Source: UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING submitted to NRP
A NEW RAPID ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL FOR EVALUATING WATER QUALITY
Sponsoring Institution
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Project Status
COMPLETE
Funding Source
Reporting Frequency
Annual
Accession No.
0192638
Grant No.
(N/A)
Cumulative Award Amt.
(N/A)
Proposal No.
(N/A)
Multistate No.
(N/A)
Project Start Date
Jul 1, 2002
Project End Date
Jun 30, 2007
Grant Year
(N/A)
Program Code
[(N/A)]- (N/A)
Recipient Organization
UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING
1000 E UNIVERSITY AVE DEPARTMENT 3434
LARAMIE,WY 82071-2000
Performing Department
Ecosystem Science and Management
Non Technical Summary
The quantitative method of collecting, counting, and statistically comparing benthic macroinvertebrate numbers between polluted and non-polluted areas of streams requires substantial effort to both collect and process samples. A more efficient rapid assessment protocol will be developed in the form of sequential sampling, a method whereby the diversity of benthic macroinvertebrate communities can be rapidly assessed.
Animal Health Component
50%
Research Effort Categories
Basic
50%
Applied
50%
Developmental
(N/A)
Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)Subject of Investigation (SOI)Field of Science (FOS)Percent
1110210113040%
1120210113040%
1110210209020%
Goals / Objectives
The goal of this proposed work is to develop a more efficient rapid assessment protocol for stream macroinvertebrates, in the form of binomial sequential sampling, to quickly assess the potential impacts of pollution on water quality. Specifically, the proposed objectives are as follows: 1) to develop and compare confidence interval-, sequential interval procedure-, and sequential probability ratio test-based sequential sampling plans using a pollution threshold of 0.2 2) to develop and compare confidence interval- and sequential probability ratio test-based sequential sampling plans using a pollution threshold of 0.8 3) to develop a set of instructions for using both sequential sampling plans by themselves 4) to develop a set of instructions for using both sequential sampling plans together 5) to select streams in forest, rangeland, and cropland from which aquatic macroinvertebrate samples will be collected (200 samples) 6) to assess each collected sample using the sequential sampling plans, a fixed-sample size plan (200 organisms), and a whole sample plan (whole sample assessment) 7) to compare the amount of processing effort needed to categorize each sample, relative to the thresholds, between the sequential sampling, fixed-sample size, and whole sample plans 8) to determine whether assessments made through the sequential sampling plans are at least in 90% agreement with the assessments made through the fixed-sample size and whole sample plans.
Project Methods
Binomial sequential sampling plans will be developed using the sequential probability ratio (SPRT) test, the confidence interval (CI) method, and the sequential interval procedure (SIP) method. Such plans will be developed for each of two diversity thresholds: 0.2 and 0.8. Computer-simulated sampling experiments will then be conducted on all plans so they perform at identical levels (standardized). Standardized plans will then be tested to determine which minimizes processing effort. The sequential sampling plans (one for each threshold) that minimize processing effort will be used in field-testing. Field-testing will be conducted on samples from many streams. All stream habitats will be sampled, and all streams will be assessed in summer and autumn. One sample will be collected from each habitat/stream/season combination. Two hundred samples will be collected over five years of study. Sampling will be conducted with a standard D-net. The area sampled in each habitat/stream/season will be sufficient to collect several hundred benthic macroinvertebrates per sample. After the samples are collected, each will be assessed using five different processing protocols, three of which will involve sequential sampling plans. A fourth will involve a fixed-sample size plan, with 200 organisms being the sample size. A fifth will involve the whole sample. Protocols will be used in random order for each sample. Amount of processing time (and number of organisms examined) will be measured for each protocol/sample. Processing time will be analyzed in a repeated measures analysis of variance, with the sample being the repeated measure, and treatments being the five protocols. The null hypothesis that processing effort will be equal between protocols will be tested against the alternate that processing effort will differ between at least two protocols (P < 0.05). If the null hypothesis is rejected, then means will be separated with Tukey's HSD. These analyses will help us determine which protocols are most effective in reducing processing time. However, they will not help us determine which are acceptably accurate as compared with the whole sample protocol. Acceptability of protocols will be determined by considering the results from the three sequential sampling protocols, as well as the fixed-sample size protocol, as being suspect. Results from the whole sample protocol will be considered to be true. Next, results from the sequential sampling protocols will be perused to identify those samples for which SCI ratios were classified into one of five categories: <0.2, greater than or equal to 0.2, < 0.8, greater than or equal to 0.8, or greater than or equal to 0.2 and < 0.8. Next, for those samples that were thus classified, the runs: organisms ratios will be calculated for both the fixed-sample size and whole sample protocols. These will be compared with the thresholds of 0.2 and 0.8 and classifications will be based on whether they are <0.2, greater than or equal to 0.2, <0.8, greater than or equal to 0.8, or greater than or equal 0.2 and < 0.8. Finally, the percentage of similarity between the results from each of the suspect protocols and the true protocol will be determined. At least 90% similarity must occur before a protocol is deemed acceptable.

Progress 07/01/02 to 06/30/07

Outputs
OUTPUTS: In this project we were successful in developing several tools whereby the amount of in-laboratory processing of sampled benthic macroinvertebrates can be greatly reduced. This was done by using a special measure of diversity - the sequential comparison index, and by coupling it with some special statistical tests - the sequential sampling procedure. The sequential comparison index, or SCI, is one that conforms to a known statistical distribution (binomial). Values for the SCI range from nearly 0.0 to 1.0. An SCI value, which is less than 0.2, and is calculated from sampled benthic macroinvertebrates, strongly indicates disturbance from an unnatural process, such as a pollutant. An SCI value that is 0.8 or greater strongly indicates an undisturbed stream or river. These values, along with knowledge of the statistical distribution of the SCI, allowed us to develop several sequential sampling tools. In 2002, we selected two binomial sequential sampling tools for further testing on 83 samples of benthic macroinvertebrates that were collected from various streams in and around southeast Wyoming (mostly). The savings in time and number or organisms examined ranged from 42.4% to 93.3%. We then investigated how selected binomial sequential sampling models could potentially influence the outcome of the sequential comparison index, or SCI, and attempted to determine how the estimate of the SCI is influenced by two levels of taxonomic expertise. For each of the selected binomial models, both non-technical as well as highly technically trained individuals sorted through samples of benthic macroinvertebrates to calculate the SCI. Non-technically trained individuals were given some basic instructions such as like - appearing organisms are to be considered as the same run, even though they are of different size while non - like - appearing organisms indicate the beginning of different runs. A repeated measures analysis of variance test indicated that, indeed, the non-technically trained individuals estimated the same SCI values as did the highly technically-trained individuals. PARTICIPANTS: Two graduate students were trained on this project. Mr. Ryan Stitt and Mr. Dayong Wu. TARGET AUDIENCES: Target audience is grass roots organizations interested in biological monitoring of streams. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.

Impacts
We expect this work to stimulate grass roots organizations that perform routine biomonitoring to investigate either adapting or creating their own sequential sampling programs

Publications

  • Wu, D., and D. Legg. 2007. Structures of benthic insect communities in two southeastern Wyoming (USA) streams: similarities and differences among spatial units at different scales. Hydrobiologia 579: 279-289.


Progress 01/01/06 to 12/31/06

Outputs
OUTPUTS: ddfwsdfweffe PARTICIPANTS: test test All users who request entry to the system must prove they are who they say they are (Authentication). This applies inside CSREES as well as outsides. Who the users are determines what information they have access to (Authorization) TARGET AUDIENCES: test All users who request entry to the system must prove they are who they say they are (Authentication). This applies inside CSREES as well as outsides. Who the users are determines what information they have access to (Authorization) PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: test All users who request entry to the system must prove they are who they say they are (Authentication). This applies inside CSREES as well as outsides. Who the users are determines what information they have access to (Authorization)

Impacts
wrgrwhhwghreh, the number of characters and spaces should not exceed 3200

Publications

  • Mark James 2007 did a very good job finding new products which will lead to healthy life
  • James Peter 2006 was the first to find out on bio fuel


Progress 01/01/05 to 12/31/05

Outputs
Progress in 2005: In 2005, we began statistically analyzing data and writing a paper to be submitted for publication in a refereed journal. The journal that we have in mind is Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. In addition to this, we have extended this work to develop a new metric for investigating anthropogenic influences on water quality, the random runs value. This differs from the SCI in that, with the random runs value, the level of taxonomic identification is known.

Impacts
We expect this work to stimulate grass roots organizations that perform routine biomonitoring to investigate either adapting or creating their own sequential sampling programs.

Publications

  • No publications reported this period


Progress 01/01/04 to 12/31/04

Outputs
In 2004, we investigated how selected binomial sequential sampling models could potentially influence the outcome of the sequential comparison index, or SCI, and attempted to determine how the estimate of the SCI is influenced by two levels of taxonomic expertise. For each of the selected binomial models, both non-technical as well as highly technically trained individuals sorted through samples of benthic macroinvertebrates to calculate the SCI. Non-technically trained individuals were given some basic instructions such as like-appearing organisms are to be considered as the same run, even though they are of different size while non-like-appearing organisms indicate the beginning of different runs. A repeated measures analysis of variance test indicated that, indeed, the non-technically trained individuals estimated the same SCI values as did the highly technically-trained individuals (P > 0.05).

Impacts
We expect this work to stimulate grass roots organizations that perform routine biomonitoring to investigate either adapting or creating their own sequential sampling programs.

Publications

  • No publications reported this period


Progress 01/01/02 to 12/31/02

Outputs
In 2002, we were selected two binomial sequential sampling tools for further testing on 83 samples of benthic macroinvertebrates that were collected from various streams in and around southeast Wyoming (mostly). One of these tools was based on the Sequential Interval Procedure and made use of the binomial threshold of 0.2. The other was based on the Confidence Interval method and was based on the threshold of 0.8. Using these two tools, we wanted to see if they resulted in the same qualitative assessment of those 83 samples, as did processing the entire samples as well as taking a standard subsample of those samples. Results from comparing the outcomes of the two sequential sampling plans with the outcomes of the subsampling protocol as well as with the whole sampling protocol indicated that both sequential sampling plans required less time and fewer organisms be examined than did the subsampling or whole sampling protocols (time (min): F = 359.08, df = 3, 242, P < 0.0001, error mean square = 0.3996049) (sequential sampling plan that used a threshold of 0.2 = 1.86a+-0.095, sequential sampling plan that used a threshold of 0.8 = 14.52b+-1.449, subsampling protocol = 25.21c+-1.205, whole sampling protocol = 52.31d+-4.423) (number of organisms: F = 159.5, df = 3, 246, P < 0.0001, error mean square = 0.3565287) (sequential sampling plan that used a threshold of 0.2 = 10.72a+-0.416, sequential sampling plan that used a threshold of 0.8 = 70.31b+-6.410, subsampling protocol = 158.87c+-5.861, whole sampling protocol = 309.57d+-23.592). This result was expected, as Wald (1947) had reported a 50% savings in sampling effort was realized when using sequential sampling methods. Here, the savings in time and number or organisms examined ranged from 42.4% to 93.3% over the subsampling protocol and from 72.2% to 96.5% over the whole sampling protocol.

Impacts
We expect this work to stimulate grass roots organizations that perform routine biomonitoring to investigate either adapting or creating their own sequential sampling programs.

Publications

  • Stitt, R. P. 2002. The effects of rapid laboratory assessment on the estimation of benthic macroinvertebrate diversity. M.S. Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82 pp.