Mesh size affects macroinvertebrate descriptions in large rivers: Examples from the Savannah and Mississippi Rivers

Hydrobiologia

Volumn 592, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 329-343

  Battle, Juliann M ^a   Jackson, John K ^a   Sweeney, Bernard W ^a  

^a STROUD WATER RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Large rivers; Macroinvertebrates; Mesh size; Metrics; Processing; Sieve

Indexed keywords

DENSITY (SPECIFIC GRAVITY); ECOLOGY; RIVERS; SEDIMENTS; SIEVES; SUBSTRATES;

LARGE RIVERS; MACROINVERTEBRATES; MESH SIZE;

MARINE BIOLOGY;

COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; FLUVIAL DEPOSIT; MACROINVERTEBRATE; MESH SIZE; POPULATION DENSITY; RELATIVE ABUNDANCE; RIVER CHANNEL; SIZE EFFECT;

AUGUSTA; CAPE GIRARDEAU; GEORGIA; MISSISSIPPI RIVER; MISSOURI; NORTH AMERICA; SAVANNAH RIVER; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34548462023     PISSN: 00188158     EISSN: 15735117     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-007-0771-x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP), 1995. Evaluating the effects of methodological variations on recent declines in aquatic insect biodiversity for the Savannah River. Report No. 95-7F. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, PA.
2. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (ANSP), 2003. 2001 Savannah River biological surveys for Westinghouse Savannah River Company. Report No. 03-08F. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, PA.
3. Angradi, T. R. (ed.), E. W. Schweiger, B. H. Hill, D. W. Bolgrien, J. M. Lazorchak, E. B. Emery, T. M. Jicha, J. A. Thomas, D. J. Klemm, S. A. Peterson, D. M. Walters, B. R. Johnson & M. Bagley, 2006. In, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Great River Ecosystems, Field Operations Manual. EPA/620/R-06/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.
4. Barber, W. E. & N. R. Kevern, 1974. Seasonal variation of sieving efficiency in a lotic habitat. Freshwater Biology 4: 293-300.
5. Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, B. D. Snyder & J. B. Stribling, 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Wadeable Streams and Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, 2nd ed. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington DC.
6. Bartsch, L. A., W. B. Richardson & T. J. Naimo, 1998. Sampling benthic macroinvertebrates in a large flood-plain river: considerations of study design, sample size, and cost. Environmental Monitoring & Assessment 52: 425-439.
7. Battle, J. M., J. K. Jackson & B. W. Sweeney, 2007. Annual and spatial variation for macroinvertebrates in the Upper Mississippi River near Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Fundamental and Applied Limnology (Archiv für Hydrobiologie) 168: 39-54.
8. Bradley, D. C. & S. J. Ormerod, 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 fr Hydrobiologie 155: 199-221.
9. Carlson, C. A., 1968. Summer bottom fauna of the Mississippi River, above dam 19, Keokuk, Iowa. Ecology 49: 162-169.
10. Carter, J. L. & V. H. Resh, 2001. After site selection and before data analysis: sampling, sorting, and laboratory procedures used in stream benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring programs by USA state agencies. Journal of North American Benthological Society 20: 658-682.
11. Corkum, L. D., J. J. H. Ciborowski & R. G. Poulin, 1997. Effects of emergence date and maternal size on egg development and sizes of eggs and first-instar nymphs of a semelparous aquatic insect. Oecologia 111: 69-75.
12. Delong, M. D., 2005. Upper Mississippi River Basin. In Benke, A. C. & C. E. Cushing (eds), Rivers of North America. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, 327-373.
13. Downing, J. A., 1979. Aggregation, transformation, and the design of benthos sampling programs. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36: 1454-1463.
14. Dukerschein, J. T., R. Gent & J. Sauer, 1996. Recovery of macroinvertebrates by screening in the field: a comparison between coarse (1.18 mm)-and fine (0.60 mm)-mesh sieves. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 11: 61-65.
15. Elliott, J. M., 1977. Some Methods for the Statistical Analysis of Samples of Benthic Invertebrates, 2nd ed. Freshwater Biological Association Scientific Publication No. 25. 156 pp.
16. Flotemersch, J. E., K. Blocksom, J. J. Hutchens Jr. & B. C. Autrey, 2006. Development of a standardized large river bioassessment protocol (LR-BP) for macroinvertebrate assemblages. River Research and Applications 22: 775-790.
17. Fremling, C. R., 2005. Immortal River: The Upper Mississippi in Ancient and Modern Times. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison WI.
18. Hauer, F. R. & V. H. Resh, 2006. Macroinvertebrates. In Hauer, F. R. & G. A. Lamberti (eds), Methods in Stream Ecology, 2nd ed. Academic Press, Boston MA, 435-463.
19. Hering, D., A. Buffagni, O. Moog, L. Sandin, M. Sommerhäuser, I. Stubauer, C. Feld, R. Johnson, P. Pinto, N. Skoulikidis, P. Verdonschot & S. Zahrádková, 2003. The development of a system to assess the ecological quality of streams based on macroinvertebrates-design of the sampling programme within the AQEM project. International Review of Hydrobiology 88: 345-361.
20. Hilsenhoff, W. L., 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7: 65-68.
21. Houston, l., M. T. Barbour, D. Lenat & D. Penrose, 2002. A multi-agency comparison of aquatic macroinvertebrate-based stream bioassessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators 1: 279-292.
22. Jackson, J. K. & L. Füreder, 2006. Long-term studies of freshwater macroinvertebrates: a review of the frequency, duration and ecological significance. Freshwater Biology 51: 591-603.
23. Jónasson, P. M., 1955. The efficiency of sieving techniques for sampling freshwater bottom fauna. Oikos 6: 183-207.
24. Lenat, D. R., 1993. A biotic index for the southeastern United States: derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water-quality ratings. Journal of North American Benthological Society 12: 279-290.
25. Marten, M., 2001. Environmental monitoring in Baden-Württemberg with special reference to biocoenotic trend-monitoring of macrozoobenthos in rivers and methodical requirements for evaluation of long-term biocoenotic changes. Aquatic Ecology 35: 159-171.
26. Mason, W. T. Jr., P. A. Lewis & P. L. Hudson, 1975. The influence of sieve mesh size selectivity on benthic invertebrate indices of eutrophication. Verhandlungen International Verein Limnologie 19: 1550-1561.
27. Morin, A., J. Stephenson, J. Strike & A. G. Solimini, 2004. Sieve retention probabilities of stream benthic invertebrates. Journal of North American Benthological Society 23: 383-391.
28. Nalepa, T. F. & A. Robertson, 1981. Screen mesh size affects estimates of macro- and meio-benthos abundance and biomass in the Great lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38: 1027-1034.
29. Patrick, R., 1996. Rivers of the United Sates. Vol. 3, The Eastern and Southeastern States. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
30. Resh, V. H., 1979. Sampling variability and life history features: basic considerations in the design of aquatic insect studies. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36: 290-311.
31. Rosenberg, D. M. & V. H. Resh, (eds), 1993. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Routledge, Chapman and Hall, New York.
32. Sarver, R., 1998. Taxonomic levels for macroinvertebrate identifications. Missouri Department of Natural Resources Division of Environmental Quality Environmental Services Program. SOP# MDNR-FSS-209.
33. Sauer, J. S., 2004. Multiyear Synthesis of the Macroinvertebrate Component from 1992 to 2002 for the Long-term Resource Monitoring Program. U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse WI, December 2004. Technical Report LTRMP 2004-T005. 31 pp + Appendixes A-C.
34. Schlacher, T. A. & T. H. Wooldridge, 1996a. How sieve mesh size affects sample estimates of estuarine benthic macrofauna. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 201: 159-171.
35. Schlacher, T. A. & T. H. Wooldridge, 1996b. How accurately can retention of benthic macrofauna by a particular mesh size be predicted from body size of organisms? Hydrobiologia 323: 149-154.
36. Schloesser, D. W. & T. F. Nalepa, 2001. Changing abundance of Hexagenia mayfly nymphs in western Lake Erie of the Laurentian Great Lakes: impediments to assessment of lake recovery? International Review of Hydrobiology 86: 87-103.
37. Smith, E. P. & J. R. Voshell Jr., 1997. Studies of benthic macroinvertebrates and fish in streams within EPA Region 3 for development of biological indicators of ecological condition. Part 1. Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Final report for Cooperative Agreement CF821462010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.
38. Strayer, D., J. S. Glitzenstein, C. G. Jones, J. Kolasa, G. E. Likens, M. J. McDonnell, G. G. Parker & S. T. A. Pickett, 1986. Long-Term ecological studies: an illustrated account of their design, operation, and importance to ecology. Occasional Publication of the Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Number 2, Millbrook, NY, 2: 1-38.
39. Tanaka, M. O. & F. P. P. Leite, 1998. The effect of sieve mesh size on the abundance and composition of macrophyte-associated macrofaunal assemblages. Hydrobiologia 389: 21-28.
40. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2005. Accessed 26 October, 2005.
41. Vinson, M. R., 2001. Long-term dynamics of an invertebrate assemblage downstream from a large dam. Ecological Applications 11: 711-730.