Comparison of microscopy to a semi-automated method (FlowCAM®) for characterization of individual-, population-, and community-level measurements of zooplankton

Thomas M. Detmer, Kyle J. Broadway, Cal G. Potter, Scott F. Collins, Joseph J. Parkos, David H. Wahl

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Fully or semi-automated methods are becoming viable, cost-effective alternatives to manual approaches for characterizing zooplankton. The goal of this study was to compare a semi-automated approach (FlowCAM®) and a traditional microscopy method for characterizing zooplankton body size, density, and community structure. We demonstrate that estimating mass from FlowCAM® profile area had similar accuracy to a commonly used length to mass regression model. FlowCAM® and microscopy produced related length measurements for Daphnia, Calanoida, and Cyclopoida. Length measurements of rotifers, nauplii, and Sididae were not significantly related between the two methods, likely because of high morphological variation within taxa. Density comparisons between methods indicated high correlation between the semi-automated approach and microscopy-derived densities with a subtle bias of lower densities with the semi-automated method. After applying a correction factor, independent samples showed similar density estimates between methods, with community composition also not differing between methods. Comparison of processing time between the two methods showed that the semi-automated approach was 11 min (33%) faster per sample. With corrections, semi-automated methods represent a viable and cost-effective alternative to traditional microscopy methods for the processing of zooplankton samples.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)99-110
Number of pages12
JournalHydrobiologia
Volume838
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2019

Fingerprint

microscopy
zooplankton
methodology
comparison
method
Daphnia
nauplii
Rotifera
cost
sampling
community composition
body size
community structure

Keywords

  • Automated devices
  • Body mass estimates
  • Flow cytometry
  • FlowCAM®
  • Microscopy
  • Zooplankton

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Aquatic Science

Cite this

Comparison of microscopy to a semi-automated method (FlowCAM®) for characterization of individual-, population-, and community-level measurements of zooplankton. / Detmer, Thomas M.; Broadway, Kyle J.; Potter, Cal G.; Collins, Scott F.; Parkos, Joseph J.; Wahl, David H.

In: Hydrobiologia, Vol. 838, No. 1, 01.07.2019, p. 99-110.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Detmer, Thomas M. ; Broadway, Kyle J. ; Potter, Cal G. ; Collins, Scott F. ; Parkos, Joseph J. ; Wahl, David H. / Comparison of microscopy to a semi-automated method (FlowCAM®) for characterization of individual-, population-, and community-level measurements of zooplankton. In: Hydrobiologia. 2019 ; Vol. 838, No. 1. pp. 99-110.
@article{1de158d25c4d447ead1aea97609cfcbf,
title = "Comparison of microscopy to a semi-automated method (FlowCAM{\circledR}) for characterization of individual-, population-, and community-level measurements of zooplankton",
abstract = "Fully or semi-automated methods are becoming viable, cost-effective alternatives to manual approaches for characterizing zooplankton. The goal of this study was to compare a semi-automated approach (FlowCAM{\circledR}) and a traditional microscopy method for characterizing zooplankton body size, density, and community structure. We demonstrate that estimating mass from FlowCAM{\circledR} profile area had similar accuracy to a commonly used length to mass regression model. FlowCAM{\circledR} and microscopy produced related length measurements for Daphnia, Calanoida, and Cyclopoida. Length measurements of rotifers, nauplii, and Sididae were not significantly related between the two methods, likely because of high morphological variation within taxa. Density comparisons between methods indicated high correlation between the semi-automated approach and microscopy-derived densities with a subtle bias of lower densities with the semi-automated method. After applying a correction factor, independent samples showed similar density estimates between methods, with community composition also not differing between methods. Comparison of processing time between the two methods showed that the semi-automated approach was 11 min (33{\%}) faster per sample. With corrections, semi-automated methods represent a viable and cost-effective alternative to traditional microscopy methods for the processing of zooplankton samples.",
keywords = "Automated devices, Body mass estimates, Flow cytometry, FlowCAM{\circledR}, Microscopy, Zooplankton",
author = "Detmer, {Thomas M.} and Broadway, {Kyle J.} and Potter, {Cal G.} and Collins, {Scott F.} and Parkos, {Joseph J.} and Wahl, {David H.}",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10750-019-03980-w",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "838",
pages = "99--110",
journal = "Hydrobiologia",
issn = "0018-8158",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of microscopy to a semi-automated method (FlowCAM®) for characterization of individual-, population-, and community-level measurements of zooplankton

AU - Detmer, Thomas M.

AU - Broadway, Kyle J.

AU - Potter, Cal G.

AU - Collins, Scott F.

AU - Parkos, Joseph J.

AU - Wahl, David H.

PY - 2019/7/1

Y1 - 2019/7/1

N2 - Fully or semi-automated methods are becoming viable, cost-effective alternatives to manual approaches for characterizing zooplankton. The goal of this study was to compare a semi-automated approach (FlowCAM®) and a traditional microscopy method for characterizing zooplankton body size, density, and community structure. We demonstrate that estimating mass from FlowCAM® profile area had similar accuracy to a commonly used length to mass regression model. FlowCAM® and microscopy produced related length measurements for Daphnia, Calanoida, and Cyclopoida. Length measurements of rotifers, nauplii, and Sididae were not significantly related between the two methods, likely because of high morphological variation within taxa. Density comparisons between methods indicated high correlation between the semi-automated approach and microscopy-derived densities with a subtle bias of lower densities with the semi-automated method. After applying a correction factor, independent samples showed similar density estimates between methods, with community composition also not differing between methods. Comparison of processing time between the two methods showed that the semi-automated approach was 11 min (33%) faster per sample. With corrections, semi-automated methods represent a viable and cost-effective alternative to traditional microscopy methods for the processing of zooplankton samples.

AB - Fully or semi-automated methods are becoming viable, cost-effective alternatives to manual approaches for characterizing zooplankton. The goal of this study was to compare a semi-automated approach (FlowCAM®) and a traditional microscopy method for characterizing zooplankton body size, density, and community structure. We demonstrate that estimating mass from FlowCAM® profile area had similar accuracy to a commonly used length to mass regression model. FlowCAM® and microscopy produced related length measurements for Daphnia, Calanoida, and Cyclopoida. Length measurements of rotifers, nauplii, and Sididae were not significantly related between the two methods, likely because of high morphological variation within taxa. Density comparisons between methods indicated high correlation between the semi-automated approach and microscopy-derived densities with a subtle bias of lower densities with the semi-automated method. After applying a correction factor, independent samples showed similar density estimates between methods, with community composition also not differing between methods. Comparison of processing time between the two methods showed that the semi-automated approach was 11 min (33%) faster per sample. With corrections, semi-automated methods represent a viable and cost-effective alternative to traditional microscopy methods for the processing of zooplankton samples.

KW - Automated devices

KW - Body mass estimates

KW - Flow cytometry

KW - FlowCAM®

KW - Microscopy

KW - Zooplankton

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85066800873&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85066800873&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10750-019-03980-w

DO - 10.1007/s10750-019-03980-w

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85066800873

VL - 838

SP - 99

EP - 110

JO - Hydrobiologia

JF - Hydrobiologia

SN - 0018-8158

IS - 1

ER -