Smoke and Fire

Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 5

Journal: Day 4 – 9 7/5/04

I awoke Wednesday, June 30, the day of our planned trip up the Steese, with the smell of smoke still strong in the house, a gray blanket outside, and a news update that the Boundary fire was burning further down the Steese. The highway was closed to traffic. It appeared that our field plans would have to be delayed as Caribou Poker Creek was threatened. See http://activefiremaps.fs.fed.us/fireplots/aki2004187_0700.jpg
We discussed the possibility of accessing the site and agreed that we should not try to get into the area. So Plan A was changed to Plan B. Plan B was that we would collect at Bonanza Creek. This is an area SWof Fairbanks that was burned about 20 years ago. Maps at http://www.lter.uaf.edu/bnz_map_lter_static.cfm show both the Caribou Poker Creek Research Watershed and the Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest long term ecological research stations. Professor Pinkham needed a day to research possible sites within this new area and we arranged that I would return on Thursday ready to head into the field. I was disappointed not to get a chance to get out to the Caribou Poker Watershed but relieved that our team agreed that it would be foolish to head into the area today.

Returning at 7:00 am on Thursday, July 1, I found that Plan B had been changed to Plan C. Unable to find a suitable stream in Bonanza Creek, Carl was now planning on heading out to Standard Creek (west and north of Bonanza Creek on the opposite side of the Parks Hwy). At 7:15, we were on our way to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for a loaner vehicle and the electroshock equipment in case we were fortunate enough to have fish in the stream. By 8:45 we had returned to UAF to pick up Casey, load the equipment, and were in the 4-wheel drive Dodge Ram on our way out the Parks to the Old Nenana Hwy.

9:20. We turn off the Parks Hwy onto the Old Nenana and Casey remarks, “Dirt road…sweet. I’ve never seen a dirt road. Sweet!” and gets out the topo map to navigate. Five minutes later, we see a moose calf at the side of the road, and then the sign for Standard Creek Road. Casey gets out to take a picture of the sign, “Road Maintenance Ends.”

10:05. Stop to view a dead moose carcass by the side of the road. Carl explains that we will be looking for a wade-able stream. At Mile 11 we take the left fork. Ten minutes later a cow moose and calf cross our path. Two sandhill cranes fly overhead as we arrive at the bridge crossing Standard Creek.

10:45. At Standard Creek, we park and unload equipment , then survey the site checking the stream for ripple. Carl chooses a site for the first replicate. We record measurements for dissolved oxygen, ph, conductivity, water temperature and air temperature, depth of stream, length and altitude of the stream and a GPS location. In the water, Carl does the shuffle, while Casey mans the kicknet , and I time the sequence. We get a one minute sample which is rinsed into the sieve bucket and transferred to the collecting jars. This sample is very silty/sandy and will be more difficult to pick. An eyeball assessment of the sample is disappointing. Flow rate is measured by dropping a leaf or blade of grass in the stream at the exit point from the one minute sample and timing it until it reaches the starting point for the sample. We measure the distance and find a flow rate of one foot per second. Carl answers my question about the 13.8 measurement for dissolved oxygen by telling me that it’s an intermediate range.

12:00. We move upstream to find the second site. This sampling method requires three replicates taken close together with a 300-micron mesh D-frame net. I note vegetation as we walk through the woods to the second site: willow, Potentilla, Labrador tea, drawf birch, black spruce, moss-covered tussocks, blueberry, and fireweed blooming at the road cut. We repeat collecting procedure at the second site. An eyeball assessment of this sample is more promising…caddis fly larva, black fly larva, and a caseless caddis fly. For our third site, we are limited by the nature of the stream and end up moving back downstream and partially under the bridge. Carl shoulders the electroshock backframe and heads into the stream but no fish are apparent so it’s a quick operation.

1:30. We head back to UAF lab. Carl says we “got some organisms but nowhere near to what we hoped… picking is going to be hard work.” Casey with his sharp eyes will take the first sample; Carl will have me pick the richest second sample; he’ll take the third. He is still hopeful that fire conditions will allow us to get into Caribou –Poker Creek to sample at least four sites. Standard Creek appears to be an oligo trophic “few food” stream.

2:30. Cow moose with calf crosses our path again for a photo shoot with the smoky backdrop (see photo album for pictures ). An update on fire conditions is broadcast on the local public radio station. Disappointing news. The Boundary fire has reached mile 30 and the Steese is closed from the Fox waystation. Access to the Caribou-Poker site appears unlikely. Carl continues to hope that we will be able to get data from the site this year. His overarching question concerns the community structure downstream of a confluence so he would like to assess the area where Caribou Creek and Poker Creek come together to compare that to his original stream data from 2002.

Friday, July 2 - Monday, July 5

I arrive at the UAF lab at 8am to begin picking sample 0104-AK-SC-540 (R3). I pour my sample on the white tray with 24 numbered squares and set up my 3-diopter, swing-arm magnifier. I evenly distribute the sample on the tray and use Carl’s program to generate a random number – 6 – which is the square where I’ll begin picking. The protocol is that I will pick until I have reached 300 organisms or 6 squares, whichever occurs last. As I finish square 6 and have identified 57 organisms, my neck and shoulders ache and my eyes are red not only from the smoke in the air but from the strain of peering through the magnifier. I inhale alcohol fumes as my head rests only inches above the tray. Day one and only one square picked! This is exacting work. Carl assures me that the process becomes quicker and he appreciates that I am picking the square carefully. I am thankful to have a richer sample than Casey who finds only 6 to 8 organisms per square. I find that the greatest proportion of invertebrates in my sample are mayflies (22), then stone flies (17), flies (11), chironomids (4), and one each worm, caddis fly, and miscellaneous (springtail).

As the days continue, the strain in my neck/shoulders intensifies. Carl finishes his tray on the second day and takes the second half of Casey’s sample (which was so large it was in two jars). Together they finish that sample by examining a total of 35 squares. I am grateful that Casey picks two of my squares to give me a boost. I am learning to easily identify the chironomids, fly larva, and caddis flies. The mayflies and stone flies make up the greatest proportion of the finds and for the most part, I sort those correctly. Carl confirms my sorts before I place them in smaller collecting vials. The specimens in these vials will be keyed out to order, family, genus, and species. On Monday evening, I have finished my final square. Sample 0l04-AK-SC-540(R3) had a total of 318 animals removed in the nine squares picked for an average of 35 invertebrates per square.

I was curious about the populations that I counted so while the official count is done with the keying out process, I kept an unofficial tally and found that in my sample 39% of the population was mayfly larva, 32% stone fly, 13% fly, 9% chironomid, 3% caddis fly, 1% worm and the remaining 3% miscellaneous. I am so thankful to be finished the picking process.

Carl examines the microscopic structures in the heads of the chironomids to further identify the Diptera and Casey keys out a new specimen for the permanent collection which will eventually be housed at the UAF museum. I observe both processes.

News update on Caribou-Poker Creek is that it is closed into the near future so we won’t be collecting samples there at this point. With the burn, there is renewed interest in the site.

As we wind up the study, I reflect on the 10 days I have been involved with the project. I learned to collect steam samples of macroinvertebrates , pick, identify, and count these samples. The project did not proceed as originally planned but the knowledge that I gained will enable me to more accurately investigate the larva stage of insects with my 4th grade class. I plan to take them to a rich pond area to collect and identify aquatic invertebrates again this year. I feel more confident in the identification process with this further background knowledge gained through this project.

I hope that Carl will be able to continue his project in coming years as the addition of a permanent specimen collection for our boreal forest area housed at the UAF museum is a worthwhile goal. If these populations act as an indicator for global warming, adding to the knowledge base of subarctic aquatic macroinvertebrate populations would appear not only worthwhile but essential.