Field Comparison of Three Devices Used to Sample Substrate in Small Streams

Grost, Richard T.; Hubert, Wayne A.; Wesche, Thomas A.

doi:10.1577/1548-8675(1991)011<0347:fcotdu>2.3.co;2

Cited by 33 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two replicate scoop samples were taken at all three macroinvertebrate collection stations in all streams (n ¼ 6 samples per stream). Scoop samples (approximatelt, 2700 cm 2 ) have been shown to provide comparable results to the shovel method for substrate sampling (Grost, 1991;Hakala, 2000). All substrate samples were oven dried at 60°C for 7 d and then were shaken through a set of modified Wentworth sieves (McMahon et al, 1996).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How much do valley fills influence headwater streams?

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Valley fill mining has the potential to alter headwater stream habitat in many areas in the eastern United States. In valley fill mining, overburden is removed to expose underlying coal seams. The overburden is then deposited in the adjacent valley. The deposited overburden from mining increases sedimentation, increases stream conductivity, and alters hydrologic regimes downstream of the fill. Changes in downstream communities are not well documented. However, it was suspected the increased sedimentation and conductivity would have deleterious effects upon the downstream macroinvertebrate communities. In southern West Virginia, four pairs of streams, each consisting of a fill and a reference stream, were selected as representative of watersheds experiencing valley fill mining. Stream pairs were selected for similar environmental conditions, with one stream having a valley fill in its headwaters. Each stream was sampled by replicate Surber samples (n ¼ 9 per stream). Water chemistry and sediment measurements also were taken at each location. Valley fill streams experienced significantly higher specific conductance (p < 0.01), but did not have elevated levels of fine sediment. Fills exhibited elevated levels of Na, K, Mn, Mg, Ca, Ni and Fe relative to reference streams. Additionally, valley fill streams demonstrated significantly lower densities of Ephemeroptera, Coleoptera, Odonata, Non-insects, Scrapers, and Shredders (p < 0.03) than reference streams. Further, Ephemeroptera richness was negatively related to specific conductivity and many of the richness metrics were negatively related to metals, both of which were generally elevated in fill streams. It appears that at the minimum, valley fills increase specific conductance and metals in streams and this or some other unqualified factors structure the macroinvertebrate community downstream of the valley fill. However, given the level of disturbance in valley fills, it is surprising how little differences existed between fills and reference stream biota.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How much do valley fills influence headwater streams?

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Soil was collected using a shovel following methods by Grost et al (1991). The collected soil was placed in sample bags for analysis in the laboratory.…”

Section: Habitat Characterisationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each size fraction was weighed and recorded. Particle sizes N4 mm were considered to be gravel; 2-4 mm as sand; 1-2 mm as a sandy loam; 0.6-1 mm as silt; 0.45-0.5 mm as silty loam; 0.063-0.45 mm as clay loam and particles b0.063 mm as clay (Grost et al, 1991).…”

Section: Habitat Characterisationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation partitioning of diatom species data matrices: Understanding the influence of multiple factors on benthic diatom communities in tropical streams

Bere

Mangadze

Mwedzi

2016

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Substrate particle-size distribution was estimated by the shovel method similar to that described in Grost et al (1991) and detailed in Zweig and Rabeni (2001). Two samples from each site (mean = 4936 g) were washed through a series of sieves and sorted by size class with the wet mass determined to the nearest 0.1 g. A previous comparison of substrate composition found little difference in percent mass between wet and dry substrate (Nelson, 1997).…”

Section: Environmental Variable Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stream invertebrate community functional responses to deposited sediment

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated functional responses of benthic invertebrates to deposited sediment in four Missouri USA streams. In each stream, invertebrates were sampled along continuums of deposited sediment (particles <2 mm in size) from 0 to 100 % surface cover in reaches of fairly homogeneous substrate composition, current velocity, and water depths. Correlations, graphical representations, and the cumulative response curves of feeding and habit groups provided strong empirical support for distinct community functional changes due to deposited sediment. Feeding groups were more sensitive to deposited sediment than habit groups. Densities of all the feeding groups decreased signifi cantly with increasing deposited sediment, while relative densities of gatherers increased signifi cantly. Taxa richness also decreased signifi cantly for all the feeding groups except for the shredders. Increases in deposited sediment were related to signifi cant density decreases for only the clingers and sprawlers in the habit group, resulting in significant increases in the relative densities of both burrowers and climbers. Clingers, sprawlers, and swimmers also showed signifi cant decreases in taxa richness.

show abstract

Field Comparison of Three Devices Used to Sample Substrate in Small Streams

Cited by 33 publications

References 3 publications

How much do valley fills influence headwater streams?

How much do valley fills influence headwater streams?

Variation partitioning of diatom species data matrices: Understanding the influence of multiple factors on benthic diatom communities in tropical streams

Stream invertebrate community functional responses to deposited sediment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About