Effect of sample area and sieve size on benthic macrofaunal community condition assessments in california enclosed bays and estuaries

Primary tabs

Hammerstrom, K. K., Ranasinghe, J. A., Weisberg, S. B., Oliver, J. S., Fairey, W. R., Slattery, P. N., & Oakdeny, J. M. (2012). Effect of sample area and sieve size on benthic macrofaunal community condition assessments in california enclosed bays and estuaries. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 8(4), 649-658. doi:10.1002/ieam.78
Metadata
TitleEffect of sample area and sieve size on benthic macrofaunal community condition assessments in california enclosed bays and estuaries
AuthorsK. Hammerstrom, J. Ranasinghe, S. Weisberg, J. Oliver, W. Fairey, P. Slattery, J. Oakdeny
AbstractBenthic macrofauna are used extensively for environmental assessment, but the area sampled and sieve sizes used to capture animals often differ among studies. Here, we sampled 80 sites using 3 different sized sampling areas (0.1, 0.05, 0.0071m2) and sieved those sediments through each of 2 screen sizes (0.5, 1mm) to evaluate their effect on number of individuals, number of species, dominance, nonmetric multidimensional scaling (MDS) ordination, and benthic community condition indices that are used to assess sediment quality in California. Sample area had little effect on abundance but substantially affected numbers of species, which are not easily scaled to a standard area. Sieve size had a substantial effect on both measures, with the 1-mm screen capturing only 74% of the species and 68% of the individuals collected in the 0.5-mm screen. These differences, though, had little effect on the ability to differentiate samples along gradients in ordination space. Benthic indices generally ranked sample condition in the same order regardless of gear, although the absolute scoring of condition was affected by gear type. The largest differences in condition assessment were observed for the 0.0071-m2 gear. Benthic indices based on numbers of species were more affected than those based on relative abundance, primarily because we were unable to scale species number to a common area as we did for abundance. © 2010 SETAC.
JournalIntegrated Environmental Assessment and Management
Date2012
Volume8
Issue4
Start page649
End page658
ISSN1551-3793
Subjectsanimal, aquatic species, article, bay, biota, classification, ecosystem, environmental monitoring, estuary, evaluation, invertebrate, methodology, physiology, sediment, United States, Animals, Aquatic Organisms, Bays, California, Estuaries, Geologic Sediments, Invertebrates
NoteCited By (since 1996):3, Invertebrates

Bookmark

Bookmarks: