An evaluation of three aquatic sampling techniques for amphibians: implications for inventory and monitoring project design
Jennifer S. Staiger USGS - Florida Integrated Science Center 7920 N.W. 71st St., Gainesville, FL 32653
Presented at the 2005 Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Tampa, FL, 6-11 July 2005.
Introduction and Background
Crayfish trap (CT) |
In response to global declines and threats to amphibian populations, the US government implemented the national Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI). The ARMI goal is to inventory and monitor amphibian populations on federal lands and to evaluate potential causes of declines. An important component of this effort is to develop efficient sampling techniques for the diversity of amphibian types.
Automated frog call data logger (FL) |
Inventory efforts generally require sampling methods that will detect the range (common to rare) of species present, work well in a variety of habitat types, and provide data that can be used to calculate detection probabilities. These probabilities can then be used to develop population monitoring protocols for the monitoring phase. Methods used during this phase must reliably detect the suite of species of interest and provide data that can be used to estimate the proportion of area occupied by these species. Of course, time and cost considerations also influence which methods may be employed in either phase.
The southeastern ARMI region encompasses a wide range of habitats and areas of high amphibian diversity across six states. Consequently, a variety of sampling methods have been utilized during amphibian inventories in the region.
Objective
As Southeast ARMI moves from the inventory phase to the monitoring phase at several sites, the sampling techniques used must be evaluated for their efficacy in terms of detection and effort, and to identify biases associated with their use.
Methods
Dip-net survey (DN) |
The data presented here were collected during inventories at four USFWS national wildlife refuges: St. Marks, FL, Okefenokee, FL and GA, Harris Neck, GA, and Savannah, GA and SC.
Time constrained dip-net surveys (DN), aquatic funnel traps (modified crayfish traps, CT), and automated frog call data loggers (FL) were regularly used to sample amphibians at these sites. Generally, dip-net surveys consisted of 2 or more people netting for an amount of time based on the size of the wetland and the number of netters. Crayfish traps were typically deployed for two to three nights and checked daily. Automated call loggers were typically set to record one minute every hour from approximately 18:00 to 08:00 over two to three nights. However, the use of these techniques varied somewhat between sites and surveys.
Figures 1-4. Amphibian species accumulation curves comparing three aquatic sampling techniques at four national wildlife refuges. Because automated call loggers (FL) cannot detect salamander species, a pair of curves for crayfish traps (CT) and dip-net surveys (DN) are presented, one excluding and one including salamander species.
Table 1. Detection probabilities for each species by method and site. 0 indicates species was not detected using that method but has been detected at the site using other methods. Hyphen (-) indicates species does not occur at the site (based on Southeast ARMI inventories).
|