Cargando…

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

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 a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yeardley, Roger, Jacobs, Scott, Fritz, Ken, Thoeny, William
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7490790/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32944408
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jep.2020.118035
_version_ 1783582096111960064
author Yeardley, Roger
Jacobs, Scott
Fritz, Ken
Thoeny, William
author_facet Yeardley, Roger
Jacobs, Scott
Fritz, Ken
Thoeny, William
author_sort Yeardley, Roger
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7490790
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74907902021-08-05 Comparison of Three Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods for Use in Assessment of Water Quality Changes in Flashy Urban Streams Yeardley, Roger Jacobs, Scott Fritz, Ken Thoeny, William J Environ Prot (Irvine, Calif) Article 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. 2020-08-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7490790/ /pubmed/32944408 http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jep.2020.118035 Text en This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Article
Yeardley, Roger
Jacobs, Scott
Fritz, Ken
Thoeny, William
Comparison of Three Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods for Use in Assessment of Water Quality Changes in Flashy Urban Streams
title Comparison of Three Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods for Use in Assessment of Water Quality Changes in Flashy Urban Streams
title_full Comparison of Three Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods for Use in Assessment of Water Quality Changes in Flashy Urban Streams
title_fullStr Comparison of Three Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods for Use in Assessment of Water Quality Changes in Flashy Urban Streams
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Three Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods for Use in Assessment of Water Quality Changes in Flashy Urban Streams
title_short Comparison of Three Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods for Use in Assessment of Water Quality Changes in Flashy Urban Streams
title_sort comparison of three macroinvertebrate sampling methods for use in assessment of water quality changes in flashy urban streams
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7490790/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32944408
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jep.2020.118035
work_keys_str_mv AT yeardleyroger comparisonofthreemacroinvertebratesamplingmethodsforuseinassessmentofwaterqualitychangesinflashyurbanstreams
AT jacobsscott comparisonofthreemacroinvertebratesamplingmethodsforuseinassessmentofwaterqualitychangesinflashyurbanstreams
AT fritzken comparisonofthreemacroinvertebratesamplingmethodsforuseinassessmentofwaterqualitychangesinflashyurbanstreams
AT thoenywilliam comparisonofthreemacroinvertebratesamplingmethodsforuseinassessmentofwaterqualitychangesinflashyurbanstreams