FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE
WATER POLLUTION SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
APPLICATION AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT
#17
The Use of Linestone-Pilled Samplers for Collecting
Macroinvertebrates From Large Streams
J. B. Anderson
Chief, Aquatic Biology
and
William T. Mason, Jr.
Aquatic Biologist
Water Quality Activities
Basic Data Program
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
lOlh Broadway, Cincinnati, Ohio 1+5202
May 1966
-------
The Authors
Mr. William T. Mason, Jr. is an aquatic biologist engaged in
bottom fauna studies in the Water Pollution Surveillance System.
Mr. J. B. Anderson is Chief, Aquatic Biology, Water Quality Activ-
ities .
Many suggestions have been made in developing samplers which
can be used for collecting macroinvertebrates in large rivers. The
efforts and contributions of Dr. E. B. Henson and Mr. L. B. Tebo,
Jr., who formerly worked in the Aquatic Biology unit, are acknowl-
edged.
-------
Summary
1. Two limestone-filled, artificial substrate samplers for the
collection of macroinvertebrates in large streams are described,
and summary data from three sampling locations given.
2. The samplers facilitate the collection of stoneflies, caddisflies,
mayflies, midges, coelenterates, and bryozoans which are often
difficult to obtain with dredges in large streams.
3. The cubical and cylindrical substrate samplers collect a large
number and variety of macroinvertebrates. Some organisms, however,
such as worms, clams, and certain midges, normally found in bottom
sediments, are collected in relatively few numbers.
k. There was no discernable difference in the number and variety of
organisms collected by the cubical sampler and the cylindrical sampler.
5. The number of organisms collected in a sampler varied considerably
with the time of year.
6. Variations in macroinvertebrate populations that inhabit the samplers
are useful in indicating trends in water quality.
Re cotnmendat ion
The cylindrical substrate sampler is a low-cost, easily obtainable,
and durable sampler. It collects macroinvertebrates with equal or
greater effectiveness than any other known substrate bampler. It is
recommended that this sampler be vised as the standard type for Water
Pollution Surveillance System studies.
-------
-2-
Introduction
A number of artificial substrate samplers have been built by
investigators to facilitate or improve sampling. Scott (1958)
developed a "brush box" consisting of a cube of l/b inch mesh
hardware cloth which was filled with sticks, stones, and other
stable substrates. Hester and Dendy (1962) constructed a
"multiple-plate sampler" with eight, 3 in. square, l/8 in. tem-
pered hardboard plates separated by seven, smaller 1 in. square,
l/8 in. hardboard. Cauthron (1961) used a sampler in which
weathered sticks and Spanish moss were enclosed with ordinary
window screen. Henson (1965) described the cubical sampler in
use by the Water Pollution Surveillance System which consists of
an 8 in. angle iron, cubical framework lined with l/2 in. hard-
ware cloth.
Benthic sampling of large streams is difficult due, in part,
to the variety of natural substrates encountered. Representative
bottom sampling is difficult even within a limited area because
of shifting substrates, stream flow, and a host of otter physical
factors. Dredges or similar devices which cut or scrape the
bottom are used extensively by aquatic biologists. This method
usually produces a poor variety of macroinvertebratea and quite
often a relatively small number of individuals. It is distressing
to spend many hours sorting through sand and debris to find only a
few worms, midges, and mollusks.
-------
-3-
In the Water Pollution Surveillance System there was a need to
develop a method for collecting macroinverteb rates in large streams
that was simple and effective. Also, a sampler that could be ser-
viced by persons with different backgrounds of training and exper-
ience was desirable.
For these reasons, the "Cubical" and "Cylindrical" artificial
substrate samplers were devised for the collection of macroinverte-
brates. Data on the populations collected during the ausner and
fall of 1965 were compared from three locations.
-------
-It-
Description of the Cubical and Cylindrical
Substrate Samplers
Cubical substrate sampler
The cubical sampler (Figs. 1 and 3) consists of l/8 X 1 X 1
in. angle iron welded into a cubical frame with sides approximately
8 in. square. It is lined with l/2 in. mesh, 19-gauge hardware
cloth, and one side is removable. The cube is filled with 0.25
cu. ft. of 1 to 2 in. crushed limestone. The loaded sampler weighs
approximately 35 lb. It has been suspended by l/8 in. wire cable
from stationary structures. Cost per unit is from $9 to $12 in-
cluding labor and 10 ft. of cable. Rusting of the hardware cloth
is sometimes a problem and has required replacement in as little
as 3 months when the sampler is used in corrosive water.
Cylindrical substrate sampler
The cylindrical sampler (Figs 2 and 3) is a spot-welded, chrome-
plated Bar-B-Q"1" basket manufactured by the Hewitt Manufacturing
Company, National City, California, and is available at less than
$2.00 each if bought in quantities. The cylindrical basket is formed
of 2-mm steel wire, braced by four, 4-mm steel rods. It ia corrosion
resistant and strong. The sampler contains 0*2 cu. ft. of limestone
and weighs 20 lb. The sampler opens its entire length for easy
placement or removal of the rocks.
Mention of commercial sources or products does not constitute
endorsement by the Water Pollution Control Administration.
-------
-5-
Fig. 3. Cubical and cylindrical samplers.
-------
-6-
Methods and Materials
Artificial substrate samplers were placed at Water Pollution
Surveillance System stations on the Ohio River and the Wabash River.
The samplers were suspended from stationary structures to a depth of
approximately 5 ft. After the samplers had been in the water for 6
weeks, the following procedure was used to collect the organisms.
1. Sampler was removed and placed in a tub containing a small
amount of water. 2. The rocks were emptied into the tub. 3« Sampler
was rinsed in tub to remove any clinging organisms. 4. Each rock was
brushed with a stiff-bristled brush over the tub. (The clean rocks
were replaced in sampler.) 5 • Water containing organisms and debris
was poured through a No. 30 sieve. 6. Sample was transferred from
the sieve and preserved in 70$ ethanol.
In the laboratory the sample was washed in a No. 40 sieve. The
organisms were sorted by hand, counted, and, excluding the Oligochaeta,
identified to genus or species. The results were expressed as numbers
per sampler. Aliquots of some samples from the Wabash River were
counted because of the large number of organisms. The appropriate
factor was applied to express the number of organisms per sampler.
-------
-7-
Discussion
The artificial substrate sampler is a useful tool for obtaining
data on population trends as an indication of water quality and for
determining cyclic population fluctuations. Like dredges and trawls
the artificial substrate samplers are selective for certain benthlc
organisms. Although many of the organisms found on the samplers
rarely are found on the stream bottom, they are often the most
valuable for the evaluation of water quality.
Placement of the cubical and cylindrical samplers within the
euphotic zone creates a shallow stream environment that attracts a
larger variety of macroinvertebrates than when placed at greater
depths. Sediments deposited in the samplers and currents are important
physical factors, among others, affecting the organisms inhabiting
the samplers. Installations on stationary structures do not permit
compensation for river-level fluctuations. A preferable method for
future studies is to suspend samplers from barges or other floating
objects.
Seasonal differences In collections
The artificial substrate samplers were placed for collection of
organisms as early as May and as late as December. Though the sampling
periods are not exactly comparable, seme general observations on the
effectiveness of attracting organisms during summer and fall can be
made from a comparison of Tables I, II, and III.
-------
-8-
The largest collections at the Ohio Fiver locations were
obtained from June through September vith the maximum number of
organisms occurring in July and August. The number collected at
Cincinnati (Table I) from October 6 to November 16 decreased
markedly based on earlier collections, but the variety was not
appreciably less. At Louisville (Table II) during the period
September 28 to November 12 fewer total organisms were collected
than earlier periods. The number of species present was less than
in the May to August period and about the same as in the August to
September samples.
The Wabash River samples collected September 29 and November
17 contained the greatest number and variety of organisms with the
maximum number occurring in the September to November period (Table
III). Although there were fewer numbers for the period November 17
to December 20, the number of species was not appreciably reduced.
The Tendipedid (midge) collections in the Ohio River were great-
est during June, July, and August. In the Wabash River large numbers
were collected as late as October and November.
A fairly large number of the Trichopteran larva, Cyraellus fra-
temus, Banks, (Flint, 196*0 were collected from the Ohio River from
June to early October; a fewer number were collected during May and after
September. Additional observations of seasonal variations of groups
-------
-9-
or species are needed to clearly establish the periods of greatest
abundance.
Comparison of organisms collected at Louisville and Cincinnati
on the Ohio River
Some species were collected regularly in both the cubical and
cylindrical samplers during 1965 at Louisville and Cincinnati (Table
IV): the Tendipedid larvae of Pentaneura sp., Harnlschia spp.,
Tendipes nervosus, and Psectrocladius sp., frequently; Procladlus sp.,
Glyptotendipes senilis, Polypedilum illinoense and Coelotanypus con-
cinnus, occasionally. The trichopteran larva Cyrnellus fraternus
was collected regularly in both samplers. The most common mayfly
nymphs were Caenis sp. and Stenonema sp. The damselfly Argla sp.
occurred more irregularly.
The clam Corbicula fliiminea was more numerous at Louisville than
at Cincinnati. The crustaceans, worms, and mollusks occurred spo-
radically in both the cubical and cylindrical samplers. Both of
these artificial substrate samplers collected bryozoan and coelen-
terate colonies. Because of the inconsistency in the collections
of invertebrate groups that prefer the mud and silt bottoms of the
rivers, dredge or trawl samples should be collected to supplement
artificial substrate data.
Comparison of organisms collected from Wabash and Ohio Rivers
The Wabash River has different stream characteristics than those
of the Ohio River. Data from the Wabash River is included in this
-------
-10-
report to offer a comparison of the effectiveness of artificial
substrate sampling in two different environments. The Ohio River
is approximately 20 ft. deep at the sampling locations whereas the
Wabash River is scarcely 6 ft. deep. The Wabash has many shallow,
sandy areas that account for warmer water temperatures during the
summer months than the Ohio River. The Wabash receives considerable
organic enrichment that enhances the growth of large populations of
omnivorous and filter-feeding macroinvertebrates. A greater variety
and a larger number of individuals were collected by both samplers
at New Harmony than at Louisville or Cincinnati.
At New Harmony, a fev stone fly nymphs, Acroneuria sp., were
collected in both the cubical and cylindrical samplers. Glyptotendipes
loblferus, Tanytarsus sp., Cryptochironomus sp., Calopsectra sp., one
ceratopogonid species and Simulium sp. were found at New Harmony, but
not at the Ohio River locations. A greater diversity of caddisfly
species were collected at New Harmony than at either Ohio River
location. flydropsyche orris, Potamyia flava, and Leptocella sp. were
collected regularly along with Cyrnellus frat emus larvae in the
Wabash. One cylindrical substrate sample collected in September con-
tained burrowing mayfly nymphs Hexagenla, which are visually collected
frcm the sediments. Both samplers were suspended only one foot from
the bottom during the sampling interval, which was still within the
euphotic zone. The samplers collected damselfly and dragonfly nymphs
represented by Argia, Gomphus, Dromogomph.ua, and Neurocordulla. The
clam Corbicula fluminea was collected in one cubical substrate sampler.
-------
-11-
A considerable increase in the variety and number of individuals
occurred in the Wabash River samples in contrast to the Ohio River
samples (Table V.).
Comparison of effectiveness of cubical and cylindrical substrate
samplers
The Table V. summary of data during 19^5 from the three locations
collected by cubical and cylindrical substrate samplers shows that one
sampler may collect more species than the other but the differences
are small. The total number of individuals collected by each sampler
varied, but one sampler does not consistently collect more individuals
than the other per sampling interval.
-------
-12-
Table I. Macroinvertebrates collected from the Ohio River at Cincinnati, Ohio,
1965
Sampling Interval
Organism
June 8 to
July 16
July 16 to
Aug. 25
Aug. 25 to
Oct. 6
Oct. 6 to
Nov. 16
Type
Sampler
Diptera
Tendipedidae
32
35
92
60
5
15
5
k
Cubical
Cylindrical
Trichoptera
151
144
267
107
135
62
12
7
Cubical
Cylindrical
Ephemeroptera
k
2
1
1
2
Cubical
Cylindrical
Odonata
Zygoptera
1
3
2
1
2
Cubical
Cylindrical
Crustacea
Decapoda
1
Cubical
Cylindrical
Turbellaria
2
3
Cubical
Cylindrical
Mollusca
pelecypoda
1
3
Cubical
Cylindrical
Bryozoa
X
X
X
X
Cubical
Cylindrical
Coelenterata
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cubical
Cylindrical
Total No.
Individuals
189
184
363
168
142
80
23
16
Cubical
Cylindrical
Total No.
Species
8
6
12
?
6
8
8
6
Cubical
Cylindrical
X = present but not counted
-------
-13-
Table II. Macroinvertebrates collected from the Ohio River at Louisville, Kentucky,
1965
Sampling Interval
Organism
May 7 to
June 15
June 15 to
Aug. 10
Aug. 10 to
Sept. 28
Sept. 28 to
Nov. 12
Type
Sampler
Diptera
Tendipedidae
ko
35
90
119
8
9
Cubical
Cylindrical
Trichoptera
k
5
53
152
67
91
5
6
Cubical
Cylindrical
Ephemeroptera
31
21
1
Cubical
Cylindrical
Odonata
Zygoptera
2
5
1
7
Cubical
Cylindrical
Crustacea
Decapoda
Amphipoda
7
1
2
6
1
2
1
1
6
Cubical
Cylindrical
Cubical
Cylindrical
Annelida
Oligochaeta
1
Cubical
Cylindrical
Turbellaria
1
73
37
3
2
Cubical
Cylindrical
Mollusca
Pelecypoda
12^
62
12
6
1
4
Cubical
Cylindrical
Gastropoda
10
1
2
5
2
Cubical
Cylindrical
Bryozoa
X
X
Cubical
Cylindrical
Coelenterata
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cubical
Cylindrical
Total No.
Individuals
87
62
362
371
$k
110
18
31
Cubical
Cylindrical
Total No.
Species
16
13
lb
16
10
8
7
10
Cubical
Cylindrical
X = present but not counted
-------
-lb-
Table III. Macroinvertebrates collected from the Wabash River at New Harmony,
Indiana, 1965
Sampling Interval
Organism
Aug. 10 to
Sept. 29 to
Nov. 17 to
Type
Sept. 29
Nov. 17
Dec. 20
Sampler
Diptera
USo
Tendipedidae
91
7k
Cubical
217
k-92
5b
Cylindrical
Other
2
1
Cubical
1
Cylindrical
Trichoptera
106
kO
23
Cubical
300
66
77
Cylindrical
Plecoptera
2
Cubical
k
5
Cylindrical
Epheme ropte ra
3
56
10
Cubical
U8
80
13
Cylindrical
Odonata
Anisoptera
7
^9
1
Cubical
7
32
Cylindrical
Zygoptera
U4
56
10
Cubical
32
36
2
Cylindrical
Coleoptera
6
a
3
Cubical
7
8
2
Cylindrical
Crustacea
Decapoda
1
Cubical
1
2
Cylindrical
Amphipoda
1
Cubical
Cylindrical
Isopoda
3
Cubical
6
Cylindrical
Oligochaeta
12
30
Cubical
16
35
Cylindrical
Hirudinea
Cubical
1
Cylindrical
0%rbellaria
20
5
Cubical
5
12
17
Cylindrical
Mollusca
Pelecypoda
5
28
5
Cubical
9
12
1
Cylindrical
Gastropoda
1
Cubical
1
Cylindrical
Bryozoa
X
X
X
Cubical
X
X
X
Cylindrical
Total No.
268
7^9
170
Cubical
Individuals
6ko
758
207
Cylindrical
Total No.
2k
20
21
Cubical
Species
31
23
18
Cylindrical
X = present but nox counted
-------
M M mIm A & 15 <£*
£l
Sm
!»
!»
S-
•m
!»
S»
»y <»i iwy q* **• *jt zm hiim ^
i > .»))])»); . i' ) ) ) ' ; )
) > )
lim iUlta
* t|r
; >
-------
-15-
Table IV. Macroinvertebrates collected at Cincinnati (C) and Louisville (L) on
Ohio River and at New Harmony (n) on Wabash River, 1965
Organism
Cubical sampler Cylindrical sampler
N
N
Diptera
Tendipedidae
Pelopiinae
Pentaneura sp. XXX
Coelotanypus conclnnus XXX
Procladius culiciformis XXX
Hydrobaeninae
Psectrocladius sp. XXX
Cricotopus sp. X
Hydrobaenus sp.
Tendipedinae
Tendipes (Limnochironomus) sp. X
T1. nervosus X X
T. modestus
CryptochironoBius sp. X
Polypedllum sp. X X
P. illinoense X
P. ophioides
Tanytarsua sp. X
Calopaectra sp. X
Harnlschia sp. XXX
H. abortiva X
Glyptotendipes senilis X X
G. lobiferus X
Simulidae
Simullun sp. X
Ceratopogonidae (1 sp.) X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Trichoptera
Cyrnellus fraternus
Hydropsyche orris
Potaayia flava
Leptocella sp.
Macronemuat sp.
Arthripsodes sp.
Agraylea sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ephemeroptera >
Stenonema sp.
Caenis sp.
Trlcorythodas sp.
Hexagenla sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(cantd)
-------
-16-
Table IV.(contd). Macroinvertebrates collected at Cincinnati (c) and Louisville
(L) on Ohio River and at New Harmony (N) on Wabash River, 1965
Organism
Cubical sampler Cylindrical sampler
N
N
Plecoptera
Perlidae
Acroneuria sp.
Odonata
Zygoptera
Argia sp.
Anisoptera
Gom.ph.us sp.
Dromogomphus sp.
Neurocordulia sp.
Erpetogomphus sp.
Coleoptera
Steneirnis sp.
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Gamrnarus sp.
Isopoda
Asellus sp.
Decapoda
Orconectes obscurus
Cambarus sp.
Oligochaeta
Turbellaria
Hirudinea
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Bulimidae (l sp.)
Viviparidae fl sp.)
Planorbidae (l sp.)
Physa sp.
Somatogyrus sp.
pelecypoda
Corbicula fluminea
Sphaerium sp.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(contd)
-------
-17-
Table IV.(contd). Macroinvertebrates collected at Cincinnati (C) and Louisville
(l) on Ohio River and at New Harmony (N) on Wabash River, 1965
n nn._m Cubical sampler Cylindrical sampler
Urg 5m C L N C L N
Bryozoa
Pectinatella sp. XX XX
Plumatella repens X X
Lophopodella sp. X X
Colenterata
Cordylophora sp. XX XX
Itydra sp. X
-------
-18-
Table V. Comparison of macroinvertebrate collections, 1965
Location
Sampler
Number of
Species®
Number of Species
in all samples
Number
individuals
in all samples
Ohio River at
Cincinnati
(4 samples)
Cubical
Cylindrical
Both
16
l4
18
TIT
1*48
Ohio River at
Louisville
(h samples)
Cubical
Cylindrical
Both
26
28
32
561
Wabash River at
New Harmony
(3 samples)
Cubical
Cylindrical
Both
3^
39
^3
1187
1605
Excluding the Oligochaeta.
-------
-19-
Literature Cited
Cauthron, F. F. 1961. A survey of invertebrate forma of the
Mississippi River in the vicinity of Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Masters Thesis, unpublished, Louisiana State University.
Flint, Oliver S. 1964. Notes on some nearctic Psychomyiidae vith
special reference to their larvae. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus.,
115:467-481, No. 3491, Smithsonian Inst.
Benson, E. B. 1965. A cage sampler for collecting aquatic fauna.
Turtox News, 43(12):298-299.
Hfester, F. E., and J. S. Dendy. 1962. A multiple-plate sampler
for aquatic macroinvertebrates. Trans. Amer. Fisheries Soc.,
91(10:420-421.
Scott, D. C. 1958. Biological balance in streams. Sewage and
Industrial Wastes, 30(9) :ll69-U73.
------- |