Rapid Assessment of Australian Rivers Using Macroinvertebrates: Cost and Efficiency of 6 Methods of Sample Processing

The cost and efficiency of different techniques for processing rapid-assessment samples of lotic macroinvertebrates were evaluated. Subsamples of 50, 100, and 150 selectively picked individuals were compared to determine the optimal subsample size for selective picks. Selective subsampling of a set number of animals was then compared with subsampling by picking for a set time (30 min), exhaustive picking of a sample, and randomly subsampling 100 animals. Identification was to family level. Efficiency was assessed by comparing the ability of data generated by each technique to discriminate between unpolluted reference sites and sites with mild to severe pollution by municipal effluent and urban stormwater runoff. This discrimination was tested using both univariate metrics (SIGNAL biotic index, family richness, and EPT [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera] family richness) and multivariate tests (analysis of similarity--ANOSIM). Cost was assessed as the amount of time each method required for picking and identification. The selective 100-animal subsample is recommended as the most cost-effective method for assessing sites affected by municipal sewage-treatment-plant discharges and urban stormwater runoff. SIGNAL was the best of the 3 metrics, having the most highly significant differences between reference and polluted sites and being most robust to variations in processing method. ANOSIM could distinguish between the reference and polluted sites using any of the sample processing methods, but the degree of the distinction varied with sample processing method.

[1]  Michael T. Barbour,et al.  Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers , 1989 .

[2]  V. Pettigrove.  The importance of site selection in monitoring the macroinvertebrate communities of the Yarra River, Victoria , 1990, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[3]  B. Kerans,et al.  Aquatic Invertebrate Assemblages: Spatial and Temporal Differences among Sampling Protocols , 1992, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[4]  D. M. Rosenberg,et al.  Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. , 1994 .

[5]  E. Orive,et al.  Assessing river water quality by means of multifactorial methods using macroinvertebrates. A comparative study of main water courses of Biscay. , 1990 .

[6]  J. M. Hellawell.  Biological indicators of freshwater pollution and environmental management , 1986 .

[7]  Michael T. Barbour,et al.  Evaluation of EPA's rapid bioassessment benthic metrics: Metric redundancy and variability among reference stream sites , 1992 .

[8]  J. Metcalfe-Smith,et al.  A comparison of sampling techniques and summary indices for assessment of water quality in the Yamaska River, Québec, based on benthic macroinvertebrates , 1992, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[9]  M. T. Furse,et al.  The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macroinvertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites , 1983 .

[10]  W. Hilsenhoff,et al.  An Improved Biotic Index of Organic Stream Pollution , 2017, The Great Lakes Entomologist.

[11]  R. Norris,et al.  Design and implementation of rapid assessment approaches for water resource monitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates , 1995 .

[12]  John D. Stark,et al.  Performance of the macroinvertebrate community index: effects of sampling method, sample replication, water depth, current velocity, and substratum on index values , 1993 .

[13]  A. Spacie,et al.  Biological Monitoring of Aquatic Systems , 1994 .

[14]  M. Parsons,et al.  The effect of habitat‐specific sampling on biological assessment of water quality using a predictive model , 1996 .

[15]  B. Chessman,et al.  Some effects of the 1982-83 drought on water quality and macroinvertebrate fauna in the lower La Trobe River, Victoria , 1987 .

[16]  J. A. Camargo,et al.  Macrobenthic surveys as a valuable tool for assessing freshwater quality in the Iberian Peninsula , 1993, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[17]  B. Chessman,et al.  Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: A procedure based on habitat‐specific sampling, family level identification and a biotic index , 1995 .

[18]  K. R. Clarke,et al.  Non‐parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure , 1993 .

[19]  A. Mackey,et al.  An evaluation of sampling strategies for qualitative surveys of macro-invertebrates in rivers, using pond nets , 1984 .

[20]  Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: Case studies in the Nepean River and Blue Mountains, NSW , 1995 .

[21]  W. Hilsenhoff.  Rapid Field Assessment of Organic Pollution with a Family-Level Biotic Index , 1988, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[22]  E. Dunigan.  Biological Indicators of Freshwater Pollution and Environmental Management , 1988 .

[23]  J. Culp,et al.  Macroinvertebrate Subsampling: A Simplified Apparatus and Approach , 1982 .

[24]  John R. Jones,et al.  Biotic Index Tested for Ability to Assess Water Quality of Missouri Ozark Streams , 1981 .