Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:45:36.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reliable sample sizes for estimating similarity among macroinvertebrate assemblages in tropical streams

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2010

Fabiana Schneck  and
Adriano S. Melo
Fabiana Schneck*
Affiliation:
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, CP 15007, CEP 91501–970, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Adriano S. Melo
Affiliation:
Departamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, CP 15007, CEP 91501–970, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Present address: Departamento de Ecologia, ICB, Universidade Federal de Goiás, CP 131, CEP 74001–970, Goiânia, GO, Brazil
*
*Corresponding author: fabiana.schneck@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

Studies in tropical streams are relatively few, and one of the still-unresolved methodological issues is sample size. Adequate sample size for temperate streams cannot be extrapolated for tropical sites, because of the differences in species richness and the proportions of rare species. We evaluated reliable sample size for estimation of resemblance among samples of macroinvertebrate assemblages inhabiting riffles of tropical streams, using the autosimilarity approach. Sample sizes were much larger than those currently employed in tropical studies. Sampling units consisted of individuals associated with single stones (15–20 cm). Evaluations employed the Bray-Curtis index for abundance data and the equivalent Sorensen index for presence-absence data. Autosimilarity curves were constructed using both sampling units and individuals. The estimation of resemblance among samples was strongly dependent upon sample size at reduced sampling effort, particularly for the Bray-Curtis index. For the same sampling effort, fixed counts of individuals obtained randomly from sampling units gave better estimations of resemblance, and their similarity curves tended to stabilize earlier than those using sampling units. A minimum of 9–15 sampling units (stones) or 150–850 individuals is necessary for adequate estimations of resemblance using presence-absence data, and 13–18 sampling units or 750–1550 individuals are required for relative abundance data in tropical streams.

Keywords

Autosimilaritysample representativenesssampling effortspecies richnessspecies relative abundances
Type
Research Article
Information
Annales de Limnologie - International Journal of Limnology , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , 2010 , pp. 93 - 100
Copyright
© EDP Sciences, 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cao, Y., Williams, W.P. and Bark, A.W., 1997. Effects of sample size (replicate number) on similarity measures in river benthic Aufwuchs community analysis. Water Environ. Res. , 69, 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, Y., Larsen, D.P. and Hughes, R.M., 2001. Evaluating sampling sufficiency in fish assemblage surveys: a similarity-based approach. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. , 58, 1782–1793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, Y., Larsen, D.P., Hughes, R.M., Angermeier, P.L. and Patton, T.M., 2002. Sampling effort affects multivariate comparisons of stream assemblages. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. , 21, 701–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, Y., Hawkins, C.P. and Vinson, M.R., 2003. Measuring and controlling data quality in biological assemblage surveys with special reference to stream benthic macroinvertebrates. Freshwater Biol. , 48, 1898–1911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, J.L. and Resh, V.H., 2001. After site selection and before data analysis: sampling, sorting, and laboratory procedures used in stream benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring programs by USA state agencies. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. , 20, 658–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, A., Chazdon, R.L., Colwell, R.K. and Shen, T., 2005. A new statistical approach for assessing similarity of species composition with incidence and abundance data. Ecol . Lett. , 8, 148–159.Google Scholar
Chazdon, R.L., Colwell, R.K., Denslow, J.S. and Guariguata, M.R., 1998. Statistical methods for estimating species richness of woody regeneration in primary and secondary rain forests of NE Costa Rica. In: Dallmeier, F. and Comiskey, A. (eds.), Forest biodiversity research, monitoring and modeling: Conceptual background and Old World case studies, Parthenon Publishing, Paris, 285–309.Google Scholar
Doberstein, C.P., Karr, J.R. and Conquest, L.L., 2000. The effect of fixed-count subsampling on macroinvertebrate biomonitoring in small streams. Freshwater Biol. , 44, 355–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faith, D.P., Minchin, P.R. and Belbin, L., 1987. Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio , 69, 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotelli, N.J. and Colwell, R.K., 2001. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol. Lett. , 4, 379–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hering, D., Moog, O., Sandin, L. and Verdonschot, P.F.M., 2004. Overview and application of the AQEM assessment system. Hydrobiologia , 516, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R.M. and Herlihy, A.T., 2007. Electrofishing distance needed to estimate consistent index of biotic integrity (IBI) scores in raftable Oregon Rivers. T. Am. Fish. Soc. , 136, 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R.M. and Peck, D.V., 2008. Acquiring data for large aquatic resource surveys: the art of compromise among science, logistics, and reality. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. , 27, 837–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanno, Y., Vokoun, J.C., Dauwalter, D.C., Hughes, R.M., Herlihy, A.T., Maret, T.R. and Patton, T.M., 2009. Influence of rare species on electrofishing distance when estimating species richness of stream and river reaches. T. Am. Fish. Soc. , 138, 1240–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennard, M.J., Pusey, B.J., Harch, B.D., Dore, E. and Arthington, A.H., 2006. Estimating local stream fish assemblage attributes: sampling effort and efficiency at two spatial scales. Mar. Freshwater Res. , 57, 635–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kronberg, I., 1987. Accuracy of species and abundance minimal areas determined by similarity area curves. Mar. Biol. , 96, 555–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, P.S., Schreiber, E.S.G., Milne, B.J. and Pearson, R.G., 1994. Species richness in streams: patterns over time, with stream size and with latitude. Verh. Internat. Verein. Theor. Angew. Limnol. , 25, 1822–1826.Google Scholar
Legendre, P. and Legendre, L., 1998. Numerical Ecology, Second Edition, Elsevier Scientific, Amsterdam, 853 p.Google Scholar
Li, J., Herlihy, A., Gerth, W., Kaufmann, P., Gregory, S., Urquhart, S. and Larsen, D.P., 2001. Variability in stream macroinvertebrates at multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biol. , 46, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, M., Inger, R.F. and King, F.W., 1968. On the diversity of reptile and amphibian species in a Bornean rain forest. Am. Nat. , 102, 497–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, A., Kirchner, L. and Hering, D., 2004. Electronic subsampling of macrobenthic samples: how many individuals are needed for a valid assessment result? Hydrobiologia , 516, 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magurran, A.E., 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity, Second Edition, Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, 260 p.Google Scholar
Maret, T.R., Ott, D.S. and Herlihy, A.T., 2007. Electrofishing effort required to estimate biotic condition in southern Idaho rivers. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. , 27, 1041–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melo, A.S., 2004. A critic of the use of jackknife and related non-parametric techniques to estimate species richness in assemblages. Comm. Ecol. , 5, 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melo, A.S., 2005. Effects of taxonomic and numeric resolution on the ability to detect ecological patterns at a local scale using stream macroinvertebrates. Arch. Hydrobiol. , 164, 309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melo, A.S. and Froehlich, C.G., 2001a. Macroinvertebrates in Neotropical streams: richness patterns along a catchment and assemblage structure between 2 seasons. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. , 20, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melo, A.S. and Froehlich, C.G., 2001b. Evaluation of methods for estimating macroinvertebrate species richness using individual stones in tropical streams. Freshwater Biol. , 46, 711–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melo, A.S. and Froehlich, C.G., 2004. Substrate stability in streams: effects of stream size, particle size, and rainfall on frequency of movement and burial of particles. Acta Limnol. Bras. , 16, 381–390.Google Scholar
Melo, A.S., Bini, L.M. and Carvalho, P., 2006. Brazilian articles in international journals on Limnology. Scientometrics , 67, 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morellato, L.P.C., 1992. História Natural da Serra do Japi, Editora da Unicamp/Fapesp, Campinas, Brazil.Google Scholar
Resh, V.H. and Jackson, J.K., 1993. Rapid assessment approaches to biomonitoring using benthic macroinvertebrates. In: Rosenberg, D.M. and Resh, V.H. (eds.), Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Chapman and Hall, New York, 195–233.Google Scholar
Schleier, U. and van Bernem, K.H., 1998. Statistical methods to determine sample size for the estimation of species richness and species' abundances in benthic communities. Arch. Fish. Mar. Res. , 46, 205–223.Google Scholar
Schmera, D. and Eros, T., 2006. Estimating sample representativeness in a survey of stream caddisfly fauna. Ann. Limnol. - Int. J. Lim. , 42, 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, J. and Vandermeer, J., 1975. Comparison of species richness for stream-inhabiting insects in tropical and mid-latitude streams. Am. Nat. , 109, 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The R Development Core Team, 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, http://www.R-project.org.PubMed
Wantzen, K.M., Ramírez, A. and Winemiller, K.O., 2006. New vistas in Neotropical stream ecology: Introduction to the special volume. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. , 25, 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, S., 1978. Minimal area problem in invertebrate communities of Mediterranean rocky substrata. Mar. Biol. , 49, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolda, H., 1981. Similarity indexes, sample-size and diversity. Oecologia , 50, 296–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar