Blackburn, J.H.

Grieve, N.J.

Gunn, R.J.M.

Symes, K.L.

Winder, J.M.

Wright, J.F.

NERC Open Research Archive

,0Institute ofFreshwaterEcologyAn audit of performance in theprocessing of macro-invertebratesamples in 1994.Solway River Purification BoardR.J.M. Gunn, BA J.H. Blackburn, BSc J.M. Winder, PhDN.J. Grieve, BSc J.F. Wright, PhD K.L. Symes, YINDReport To: Solway River Purification BoardIFE Report Ref. No: RL/T04071h1/1610:04109al HJI" IP,•11- a.=a 	• IPNatural Environment Research CouncilA NaturalEnvironmentResearchCouncil0Institute ofFreshwaterEcologyAn audit of performance in theprocessing of macro-invertebratesamples in 1994.Solway River Purification BoardR.J.M. Gunn; J.H. Blackburn; J.M. Winder; N.J. Grieve;J.F. Wright; K.L. SymesProject Leader: R.J.M. GunnReport Date: May 1995Report To: Solway River Purification BoardWE Report Ref No: RIJT04071h1/16River LaboratoryEast StokeWAREHAM DorsetBH20 6BBTel: 0929 462314Fax: 0929 462180INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTSCONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENTIn accordance with our normalpractice, this report isfor the use only of the party to whomit is addressed, and no responsibility is accepted to any third party for the whole or any partof its contents. Neither the whole nor any part of this report or any reference thereto maybe included in any published document, circular or statement, nor published or referred toin any way without our written approval of the form and context in which it may appear.'INTRODUCTIONIn 1994 the sampling of aquatic macro-invertebrates for the biological assessment of riverquality continued throughout the United Kingdom. This task was undertaken by the National• Rivers Authority (NRA) in England and Wales, the River Purification Boards (RPBs) inScotland and the Industrial Research & Technology Unit (IRTU) in Northern Ireland.In view of the number of staff involved and the variability of sample processing techniques,it was recognised that an independent quality control exercise was necessary to promote aconsistently high level of reliability. The IFE was contracted to undertake an audit of thesample sorting and identification performance of each NRA region, several RPBs and theIRTU. This report presents the results of 6 samples audited for Solway River PurificationBoard. The IFE was not required to perform any statistical analyses nor interpretation of theresults of the audit.Each organisation employed standard collection procedures, as used in the 1990 River QualitySurvey, and the sampling strategy was therefore compatible with RIVPACS (RiverInVertebrate Prediction And Classification System), which has been developed by the Instituteof Freshwater Ecology (11t).Samples were sorted by NRA, RPB and IRTU personnel for the families of macro-invertebrates included in the Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) system. Taxapresent were recorded on site data sheets. Sampleprocessing and recording techniques variedfrom region to region.SAMPLE SELECTIONSamples for audit were selected internally by each of the agencies being monitored. Thebiologists processing these samples had no prior knowledge of the samples to be audited.The manner of sample selection, which biologists would be monitored and the number ofaudit samples from each season, were left to the discretion of the agency, within the limitsof the total number of samples that IFE was contracted to audit.SAMPLE PROCESSINGThe normal protocol for NRA, RPB and IRTU biologists was to sort their samples within thelaboratory and to select examples of each scoring taxon within the BMWP system. In mostcases, the invertebrates were placed in a vial of preservative (4% formaldehyde solution or70% industrial alcohol) and the BMWP taxa were listed on a data sheet. The vial of animalsand the sorted material were then returned to the sample container and preservative added.Thus, each sample available to IFE for audit should have included:1a list of the BMWP families found in the samplea vial containing representatives from each familythe preserved sampleWhen these three elements were present, the sequence of operations at IFE was as follows:The remainder of the sample was sorted and the BMWP families listedThe families contained within the vial were identified and listedA comparison was made between the RPB listing of families and those identified fromthe vial by IFEA comparison was made between the 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 farrUlywas identified, where possible, to species level, inorder to clarify any specific repetitive errors.For a number of different reasons, some samples did not include a vial containingrepresentative examples of the families listed on the data sheet. Others arrived with the vialdamaged in transit such that the representative examples were no longer separated. For thesesamples, only operations a), d) and e) above were appropriate.Several directives were issued to IFE relating to the treatment of BMWP taxa. Terrestrialrepresentatives of BMWP scoring families, animals deemed to have been dead at the time ofsampling, cast insect skins, pupal exuviae, empty mollusc shells and posterior ends of "living"specimens were to be excluded from the listing of families present. Chrysomelidae andCurculionidae, which appear in the BMWP list, were also to be excluded for the purposes ofthe audit. Trichopteran pupae, although not routinely identified by many biologists, were tobe included in the listing of families.4. REPORTINGThe results of each sample audit were recorded on a standard report form (Table 1). For auditsamples where a vial of animals was included, the comparison between the RPB listing andthe taxa found in the vial by WE 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 Table2, which summarises the results.2Species 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 in which the vial of animals was damaged or missing, box A of the reportform was not applicable (N/a). Families not on the list but present in the sample were enteredin box B under "additional families" as before. Families recorded on the list but not foundby IFE were indicated on the left hand side of box B. If the vial of animals was retained bythe sorter, entries in this box could include the sole representative of a family which wasremoved, a family seen at the site which escaped or was released (without mention beingmade on the data sheet), inaccurate identification, the wrong family box being ticked on thedata sheet or the family being present in the sample but missed by IFE.Results of the audits of individual samples are presented in the Appendix.3TABLE 1. The IFE Report formEXTERNAL AUDIT OF BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES - 1994REGIONDATESORTERRIVERCODESITEAVIALDifferences between:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFEBMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEBBMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFESAMPLEDifferences between: (This box is onlyBMWP families listed completed when noon sample data sheet vial is suppliedandBMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFEwith the sample)* Taxa recorded on data sheet but absent from vial and found by I.F.E.in sample (omissions)NET GAINS OMISSIONS0 0NET LOSSESNOTES:4TABLE 2.The 6 samples audited for Solway RPB.River Site Sorter Losses Gains OmissionsSark Site 3 ML 1 3 0Spottes Burn Site 2 ML 0 5 0Afton Water Afton F/S Site 1 NJ 0 2 0Annan Pinneys Site 1 NJ 0 1 0Old Water Routin Bridge ML 0 3 0Wanlock Water u/s Spango confluence ML 0 2 05APPENIMXResults of individual sample audits6EXTERNAL AUD/T OF BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES - 1994Solway RPBREGIONDATESORTERR/VER Sark18.8.94 SITE Site 3ML CODEAVIALBMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferences between:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFE1 Sphaeriidae NoneBBMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFESAMPLE2 LeptophlebiidaeDifferences between: (This box is only 3 Gyrinidaei) BMWP families listed completed when no 4 Hydrophilidaeon sample data sheet vial is suppliedandii) BMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFEwith the sample)* Taxa recorded on data sheet but absent from vial and found by I.F.E.in sample (omissions)NOTES:NET LOSSES 1 NET GAINS 3 OMISSIONS 02 Paraleptophlebia sp. (juveniles)3 Orectochilus villosus (larvae)4 Hydraena gracilis (adult) 1 onlyREGIONDATESORTEREXTERNAL AUDIT OF B/OLOGICAL SAMPLES - 1994RIVERSITECODESolway RPB Spottes Burn19.9.94 Site 2MLVIALDifferences between:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFEBMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFENone NoneBBMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFESAMPLE1 GlossiphoniidaeDifferences between: (This box is only 2 Goeridaei) BMWP families listed completed when no 3 Lepidostomatidaeon sample data sheet vial is supplied 4 Sericostomatidaeandii) BMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFEwith the sample) 5 Simuliidae* Taxa recorded on data sheet but absent from vial and found by I.F.E.in sample (omissions)NOTES:NET GAINS OMISSIONSNET LOSSES1 Glossiphonia complanata 1 only2 Silo pallipes 1 only3 Lepidostoma hirtum4 Sericostoma personatumSimulium ornatum group 1 only5 0REGIONDATESORTEREXTERNAL AUDIT OF BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES - 1994A RIVERSITECODESolway RPB Afton Water28.10.94 Afton F/S Site 1NJAVIALDifferences between:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFEBMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFENone NoneBBMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFESAMPLE1 ChloroperlidaeDifferences between: (This box is only 2 SimuliidaeBMWP families listed completed when noon sample data sheet vial is suppliedandBMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFEwith the sample)* Taxa recorded on data sheet but absent from vial and found by I.F.E.in sample (omissions)NOTES:NET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 2 OMISSIONS 01 Chloroperla torrentium 1 only2 Simulium cryophilum group 1 onlyREGIONDATESORTEREXTERNAL AUDIT OF BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES - 1994RIVERSITECODESolway RPB Annan20.9.94 Pinneys Site 1NJAVIALBMWP FAM/LIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferences between:BMW? families ltstedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin V/AL by IFENone NoneBBMWP FAM/LIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFESAMPLE1 PlanariidaeDifferences between: (This box is onlyBMWP families listed completed when noon sample data sheet vial is suppliedandBMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFEwith the sample)* Taxa recorded on data sheet but absent from vial and found by I.F.E.in sample (omissions)NOTES:NET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS OMISSIONS 01 Dugesia polychroa/lugubris 1 onlyREGIONDATESORTEREXTERNAL AUDIT OF BIOLOG/CAL SAMPLES - 1994RIVERSITECODESolway APB Old Water4.92 Boutin BridgeMLAVIALDifferences between:BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by /FEBMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFENone NoneBBMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMIL/ESFOUND BY IFESAMPLE1 DytiscidaeDifferences between: (This box is only 2 Leptoceridaei) BMWP families listed completed when no 3 Lepidostomatidaeon sample data sheet vial is suppliedandii) BMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFEwith the sample)* Taxa recorded on data sheet but absent from vial and found by I.F.E.in sample (omissions)NOTES:NET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 3 OMISSIONS 01 Oreodytes sanmarkii (adult) 1 only2 Athripsodes bilineatus 1 only3 Lepidostoma hirtum 1 onlyREGIONDATESORTEREXTERNAL AUDIT OF BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES - 1994RIVERSITECODESolway RPB Wanlock Water13.10.92 u/s Spango confluenceMLAVIALDifferences between:BMWP families,listedon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin VIAL by IFEBMWP FAMIL/ES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFENone NoneBBMWP FAMILIES NOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND By IFESAMPLE1 PlanariidaeDifferences between: (This box is only 2 SimuliidaeBMWP families listed completed when noon sample data sheet vial is suppliedandBMWP families foundin SAMPLE by /FEwith the sample)* Taxa recorded on data sheet but absent from vial and found by I.F.E.in sample (omissions)NOTES:NET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 2 OMISSIONS 01 Crenobia alpina 1 only2 Simulium variegatum (pupa) 1 only

An audit of performance in the processing of macro-invertebrate samples in 1994. Solway River Purification Board

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/508063/1/N508063CR.pdf

An audit of performance in the processing of macro-invertebrate samples in 1994. Solway River Purification Board

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NERC Open Research Archive