Evaluation of seven aquatic sampling methods for amphibians and other aquatic fauna

M. S. Gunzburger
{"title":"Evaluation of seven aquatic sampling methods for amphibians and other aquatic fauna","authors":"M. S. Gunzburger","doi":"10.1163/157075407779766750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To design effective and efficient research and monitoring programs researchers must have a thorough understanding of the capabilities and limitations of their sampling methods. Few direct comparative studies exist for aquatic sampling methods for amphibians. The objective of this study was to simultaneously employ seven aquatic sampling methods in 10 wetlands to compare amphibian species richness and number of individuals detected with each method. Four sampling methods allowed counts of individuals (metal dipnet, D-frame dipnet, box trap, crayfish trap), whereas the other three methods allowed detection of species (visual encounter, aural, and froglogger). Amphibian species richness was greatest with froglogger, box trap, and aural samples. For anuran species, the sampling methods by which each life stage was detected was related to relative length of larval and breeding periods and tadpole size. Detection probability of amphibians varied across sampling methods. Box trap sampling resulted in the most precise amphibian count, but the precision of all four count-based methods was low (coefficient of variation > 145 for all methods). The efficacy of the four count sampling methods at sampling fish and aquatic invertebrates was also analyzed because these predatory taxa are known to be important predictors of amphibian habitat distribution. Species richness and counts were similar for fish with the four methods, whereas invertebrate species richness and counts were greatest in box traps. An effective wetland amphibian monitoring program in the southeastern United States should include multiple sampling methods to obtain the most accurate assessment of species community composition at each site. The combined use of frogloggers, crayfish traps, and dipnets may be the most efficient and effective amphibian monitoring protocol.","PeriodicalId":55499,"journal":{"name":"Applied Herpetology","volume":"4 1","pages":"47-63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/157075407779766750","citationCount":"36","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Herpetology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/157075407779766750","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36

Abstract

To design effective and efficient research and monitoring programs researchers must have a thorough understanding of the capabilities and limitations of their sampling methods. Few direct comparative studies exist for aquatic sampling methods for amphibians. The objective of this study was to simultaneously employ seven aquatic sampling methods in 10 wetlands to compare amphibian species richness and number of individuals detected with each method. Four sampling methods allowed counts of individuals (metal dipnet, D-frame dipnet, box trap, crayfish trap), whereas the other three methods allowed detection of species (visual encounter, aural, and froglogger). Amphibian species richness was greatest with froglogger, box trap, and aural samples. For anuran species, the sampling methods by which each life stage was detected was related to relative length of larval and breeding periods and tadpole size. Detection probability of amphibians varied across sampling methods. Box trap sampling resulted in the most precise amphibian count, but the precision of all four count-based methods was low (coefficient of variation > 145 for all methods). The efficacy of the four count sampling methods at sampling fish and aquatic invertebrates was also analyzed because these predatory taxa are known to be important predictors of amphibian habitat distribution. Species richness and counts were similar for fish with the four methods, whereas invertebrate species richness and counts were greatest in box traps. An effective wetland amphibian monitoring program in the southeastern United States should include multiple sampling methods to obtain the most accurate assessment of species community composition at each site. The combined use of frogloggers, crayfish traps, and dipnets may be the most efficient and effective amphibian monitoring protocol.
两栖动物和其他水生动物七种水生取样方法的评价
为了设计有效和高效的研究和监测程序,研究人员必须对其抽样方法的能力和局限性有透彻的了解。两栖动物水生取样方法的直接比较研究很少。本研究的目的是在10个湿地同时采用7种水生采样方法,比较每种方法检测到的两栖动物物种丰富度和个体数量。四种取样方法允许计数个体(金属取样法、d框架取样法、箱捕法、小龙虾取样法),而其他三种取样方法允许检测种类(视觉接触法、听觉接触法和蛙人)。两栖动物种类丰富度以捕蛙、夹箱和耳样最高。对于无尾蛙,每个生命阶段的采样方法与幼虫和繁殖期的相对长度以及蝌蚪的大小有关。不同采样方法对两栖动物的检测概率不同。箱诱取样的两栖动物数量最精确,但4种方法的精度均较低(变异系数均为bbb145)。由于鱼类和水生无脊椎动物是已知的两栖动物栖息地分布的重要预测因子,因此分析了四种计数抽样方法对鱼类和水生无脊椎动物的抽样效果。4种方法捕获的鱼类物种丰富度和计数基本一致,而箱型夹法捕获的无脊椎动物物种丰富度和计数最高。一个有效的美国东南部湿地两栖动物监测项目应该包括多种采样方法,以获得每个地点物种群落组成的最准确评估。结合使用捕蛙器、小龙虾陷阱和蘸水器可能是最有效和有效的两栖动物监测方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信