Abstract
We examined the effect of subsample size on the accuracy of information obtained from aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblage samples. Subsamples containing 100 organisms or 300 organisms were compared on the bases of processing time and the ability to discern ecological differences among samples. Independently of subsample size, assemblages differed between study streams, primarily reflecting an intermittent vs. permanent stream difference, and between seasons at most streams. It required, on average, two additional hours to process the larger subsamples. Larger subsamples gave significantly higher estimates of total richness and Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) richness, but the relative abundances of many assemblage subsets (e.g., EPT organisms and most functional feeding groups) were similar using both subsample sizes. Larger subsamples did not typically enhance the ability to discriminate between samples from different seasons, but did more accurately distinguish among streams when differences were subtle. They also appeared to avoid Type I error in comparisons of compositionally similar reaches within a study stream.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abel, P. D. (1989). Water pollution biology (2nd edn.). Chichester, England: Ellis Horwood.
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) (2002). Assessment framework for Arkansas’ small watersheds (<80 km2) using aquatic macroinvertebrates. Little Rock, AR.
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.
Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Griffith, G. E., Frydenborg, R., McCarron, E., & White, J. S. (1996). A framework for biological criteria for Florida streams using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15, 185–211.
Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B. D., & Stribling, J. B. (1999). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Bode, R. W., Novak, M. A., & Abele, L. E. (1996). Quality assurance work plan for biological stream monitoring in New York state. Albany, NY: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Cao, Y., Williams, D. D., & Williams, N. E. (1998). How important are rare species in aquatic community ecology and bioassessment? Limnology and Oceanography, 43, 1403–1409.
Courtemanch, D. L. (1996). Commentary on the subsampling procedures used for rapid bioassessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15, 381–385.
Davidson, C. L., & Clem, S. (2002). Comparison of 100-organism vs. 300-organism subsampling for use with ADEQ’s aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling methodology. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.
DeShon, J. E. (1995). Development and application of the invertebrate community index (ICI). In W. S. Davis & T. Simon (Eds.), Biological assessment and criteria: Tools for water resource planning and decision making (pp. 217–243). Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.
Doberstein, C. P., Karr, J. R., & Conquest, L. L. (2000). The effect of fixed count subsampling on macroinvertebrate biomonitoring in small streams. Freshwater Biology, 44, 355–371.
Feminella, J. W. (1996). Comparison of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in small streams along a gradient of flow permanence. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15, 651–669.
Gaufin, A. R. (1973). Use of aquatic invertebrates in the assessment of water quality. In J. Cairns Jr. & K. L. Dickson (Eds.), Biological methods for the assessment of water quality (pp. 96–116). Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
Hellawell, J. M. (1986). Biological indicators of freshwater pollution and environmental management. London: Elsevier.
Herbst, D. B., & Silldorff, E. L. (2006). Comparison of the performance of different bioassessment methods: similar evaluations of biotic integrity from separate programs and procedures. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 25, 513–530.
Hilsenhoff, W. L. (1987). An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. Great Lakes Entomologist, 20, 31–39.
Houston, L., Barbour, M. T., Lenat, D., & Penrose, D. (2002). A multi-agency comparison of aquatic macroinvertebrate-based stream bioassessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 1, 279–292.
Kerans, B. L., & Karr, J. R. (1994). A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the Tennessee Valley. Ecological Applications, 4, 768–785.
Lenat, D. R. (1984). Agriculture and stream water quality: a biological evaluation of erosion control practices. Environmental Management, 8, 333–344.
Lenat, D. R. (1993). A biotic index for the southeastern United States: derivation and list of tolerance values with criteria for assigning water quality ratings. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 12, 279–290.
Lenat, D. R., Smock, L. A., & Penrose, D. L. (1980). Use of benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators of environmental quality. In D. L. Worf (Ed.), Biological monitoring for environmental effects (pp. 97–112). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Lorenz, A., Kirchner, L., & Hering, D. (2004). Electronic subsampling of macrobenthic samples: how many individuals are needed for a valid assessment result? Hydrobiologia, 516, 299–312.
McCord, S. B. (2006). Effectiveness of silviculture best management practices in protecting stream ecosystems in Arkansas. Dissertation, Arkansas State University.
McCord, S. B., & Lambrecht, P. R. (2006). Seasonal succession in the aquatic insect community of an Ozark stream. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 21, 323–329.
Merritt, R. W., & Cummins, K. W. (Eds.) (1996). An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America (3rd edn.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Minshall, G. W. (1981). Structure and temporal variations of the benthic macroinvertebrate community inhabiting Mink Creek, Idaho, USA, a 3rd order Rocky Mountain stream. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 1, 13–26.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) (2002). Biological criteria for wadeable/perennial streams of Missouri. Jefferson City, MO.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) (1987). Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life. Volume II: Users manual for biological field assessment of Ohio surface waters. Columbus, OH.
Omernik, J. M. (1987). Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement). Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77, 118–125.
Resh, V. H., & McElravy, E. P. (1993). Contemporary quantitative approaches to biomonitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. In D. M. Rosenberg, & V. H. Resh (Eds.), Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates (pp. 159–194). New York: Chapman and Hall.
Somers, K. M., Reid, R. A., & David, S. M. (1998). Rapid biological assessments: how many animals are enough? Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 17, 348–358.
Thorp, J. H., & Covich, A. P. (Eds.) (1991). Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates. New York: Academic.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2002). Summary of biological assessment programs and biocriteria development for states, tribes, territories, and interstate commissions: streams and wadeable rivers. Report No. EPA-822-R-02048, Washington, D.C.
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.
Williams, D. D. (1980). Temporal patterns in recolonization of stream benthos. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie, 90, 56–74.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McCord, S.B., Guha, G.S. & Grippo, R.S. Effects of subsample size on seasonal and spatial comparisons of stream macroinvertebrate communities. Environ Monit Assess 135, 409–422 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9660-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9660-z