Blackburn, J.H.

Furse, M.T.

Gunn, R.J.M.

Wright, J.F.

NERC Open Research Archive

Quality audit of biological samples for the 1990 River Quality Survey. North East River Purification Board

Quality audit of biological samples for the 1990 River Quality Survey. NRA Yorkshire Region

Quality audit of biological samples for the 1990 River Quality Survey. NRA South West Region

Quality audit of biological samples for the 1990 River Quality Survey. Forth River Purification Board

Quality audit of biological samples for the 1990 River Quality Survey. NRA Southern Region

Quality audit of biological samples for the 1990 River Quality Survey. NRA Wessex Region

Quality audit of biological samples for the 1990 River Quality Survey. NRA Anglian Region

0Institute ofFreshwaterEcologyQuality audit of biological samplesfor the 1990 River Quality SurveyHighland River Purification BoardR.J.M Gunn, BScJ.F. Wright, PhDJ.H. Blackburn, BScM.T. Furse, BScTT Tiir. H,-.g;.w:- Ji ill L'',..•7.Natural Environment Research CounciláINSTITUTE OF FRESHWATER ECOLOGYRiver Laboratory, East Stoke, Wareham, Dorset BI120 6BBTel: 0929 462314Fax: 0929 462180Quality Audit of Biological Samplesfor the 1990 River Quality SurveyHighland River Purification BoardR.J.M. Gunn, J.F. Wright, J.H. Blackburn & M.T. FurseProject leader: J.F. WrightReport date: December 1991Report to: Highland River Purification BoardContract No:IFE Report Ref: RL1T04053q1/13TFS Project No: T04053q1This is an unpublished report and should not be cited without permission,which should be sought through the Director of the Institute of FreshwaterEcology in the first instance.The Institute of Freshwater Ecology is part of the Terrestrial and FreshwaterSciences Directorate of the Natural Environment Research Council.INTRODUCTIONThe 1990 River Quality Survey included the sampling of aquatic macro-invertebrates forbiological assessment of river quality throughout the United Kingdom. In England and Walesthe survey was undertaken by the National Rivers Authority (NRA), the River PurificationBoards (RPBs) sampled in Scotland and the Department of Economic Development (DED)undertook the work in Northern Ireland.Approximately 7750 sites were surveyed, the majority of which were sampled in spring,summer and autumn. Standard collection procedures were used and the sampling strategy wascompatible with RIVPACS (River InVertebrate Prediction And Classification System), whichhas been developed by the Institute of Freshwater Ecology (IFE). Most of the remaining siteswere sampled in a single season only, in order to extend the scope of the survey. For avariety of reasons, a few locations were sampled in just two seasons.Samples were sorted for the families of macro-invertebrates included in the BiologicalMonitoring Working Party (BMWP) system. Taxa present were recorded on site data sheets.Sample processing and recording techniques varied from region to region.In order to undertake this massive programme of fieldwork and sample processing, a largenumber of new staff were employed by the surveying agencies. In view of the number ofstaff involved and the variability of sample processing techniques, it was recognised that anindependent quality control exercise was necessary to promote a consistently high level ofreliability.The IFE was contracted to undertake an audit of the sample sorting and identificationperformance of each NRA region, RPB and the DED. This report collates the results of 11samples audited for Highland RPB. The IFE was not required to perform any statisticalanalyses nor interpretation of the results of the audit.SAMPLE SELECTIONNearly all samples from the 1990 River Quality Survey were sent to IFE for storage. Theywere catalogued on arrival and placed in crates, such that individual samples were readilyaccessible. A stratified random selection of samples for each sample processor was thenmade. Selection was undertaken by IFE staff and no selection was made before each samplehad been received by IFE. Thus, sample processors had no means of knowing which of theirsamples would be audited.The total number of sample processors employed nationally during the survey wasconsiderably higher than that anticipated at the outset. As a consequence, the number ofsamples audited per processor was limited by the need to keep within the contracted overalltotal of 700 samples. A minimum of 4 samples was audited per processor, except whereindividuals processed very few samples or did not process material from each of the 3seasons.1Sampleselectionwas weightedtowardsspringsamplesin order to giveearly feedbackon theblindspotsof particularsortersand problemsof identification.3. SAMPLE PROCESSINGBiologistsprocessing samplesfor the 1990 Survey were instructed to sort their samples,ideally within the laboratory,and selectexamplesof each scoringtaxon within the BMWPsystem. In most cases, the invertebrateswere placed in a vial of preservative (4%formaldehydesolutionor 70% industrialalcohol)and the BMWPtaxa were listed on a datasheet. The vial of animalsand the sortedmaterialwere thenreturnedto the samplecontainerand preservativeadded. Thus, each sampleavailableto IFE for selectionfor audit shouldhave included:a list of the BMWPFAMILIESFOUNDIN THE SAMPLEa vial containingrepresentativesfromeach familythe preservedsampleWhen these three elementswerepresent,the sequenceof operationsat IFE was as follows:The remainderof the samplewas sortedand the BMWPfamilieslistedThe familiescontainedwithinthe vial were identifiedand listedA comparisonwas madebetweentheRPBlistingof familiesand thoseidentifiedfromthe vial by IFEA comparisonwas made betweenthe RPBlisting of familiesand those foundin thesampleby IFE"Losses"or "gains" from the RPB listing of families were noted. In the case of"gains", each additionalfamily was'identified,where possible, to species level, inorder to clarify any specificrepetitiveerrors.For a number of different reasons, some samples did not include a vial containingrepresentativeexamplesof the familieslisted on the RPB data sheet. These sampleswereavoidedfor audit, where possible. When selectionof such samples was unavoidable(egwherea particularsorter wouldotherwisehave beenexcludedfrom the audit exercise),onlyoperationsa), d) and e) abovewere appropriate.Severaldirectiveswere issued to IFE relatingto the treatmentof BMWP taxa. Terrestrialrepresentativesof BMWPscoringfamilies,animalsdeemedto have beendead at the time ofsampling,cast insect skins, pupal exuviae,empty mollusc shells and tail ends of "living"specimenswere to be excludedfrom the listing of families present. Trichopteranpupae,althoughnot routinelyidentifiedby many biologists,were to be included in the listing offamilies.4. REPORTINGThe results of each sample audit were recordedon a standardreport form (Table 1). Forauditsampleswherea vial of animalswasincluded,the comparisonbetweenthe RPB listingand the taxafoundin the vial by IFE was shownin box A of the reportform. Discrepanciescould be due to carelessness,misidentificationsor errors in completingthe RPB data sheet.Familiesnoton the RPBlistingbutfoundbyIFE in the remainderof the samplewereenteredin boxB of the report formunder"additionalfamilies". When the familieslisted as "losses"in sectionA of the report form werecomparedwith the full list of familiesrecordedin thesample by IFE, some apparent losses from the vial were offset by the presence of thosefamiliesin the remainderof the sample. Thesetaxawere thereforelistedin the "losses"boxof sectionA and the "gains"boxof sectionB and were neithera net loss nor a net gain. Inthesecases, the familiesweremarkedwith an asteriskin both boxes. Sucherrors are notedas "omissions"in the table whichsummarisesthe resultsfor each season(Table2).Speciesidentifications,stateofdevelopment(egadultor larvalcoleopterans)andthepresenceof a singlerepresentativeof a familywithintheremainderof the samplewererecordedin thenotessectionof the reportform. Wherethe RPBdatasheetindicatedthat a familywas notedand releasedat the site, this was recordedin the notes sectionbut not includedas a "loss",even thoughthe family was not foundin the vial.For thosesampleswhichdid not containa vial of animals,box A of the report form was notapplicable(N/a). Familiesnot on the RPB list but present in the samplewere listed in boxB under "additionalfamilies"as before. Familiesrecordedon the RPB list but not found byIFE were indicatedon the left handsideof box B. If the vial of animalswas retainedby theRPB,entriesin this boxcouldincludethe solerepresentativeof a familywhichwas removedby the RPB, a family seen at the site whichescapedor was released(withoutmentionbeingmadeon theRPBdata sheet),inaccurateidentification,the wrongfamilyboxbeing tickedonthe RPB data sheet or the familybeingpresentin the samplebut missed by IFE.Resultsof the audits of individualsamplesare presentedin Table 3.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThanks to Mrs Jessica Winder and Mrs Kay Symes for assistance with cataloguing andstorageof samplesand Mrs ValeriePalmerfor typingthe manuscript.3TABLE 1. The IFE Reportform1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYREGIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF BMWP FAMILIESAQC - BIOLOCICALSAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLE CODEA. IN VIAL B. IN SAMPLELOSSESA--VIAL BMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFEB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween: (This box only completedBMWP families listed when no vial suppliedon sample data sheetandBMWP 'familiesfoundin SAMPLE by IFEwith sample)NET LOSSES NET CAINSNOTESGAINS4TABLE2. The 11 samplesauditedfor HighlandRPB, with sample sorter initials and numbersof taxa 'lost', 'gained' and 'omitted'River Site Sorter Losses Gains OmissionsSPRINGStrontian Anaheilt EG 1 5 0Spean Corriechoille EG 1 5 0Morriston TorgyleBridge EG 0 1 0Halladale Millburn JH 1 5 0Little Gruinard Road Bridge JH 1 2 0A'ghairbhe Weir JH 1 3 0SUMMERDundonnel Dundonnel EG 0 9 0Halladale Forsinain JH 0 3 0Farrar Culligran CB 0 3 0AUTUMNFindhorn Coignafearn JH 0 1 0Peffery Foderty EG 1 3 05TABLE 3Results of individual sample audits61990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYREGIONSEASONSORTERAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLECODEHighlandRP0 StrontianSpring AnaheiltEG NRA12 0960LOSSESAQC OF BMWP FAMILIES A. IN VIAL B. IN SAMPLEGAINSVIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFE1 Sericostomatidae 2 LimnephilidaeB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween: (Thisbox only completedi) BMWP familieslisted when no vial supplied Caenidae3 on sample data sheet with sample) 4 Chloroperlidaeand5 Elmidaeii) BMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLEby IFE6 LepidostomatidaeNET LOSSES 1 NET GAINS 5NOTES 2 Anabolianervosa _3 Caenis rivulorum4 Chloroperlatorrentium1 only5 Esolus parallelepipedus(larva)1 only6 Lepidostomahirtum 1 onlyREGIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLECODEHighlandRPBSpeanSpringCorriechoilleECNRA12 0968BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA--VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFE1 CurculionidaeChironomidae2 Helodidae3 SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY •IFEDifferencesbetween: (Thisbox only completedi) BMWP familieslisted when no vial supplied 4 Caenidaeon sample data sheet with sample) 5 Perlodidaeandii) BMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLEby IFE6 LimnephilidaeNET LOSSES 1 NET GAINS 5NOTES 1 Terrestrialspecies2 Larva - Hydrocyphonsp.?4 Caenis rivulorum1 only5 Isopeilagrammatica6 Halesus sp. 1 only1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESREGION HighlandRPB RIVER MorristonSEASONSITESpring Torgyle BridgeSORTERSAMPLECODEEG NRA12 0910AQC OF BMWP FAMILIESA. •INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFENone 'NoneB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween: (Thisbox only completedBMWP familieslisted when no vial supplied 1 Hydroptilidaeon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLEby IFEwith sample)NET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 1NOTES 1 Hydroptilasp. 1 onlyREGIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLECODEHighlandRPBHalladaleSpringMillburnNRA120859BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA--VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:i) BMWP familieslisted 1 Sericostomatidae 2 Ephemerellidaeon sample data sheetandii) BMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFE3 LepidostomatidaeB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween: (Thisbox only completedi) BMWP familieslisted when no vial supplied 4 Perlidaeon sample data sheet with sample) 5 Hydroptilidaeandii) BMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLEby IFE6 SimuliidaeNET LOSSES 1 NET GAINS 5NOTES 2 Ephemerellaignita3 Lepidostomahirtum 1 only4 Perla bipunctataI only5 Hydroptilasp.6 Simuliumreptansgroup I onlyREGIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLECODEHighlandRPBLittle GruinardSpringRoad BridgeJIINRA12 0888BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSVIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFE1 Nemouridae NoneB SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLE by IFE(Thisbox only completedwhen no vial suppliedwith sample)2 Caenidae3 ElmidaeNET LOSSES 1 NET GAINS 2NOTES 2 Caenis rivulorum3 Limniusvolckmari(larva)1 only1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESREGION HighlandRPB RIVER A'ghairbheSEASONSITESpring WeirSORTERSAMPLECODETB NRA12 0891AQG OF BMWP FAMILIES A. IN VIAL B. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSVIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFE1 Sericostomatidae 2 LimnephilidaeB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sampledata sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLEby IFE(Thisbox only completedwhen no vial suppliedwith sample)3 Leuctridae4 ChironomidaeNET LOSSES 1 NET GAINS 3NOTES 3 LeuctrahippopusREGIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLECODEHighlandRBADundonnelSummerDundonnelEGNRA12 0895BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSVIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFENone 1 Baetidae2 Perlodidae3 LepidostomatidaeB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween: (Thisbox only completedi) BMWP familieslisted when no vial supplied 4 Hydrophilidaeon sample data sheet with sample) 5 Rhyacophilidaeand6 Hydropsychidaeii) BMWP familiesfound7 Goeridaein SAMPLEby IFE8 Brachycentridae9 SimuliidaeNOTESNET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 91 Baetis scambus,B. muticus 8 Brachycentrussubnubilus2 Isoperlagrammatica 9 Simuliumcryophilumgroup3 Lepidostomahirtum4 HydraenagracIlis,Helophorusbrevipalpis5 Rhyacophilasp., Agapetussp.6 Hydropsychesiltalai1 only7 Silo pallipes1 only.1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESREGION HighlandRPBRIVER HalladaleSEASONSITESummerForsinainSORTERSAMPLECODEJHNRA12 0861AQC OF BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSVIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFENone NoneB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLEby IFE(Thisbox only completedwhen no vial suppliedwith sample)I Lymnaeidae2 Caenidae3 HydroptilidaeNET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 3NOTES 1 Lymnaeasp. (juvenile)I only2 Caenis rivulorum3 Hydroptilasp.1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESREGION HighlandRPBRIVER FarrarSEASONSITESummerCulligranSORTERSAMPLECODECBNRA12 0903AQC OF BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSVIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFENone NoneB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween: (Thisbox only completed 1 Oligochaetai) BMWP familieslisted when no vial supplied 2 Caenidaeon sample data sheetandii) BMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLE by IFEwith sample) 3 HydroptilidaeNET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 3NOTES 2 Caenis rivulorum1 only3 Hydroptilasp.1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESREGION HighlandRPBRIVER FindhornSEASONSITEAutumnCoignafearnSORTERSAMPLECODEJHNRA12 0948AQC OF BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sampledata sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFENone NoneB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween: (Thisbox only completedBMWP familieslisted when no vial supplied 1 Leuctridaeon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLEby IFEwith sample)NET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 1NOTES 1 Leuctra inermis1 onlyREGIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICAL SAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLE CODEHighlandRPBPefferyAutumnFodertyEGNRA12 0937BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB.IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSVIAL BMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferences between:BMWPfamilieslistedon sample (iatasheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFE1 Brachycentridae 2 GoeridaeB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferences between: (This hos only completedI)BMWP families listed when no v iti Isupplied 3 Capniidaeon sample data sheetandii) BMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFEwith sample) 4 ChironomidaeNET LOSSES 1 NET GAINS 3NOTES 2 Silo pallipes3 Capnia bifrons I only4 Tanypodinae, Tanytarsini

Quality audit of biological samples for the 1990 River Quality Survey. Highland River Purification Board

0InstituteofFreshwaterEcologyQuality audit of biological samplesfor the 1990 River Quality SurveyTweed River Purification BoardR.J.M Gunn, BScJ.F. Wright, PhDJ.H. Blackburn, BScM.T. Furse, BScNatural Environment Research CounciláINSTITUTE OF FRESHWATER ECOLOGYRiver Laboratory, East Stoke, Wareham, Dorset BH20 6BBTel: 0929 462314Fax: 0929 462180Quality Audit of Biological Samplesfor the 1990 River Quality SurveyTweed River Purification BoardR.J.M. Gunn, J.F. Wright, J.H. Blackburn & M.T. FurseProject leader: J.F. WrightReport date: December 1991Report to: Tweed River Purification BoardContract No:IFE Report Ref: RL/T04053q1/itTFS Project No: T04053q1This is an unpublished report and should not be cited without permission,which should be sought through the Director of the Institute of FreshwaterEcology in the first instance.The Institute of Freshwater Ecology is part of the Terrestrial and FreshwaterSciences Directorate of the Natural Environment Research Council.áINTRODUCTIONThe 1990 River Quality Survey includedthe samplingof aquatic macro-invertebratesforbiologicalassessmentof riverqualitythroughouttheUnitedKingdom. In EnglandandWalesthe survey was undertakenby the NationalRiversAuthority(NRA), the River PurificationBoards (RPBs)sampledin Scotlandand the Departmentof EconomicDevelopment(DED)undertookthe work in NorthernIreland.Approximately7750 sites were surveyed,the majority of which were sampled in spring,summerandautumn. Standardcollectionprocedureswereusedand the samplingstrategywascompatiblewithRIVPACS(RiverInVertebratePredictionAnd ClassificationSystem),whichhas beendevelopedby theInstituteof FreshwaterEcology(ME). Mostof theremainingsiteswere sampledin a single season only, in order to extend the scope of the survey. For avariety of reasons,a few locationswere sampledin just two seasons.Samples were sorted for the families of macro-invertebratesincluded in the BiologicalMonitoringWorkingParty(BMWP)system. Taxapresentwererecordedon sitedata sheets.Sampleprocessingand recordingtechniquesvariedfrom region to region.In order to undertakethis massiveprogrammeof fieldworkand sample processing,a largenumberof new staff were employedby the surveyingagencies. In view of the numberofstaff involvedand the variabilityof sampleprocessingtechniques,it was recognisedthat anindependentquality controlexercisewas necessaryto promote a consistentlyhigh level ofreliability.The IFE was contracted to undertake an audit of the sample sorting and identificationperformanceof each NRA region,RPB and the DED. This report collates the results of 8samples audited for Tweed RPB. The IFE was not required to perform any statisticalanalysesnor interpretationof the resultsof the audit.SAMPLE SELECTIONNearlyall samplesfrom the 1990RiverQualitySurveywere sent to IFE for storage. Theywere cataloguedon arrival and placedin crates, such that individualsamples were readilyaccessible. A stratifiedrandom selectionof samplesfor each sample processor was thenmade. Selectionwas undertakenby IFE staffand no selectionwas made beforeeach samplehad beenreceivedby IFE. Thus,sampleprocessorshad no meansof knowingwhichof theirsampleswouldbe audited.The total number of sample processors employed nationally during the survey wasconsiderablyhigher than that anticipatedat the outset. As a consequence,the number ofsamplesauditedper processorwas limitedby the need to keep within the contractedoveralltotal of 700 samples. A minimumof 4 sampleswas audited per processor,except whereindividualsprocessed very few samples or did not process material from each of the 3seasons.Sampleselectionwasweightedtowardsspringsamplesin order to giveearlyfeedbackon theblindspotsof particularsortersand problemsof identification.3. SAMPLE PROCESSINGBiologistsprocessing samplesfor the 1990 Survey were instructed to sort their samples,ideally within the laboratory,and selectexamplesof each scoring taxon withinthe BMWPsystem. In most cases, the invertebrateswere placed in a vial of preservative (4%formaldehydesolutionor 70% industrialalcohol)and the BMWP taxa were listed on a datasheet. The vial of animalsand the sortedmaterialwere thenreturnedto the samplecontainerand preservativeadded. Thus, each sampleavailableto IFE for selectionfor audit shouldhave included:a list of the BMWPFAMILIESFOUNDIN THE SAMPLEa vial containingrepresentativesfrom each familythe preservedsampleWhen these three elementswerepresent, the sequenceof operationsat ME was as follows:The remainderof the samplewas sortedand the BMWPfamilieslistedThe familiescontainedwithinthe vial were identifiedand listedA comparisonwasmadebetweentheRPBlistingof familiesandthoseidentifiedfromthe vial by IFEA comparisonwas made betweenthe RPB listing of familiesand thosefound in thesampleby IFE"Losses"or "gains" from the RPB listing of families were noted. In the case of"gains",each additionalfamily was identified,where possible, to species level, inorder to clarify any specificrepetitiveerrors.For a number of different reasons, some samples did not include a vial containingrepresentativeexamplesof the familieslisted on the RPB data sheet. These samples wereavoided for audit, where possible. When selectionof such samples was unavoidable (egwhere a particularsorterwouldotherwisehave beenexcludedfrom the auditexercise),onlyoperationsa), d) and e) above were appropriate.Several directiveswere issued to IFE relating to the treatmentof BMWP taxa. Terrestrialrepresentativesof BMWPscoringfamilies,animalsdeemedto have beendead at the time ofsampling,cast insect skins, pupal exuviae,empty mollusc shells and tail ends of "living"specimenswere to be excludedfrom the listing of families present. Trichopteranpupae,althoughnot routinelyidentifiedby many biologists,were to be includedin the listing offamilies.24. REPORTINGThe results of each sample audit were recorded on a standard report form (Table 1). Foraudit samples where a vial of animals was included, the comparison between the RPB listingand the taxa found in the vial by IFE was shown in box A of the report form. Discrepanciescould be due to carelessness, misidentifications or errors in completing the RPB data sheet.Families not on the RPB listing but found by IFE in the remainder of the sample were enteredin box B of the report form under "additional families". When the families listed as "losses"in section A of the report form were compared with the full list of families recorded in thesample by IFE, some apparent losses from the vial were offset by the presence of thosefamilies in the remainder of the sample. These taxa were therefore listed in the "losses" boxof section A and the "gains" box of section B and were neither a net loss nor a net gain. Inthese cases, the families were marked with an asterisk in both boxes. Such errors are notedas "omissions" in the table which summarises the results for each season (Table 2).Species identifications, state of development (eg adult or larval coleopterans) and the presenceof a single representative of a family within the remainder of the sample were recorded in thenotes section of the report form. Where the RPB data sheet indicated that a family was notedand released at the site, this was recorded in the notes section but not included as a "loss",even though the family was not found in the vial.For those samples which did not contain a vial of animals, box A of the report form was notapplicable (N/a). Families not on the RPB list but present in the sample were listed in boxB under "additional families" as before. Families recorded on the RPB list but not found byIFE were indicated on the left hand side of box B. If the vial of animals was retained by theRPB, entries in this box could include the sole representative of a family which was removedby the RPB, a family seen at the site which escaped or was released (without mention beingmade on the RPB data sheet), inaccurate identification, the wrong family box being ticked onthe RPB data sheet or the family being present in the sample but missed by IFE.Results of the audits of individual samples are presented in Table 3.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThanks to Mrs Jessica Winder and Mrs Kay Symes for assistance with cataloguing andstorage of samples and Mrs Valerie Palmer for typing the manuscript.3TABLE 1. The 1FE Report form1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYRECIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF BMW? FAMILIESAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLE CODEB. IN SAMPLEA. IN VIALLOSSES GAINSA--VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFEB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween: (This box only completedBMWP families listed when no vial suppliedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFEwith sample)-NET LOSSES NET CAINSNOTES4TABLE2. The 8 samplesauditedfor Tweed RPB, with sample sorter initials and numbersoftaxa 'lost', 'gained' and 'omitted'River Site Sorter Losses Gains OmissionsSPRINGTeviot Water B711 Bridge SB 0 2 0Ale Water Ale WaterFoot SB 0 8 0Tweed Dawyck JWC 0 3 0Tweed InnerleithenBridge JWC 0 0 0SUMMERTeviotWater B711 Bridge JWC 0 1 0WhiteadderWater AboveNinewells SB 0 2 0AUTUMNTweed U/s DrygrangeViaductJWC 0 2 0LeaderWater LeaderWaterFootSB 0 1 05áTABLE 3Results of individual sample audits6REGIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLECODETweed RPBTeviot WaterSpring8711 BridgeSBNRA12 0040BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSVIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFENone NoneB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLE by IFE(Thisbox only completedwhen no vial suppliedwith sample)1 Hydrophilidae2 TipulidaeNET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 2NOTES 1 Hydraenagracilis,Hydraenarufipes2 Dicranotasp. I only1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESREGION Tweed RPBRIVER Ale WaterSEASONSITESPringAle Water FootSORTERSAMPLECODESBNRA12 0046AQC OF BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA--VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFENone NoneSAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLEby IFE(Thisbox only completedwhen no vial suppliedwith sample)1 Dendrocoelidae2 Sphaeriidae3 Asellidae4 Chloroperlidae5 Gyrinidae6 Hydroptilidae7 Leptoceridae8 LepidostomatidaeNET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 8NOTES 1 Dendrocoelumlacteum1 only2 Pisidiumsp. 1 only3 Asellus aquaticus4 Chloroperlatorrentium5 Orectochilusvillosus(larva)1 only6 Ithytrichiasp. I only7 Athripsodessp. 1 only8 Lepidostomahirtum.1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESREGION Tweed RPBRIVER TweedSEASONSITESpringDawyckSORTERSAMPLE CODEJWCNRA12 0002AQC OF BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA--VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sampledata sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFENone NoneB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween: (Thisbox only completed 1 Taeniopterygidaei) BMWP familieslisted when no vial supplied 2 Leptoceridaeon sample data sheetandii) BMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLEby IFEwith sample) 3 SericostomatidaeNET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 3NOTES 1 Brachyptera risi I only2 Athripsodessp. I only3 Sericostomapersonatum1 only1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESREGION Tweed RPBRIVER TweedSEASONSITESpringInnerleithenBridgeSORTERSAMPLECODEJiveNRA12 0004AQC OF BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA--VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFENone NoneB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLEby IFE(Thisbox only completedwhen no vial suppliedwith sample)NoneNET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 0NOTES.REGION1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERTweed RPBTeviot WaterSEASONSITESummerB711 BridgeSORTERSAMPLECODEJWCNRA12 0040AQC OF BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sampledata sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFENone NoneB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUNDBY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sampledata sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLEby IFE(Thisbox only completedwhen no vial suppliedwith sample)1 NemouridaeNET LOSSES NET GAINS 1NOTES 1 Amphinemura sp. (juvenile) 1 only1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESREGION Tweed RPBRIVER WhiteadderWaterSEASONSITESumnerAbove NinewellsSORTERSAMPLE CODESBNRA12 0063AQG OF BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA--VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFENone NoneB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween: (Thisbox only completedi) BMWP familieslisted when no vial supplied 1 Valvatidaeon sample data sheetandii) BMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLEby IFEwith sample) 2 GyrinidaeNET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 2NOTES 1 Valvatacristata2 Orectochilusvillosus(larva)1 onlyREGIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLECODETweed RPBTweedAutumnU/s DrygrangeViaductJWCNRA12 0008BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA--VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sampledata sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFENone NoneB SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween: (Thisbox only completedi) BMWP familieslisted when no vial supplied 1 Physidaeon sampledata sheetandii) BMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLEby IFEwith sample) 2 Chironomidae.NET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 2NOTES 1 Physa fontinalis1 only2 Microtendipessp. 1 onlyREGIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLECODETweed RPBLeader WaterAutumnLeader Water FootSENRA12 0036BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES CAINSA VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP familieslistedon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin VIAL by IFENone NoneB SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONALFAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween: (Thisbox only completedBMWP familieslisted when no vial supplied 1 Chironomidaeon sample data sheetandBMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLEby IFEwith sample)NET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 1NOTES 1 Tanypodinae,OrthocladiinaeNaturalEnvironmentResearchCouncil

Quality audit of biological samples for the 1990 River Quality Survey. Tweed River Purification Board

0Institute ofFreshwaterEcologyQuality audit of biological samplesfor the 1990 River Quality SurveyTay River Purification BoardR.J.M Gunn, BScJ.F. Wright, PhDJ.H. Blackburn, BScM.T. Furse, BScNatural Environment Research Council-INSTITUTE OF FRESHWATER ECOLOGYRiver Laboratory, East Stoke, Wareham, Dorset BH20 6BBTel: 0929 462314Fax: 0929 462180Quality Audit of Biological Samplesfor the 1990 River Quality SurveyTay River Purification BoardR.J.M. Gunn, J.F. Wright, J.H. Blackburn& M.T. FurseProject leader: J.F. WrightReport date: December 1991Report to: Tay River Purificaton BoardContractNo:IFE Report Ref: RL/T04053q1/ ClTFS Project No: T04053q1This is an unpublished report and should not be cited without permission,which should be sought through the Director of the Institute of FreshwaterEcology in the first instance.The Institute of FreshwaterEcology is part of the Terrestrial and FreshwaterSciences Directorateof the Natural EnvironmentResearch Council.áINTRODUCTIONThe 1990 River Quality Survey included the sampling of aquatic macro-invertebratesforbiologicalassessmentof riverqualitythroughoutthe UnitedKingdom. In Englandand Walesthe survey was undertakenby the NationalRivers Authority (NRA), the River PurificationBoards (RPBs) sampled in Scotlandand the Departmentof Economic Development (DED)undertookthe work in NorthernIreland.Approximately7750 sites were surveyed, the majority of which were sampled in spring,summerand autumn. Standardcollectionprocedureswereused and the samplingstrategywascompatiblewithRIVPACS(RiverInVertebratePredictionAnd ClassificationSystem),whichhas beendevelopedby theInstituteof FreshwaterEcology(IFE). Most of the remainingsiteswere sampled in a single season only, in order to extend the scope of the survey. For avariety of reasons, a few locationswere sampledin just two seasons.Samples were sorted for the families of macro-invertebratesincluded in the BiologicalMonitoringWorkingParty (BMWP)system. Taxapresent were recorded on site data sheets.Sampleprocessing and recordingtechniquesvaried from region to region.In order to undertake this massiveprogrammeof fieldwork and sample processing, a largenumber of new staff were employedby the surveyingagencies. In view of the number ofstaff involvedand the variabilityof sampleprocessingtechniques,it was recognised that anindependentquality control exercise was necessaryto promote a consistently high level ofreliability.The IFE was contracted to undertake an audit of the sample sorting and identificationperformanceof each NRA region, RPB and the DED. This report collates the results of 8samplesauditedfor Tay RPB. The IFE was not required to perform any statistical analysesnor interpretationof the results of the audit.SAMPLE SELECTIONNearly all samplesfrom the 1990River QualitySurveywere sent to IFE for storage. Theywere catalogued on arrival and placed in crates, such that individual samples were readilyaccessible. A stratified random selection of samples for each sample processor was thenmade. Selectionwas undertakenby IFE staff and no selectionwas made before each samplehad beenreceivedby IFE. Thus, sampleprocessorshad no means of knowing which of theirsamples would be audited.The total number of sample processors employed nationally during the survey wasconsiderablyhigher than that anticipatedat the outset. As a consequence, the number ofsamplesauditedper processorwas limited by the need to keep within the contracted overalltotal of 700 samples. •Aminimum of 4 samples was audited per processor, except whereindividuals processed very few samples or did not process material from each of the 3seasons.1Sampleselectionwas weightedtowardsspringsamplesin order to give early feedbackon theblindspotsof particular sorters and problemsof identification.3. SAMPLE PROCESSINGBiologists processing samples for the 1990 Survey were instructed to sort their samples,ideally within the laboratory, and select examplesof each scoring taxon within the BMWPsystem. In most cases, the invertebrates were placed in a vial of preservative (4%formaldehydesolution or 70% industrialalcohol)and the BMWP taxa were listed on a datasheet. The vial of animalsand the sortedmaterialwere then returned to the samplecontainerand preservative added. Thus, each sample available to IFE for selection for audit shouldhave included:a list of the BMWP FAMILIESFOUNDIN THE SAMPLEa vial containingrepresentativesfrom each familythe preserved sampleWhen these three elements were present, the sequenceof operationsat IFE was as follows:The remainder of the samplewas sorted and the BMWP families listedThe families contained within the vial were identified and listedA comparisonwas madebetweenthe RPBlistingof familiesand thoseidentifiedfromthe vial by WEA comparisonwas made betweenthe RPB listing of families and those found in thesample by IFE"Losses" or "gains" from the RPB listing of families were noted. In the case of"gains", each additional family was identified, where possible, to species level, inorder to clarify any specificrepetitiveerrors.For a number of different reasons, some samples did not include a vial containingrepresentativeexamples of the families listed on the RPB data sheet. These samples wereavoided for audit, where possible. When selection of such samples was unavoidable (egwhere a particular sorter would otherwisehave beenexcludedfrom the audit exercise), onlyoperationsa), d) and e) above wem appropriate.Several directives were issued to IFE relating to the treatment of BMWP taxa. Terrestrialrepresentativesof BMWP scoringfamilies,animalsdeemed to have been dead at the time ofsampling, cast insect skins, pupal exuviae, empty mollusc shells and tail ends of "living"specimens were to be excluded from the listing of families present. Trichopteranpupae,although not routinely identified by many biologists,were to be included in the listing offamilies.24. REPORTINGThe results of each sample audit were recorded on a standard report form (Table 1). Foraudit sampleswhere a vial of animalswas included,the comparisonbetween the RPB listingand the taxa found in the vial by IFE was shownin box A of the report form. Discrepanciescould be due to carelessness,misidentificationsor errors in completing the RPB data sheet.Familiesnot on the RPB listingbut found by IFE in the remainderof the samplewere enteredin box B of the report form under "additionalfamilies". When the families listed as "losses"in section A of the report form were comparedwith the full list of families recorded in thesample by IFE, some apparent losses from the vial were offset by the presence of thosefamilies in the remainderof the sample. These taxa were thereforelisted in the "losses"boxof section A and the "gains"box of sectionB and were neither a net loss nor a net gain. Inthese cases, the families were markedwith an asterisk in both boxes. Such errors are notedas "omissions"in the table which summarisesthe results for each season (Table 2).Speciesidentifications,stateof development(eg adultor larvalcoleopterans)and the presenceof a singlerepresentativeof a familywithinthe remainderof the samplewere recordedin thenotes sectionof the report form. Wherethe RPB data sheet indicatedthat a family was notedand released at the site, this was recorded in the notes section but not included as a "loss",even though the family was not found in the vial.For those sampleswhich did not containa vial of animals,box A of the report form was notapplicable(N/a). Families not on the RPB list but present in the sample were listed in boxB under "additionalfamilies"as before. Familiesrecordedon the RPB list but not found byIFE were indicatedon the left hand side of box B. If the vial of animals was retained by theRPB,entries in this box could includethe solerepresentativeof a family which was removedby the RPB, a family seen at the site which escapedor was released (withoutmention beingmade on the RPB data sheet),inaccurateidentification,the wrong family box being ticked onthe RPB data sheet or the family being present in the sample but missed by IFE.Results of the audits of individualsamples are presented in Table 3.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThanks to Mrs Jessica Winder and Mrs Kay Symes for assistance with cataloguing andstorage of samples and Mrs ValeriePalmer for typing the manuscript.3TABLE 1. The 1FE Report form1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEY• REGIONSEASONSORTERAQG OF BMWP FAMILIESAQC - BIOLOGICAL SAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLE CODEA. IN VIAL B. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA--VIAL BMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferences between:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFEB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferences between: (This box only completedBMWP families listed when no vial suppliedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFEwith sample)NET LOSSES NET GAINSNOTES4TABLE 2. The 8 samples auditedfor Tay RPB, with sample sorter initials and numbers of taxa'lost', 'gained' and 'omitted'River Site Sorter Losses Gains OmissionsSPRINGMotray Water St Michaels GCM 0 2Eden Kemback GCM 0 0Almond Millhaugh BEC 0 5Tay Dalguise BEC 0 0SUMMERTay Taymouth Castle BEC 0 4 0BrothockWater BrothockBridge GCM 0 2 0AUTUMNWest Water Stoneyford GCM 0 1 0Tay Waullcmill BEC 0 2 05áTABLE 3Results of individual sample audits6REGIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLE CODETay RPBMotray WaterSpringSt. MichaelsCCMNRA12 0533BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFENone NoneB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFE(Thisbox only completedwhen no vial suppliedwith sample)1 Glossiphoniidae2 HeptageniidaeNET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 2NOTES I HelobdellastagnalisI only2 Rhithrogenasemicolorata/germanica1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESREGION Tay RPBRIVER EdenSEASONSITESpringKembackSORTERSAMPLE CODEGCMNRA12 0531AQC OF BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA--VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFENone NoneB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween: (This box only completedBMWP families listed when no vial supplied Noneon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFEwith sample)NET LOSSES NET GAINS 0NOTESREGIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLE CODETay RPBAlmondSpringMillhaughBECNRA12 0524BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA--VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFENone NoneSAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFE(Thisbox only completedwhen no vial suppliedwith sample)1 Planariidae2 Hydrophilidae3 Elmidae4 Hydropsychidae5 LeptoceridaeNOTESNET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS1 Polycelisfelina2 Hydraenagracilis (adult)+ indet larva3 Eimis aenea 1 only4 Hydropsychesiltalai5 Adicella reducta 1 only1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESREGION Tay RPBRIVER TaySEASONSITESpringDalguiseSORTERSAMPLE CODEBECNRA12 0545AQC OF BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFENOne NoneB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween: (Thisbox only completedBMWP families listed when no vial supplied Noneon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFEwith sample)NET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 0NOTES1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESREGION Tay RPBRIVER TaySEASONSITESummerTaymouth CastleSORTERSAMPLE CODEBECNRA12 0541AQC OF BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB.IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA--VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFENone NoneB SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween: (Thisbox only completedi) BMWP familieslisted when no vial supplied 1 Planariidaeon sample data sheet with sample) 2 Ancylidaeand3 Caenidaeii) BMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFE4 SimuliidaeNET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 4NOTES 1 Polycelisfelina2 Ancylus fluviatilis1 only3 Caenis rivulorum1 only4 Simuliumerythrocephalum1 only1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYREGIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF BMWP FAMILIES A. IN VIAL B. IN SAMPLETay RPBSumnerNRA12 0562Brothock WaterBrothock BridgeAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLE CODELOSSES GAINSA VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFENone NoneB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween: (Thisbox only completedi) BMWP families listed when no vial supplied 1 Leptophlebiidaeon sample data sheetandii) BMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFEwith sample) 2 SinuliidaeNET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 2NOTES 1 Habrophlebiafusca 1 only2 Si•uliunaureun group 1 only1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYREGIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF BMWP FAMILIES A. IN VIAL B. IN SAMPLENRA120586Tay RPB West WaterAutumn StoneyfordAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLE CODELOSSES GAINSA--VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFENone NoneB--SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFE(Thisbox only completedwhen no vial suppliedwith sample)1 SimuliidaeNOTES0NET LOSSES NET GAINS1 Simuliumvariegatum (pupa) I only1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYREGIONSEASONSORTERAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERSITE,SAMPLE CODETay RPB TayAutumn WaulkmillDEC NRA12 0548AQC OF BMWP FAMILIES A. IN VIAL B. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFENone NoneB SAMPLE BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferences between: (Thisbox only completedi) BMWP families listed when no vial supplied 1 Nemouridaeon sample data sheetandii) BMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFEwith sample) 2 LimnephilidaeNET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 2NOTES 1 Protonemura•eyeri 1 only2 Potamophylaxlatipennis1 onlyNaturalEnvironmentResearchCouncil

Quality audit of biological samples for the 1990 River Quality Survey. Tay River Purification Board

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/507684/1/N507684CR.pdf

Quality audit of biological samples for the 1990 River Quality Survey. NRA Wessex Region

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NERC Open Research Archive

NERC Open Research Archive

NERC Open Research Archive

NERC Open Research Archive

NERC Open Research Archive

NERC Open Research Archive

NERC Open Research Archive

NERC Open Research Archive

NERC Open Research Archive

NERC Open Research Archive