, Volume 808, Issue 1, pp 153–161 | Cite as

Estimating factors influencing the detection probability of semiaquatic freshwater snails using quadrat survey methods

  • Elizabeth L. RoeslerEmail author
  • Timothy B. Grabowski
Primary Research Paper


Developing effective monitoring methods for elusive, rare, or patchily distributed species requires extra considerations, such as imperfect detection. Although detection is frequently modeled, the opportunity to assess it empirically is rare, particularly for imperiled species. We used Pecos assiminea (Assiminea pecos), an endangered semiaquatic snail, as a case study to test detection and accuracy issues surrounding quadrat searches. Quadrats (9 × 20 cm; n = 12) were placed in suitable Pecos assiminea habitat and randomly assigned a treatment, defined as the number of empty snail shells (0, 3, 6, or 9). Ten observers rotated through each quadrat, conducting 5-min visual searches for shells. The probability of detecting a shell when present was 67.4 ± 3.0%, but it decreased with the increasing litter depth and fewer number of shells present. The mean (± SE) observer accuracy was 25.5 ± 4.3%. Accuracy was positively correlated to the number of shells in the quadrat and negatively correlated to the number of times a quadrat was searched. The results indicate quadrat surveys likely underrepresent true abundance, but accurately determine the presence or absence. Understanding detection and accuracy of elusive, rare, or imperiled species improves density estimates and aids in monitoring and conservation efforts.


Wetland Spring Endangered species Survey Invertebrates Conservation evaluation 



Funding for this research was provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (Cooperative Agreement No. G13AC00051). The authors thank F. Anaya, L. Clark, A. Godar, B. Johnson, K. Leuenberger, K. Metzger, J. Sanchez, F. Truetken, and B. Wadlington for their participation in this experiment. This manuscript benefited from the comments and suggestions provided by S. Fritts and M. Barnes. Phantom springsnail shells were provided by C. Funkhouser. The authors also thank Cooperating agencies for the Texas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and University of Hawaii system, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, the U.S. Geological Survey, Texas Tech University, Texas Parks and Wildlife, the Wildlife Management Institute, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.


  1. Alldredge, M. W., K. H. Pollock, T. R. Simons & S. A. Shriner, 2007. Multiple-species analysis of point count data: a more parsimonious modelling framework. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, D. R., 2001. The need to get the basics right in wildlife field studies. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 1294–1297.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, L. L., T. R. Simons & K. H. Pollock, 2004. Estimating site occupancy and species detection probability parameters for terrestrial salamanders. Ecological Applications 14: 692–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouchet, P. J. & J. J. Meeuwig, 2015. Drifting baited stereo-videography: a novel sampling tool for surveying pelagic wildlife in offshore marine reserves. Ecosphere 6: 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, S. P., J. A. Clark, L. H. Crampton, A. D. Guerry, L. T. Hatch, P. R. Hosseini, J. J. Lawler & R. J. O’Conner, 2002. An assessment of monitoring efforts in endangered species recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12: 674–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elphick, C. S., 2008. How you count counts: the importance of methods research in applied ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1313–1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frederick, P. C., B. Hylton, J. A. Heath & M. Ruane, 2003. Accuracy and variation in estimates of birds by individual observers using an aerial survey simulator. Journal of Field Ornithology 74: 281–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gu, W. & R. Swihart, 2004. Absent or undetected? Effects of non-detection of species occurrence on wildlife–habitat models. Biological Conservation 116: 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Habib, T. J., D. A. Moore & E. H. Merrill, 2012. Detection and stratification approaches for aerial surveys of deer in prairie–parklands. Wildlife Research 39: 593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hershler, R., H. P. Liu & B. K. Lang, 2007. Genetic and morphologic variation of Pecos assiminea, an endangered mollusk of the Rio Grande region, United States and Mexico (Caenogastropoda: Rissooidea: Assimineidae). Hydrobiologia 579: 317–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson, P. D., A. E. Bogan, K. M. Brown, N. M. Burkhead, J. R. Cordeiro, J. T. Garner, P. D. Hartfield, D. A. W. Lepitzki, G. L. Mackie, E. Pip, T. A. Tarpley, J. S. Tiemann, N. V. Whelan & E. E. Strong, 2013. Conservation status of freshwater gastropods of Canada and the United States. Fisheries 38: 247–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kellner, K. F. & R. K. Swihart, 2014. Accounting for imperfect detection in ecology: a quantitative review. PLoS ONE 9: 1–8.Google Scholar
  13. Land, L. & G. F. Huff, 2009. Multi-tracer investigation of groundwater residence time in a karstic aquifer: Bitter Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, New Mexico, USA. Hydrology Journal 18: 455–472.Google Scholar
  14. Lysne, S. J., K. E. Perez, K. M. Brown, R. L. Minton & J. D. Sides, 2008. A review of freshwater gastropod conservation: challenges and opportunities. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27: 463–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. MacKenzie, D. I., J. D. Nichols, G. B. Lachman, S. Droege, A. J. Royle & C. A. Langtimm, 2002. Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83: 2248–2255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin, J., W. M. Kitchens & J. E. Hines, 2007. Importance of well-designed monitoring programs for the conservation of endangered species: case study of the snail kite. Conservation Biology 21: 472–481.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Martin, T. G., B. A. Wintle, J. R. Rhodes, P. M. Kuhnert, S. J. Low-Choy, A. J. Tyre & H. P. Possingham, 2005. Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modelling the source of zero observations. Ecology Letters 8: 1235–1246.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller, D. A. W., L. A. Wier, B. T. McClintock, E. H. C. Grant, L. L. Bailey & T. R. Simons, 2012. Experimental investigation of false positive errors in auditory species occurrence surveys. Ecological Applications 22: 1665–1674.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Moilanen, A., 2002. Implications of empirical data quality to metapopulation model parameter estimation and application. OIKOS 96: 516–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. NMDGF. 2005. Recovery and conservation plan for four invertebrates: Noel’s amphipod (Gammarus desperatus), Pecos assiminea (Assiminea pecos), Koster’s springsnail (Juturnia kosteri), and Roswell springsnail (Pyrgulopsis roswellensis). Prepared by Blue Earth Ecological Consultants Inc. and New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
  21. Pilsbry, H. A., 1935. Western and southwestern Amnicolidae and a new Humboldtiana. The Nautilus 48: 91–94.Google Scholar
  22. Ransom, J. I., 2012. Detection probability in aerial surveys of feral horses. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76: 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rodtka, M. C., C. S. Judd, P. K. Aku & K. M. Fitzsimmons, 2015. Estimating occupancy and detection probability of juvenile bull trout using backpack electrofishing gear in a west-central Alberta watershed. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 72: 742–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Royle, J. A. & W. A. Link, 2006. Generalized site occupancy models allowing for false positive and false negative errors. Ecology 87: 835–841.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Royle, J. A., J. D. Nichols & M. Kery, 2005. Modelling occurrence and abundance of species when detection is imperfect. OIKOS 110: 353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Strong, E. E., O. Gargominy, W. F. Ponder & P. Bouchet, 2008. Global diversity of gastropods (Gastropods; Mollusca) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595: 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Taylor, D. W., 1987. Fresh-Water Mollusks from New Mexico and vicinity, Bulletin, Vol. 116. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, New Mexico.Google Scholar
  28. USFWS. 2005. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: listing Roswell springsnail, Koster’s springsnail, Noel’s amphipod, and Pecos assiminea as endangered with critical habitat; final rule. Federal Register, DOI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018–AI15. 9 August 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG (outside the USA)  2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources ManagementTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological Survey, Texas Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research UnitTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Geological Survey, Hawaii Cooperative Fishery Research UnitUniversity of Hawaii at HiloHiloUSA

Personalised recommendations