Biases of submerged bulk and freeze‐core samples

Freeze‐coring and bulk sampling are routine methods used to sample subsurface spawning gravel under shallow water. Both methods have limitations. Freeze‐coring is not believed to representatively sample coarse grain sizes and the sample volumes are relatively small. Conversely, when bulk sampling, even within an enclosure, some fine sediment is suspended and washed away from the sample. This paper assesses the biases in sampling performance between the two methods and determines whether the loss of fines that occurs when bulk sampling could be predicted and thus corrected for. At six riffles the spawning substrate was sampled under approximately 50 cm of water with a bulk sample and three adjacent freeze‐cores. For each riffle, data from the two samples were combined using the method of Fripp and Diplas (1993) and the resultant composite sample was compared with the original freeze‐core and bulk samples to assess the relative precision and biases of the two techniques. On average, the D₅₀ of the bulk samples was 4 mm larger and a one‐third loss of the <2 mm fraction occurred compared with the composite samples. In contrast, freeze‐core samples contain on average 32% more sediment >16 mm compared with composite samples. Based on six samples, taken from six riffles, the amount of sediment finer than 0·5 mm lost using our bulk sampling technique with an enclosure appears to be predictable and correctable. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.