Loughborough University
Leicestershire, UK
LE11 3TU
+44 (0)1509 263171
Loughborough University

Loughborough University Institutional Repository

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/24744

Title: Comparability of macroinvertebrate biomonitoring indices of river health derived from semi-quantitative and quantitative methodologies
Authors: Everall, Nicholas C.
Johnson, Matthew F.
Wood, Paul J.
Farmer, Andrew
Wilby, Robert L.
Measham, Nick
Keywords: Macroinvertebrate
Species richness
Biological monitoring
Biotic index
River
Issue Date: 2017
Publisher: © Elsevier
Citation: EVERALL, N.C. ... et al, 2017. Comparability of macroinvertebrate biomonitoring indices of river health derived from semi-quantitative and quantitative methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 78, pp. 437-448.
Abstract: Aquatic macroinvertebrates have been the basis for one of the primary indicators and a cornerstone of lotic biomonitoring for over 40 years. Despite the widespread use of lotic invertebrates in statutory biomonitoring networks, scientific research and citizen science projects, the sampling methodologies employed frequently vary between studies. Routine statutory biomonitoring has historically relied on semi-quantitative sampling methods (timed kick sampling), while much academic research has favoured fully quantitative methods (e.g. Surber sampling). There is an untested assumption that data derived using quantitative and semi-quantitative samples are not comparable for biomonitoring purposes. As a result, data derived from the same site, but using different sampling techniques, have typically not been analysed together or directly compared. Here, we testthis assumption by comparing a range of biomonitoring metrics derived from data collected using timed semi-quantitative kick samples and quantitative Surber samples fromthe same sites simultaneously.In total, 39 pairs of samples from7 rivers in the UK were compared for two seasons (spring and autumn). We found a strong positive correlation (rs = +0.84) between estimates of taxa richness based on ten Surber sub-samples and a single kick sample. The majority of biomonitoring metrics were comparable between techniques, although only fully quantitative sampling allows the density of the community (individual m−2) to be determined. However, this advantage needs to be balanced alongside the greater total sampling time and effort associated with the fully quantitative methodology used here. Kick samples did not provide a good estimate of relative abundance of a number of species/taxa and, therefore, the quantitative method has the potential to provide important additional information which may support the interpretation of the biological metrics.
Description: This paper is closed access until 31st March 2018.
Sponsor: Salmon and Trout Conservation UK
Version: Accepted for publication
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.040
URI: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/24744
Publisher Link: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.040
ISSN: 1470-160X
Appears in Collections:Closed Access (Geography)

Files associated with this item:

File Description SizeFormat
Everall et al. 2017 - accepted version.pdfAccepted version798.74 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

 

SFX Query

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.