Application of rapid bioassessment protocols (RBP) for benthic macroinvertebrates in Brazil: comparison between sampling techniques and mesh sizes

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Buss,Daniel F.
Data de Publicação: 2008
Outros Autores: Borges,Erika L.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Neotropical entomology (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1519-566X2008000300007
Resumo: This study is part of the effort to test and to establish Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP) using benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators of the water quality of wadeable streams in south-east Brazil. We compared the cost-effectiveness of sampling devices frequently used in RBPs, Surber and Kick-net samplers, and of three mesh sizes (125, 250 and 500 µm). A total of 126,815 benthic macroinvertebrates were collected, representing 57 families. Samples collected with Kick method had significantly higher richness and BMWP scores in relation to Surber, but no significant increase in the effort, measured by the necessary time to process samples. No significant differences were found between samplers considering the cost/effectiveness ratio. Considering mesh sizes, significantly higher abundance and time for processing samples were necessary for finer meshes, but no significant difference were found considering taxa richness or BMWP scores. As a consequence, the 500 µm mesh had better cost/effectiveness ratios. Therefore, we support the use of a kick-net with a mesh size of 500 µm for macroinvertebrate sampling in RBPs using family level in streams of similar characteristics in Brazil.
id SEB-2_0990820e6355c55cb6d326bea57a3bcb
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1519-566X2008000300007
network_acronym_str SEB-2
network_name_str Neotropical entomology (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Application of rapid bioassessment protocols (RBP) for benthic macroinvertebrates in Brazil: comparison between sampling techniques and mesh sizesEnvironmental assessmentaquatic insectfreshwater ecologybiomonitoringbioindicatorThis study is part of the effort to test and to establish Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP) using benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators of the water quality of wadeable streams in south-east Brazil. We compared the cost-effectiveness of sampling devices frequently used in RBPs, Surber and Kick-net samplers, and of three mesh sizes (125, 250 and 500 µm). A total of 126,815 benthic macroinvertebrates were collected, representing 57 families. Samples collected with Kick method had significantly higher richness and BMWP scores in relation to Surber, but no significant increase in the effort, measured by the necessary time to process samples. No significant differences were found between samplers considering the cost/effectiveness ratio. Considering mesh sizes, significantly higher abundance and time for processing samples were necessary for finer meshes, but no significant difference were found considering taxa richness or BMWP scores. As a consequence, the 500 µm mesh had better cost/effectiveness ratios. Therefore, we support the use of a kick-net with a mesh size of 500 µm for macroinvertebrate sampling in RBPs using family level in streams of similar characteristics in Brazil.Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil2008-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1519-566X2008000300007Neotropical Entomology v.37 n.3 2008reponame:Neotropical entomology (Online)instname:Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil (SEB)instacron:SEB10.1590/S1519-566X2008000300007info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBuss,Daniel F.Borges,Erika L.eng2008-07-14T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1519-566X2008000300007Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/neONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||editor@seb.org.br1678-80521519-566Xopendoar:2008-07-14T00:00Neotropical entomology (Online) - Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil (SEB)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Application of rapid bioassessment protocols (RBP) for benthic macroinvertebrates in Brazil: comparison between sampling techniques and mesh sizes
title Application of rapid bioassessment protocols (RBP) for benthic macroinvertebrates in Brazil: comparison between sampling techniques and mesh sizes
spellingShingle Application of rapid bioassessment protocols (RBP) for benthic macroinvertebrates in Brazil: comparison between sampling techniques and mesh sizes
Buss,Daniel F.
Environmental assessment
aquatic insect
freshwater ecology
biomonitoring
bioindicator
title_short Application of rapid bioassessment protocols (RBP) for benthic macroinvertebrates in Brazil: comparison between sampling techniques and mesh sizes
title_full Application of rapid bioassessment protocols (RBP) for benthic macroinvertebrates in Brazil: comparison between sampling techniques and mesh sizes
title_fullStr Application of rapid bioassessment protocols (RBP) for benthic macroinvertebrates in Brazil: comparison between sampling techniques and mesh sizes
title_full_unstemmed Application of rapid bioassessment protocols (RBP) for benthic macroinvertebrates in Brazil: comparison between sampling techniques and mesh sizes
title_sort Application of rapid bioassessment protocols (RBP) for benthic macroinvertebrates in Brazil: comparison between sampling techniques and mesh sizes
author Buss,Daniel F.
author_facet Buss,Daniel F.
Borges,Erika L.
author_role author
author2 Borges,Erika L.
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Buss,Daniel F.
Borges,Erika L.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Environmental assessment
aquatic insect
freshwater ecology
biomonitoring
bioindicator
topic Environmental assessment
aquatic insect
freshwater ecology
biomonitoring
bioindicator
description This study is part of the effort to test and to establish Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP) using benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators of the water quality of wadeable streams in south-east Brazil. We compared the cost-effectiveness of sampling devices frequently used in RBPs, Surber and Kick-net samplers, and of three mesh sizes (125, 250 and 500 µm). A total of 126,815 benthic macroinvertebrates were collected, representing 57 families. Samples collected with Kick method had significantly higher richness and BMWP scores in relation to Surber, but no significant increase in the effort, measured by the necessary time to process samples. No significant differences were found between samplers considering the cost/effectiveness ratio. Considering mesh sizes, significantly higher abundance and time for processing samples were necessary for finer meshes, but no significant difference were found considering taxa richness or BMWP scores. As a consequence, the 500 µm mesh had better cost/effectiveness ratios. Therefore, we support the use of a kick-net with a mesh size of 500 µm for macroinvertebrate sampling in RBPs using family level in streams of similar characteristics in Brazil.
publishDate 2008
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2008-06-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1519-566X2008000300007
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1519-566X2008000300007
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1519-566X2008000300007
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Neotropical Entomology v.37 n.3 2008
reponame:Neotropical entomology (Online)
instname:Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil (SEB)
instacron:SEB
instname_str Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil (SEB)
instacron_str SEB
institution SEB
reponame_str Neotropical entomology (Online)
collection Neotropical entomology (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Neotropical entomology (Online) - Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil (SEB)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||editor@seb.org.br
_version_ 1754820847464349696