1. Macroinvertebrate size–mass relationships: how specific should they be?
- Author
-
Bernadette Pinel-Alloul, Anne-Marie Tourville Poirier, Pierre Gagnon, Christiane Hudon, Ginette Méthot, and Alain Armellin
- Subjects
Biomass (ecology) ,Preservation methods ,Ecology ,Range (biology) ,Aquatic Science ,Biology ,biology.organism_classification ,Animal science ,Taxon ,Dry weight ,Relative magnitude ,Mollusca ,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics ,Invertebrate - Abstract
We assessed the relative magnitude of various factors (year, preservation method, continent, investigator, and taxonomic level) affecting prediction of invertebrate dry mass (DM) in light of the variability of assessments of invertebrate density. We developed 34 length (L)–DM relationships for Oligochaeta and 17 freshwater invertebrate families belonging to Mollusca, Crustacea, and Insecta. Comparison of our predicted DM for reference-size individuals with values from 120 other published equations revealed that 31% of predicted values were within our 95% CI and 73% were within a 2× DM range (i.e., between 0.5× and 2×). Interannual differences in exponent (slope) or scale factor (intercept) of L–DM relationships were detected for 6 of the 7 taxa investigated, but represented only 3% of total variance in predicted DM. Similarly, preservation methods and measured body dimension each accounted for a small (0–3%) fraction of total variance. Variation among investigators (12–50%) and continents (1–17%) ...
- Published
- 2012
- Full Text
- View/download PDF