Journal of Applied Phycology

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 357–369

Laboratory sources of error for algal community attributes during sample preparation and counting

  • Andrew J. Alverson
  • Kalina M. Manoylov
  • R. Jan Stevenson
Article

Abstract

Applied algal studies typically require enumeration of preserved cells. As applications of algal assessments proliferate, understanding sources of variability inherent in the methods by which abundance and species composition data are obtained becomes even more important for precision of measurements. We performed replicate counts of diatoms on permanently fixed coverglasses and all algae in Palmer–Maloney chambers to assess precision and accuracy of measurements derived from common counting methods. We counted diatoms and all algae with transects and random fields. Variability estimates (precision) of diatom density, species diversity, and species composition on permanent coverglasses were low between replicate subsamples and between replicate transects. However, average density estimates of diatoms settled on coverglasses determined with transect methods were 42–52% greater than density estimates made with random fields. This bias was due to a predictable, nonrandom distribution of diatoms on the coverglass with few diatoms near edges. Despite bias in density when counting diatoms along coverglass transects, no bias was observed in estimates of species composition. Estimates of density and taxa richness of all-algae in Palmer–Maloney chambers also had low variability among multiple transects and high similarity in species composition between transects. In addition, counting method in Palmer–Maloney chambers did not affect estimates of algal cell density, taxa richness, and species composition, which suggested that counting units were distributed randomly in the chambers. Thus, most sources of variability in sample preparation and analysis are small; however, transect counts should not be used to estimate cell density, and sufficient numbers of random fields must be counted to account for edge effects on cell distribution with material settled on permanently fixed coverglasses.

All-algae counts Counting methods Diatom counts Quality assurance Quality control Random fields Slide preparation Soft-algae counts Transects 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Battarbee R.W. 1973. A new method for the estimation of absolute microfossil numbers, with reference especially to diatoms. Limnol. Oceanogr. 18: 647-653.Google Scholar
  2. Battarbee R.W. and Kneen M.J. 1982. The use of electronically counted microspheres in absolute diatom analysis. Limnol. Oceanogr. 27: 184-188.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs B.J.F. 1996. Patterns in benthic algae of streams. In: Stevenson R.J., Bothwell M.L. and Lowe R.L. (eds), Algal Ecology: Freshwater Benthic Ecosystems. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 31-56.Google Scholar
  4. Bradbury J.P. 1999. Continental diatoms as indicators of long-term environmental change. In: Stoermer E.F. and Smol J.P. (eds), The Diatoms: Applications for the Environmental and Earth Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 169-182.Google Scholar
  5. Bray J.R. and Curtis J.T. 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol. Monogr. 27: 325-349.Google Scholar
  6. Croasdale H.T., Bicudo C. and Prescott G.W. 1983. A Synopsis of North American Desmids. Part II. Desmidiaceae: Placodermae. Section 5. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, USA, 117 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Dillard G.E. 1989. Freshwater algae of the southeastern United States. Part 2. Chlorophyceae: Ulotrichales, Microsporales, Cylindrocapsales, Sphaeropleales, Chaetophorales, Schizogoniales, Siphonales, and Oedogoniales. Bibliotheca Phycologica 82: 1-163.Google Scholar
  8. Eaton J.W. and Moss B. 1966. The estimation of numbers and pigment content in epipelic algal populations. Limnol. Oceanogr. 11: 584-595.Google Scholar
  9. Fritz S.C., Cumming B.F., Gasse F. and Laird K. 1999. Diatoms as indicators of hydrologic and climatic change in saline lakes. In: Stoermer E.F. and Smol J.P. (eds), The Diatoms: Applications for the Environmental and Earth Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 41-72.Google Scholar
  10. Hill M.O. 1973. Diversity and evenness: A unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54: 427-432.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson T.C., Brown E.T., McManus J., Barry S., Barker P. and Gasse F. 2002. A high-resolution paleoclimate record spanning the past 25,000 years in southern East Africa. Science 296: 113-132.Google Scholar
  12. Kelly M.G. 1999. Progress towards quality assurance of benthic diatom and phytoplankton analyses in the UK. In: Prygiel J., Whitton B.A. and Bukowska J. (eds), Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers III. Agence de l'Eau Artois-Picardie, Douai, France, pp. 208-215.Google Scholar
  13. Kelly M.G. 2001. Use of similarity measures for quality control of benthic diatom samples. Water Res. 35: 2784-2788.Google Scholar
  14. Kelly M.G. and Lewis A. 1996. Assessing the quality of water quality assessments: An analytical quality control protocol for benthic diatoms. Freshwater Forum 7: 23-32.Google Scholar
  15. Kelly M.G. and Whitton B.A. 1995. The trophic diatom index: A new index for monitoring eutrophication in rivers. J. appl. Phycol. 7: 433-444.Google Scholar
  16. Komárek J. and Anagnostidis K. 1998. Cyanoprokaryota 1. Teil: Chroococcales. In: Süβwasserflora von Mitteleuropa 19/1. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, 548 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Krammer K. and Lange-Bertalot H. 1991a. Bacillariophyceae. Süβwasserflora von Mitteleuropa, 3. Teil: Centrales, Fragilari-aceae, Eunotiaceae. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena, Germany, 576 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Krammer K. and Lange-Bertalot H. 1991b. Bacillariophyceae. Süβwasserflora von Mitteleuropa, 4. Teil: Achnanthaceae, Kritische Ergänzungen zu Navicula (Lineolatae) und Gomphonema. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena, Germany, 437 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Krammer K. and Lange-Bertalot H. 1997a. Bacillariophyceae. Süβwasserflora von Mitteleuropa, 1. Teil: Naviculaceae. Gustav Fisher Verlag, Jena, Germany, 876 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Krammer K. and Lange-Bertalot H. 1997b. Bacillariophyceae. Süβwasserflora von Mitteleuropa, 2. Teil: Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae, Surirellaceae. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena, Germany, 610 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Palmer C.M. and Maloney T.E. 1954. A new counting slide for nanoplankton. Special Publication Number 21. American Society of Limnology and Oceanography.Google Scholar
  22. Pappas J.L. and Stoermer E.F. 1996. Quantitative method for determining a representative algal sample count. J. Phycol. 32: 693-696.Google Scholar
  23. Patrick R., Hohn M.H. and Wallace J.H. 1954. A new method for determining the pattern of the diatom flora. Notulae Naturae 259: 1-12.Google Scholar
  24. Patrick R. and Reimer C.W. 1966. The Diatoms of the United States, Exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii. Vol. 1. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 688 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Patrick R. and Reimer C.W. 1975. The Diatoms of the United States, Exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii. Vol. 2. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 213 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Porter S.D., Cuffney T.F., Gurtz M.E. and Meador M.R. 1993. Methods for Collecting Algal Samples as Part of the National Water Quality Assessment Program. Report 93-409. United States Geological Survey, 39 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Prescott G.W. 1962. Algae of the Western Great Lakes Area. Wm. C. Brown, Dubuque, IA, USA, 977 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Prescott G.W., Bicudo C. and Vinyard W.C. 1982. A Synopsis of North American Desmids. Part II. Desmidiaceae: Placodermae. Section 4. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, USA, 700 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Prescott G.W., Croasdale H.T., Vinyard W.C. and Bicudo C. 1981. A Synopsis of North American Desmids. Part II. Desmidiaceae: Placodermae Section 3. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, USA, 720 pp.Google Scholar
  30. Prygiel J., Carpentier P., Almeida S., Coste M., Druart J.-C., Ector L. et al. 2002. Determination of the biological diatom index (ibd nf t 90-354): Results of an intercomparison exercise. J. appl. Phycol. 14: 27-39.Google Scholar
  31. Prygiel J., Leveque L. and Iserentant R. 1996. A new practical diatom index for the assessment of water quality in monitoring networks. Revue des Sciences de L'Eau 9: 97-113.Google Scholar
  32. Round F.E. 1991. Use of diatoms for monitoring rivers. In: Whitton B.A., Rott E. and Friedrich G. (eds), Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers. Institut fur Botanik, Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.Google Scholar
  33. Sandgren C.D. and Robinson J.V. 1984. A stratified sampling ap-proach to compensating for non-random sedimentation of phy-toplankton cells in inverted microscope settling chambers. Br. phycol. J. 19: 67-72.Google Scholar
  34. Stevenson R.J. and Pan Y. 1999. Assessing environmental condi-tions in rivers and streams with diatoms. In: Stoermer E.F. and Smol J. (eds), The Diatoms: Applications for the Environmental and Earth Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 11-40.Google Scholar
  35. Stevenson R.J. and Smol J.P. 2003. Use of algae in environmental assessments. In: Wehr J.D. and Sheath R.G. (eds), Freshwater Algae of North America. Academic Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 775-804.Google Scholar
  36. Stoermer E.F. and Smol J.P. 1999. The Diatoms: Applications for the Environmental and Earth Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 469 pp.Google Scholar
  37. Uherkovich G. 1967. Die Scenedesmus-Arten Ungarns. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, Hungary, 173 pp.Google Scholar
  38. van Dam H., Mertens A. and Sinkeldam J. 1994. A coded checklist and ecological indicator values of freshwater diatoms from the Netherlands. Neth. J. Aquat. Ecol. 28: 117-133.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew J. Alverson
    • 1
  • Kalina M. Manoylov
    • 2
  • R. Jan Stevenson
    • 2
  1. 1.Section of Integrative BiologyUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations