Extracting aquatic mites from stream substrates: a comparison of three methods

被引:10
|
作者
Proctor, HC [1 ]
机构
[1] Griffith Univ, Australian Sch Environm Studies, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia
关键词
extraction; Hydrachnida; Hydracarina; Oribatida; Halacaroidea; biodiversity;
D O I
10.1023/A:1010677700404
中图分类号
Q96 [昆虫学];
学科分类号
摘要
Aquatic mites (Hydrachnida, Oribatida, Halacaroidea) are diverse, and can reach high densities in the substrates of streams and rivers. Although they are a ubiquitous component of these habitats, their small size means that they are often overlooked. Using substrate samples from streams in tropical Queensland, I compared the thoroughness and time-based efficiency of three methods of extraction: sorting live samples without magnification (live-picking); exhaustive sorting of preserved samples using a dissecting microscope (microscope-picking); and kerosene-flotation of preserved samples followed by sorting with a dissecting microscope (kero-float). Live-picked samples yielded significantly fewer individuals and species than other methods, and were biased towards larger species. Oribatids and halacarids were not found when live-picking was used. Live-picking and kero-float methods provided similar numbers of mites per minute of sampling effort, whereas microscope-picking had a lower efficiency than kero-float. A combination of live-picking and kerosene-floatation is recommended for thorough surveys of stream acarofauna.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 11
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Colonization of aquatic macroinvertebrates in a high mountain stream using artificial substrates
    Rodriguez, SE
    Becares, E
    Soto, F
    Pacho, R
    INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THEORETICAL AND APPLIED LIMNOLOGY, VOL 26, PT 3, 1998, 26 : 1120 - 1124
  • [32] Comparison of two methods for extracting exosomes from the nucleus accumbens in mice
    Yu, Xiao-Lu
    Wu, Meng-Ru
    Abdul, Mannan
    Liu, Xian
    Zhang, Shuai
    Xu, Zheng
    Zhang, Guangchao
    Cao, Jun-Li
    NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS, 2023, 796
  • [34] A comprehensive comparison of four methods for extracting lipids from Arabidopsis tissues
    Kehelpannala, Cheka
    Rupasinghe, Thusitha W. T.
    Hennessy, Thomas
    Bradley, David
    Ebert, Berit
    Roessner, Ute
    PLANT METHODS, 2020, 16 (01)
  • [35] A COMPARISON OF 6 METHODS OF EXTRACTING ELASTIN RESIDUE FROM HAMSTER LUNGS
    SOSKEL, NT
    SANDBURG, LB
    EXPERIMENTAL LUNG RESEARCH, 1983, 4 (02) : 109 - 119
  • [36] A comprehensive comparison of four methods for extracting lipids from Arabidopsis tissues
    Cheka Kehelpannala
    Thusitha W. T. Rupasinghe
    Thomas Hennessy
    David Bradley
    Berit Ebert
    Ute Roessner
    Plant Methods, 16
  • [37] A COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR EXTRACTING TOBACCO MOSAIC VIRUS FROM LEAF TISSUE
    TAKAHASHI, WN
    PHYTOPATHOLOGY, 1951, 41 (10) : 903 - 907
  • [38] A comparison of two methods extracting respiratory information from ultrasound video
    Hu, G.
    Yao, J.
    Quan, H.
    Chen, W.
    MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2007, 34 (06) : 2377 - 2377
  • [39] A comparison of five methods for extracting DNA from paucicellular clinical samples
    Cler, Leslie
    Bu, Dawei
    Lewis, Cheryl
    Euhus, David
    MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR PROBES, 2006, 20 (3-4) : 191 - 196
  • [40] Extracting Knowledge from Stream Behavioural Patterns
    Jesus, Ricardo
    Antunes, Mario
    Gomes, Diogo
    Aguiar, Rui
    IOTBDS: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTERNET OF THINGS, BIG DATA AND SECURITY, 2017, : 419 - 423