Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitative Assessment of Yield, Precision, and Cost-Effectiveness of Three Wetland Invertebrate Sampling Techniques

  • Article
  • Published:
Wetlands Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Macroinvertebrates are increasingly used as indicators of wetland integrity and productivity. However, accurate interpretation of biological information depends on effective sampling methods, which are also preferably cost-effective. We compared sampling yield, precision, and cost-effectiveness of two traditional wetland sampling methods (dipnet, stove pipe corer) to a dipnet combined with a dropframe in wetlands in the Platte River Valley, USA. The dropframe method was designed to be more quantitative than standard dipnet techniques and to maximize capture of mobile taxa. We compared measures of macroinvertebrate community structure (e.g., abundance, richness, diversity) and function (functional structure, habitat associations), as well as processing time for each sampling technique in vegetated and non-vegetated habitats. Vegetated habitats harbored higher richness, diversity, abundance, and biomass of most invertebrates. The dipnet consistently yielded the lowest values in vegetated and non-vegetated habitats, suggesting that sampling with a dipnet alone can greatly underestimate macroinvertebrate populations and diversity. The corer and the dropframe yielded similar results, but the dropframe produced significantly higher richness values. While the dropframe appeared to be a good choice for sampling in these wetlands, sample processing times for this method were more than two times longer than the other methods. Results provide a basis for informed decisions regarding quantitative sampling of wetland macroinvertebrates.

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

  • Anderson JT, Smith LM (1996) A comparison of sampling methods for sampling epiphytic and nektonic aquatic invertebrates in playa wetlands. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 11:219–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB (1999) Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water; Washington, DC

  • Batzer DP, Wissinger SA (1996) Ecology of insect communities in nontidal wetlands. Annual Review of Entomology 41:75–100

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Batzer DP, McGee M, Resh VH, Smith RR (1993) Characteristics of invertebrates consumed by mallards and prey response to wetland flooding schedules. Wetlands 13:41–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batzer DP, Shurtleff AS, Rader RB (2001) Sampling invertebrates in wetlands. In: Rader RB, Batzer DP, Wissinger SA (eds) Bioassessment and management of North American freshwater wetlands. Wiley, New York, pp 339–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Benke AC, Huryn AD, Smock LA, Wallace JB (1999) Length-mass relationships for freshwater macroinvertebrates in North America with particular reference to the southeastern United States. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 18:308–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottrell HH, Duncan A, Gliwicz ZM, Grygierek E, Herzig A, Hillbricht-Ilkowska A, Kurasawa H, Larsson P, Weglenska T (1976) A review of some problems in zooplankton production studies. Norwegian Journal of Zoology 24:419–456

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray JR, Curtis JT (1957) An ordination of upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 27:325–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkman MS, Duffy WG (1996) Evaluation of four wetland aquatic invertebrate samplers and four sample sorting methods. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 11:193–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheal F, Davis JA, Growns JE, Bradley JS, Whittles FH (1993) The influence of sampling method on the classification of wetland macroinvertebrate communities. Hydrobiologia 257:47–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke KR, Green RH (1988) Statistical design and analysis for a ‘biological effects’ study. Marine Ecology Progress Series 46:213–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis CA, Bidwell JR (2008) Response of aquatic invertebrates to vegetation management and agriculture. Wetlands 28:793–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Szalay FA, Resh VH (2000) Factors influencing macroinvertebrate colonization of seasonal wetlands: responses to emergent plant cover. Freshwater Biology 45:295–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flinn MB, Whiles MR, Adams SR, Garvey JE (2005) Macroinvertebrate and zooplankton responses to water-level management and moist-soil plant production in upper Mississippi River backwater wetlands. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 162:187–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilsenhoff WL (1988) Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family level biotic index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:65–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski RM, Murkin HR (1981) Evaluation of two devices for sampling nektonic invertebrates. Journal of Wildlife Management 45:493–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostecke RM, Smith LM, Hands HM (2005) Macroinvertebrate response to cattail management at Cheyenne Bottoms, Kansas, U.S.A. Wetlands 25:758–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD (1996) SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute, Cary

    Google Scholar 

  • Merritt RW, Cummins KW (1996) An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, 3rd edn. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer CK, Whiles MR (2008) Macroinvertebrate communities in restored and natural Platte River slough wetlands. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27:626–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer CK, Baer SG, Whiles MR (2008) Ecosystem recovery across a chronosequence of restored prairie slough wetlands in the Platte River valley. Ecosystems 11:193–208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer CK, Whiles MR, Baer SG (2010) Plant community recovery following restoration in temporally variable riparian wetlands. Restoration Ecology 18:52–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minchin PR (1987) An evaluation of the relative robustness of techniques for ecological ordination. Vegetatio 69:89–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minchin PR (1989) DECODA user’s manual: research school of Pacific studies. Australian National University, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Murkin HR, Abbott PG, Kadlec JA (1983) A comparison of activity traps and sweep nets for sampling nektonic invertebrates in wetlands. Freshwater Invertebrate Biology 2:99–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg DM, Resh VH (eds) (1993) Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. Chapman and Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute (2003) SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 9.0. SAS Institute, Cary

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffer M, Achtenberg AA, Beltman B (1984) Distribution of macroinvertebrates in a ditch in relation to the vegetation. Freshwater Biology 14:367–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith DG (2001) Pennak’s freshwater invertebrates of the United States, Porifera to Crustacea, 4th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner AM, Trexler JC (1997) Sampling aquatic invertebrates from marshes: evaluating the options. Journal of North American Benthological Society 16:694–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace JB, Webster JR (1996) The role of macroinvertebrates in stream ecosystem function. Annual Review of Entomology 41:115–139

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wesche TA, Skinner QD, Henszey RJ (1994) Platte River wetland hydrology study: Final report. US Bureau of Reclamation Technical Report WWRC-94–07

  • Whiles MR, Goldowitz BS (1998) Biological responses to hydrologic fluctuation in wetland sloughs of the central Platte River. In: Lingle G (ed) Proceedings of the ninth Platte River ecosystem symposium. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension-Platte Watershed Program, Kearney, pp 3–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiles MR, Goldowitz BS (2005) Macroinvertebrate communities in Central Platte River wetlands: Patterns across a hydrologic gradient. Wetlands 25:462–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright JF, Gunn RJM, Winder JM, Wiggers R, Vowles K, Clarke RT, Harris I (2002) A comparison of the macrophyte cover and macroinvertebrate fauna at three sites on the river Kennet in the mid-1970s and late 1990s. The Science of the Total Environment 282–283:121–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this research was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Logistical support was provided by Beth Goldowitz and the Platte River Whooping Crane Maintenance Trust. P. Minchin and L. Battaglia lent statistical expertise. D. Batzer and two anonymous reviewers provided comments that greatly improved this manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Clinton K. Meyer

    Present address: Department of Biology & Environmental Science, Simpson College, 701 North C Street, Indianola, IA, 50125, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology and Center for Ecology, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, IL, 62901-6501, USA

    Clinton K. Meyer, Scot D. Peterson & Matt R. Whiles

Authors
  1. Clinton K. Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scot D. Peterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matt R. Whiles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clinton K. Meyer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meyer, C.K., Peterson, S.D. & Whiles, M.R. Quantitative Assessment of Yield, Precision, and Cost-Effectiveness of Three Wetland Invertebrate Sampling Techniques. Wetlands 31, 101–112 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-010-0122-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-010-0122-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation