Comparison of benthic macroinvertebrate communities by two methods: Kick- and U-net sampling

被引:22
作者
Brua, Robert B. [1 ]
Culp, Joseph M. [2 ,3 ]
Benoy, Glenn A. [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Environm Canada, Natl Hydrol Res Ctr, Saskatoon, SK S7N 3H5, Canada
[2] Univ New Brunswick, Dept Biol, Canadian Rivers Inst, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada
[3] Environm Canada NWRI, Fredericton, NB E3B 5A3, Canada
[4] Environm Canada, Fredericton, NB E3B 4Z7, Canada
[5] Agr & Agri Food Canada, Potato Res Ctr, Fredericton, NB E3B 4Z7, Canada
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
Benthic macroinvertebrates; Kick-net; U-net; Sampling methods; Bioassessment; Classification strength-sampling-method comparability; WESTERN-AUSTRALIA; INVERTEBRATES; RIVERS;
D O I
10.1007/s10750-010-0499-x
中图分类号
Q17 [水生生物学];
学科分类号
071004 [水生生物学];
摘要
The assessment of benthic invertebrate community condition is an integral component of freshwater biomonitoring and water quality determination. Several sampling devices have been developed to collect benthic macroinvertebrates, including qualitative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative methods. In this study, we compared several benthic macroinvertebrate metrics and community assemblage measures calculated from data obtained from two sampling methods, namely the Kick- and U-net sampling devices. We reasoned that if the two methods produced similar values for benthic metrics and community composition, then samples collected by these methods should be able to be combined to build larger data sets for use in regional bioassessment analyses. No statistical differences between Kick- and U-net methods were found among standard benthic macroinvertebrate metrics, except for Kick-nets collecting more Chironomidae. Invertebrate assemblages were very similar between collection methods, although slightly greater taxonomic richness was found in U-net samples. Bray-Curtis similarity was typically > 75% between methods within a stream, while classification strength-sampling-method comparability, an approach for analyzing differences in similarity between groups, indicated invertebrate assemblage similarity between collection methods was virtually identical at approximately 100%. Since these two methods produce similar results, we conclude that benthic macroinvertebrate data collected by these methods can be combined for data analysis and bioassessments with the caveat that mesh size of the sample nets is similar. In addition, if the primary study objective is to assess macroinvertebrate biodiversity, then the U-net sampling device may be more appropriate, despite the slightly greater time needed to complete field sample collection, as it tended to collect a greater diversity of species.
引用
收藏
页码:293 / 302
页数:10
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]
[Anonymous], 1999, PERIPHYTON BENTHIC M
[2]
A method for measuring the comparability of different sampling methods used in biological surveys: implications for data integration and synthesis [J].
Cao, Y ;
Hawkins, CP ;
Storey, AW .
FRESHWATER BIOLOGY, 2005, 50 (06) :1105-1115
[3]
After site selection and before data analysis: sampling, sorting, and laboratory procedures used in stream benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring programs by USA state agencies [J].
Carter, JL ;
Resh, VH .
JOURNAL OF THE NORTH AMERICAN BENTHOLOGICAL SOCIETY, 2001, 20 (04) :658-682
[4]
Bootstrapping to investigate the effect of number of macroinvertebrate samples on confidence limits of the mean [J].
Chiasson, Alyre .
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT, 2009, 149 (1-4) :53-59
[5]
Clarke K.R., 2001, PRIMER V5 USER MANUA
[6]
A METHOD OF LINKING MULTIVARIATE COMMUNITY STRUCTURE TO ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES [J].
CLARKE, KR ;
AINSWORTH, M .
MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES, 1993, 92 (03) :205-219
[7]
Culp J.M., 2009, 13 ENV CAN NAT AGR S
[8]
Characterizing and comparing bioassessment methods and their results: A perspective [J].
Diamond, JM ;
Barbour, MT ;
Stribling, JB .
JOURNAL OF THE NORTH AMERICAN BENTHOLOGICAL SOCIETY, 1996, 15 (04) :713-727
[9]
What do qualitative rapid assessment collections of macroinvertebrates represent? A comparison with extensive quantitative sampling [J].
Gillies, C. L. ;
Hose, G. C. ;
Turak, E. .
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT, 2009, 149 (1-4) :99-112
[10]
Hawkins CP, 2006, ECOL APPL, V16, P1277, DOI 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1277:QBIBTC]2.0.CO