Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T00:38:55.285Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

RELATIVE EFFICIENCIES OF WET AND DRY EXTRACTION TECHNIQUES FOR SAMPLING AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES IN A SUBARCTIC PEATLAND

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Paul E.K. McElligott
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Macdonald Campus, 21, 111 Lukeshore Road, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, Canada H9X 3V9
David J. Lewis
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Macdonald Campus, 21, 111 Lukeshore Road, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, Canada H9X 3V9
Get access

Abstract

Two behavioural extraction techniques, wet and dry extraction, were evaluated as to their relative efficiencies in removing invertebrates from samples of wet peat collected from a fen near Schefferville, Quebec. Dry extraction involved drying a substrate sample from above, forcing any macroinvertebrates contained therein to move downward out of the substrate matrix. In wet extraction, peat samples were suspended in a water bath where a vertical temperature-dissolved oxygen gradient had been established; invertebrates responded to the gradient by moving downward out of the sample and into the water bath. Wet extraction yielded approximately three times more invertebrates per unit volume of substrate than dry extraction, but the two extraction methods differed considerably in their ability to extract different invertebrate taxa. Dry extraction was more effective than wet for obtaining larvae of Tabanidae, Tipulidae, Empididae, and Dolichopodidae, but larval Chironomidae, sphaeriid clams, and oligochaete worms were collected more efficiently by wet extraction. Other invertebrate taxa were collected with approximately equal efficiency by both methods.

Résumé

Deux techniques d’extraction des invertébrés basées sur le comportement, en présence d’eau et à sec, ont été essayées sur des échantillons de mousse de sphaigne mouillée provenant d’une tourbière minérotrophe près de Schefferville, Québec. L’extraction à sec consistait à sécher l’échantillon de substrat en commençant par le haut, forçant ainsi les macroinvertébrés qui s’y trouvaient à sortir du substrat par le bas. Dans le cas de l’extraction en présence d’eau, les échantillons de mousse ont été mis en suspension dans un bain d’eau où prévalait un gradient vertical de température-oxygène dissous; les invertébrés réagissaient au gradient en se déplaçant vers le bas, hors de l’échantillon et dans l’eau. L’extraction en présence d’eau a donné environ trois fois plus d’invertébrés par unité de volume de substrat que l’extraction à sec, mais les deux méthodes d’extraction variaient considérablement par la nature des invertébrés qu’ils permettaient d’obtenir. L’extraction à sec donnait des nombres plus élevés de larves de Tabanidae, Tipulidae, Empididae et Dolichopodidae, mais l’extraction en présence d’eau donnait un meilleur rendement de larves de Chironomidae, de mollusques Sphaeriidae et d’oligochètes. Quant aux autres taxons, ils étaient récoltés en nombres semblables avec les deux méthodes. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Edwards, C.A., and Fletcher, K.E.. 1971. A comparison of extraction methods for terrestrial arthropods, pp. 150185in Philipson, J. (Ed.), Methods of Study in Quantitative Soil Ecology. IPB handbook 18. Blackwood Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
Fairchild, W.L., O'Neill, M.C.A., and Rosenberg, D.M.. 1987. Quantitative evaluation of the behavioral extraction of aquatic invertebrates from samples of sphagnum moss. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 6: 281287.Google Scholar
Landin, J. 1976. Methods of sampling aquatic beetles in the transitional habitats at water margins. Freshwater Biology 6: 8187.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Tashiro, H., and Schwardt, H.H.. 1949. The biology of the major species of horse flies in central New York. Journal of Economic Entomology 42: 269272.Google Scholar
Teskey, H.J. 1962. A method and apparatus for collecting larvae of Tabanidae (Diptera) and other invertebrate inhabitants of wetlands. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario 92: 204206.Google Scholar