You are on page 1of 1

Article

River Systems Vol. 19/4, p. 315326


published online November 2011

A comparison of sampling methods for riverine zooplankton


Tamara D. Sluss1, Jeffrey D. Jack* and James H. Thorp2
with 5 figures and 1 table

Abstract: Research of zooplankton in large rivers is more recent and less common than lentic and marine studies
and over ten different sampling devices have been used to sample riverine zooplankton around the world to date.
The objectives of this study were to (i) demonstrate the need for standardizing collection methods for riverine zooplankton; (ii) report the results of eld tests on the relative effectiveness of three sampling devices (alpha bottle,
Schindler trap, and manual bilge pump) in collecting copepods, cladocerans, and rotifers from a large river during
low and high ow periods at two depths in the Ohio River; and (iii) discuss advantages and disadvantages of sampling devices and provide sampling suggestions based on this eld study and experience sampling riverine zooplankton. Our results indicate that there is great variability in the densities of zooplankton captured by different
sampling devices and variability between replicate measurements of the same sampling device. The alpha bottle and
the pump collected signicantly different densities of every taxa (excepting Bosmina) with signicant differences
due to sampling device. All other taxa showed no signicant differences between devices indicating that the Schindler may be the least effective of the three devices. The Schindler captured less total zooplankton than the other devices and those differences were driven by the capture of fewer Bosmina and Keratella by the Schindler device.
Additionally, during the three sampling events, there were only signicant differences between samples taken from
different depths for cyclopoid copepods indicating a relatively well-mixed sampling region both vertically and laterally, from shore to channel. Although this study was conducted in only one large river and across two sampling
seasons, the differences due to sampling device makes it clear that conclusions drawn from cross-study comparisons
when different sampling devices were used are precarious. It may be proper for river researchers to standardize collection methods while also becoming aware of the consequences of using different methods in various riverine
habitats and during disparate seasonal and hydrologic conditions.
Keywords: Riverine zooplankton, sampling, comparative methods

Introduction
The need for standardized collection methods
for riverine zooplankton

Zooplankton are important consumers in many aquatic


habitats (Williamson 1987) and can be vital conduits for
energy and material transfers from suspended algae and
detritus to higher trophic levels (Mallin & Paerl 1994).
Their crucial role in riverine food webs have only just re-

ceived attention in fundamental ecological research (e.g.,


Thorp et al. 1994, Kobayashi 1997, Gosselain et al. 1998,
Jack & Thorp 2002, Thorp & Mantovani 2005). Zooplankton occur along the longitudinal dimension of rivers
(headwaters to the mouth) in two broad areas: higher ow,
main channel habitats and lower to zero ow, slackwater
habitats (side channels, bays, near shore, etc.) (Lair,
2006). Densities and growth rates are considerably greater
in slackwaters, probably primarily because of low turbulence and greater water retention which affect recruit-

Addresses of the authors:


1

Division of Math and Sciences, Kentucky State University, Frankfort, KY 40601 (tamara.sluss@kysu.edu)
Kansas Biological Survey and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66047-3759
USA (thorp@ku.edu)
*Deceased
2

2011 E. Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart, Germany

DOI: 10.1127/1868-5749/2011/0048

www.schweizerbart.de

1868-5749/2011/0048

$ 5.40

You might also like