Main Title |
Assessment of macroinvertebrate monitoring techniques in an energy development area : a test of the efficiency of three macrobenthic sampling methods in the White River / |
Author |
Pollard, J. E., ;
Kinney, W. L.
|
Other Authors |
|
CORP Author |
Environmental Monitoring and Support Lab., Las Vegas, NV. |
Publisher |
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, |
Year Published |
1979 |
Report Number |
EPA-600/7-79-163 |
Stock Number |
PB80-102734 |
OCLC Number |
06178366 |
Subjects |
Freshwater invertebrates--White River (Colo and Utah) ;
Environmental monitoring--White River (Colo and Utah) ;
United States--White River (Colorado and Utah)
|
Additional Subjects |
Intertebrates ;
White River ;
Monitoring ;
Tests ;
Assessments ;
Evaluation ;
Sampling ;
Methodology ;
Benthos ;
Limnology ;
Recommendations ;
Design ;
Efficiency ;
Colorado ;
Selectivity ;
Effectiveness ;
Water pollution ;
Meeker(Colorado)
|
Internet Access |
|
Holdings |
Library |
Call Number |
Additional Info |
Location |
Last Modified |
Checkout Status |
EKBD |
EPA-600/7-79-163 |
|
Research Triangle Park Library/RTP, NC |
01/02/2004 |
EKCD |
EPA-600/7-79-163 |
|
CEMM/GEMMD Library/Gulf Breeze,FL |
08/21/2018 |
ELBD ARCHIVE |
EPA 600-7-79-163 |
Received from HQ |
AWBERC Library/Cincinnati,OH |
10/04/2023 |
ERAD |
EPA 600/7-79-163 |
|
Region 9 Library/San Francisco,CA |
02/11/2013 |
ESAD |
EPA 600-7-79-163 |
|
Region 10 Library/Seattle,WA |
03/23/2010 |
NTIS |
PB80-102734 |
Some EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. |
|
07/26/2022 |
|
Collation |
viii, 26 pages : illustrations, 1 map ; 28 cm. |
Abstract |
Three methods of macroinvertebrate collection were evaluated for selectivity, reproducibility, capture-effectiveness, and cost efficiency in the White River near Meeker, Colorado. Samples were collected with a standard Surber sampler, with a portable invertebrate box sampler (PIBS), and using the standardized traveling kick method (STKM). Methods were evaluated in riffles of the White River directly upstream and downstream from the confluence of Piceance Creek, as well as at a comparable riffle at an upstream control station. The traveling kick method collected the largest number of animals and taxa per sample with equivalent or lower variability than the other two methods tested. While Surber samplers and the PIBS performed similarly in the vicinity of Piceance Creek, their performance differed at the upstream control station where the PIBS collected more animals and taxa per sample than the Surber sampler. Similarly, while sample processing time did not significantly differ for the various methods of collection used at any station in the vicinity of Piceance Creek, differences did exist at the upstream control station with kick samples requiring the greatest amount of processing time and Surbers requiring the least. The cost efficiency of various methods was estimated by calculating the number of animals processed per unit time and the number of hours required to provide standing crop estimates for each sample within a given precision level. Cost-efficiency estimates indicated that the STKM was superior to the Surber or PIBS methods, particularly at the station near Piceance Creek. |
Notes |
"July 1979." Includes bibliographical references (pages 25-26). |