What do qualitative rapid assessment collections of macroinvertebrates represent? A comparison with extensive quantitative sampling

Abstract

It is a fundamental tenet of Rapid Biological Assessments (RBA) that the samples collected reflect the community from which they are drawn. As with any biological sampling, RBA collections are subject to sampling error resulting in the omission of some taxa. The aim of this study is to compare the composition of RBA samples with an estimate of community structure based on extensive quantitative sampling. We used logistic regression to explore the relationships between the frequency of a taxon being collected in an RBA sample and its biological and ecological traits, namely its abundance, distribution, body size and habit. RBA samples and quantitative estimates of community structure were made in riffles in the Kangaroo and Nepean Rivers, New South Wales, Australia. Single RBA samples may collect up to 63% of the taxa that are collected by extensive quantitative sampling at a site. The frequency of a taxon being recorded in an RBA sample was significantly and positively related to all traits tested indicating a bias in the collection methods towards large, abundant and widely distributed taxa. Accordingly, taxa missed by RBA sampling were generally small, narrowly distributed or rare. These findings enhance our understanding of what RBA samples represent, and the bias and source of errors associated with RBA sampling. This study also quantifies the utility of RBA methods for biodiversity assessment.

Spatial Distribution of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in Relation to Environmental Variables in Korean Nationwide Streams

“…In this regard, a multihabitat approach would be more profitable for the estimation of taxonomic diversity due to its consistent application across stream types especially at large-scaled survey, comprehensive taxa lists, and effective assessment of ecological conditions [58]. Second, the Surber sampler is one of the most commonly used quantitative tools in lotic systems and provides high-precision information on the abundance and composition of macroinvertebrate assemblages [21,59]. This method is, on the other hand, usually more appropriate for riffle habitats of shallow streams, presumably underestimating overall biodiversity in a region.…”

How do low-abundance taxa affect river biomonitoring? Exploring the response of different macroinvertebrate-based indices

“…Similar criteria have been considered in other studies (Bradley and Ormerod, 2002;Gillies et al, 2009). The response of three different macroinvertebrate-based indices, IBMWP (Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party), IASPT (IBMWP value/number of families) and STAR_ICMi (Intercalibration Multimetric Index), to LAT exclusion was tested.…”

“…In this study, we focused specially on this second aspect as community characterisation can be strictly related with difficulties during fieldwork or laboratory procedures, such as operator efficiency (Metzeling et al, 2003), sorting errors (Haase et al, 2010), or subsampling methods (Nichols and Norris, 2006). As a result, some methods and procedures may be biased towards large, abundant and widely distributed taxa (Gillies et al, 2009;Haase et al, 2010). LAT have fewer chances of being sampled, so their distribution range can be underestimated (Nijboer and Verdonschot, 2004).…”

Standardization and optimization of arthropod inventories—the case of Iberian spiders

“…Flight-interception and yellow pan traps are also suitable for a large range of arthropods (e.g., Missa et al 2009). Aquatic arthropods obviously require a set of completely different methods (e.g., Gillies et al 2009). Many examples could be given for different arthropod taxa, but even vertebrates could potentially benefit from the process now presented (e.g., Carassou et al 2009).…”