|
552 TRANS. AMER. FISH. SOC., 1991, NO. 3
<br />ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
<br />We thank Roger E. Burrows, Adrien Ber.
<br />nier, Fred W. Bitle, and Ross C. Kientz, of the
<br />Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, for
<br />their suggestions and cooperation during this
<br />research.
<br />LITERATURE CITED
<br />ANDREW F. J, P. C. JOHNSON, AND L. R. KERSEY.
<br />1956. Further experiments with an electric screen
<br />for downstream-migrant salmon at Baker Dam.
<br />InL Pac. Salmon Fish. Comm., Progr. Rep. [11,
<br />29 pp. (Processed.)
<br />, L R. KERSEY, AND P. C. JOHNSON. 1955. An
<br />investigation of the problem of guiding down-
<br />stream-migrant salmon at dams. Int. Pac. Salmon
<br />Fish. Comm., Bull. 8, 65 pp.
<br />APPLEGATE, VERNON C., PAUL T. MACY, AND VIRGIL E.
<br />HARRIS. 1954. Selected bibliography on the ap-
<br />plications of electricity in fishery science. U. S.
<br />Fish Wild]. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rept. Fish. 127,
<br />55 pp-
<br />IlmwET, A. M. R. 1959. Electric fishing with' pul-
<br />satory direct current. New Zealand J. Sci. 2(1)
<br />46-56.
<br />BuBBows, ROGER E. 1951. A method for enumera-
<br />tion of salmon and trout eggs by displacement.
<br />Progr. Fish-Cult 13(1): 25-30.
<br />COLLINS, G. B., C. D. VOLZ, AND R. H. LANDER. 1953.
<br />The effectiveness of pulsating direct current in
<br />controlling the movement of salmon fingerlings.
<br />Bur. Commer. Fish., Biol. Lab., Seattle, Wash.
<br />83 pp. (.Unpublished manuscript)
<br />AND PARKER S. TREFETHEN. 1954.
<br />Mortality of salmon fingerlings exposed to pulsat-
<br />ing direct current. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Fish.
<br />Bull. 56: 61-81.
<br />DELOv, V. E, AND I. F. ToMASHEVSKU. 1933. Prob-
<br />lema elektricheskogo ]ova ryby (Problem of elec-
<br />tro-fishing). Irv. Vses. Nauch: issled. Inst. Ozer.
<br />Rechn. Ryb. Khoz. 16: 5-17. (Trans]. by Int.
<br />Pac. Halibut Comm., Fisheries Hall No. 2, Uni-
<br />versity of Washington, Seattle.)
<br />GIGUERE, PAUL E. 1954. Development and use of
<br />electro-fishing apparatus in Region V. Calif.
<br />Dept Fish Game, Inland Fish. Br., Admin. Rept.
<br />5417 34 pp. (Processed.)
<br />HORAK, DONALD L., AND WILLIAM D. KLEIN. 1967.
<br />Influence of capture methods on fishing success,
<br />stamina, and mortality of rainbow trout (Salmo
<br />gairdneri) in Colorado. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
<br />96(2): 220-222.
<br />KLEIN, W. D. 1967. Evaluation of a pulsating direct-
<br />current shocking device for obtaining trout from
<br />a lake for population estimates. Progr. Fish-Cult.
<br />29: 140-149.
<br />AND L. M. FINNELL. 1969. Comparative
<br />study of coho salmon introductions in Parvin
<br />Lake and Granby Reservoir. Progr. Fish-Cult.
<br />31: 99-108.
<br />KUROKI, T. 1959. Electrical fishing in Japan. In:
<br />Hilmar Kristionsson (ed.), Modern fishing gear
<br />of the world, pp. 581-582. Fishing News (Books)
<br />Ltd., London.
<br />LOWRY, GERALD R. 1966. Production and food of
<br />cutthroat trout in three Oregon coastal streams.
<br />J. Wild]. Management 30(4) : 754-767.
<br />McLAIN, ALBERTON L. 1957. The control of the
<br />upstream movement of fish with pulsated direct
<br />current. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 86: 269-284.
<br />AND WILLIS L. NIELSEN. 1953. Directing the
<br />movement of fish with electricity. U. S. Fish
<br />Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rept. Fish. 93, 24 pp.
<br />MCMILLAN, F. O. 1928. Electric fish screen. U. S.
<br />Bur. Fish., Bull. 44: 97-128.
<br />MAXFIELD, GALEN H., GERALD E. MONAN, AND HOL-
<br />BROOK L. GARRETT. 1969. Electrical installation
<br />for control of the northern squaw-fish. U. S. Fish
<br />Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rept. Fish. 583, 14 pp.
<br />MEYER-WAARDEN, [P. F.J. 1953. Beeinflusst die Elek,
<br />tronarkose Lebensf ihigkeit and Wachstum der
<br />Fische? (Does electronarcosis influence the vi-
<br />tality and growth of fish?). Der Fischwirt 3(7)
<br />225-228. (Transl., Bur. Commer. Fish., Biol.
<br />Lab., Seattle, Washington, 1969.)
<br />MILLER, DENNY MARVIN. 1%5. Evaluation of the
<br />suitability for salmonid production of a stream
<br />with multiple water uses. M.S. Thesis, University
<br />Of Washington, Seattle, vii -{- 88 pp. (Processed.)
<br />MOORE, W. H. 1968. A light-weight pulsed d.c. fish
<br />shocker. J. Appl. Ecol. 5(1): 205-208.
<br />RIEDEL, DIETMAR. 1952. Uber efne Beeinflussung der
<br />Fischgeschlechtsprodukte durch den Elektrischen
<br />Strom unter besonderer Beriieksichtigung der
<br />Elektrofiscberei (The effect of electrical current
<br />on the sexual products of fish with special em-
<br />phasis on electro-fishing). Inaugural dissertation,
<br />Doktor der Landwirtschaft, Humboldt University,
<br />Berlin, No. 819, 53 pp. Also published 1954,
<br />Z. Fisch. deren Hilfswiss. 3(1/2/3): 183-233.
<br />(Trans]. of dissertation, Bur. Commer. Fish., Biol.
<br />Lab., Seattle, Washington.)
<br />SHARPE, F. PHILLIP. 1964. An electrofishing boat
<br />with a variable voltage pulsator for lake and
<br />reservoir studies. Bur. Sport Fish. Wild]., Circ.
<br />195, 6 pp.
<br />SMITH, LLOYD L., JR., DONALD R. FRANKLIN, AND
<br />ROBERT H. KRAMER. 1959. Electro-fishing for
<br />small fish in lakes. Trans. Amer. Fish. Sue.
<br />88(2): 141-146.
<br />An Evaluation of the Use of a Basket-Type Artificial
<br />Substrate for Sampling Macroinvertebrate Organisms
<br />KENNETH L. DICKSON,' JOHN CAIRNS, JR.,' AND JESSE C. ARNOLD2
<br />Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
<br />Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
<br />ABSTRACT
<br />The results obtained from the use of bottom, basket type, artificial samplers, were analyzed
<br />statistically to determine the samplers' efficiency in collecting aquatic macroinvertebrates. Two
<br />ecologically similar riffle stations located near McCoy, Virginia on the New River were chosen
<br />for this evaluation. Based on an analysis of the number of taxa collected, 15 basket samplers
<br />at Station 1 showed a range of seven taxa with a coefficient of variation of 11.6%. Station 2,
<br />located 500 yards upstream, with 16 samplers, had a range of 11 taxa with a coefficient of
<br />variation of 16.297c. In an evaluation of the number of specimens collected, Station 1 had a
<br />range of 39 specimens with a coefficient of variation of 10.9%. Station 2 had a range of 103
<br />specimens which was larger than the average of 85.6 specimens per sampler. To be 95ofo confident
<br />that the mean community structure indices for each station [Sequential Comparison Index and
<br />diversity per individual (d) ] were within 251% of their true value, only two basket samplers were
<br />needed. However, four samplers at Station 1 and six samplers at Station 2 would be required
<br />for the number of taxa collected Due to unequal distribution of macroinvertebrates on the
<br />bottom, or sampling design bias, 21 samplers at Station 2 would be required to be 95% confident
<br />that the mean number of specimens collected was within 25% of its true value. An estimate of
<br />the proportion of taxa which would have been detected on the average by a smaller number of
<br />basket samplers showed that at least five basket samplers were necessary at each station in
<br />order to be 95% confident that at least 50°fo of the total number of taxa were collected. When
<br />using this type of substrate sampler for collecting macroinvertebrates in a comparison of the
<br />biological water quality between selected stations, the number of taxa collected by the samplers
<br />and the community structure of the macroinvertebrates are less variable than the number of
<br />specimens obtained. These types of analyses can serve as the basis for establishing the appropriate
<br />number of samplers for a routine survey.
<br />INTRODUCTION
<br />In the process of trying to develop routine
<br />biological water pollution monitoring pro-
<br />grams for industry, we found that very few
<br />data were available in the literature which
<br />could be used to evaluate the reliability of
<br />artificial substrate samplers for collecting
<br />macroinvertebrate organisms. Accordingly, it
<br />was decided that field tests would be conducted
<br />to determine the normal variability in the
<br />macroinvertebrates collected by replicate bot-
<br />tom basket-type artificial substrate samplers
<br />placed in a riffle.
<br />The use of artificial substrate samplers to
<br />collect macroinvertebrate organisms is increas-
<br />ing in the biological assessment of water
<br />quality. The Division of Pollution Surveil-
<br />lance of the Environmental Protection Agency
<br />uses a modified barbeque basket filled with
<br />limestone as an artificial substrate sampler in
<br />'Biology Department
<br />'Statistics Department.
<br />its routine surveillance program (Mason et al.,
<br />1967; Anderson and Mason, 1968).
<br />A variety of different types of artificial
<br />substrate devices have been developed and
<br />employed in the collection of the macroinverte.
<br />brates which inhabit the benthic areas of both
<br />lentic and lotic series. These vary in construc-
<br />tion from the simple concrete slabs of Moon
<br />(1935) and the hardware cloth "brush boxes"
<br />of Wene and Wickliff (1940) and Scott (1958)
<br />to multiple-plate artificial substrate samplers
<br />such as those-described by Hester and Dendy
<br />(1962). By incorporating a sample-catcher,
<br />Hilsenhoff (1969) developed an artificial sub-
<br />strate device for collecting stream invertebrates
<br />which prevents loss of organisms during re-
<br />moval of the sampler from the water.
<br />Artificial substrates have many advantages
<br />over conventional sampling techniques for
<br />collecting macroinvertebrates. Using artificial
<br />substrates, it is possible to sample large
<br />streams which have beds of large rocks or of
<br />shifting substrates, both of which are virtually
<br />impossible to sample with any reliability using
<br />553
|