1993•New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater ResearchRequires access

Performance of the Macroinvertebrate Community Index: Effects of sampling method, sample replication, water depth, current velocity, and substratum on index values

John D. Stark

Open publisher page 167 citations

Abstract

The influences of sampling method, water depth, current velocity, and substratum on two macroinvertebrate‐based biotic indices were investigated based upon 523 samples from 55 stony riffle sites on 23 New Zealand streams. A single hand‐net sample estimated the site Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) within ± 15% and four replicates yielded ± 10%. Between 8 and 10 replicate Surber samples produced ± 10% precision. Quantitative MCI (QMCI) values were more variable, with 10 or 11 replicate Surber samples required for ± 10% precision. Two procedures for detection of statistically significant differences between paired MCI or QMCI values are described. The detectable difference method (equal sample sizes) is preferred for statistical reasons but a f‐test method can be used for unequal sample sizes. MCI and QMCI were relatively independent of depth, velocity, and substratum within the sampled ranges of these variables. This is a major advantage for the assessment of water pollution or enrichment using these indices. However, to avoid possible complications brought about by extreme values, sampling within the following ranges of these variables is suggested: depth 0.1–0.4 m, velocity 0.2–1.2 m s −1 , and substrate 60—140 mm median diameter.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The influences of sampling method, water depth, current velocity, and substratum on two macroinvertebrate‐based biotic indices were investigated based upon 523 samples from 55 stony riffle sites on 23 New Zealand streams. A single hand‐net sample estimated the site Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) within ± 15% and four replicates yielded ± 10%. Between 8 and 10 replicate Surber samples produced ± 10% precision. Quantitative MCI (QMCI) values were more variable, with 10 or 11 replicate Surber samples required for ± 10% precision. Two procedures for detection of statistically significant differences between paired MCI or QMCI values are described. The detectable difference method (equal sample sizes) is preferred for statistical reasons but a f‐test method can be used for unequal sample sizes. MCI and QMCI were relatively independent of depth, velocity, and substratum within the sampled ranges of these variables. This is a major advantage for the assessment of water pollution or enrichment using these indices. However, to avoid possible complications brought about by extreme values, sampling within the following ranges of these variables is suggested: depth 0.1–0.4 m, velocity 0.2–1.2 m s −1 , and substrate 60—140 mm median diameter.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 167 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The influences of sampling method, water depth, current velocity, and substratum on two macroinvertebrate‐based biotic indices were investigated based upon 523 samples from 55 stony riffle sites on 23 New Zealand streams. A single hand‐net sample estimated the site Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) within ± 15% and four replicates yielded ± 10%. Between 8 and 10 replicate Surber samples produced ± 10% precision. Quantitative MCI (QMCI) values were more variable, with 10 or 11 replicate Surber samples required for ± 10% precision. Two procedures for detection of statistically significant differences between paired MCI or QMCI values are described. The detectable difference method (equal sample sizes) is preferred for statistical reasons but a f‐test method can be used for unequal sample sizes. MCI and QMCI were relatively independent of depth, velocity, and substratum within the sampled ranges of these variables. This is a major advantage for the assessment of water pollution or enrichment using these indices. However, to avoid possible complications brought about by extreme values, sampling within the following ranges of these variables is suggested: depth 0.1–0.4 m, velocity 0.2–1.2 m s −1 , and substrate 60—140 mm median diameter.

Key concepts: Replicate, Sampling (signal processing), Riffle, Environmental science, Statistics, Sample (material), Sample size determination, Replication (statistics)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Performance of the Macroinvertebrate Community Index: Effects of sampling method, sample replication, water depth, current velocity, and substratum on index values — Research Paper | ScholarLens