Abstract
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, standardization 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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bailey, R. C., Norris, R. H., & Reynoldson, T. B. (2001). Taxonomic resolution of benthic macroinvertebrate communities in bioassessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 20, 280–286.
Barbour, M. T., & Gerritsen, J. (1996). Subsampling of benthic samples: A defense of the fixed-count method. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15, 386–391.
Barton, D. R., & Metcalfe-Smith, J. L. (1992). A comparison of sampling techniques and summary indices for assessment of water quality in the Yamaska River Québec, based on benthic macroinvertebrates. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 21, 225–244.
Braukmannn, U. (2000). Hydrochemische und biologische merkmale regionaler bachtypen in Baden- Württemberg. Oberirdische Gewässer, Gewässerökologie, 56, 1–501.
Brinkman, M. A., & Duffy, W. G. (1996). Evaluation of four wetland aquatic invertebrate samplers and four sample sorting methods. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 11, 193–200.
Canton, S. P., & Chadwick, J. W. (1988). Variability in benthic invertebrate density estimates from stream samples. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 4, 291–297.
Carlisle, M. D., & Clements, W. H. (1999). Sensitivity and variability of metrics used in biological assessments of running waters. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 18, 285–291.
Carter, J. L., & Resh, V. H. (2001). After site selection and before data analysis: Sampling, sorting, and laboratory procedures used in stream benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring programs by USA state agencies. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 20, 658–682.
Cheal, F., Davis, A., Growns, J. E., Bradley, J. S., & Whittles, F. H. (1993). The influence of sampling method on the classification of wetland macroinvertebrate communities. Hydrobiologia, 257, 47–56.
Chessmann, B. C. (1995). Rapid river assessment using macroinvertebrates: A procedure based on habitat-specific family level identification and a biotic index. Australian Journal of Ecology, 20, 122–129.
Chessman, B. C., & Robinson, D. P. (1987). Some effects of the 1982–83 drought on water quality and macroinvertebrate fauna in the lower La Trobe River, Victoria. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 38, 289–299.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Courtemanch, D. L. (1996). Commentary on the subsampling procedures used for rapid bioassessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15, 381–385.
Diamond, J. M., Barbour, M. T., & Stribling, J. B. (1996). Characterizing and comparing bioassessment methods and their results: A perspective. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15, 713–727.
Drake, C. M., & Elliott, J. M. (1982). A comparative study of three air-lift samplers used for sampling benthic macro-invertebrates in rivers. Freshwater Biology, 12, 511–533.
Fore, L. S., Paulsen, K., & O’ Laughlin, K. (2001). Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshwater Biology, 46, 109–123.
Growns, J. E., Chessman, C. C., Jackson, J. E., & Ross, D. G. (1997). Rapid assessment of Australian rivers using macroinvertebrates: Cost and efficiency of 6 methods of sample processing. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16, 682–693.
Growns, I., Schiller, C., O’Conner, N., Cameron, A., & Gray, B. (2006). Evaluation of four live-sorting methods for use in rapid biological assessments using macroinvertebrates. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 117, 173–192.
Haase, P., Pauls, S., Sundermann, A., & Zenker, A. (2004). Testing different sorting techniques in macroinvertebrate samples from running water. Limnologica, 34, 366–378.
Hawkes, H. A. (1979). Invertebrates as indicators of river water quality. In A. James & L. Evison (Eds.), Biological indicators of water quality (pp. 2-1–2-45). New York: Wiley.
Hellawell, J. M. (1986). Biological indicators of freshwater pollution and environmental management. London: Elsevier.
Humphrey, C. L., Storey, A. W., & Thurtell, L. (2000). AUSRIVAS: Operator sample processing errors and temporal variability—implications for model sensitivity. In J. F. Wright, D. W. Sutcliffe, & M. T. Furse (Eds.), Assessing the biological quality of freshwaters: RIVPACS and other techniques (pp. 143–146). Cumbria: Freshwater Biological Association.
Kerans, B. L., Karr, J. R., & Ahlstedt, S. A. (1992). Aquatic invertebrate assemblages: Spatial and temporal differences among sampling protocols. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 11, 377–390.
Lenat, D. R., & Resh, V. H. (2001). Taxonomy and stream ecology—the benefits of genus and species-level identification. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 20, 287–298.
Lorenz, A., Kirchner, L., & Hering, D. (2004). “Electronic subsampling” of macrobenthic samples: How many individuals are needed for a valid assessment result? Hydrobiologia, 16, 299–312.
Mackey, A. P., Cooling, D. A., & Berrie, A. D. (1984). An evaluation of sampling strategies for qualitative surveys of macro-invertebrates in rivers, using pond nets. Journal of Applied Ecology, 21, 515–534.
Metzeling, L., & Miller, J. (2001). Evaluation of the sample size used for the rapid bioassessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia, 444, 159–170.
Metzeling, L., Chessman, B., Hardwick, R., & Wong, V. (2003). Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: The role of experience, and comparisons with quantitative methods. Hydrobiologia, 510, 39–52.
Nichols, S. J., & Norris, R. H. (2006). River condition assessment may depend on the sub-sampling method: Field live-sort versus laboratory sub-sampling of invertebrates for bioassessment. Hydrobiologia, 572, 195–213. doi:10.1007/s10750-006-0253-6.
Nijboer, R. C., & Verdonschot, P. F. M. (2000). Taxonomic adjustment affects data analysis: An often forgotten error. Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung für Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie, 27, 2546–2549.
Norris, R. H., McElravy, E. P., & Resh, V. H. (1992). The sampling problem. In P. Calow & G. E. Petts (Eds.), Rivers handbook (pp. 282–306). Oxford: Scientific Publications.
Peterman, R. M. (1990). The importance of reporting statistical power: The forest decline and acidic deposition example. Ecology, 71, 2024–2027.
Rawer-Joost, C. (2001). Eignung und Variabilität von Verfahren zur ökologischen Bewertung von Fließgewässern im Mittelgebirge auf der Basis autökologischer Kenngrössen des Makrozoobenthos. PhD thesis, University of Hohenheim.
Rotenberry, J. T., & Wiens, J. A. (1985). Statistical power analysis and community-wide patterns. American Naturalist, 125, 164–168.
Vinson, M. R., & Hawkins, C. P. (1996). Effects of sampling area and subsampling procedure on comparisons of taxa richness among streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15, 392–399.
Vlek, H. E., Šporka, F., & Krno, I. (2006). Influence of macroinvertebrate sample size on bioassessment of streams. Hydrobiologia, 566, 523–542. doi:10.1007/s10750-006-0074-7.
Vlek, H. E., Verdonschot, P. F. M., & Nijboer, R. C. (2004). Towards a multimetric index for the assessment of Dutch streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Hydrobiologia, 516, 173–189.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Keizer-Vlek, H.E., Goedhart, P.W. & Verdonschot, P.F.M. Comparison of bioassessment results and costs between preserved and unpreserved macroinvertebrate samples from streams. Environ Monit Assess 175, 613–621 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1555-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1555-8