A comparative study of three air-lift samplers used for sampling benthic macro-invertebrates in rivers

SUMMARY. From 16 air-lift samplers described in the literature, three were selected for operation from a small boat: Mackey, Pearson et al. and Verollet & Tachet samplers. Random samples (number of sampling units n= 10) were taken in a large tank with a known number of dried peas, representing invertebrates, amongst stones of uniform size. Separate experiments were performed with three sizes of stones (modal sizes 2–4, 16–20 and 32–36 mm). Stratified-random samples (usually n= 10) were taken in rivers at lour sites with modal particle sizes of < 0.1 2–4. 32–128 and 64–128 mm. The samplers were compared with a Ponar grab in the tank experiments and the field, and with a Naturalist's dredge in the field. Rates of pumping at different air-flows were established for each sampler. Water-How increased with increasing air-How and increasing submergence of the riser-pipe. The Mackey sampler achieved the highest water-flow and lifted more substratum and larger stones (64–128 mm) than the other samplers. The Verollet & Tachet sampler had the lowest pumping rate and failed to lift stones > 8 mm long, whilst the Pearson et al. sampler, with an intermediate performance, lifted mud and stones < 32 mm long. In the tank experiments, the area from which the Mackey and Pearson et al. samplers collected peas varied with air-flow, operating time and type of substratum. The Maekey sampler over-sampled and the Pearson et al. sampler usually under-sampled their respective sampling areas, except the latter sampler at high air-flows gave approximately quantitative results comparable to those of the Ponar grab for peas on the surface of stones 16–20 mm. No sampler collected much at a depth of 3 cm on larger stones (32–36 mm), and the Verollet & Tachet sampler failed completely on all substrata. In field trials, the Mackey and Pearson et al. samplers provided good qualitative samples except on large stones (32–128mm). The Verollet & Tachet sampler lifted little material. The relative abundance of taxa often differed between samplers. Estimates of the number of invertebrates per m² differed widely between samplers except for the Pearson et al. and Ponar grab which gave similar quantitative results at three sites. Values were very low for the Verollet & Tachet sampler and Naturalist's dredge and always very high for the Mackey sampler which often grossly over-sampled its sampling area. Therefore, these three samplers cannot be considered as quantitative. The relationship between the variances and the means of samples of peas in the tank and most invertebrates in the field followed a power law with values of the exponent b in the range 1.13–2.51. The present study completes the evaluation of 14 samplers used to sample benthic macro-invertebrates in deep rivers, and the more important conclusions from the comparative studies of seven grabs, four dredges and three air-lift samplers are summarized in a table.