Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The problem of using fixed-area subsampling methods to estimate macroinvertebrate richness: a case study with Neotropical stream data

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Subsampling has been widely applied in the laboratory to process freshwater macroinvertebrate samples. Currently, many governmental agencies and research groups apply the fixed-count approach, targeting a number of individuals per sample, and at the same time keeping track of the number of quadrats (fraction of the sample) processed. However, fixed-area methods are still in use. The objective of this paper was to evaluate the reliability of macroinvertebrate taxonomic richness estimates developed from processing a standard number of subsampling quadrats (i.e., fixed-area approaches). We used a dataset from 18 tropical stream sites experiencing three different levels of human disturbance (most-, intermediate-, and least-disturbed). With 12 quadrats processed (half the sample), the collection curves started to stabilize, and for more than half of the sites studied, it was possible to sample at least 80 % of the total taxonomic richness of the sample. However, we observed that the minimum number of quadrats to achieve 80 % of taxonomic richness was strongly negatively correlated with the number of individuals collected in each site: the fewer the individuals in a sample, the greater the processed proportion of that sample needed to represent it properly. Thus our results indicate that for any given areal subsampling effort (any fixed fraction of the sample), samples with different numbers of individuals will be represented differently in terms of the proportion of the total number of taxa of the whole samples, those with greater numbers being overestimated and those with fewer numbers being underestimated. Therefore, we do not recommend the use of fixed-area subsampling methods alone if the main purpose is to measure and analyze taxonomic richness; instead, we encourage researchers to use fixed-count approaches for this purpose.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arita, H. T., & Vázquez-Domínguez, E. (2008). The tropics: cradle, museum or casino? A dynamic null model for latitudinal gradients of diversity. Ecology Letters, 11, 653–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrhenius, O. (1921). Species and area. Journal of Ecology, 9, 95–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baptista, D. F., Buss, D. F., Egler, M., Giovanelli, A., Silveira, M. P., & Nessimian, J. (2007). A multimetric index based on benthic macroinvertebrates for evaluation of Atlantic Forest streams at Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. Hydrobiologia, 575, 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M. T., & Gerritsen, J. (1996). Subsampling of benthic samples: a defense of the fixed-count method. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15, 386–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D., & Stribling, J.B. (1999). Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish (2nd Ed., p. 339). Washington, DC: EPA 841-B-99-002, Office of Water, US Environmental Protection Agency.

  • Callisto, M., Moreno, P., & Barbosa, F. A. R. (2001). Habitat diversity and benthic functional trophic groups at Serra do Cipó, Southeast Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 61, 59–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, Y., Hawkins, C. P., Larson, D. P., & Van Sickle, J. (2007). Effects of sample standardization on mean species detectabilitites and estimates of relative differences in species richness among assemblages. The American Naturalist, 170, 381–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J. L., & Resh, V. H. (2001). After site selection and before data analysis: sampling, sorting, and laboratory procedures used in stream benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring programs by USA state agencies. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 20, 658–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A., MacNally, R., Bond, N., & Lake, P. S. (2008). Macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams: a review. Freshwater Biology, 53, 1707–1721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A., MacNally, R., Bond, N. R., & Lake, P. S. (2010). Conserving macroinvertebrate diversity in headwater streams: the importance of knowing the relative contributions of α and β diversity. Diversity and Distributions, 16, 725–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, C., Ide, S., & Simonka, C. E. (2006). Insetos imaturos. Metamorfose e identificação. Ribeirão Preto: Holos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtemanch, D. L. (1996). Commentary on the subsampling procedures used for rapid bioassessments. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15, 381–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doberstein, C. P., Karr, J. R., & Conquest, L. L. (2000). The effect of fixed-count subsampling on macroinvertebrate biomonitoring in small streams. Freshwater Biology, 44, 355–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández, H. R., & Domínguez, E. (2001). Guia para la determinación de los artrópodos bentónicos sudamericanos. San Miguel de Tucumán: Universidad Nacional de Tucumán.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotelli, N. J., & Cowell, R. K. (2001). Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters, 4, 379–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hering, D., Moog, O., Sandin, L., & Verdonschot, P. F. M. (2004). Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia, 516, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, R. M., & Peck, D. V. (2008). Acquiring data for large aquatic resource surveys: the art of compromise among science, logistics, and reality. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27, 837–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbert, S. H. (1971). The nonconcept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology, 52, 577–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, R. S., & Richardson, C. J. (2002). Evaluating subsampling approaches and macroinvertebrate taxonomic resolution for wetland bioassessment. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 21, 150–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klemm, D. J., Blocksom, K. A., Fulk, F. A., Herlihy, A. T., Hughes, R. M., Kaufmann, P. R., Peck, D. V., Stoddard, J. L., & Thoeny, W. T. (2003). Development and evaluation of a macroinvertebrate biotic integrity index (MBII) for regionally assessing Mid-Atlantic Highlands streams. Environmental Management, 31, 656–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lande, R. (1996). Statistics and partitioning of species diversity, and similarity among multiple communities. Oikos, 76, 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, D. P., & Herlihy, A. T. (1998). The dilemma of subsampling streams for macroinvertebrate richness. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 17, 359–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, A., Kirchner, L., & Hering, D. (2004). Electronic subsampling of macrobenthic samples: how many individuals are needed for a valid assessment result? Hydrobiologia, 516, 299–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O. (1967). The theory of island biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. J., & Gotelli, N. J. (2000). Effects of disturbance frequency, intensity, and area on assemblages of stream invertebrates. Oecologia, 124, 270–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melo, A. S., & Froehlich, C. G. (2001). Evaluation of methods for estimating macroinvertebrate species richness using individual stones in tropical streams. Freshwater Biology, 46, 711–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moulton, S.R., Carter, J.L., Grotheer, S.A., Cuffney, T.F., & Short, T.M. (2000). Methods of analysis by the US Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—processing, taxonomy, and quality control of benthic macroinvertebrate samples. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-212.

  • Nichols, S. J., & Norris, R. H. (2006). River condition assessment may depend on the sub-sampling method: field live-sort versus laboratory sub-sampling of invertebrates for bioassessmaent. Hydrobiologia, 572, 95–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, R. H., Hart, B. T., Finlayson, M., & Norris, K. R. (1995). Use of biota to assess water quality. Australian Journal of Ecology, 20, 12–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, R. B. S., Mugnai, R., Castro, C. M., & Baptista, D. F. (2010). Determining subsampling effort for the development of a rapid bioassessment using benthic macroinvertebrates in streams of Southeastern Brazil. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 175, 75–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, R. B. S., Mugnai, R., Castro, C. M., Baptista, D. F., & Hughes, R. M. (2011). Towards a rapid bioassessment protocol for wadeable streams in Brazil: development of a multimetric index based on benthic macroinvertebrates. Ecological Indicators, 11, 1584–1593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, D.V., Herlihy, A.T., Hill, B.H., Hughes, R.M., Kaufmann, P.R., Klemm, D.J., Lazorchak, J.M., McCormick, F.H., Peterson, S.A., Ringold, P.L., Magee, T., & Cappaert, M.R. (2006). Environmental monitoring and assessment program-surface waters: Western Pilot Study field operations manual for wadeable streams. EPA/620/R-06/003. USEPA. Washington, DC.

  • Pérez, G. R. (1988). Guía para el estudio de los macroinvertebrados acuáticos del Departamento de Antioquia. Fondo Fen. Colombia/Colciencias, Universidad de Antioquia, Colombia

  • Petkovska, V., & Urbanic, G. (2010). Effect of fixed fraction subsampling on macroinvertebrate bioassessment of rivers. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 169, 179–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, E. W. (1948). The commonness and rarity of species. Ecology, 29, 254–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. M., & Whittaker, R. J. (2010). Conservation biogeography—foundations, concepts and challenges. Diversity and Distributions, 16, 313–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard, J. L., Herlihy, A. T., Peck, D. V., Hughes, R. M., Whittier, T. R., & Tarquinio, E. (2008). A process for creating multi-metric indices for large-scale aquatic surveys. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 27, 878–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suriano, M. T., Fonseca-Gessner, A. A., Roque, F. O., & Froehlich, C. G. (2011). Choice of macroinvertebrate metrics to evaluate stream conditions in Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 175, 87–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinson, M. R., & Hawkins, C. P. (1996). Effects of sampling area and subsampling procedure on comparisons of taxa richness among streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15, 392–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrona, F. J., Culp, J. M., & Davies, R. W. (1982). Macroinvertebrate subsampling: a simplified apparatus and approach. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 39, 1051–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We received funding and support for this research from CEMIG-Programa Peixe Vivo, CAPES, CNPq, FAPEMIG, and Fulbright Brasil. Diego Macedo was responsible for site selection. Colleagues from Laboratório de Ecologia de Bentos (UFMG), Federal University of Lavras (UFLA), and Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais assisted with the field collections. Renata Oliveira advised us on the subsampling tray. Two anonymous referees helped significantly to improve this work. The manuscript was written while the first author was a guest researcher at the USEPA Corvallis laboratory.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Biologia Geral, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Raphael Ligeiro, Wander Ferreira, Robert M. Hughes & Marcos Callisto

  2. Amnis Opes Institute, Corvallis, OR, 97333, USA

    Robert M. Hughes

  3. Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97333, USA

    Robert M. Hughes

Authors
  1. Raphael Ligeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wander Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert M. Hughes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcos Callisto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raphael Ligeiro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ligeiro, R., Ferreira, W., Hughes, R.M. et al. The problem of using fixed-area subsampling methods to estimate macroinvertebrate richness: a case study with Neotropical stream data. Environ Monit Assess 185, 4077–4085 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-2850-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-012-2850-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation