Abstract
We quantified potential biases associated with lakes monitored using non-probability based sampling by six state agencies in the USA (Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Maine, and New Hampshire). To identify biases, we compared state-monitored lakes to a census population of lakes derived from the National Hydrography Dataset. We then estimated the probability of lakes being sampled using generalized linear mixed models. Our two research questions were: (1) are there systematic differences in lake area and land use/land cover (LULC) surrounding lakes monitored by state agencies when compared to the entire population of lakes? and (2) after controlling for the effects of lake size, does the probability of sampling vary depending on the surrounding LULC features? We examined the biases associated with surrounding LULC because of the established links between LULC and lake water quality. For all states, we found that larger lakes had a higher probability of being sampled compared to smaller lakes. Significant interactions between lake size and LULC prohibit us from drawing conclusions about the main effects of LULC; however, in general lakes that are most likely to be sampled have either high urban use, high agricultural use, high forest cover, or low wetland cover. Our analyses support the assertion that data derived from non-probability-based surveys must be used with caution when attempting to make generalizations to the entire population of interest, and that probability-based surveys are needed to ensure unbiased, accurate estimates of lake status and trends at regional to national scales.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arbuckle, K. E., & Downing, J. A. (2001). The influence of watershed land use on lake N:P in a predominately agricultural landscape. Limnology and Oceanography, 46, 970–975.
Brown, B. S., Detenbeck, N. E., & Eskin, R. (2005). How probability survey data can help integrate 305(b) and 303(d) monitoring and assessment of state waters. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 103, 41–57.
Dahl, T. E. (2006). Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 2004 (p. 112). Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service.
Declerck, S., De Bie, T., Ercken, D., Hampel, H., Schrijvers, S., Van Wichelen, J., et al. (2006). Ecological characteristics of small farm ponds: Associations with land use practices at multiple spatial scales. Biological Conservation, 131, 523–532.
Downing, J. A., Prairie, Y. T., Cole, J. J., Duarte, C. M., Tranvik, L. J., Striegl, R. G., et al. (2006). The global abundance and size distribution of lakes, ponds, and impoundments. Limnology and Oceanography, 51, 2388–2397.
Gibbs, J. P. (2000). Wetland loss and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 14, 314–317.
Hanson, P. C., Carpenter, S. R., Cardille, J. A., Cole, M. T., & Winslow, L. A. (2007). Small lakes dominate a random sample of regional lake characteristics. Freshwater Biology, 51, 814–822.
Hall, R. H., Leavitt, P. R., Quinlan, R., Dixit, A. S., & Smol, J. P. (1999). Effects of agriculture, urbanization, and climate on water quality in the northern Great Plains. Limnology and Oceanography, 44, 739–756.
Hayes, D., Baker, E., Bednarz, R., Borgeson, D. Jr., Braunscheidel, J., Breck, J., et al. (2003). Developing a standardized sampling program: The Michigan experience. Fisheries, 28, 18–25.
McDonald, M. E. (2000). EMAP overview: Objectives, approaches, and achievements. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 64, 3–8.
Oertli, B., Joye, D. A., Castella, E., Juge, R., Cambin, D., & Lachavanne, J-B. (2002). Does size matter? The relationship between pond area and biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 104, 59–70.
Olsen, A. R., et al. (1999). Statistical issues for monitoring ecological and natural resources in the United States. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 54, 1–45.
Peterson, S. A., Larsen, D. P., Paulsen, S. G., & Urquhart, N. S. (1998). Regional lake trophic patterns in the Northeastern US: Three approaches. Environmental Management, 22, 789–801.
Peterson, S. A., Urquhart, N. S., & Welch, E. B. (1999). Sample representativeness: A must for reliable regional lake conditions. Environmental Science and Technology, 33, 1559–1565.
Renwick, W. H., Smith, S. V. Bartley, J. D., & Buddemeier, R. W. (2005). The role of impoundments in the sediment budget of the conterminous United States. Geomorphology, 71, 99–111.
Siver, P. A., Lott, A. M., Cash, E., Moss, J., & Marsicano L. J. (1999). Century changes in Connecticut, U.S.A., lakes as inferred from siliceous algal remains and their relationships to land-use changes. Limnology and Oceanography, 44, 1928–1935.
Smith, S. V., Renwick, W. H., Bartley, J. D., & Buddemeier, R. W. (2002). Distribution and significance of small, artificial water bodies across the United States landscape. The Science of the Total Environment, 299, 21–36.
Schrank, S. J., Guy, C. S., Whiles, M. R., & Brock, B. L. (2001). Influence of instream and landscape-level factors on the distribution of Topeka Shiners Notropis Topeka in Kansas streams. Copeia, 2001, 413–421.
Søndergaard, M., Jeppesen, E., & Peder Jensen, J. (2005). Pond or lake: Does it make any difference? Archiv fuer Hydrobiologie, 162, 143–165.
Wagner, T., Hayes, D. B., & Bremigan, M. T. (2006). Accounting for multilevel data structures in fisheries data using mixed models. Fisheries, 31, 180–187.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wagner, T., Soranno, P.A., Cheruvelil, K.S. et al. Quantifying sample biases of inland lake sampling programs in relation to lake surface area and land use/cover. Environ Monit Assess 141, 131–147 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9883-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-007-9883-z