Stream biomonitoring using macroinvertebrates around the globe: a comparison of large-scale programs.

Water quality agencies and scientists are increasingly adopting standardized sampling methodologies because of the challenges associated with interpreting data derived from dissimilar protocols. Here, we compare 13 protocols for monitoring streams from different regions and countries around the globe. Despite the spatially diverse range of countries assessed, many aspects of bioassessment structure and protocols were similar, thereby providing evidence of key characteristics that might be incorporated in a global sampling methodology. Similarities were found regarding sampler type, mesh size, sampling period, subsampling methods, and taxonomic resolution. Consistent field and laboratory methods are essential for merging data sets collected by multiple institutions to enable large-scale comparisons. We discuss the similarities and differences among protocols and present current trends and future recommendations for monitoring programs, especially for regions where large-scale protocols do not yet exist. We summarize the current state in one of these regions, Latin America, and comment on the possible development path for these techniques in this region. We conclude that several aspects of stream biomonitoring need additional performance evaluation (accuracy, precision, discriminatory power, relative costs), particularly when comparing targeted habitat (only the commonest habitat type) versus site-wide sampling (multiple habitat types), appropriate levels of sampling and processing effort, and standardized indicators to resolve dissimilarities among biomonitoring methods. Global issues such as climate change are creating an environment where there is an increasing need to have universally consistent data collection, processing and storage to enable large-scale trend analysis. Biomonitoring programs following standardized methods could aid international data sharing and interpretation.

Comparison of bioassessment results and costs between preserved and unpreserved macroinvertebrate samples from streams.

The choice to use or not use a preservative before sorting macroinvertebrate samples (i.e., dead specimens vs. living specimens) is based on studies not solely focused on the effects of preservation. Using identical sample processing protocols, we compared preserved and unpreserved samples for the following parameters: (1) the number of taxa and individuals for each major macroinvertebrate group, (2) ecological quality classes calculated with a multimetric index developed for the assessment of small Dutch lowland streams, and (3) costs of sample processing. We collected macroinvertebrate samples from three lowland streams in the Netherlands. At each site, we collected six replicate samples, of which three samples were preserved and three were not. Significantly different numbers of Ephemeroptera individuals and Hydracarina taxa and individuals were collected from preserved samples compared to unpreserved samples. In assessments based on these individual metrics, standardization of sample processing will be required. In streams with Ephemeroptera, the preservation of samples is necessary to optimize the number of Ephemeroptera individuals collected. In streams that contain Hydracarina, the preservation of samples will result in an underestimation of the number of Hydracarina taxa and individuals present. In only one instance there was a difference in ecological quality between preserved and unpreserved samples, indicating that assessing small Dutch lowland streams does not require standardization of sample preservation as part of the sample processing protocol. We detected no significant differences in sample processing costs between preserved and unpreserved samples.