Aquatic Invertebrate Assemblages: Spatial and Temporal Differences among Sampling Protocols

Sampling protocols (different sampling gears used in different habitats) often vary among invertebrate studies. Several questions commonly arise: Which invertebrate attributes differ between pools and riffles? Are pool and riffle invertebrate assemblages differentially sensitive to the influences of human society? Can qualitative samples provide as much discriminating ability as quantitative samples? How can we best evaluate the status (biological condition) of the resident biota? We examined three sampling protocols: replicate Hess samples taken in pools, replicate Surber samples taken in riffles, and one qualitative sample from all habitats. Differences between Hess and Surber samples probably reflect differences in organisms found in pool and riffle habitats, whereas the qualitative protocol differed from the others in both habitats sampled and sampling effort. We determined differences among protocols for 18 attributes of invertebrate assemblages using data from yearly benthic samples (1986-1989) in three Tennessee River tributaries: Clinch, Powell, and Sequatchie rivers. Conditions differed among those rivers as reflected by fish assemblages (using the index of biotic integrity--IBI). We found distinct differences among the protocols and among many of the attributes selected for evaluation. Ten attributes either did not differ (stonefly and intolerant snail and mussel taxa richnesses, dominance, and proportions of omnivores, gatherers, grazers, and predators), or exhibited consistent differences (proportions of filterers, shredders, and chironomids), between riffles and pools. Of these ten attributes, six (stonefly taxa richness, dominance, and proportions of chironomids, filterers, omnivores, and predators) exhibited trends that coincided with our expectations based on fish assemblage condition. Eight attributes exhibited spatial and/or temporal trends that differed between riffles and pools (total, mayfly, caddisfly, and sediment-surface taxa richnesses, proportions of Corbicula, detritivores, and oligochaetes, and total abundance). When interyear differences among protocols were detected, trends among sites in pools, but not riffles, matched our expectations based on the biological condition of the fish assemblages (exception--the proportion of detritivores). Thus, monitoring programs may reach conclusions that are biased if biological condition is assessed with many commonly used attributes (e.g., total and mayfly taxa richnesses) and sampling is restricted to only one habitat. None of the taxa richness attributes (e.g., total and mayfly) distinguished differences among rivers in the multihabitat, qualitative protocol even though taxa counts were generally higher than in samples from either pools or riffles. Consequently, unreplicated, qualitative sampling may not have sufficient statistical power to detect subtle differences among streams. Replicated, quantitative sampling in both riffles and pools interpreted through a variety of biological attributes provides the strongest assessment of biological condition based on invertebrates.

[1]  J. M. Elliott,et al.  Some methods for the statistical analysis of samples of benthic invertebrates , 1971 .

[2]  V. Resh.  Sampling Variability and Life History Features: Basic Considerations in the Design of Aquatic Insect Studies , 1979 .

[3]  J. Flannagan.  An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. , 1979 .

[4]  Seth R. Reice,et al.  The Role of Substratum in Benthic Macroinvertebrate Microdistribution and Litter Decomposition in a Woodland Stream , 1980 .

[5]  G. Minshall,et al.  The River Continuum Concept , 1980 .

[6]  S. R. Searle,et al.  Population Marginal Means in the Linear Model: An Alternative to Least Squares Means , 1980 .

[7]  R. Green,et al.  Sampling design and statistical methods for environmental biologists. , 1979 .

[8]  Stream macroinvertebrate baseline surveys: A comparative analysis from the oil-shale regions of Colorado, USA , 1981 .

[9]  J. Allan.  THE EFFECTS OF REDUCTION IN TROUT DENSITY ON THE INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY OF A MOUNTAIN STREAM , 1982 .

[10]  M. L. Murphy,et al.  Effects of Canopy, Substrate Composition, and Gradient on the Structure of Macroinvertebrate Communities in Cascade Range Streams of Oregon , 1982 .

[11]  The Molluscan Fauna of the Elk River in Tennessee and Alabama Usa , 1984 .

[12]  P. Jumars,et al.  Flow Environments of Aquatic Benthos , 1984 .

[13]  A. Benke,et al.  INVERTEBRATE PRODUCTIVITY IN A SUBTROPICAL BLACKWATER RIVER: THE IMPORTANCE OF HABITAT AND LIFE HISTORY' , 1984 .

[14]  R. Prezant,et al.  Flotation of the Bivalve Corbicula fluminea as a Means of Dispersal , 1984, Science.

[15]  David R. Lenat,et al.  Agriculture and stream water quality: A biological evaluation of erosion control practices , 1984 .

[16]  I. Schlosser,et al.  Niche relationships and population ecology of rainbow (Etheostoma caeruleum) and fantail (E. flabellare) darters in a temporally variable environment , 1984 .

[17]  G. Minshall,et al.  Species Richness in Streams of Different Size from the Same Drainage Basin , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[18]  G. Minshall,et al.  Ecological Correlates of Species Richness in Three Guilds of Lotic Macroinvertebrates , 1987 .

[19]  A. Huryn,et al.  Local Geomorphology as a Determinant of Macrofaunal Production in a Mountain Stream. , 1987, Ecology.

[20]  A. Huryn,et al.  The exopterygote insect community of a mountain stream in North Carolina, USA: Life histories, production, and functional structure , 1987 .

[21]  Robert J. Naiman,et al.  Longitudinal patterns of ecosystem processes and community structure in a subarctic river continuum , 1987 .

[22]  A. Bogan,et al.  The Mussels lMolluscac Bivalviac Unionidaer of Tennessee , 1988 .

[23]  David R. Lenat,et al.  Water Quality Assessment of Streams Using a Qualitative Collection Method for Benthic Macroinvertebrates , 1988, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[24]  G. Minshall.  Stream Ecosystem Theory: A Global Perspective , 1988, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[25]  K. Cummins.  The Study of Stream Ecosystems: A Functional View , 1988 .

[26]  Vincent H. Resh,et al.  Year-to-Year Variation in the Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Fauna of a Northern California Stream , 1989, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[27]  I. Schlosser,et al.  Effects of Flow Regime and Cyprinid Predation on a Headwater Stream , 1989 .

[28]  D. M. Rosenberg,et al.  SPATIAL–TEMPORAL VARIABILITY AND THE STUDY OF AQUATIC INSECTS, , 1989, The Canadian Entomologist.

[29]  W. J. Matthews,et al.  Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes , 1989 .

[30]  A. J. Underwood,et al.  The analysis of stress in natural populations , 1989 .

[31]  Application of index of biotic integrity (IBI) to fixed station water quality monitoring sites , 1990 .

[32]  J. Karr.  Biological Integrity: A Long-Neglected Aspect of Water Resource Management. , 1991, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[33]  D. E. Scott,et al.  Declining Amphibian Populations: The Problem of Separating Human Impacts from Natural Fluctuations , 1991, Science.

[34]  I. Schlosser,et al.  Stream Fish Ecology: A Landscape PerspectiveLand use, which influences the terrestrial-aquatic interface, can affect fish populations and their community dynamics , 1991 .

[35]  Dallas E. Johnson,et al.  Analysis of messy data , 1992 .

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