Aquatic Biological l 79 - wiatri.netwiatri.net/AboutATRI/chapters/aqbio.pdf · Standardized protocols for sorting, creatin g slide mounts for Chironomidae larvae, and determining

i

AAqquuaattiicc BBiioollooggiiccaall ......................................................................................................... 7799

Plankton.............................................................................................................. 79Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 79

Phytoplankton................................................................................ 79Periphyton ..................................................................................... 80Zooplankton .................................................................................. 80

Laboratory Procedures ................................................................................................. 81Vouchering Guidelines ................................................................................................ 81

Phytoplankton................................................................................ 81Periphyton ..................................................................................... 81Zooplankton .................................................................................. 81

Taxonomy.................................................................................................................... 81Data Structure .............................................................................................................. 82

Common Elements ......................................................................... 82Quality Control .............................................................................. 82Taxonomic Format ......................................................................... 82

Benthic Macroinvertebrates ................................................................................ 83Sample Collection........................................................................................................ 83

WDNR Sampling Procedures ......................................................... 84Protocols for Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Species84Protocols at the University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point............... 84Protocols at the University of Wisconsin – Superior....................... 85Other Standard Protocols ............................................................... 85

Data Recording ............................................................................................................ 86Vouchering Guidelines ................................................................................................ 87Taxonomy.................................................................................................................... 87Data Structure .............................................................................................................. 88

Common Elements ......................................................................... 88Quality Control .............................................................................. 89Taxonomic Format ......................................................................... 89Source Codes ................................................................................. 89

Fish ..................................................................................................................... 90Sample Collection........................................................................................................ 90

Electrofishing ................................................................................. 90Netting ........................................................................................... 93Target species by sampling gear..................................................... 95Specialized Gear ............................................................................ 95Rare and Endangered Species Sampling ......................................... 95Other Standard Sampling Protocols................................................ 97

Taxonomy.................................................................................................................... 99Data Structure .............................................................................................................. 99

Required Elements ......................................................................... 99Recommended Elements................................................................ 99Quality Control .............................................................................. 99Taxonomic Format ....................................................................... 100

ii

Source Codes ............................................................................... 100

References.........................................................................................................101

Aquatic Biological

PlanktonData Collection and Reporting – 79

AAqquuaattiicc BBiioollooggiiccaall

The Aquatic Biological Section encompasses most of the aquatic fauna as well as the plankton.It does not include any of the amphibians, which are include in the terrestrial fauna section (forsimplicity) or the aquatic plants, which are in the flora section. The three main groupsaddressed in this section are the Plankton (phytoplankton, periphyton, and zooplankton),Aquatic Macroinvertebrates (immature and some adult aquatic insects, mollusks, crayfish, etc.),and the Fish. The protocols outlined in the following sections are methods that may or may notbe adopted as standard protocols for WDNR. These sections are meant to review the existingstandards that are acceptable for WDNR use.

PLANKTON

Data Collection

PHYTOPLANKTON

There are no existing standard methods for phytoplankton within the DNR. However there is avery good method on the web from Canadian Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Networkat:

http://eqb-dqe.cciw.ca/eman/ecotools/protocols/freshwater/phytoplankton/

This site includes protocols for collection, preservation, identification, data analysis, andQA/QC.

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has protocols for phytoplanktonsampling that can be obtained through:

http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/STORE/standardsearch.htm?L+mystore+rwam3423+1011646909

Selected documents include:D4149-82(1998) Standard Classification for Sampling Phytoplankton in Surface WatersD4148-82(1998) Standard Test Method for Analysis of Phytoplankton in Surface Water by the

Sedgwick-Rafter MethodD4132-82(1998) Standard Practice for Sampling Phytoplankton with Conical Tow NetsD4137-82(1998) Standard Practice for Preserving Phytoplankton SamplesD4136-82(1998) Standard Practice for Sampling Phytoplankton with Water-Sampling BottlesD4135-82(1998) Standard Practice for Sampling Phytoplankton With Depth-Integrating SamplersD4134-82(1998) Standard Practice for Sampling Phytoplankton with a Clarke-Bumpus Plankton

SamplerD4133-82(1998) Standard Practice for Sampling Phytoplankton with Pumps




Aquatic Biological


PERIPHYTON

There are no existing standard methods for periphyton within the DNR. However there is avery good method on the web the USGS NAWQA program at:

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/protocols/OFR-93-409/alg1.html

This site includes protocols for collection, preservation, identification, data analysis, andQA/QC.

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has protocols for periphyton samplingthat can be obtained through:


A selected document is:D3731-87(1998) Standard Practices for Measurement of Chlorophyll Content of Algae in SurfaceWaters

ZOOPLANKTON

Samples can be collected using a variety of collection devices, e.g. vertical tow net, Schindler-Patalas trap, Clark Bumpus. Whichever device is used, a net with a mesh size no larger than#10 (nominally 156�) should be used. Generally a #20 (nominally 76�) is used. Towed devicesshould be used at the recommended speed. Too fast creates a shock wave which excludessmaller organisms. Too slow allows strong swimmers to avoid the net.

Sample containers should be labeled with water body name, county, date of collection, andwater depth or length of tow. If site is not from the main basin, site location should also beincluded on the container label. Field notes should include diameter of tow net (if applicable)and mesh size of net.

Samples should be preserved with cold buffered formalin immediately following collection.The final concentration should be 4-6 % formalin

In addition, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has protocols forzooplankton sampling that can be obtained at:


Selected documents include:E1201-87(1998) Standard Practice for Sampling Zooplankton with Conical Tow NetsE1200-87(1998) Standard Practice for Preserving Zooplankton SamplesE1199-87(1998) Standard Practice for Sampling Zooplankton with a Clarke-Bumpus Plankton

SamplerE1198-87(1998) Standard Practice for Sampling Zooplankton with Pumps






Aquatic Biological


Laboratory Procedures

Samples should be rinsed with distilled or deionized water to remove the preservative prior tocounting. Samples are concentrated using a mesh size no larger than the mesh size of the netused to collect the sample. The final volume should be noted on the lab sheet. If only aportion of the sample is the volume counted must be noted on the lab sheet. Typically at least100 organisms are counted of the most common taxa. If samples are to be saved, they may beplaced in a smaller container and buffered formalin added for long-term preservation.

Data Analysis should follow procedures outlined in the above web sites for phytoplankton andperiphyton.

Vouchering Guidelines

PHYTOPLANKTON

Vouchering should be applied in cases when legal action is expected. This is possible butdifficult for prepared samples. It is much easier to do with whole water samples. Howeverpreservative (lugols solution) needs to be added annually.

PERIPHYTON

Vouchering should be applied in cases when legal action is expected. This is possible butdifficult for prepared samples for softbodied organisms. It is much easier to do with wholewater samples. However preservative (lugols solution) needs to be added annually. Fordiatoms, preparation of samples for microscopic viewing results in permanent sample.

ZOOPLANKTON

Vouchering should be applied in cases when 1) legal action is expected, or2) rare or unusual species are identified

Permanent slides can be made using a mounting media such as polyvinyl lactophenol.These slides may be stored for years. If whole water samples are vouchered the preservative(formalin) needs to be replaced annually.

Taxonomy

Taxonomy for phytoplankton and periphyton species are continually being described andclassified. Therefore, it is necessary for those identifying algae to be abreast of currentidentification keys and those that are relevant to the geographic area in which sampling wasdone. Geitler (1932), Huber-Pestalozzi (1941), Bourrelly (1966, 1968), Patrick and Reimer(1966, 1975), Komárek and Anagnostidis (1986), and Krammer and Lange-Bertalot (1986-

Aquatic Biological


1991b) are recommended keys for the identification of phytoplankton. The identifier shouldalso have some knowledge of the life cycles of the different algae encountered and must beaware that species of algae can change size quickly as part of their reproductive phase.

Taxonomy of zooplankton is not changing as rapidly as for phytoplankton. Recommendedreferences include Brooks (1957, 1959), Wilson (1959), Yeatman (1959), Brandlova et al.(1972), Torke (1976), Pennak (1978), Kořínek (1981), and Balcer et al. (1984). The identifiershould be aware that some genera, e.g. Daphnia, experience seasonal morphological changes.

Data Structure

COMMON ELEMENTS

The following list includes common data elements that are necessary to integrate data sets:� Collector� Date� Location� Collection Method and Depth (substrate type for periphyton and zoobenthos)� Net Size� Zooplankton reported as measure of unit per volume

QUALITY CONTROL

These considerations have been outlined in the metadata standard (see Chapter 3: Section 2.Data Quality Information). No further aspects of quality control have been identified.

TAXONOMIC FORMAT

The taxonomic format should include scientific name to lowest taxonomic unit (speciespreferred).

Aquatic Biological

Benthic MacroinvertebratesData Collection and Reporting – 83

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES

Sample Collection

Department staff commonly use three approaches to sample benthic macroinvertebrates:1) Quantitative surveys for density and taxonomic composition.2) Semi-quantitative surveys for indices like the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI).3) Surveys for rare, endangered, and threatened species, e.g. dragonfly, mayfly, or mussel

surveys.

Macroinvertebrate data collection can be broken down into four basic steps. These steps applyboth to semi-quantitative indices like the HBI, where a sample is sorted for a set number ofindividuals, and to quantitative samples, where densities are expressed as numbers per unitsampling area or effort. Each of these steps requires documentation and standardization.

1) Sample collection in the fielda) Methods (i.e., artificial substrate, D-net, grab) appropriate to the system being

studied (i.e., lake, stream or wetland) and to the habitat of interest (i.e., bottomsediment type, depth at site, etc.).

b) Design (i.e., pooled samples, area sampled, habitats sampled, effort)2) Sample handling (i.e. sieving) and preservation3) Sample sorting

a) Subsampling b) Storage of specimens

4) Taxonomic identificationa) Keysb) Voucher specimens and reference collections

We examined current departmental standards in the Field Procedures Manual for each of thesefour areas. Available standards generally address sample collection and handling, but notsorting and identification because most samples are sent to contract labs at UW-Stevens Pointor UW-Superior. These labs have approved protocols for sorting and taxonomy, listed below.Other sources of standard methods and protocols that could fill in gaps and supplement existingmaterial are also provided.

Aquatic Biological


WDNR SAMPLING PROCEDURES

The WI DNR Field Procedures Manual http://intranet.dnr.state.wi.us/int/es/science/ls/fpm/ hasthe following protocols applicable to macroinvertebrate sample collection.

Sediment Sampling 700 SERIES:

Benthic Invertebrate Surveys – Benthic Samples 4/98Benthic Invertebrate Survey – Artificial Substrates 4/95

Aquatic Biologicals 1000 SERIES:Benthic Invertebrate Sampling – General Considerations 7/88Benthic Invertebrate Sampling – Hand Collections 9/95Benthic Invertebrate Sampling – D-Frame Net 7/88Benthic Invertebrate Sampling – Sediment Grabs (Dredges) 7/88Benthic Invertebrate Sampling – Sieving Devices 7/88Benthic Invertebrate Sampling – Artificial Substrates 7/88Benthic Invertebrate Sampling – References 7/88

PROTOCOLS FOR ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES

These protocols are currently not included in the WI DNR Field Procedures Manual:Survey guidelines for Wisconsin’s Unionid endangered, threatened, and special concern

mussels (June 1995)Endangered, threatened and special concern aquatic invertebrate survey guidelines for

Wisconsin projects (July 1995)Survey guidelines for collection of dragonfly exuvia (Aug. 1999)

PROTOCOLS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN – STEVENS POINT

Standardized protocols for sorting, creating slide mounts for Chironomidae larvae, anddetermining wet-weight biomass used by Dr. S. Szczytko at the University of Wisconsin -Stevens Point.

Title FileName

Rev.Date

Sorting Procedures:Sorting procedures for quantitative Hester-Dendy samples hestdend 01/99Sorting procedures for quantitative Hess samples hesssamp 01/99Sorting procedures for semi-quantitative Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI)samples hbisamp2 09/99

Sorting procedures for quantitative core samples coresamp 01/99

Chironomidae Larvae Slide Mounts:Developing sample processing microscope slide mounts of

Chironomidae larvae using the head slicing technique chirsphs 07/99

Developing sample processing microscope slide mounts ofChironomidae larvae using the rollover technique chirsprl 07/99

http://intranet.dnr.state.wi.us/int/es/science/ls/fpm/

Aquatic Biological


Developing reference collection microscope slide mounts ofChironomidae larvae using the head slicing technique chirrchs 07/99

Developing reference collection microscope slide mounts ofChironomidae larvae using the rollover technique chirrcl 07/99

Wet-Weight Biomass:Measurement of wet-weight biomass of aquatic invertebrates (blotting

paper technique) wetwght ?

Measurement of wet-weight biomass of aquatic invertebrates (centrifugetechnique) wetwghtc ?

Taxonomy:Taxonomic procedures for reference collection macroinvertebrates taxidref 09/99What is an HBI organism? hbiorg ?UWSP Aquatic Entomology Laboratory taxonomic references in-house taxref2p ?

PROTOCOLS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN – SUPERIOR

Standardized protocols for processing, subsampling, taxonomy, and QA/QC used by Dr. K.Schmude at the University of Wisconsin – Superior

Title ProcedureNumber File Name Rev.

Date

Processing Hester Dendy Samples FS/16 hdsample 03/00

Subsampling Hester Dendy Samples FS/17 hdsplit 03/00

Subsampling Benthic Invertebrate Samples FS/12 subsampl 03/00

Picking Benthic Invertebrates from Samples FS/14 picking 07/99

Identification of Benthic Invertebrates FS/13 identify 08/96

Preparation and Use of Hoyer’s Mounting Medium FS/4 slides 03/00

Quality Assurance Checks QA/6 qaqc 03/00

OTHER STANDARD PROTOCOLS

1) The USGS National Water-Quality Assessment program (NAWQA) has a series of protocolsfor data collection on macroinvertebrates in streams and rivers. Protocols are available atthe following website:

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/protocols/doc_list.html

a) “Methods for collecting benthic invertebrate samples as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program” (Cuffney et al., 1993)

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/protocols/OFR-93-406/inv3.html includes the following topics:

SAMPLING DESIGN FOR BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES Establishing Sampling ReachesTypes of Samples CollectedSelecting Sampling Sites and Habitat TypesAppropriate Season and Hydrologic Conditions for Sampling


http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/protocols/OFR-93-406/inv3.html

Aquatic Biological


METHODS FOR COLLECTING BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES Qualitative Multihabitat Sampling MethodsSemi-Quantitative Targeted-Habitat Sampling MethodsRecommendations for Sampling Benthic Invertebrates

Wadeable Coarse-Grained SubstratesNonwadeable Coarse-Grained SubstratesWadeable Fine-Grained SubstratesNonwadeable Fine-Grained SubstratesWoody Snags and Macrophytes

Field Sampling Activities MAINTENANCE OF SAMPLING EQUIPMENTSAMPLE PROCESSING AND LABELING

b) Guidelines for the processing and quality assurance of benthic invertebrate samplescollected as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. (under revision,due spring 2000)http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/protocols/

2) The USEPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) has protocols forsampling benthic macroinvertebrate in lakes, specifically quantitatively sampling thesublittoral zone using a sediment core device, and qualitatively surveying for zebra mussels(1997).

http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/groupdocs/surfwatr/field/lake_ben.pdf

3) The EMAN (Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network) is the national site for theCanadian network of long-term monitoring sites. The protocols for benthicmacroinvertebrates include procedures for sampling lotic and lentic habitats, considerationof abiotic factors, sample processing, data analysis, and QA/QC. Protocols are available at:

http://eqb-dqe.cciw.ca/eman/ecotools/protocols/freshwater/benthics/

Topics covered include:Abiotic Factors Sampling Procedures: Lentic Sampling Procedures: Lotic Sample Processing Data Analysis Quality Assessment/Quality Control (QA/QC) Volunteer Involvement Experts to Contact for More Information Appendix I: Special Considerations in Field Sampling and Laboratory Processing Appendix II: Sources of Equipment and Supplies for Studies of Macroinvertebrate Biodiversity

Data Recording

The Department has a field data form for macroinvertebrates under development (availableusing DNR JetForms). This should become the standard form for all macroinvertebratecollections. We recommend that a similar form be developed for sample sorting andtaxonomy. Staff should reference methods used to collect macroinvertebrate data and note anydeviations from protocol.

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/protocols/



Aquatic Biological


The DNR has a standard form, Wisconsin Mussel Survey Form 1700-29 (rev. 7-90) (availablefrom the WDNR/Bureau of Endangered Resources) that should be filled out when conductingmussel surveys:

Vouchering Guidelines

Voucher specimens should be maintained for � Reference sites (e.g. stream monitoring program)� Special cases where legal action is pending� Rare species - Voucher specimens collected under a state endangered species permit

must be preserved appropriately and sent to a designated public scientific facility withinthe state. Alternate repositories may be approved by the Bureau of EndangeredResources.

We recommend the Department provide the following support for staff responsible for theirown taxonomic analysis of macroinvertebrates:

� Include the capacity to check reference collections in contracted macroinvertebrateanalysis labs.

� Make reference collections available to field staff.

Taxonomy

There is no one taxonomic source for all the aquatic invertebrates in Wisconsin. The followingis a compilation of references, some of which apply to one order, others are compilation ofmany sources for the various taxa encountered. Aquatic invertebrates are continually beingdescribed and modified in classification. Therefore, it is necessary for those identifying aquaticinvertebrates to be informed of current keys in the taxonomic groups with which they areworking, particularly if any are available for their geographic region. There are AFS orWisconsin publications for some of the macroinvertebrate groups, but not for many of theinsect orders. The following are recommended references;

UW-Stevens Point Entomology Laboratory Taxonomic References List. Revised 3/98. Compiled by S.W. Szczytko. Includes insects and other aquatic organisms encountered in samples; General,Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Trichoptera, Megaloptera, Lepidoptera, Coleoptera,Diptera, Amphipoda, Isopoda, Acari, Nematoda, Turbellaria, Gastropoda, Pelycypoda,Hirudinea, Astacidae/Cambaridae, Heteroptera, Neuroptera, Copepoda, Cladocera, Minor Taxa.

Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States (Pennak, 1989).

Ecology and Classification of North American Freshwater Invertebrates (Thorp and Covich, eds., 1991).

Aquatic Insects of Wisconsin. Keys to Wisconsin Genera and Notes on Biology, Habitat,Distribution, and Species (Hilsenhoff, 1995).

A Survey of Rare and Endangered Mayflies of Selected Rivers of Wisconsin (Lillie, 1995).

Checklist of Wisconsin Dragonflies (Smith et al., 1993).

Guide to Common Dragonflies of Wisconsin (Legler and Westover, 1996).

How to Know the Freshwater Crustacea (Fitzpatrick, 1983).

Aquatic Biological


Common and Scientific Names of Decapod Crustaceans from America north of Mexico (Williamset al., 1989).

An Illustrated Checklist of the American Crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae, Cambaridae, &Parastacidae) (Hobbs, 1989) (used for synonyms).

Common and Scientific Names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada:Mollusks. 2nd ed. (Turgeon et al., 1998).

A Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest (Cummings and Mayer, 1992).

A River Survey of the Unionid Mussels of Wisconsin (Mathiak, 1979).

An Illustrated Key to the Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Wisconsin (Stern).

Freshwater Mussels of the Upper Mississippi River (Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources, 1985).

The Crayfishes and Shrimp of Wisconsin (Hobbs and Jass, 1988).

Nymphs of North American Stonefly Genera (Stewart and Stark, 1988).

Damselflies of North America (Westfall and May, 1996).

An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North American (Merritt and Cummins, eds, 1996).

Guide to Freshwater Oligochaetes of North America (Kathman and Brinkhurst, 1988)

Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera (Wiggins, 1996)

Data Structure

COMMON ELEMENTS

The following list includes common data elements that are necessary to integrate data sets:� Collector� Date� Location� Water body name� Size of area sampled� Depth at sample site� Depth of Substrate (if known)� Number of samples� Vegetation/bottom type� Type of habitat (i.e. lentic, lotic, river, spring, etc.)� Water temperature� Sampling device� Sieve/mesh size� Reporting units for macroinvertebrate abundance (e.g. presence/absence, number per

square meter, number per cubic meter, etc.)� Processing method (sort in field, subsample, entire)� Voucher specimen (yes/no and disposition)

Aquatic Biological


QUALITY CONTROL


TAXONOMIC FORMAT

The taxonomic format should include the scientific name (and common name if applicable).When abbreviations are used, the method of abbreviation should be included in the metadatataxonomic classification standard. If a commonly recognized system is not employed, or if ITISor AFS taxonomic identifications are not included, a lookup table must be provided.

SOURCE CODES

The source code systems that are acceptable include: ITIS, Natural Heritage Element Code, orthe University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point / WDNR numbering system.

Aquatic Biological

FishData Collection and Reporting – 90

FISH

Sample Collection

The WI DNR Field Procedures Manual currently does not have any protocols applicable to fishsample collections. All protocols outlined for fish collection in this chapter has been modifiedfrom WI DNR Fish Management Handbook Section 11, and other sources listed in thereference section on pages 72-75. Various collection methods are used to sample fishpopulations. These collections help in sport fish evaluations, understanding species diversityand indices, and rare fish surveys.

ELECTROFISHING

Sampling season and time of day

Electrofishing should be conducted during spring or fall when water temperatures are between40-70� F. However it may be useful to identify two distinct sampling periods for spring fishcollections. For example, initially a sampling event could be conducted from ice-out to 45degrees F, and a second smapling period could take place later in the spring when watertemperatures are between 55-65 degrees F. In lakes, sampling in clear water (>3 feet Secchi)should be at night. If water clarity is poor (<3 feet Secchi), daytime sampling may be effective,however if catch rates are low during the day, investigators should try night sampling. Once adate and time (day or night) has been established on a given body of water it should beduplicated for all subsequent surveys and assesments.

Sampling stations

For lakes <100 acres, the entire shoreline should be sampled. For lakes >100 acres a varietyof sampling stations are needed to ensure an unbiased sample of fish is collected. Samplingstations should be established depending on lake size as follows:

Lake Size (acres) Number of electrofishing stations

100-600 4600-1500 6>1500 8

These numbers should be considered a minimum with the option of increasing the number ofstations if desired. The length of each station can vary depending on the amount of habitatavailable, however each station should take <30 minutes to complete.

In addition to using a pre set number of stations, electrofishing can be conducted bydesignating a set distance of shoreline to be shocked. If this method is to be employed, effortshould be made to ensure that the entire shoreline should be shocked. With this method, aerialcoverage of each lake will be a minimum of four linear miles, or the whole lake shore if theentire shoreline is less than 4 miles. If the manager judges the amount of shoreline to beexcessive, then 25% of the total shoreline length (or a minimum of four miles) should be

Aquatic Biological


sampled. If the entire shoreline is not shocked then stations of 2 miles in length should bedeveloped. For example, if a sampling team is required to shock six miles of shoreline, thenthree two-mile stations should be used. The starting point of the first station should be chosenrandomly and the other sites spaced equally to achieve maximum coverage of the lake.

Within each two-mile increment, all targeted species will be counted and identified. For eachtargeted species a minimum of 250 individuals will be randomly selected and measured. Iftarget species include centrarchid or panfish species, please note whether the species collectedwere a subsample or all that were encountered. All target species collected for measurementshould be measured to the nearest 0.1 of an inch or centimeter. Within each two-mileincrement a ½ mile index station will be identified where all non-target species (i.e. large non-gamefish such as suckers redhorse, ictalurids etc.) and target species are collected and counted.

The protocols for electrofishing in wadeable streams are a little different. Stations for assessingfish communities in wadable streams are each approximately 35 times the mean standard width(MSW) in length. This length is based on the distance necessary to sample more than 3 pool-riffle sequences thereby capturing most fish species present in a wadable stream. If a streamhas well-developed pool-riffle structure, then each station should start and end at the base of ariffle to help facilitate fish capture, even if this requires that the distance between the secondlast and last transect is somewhat more or slightly less than 3 times the MSW in length. Ideallystations should not contain permanent tributaries or hydraulic controls (e.g., dams, old bridgeabutments), and should be a sufficient distance away from bridges and other man-madestructures that alter the natural stream morphology which may influence the fish andmacroinvertebrate community found there. The fish community assessment is done in theexact same stream reach in which stream habitat is evaluated.

Fish community composition and species relative abundance are estimated over the entirelength of each station using catch per effort (CPE) sampling procedures. A single electrofishingrun is made from the downstream to upstream end of the station. No blocking nets are used.This constitutes the one and only sampling pass. All fish greater than 26 mm in total length arecollected. At the end of the pass, all trout, esocids, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, sauger,and walleye are measured and weighed individually. All carp, creek chubs, catostomids,bullheads and catfishes, centrarchids, and selected percids (non-darters) are measuredindividually, and weighed in aggregate. If more than 200 fish of any given species arecaptured, a random subsample of 100 are measured. For trout, esocids, smallmouth bass,largemouth bass, sauger, and walleye, individual weights are taken from five fish for each 10mm length interval.

Fish should be handled carefully to minimize mortality. After processing, the fish are returnedto the stream. If fish are being processed before the end of the assessment reach (e.g. fishholding tub is full) fish should be released immediately downstream of a riffle to reduce thechance that fish will be recaptured during the same sampling pass. Small numbers of eachspecies may be preserved as voucher specimens or to check identifications.

Aquatic Biological


Equipment

Four main types of electrofishing gear are employed in Wisconsin: the lake boomshocker,mini-boomshocker, stream towboat, and backpack electrofishing gear. All forms ofelectrofishing tend to favor collection of larger specimens, but with special care and attention arelatively good sample of smaller fish can also be collected. Electrofishing in general is onlyeffective for species inhabiting shallow water.

The bigger the fish the more lines of electricity that touch the fish and the more effective thestun is. Large esocids have shown an ability to avoid capture, because of their strength andability to manuver away from the current. Species such as bullheads, darters, and catfish arenot as efficiently captured using electrofishing, because they remain on the bottom after beingstunned.

Electrofishing employs either direct current (DC) or alternating current (AC) to stun fish. ACcurrent is generally used only in waters that have poor conductivity or in shallow watersituations. The use of AC current has been shown to cause substantial injuries in larger fishsuch as bone fractures and swim bladder damage (Reynolds 1983; Sharber and Carothers1988). Because AC current simply stuns the fish, it is most often effective in shallow, clear,nonconductive waters.

DC current has more widespread use in Wisconsin. Unlike AC current, DC current causes fishto exhibit galvanotaxis, or forced swimming toward the anode (Reynolds 1983). Because of thisaction, DC current is more effective in turbid or deeper waters. Straight DC current isinfrequently used, instead the current is pulsed because it sustains forced swimming longer andpromotes less injury to fish (Reynolds 1983). Preliminary work indicates that even pulsed DCmight cause some injuries to fish. Much more work needs to be done on this issue before anybroad statements of pulsed DC electrofishing effects can be made.

Lake boomshockerThe lake boomshocker is used in larger lakes and resevoirs in Wisconsin. This gear is usedprimarily to capture percids, esocids, and centrarchids. Data collected by largeboomshockers are subject to bias from the number and quality of netters employed,weather conditions, season, type of current used, and lake conditions. Because of thesebiases it is important to separate all data, and collect information separately for eachelectrofishing run. This should be done for each separate run made during the night,especially if conditions change from early in the evening the later in the evening.Boomshockers are not effective for bottom dwelling species such as bullhead and catfishbecause they do not float to the surface.

Mini-boomshockerMini-boomshockers are similar to lake boomshockers in that they are mounted on a boat.This equipment is a scaled down version of a lake boomshocker and is used in lakes andrivers which cannot be effectively sampled by either lake boomshockers or smallerbackpack or stream towboats. The biases encountered with mini-boomshockers are similarto using larger lake shockers and hence the same caution should be used when collectingthese data.

Aquatic Biological


Stream towboatsStream towboats are similar to boomshockers in that the generator is mounted on a boat,but the difference is the boat is towed by an individual and the netters are located in thewater. These boats generally have two or three electrodes attatched to the generator andeach individual uses both an electrode and a net to capture fish. Stream towboats are usedin larger streams in which the entire area can be waded. This equipment is effective for allspecies, except special care needs to be employed to capture smaller bottom dwellingcatfish, bullheads, and darters, as they do not float up readily. Towboat catch is affected byseason, number of dippers, rate of flow, depth of stream shocked, turbidity, and waterconductivity. Again electrofishing catch information should be kept separate to assureunbiased estimates of CPUE.

Backpack gearBackpack electrofishing gear is mainly used in small streams, because of their limitedeffectiveness in big water. A generator is worn by a member of the team and twoelectrodes are employed. This type of gear can be used effectively to capture smaller sizedindividuals. Larger fish tend not to be as effectively sampled with backpack electrofishinggear. The backpack is subject to the same bias as stream towboats and care should betaken to capture information in the same pattern as for stream towboats.

NETTING

Fyke netsFyke nets are passive gear that capture fish by entrapment. Fyke nets are used to catchwalleye, northern pike, muskellunge, catfish and panfish during spawning periods. Fykenets can also be used to sample rough fish such as white suckers, redhorse, bullheads andcarp. Generally, largemouth bass cannot be successfully caught in fyke nets, and thereforefyke net CPUE of largemouth bass are of limited use (Hubert 1983).

There are also size bias associated with the use of fyke nets, both in terms of size of meshand size of hoops used. Generally fyke nets are most successful with larger species,because the mesh size used is large and smaller fish can escape. The smaller the mesh sizethe smaller size of fish that can be captured . Although it is likely that there might be biasesassociated with the size of hoops employed, color of netting used and the size of lead, therehas been little empirical research done to determine the exact nature of these biases.

Sampling season

Fyke net sampling can be conducted in all seasons in Wisconsin, and in conjuction with gillnetting during the summer. Once a sampling date has been established it should berepeated as closely as possible with subsequent surveys and assessments.

Sampling duration

Fyke nets should be set overnight and emptied each day

Aquatic Biological


Sampling stations

If sampling sites have not been established choose a variety of areas (shallow, deep, points,bays etc.) that represent available habitats. If nets are disturbed (cut, pulled up on shore,torn by outboard motor etc.) or weather conditions prevent tending the nets (high windscausing unsafe conditions), sets should be considered unusable and fish data should not becollected. If 80% or more of the sets are usable, resetting the unusable sets is not required.The number of randomly selected stations will be scaled to lake size. Eight sets should beused in lakes >500 acres, 6 sets in lakes 200-500 acres, and 4 sets in lakes <200 acres.The number of sets suggested here should be considered the minimum.

Seine netsSeines are active gear that capture fish by entrapment. They are selective for species thatare typically small, slow moving and associated with smooth bottom shoreline habitats.Seines are also an effective sampling gear that can be used to compliment information fromfyke or trap netting, because often seining targets smaller fish that can not be successfullyfyke or trap netted. In Wisconsin, seines are used most often for CPUE estimates of young-of-the-year (yoy) species such as centrarchids, escochids and precids. Large seines havebeen successfully employed to provide a representative look at the fish fauna present.Seines can also be effectively used to sample nongame or forage species such as cyprinids,suckers and redhorse. Kick seines are an effective method of sampling many forage andnongame species in riffles such as darters, sculpins and log perch. Seining is most effectivein shallow areas where the bottom is relatively flat, although they can be effectivelyemployed over relatively rough surfaces if care is taken.

Seines, like other nets, have mesh size biases. The smaller the mesh size the smaller thefish that can be captured, but the slower the seining process may be. If the mesh is toosmall it may tend to clog with algae and other substances thus slowing down movement.Also many seines have a bag sewn into the middle allowing fish to be caught in the bagmaking sampling easier.

Sampling stations

If sampling sites have not been established choose a variety of areas that are representativeof the shoreline and are relatively undisturbed. Once sampling stations have beenestablished, they should be repeated in subsequent surveys. Ocassionally, physicalconditions at a station may change (i.e. complete coverage by aquatic vegetation in astation with previously sparse coverage). In this situation, if the station becomes physicallyunseinable, a new station can be established with habitat similar to the original station.

Number and length of seining stations

Each station represents one seine haul. A minimum of three stations are recommended,however the number selected should be based on the water body being surveyed. Forexample, large windswept lakes with similar shoreline throughout can be adequatelysampled with fewer stations than large lakes with a diversity of habitats (bays, points,vegetation beds, etc.). Each seine haul should have a maximum length of 200 linear feet,with each station being the same length.

Aquatic Biological


TARGET SPECIES BY SAMPLING GEAR

The table below lists each gear type with both primary and secondary species. Primary speciesare those most susceptible to a specific gear, while secondary species are those species, whichare commonly caught by that gear.

Gear Type Primary species Secondary species

Fyke nets Bluegill CarpCrappie CatfishYellow perch Smallmouth bassWhite suckerBullheadNorthern pikeWalleyeMuskellunge

Electrofishing Largemouth bass Northern pikeSmallmouth bass BluegillWalleye (fingerling) CrappieWalleye (adults) Muskellunge

Yellow perch

Seine Young-of-year (all species)MinnowsOther non-game species

SPECIALIZED GEAR

There are a variety of other types of gear that can be used to sample fish populations, but theyare more specialized and are not applicable across a wide range of lakes and rivers. Forexample, trawling can be an effective method to sample yoy walleye on Lake Winnebago or tosample catfish in the Mississippi River. Chemical toxicants, like rotenone, are also an effectiveway to sample fish populations, but because of the hazards associated with it, are not widelyused. Spawning observations, such as redd counts or bass bed counts can be an effectivemeasure of recruitment potential (Anderson 1983; Beard and Carline 1991). Catch and releaseangling may be effective for sampling aggressive species such as smallmouth bass, largemouthbass, and lake trout. For any sampling method used, care should be taken to separate data toavoid or examine any potential bias that may occur.

RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES SAMPLING

Endangered, threatened and special concern fish can be encountered as part of routine fishsampling, especially when the whole community and all of its habitats are sampled. However,rare species often require concerted efforts in specific habitats, and as a result the following

Aquatic Biological


protocals were developed by the WNDR Bureau of Endangered Resources to specificallyaddress collection of rare species.

Survey Guidelines for Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern FishCompiled by the Wisconsin DNR/Bureau of Endangered Resources (Nov.1991/revised 5/99)

1. Identify state and federal endangered, threatened and special concern fish that may be present basedon recent and historic records and zoogeography. The WDNR Master Fish File Database and theWDNR/BER Natural Heritage Database should be consulted and may help in providing information.

2. Record all field and laboratory data on WDNR Form 8100-58 or other form that includes; waterbody,collector(s), name(s) of person(s) identifying fish, date, sampling station location (exact as possible),habitat description, (including current, substrate, aquatic vegetation, stream width or lake size),weather conditions, temperature, gear, effort, quad name, county, number and identification of fishcaptured, any evidence of threats to populations, and whether or not specimens were preserved orvouchered. Include a copy of map showing sampling station indicating where listed species wereobserved/collected.

3. Conduct field surveys at time of year and day and under conditions when the target species are likelyto be present and easily captured. For many species, early morning and evenings are the best timesto sample because of diel movements. For a few species, midday is the most efficient time tosample. Sampling should not occur when water is high and turbid. Refer to the Sampling Guide forListed Fish Species (available from WDNR/Bureau of Endangered Resources) for information onspecific sampling gear and timing.

4. To ensure proper identification, the survey should be conducted by, or samples sent to, a qualifiedichthyologist. It is preferable to have a person in the field that is qualified to identify live specimens.All listed species observed incidentally should be recorded.

5. All fish collected should be identified to species and those not identified in the field should bepreserved for later laboratory identification. All listed species should be measured by total length(weighed, if possible) and condition noted. One voucher specimen of each listed species may bekept for museum deposition if its removal will not permanently harm the population.

6. Sampling stations should be located in different habitats but concentrated in areas of preferredhabitat for target species. This habitat should include areas used by all life stages, not just adults. Aminimum of three samples should be taken at each station with each sampling event at least twohours apart. Refer to the Sampling Guide for Listed Fish Species (from WDNR/BER) for informationon preferred habitat for listed species.

7. Capture Methods: Generally both electroshocking and seines should be used at each samplingstation where possible. The Sampling Guide for Listed Fish Species contains recommendations forcollecting gear. The choice of gear type and time proportioned to each gear should be based on theeffectiveness of the gear at that station.

Electroshocking;1. Sampling stations should be a minimum of 900ft. long2. If water depth is less than 3ft., shock in an upstream direction with a stream shocker.3. If water depth is greater than 3ft., shock in a downstream direction with boom or minishocker.4. The appropriate number of electrodes should be used for observed conductivity.5. Use pulse DC with voltage and amperage appropriate for target species and water conditions.

(AC should only be used if DC is not working) with 3/8" mesh dip nets.

Aquatic Biological


6. Special care should be taken when collecting bottom dwelling fish that often sink or simplyturn over when shocked. Keeping the dip net at the bottom near the electrode isrecommended, and sweeping along the bottom at lake stations or gently disturbing thesubstrate upstream of the net at flowing water stations.

Seining;1. Minimum seine size should be 20ft.x 4ft with 4ft x 4ft x 4ft square bag, with a minimum mesh

size of 3/16".2. A 50ft haul is a sample, and seining should be done in a downstream direction.3. When seining in riffles, a braided lead line should be added to the seine.

8. Secure necessary permits prior to conducting any surveys: State or Federal Endangered ResourcePermit, Scientific Collectors Permit, Park Service, Forest Service, or others permits as needed.

OTHER STANDARD SAMPLING PROTOCOLS

Other sources of standard protocols for fish species collections include:

1) The EMAN (Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network) is the national site for theCanadian network of long-term monitoring sites. Protocols are in a binder on the samplingof freshwater biodiversity being prepared by the EMAN Biodiversity Science Board. Themodule outlining fish collection protocols is still being planned and/or is in preparation forthe binder. The protocols will be available at:

http://www.eman-rese.ca/eman/ecotools/protocols/freshwater/

2) The USGS National Water Quality Assesment program (NAWQA) has a series of protocolsfor data collection of fish communities in streams and rivers. Protocols are available at:


A specific protocol for sampling fish communities is: Methods for sampling fishcommunities as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program (Meador et al.,1993).

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/protocols/OFR-93-104/fish5.html

The contents for fish community sampling in streams and rivers includes the followingtopics:

NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT SAMPLING DESIGN Retrospective Analysis and Reconnaissance Occurrence and Distribution Assessment Assessment of Long-term Trends and Changes Source, Transport, Fate, and Effects Studies

FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLING DESIGN Retrospective Data Type of Sample Sampling Reach Selection of Sampling Sites Sampling Season




Aquatic Biological


FISH COMMUNITY SAMPLING CONSIDERATIONS Collecting Permits Endangered, Threatened, or Special-Concern Species Coordination of Sampling With Other Fish Ecologists

METHODS FOR SAMPLING FISH COMMUNITIES Electrofishing

Wadeable Streams Nonwadeable Streams Safety

ELECTROFISHING FIELD SAFETY CHECKLIST Seining

Wadeable Streams Nonwadeable Streams

Other Sampling Methods Gill Netting Hoop Netting Additional Methods

Sample Processing Taxonomic Identification Length Measurements Weight Measurements External Anomalies Fixing and Preserving of Specimens

BIOLOGICAL QUALITY-ASSURANCE UNIT

FIELD DATA SHEETS Fish Sampling Equipment Data Sheet

Fish Sampling Equipment

Fish Species Fish Species Data Sheet

3) The USEPA Environmental Monitoring and Assesment Program (EMAP) has protocols forfish sampling in lakes (Baker et al., 1997):

http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/groupdocs/surfwatr/field/lake_fis.pdf

4) The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has protocols for fish samplingusing chemical agents (i.e. rotenone).

D4131-84(1999) Standard Practice for Sampling Fish with Rotenone

5) The American Fisheries Society (AFS) has protocols for “Guidelines for Use of Fish in FieldResearch” http://www.fisheries.org/resource/page14.htm The table of contents for theseguidelines are as follows:* Collecting * Restraint and Handling * Animal Marking * Housing and Maintenance at Field Sites * Disposition Following Studies


http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/DATABASE.CART/PAGES/D4131.htm?L+mystore+vvhh0951+956613061

http://www.fisheries.org/resource/page14.htm

Aquatic Biological


6) The AFS has protocols for collecting fish health samples. They can be located in the AFSpublication “Suggested procedures for the detection and identification of certain finfish andshellfish pathogens” 1994, J.C. Thoesen, ed. This document is published by the fish healthsection of the AFS.

Taxonomy

All taxonomic classifications should follow the guidelines set forth in the DNR FishManagement Handbook Section 17.2 taken from guidelines set forth by Robins et al. (1991).

Data Structure

REQUIRED ELEMENTS

The following list includes common data elements that are necessary to integrate data sets:� Collector� Date� Location� Size of area sampled� Weather conditions� Water temperature� Total effort� Vegetation/bottom type� Type of gear used (including size, mesh-size, etc.)

RECOMMENDED ELEMENTS� Length-Frequency� Weight� Age� Population estimates� Species presence or absence� Relative catch per unit effort (CPUE)� Mortality

QUALITY CONTROL


Aquatic Biological


TAXONOMIC FORMAT

The taxonomic format should include both common name and scientific name (if available).When abbreviations are used, the method of abbreviation should be included in the metadatataxonomic classification standard. If a commonly recognized system is not employed, or if ITIS,NIH, US Forest Service and/or AFS taxonomic identifications are not included, a lookup tablemust be provided.

SOURCE CODES

The source code systems that are acceptable include: ITIS, NIH, US Forest Service, and the WI-DNR (as outlined in the fish manager handbook; e.g. W12 = Largemouth bass).

Aquatic Biological

ReferencesData Collection and Reporting – 101

REFERENCES

PLANKTON

American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM Individual Standard Search Form.(http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/STORE/standardsearch.htm?L+mystore+rwam3423+1011646909). WestConshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA

Balcer, M.D., N.L. Korda, and S.I. Dodson. 1984. Zooplankton of the Great Lakes: A Guide to theIdentification and Ecology of the Common Crustacean Species. Univ. of Wisconsin Press,Madison, WI.

Bourrelly, P. 1966. Les algues d'eau douce. Tome I: Les algues vertes. Édition N. Boubée & Cie, Paris.

Bourrelly, P. 1968. Les algues d'eau douce. Tome II: Les algues jaunes et brunes. Édition N. Boubée &Cie, Paris.

Brandlova, J., Z. Brandl, and C.H. Fernando. 1972. The cladocera of Ontario with remarks on somespecies and distribution. Canadian Journal of Zoology 50:1373-1403.

Brooks, J.L. 1957. The systematics of North American Daphnia. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academyof Arts and Sciences 13:1-180.

Brooks, J.L. 1959. Cladocera. In: Fresh-water Biology. 2nd ed., W.T. Edmondson (ed.), John Wiley &Sons, New York, pp 587-656.

Findlay, D.L. and H.J. Kling. Protocols for Measuring Biodiversity: Phytoplankton in Freshwater.http://eqb-dqe.cciw.ca/eman/ecotools/protocols/freshwater/phytoplankton/. Department of Fisheriesand Oceans, Freshwater Institute, 501 University Crescent, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Geitler, L. 1932. Cyanophyceae. Leipzig. Rabenhorst's Kryptogamenflora 14.

Hubber-Pestalozzi, G. 1941. Die Binnengewässer. Das Phytoplankton des Süsswassers 16 (2:1).

Komárek J. and K. Anagnostidis. 1986. Modern approach to the classification system of cyanophytes 2 -Chroococcales. Algological Studies 73:157-226.

Kořínek, V. 1981. Diaphanosoma birgei—new species (Crustacea, Cladocera) from America and itswidely distributed subspecies Diaphanosoma birgei lacustris new subspecies. Canadian Journal ofZoology 59:79-93.

Krammer, K. and H. Lange-Bertalot, 1986. Bacillariophyceae. 1. Teil: Naviculaceae. In: H. Ettl, J.Gerloff, H. Heynig, and D. Mollenhauer (eds.), Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa, Gustav FisherVerlag, NY, Band 2/1.

Krammer, K. and H. Lange-Bertalot, 1988. Bacillariophyceae. 2. Teil: Bacillariaceae, Epithemiaceae,Surirellaceae. In: H. Ettl, J. Gerloff, H. Heynig, and D. Mollenhauer (eds.), Süßwasserflora vonMitteleuropa, Gustav Fisher Verlag, NY, Band 2/2.

Krammer, K. and H. Lange-Bertalot, 1991a. Bacillariophyceae. 3. Teil: Centrales, Fragilariaceae,Eunotiaceae. In: H. Ettl, J. Gerloff, H. Heynig, and D. Mollenhauer (eds.): Süßwasserflora vonMitteleuropa, Gustav Fisher Verlag, NY, Band 2/3.

Krammer, K. and H. Lange-Bertalot, 1991b. Bacillariophyceae. 4. Teil: Achnanthaceae. In: H. Ettl, J.Gerloff, H. Heynig, and D. Mollenhauer (eds.), Süßwasserflora von Mitteleuropa, Gustav FisherVerlag, NY, Band 2/4.




Aquatic Biological


Patrick, R. and C.W. Reimer. 1966. The Diatoms of the United States, Vol. 1. Academy of NaturalSciences Monograph No. 13.

Patrick, R. and C.W. Reimer. 1975. The Diatoms of the United States, Vol. 2. Academy of NaturalSciences Monograph No. 13.

Pennak, R.W., 1978. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons,New York.

Porter, S.D., T.F. Cuffney, M.E. Gurtz, and M.R. Meador. 1993. Methods for Collecting Alagal Samplesas part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program.http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/protocols/OFR-93-409/alg1.html. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-FileReport 93-409.

Torke, B.G. 1976. A key to the identification of the cyclopoid copepods of Wisconsin, with notes ontheir distribution and ecology. Wisc. Dept. Natural Resources. Rep. 88.

Wilson, M.S. 1959. Calanoida. In: Fresh-water Biology. 2nd ed., W.T. Edmondson (ed.), John Wiley &Sons, New York, pp 738-794.

Yeatman, H.C. 1959. Cyclopoida. In: Fresh-water Biology. 2nd ed., W.T. Edmondson (ed.), John Wiley& Sons, New York, pp 795-814.

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES

American Public Health Association (APHA) 1989. Benthic macroinvertebrates. In: Standard Methodsfor the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 17th ed. American Public Health Association,Washington, D.C., pp 10-95 to 10-113.

Baker, J.R., D.V. Peck, and D.W. Sutton (eds.) 1997. Environmental Monitoring and AssessmentProgram Surface Waters: Field Operations Manual for Lakes.http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/groupdocs/surfwatr/field/lake_ben.pdf. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA/620/R-97/001.

Cuff, W. and N. Coleman. 1979. Optimal survey design: lessons from a stratified random sample ofmacrobenthos. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36:351-361.

Cuffney, T.F., M.E. Gurtz, and M.R. Meador. 1993. Methods for collecting benthic invertebrate samplesas part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program.http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/protocols/OFR-93-406/inv3.html. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-FileReport 93-406.

Cummings, K.S. and C.A. Mayer. 1992. A Field Guide to Freshwater Mussels of the Midwest. IllinoisNatural History Survey Manual 5, 194p.

Downing, J.A. and F.H. Rigler. 1984. A Manual on Methods for the Assessment of SecondaryProductivity in Fresh Waters. 2nd ed. IBP Handbook 17. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford,England.

Fitzpatrick, J. F. 1983. How to Know the Freshwater Crustacea. Wm. C. Brown Co Publishers, Iowa.(used for names of non-decapod crustaceans).

Green, R.H. 1979. Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental Biologists. John Wiley,New York, 257p.

Hellawell, J.M. 1986. Biological Indicators of Freshwater Pollution and Environmental Management.Elsevier, London, England, 546p.



http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/protocols/OFR-93-406/inv3.html

Aquatic Biological


Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1995. Aquatic Insects of Wisconsin. Keys to Wisconsin Genera and Notes on Biology,Habitat, Distribution, and Species. UW Natural History Museums Council Pub. Coop. Ext. Pub. #G3648.

Hobbs, H.H. 1989. An Illustrated Checklist of the American Crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae,Cambaridae, & Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 480. Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Wash D.C.

Hobbs, H.H. and J.P. Jass. 1988. The Crayfishes and Shrimp of Wisconsin/Cambaridae, Palaemonidae.Milwaukee Public Museum. Special Publications in Biology and Geology, No 5.

Kathman, R.D. and R.O. Brinkhurst. 1988. Guide to Freshwater Oligochaetes of North America.Aquatic Resources Center. College Grove, TN. 264 p.

Kellogg, L.L. 1994. Save Our Streams. Monitor’s guide to aquatic macroinvertebrates. Izaak WaltonLeague of America, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 60p.

Legler, K. & D. and C. Westover. 1996. Guide to Common Dragonflies of Wisconsin. Karl Legler, 429Franklin St. Sauk City, WI 53583.

Lillie, R.A. 1995. A Survey of Rare and Endangered Mayflies of Selected Rivers of Wisconsin. WisconsinDept. Natural Resources Research Report # 170. WDNR Publ-RS-570-95.

Mathiak, H. 1979. A River Survey of the Unionid Mussels of Wisconsin. Sand Shell Press. Horicon, WI.

McCafferty, P.W. 1981. Aquatic Entomology. The Fishermen’s and Ecologists’ Illustrated Guide toInsects and their Relatives. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, One Exeter Plaza, Boston MA.

Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins (eds.) 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America.3rd ed. Kendall-Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa, 862p.

Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.

Resh, V.H. and D.M. Rosenberg (eds.) 1984. The Ecology of Aquatic Insects. Praeger, New York.

Rosenberg, D.M. and V.H. Resh. 1993. Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates.Chapman and Hall, New York.

Rosenberg, D.M., I.J. Davies, D.G. Cobb, and A.P. Wiens. Protocols for Measuring Biodiversity: BenthicMacroinvertebrates in Fresh Waters. http://eqb-dqe.cciw.ca/eman/ecotools/protocols/freshwater/benthics/. Department of Fisheries and Oceans,Freshwater Institute, 501 University Crescent, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid BioassessmentProtocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Macroinvertebrates and Fish. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Water Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Washington,D.C. EPA/444/4-89/001, 185p.

Resh, V.H. 1979. Sampling variability and life history features: basic considerations in the design ofaquatic insect studies. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 36:290-311.

Resh, V.H., J.W. Feminella, and E.P. McElravy. 1990. Sampling Aquatic Insects. [Videotape] Office ofMedia Services, University of California, Berkeley, California.

Reynoldson, T.B., R.H. Norris, V.H. Resh, K.E. Day, and D.M. Rosenberg. 1997. The referencecondition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-qualityimpairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American BenthologicalSociety 16.

Smith, W.A., T.E. Vogt, and K.H. Gaines. 1993. Checklist of Wisconsin Dragonflies. WisconsinEntomological Society Misc. Pub No. 2, Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources Bureau of EndangeredResources. Madison, WI.



Aquatic Biological


Stern, E., An Illustrated Key to the Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Wisconsin. UW-StevensPoint.

Stewart, K.W. and Stark, B.P. 1993. Nymphs of North American Stonefly Genera (Plecoptera). ThomasSay Foundation Series, Ent. Soc. America 12. 460p.

Thorp, J.H. and A.P. Covich (eds.) 1991. Ecology and Classification of North American FreshwaterInvertebrates. Academic Press, New York, 911p.

Turgeon, D., J. Quinn, A. Bogan, E. Coan, F. Hochberg, W. Lyons, P. Mikkelson, R. Neves, C. Roper, G.Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J. Williams. 1998. Commonand Scientific Names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. 2nd ed.American Fisheries Society Special Publ. No. 26.

U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program. USGS NAWQA Protocols.http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/protocols/doc_list.html. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. GeologicalSurvey.

University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Entomology Laboratory Taxonomic References List. Revised 3/98.Compiled by S. W. Szczytko. University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.

Westfall, M.J., Jr. and M.L. May. 1996. Damselflies of North America. Damselflies of North America.Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, FL. 650p.

Wiggins, G.B. 1996. Larvae of the North American Caddisfly Genera. 2nd ed. Univ. of Toronto Press,Toronto, ON. 457p.

Williams, A.B., L.G. Abele, D.L. Felder, H.H. Hobbs, R.B. Manning, P.A. McLaughlin, and I.P. Farfante.1989. Common and Scientific Names of Decapod Crustaceans from America north of Mexico.American Fisheries Society Special Publ. No. 17.

Wisconsin Dept. Natural Resources. 1985. Freshwater Mussels of the Upper Mississippi River.USFWS/USACOE, 63p.

Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources (WDNR). WI DNR Field Procedures Manual.(http://intranet.dnr.state.wi.us/int/es/science/ls/fpm/). WDNR, Madison, WI.

Wrona, F.J., J.M. Culp, and R.W. Davies. 1982. Macroinvertebrate subsampling: a simplified apparatusand approach. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 39:1051-1054.

FISH

American Fisheries Society. 2000. Guidelines for Use of Fish.http://www.fisheries.org/resource/page14.htm. American Fisheries Society, 5410 Grosvenor Lane,Bethesda, MD.

American Society for Testing and Materials. 2000. Standard Practice for Sampling Fish with Rotenone.http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/DATABASE.CART/PAGES/D4131.htm?L+mystore+vvhh0951+956613061.D4131-84(1999). West Conshohocken, PA.

Baker, J.R., D.V. Peck, and D.W. Sutton (eds.) 1997. Environmental Monitoring and AssessmentProgram Surface Waters: Field Operations Manual for Lakes.http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/pubs/docs/groupdocs/surfwatr/field/lake_fis.pdf. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Washington, D.C. EPA/620/R-97/001.




http://www.fisheries.org/resource/page14.htm




Aquatic Biological


Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network. 1998. Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring Protocols.http://www.eman-rese.ca/eman/ecotools/protocols/freshwater/. Canada Centre for Inland Waters,Burlington, Ontario.

Hamley, J.M. 1975. Review of gill net selectivity. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada32:1943-1969

Hamley, J.M. 1980. Sampling with gill nets. In: Guidelines for Sampling Fish in Inland Waters, T.Bachiel and R.L. Wilcomme (eds.),. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations,European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commision Techinical Paper 33, Rome, Italy, pp 37-53.

Hubert, W.A. 1983. Passive capture techniques. In: Fisheries Techniques, L.A. Nielson and D.L.Johnson (ed.), American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp 95-122.

Meador, M.R., T.F. Cuffney, and M.E. Gurtz. 1993. Methods for Sampling Fish Communities as Part ofthe National Water-Quality Assesment Program. http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/protocols/OFR-93-104/fish1.html. US Geological Survey, Open-File Report 93-104.

Moyle, J.B. and R. Lound. 1959. Confidence limits associated with means and medians of series netcatches. Minnesota Department of Conservation Investigational Report No. 209.

Moyle, J.B. 1950. Gill nets for sampling fish populations in Minnesota waters. Transactions of theAmerican Fisheries Society 17:195-204.

Reynolds, J.B. 1983. Electrofishing. In: Fisheries Techniques, L.A. Nielson and D.L. Johnson (ed.),American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, pp 147-164.

Robins, C.R. and R.M. Bailey. 1991. Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the US and Canada.American Fisheries Society Special Publication No. 20, 183p.

Sharber, N.G. and S.W. Carothers. 1988. Influence on electrofishing pulse shape on spinal injuries inadult rainbow trout. North American Journal of Fish Management 2:38-44.

Thoesen, J.C., ed. 1994. Suggested procedures for the detection and identifiction of certain finfish andshellfish pathogens. Fish Health Section, American Fisheries Society.




Documents

Aquatic Biological l 79 - wiatri.netwiatri.net/AboutATRI/chapters/aqbio.pdf · Standardized protocols for sorting, creatin g slide mounts for Chironomidae larvae, and determining