2006
DOI: 10.1007/s10750-006-0078-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of sampling and sub-sampling variation using the STAR-AQEM sampling protocol on the precision of macroinvertebrate metrics

Abstract: As part of the extensive field sampling programme within the European Union STAR project, replicate macroinvertebrate samples were taken using the STAR-AQEM sampling method at each of 2-13 sites of varying ecological quality within each of 15 stream types spread over 12 countries throughout Europe. The STAR-AQEM method requires the sub-sampling and taxonomic identification of at least onesixth of the sample and at least 700 individuals. Replicate sub-samples were also taken at most of these sites. Sub-sampling… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
(22 reference statements)
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The poor response of macroinvertebrate indicators may be due to the natural variability that is attributed to this group. Natural variation has been demonstrated to reduce the sensitivity of macroinvertebrate indicators to change (Clarke et al, 2006;Blocksom & Flortmersch, 2008). Variability in relation to space, time and sampling methods have been stated as significant factors that result in difficulties in identifying significant change in macro-invertebrate monitoring (Brooks et al, 2002;Sporka et al, 2006;Haase et al, 2008).…”
Section: Methodological Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The poor response of macroinvertebrate indicators may be due to the natural variability that is attributed to this group. Natural variation has been demonstrated to reduce the sensitivity of macroinvertebrate indicators to change (Clarke et al, 2006;Blocksom & Flortmersch, 2008). Variability in relation to space, time and sampling methods have been stated as significant factors that result in difficulties in identifying significant change in macro-invertebrate monitoring (Brooks et al, 2002;Sporka et al, 2006;Haase et al, 2008).…”
Section: Methodological Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This small number of individuals is then used to characterize the entire benthic assemblage-i.e., millions of individuals-at the site. Both assessment accuracy and precision improve when the area sampled or the number of individuals included in such a sample can be increased (Cao et al 2002a, b;Lorenz et al 2004;Ostermiller and Hawkins 2004;Cao and Hawkins 2005;Clarke et al 2006;Nichols et al 2006) (Figure 1), yet small subsamples continue to be used because of the unacceptable costs associated with processing larger samples (Carter and Resh 2001). Variability in descriptions of freshwater benthic invertebrate assemblages is considerably influenced by the type of water body as well as with the specific biological metric examined.…”
Section: Limitations To Currentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the case of STAR-AQEM samples, two separate blind estimates of the proportion of the habitats present were normally made and the number of sample units on each habitat in each sample was based on their respective substratum recording forms. Additional replicate sampling was undertaken at some sites as itemised by Clarke et al (2006aClarke et al ( , 2006b.…”
Section: Macroinvertebrate Replicate Sampling Programme and Auditmentioning
confidence: 99%