Effect of sampling protocol and volunteer bias when sampling for macroinvertebrates
Effect of sampling protocol and volunteer bias when sampling for macroinvertebrates
复制标题
大型无脊椎动物采样时采样方案和志愿者偏差的影响
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2008
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
B. Vondracek
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Nerbonne;B. Ward;A. Ollila;M. Williams;B. Vondracek
摘要我们评估了志愿者在低梯度溪流中对大型无脊椎动物进行不同野外采样方法的有效性。我们使用了一系列的分析指标，比较结果使用环境保护局（EPA）多生境，明尼苏达州污染控制局多生境，和EPA单生境采样协议。我们还调查了2个场景的影响，志愿者未能遵循（和潜在的偏见）广泛使用的EPA多生境协议，包括更多的障碍和植被银行或更多的运行和浅滩栖息地比规定的协议。我们收集了刺戳样本卵石，障碍，植被银行，沉水植物，和沙子在4个连续的125米达到在明尼苏达州的Anoka砂平原流。我们确定了多达100个大型无脊椎动物在每个刺戳样本的家庭。我们对40个刺戳样本/到达的父母群体进行了自举分析，对3种志愿者抽样方法和2种偏倚情景中的每一种进行了100次抽样并创建了指标或指数评分，而没有进行替换。EPA多生境协议和偏见的情况下，木质残体和银行植被过采样产生的生物多样性最高，而偏见的情况下，浅滩和运行的栖息地过采样产生的多样性最低。正确使用的EPA多栖息地协议更有可能表明“良好”的水质（根据EPA泥底叙事评估工具设计的志愿者）比任何有偏见的采样方案。这一结果表明，差的实地方法可能会导致低估水质。
Abstract We evaluated the efficacy of different field sampling approaches for volunteers sampling macroinvertebrates in low-gradient streams. We used a series of analytical metrics to compare results using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) multihabitat, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency multihabitat, and EPA single-habitat sampling protocols. We also investigated the effect of 2 scenarios in which volunteers fail to follow (and potentially bias) the widely used EPA multihabitat protocol by including either more snag and vegetated banks or more run and riffle habitat than prescribed by the protocol. We collected jab samples from cobble, snags, vegetated banks, submerged macrophytes, and sand in 4 contiguous 125-m reaches in an Anoka sand-plain stream in Minnesota. We identified up to 100 macroinvertebrates in each jab sample to family. We subjected a parent population of 40 jab samples/reach to a bootstrap analysis to sample and create metric or index scores 100 times without replacement for each of the 3 volunteer sampling methods and 2 biased scenarios. The EPA multihabitat protocol and the biased scenario in which woody debris and bank vegetation were oversampled yielded the highest diversity of organisms, whereas the biased scenario in which riffle and run habitats were oversampled yielded the lowest diversity. The EPA multihabitat protocol used correctly was more likely to indicate “good” water quality (on the basis of the EPA muddy-bottom narrative assessment tool designed for volunteers) than either biased sampling scenario. This result illustrates that poor field methods could result in underestimation of water quality.