Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 141, Issue 1–3, pp 131–147 | Cite as

Quantifying sample biases of inland lake sampling programs in relation to lake surface area and land use/cover

  • Tyler Wagner
  • Patricia A. Soranno
  • Kendra Spence Cheruvelil
  • William H. Renwick
  • Katherine E. Webster
  • Peter Vaux
  • Robbyn J. F. Abbitt
Article

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.

Keywords

Lake monitoring Assessment Sampling Bias Land use Land cover 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gibbs, J. P. (2000). Wetland loss and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 14, 314–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McDonald, M. E. (2000). EMAP overview: Objectives, approaches, and achievements. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 64, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Søndergaard, M., Jeppesen, E., & Peder Jensen, J. (2005). Pond or lake: Does it make any difference? Archiv fuer Hydrobiologie, 162, 143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wagner, T., Hayes, D. B., & Bremigan, M. T. (2006). Accounting for multilevel data structures in fisheries data using mixed models. Fisheries, 31, 180–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tyler Wagner
    • 1
  • Patricia A. Soranno
    • 2
  • Kendra Spence Cheruvelil
    • 3
  • William H. Renwick
    • 4
  • Katherine E. Webster
    • 5
  • Peter Vaux
    • 6
  • Robbyn J. F. Abbitt
    • 4
  1. 1.Quantitative Fisheries Center, Department of Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.Lyman Briggs School of Science, Department of Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  4. 4.Department of GeographyMiami UniversityOxfordUSA
  5. 5.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  6. 6.Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Environmental and Watershed ResearchUniversity of MaineOronoUSA

Personalised recommendations