Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 7–15 | Cite as

Application of adaptive cluster sampling to low-density populations of freshwater mussels

  • David R. Smith
  • Rita F. Villella
  • David P. Lemarié
Article

Abstract

Freshwater mussels appear to be promising candidates for adaptive cluster sampling because they are benthic macroinvertebrates that cluster spatially and are frequently found at low densities. We applied adaptive cluster sampling to estimate density of freshwater mussels at 24 sites along the Cacapon River, WV, where a preliminary timed search indicated that mussels were present at low density. Adaptive cluster sampling increased yield of individual mussels and detection of uncommon species; however, it did not improve precision of density estimates. Because finding uncommon species, collecting individuals of those species, and estimating their densities are important conservation activities, additional research is warranted on application of adaptive cluster sampling to freshwater mussels. However, at this time we do not recommend routine application of adaptive cluster sampling to freshwater mussel populations. The ultimate, and currently unanswered, question is how to tell when adaptive cluster sampling should be used, i.e., when is a population sufficiently rare and clustered for adaptive cluster sampling to be efficient and practical? A cost-effective procedure needs to be developed to identify biological populations for which adaptive cluster sampling is appropriate.

adaptive cluster sampling biological surveys freshwater mussels sampling rare populations unionids 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brown, J.A. and Manly, B.J.F. (1998) Restricted adaptive cluster sampling. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 5, 49-63.Google Scholar
  2. Christman, M.C. (1997) Efficiency of some sampling designs for spatially clustered populations. Environmetrics, 8, 145-66.Google Scholar
  3. Christman, M.C. (2000) A review of quadrat-based sampling of rare, geographically clustered populations. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, 5, 168-201.Google Scholar
  4. Cochran, W.G. (1977) Sampling Techniques (3rd edition), Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Downing, J.A. and Downing, W.L. (1992) Spatial aggregation, precision, and power in surveys of freshwater mussel populations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 49, 985-91.Google Scholar
  6. Downing, J.A., Rochon, Y., and Pérusse, M. (1993) Spatial aggregation, body size, and reproductive success in the freshwater mussel. Elliptio complanata. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 12, 148-56.Google Scholar
  7. Dorazio, R.M. (1999) Design-based and model-based inference in surveys of freshwater mollusks. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 18, 118-31.Google Scholar
  8. Kovalak, W.P., Dennis, S.D., and Bates, J.M. (1986) Sampling effort required to find rare species of freshwater mussels. In Rationale for Sampling and Interpretation of Ecological Data in the Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems, B.G. Isom (ed.), ASTM STP 84. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 34-45.Google Scholar
  9. Ricciardi, A. and Rasmussen, J.B. (1999) Extinction rates of North American freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology, 13, 1220-22.Google Scholar
  10. Salehi, M. and Seber, G.A.F. (1997) Two-stage adaptive cluster sampling. Biometrics, 53, 959-70.Google Scholar
  11. Smith, D.R., Conroy, M.J., and Brakhage, D.H. (1995) Efficiency of adaptive cluster sampling for estimating density of wintering waterfowl. Biometrics, 51, 777-88.Google Scholar
  12. Smith, D.R., Villella, R.F., and Lemarié, D.P. (2001a) Survey protocol for assessment of endangered freshwater mussels in the Allegheny River. Journal of North American Benthological Society, 20, 118-32.Google Scholar
  13. Smith, D.R., Villella, R.F., Lemarié, D.P., and von Oettingen, S. (2001b) How much excavation is needed to monitor freshwater mussels? In Freshwater Mollusk Symposium Proceedings, R.A. Tankersley, D.I. Warmolts, G.T. Walters, B.J. Armitage, P.D. Johnson, and R.S. Butler (eds), Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio, pp. 203-18.Google Scholar
  14. Strayer, D.L. and Ralley, J. (1993) Microhabitat use by an assemblage of stream-dwelling unionaceans (Bivalvia), including two rare species of Alasmidonta. Journal of North American Benthological Society, 12, 247-58.Google Scholar
  15. Strayer, D.L., Sprague, S.J., and Claypool, S. (1996) A range-wide assessment of populations of Alasmidonta heterodon, and endangered freshwater mussel (Bivalvia:Unionidae). Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 15, 308-17.Google Scholar
  16. Thompson, S.K. (1990) Adaptive cluster sampling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85, 1050-59.Google Scholar
  17. Thompson, S.K. (1992) Sampling, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Thompson, S.K. and Seber, G.A.F. (1996) Adaptive sampling, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Williams, J.D., Warren, Jr., M.L., Cummings, K.S., Harris, J.L., and Neves, R.J. (1993) Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries, 18, 6-22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • David R. Smith
    • 1
  • Rita F. Villella
    • 1
  • David P. Lemarié
    • 1
  1. 1.Leetown Science CenterU.S. Geological SurveyWest Virginia

Personalised recommendations