You are here:
A COMPARISON OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING METHODS FOR NON-WADEABLE RIVERINE ECOSYSTEMS
Citation:
Flotemersch, J E., K A. Blocksom, AND B C. Autrey. A COMPARISON OF BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING METHODS FOR NON-WADEABLE RIVERINE ECOSYSTEMS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-06/055 (NTIS PB2007-103757), 2003.
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:
Bioassessment of non-wadeable streams in the U.S. is becoming more common, but methods for these systems are not as well developed as for wadeable streams. This problem was recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional scientists as critical to their monitoring and enforcement activities and, through the Office of Science Policy's Regional Methods (RM) program, funding for a research initiative was awarded to the National Exposure Research Laboratory, Ecological Exposure Research Division, Cincinnati, Ohio. The funding was provided to support the investigation of existing sampling methods for the bioassessment and monitoring of non-wadeable rivers and the development of new methods where needed.
We compared six benthic macroinvertebrate field sampling methods for non-wadeable rivers, two adapted from those used by each of three major programs: the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program-Surface Waters (EMAP-SW) of the USEPA, the National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Division of Surface Water Biocriteria Program of the Ohio EPA. We performed all six methods at a total of sixty sites across four tributaries to the Ohio River. Methods varied greatly with respect to the equiment used, the mesh sizes of equipment, and the key characteristics of the sampling technique, ranging from qualitative to quantitative, from passive to active, and from subjective to systematic. In addition to macroinvertebrate samples, water chemistry and physical habitat data were collected at each site to assess relationships between macroinvertebrate metrics and abiotic site condition. A single protocol was used to collect water chemistry samples and the EMAP-SW protocol was used to collect habitat data.
Sites were divided into two classes based on flow regimes: those influenced by navigational lock and dam structures built to support commercial traffic (i.e., restricted flow, or RF) and those free-flowing or having only low-head dams (i.e., run-of-the-river, or ROR).