Assessing streams in Germany with benthic invertebrates: development of a practical standardised protocol for macroinvertebrate sampling and sorting

166 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Assessing the impact of errors in sorting and identifying macroinvertebrate samples (2006, methodology): “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).”
Dispersal distance and the pool of taxa, but not barriers, determine the colonisation of restored river reaches by benthic invertebrates (2014, methodology): “Monitoring data were collected by German governmental environmental agencies between 2004 and 2008 and followed the same protocols used at the restoration sites (Haase et al., 2004a Haase et al., 2004b).”
Assessing strengths and weaknesses of DNA metabarcoding‐based macroinvertebrate identification for routine stream monitoring (2017, unknown): “…laboratory infrastructure and bioinformatics (which can be reduced by automation and parallelisation) as well as kick sample collection and sorting (Haase et al. 2004) may push the total costs per sample to 500–750€, which is comparable to current morphologybased monitoring costs (Buss et al.…”