Affiliation:
1. Department of Biology, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA 17870
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Macroinvertebrates are functional indicators of stream health based upon their sensitivity to pollution. Our study utilized different passive and active benthic macroinvertebrate collection methods (D-net, Surber sampler, rock baskets, and Hester-Dendy multiplate samplers) during the summer and fall of 2012 and 2013. Collections were taken on both sides of the west channel in the west channel of the upper main stem of the Susquehanna River near Shamokin Dam, PA. Sampling sites each included seven locations, one for passive sampling and six longitudinal locations for active sampling. Overall, we collected 50 taxa of macroinvertebrates identified to family-level, which allowed us to calculate pollution tolerance values and other comparative metrics. The Proportional Bray-Curtis Similarity Index analysis describes a very low to moderate overlap between benthic macroinvertebrate communities collected by active and passive methods (2% - 43%). Furthermore, other metrics including the Shannon Diversity and Hilsenhoff Biotic Indices reflected the variability in occurrence of pollution intolerant taxa according to method and location. The greatest variation occurred in percent EPT which showed a range of 0% to 56% in a single sample period using different methods. Passive sampling methods selectively collected colonizers and omitted other taxa (e.g. burrowers and mollusks) illustrating their bias in sampling. Overall, the metrics did not support the use of one technique over another. Rather, they supported the practice of using both passive and active collection methods in order to use macroinvertebrate community estimates to assess water quality in large rivers that have a wetted channel of cobble, silt, and sand like the upper main stem of the Susquehanna River. Based on our results we concluded that active samplers which target different habitats together with passive samplers which allow comparisons from one site to another would be the most appropriate methods to use in the upper main stem of the Susquehanna River.
Publisher
The Pennsylvania State University Press
Reference25 articles.
1. Armitage, P.D. 2006. Instream and bankside habitat in rivers. In: Biological Monitoring of Rivers, eds. Ziglio, G., M. Siligardi, and G. Flaim, pp. 17–31. West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
2. Barbour, M.T., J.Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassesment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. (2nd ed.). pp. 128–161, Washington, DC: US. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water.
3. Blocksom, K.A. and B.R. Johnson. 2011. Development of a regional macroinvertebrate index for large river bioassessment. Ecological Indicators9: 313–328.
4. Bloom, S.A. 1981. Similarity indices in community studies: potential pitfalls. Marine Ecology Progress Series5: 125–128.
5. Bray, J.R. and J.T. Curtis. 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecology27:326–349
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献