Comparison of Three Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods for Use in Assessment of Water Quality Changes in Flashy Urban Streams — Oak Academic Publishing
Research ArticleOpen AccessGoogle Scholar indexed
Comparison of Three Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods for Use in Assessment of Water Quality Changes in Flashy Urban Streams
Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, USA
,
Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, USA
,
Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, USA
,
Pegasus Technical Services, c/o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, USA
1 Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, USA
2 Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, USA
3 Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, USA
4 Pegasus Technical Services, c/o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, USA
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.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2000) The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters. Office of Water (4503F), Washington DC.
Booth, D.B. Karr, J.R., Schauman, S., Konrad, C.P., Morley, S.A., Larson, M.G. and Burges, S.J. (2004) Reviving Urban Streams: Land Use, Hydrology, Biology, and Human Behavior. Journal of the American Water Resource Association, 40, 1351-1364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb01591.x
Konrad, C.P. and Booth, D.B. (2005) Hydrologic Changes in Urban Streams and Their Ecological Significance. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 47, 157-177.
Hawley, R.J., Wooten, M.S., Macmannis, K.R. and Fet, E.V. (2016) When Do Macroinvertebrate Communities of Reference Streams Resemble Urban Streams? Freshwater Science, 35, 778-794. https://doi.org/10.1086/687808
Baker, D.B., Richards, P., Loftus, T.T. and Kramer, J.W. (2004) A New Flashiness Index: Characteristics and Applications to Midwestern Rivers and Streams. Journal of the American Water Resource Association, 40, 503-522. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb01046.x
Walsh, C.J., Roy, A.H., Feminella, J.W., Cottingham, P.D., Groffman, P.M. and Morgan, R.P. (2005) The Urban Stream Syndrome: Current Knowledge and the Search for a Cure. Freshwater Science, 24, 706-723. https://doi.org/10.1899/04-028.1
Carter, J.L. and 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. https://doi.org/10.2307/1468095
Carter, J.L. and Resh, V.H. (2013) Analytical Approaches Used in Stream Benthic Macroinvertebrate Biomonitoring Programs of State Agencies in the United States. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20131129
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1996) Summary of State Biological Assessment Programs for Streams and Rivers. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Washington DC.
Goodrich, C., Huggins, D.G., Everhart, R.C. and Smith, E.F. (2005) Summary of State and National Biological and Physical Habitat Assessment Methods with a Focus on EPA Region 7 States. Kansas Biological Survey, Central Plains Center for Bioassessment, Lawrence, KS.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Ohio EPA Surface and Ground Waters Monitoring Strategy 2011-2015. Division of Surface Waters and Division of Drinking and Ground Water, Columbus, OH.
Buss, D.F., Carlisle, D.M., Chon, T.S., Culp, J., Harding, J.S., Keizer-Vlek, H.E., Robinson, W.A., Strachan, S., Thirion, C. and Hughes, R.M. (2014) Stream Biomonitoring Using Macroinvertebrates Around the Globe: A Comparison of Large-Scale Programs. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 187, Article No. 4132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-4132-8
Fritz, K.M., Johnson, B.R. and Walters, D.M. (2006) Field Operations Manual for Assessing the Hydrologic Permanence and Ecological Condition of Headwater Streams. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1990) Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface Waters. Office of Research and Development, Washington DC.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (1987) Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume II. Users Manual for Biological Field Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters. Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, OH.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (1989) Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Volume III: Standardized Biological Field Sampling and Laboratory Methods for Assessing Fish and Macroinvertebrate Communities. Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Columbus, OH.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2015) Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume III. Standardized Biological Field Sampling and Laboratory Methods for Assessing Fish and Macroinvertebrate Communities. Division of Surface Water, Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, OH.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) (2015) Biological Sampling and Physical Habitat Assessment Standard Operating Procedure for Iowa Wadeable Streams and Rivers. Revised by: IDNR Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Section and the Limnology Section of the State Hygienic Laboratory at the University of Iowa, Iowa, IA.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (2016) Ohio 2016 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Division of Surface Water, Columbus, OH.
Clohessy, E., Weidl, C., Moyer, J., Lehmann, A., Koehler, B., Wamsley, B., Miller, M. and Merrill, K. (2017) Nine-Element Nonpoint Source Implementation Strategic Plan (NPS-IS Plan), Congress Run—Mill Creek HUC-12 (050902030104). Mill Creek Watershed Council of Communities, Cincinnati, OH.
ASTM (2014) Standard Test Methods for Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils. American Society for Testing and Materials International, Philadelphia, PA.
ASTM (2015) Standard Test Method for Ash in Biomass. American Society for Testing and Materials International. Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Wentworth, C.K. (1922) A Scale of Grade and Class Terms for Clastic Sediments. Journal of Geology, 30, 377-392. https://doi.org/10.1086/622910
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2013) National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2013-2014: Field Operations Manual Wadeable. Office of Water, Washington DC.
Cummins, K.W. (1962) An Evaluation of Some Techniques for the Collection and Analysis of Benthic Samples with Special Emphasis on Lotic Waters. American Midland Naturalist, 67, 477-504. https://doi.org/10.2307/2422722
Bain, M.B., Finn, J.T. and Booke, H.E. (1985) Quantifying Stream Substrate for Habitat Analysis Studies. North American Journal of Fish Management, 5, 499-500. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1962)91[420:AMSFAM]2.0.CO;2
Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K. and Hughes, R.M. (1989) Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. US Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Washington DC.
Hester, F.E. and Dendy, J.S. (1962) A Multiple-Plate Sampler for Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 91, 420-421. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1962)91[420:AMSFAM]2.0.CO;2
Turner, A.M. and Trexler, J.C. (1997) Sampling Aquatic Invertebrates from Marshes: Evaluating the Options. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16, 694-709. https://doi.org/10.2307/1468154
Difranco, J. (2006) Protocols for Sampling Aquatic Macroinvertebrates in Freshwater Wetlands. State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Land and Water Quality, Augusta, ME.
Weber, C.I. (1973) Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents. US Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring Series, Washington DC.
Merritt, R.W., Cummins, K.W. and Berg, M.B. (2008) An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. 4th Edition, Kendall Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, IA.
Epler, J.H. (2001) Identification Manual for the Larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of North and South Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Simpson, K.W. and Bode, R.W. (1980) Common Larvae of Chironomidae (Diptera) from New York State Streams and Rivers. New York State Education Department, Albany, NY.
Mccune, B. and Grace, J.B. (2002) Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR.
Mccune, B. and Mefford, M.J. (2011) PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 6.21. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR.
Shaw, D.W. and Minshall, G.W. (1980) Colonization of an Introduced Substrate by Stream Macroinvertebrates. Oikos, 34, 259-271. https://doi.org/10.2307/3544285
Clements, W.H., Van Hassel, J.H., Cherry, D.S. and Cairns, J. (1989) Colonization, Variability, and the Use of Substratum-Filled Trays for Biomonitoring Benthic Communities. Hydrobiologia, 173, 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00008597
Clements, W.H. (1991) Characterization of Stream Benthic Communities Using Substrate-Filled Trays: Colonization, Variability, and Sampling Selectivity. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 6, 209-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.1991.9665295
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (2014) Standard Operating Procedure. Biological Monitoring of Surface Waters in New York State. Water Division, Albany, NY, SOP 208-214.
Bowman, M.F. and Bailey, R.C. (1997) Does Taxonomic Resolution Affect the Multivariate Description of the Structure of Freshwater Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54, 1802-1807. https://doi.org/10.1139/f97-085
Bailey, R.C., Norris, R.H. and Reynoldson, T.B. (2001) Taxonomic Resolution of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities in Bioassessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 20, 280-286. https://doi.org/10.2307/1468322
Langton, P.H. and Casas, J. (1999) Changes in Chironomid Assemblage Composition in Two Mediterranean Mountain Streams over a Period of Extreme Hydrological Conditions. Hydrobiologia, 390, 37-49. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003589216389
Kosnicki, E. and Sites, R.W. (2007) Least-Desired Index for Assessing the Effectiveness of Grass Riparian Filter Strips in Improving Water Quality in an Agricultural Region. Environmental Entomolology, 36, 713-724. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/36.4.713
Serra, S.R.Q., Graca, M.A.S., Doledec, S. and Feio, M.J. (2017) Chironomidae Traits and Life History Strategies as Indicators of Anthropogenic Disturbance. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 189, Article No. 326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-017-6027-y
Roby, K.B., Newbold, J.D. and Erman, D.C. (1978) Effectiveness of an Artificial Substrate for Sampling Macroinvertebrates in Small Streams. Freshwater Biology, 8, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1978.tb01420.x
Kirk, E.J. and Perry, S.A. (1994) A Comparison of Three Artificial Substrate Samplers: Macroinvertebrate Densities, Taxa Richness, and Ease of Use. Water Environment Research, 66, 193-198. https://doi.org/10.2175/WER.66.3.3
Hughes, B.D. (1975) A Comparison of Four Samplers for Benthic Macro-Invertebrates Inhabiting Coarse River Deposits. Water Research, 9, 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(75)90153-0
Crossman, J.S. and Cairns, J. (1974) A Comparative Study between Two Different Artificial Substrate Samplers and Regular Sampling Techniques. Hydrobiologia, 44, 517-522. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00036315
Boothroyd, I.K.G. and Dickie, B.N. (1989) Macroinvertebrate Colonisation of Perspex Artificial Substrates for Use in Biomonitoring Studies. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 23, 467-478. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330.1989.9516383
Wene, G. and Wickliff, E.L. (1940) Modification of a Stream Bottom and Its Effect on the Insect Fauna. Thecanadian Entomologist, 72, 131-135. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent72131-7
Cummins, K.W. and Lauff, G.H. (1969) The Influence of Substrate Particle Size on the Microdistribution of Stream Macrobenthos. Hydrobiologia, 34, 145-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00141925
Allan, J.D. (1975) The Distributional Ecology and Diversity of Benthic Insects in Cement Creek, Colorado. Ecology, 56, 1040-1053. https://doi.org/10.2307/1936145
Minshall, G.W. and Minshall, J.N. (1977) Microdistribution of Benthic Invertebrates in a Rocky Mountain (USA) Stream. Hydrobiologia, 55, 231-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00017555
Khalaf, G. and Tachet, H. (1980) Colonization of Artificial Substrata by Macro-Invertebrates in a Stream and Variations According to Stone Size. Freshwater Biology, 10, 475-482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1980.tb01220.x
Williams, D.D. and Hynes, H.B.N. (1974) The Occurrence of Benthos Deep in the Substratum of a Stream. Freshwater Biology, 4, 233-256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.1974.tb00094.x
Simmons Jr., G.M. and Winfield, A. (1971) A Feasibility Study Using Conservation Webbing as an Artificial Substrate in Microbenthic Studies. The Virginia Journal of Science, 22, 52-59.
Slack, K.V., Ferreira, R.F. and Averett, R.C. (1986) Comparison of Four Artificial Substrates and the Ponar Grab for Benthic Invertebrate Collection. Water Resource Bulletin, 22, 237-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1986.tb01880.x
Humphries, P., Growns, J.E., Serafini, L.G., Hawking, J.H., Chick, A.J. and Lake, P.S. (1998) Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods for Lowland Australian Rivers. Hydrobiologia, 364, 209-218. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003221602632