ISFAPPC01442 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e SAMPLING METHODS Table 2. Sampling dates, methodology and comments. Station 31-MILE-1 CURRANT-l Date 06/10/94 06/10/94 Sampling Replicate Method 1 SURBER 1 SURBER Habitat Sampled RIFFLE RIFFLE Sampling Area 1m2}. 0.279 0.279 Comments 3 composited Surbers 3 composited Surbers LABORATORY PROCESSING Samples were identified at the BLM Aquatic Ecosystem Laboratory in Logan, Utah. Samples were processed following Elliott (88). Individual samples were first placed in a white enamel pan and observed under a magnifying glass. Large and less-numerous organisms were removed. The sample was then subsampled by dispersing it evenly within a No. 60 sieve (250 micron) located in a water-filled enamel pan. The sieve was then lifted out of the water and split into two equal parts with a spatula. This procedure was repeated until approximately 250 organisms remained in the sub-sample. Organisims were removed from the sub-sample using a stereoscope with 8-40X magnification. If less than 250 organisms were found in the subsample additional subsamples were taken. The amount of the original sample whiCh was identified is shown in Table 3. The organisms were then identified and counted by well-qualified taxonomists. An effort was made to identify organisms to a consistent taxonomic level. Insects were primarily identified to genus, with the exception of Chironomidae which were identified to subfamily. Non-insect invertebrates were identified to various taxonomic levels depending on the availability of identification keys. Voucher specimens were retained for all unique taxa. Table 3. Percentage of each sample that was identified and any laboratory comments. Station 31-MILE-1 CURRANT-1 Date 06/10/94 06/10/94 Replicate 1 1 Field Lab spli t % split % None 75 None None % id'd 75 100 Comments None None