Evaluation of Four Wetland Aquatic Invertebrate Samplers and Four Sample Sorting Methods

Brinkman, M. A.; Duffy, Walter G.

doi:10.1080/02705060.1996.9663478

Cited by 24 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar conclusions were obtained in studies comparing other techniques (Brinkman & Duffy, 1996;Muzaffar & Colbo, 2002;O'Connor et al, 2004), suggesting that evaluation and comparisons of biodiversity among macroinvertebrates assemblages should take into account the sampling technique used.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Sampling macroinvertebrates in a temporary pond: comparing the suitability of two techniques to detect richness, spatial segregation and diel activity

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent and increasing interest in temporary ponds as biodiversity reservoirs fosters our need to test sampling techniques for characterising their biological communities. We compared the efficiency of dip-netting to that of fyke nets in sampling the macroinvertebrate assemblage of a temporary pond in Doñana National Park (SW Spain). We sampled the pond at four different times-morning, afternoon, evening and night-distinguishing between deep and shallow zones. In our sampling, dip-netting captured a higher number of taxa, and higher abundances of individuals than fyke nets. However, both techniques captured exclusive taxa, not recorded with the other device. Fyke nets distinguished between nocturnal and diurnal macroinvertebrates, and hence are more appropriate to study macroinvertebrate diel activity. We detected nocturnal activity in Gerris thoracicus larvae, and adults of Colymbetes fuscus, Rhantus suturalis, Rhantus hispanicus and Hydrochara flavipes. Conversely, larvae of Sympetrum fonscolombei and Notonecta spp., and adults of Notonecta glauca were mainly diurnal. The overall diel activity pattern of the macroinvertebrate assemblage depended on the diel activities of their integrating taxa and stages. Although dip-netting was more appropriate to sample macroinvertebrate assemblages in different microhabitats, fyke nets better captured nocturnal and fastswimming invertebrates. Consequently, the joint use of both sampling techniques would capture a better picture of the representative macrofauna of a temporary pond than either one on its own.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Sampling macroinvertebrates in a temporary pond: comparing the suitability of two techniques to detect richness, spatial segregation and diel activity

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Naturally, because each sampling device is designed differently, the degree and type of bias they exhibit also varies. Comparisons among sampling devices repeatedly show that they do not collect individuals or species equally well (e.g., Boulton 1985, Robertson and Piwowar 1985, Storey and Pinder 1985, Wolcott et al 1992, Brinkman and Duffy 1996. However, sampling devices deployed in identical habitats do generally capture the same set of common species, though the degree of undersampling may vary.…”

Section: Sampler Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aquatic biologists agree that the most tedious and time-consuming task in a benthic invertebrate survey is separating the organisms in a sample from the sediments and organic detritus (Mason and Yevich 1967, Ciborowski 1991, Wilhelm and Hiebert 1996, Brinkman and Duffy 1996. Sorting time is a stubborn hurdle limiting the efficiency of benthic sampling.…”

Section: Sample Sortingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimization of field and laboratory methods for benthic invertebrate biomonitoring

Taylor

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hypothetical example of a log-normal distribution of individuals among different species in a benthic invertebrate community. (77) Examples of species abundances in benthic invertebrate samples. (78) APPENDIX Examples of taxonomic lists from benthic invertebrate samples xv Acknowledgements This report was written for the Aquatic Effects Technology Evaluation (AETE) program, a cooperative program among the Canadian mining industry and responsible agencies of the federal government and most provincial governments. The project was directed by Lise Trudel of the Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET). Thorough and helpful reviews of earlier drafts by

show abstract

“…Wetlands in particular pose sampling challenges because of the predominance of soft substrata and vegetation. Some investigators have compared efficiency and associated effort of various sampling methods in wetlands (Kaminski and Murkin 1981;Murkin et al 1983;Cheal et al 1993;Anderson and Smith 1996;Brinkman andDuffy 1996, Turner andTrexler 1997), and these studies have produced somewhat conflicting results, depending on the types of samplers compared and the habitats sampled.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Quantitative Assessment of Yield, Precision, and Cost-Effectiveness of Three Wetland Invertebrate Sampling Techniques

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Macroinvertebrates are increasingly used as indicators of wetland integrity and productivity. However, accurate interpretation of biological information depends on effective sampling methods, which are also preferably costeffective. We compared sampling yield, precision, and costeffectiveness of two traditional wetland sampling methods (dipnet, stove pipe corer) to a dipnet combined with a dropframe in wetlands in the Platte River Valley, USA. The dropframe method was designed to be more quantitative than standard dipnet techniques and to maximize capture of mobile taxa. We compared measures of macroinvertebrate community structure (e.g., abundance, richness, diversity) and function (functional structure, habitat associations), as well as processing time for each sampling technique in vegetated and non-vegetated habitats. Vegetated habitats harbored higher richness, diversity, abundance, and biomass of most invertebrates. The dipnet consistently yielded the lowest values in vegetated and non-vegetated habitats, suggesting that sampling with a dipnet alone can greatly underestimate macroinvertebrate populations and diversity.The corer and the dropframe yielded similar results, but the dropframe produced significantly higher richness values. While the dropframe appeared to be a good choice for sampling in these wetlands, sample processing times for this method were more than two times longer than the other methods. Results provide a basis for informed decisions regarding quantitative sampling of wetland macroinvertebrates.

show abstract

Evaluation of Four Wetland Aquatic Invertebrate Samplers and Four Sample Sorting Methods

Cited by 24 publications

References 9 publications

Sampling macroinvertebrates in a temporary pond: comparing the suitability of two techniques to detect richness, spatial segregation and diel activity

Sampling macroinvertebrates in a temporary pond: comparing the suitability of two techniques to detect richness, spatial segregation and diel activity

Optimization of field and laboratory methods for benthic invertebrate biomonitoring

Quantitative Assessment of Yield, Precision, and Cost-Effectiveness of Three Wetland Invertebrate Sampling Techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About