The effect of fixed-count subsampling on macroinvertebrate biomonitoring in small streams.

By Craig P. Doberstein, J. Karr, L. Conquest. 2000

104 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Environmental Chemistry, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/47f4364e3ef8c049a634072ee56f7a659f82dc05

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

1. Charles P. Hawkins
2. J. Ostermiller
3. R. King
4. C. Richardson
5. C. Yoder
6. S. Pauls
7. P. Haase
8. J. Karr

In Environmental Chemistry

1. R. King
2. C. Yoder
3. C. Richardson
4. Charles P. Hawkins
5. J. Ostermiller
6. J. Karr

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. Charles P. Hawkins
2. J. Ostermiller
3. R. King
4. C. Richardson
5. C. Yoder
6. P. Haase
7. J. Karr
8. F. Jones

Citations in the corpus

• Assessing the impact of errors in sorting and identifying macroinvertebrate samples (2006, background): “It arises from every stage of data collection, from sampling (e.g. Carter & Resh, 2001; Clarke et al., 2002; Ostermiller & Hawkins, 2004) to sample analysis and data handling (e.g. Doberstein et al., 2000; Haase et al., 2004a, b).”
• A comparative analysis of zooplankton field collection and sample enumeration methods (2012, methodology): “…methods, including differences in the minimum number of zooplankton counted per sample, also may compromise estimates of zooplankton abundance (or production or biomass), given that accuracy and precision positively relate to sample size (Lund et al. 1958; Gannon 1980; Doberstein et al. 2000).”
• Biological Assessment and Criteria Improve Total Maximum Daily Load Decision Making (2004, methodology): “1994) or inverte­ brates (Doberstein et al. 2000).”
• Evaluating Subsampling Approaches and Macroinvertebrate Taxonomic Resolution for Wetland Bioassessment (2002, methodology): “…replicates from different levels of impairment does not adequately assess how increasing size of subsamples improves the strength of relationships, increases the accuracy in detecting impairment, or estimates the risk of misclassifying individual sites (e.g., Suter 1996, Doberstein et al. 2000).”
• Effects of sampling error on bioassessments of stream ecosystems: application to RIVPACS-type models (2004, methodology): “Considering the results of our study and those of others (Doberstein et al. 2000, King and Richardson 2002), it is evident that larger subsampling counts should be used in assessments whenever economically feasible, but it is also clear that little is likely to be gained by counting k500…”