Effect of sampling different habitat types in regional macroinvertebrate bioassessment surveys

Abstract One of the dilemmas in designing any large-scale macroinvertebrate bioassessment is deciding where to sample within streams. Streams contain a wide variety of habitats with varying macroinvertebrate assemblages, yet consistency in sampling protocol is needed to interpret results across sites in a region. The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) conducted large regional probability surveys in the mid-Atlantic (1993–1998) and the western US (2000–2001). In these surveys, 2 macroinvertebrate sample types were collected at each site: pool and riffle in the mid-Atlantic region, and reachwide and riffle in the western US. We analyzed data from sites where both types of samples had been collected (206 mid-Atlantic and 293 western US sites) to examine the effects of sample type on typical metric and multivariate analyses done in bioassessments. Sample types differed in terms of taxon richness measures and assemblage composition, and differences were more pronounced between mid-Atlantic riffle and pool samples than between western US reachwide and riffle samples. Nonetheless, sample-type differences did not obscure the overall pattern in ordination analyses, nor did they influence detection of important environmental gradients. In addition, bioassessments based on Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxon richness showed that regional assessments differed little with sample type. Our analyses indicate that typical bioassessment methods are relatively robust with respect to sample type in regional surveys. Reachwide sampling could be used with little risk to the quality of assessments in surveys covering large geographic areas where a single targeted habitat may not occur at all sites. Reachwide sampling is also easy to apply consistently at most sites and requires approximately the same effort and cost as single-habitat sampling.

[1]  R. Hewlett.  Implications of taxonomic resolution and sample habitat for stream classification at a broad geographic scale , 2000, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[2]  Steven G. Paulsen,et al.  Designing a Spatially Balanced, Randomized Site Selection Process for Regional Stream Surveys: The EMAP Mid-Atlantic Pilot Study , 2000 .

[3]  Melissa Parsons,et al.  Using hierarchy to select scales of measurement in multiscale studies of stream macroinvertebrate assemblages , 2004, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[4]  Richard K. Johnson,et al.  Ecoregions and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages of Swedish streams , 2000, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

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

[6]  David P. Larsen,et al.  Comparing strengths of geographic and nongeographic classifications of stream benthic macroinvertebrates in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, USA , 2000, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[7]  Susan M. Cormier,et al.  Methods Development and use of Macroinvertebrates as Indicators of Ecological Conditions for Streams in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Region , 2002, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[8]  Judith L. Li,et al.  From continua to patches: examining stream community structure over large environmental gradients , 2002 .

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

[10]  David P. Larsen,et al.  Variability in stream macroinvertebrates at multiple spatial scales , 2001 .

[11]  C. F. Rabeni,et al.  Testing the biological basis of a stream habitat classification using benthic invertebrates , 2002 .

[12]  A. Rosemond,et al.  Habitat-specific responses of stream insects to land cover disturbance: biological consequences and monitoring implications , 2003, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[13]  J. Stoddard,et al.  Development and Evaluation of a Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index (MBII) for Regionally Assessing Mid-Atlantic Highlands Streams , 2003, Environmental management.

[14]  A. Olsen,et al.  Spatially Balanced Sampling of Natural Resources , 2004 .

[15]  Richard H. Norris,et al.  Assessment of river condition at a large spatial scale using predictive models , 1999 .

[16]  Arthur V. Brown,et al.  Comparisons of benthic invertebrates between riffles and pools , 1991, Hydrobiologia.

[17]  Mike T. Furse,et al.  Use of macroinvertebrate communities to detect environmental stress in running waters , 1994 .

[18]  Peter R. Minchin,et al.  An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination , 1987, Vegetatio.

[19]  C. Palmer,et al.  Are Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in the Buffalo River, Southern Africa, Associated with Particular Biotopes? , 1991, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[20]  Bruce McCune,et al.  Improving community analysis with the Beals smoothing function , 1994 .

[21]  W. P. Williams,et al.  Measuring the responses of macroinvertebrate communities to water pollution: a comparison of multivariate approaches, biotic and diversity indices , 2004, Hydrobiologia.

[22]  Mike T. Furse,et al.  A preliminary classification of running‐water sites in Great Britain based on macro‐invertebrate species and the prediction of community type using environmental data , 1984 .

[23]  M. Barbour,et al.  Assessment framework for mid-Atlantic coastal plain streams using benthic macroinvertebrates , 2000, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[24]  L. Metzeling,et al.  Macroinvertebrate Regionalisation for use in the Management of Aquatic Ecosystems in Victoria, Australia , 2002, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[25]  M. Barbour,et al.  Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton , 1999 .

[26]  B. McCune,et al.  Analysis of Ecological Communities , 2002 .

[27]  D. L. McCulloch.  Benthic macroinvertebrate distributions in the riffle-pool communities of two east Texas streams , 1986, Hydrobiologia.

[28]  N. S. Urquhart,et al.  The effects of macroinvertebrate taxonomic resolution in large landscape bioassessments: an example from the Mid-Atlantic Highlands, U.S.A. , 2004 .

[29]  J. Heino,et al.  Correspondence between regional delineations and spatial patterns in macroinvertebrate assemblages of boreal headwater streams , 2002, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[30]  C. Frissell,et al.  A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: Viewing streams in a watershed context , 1986 .

[31]  J. Kruskal.  Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis , 1964 .

[32]  J. Quinn,et al.  Characterisation and classification of benthic invertebrate communities in 88 New Zealand rivers in relation to environmental factors , 1990 .

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

[34]  Jeffrey D. Ostermiller,et al.  Effects of sampling error on bioassessments of stream ecosystems: application to RIVPACS-type models , 2004, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.