China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Microfibre Methodologies for the Field and Laboratory
Published in Judith S. Weis, Francesca De Falco, Mariacristina Cocca, Polluting Textiles, 2022
Abigail P.W. Barrows, Courtney A. Neumann
Other popular net sampling methods include manta nets and plankton nets. The manta net has built-in wings for consistent floatation, keeping the net upright and fully open at all times, thus allowing for uniform water depth at collection. The manta net is designed to capture items at the water’s surface, inspired by the two front extensions on the mouth of a manta ray, an animal that captures floating prey in a similar fashion (Brown & Cheng, 1981). The pore sizes of manta nets often correspond to neuston nets, and are similarly prone to underestimating microfibre presence (Tamminga et al., 2019). The plankton net was designed to sample plankton at the sea surface, but they are also useful for microplastic studies. Plankton nets have smaller pore size (generally 100 µm), which allows them to capture more microplastic, but also results in the nets becoming clogged much more quickly and easily by organic material (Prata et al., 2019).
Environmental Biomonitoring, Sampling, and Testing
Published in Frank R. Spellman, The Science of Water, 2020
The plankton net or sampler provides a means of obtaining samples of plankton from various depths so that distribution patterns can be studied. Considering the depth of the water column that is sampled can make quantitative determinations. The net can be towed to sample plankton at a single depth (horizontal tow) or lowered into the water to sample the water column (vertical tow). Another possibility is oblique tows where the net is lowered to a predetermined depth and raised at a constant rate as the vessel moves forward.
Effects of cyprinid removal and reintroduction: Diamond Lake, Oregon
Published in Lake and Reservoir Management, 2023
J. Eilers, R. Miller, D. Loomis, A. Vogel
Phytoplankton samples were collected from water samples at various depths, although only the surface (1 m) results are reported here. Samples were preserved with Lugol’s solution and were analyzed by Aquatic Analysts, Inc., Friday Harbor, Washington, by counting 100 natural units selected from a random grid using a light microscope. We elected to use the name Anabaena instead of Dolichospermum (Wacklin et al. 2009) based, in part, on recent genetic analyses of Nostocales occurrence in central Oregon lakes (Dreher et al. 2021). Zooplankton samples were collected using a plankton net with a 64 µm mesh lowered to 12 m. Samples were preserved in ethanol and analyzed by ZP Taxonomic Services, Lakebay, Washington. Taxonomists remained the same for phytoplankton and zooplankton through the period reported here (2000–2020).