Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 18, Issue 9, pp 2283–2306

Non-random sampling and its role in habitat conservation: a comparison of three wetland macrophyte sampling protocols

Original Paper

Abstract

Aquatic macrophytes provide essential spawning and nursery habitat for fish, valuable food source for waterfowl, migratory birds and mammals, and contribute greatly to overall biodiversity of coastal marshes of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Two approaches have been used to survey the plant community in coastal wetlands, and these include the grid (GR) and transect (TR) methods. These methods have been used to identify the average species richness at different sites, but their suitability for determining total species richness of a site has not been tested. In this paper, we compare the performance of these two established methods with that of the Stratified method (ST), which uses the sampler’s judgment to guide them to different habitat zones within the wetland. We used the three protocols to compare species richness of six coastal wetlands of the Great Lakes, three pristine marshes in eastern Georgian Bay (Lake Huron) and three degraded wetlands in Lake Ontario, Canada. The greatest species richness was associated with the ST method, irrespective of wetland quality. The ST method was also more efficient (fewer quadrats sampled), and revealed the most number of unique (those found with only one method) and uncommon species (those found in <5% of the quadrats). Despite these statistical differences, we found that sampling method did not significantly affect the performance of a recently developed index of wetland quality, the Wetland Macrophyte Index. These results have important implications for designing macrophyte surveys to track changes in biodiversity and wetland quality.

Keywords

Macrophyte Protocol Coastal wetlands Conservation Biodiversity Species richness 

References

  1. Albert DA, Minc LD (2004) Plants as regional indicators of Great Lakes coastal wetland health. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 7:233–247. doi:10.1080/14634980490461588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball H, Jalava J, King T, Maynard L, Potter B, Pulfer T (2003) The Ontario Great Lakes coastal wetland atlas: a summary of information (1983–1997)Google Scholar
  3. Bourdaghs M, Johnston CA, Regal RR (2006) Properties and performance of the floristic quality index in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Wetlands 26:718–735. doi:10.1672/0277-5212(2006)26[718:PAPOTF]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpenter SR (1981) Submersed vegetation: anternal factor in lake ecosystem succession. Am Nat 118:372–381. doi:10.1086/283829 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chaade SW (2002) A Great Lakes wetland flora: a complete guide to the aquatic and wetland plants of the upper Midwest. Pocket Flora Press, LauriumGoogle Scholar
  6. Chow-Fraser P (2005) Ecosystem response to changes in water level of Lake Ontario marshes: lessons from the restoration of Cootes Paradise Marsh. Hydrobiologia 539:189–204. doi:10.1007/s10750-004-4868-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chow-Fraser P (2006) Development of the wetland water quality index for assessing the quality of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. In: Simon T, Stewart TP (eds) Coastal wetlands of the Laurentian Great Lakes: health, habitat and indicators. Author House, Bloomington, pp 137–166Google Scholar
  8. Chow-Fraser P, Albert DA (1999). Biodiversity investment areas, coastal wetland ecosystems: identification of “Eco-reaches” of Great Lakes coastal wetlands that have high biodiversity value. State of the Lake ecosystem conference 1998Google Scholar
  9. Cohen MJ, Carsten S, Lane CR (2004) Floristic quality indices for biotic assessment of depressional marsh conditions in Florida. Ecol Appl 14:784–794. doi:10.1890/02-5378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Croft MV, Chow-Fraser P (2007) Development of the wetland macrophyte index to detect degree of water-quality impairment in Great Lakes coastal marshes. J Great Lakes Res 33(Special issue 3):172–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cronk JK, Fennessy MS (2001) Wetland plants: biology and ecology. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  12. Crow GE, Helquist CB (2000) Aquatic and wetland plants of northeaster North America, vol one and two. The University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  13. Cvetkovic M (2008) Factors affecting macrophyte and fish distribution in Georgian Bay coastal wetlands. Department of Biology M.Sc. thesis, McMaster University, HamiltonGoogle Scholar
  14. Eberhardt LL, Thomas JM (1991) Designing environmental field studies. Ecol Monogr 61:53–73. doi:10.2307/1942999 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gimaret-Carpentier C, Pelissier R, Pascal J-P, Houllier F (1998) Sampling strategies for the assessment of tree species diversity. J Veg Sci 9:161–172. doi:10.2307/3237115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoel PG (1943) The accuracy of sampling methods in ecology. Ann Math Stat 14:289–300. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177731422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jude DJ, Pappas J (1992) Fish utilization of Great Lakes coastal wetlands. J Great Lakes Res 18:651–672Google Scholar
  18. Knapton RW, Petrie SA (1999) Changes in distribution and abundance of submerged macrophytes in the inner bay at long point, Lake Erie: implications for foraging waterfowl. J Great Lakes Res 25:783–798Google Scholar
  19. Kostuk K (2006) Great Lakes coastal wetlands monitoring and assessment techniques. Department of Biology M.Sc. thesis, McMaster University, HamiltonGoogle Scholar
  20. Lougheed VL, Crosbie B, Chow-Fraser P (1998) Predictions on the effect of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) exclusion on water quality, zooplankton and submergent macrophytes in a Great Lakes wetland. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:1189–1197. doi:10.1139/cjfas-55-5-1189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lougheed VL, Theÿsmeÿer T, Smith T, Chow-Fraser P (2004) Carp exclusion, food-web interactions, and the restoration of Cootes Paradise Marsh. J Great Lakes Res 30:44–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maynard L, Wilcox D (1997) Coastal wetlands: state of the lakes ecosystem conference 1996, background paper. US EPA and Environment Canada. EPA 905-R-97-015bGoogle Scholar
  23. McNair SA (2006). The use of primary producers for assessing and monitoring aquatic habitat quality in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Department of Biology PhD thesis, McMaster University, HamiltonGoogle Scholar
  24. McNair SA, Chow-Fraser P (2003) Change in biomass of benthic and planktonic algae along a disturbance gradient for 24 Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 60:676–689. doi:10.1139/f03-054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG (2000) Wetlands. Wiley, DanversGoogle Scholar
  26. Rathbun SL, Gerritsen J (2001) Statistical issues for sampling wetlands. In: Rader RB, Batzer DP, Wissinger SA (eds) Bioassessment and management of North American freshwater wetlands. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Seilheimer T, Chow-Fraser P (2006) Development and validation of the wetland fish index to assess the quality of coastal wetlands in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:354–366. doi:10.1139/f05-220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Seilheimer T, Chow-Fraser P (2007) Application wetland fish index North Great Lakes marshes Emphas Georgian Bay coast wetlands. J Great Lakes Res 33(Special issue 3):154–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seilheimer T, Mahoney TP, Chow-Fraser P (2009) Comparative study of ecological indices for assessing human-induced disturbance in coastal wetlands of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Ecol Indic 9:81–91. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith PGR, Glooschenko V, Hagen DA (1991) Coastal wetlands of the three Canadian Great Lakes: inventory, current conservation initiatives and patterns of variation. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 48:1581–1594. doi:10.1139/f91-187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith DR, Villella RF, Lamarie DP (2003) Application of adaptive cluster sampling to low-density populations of freshwater mussels. Environ Ecol Stat 10:7–15. doi:10.1023/A:1021956617984 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations