caa a22 4500 445891289 CHVBK 20180317145617.0 cr unu---uuuuu 170323e20110101xx s 000 0 eng 10.1007/s10750-010-0499-x doi (NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1007/s10750-010-0499-x Comparison of benthic macroinvertebrate communities by two methods: Kick- and U-net sampling [Elektronische Daten] [Robert Brua, Joseph Culp, Glenn Benoy] The assessment of benthic invertebrate community condition is an integral component of freshwater biomonitoring and water quality determination. Several sampling devices have been developed to collect benthic macroinvertebrates, including qualitative, semi-quantitative, and quantitative methods. In this study, we compared several benthic macroinvertebrate metrics and community assemblage measures calculated from data obtained from two sampling methods, namely the Kick- and U-net sampling devices. We reasoned that if the two methods produced similar values for benthic metrics and community composition, then samples collected by these methods should be able to be combined to build larger data sets for use in regional bioassessment analyses. No statistical differences between Kick- and U-net methods were found among standard benthic macroinvertebrate metrics, except for Kick-nets collecting more Chironomidae. Invertebrate assemblages were very similar between collection methods, although slightly greater taxonomic richness was found in U-net samples. Bray-Curtis similarity was typically >75% between methods within a stream, while classification strength-sampling-method comparability, an approach for analyzing differences in similarity between groups, indicated invertebrate assemblage similarity between collection methods was virtually identical at approximately 100%. Since these two methods produce similar results, we conclude that benthic macroinvertebrate data collected by these methods can be combined for data analysis and bioassessments with the caveat that mesh size of the sample nets is similar. In addition, if the primary study objective is to assess macroinvertebrate biodiversity, then the U-net sampling device may be more appropriate, despite the slightly greater time needed to complete field sample collection, as it tended to collect a greater diversity of species. UK Crown: Environment Canada, 2010 Benthic macroinvertebrates nationallicence Kick-net nationallicence U-net nationallicence Sampling methods nationallicence Bioassessment nationallicence Classification strength-sampling-method comparability nationallicence Brua Robert Environment Canada, National Hydrology Research Centre, 11 Innovation Boulevard, S7N 3H5, Saskatoon, SK, Canada aut Culp Joseph Environment Canada (NWRI) and Canadian Rivers Institute, Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, E3B 5A3, Fredericton, NB, Canada aut Benoy Glenn Environment Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Potato Research Centre, 850 Lincoln Road, E3B 4Z7, Fredericton, NB, Canada aut Hydrobiologia Springer Netherlands 658/1(2011-01-01), 293-302 0018-8158 658:1<293 2011 658 10750 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-010-0499-x text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI 1 research-article jats NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-010-0499-x text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Brua Robert Environment Canada, National Hydrology Research Centre, 11 Innovation Boulevard, S7N 3H5, Saskatoon, SK, Canada aut NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Culp Joseph Environment Canada (NWRI) and Canadian Rivers Institute, Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, E3B 5A3, Fredericton, NB, Canada aut NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Benoy Glenn Environment Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Potato Research Centre, 850 Lincoln Road, E3B 4Z7, Fredericton, NB, Canada aut NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- Hydrobiologia Springer Netherlands 658/1(2011-01-01), 293-302 0018-8158 658:1<293 2011 658 10750 Metadata rights reserved Springer special CC-BY-NC licence nationallicence BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-springer