A Comparison of Single and Multiple Habitat Protocols for Collecting Macroinvertebrates in Wadeable Streams1

Abstract

Abstract: In 2003, we compared two benthic macroinvertebrate sampling methods that are used for rapid biological assessment of wadeable streams. A single habitat method using kick sampling in riffles and runs was compared to a multiple habitat method that sampled all available habitats in proportion of occurrence. Both methods were performed side‐by‐side at 41 sites in lower gradient streams of the Piedmont and Northern Piedmont ecoregions of the United States, where riffle habitat is less abundant. Differences in sampling methods were examined using similarity indices, two multimetric indices [the family‐level Virginia Stream Condition Index (VSCI) and the species‐level Macroinvertebrate Biotic Integrity Index (MBII)], their component metrics, and bioassessment endpoints based on each index. Index scores were highly correlated between single and multiple habitat field methods, and sampling method comparability, based on comparison of similarities between and within sampling methods, was particularly high for species level data. The VSCI scores and values of most of its component metrics were not significantly higher for one particular method, but relationships between single and multiple habitat values were highly variable for percent Ephemeroptera, percent chironomids, and percent Plecoptera and Trichoptera (Hydropsychidae excluded). A similar level of variability in the relationship was observed for the MBII and most of its metrics, but Ephemeroptera richness, percent individuals in the dominant five taxa, and Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores all exhibited differences in values between single and multiple habitat field methods. When applied to multiple habitat samples, the MBII exhibited greater precision, higher index scores, and higher assessment categories than when applied to single habitat samples at the same sites. In streams with limited or no riffle habitats, the multiple habitat method should provide an adequate sample for biological assessment, and at sites with abundant riffle habitat, little difference would be expected between the single and multiple habitat field methods. Thus, in geographic areas with a wide variety of stream types, the multiple habitat method may be more desirable. Even so, the variability in the relationship between single and multiple habitat methods indicates that the data are not interchangeable, and we suggest that any change in sampling method should be accompanied by a recalibration of any existing assessment tool (e.g., multimetric index) with data collected using the new method, regardless of taxonomic level.