A Comparison of Two Macroinvertebrate Multi-Plate Sampling Methods to Inform Great Lakes Monitoring and Remediation Efforts

Hester-Dendy (HD) multi-plate samplers have been widely used by state and federal government agencies for bioassessment of water quality through use of macroinvertebrate community data. To help guide remediation and restoration efforts at the Niagara River Great Lakes Area of Concern site, a multi-agency study was conducted in 2014 to assess the contribution of seven major urban tributaries on the US side of the river toward the impairment of the Niagara River. As part of this study, macroinvertebrate communities were sampled using two co-located versions of HD samplers: one version used by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and another by the US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Samplers were deployed in tributaries in highly developed watersheds with high percent impervious surface. The two sampling methods varied in terms of number and size of plates, between-plate spacing, and deployment method. Comparison of the similarity/grouping of communities with multivariate ordination techniques, Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling and Multi-Response Permutation Procedure, showed that both methods were able to detect differences in communities at stations, despite some grouping by month and method. The indices and metrics derived from the two HD methods were found to give comparable but not identical assessments of water quality. Despite their differences, the methods were robust with respect to water quality categories derived from indices used nationally (HBI) and by NY state (BAP). For the common richness metrics, total taxa and EPT richness, there was no statistical difference between means from 3 samplings. Some metrics, especially percent tolerant collector-gatherer individuals, did show significant differences at certain stations. Indicator Species Analysis showed some taxa associated with each method. The observed community differences were thought mostly due to the difference in sampler deployment position.