You are here:
A COMPARISON OF SINGLE AND MULTIPLE HABITAT RAPID BIOASSESSMENT SAMPLING METHODS FOR MACROINVERTEBRATES IN PIEDMONT AND NORTHERN PIEDMONT STREAMS
Citation:
Blocksom, K A., J E. Flotemersch, AND M. Passmore. A COMPARISON OF SINGLE AND MULTIPLE HABITAT RAPID BIOASSESSMENT SAMPLING METHODS FOR MACROINVERTEBRATES IN PIEDMONT AND NORTHERN PIEDMONT STREAMS. Presented at 4th National Monitoring Conference, Chattanooga, TN, May 17-20, 2004.
Impact/Purpose:
The goal of this research is to develop methods and indicators that are useful for evaluating the condition of aquatic communities, for assessing the restoration of aquatic communities in response to mitigation and best management practices, and for determining the exposure of aquatic communities to different classes of stressors (i.e., pesticides, sedimentation, habitat alteration).
Description:
Stream macroinvertebrate collection methods described in the Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBPs) have been used widely throughout the U.S. The first edition of the RBP manual in 1989 described a single habitat approach that focused on riffles and runs, where macroinvertebrate diversity and abundance is high. This approach was adopted by many states, tribes and regions. Many scientists interpreted the revised RBP protocol published in 1999 as a recommendation for multiple habitat sampling. However, no direct comparison of the two RBP protocols was presented in the second edition, and there were no recommendations for reconciling baseline data collected using the single habitat method with data collected using the multiple habitat method. As a result, scientists have been reluctant to switch from the single habitat approach, regardless of the merits that may exist in adopting the multiple habitat approach. In this study, both the single and multiple habitat methods were performed at each of 41 sites in the Piedmont and Northern Piedmont ecoregions. Differences between methods in collected macroinvertebrate assemblages will be examined using a newly developed multimetric index for Virginia and its component metrics, as well as taxonomic similarity indices. The influence of abiotic factors and site condition on these differences will be examined to determine conditions under which the two methods collect similar samples.