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.
Hunter, B. & Simpson, A.E. (1976). A benthic grab designed for easy<br />
operation and durability. J. mar. biol. Ass. U.K. 56, 951-957.<br />
[Compares new Hunter grab with Smith-Mclntyre grab] Mar<br />
8<br />
Ivanov, A.I. (1965). Underwater observations of the functioning of<br />
sampling equipment for benthos collections (In Russian). Okeanologiya<br />
5, 917-924. [Compares Petersen grab and Okean 50 grab with samples<br />
taken by a diver] Mar<br />
Johansen, A.C. (1927). Preliminary experiments with Knudsen's bottom<br />
sampler for hard bottom. Meddr Kommn Havunders., Ser. Fisk. 8, (4),<br />
6 pp. [Compares Knudsen (1927) large diameter corer with 0.1 and<br />
0.2 m 2 Petersen grabs] Mar<br />
Jonasson, P.M. (1955). The efficiency of sieving techniques for sampling<br />
freshwater bottom fauna. Oikos 6, 183-207. [Compares extraction<br />
efficiencies of sieves used to remove invertebrates from samples<br />
obtained with the Lenz (1931) version of the Ekman grab] FW<br />
Jonasson, P.M. (1958). The mesh factor in sieving techniques. Verh. int.<br />
Verein. theor angew. Limnol. 13, 860-866. [Examines the effect of<br />
mesh size of sieves used to separate invertebrates from mud sample<br />
obtained with an Ekman grab] FW<br />
Kajak, Z. (1963). Analysis of quantitative benthic methods. Ekol. pol.<br />
(A), 11, 1-57. [Compares efficiencies of two Kajak corers (sampling<br />
areas 10 cm 2 , 5 cm 2 ) with Ekman grab in lakes] FW<br />
Karlsson, M., Bohlin, T. & Stetson, J. (1976). Core sampling and<br />
flotation: two methods to reduce costs of a chironomid population<br />
study. Oikos, 27, 336-338. [Compares Ekman grab and core sampler<br />
of Milbrink (1971)] FW<br />
Kroger, R.L. (1972). Underestimation of standing crop by the Surber<br />
sampler. Limnol. Oceanogr. 17, 475-78. [Examines efficiency of<br />
Surber sampler] FW<br />
Kutty, M.K. & Desai, B.N. (1968). A comparison of the efficiency of the<br />
bottom samplers used in benthic studies off Cochin. Mar. Biol. 1,<br />
168-171. [Compares van Veen and Petersen grabs, van Veen better]<br />
Mar<br />
Lamotte, M. & Bourliere, F. (1971). Problhmes d'ecologie: l'echantillonnage<br />
des peuplements animaux des milieux aquatiques. (Problems of<br />
ecology: the sampling of animal populations of aquatic environments)<br />
(In French). Paris. Masson. 294 pp. [Chapter 5 includes a comparison<br />
between grab of Briba & Reys (1966) and suction sampler of True et al.<br />
(1968)] Mar<br />
Lavery, M.A. & Costa, R.R. (1972). Reliability of the Surber sampler in<br />
estimating Parargyractis fulicalis (Clemens) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)<br />
populations. Can. J. Zool. 50, 1335-6. [Found that Surber sampler<br />
was inadequate for sampling this aquatic moth] FW<br />
Leonard, J.W. (1939). Comments on the adequacy of accepted stream bottom<br />
sampling techniques. Trans. 4th N. Am. Wildl. Conf., 288-295.<br />
[Examines efficiency of Surber sampler in shallow streams] FW<br />
Lie, U. & Pamatmat, M.M. (1965). Digging characteristics and sampling<br />
efficiency of the 0.1 m 2 van Veen grab. Limnol. Oceanogr. 10, 379-384.<br />
[Examines efficiency of van Veen grab] Mar<br />
48