Effects of sampling error on bioassessments of stream ecosystems: application to RIVPACS-type models

Abstract We evaluated the influence of various sources of sampling error on the precision, accuracy, and sensitivity of bioassessments based on River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System (RIVPACS)-type models. We used data from 98 minimally altered streams in western Oregon and Washington to generate 18 models representing 2 field collection techniques (fixed-area riffle and multiple-habitat collections) and 9 levels of subsampling (50, 100, …450 fixed counts). For each model, we generated 2 observed-to-expected taxa ratios (O/E). The 1st O/E was based on all predicted taxa and the 2nd excluded rare taxa (i.e., those taxa with predicted probabilities of occurrence <0.5). We then compared O/E values to determine the extent to which subsampling effort, field collection method, different field personnel, and individual site characteristics altered model performance. We also generated O/E values for 63 streams with varying amounts of watershed and channel alteration (test sites) to quantify the extent to which sampling error influenced the sensitivity of these models in detecting biological impairment. Model precision improved with increased sampling effort. However, neither collection method consistently led to more precise models. Model accuracy generally was not affected by subsampling effort, sample collection techniques, or different sample collectors. However, ∼50% of the error in predictions was associated with unexplained characteristics of individual sites. Average assessment values across all test sites were robust to both collection method and subsampling effort. However, inferences about the biological condition of some test sites varied among models. Precision, accuracy, and sensitivity all improved with the exclusion of rare taxa, although O/E values for individual test sites were more variable among models based on different subsample counts when rare taxa were excluded from model calculations. Overall, we found that the effects of sampling error on RIVPACS model performance can be minimized by constructing models from subsamples of ≥350 individuals and by excluding rare taxa from calculations of O/E.

[1]  Mike T. Furse,et al.  RIVPACS models for predicting the expected macroinvertebrate fauna and assessing the ecological quality of rivers , 2003 .

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

[3]  C. J. Walsh A multivariate method for determining optimal subsample size in the analysis of macroinvertebrate samples , 1997 .

[4]  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.

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

[6]  David P. Larsen,et al.  COMPARISON OF ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES: THE PROBLEM OF SAMPLE REPRESENTATIVENESS , 2002 .

[7]  B. J. Long-term recovery of a mountain stream from clear-cut logging : the effects of forest succession on benthic invertebrate community structure , 2000 .

[8]  Mike T. Furse,et al.  The prediction of the macro‐invertebrate fauna of unpolluted running‐water sites in Great Britain using environmental data , 1987 .

[9]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 2002, Technometrics.

[10]  Barry T Hart,et al.  Assessment of the biological health of the Brantas River, East Java, Indonesia using the Australian River Assessment System (AUSRIVAS) methodology , 2001, Aquatic Ecology.

[11]  Joseph D. Germano,et al.  Ecology, statistics, and the art of misdiagnosis: The need for a paradigm shift , 1999 .

[12]  David P. Larsen,et al.  Rare species in multivariate analysis for bioassessment: some considerations , 2001, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[13]  Jean E. Jackson,et al.  Rapid Assessment of Australian Rivers Using Macroinvertebrates: Cost and Efficiency of 6 Methods of Sample Processing , 1997, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[14]  D. Dudley Williams,et al.  How important are rare species in aquatic community ecology and bioassessment? , 1998 .

[15]  Charles P. Hawkins,et al.  Effects of Sampling Area and Subsampling Procedure on Comparisons of Taxa Richness among Streams , 1996, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[16]  G. N. Lance,et al.  A General Theory of Classificatory Sorting Strategies: 1. Hierarchical Systems , 1967, Comput. J..

[17]  N. LeRoy Poff,et al.  Landscape Filters and Species Traits: Towards Mechanistic Understanding and Prediction in Stream Ecology , 1997, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[18]  J. Karr,et al.  The effect of fixed-count subsampling on macroinvertebrate biomonitoring in small streams. , 2000 .

[19]  Richard H. Norris,et al.  Monitoring river health , 2000, Hydrobiologia.

[20]  Bruce Vondracek,et al.  Evaluation of the Fixed-Count Method for Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III with Benthic Macroinvertebrate Metrics , 1999, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[21]  Curtis J. Richardson,et al.  Evaluating Subsampling Approaches and Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Resolution for Wetland Bioassessment , 2002, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[22]  J. Wright,et al.  Derivation of a biological quality index for river sites: Comparison of the observed with the expected fauna , 1996 .

[23]  Daren M. Carlisle,et al.  Use of predictive models for assessing the biological integrity of wetlands and other aquatic habitats , 2001 .

[24]  J. F. Wright,et al.  Α comparison of alternative techniques for prediction of the fauna of running‐water sites in Great Britain , 1999 .

[25]  David M. Rosenberg,et al.  Comparison of models predicting invertebrate assemblages for biomonitoring in the Fraser River catchment, British Columbia , 2001 .

[26]  Peter Davies,et al.  Development of a national river bioassessment system (AUSRIVAS) in Australia. , 2000 .

[27]  Robert C. Bailey,et al.  Biological guidelines for freshwater sediment based on BEnthic Assessment of SedimenT (the BEAST) using a multivariate approach for predicting biological state , 1995 .

[28]  Michael K. Young,et al.  A hierarchical approach to classifying stream habitat features , 1993 .

[29]  Daniel P. Faith,et al.  Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance , 1987, Vegetatio.

[30]  Richard H. Norris,et al.  DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF PREDICTIVE MODELS FOR MEASURING THE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY OF STREAMS , 2000 .

[31]  J. Karr Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities , 1981 .

[32]  J. F. Wright,et al.  Development and use of a system for predicting the macroinvertebrate fauna in flowing waters , 1995 .

[33]  R. Marchant,et al.  Do rare species have any place in multivariate analysis for bioassessment? , 2002, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

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

[35]  V. Resh,et al.  After site selection and before data analysis: sampling, sorting, and laboratory procedures used in stream benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring programs by USA state agencies , 2001, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[36]  J. Wright,et al.  The influence of seasonal and taxonomic factors on the ordination and classification of running‐water sites in Great Britain and on the prediction of their macro‐invertebrate communities , 1984 .

[37]  Mike T. Furse,et al.  Biological assessment of river quality: development of AUSRIVAS models and outputs. , 2000 .

[38]  Donald Edward,et al.  AusRivAS: using macroinvertebrates to assess ecological condition of rivers in Western Australia , 1999 .

[39]  Daniel P. Faith,et al.  Correlation of environmental variables with patterns of distribution and abundance of common and rare freshwater macroinvertebrates , 1989 .

[40]  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.

[41]  S. Ormerod,et al.  Microhabitat availability in Welsh moorland and forest streams as a determinant of macroinvertebrate distribution , 1989 .

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

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

[44]  J. Wright,et al.  Uncertainty in estimates of biological quality based on RIVPACS. , 2000 .

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

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

[47]  Michael T. Barbour,et al.  Subsampling of Benthic Samples: A Defense of the Fixed-Count Method , 1996, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.

[48]  A. Herlihy,et al.  The Dilemma of Sampling Streams for Macroinvertebrate Richness , 1998, Journal of the North American Benthological Society.