Wang Lizhu, Weigel Brian W, Kanehl Paul, Lohman Kirk
Institute for Fisheries Research, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and University of Michigan, 212 Museums Annex, Ann Arbor, MI,48109, USA.
Environ Monit Assess. 2006 Aug;119(1-3):245-73. doi: 10.1007/s10661-005-9025-4. Epub 2006 Jun 2.
Stream macroinvertebrate communities vary naturally among types of habitats where they are sampled, which affects the results of environmental assessment. We analyzed macroinvertebrates collected from riffle and snag habitats to evaluate influences of habitat-specific sampling on taxon occurrence, assemblage measures, and biotic indices. We found considerably more macroinvertebrate taxa unique to snags (143 taxa) than to riffles (75 taxa), and the numbers of taxa found in both riffles and snags (149 taxa) were similar to that found in snags. About 64% of the 47 macroinvertebrate measures we tested differed significantly between riffles and snags. Eighty percent intercepts of regressions between biotic indices and urban or agricultural land uses differed significantly between riffles and snags. The Hilsenhoff biotic index calculated from snag samples explained 69% of the variance of riffle samples and classified 66% of the sites into the same stream health group as the riffle samples. However, four multimetric indices for snag samples explained less than 50% of the variance of riffle samples and classified less than 50% of the sites into the same health group as the riffle samples. We concluded that macroinvertebrate indices developed for riffle/run habitat should not be used for snag samples to assess stream impairment. We recommend developing an index of biotic integrity specifically for snags and using snags as an alternate sampling substrate for streams that naturally lack riffles.
溪流大型无脊椎动物群落因采样的栖息地类型不同而自然变化,这会影响环境评估结果。我们分析了从浅滩和倒木栖息地采集的大型无脊椎动物,以评估特定栖息地采样对分类单元出现情况、群落指标和生物指数的影响。我们发现,倒木特有的大型无脊椎动物分类单元(143个分类单元)比浅滩特有的(75个分类单元)多得多,浅滩和倒木中都发现的分类单元数量(149个分类单元)与倒木中发现的数量相似。我们测试的47个大型无脊椎动物指标中,约64%在浅滩和倒木之间存在显著差异。生物指数与城市或农业土地利用之间回归的80%截距在浅滩和倒木之间存在显著差异。根据倒木样本计算的希尔森霍夫生物指数解释了浅滩样本69%的方差,并将66%的采样点归类到与浅滩样本相同的溪流健康组。然而,倒木样本的四个多指标指数解释的浅滩样本方差不到50%,且将不到50%的采样点归类到与浅滩样本相同的健康组。我们得出结论,为浅滩/急流栖息地开发的大型无脊椎动物指数不应用于倒木样本以评估溪流受损情况。我们建议专门为倒木开发一个生物完整性指数,并将倒木用作天然缺乏浅滩的溪流的替代采样基质。