Comparison of benthic macroinvertebrate communities by two methods: Kick- and U-net sampling |
| |
Authors: | Robert B. Brua Joseph M. Culp Glenn A. Benoy |
| |
Affiliation: | (1) Environment Canada, National Hydrology Research Centre, 11 Innovation Boulevard, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 3H5, Canada;(2) Environment Canada (NWRI) and Canadian Rivers Institute, Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, E3B 5A3, Canada;(3) Environment Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Potato Research Centre, 850 Lincoln Road, Fredericton, NB, E3B 4Z7, Canada |
| |
Abstract: | The assessment of benthic invertebrate community condition is an integral component of freshwater biomonitoring and water quality determination. Several sampling devices have been developed to collect benthic macroinvertebrates, including qualitative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative methods. In this study, we compared several benthic macroinvertebrate metrics and community assemblage measures calculated from data obtained from two sampling methods, namely the Kick- and U-net sampling devices. We reasoned that if the two methods produced similar values for benthic metrics and community composition, then samples collected by these methods should be able to be combined to build larger data sets for use in regional bioassessment analyses. No statistical differences between Kick- and U-net methods were found among standard benthic macroinvertebrate metrics, except for Kick-nets collecting more Chironomidae. Invertebrate assemblages were very similar between collection methods, although slightly greater taxonomic richness was found in U-net samples. Bray–Curtis similarity was typically >75% between methods within a stream, while classification strength-sampling-method comparability, an approach for analyzing differences in similarity between groups, indicated invertebrate assemblage similarity between collection methods was virtually identical at approximately 100%. Since these two methods produce similar results, we conclude that benthic macroinvertebrate data collected by these methods can be combined for data analysis and bioassessments with the caveat that mesh size of the sample nets is similar. In addition, if the primary study objective is to assess macroinvertebrate biodiversity, then the U-net sampling device may be more appropriate, despite the slightly greater time needed to complete field sample collection, as it tended to collect a greater diversity of species. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|