Wetlands Ecology and Management

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 149–158 | Cite as

Application of hydrogeophysical techniques to study the distribution of a burrowing crayfish in a wetland

  • Sarah C. Sweat
  • Samuel Mutiti
  • Christopher E. Skelton
Original Paper


Crayfish are important in wetland systems because of their function in soil nutrient turnover. Since many crayfishes are imperiled by anthropogenic activities, it is important to understand factors that are associated with their distribution within and among wetlands. This study investigated the soil and hydrogeological characteristics of a wetland and related them to the spatial distribution of crayfish burrows found within it. The study utilized field-collected soil cores, electrical resistivity, and ground penetrating radar to map subsurface characteristics at Bartram Forest, Baldwin County, Georgia. Wetland delineation was also conducted in the field to establish the wetland boundaries. Both 2D and 3D geophysical profiles were created. Soils samples were analyzed for grain size distribution, porosity, and hydraulic conductivity in the lab. Hydraulic conductivity of the wetland soils was also determined in the field using slug tests. Results show subsurface physical differences between crayfish inhabited zones of the wetland and those that do not have crayfish burrows.The Ambiguous Crayfish, Cambarus striatus was found in soils with a hydraulic conductivity of 0.01–0.4 m/day where soils outside of their colony boundary had a hydraulic conductivity of 0.4–1.2 m/day. Areas where C. striatus were located had a higher porosity (0.36) than areas without crayfish (0.26). Subsurface stratigraphy varied between the areas with and without burrows. C. striatus was found to live in a subsurface with relatively gradual stratigraphical boundaries when compared to surrounding areas.


Crayfish Geophysics Hydrogeology Wetland 



The authors would like to thank Georgia College & State University, The College of Arts and Sciences, and the Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences for partial funding of this project. The authors would like to acknowledge Christine Mutiti, Brady Bennett, Matthew Sweat, Houston Chandler, John Rigdon, Judson Pittman, Clay Windsor, Brent Jones, Tyler Mattix, and Taylor Upole for their assistance with field work and data collection.


  1. Belaval M, Lane JW, Lesmes DP, Kineke GC (2003) Continuous-resistivity profiling from coastal ground-water investigations: three case studies. In: Proceedings Denver, Colorado, Environmental and Engineering Geophysics Society. Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP). April 6–10, 2003. San Antonio, Texas, CD-ROM. 14Google Scholar
  2. Bouchard RW (1978) Taxonomy, ecology and phylogeny of the subgenus Depressicambarus, with the description of a new species from Florida and redescriptions of Cambarus graysoni, Cambarus latimanus and Cambarus striatus (Decapoda: Cambaridae). Bull Ala Mus Nat Hist 3(1):27–29Google Scholar
  3. Bouwer H, Rice RC (1976) A slug test method for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells. Water Resour Res 12(3):423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Camp MA, Skelton CE, Zehnder CB (2011) Population dynamics and life-history characteristics of the Ambiguous Crayfish (Cambarus striatus). Freshw Crayfish 18(1):75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cunningham KJ, Locker SD, Hine AC, Bukry D, Barron JA, Guertin LA (2001) Surface-geophysical characterization of groundwater systems of the Caloosahatchee River Basin, Southern Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4084Google Scholar
  6. Dodds WK, Evans-White MA, Gerlanc NM, Gray L, Gudder DA, Kemp MJ, Lopez AL, Stagliano D, Strauss EA, Tank JL, Whiles MR, Wollheim WM (2000) Quantification of the nitrogen cycle in a prairie stream. Ecosystems 3:574–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ESRI (2014) Digital globe raster.
  8. Georgia Department of Natural Resources (2003) DNR Basins. Georgia GIS Clearinghouse. Unpublished Materials.
  9. Gómez-Ortiz D, Martín-Crespo T, Martín-Velázquez S, Martínez-Pagán P, Higueras H, Manzano M (2010) Application of ground penetrating radar (GPR) to delineate clay layers in wetlands. A case study in the Soto Grande and Soto Chico watercourses, Doñana (SW Spain). J Appl Geophys 72(2):107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grow L, Merchant H (1980) The burrow habitat of the crayfish Cambarus diogenes diogenes (Girard). Am Midl Nat 103(2):231–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hobbs HH Jr (1981) The crayfishes of Georgia. Smithson Contrib Zool 318:1–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hobbs HH Jr (1988) Crayfish distribution, adaptive radiation, and evolution. In: Holdich DM, Lowery RS (eds) Freshwater crayfish: biology, management, and exploitation. Timber press, Portland, pp 52–82Google Scholar
  13. Lodge DM, Taylor CA, Holdich DM, Skurdal J (2000) Nonindigenous crayfishes threaten North American freshwater biodiversity: lesson from Europe. Fisheries 25(8):7–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Loke MH (2001) Tutorial: 2-D and 3-D electrical imaging surveys. Accessed 10 Mar 2012
  15. Musgrave H, Binley A (2011) Revealing the temporal dynamics of subsurface temperature in a wetland using time-lapse geophysics. J Hydrol 396(3–4):258–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mutiti S, Levy J, Mutiti C, Gaturu NS (2010) Assessing ground water development potential using Landsat Imagery. Ground Water 48(2):295–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Reynolds JM (1997) An introduction to applied and environmental geophysics. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  18. Slater L, Reeve A (2002) Investigating peatland stratigraphy and hydrogeology using integrated electrical geophysics. Geophysics 67(2):365–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stoeckel J, Helms BS, Cash E (2011) Evaluation of a crayfish burrowing chamber design with simulated groundwater flow. J Crustac Biol 31(1):50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Taylor CA, Schuster GA, Cooper JE, DiStefano RJ, Eversole AG, Hamr P, Hobbs HH III, Robison HW, Skelton CE, Thoma RF (2007) Distribution and conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10 + years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8):372–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. USDA (1972) Soil survey of Baldwin, Jones, and Putnam counties, Georgia. University of Georgia, College of Agriculture Experiment Stations, AthensGoogle Scholar
  22. USEPA (1993) Use of Airborne, surface, borehole geophysical techniques at contaminated sites. (R-92). Eastern Research Group, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. Welch SM, Eversole AG (2006) The occurrence of primary burrowing crayfish in terrestrial habitat. Biol Conserv 130(3):459–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wojnar JA, Mutiti S, Levy J (2013) Assessment of geophysical surveys as a tool to estimate riverbed hydraulic conductivity. J Hydrol 482:40–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wu M, Kalma D, Treadwell-Steitz C (2014) Differential assessment of designations of wetland status using two delineation methods. Environ Manag 54:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah C. Sweat
    • 1
    • 2
  • Samuel Mutiti
    • 1
  • Christopher E. Skelton
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Biological and Environmental SciencesGeorgia College & State UniversityMilledgevilleUSA
  2. 2.Tennessee Aquarium Conservation InstituteChattanoogaUSA
  3. 3.Skelton Environmental ConsultingMariettaUSA

Personalised recommendations