Laserfiche WebLink
only to family. In this study, we were able to identify latter instars to the genus level. <br />We identified 19 chironomid genera from the Green river sites. Investigations <br />of other lotic systems have yielded similar results - 12 genera in the upper Tuscarawas <br />river, Ohio (Wingard and Olive 1989), 24 genera in the River Frome, England (Finder <br />1980), 25 genera in the Mississippi River (Beckett et al. 1983), and 36 genera in Juday <br />Creek, Indiana (Berg and Hellenthal 1991). Grabowski and Hiebert (1989) studied the <br />Green River in the same general area and also identified 19 genera. Only seven of these <br />were found in our study. Those incommon to both studies were Chironomus, <br />Cricocoptus, CWtochironomus, Polypgdilum, Procladius, Tanus, and Tanytarsus. <br />Mean habitat type chironomid densities were as follows: River backwater <br />(26,995/m2), seasonally inundated wetland (9,313%m2), ephemeral side channel <br />(5,254/m2), and river channel (3,832/m2). Mean density in the river backwater was three <br />times greater than seasonally inundated wetland, five times greater than the ephemeral <br />side channel, and seven times greater than the river channel. As with the nematodes, this <br />may be associated with sediment size in each of the habitats. Grabowski and Hiebert <br />(1989) reported maximum chironomid densities in the same area of the Green River of <br />less than 100/m2 for the river channel and 2,800/m2 for river backwaters. Differences <br />may be accounted for by Grabowski and Hiebert's larger mesh size (600-µm) and later <br />sampling period (July - October). <br />Functional groups occupied by chironomid genera are presented in table 7. <br />Collectors are dominant over all other groups. <br />Community Similarity <br />17