The Effect of Mesh Size on the Interpretation of the Life History of Two Mayflies from South Australia

  • P. J. Suter
  • J. E. Bishop

Abstract

Using a Surber-type benthic sampler with a double net collecting system, the efficiency of nets having aperture sizes of 480 μm and 110 μm was assessed over a twelve month period in two streams in South Australia. Efficiency was defined as the percentage increase in yield (numbers) of animals obtained by use of 110 μm mesh instead of 480 μm mesh. The average annual increase in sampling efficiency of the fine net as compared with the coarse for mayfly nymphs was 412% and 235% for Spring Creek and Deep Creek respectively. The life cycles of two species of mayfly Tasmanocoenis tillyardi (Lestage) and Baetis soror Ulmer from Deep Creek are presented and the effect of the two mesh sizes on the interpretation of the life histories is discussed. Interpreted from the coarse mesh only, the life cycle of both species is bivoltine, each having one winter generation and one summer generation. Combining both fine and coarse net collections, the life cycle interpretation is distinctly different, illustrating the difficulties in drawing conclusions from coarse mesh samples. Not only is the number of generations misinterpreted in B. soror, but conclusions on the duration of the egg stage and length of each generation are also inaccurate for both species.

Keywords

Biomass Ethyl Depression Polyethylene Gravel 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, K.R. 1951. The Horokiwi stream. A study of a trout population. Fish. Bull. N.Z. 10: 1–231.Google Scholar
  2. Barber, W.E. and N.R. Kevern. 1974. Seasonal variation of sieving efficiency in a lotic habitat. Freshw. Biol. 4: 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop, J.E. 1973. Limnology of a Small Malayan River, Sungai Gombak. Dr. W. Junk, The Hague. Monogr. Biol. 22.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, A.C. 1966. Discussion of “Estimation of mixture of normal Distributions” by Victor Hasselblad. Technometrics 8: 445–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clifford, H.F., M.R. Robertson and K.A. Zelt. 1973. Life cycle patterns of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) from some streams of Alberta, Canada. p. 122–131. in: W.L. Peters and J.G. Peters, ed. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ephemeroptera. E.J. Brill, Leiden.Google Scholar
  6. Doeglas, D.J. 1968. Grian-size indices, classification and environment. Sedimentology 10: 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frost, S., A. Huni and W.E. Kershaw. 1971. Evaluation of a kicking technique for sampling stream bottom fauna. Can. J. Zool. 49: 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamilton, A.L. 1969. On estimating annual production. Limnol. Oceanogr. 14: 771–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hasselblad, V. 1966. Estimation of parameters for a mixture of normal distributions. Technometrics 8: 431–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hellawell, J.M. 1978. Biological surveillance of rivers. A biological monitoring handbook. Water Research Centre, England.Google Scholar
  11. Hynes, H.B.N. 1961. The invertebrate fauna of a Welsh mountain stream. Arch. Hydrobiol. 57: 344–388.Google Scholar
  12. Hynes, H.B.N, and M.J. Coleman. 1968. A simple method of assessing the annual production of stream benthos. Limnol. Oceanogr. 13: 569–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jonasson, P.M. 1955. The efficiency of sieving techniques for sampling freshwater bottom fauna. Oikos 6: 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jonasson, P.M. 1958. The mesh factor in sieving techniques. Int. Ver. theor. angew. Limnol. Verh. 13: 860–866.Google Scholar
  15. Landa, V. 1968. Developmental cycles of Central European Ephemeroptera and their interrelations. Acta Entomol. Bohemoslov. 65: 276–284.Google Scholar
  16. Macan, T.T. 1958. Methods of sampling the bottom fauna in stony streams. Int. Ver. theor. angew. Limnol. Mitt. 8: 1–21.Google Scholar
  17. Maitland, P.S. 1964. Quantitative studies on the invertebrate fauna of sandy and stony substrates in the River Endrick, Scotland. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. 68: 277–301.Google Scholar
  18. Mundie, J.H. 1971. Sampling benthos and substrate materials, down to 50 microns in size, in shallow streams. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 28: 849–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tanaka, H. 1967. On the change of composition of aquatic insects resulting from difference in mesh size of stream bottom- samplers. Bull. Freshw. Fish. Res. Lab. (Tokyo) 17: 1–6.Google Scholar
  20. Zelt, K.A. and H.F. Clifford. 1972. Assessment of two mesh sizes for interpreting life cycles, standing crop, and percentage composition of stream insects. Freshw. Biol. 2: 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. J. Suter
    • 1
  • J. E. Bishop
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of AdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations