Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 116, Issue 1–3, pp 275–290 | Cite as

A More Cost-Effective Emap Benthic Macrofaunal Sampling Protocol

  • Steven P. Ferraro
  • Faith A. Cole
  • Anthony R. Olsen
Article

Abstract

Benthic macrofaunal sampling protocols in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) are to collect 30 to 50 random benthic macrofauna [defined as animals retained on a 0.5 mm (East and Gulf Coasts, USA) or a 1.0 mm mesh sieve (West Coast, USA)] samples per reporting unit using a 0.044 m2 (East and Gulf Coasts) or 0.1 m2 (West Coast) grab. Benthic macrofaunal community conditions in the reporting unit are characterized by cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) on end points of interest, such as number of species (S), abundance (A), and Shannon--Wiener diversity (H′). An EMAP and a companion field study were conducted concurrently in Tillamook Bay (Oregon, USA) to compare the cost effectiveness of benthic macrofauna samples collected using the EMAP West Coast (0.1 m2 × ≥7 cm deep, 1.0 mm mesh), a 0.01 m2 × 5 cm deep, 1.0 mm mesh, and a 0.01 m2 × 5 cm deep, 0.5 mm mesh sampling protocol. Cost was estimated in relative laboratory sample-processing time. Sampling protocols were judged equally effective for EMAP purposes if, after linear transformation to adjust for scale changes in end point distributions, their S, A, and H′ CDFs were not significantly different. The 0.01 m2 × 5 cm deep, 1.0 mm mesh sampling protocol was the most cost effective.

Keywords

benthic macrofauna cost-effective cumulative distribution functions EMAP monitoring linear scale transformation sample unit sieve mesh size Tillamook Bay 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrew, N. L. and Mapstone, B. D.: 1987, ‘Sampling and the description of spatial pattern in marine ecology’, Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 25, 39–90.Google Scholar
  2. Blair, R.: 2001, ‘Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: West — Research Strategy’, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar
  3. Clarke, K. R. and Warwick, R. M.: 1998, ‘Quantifying structural redundancy in ecological communities’, Oecologia 113, 278–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke, K. R. and Warwick, R. M.: 2001, Change in Marine Communities: An Approach to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation, 2nd ed., PRIMER-E: Plymouth, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Cochran, W. G.: 1977, Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, NY.Google Scholar
  6. Coulton, K., Williams, P. and Benner, P.: 1996, ‘An environmental history of the Tillimook Bay Estuary and Watershed’, Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project Technical Report 68, Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project, Garibaldi, Oregon.Google Scholar
  7. Diaz-Ramos, S., Stevens, D. L. and Olsen, A. R.: 1996, EMAP Statistics Methods Manual, EPA/620/R-96/002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar
  8. Eleftheriou, A. and Holme, N. A.: 1984, ‘Macrofauna Techniques’, in: N. A. Holme and A. D. McIntyre (eds), Methods for the Study of Marine Benthos, 2nd ed., IBP Handbook No. 16, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK, pp. 140–216.Google Scholar
  9. Elliott, J. M.: 1983, Some Methods for the Statistical Analysis of Samples of Benthic Invertebrates, 2nd ed., Sci. Publ. No. 25, Freshwater Biological Association, Ferry House, UK, 156 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Engle, V. D., Summers, J. K. and Gaston, G. 1994, ‘A benthic index of environmental condition of Gulf of Mexico estuaries’, Estuaries 17, 372–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferraro, S. P., Cole, F. A., DeBen, W. A. and Swartz, R. C.: 1989, ‘Power-cost efficiency of eight macrobenthic sampling schemes in Puget Sound, Washington, USA’, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46, 2157–2165.Google Scholar
  12. Ferraro, S. P., Swartz, R. C., Cole, F. A. and DeBen, W. A.: 1994, ‘Optimum macrobenthic sampling protocol for detecting pollution impacts in the Southern California Bight’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 29, 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferraro, S. P. and Cole, F. A.: 2004, ‘Optimal benthic macrofaunal Au: Please provide year of Ferraro, S. P. and Cole, F. A. sampling protocol for detecting differences among four habitats in Willapa Bay, Washington, USA’, Estuaries 27, 1014–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gonor, J. J. and Kemp, P. F.: 1978, ‘Procedures for Quantitative Ecological Assessments in Intertidal Environments’, EPA-600/3-78-087, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar
  15. Gray, J. S.: 1981, The Ecology of Marine Sediments, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  16. Green, R. H.: 1979, Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental Biologists, John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Green, R. H.: 1980, ‘Comment on optimal survey design’, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37, 296.Google Scholar
  18. Heltshe, J. F. and Ritchey, T. A.: 1984, ‘Spatial pattern detection using quadrat samples’, Biometrics 40, 877–885.Google Scholar
  19. Hinzman, R. and Nelson, S. (eds), 1998, ‘Tillamook Bay. Environmental Characterization. A Scientific and Technical Summary’, Final Report, Cooperative Agreement #CE990292-1, Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project, Garibaldi, Oregon.Google Scholar
  20. Hunsaker, C. T. and Carpenter, D. E.: 1990, ‘Ecological Indicators for the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program’, EPA 600/3-90/060, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  21. Hyland, J., Snoots, T. R. and Balthis, W. L.: 1998, ‘Sediment quality of estuaries in the southeastern U.S.’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 51, 331–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kingston, P. F. and Riddle, M. J.: 1989, ‘Cost effectiveness of benthic faunal monitoring’, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 20, 490–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krebs, C. J.: 1989, Ecological Methodology, HarperCollins Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Macauley, J. M., Summers, J. K., Engle, V. D., Heitmuller, P. T. and Adams, A. M.: 1993, ‘Annual Statistical Summary: EMAP-Estuaries Louisianian Province — 1993’, EPA/620/R-96/003, U.S. Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, Florida.Google Scholar
  25. Macauley, J. M., Summers, J. K. and Engle, V. D.: 1999, ‘Estimating the ecological condition of the estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 57, 59–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Macauley, J. M., Summers, J. K., Engle, V. D. and Harwell, L. C.: 2002, ‘The ecological condition of South Florida estuaries’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 75, 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Malley, D. F. and Reynolds, J. B.: 1979, ‘Sampling strategies and life history of non-insectan freshwater invertebrates’, J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 36, 311–318.Google Scholar
  28. Messer, J. J., Linthurst, R. A. and Overton, W. S.: 1991, ‘An EPA program for monitoring ecological status and trends’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 17, 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Research Council: 1990, Managing Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine Environmental Monitoring, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  30. Paul, J. F., Strobel, C. J., Melzian, B. D., Kiddon, J. A., Latimer, J. S., Campbell, D. E. and Cobb, D. J.: 1998, ‘State of the estuaries in the Mid-Atlantic Region of the United States’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 51, 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rees, H. L.: 1984, ‘A note on mesh size selection and sampling efficiency in benthic studies’, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 15, 225–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saila, S. B., Pikanowski, R. A. and Vaughan, D. S.: 1976, ‘Optimum allocation strategies for sampling benthos in the New York Bight’, Estuarine Coastal Mar. Sci. 4, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schimmel, S. C., Benyi, S. J. and Strobel, C. J.: 1999, ‘An assessment of the ecological condition of Long Island Sound, 1990–1993’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 56, 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schwinghammer, P.: 1981, ‘Characteristic size distributions of integral benthic communities’, Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 38, 1255–1263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Service, S. K. and Feller, R. J.: 1992, ‘Long-term trends of subtidal macrobenthos in North Inlet, South Carolina’, Hydrobiologia 231, 14–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Somerfield, P. J. and Clarke, K. R.: 1995, ‘Taxonomic levels, in marine community studies, revisited’, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 127, 113–119.Google Scholar
  37. Stevens, D. L., Jr.: 1994, ‘Implementation of a national monitoring program’, J. Environ. Manage. 42, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stevens, D. L., Jr.: 1997, ‘Variable density grid-based sampling designs for continuous spatial populations’, Environmetrics 8, 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stevens, D. L., Jr. and Olsen, A. R.: 1999, ‘Spatially restricted surveys over time for aquatic resources’, J. Agr. Biol. Environ. Stat. 4, 415–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Strobel, C. J., Buffum, H. W., Benyi, S. J. and Paul, J. F.: 1999, ‘Environmental monitoring and assessment program: Current status of Virginian Province (U.S.) estuaries’, Environ. Monit. Assess. 56, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Summers, J. K.: 2001, ‘Ecological condition of the estuaries of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States’, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Summers, J. K., Macauley, J. M., Heitmuller, P. T., Engle, V. D., Adams, A. M. and Brooks, G. T.: 1992, ‘Annual Statistical Summary: EMAP-Estuaries Louisianian Province — 1991’, EPA/600/R-93/001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, Florida.Google Scholar
  43. Summers, J. K., Paul, J. F. and Robertson, A.: 1995, ‘Monitoring the ecological condition of estuaries of the United States’, Toxicology and Environmental Chemistry 49, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thomas, D. R., Singh, A. C. and Roberts, G. R.: 1996, ‘Tests of independence on two-way tables under cluster sampling: An evaluation’, Int. Stat. Rev. 64, 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. U.S. EPA: 1990, ‘Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Overview’, EPA/600/9-90/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  46. U.S. EPA: 2001a, ‘National Coastal Assessment: Field Operations Manual’, EPA/620/R-01/003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, Florida.Google Scholar
  47. U.S. EPA: 2001b, ‘Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): National Coastal Assessment Quality Assurance Project Plan 2001–2004’, EPA/620/R-01/002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, Florida.Google Scholar
  48. Van Dolah, R. F., Hyland, J. L., Holland, A. F., Rosen, J. S. and Snoots, T. R.: 1999, ‘A benthic index of biological integrity for assessing habitat quality in estuaries of the southeastern USA’, Mar. Environ. Res. 48, 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weisberg, S. B., Ranasinghe, J. A., Dauer, D. M., Schaffner, L. C., Diaz, R. J. and Frithsen, J. B.: 1997, ‘An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay’, Estuaries 20, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven P. Ferraro
    • 1
  • Faith A. Cole
    • 1
  • Anthony R. Olsen
    • 2
  1. 1.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNewportUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations