Comparison of Three Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods for Use in Assessment of Water Quality Changes in Flashy Urban Streams.

Roger Yeardley, Scott Jacobs, Ken Fritz, William Thoeny
{"title":"Comparison of Three Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods for Use in Assessment of Water Quality Changes in Flashy Urban Streams.","authors":"Roger Yeardley,&nbsp;Scott Jacobs,&nbsp;Ken Fritz,&nbsp;William Thoeny","doi":"10.4236/jep.2020.118035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The unique challenges associated with sampling of macroinvertebrates in flashy urban streams create a methods gap. These streams form isolated pools for much of the year, interspersed with spates that scour and deposit excessive amounts of sediment. Commonly used stream grab sampling methods, such as nets and Hess and Surber fixed-area samplers, work well in wadable streams with perennial flow. Deployed samplers (Hester-Dendy, gravel tray) can be used in waters with or without flow. We evaluated three methods which don't require stream flow: modified Hester-Dendy (MHD), gravel tray, and bucket (a type of cylinder grab sample method), for their potential use in bioassessment of a project involving daylighting of a 180-m culvert on Congress Run, a flashy urban tributary to Mill Creek in Cincinnati, Ohio. Method efficacy was measured using three criteria: usability (level of effort and recoverability of samplers), variability, and community retrieval completeness. The bucket method required the lowest level of effort and had the highest sample recovery. The bucket sampler had the lowest variability for most metrics, including the critical metric of taxa richness, with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 20.9%. The MHD and tray samplers had taxa richness CVs of 42.9% and 53.9%, respectively. The bucket sampler also had the lowest CV (27.4%) for a multi-metric index. The bucket sampler performed best with respect to community retrieval completeness, with higher pooled and average taxa richness. The total number of taxa collected from all the replicate bucket grab samples (42) was greater than that collected by the HD and tray samplers combined (27). Multivariate analyses showed significant grouping with respect to methods and location. This study supports the bucket grab sampler method as a candidate for sampling of flashy urban streams.</p>","PeriodicalId":15775,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Protection","volume":"11 8","pages":"585-609"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7490790/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Protection","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2020.118035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The unique challenges associated with sampling of macroinvertebrates in flashy urban streams create a methods gap. These streams form isolated pools for much of the year, interspersed with spates that scour and deposit excessive amounts of sediment. Commonly used stream grab sampling methods, such as nets and Hess and Surber fixed-area samplers, work well in wadable streams with perennial flow. Deployed samplers (Hester-Dendy, gravel tray) can be used in waters with or without flow. We evaluated three methods which don't require stream flow: modified Hester-Dendy (MHD), gravel tray, and bucket (a type of cylinder grab sample method), for their potential use in bioassessment of a project involving daylighting of a 180-m culvert on Congress Run, a flashy urban tributary to Mill Creek in Cincinnati, Ohio. Method efficacy was measured using three criteria: usability (level of effort and recoverability of samplers), variability, and community retrieval completeness. The bucket method required the lowest level of effort and had the highest sample recovery. The bucket sampler had the lowest variability for most metrics, including the critical metric of taxa richness, with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 20.9%. The MHD and tray samplers had taxa richness CVs of 42.9% and 53.9%, respectively. The bucket sampler also had the lowest CV (27.4%) for a multi-metric index. The bucket sampler performed best with respect to community retrieval completeness, with higher pooled and average taxa richness. The total number of taxa collected from all the replicate bucket grab samples (42) was greater than that collected by the HD and tray samplers combined (27). Multivariate analyses showed significant grouping with respect to methods and location. This study supports the bucket grab sampler method as a candidate for sampling of flashy urban streams.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

三种大型无脊椎动物取样方法在评价浮华城市河流水质变化中的比较。
在浮华的城市溪流中进行大型无脊椎动物采样的独特挑战造成了方法上的差距。在一年中的大部分时间里,这些溪流形成了孤立的水池,其间散布着冲刷和沉积过量沉积物的漩涡。常用的河流抓取采样方法,如网和Hess和Surber固定区域采样器,在常年流动的可涉水溪流中效果良好。部署的取样器(Hester-Dendy,砾石盘)可以在有或没有流动的水中使用。我们评估了三种不需要水流的方法:改进的Hester-Dendy (MHD),砾石托盘和桶(一种圆柱体抓取样本方法),用于生物评估项目的潜在用途,该项目涉及国会大道180米涵洞的采光,这是俄亥俄州辛辛那提市米尔溪的一条浮华的城市支流。方法有效性使用三个标准来衡量:可用性(努力水平和采样的可恢复性)、可变性和社区检索完整性。桶法所需的工作量最小,样品回收率最高。桶形取样器在大部分指标上的变异系数最低,包括分类群丰富度的关键指标,变异系数(CV)为20.9%。MHD和托盘样品的类群丰富度cv值分别为42.9%和53.9%。桶式采样器的多重指标CV值也最低(27.4%)。桶式采样器在群落检索完整性方面表现最好,具有较高的汇总丰富度和平均丰富度。从所有重复的斗式抓取样本中收集到的类群总数(42个)大于HD和托盘采样器收集到的类群总数(27个)。多变量分析显示,在方法和地点方面有显著的分组。本研究支持斗抓斗采样器方法作为一个候选的采样浮华城市溪流。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信