Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What do qualitative rapid assessment collections of macroinvertebrates represent? A comparison with extensive quantitative sampling

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is a fundamental tenet of Rapid Biological Assessments (RBA) that the samples collected reflect the community from which they are drawn. As with any biological sampling, RBA collections are subject to sampling error resulting in the omission of some taxa. The aim of this study is to compare the composition of RBA samples with an estimate of community structure based on extensive quantitative sampling. We used logistic regression to explore the relationships between the frequency of a taxon being collected in an RBA sample and its biological and ecological traits, namely its abundance, distribution, body size and habit. RBA samples and quantitative estimates of community structure were made in riffles in the Kangaroo and Nepean Rivers, New South Wales, Australia. Single RBA samples may collect up to 63% of the taxa that are collected by extensive quantitative sampling at a site. The frequency of a taxon being recorded in an RBA sample was significantly and positively related to all traits tested indicating a bias in the collection methods towards large, abundant and widely distributed taxa. Accordingly, taxa missed by RBA sampling were generally small, narrowly distributed or rare. These findings enhance our understanding of what RBA samples represent, and the bias and source of errors associated with RBA sampling. This study also quantifies the utility of RBA methods for biodiversity assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bradley, D. C., & Ormerod, S. J. (2002). Evaluating the precision of kick-sampling in upland streams for assessments of long-term change: The effects of sampling effort, habitat and rarity. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie, 155, 199–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao, Y., Williams, D. D., & Larsen, D. P. (2002). Comparison of ecological communities: The problem of sample representativeness. Ecological Monographs, 72, 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chessman, B. C. (2003). New sensitivity grades for Australian river macroinvertebrates. Marine and Freshwater Research, 54, 95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. T., Furse, M. T., Gunn, J. M., Winder, J. M., & Wright, J. F. (2002). Sampling variation in macroinvertebrate data and implications for river quality indices. Freshwater Biology, 47, 1735–1751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, R. K. (2000). EstimateS version 6.0b1. University of Connecticut. Retrieved December 2003 from, http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimate.

  • Frost, S., Huni, A., & Kershaw, W. E. (1971). Evaluation of a kicking technique for sampling stream bottom fauna. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 49, 167–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furse, M. T., Wright, J. F., Armitage, P. D., & Moss, D. (1981). An appraisal of pond-net samples for biological monitoring of lotic macroinvertebrates. Water Research, 15, 679–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston, K. J. (2003). The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaston, K. J., & Kunin, W. E. (1997). Rare-common differences: An overview. In W. E. Kunin & K. J. Gaston (Eds.), The biology of rarity: Causes and consequences of rare-common differences (pp. 12–29). New York: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Growns, J. E., Chessman, B. C., Jackson, J. E., & Ross, D. G. (1997). Rapid assessment of Australian rivers using macroinvertebrates: Cost and efficiency of 6 methods of sampling. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16, 682–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannaford, M. J., & Resh, V. H. (1995). Variability in macroinvertebrate rapid-bioassessment surveys and habitat assessments in a northern California stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 14, 430–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, B. T., Davies, P. E., Humphrey, C. L., Norris, R. H., Sudaryanti, S., & Trihadiningrum, Y. (2001). Application of the Australian river bioassessment system (AUSRIVAS) in the Brantas River, East Java, Indonesia. Journal of Environmental Management, 62, 93–100.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, C. P., Norris, R. H., Hogue, J. N., & Feminella, J. W. (2000). Development and evaluation of predictive models for measuring the biological integrity of streams. Ecological Applications, 10, 1456–1477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornig, C. E., & Pollard, J. E. (1978). Macroinvertebrate sampling techniques for streams in semi-arid regions. Comparison of surber and unit-effort travelling kick method. Office of Resource Development, Monitoring Support Lab. EPA 600/4-98-040. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV.

  • Hose, G., Turak, E., & Waddell, N. (2004). Reproducibility of AUSRIVAS rapid bioassessments using macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 23, 126–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, D., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughs, B. D. (1975). A comparison of four samplers for benthic macroinvertebrates inhabiting coarse river deposits. Water Research, 9, 61–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, C. L., Storey, A. W., & Thurtell, L. (2000). AUSRIVAS: Operator sample processing errors and temporal variability - implications for model sensitivity. In J. F. Wright, D. W. Sutcliffe, & M. T. Furse (Eds.), Assessing the biological quality of freshwaters: RIVPACS and other techniques (pp. 143–163). Cumbria, U.K.: Freshwater Biological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerans, B. L., Karr, J. R., & Ahlstedt, S. A. (1992). Aquatic invertebrate assemblages: Spatial and temporal differences among sampling protocols. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 11, 377–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, S. L. (1992). Competition and the structure of a benthic stream community. Ecological Monographs, 62, 165–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroger, R. L. (1972). Underestimation of standing crop by the Surber sampler. Limnology and Oceanography, 17, 475–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchant, R. (1989). A subsampler for samples of benthic invertebrates. Bulletin Australian Society of Limnology, 12, 49–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchant, R. (2002). Do rare species have any place in multivariate analysis for bioassessment? Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 21, 311–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menard, S. (2002). Applied logistic regression analysis. Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 106 (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merritt, R. W., & Cummins, K. W. (1996). An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzeling, L., Chessman, B., Hardwick, R., & Wong, V. (2003). Rapid assessment of rivers using macroinvertebrates: The role of experience, and comparisons with quantitative methods. Hydrobiologia, 510, 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metzeling, L., Robinson, D., Perriss, S., & Marchant, R. (2002). Temporal persistence of benthic invertebrate communities in south-eastern Australian streams: Taxonomic resolution and implications for the use of predictive models. Marine and Freshwater Research, 53, 1223–1234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, B. R., Thrall, P. H., Gill, A. M., & Nicotra, A. B. (2002). How plant life-history and ecological traits relate to species rarity and commonness at varying spatial scales. Austral Ecology, 27, 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, S. J., & Norris, R. H. (2006). River condition assessment may depend on the sub-sampling method: Field live-sort versus laboratory sub-sampling of invertebrates for bioassessment. Hydrobiologia, 572, 195–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plafkin, J. L., Barbour, M. T., Porter, K. D., Gross, S. K., & Hughes, R. M. (1989). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. EPA/444/4-89-001. Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poff, N. L., Olden, J. D., Vieira, N. K. M., Finn, D. S., Simmons, M. P., & Kondratieff, B. C. (2006). Functional trait niches of North American lotic insects: Traits-based ecological applications in light of phylogenetic relationships. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 25, 730–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2005). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved August 20 2005, from www.R-project.org.

  • Resh, V. H. (1979). Sampling variability and life history features: Basic considerations in the design of aquatic insect studies. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 36, 290–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resh, V. H., Beche, L. A., & McElravy, E. P. (2005). How common are rare taxa in long-term benthic macroinvertebrate surveys? Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24, 976–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynoldson, T. B., Rosenberg, D. M., & Resh, V. H. (2001). Comparison of models predicting invertebrate assemblages for biomonitoring in the Fraser River catchment, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58, 1395–1410.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, P. E., Tokeshi, M., & Schmid-Araya, J. M. (2000). Relation between population density and body size in stream communities. Science, 289, 1557–1560.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. C., & Norris, R. H. (2000). Biological assessment of river quality: Development of AUSRIVAS models and outputs. In J. F. Wright, D. W. Sutcliffe, & M. T. Furse (Eds.), Assessing the biological quality of freshwaters: RIVPACS and other techniques (pp. 125–142). Cumbria, U.K.: Freshwater Biological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, J. D. (1993). Performance of the Macroinververtebrate Community Index: Effects of sampling method, sample replication, water depth, current velocity and substratum on index values. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 27, 463–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stead, T. K., Schmid-Araya, J. M., Schmid, P. E., & Hildrew, A. G. (2005). The distribution of body size in a stream community: One system, many patterns. Journal of Animal Ecology, 74, 475–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storey, A. W., Edward, D. H. D., & Gazey, P. (1991). Surber and Kick sampling: A comparison for the assessment of macroinvertebrates community structure in streams of south-western Australia. Hydrobiologia, 211, 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turak, E., Waddell, N., & Johnstone, G. (2004). Australia-wide assessment of river health: New South Wales AusRivAS sampling and processing manual. Monitoring River Heath Initiative technical report number 13. Commonwealth of Australia and New South Wales Environment Protection Authority, Canberra and Sydney, Australia. Retrieved September 10 2006, from www.deh.gov.au/water/rivers/nrhp/manual-nsw/index.html.

  • Wright, J. F. (2000). An introduction to RIVPACS. In J. F. Wright, D. W. Sutcliffe, & M. T. Furse (Eds.), Assessing the biological quality of freshwaters: RIVPACS and other techniques (pp. 1–24). Cumbria, U.K.: Freshwater Biological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. F., Furse, M. T., & Armitage, P. D. (1993). RIVPACS-a technique for evaluating the biological quality of rivers in the U.K. European Water Pollution Control, 3, 15–25.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. G. C. Hose

    Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Sciences and Institute for Water and Environmental Resource Management, University of Technology Sydney, P.O. Box 123, Broadway, NSW, 2007, Australia

    C. L. Gillies & G. C. Hose

  2. Water and Catchments Science Section, New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation, P.O. Box A290, Sydney South, NSW, 1232, Australia

    E. Turak

Authors
  1. C. L. Gillies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. C. Hose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Turak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. C. Hose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gillies, C.L., Hose, G.C. & Turak, E. What do qualitative rapid assessment collections of macroinvertebrates represent? A comparison with extensive quantitative sampling. Environ Monit Assess 149, 99–112 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0186-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0186-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation