Download (1417Kb) - Aquatic Commons
Download (1417Kb) - Aquatic Commons
Download (1417Kb) - Aquatic Commons
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
8. EFFICIENCIES AND COMPARISONS<br />
8<br />
Xarefjord, F. (1972). The use of an air-lift in freshwater bottom<br />
sampling. A comparison with the Ekman bottom sampler. Verh. int.<br />
Verein. theor. angew. Limnol. 18, 701-5. [Compares air-lift sampler<br />
and Ekman grab; air-lift more efficient] FW<br />
Albrecht, M.L. (1961). Ein Vergleich quantitativer Methoden zur Untersuchung<br />
der Makrofauna flieBender Gewasser. (A comparison of quantitative<br />
methods for investigating the macrofauna of flowing water) (In<br />
German). Verh. int. Verein. theor. angew. Limnol. 14, 486-490.<br />
[Compares hand-net collecting of 10 stones, Surber-sampler, and Macan<br />
shovel sampler in shallow stony streams] FW<br />
Alm, G. (1922). Uber die Prinzipien der quantitativen Bodenfaunistik und<br />
ihre Bedeutung fur die Fischerei. (On the principles of quantitative<br />
studies of the bottom fauna and its significance for fisheries) (In<br />
German). Verh. int. Verein. theor. angew. Limnol. 1, 168-180.<br />
[Discusses the defects of a Birge-Ekman grab] FW<br />
Armitage, P.D., MacHale, A.M. & Crisp, D.C. (1974). A survey of stream<br />
invertebrates in the Cow Green basin (Upper Teesdale) before inundation.<br />
Freshwat. Biol. 4, 369-398. [Compares kick-sample catches in pond<br />
net with samples taken with shovel sampler of Macan (1958)] FW<br />
Baird, R.H. (1959). Factors affecting the efficiency of dredges, pp.<br />
222-4. In Modern fishing gear of the world (Ed. H. Kristjonsson).<br />
London. Fishing News (Books) Ltd. 607 pp. [Briefly discusses the<br />
various factors that determine the efficiency of a dredge] Mar<br />
Baker, J.H., Kimball, K.T. & Bedinger, C.A. Jr. (1977). Comparison of<br />
benthic sampling procedures: Petersen grab vs. Mackin corer. Wat. Res.<br />
11, 597-601. [Mackin corer found to be more efficient] FW<br />
Baker, J.H., Pugh, L.A. & Kimball, K.T. (1977). A simple hand corer for<br />
shallow water sampling. Chesapeake Sci. 18, 232-236. [Compares their<br />
hand corer with Mackin corer] FW<br />
Beeton, A.M., Carr, J.F. & Hiltunen, J.K. (1965). Sampling efficiencies<br />
of three kinds of dredges in Southern Lake Michigan. Proc. 8th Conf.<br />
Gt Lakes Res., 209. [Compares efficiencies of the Petersen, orangepeel<br />
and Smith-Mclntyre grabs; Smith-Mclntyre took more species and<br />
more animals] FW<br />
Beukema, J.J. (1974). The efficiency of the van Veen grab compared with<br />
the Reineck box sampler. J. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer 35, 319-327.<br />
[Compares van Veen grab and Reineck box corer in marine sands]<br />
Mar.<br />
Birkett, L. (1958). A basis for comparing grabs. J. Cons. perm. int.<br />
Explor. Mer 23, 202-7. [Compares Petersen and van Veen grabs and<br />
develops index of digging efficiency] Mar<br />
Brinkhurst, R.O., Chua, K.E. & Batoosingh, E. (1969). Modifications in<br />
sampling procedures as applied to studies on the bacteria and<br />
tubificid oligochaetes inhabiting aquatic sediments. J. Fish. Res. Bd<br />
Can. 26, 2581-93. [Compares Kajak-Brinkhurst corer with Ekman grab,<br />
and Freshwater Biological Association corer with Ekman grab; concludes<br />
that K-B corer is the best] FW<br />
45