Rapid Assessment of Australian Rivers Using Macroinvertebrates: Cost and Efficiency of 6 Methods of Sample Processing

Growns, J. E.; Chessman, Bruce C.; Jackson, Jean E.; Ross, David G.

doi:10.2307/1468153

Cited by 73 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, previous studies have shown that differences in community composition and metrics between samples processed under different sorting methodology, including live sorting, do not necessarily lead to differences in assessment (Nichols and Norris, 2005;Borisko et al, 2007). Growns et al, (1997) found that, despite sample differences in some metrics, all six sample processing methods evaluated discriminated between reference and impacted sites. In our study, both methods performed similarly in identifying biological impairment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Although there are many subsampling and processing options available when selecting a bioassessment protocol, the underlying concept is that the resulting data must reflect the community composition in the whole sample to provide a meaningful assessment of impairment (Growns et al, 1997). Additional considerations include the comparability of the data collected to other protocols.…”

Section: N O N -C O M M E R C I a L U S E O N L Ymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are bioassessments based on the Reference Condition Approach (RCA) affected by 'rapid' approaches to sample collection and processing?

Valois

Somers²,

Sarrazin-Delay³

et al. 2016

J Limnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: N O N -C O M M E R C I a L U S E O N L Ymentioning

confidence: 99%

Are bioassessments based on the Reference Condition Approach (RCA) affected by 'rapid' approaches to sample collection and processing?

Valois

Somers²,

Sarrazin-Delay³

et al. 2016

J Limnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prior to statistical analysis, abundance data were log 10 (x + 1) transformed according to Brinkman and Duffy (1996) and Growns et al (1997). Taxa counts were not transformed, according to Kerans et al (1992).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the recorded time was divided by the number of specimens in a sample and multiplied by the average number of individuals for all six samples from the respective stream. Data on recorded times (corrected for the number of individuals) were ln(x) transformed according to Growns et al (1997) prior to analysis. To test for differences in sample processing time between preserved and unpreserved samples, we performed an ANOVA with blocks (streams) (α = 0.05).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many studies have focused on variability, accuracy, and/or costs in terms of sampled area (e.g., Metzeling and Miller 2001;Vlek et al 2006), number of samples (e.g., Canton and Chadwick 1988), sampling device (e.g., Drake and Elliott 1982;Mackey et al 1984;Barton and MetcalfeSmith 1992;Cheal et al 1993), sampled habitats (e.g., Kerans et al 1992), intensity of sorting (e.g., Barbour and Gerritsen 1996;Courtemanch 1996;Growns et al 1997), and taxonomic resolution of identification (e.g., Nijboer and Verdonschot 2000;Bailey et al 2001;Lenat and Resh 2001). An important aspect of sample processing, which has only been the subject of a few studies, is the preservation (or not) of samples immediately after collection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of bioassessment results and costs between preserved and unpreserved macroinvertebrate samples from streams

Keizer-Vlek

Goedhart

Verdonschot

2010

Environ Monit Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The choice to use or not use a preservative before sorting macroinvertebrate samples (i.e., dead specimens vs. living specimens) is based on studies not solely focused on the effects of preservation. Using identical sample processing protocols, we compared preserved and unpreserved samples for the following parameters: (1) the number of taxa and individuals for each major macroinvertebrate group, (2) ecological quality classes calculated with a multimetric index developed for the assessment of small Dutch lowland streams, and (3) costs of sample processing. We collected macroinvertebrate samples from three lowland streams in the Netherlands. At each site, we collected six replicate samples, of which three samples were preserved and three were not. Significantly different numbers of Ephemeroptera individuals and Hydracarina taxa and individuals were collected from preserved samples compared to unpreserved samples. In assessments based on these individual metrics, standardiza- tion of sample processing will be required. In streams with Ephemeroptera, the preservation of samples is necessary to optimize the number of Ephemeroptera individuals collected. In streams that contain Hydracarina, the preservation of samples will result in an underestimation of the number of Hydracarina taxa and individuals present. In only one instance there was a difference in ecological quality between preserved and unpreserved samples, indicating that assessing small Dutch lowland streams does not require standardization of sample preservation as part of the sample processing protocol. We detected no significant differences in sample processing costs between preserved and unpreserved samples.

show abstract

Development of a standardized large river bioassessment protocol (LR‐BP) for macroinvertebrate assemblages

Flotemersch

Blocksom

Hutchens

et al. 2006

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efforts to develop benthic macroinvertebrate sampling protocols for the bioassessment of lotic ecosystems have been focused largely on wadeable systems. As these methods became increasingly refined and accepted, a growing number of monitoring agencies expanded their work and are now developing sampling protocols for non-wadeable large rivers. Large rivers can differ from wadeable streams in many ways that preclude the use of some wadeable stream sampling protocols. Hence, resource managers need clear and consistent large river bioassessment protocols for measuring ecological integrity that are cost effective, logistically feasible, and meet or are adaptable to the multi-purpose sampling needs of researchers and managers. We conducted a study using an experimental macroinvertebrate sampling method that was designed to overcome limitations of several methods currently in use. Our objectives were to: (1) determine the appropriate number of sampling points needed; (2) determine an appropriate laboratory subsample size to use and (3) examine how varying reach length affects assemblage characteristics. For six reaches in each of two large rivers, we sampled the macroinvertebrates of both banks at 12 transects separated by increasingly larger distances using a multi-habitat, semi-quantitative technique. Interpretation of results relied on the values attained for nine benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage metrics. Results from Monte Carlo methods indicated that, using the sampling methods described herein, a representative sample of the assemblage was collected by sampling both banks on 6 transects. Across all sites, we did not observe a consistent relationship between transect spacing (i.e. total reach length) and metric values, indicating that our sampling protocol was relatively robust with respect to variation in reach length. Therefore, flexibility exists that permits the study reach length to be dictated by the spatial scale (e.g. repeating geomorphic units) in question. For those preferring to use a fixed reach length, we recommend that transects be spaced at a minimum of 100 m intervals over a 500 m distance. We recommend that the field method be coupled with a fixed laboratory subsample size of 300 organisms for bioassessment purposes, with the recognition that a subsample size of 500 organisms may be needed to meet the objectives of more rigorous studies. It is likely this approach will over-sample sites of uniform composition, but the goal was to develop a robust sampling protocol that would perform well across sites of differing habitat composition. Possible modifications to the method to streamline its future application in the field are provided. Published in

show abstract

Rapid Assessment of Australian Rivers Using Macroinvertebrates: Cost and Efficiency of 6 Methods of Sample Processing

Cited by 73 publications

References 21 publications

Are bioassessments based on the Reference Condition Approach (RCA) affected by 'rapid' approaches to sample collection and processing?

Are bioassessments based on the Reference Condition Approach (RCA) affected by 'rapid' approaches to sample collection and processing?

Comparison of bioassessment results and costs between preserved and unpreserved macroinvertebrate samples from streams

Development of a standardized large river bioassessment protocol (LR‐BP) for macroinvertebrate assemblages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About