My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9616
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
9616
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:37 PM
Creation date
5/17/2009 11:17:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
9616
Author
Vinson, M.
Title
A Sampling Strategy for Assessing Aquatic Invertebrate Communities Associated with Endangered Fish Populations in the Upper Colorado River Basin - June 1996.
USFW Year
1996.
USFW - Doc Type
Logan, UT.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Advantage: Information on the variability among similar habitats within the same reach. <br /> <br />Disadvantage: Many more samples to process, which will increase costs substantially. <br /> <br />Strategy two: Collect samples from similar habitat types throughout an individual reach <br />and composite them into a single sample. Different locations would be sampled on each <br />sampling trip to avoid continually sampling more or less productive areas. <br /> <br />Advantage: There are fewer samples to process than strategy one. Retain information on <br />the variability among habitat types within reaches. <br /> <br />Disadvantage: This strategy provides no information on the variability within similar <br />habitats within the same reach. <br /> <br />Strategy three: Select a single representative location of each habitat type and collect <br />multiple samples within this location and composite them into a single sample. <br /> <br />Advantage: This strategy reduces some variability that will probably occur among <br />different sampling dates using strategies one or two. <br /> <br />Disadvantage: Like the previous strategy, this strategy does not allow for the <br />determination of the variability among similar habitats within the same reach. Another <br />disadvantage of this strategy is that it assumes a representative location of each habitat <br />exists and that it was selected. <br /> <br />Recommendation: I recommend carrying out strategy one on the initial sampling trip and <br />strategy two on subsequent trips. Strategy one will give us an understanding of the <br />variability in invertebrate communities among similar habitat types within the same <br />reach and allow us to calculate appropriate sample sizes for each habitat type. Use of <br />strategy two after this initial trip will save money and still provide substantial <br />information on the variability in invertebrate assemblages among habitats and among <br />reaches over time. <br /> <br />Thus, during the initial sampling trip a subset of sampling locations of each habitat type <br />within each reach would be sampled. All samples collected from the same habitat type <br />within the same reach would be kept separate. This procedure would be repeated for each <br />habitat type present in each reach. Within lengthy reaches sampling sites should be selected <br />such that samples are collected from upper, mid, and lower sections of each reach. On <br />subsequent trips, samples from like habitats within the same strata would be combined. The <br />same locations need not be sampled on subsequent sampling trips. A summary of the <br />number of samples to be collected is shown in Table 3. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.