Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Detectability affects the performance of survey methods: a comparison of sampling methods of freshwater mussels in Central Texas

  • FRESHWATER MOLLUSCS
  • Published:
Hydrobiologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Designing effective surveys for freshwater mussels (Unionidae) is a challenge, because they are spatially clustered and often found in low densities. The objective of this study was to examine how the performance (in respect to species richness, the total number of mussels per search effort, species composition and size distribution) of three different survey methods (timed searches, transect method, and adaptive cluster method) varied between different habitats at six sites in rivers of Central Texas. Habitat conditions affected the performance of search methods by either facilitating or hindering the detection of mussels, e.g., sandy substrate facilitating the detection of mussels seemed to enhance the performance of the adaptive cluster method in respect to the number of mussels found per unit search effort. Differences in detectability of mussels was also associated with the size of mussels, their behavior and morphology. Timed searches detected a larger proportion of larger mussels that tended to be less burrowed and that had shells with more sculpturing compared to quantitative methods. Our results suggest that to design effective surveys variation in detectability of mussels must be considered which depends on local habitat conditions, experience of surveyor, behavior, size and morphology of mussels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brown, J. A. & B. J. F. Manly, 1998. Restricted adaptive cluster sampling. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 5: 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burlakova, L. E., A. Y. Karatayev, V. A. Karatayev, M. E. May, D. L. Bennett & M. J. Cook, 2011. Biogeography and conservation of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Texas: patterns of diversity and threats. Diversity and Distributions 17: 393–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, T. L., 2000. A comparison of stream segment and quadrat mussel sampling techniques. Bios 71: 42–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haag, W. R., 2012. North American Freshwater Mussels: Natural History, Ecology, and Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez B. A. 2016. Movement behavior of unionid mussels in Central Texas. MS thesis. Texas State University.

  • Hornbach, D. J. & T. Deneka, 1996. A comparison of a qualitative and a quantitative collection method for examining freshwater mussel assemblages. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15: 587–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J., Y. Cao & K. S. Cummings, 2011. Assessing sampling adequacy of mussel diversity surveys in wadeable Illinois streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 30: 923–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inoue, K., T. D. Levine, B. K. Lang & D. J. Berg, 2014. Long-term mark-and-recapture study of a freshwater mussel reveals patterns of habitat use and an association between survival and river discharge. Freshwater Biology 59: 1872–1883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, N. A., C. H. Smith, J. M. Pfeiffer, C. R. Randklev, J. D. Williams & J. D. Austin, 2018. Integrative taxonomy resolves taxonomic uncertainty for freshwater mussels being considered for protection under the US Endangered Species Act. Scientific Reports 8: 15892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes-Lima, M., A. Teixeira, E. Froufe, A. Lopes, S. Varandas & R. Sousa, 2014. Biology and conservation of freshwater bivalves: past, present and future perspectives. Hydrobiologia 735: 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe-Smith, J. L., J. Di Maio, S. K. Staton & G. L. Mackie, 2000. Effect of sampling effort on the efficiency of the timed search method for sampling freshwater mussel communities. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 19: 725–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. C. & B. S. Payne, 1993. Qualitative versus quantitative sampling to evaluate population and community characteristics at a large-river mussel bed. American Midland Naturalist 130: 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obermeyer, B. K., 1998. A comparison of quadrats versus timed snorkel searches for assessing freshwater mussels. The American Midland Naturalist 139: 331–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pooler, P. S. & D. R. Smith, 2005. Optimal sampling design for estimating spatial distribution and abundance of a freshwater mussel population. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24: 525–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randklev, C. R., N. Ford, S. Wolverton, J. H. Kennedy, C. Robertson, K. Mayes & D. Ford, 2016. The influence of stream discontinuity and life history strategy on mussel community structure: a case study from the Sabine River, Texas. Hydrobiologia 770: 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, S. M., 2016. Search effort and imperfect detection: influence on timed-search mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) surveys in Canadian rivers. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems 417: 17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salehi, M. M. & D. R. Smith, 2005. Two-stage sequential sampling: a neighborhood-free adaptive sampling procedure. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 10: 84–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwalb, A. N. & M. T. Pusch, 2007. Horizontal and vertical movements of unionid mussels in a lowland river. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 26: 261–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seber, G. A. F., 1982. The Estimation of Animal Abundance and Related Parameters, 2nd ed. Charles Griffin & Company Ltd, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, C. P., J. T. Peterson, M. J. Conroy & J. M. Wisniewski, 2013. Evaluating the influence of land use, drought and reach isolation on the occurrence of freshwater mussel species in the lower Flint River Basin, Georgia (U.S.A.). Freshwater Biology 58: 382–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. R., 2006. Survey design for detecting rare freshwater mussels. Journal of North American Benthological Society 25: 701–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. R., R. F. Villella, D. P. Lemarié & S. von Oettingen. 2001a. How much excavation is needed to monitor freshwater mussels?: 203–218. In Tankersley, R. A., D. I. Warmolts, G. T. Watters, B. J. Armitage, P. D. Johnson, R. S. Butler (eds), Freshwater Mollusk Symposium Proceedings. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio: xxi + 274 pp.

  • Smith, D. R., R. F. Villella & D. P. Lemarié, 2001b. Survey protocol for assessment of endangered freshwater mussels in the Allegheny River, Pennsylvania. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20: 118–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. R., R. F. Villella & D. P. Lemarie, 2003. Application of adaptive cluster sampling to low-density populations of freshwater mussels. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 10: 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. R., B. R. Gray, T. J. Newton & D. Nichols, 2010. Effect of imperfect detectability on adaptive and conventional sampling: simulated sampling of freshwater mussels in the upper Mississippi River. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 170: 499–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. R., J. T. Rogala, B. R. Gray, S. J. Zigler & T. J. Newton, 2011. Evaluation of single and two-stage adaptive sampling designs for estimation of density and abundance of freshwater mussels in a large river. River Research and Applications 27: 122–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T. A. & E. S. Meyer, 2010. Freshwater mussel (Bivalvia: Unionidae) distributions and habitat relationships in the navigational pools of the Allegheny River, Pennsylvania. Northeastern Naturalist 17: 541–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strayer, D. L., 2008. Freshwater Mussel Ecology: A Multifactor Approach to Distribution and Abundance. University of California Press, Berkeley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Strayer, D. L. & D. R. Smith, 2003. A Guide to Sampling Freshwater Mussel Populations (No. 8). American Fisheries Society, Bethesda.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strayer, D. L., S. Claypool & S. J. Sprague, 1997. Assessing Unionid Populations with Quadrats and Timed Searches. Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II: Initiatives for the Future. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois: 163–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Texas Register 35. 2010. Threatened and endangered nongame species. Chapter 65. Wildlife Subchapter G. 31 TAC 65.175. Adopted rules. January 8, 2010: 249–251. Texas Secretary of State. http://texinfo.library.unt.edu/texasregister/pdf/2010/0108is.pdf.

  • Thompson, S. K., 2012. Sampling, 3rd ed. Wiley, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, C. C., C. M. Taylor & K. J. Eberhard, 1997. A comparison of the effectiveness of timed searches vs. quadrat sampling in mussel surveys. In Cummings, K. S., A. C. Buchanan, C. A. Mayer, T. J. Naimo (eds), Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II: Initiatives for the Future. Proceedings of a UMRCC Symposium 16–18 October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri, Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Islans, Illinois: 157–162.

  • Villella, R. F. & D. R. Smith, 2005. Two-phase sampling to estimate river-wide populations of freshwater mussels. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 24: 357–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. D., A. E. Bogan, R. S. Butler, K. S. Cummings, J. T. Garner, J. T. Harris, N. A. Johnson & G. T. Watters, 2017. A revised list of the freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionida) of the United States and Canada. Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 20: 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski, J. M., N. M. Rankin, D. A. Weiler, B. A. Strickland & H. C. Chandler, 2013. Occupancy and detection of benthic macroinvertebrates: a case study of unionids in the lower Flint River, Georgia, USA. Freshwater Science 32: 1122–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Bianca Hernandez for her assistance in the field, Todd Swannack for his help with the bootstrapping method, Zachary Mitchell for his help in the field and for creating the map, and David Smith and one anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. Part of this work was supported by the Texas Department of Transportation's Research and Technology Implementation Division project agreement (No. 0-6882).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biology Department, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, 78666, USA

    Brittney Sanchez & Astrid N. Schwalb

Authors
  1. Brittney Sanchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Astrid N. Schwalb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Astrid N. Schwalb.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Guest editors: Manuel P. M. Lopes-Lima, Nicoletta Riccardi, Maria Urbanska & Ronaldo G. Sousa / Biology and Conservation of Freshwater Molluscs

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sanchez, B., Schwalb, A.N. Detectability affects the performance of survey methods: a comparison of sampling methods of freshwater mussels in Central Texas. Hydrobiologia 848, 2919–2929 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-019-04017-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-019-04017-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation