Application of the BMWP-Costa Rica biotic index in aquatic biomonitoring: sensitivity to collection method and sampling intensity.

The use of aquatic macroinvertebrates as bio-indicators in water quality studies has increased considerably over the last decade in Costa Rica, and standard biomonitoring methods have now been formulated at the national level. Nevertheless, questions remain about the effectiveness of different methods of sampling freshwater benthic assemblages, and how sampling intensity may influence biomonitoring results. In this study, we compared the results of qualitative sampling using commonly applied methods with a more intensive quantitative approach at 12 sites in small, lowland streams on the southern Caribbean slope of Costa Rica. Qualitative samples were collected following the official protocol using a strainer during a set time period and macroinvertebrates were field-picked. Quantitative sampling involved collecting ten replicate Surber samples and picking out macroinvertebrates in the laboratory with a stereomicroscope. The strainer sampling method consistently yielded fewer individuals and families than quantitative samples. As a result, site scores calculated using the Biological Monitoring Working Party-Costa Rica (BMWP-CR) biotic index often differed greatly depending on the sampling method. Site water quality classifications using the BMWP-CR index differed between the two sampling methods for 11 of the 12 sites in 2005, and for 9 of the 12 sites in 2006. Sampling intensity clearly had a strong influence on BMWP-CR index scores, as well as perceived differences between reference and impacted sites. Achieving reliable and consistent biomonitoring results for lowland Costa Rican streams may demand intensive sampling and requires careful consideration of sampling methods.

Application of the BMWP-Costa Rica biotic index in aquatic biomonitoring: sensitivity to collection method and sampling intensity

The use of aquatic macroinvertebrates as bio-indicators in water quality studies has increased considerably over the last decade in Costa Rica, and standard biomonitoring methods have now been formulated at the national level. Nevertheless, questions remain about the effectiveness of different methods of sampling freshwater benthic assemblages, and how sampling intensity may influence biomonitoring results. In this study, we compared the results of qualitative sampling using commonly applied methods with a more intensive quantitative approach at 12 sites in small, lowland streams on the southern Caribbean slope of Costa Rica. Qualitative samples were collected following the official protocol using a strainer during a set time period and macroinvertebrates were field-picked. Quantitative sampling involved collecting ten replicate Surber samples and picking out macroinvertebrates in the laboratory with a stereomicroscope. The strainer sampling method consistently yielded fewer individuals and families than quantitative samples. As a result, site scores calculated using the Biological Monitoring Working Party-Costa Rica (BMWP-CR) biotic index often differed greatly depending on the sampling method. Site water quality classifications using the BMWP-CR index differed between the two sampling methods for 11 of the 12 sites in 2005, and for 9 of the 12 sites in 2006. Sampling intensity clearly had a strong influence on BMWP-CR index scores, as well as perceived differences between reference and impacted sites. Achieving reliable and consistent biomonitoring results for lowland Costa Rican streams may demand intensive sampling and requires careful consideration of sampling methods. Rev. Biol. Trop. 62 (Suppl. 2): 275-289. Epub 2014 April 01.

En Costa Rica el uso de macroinvertebrados acuáticos como bioindicadores de la calidad ambiental del agua ha aumentado considerablemente en la última década, y se han aplicado métodos estandarizados a nivel nacional. Sin embargo, aún existe controversia sobre la efectividad de los métodos de muestreo y su intensidad. En este estudio comparamos una metodología cualitativa y otra cuantitativa, en 12 sitios de nueve ríos localizados en la cuenca baja del río Sixaola, al sur de la vertiente del Caribe de Costa Rica. Muestras cualitativas fueron recolectadas con un colador durante un período de tiempo establecido y los macroinvertebrados fueron separados en el campo. En el muestreo cuantitativo se recolectaron diez muestras utilizando un Surber y los macroinvertebrados fueron separados en el laboratorio utilizando con esteroscopio. El colador produjo un número menor de individuos y familias que las muestras cuantitativas. Como resultado, la puntuación del índice biótico Biological Monitoring Working Party-Costa Rica (BMWP-CR) en cada sitio dependió del método. La categoría de calidad de agua con ese índice también diferió entre los dos métodos en 11 de los 12 sitios en 2005, y en 9 de los 12 sitios en 2006. La intensidad de muestreo claramente tuvo una fuerte influencia en los resultados del índice BMWP-CR, así como diferencias entre sitios de referencia y los sitios afectados. Debido a la coherencia en los resultados es posible aceptar el método cuantitativo pero con una cantidad prudente de repeticiones en estudios de biomonitoreo acuático.

Riparian forest buffers mitigate the effects of deforestation on fish assemblages in tropical headwater streams.

Riparian forest buffers may play a critical role in moderating the impacts of deforestation on tropical stream ecosystems, but very few studies have examined the ecological effects of riparian buffers in the tropics. To test the hypothesis that riparian forest buffers can reduce the impacts of deforestation on tropical stream biota, we sampled fish assemblages in lowland headwater streams in southeastern Costa Rica representing three different treatments: (1) forested reference stream reaches, (2) stream reaches adjacent to pasture with a riparian forest buffer averaging at least 15 m in width on each bank, and (3) stream reaches adjacent to pasture without a riparian forest buffer. Land cover upstream from the study reaches was dominated by forest at all of the sites, allowing us to isolate the reach-scale effects of the three study treatments. Fish density was significantly higher in pasture reaches than in forest and forest buffer reaches, mostly due to an increase in herbivore-detritivores, but fish biomass did not differ among reach types. Fish species richness was also higher in pasture reaches than in forested reference reaches, while forest buffer reaches were intermediate. Overall, the taxonomic and trophic structure of fish assemblages in forest and forest buffer reaches was very similar, while assemblages in pasture reaches were quite distinct. These patterns were persistent across three sampling periods during our 15-month study. Differences in stream ecosystem conditions between pasture reaches and forested sites, including higher stream temperatures, reduced fruit and seed inputs, and a trend toward increased periphyton abundance, appeared to favor fish species normally found in larger streams and facilitate a native invasion process. Forest buffer reaches, in contrast, had stream temperatures and allochthonous inputs more similar to forested streams. Our results illustrate the importance of riparian areas to stream ecosystem integrity in the tropics and provide support for Costa Rican legislation protecting riparian forests.