Table 1.
Mean diversity for forested and agricultural streams in the Little Tennessee and French Broad Rivers
| Diversity indices | Forest (L. Tennessee) | Forest (Fr. Broad) | Agriculture (L. Tennessee) | Agriculture (Fr. Broad) | Land use
|
River basin
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | P | F | P | |||||
| Invertebrates | ||||||||
| Taxonomic richness | 59.3 ± 3.6 | 59.7 ± 7.9 | 48.7 ± 3.6 | 39.0 ± 5.4 | 8.25 | ∗∗ | 0.73 | n.s. |
| Margalef’s index | 7.9 ± 0.4 | 8.1 ± 0.9 | 6.2 ± 0.4 | 5.2 ± 0.6 | 12.86 | ∗∗ | 0.46 | n.s. |
| EPT | 40.5 ± 3.4 | 45.2 ± 6.7 | 32.0 ± 3.4 | 25.0 ± 4.4 | 9.34 | ∗∗ | 0.06 | n.s. |
| NCBI† | 2.7 ± 0.1 | 2.5 ± 0.1 | 3.3 ± 0.2 | 3.4 ± 0.2 | 28.14 | ∗∗ | 0.02 | n.s. |
| Invertebrate density | 1858 ± 496 | 1441 ± 211 | 2635 ± 758 | 3015 ± 1958 | 1.17 | n.s. | 0.01 | n.s. |
| Fishes | ||||||||
| Species richness | 14.5 ± 3.3 | 11.7 ± 1.7 | 23.2 ± 1.2 | 16.8 ± 2.3 | 9.22 | ∗∗ | 4.56 | ∗ |
| Margalef’s index | 4.4 ± 0.9 | 3.7 ± 0.5 | 6.7 ± 0.4 | 4.7 ± 0.6 | 6.33 | ∗ | 4.04 | n.s. |
| Fish abundance | 1096 ± 256 | 757 ± 149 | 2212 ± 354 | 1772 ± 377 | 12.76 | ∗∗ | 1.70 | n.s. |
| Fish + invertebrate | ||||||||
| Species richness | 73.8 ± 4.3 | 71.3 ± 7.2 | 71.8 ± 3.3 | 56.2 ± 7.2 | 2.21 | n.s. | 2.48 | n.s. |
Mean diversities are given ±SE (n = 6). Results of two-way ANOVA are shown, with Tukey’s test for land use (all forest vs. agriculture combined) and river basin (all Little Tennessee vs. French Broad) treatments. (∗, P < 0.05; ∗∗, P < 0.01; n.s., not significant; NCBI, North Carolina Biotic Index.)