Comparison of macroinvertebrate sampling methods for nonwadeable streams.
Bioassessment of nonwadeable streams in the United States is increasing, but methods for these systems are not as well-developed as for wadeable streams. In this study, we compared six macroinvertebrate field sampling methods for nonwadeable streams adapted from those used by three major programs: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program-Surface Waters, the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment Program, and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water Biocriteria Program. We performed all six methods at 60 sites across four rivers and measured water chemistry and physical habitat at each site to assess abiotic conditon. Sites were divided into two groups: those influenced by navigational lock and dam structures (restricted flow, or RF) and those free-flowing or with lowhead dams (run-of-the-river, or ROR). Metrics based on passive Hester-Dendy artificial substrate samplers differed greatly from active sampling methods (i.e., using nets) but represented abiotic conditions well in both ROR and RF sites. Although metric values were similar across certain sampling methods, the metrics significantly correlated with abiotic variables varied among methods and between ROR and RF sites. These results emphasize that methods are not interchangeable, and the ability to detect certain stressors depends on sampling method.
Blocksom
Karen A
KA
National Exposure Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Exposure Research Division, 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. blocksom.karen@epa.gov
Flotemersch
Joseph E
JE
D000818:Animals; D044822:Biodiversity; D004784:Environmental Monitoring / Q000379:methods*; D007448:Invertebrates; D007629:Kentucky; D009820:Ohio; D045483:Rivers