1 / 17

Effect of Taxonomic Resolution on Sampling Large Rivers

This study evaluates the effect of taxonomic resolution on the performance characteristics of a bioassessment method for sampling macroinvertebrates in non-wadeable rivers. The study examines metrics such as precision and sensitivity at different taxonomic levels (species, genus, and family).

tpigford
Download Presentation

Effect of Taxonomic Resolution on Sampling Large Rivers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Karen Blocksom and Joseph Flotemersch EPA/ORD/NERL NWQM Conference, San Jose, CA May 11, 2006 Effect of Taxonomic Resolution on Performance Characteristics of a Method for Sampling Large Rivers *Although this work was reviewed by EPA and approved for publication, it may not necessarily reflect official Agency policy.

  2. Background • A new bioassessment method developed for collecting macroinvertebrates in non-wadeable rivers (In press: River Research and Applications, vol. 22, July 2006) • Study conducted to estimate performance characteristics using metrics: precision and sensitivity • Evaluated at the lowest possible taxon (species) level • Many states stop at genus or family, so relevant to evaluate performance characteristics at these levels as well

  3. Transect A 1 B C 100 m A 2 B C A 3 B C 500 m Flow Flow A 4 B C A 5 B C A 6 B C Sample Collection and Processing • 19 sites across 5 rivers • Deep and shallow sites across disturbance gradient • 3 replicate samples per site in field • Also habitat, basic water chemistry collected • Up to three 300-organism sorts per sample in the laboratory

  4. Expectations (Family/Genus relative to Species level) • Richness metrics will have lower values in general and hence, lower variability (higher precision) at the genus and family levels (Total and EPT taxa richness) • Tolerance and functional feeding group metrics will have lower variability because designations will apply to broader groups and should be more consistent at this level (% Tolerant individuals and % Collector-filterers) • Laboratory variability will be lower because less chance for error than at species level • Sensitivity will be poorer because of broader groups at the family level – fewer correlations with abiotic variables

  5. Precision - Methods • Perform ANOVA with: • Site ID as factor • Multiple samples (A,B,C) as field replicates • Multiple 300-organism sorts as lab replicates • Use RMSE from this analysis to calculate: • Detectable difference (DD) – minimum difference detectable based on sample size of 3 • Relative DD (as percentage of metric range)

  6. 8 7 6 5 Family 4 Genus DD Species 3 2 1 0 % Tolerant EPT richness Taxa richness % Coll-filterer Precision - Field

  7. 12 10 8 Family Genus 6 Relative DD Species 4 2 0 % Tolerant EPT richness % Coll-filterer Taxa richness Precision - Field

  8. 7 6 5 Family Genus 4 Species 3 DD 2 1 0 % Tolerant EPT richness Taxa richness % Coll-filterer Precision - Laboratory

  9. 15 Family 10 Genus Species Relative DD 5 0 % Tolerant EPT richness Taxa richness % Coll-filterer Precision - Laboratory

  10. Results - Precision • Taxa and EPT richness • DD (variability) increased from family to species as expected • BUT relative DD similar or slight decrease from family to species • % Tolerant individuals • For lab, DD (variability) increased family to species • No strong pattern for field DD • % Collector-filterers • Genus and species identical - same designations • All measures similar among taxonomic levels

  11. Sensitivity - Methods • Spearman rank correlations • Family, genus, and species levels • Between mean metric values and potential gradients: • Taxa richness, EPT richness, % Tolerant individuals, % Collector-filterers • Conductivity, pH, DO, temperature, EMAP habitat and human influence variables, NWHI metrics

  12. Family Genus Species 80 r = -0.49 r = -0.62 r = -0.66 70 60 Taxa richness 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Human influence - Roads Sensitivity

  13. Family Genus Species 25 r = 0.61 r = 0.59 r = 0.59 20 EPT richness 15 10 5 0 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 200 400 600 800 Conductivity (uS/cm) Sensitivity

  14. Family Genus Species 90 r = -0.50 r = -0.45 r = -0.41 80 70 60 % Tolerant individuals 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bottom Deposition score (NWHI) Sensitivity

  15. Family Genus Species 40 r = 0.66 r = 0.67 r = 0.67 30 % Collector-filterers 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bottom Deposition score (NWHI) Sensitivity

  16. Results – Sensitivity • As expected, generally more significant correlations at species level • Strength of common correlations similar among taxonomic levels • Variability around trend lines tends to be greater for genus and species level data

  17. Conclusions • In the context of relative DD, taxonomic level had little to no effect • Sensitivity only slightly stronger at genus/species level than at the family level • Overall, taxonomic resolution did not strongly affect performance characteristics of the method

More Related