BIODIVERSITY AND HUMAN ACTIVITY REPORT

Ardita N.A. Dewi 7841033B

1. Background
The ecology of the river refers to the relationships that living organisms have
with each other and with their environment – the ecosystem. An ecosystem is
the sum of interactions between plants, animals and microorganisms and
between them and non-living physical and chemical components in a particular
natural environment. Since human disturb the the original nature of the river to
maintain life survival and support their daily activities by constructing dam for
many purpose such as for agricultural irrigation, flood control, water supply for
industry, non-specified river flow maintenance hydropower, recreation, snow
melting & removing and water supply, it causing changes in species
composition, species diversity, population density etc. of benthic organisms
(Watanabe et al., 2007). This report try to calculate species diversity in the river
consructed with dam structure.

2. Study Area
The study location focused in Nanakita river in Miyagi perfecture (Figure 1).
From the Figure 1, it can be seen that there is a dam in the upstream river
named Nanakita dam. Then, details about Nanakita dam are written in the
Table 1.

Table 1. Details for Nanakita Dam

Details
Location (Latitude, Longitude) N 38°211' 27''，E 140°44' 13''
Purpose Flood control, Non-specified rriver flow maintenance, and
Water supply
Dam type Rock fill
Height 74m
Crest length 420m
Dam volume 2755 thousand m 3
Catchment area 20km 2
Water surface area 50ha
Reservoir capacity 9200 thousand m 3
FY project started/completed 1972/1984
1
 Fig 1. Study Area

The focus of the study then narrowed on the area around the dam, site B01 and
B04 for area with dam and site B02, B03, B04, B05, and B07 for area without a
dam.

3. Methodology

3.1 Total for each biological function group

Total for each biological function group is classified into 5 type: filtering collector,
predators, gathering collectors, scrapers, and shredders.

2
3.2 Species diversity index (Simpson’s Index)
Simpson’s Index commonly used to measure biodiversity. The range is from 0
to 1 where if close to 1 (high score) indicate high diversity and if the score close
to 0 (low scores) indicate low diversity. Calculation for Simson’s Index is given
in Equation 1.

2
n 
Simson Index  1    i  Eq. 1
N 

where : ni = number of individual of each species (per m2)

N = total number of individual

3.3 Sorensen Index (Sβ)

Sorensen index is a statistic used for comparing the similarity in species
composition for two site. Calculation for Sorensen Index is given in Equation 2.

2w
S  1
S1  S 2 
Eq. 2

where : w = number of co-occurring species

S1 = taxon richness of site-1
S2 = taxon richness of site-2

3.4 Fungtional feeding groups

Functional feeding groups are a classification approach that is based on
behavioral mechanisms of food acquisition rather than taxonomic group. The
same general behavioral mechanisms in different species can result in the
ingestion of a wide range of food items. The benefit of this method is that
instead of hundreds of different taxa to be studied, a small number of groups of
organisms can be studied collectively based on the way they function and
process energy in the stream ecosystem. Individuals are categorized based on
their mechanisms for obtaining food and the particle size of the food, and not
specifically on what they are eating.

3
This method of analysis avoids the relatively non-informative necessity to
classify the majority of aquatic insect taxa as omnivores and it establishes
linkages to basic aquatic food resource categories, coarse particulate organic
matter (CPOM), and fine particulate organic matter (FPOM), which require
different adaptations for their exploitation. The major functional feeding groups
are: scrapers (grazers), which consume algae and associated material;
shredders, which consume leaf litter or other CPOM, including
wood; collectors (gatherers), which collect FPOM from the stream
bottom; filterers, which collect FPOM from the water column using a variety of
filters; and predators, which feed on other consumers.

Table 2. Functional Feeding Group Ratio Classification

Ecosystem FFG Ratio General Criteria Ratio

Parameter Levels
P/R (production / Scrapers/(Shredders + Filtering and Autotrophic > 0.75
respiration) Gathering collectors)
CPOM/FPOM Shredders/(Filtering and Riparian dependent
Gathering collectors) ecosystem > 0.25
Stable Channel Scrapers/ (total of the other FFGs – Stable substrate > 0.50
Predators)
Top-down control Predators/ total of the others Typical predator-prey
balance < 0.15

3.5 Water Sampling

Water samples were analyzed from B01 and B04 sampling points for biological,
chemical, physical properties such as surface water temperatures, PH, total
alkalinity, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) etc. The hydraulic parameters of
Nanakita River were also measured at the river sections B01 and B04 includes
flow velocities, channel width, etc.

4. Results and discussions

4.1 Total for each biological function group

The classified biological function group for each site can be seen in the Figure 2.
Filtering collector dominates site B03, B04, B05 and B07, while B01 and B02 is
dominated by shredders.

4
 Fig 2. Total for each biological function group

Figure 3 shows that B04 has the highest total individuals with a richness taxon
of 344 species and the lowest at B02 with a richness taxon of 39 types.

Fig 3. Total biological function group

4.2 Species diversity index (Simpson’s Index)

The simpson’s index at B01 site isolated by the presence of the dam in
downstream causes the low simpson’s index, which means its diversity is also
low compared to site B04.

5
 Fig 4. Simpson index at each site with dam

In Figure 5 can be seen also if site B01 compared to other sites (B02 and B05)
also have a lower value. However, the simpson index on site B03 and B07 is
lower than site B01.

Fig 5. Simpson index at each site with no dam

4.3 Sorensen Index (Sβ)

Diversity comparison between two site was compared using sorensen index.
The result of the sorensen index is shown in Figure 6. Sorensen index B01-B04

6
 Fig 6. Sorensen index between two site

The sorensen index of B01-B04 represents the diversity between two separate
sites by a dam. Whereas B02-B07, B03-B07, B05-B07 represent the diversity
between the two sites without the influence of dam between the two sites. The
results show that site B04-B07 has a diversity index smaller than B01-B04. This
may be due to distances between sites also affecting the level of diversity
between the two site. In Figure 7, it can be seen that the more distances
between sites the diversity will also increase. But this hypothesis should be
tested to other sites in order to clearly see the trend to be gained from the
relationship between distance and diversity.

Fig 7. Sβ and distance correlation

7
4.4 Fungctional feeding groups
Functional feeding group ratio in each site can be seen in Table 3. This is a
conceptual model that predicts biological community responses to physical
changes along the lengths of rivers. Some parameter exceed or less than the
value in general because of a dam blocking the flow, and disconnect section of
the river upstream and downstream and displace resource gradient
downstreams to varying extents.

Table 3. Functional Feeding Group Ratio in Each Site

B01 B02 B03 B04 B05 B07

P/R 0.19 0.13 0.05 0.64 0.63 0.08
CPOM/FPOM 1.39 1.14 0.25 0.06 0.20 0.00
Stable Channel 0.42 0.16 0.05 1.76 1.19 0.12
Top-down Control 0.47 0.15 0.05 0.39 0.29 0.28

The relationship of chlorophyll a and the P/R ratio can be seen in Figure 8. It
can be seen that there is no clear correlation between P/R and chlorophyll a in
the river. The content of chlorophyll a in the river is more dependent on river
temperature conditions, but the survey results do not include data on
temperature.

Fig 8. P/R and Chl.a at each site

CPOM/FPOM value can be seen in Figure 9. It shows that the highest value is
in B01 which is blocked by the dam and the lowest value in B04. This distant

8
difference is due to a dam that separates the river flow between B01 and B04.
The value can not be compared with the river flow without the dam because
B07 has no value because there is no shredders in the site.

Fig 9. CPOM/FPOM

Figure 10 showing the stability of the flow path. B04 has a high chlorophyll a
and scraper so that the stable channel value is also high. Compared to B04,
B01 has From the graph it can be seen that the comparison of values in the
blocked flow by dam, B01 and B04, has significant differences.

Fig 10. Stable Channel

Figure 11 showing the balance between predator and food resources. B01, B04,
B05 and B07 exceed the value limit of 0.15, it can be said that the percentage
of was lower than that of food resources for those site.

9
 Fig 11. Top-down Control

4.5 Water Sampling

The tables 4 to 6 shows the results of the water quality, hydraulic parameter, and other
parameter for the analysis of river segment between measuring point B01 and B04.
The observation points B01 and B04 are at 47m and 154m altitude above the sea
level, respectively. The difference in altitude may be attributed to the slightly difference
in climate. The temperature influences a lot of processes in any ecosystem, including
food production. The difference in altitude could impact the observed hydraulic
parameters.

Table 4. Physical Parameter for B01 and B04

Site Altitude Distance Stream Channel Water Current Gravel Median Uniformity Curvature
(m) from the order width depth velocity size sediment coefficient coefficient
river (m) at in (cm) size of of
mouth riffles riffles (mm) sediments sediments
(km) (cm) (m/s) (uc)
B01 470 40 1 6.6 21.2 0.546 9.1 13.2 6.3 0.9
B04 154 32.5 3 7.8 45.0 0.931 17.4 4 7.1 0.9

Table 5. Biotic parameter for B01 and B04

Site Epilithon Epilithon Benthic Benthic Suspended Chl a

(mg (Chla FPOM (mg CPOM (mg FPOM(mg concentration
AFDM/cm2) mg/cm2） AFDM/cm2) AFDM/cm2) AFDM/L) (mg Chla /L)
B01 0.5333 0.0008 2.6613 23.76 0.0020 0.0001
B04 1.3967 0.0028 2.3910 5.79 0.0081 0.0005

The PH of water within the segment between B01 and B04 is within the ideal
range (6.5 to 8.2) for optimum flourishment of most aquatic living organisms.
Phosphate (PO4-P) content is within range (P>0.03), which could not promote

10
the increase in plant growth or entrophication in the river channel, including the
banks. The quality water analyzed at site B01 and B04 are all good with no
indication of pollution from neither sewerage effluent nor fertilizers from farms.
The water quality parameters are within the range of most unpolluted river water
quality consequently, it can be assumed that the Nanakita River could be
habitable by most aquatic species found in Miyagi Prefecture.

Table 6. Water quality for B01 and B04

site BOD pH SS NO-X-N NO2-N NH4-N TIN PO4-P

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
B01 0.035 6.95 1.0 0.211 0.001 0.006 0.218 0.002
B04 0.902 7.45 2.1 0.299 0.001 0.008 0.308 0.005

5. Conclusion
Based on simpson’s index, the presence of the dam affected in decreasing the
diversity in B04. Sorensen Index of two site sparated by dam or not did not
show much difference. Then, the differences also appear quite far in the FFGs
analysis especially in Stable channel, CPOM/FPOM, and P/R parameters. From
the results obtained, it can be concluded that the existence of dams affect the
composition and interaction between ecosystems in the river.

6. References
1. Allan, J.D. & Castillo, M.M., 2007. Stream Ecology. 2nd ed. Netherlands:
Springer.

2. Foundation, J.D., 2012. The Japan Dam Foundation. [Online] Available at:
http://damnet.or.jp/cgi-bin/binranA/enAll.cgi?db4=0302 [Accessed 25 June
2018].

3. Government, W.V., n.d. WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. [Online] Available at:
https://dep.wv.gov/WWE/getinvolved/sos/Pages/foodweb.aspx [Accessed 25
June 2018].

11
4. Waikato, T.U.o., n.d. Science Learning Hub. [Online] Available at:
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/439-river-ecosystems [Accessed
25 June 2018].

12