萨斯奎哈纳河上游干流相邻河段大型无脊椎动物被动与主动采集方法的评价

K. Guild, A. Anthony, M. Bilger, J. Holt
{"title":"萨斯奎哈纳河上游干流相邻河段大型无脊椎动物被动与主动采集方法的评价","authors":"K. Guild, A. Anthony, M. Bilger, J. Holt","doi":"10.5325/jpennacadscie.88.1.0047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Macroinvertebrates are functional indicators of stream health based upon their sensitivity to pollution. Our study utilized different passive and active benthic macroinvertebrate collection methods (D-net, Surber sampler, rock baskets, and Hester-Dendy multiplate samplers) during the summer and fall of 2012 and 2013. Collections were taken on both sides of the west channel in the west channel of the upper main stem of the Susquehanna River near Shamokin Dam, PA. Sampling sites each included seven locations, one for passive sampling and six longitudinal locations for active sampling. Overall, we collected 50 taxa of macroinvertebrates identified to family-level, which allowed us to calculate pollution tolerance values and other comparative metrics. The Proportional Bray-Curtis Similarity Index analysis describes a very low to moderate overlap between benthic macroinvertebrate communities collected by active and passive methods (2% - 43%). Furthermore, other metrics including the Shannon Diversity and Hilsenhoff Biotic Indices reflected the variability in occurrence of pollution intolerant taxa according to method and location. The greatest variation occurred in percent EPT which showed a range of 0% to 56% in a single sample period using different methods. Passive sampling methods selectively collected colonizers and omitted other taxa (e.g. burrowers and mollusks) illustrating their bias in sampling. Overall, the metrics did not support the use of one technique over another. Rather, they supported the practice of using both passive and active collection methods in order to use macroinvertebrate community estimates to assess water quality in large rivers that have a wetted channel of cobble, silt, and sand like the upper main stem of the Susquehanna River. Based on our results we concluded that active samplers which target different habitats together with passive samplers which allow comparisons from one site to another would be the most appropriate methods to use in the upper main stem of the Susquehanna River.","PeriodicalId":85037,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of Passive and Active Macroinvertebrate Collection Methods in Adjacent Reaches on the Upper Main Stem of the Susquehanna River\",\"authors\":\"K. Guild, A. Anthony, M. Bilger, J. Holt\",\"doi\":\"10.5325/jpennacadscie.88.1.0047\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Macroinvertebrates are functional indicators of stream health based upon their sensitivity to pollution. Our study utilized different passive and active benthic macroinvertebrate collection methods (D-net, Surber sampler, rock baskets, and Hester-Dendy multiplate samplers) during the summer and fall of 2012 and 2013. Collections were taken on both sides of the west channel in the west channel of the upper main stem of the Susquehanna River near Shamokin Dam, PA. Sampling sites each included seven locations, one for passive sampling and six longitudinal locations for active sampling. Overall, we collected 50 taxa of macroinvertebrates identified to family-level, which allowed us to calculate pollution tolerance values and other comparative metrics. The Proportional Bray-Curtis Similarity Index analysis describes a very low to moderate overlap between benthic macroinvertebrate communities collected by active and passive methods (2% - 43%). Furthermore, other metrics including the Shannon Diversity and Hilsenhoff Biotic Indices reflected the variability in occurrence of pollution intolerant taxa according to method and location. The greatest variation occurred in percent EPT which showed a range of 0% to 56% in a single sample period using different methods. Passive sampling methods selectively collected colonizers and omitted other taxa (e.g. burrowers and mollusks) illustrating their bias in sampling. Overall, the metrics did not support the use of one technique over another. Rather, they supported the practice of using both passive and active collection methods in order to use macroinvertebrate community estimates to assess water quality in large rivers that have a wetted channel of cobble, silt, and sand like the upper main stem of the Susquehanna River. Based on our results we concluded that active samplers which target different habitats together with passive samplers which allow comparisons from one site to another would be the most appropriate methods to use in the upper main stem of the Susquehanna River.\",\"PeriodicalId\":85037,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5325/jpennacadscie.88.1.0047\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jpennacadscie.88.1.0047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

基于大型无脊椎动物对污染的敏感性,它们是河流健康的功能性指标。在2012年和2013年的夏季和秋季,我们的研究使用了不同的被动和主动底栖大型无脊椎动物收集方法(D-net, Surber采样器,岩石篮和Hester-Dendy多板采样器)。收集是在萨斯奎哈纳河上游主干西通道的两侧进行的,靠近宾夕法尼亚州的沙莫金大坝。每个采样点包括7个位置,1个被动采样点和6个主动采样点。总的来说,我们收集了50个大型无脊椎动物分类群,确定为科级,这使我们能够计算污染容忍值和其他比较指标。比例布雷-柯蒂斯相似指数分析描述了主动和被动方法收集的底栖大型无脊椎动物群落之间非常低到中等的重叠(2% - 43%)。Shannon多样性指数和Hilsenhoff生物指数反映了污染不耐受类群发生的不同方法和地点的差异。在不同的方法下,EPT的百分比变化最大,其范围为0%至56%。被动取样方法选择性地收集了殖民者,而忽略了其他分类群(如穴居动物和软体动物),说明了其取样的偏见。总的来说,度量标准不支持使用一种技术而不是另一种技术。相反,他们支持使用被动和主动收集方法的实践,以便使用大型无脊椎动物群落估计来评估大型河流的水质,这些河流有鹅卵石,淤泥和沙子的湿润通道,如萨斯奎哈纳河的上游干流。根据我们的结果,我们得出结论,针对不同栖息地的主动采样器与允许从一个地点到另一个地点进行比较的被动采样器将是在萨斯奎哈纳河上游干流中使用的最合适的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of Passive and Active Macroinvertebrate Collection Methods in Adjacent Reaches on the Upper Main Stem of the Susquehanna River
Macroinvertebrates are functional indicators of stream health based upon their sensitivity to pollution. Our study utilized different passive and active benthic macroinvertebrate collection methods (D-net, Surber sampler, rock baskets, and Hester-Dendy multiplate samplers) during the summer and fall of 2012 and 2013. Collections were taken on both sides of the west channel in the west channel of the upper main stem of the Susquehanna River near Shamokin Dam, PA. Sampling sites each included seven locations, one for passive sampling and six longitudinal locations for active sampling. Overall, we collected 50 taxa of macroinvertebrates identified to family-level, which allowed us to calculate pollution tolerance values and other comparative metrics. The Proportional Bray-Curtis Similarity Index analysis describes a very low to moderate overlap between benthic macroinvertebrate communities collected by active and passive methods (2% - 43%). Furthermore, other metrics including the Shannon Diversity and Hilsenhoff Biotic Indices reflected the variability in occurrence of pollution intolerant taxa according to method and location. The greatest variation occurred in percent EPT which showed a range of 0% to 56% in a single sample period using different methods. Passive sampling methods selectively collected colonizers and omitted other taxa (e.g. burrowers and mollusks) illustrating their bias in sampling. Overall, the metrics did not support the use of one technique over another. Rather, they supported the practice of using both passive and active collection methods in order to use macroinvertebrate community estimates to assess water quality in large rivers that have a wetted channel of cobble, silt, and sand like the upper main stem of the Susquehanna River. Based on our results we concluded that active samplers which target different habitats together with passive samplers which allow comparisons from one site to another would be the most appropriate methods to use in the upper main stem of the Susquehanna River.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信