pools as it was impossible to
count the mayflies as it brought up allot of sediment, leaves and rocks. On average the kick sample
method found more Mayflies per minute than the dragnet method. So I will use the kick sample method on
the main investigations as it is more efficient and effective.
Also, the biotic readings showed me on the kick samples performed for the same time, there were more
Flattened Mayfly Nymphs in higher velocity waters (Pools) compared to slower flowing water (Riffles)
thus showing plausibility to my hypothesis leading me on a good path towards my main investigation.

Electronic
P.H. Metre

There was no significant change in the P.H from what I could tell; I used both
universal indicator and an electronic P.H. metre. The P.H. appeared different on
the universal indicator to the electronic P.H. metre by about 0.8, this was because
first the indicator was inaccurate, it only found it to the nearest X.5, considering
the electronic metre's value in between 7.5 and 8.5 it explains why the indicator
was far out of the true value. Also the indicator was a lot more subjective than
the electronic metre allowing it to be open to interpretation where as the
electronic metre gave an exact value. Although the two methods results were
quite far off each other in their measurement it still told me that the P.H. was a
constant throughout the river and therefore it will not be measured in my main
investigation.

Universal P.H. Indicator

The temperature did not change by a considerable amount, I found it be 0.2 oC lower in the pools however
I do not consider it to be large enough to affect my results and therefore I will not measure this in my main
investigation.
While conducting my dissolved oxygen I found the metre to be very unstable, dropping in its value for
about five minutes or longer then rising, sometimes varying by as much as 1mg/l due to clouds sediment
interfering with its measurements as it uses the conductance of water to determine the dissolved Oxygen.
Once I found them to finally stabilise they were still able to vary by about 0.1mg/l in both directions. The
measurements I was able to attain did not show a considerable difference between the pools and riffle's. I
therefore do not consider the Oxygen worthy of measuring as I did not find any considerable change and
combined with the fact it takes a long time and is unreliable I do not believe it is worthy of measuring in my
main investigation.

Summary
I found the following from my pilot:

I will use the kick sample method

I will not measure the P.H
I will not measure the temperature
I will not measure the dissolved oxygen levels
I will measure the velocity and abundance

Main Investigation
Variables
Independent Variable : Velocity of stream
Dependent Variable: Abundance of flattened Mayfly Nymphs
Confounding Variables: Shading of area (Mayfly Nymphs feed on photosynthesising algae)
Temperature, Depth, PH
Biotic factors (such as different forms and abundance of prey)
Method
Sites
I will work up stream aiming to collect data for both biotic and abiotic from 30 sites (as that is my
data tests limit) along a stretch of the meander near Nettlecombe Court, thus allowing a certain
degree of control over my confounding variables in the sense I can assume: Temperature (which I
measured to be relatively constant in my pilot study with a maximum variation of 0.6 C), PH (which I
also measured to be constant with no variation in my pilot), Dissolved Oxygen content (which I
measure to have a maximum variation of 0.2 mg/l ) and Preditation (as it is a single micro-ecosystem
so to have little variation) all to be constant for the purposes of this study throughout my selected
stretch of meander. I will select my sites will be in similar lighted areas as to further control my
confounding variables, I will do this by avoiding heavily shaded areas. I will work from pools to riffles
collecting 3 or so data sets along the way; this will hopefully give me a wide range of values for
velocity.

Biotic
For collection of my biotic variables I will require the following equipment:

(1)

Light coloured tray

D-Frame net
Bucket
Wide nosed pipette
Stop watch
Plastic spoon
Magnifying glass
I will select an appropriate site not shaded by trees so to affect the light in this area and no
one working upstream so their disturbances could not affect my results.
(2) I will first fill my tray and bucket with water from the stream, so I could keep them in the
tray and bucket to count without causing harm to them, being careful not to disturb the
floor of the river so I do not unsettle them.
(3) I will then carefully walk into the stream with the D-Framed net, placing it onto the floor,
starting the stopwatch and beginning disturbance upstream from it with my foot moving in a
circular motion applying a fair amount of pressure, being careful not to kick the rocks into
the net. I will stop after 20 seconds as my pilot showed this to be the most efficient time.
(4) Once 20 seconds has passed I will lift the net out the river whilst pulling it towards me so
nothing escapes. I will then invert the net into the tray and use the bucket of water to rinse

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

the net ensuring everything is inside the tray, a light coloured tray makes the dark Flattened
Mayfly Nymphs easier to spot.
I will remove any large sediment from the tray, shaking it off in the tray submerged
thoroughly so any clinging nymphs are left inside. This makes it easier to count them as they
cannot hide beneath them. I will return the sediment to where I found it so not to disturb
their natural environment.
I will then measure the abiotic factors (I will explain this bellow), this allows the sediment to
settle whilst I measure the abiotic so on my return it will be easier to count them and so I
dont have time to forget exactly where it was I took my measurement.
I will then count the number of flattened mayfly nymphs inside the tray. I will do this by first
sucking them up into the wide nosed pipette and emptying it into the plastic spoon allowing
me to clarify if necessary with the magnifying glass that it is a Flattened Mayfly Nymph. Once
I am sure I will then put it into the bucket so to avoid double counting an individual also
stopping to record every 5 I find making it more efficient. Once there are no more in sight, I
will use the pipette to disturb any stones or sediment in the tray to get any out of hiding.
I will spend a maximum of ten minutes counting so not to waste time. Once I am done at
the sight I will empty the tray and bucket out back into the meander near to where I took
them. Giving the bucket and tray a rinse to ensure theyre all out and moving on upstream to
my next site, repeating this process.

Abiotic
For collection of my abiotic variables I will require the following equipment:

Impellor
Hydro prop
Stopwatch
Half metre rule

(1) It is essential the abiotic readings are taken after I have collected my sample to I do not
disturb them, possible causing anomalies in my biotic data.
(2) I will first measure the velocity of the stream at the site by timing how long it takes the
impellor to travel the length of the screw in seconds, I will do this by stepping into the river,
standing behind the impellor so not to affect the flow, setting the impellor and then holding
it down with the hydro prop on the floor starting the stop watch at the instant it is
submerged. Once the impellor has reached the end I will stop the stop watch. Without
moving out the river for efficiency and reliability I will reset the impellor and note the time. I
repeat this three times in the same spot for as I found the velocity measure can vary in the
same spot during my pilot and I will stay in the river so to cause minimal disturbance. My
recorded impellor time can later be converted into ms-1 later using the following formula:
Velocity (m/s)

3.2805
0.0277
Impellor Time

(3) I will then collect my depth data in metres using the half metre rule. I will hold the rule down
to the bottom with its thinnest side facing the current so the water does not wrap around it
giving me a false value. I will take four measurements in a square configuration avoiding the
ditch creating by my disturbance.

Site Map
Bellow is a site map of the meanders showing where I collected my data. I worked upstream from
piont A to piont B collecting my biotic and abiotic data.

Site Map (courtesy of Google Maps)

Results

Abundance of Flattened Mayfly Nymphs Throughout The Stream

Impellor Time (s)
15.53 17.12 19.21
5.59 6.03 4.62
7.38 8.06 7.66
20.04 17.12 21.00
6.31 6.50 6.46
8.96 5.40 6.31
13.75 19.41 17.22
4.44 5.12 4.72
7.28 8.66 6.89
12.63 13.12 14.34
18.34 19.68 17.85
16.54 15.27 16.39
10.03 11.93 12.24
4.53 4.31 5.10
4.21 4.32 4.53
3.56 3.39 3.35
4.98 5.22 5.34
12.34 11.27 11.98
9.81 8.98 9.27

Average Time (s)

Velocity (m/s)
17.29
0.217
5.41
0.634
7.70
0.454
19.39
0.197
6.42
0.538
6.89
0.504
16.79
0.223
4.76
0.717
7.61
0.459
13.36
0.273
18.62
0.204
16.07
0.232
11.40
0.315
4.65
0.734
4.35
0.781
3.43
0.983
5.18
0.661
11.86
0.304
9.35
0.378

0.16
0.13
0.90
0.10
0.90
0.13
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.18
0.13
0.11
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.12
0.15
0.15

Depth (m)
0.14 0.19
0.10 0.12
0.11 0.12
0.10 0.10
0.90 0.80
0.12 0.12
0.12 0.12
0.09 0.09
0.09 0.12
0.13 0.12
0.16 0.18
0.12 0.13
0.11 0.10
0.09 0.08
0.07 0.09
0.08 0.08
0.11 0.11
0.16 0.16
0.14 0.16

0.18
0.12
0.90
0.90
0.70
0.11
0.13
0.09
0.11
0.11
0.17
0.11
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.13
0.16
0.14

Average Depth (m)

Number of F.M.N.
0.17
0.12
0.51
0.30
0.83
0.12
0.12
0.09
0.11
0.12
0.17
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.15

Observations
7
14
13
14
13
11
8
16
14
9
4
5
8
17
15
1
2
0
0

Torrential Rain
Torrential Rain
Torrential Rain
Torrential Rain

Abundance of Freshwater Mayfly Nymphs vs Velocity (With torrential rain data)

18

16

14

y = 5.525x + 6.438

Number of F.M.N

12

10
Number of F.M.N.
8

Linear (Number of F.M.N.)

0
0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600
Velocity (m/s)

0.800

1.000

1.200

Abundance of Freshwater Mayfly Nymphs vs Velocity (Without torrential rain data)

18

y = 15.62x + 4.448
16

14

Number of F.M.N

12

10
Number of F.M.N.
8

Linear (Number of F.M.N.)

0
0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

Velocity (m/s)

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

Graph Discussion
The above scatter graphs show the relationship between abundance of flattened mayfly nymphs and the
velocity of the water. The first graph includes the data taken during and after the torrential rain, as you can
see the anomalous data clearly pulled down my line of best fit. This was due to the limitations that the rain
caused, it brought up sediment and clouded the water; this made it nearly impossible to see the nymphs
and in general made the whole process considerably more
difficult, also the EPAs website explains that Heavy rains
can have a scouring effect on macroinvertebrates, washing
them downstream. This allows me to conclude it is the
cause of the low abundance and therefore I do not consider
them to be valid data pieces. Once I removed the 4
anomalous results during/after the rain my gradient almost
tripled from 5.53 to 15.62. The positive correlation between
the two variables is most definitely present.
As you can see on the second graph, at slower flowing water
there is a more variation in abundance and a correlation is
less definite, (0.197, 14) (0.204, 4) (0.232, 5), this however
becomes increasingly definite at faster flowing areas. I think this is due to the fact that Flattened Mayfly
Nymphs are better specialized to inhabit faster flowing waters than other organisms, an area with less
competition and higher oxygen content. However they are capable of inhabiting slower flowing currents if
competition is low and food availability is high. So I do not consider this data anomalous.

Spearman's Rank (Including Rain values)

N

19

Velocity (m/s)
0.1969
0.2038
0.2175
0.2230
0.2319
0.2732
0.3042
0.3155
0.3784
0.4537
0.4588
0.5038
0.5384
0.6337
0.6610
0.7169
0.7337
0.7813
0.9832

R1

Number of F.M.N.

R2

D = (R1 - R2)

1
2
3
4
5

0
0
1
2
4

1.5
1.5
3
4
5

-0.5
0.5
0
0
0

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

5
7
8
8
9
11
13
13
14
14
14
15
16
17

6
7
8.5
8.5
10
11
12.5
12.5
13
13
13
17
18
19

0
0
-0.5
0.5
0
0
-0.5
0.5
1
2
3
0
0
0
(D^2)

D^2
0.25
0.25
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0.25
0
0
0.25
0.25
1
4
9
0
0
0
15.5

rs

0.98640

Spearman's Rank (Excluding Rain values)

N

15

Velocity (m/s)
0.1969
0.2038
0.2175
0.2230
0.2319
0.2732
0.3155
0.4537
0.4588
0.5038
0.5384
0.6337
0.7169
0.7337
0.7813

R1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Number of F.M.N.
4
5
7
8
8
9
11
13
13
14
14
14
15
16
17

R2
1
2
3
4.5
4.5
6
7
8
9
11.5
11.5
12.5
13
14
15

D = (R1 - R2)
0
0
0
-0.5
0.5
0
0
0
0
-1.5
-0.5
-0.5
0
0
0
(D^2)

D^2
0
0
0
0.25
0.25
0
0
0
0
2.25
0.25
0.25
0
0
0
3.25

rs

0.99420

Statistical test discussion

My spearmans rank value for a correlation (excluding the rain value) is 0.99420. For 15 pairs of data, as I
have, the best case outcome is 0.6536. My spearmans rank value is considerably higher than that of the
best case scenario. Meaning there is a less than 0.5% chance that my results are due to chance, so more
than a 95% chance that there is in fact a positive correlation between abundance of flattened mayfly
nymphs and the flow velocity.
Therefore I accept my alternate Hypothesis thus rejecting my Null Hypothesis.

Explanation
As explained earlier, the reason for this correlation is a product of the flattened mayfly nymphs adaptations
which provide them with an advantage to other organisms in faster flowing currents, also a faster flowing
area is a harsher environment meaning there is less competition. These adaptations are a combination of
their hydrodynamic form, pronounced tarsal claws allowing them to cling onto larger stony substrata and
their camouflage.

An 1885 study published in Switzerland by Verena Lubini and Michel Sartori collected data on
Ephemeroptera, Heptageniidae and concluded The larvae are more abundant in zones of erosion with
coarse and porous sediments than in depositional zones with fine sediments and silts. They are most
abundant in riffles with water velocities from 20 to 150 cm/sec This is in very close agreement with my
data as 20 to 150 cm/sec is 0.2 to 1.5 m/sec, my data has a velocity range of 0.2 to 0.9 m/sec and an
increasing abundance throughout this range, agreeing with this studys data, however larger velocities
would also have to sampled so to allow further agreement.
My data is in agreement with the study published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology in 1997 conducted by
Lynda D. Corkum, P. J. Pointing. They found that two different species of mayflies Baetis vagans and
Paraleptophlebia mollis, both of which are in same order as my mayfly, have different distributions
according to their adaptations in different flow velocities.
Limitations
The rain presented a limitation on the amount of data I was able to collect as it reduced visibility of the
nymphs caused by cloudy water and as the EPAs site explained: Heavy rains can have a scouring effect on
macroinvertebrates, washing them downstream. The scouring caused by the rain would have made the
Flattened Mayfly Nymphs to relocate, assuming they were passively swept downstream, this would have
re-distributed them and weakening my correlation.
This was also a single data study, only observing their abundance in this specific area, different ecosystems
present different pressures, possibly affecting their abundance differently. To solve this other areas would
also need to be sampled.
My spearmans rank correlation test could house up to 30 data sets, so with little adjustment to my
method I could increase the reliability of the data by increasing the sample size. I was unable to do this on
the day due to the rain however on a clear day this is achievable.
The area was heavily sampled on the day and throughout the year; I attempted to work upstream from
others who are also sapling however this was not always possible. This heavy sampling would have redistributed the Flattened Mayfly Nymph as disturbing them and causing them to flow downstream, finding
a new area when they are able to settle, and this was more likely in slower flowing areas rather than fast.
This would have weakened my correlation to velocity as they are being sent downstream from their usual
area. The lack of knowledge concerning if they actively peruse faster flowing areas or its a passively
achieved location caused by their advantages leaves this re-distribution the more detrimental to my results
if it is passive.
The nature of ecological studies will always present confounding variable such as those above, in order to
truly investigate the effect of current velocity and the abundance of flattened mayfly nymphs and active or
passive relocation, this investigation could be carried out in lab conditions there all variables are able to be
controlled and kept constant except for Flow velocity, their behaviour monitored and a valid conclusion
reached concerning these matters.

Further work
A long term study could be conducted in order to reduce the effect of factors such as rain. This would allow
me to collect a large amount of data and draw a more reliable conclusion. This could also be repeated over
a greater length in time as to observe their behaviour or their environments affect on them over time
rather than a single day.
This study could be pooled with other studies in areas with little or no disturbance as to observe the effect
it has had on this eco system.
This study could be used as a benchmark for stream restoration projects as this is a healthy eco system
known by the fact that it has a high degree of biodiversity and is stable(known by the regular sampling
conducted by the centre).
And as mentioned above this study could be validated with the use of a lab environment to assess the
effects of velocity as an isolated independent variable with all other variables controlled.

Bibliography
(1) http://www.apemltd.co.uk/invertebrate-id-tips/heptageniidae-family
2010 Heptageniidae Family - ID Tips
Dr Keith Hendry, Dr Adrian E. Williams
(2) http://www.waterbugkey.vcsu.edu/php/familydetail.php?idnum=8&f=Heptageniidae&ls=larvae#
2006 The Flatheaded Mayflies
Dr Andre DeLorme
(3) http://www.timsburyfishery.co.uk/info.asp?id=21
2007 A Guide To Mayflies
Martin Timsbury
(4) http://www.epa.gov/med/grosseile_site/indicators/mayflies.html
2004 INDICATOR: Abundance of Burrowing Mayfly Nyphs
Don Schloesser, Kenneth A. Krieger
(5)

Courtesy of Sussex University Library

1997 The influence of current velocity and substrate on the distribution and drift of two
species of mayflies (Ephemeroptera)
Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 55, Number 12
Lynda D. Corkum, P. J. Pointing, Jan J. H. Ciborowski

(6) http://www.ephemeroptera-galactica.com/pubs/pub_h/pubhawkinsc1985p181.pdf
1984 Substrate Associations and Longitudinal Distributions in Species of Ephemerellidae
(Ephemeroptera: Insecta) from Western Oregon
Freshwater Invertabrate Biology,
Volume 3, Number 4, November. Charles p. Hawkins
(7) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00877184#page-1
1885 Current status, distribution, life cycle and ecology of Rhithrogena germanica Eaton
(Ephemeroptera, Heptageniidae)
Aquatic Sciences 1994, Volume 56, Issue 4.
Verena Lubini, Michel Sartori
(8) http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms43.cfm
2012 Intensive Stream Biosurvey
Jared Blumenfeld
(9) http://www.aquaticinsect.net/portfolio/mayfly-larvae-ephemeroptera/
2009 The Flattened Mayfly Nymph Jan Hamrsky

Evaluation of Sources
(1)
This article is on the APEM website. APEM is Europes leading environmental consultancy
specialising in freshwater and marine ecology and aerial surveys. It is written by two scientists both with
long careers in fresh water ecosystem and Ph.Ds based in similar areas. This being an independent
company and who reputation relies on sound scientific studies, I do not consider this to be a bias source
and I also consider it reliable.
(2)
This is website named digital Key To Aquatic Insects set up by the macro-invertebrate lab in
Valley City University, North Dakota. This specific article is written by Dr Andre DeLorme, their associate
Professor of Biology, he earned his Ph.D in Entomology from the University of Minnesota. He has released
papers on the effect of pollution on fresh water shrimps and many others. With no bias, especially to
information about mayflies, and his qualification I consider this a reliable source.
(3)
This is the source of my picture on the Mayflys life cycle, it is made by Timsbury fishery as an
informative handout for fisherman. This is not a particularly reliable source however for its purpose of the
picture I do not consider it an issue as it agrees with the information from my other sources.
(4)
This is an article written about Burrowing mayfly nymphs. It is on the United States government
Environmental Protection Agencys site as an informative piece. I consider this a highly reliable source as
its sole intention is in the protection of the environment
(5)
This is an in depth study concerning mayflies, I read the article at Sussex University Library. It has
8 citations in many reputable journals such as Ecography according to Google scholar. The citations are
by well educated Doctors. There is no obvious bias towards this study and for this to have been published
in this journal it would have been subject to peer review, also I consider this studies methods to be
scientifically sound. Taking all into account I trust this study.
(6)
This is a study published by the Professor of Aquatic Ecology & Watershed Sciences at Utah State
University. He is a very active ecologist having involvement in many studies; he has had 2939 citations
since 2009 according to Google Scholar. I consider it a reliable source and I personally consider his
methods appropriate and reliable. Also to be published in this journal it would have been subject to
thorough peer review.
(7)
Michel Sartori is the professor of Zoology at the university of Hamburg. He has had a total of 1032
citations according to Google Scholar. The journal of Aquatic Sciences is a well known and respected
Journal and their methods are appropriate and have been subject to peer review. Therefore I consider
this a reliable source.
(8)
This is the federal environmental protection agency in the US. They monitor the environment and
its potential effects on human health. Being a government run agency I can assume its free to bias and as
many respected scientists behind them. This is an instructional article on how to perform reliable stream
biodiversity studies.
(9)
This a masters students site on aquatic invertebrates with images and information. There is no
sensitive data here venerable to bias, just some brief information about nymphs and many close up
pictures.