Abstract
Artificial substrata are increasingly used to study periphyton, but their ability to reproduce natural substrata remains controversial. Although many studies have made contemporaneous comparisons of periphyton assemblages on artificial and natural substrata at one or a few sites, no broadly based comparison exists. We therefore surveyed the literature to establish conditions under which artificial substrata satisfactorily mimic both the quantity and the quality of natural periphyton assemblages. In general, epilithon was underestimated by the artificial substrata; epiphyton was overestimated, but less severely. These trends were significantly affected by the time available for colonization of the artificial substrata before sampling, site trophy, ambient temperature, and whether the study was conducted in a lake or in running water. Neither the composition of the substratum nor its orientation appeared important. Natural diatom assemblages were usually well simulated by those on artificial substrata, whereas both epilithic and epiphytic green and bluegreen algae were severely underrepresented on the artificial substrata. Since artificial substrata often misrepresent both the quantity and the quality of natural periphyton, they should be used with more caution, especially in intersite and interseason surveys.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of the North American Benthological Society
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
