Comparing species richness and diversity

between Bukit Batok Nature Park and

Venus Drive

LSM3254 Ecology of Aquatic Environments

Individual Field Report

Lee Zixuan (A0123942J)

Group 5
TA: Darren Sim
Introduction

With only a land size of 716km2, Singapore is known to be a small country located near the equator.
(National Environment Agency 2014) However, despite its small land size, Singapore is known to be
a biological haven as it is home to many freshwater species living in freshwater habitats, each with
their own distinctive ecosystem. In Singapore, due to rising populations and road widening projects,
many of Singapore’s freshwater streams have undergone canalisation, and the few pristine
freshwater streams that remain are therefore precious for the studies of freshwater habitats. (Ng et
al. 2011)

In recent years, National Parks Board (NParks) is interested to study the natural freshwater habitats
in Singapore due to the relatively limited studies available. In order to understand the current situation
of freshwater habitats in Singapore, two local freshwater streams, namely, Bukit Batok Nature Park
(BBNP) and Venus Drive (VD) were chosen as sampling sites. Whereas the freshwater stream in
BBNP originates from a quarry located at the foot of the hill areas and flows through a secondary
forest, the freshwater Stream in VD culminates from Central Catchment Nature reserve and is utilised
widely as a trail to the Treetops Trail. (Lee Kong Chian Natural History Musuem n.d.b). Being a public
park that is in close proximity to housing estates around, the stream at BBNP experiences higher
human traffic due to its ease of accessibility (Quek et al 2012) as compared to Venus Drive. Even
though the two streams may have different origins and human disturbance levels, environmental
factors and the species that are observed in both streams would show overlaps as Singapore is a
small country with relative temperature and humidity levels, and also, with habitats located in close
proximity to one another

This study would thus be aimed primarily to differentiate the freshwater biodiversity in two different
freshwater habitats (BBNP and VD), done so through factors such as species richness and
abundance. The questions that arise from this study wold be “whether different freshwater streams
would have significantly different richness and abundance of freshwater species?”. Due to lesser
human disturbance in VD, it is hypothesized that overall richness and abundance would favour VD as
the stream would be more pristine and conserved, leading to the proliferation of certain species. (376)

Materials and Methods

Site Selection

The stream sites in BBNP and VD were chosen as they are close in proximity to edges of nature
reserves in Singapore. The Global Positioning System (GPS) Coordinates of the four BBNP sites
were N01˚20' 50.3" E103˚45' 47.6", N01°20'51.5" E103°45'49.8", N01˚20' 54.1" E103˚45' 55.9" and
N01˚20' 52.4" E103˚45' 56.3" whereas the GPS Coordinates of the four VD sites were N01o 21' 38.5"
E103o 49' 29.2", N01˚21' 38.3" E 103˚49' 28.1", N01˚21' 31.8" E 103˚49' 24.1" and N01˚21' 28.9" E
103˚49' 23.5".

Sampling methods
To achieve an accurate representation of the entire stream, data collection was done in four separate
locations along the streams at each site. Prior to the sampling of each location at each site, GPS
coordinates were first taken using a hand-held GPS unit. Chemical environmental parameters such
as pH level, temperature, Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and conductivity was measured using a multimeter
at each location. Each location consists of a 40 metre transect which was subdivided into eight equal
sections with the physical environmental parameters of bank vegetation, canopy cover, estimated
substrate composition, estimated leaf litter, wetted width, wetted depth and surface flow rate recorded.

Surber Sample

Eight Quantitative Surber samples were being taken in total using a Surber sampler, with one Surber
Sample coming from each section of the transect, taken from a downstream to upstream direction.
Out of these eight quantitative Surber Samples, four were taken in the middle of the stream and four
were taken from the stream edges. In each Surber sample. the quadrat frame of the Surber sampler
was placed on the bottom of the stream, with the net opening facing upstream. The substrate within
the quadrat was then disturbed for one minute such that macroinvertebrates and substrate flowing
downstream would end up within the Surber sampler net. Entire contents of the Surber sampler net
were then deposited into labelled containers containing 95% ethanol. Vertebrates that were caught
were photographed alongside a ruler and released back into the stream.

Tray Net Sample

Eight qualitative samples were being taken in total using a tray net, with one sample coming from
each section of the transect, taken in a downstream to upstream direction. The tray net is first placed
at the angle of the streambed and bank with the net opening facing towards the upstream direction.
The bank was then disturbed through kicking from a distance of 1m upstream towards the net. The
disturbance of bank was repeated several times along different stretches of the stream edge such
that the total tray net sampling effort per section amounts to one minute. Macroinvertebrates collected
in the tray net were deposited into labelled container half filled with 95% ethanol. Vertebrates that
were captured in the tray net were photographed alongside a ruler and released back into the stream.
All tray net samples were deposited into a single labelled container as they are considered as a single
replicate for that particular transect. Containers and photographs were subsequently brought back to
the laboratory for further analysis and identification.

Laboratory analysis
Identification of the macroinvertebrate samples were done so down to the family level using a
guidebook by Blakey et al. (2010). Coarse sorting was done so without using dissecting
stereomicroscope to sort materials into broad categories based on morphology. Finer sorting was
then carried out using stereomicroscope under low power magnification. Number of specimens in
each taxon were counted and recorded.

Tray net samples were sorted and identified in a procedure similar to that of Surber samples and
being qualitative in nature, only the presence and absence of specimens were recorded instead of a
size count. Vertebrates were being identified using the freshwater fish guidebook by Lim & Ng (1991).

Statistical tests used

Mann-Whitney U test was utilised to compare species richness and diversity between BBNP and VD.
The Shannon Index (H’) was calculated for 32 sections in BBNP and 31 sections in VD whose values
are then compared using the Mann-Whitney U test to determine differences in overall diversity for
both vertebrates and invertebrates. To determine the differences in water qualities between the two
sites, the SingScore for invertebrate specimens was calculated at each individual section and the
SingScore dataset between BBNP and VD was then compared using Mann-Whitney U test. A rank-
abundance curve was plotted for each site and used for comparison. (757)

Results
Habitat
The bank vegetation composition at BBNP was predominantly herbaceous with some sections having
a woody composition whereas the bank vegetation at VD was predominantly herbaceous and woody.
The mean canopy cover of BBNP and VD was 69.53% and 84.85% respectively. Substrate
composition in BBNP was made up of sand, clay, mud and gravel whereas that of VD was made up
of sand, clay and mud. The mean lead litter percentage cover in BBNP and VD was 34.03% and
24/16% respectively. The mean wetted depth of BBNP stream was reported to be 0.13m whereas the
mean wetted depth of VD was slightly deeper, at 0.24m. The mean wetted width of both BBNP and
VD were 1.61m and 1.98m respectively. Surface flow rate of VD was 0.16m / second whereas the
surface flow rate of BBNP was almost 14.75 times that of VD, at 2.36m / second.

The mean pH level and temperature recorded were generally similar between the 2 streams. However,
the chemical environmental parameters of DO levels and conductivity was different between the two
streams as the stream in BBNP had a mean DO of 3.99mg/l with a conductivity of 111.78
microSeimens whereas the stream in VD had a mean DO of 5.10mg/l with a conductivity of 86.50
microSeimens.

Taxa composition
In BBNP a total of 33 taxa groups were observed as compared to 18 taxa groups found in VD
(Appendix A). 10 taxa groups were being found in both streams (Appendix B) and there were 23 taxa
groups that were unique to BBNP and 8 taxa groups unique to VD (Appendix B)

From appendix C, Surber sampling resulted in more taxa being observed, with 31 groups as
compared to Tray Net sampling which yielded 26 groups. In total, there were 16 taxa groups found in
both sampling methods, with 15 taxa groups unique to Surber sampling and 10 groups unique to Tray
Net sampling (Appendix D).

Overall richness

The overall richness was calculated for each of the 31 sections in BBNP (one section had NO DATA)
and 32 sections in VD using both vertebrates and invertebrates from Surber Samples and a Mann-
Whitney test was utilised to determine if there were any significant differences in the overall richness
between the two streams. Sections that are without any taxa were omitted from this test. There was
no significant difference found between the two streams in terms of overall richness (table 1).

Table 1: Comparing overall richness between BBNP freshwater stream and VD freshwater stream

P-value (2-
U Z tailed) Alpha Conclusion
U_VD = 592.5, U_BBNP = p>a, no significant
399.5 -1.32 0.1868 0.05 difference

Rank Abundance

The relative abundance of both invertebrates and vertebrates taxon was calculated for both streams
and ranked from the least to the most (bar graphs 1 and 2). A rank-abundance curve was then plotted
for both streams of BBNP and VD (figure 1 and 2). The shape of both graphs appear to be similar and
in the bar graphs shown for BBNP and VP, the number of species in each taxa found in the Surbler
Samples are listed next to their respective bar graphs. From the bar graphs, the two most abundant
species differ in the freshwater streams of BBNP and VD. In BBNP, the two most abundance species
were Chironomidae and Thairidae, whereas the two most abundance species in VD were Tubificidae
and Chironomidae. Due to the similarity in both curves, the overall abundanc for both streams are
similar, with Chironomidae being one of the most abundantly found taxa in both streams. However, it
is of note that the rank abundance curve of BBNP was more steep as compared to that of VD.
 Bar Graph showing Taxa classifications and
the Taxa counts in BBNP
Tipulidae 1
Psychodidae 1
Hydropsychidae 1
Gyrinidae 1
Glossiphoniidae 1
Erpobdellidae 1
Dolichopodidae 1
Copepoda 1
Coenagrionidae 1
Ceratopogonidae 1
Aeshnidae 1
Poeciliidae 2
Libellulidae 3
Planorbidae 3
Ranidae (Copper-… 4
Ampullaridae 4
Gomphidae 4
Gerridae 7
Corduliidae 9
Physidae 11
Tubificidae 12
Ostracoda 18
Thairidae 27
Chironomidae 72
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Bar graph 1: Bar graph showing taxa classifications and taxa counts in BBNP

Rank Abundance curve of BBNP

0.45
0.4
0.35
Relative Abundance

0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Abundance Rank

Figure 1: Figure 1 shows the rank abundance curve of BBNP

 Bar Graph showing Taxa classifications and
the Taxa counts in VD
Poecilia reticulata 1
Cyprinidae 1
Dytiscidae 1
Baetidae 1
Glossiphonidae 1
Ostracoda 1
Curculionidae 2
Leptophlebiidae 2
Atyidae 2
Ceratopogonidae 3
Gomphidae 3
Palaemonidae 4
Libellulidae 4
Chironomidae 29
Tubificidae 47
0 10 20 30 40 50

Bar Graph 2: Bar Graph showing Taxa classifications and the Taxa counts in BBNP

Rank Abundance curve of VD

0.5
0.45
0.4
Relative Abundance

0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Abundance Rank

Figure 2: Figure 2 shows the rank abundance curve of BBNP

Overall Diversity

Taxa diversity for 31 sections for BBNP and 32 sections in VD was calculated using Shannon Index
using both vertebrates and invertebrates data from Surber samples. Mann-Whitney test was then
conducted for the two distinct datasets to test for significant differences between the two freshwater
streams. There was no significant difference found between the two streams in terms of overall
richness (table 2)

Table 2: Comparing overall diversity between BBNP freshwater stream and VD freshwater stream

P-value (2-
U Z tailed) Alpha Conclusion
U_VD = 557.5, U_BBNP = p>a, no significant
434.5 -0.84 0.4009 0.05 difference

Water quality of two streams

The water quality of both BBNP and VD were tested using SingScore calculations from each section,
which only accounts for the invertebrates from Surber Samples. The two distinct datasets were tested
for significant differences using a Mann-Whitney and there was no significant difference present for
quality of the two streams (table 3)

Table 3: Comparing water quality between BBNP freshwater stream and VD freshwater stream

P-value (2-
U Z tailed) Alpha Conclusion
U_VD = 545, U_BBNP = p>a, no significant
447 -0.67 0.5029 0.05 difference

Discussion

The results above do not support the hypothesis that “overall richness and abundance would favour
VD as the stream would be more pristine and conserved, leading to the proliferation of certain species”.
From the results garnered from overall richness, using Mann-Whitney U test, overall abundance, done
so using rank-abundance curve and overall diversity using Mann-Whitney U test of Shannon index
scores, it is said that no significant differences were found between BBNP and VD freshwater streams.
The similarities in the overall richness, abundance and diversity can be linked to factors such as
chemical environmental parameters, water quality (measured using Mann-Whitney U test of
SingScores), and the close proximity of BBNP and VD.
Water quality

Through tolerance scores of invertebrate samples found, the SingScore biotic index is utilised to
assess the water quality of both streams (Blakely et al. 2010). The above results show no differences
between water qualities of both streams, suggesting that environmental stress faced by both streams
are similar. Even though BBNP has a higher rate of human disturbance, this does not result in a higher
overall richness, abundance or diversity of freshwater species as similar environmental stress may
have been faced by Venus Drive as well, leading to specific adaptations in both ecosystem structure
(Urban 2004)

Chemical environmental parameters

From results above, temperature and pH levels were similar between BBNP and VD stream sites.
Temperature is seen as a factor that could influence the amount and timing of species in several
ways (Burgmer et al. 2007) and with similar temperature recorded both in BBNP and VD, the
abundance of freshwater invertebrates was thus roughly similar, as seen graphically from the rank-
abundance graphs. pH level is another factor that affects overall richness, abundance and diversity
of freshwater communities as a reduction in pH level can result in a decrease of invertebrate’s density
(Hall et al., 1980; Townsend et al., 1983; Aston et al, 1985; Burton et al. 1985; Kimmel et al, 1985)
and species richness and diversity (Townsend et al, 1983; Raddum & Fjellheim, 1984; Kimmel et al,
1985; Burton et al, 1985; Hall & Ide, 1987). However, in the case of BBNP and VD, pH levels were
roughly similar. Conductivity, defined as 'the ability or power to conduct or transmit heat, electricity,
or sound” could affect the overall richness and diversity of freshwater invertebrates as they serve as
an index in telling us the amount of pollutants or nutrients in the stream (Azrina et al. 2005). Even
though conductivity was slightly different between both streams, they were only minor. Therefore, the
similar chemical environmental parametrs of temperature, pH level and conductivity may have
contributed to the similarities in overall richess, abundance and diversity in both streams.

Close proximity of BBNP and VD

It is of note that the freshwater streams found in BBNP and VD are separated roughly by a distance
of nine kilometres as Singapore is a small country. With relatively uniform conditions experienced by
both freshwater streams, the abiotic factors would also be similar. As certain taxa groups of
invertebrates are mobile in nature, they could move from one freshwater stream to another stream in
order to reproduce and grow. This would explain why there are overlaps in the taxa groups of both
BBNP and VD freshwater streams. This would allow us to conclude that these two streams are not
distinct from one another.

Differences in Taxa groups found in Surber Samples and Tray Net Samples
From the results, there are obvious differences in taxa groups observed between Surber Samples
and Tray Net Samples. It is to note that Tray Net sampling method required vigorous kicking along
the substratum and bank along a 1m length as compared to Surber Sampling, where only the small
quadrat frame is placed on the bottom of the stream. This could perhaps explain the presence of two
amphibian groups (Ranidae and Dicroglossidae) that are only present in the Tray Net sample as these
amphibians, once disturbed, may have jumped into the tray net in order to escape disturbances
caused by us. It is also to note that there are six unique vertebrate taxa groups observed in Tray Net
Sampling as compared to three vertebrate taxa groups found in Surber Sampling. This could result
from the extra vigorous kicking along the bank, utilised in Tray Net Sampling as well as the special
attention to pick up vertebrates which may have tried to swim away.

In Surber Sampling, it is noted that the Surber Sample had smaller “hole size” in the mesh as
compared to Tray Net’s mesh. Having a smaller “hole-size” would enable the capture of smaller
invertebrates, leading to unique taxa groups found only in Surber Samples and not in Tray Net
Samples, such as that of Aeshnidae and Baetidae. Due to the different amount of strengths used in
the kicking and disturbing of substratum and bank, Tray Net Sampling is often utilised for qualitative
research as compared to Surber Sampling, which are utilised for quantitative research. Tray net
sampling may also result in inaccuracies as aquatic organisms that reside on the opposite side of the
stream are not captured. Surber Sampling allows for more accurate results as minimal disturbance
such as picking of leaf litter and debris is conducted within the quadrat frame of the Surber sampler
placed on the bottom of the stream.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is said that no significant differences were found between BBNP and VD freshwater
streams as the results above do not support the hypothesis that “overall richness and abundance
would favour VD as the stream would be more pristine and conserved, leading to the proliferation of
certain species”. This is because chemical parameters of temperatureand pH were similar. Even
though DO and conductivity were different in both streams, it was minor and could have led to a large
difference in the species richness and diversity between two streams.

References
Aston R.J., Sadler K., Milner A.G.P. & Lynam S. (1985) Vie Effects of pH and Related Factors on
Stream Invertebrates. Central Electric Generating Board, CERL No. TPRD/L/2792/N84, United
Kingdom
Azrina MZ, Yap CK, Ismail AR, Ismail A, Tan SG (2006) Anthropogenic impacts on the distribution
and biodiversity of benthic macroinvertebrates and water quality of the Langat River, Peninsular
Malaysia. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 64:337-347

Blakely TJ, Harding JS, Clews E, Winterbourn MJ (2010) An illustrated guide to the freshwater
macroinvertebrates of Singapore. School of Biological Sciences, Universty of Canterbury.

Burgmer T, Hillebrand H, Pfenninger M (2007) Effects of climate-driven temperature changes on the

diversity of freshwater macroinvertebrates. Oecologia 151: 93-103

Burton T.M., Stanford R.M. & AUan J.W. (1985) Addification effects on stream biota and organic
matter processing. Canadian journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 42, 669-675

Hall R.J. & Ide F.P. (1987) Evidence of acidification effects on stream insect communities in central
Ontario between 1937 and 1985. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 44, 1652-
1657

Hall R.J., Likens G.E., Fiance S.B. & Hendry G.R. (1980) Experimental acidification of a stream in the
Hubbard Brook experimental forest. New Hampshire. Ecology, 61, 976-989

Kimmel W,G., Murphy D.J., Sharpe W.E. & DeWalle D.R. (1985) Macroinvertebrate community
structure and detritus processing rates in two southwestern Pennsylvania streams acidified by
atmospheric deposifion. Hydrobiology, 124, 97-102

Lee Kong Chian Natural History Musuem (n.d.a) Venus Drive.

http://lkcnhm.nus.edu.sg/dna/places/details/73 (assessed 23 September 2015)

Lee Kong Chian Natural History Musuem (n.d.b) Bukit Batok Nature Park.
http://lkcnhm.nus.edu.sg/dna/places/details/16 (assessed 23 September 2015)

Lenntech. 2016. Lenntech. - - . Accessed October 12, 2016

http://www.lenntech.com/applications/ultrapure/conductivity/water-conductivity.htm.

Lim KKP, Ng PKL (1991) A Guide to the Freshwater Fishes of Singapore. Singapore Science Centre,
Singapore.

National Environment Agency (2014) Singapore’s third national communication and first biennial
update report. National Environment Agency, Singapore

Ng PKL, Corlett RT, Tan HTW (2011) Singapore Biodiversity: An Encyclopedia of the Natural
Environment and Sustainable Development. Raffles Musuem of Biodiversity Research, Editions
Didier Miller, Singapore
Quek G, Tan HCL, Tan YHJ (2012) Protected and Unprotected Forest Streams: A First Look at Bukit
Brown and Bukit Batok waterways. Little Green Dot Research Grant Paper, NUS High School of
Math and Science, Singapore

Raddum G.G. & Fjellheim A, (1984) Addificafion and early warning organisms in freshwater in western
Norway. Verhandlungert-lnternationale • Vereinigung fuer Theoretische und Angewandte
Limnologie, 22, 1973-1980.

Rosemond AD, Reice SR, Elwood JW, Mulholland PJ (2006) The effects of stream acidity on benthic
invertebrate communities in the south-eastern United States. Freshwater Biology 27:193-209

Townsend C.R., Hildrew A.G. & Francis J. (1983) Community structure in some southern English
streams: the influence of physiochemical factors. Freshwater Biology, 13, 521-544.

Urban MC (2004) Disturbance Heterogeneity Determines Freshwater Metacommunity Structure.

Ecology 85:2971-2978
Appendix

Appendix A: Table showing taxa list found at both Bukit Batok Nature Park and Venus Drive

BBNP Taxa list VD Taxa list

Aeshnidae Araneae
Amphipoda Atyidae

Ampullaridae Baetidae
Aplocheilidae Ceratopogonidae

Ceratopogonidae Chironomidae

Chironomidae Curculionidae
Coenagrionidae Cyprinidae

Copepoda Dytiscidae

Corduliidae Gerridae

Dolichopodidae Glossiphonidae

Dicroglossidae (Field frog) Gomphidae

Dytiscidae Leptophlebiidae

Erpobdellidae Libellulidae

Gerridae Ostracoda
 Glossiphoniidae Palaemonidae

Gomphidae Poecilia reticulata

Gyrinidae Tubificidae
Hydropsychidae Vellidae

Libellulidae

Lymnaeidae
Ostracoda
Parathelphusidae

Physidae

Planorbidae

Platycnemididae

Pleidae

Poeciliidae

Psychodidae

Ranidae (Copper-cheeked frog)

Scirtidae

Thairidae

Tipulidae

Tubificidae
Appendix B

Appendix B: Table showing taxa groups found in both streams, taxa groups unique to BBNP and taxa
groups unique to VD

Taxa groups found in both Taxa groups unique to Taxa groups unique to VD
streams BBNP

Ceratopogonidae Aeshnidae Araneae

Chironomidae Ampullaridae Atiyidae

Dytiscidae Amphipoda Baetidae

Gerridae Aplocheilidae Curculionidae

Glossiphonidae Coenagrionidae Cyprinidae

Gomphidae Copepoda Leptophlebiidae

Libellulidae Corduliidae Palaemonidae

Ostracoda Dolichopodidae Vellidae

Poeciliidae Dicroglossidae (Field frog)

Tubificidae Erpobdellidae
 Gyrinidae

Hydropsychidae

Lymnaeidae

Parathelphusidae

Physidae

Planorbidae

Platycnemididae

Pleidae

Psychodidae

Ranidae (Copper-cheeked
frog)

Scirtidae

Thairidae

Tipulidae
Appendix C
Appendix C: Table showing Taxa groups found in Surber Sampling and Tray Net sampling

Surber Sample Tray Net Sample

Aeshnidae Amphipoda
Ampullaridae Ampullaridae
Atyidae Aplocheilidae
Baetidae Araneae
Ceratopogonidae Chironomidae
Chironomidae Coenagrionidae
Coenagrionidae Corduliidae
Copepoda Dicroglossidae (Field frog)
Corduliidae Dytiscidae
Curculionidae Gerridae
Cyprinidae Glossiphoniidae
Dolichopodidae Gomphidae
Dytiscidae Hydropsychidae
Erpobdellidae Libellulidae
Gerridae Lymnaeidae
Glossiphoniidae Palaemonidae
Gomphidae Parathelphusidae
Gyrinidae Physidae
Hydropsychidae Planorbidae
Leptophlebiidae ( Platycnemididae
Libellulidae Pleidae
Ostracoda Poeciliidae
Palaemonidae Scirtidae
Physidae Thairidae
 Planorbidae Tubificidae
Poecilia reticulata Veliidae
Poeciliidae
Psychodidae
Ranidae (Copper-cheeked frog)
Thairidae
Tipulidae
Appendix D:

Appendix D: Table showing taxa lists found in both Surber Sample and Tray Net sample and those
that are unique to Surber and Tray Net Sample.

Taxa list found in both Taxa list found unique to Taxa list found unique in
Surber Sample and Tray Net Surber Sample Tray Net Sample
Sample
Ampullaridae Aeshnidae Amphipoda
Chironomidae Atyidae Aplocheilidae
Coenagrionidae Baetidae Araneae
Corduliidae Ceratopogonidae Dicroglossidae (Field frog)
Dytiscidae Copepoda Lymnaeidae
Gerridae Curculionidae Parathelphusidae
Glossiphoniidae Cyprinidae Platycnemididae
Gomphidae Dolichopodidae Pleidae
Hydropsychidae Erpobdellidae Scirtidae
Libellulidae Gyrinidae Veliidae
Palaemonidae Leptophlebiidae
Physidae Ostracoda
Planorbidae Psychodidae
Ranidae (Copper-cheeked
Poeciliidae
frog)
Thairidae Tipulidae
Tubificidae