Blackburn, J.H.

Furse, M.T.

Gunn, R.J.M.

Wright, J.F.

NERC Open Research Archive

0Institute ofFreshwaterEcologyQuality audit of biological samplesfor the 1990 River Quality SurveySolway River Purification BoardR.J.M Gunn, BScJ.F. Wright, PhDJ.H. Blackburn, BScM.T. Furse, BSc, -FE ir ii2sL_Natural 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 SurveySolway River Purification BoardR.J.M. Gunn, J.F. Wright,J.H. Blackburn& M.T. PurseProject leader: J.F. WrightReport date: December 1991Report to: Solway River PurificationBoardContract No:IFE Report Ref: RL/T04053q1/ ITFS Project No: T04053q1This is an unpublishedreport 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 river qualitythroughouttheUnitedKingdom. In Englandand Walesthe survey was undertakenby the NationalRivers Authority (NRA), the River PurificationBoards (RPBs) sampledin 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 theremainingsiteswere 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 recordedon site data sheets.Sampleprocessingand recordingtechniquesvaried from region to region.In order to undertakethis massiveprogrammeof fieldworkand sample processing, a largenumber of new staff were employed by the surveyingagencies. In view of the number ofstaff involvedand the variabilityof sampleprocessingtechniques,it was recognisedthat anindependentquality control exercise was 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 6samples audited for Solway RPB. The WE was not required to perform any statisticalanalysesnor interpretationof the results of the audit.SAMPLE SELECTIONNearly all samplesfrom the 1990River QualitySurveywere sent to IFE for storage. Theywere cataloguedon 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 theirsampleswould be audited.The total number of sample processors employed nationally during the survey wasconsiderablyhigher than that anticipated at the outset. As a consequence, the number ofsamplesauditedper processorwas 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 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%formaldehydesolutionor 70% industrialalcohol)and the BMWP taxa were listed on a datasheet. The vial of animalsand the sortedmaterialwere then returnedto 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 sample was sorted and the BMWP families listedThe families containedwithin the vial were identifiedand listedA comparisonwasmadebetweentheRPBlistingof familiesand thoseidentifiedfromthe vial by IFEA 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 particularsorter would otherwisehave been excludedfrom the audit exercise), onlyoperationsa), d) and e) above were 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. Trichopteran pupae,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 listing but foundby 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 WE, 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 asteriskin both boxes. Such errors are notedas "omissions"in the table which summarisesthe results for each season (Table 2).Speciesidentifications,stateof development(egadultor larvalcoleopterans)and thepresenceof a singlerepresentativeof a family withintheremainderof the sample were recordedin thenotes sectionof the report form. Where the 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 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 "additionalfamilies"as before. Familiesrecorded on 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 whichescapedor was released (without mention beingmade on the RPB data sheet),inaccurateidentification,the wrongfamily 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 samplesare 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 WE Report form1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYREGIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF BMW? FAMILIES A. IN VIAL B. IN SAMPLEAQC - BIOLOGICAL SAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLE CODELOSSES GAINSA VIAL BMWP FAMILIES NOT -FOUND 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 6 samples audited for Solway RPB, with sample sorter initials and numbers oftaxa 'lost', 'gained' and 'omitted'River Site Sorter Losses Gains OmissionsSPRINGNith U/s Kirkconnel DAR 0 2 0Cite Challoch DAR 0 1 0SUMMERScar Water West Penpont DAR 0 0 0Water of Ken High Bridge of Ken DAR 0 0 0AUTUMNDryfe Water Near Lockerbie DAR 0 4 0Afton Water Monument DAR 0 0 05áTABLE 3Results of individual sample audits6REGIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLE CODESolway RPHNithSpringU/s KirkconnelDARNRA12 0100BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSVIAL 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 Glossiphoniidaeon sample data sheetandii) BMWP familiesfoundin SAMPLE by IFEwith sample) 2 PerlidaeNET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 2NOTES 1 Helobdellastagnalis1 only2 Perla bipunctata 1 only1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESREGION Solway RPBRIVER CreeSEASONSITESpringChallochSORTERSAMPLE CODEDARNRA12 0129AQC 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 1 Nemouridaeon sample data sheetandBMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFEwith sample)NET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 1NOTES 1 Amphinemurasulcicollis1 only1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESREGION Solway RPBRIVER Scar WaterSEASONSITESumerWest PenpontSORTERSAMPLE CODEDARNRA12 0103AQC OF BMWP FAMILIES A. INVIALB. IN SAMPLELOSSES GAINSA--VIAL BMWP FAMILIESNOTFOUND BY IFEADDITIONAL FAMILIESFOUND BY IFEDifferencesbetween:0 BMWP families listedon sample data sheetandii) BMWP 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 Solway RPBRIVER Water of KenSEASONSITESumerHigh Bridge of KenSORTERSAMPLE CODEDARNRA12 0115AQC 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 Solway RPBRIVER Dryfe WaterSEASONSITEAutumnNear LockerbieSORTERSAMPLE CODEDARNRA12 0091AQC 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 Ancylidaeon sample data sheet with sample) 2 Hydroptilidaeand3 Leptoceridaeii) BMWP families foundin SAMPLE by IFE4 ChironomidaeNET LOSSES 0 NET GAINS 4NOTES 1 Ancylus fluviatilis1 only2 Hydroptilasp.3 Athripsodessp. 1 only4 Tanypodinae,OrthoeladiinaeREGIONSEASONSORTERAQC OF1990 RIVERQUALITYSURVEYAQC - BIOLOGICALSAMPLESRIVERSITESAMPLE CODESolway RPBAfton WaterAutumnMonumentDABNRA12 0098BMWP 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 0NOTESA NaturalEnvironmentResearchCouncil.1

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

http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/509836/1/N509836CR.pdf

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

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NERC Open Research Archive